Migration Megathread

fash · 12-05-2018 9:50pm

I would just like to say that I am pleasantly surprised at the quality of posting and the mutual respect from everyone on the thread - perhaps I shouldn’t be.

Personally I think the jury is out on Sunni Muslim migration in particular - the problem is that they (surprisingly) actually believe in their religion, which seems to have been unexpected when they were brought in.

Sand · 12-05-2018 10:08pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Where are the Europeans fleeing and to where do they seek refuge?

They flee from diverse areas and seek refuge in homogeneous areas. The concept of white flight is well established. And its not one sided, the new arrivals congregate on areas where they will find their cultural kin.

I have been living in London for well over a year and a half now and haven't seen a single armed soldier. Not a one and I work in the centre of the city.

I visit London from time to time for work, specifically Canary Wharf and I notice the much tougher security and vehicle barriers in those areas than exists in similar institutions in Dublin.

In London there have been armed soldiers. In France, Opération Sentinelle is the single biggest task of the French Army and deploying 10,000 soldiers is hugely affecting what is a small army with an immense number of tasks and demands placed on it. You might not have seen them, but they are there.

Now, you say English people are a minority. Do you mean white English people or is it that non-white English people are not actually English?

That's a difficult question actually. You could discuss this for quite a while and never reach a simple answer. English is a nationality which has existed at least back to the Anglo-Saxon invasion. There are no English passports, and for all it matters there is no English state. But it still exists. It predates the UK and it will likely outlast the UK. UK/Britain is a state, it issues passports. The new inhabitants of London do hold them and are unarguably British citizens. So while London might arguably be just as British as it was in the time of Mary Poppins, I don't think you can say it is just as English.

The odd thing is, British nationalists would likely disagree with me. Britain is a multi-national identity. English, Scottish, Welsh and to some extent at least Irish. Part of British nationalism (which is an oxymoron in my view) would insist anyone can be British, and everyone in the current territory was always British. They just didn't know it yet. This viewpoint feeds into the "global Britain" Brexit we're currently seeing.

Regarding your claim of Muslims heading off to fight for IS, how many didn't? Considering that the UK has millions of Muslims, almost all of whom did not leave to fight for IS, I am not sure why you are citing this.

I'm citing it because it demonstrates the division: English people fight for the British army and British interests. The British army is built on working class English people. The idea that English people would be more attracted to travelling 2,500 miles to fight for a force that is hostile to England, over fighting for the British army? Its unthinkable. But the situation is reversed for the British Muslims. It seems more palatable to fight for a "foreign" force than to fight for the British Army.

That this is strange or odd of course presumes that British Muslims and English people are one and the same and interchangeable. I cite this because it demonstrates how different they are.

Again, you're looking at it entirely through the prism of immigration. On Brexit, there are swathes of people across the UK who grew up in households where their Dad worked while Mum stayed at home. Now, those people work zero-hour contracts and living in houseshares. Stagnant wages along with protectionist housing policies have done more to stoke resentment in my opinion not forgetting biting austerity and the slashing of local services begun by the coalition government of 2010-2015. As you say, the UK has been importing people for a long time. Why has Brexit only just happened when UKIP has existed since 1993? My answer is that it is a perfect storm of austerity, stagnant wages, economic inequality, a skewed jobs market awash with McJobs and zero hour contracts, a lack of security, and problems both real and perceived with immigration.

Not entirely. I think I've been clear that Europeans failing to have children is a sign of deep problems in the last 50-70 years of European policy. Those problems would exist with or without migration. There are huge pressures on Europeans and if anything immigration is cited as a solution, so its a response in many ways rather than the precursor.

Brexit is clearly a result of deep problems but the English are uniquely obsessed with the EU and the perceived loss of their identity. Brexit was driven by the English and English identity over and beyond British identity. 'The Lure of Greatness' book cites surveys which demonstrates that the English are standouts in believing the EU holds far more power than it actually does: the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish align with the European norm. But for the English the EU is a terrible threat. The Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish are largely exposed to the same media, so the undoubtedly toxic British media isnt a total explanation.

