Migration Megathread

Sand · 20-06-2018 07:04PM

Thomas_IV wrote: »

I neither said that nor meant it. It is precisely what I wrote in my post with reference to the radicalism that comes from this Religion in our time. More so than in the past, although it has always been there. Just like the other radical political movements which were rather small and unimportant in due to political crisis they have gained more support in recent years.

In fact, I am very indifferent to Islam as I am to all the other religions as long as they stay peaceful. But I am against any sort of radicalism whether it is religious or political because they are all a threat to individualism, human rights and freedom. Again, if humanism would achieve to get rid of all the radical ideologies, I would very much welcome it. That is my stance.

I'll leave you to sort out the cognitive dissonance going on there.

weisses wrote: »

Conclusion from your link

Pre 95 arrivals ... Doing as well as natives

Arrivals after 99, net contributors

your welcome

You are misreading the report, but that's understandable. It is designed to be misinterpreted.

See 1.1.2 of the report. There are two entirely different data sets. 95-2011 is the evaluation of the entire immigrant population (16-OAPs) of the UK during those years. The 2000-11 data set only counts the immigrants who arrived in those years. So that data set only considers the youngest cohort, most likely to be in employment and removes the ageing and aged immigrants who are more likely to draw on social welfare. Its a picked dataset to get the most positive result possible by removing older immigrants.

It is worth noting the 'native' dataset the report measures this picked dataset against is the entire 16-OAP group, including older natives more likely to be drawing on welfare and less likely to be working. All the figures comparing this dataset to be the natives has to be understood in the context that they are comparing 16-30 year old immigrants vs. 60 year old natives. And still, native labour participation of 0.7 is far higher than 2000-11 non-EEA immigrant labour participation of just 0.52.

The 95-2011 dataset gives the true picture as it accounts for the entire lifecycle of immigrants. And it is a net loss, not a benefit, to the economy.

And you have to further understand what is meant by 'native' in the meaning of the report. It is anyone who was born in the UK, including 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants who the report admits are invisible in the data. Why is this important? Because BAME British are twice as likely to be unemployed as white/indigenous British. Were those costs attached to immigration, the cost of non-EU migration would be even more stark. Instead they are assigned to natives to close the gap.

laoch na mona wrote: »

Who are these open border advocates? the EU is called fortress Europe for a reason, and the EU policy in the Mediterranean along with the massive increase in spending on Frontex suggest that EU borders are getting even tighter.

Literally no party (beyond some micro left groups) advocate open borders

Oh please. Lets look at those who meme about Fortress Europe. Then lets look at the operators of NGO vessels such as the MV Aquarius which is busily trafficking people from Libya. Then lets look at advocates such as Peter Sutherland, or Gary Younge who gets a platform in the Guardian to call for an end to Europes borders.

And of course, we need only look at the people who furiously oppose and denounce any measures to end literally millions of people illegally entering Europe. When they argue for legitimising illegal migration, what are they arguing against if not an enforced and controlled border?

Sand · 20-06-2018 07:27PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So choosing only male, non-skilled, third world migrants? I would suggest these people come for a better life. If they were skilled and set up where they were they wouldn't be coming. I'd also suggest quality of life, a driving factor for migrating, would play into no access to learning skills. So you are left in possibly a war torn region and/or a poor society with no prospects, I'd leave too.

Yes, that is all their motivation. You haven't actually been able to explain why it is in Europeans interests to let them in though.

You brought Muslims into the mix and now you are trying to claim it's just about all immigrants, but also Muslims.

I really didn't. Look at my first post on this thread. I corrected some erroneous criticism, and if I brought anything into the mix it was the US experience of rapid demographic change from migration.

You're obsessed with Muslims, I merely see them as part of the wider problem.

But it's not about them, right? I've answered this, no, I don't think the world would be worse off without religion.

Look, again, I will leave you to sort out that cognitive dissonance. I've made my own views clear.

I disagree with your sentiments regarding Muslims and other immigrants. We should take in as many as we can.

So, an open door policy to our brothers and sisters.

How much is "full" in your book. There is a population of 550 million or so in Europe. Africa's population is going to be 2.4 to 2.5 billion in 2050. How many of those can we take in?

This does not mean we look down on them or vet them based only on what they can give to us.

Again, you've no consideration for Europeans own interests.

You prefer dumb immigrants who go walking through their village and due to a series of events beyond their control end up stumbling into a country? Of course anyone immigrating has a plan, what's so wrong with that?

I'd prefer they stayed in their village and contributed to the development of that village.

I'm commenting that the west is often why these people need to leave and move elsewhere, that's just a reality. So if they come here, in many cases we brought it on ourselves. If it's inconvenient, that's unfortunate.

No, not in Europeans interests and politicians have no right to harm future generations due to their guilt about imagined or perceived wrongs. Two wrongs does not make a right.

I've no guilt.

Yes, you do. See above.

See 'The Great Irish Famine'.

Who entered which country illegally?

It's about decency. Some people are only precious about their border because they are concerned about self interest. We have a habit of putting people into groups so we can distance ourselves be it our own homeless, sick, unemployed or immigrants.

Europeans do have legitimate interests, and its very reasonable to expect that their government represent their interests. Not the interests of non-Europeans.

I'd like to thank you for your honesty though Matt. You are demonstrating a complete disregard for Europeans own interests, and while you probably cant see it, that is demonstrative. It explains why European voters are increasingly abandoning centre right/centre left parties which are in thrall to views like your own. Europes voters have not been radicalised. They still expect conventional things like their borders being protected and their existence as a people being acknowledged. It is the European political/media class has been radicalised, abandoning reality and losing support as a result.

