nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Migration Megathread

splashuum

Would like to get peoples opinions on this.
There seems to be many writers/figures that share a similar view while claiming similar stats.

“Mark Steyn aims to show in a video how Western Europe is apparently already in the death throes of “demographic suicide” because couples are no longer having enough children. He then shows how a thriving Muslim population in Western Europe is well on its way to filling all the empty space. “

“Steyn explained how given the divergent birth rate between Muslims and post-Christian secularists, it will take only two generations for the current Muslim population (sitting at about 10-percent) to have as many grandchildren as post-Christian secularists (who currently make up the other 90 percent). This is due, he said, to Muslims having on average 3.5 children per couple compared to post-Christian secularists who have only 1.3 children per couple”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/muslim-takeover-of-europe-is-biggest-story-of-our-time-and-nobody-knows-it

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

weisses

jmayo wrote: »

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.

There once was a guy who sneaked onto a little Island And assassinated 69 kids, He also killed 8 people with a car bomb

Since then I'm afraid of Scandinavian people particularly Norwegians.

They are an invading species that started with the Vikings .... bleak future ahead

James Brown

jmayo wrote: »

Why?
...

Because...

Three babies dead, 100 missing as ship sinks off Libya
https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2018/0629/974192-boat-sinks-mediterranean/

These people are not all chancers and layabouts chancing their arm to avail of welfare.
Look at Lowry, we should tar all politicians with the same brush or not just assume they are are criminals and treat them as such?
These people cannot apply in the manner you or I might. They are not risking their lives because Air Transat is booked out. They are desperate people.
We are a country in a far better secure position than these people are coming from. We should hear them out and give a helping hand where we can because that's what humans do, or decent ones anyway.

We are fortunate Ireland is no longer 'the begging bowl of Europe'.

Sand

weisses wrote: »

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

Which are relevant for today

Look, I accept you enter this debate uninformed. That's fine. I have provided you with information. You either are unable to understand it, or you are wilfully refusing to understand it. You probably feel you have to ignore the evidence, because doubling down on an uninformed position seems less embarrassing than accepting new evidence and adjusting your position. It isnt though.

You previously stated a mistaken assumption that the 1995-2011 and the 2001-2011 data sets were comparable. I corrected you and pointed you to section 1.1.2 of the report which explains the 1995-2011 report is the entire population of migrants over their full life-cycle, whereas the 2001-2011 set is a selected subset of the youngest, most productive non EU migrants. Again, that's fine. But I've pointed you to the information to adjust your position and above you repeat the inaccuracy. Either you didn't read 1.1.2, or you didn't understand it, or you do understand it and are lying.

If you are genuinely uninformed and struggling to follow the evidence, and actually do want to know what non-EU migrants cost in 2011 (the most recent year) you can look at Tables A5 and A6. Expenditure exceeds revenue on non-EU migrants in 2011 alone by between 7 to 12.5 billion GBP.

But if you are not genuine, and are knowingly repeating inaccuracies I already corrected, then you need to ask yourself why you have to lie about the data to defend your position if it is correct?

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

Again, that seems like a deliberate inaccuracy. I referenced non-EU migrants. You quoted a statement on all migrants, taken as a whole, to obscure the reality about non-EU migrants.

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

As above, I understand the figures. You do not.

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

Table A5 and Table A6 disagree. Now I don't know who to believe. Someone who either cant or wont accept evidence contrary to their view, or a researched and published study.

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

You see, I don't have to explain the evidence. The reality is non-EU migration is a cost, whereas EU migration is a benefit. We could trade theories as to why, but the study is clear.

laoch na mona wrote: »

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,

Sure, and as a planet the 'massive flows of people' should settle somewhere outside of Europe.

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

Until we control our borders and reject mass migration, 'massive flows of people' will be a reality. So how about assisting with achieving realistic solutions?

Lux23 wrote: »

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.

I think you're horribly uninformed.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

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.

A filter? I suggest placing that ideal on a political manifesto and seeing how many votes you get. Sovereign borders define the state. A state that does not control its borders is not a state. People expect that their government will protect them and at the very least the entails controlling who cross their borders. If a state permits immigration, it does not grant a right to immigration. This is something that progressives have forgotten.

The migration policy of any state has to be defined in the interests of the people of that state. No one else.

The 'we' and 'us' does indicate there is a 'them'. Are you just being purposefully obtuse now? The 'them' would be immigrants.

No, I'm just highlighting the variable nature of your world view. Previously you proclaimed the immigrants were our brothers and sisters, 'us'. Now you acknowledge that they are 'them'. What tripped you up was your use of 'we' and 'us' to assign blame, shame, guilt and obligation onto Europeans so that 'we' should take actions against our own interests. I'll grant you that aspect of your worldview is fairly consistent.

I don't think you have the best interests of anyone but yourself at heart, which is fine.

I would not have let Ali Bashar enter Europe. Merkel did and you would have. I think its clear who had the interests of Susanna Feldman at heart.

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.

