Migration Megathread

4068ac1elhodqr

rossie1977 wrote: »

There is a clear correlation between violent crime and social standing.

Is only one factor, and being slightly poorer in a 1st world country shouldn't make you x3 times more likely to get involved in very serious crime.


Also other minorities don't display such traits, the Buddists and Hindus aren't all rolling in cash.


The best idea would be to seek better integration, this includes lettting Muslim females head off to Uni on their own, and build a career on their own, and mingle/network on their own to escape the trap of poverty. Having just one breadwinner isn't enough these days in the Western World.

Sand

Brian? wrote: »

Why not reply to my whole post, this reply is a bit disengenous. Do you accept I'm not advocating for mass immigration and retract your earlier comment?

If your position is that so-called rescue ships should be rescuing migrants back to Libyan ports, and should be barred from European ports then I'll have to re-evaluate your wider views. Afterall, we have little to disagree on if that is your position.

But I think that you don't agree with barring NGO ships from European ports.

Brian?

Sand wrote: »

If your position is that so-called rescue ships should be rescuing migrants back to Libyan ports, and should be barred from European ports then I'll have to re-evaluate your wider views. Afterall, we have little to disagree on if that is your position.

But I think that you don't agree with barring NGO ships from European ports.

I don’t. Mainly because there is no functioning government really in Libya. So who’s going to deal with the migrants. This doesn’t mean I am an advocate of mass migration.

They’re not “so called rescue” ships. They are rescuing people.

esteve

Sand wrote: »

You are able to acknowledge mass migration was awful for native Americans. You're unable to contest that it is awful for Europeans. Yet you persist in calling for mass migration. If you're not willing to accept the outcomes, why do you advocate for the policy?

I mentioned Native Americans to highlight the absolute hypocrisy of Europeans, Irish included. Also what happened to Native Americans was not migration, nor mass migration; it was colonisation. The fact you are trying to now link this to the muslim migration to Europe is odd as they are completely different things. Europeans are not under threat like Native Americans were, nor are the Irish.

Sand wrote: »

Just as advocates of mass migration like yourself and Brian don't have time to read the evidence I provide. I already provided the evidence - go to the top of this page. Hit Search This Thread and then Advanced Search. Set user to Sand, 58 as key word.

You're suffering from wilful ignorance. You're proclaiming on a topic you know little about and have spent no time researching. You don't want to see information that challenges your beliefs. That is your problem, not mine.

You actually haven't proved any evidence, only opinion. You presented some statistics, then from this draft your own opinion piece. You don't even have the time to repost the source of your statistics. You will have to forgive me for asking to see the source, you see following and posting on threads from a mobile is not easy.

You seem to have this self righteous belief that you are an authority on this matter and are presenting factual information when you haven't, you have only presented your opinion, just as I have.

Sand wrote: »

Mass migration results in ethnic enclaves which result in ethnic strife. You simply cannot have an Islamic insurgency in the UK without Islamic communities to recruit from. Poland does not have an Islamic insurgency because they have not permitted mass migration to form Islamic enclaves in their country.

Perhaps, but the vast majority of muslim migrants do not commit attacks. There are countries that have never suffered attacks even though they have welcomed muslim refugees from war torn countries. Radicalisation is the cause of attacks and the cause of this is far more complex. Radicalisation is the real cause of most attacks just as those on muslims or other ethnic minorities.

You mentioned Europeans having to endure the results of muslim migration. I truly hope their definition of endurance is different to that of Anders Breivik and the assailant in the mosque attack in New Zealand. The aforementioned also believe that it is people like me who are really responsible and drove them to their actions. They also have far deeper and darker theories and opinions but I am sure you steer well clear of that sort of thing.

Sand wrote: »

Your radical policies, carried out against the interests of Europeans, have already led us to a very grim present - much of which cannot be solved, but only endured. When you are using 'populism' as a pejorative to describe political parties that attempt to govern in the interests of Europeans, it only underlines how unreasonable and fanatical your own views are.