England is unduly exposed to the benefits of diversity and the strains on infrastructure, housing and so on. They are seeing their towns become non-English. They are seeing their capital become non-English. They are seeing their government become non-English. Whats more, the new immigrants are hostile to British heritage, which is denounced as racism, imperialism, colonialism.

The Lure of Greatness presents a very convincing argument that a revolt against neoliberalism - the idea of competition in itself being a good thing - is underpinning Brexit and indeed Trump. The idea of competition as a good has been extended to demographics. You see traces of it here in some posters. If Americans lose out to new immigrants, they deserve to lose. If English people lose out to new immigrants, they deserve to lose. There is a race to the bottom, to the zero hour contracts which English people must take or else new immigrants will be brought in to "do the jobs English people wont do".

I don't think you can divide the problem and put economic pressures in one bucket and immigration into the other bucket. It is the same pressure on the indigenous European population. Out-compete the third world, or the third world will come to Europe to do it for you.

Brexit is an ugly, wrong, stupid response. The problem is not the EU. If anything, the EU is protectionist. It is the British government which has endorsed this, and the British government which has driven a globalist stance at the EU. But the grievances behind Brexit are very real and very understandable. The absolute tragedy is that those grievances are being co-opted by slime like JRM to further the transition of the UK from a country to Airstrip One.

ancapailldorcha · 12-05-2018 11:47pm

Sand wrote: »

They flee from diverse areas and seek refuge in homogeneous areas. The concept of white flight is well established. And its not one sided, the new arrivals congregate on areas where they will find their cultural kin.

Indeed it is but it only applies to some white people. Some move, some don't. If you're a foreigner moving abroad and you know of people of the same nationality then you're going to find it convenient to be near those people.

Sand wrote: »

I visit London from time to time for work, specifically Canary Wharf and I notice the much tougher security and vehicle barriers in those areas than exists in similar institutions in Dublin.

In London there have been armed soldiers. In France, Opération Sentinelle is the single biggest task of the French Army and deploying 10,000 soldiers is hugely affecting what is a small army with an immense number of tasks and demands placed on it. You might not have seen them, but they are there.

Fair enough. It has been some time since the last terrorist attacks in London and Paris so maybe the military presence is more subtle now or it's being scaled down. I don't know.

Sand wrote: »

I'm citing it because it demonstrates the division: English people fight for the British army and British interests. The British army is built on working class English people. The idea that English people would be more attracted to travelling 2,500 miles to fight for a force that is hostile to England, over fighting for the British army? Its unthinkable. But the situation is reversed for the British Muslims. It seems more palatable to fight for a "foreign" force than to fight for the British Army.

That this is strange or odd of course presumes that British Muslims and English people are one and the same and interchangeable. I cite this because it demonstrates how different they are.

I don't think it does. This link from 2017 gives 850 as the total number of people who have joined ISIS. Given that there are millions of Muslims in the UK this is a very low number though I do have to admit that it is higher than the number of Muslims in the armed forces (480 according to this)

Sand wrote: »

Not entirely. I think I've been clear that Europeans failing to have children is a sign of deep problems in the last 50-70 years of European policy. Those problems would exist with or without migration. There are huge pressures on Europeans and if anything immigration is cited as a solution, so its a response in many ways rather than the precursor.

Immigration needs to be managed with investment in services and the allocation of resources which is anathema to the decades of laissez-faire government that the British elecroate has consistently voted for.

Sand wrote: »

Brexit is clearly a result of deep problems but the English are uniquely obsessed with the EU and the perceived loss of their identity. Brexit was driven by the English and English identity over and beyond British identity. 'The Lure of Greatness' book cites surveys which demonstrates that the English are standouts in believing the EU holds far more power than it actually does: the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish align with the European norm. But for the English the EU is a terrible threat. The Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish are largely exposed to the same media, so the undoubtedly toxic British media isnt a total explanation.