Illegal migrants are by their definition, criminals. The vast majority of asylum applications are by men, travelling alone. Not women. Not children. If the men had families, they abandoned their wives and children to suffer and die back in the warzones they claim to have fled from. If a man in Ireland abandoned his family, he would be described as a deadbeat. To abandon them to die in a warzone? I don't know if there is a word for that.

And as for the 'fleeing' and 'safe harbour', its a myth peddled by criminal NGOs and illegal migrants. When Ali Bashar got into trouble in Germany, they were indeed 'fleeing'. Back to Iraq, not to be shot or hung, but to hide from justice. Iraq was their safe harbour.

You have a completely unrealistic view of the world.

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.

Right. Is Lagos a rubble strewn war-zone with dying children to step over?

weisses

Sand wrote: »

Look, I accept you enter this debate uninformed. That's fine. I have provided you with information. You either are unable to understand it, or you are wilfully refusing to understand it. You probably feel you have to ignore the evidence, because doubling down on an uninformed position seems less embarrassing than accepting new evidence and adjusting your position. It isnt though.

Quoted directly from your report

will do it again

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

I even put in bold for you there, plus a larger font size for the part relating to your position in this debate

Don't try to be smart with me when conclusion from your own source disagrees with you ... They call it a reality that people like yourself fails to understand

Sand wrote: »

Again, that seems like a deliberate inaccuracy. I referenced non-EU migrants. You quoted a statement on all migrants, taken as a whole, to obscure the reality about non-EU migrants.

False again ... look at the conclusions from the report above .. They are talking about non EU migrants

Sand wrote: »

You see, I don't have to explain the evidence. The reality is non-EU migration is a cost, whereas EU migration is a benefit. We could trade theories as to why, but the study is clear.

I asked Such a simple question ... I can however understand your unwillingness to answer it ...

Sand

weisses wrote: »

Quoted directly from your report

will do it again

I even put in bold for you there, plus a larger font size for the part relating to your position in this debate

Do you see how they stated immigrant? Not non-EU immigrant. Do I need to put in larger font size for you?

Don't try to be smart with me when conclusion from your own source disagrees with you ... They call it a reality that people like yourself fails to understand

Yes, I wont try to be smart with you. The conclusion does not disagree with me. The report states that non-EU immigration is a cost, and that EU immigration is a benefit, which nets to an overall gain. I don't disagree with any of that. But non-EU immigration is a cost.

False again ... look at the conclusions from the report above .. They are talking about non EU migrants

No, the sections you are quoting they're talking about immigration as a whole. That why they say immigrants, not non-EU immigrants.

They do actually mention non-EU migrants in the conclusion. Second paragraph. Here is what they say: "Immigrants from non-EEA countries, on the other hand, contribute less than they receive" But you missed that didn't you?

I think at this point it is clear you are wilfully ignoring evidence. If your view is correct, why do you have to lie about the evidence? Its clear my views are based on objective analysis of the evidence, whereas your view is based on irrational ideology and dismissal of inconvenient truths.

I asked Such a simple question ... I can however understand your unwillingness to answer it ...

Yes, it is meaningless misdirection from the essential point that non-EU migration is a cost to the UK, not a benefit. This is not Project Fear, it is Project Reality.

Seriously weisses: If you keep ignoring the evidence presented to you, what is the point in entertaining your posts on the issue? Its clear you wont accept any contradicting evidence to the views you hold. Maybe you want to live in denial, but its just a waste of everyone else's time.

weisses

Sand wrote: »

Do you see how they stated immigrant? Not non-EU immigrant. Do I need to put in larger font size for you?.

I will try again ... step by step this time, part in bold

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

According to you, which group of immigrants was a drain on the fiscal system ?

And according to the conclusions of the report how is that group doing now ?

James Brown

Sand wrote: »

...

A filter? I suggest placing that ideal on a political manifesto and seeing how many votes you get. Sovereign borders define the state. A state that does not control its borders is not a state. People expect that their government will protect them and at the very least the entails controlling who cross their borders. If a state permits immigration, it does not grant a right to immigration. This is something that progressives have forgotten.

I'll assume you are misunderstanding. Every border in the world is a filtering mechanism, otherwise we'd just have walls or no walls. Why do we have passports? To check who we decide to let in or refuse.

Sand wrote: »

The migration policy of any state has to be defined in the interests of the people of that state. No one else.

I agree.

Sand wrote: »

No, I'm just highlighting the variable nature of your world view. Previously you proclaimed the immigrants were our brothers and sisters, 'us'. Now you acknowledge that they are 'them'. What tripped you up was your use of 'we' and 'us' to assign blame, shame, guilt and obligation onto Europeans so that 'we' should take actions against our own interests. I'll grant you that aspect of your worldview is fairly consistent.

I'm beginning to think you are twisting to suit an agenda. To clarify; 'Us' would be countries immigrants are coming to. 'Them' would be the immigrants. It's basic English to use such mechanisms.
There is no tripping up or blame or agenda. These are my views I'm quite clearly spelling out for you.

As to the rest of you post, it all goes back to one simple premise you keep twisting. We should take people who arrive at our border, on a case by case basis. We should not automatically let them in, we should not automatically treat them as criminals. If you can't get your head around that, fair enough. If you simply disagree, grand. You seem very afraid, I hope you find peace of mind.