I don't have policies, governments do. What I do have is beliefs and opinions. You don't even know what they are but purport you do and then sensationalise them. You suggest I am willing to accept muslim attacks in Europe as a 'price to pay'. This is absurd and borders on slanderous conjecture/defamation.

Experience_day

Brian? wrote: »

I don’t. Mainly because there is no functioning government really in Libya. So who’s going to deal with the migrants. This doesn’t mean I am an advocate of mass migration.

They’re not “so called rescue” ships. They are rescuing people.

Arguably, could it not be said that they are actually hindering people? If I was in that region and heard that ships would pick you up geographically close, I'd be far more likely to chance my arm? Certainly more so than if I was to trust a rickety POS for the entire voyage?

Sand

Brian? wrote: »

I don’t. Mainly because there is no functioning government really in Libya. So who’s going to deal with the migrants. This doesn’t mean I am an advocate of mass migration.

It means you're in denial of being an advocate of mass migration. Your priority is not rescuing people from drowning. Travelling to Europe means 'rescue' ships are out of position longer. Libya is closer. Ships out of position for longer means more people at risk of drowning.

But your absolute priority is transporting them to Europe. The so called rescues is just an excuse.

They’re not “so called rescue” ships. They are rescuing people.

Still haven't read the Frontex report I see. They are trafficking people.

esteve wrote: »

I mentioned Native Americans to highlight the absolute hypocrisy of Europeans, Irish included. Also what happened to Native Americans was not migration, nor mass migration; it was colonisation. The fact you are trying to now link this to the muslim migration to Europe is odd as they are completely different things. Europeans are not under threat like Native Americans were, nor are the Irish.

No it was mass migration. And it was awful for indigenous people. As it is awful for Europeans. Your guilt about it is not a reason for Europeans to pursue awful policies against their own interests.

You actually haven't proved any evidence, only opinion. You presented some statistics,

So I did then provide evidence.

You seem to have this self righteous belief that you are an authority on this matter and are presenting factual information when you haven't, you have only presented your opinion, just as I have.

I'm not an authority. But I do follow the evidence, and I seek an evidence based policy in the interests of Europeans. That people are in wilful denial of the evidence only speaks to their own bias.

Perhaps, but the vast majority of muslim migrants do not commit attacks. There are countries that have never suffered attacks even though they have welcomed muslim refugees from war torn countries. Radicalisation is the cause of attacks and the cause of this is far more complex. Radicalisation is the real cause of most attacks just as those on muslims or other ethnic minorities.

Your initial point is just a variation of NAXALT. Because we can state something is true for all members of a population, we cannot (or should not) draw any conclusions about the population as a whole. Not all smokers get cancer, ergo its wrong to connect smokers and cancer. In short, I don't put any weight in that argument.

Your second point is that the causes of ethnic conflict and radicalisation are complicated. Regardless of this being true or not, why do Europeans have to solve them? Why not avoid the complicated problems of ethnic conflict and radicalisation in the first place?

The problems of Yugoslavia were indeed complicated, but why should Europeans have those problems imposed on them?

You mentioned Europeans having to endure the results of muslim migration. I truly hope their definition of endurance is different to that of Anders Breivik and the assailant in the mosque attack in New Zealand. The aforementioned also believe that it is people like me who are really responsible and drove them to their actions. They also have far deeper and darker theories and opinions but I am sure you steer well clear of that sort of thing.

Ethnic conflict is not a one-way street. It never is. All sides in that conflict will carry out atrocities against innocents. That seems to be part of the cost advocates of open borders are willing to pay. I disagree.

I don't have policies, governments do. What I do have is beliefs and opinions. You don't even know what they are but purport you do and then sensationalise them. You suggest I am willing to accept muslim attacks in Europe as a 'price to pay'. This is absurd and borders on slanderous conjecture/defamation.