England is unduly exposed to the benefits of diversity and the strains on infrastructure, housing and so on. They are seeing their towns become non-English. They are seeing their capital become non-English. They are seeing their government become non-English. Whats more, the new immigrants are hostile to British heritage, which is denounced as racism, imperialism, colonialism.

Except that the areas which voted for Leave tended to exhibit the lowest levels of immigraiton. From The Economist:

This suggests that it wasn't a loss of English culture and identity which fuelled the Leave vote but a perceived loss of said culture and identity. I don't know exactly what is behind it. I've mentioned economics before. However, many bastions of collectivism have collapsed such as organised religion, trade unions, workers clubs (Saw one in Battle. Had no idea they even existed), etc. Today's people seem to be much more focused on the individual which is good in a liberal sense but bad in that these social outlets have largely disappeared. Social media and the internet are also likely to be playing a part in this.

You say that new immigrants are hostile to British heritage but I disagree. I'm not seeing much in the way of hostility from most immigrants. If anyone is hostile to British heritage, it's modern University students but that's a discussion for somewhere else methinks.

The English identity is evolving. The result of this is that some people will feel left behind. Traditional policies of leaving them to it have been proven to foment festering pits of resentment which have allowed for the rise of UKIP/Trump and put the UK in a position where its own politicians are undermining checks and balances on government power.

Sand wrote: »

The Lure of Greatness presents a very convincing argument that a revolt against neoliberalism - the idea of competition in itself being a good thing - is underpinning Brexit and indeed Trump. The idea of competition as a good has been extended to demographics. You see traces of it here in some posters. If Americans lose out to new immigrants, they deserve to lose. If English people lose out to new immigrants, they deserve to lose. There is a race to the bottom, to the zero hour contracts which English people must take or else new immigrants will be brought in to "do the jobs English people wont do".

I don't think you can divide the problem and put economic pressures in one bucket and immigration into the other bucket. It is the same pressure on the indigenous European population. Out-compete the third world, or the third world will come to Europe to do it for you.

Brexit is an ugly, wrong, stupid response. The problem is not the EU. If anything, the EU is protectionist. It is the British government which has endorsed this, and the British government which has driven a globalist stance at the EU. But the grievances behind Brexit are very real and very understandable. The absolute tragedy is that those grievances are being co-opted by slime like JRM to further the transition of the UK from a country to Airstrip One.

I'm old enough to remember the time when the right-wing tabloids had their sights trained firmly on the working and welfare classes. If you were poor, you were told to get a job. If it wasn't paying enough, you should go do a course at your own expense. Don't have the money? You should have made better life choices. Ditto for families living on the breadline, people claiming disability benefits, etc... When the Eastern nations acceded to the EU, newspaper editors realised that they could make more money by selling Xenophobia to the working classes instead of selling classism to the middle classes. Younger people are less likely to rely on traditional media for information so that market is already dry so there is no risk of alienating readers. If Brexit succeeds in cutting immigration levels and Mrs. May's hostile environment persuades the Muslims to leave then there's not a shread of doubt in my mind that they'll go back to bashing the lower classes once again. There needs to be a villain after all.

I might check out that book. Sounds like it might be interesting.

oscarBravo · 13-05-2018 1:04am

Sand wrote: »

You're presenting a subjective view of the issue against my own objective view. It's a bad policy, so it shouldn't be enacted.

If you're going to claim that the xenophobia you're espousing - and yes, it's pretty much a dictionary definition of xenophobia - is simply a statement of objective fact, there's no possibility of a rational discussion on the topic.

oscarBravo · 13-05-2018 1:11am

Speaking of it being impossible to have a rational conversation:

Mutant z wrote: »

The Muslim population of this country according to the census is about 63000 which i believe is an underestimate but in any case its growing and growing rapidly at the expense of the indigenous population we are in for a rocky road ahead.

