Farage highlighting illegal migration chaos

Chips Lovell · 12-08-2020 7:10am

Arthur Daley wrote: »

Very often what you classify as 'whipping people into a frenzy' is because of the need to be heard. Because the media is refusing to have these debates.

So Farage was out raising this issue weeks ago to a wall of silence. The BBC news eventually had to report on it and Madame Home Secretary headed out on a boat yesterday for a photo op to try persuade the public she would 'get tough'.

ohnonotgmail · 12-08-2020 8:47am

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Where are you getting this from? Nigel Farage? The reality is that the BBC has been reporting on this well over a year. Farage is claiming the media is ignoring it and people are believing him.

August 22 2019: Channel migrants: Children among 64 people to arrive by boat
September 2 2019: How Migrants Cross the Channel From Calais
September 9 2019: Channel migrants: Nine men found in a dinghy
September 13 2019: Channel migrants: Arrests 'disrupt people-smuggling gang'
September 16 2019: Channel migrants: Five children among 29 intercepted
October 8 2019: Channel migrants: Four held after woman's body discovered
October 14 2019: Channel migrants: Ten people found in a dinghy
October 20 2019: Channel migrants: Boat containing 13 people intercepted
November 4 2019: Channel migrants: Five boats head to England each week
November 11 2019: Channel migrants: 53 people cross in one day
November 17 2019: Channel migrants: Four boats stopped in three hours
December 3 2019: Channel migrants: Two boats carrying 13 people stopped
December 4 2019: Channel migrants: 79 people arrive in five boats
December 5 2019: Channel migrants: 19 men, women and children found on boat
December 19 2019: Channel migrants: People-smugglers jailed after woman dies
December 26 2019: Channel migrants: More than 60 people found on Boxing Day
December 29 2019: Pregnant woman among migrants found in the Channel
January 20 2020: English Channel migrants boats using 'surge tactics'
January 22 2020: Channel migrants: Four boats intercepted in Channel
January 25 2020: Channel migrants: Boat carrying 28 rescued off Dover
February 6 2020: Channel migrants: Ninety rescued from small boats
February 7 2020: Channel migrants: More than 100 intercepted over 10 hours
March 4 2020: Channel migrants: Two boats intercepted off Kent coast
March 17 2020: Channel migrants: Border Force stops two boats in Channel
April 2 2020: Coronavirus: Migrants cross Channel amid Covid-19 fears
April 7 2020: Channel migrants: Four boats intercepted crossing Channel
April 24 2020: Dinghies carrying 76 migrants intercepted in Channel
April 27 2020: More than 90 migrants picked up in Channel in eight boats
May 18 2020: Channel migrants: Rise in unaccompanied children arriving in Kent
May 20 2020: Channel migrants: More than 60 people attempt crossing
May 22 2020: Channel migrants: Small boats 'major threat to UK'
May 26 2020: Channel migrants: Boats and kayak carrying 80 people intercepted
May 27 2020: Channel migrants: Boats carrying 60 people intercepted

yeah but none of those stories got Farages name back in the news so they dont count.

RandomName2 · 12-08-2020 11:06am

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Where are you getting this from? Nigel Farage? The reality is that the BBC has been reporting on this well over a year. Farage is claiming the media is ignoring it and people are believing him.

First off, congratulations on collecting all those articles. It is work that is rarely appreciated by people taking a different political position to oneself. 'All I ask for is evidence! Oh you have some? Damn.'

But I will pick you up on the notion of 'debate'. I don't put much stock in Farage. Yeah, sure he's got skill a media pundit, but I find it hard to respect his carry on. Nevertheless I have to admit that he moves the overton window.

The poster you quote doesn't claim that the information is gagged. There is no claim that there is censorship in relation to the facts of the matter. Nevertheless there is clearly an absence of debate. Regardless of your views of the man, we wouldn't even be talking about this issue in this thread were it not for Farage (I personally find it a pity that the debate must be framed using him, but he certainly acts as a catalyst for analysis).

None of the articles that you post analyse the situation. None list the advantages and disadvantages, the short and long term implications, the merits and demerits. The brain-dead default position is that to bring up the subject in a critical manner is to be called a racist, which is indeed a method of silencing discussion.

ambro25 · 12-08-2020 11:17am

Over 48% of Luxembourgish residents are foreign-born. Nationalities from -literally- the entire globe. A tiny country of circa. 600k people, with no colonial past, but a strong national identity clearly demarcated from its neighbours, steeped in a mostly-agrarian past (but for the industrialised south, for a time).

Daytime, when the circa 170k cross-border workers from neighbouring France, Belgium and Germany (which include significantly more variety than French, Belgian and German nationals: it's a bit small here, London prices for buying and renting) are in, there are actually *more* foreigners than nationals in-country.

Do we see a nationalist resurgence? A loss of national identity? Cultural dilution?

Nope. Consensus politics gaining, never less so than at the last GE last year, which kept much of the left and right previously in place, but brought in a lot of green and a little alternative (even a PiratenPartei MP, FGS!)

Does that make anyone's head explode in here? Going by some responses, it should.

ancapailldorcha · 12-08-2020 11:24am

RandomName2 wrote: »

But I will pick you up on the notion of 'debate'. I don't put much stock in Farage. Yeah, sure he's got skill a media pundit, but I find it hard to respect his carry on. Nevertheless I have to admit that he moves the overton window.