Let me set it another way. I'm calling for an end to mass migration and the setting of evidence based policies by Europeans governments in favour of Europeans. That is it.

Yet you find this highly objectionable. What precisely do you disagree with above? Is it the end to mass migration? Evidence based policies? European governments acting in the interests of Europeans?

Experience_day wrote: »

Arguably, could it not be said that they are actually hindering people? If I was in that region and heard that ships would pick you up geographically close, I'd be far more likely to chance my arm? Certainly more so than if I was to trust a rickety POS for the entire voyage?

That is entirely the case. When so called rescue ships were withdrawn, crossings and deaths went down. With the traffickers returning, you can expect more to attempt the crossing and more to drown.

The aim is not to save these people. It is to traffick them to Europe.

old_aussie

Wanderer78 wrote: »

So we ve had 'the evil ones', 'the Muslims', 'the blacks', what else?

I think you might have overlooked China.

I think with President Xi's persecution of muslims in China, that more refugees will come flooding to Europe

splashuum

Very sad state of affairs in Sweden. Local municipal funding slashed because of Islamic migrants.

https://twitter.com/v_of_europe/status/1199621680106262529?s=21

Sand

The myth that non-EU/EEA migrants will pay for the pensions of Europeans is shown up for what it is. All the evidence demonstrates they are an economic burden rather than a benefit. Ignorance is not an excuse for bad policy anymore. Europe has been desperately trying to make mass migration work since the 50s and 60s. A record of failure only comparable to the Chernobyl nuclear plant.

Who is going to speak for the interests of the Swedish people when the Swedish government will not?

weisses

Sand wrote: »

The myth that non-EU/EEA migrants will pay for the pensions of Europeans is shown up for what it is. All the evidence demonstrates they are an economic burden rather than a benefit. Ignorance is not an excuse for bad policy anymore. Europe has been desperately trying to make mass migration work since the 50s and 60s. A record of failure only comparable to the Chernobyl nuclear plant.

Who is going to speak for the interests of the Swedish people when the Swedish government will not?

I suggest you visit any hospital in the state ... Then turf all the foreigners or migrants ... And then try to figure out how that hospital would function without them present.... Then post back here with a solution

Brian?

Sand wrote: »

The myth that non-EU/EEA migrants will pay for the pensions of Europeans is shown up for what it is. All the evidence demonstrates they are an economic burden rather than a benefit. Ignorance is not an excuse for bad policy anymore. Europe has been desperately trying to make mass migration work since the 50s and 60s. A record of failure only comparable to the Chernobyl nuclear plant.

Who is going to speak for the interests of the Swedish people when the Swedish government will not?

Yeah this Europe place is really a ****hole.

Only 7 of the top 10 countries for quality of life are in Europe. We should build a fence around it now to stop it getting any worse. /sarcasm

Where do you live and get your news from? Europe is a wonderful place to live because multiculturalism, not in spite of it.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-rankings

fly_agaric

Brian? wrote: »

Europe is a wonderful place to live because multiculturalism, not in spite of it.

Europe (or the rich/urbanised bits of it) becomes more and more "multicultural", partly because it really is a very good place to live/work/study etc. When you look around the world and compare, it has an awful lot of positives going for it. This correlation/association vs causation stuff is confusing at the best of times.

4068ac1elhodqr

Brian? wrote: »

Europe is a wonderful place to live because multiculturalism, not in spite of it.

Europe is/was wonderful, and has been ever since the Age of Enlightenment, and before that: The Renaissance. With centuries of actual 'European' (forward-thinking) multiculturalism, and small amounts of wider global influence.

Aside from a couple of short blips, it's been generally good. However one could suggest that ever since 2015, it has taken a sharp backwards turn, directly as a result of 'very specific cultural factors or backwards ideologies'.

Sweden perhaps is a prime example (rising crime and female-only music festivals), with the UK not far behind (strange also that 17.4m actually choose to leave the 'great' EU, in 2016).

