Farage highlighting illegal migration chaos

Tell me how

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

So, it seems that there have long been no-go areas in Ireland, and the reason that efforts haven't been made to overcome this issue is because of some form of class bias?

So, if immigrants are congregating in certain areas and taking part in violence, it is nothing new, and the reason action isn't being taken is because of the class issue (i.e. no interest in authorities to put efforts in to correcting this).

If this is the case, then immigrants arriving in Ireland haven't created any new issues which did not already exist, in spite of the protestations here that this was the case.

RandomName2

Tell me how wrote: »

So, if immigrants are congregating in certain areas and taking part in violence, it is nothing new, and the reason action isn't being taken is because of the class issue (i.e. no interest in authorities to put efforts in to correcting this).

If this is the case, then immigrants arriving in Ireland haven't created any new issues which did not already exist, in spite of the protestations here that this was the case.

Not new, but exacerbated in every way.

The barrier to integration with white areas that had become in need of 'regeneration' only really differed from the rest of the population in terms of accents (okay maybe culturally a little, but the difference was very minor). That's a hell of a lot different from different creed, race, language, and customs. This doesn't by any means make the leap insurmountable, but it requires more concentrated effort by the government.

Given that the government has sought to place Direct Provision centers in areas that they deem not to matter (because their electoral footprint and influence is too small to exert any power) augurs poorly for the future. The fact that non-EU immigrants (not on work-visas) are currently ending up on the outskirts of Dublin in the new prebaked Darnsdales of tomorrow should be a warning sign to anybody interested in the matter.

The government certainly could, and should, make more effort in relation to these sort of immigrants. More money should be spent on these areas. Language courses, civic courses, adult education, community engagement should all be readily available.

But I also know that the resources to achieve this are finite. Realistically there is a ceiling in terms of how many people you can spend the time and money integrating in this manner.

When I ask those who are in favor of, say, African migration to Europe through Italy what sort of ceiling they would put on migration numbers, they tend to dodge the question. They are perfectly happy for impoverished ghettos to be generated in European cities. As Bernie Sanders was saying in the video I earlier posted, it benefits humanity little if we just move people from one impoverished situation to another.

splashuum

Nigel with yet another report tonight.

Jamaican National day sees crowds come in the thousands to a small beach town in the UK.
Loud amplified music blaring
(with no Entertainment license)
Mass drug and alcohol use, reports of multiple assaults, and total barbarism. Police standing down in many cases.
Cars clogging up the whole location illegally parked.
Reports of the party go-ers shouting “Black Lives Matter” when they were confronted about the lawlessness.

https://www.facebook.com/133737666673845/posts/3271277526253161/?vh=e

Chips Lovell

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

I don't think that's the case. I think it's only seen as non-palatable once people start to allege that the area is that way because the population is mostly non-white.

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

I guess the point is that people were blaming immigration for changing cultures, but as you point out, cultures change regardless of whether there is immigration or not, so it can't be blamed.

TomTomTim

Chips Lovell wrote: »

.



I guess the point is that people were blaming immigration for changing cultures, but as you point out, cultures change regardless of whether there is immigration or not, so it can't be blamed.

Yes it can. "Change" can be towards negative and towards positive. Mass-immigration has the same negative change everywhere it goes, with little to no examples of success. When it happens time and time again, it becomes obvious that the main variable to blame is multiculturalism itself.

Chips Lovell

TomTomTim wrote: »

Yes it can. "Change" can be towards negative and towards positive. Mass-immigration has the same negative change everywhere it goes, with little to no examples of success. When it happens time and time again, it becomes obvious that the main variable to blame is multiculturalism itself.

There’s a few fairly sweeping statements there. First of all we are not really talking about mass immigration here. Rather a few thousand people a year trying to cross the channel. Secondly if you do want to talk about mass immigration, there are countless examples of success. Wibbs cited a few above, but there’s also the Irish in America, the Poles in Ireland, the Indians in Britain and so on. Finally, both monocultural and multicultural societies have experienced mass immigration. Any perceived issues around integration are not unique to either.

Wibbs

Chips Lovell wrote: »

There’s a few fairly sweeping statements there. First of all we are not really talking about mass immigration here. Rather a few thousand people a year trying to cross the channel.

That's true.

Secondly if you do want to talk about mass immigration, there are countless examples of success.

And countless examples of failure that spans generations and examples that tend to be brushed under the carpet and ignored or such lack of success blamed on the host nations natives, inevitably White.

Wibbs cited a few above, but there’s also the Irish in America, the Poles in Ireland, the Indians in Britain and so on.