Sand

weisses wrote: »

I will try again ... step by step this time, part in bold

According to you, which group of immigrants was a drain on the fiscal system ?

According to the report, its non-EEA/EU migrants.

And according to the conclusions of the report how is that group doing now ?

Its still non-EEA/EU migrants. Look at tables A5 and A6 in the report. For 2011 non-EEA/EU migrants are still a net loss to the UK economy. The data does not portray what you think it does because its clear you haven't read it, or don't understand it.

The conclusion that can be drawn is my views are based on the evidence. Your views are based on denial of the evidence.

weisses

Sand wrote: »

According to the report, its non-EEA/EU migrants.

Its still non-EEA/EU migrants. Look at tables A5 and A6 in the report. For 2011 non-EEA/EU migrants are still a net loss to the UK economy. The data does not portray what you think it does because its clear you haven't read it, or don't understand it.

The conclusion that can be drawn is my views are based on the evidence. Your views are based on denial of the evidence.

Again ... It has nothing to do with my capability of understanding

You said it yourself that the group the conclusion referred to where NON EU migrants

And the conclusion of said report was also that.. And again I qoute directly from it

rather than being a drain on the UK’s fiscalsystem – they have made substantial net contributions to its public finances

Non EU migrants where a drain in the past and are now making substantial net contributions

What part of the conclusion do you not understand ?

James Brown

weisses wrote: »

Again ... It has nothing to do with my capability of understanding

You said it yourself that the group the conclusion referred to where NON EU migrants

And the conclusion of said report was also that.. And again I qoute directly from it

Non EU migrants where a drain in the past and are now making substantial net contributions

What part of the conclusion do you not understand ?

I believe the Taoiseach's father is a non-EU immigrant. Fair play getting so far by playing the system, trying to make us all Hindu and Fine Gael having clear a bias in favour of the South Asians

Sand

weisses wrote: »

Again ... It has nothing to do with my capability of understanding

It really seems to have a lot to do with that though. To understand a report you do have to do more than skip down to the conclusion and cherry pick from there. The report finds that Non-EU/EEA migrants cost the UK more than they contributed in 2011, and in every year back to 1995 for a total cost of close to 200 billion GBP in that time period. They cost money in 1995. They still cost money in 2011.

I think its telling that your views must cling so desperately to ignorance of the data. But yeah, tell me again about what you misunderstood from the conclusion.

PeadarCo

Sand wrote:

It really seems to have a lot to do with that though. To understand a report you do have to do more than skip down to the conclusion and cherry pick from there. The report finds that Non-EU/EEA migrants cost the UK more than they contributed in 2011, and in every year back to 1995 for a total cost of close to 200 billion GBP in that time period. They cost money in 1995. They still cost money in 2011.

What the situation in the last couple of years? Is there any more recent data that 2011. If there is more recent data 2011 is out of date.

weisses

Sand wrote: »

It really seems to have a lot to do with that though. To understand a report you do have to do more than skip down to the conclusion and cherry pick from there. The report finds that Non-EU/EEA migrants cost the UK more than they contributed in 2011, and in every year back to 1995 for a total cost of close to 200 billion GBP in that time period. They cost money in 1995. They still cost money in 2011.

I think its telling that your views must cling so desperately to ignorance of the data. But yeah, tell me again about what you misunderstood from the conclusion.

We thus conclude that the recent wave of immigrants, those who have arrived in the UK since 2000 and driven the stark increase in the UK’s foreign born population,have contributed far more in taxes than they have received in benefits. Moreover, by sharing the cost of fixed public expenditures (which account for more than 14% of total public expenditure), they have reduced the financial burden of these fixed public obligations for natives. In fact, we estimate considerable implicit savings on these expenditures – just short of £24 billion between 2001 and 2011

5 billion comes from NON EU immigrants ... (tables A5 and A6)

Or look up what NET contribution means

But don't try to be smart with me if you disagree with the conclusion of the report YOU provided

IAmTheReign

Sand wrote: »

weisses wrote: »

Again ... It has nothing to do with my capability of understanding

It really seems to have a lot to do with that though. To understand a report you do have to do more than skip down to the conclusion and cherry pick from there. The report finds that Non-EU/EEA migrants cost the UK more than they contributed in 2011, and in every year back to 1995 for a total cost of close to 200 billion GBP in that time period. They cost money in 1995. They still cost money in 2011.

I think its telling that your views must cling so desperately to ignorance of the data. But yeah, tell me again about what you misunderstood from the conclusion.

Okay, here’s what the report says. Copied directly from page 3, paragraph 3 in case you want to double check.

Regarding the net fiscal impact of immigrants, we find for our baseline scenario,7 and considering the immigrant population that resided in the UK over the 1995–2011 period, that over a period during which the fiscal cost of natives cumulated to £591 billion, EEA immigrants contributed 10% more than natives (in relative terms), and non-EEA immigrant contributions were almost 9% lower. On the other hand, recent immigrants, i.e. those who came after 1999, have made positive fiscal contributions irrespective of origin. Between 2001 and 2011, the net fiscal contributions of recent A10 immigrants amounted to almost £5 billion, those of the other recently arrived European immigrants to £15 billion, and those of recent non-European immigrants to a total of over £5 billion. Remarkably, over the same period, the natives’ fiscal cost amounted to almost £617 billion.