You believe - without adducing any evidence (apparently you have a more reliable source than the national census, but you appear to have forgotten to cite it) - that it's an underestimate. You claim without evidence that it's growing rapidly. You claim without evidence that it's at the expense of the indigenous population. And you declare, based on this breathtaking lack of any objective facts whatsoever, that we're in for a rocky road ahead because of the existential threat posed by one percent of the population.

Give me strength.

BabyCheeses · 13-05-2018 4:21am

Sand wrote: »

Uh, I never mentioned paedophilia. You referenced the defeat of Roy Moore as being a triumph for black people. I.E. racial politics.

No I didn't.

Sand wrote: »

You're asking what the solution is for the USA. I'm telling you, there is no solution in 2018 bar building a time machine and stopping the 1965 immigration act. Racial division is the present and the future of the USA. You cannot do anything to solve that.

That is nothing new. They had a war over keeping one group as property 100 years before the immigration act.

Sand wrote: »

What you're missing is I only referenced the US to show how demographics can rapidly shift in just two generations.

And I was pointing out it was wrong.

Sand wrote: »

The problem that can be solved is Europe.

Nope, too late.

splashuum wrote: »

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

We're not even safe with our own secret Muslims!

Mutant z wrote: »

The Muslim population of this country according to the census is about 63000 which i believe is an underestimate but in any case its growing and growing rapidly at the expense of the indigenous population we are in for a rocky road ahead.

Sand wrote: »

And the solution there is two fold: A) End mass immigration into Europe. Examine and address the causes of Europeans failing to have children.

Great, the mass immigration buzzword I've been hearing for years. For some 1 is 1 too many and they are welcomed within the put a stop to mass immigration group.

B I would agree with but for some reason people tend to stick to yelling about A.

Wouldn't any political parties looking at both A and B come under racial politics?

Sand wrote: »

Polish people can be assimilated. Lapsed Catholics who have issues with alcohol will fit in just fine in Ireland. Migration from within a region is much easier to handle than migration from outside a region.

I wouldn't consider the Polish to be very lapsed.

Sand wrote: »

White South Africans have been present in the cape for centuries, but they haven't been assimilated by the local Africans, and they never will be.

You mean the immigrants failed to assimilate into the local Africans as the Muslims are failing to assimilate in Europe right?

I'm still left wonder why I should be against my friends being here while supporting people who just hate them for existing. I have perfectly nice, friendly non-white friends, some are Muslims, some are Spanish. I have a nice time with them, come home and I log into boards.ie to see a thread where a car has a wheel on the curb and the comments from the same few people are always:

"It was Muslims, Muslims bad"
"This it the EU's fault. Thanks Merkel for killing us all!!!!"

And of course when it turns out it had nothing to do with Muslims they still complain about Muslims and am supposed to sit here and think that yeah, these people are right, it's time to kick out my Muslim and Spanish friends!

A good start would be for those who think the world is ending to calm down and stop being terrible people that I am ashamed to be associated with.

quintana76 · 13-05-2018 4:45am

We are being betrayed on the above issue by our establishments. Too much to gain on their part to consider the existential losses for the working class and it's long treasured cultural cohesion. They, in turn, have nowhere to turn as the far left (left in general) and the smoke salmon "socialists" all despise them with the move from class to identity politics. These groups seem more happy to excuse Islamic intolerance than stand up for the rights and desires of the people they were founded to make a better life for.
Strange days indeed.

Memnoch · 13-05-2018 10:51pm

quintana76 wrote: »

We are being betrayed on the above issue by our establishments. Too much to gain on their part to consider the existential losses for the working class and it's long treasured cultural cohesion. They, in turn, have nowhere to turn as the far left (left in general) and the smoke salmon "socialists" all despise them with the move from class to identity politics. These groups seem more happy to excuse Islamic intolerance than stand up for the rights and desires of the people they were founded to make a better life for.
Strange days indeed.