<mod - please provide links to statistics rather than screenshots of same>

stefanovich

weisses wrote: »

I suggest you visit any hospital in the state ... Then turf all the foreigners or migrants ... And then try to figure out how that hospital would function without them present.... Then post back here with a solution

You are highlighting a subset that are, without doubt, making a net contribution to society.

They are a subset however and cannot be held up as a representative sample.

Brian?

fly_agaric wrote: »

Europe (or the rich/urbanised bits of it) becomes more and more "multicultural", partly because it really is a very good place to live/work/study etc. When you look around the world and compare, it has an awful lot of positives going for it. This correlation/association vs causation stuff is confusing at the best of times.

I’m being obtuse, are you saying multiculturalism hasn’t made Europe a great place to live?

weisses

stefanovich wrote: »

You are highlighting a subset that are, without doubt, making a net contribution to society.

They are a subset however and cannot be held up as a representative sample.

To bad some posters cannot make these distinctions.

Maybe non EU migrants who are making an effort using their skills read the waffle I was quoting.

Irish Praetorian

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Sweden perhaps is a prime example (rising crime and female-only music festivals), with the UK not far behind (strange also that 17.4m actually choose to leave the 'great' EU, in 2016).

Steady on chief, you want to make an argument against mass migration fine, I'm fairly sympathetic to that position myself. But don't go conflating the mass movement of peoples within Europe with mass migrations from people outside of Europe into it -those are clearly two different phenomena and as your own statistics bear out, EEA migration has a tendency to have a far greater economic benefit to a country than non-EEA.

Really, I can understand peoples complaints on the migration question, but they key is to come up with a sensible response rather than trying to up-end everything in the political equivalent of a temper tantrum.

Limpy

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Steady on chief, you want to make an argument against mass migration fine, I'm fairly sympathetic to that position myself. But don't go conflating the mass movement of peoples within Europe with mass migrations from people outside of Europe into it -those are clearly two different phenomena and as your own statistics bear out, EEA migration has a tendency to have a far greater economic benefit to a country than non-EEA.

Really, I can understand peoples complaints on the migration question, but they key is to come up with a sensible response rather than trying to up-end everything in the political equivalent of a temper tantrum.

I reckon if we in the West stopped bombing/sanctioning some countries into the stone age less people would be forced to leave. Its an assimilate or die attitude. Case in point Libya/Ghaddifi

4068ac1elhodqr

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Steady on chief, you want to make an argument against mass migration fine, I'm fairly sympathetic to that position myself. But don't go conflating the mass movement of peoples within Europe with mass migrations from people outside of Europe into it -those are clearly two different phenomena and as your own statistics bear out, EEA migration has a tendency to have a far greater economic benefit to a country than non-EEA.
Really, I can understand peoples complaints on the migration question, but they key is to come up with a sensible response rather than trying to up-end everything in the political equivalent of a temper tantrum.

Agree they are seperate (but still inter-realted), not disputing that.

As the (crime statistics) uploaded figures (that someone has since unjustly removed) show
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Finland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwjRy-CDqqbmAhWJN8AKHSIiCEQQFjAAegQIAxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fresearchbriefings.files.parliament.uk%2Fdocuments%2FSN04334%2FSN04334.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1QXEdRutpqTkp93H5IqJhD
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/669094/statistics_on_race_and_the_criminal_justice_system_2016_v2.pdf *
*The very latest from UK shows Muslims are now 400% over-represented, also Albanians (who are currently the largest IPO applicants to Ireland) are their (Eng&Wales) single largest nationality of foreign prisoners.

...and also as brexit shows, the mass movement 'into' (and thus through) Europe, has been and continues to be a very major issue.

The open invite from Merkel for 1m+ mostly from Islamic/Muslim countries caused (and continues) to cause, massive repercussions across the EU.
Likely it's a simple clash of ideologies, but it's not to be confused with centuries upon centuries of European mass migration (within Europe). The 2015 event benchmark has/will signal the end of the European project.