I took the liberty of bolding the particularly relevant bits. It’s not even remotely ambiguous, recent non-EU migrants were net contributors between the period of 2001 to 2011 to the tune of £5 billion.

Now I know what you’re going to say, that the report is cherry picking data by looking at the effect of “recent immigrants” rather than the contributions of all immigrants, regardless of how long they’ve been in the country. That was the whole point of the study though, to determine the economic impact of recent immigration. It’s not some conspiracy to convince people that immigrants are okay. It’s clear evidence that even if Britains immigration policy hasn’t always worked, since 2001 it has.

The report supports the idea that controlled immigration can be a net positive to an economy, regardless of someone’s economic background or nationality.

Sand

PeadarCo wrote: »

What the situation in the last couple of years? Is there any more recent data that 2011. If there is more recent data 2011 is out of date.

I'm not aware of more recent data. But the data we have is not invalidated by the possibility that there may be other data we don't have.

weisses wrote: »

But don't try to be smart with me if you disagree with the conclusion of the report YOU provided

Weisses - I dont disagree with anything in the conclusion of the report. But I understand the conclusion of the report because I read the report. You didn't so you're claiming that non-EU migration has suddenly become profitable since 2000. And that is absolutely incorrect.

IAmTheReign wrote: »

Okay, here’s what the report says. Copied directly from page 3, paragraph 3 in case you want to double check.

Regarding the net fiscal impact of immigrants, we find for our baseline scenario,7 and considering the immigrant population that resided in the UK over the 1995–2011 period, that over a period during which the fiscal cost of natives cumulated to £591 billion, EEA immigrants contributed 10% more than natives (in relative terms), and non-EEA immigrant contributions were almost 9% lower. On the other hand, recent immigrants, i.e. those who came after 1999, have made positive fiscal contributions irrespective of origin. Between 2001 and 2011, the net fiscal contributions of recent A10 immigrants amounted to almost £5 billion, those of the other recently arrived European immigrants to £15 billion, and those of recent non-European immigrants to a total of over £5 billion. Remarkably, over the same period, the natives’ fiscal cost amounted to almost £617 billion.

I took the liberty of bolding the particularly relevant bits. It’s not even remotely ambiguous, recent non-EU migrants were net contributors between the period of 2001 to 2011 to the tune of £5 billion.

Ah jesus, we are back to square one.

Now I know what you’re going to say, that the report is cherry picking data by looking at the effect of “recent immigrants” rather than the contributions of all immigrants, regardless of how long they’ve been in the country.

Well, I'll grant you understand the report better than Wiesses does. He still thinks non-EU migration has become profitable since 2000.

But why ignore that non-EU migrants are not for a few years, they are for life? The whole myth of 'guest-workers' has long since been shown to be just that. It is a cherry picked data set of the youngest migrants with no pension costs, very low health costs and so on. The complete picture of the total costs of non-EU migration from arrival to death is provided by the main data set. And it is a loss. I can understand why the authors of the report desperately squeezed the data for some on-message result, but why should policymakers ignore the reality? Why should European people continue to accept a policy which is against their own interests?

That was the whole point of the study though, to determine the economic impact of recent immigration. It’s not some conspiracy to convince people that immigrants are okay. It’s clear evidence that even if Britains immigration policy hasn’t always worked, since 2001 it has.

No, no it hasn't. Britain's immigration policy has completely failed in the last 20 years. You cannot import a city the size of Birmingham every three years and expect things to go well. There is currently 50,000 people in Birmingham who cannot speak English, and the city is expected to follow London with English people becoming a minority. What have the English received in return? Wages completely divorced from economic growth because if they wont do the job for low pay, low or no skilled workers will be imported to do it instead.

Brexit is just one of the negative outcomes of the British immigration policy over the past 20 years. You can only put a society under so much stress before you see a rebellion.

The report supports the idea that controlled immigration can be a net positive to an economy, regardless of someone’s economic background or nationality.

Nonsense. The report makes it very clear that non-EU migrants are a cost to the UK, whereas EU migration is a positive (economically at least). So the economic background and nationality of the immigrant is a significant factor. Even within the non-EU migrants, my suspicion is certain nationalities such as Americans, Canadians, Australians and so on are going to be far more beneficial on average than other nationalities.

Again, why should Europeans accept these policies of mass migration which are against their interests? Why is it in the interest of the average English person that there is 50,000 people in a city like Birmingham who cannot speak English and are therefore practically useless in an English speaking society?

weisses

Sand wrote: »

Weisses - I dont disagree with anything in the conclusion of the report. But I understand the conclusion of the report because I read the report. You didn't so you're claiming that non-EU migration has suddenly become profitable since 2000. And that is absolutely incorrect.