The poster you quote doesn't claim that the information is gagged. There is no claim that there is censorship in relation to the facts of the matter. Nevertheless there is clearly an absence of debate. Regardless of your views of the man, we wouldn't even be talking about this issue in this thread were it not for Farage (I personally find it a pity that the debate must be framed using him, but he certainly acts as a catalyst for analysis).

I'm not so sure. The tabloids have been ranting about immigration from most places for decades now. Farage just happens to be able to perform well in front of a camera and/or a microphone but I think it's a bit ridiculous to say that there'd be no talk about immigration without him. The Tories and some of the Labour party are certainly no fans of immigration. I think his being outside both parties helped him in this regard but he's by no means essential to facilitating a debate on the subject.

ambro25 · 12-08-2020 11:41am

Farage is the British political equivalent of LePen in France, stoking and riding a wave of xenophobia through constant and consistent populist messaging, which never finds more fertile ground than when socio-economic conditions are in decline - History with a big 'H' tells us so.

There would certainly have been a 'debate' about immigration, in the wake of the 2008 GFC, had Farage not been about, or not agitated about immigration as a subtext of UKIP's messaging since its inception. Because another political opportunist would have stoked and ridden that wave - again, History with a big 'H' tells us so. Just, and maybe, not as big of a 'debate'.

The saddest observation, is that so much of the British public fell for it -still does, at the slightest dog whistle- and learned nothing, still less developed any capacity for critical thinking (and a bit of introspection) about this issue. At the time he started these reports from the coastline, few seem to remember his dishonest 'invasion' poster in the Referendum campaign. And certainly no journalists that I saw, then or since.

Immigration "analysis", in the UK? Don't make me laugh.

ancapailldorcha · 12-08-2020 12:05pm

History with a big "H"?

Farage has been banging on his Eurosceptic/Europhobic drum since the nineties. Even the Tory party had Business for Sterling which was founded to resist the Euro towards the end of that decade and it morphed into the official leave campaign. The Tories have always had their anti-European wing.

Farage didn't find fertile ground for his nonsense after the central and eastern European states acceded to the EU in 2004 & 2007. It wasn't until after the 2008 financial crash that things started to turn around for him. Then you had the early 2010's where it didn't catch on until 2015 when UKIP won 12.6% of the vote as 5 years of austerity took their toll. Of course, you'll never see Farage advocating for the disabled, better housing, proper funding for the police, more housing, better infrastructure, training programmes or anything that might help the public. He has failed to get elected to Westminster seven times and arguably only became an MEP because of the British public's peculiar voting habits in European elections and the d'Hondt system where he claimed huge amounts of expenses like a parasite.

RandomName2 · 12-08-2020 12:07pm

ambro25 wrote: »

Over 48% of Luxembourgish residents are foreign-born. Nationalities from -literally- the entire globe.

Not really. Almost the entire foreign population is from the EU. I count about 17,000 people from non-EU countries in Luxemburg, which is an utterly tiny amount.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9mographie_du_Luxembourg

ambro25 wrote: »

A tiny country of circa. 600k people, with no colonial past, but a strong national identity clearly demarcated from its neighbours, steeped in a mostly-agrarian past (but for the industrialised south, for a time).

That's like saying that Monaco or San Marino have strong national identities. It owes its existence predominantly due to a large fortress which encompasses a large amount of its territory, and was seen as a buffer between France and Germany. French and German are both fluently spoken there because of the overlap of both those cultures. Luxembourg has its own language Luxembourgish, which about half the population can speak, which is a dialect of German. And, naturally, both French and Germans make up a large part of the foreign population.

I do not know what the reason for the large population of Portuguese people is though.

Luxembourg tends towards being the most pro-EU countries, and least nationalistic, of all EU members.

The comparison is like looking at the number of people from Northern Ireland in Ireland and expecting a consequential rise in right-wing ideology here.

Wibbs · 12-08-2020 12:18pm

Never mind that Luxembourg is one of the richest nations on earth. Not exactly a lot of sink estates and ghettoisation going on. I mean you don't tend to find any issues around multiculturalism in leafy Dublin 4. Using Luxembourg as an example of immigration and multiculturalism is more than a bit daft.

On Farage? Daft little englander who peddles his wares to a certain sort very well.

RandomName2 · 12-08-2020 12:22pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not so sure. The tabloids have been ranting about immigration from most places for decades now. Farage just happens to be able to perform well in front of a camera and/or a microphone but I think it's a bit ridiculous to say that there'd be no talk about immigration without him.

Ah yeah, but nobody cares what a random brickie from Brixton thinks. Certainly the Tories have, in recent times, been desperately concerned by the growth of UKIP. While UKIP may look as if it was dead on arrival, due to its apparent electoral failure, the first-past-the-post system hides its meteoric rise. If UKIP managed to get above a threshold it would suddenly go from being a non-entity, to being a spoiling vote, to returning many candidates. Seeing that they would be predominantly stealing votes from the Conservative party, ignoring it was clearly not an option.

Of course this was much more obvious in relation to debates around the EU than immigration (though the two aren't mutually excluvie), where all the main political parties presented a uniform anti-Brexit front (despite individual members in the parties, particularly Conservative, being vehemently anti-EU). Given that UKIP was the only coherent anti-EU party it filled a natural niche. The Conservative Party started being pulled apart by this issue, and the impact of UKIP to this end cannot be overestimated in my opinion.