The problem with the EU is that one single porous border, effects everyone's border, as it further expands (now into Western Balkans), problems will further multiply, into further division.

Irish Praetorian

Limpy wrote: »

I reckon if we in the West stopped bombing/sanctioning some countries into the stone age less people would be forced to leave. Its an assimilate or die attitude. Case in point Libya/Ghaddifi

I wouldn't entirely disagree with that, but I don't think that's the whole or majority of the picture - a lot of these places have issues around instability and under-development that long proceed any recent campaign of foreign involvement. The go-to example is Eritrea which has seen no shortage of internal troubles and refugees flowing out, but not much in the way of western intervention. And that's before we consider anyone who might want to make an economic case.

The long and the short of it is the EU has a lot of people who want to come but can't take everyone. The debate might be much enriched if people operated from a perspective of how many can be taken in reasonably, rather than empty squawks of how we must help people, often for dubious or half cooked reasons. It's not pleasant, not by any means, but a sober reading of the situation is required.

fly_agaric

Brian? wrote: »

I’m being obtuse, are you saying multiculturalism hasn’t made Europe a great place to live?

The pages you linked talk about the specific countries' wealth/economies, their security situation, good government & rule of law, good health & education & welfare systems etc. The "multiculturalism" or not of the country is not going to be a cause of that. Having these fundamentals in place will encourage many immigrants to come if they are allowed in, making the country more "multicultural".
I don't recall non European muslims (or any other types of immigrants really) making a bee-line to improve little Ireland during the 80s. First the improvement in the economic situation/relative liberalisation of society here (making it a better place to live), then the influx of immigrants attracted by that.

Brian?

fly_agaric wrote: »

The pages you linked talk about the specific countries' wealth/economies, their security situation, good government & rule of law, good health & education & welfare systems etc. The "multiculturalism" or not of the country is not going to be a cause of that. Having these fundamentals in place will encourage many immigrants to come if they are allowed in, making the country more "multicultural".
I don't recall non European muslims (or any other types of immigrants really) making a bee-line to improve little Ireland during the 80s. First the improvement in the economic situation/relative liberalisation of society here (making it a better place to live), then the influx of immigrants attracted by that.

Immigrants are absolutely attracted by economic success. Their arrival helps drive the success. Without the workers provided by economic migration, the economic growth of Europe would have been stunted.

I’m biased though. I’ve a number of first and 2nd generation Muslim colleagues and I love kebabs.

RandomName2

Brian? wrote: »

Immigrants are absolutely attracted by economic success. Their arrival helps drive the success. Without the workers provided by economic migration, the economic growth of Europe would have been stunted.

I’m biased though. I’ve a number of first and 2nd generation Muslim colleagues and I love kebabs.

The idea of uneducated migrants being an economic benefit is largely antiquated. A large influx of poorly educated migrants is fine when you have a large volume of laboring jobs and a large primary economic sector. These types of positions have been diminishing for decades, particularly in the last decade. I'm not sure how many people you think can be supported as kebab sales people, but I'd suggest it's not many.

So if the case is that you have to wait for the second generation of migrants in order to be a net benefit on the whole, then the situation is that it's simply damage mitigation in relation to the economic impact of large scale migration. This just stands to reason.

Sand

weisses wrote: »

I suggest you visit any hospital in the state ... Then turf all the foreigners or migrants ... And then try to figure out how that hospital would function without them present.... Then post back here with a solution

How about training our medical staff rather than leeching off the resources of poorer countries?

Not only would we minimise medical malpractice, it would increase stable career paths for Europeans. Win win. European nations can easily afford to fund enough medical professionals from within our own populations. European governments simply choose not to do so, preferring to spend the money on increased social welfare for non-EEA migrants and their descendants. It is a bad policy, and like all bad policies it can be ended.

Brian? wrote: »

Yeah this Europe place is really a ****hole.