The report disagrees with you .... lengthy replies don't change that fact

I quote facts which you choose to ignore and replace it with an ill informed opinion .... I get it

Chips Lovell

Please read the charter. No link or video dumps please.

Thomas_IV

I wasn't following this thread of late. Maybe the story about the Lifeline Sea Rescue Ship operating in the Med picking up migrants and rescue them from drowning and bring them to Italy.

The ship is now seized in Malta after some hither and thither between Malta and Italy and the captain of the ship, Mr Reisch who is a German national, in which Malta granted him to bring them migrants to Malta from where they were send to other EU member states who were willing to take them over. Mr Reisch stands trial in Malta for that and other irregulary formalities. He's currently on leave in Germany and has to return on Monday to Malta where the trial is to continue.

Such Actions, the one of Mr Reisch who is - whether he admits it or not - playing into the hands of the traffickers and with his rescue ship making it still workable for the traffickers to put as many people in almost wrecked boats and ships, putting them migrants into life danger with the certain knowledge that the many of them will be rescued anyway because of cruising rescue ships like the Lifeline aroung the Med. The traffickers rely on them and the migrants are stripped off most all the Money they have to pay the horrendous prices for this dangerous passage.

This doesn't seem to concern Mr Reisch an other NGOs who are part of the rescue teams in the Med. For them the single human life counts and how these people make it once arrived in the EU, isn't their concern. These ships don't bring the rescued people back on shore in North Africa, which would be closer or at least not as much that far than bringing them to Italy or even Malta (both countries cannot afford to take more of them in). Mr Reisch has described his trial in Malta by his own words as a 'Politicum' referring in that context to his sea rescue activities and he insists that has done nothing wrong. What he's not admitting is the fact that he like all the other NGOs doing the same like himself are seen as accomplices of the traffickers because of the fact that they bring the rescued migrants to the EU.

For some who is interested in the wider background of that story which is going on since the end of June / start of July 2018, there are some links below from the Times of Malta where more details to the matter are written.

https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180624/local/mission-lifeline-invites-italian-minister-to-migrant-rescue-ship.682708

https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180705/local/protesters-ready-outside-court-as-lifeline-captain-case-resumes.683604

https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180708/local/maltas-approach-to-migration-bearing-fruit-muscat.683878

https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180708/local/handing-the-migrants-to-the-libyans-was-not-an-option-lifeline-captain.683812

https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180711/local/migrants-rescue-ship-captain-allowed-to-go-home-to-see-elderly-mother.684114

There are some further related articles but I just picked a selection of them which I regard as to be the more important.

For me it looks like that there is a possibility that the Maltese court might set up a presedence by this Trial in order to deter other NGOs from continuing their work in the Med. I rather doubt that many of them will be detered, as long as the donations from Migrant friendly people come in (I have noticed that this is already in decline for a couple of years).

Timberrrrrrrr

Holy wall of text batman

No offence but that is pretty unreadable without paragraphs i got 1/4 of the waybin and had to stop as it was making my eyes sore.

Thomas_IV

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Holy wall of text batman

No offence but that is pretty unreadable without paragraphs i got 1/4 of the waybin and had to stop as it was making my eyes sore.

I have altered the post and removed some passages which are not quite that relevant to the story itself. I have to accustome myself to the handling of this site again. So, thanks for your input on the matter.

ancapailldorcha

One liners are not acceptable here. Deleted.

oscarBravo

Thomas_IV wrote: »

...Mr Reisch [is] - whether he admits it or not - playing into the hands of the traffickers and with his rescue ship making it still workable for the traffickers to put as many people in almost wrecked boats and ships, putting them migrants into life danger with the certain knowledge that the many of them will be rescued anyway because of cruising rescue ships like the Lifeline aroung the Med. The traffickers rely on them and the migrants are stripped off most all the Money they have to pay the horrendous prices for this dangerous passage.

Is it your considered belief that, if migrants were left to drown in large numbers, traffickers would suddenly succumb to an attack of conscience and stop their nefarious activities?

Is it your further considered belief that allowing large numbers of people to drown is an acceptable price to pay to keep those damn Africans away from European shores?

ArthurDayne

Sand wrote: »

I'm not aware of more recent data. But the data we have is not invalidated by the possibility that there may be other data we don't have.

Weisses - I dont disagree with anything in the conclusion of the report. But I understand the conclusion of the report because I read the report. You didn't so you're claiming that non-EU migration has suddenly become profitable since 2000. And that is absolutely incorrect.

Ah jesus, we are back to square one.

Well, I'll grant you understand the report better than Wiesses does. He still thinks non-EU migration has become profitable since 2000.

But why ignore that non-EU migrants are not for a few years, they are for life? The whole myth of 'guest-workers' has long since been shown to be just that. It is a cherry picked data set of the youngest migrants with no pension costs, very low health costs and so on. The complete picture of the total costs of non-EU migration from arrival to death is provided by the main data set. And it is a loss. I can understand why the authors of the report desperately squeezed the data for some on-message result, but why should policymakers ignore the reality? Why should European people continue to accept a policy which is against their own interests?