James Brown · 20-06-2018 08:40PM

Sand wrote: »

Yes, that is all their motivation. You haven't actually been able to explain why it is in Europeans interests to let them in though.

I really didn't. Look at my first post on this thread. I corrected some erroneous criticism, and if I brought anything into the mix it was the US experience of rapid demographic change from migration.

You're obsessed with Muslims, I merely see them as part of the wider problem.

Look, again, I will leave you to sort out that cognitive dissonance. I've made my own views clear.

So, an open door policy to our brothers and sisters.

How much is "full" in your book. There is a population of 550 million or so in Europe. Africa's population is going to be 2.4 to 2.5 billion in 2050. How many of those can we take in?

Again, you've no consideration for Europeans own interests.

I'd prefer they stayed in their village and contributed to the development of that village.

No, not in Europeans interests and politicians have no right to harm future generations due to their guilt about imagined or perceived wrongs. Two wrongs does not make a right.

Yes, you do. See above.

Who entered which country illegally?

Europeans do have legitimate interests, and its very reasonable to expect that their government represent their interests. Not the interests of non-Europeans.

I'd like to thank you for your honesty though Matt. You are demonstrating a complete disregard for Europeans own interests, and while you probably cant see it, that is demonstrative. It explains why European voters are increasingly abandoning centre right/centre left parties which are in thrall to views like your own. Europes voters have not been radicalised. They still expect conventional things like their borders being protected and their existence as a people being acknowledged. It is the European political/media class has been radicalised, abandoning reality and losing support as a result.

I'll keep it short. I don't expect a person fleeing tyranny to have to offer me something for me to help them out.
I'm not the one brought Muslim into the conversation, it was the OP, thread title and you.
In my experience the financial cartels that run Europe aren't overly concerned if the peons are home grown or imported. I've more in common with a working class Indian than I do some of the European leading lights.
You need to relax and understand people moving around the globe is what happens all the time in varying numbers from time to time. How you view Europe and what ever it is you value so much you are worried about losing, wasn't always the way it was and won't always be, you'll need get over that reality. We can only endevour to be decent people and treat each other decently.
We should treat people on a case by case basis and leave the hyperbole and scaremongering to Murdoch and the like trying to shill an agenda under the guise of 'news'.

Sand · 20-06-2018 10:11PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'll keep it short. I don't expect a person fleeing tyranny to have to offer me something for me to help them out.
I'm not the one brought Muslim into the conversation, it was the OP, thread title and you.
In my experience the financial cartels that run Europe aren't overly concerned if the peons are home grown or imported. I've more in common with a working class Indian than I do some of the European leading lights.
You need to relax and understand people moving around the globe is what happens all the time in varying numbers from time to time. How you view Europe and what ever it is you value so much you are worried about losing, wasn't always the way it was and won't always be, you'll need get over that reality. We can only endevour to be decent people and treat each other decently.
We should treat people on a case by case basis and leave the hyperbole and scaremongering to Murdoch and the like trying to shill an agenda under the guise of 'news'.

Thanks Matt. The reality is European people do not share your dream. They prioritise their future. That's why you are seeing Orban, Kurz and Salvini being elected. Why Merkel is struggling to hold power. Why a 'centrist' like Macron must introduce harsh legislation against illegal migrants. You may be disinterested in Europe's future, but the voters in Europe are very interested.

In case anyone still disbelieves there are advocates of open borders, I refer you to the above.

BabyCheeses · 21-06-2018 01:39AM

Mutant z wrote: »

Now is the time to shut the borders because someway down the line it will be all too late to do anything about it like in the UK.

The OP says it is already too late. You're going to have to train that pony a second trick.

weisses · 21-06-2018 09:54AM

Sand wrote: »

You are misreading the report, but that's understandable. It is designed to be misinterpreted.

Im quoting directly from the conclusion of the report

Here another part of your report ...

We perform extensive sensitivity analysis, which does not alter our main conclusions: immigration to the UK since 2000 has been of substantial net fiscal benefit, with immigrants contributing more than they have received in benefits and transfers. When we additionally consider the savings to the UK taxpayer from immigrants bringing their own educational qualifications whose costs are borne by other countries and contributing to financing fixed public services, these savings are even larger

And keep in mind that I am using the shortage of people in the NHS as an example

Using your report you can only conclude that even when all the positions being filled with non EU migrants it would not have a negative fiscal impact on the UK

It is simply impossible, they pay taxes, they are contributing.

Simple question: How can an immigrant working in the UK have a negative impact on its fiscal system ?

James Brown · 21-06-2018 03:35PM

Sand wrote: »

Thanks Matt. The reality is European people do not share your dream. They prioritise their future. That's why you are seeing Orban, Kurz and Salvini being elected. Why Merkel is struggling to hold power. Why a 'centrist' like Macron must introduce harsh legislation against illegal migrants. You may be disinterested in Europe's future, but the voters in Europe are very interested.

In case anyone still disbelieves there are advocates of open borders, I refer you to the above.

Being decent isn't a dream, it's something most people aspire to being.
The right are puppets of corporations, on varying scales. Maybe an immigrant will come over and start a business and employ Irish people? The U.S. was made on unskilled/skilled immigrants, (and slavery) stirring the pot. We cannot become insulated because the right wing press are using immigrants as deflection. Of all the disasters to happen to Ireland and the financial world, the tough times and recessions, they were caused in the most part by the people scaremongering about immigrants. It's deflection.
Unskilled workers will effect unskilled home grown workers if not kept in check. So a case by case is how to go about it. You cannot close the borders. It's not healthy. You are scaremongering. Your entire premise is against something I'm not saying. I've repeatedly said vet on a case by case basis and here you are repeating falsehoods to try drive home a false argument.
You claim to be reasoned and against an open door policy, yet that's not far enough for you, you want to create a frenzy. Well we don't do 'frenzy' in Ireland, thankfully. We're, for the most part, caring decent people.

laoch na mona · 21-06-2018 03:40PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

the relatively high rate of people refusing to go on HAP that are in emergency accommodation - that just shouldn't be allowed!

getting landlords to take HAP is a nightmare at times and it effects your position on the housing list so there are reasons for that

Sand · 22-06-2018 06:42PM

weisses wrote: »

Im quoting directly from the conclusion of the report

Yes, and the conclusion of the report is that non-EU/EEA migrants have been a cost, not a benefit to the UK economy. That's even including American, Australian, Canadian, Kiwi etc migrants who would have similar (or better) education and skill levels to the EU migrants.