It doesn't really matter what a tabloid rag says one way or the other (which let's be honest, tends to be more of a polemic than debate anyway). If an issue doesn't get debated in mainstream media, in parliament, or between political parties, it is effectively ignored.

ancapailldorcha · 12-08-2020 12:28pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

Ah yeah, but nobody cares what a random brickie from Brixton thinks. Certainly the Tories have, in recent times, been desperately concerned by the growth of UKIP. While UKIP may look as if it was dead on arrival, due to its apparent electoral failure, the first-past-the-post system hides its meteoric rise. If UKIP managed to get above a threshold it would suddenly go from being a non-entity, to being a spoiling vote, to returning many candidates. Seeing that they would be predominantly stealing votes from the Conservative party, ignoring it was clearly not an option.

Of course this was much more obvious in relation to debates around the EU than immigration (though the two aren't mutually excluvie), where all the main political parties presented a uniform anti-Brexit front (despite individual members in the parties, particularly Conservative, being vehemently anti-EU). Given that UKIP was the only coherent anti-EU party it filled a natural niche. The Conservative Party started being pulled apart by this issue, and the impact of UKIP to this end cannot be overestimated in my opinion.

It doesn't really matter what a tabloid rag says one way or the other (which let's be honest, tends to be more of a polemic than debate anyway). If an issue doesn't get debated in mainstream media, in parliament, or between political parties, it is effectively ignored.

The main parties didn't present a uniform anti-Brexit front, especially the Tories. While the Greens and the Lib Dems were staunchly anti-Brexit and most of Labour MP's were remainers, several prominent Conservative MP's came out for Brexit such as Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Priti Patel, Chris Grayling, Liz Truss, Kwasi Kwarteng, James Cleverly, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Steve Baker, etc...

If UKIP didn't exist, we might not have had the referendum, sure but given how many anti-EU Tories there were, we don't know. FPTP keeps anyone but the Tories and Labour out barring exceptional circumstances as in 2010.

If it didn't matter what the rags say, you wouldn't have prime ministers attending barbecues and currying favours with their owners. To say that they don't matter is silly.

splashuum · 12-08-2020 12:29pm

Farage captures images of a large group of males (20-30yrs old approx) taken on the Kent coast this morning.

1800_Ladladlad · 12-08-2020 12:41pm

I had to laugh at Ben n Jerrys this morning.

https://twitter.com/benandjerrysUK/status/1293214277621489666

Let’s remember we’re all human and have the same rights to life regardless of the country we happen to have been born in. and once more for the back: PEOPLE CANNOT BE ILLEGAL.

Im sure they would see a large crowd of people sitting in the HQ or on the front and back lawns of the CEO and the dipsh*t who wrote this, as being illegal. *****ng morans.

Migrant Injustice: Ben & Jerry’s Farmworker Exploitation
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/08/13/migrant-injustice-ben-jerrys-farmworker-exploitation/

Wibbs · 12-08-2020 12:49pm

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

I had to laugh at Ben n Jerrys this morning.

Standard operational corporate ballsology. Lay claim to human rights cause de jour, distracting from their more nefarious practices elsewhere where human rights aren't so acknowledged.

ancapailldorcha · 12-08-2020 12:52pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Standard operational corporate ballsology. Lay claim to human rights cause de jour, distracting from their more nefarious practices elsewhere where human rights aren't so acknowledged.

All the while doing their utmost to avoid paying any tax.

ambro25 · 12-08-2020 1:15pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

Not really. Almost the entire foreign population is from the EU. I count about 17,000 people from non-EU countries in Luxemburg, which is an utterly tiny amount.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9mographie_du_Luxembourg

Quite aside from the fact that your reply doesn't disprove my original point, the actual stat is 48,600. Which is around 8% of the resident population.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/584918/foreigners-in-luxembourg-by-nationality/

So around the same as the UK in proportion (5.8m out of 66m, latest ONS as from May 2020).

That's like saying that Monaco or San Marino have strong national identities.

Not really, but then I don't exoect you to know better.

I do not know what the reason for the large population of Portuguese people is though.

(...)

The comparison is like looking at the number of people from Northern Ireland in Ireland and expecting a consequential rise in right-wing ideology here.

Is there such a cultural chasm between people from NI in the RoI and RoI natives, that RoI natives would feel so culturally threatened as to be receptive to right-wing ideology?

I mean, comparable to the equivalent (and still hypothetical) cultural chasm between the 8% of culturally-mediterranean Portuguese (and/or the 24% made up of these plus the non-EU immigrants) making up the culturally-northern Luxembourgish population?

The main cultural (ie non-business -related) reason why Luxembourg is so pro-EU, is that Luxembourgers were occupied by Nazis, and have long memories. It goes a long way to explain why they were a founding member state right from the start in the 50s.

I don't expect Brits to get that. Few ever did in the 20 years I lived there. I would expect a lot of Irish to get it, however.

Clearly, some appear to think that the country was *always* multicultural to the extent that it is today, was likewise always rich like it is today, and/or that its size and wealth render it redundant in any comparison. Talk about debate and 'analysis' indeed, eh?

But all of that irrespective, in the end the point was to illustrate that, when people in the UK -and in this thread- get so excited over a few hundred asylum seekers paddling across the Channel in high summer over to a country of some 65 millions, other countries assimilate immigrants -and have been doing for decades- in significant volumes, with none of the ill effects touted by the antis: 'volume' Portuguese immigration into Luxembourg started in the 70s, with builders and cleaning ladies. Their descendance still builds and cleans, but also runs Fintechs and government departments, teaches University students, etc. and speaks perfect Luxembourgish (and French, and German, besides Portuguese and English - at least).

I find the relevance of the anecdotal comparison, in proportion, perfectly adequate.