No, no it hasn't. Britain's immigration policy has completely failed in the last 20 years. You cannot import a city the size of Birmingham every three years and expect things to go well. There is currently 50,000 people in Birmingham who cannot speak English, and the city is expected to follow London with English people becoming a minority. What have the English received in return? Wages completely divorced from economic growth because if they wont do the job for low pay, low or no skilled workers will be imported to do it instead.

Brexit is just one of the negative outcomes of the British immigration policy over the past 20 years. You can only put a society under so much stress before you see a rebellion.

Nonsense. The report makes it very clear that non-EU migrants are a cost to the UK, whereas EU migration is a positive (economically at least). So the economic background and nationality of the immigrant is a significant factor. Even within the non-EU migrants, my suspicion is certain nationalities such as Americans, Canadians, Australians and so on are going to be far more beneficial on average than other nationalities.

Again, why should Europeans accept these policies of mass migration which are against their interests? Why is it in the interest of the average English person that there is 50,000 people in a city like Birmingham who cannot speak English and are therefore practically useless in an English speaking society?

I'm intrigued to see some vision here from you. I get that when it comes to immigration you would appear to be somewhat of a Declinist - i.e. the world has been made materially worse off from immigration and it's all terrible and our lives have been made awful and Europe is in decline and the sky is falling under the weight of immigration and immigration is just straight up s**t and that's it etc etc.

But what is your vision? What is it that you want? I find it odd that these societies you lambast for what you perceive to be unsustainable immigration practices are also very successful and tolerant places. I find it equally puzzling to try think of all the candidate nations out there in the world who are getting it so right when it comes to immigration, while we are getting it so wrong.

You have made it clear that you are irreversibly against the current guise of immigration -- but I think we can also agree that much of the outcome of that immigration is now irreversible (i.e. we are never going to tolerate the mass deportation of immigrants from our shores).

So, seeing as your mind isn't going to change, can you outline for us how you would humankind progress from this point onwards?

Balf

ArthurDayne wrote: »

So, seeing as your mind isn't going to change, can you outline for us how you would humankind progress from this point onwards?

Is that something we control?

To an extent, there are simply difficult questions that aren't answered by seeing what Europe does in isolation from the rest of the world. If we take this issue

We are just a day away from a critical deadline tomorrow ..

Read more at:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/65179916.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-45002549

India has published a list which effectively strips some four million people in the north-eastern state of Assam of their citizenship.

The National Register of Citizens (NRC) is a list of people who can prove they came to the state by 24 March 1971, a day before Bangladesh declared independence.

India says the process is to root out hordes of illegal Bangladeshi migrants.

So how do we respond to that? Do we say that's another four million migrants for Europe, or do we regard it as something for India to sort out?

Do we accept that an inevitable consequence of other countries not managing their affairs is to compromise European borders?

In a context where, apparently, Brexit might mean you won't be able to source medicines from the UK any more. Yet we're to have a Common Travel Area with the whole world?

Thomas_IV

oscarBravo wrote: »

Thomas_IV wrote: »

...Mr Reisch [is] - whether he admits it or not - playing into the hands of the traffickers and with his rescue ship making it still workable for the traffickers to put as many people in almost wrecked boats and ships, putting them migrants into life danger with the certain knowledge that the many of them will be rescued anyway because of cruising rescue ships like the Lifeline aroung the Med. The traffickers rely on them and the migrants are stripped off most all the Money they have to pay the horrendous prices for this dangerous passage.

Is it your considered belief that, if migrants were left to drown in large numbers, traffickers would suddenly succumb to an attack of conscience and stop their nefarious activities?

Is it your further considered belief that allowing large numbers of people to drown is an acceptable price to pay to keep those damn Africans away from European shores?

First, with lesser or none rescue ships cruising the Med there would be less people boarding the wrecked ships and boats of the traffickers, once word has gone round to them that there is no more rescue boat at the sea that will pick them up in case their ship or boat is about to sink.

Second, when arguing in favour of sea rescue no matter the numbers of people who already arrived in the EU and more to come since the big influx of 2015 and 2016, you're missing the aspect that the more of them who come in and have to be helped by the welfare state of the member states and the growing problems they create for the social system, more so when they are not qualified enough to take jobs. The next problem is providing housing for them. The reality in the countries of their chosen destination (they don't stay in the country on which they got ashore, they move on and that is a further problem) differs considerably from the lies the traffickers and others told them, such as the totally unrealistic picture of EU countries what supply these people with all the luxury they like to have, from housing to good paid jobs and all high living standards.

I am not going to give you a straight answer to your question, but I say that I have a very different view on people who risk their lives for a future which isn't there for them and which picture of it has been built up by lies and the ruthless practices of human traffickers who rob them of all the money the migrants have got.

What I like to put to your consideration is, which jobs will humans have in the future in the light of a more faster developing technical job environment in which robots replace humans for work? In my view of this sort of future, skilled and more qualified employees will face their own problems to get a job. So, what chances will unskilled and less qualified have? The many of them refugees and asylum seekers fall in the latter categories. Look at the increasing problems in housing in Ireland and other EU member states. It looks the way that it'll get worse year by year and the governments seem to be incapable to solve that problem.