Here another part of your report ...

You see how they use the word "immigration" there. So if you take the gain of EU migrants, they offset the loss of non-EU migrants. That doesn't suddenly mean non-EU migrants are a gain. They are still a loss.

And keep in mind that I am using the shortage of people in the NHS as an example

But I asked you to evidence that non-EU migration is not a cost. Something you have failed to do. And I know you cant evidence it.

Using your report you can only conclude that even when all the positions being filled with non EU migrants it would not have a negative fiscal impact on the UK

That's the opposite of what the report says. Indeed, given the non EU migrant labour participation rate of just 0.52 you would need to bring over two migrants for every NHS position so that at least one of them would do the job.

It is simply impossible, they pay taxes, they are contributing.

Simple question: How can an immigrant working in the UK have a negative impact on its fiscal system ?

Because the immigrants pension has to be funded. Their housing has to be provided, infrastructure implemented, commuting subsidised. The increased costs for immigrant communities in education, community relations, policing, anti-terrorism, social problems all have to be funded. Not to mention that migrants will take billions *out* of the UK economy, sending it back to their families in the old country. In 2011 this was done to the tune of 3.2 billion USD from the UK alone. If a native was working in the UK, that money would almost entirely spent in the UK, funding more UK businesses and jobs. Instead if funds non-European workers.

And lets face it, you are trying to cherrypick. You are trying to find the hardest working migrant, who works the best job, pays the most tax, donates their time to helping children and then say "This is true for all non-EU migrants".

But its not the case, the report I linked evaluated the entirety of the 1st generation immigrant population. All of them, and as a whole they are a loss. Not a benefit. The UK's economic situation would be better if they had not pursued a policy of mass migration.

And that is just purely on economic grounds, before we consider the negative impacts of rapid demographic change to European peoples and the destruction of their communities.

There is a very simple takeaway here. Mass migration is not in the interests of the various European peoples. It is a bad policy. It should be ended.

Sand · 22-06-2018 07:02PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Being decent isn't a dream, it's something most people aspire to being.

Not at the expense of their own future and the future of their children. Someone who disregards the interests of their family is not seen as a good person. They're seen as a deadbeat.

The right are puppets of corporations, on varying scales.

On immigration, both the left and the right are puppet of corporations. I think its remarkable that the left has devolved to such an extent that their open border advocates are in such perfect alignment with the optimal employment and migration policies for corporations.

Weather you realise it or not, your views are extraordinarily informed by neoliberalism.

You are scaremongering. Your entire premise is against something I'm not saying. I've repeatedly said vet on a case by case basis and here you are repeating falsehoods to try drive home a false argument.
You claim to be reasoned and against an open door policy, yet that's not far enough for you, you want to create a frenzy. Well we don't do 'frenzy' in Ireland, thankfully. We're, for the most part, caring decent people.

I haven't claimed to be reasoned. If you perceive me as reasoned, its because I advocate a reasonable position and evidence my positions.

You're advocating for an dreamlike open borders utopia. How is your case-by-case vetting going to hold up when Africa's population grows to 2.5 billion in the next 30 years and even a minority wish to reach Europe? Will you really harden your heart to the tears and weeping and send them back?

We both know you wont. You don't care about the legitimate interests of Europeans. That why European voters are turning to people like Orban, Kurz and Salvini rather than people like yourself.

James Brown · 22-06-2018 08:17PM

Sand wrote: »

Not at the expense of their own future and the future of their children. Someone who disregards the interests of their family is not seen as a good person. They're seen as a deadbeat.

On immigration, both the left and the right are puppet of corporations. I think its remarkable that the left has devolved to such an extent that their open border advocates are in such perfect alignment with the optimal employment and migration policies for corporations.

Weather you realise it or not, your views are extraordinarily informed by neoliberalism.

I haven't claimed to be reasoned. If you perceive me as reasoned, its because I advocate a reasonable position and evidence my positions.

You're advocating for an dreamlike open borders utopia. How is your case-by-case vetting going to hold up when Africa's population grows to 2.5 billion in the next 30 years and even a minority wish to reach Europe? Will you really harden your heart to the tears and weeping and send them back?

We both know you wont. You don't care about the legitimate interests of Europeans. That why European voters are turning to people like Orban, Kurz and Salvini rather than people like yourself.

You insist I want open boards. I keep saying I don't. Your first comment above suggests you are not listening.
Corporations want cheap labour and don't care who supplies it.
Policy that favours corporations over the tax payer causes problems, so it's nice to have a scapegoat, be it the poor, sick or foreign, anyone can be pointed at as causing strife. It's complex. The idea that the entire left are on song about the details of anything flies in the face of political reality.
Finally, a case by case issue not an open door issue.
I'm a European, I care, but I'm not going to automatically treat every immigrant like a threat to my way of life until I vet them individually and decide.