Wibbs · 12-08-2020 2:16pm

ambro25 wrote: »

Some appear to think that the country was *always* multicultural to the extent that it is today, was likewise always rich like it is today, and/or that its size and wealth render it redundant in any comparison. Talk about debate and 'analysis' indeed, eh?

No "indeed, eh" involved. One simply cannot compare a tiny nation with a tiny population which is one of the richest per capita on the planet and its experiences of multiculturalism with the average European nation of many tens of millions and far greater wealth gaps, which has many immigrant populations collecting at the bottom with all the attendant social problems that come from that with added ethnic flavours on top. Using Luxembourg as a comparison would be akin to putting a border around Dublin 4 with wealthy people from Ireland, the UK, France, Sudan, Christians, Jews, Muslims etc, with migrant workers coming in on a daily basis and saying look how fantastically well multiculturalism works. It's beyond bloody ridiculous a comparison by nearly every metric.

other countries assimilate immigrants -and have been doing for decades- in significant volumes, with none of the ill effects touted by the antis:

Good lord man, how can you type that with a straight face? Have you been living under a rock? Though I suspect more like an ivory tower.

Every single European nation that has had significant volumes of immigrants from different cultures and ethnicities has had problems and numerous and obvious ones. But I'll play along... For the craic, please show me any such nation where the darker the skin the more likely someone on average isn't going to cluster at or near the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. Please point out any such multicultural nation that hasn't suffered with ethnic flashpoints. Why do you think rabble rousers like Farage and LePen et al get any traction? Sure racism most certainly plays a part, but could it be that too much of the mainstream political parties simply deny there are any problems and people can see with their own two eyes that this is a nonsense?

Immigrant populations see it for god's sake. They see their own second and third and fourth generation people still not quite being "native" enough yet and treated differently, or maybe the BLM protests didn't also kick off in the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Holland, Ireland too? Oh no, nothing to see there at all. Clearly it's all peachy. No ill effects at all. Well I suppose you didn't see one in Luxembourg. Then again 80% of Luxembourg immigrants are EU citizens, a fair number of the rest are from Eastern Europe, with a couple of thousand Chinese, Indian and Middle Eastern folks. It's about as White a nation as Ireland.

But look at Ireland today, after just two decades of an actually not particularly substantial number of non EU immigration, we already have social separation and ghettoisation kicking off, with the same demographics being less likely to be employed and to be less likely to be educated to third level compared to the natives and EU migrants. And that's with only 1% of the population over only 20 years.

I find the relevance of the anecdotal comparison, in proportion, perfectly adequate.

Clearly we differ on the definitions of "adequate" and "relevance".

Tell me how · 12-08-2020 2:23pm

Wibbs wrote: »

But look at Ireland today, after just two decades of an actually not particularly substantial number of non EU immigration, we already have social separation and ghettoisation kicking off, with the same demographics being less likely to be employed and to be less likely to be educated to third level compared to the natives and EU migrants. And that's with only 1% of the population over only 20 years.

Every country has their own examples of ghettoisation and social separation, see Ballymun, Moyross, Southhill for previous examples of this in Ireland before there was any concern about migrants.

This is similar to talking about migrants bringing knife crime to Ireland, ignoring the fact that we referred to a location as stab city for 20 years.

I'd be much more interested in seeing people talk about how do we prevent such locations ending up with a large percentage of people being stigmatised and alienated (for whatever reason) than saying that the ones where the people have darker skin is now a problem.

Chips Lovell · 12-08-2020 2:37pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

But I will pick you up on the notion of 'debate'. I don't put much stock in Farage. Yeah, sure he's got skill a media pundit, but I find it hard to respect his carry on. Nevertheless I have to admit that he moves the overton window.

The poster you quote doesn't claim that the information is gagged. There is no claim that there is censorship in relation to the facts of the matter. Nevertheless there is clearly an absence of debate.

In fairness, when you read something like:

So Farage was out raising this issue weeks ago to a wall of silence. The BBC news eventually had to report on it

you may be forgiven for assuming the poster was alleging the BBC was ignoring the matter until Farage raised it.

If you want talk about debate, sure I can link to some stuff, but the reality is that there's very little debate to be had. Barring the odd NGO who wants the government to facilitate a safer way for migrants to enter the country, nobody wants these people. There's precious few people saying, "yes, let's have more of this".

The biggest difference in position is between people who have to deal with the realities of the situation and the people who don't. So, while Boris Johnson and Priti Patel would dearly love to eliminate this phenomenon, the reality is that that you can't only limit it to a certain degree (and they're now fighting with one hand behind their back since they left the EU). Farage meanwhile is the ultimate hurler on the ditch who can claim a.) the issue is being covered up and b.) imply there's some sort of easy solution. There isn't.

Wibbs · 12-08-2020 2:41pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Every country has their own examples of ghettoisation and social separation, see Ballymun, Moyross, Southhill for previous examples of this in Ireland before there was any concern about migrants.

Indeed we had and as I've asked before why do we then insist on seeing importing the potential for more ghettoisation and social separation and social unrest on top of the existing social issues every nation has?

I'd be much more interested in seeing people talk about how do we prevent such locations ending up with a large percentage of people being stigmatised and alienated (for whatever reason) than saying that the ones where the people have darker skin is now a problem.

Yep, sounds fantastic in theory, but in practice it doesn't work. Racism is a huge part of it. People preferring to live around those most like them another. We see this in every multicultural nation on the planet, every single time and no matter what education and government drives are applied it always ends up the same.