The Indian diaspora and the East Asians are the exceptions. In the case of the majority of diasporas the ones that look and act most like the "natives" are the most successful ones. However the successful ones like you note also demonstrate that White racism is not nearly the barrier other diasporas point to as reasons for their lack of success. It's as much if not more down to cultural traits that just don't work or fit in so well with Western culture, traits that too few are willing to question and if they're not questioned how can they be answered?

Finally, both monocultural and multicultural societies have experienced mass immigration. Any perceived issues around integration are not unique to either.

Almost by definition monocultural societies haven't experienced mass immigration. When they do they become multicultural societies by default with their attendant and myriad problems.

And the same questions come up: What are the positives to modern western multicultural societies? Exotic food and colourful summer festivals are not answers. Another is why multiculturalism is exclusively promoted in just one direction? That is towards White Western European cultures. Even the most gung ho for diversity and multiculturalism would be actively loath to suggest that what any Black African culture really needs to improve their lot is more diversity in the shape of more White people, certainly not quasi or fully illegal White migrants. Indeed many would be far quicker in suggesting fewer, legal or no.

I've always had a problem with "Accepted Truths"(tm), because 1) they rarely stay that way for long and 2) if the "Accepted Truth"(tm) involved doesn't stand up to much scrutiny then it's not much of a truth at all and should be questioned more vigorously than it is and the politic and philosophy of multiculturalism is most certainly one of them.

ambro25

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

It's quite ironical that you invoke a scale issue based on the country size relative to other EU member states, whilst 'gliding by' the scale of the immigrant population relative to the native one...then acknowledging this morning the relevance of scale to the volume of asylum seekers crossing the Channel dinghies relative to 'immigration' in general.

Smacks a bit of self-serving selectivity.

And unless you're going to compare the poverty risk stat that I linked, with another relevant to the context of the discussion (UK or RoI) using the same nationals/foreigners split analysis, your jibe about my link falls a bit flat: the point made was simply that the social fracture is as vast in Lux as elsewhere, for just as much of the (whole) resident population as elsewhere. That point stands.

All part and parcel of trying to get you to see past your prejudiced view of that country, to then (eventually) progress onto immigration policy-based points...

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

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...

...but then, it made just as much sense to stop trying early, in view of your vehemence.

Luxembourg is one of the richest per capita nations on Earth. Fact.

That stat, of its own, is meaningless: it doesn't take wealth distribution into account, and is all the more misleading that the population is small.

I refer you back to the top point about the poverty risk stat: 1 in 5 resident is in/at risk of poverty.

It is also one of the smallest. Fact.

And so? Do you think that stops EU and non-EU immigration, short or long-term, or asylum applications somehow?

"Country's so small, it must be full, there's no more room", is that it?

No slums or sink estates of either locals or migrants. Fact.

There's actually a few in and around Esch, mostly populated by Brazilians (linked to the strong Portuguese presence there).

But they are very clean, as sink estates go. Public cleanliness is a national obsession which is quickly assimilated by any immigrant.

Of course, as with any other comparison, it's a relative judgement: one man's slum is another's palace.

Just like e.g. decrepit terraced houses in northern UK would be to Rio Favela's residents or Lebanese Refugee camps' residents.

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.

Really makes you wonder why the Brits voted en masse for Brexit.

RandomName2

ambro25 wrote: »

Smacks a bit of self-serving selectivity.

Your choice of Luxembourg was poor. You chose it based upon half of its population being 'immigrants' but when looking at the figures, the comparable number is more like 6%.

You say that it doesn't have any problems due to immigration as if it proves that no place has issues due to immigration.

Or you could look at Marseille, a city larger than the whole country of Luxembourg, which has significant problems to to immigration.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jun/08/corrupt-dangerous-brutal-poor-marseille-future-france
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/marseille-europes-most-dangerous-place-to-be-young-8166738.html

10000maniacs

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

I had to laugh at Ben n Jerrys this morning.

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




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/

Ben And Jerrys parent company, Unilever have an atrocious human rights record with many of their products. Ben nor Jerry have no place to virtue signal in this debate.

Wibbs

RandomName2 wrote: »

Your choice of Luxembourg was poor.

But by the gods that hasn't stopped the doubling down and flailing all over the place regardless. The talk of "self-serving selectivity" exposes a rich seam of irony considering the woefully inadequate comparison of the relevance and experience of multiculturalism in a nation like Luxembourg and well pretty much any other. I have no idea where his perception of my "vehemence" hails from. Maybe a language barrier thing? I just pointed out why the comparison was a daft one and pretty evidently so.