Sand · 22-06-2018 08:38PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You insist I want open boards. I keep saying I don't. Your first comment above suggests you are not listening.
Corporations want cheap labour and don't care who supplies it.
Policy that favours corporations over the tax payer causes problems, so it's nice to have a scapegoat, be it the poor, sick or foreign, anyone can be pointed at as causing strife. It's complex. The idea that the entire left are on song about the details of anything flies in the face of political reality.
Finally, a case by case issue not an open door issue.
I'm a European, I care, but I'm not going to automatically treat every immigrant like a threat to my way of life until I vet them individually and decide.

You keep dodging the reality that Africa's population is going to be 2.4 billion by 2050 and they are going to want to come to Europe. You keep dodging it, because the reality is you wont turn them away. Hence you want open borders. "Case by case" vetting cant even keep up with the million that entered in 2015, let alone when the figure is millions every year.

And you are right, corporations want cheap labour and you want open borders to supply it. You attack those who want an end to mass migration that might cut off the supply of cheap labour. You are perfectly aligned with corporate/neoliberal interests.

And you clearly don't care about European interests. Look back through your posts. You focus entirely on the interests of non-Europeans. If you were concerned about the interests of Europeans, you wouldn't be attacking me. You would be agreeing with me that mass migration has to end.

laoch na mona · 25-06-2018 04:07PM

Sand wrote: »

You keep dodging the reality that Africa's population is going to be 2.4 billion by 2050 and they are going to want to come to Europe.

Not necessarily, in an Ideal world we would change our economic policies globally so that Africa no longer suffers from negative terms of trade.

People leave to flee violence and poverty so we just need to solve the violence and the poverty.

For what its worth plenty of those Africans are Christian so are they welcome?

Zubeneschamali · 25-06-2018 04:20PM

Sand wrote: »

You keep dodging the reality that Africa's population is going to be 2.4 billion by 2050 and they are going to want to come to Europe.

What, all of them?

James Brown · 25-06-2018 04:21PM

Sand wrote: »

You keep dodging the reality that Africa's population is going to be 2.4 billion by 2050 and they are going to want to come to Europe. You keep dodging it, because the reality is you wont turn them away. Hence you want open borders. "Case by case" vetting cant even keep up with the million that entered in 2015, let alone when the figure is millions every year.

And you are right, corporations want cheap labour and you want open borders to supply it. You attack those who want an end to mass migration that might cut off the supply of cheap labour. You are perfectly aligned with corporate/neoliberal interests.

And you clearly don't care about European interests. Look back through your posts. You focus entirely on the interests of non-Europeans. If you were concerned about the interests of Europeans, you wouldn't be attacking me. You would be agreeing with me that mass migration has to end.

You are contradicting yourself, I want an open border, will let all these Africans in, but I also want to vet them on a case by case? At least you're are hearing the 'case by case' part now.
We should end mass migration, but the corporations who cause it won't take a cut in profits and our governments aren't going to force any changes in that department. As long as nations are private profit led we'll have mass migration. Building a wall as it where won't solve this and isn't practical.
No, I have not been focusing entirely on people from outside Europe, mostly, but because it's a thread about immigrants. It's about people. We should be focusing on need and our ability or inability to meet those needs.
What's your suggestion, no immigrants and leave it there?
Immigrants are a symptom of a problem we merrily take part in creating.

weisses · 25-06-2018 04:25PM

Sand wrote: »

But I asked you to evidence that non-EU migration is not a cost. Something you have failed to do. And I know you cant evidence it.

Non EU immigrants who come to the UK to work are contributing and are not costing the UK ... Its simple economics really ...

I will again point out to a conclusion from the report you posted

With respect to the recently arrived immigrant populations, those who came to the UK after 1999, our analysis suggests that – rather than being a drain on the UK’s fiscal system – they have made substantial net contributions to its public finances, a reality that contrasts starkly with the view often maintained in public debate

The evidence is in the report you provided

Migrants are needed

https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/news/articles/employers-braced-uk-non-eu-migration-cap

Sand · 25-06-2018 10:54PM

laoch na mona wrote: »

Not necessarily, in an Ideal world we would change our economic policies globally so that Africa no longer suffers from negative terms of trade.

People leave to flee violence and poverty so we just need to solve the violence and the poverty.

Who is this we? Surely Africans and African governments are perfectly able to represent their own interests?

All 'we' have to do is represent our own interests.

For what its worth plenty of those Africans are Christian so are they welcome?

I've already pointed out that the problems of mass migration are not limited to Islam. So no.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What, all of them?

That is clearly a stupid thing to thing to say. Stephen Smith, author of 'The Rush to Europe' and quoted by Macron, estimates that by 2050 the African population of Europe will have grown from 9 million to between 150-200 million. I think that is alarmist myself, but if Matt Barrett is guarding the borders I suppose anything is possible.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You are contradicting yourself, I want an open border, will let all these Africans in, but I also want to vet them on a case by case? At least you're are hearing the 'case by case' part now.

You misunderstand. You *think* you want to vet them on a case by case basis, and you proclaim it as a serious solution. I accept you might actually believe this. But I view your claim in the same cynical way we were told in 2015 that migrants then would be vetted in a case by case fashion. As it is, in 2017, 10,000 Afghans were determined to not be refugees, and were to be deported. Germany deported 261 of them in the first half of 2017. At that rate, it will take 20 years to deport them. The reality is most of them will never be deported. "Case by case" indeed.

When I refer to your usage of "case by case" I'm not accepting it as a valid solution. Your "case by case" is just an open border in reality.

Building a wall as it where won't solve this and isn't practical

Building a wall actually does solve illegal entry. Look at the experience of Hungary. The dogged determination of the Democrats to resist a wall on the Mexican border is because the Democrats know it will work.

No, I have not been focusing entirely on people from outside Europe, mostly, but because it's a thread about immigrants. It's about people. We should be focusing on need and our ability or inability to meet those needs.