Why? because in too many matters we look to hope rather than basic human nature. Or we see said human nature and reckon we can change it, but again it doesn't work so well. Both positions are laudable but incredibly naive. Plus it's already too late here in Ireland for some demographics. Essentially the ones who look least "local". They already tend to cluster close to others like themselves, quite naturally too. Just like in European colonies like the US has areas that are more Irish, Italian, Asian, Black etc.

Plus how do you envisage preventing such happening? Like actual plans? The tired old education, social investment etc is more about looking to be doing something while keeping middle class voters happy they are doing something. It's been tried elsewhere, often for decades and here we are. How do you prevent a person wanting to live near to their places of worship, their own people, their own shops? Force them to live somewhere else? Hardly.

ambro25 · 12-08-2020 3:36pm

Wibbs wrote: »

No "indeed, eh" involved. One simply cannot compare a tiny nation with a tiny population which is one of the richest per capita on the planet and its experiences of multiculturalism with the average European nation of many tens of millions and far greater wealth gaps, which has many immigrant populations collecting at the bottom with all the attendant social problems that come from that with added ethnic flavours on top. Using Luxembourg as a comparison would be akin to putting a border around Dublin 4 with wealthy people from Ireland, the UK, France, Sudan, Christians, Jews, Muslims etc, with migrant workers coming in on a daily basis and saying look how fantastically well multiculturalism works. It's beyond bloody ridiculous a comparison by nearly every metric.

And yet, for all that broad-brushed stereotyping, income disparity at the national level is broadly the same in Lux as in those supersized European nations: 18+% in/at severe risk of poverty (OECD basis).

https://today.rtl.lu/news/luxembourg/a/1418974.html

Fancy that.

Good lord man, how can you type that with a straight face? Have you been living under a rock? Though I suspect more like an ivory tower

[...]

Clearly we differ on the definitions of "adequate" and "relevance".

Clearly so. For shame.

Well, stick to the stereotype. That postage stamp of a country was created overnight in the 1950s, swimming in cash from the get-go, it's smaller than Dublin 4, everyone who lives there was born a billionaire and just swans around in a Lambo guzzling Champagne by the magnum all day long, so wtf could it ever suggest to anyone about successful immigration policies and multicultural integration.

Nothing to discuss here. Carry on.

Wibbs · 12-08-2020 4:22pm

ambro25 wrote: »

And yet, for all that broad-brushed stereotyping, income disparity at the national level is broadly the same in Lux as in those supersized European nations: 18+% in/at severe risk of poverty (OECD basis).

https://today.rtl.lu/news/luxembourg/a/1418974.html

Fancy that.

We'll glide by the obvious differences in scale here, but maybe you should actually read the links you post in support of your argument:

Nationality is also a key factor: foreign residents, whether they work or not, are twice as likely as Luxembourg residents to be affected by poverty.

Well I never... Fancy that indeed.

Clearly so. For shame.

You do realise that makes no sense, or only in your head?

Well, stick to the stereotype. That postage stamp of a country was created overnight in the 1950s, swimming in cash from the get-go, it's smaller than Dublin 4, everyone who lives there was born a billionaire and just swans around in a Lambo guzzling Champagne by the magnum all day long, so wtf could it ever suggest to anyone about successful immigration policies and multicultural integration.

So when your diaphanous argument is poked even a little, you have no comeback but to come up with a nonsensical paragraph that nobody claimed? OK....

Luxembourg is one of the richest per capita nations on Earth. Fact. It is also one of the smallest. Fact. No slums or sink estates of either locals or migrants. Fact. The vast majority of migrants, both temporary and permanent are Europeans from EU nations and Eastern Europe and legal. Fact. So actually nothing at all like urban centres with migrant origin populations in France, Britain, The Netherlands, Germany, Sweden et al.

Nothing to discuss here. Carry on.

yep, you got nada. Or damned close to it.

I am both bemused and fascinated by how such an apparently 24 carat positive truth that is multiculturalism is so woefully defended by its proponents and how nebulous the positives actually are, or at least how much of a struggle it is to list them. The most that people seem to be able to muster is "oh look, exotic food and music and different accents at the office" and vague references to increased economic growth(which is true in the case of legal migration). For something apparently so self evidently positive for host nations it's puzzling.

That's before we get to the proponents as sure as night follows day either ramping up dog whistling about racism and/or claiming there's nothing to see, when anybody with even one functioning Mark 1 Human Eyeball can see there most definitely is. Oh and those old faves like "the Irish were immigrants therefore"... (nothing, or feck all relavance to today's migration trends) and "we already had social problems".

Tell me how · 12-08-2020 4:38pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed we had and as I've asked before why do we then insist on seeing importing the potential for more ghettoisation and social separation and social unrest on top of the existing social issues every nation has?

Couple of points to this. One, people don't necessarily see the potential of further issues simply as a consequence of immigration being in any way a guarantee that it will happen.

Two, peoples compassion for others who are suffering and a recognition of our experience as a people lead a lot of people to be go with the idea of helping others.

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep, sounds fantastic in theory, but in practice it doesn't work. Racism is a huge part of it. People preferring to live around those most like them another. We see this in every multicultural nation on the planet, every single time and no matter what education and government drives are applied it always ends up the same.

Why? because in too many matters we look to hope rather than basic human nature. Or we see said human nature and reckon we can change it, but again it doesn't work so well. Both positions are laudable but incredibly naive. Plus it's already too late here in Ireland for some demographics. Essentially the ones who look least "local". They already tend to cluster close to others like themselves, quite naturally too. Just like in European colonies like the US has areas that are more Irish, Italian, Asian, Black etc.