ExoPolitic

I'd also like to highlight another important factor, the west appears to be taking all the men of prime working age from these countries. And supposedly only the "good ones" flee the problems in their respective countries. How do we expect those countries that are so "bad" to improve whilst we take all the best people from them? If anything it worsens the countries that they come from, leaving just women and children behind to deal with it.

The Unbearables

splashuum wrote: »

Nigel with yet another report tonight.

Jamaican National day sees crowds come in the thousands to a small beach town in the UK.
Loud amplified music blaring
(with no Entertainment license)
Mass drug and alcohol use, reports of multiple assaults, and total barbarism. Police standing down in many cases.
Cars clogging up the whole location illegally parked.
Reports of the party go-ers shouting “Black Lives Matter” when they were confronted about the lawlessness.

https://www.facebook.com/133737666673845/posts/3271277526253161/?vh=e

Nothing to see here move along move along.

Now here's Bob with the sports news....

Chips Lovell

Wibbs wrote: »

And countless examples of failure that spans generations and examples that tend to be brushed under the carpet and ignored or such lack of success blamed on the host nations natives, inevitably White. The Indian diaspora and the East Asians are the exceptions. In the case of the majority of diasporas the ones that look and act most like the "natives" are the most successful ones. However the successful ones like you note also demonstrate that White racism is not nearly the barrier other diasporas point to as reasons for their lack of success.

Wibbs wrote: »

Almost by definition monocultural societies haven't experienced mass immigration. When they do they become multicultural societies by default with their attendant and myriad problems.

I think you're conflating multicultural with multi-ethnic. France for example has had relatively high immigration but is aggressively monocultural. There is very definite idea of what being French is and no matter what race or religion you are you're expected to like it or lump it. The Dutch, as far as I can gather, had gone for the opposite, all cultures are equal kind of approach (but seem be rowing back a bit on that now).

Back to the Brits, I hadn't really copped, but Brexit means that they're no longer part of the Dublin Regulation framework. Oops:

When the Brexit transition period ends in December and, with it, Britain’s right to return incomers to the country where they first claimed asylum, ministers will become even more reliant on France.

The French meanwhile are not only looking for Britain to give it €30 million for enhanced border protection, it seems they're also going to use migration as leverage for a deal on fishing.

kenmm

Chips Lovell wrote: »

The French meanwhile are not only looking for Britain to give it €30 million for enhanced border protection, it seems they're also going to use migration as leverage for a deal on fishing.

(slightly off topic) - but this is why I found it amusing when "guarantees" were given that certain things would not be on the (future) negotiation tables.

It's a negotiation.. EVERYTHING (Chlorinated chicken, migration quotas, fishing rights etc etc) is on the table, that's how leverage works!

RandomName2

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Back to the Brits, I hadn't really copped, but Brexit means that they're no longer part of the Dublin Regulation framework. Oops:

Well it hardly matters if it just being ignored anyway by France. The migrants pass through France, having already been through Spain, Italy, or the Balkans, so it's not like it is being enforced at the moment. If the counter argument is that, at the moment, the migrants haven't formally applied for asylum in France, that still doesn't make any difference from a post-Brexit point of view (because they at the moment aren't being returned to the country that they have either first entered, or first they have applied for asylum in).

The only efforts that France has made to stop migrants from illegally crossing the channel has been through direct petition (and possibly including sweeteners) from the United Kingdom, nothing much to do with the Dublin regulation. The UK isn't in Shengen, so that isn't affected either way.

France doesn't want the migrants, and the migrants don't want France, so either pursuing or following legislation that would entail that they have anything to do with one another would be resisted by both.

Chips Lovell

kenmm wrote: »

(slightly off topic) - but this is why I found it amusing when "guarantees" were given that certain things would not be on the (future) negotiation tables.

It's a negotiation.. EVERYTHING (Chlorinated chicken, migration quotas, fishing rights etc etc) is on the table, that's how leverage works!

And, they are making it a negotiating item despite it being a relatively minor issue. As highlighted in that Economist article I linked to earlier, despite channel crossings doubling to 4,000, they're still a small fraction of overall asylum applications to the UK 36,000. The reason channel crossings are now on the negotiating table is that there's a tabloid s**tstorm over them, not the larger overall number.

"Ministers want to get it off the front page of the Daily Mail,” says David Wood, a former head of immigration enforcement at the Home Office.

RandomName2 wrote: »

If the counter argument is that, at the moment, the migrants haven't formally applied for asylum in France, that still doesn't make any difference from a post-Brexit point of view (because they at the moment aren't being returned to the country that they have either first entered, or first they have applied for asylum in).