We should be focusing on our needs, and our ability to meet those needs. Centrist politicians have lost support throughout Europe because they have lost focus on what is important to their voters.

What's your suggestion, no immigrants and leave it there?

Of course there has to be immigration. There is an option between 0 migration and importing a million non-EU migrants into the UK every 2-3 years.

Immigrants are a symptom of a problem we merrily take part in creating.

Again, who is this 'we'?

To the extent that a problem is created, its Merkel and people like yourself promising reward to those who hand themselves over to criminal networks to illegally enter Europe. You see the most direct results of this when people drown making the last leg of the crossing. Something must be done, right?

But you don't see the savagery, misery and deaths that occur before those migrants you encourage even reach the Libyan coast. There is literally a modern slave trade occurring in Libya. And you continue to encourage more to try their luck making the crossing. If you genuinely want to help people, make it extremely clear they cannot enter Europe illegally and they will stop handing themselves over to criminal networks.

weisses wrote: »

Non EU immigrants who come to the UK to work are contributing and are not costing the UK ... Its simple economics really ...

Yes, very simple. The study I have shown you demonstrates non EU immigrants cost the UK.

I think its clear my views are based on evidence and studies. Your views are based on assertions and denial of inconvenient truth. In your own way, you're like an Empire 2.0 Brexiteer.

I will again point out to a conclusion from the report you posted

The evidence is in the report you provided

And again, I point out to you that the usage of the word immigrants is political camouflage. It offsets the gain of EU migrants vs the loss of non-EU migrants. Non-EU migrants are still a loss.

Migrants are needed

By who? Corporate HR? Isn't it amusing how the progressive left and the corporate right are so perfectly aligned these days? If they cant import cheap labour from abroad they may have to train and hire domestically. What a tragedy for labour.

AfterLife · 26-06-2018 10:37AM

Sand wrote: »

Who is this we?

I'm sure the poster means "we" as in the West. Like it or not but after years of empire and colonialism France and Britain have a massive responsibility to try and right the ills of their recent past.

Sand wrote: »

You misunderstand. You *think* you want to vet them on a case by case basis, and you proclaim it as a serious solution. I accept you might actually believe this. But I view your claim in the same cynical way we were told in 2015 that migrants then would be vetted in a case by case fashion. As it is, in 2017, 10,000 Afghans were determined to not be refugees, and were to be deported. Germany deported 261 of them in the first half of 2017. At that rate, it will take 20 years to deport them. The reality is most of them will never be deported.

Are you really ****ting the bed over 10,000 people. That's a quarter of the population of Longford spread throughout Europe. Get a grip man.

"Sand wrote: »

Of course there has to be immigration. There is an option between 0 migration and importing a million non-EU migrants into the UK every 2-3 years.

The UK wanted immigration and multiculturalism when they invaded half the world. What's the problem now?

weisses · 26-06-2018 10:41AM

Sand wrote: »

Yes, very simple. The study I have shown you demonstrates non EU immigrants cost the UK.

Okay ... then quote the part from the conclusion that support your claim that immigrants are costing money to the UK

Sand wrote: »

I think its clear my views are based on evidence and studies. Your views are based on assertions and denial of inconvenient truth. In your own way, you're like an Empire 2.0 Brexiteer.

Incorrect ... I clearly showed using your report that immigrants have a positive effect on the UK fiscal system .. That is far from asserting and denying

Your views are based on not being able to read and interpret the report properly, as I showed you by directly quoting from it

Sand wrote: »

And again, I point out to you that the usage of the word immigrants is political camouflage. It offsets the gain of EU migrants vs the loss of non-EU migrants. Non-EU migrants are still a loss.

What word can i use other then Immigrant ? enlighten me

Sand wrote: »

By who? Corporate HR? Isn't it amusing how the progressive left and the corporate right are so perfectly aligned these days? If they cant import cheap labour from abroad they may have to train and hire domestically. What a tragedy for labour.

Skilled labor my friend ... Much needed, Fact

FT

The sharp increase in demand for skilled non-EU workers has come as net immigration from the EU has fallen dramatically since the 2016 Brexit referendum.

https://www.ft.com/content/f9cea29e-05e8-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5

laoch na mona · 26-06-2018 11:42AM

Sand wrote: »

Who is this we? Surely Africans and African governments are perfectly able to represent their own interests?

All 'we' have to do is represent our own interests.

Humanity as a collective, more specifically the 'west' the rich countries and the comprador classes in Africa and Asia who directly contribute to causing migration through unfair trading practices that benefit the west, alongside a healty does of neo imperialism and military intervention

As you say we should care about our interests, its not in our interest to create the conditions which force people to leave their homes.

Libya is a perfect example, a few years ago it was a relatively well off country and a source of employment for migrants from other parts of north Africa, then France and the UK get involved (with no protest from the rest of Europe) and now its got a slave trade and several warring factions.

more broadly the reason so many Africans used to go to Libya was because they're countries are much poorer while rich countries benefit from their resources

James Brown · 26-06-2018 02:38PM

Sand wrote: »

Who is this we? Surely Africans and African governments are perfectly able to represent their own interests?

All 'we' have to do is represent our own interests.

I've already pointed out that the problems of mass migration are not limited to Islam. So no.

That is clearly a stupid thing to thing to say. Stephen Smith, author of 'The Rush to Europe' and quoted by Macron, estimates that by 2050 the African population of Europe will have grown from 9 million to between 150-200 million. I think that is alarmist myself, but if Matt Barrett is guarding the borders I suppose anything is possible.