Plus how do you envisage preventing such happening? Like actual plans? The tired old education, social investment etc is more about looking to be doing something while keeping middle class voters happy they are doing something. It's been tried elsewhere, often for decades and here we are. How do you prevent a person wanting to live near to their places of worship, their own people, their own shops? Force them to live somewhere else? Hardly.

This argument could have been lifted from anti-desegregationists in the US 50 years ago. Nothing too derogatory but simply expressing a preference for keeping communities isolated and ignoring the potential therefore of one community being mistreated by the other.

How do I see a more cohesive society happening? Largely by doing what we are doing now (given that most people integrate just fine) and then continuing to promote inclusivity. Time will help as people with more..... traditional views, ultimately move on. Any area in which criminals congregate should be targeted as soon as there is evidence of such behaviour.

The world now, or Ireland isn't as it was 20 years ago, or 50 years before that, or 100 years before that. When people say they want to hold on to our heritage or culture, what heritage or culture is that? Living under the control of the Catholic Church? Protestants and Catholics at each others throats? Civil war politics? English control? Tribal warfare? Things have changed and they will continue to.

And I say all that as a very proud Irish person who loves most things about Ireland and the people in it. I have no wish to replace any part of us, or our culture with something else but I am not fearful that it is a guarantee it will happen if we try to be compassionate towards others. We have benefited from our culture being influenced by others and this will continue to be the case.

One other thing I want to point out, the argument previously on here has been that those who come with skills ready to work aren't really a problem but that those who are 'economic migrants' are the problem. But would skilled people, immigrating through 'legal' channels not equally likely to want to live near where they worship, or where they shop or whatever? So is this category of migrant also an issue? I suspect it is for many.

Finally, I think hope is one of the strongest attributes any individual or society can have it. Life is tough, and without hope, then it is only going to be tougher. Without hope, most of the great change agents whose achievements I don't think can be disputed, would likely never have come about. If we don't have hope, then we might as well let it all burn, shrug our shoulders and say, 'Sure there's no point in doing anything'.

Someone saying there is no point in hoping to make a better world is simply saying they prefer this one as it is.

Wibbs · 12-08-2020 5:05pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Couple of points to this. One, people don't necessarily see the potential of further issues simply as a consequence of immigration being in any way a guarantee that it will happen.

Show me where it hasn't happened.

Two, peoples compassion for others who are suffering and a recognition of our experience as a people lead a lot of people to be go with the idea of helping others.

Which is indeed laudable a trait and lord knows we need such traits, but again we have to keep in mind actual human nature, which all too often isn't so laudable, or only laudable in one direction. Plus compassion isn't so practical a solution.

This argument could have been lifted from anti-desegregationists in the US 50 years ago. Nothing too derogatory but simply expressing a preference for keeping communities isolated and ignoring the potential therefore of one community being mistreated by the other.

No preference involved on my part, simply observation of how human beings in societies actually operate.

How do I see a more cohesive society happening? Largely by doing what we are doing now (given that most people integrate just fine) and then continuing to promote inclusivity.

More nebulous hopes, rather than realities. Those who end up integrating(though hang on, I though diversity was better...) are those groups who look most like the "locals". Those who look least like them not nearly so much. Take the US as an example. The Irish could integrate far more quickly than Africans, because they could quite simply pass for "American" and how it was and in so many ways still is defined. Here in Ireland the Poles, Germans, British, Spanish etc will integrate far more readily than Nigerians. Never mind that in Ireland after only twenty years and not even a generation, people, those who look least like the locals have quite naturally tended to congregate around people most like themselves and that happened quite rapidly and quite organically. No amount of promoting inclusivity will change that. Again it hasn't anywhere else.

Time will help as people with more..... traditional views, ultimately move on. Any area in which criminals congregate should be targeted as soon as there is evidence of such behaviour.

Well, judging by other nations with much longer multicultural histories the "more..... traditional views" have hardened of late and across generations. Not just on the "local" side either.

The world now, or Ireland isn't as it was 20 years ago, or 50 years before that, or 100 years before that. When people say they want to hold on to our heritage or culture, what heritage or culture is that? Living under the control of the Catholic Church? Protestants and Catholics at each others throats? Civil war politics? English control? Tribal warfare? Things have changed and they will continue to.

A common mistake is to look at changes and a) think it's all new and moving towards a more positive and b) human nature has changed. It usually isn't and it almost certainly hasn't. That mistake is how history repeats itself.

One other thing I want to point out, the argument previously on here has been that those who come with skills ready to work aren't really a problem but that those who are 'economic migrants' are the problem. But would skilled people, immigrating through 'legal' channels not equally likely to want to live near where they worship, or where they shop or whatever? So is this category of migrant also an issue? I suspect it is for many.

Oh it can certainly happen, but less likely as legal economic migrants are far more likely to be highly skilled and educated and basically middle class already, so far more likely to move to such areas. Even then you can see examples of middle class ethnic enclaves.

Finally, I think hope is one of the strongest attributes any individual or society can have it. Life is tough, and without hope, then it is only going to be tougher. Without hope, most of the great change agents whose achievements I don't think can be disputed, would likely never have come about. If we don't have hope, then we might as well let it all burn, shrug our shoulders and say, 'Sure there's no point in doing anything'.

Someone saying there is no point in hoping to make a better world is simply saying they prefer this one as it is.