Only 7 of the top 10 countries for quality of life are in Europe. We should build a fence around it now to stop it getting any worse. /sarcasm

Where do you live and get your news from? Europe is a wonderful place to live because multiculturalism, not in spite of it.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-rankings

When you have to invent strawmen, it shows how weak your views are.

I didn't say Europe was a ****hole. But the lives of Europeans are clearly worse than they would otherwise be due to mass migration. Mass migration is a bad policy, against the interests of Europeans, and like any bad policy it should be ended.

Sand

Limpy wrote: »

I reckon if we in the West stopped bombing/sanctioning some countries into the stone age less people would be forced to leave. Its an assimilate or die attitude. Case in point Libya/Ghaddifi

Being trafficked into Europe is a costly endeavour. Smugglers don't do it for free - apart from the 'rescue ships' and even they are funded. The migrants beg, borrow or steal the money from micro-finance organisations, friends or family. The Vietnamese who died in the back of the truck in the UK a few weeks back had each paid tens of thousands for their trip, borrowed from family members who expected a return when their relative was earning in the UK. It was an investment and it went wrong. Many Africans are reluctant to return home because they stole the money from relatives.

The idea of desperate refugees fleeing US carpet bombing - honestly, if you believe that then you probably still believe in Santa. There are push and pull factors, but ultimately its motivated by financial gain.

Brian?

Sand wrote: »

How about training our medical staff rather than leeching off the resources of poorer countries?

Not only would we minimise medical malpractice, it would increase stable career paths for Europeans. Win win. European nations can easily afford to fund enough medical professionals from within our own populations. European governments simply choose not to do so, preferring to spend the money on increased social welfare for non-EEA migrants and their descendants. It is a bad policy, and like all bad policies it can be ended.



When you have to invent strawmen, it shows how weak your views are.

I didn't say Europe was a ****hole. But the lives of Europeans are clearly worse than they would otherwise be due to mass migration. Mass migration is a bad policy, against the interests of Europeans, and like any bad policy it should be ended.

You say the lives of Europeans are clearly worse. How so? What metrics are using the measure this?

Sarcasm isn’t a strawman.

RandomName2

Brian? wrote: »

You say the lives of Europeans are clearly worse. How so? What metrics are using the measure this?

Sarcasm isn’t a strawman.

Sarcasm ins't a strawman but saying that Sand was wrong about declaring Europe to be a sh*thole, if he didn't actually say this, is most definitely a strawman.

Personally I think it's way too broad a statement to say that European life is worse due to mass migration. Most Europeans are unaffected, even by the recent migrant crisis. Well, it depends where you are talking. Poland cannot really be compared to Greece. Marseille or Malmo can't really be compared to Edinburgh or Zurich. Any negative effects of mass migration are predominantly local.

4068ac1elhodqr

RandomName2 wrote: »

Any negative effects of mass migration are predominantly local.

So just the UK, Sweden, Italy, France, Germany Belgium then (and so on). Granted Poland and the V4 have choosen (by themselves) not to be effected in any meaningful way.


Also the issue is very specifc to mostly illegal (or questionable) (non-eu) mass (mostly economic) migration, and from specific areas: that of the Mid-East and Sub-Sahara Africa.

ancapailldorcha

No more link dumps and snappy comments please. Post deleted.

Sand

Brian? wrote: »

You say the lives of Europeans are clearly worse. How so? What metrics are using the measure this?

Sarcasm isn’t a strawman.

Deaths, injuries and security costs resulting from 'home grown' Islamic terrorism. Increased criminality - particularly sex crimes against the young and vulnerable. Increased pressure on housing stock and services. Increased economic costs to subsidise migrants and their descendants. Increased economic insecurity. Reduced civic trust and engagement. Diversion of political leadership from productive ends to completely self inflicted issues like FGM in Ireland. Increased repression and loss of freedom. All entirely avoidable without mass migration.

You can look back at my posts through this thread for further details. Maybe you're willing to trade the girls of Rotherham to predators for a greater availability of kebabs. I am not.