You misunderstand. You *think* you want to vet them on a case by case basis, and you proclaim it as a serious solution. I accept you might actually believe this. But I view your claim in the same cynical way we were told in 2015 that migrants then would be vetted in a case by case fashion. As it is, in 2017, 10,000 Afghans were determined to not be refugees, and were to be deported. Germany deported 261 of them in the first half of 2017. At that rate, it will take 20 years to deport them. The reality is most of them will never be deported. "Case by case" indeed.

When I refer to your usage of "case by case" I'm not accepting it as a valid solution. Your "case by case" is just an open border in reality.

Building a wall actually does solve illegal entry. Look at the experience of Hungary. The dogged determination of the Democrats to resist a wall on the Mexican border is because the Democrats know it will work.

We should be focusing on our needs, and our ability to meet those needs. Centrist politicians have lost support throughout Europe because they have lost focus on what is important to their voters.

Of course there has to be immigration. There is an option between 0 migration and importing a million non-EU migrants into the UK every 2-3 years.

Again, who is this 'we'?

To the extent that a problem is created, its Merkel and people like yourself promising reward to those who hand themselves over to criminal networks to illegally enter Europe. You see the most direct results of this when people drown making the last leg of the crossing. Something must be done, right?

But you don't see the savagery, misery and deaths that occur before those migrants you encourage even reach the Libyan coast. There is literally a modern slave trade occurring in Libya. And you continue to encourage more to try their luck making the crossing. If you genuinely want to help people, make it extremely clear they cannot enter Europe illegally and they will stop handing themselves over to criminal networks.

Yes, very simple. The study I have shown you demonstrates non EU immigrants cost the UK.

I think its clear my views are based on evidence and studies. Your views are based on assertions and denial of inconvenient truth. In your own way, you're like an Empire 2.0 Brexiteer.

And again, I point out to you that the usage of the word immigrants is political camouflage. It offsets the gain of EU migrants vs the loss of non-EU migrants. Non-EU migrants are still a loss.

By who? Corporate HR? Isn't it amusing how the progressive left and the corporate right are so perfectly aligned these days? If they cant import cheap labour from abroad they may have to train and hire domestically. What a tragedy for labour.

See you should really let a chap know if you're working from your own dictionary or making up what terms mean to you.
So open border or closed border, that's it?
'We' is 'us', The people in the countries were people are coming to.
Look, if someone is seeing neigbours shot, neighbourhoods bombed etc. and they want to come to Europe for a better life, they should be commended and helped. Now here's where I'd say on a 'case by case' basis. But you left me without that option....surely we can enforce or better police it rather than just have all them come in or none at all?
What is your solution?

Chips Lovell · 26-06-2018 02:55PM

Some posts deleted. If you want to post conspiracy theories, please use the appropriate forum.

Thank you.

Sand · 26-06-2018 09:54PM

AfterLife wrote: »

I'm sure the poster means "we" as in the West. Like it or not but after years of empire and colonialism France and Britain have a massive responsibility to try and right the ills of their recent past.

So you're British or French?

Define the 'the West' for me. Are the Japanese the west? Are the Chinese the west? Are the Indians the west? Are the Turks the west? Are the Egyptians the west? Are Malians the west?

Are you really ****ting the bed over 10,000 people. That's a quarter of the population of Longford spread throughout Europe. Get a grip man.

No, I am clearly not concerned by just 10,000 people. That is clearly a stupid thing to say.

The UK wanted immigration and multiculturalism when they invaded half the world. What's the problem now?

So you consider the British Empire and colonialism to simply have been a variation of immigration and multiculturalism?

So the British simply brought the benefits of diversity to the aboriginal Australians? That is your belief? Scuttle back under your bridge.

weisses wrote: »

Okay ... then quote the part from the conclusion that support your claim that immigrants are costing money to the UK

To understand a 51 page report you might have to extend yourself beyond skipping down to the conclusion. Go to 4.2.1 "Our estimates for the overall immigrant population residing in the UK between 1995 and 2011 show that...those from non-EEA countries made a negative contribution of £118 billion"

Incorrect ... I clearly showed using your report that immigrants have a positive effect on the UK fiscal system .. That is far from asserting and denying

You are in full denial of reality. I asked you to demonstrate that non-EU migrants were not a cost to the UK. You now refuse to even mention non-EU migrants, and only refer to immigrants as a whole. You think this denial is not transparent. We all know the truth. You are moving the goal posts, because you know the reality is non-EU migrants are a cost. You're laughable denial is in itself a concession.

Your views are based on not being able to read and interpret the report properly, as I showed you by directly quoting from it

I read the report. You read the conclusion and tried to move the goalposts. Real Empire 2.0 Brexiteer level nonsense.

What word can i use other then Immigrant ? enlighten me

Lets try the term I used: non-EU migrant.

Skilled labor my friend ... Much needed, Fact

The link you provided in your earlier post indicated the average salary necessary to qualify for a visa has increased from £30,000 to £55,000.

£30,000 is barely above the average UK wage of £28,000. The non-EU migrants being brought into the UK were not a League of Extraordinary Gentlemen worth paying top salaris for. They were simply cheap/average labour, exactly the same purpose as the H1-B visa serves in the US.

The situation you decry so much might actually serve to ensure that immigrant workers actually are skilled specialists rather than simply cheap labour for corporate HR.

laoch na mona wrote: »

Humanity as a collective, more specifically the 'west' the rich countries and the comprador classes in Africa and Asia who directly contribute to causing migration through unfair trading practices that benefit the west, alongside a healty does of neo imperialism and military intervention

Again, who is this 'west'?

Don't you believe that the challenges Africans and Asians face are primarily, indeed almost totally, caused by Africans and Asians including their own governments?

Ironically enough, there are European people out there which blame *their* problems on Africans and Asians. There are English people who blame *their* problems on the EU. Is the irony of your cognitive dissonance lost on you?