Oh I have hope, but it is seasoned with realities, realities that are observable over our entire human history in every culture on the planet. There are quite the few constants. Us V The Other is one of the strongest ones. The irony is that where multicultural societies did emerge and stay stable it was almost always under pretty right wing to our way of thinking imperial cultures. IE The Chin, Roman and Islamic empires, where what compassion was present was overshadowed by imperial force that responded to any ethnic pushback against the centre by force and the "locals" were very much in charge.

RandomName2 · 12-08-2020 5:07pm

Wibbs wrote: »

I am both bemused and fascinated by how such an apparently 24 carat positive truth that is multiculturalism is so woefully defended by its proponents and how nebulous the positives actually are, or at least how much of a struggle it is to list them. The most that people seem to be able to muster is "oh look, exotic food and music and different accents at the office" and vague references to increased economic growth(which is true in the case of legal migration). For something apparently so self evidently positive for host nations it's puzzling.

That's before we get to the proponents as sure as night follows day either ramping up dog whistling about racism and/or claiming there's nothing to see, when anybody with even one functioning Mark 1 Human Eyeball can see there most definitely is. Oh and those old faves like "the Irish were immigrants therefore"... (nothing, or feck all relavance to today's migration trends) and "we already had social problems".

In defense of the opposition (and I loath to do so, given the distinct lack of balance that proponents of immigration seek to achieve) I think there is the fear that to 'give into' concerns about immigration is to give credence to all far-right thought, and essentially invite the Le Pens, and Orbans, and Farages, and Jussi Halla-ahos into positions of power.

It is quite a lack of reflection that it is the fact that main parties ignore issues like this that provides politicians, who would be considered more extreme, opportunities to come into power.

I also think it does them no favors that, in their wild pursuit of ignoring the issues that are brought up by these would-be politicians, that they attack these would-be politicians almost entirely with ad-hominem garbage. Noel Grealish brings up something in the Dáil, and instead of disproving what he says, you scream 'racist' to drown him out? Well Grealish increased his vote count and Ruth Coppinger failed to retain her seat (not managing even to get into the senate). Oh what a Cicero was lost the last election!

When Peter Casey brought up issues in relation to travelers, it was treated in a fashion reminiscent of Pepe Julian Onziema bringing up LGBT rights in Uganda. The media's treatment after the election was 'how can we reconcile the fact that over 23% of the Irish public are racists?'
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hate-has-a-grip-that-can-yet-be-loosened-256vq9q80

Really? Really. That is the level of shít that we have come to.

When you combine issues that main political parties fail to address with some sort of catalyst.. say a financial crash.. or a huge corruption scandal in the government.. then you'll suddenly see the obscure outsider or party being catapulted into being a major contender.

What's worse is the fact that the go-to reaction for so-called liberals is to character assassinate leads to moderates, who may be inclined to bring up these issues, to bow out. What you are left with are those who are impervious to criticism. As the line by his supporters go, 'You cannot barrage the Farage'. It's true. Call him whatever you like, it's water off a duck's back.

I may be partially guilty of it myself. I call Sinn Fein apologists for terrorism, backwards nationalists with low moral fiber. The public don't care, the public cares about two things: issues, and the capacity for people to adequately address these issues. The primary issue which the main parties in Ireland are failing to address is housing (with a subsection of social housing). While they continue to do so, Sinn Fein will continue to climb in the polls.

At the moment France has rigged its elections to keep Rassemblement National out of power, but the fact that they are the largest European party in France, much like the Brexit party in the UK, speaks volumes about how much the issues that they represent command the attention of a significant part of the French public.

Wibbs · 12-08-2020 5:10pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

In defense of the opposition (and I loath to do so, given the distinct lack of balance that proponents of immigration seek to achieve) I think there is the fear that to 'give into' concerns about immigration is to give credence to all far-right thought, and essentially invite the Le Pens, and Orbans, and Farages, and Jussi Halla-ahos into positions of power.

Oh I hear you there and agree.

Tell me how · 12-08-2020 5:34pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Show me where it hasn't happened.

Really?

You think that any instance of trouble by a few or a small percentage of migrants which have trouble in integrating negates all those who have no such experiences?

There have been positive experiences of cultural integration in many countries of the world, certainly most western countries. Because each of these countries has examples where it didn't work, you think the whole thing is negated? It doesn't work like that. The good stories don't travel or get as much exposure as the negative, that is for sure.

As for history repeating, you are right, to a certain degree, the same human emotions can be seen in prior behaviour but it would be both foolish and wrong to suggest the experience we have had and the awareness of this (which has exploded in the last 100 years due to the capturing and sharing of said experiences) hasn't influenced our general behaviour as a society. There are other elements which discount that simplistic view that history repeats in the area of the development of the human race (evolution anyone?), the opportunity to travel for work, migration, tourism has never been greater and given the 400% increase in global population the world has experienced in 100 years, it is to be expected that we mingle and integrate more than people would have had either the need or opportunity to do so in the past.

If the day comes where the human race is considering setting up a base on Mars or Kepler-442b, it is a safe bet that it will not be subdivided at the outset in to regions or countries but will be an inclusive shared space. We are just moving through a transition phase from isolation, division, fear and conflict towards a more shared space (still with issues of course) and before you say it, I am not suggesting we abandon all borders tomorrow, or that I wish for such a world or anything but we need to consider where borders came from and whether the purpose they originally served would be necessary in a new world.

Chips Lovell · 12-08-2020 6:37pm

I don't really buy into the notion that immigrants create "no go" areas in cities. I grew up in a part of Dublin that was billed by the media and some of the more dickish of my peers as a "no go" area (invariably they were people who were from only slightly more salubrious parts of Dublin themselves).