There are too many false asylum seekers using that right in order to get a residence permission, or at least a hold in the country of their chosen destiny (if they reach it) because in fact they are neither true asylum seekers or war refugees but plain and simple economical migrants. They occupy the places for those who really are war refugees and asylum seekers. The people who support them are missing out that residence status for war refugees and asylum are meant to be temporary, lasting until the conditions in their country of origin change that they can return. That is the principal meaning of both terms, but the general view and opinion by the refugee helpers is that they have come to stay for ever. The countries of origin of the economical migrants are bleeding out of young generations needed for the future of their countries. But as they don't see any future there for themselves, they take the route to Europe with false expectations and end up as cheap labourers at the bottom of the wages scale if they are 'lucky' to find a job anyway. The problems that cause that mass migration are running deep and climate change does it's bit to that too. Supporting the mass migration and like it or not, having humanitarian inspired NGOs in the Med that resque them is not solving any problem, neither in Europe and less so in their countries of origin. In fact it shifts the problems to other places and increases the problems which are already there in the EU member states and haven't been solved for years.

In one hand, the industrial states of the first world are responsible for the mass migration from African and MidEast countries to Europe because of the still ongoing exploitation of resources and workforce for cheap labour and maximum profits back in Europe (and other places). On the other hand ther domestic problems in those countries are caused by corruption and greed by the ruling class, just that it hits the people there worse than in our first world countries.

I guess that this is not what you like to read and certainly not what you might like to acknowledge. Anyway, the more migration to Europe takes place, the more the native and long residing people with migration background turn to those who campaign for a stop of this influx of migrants. For the many who support them right-wing to even far-right parties, it is a matter of space and their own living standards, it is probably less a matter of racism or support for far-right ideas. It is a social matter and in this, natives and old migrants are sometimes on the same side. Even if you won't believe it, it is a fact, just the media is rather shy to write about it. But I can tell you of one example which is that there was and still is a certain percentage of migrants in the UK which voted for Leave in the BrexitRef and among the reasons given by them in their statements was immigration. They are against further immigration. That might look to you as some sort of a paradox, but there you go, the fear is also with them too.

To conclude this response, let me say just this that a grown up person should be capable enough to weigh up the risks he or she is taking. More so as this tragedy in the Med is going on for years. The stop of NGOs rescue ships in the Med would certainly send a signal to the migrants and at least damage if not even ruin the business of the traffickers

ArthurDayne

Balf wrote: »

ArthurDayne wrote: »

So, seeing as your mind isn't going to change, can you outline for us how you would humankind progress from this point onwards?

Is that something we control?

To an extent, there are simply difficult questions that aren't answered by seeing what Europe does in isolation from the rest of the world. If we take this issue

We are just a day away from a critical deadline tomorrow ..

Read more at:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/65179916.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-45002549

India has published a list which effectively strips some four million people in the north-eastern state of Assam of their citizenship.

The National Register of Citizens (NRC) is a list of people who can prove they came to the state by 24 March 1971, a day before Bangladesh declared independence.

India says the process is to root out hordes of illegal Bangladeshi migrants.

So how do we respond to that? Do we say that's another four million migrants for Europe, or do we regard it as something for India to sort out?

Do we accept that an inevitable consequence of other countries not managing their affairs is to compromise European borders?

In a context where, apparently, Brexit might mean you won't be able to source medicines from the UK any more. Yet we're to have a Common Travel Area with the whole world?

To your first point - this is a simple question of vision. I'm simply asking Sand what he actually wants to see, I'm not asking him to actually give it effect. Anyway . . .
On your substantive point about this citizenship issue in India -- if you are asking me if Europe bears responsibility for taking in people who may have been displaced, then it's a definite No from me. The European nations have their own immigration policies and systems through which all prospective immigrants should pass. If these people arrive in Europe as refugees, then we also have rules relating to refugee status which should be followed.
I don't believe, nor have I seen many serious commentators advocating, that we bear a responsibility to open our borders to anyone and everyone. A political crisis in India does not compel us to provide a harbour for persons nor does the idea of having a 'Common Travel Area with the whole world' exist in either our laws or in practical reality.

Balf

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I don't believe, nor have I seen many serious commentators advocating, that we bear a responsibility to open our borders to anyone and everyone.

And that's a fair enough statement.

I think the problem might be that its such a reasonable statement that anyone could probably say they agreed with it, from refugee ship volunteers to Marine Le Pen. The argument is around what it means.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I'm simply asking Sand what he actually wants to see, I'm not asking him to actually give it effect.

And I'm sure he can answer for himself. I'd just feel that what we all want to see is a peaceful, diverse world where migration is a choice that entails nothing but good for all.

Is the issue about what we'd aspire to, or what we're actually facing?

ArthurDayne

Balf wrote: »

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I don't believe, nor have I seen many serious commentators advocating, that we bear a responsibility to open our borders to anyone and everyone.

And that's a fair enough statement.