As you say we should care about our interests, its not in our interest to create the conditions which force people to leave their homes.

I actually agree 100%. We should completely close the border to illegal migration, ending the conditions which "force" people to leave their homes.

Libya is a perfect example, a few years ago it was a relatively well off country and a source of employment for migrants from other parts of north Africa, then France and the UK get involved (with no protest from the rest of Europe) and now its got a slave trade and several warring factions.

So when the 'relatively well off' Libya descended into civil war (you forgot that didn't you?) and its government was bearing down on Benghazi threatening to slaughter the inhabitants, you would have ignored the UN, stood by and watched the massacre on Sky News 24/7?

I'm not saying that was not the wisest policy. But its cold. Very cold.

more broadly the reason so many Africans used to go to Libya was because they're countries are much poorer while rich countries benefit from their resources

Norwegians benefit from the resources of their countries. Africans don't. The reasons for that are a little more complicated, and a little more local, than your cartoonish evaluation of the world.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

See you should really let a chap know if you're working from your own dictionary or making up what terms mean to you.
So open border or closed border, that's it?

No, there is an open border. Or there is a border, with all that implies.

'We' is 'us', The people in the countries were people are coming to.

Again, who is 'us'? Does your use of 'we' and 'us' imply that there is a 'them'? Do 'we' have distinct interests as the people in these countries? Do you acknowledge those interests, or is that when you stop talking about 'we' and 'us' as any meaningful term? I don't get the sense there is a 'we' or 'us', I don't think you have my best interests or those I care about at heart.

I find it odd you use these terms like 'we' and 'us' when you've already declared that you view things through the prism of individuality. It is as if an atheist suddenly started swearing on the holy bible. Its insincere I think. I think you only talk about 'we' and 'us' when you want to apportion guilt, blame, shame and obligation.

Look, if someone is seeing neigbours shot, neighbourhoods bombed etc. and they want to come to Europe for a better life, they should be commended and helped. Now here's where I'd say on a 'case by case' basis. But you left me without that option....surely we can enforce or better police it rather than just have all them come in or none at all?
What is your solution?

By your definition the Fresh Prince of Bel Air was a refugee.

My solution is that illegal immigration is completely disincentivised. That means they all are returned: either to their home country, or if that cannot be determined their last known location prior to the crime. And I think legal migration should be re-evaluated in light of what is best for 'us', as opposed to what is best for corporate interests.

Sand · 26-06-2018 10:09PM

I think it is worth observing that I have repeatedly and consistently made the point that the mass migration policy on the part of European governments has two characteristics. Firstly, its the result of deliberate policies, can can be reversed by deliberate policies. No one would proclaim that the number of children in poverty is simply natural, and it cannot be ended, therefore there is nothing to be done while government policies continued to put children into poverty.

Secondly, I've repeatedly made the point that these policies are not in the interests of the European people/voters these governments are supposed to lead. I think it is very telling that those who disagree with me have never, ever been willing (or able) to contradict me on that. They will move the goalposts, they will strawman, they will moralise, they will appeal to past crimes 'we' didn't commit to obligate us to those who never suffered.

But they are never able to explain why permitting illegal/mass migration into Europe is in the interests of Europeans. Surely people in favour of a policy should be able to advocate for it on the basis of how it benefits the people? Is that not the basis of any sound government policy?

I think its very telling that open border advocates cannot and will not. And I know they cannot. So instead they argue negatively, attacking, dismissing, diminishing. They are willing to sacrifice people like 14 year old Susanna Feldman, so that they can feel good about 'saving' people like Ali Bashar. That is their morality.

weisses · 27-06-2018 10:18AM

Sand wrote: »

To understand a 51 page report you might have to extend yourself beyond skipping down to the conclusion. Go to 4.2.1 "Our estimates for the overall immigrant population residing in the UK between 1995 and 2011 show that...those from non-EEA countries made a negative contribution of £118 billion"

Yes .... That was 18 years ago ....What are the figures from 2000 onwards ?

Which are relevant for today

Sand wrote: »

You are in full denial of reality. I asked you to demonstrate that non-EU migrants were not a cost to the UK.

I did ... quoting directly from the report you provided

You are trying to defend your outdated point of view with outdated figures ....

Sand wrote: »

You now refuse to even mention non-EU migrants, and only refer to immigrants as a whole. You think this denial is not transparent. We all know the truth. You are moving the goal posts, because you know the reality is non-EU migrants are a cost. You're laughable denial is in itself a concession.

As I showed you via various links .... Non EU migrants are not a cost.

I will ask you another simple question

How is a Nurse from India working in the NHS a fiscal drain and a Nurse from Spain fiscal contributor ? ... Please elaborate

laoch na mona · 27-06-2018 10:59AM

Sand wrote: »

I think it is worth observing that I have repeatedly and consistently made the point that the mass migration policy on the part of European governments

There is no mass migration policy, there a massive flows of people due to increased globally insecurity that we as a planet have to deal with,

Europe for geopolitical reasons has benefited from they same situation that countries in the global south suffer from, until you have somewhat even global development and less conflict migratory flows of refugee, asylum seekers and people fleeing poverty will be a reality

Lux23 · 27-06-2018 11:02AM

I think you're all getting your knickers in a twist about nothing. The planet will be a barely habitable wasteland by the time any of these predictions could actually come true.

James Brown · 27-06-2018 02:12PM

Sand wrote: »

.....

No, there is an open border. Or there is a border, with all that implies.

Again, who is 'us'? Does your use of 'we' and 'us' imply that there is a 'them'? Do 'we' have distinct interests as the people in these countries? Do you acknowledge those interests, or is that when you stop talking about 'we' and 'us' as any meaningful term? I don't get the sense there is a 'we' or 'us', I don't think you have my best interests or those I care about at heart.