For a start, it's an overblown concept. Sure, it's a bit rough, but people (usually people who haven't been there) would act like you'd get your hole shot off the minute you strayed in.

But what I find interesting is that when you talk about "no go" areas populated by white people, things like crime, generational poverty, and poor public services tend to be cited as the cause. But if the area is home to non-whites, all of a sudden race/ethnicity is cited as the cause. You get the feeling there's a bit of correlation being mistaken for causation.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Yes cultures do evolve. London's culture is currently evolving away from..let's call it "indigenous english"..and towards a mixed international and transient one. This is not a new phenomenon but it is hastening. All over the world loss of indigenous culture is seen as a sad thing...but not in western europe for some reason.

No culture every stops evolving at a certain point of time. London has always been a melting pot. Someone earlier was talking about the disappearance of jellied eels. But Londoners were only really eating them for around 200 years. Things today regarded as quintessentially English, such as tea (India) and gin (Netherlands - and the story of how gin caught on is fascinating) were once non-indigenous imports.

RandomName2 · 12-08-2020 7:27pm

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I don't really buy into the notion that immigrants create "no go" areas in cities. I grew up in a part of Dublin that was billed by the media and some of the more dickish of my peers as a "no go" area (invariably they were people who were from only slightly more salubrious parts of Dublin themselves).

For a start, it's an overblown concept. Sure, it's a bit rough, but people (usually people who haven't been there) would act like you'd get your hole shot off the minute you strayed in.

Yes, this is exactly what I said earlier.

Chips Lovell wrote: »

But what I find interesting is that when you talk about "no go" areas populated by white people, things like crime, generational poverty, and poor public services tend to be cited as the cause. But if the area is home to non-whites, all of a sudden race/ethnicity is cited as the cause. You get the feeling there's a bit of correlation being mistaken for causation.

And the flip-side is true. We can only talk about the white areas that correspond to this, because to bring it up where the race is different is seen to invite discussion that is non palatable. Non-EU immigrants not on work visas will tend to be in poorer areas because they tend to have a lower levels of education, may have language difficulties, will tend to be lacking in immediate capital, and will have issues obtaining loans.

These can be discussed in relation to white people (except travelers, because they say they are a different race) but are predominantly off the table when it is non-whites.

This is particularly problematic because this is, as Wibbs would say, what tends towards ghettoization.

Back 50 years ago in the West, it wouldn't have been as much of an issue. All you needed to be a full member of the work force was at most a secondary education. In general, except for a small number of specialized jobs, that's all that was expected. Nowadays these sort of jobs are thin on the ground, and are getting sparser by the day as they become replaced by automation.

Notwithstanding the fact that it was never taboo to talk about Darnsdale, Finglas, Ballymun, and the other god-awful areas that developed in Dublin (I can say that because those areas were white), the problems inherent in these areas were allowed to fester for decades. Much of the criminality in Dublin stemmed from systemic failures to mind the parts of society that were starting to fall off the edge. If the issue doesn't affect those living in Foxrock, Dalkey, Ranelagh or Ballsbridge, from whence most of our most important media personalities, politicians, and businessmen stem, then the issue can safely be ignored.

Wibbs · 12-08-2020 7:42pm

Chips Lovell wrote: »

But what I find interesting is that when you talk about "no go" areas populated by white people, things like crime, generational poverty, and poor public services tend to be cited as the cause. But if the area is home to non-whites, all of a sudden race/ethnicity is cited as the cause.

Not by me anyway C. Those causes you list are most certainly in play, with ethnicity on top which doubles down on the causes. It's far easier for a White person to escape such a background and essentially blend into their new life, someone who looks different and identifiable not nearly so much. And yes this includes the causation/correlation aspect you note. Even after 60 years and a few generations a Black kid is more likely to be followed around by security in shops than a White kid in multicultural nations. Racism? Yep. Causation/correlation? Oh yes, but here we are and as BLM protests throughout the western nations show still very much in play after many generations of diversity and education and integration etc etc.

On race/ethnicity/culture. The uncomfortable truth is some simply do better than others in Western societies. Look around the multicultural societies and consistently you see that on average the East Asian diaspora does better than even the local Whites and way better than the African diaspora. They're on average more educated, better paid, fewer single parents, more community attachments, less criminality, less reliant on social welfare and fewer social problems that spill over into wider society. Even though they quite often keep to themselves and when numbers hit a certain point also tend to hang out together and form enclaves. They're also far less likely to publicly pull the racism card by way of explanation of their lot or deflection from it, even though they're hardly immune to it in Western cultures. This can be evident from even the first generation onwards. Look at the Vietnamese Boat People that fetched up to the US. A nation with hardly a great record of regard for the Yellow man, never mind Vietnamese. Their kids mostly went to college and the parents opened businesses etc and today a couple of generations in are way ahead of many other ethnic groups. The Chinese diaspora are the wealthiest on the planet.

No culture every stops evolving at a certain point of time. London has always been a melting pot. Someone earlier was talking about the disappearance of jellied eels. But Londoners were only really eating them for around 200 years. Things today regarded as quintessentially English, such as tea (India) and gin (Netherlands - and the story of how gin caught on is fascinating) were once non-indigenous imports.

Certainly, but it doesn't require the import of a large number of people. Japan is and most certainly was extremely isolationist to the point of open xenophobia, yet there are all sorts of foreign influences at play in that culture and have been in play for a very long time.

Farage highlighting illegal migration chaos

Comments