The Dublin Regulation is commonly misinterpreted as placing an obligation on asylum seekers to make a claim in the first country they enter. Instead it places an obligation on member states to process an asylum claim if that country is the first country they asylum seeker has made a claim in or has had their fingerprints taken. If a claim is subsequently made in any other member state, that member state can return them to the first member state.

You're right in suggesting it won't make any difference to the people currently entering Britain. They're not interested in France, as you say. However, it will potentially make a difference to the 124,000 people who claim asylum in France annually. If they have their claim rejected they now know they can make a claim in Britain and they won't be entitled to automatically return them back to France.

Wibbs

Chips Lovell wrote: »

And, they are making it a negotiating item despite it being a relatively minor issue. As highlighted in that Economist article I linked to earlier, despite channel crossings doubling to 4,000, they're still a small fraction of overall asylum applications to the UK 36,000. The reason channel crossings are now on the negotiating table is that there's a tabloid s**tstorm over them, not the larger overall number.

Well as we saw with Brexit a large chunk of the voting bloc didn't seem to quite understand the immigration question, if it was one that concerned them. Mainly because those against "open borders!!" and "immigrants" didn't seem to cop on that the majority were coming from ex British colonies, not the ones coming via the EU. Leaving the EU will do nada on that score.

splashuum

Latest post by Nigel sees men In a dinghy get escorted to land in Dover. The video shows a man with a mobile phone grinning at the camera. That same man is now on the run as he is the suspected human trafficker. This is the 10th day in a row migrants have been escorted.

https://www.facebook.com/133737666673845/posts/3276160819098165/?vh=e&d=n

ancapailldorcha

Wibbs wrote: »

Well as we saw with Brexit a large chunk of the voting bloc didn't seem to quite understand the immigration question, if it was one that concerned them. Mainly because those against "open borders!!" and "immigrants" didn't seem to cop on that the majority were coming from ex British colonies, not the ones coming via the EU. Leaving the EU will do nada on that score.

As far as I can tell, "don't" would need to replace "didn't" here. I've seen very little by way of recognition the difference between migration from EU countries and those beyond the EU.

Apparently, last year was a record for non-EU immigration to the UK. This is, was and has always been within the remit of the British government of the day.

1800_Ladladlad

I honestly dont know how people find this acceptable.

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1294235344926380033

splashuum

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

I honestly dont know how people find this acceptable.

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1294235344926380033

Think of the poor children...

Tell me how

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

I honestly dont know how people find this acceptable.

Find what acceptable? Identifying someone on Twitter as a people trafficker with no evidence?

This guy could be anyone, could be a fisherman on shore for a few hours or whatever.

How would you feel if you were walking past a playground and a pciture was taken of you and put on Twitter with the suggestion you were spying on children?

Farage knows what he is doing here. If he is really concerned, he'd be showing images of police arresting someone who they have reasonable cause to believe they committed an offence. Farage is simply stoking the fire.

splashuum

Tell me how wrote: »

Find what acceptable? Identifying someone on Twitter as a people trafficker with no evidence?

This guy could be anyone, could be a fisherman on shore for a few hours or whatever.

How would you feel if you were walking past a playground and a pciture was taken of you and put on Twitter with the suggestion you were spying on children?

Farage knows what he is doing here. If he is really concerned, he'd be showing images of police arresting someone who they have reasonable cause to believe they committed an offence. Farage is simply stoking the fire.

Are you really sticking up for a human trafficker ?
Wow

Tell me how

splashuum wrote: »

Are you really sticking up for a human trafficker ?
Wow

Do you know this is really a human trafficker?

How?

splashuum

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you know this is really a human trafficker?

How?

The men on the dinghy identified him as the trafficker and is apparently known within the trafficking circles. Do you believe he should now be let roam free in the UK?

Tell me how

splashuum wrote: »

The men on the dinghy identified him as the trafficker and is apparently known within the trafficking circles. Do you believe he should now be let roam free in the UK?

According to Farage.............

stinkypinky

Tell me how wrote: »

According to Farage.............

The most influential man in the UK politically given what he's achieved in recent years - you think saying his name is some sort of insult solely because you disagree politically...

Sad.

splashuum

Tell me how wrote: »

According to Farage.............

You ignored the question. Do you believe this man should be allowed roam free?

Tell me how

splashuum wrote: »

You ignored the question. Do you believe this man should be allowed roam free?

What sort of nonsense is this, if I say Yes, you'll say 'OMG, this snowflake liberal supports people trafficking'. If I say no, ' you'll say 'So you agree he's a people trafficker'.

What I believe is that I don't know that that person is a people trafficker. And neither do you.

And just to prevent the freak out anyway, let me confirm that all people traffickers should be arrested, charged and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.