I find it odd you use these terms like 'we' and 'us' when you've already declared that you view things through the prism of individuality. It is as if an atheist suddenly started swearing on the holy bible. Its insincere I think. I think you only talk about 'we' and 'us' when you want to apportion guilt, blame, shame and obligation.

By your definition the Fresh Prince of Bel Air was a refugee.

My solution is that illegal immigration is completely disincentivised. That means they all are returned: either to their home country, or if that cannot be determined their last known location prior to the crime. And I think legal migration should be re-evaluated in light of what is best for 'us', as opposed to what is best for corporate interests.

Japers. There is a border. We can agree on that? The issue is how it's policed. There is no everybody in or nobody in 'border'. It's a filter in progressive countries.
The 'we' and 'us' does indicate there is a 'them'. Are you just being purposefully obtuse now? The 'them' would be immigrants.
I don't think you have the best interests of anyone but yourself at heart, which is fine.
We are talking about immigration and how it should be handled. I am not the King of Ireland or the President of Europe, (shocker) so We need talk in the collective. 'We should', 'we could'..you don't understand this concept? There is no blame to apportion and certainly no guilt.

If Bel Air was in another country, maybe, but I don't think a cabbie would cross a border, unless his dice were also some kind of official documents of passage.

So you would take the Trump approach, of treating them like criminals? That's not very nice. I would hate to be fleeing with my family to a safe harbour only to be treated like a criminal and sent back to be shot or hung. Not very humanitarian.
I'd say the line ups are a bitch when you are trying to get your immigration documents sorted in rubble stepping over dead children. You might say applying isn't practical or even possible for many of these people.

demfad · 29-06-2018 10:29AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, everyone should be encouraged and incentivised to have fewer children. Many of the problems we face as a species, from property prices all the way up to some of the wars, can be traced back to the fact that there are more and more people competing for the same limited amount of resources and space to live in.

It's simple maths. A chocolate bar divided between three people gives each individual more chocolate than the same bar divided between four. The world has reached a point in which exponential population growth is guarantee to cause falling and eventually plummeting quality of life due to this. If we went future generations to actually enjoy living on this planet, we need to seriously reign in population growth so that they have enough space and resources to go around without seeing their quality of life evaporate.

Population growth plus the shrinking of natural resources like water due to global warming are at issue.

The way to reduce population growth has been shown to correlate strongly with the education level and rights of females in a given society.

Ergo if we want a sustainable planet we need to educate the population and enforce climate change politics and economics.

Those with world power fighting both of these would seem to be right wing billionaires as far as I can see.

Case in point: One of the far right billionaires in question, Vladimir Putin is reigning bombs down on Syria-forcing a refugee/migrant crises-which Russian disinformation in the EU blames on the EU/Muslims-spawning media coverage and even threads like this one-helping undermine the EU: a strong advocate of climate change economics and human rights.

jmayo · 29-06-2018 11:54AM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think if someone is willing to risk their life to get to your country, you should certainly give them a listen.

Why?
I will give an example of a guy that risked his life to cross the Med and ended up in Italy and claimed asylum as a minor and that he was fleeing wallout of Arab Spring uprising.
That guy burned down a refugee centre and after prison moved to Switzerland and then Germany.
He eventually murdered 12 people in Berlin Christmas market attack.

So really taking in everyone that risked their lives to get to Europe is just emotive cr**.

And there are more examples of what some of the ones that risked their lives to get to Europe have contributed such as rape, child abuse and murder.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Being decent isn't a dream, it's something most people aspire to being.
The right are puppets of corporations, on varying scales.

And what the fook are the left?
Has anyone on the left, that continously bleats on about rescuing migrants and "refugees", actually noticed that the corporate hierarchy are looking for the same.
Jaysus H C if you are on the left and share the same opinion as Peter Sutherland then you should spend some time analysing wtf is going on.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Maybe an immigrant will come over and start a business and employ Irish people? The U.S. was made on unskilled/skilled immigrants, (and slavery) stirring the pot.

Ehh hello, how is the 19th century treating you. :rolleyes:

If anything we are moving towards a time when we will need even less unskilled manual labour.
Or have the developments in modern technological and robotics not found you yet ?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We cannot become insulated because the right wing press are using immigrants as deflection. Of all the disasters to happen to Ireland and the financial world, the tough times and recessions, they were caused in the most part by the people scaremongering about immigrants. It's deflection.

How the feck was the financial meltdown due to scaremongering about immigrants ?
You really are talking some guff.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We're, for the most part, caring decent people.

Sometimes caring decent people can be taken for a ride and are seen as easy saps.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You insist I want open boards. I keep saying I don't. Your first comment above suggests you are not listening.
Corporations want cheap labour and don't care who supplies it.
Policy that favours corporations over the tax payer causes problems, so it's nice to have a scapegoat, be it the poor, sick or foreign, anyone can be pointed at as causing strife. It's complex. The idea that the entire left are on song about the details of anything flies in the face of political reality.
Finally, a case by case issue not an open door issue.
I'm a European, I care, but I'm not going to automatically treat every immigrant like a threat to my way of life until I vet them individually and decide.

You do want open borders because you actually see these people as poor, victims, risking their lives to get here and thus by default you are more likely to grant them entry.
Your default setting is "give a reason why they shouldn't be let in".

weisses wrote: »

Migrants are needed

https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/news/articles/employers-braced-uk-non-eu-migration-cap

Why does Europe need unskilled uneducated culturally incompatible migrants who often refuse to integrate with host societies ?

And that is what the vast vast majority of thus treking across the Med are offering.

If anything we have too many native unskilled uneducated workers and the need for unskilled workers is due to drop massively in the coming years.

Migration Megathread

Comments