I think the problem might be that its such a reasonable statement that anyone could probably say they agreed with it, from refugee ship volunteers to Marine Le Pen. The argument is around what it means.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I'm simply asking Sand what he actually wants to see, I'm not asking him to actually give it effect.

And I'm sure he can answer for himself. I'd just feel that what we all want to see is a peaceful, diverse world where migration is a choice that entails nothing but good for all.

Is the issue about what we'd aspire to, or what we're actually facing?

Well much of the debate around the topic both here and elsewhere online/in the media seems based on the premise that the 'liberals' want open borders, don't really care who comes in, and have little regard for the economic or security implications of immigration or asylum policy. Indeed there was a contributor on this page earlier today who posed reservations about the current Indian citizenship event and the idea that some people would have us make Europe responsible for any displacement of people on a quasi-CTA basis*. Yet nobody is really arguing that or suggesting that -- and this is what makes the immigration debate difficult -- you end up being seen as defending a position which you never took, and which nobody in mainstream discourse seems to take.
As for a vision for the future, the reason I posed this question to Sand rather than as a general question to all was from previous to-and-fro between ourselves whereby I do sometimes feel that his opinions, eloquently outlined as they are, seem to offer plenty in the way of complaint -- but little in the way of realistic solution. I'd just like to know how he would have us proceed from here -- what needs to happen to placate those who have reservations about immigration?

EDIT: *I realise that contributor was in fact you -- apologies, was at work and not paying enough attention. . .

oscarBravo

Thomas_IV wrote: »

I am not going to give you a straight answer to your question...

Colour me surprised.

Sand

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I'm intrigued to see some vision here from you. I get that when it comes to immigration you would appear to be somewhat of a Declinist - i.e. the world has been made materially worse off from immigration and it's all terrible and our lives have been made awful and Europe is in decline and the sky is falling under the weight of immigration and immigration is just straight up s**t and that's it etc etc.

I'd use the term realist. I prefer evidence based policy. I examine the policy of mass migration pursued over the past 70 years and it has clearly failed to improve the lives of Europeans. Therefore it is a bad policy which should be discontinued.

But what is your vision? What is it that you want? I find it odd that these societies you lambast for what you perceive to be unsustainable immigration practices are also very successful and tolerant places.

Is the Britain of Brexit and the USA of Trump usefully described as very successful and tolerant? All across Europe where societies have experienced mass migration, you find division, increasingly repressive policing and a disconnect between the establishment and the people.

I think we can also agree that much of the outcome of that immigration is now irreversible (i.e. we are never going to tolerate the mass deportation of immigrants from our shores).

Italy has just seen an election where the governing party promised to deport 600,000 people from Italy. If open border advocates persist in sowing dragon teeth, anything is possible.

After-all, you claim not to be in favour of open borders, but what else is to be done with millions of illegal migrants? Anything other than mass deportation will only fuel further resentment from Europes voters.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Well much of the debate around the topic both here and elsewhere online/in the media seems based on the premise that the 'liberals' want open borders, don't really care who comes in, and have little regard for the economic or security implications of immigration or asylum policy. Indeed there was a contributor on this page earlier today who posed reservations about the current Indian citizenship event and the idea that some people would have us make Europe responsible for any displacement of people on a quasi-CTA basis*. Yet nobody is really arguing that or suggesting that -- and this is what makes the immigration debate difficult -- you end up being seen as defending a position which you never took, and which nobody in mainstream discourse seems to take.

This is just gaslighting. Here is Gary Younge, editor at large at the Guardian ( a paper of record) calling for an end to all immigration controls. Democrats in the US want to abolish ICE. And a Swedish girl who sabotages the legal deportation of an illegal migrant (with a serious criminal record) to Afghanistan is celebrated as a hero. NGO's busily 'rescue' illegal migrants from the coast of Libya and ferry them to Europe. These are all open border advocates. These are widely held and championed views.

Even you consider it unthinkable to deport the illegal migrants who force their way across Europe's borders. What makes debate difficult is when people take a position, but then pretend that they have not.

As for a vision for the future, the reason I posed this question to Sand rather than as a general question to all was from previous to-and-fro between ourselves whereby I do sometimes feel that his opinions, eloquently outlined as they are, seem to offer plenty in the way of complaint -- but little in the way of realistic solution. I'd just like to know how he would have us proceed from here -- what needs to happen to placate those who have reservations about immigration?

Well, I don't agree that the challenge is to placate those who have reservations about immigration. That contains a prejudgement that they are clearly wrong, and must be circumvented or fooled somehow while the policy of mass migration continues. This attitude is entirely corrosive to politics. This is how you breed the politics of Brexit and Trump.

In terms of what should be done; mass migration from outside Europe should be halted. It should begin with illegal migrations from the African coast or Asia minor. Partly by criminalising the people trafficking NGOs, partly by massively stepping up deportations of illegals already in Europe, partly by publicising an end to the open gate policy in the countries of origin. I think all of that would buy credibility and some time to review and end mass migration by legal means. Of course, these are all negative steps.

There has been 20-70 years of madness, depending on how you count it. A significant correction is necessary.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Colour me surprised.

Your level of engagement in a discussion never surprises me oscar.