I'm on the left and have no interest in excusing islamic intolerance. I have every sympathy for the working class. I just don't see any evidence of this so called Muslim takeover of Ireland or the EU. It seems little more than a fanciful conspiracy theory boosted ultimately by the underlying prejudice of its proponents.

LuckyLloyd · 14-05-2018 1:41pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you're going to claim that the xenophobia you're espousing - and yes, it's pretty much a dictionary definition of xenophobia - is simply a statement of objective fact, there's no possibility of a rational discussion on the topic.

Meh, I'd say he's holding a very rational discussion on the topic. You refusing to respond to his rebuttal of your post can not be reasonably based on the above imo.

James Brown · 14-05-2018 2:24pm

Sand wrote: »

Your source says this:

I know this is a struggle to accept, but the majority of children in the US *today* are not white. By 2060 those children will be 42 years old and likely have children of their own. Do the math. This idea of the US being a white majority country belongs to 1960, not 2060.

As I've stated white Americans are a minority already. Nobody cares if white Americans are still a majority of the 40+ and older age groups. They don't have children so that only tells us about the past. The demographic breakdown of US children tells us about the future. And that has changed utterly in just two generations.

It is too late to close the border or build a wall if the aim is to prevent white Americans becoming a minority. Short of inventing a time machine and going back to 1965 there is nothing to be done. So the US is going to see more racially divisive politics as is the norm in racially divided democracies. That is unavoidable at this point.

My only question is why you would want to repeat this experience in Europe? What is to be gained?

What is your issue? You seem to want to preserve any white majority. Why? Are the whites somehow more deserving? This seems to be a skin colour issue for you. There is no white ethnic group that isn't a mix of several white ethnic groups. So we've already have and continue to have a mixing of cultures and religions, in the white populations of the world themselves.
Money is king. It seems those with the most, simply want to keep it. I don't see any real argument here for white being preferable, other than I assume, you being white and liking the status quo as is. People of other colours have the same hang ups and flaws the whites do, so I can't see the 1% giving it all away no matter what colour they may blend into. Things will not radically change in that regard.
Governments generally treat their poor with disdain. Regardless of the colour or religion, I can't see that changing either. Is the fear foreigners might take our low paying jobs?

super_furry · 14-05-2018 2:26pm

See the Polish are grand because they're the right kind of foreigner. The brown people though? Well that's a takeover.

Chips Lovell · 14-05-2018 2:34pm

Sand wrote: »

America was surprisingly stable in its demographics throughout the 20th century and indeed the 19th century. It was 80% white in 1790. It grew to 88% white in 1900, and stabilised at 88-89% white for the next 70 years. So for 180 years the USA was at least 80% white and for the majority of that time higher again. Over just the past 40-50 years, those demographics have rapidly changed. This was accomplished with no discussion, and no democratic mandate.

Again, the mistake you're making is the crude categorisation by skin colour, as if German Protestants, Italian Catholics and Ukrainian Jews, for example, are all one homogenous group. They weren't. There were successive waves of immigration that altered the make-up of the US and they're continuing to this day.

keane2097 · 14-05-2018 2:44pm

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Again, the mistake you're making is the crude categorisation by skin colour, as if German Protestants, Italian Catholics and Ukrainian Jews, for example, are all one homogenous group. They weren't. There were successive waves of immigration that altered the make-up of the US and they're continuing to this day.

This seems like a good point.

Where does the journey from 'no Irish need apply' to dyeing the Hudson green every March 17th fit into a supposed 'stable demographic'?

ArthurDayne · 14-05-2018 2:45pm

Memnoch wrote: »

I'm on the left and have no interest in excusing islamic intolerance. I have every sympathy for the working class. I just don't see any evidence of this so called Muslim takeover of Ireland or the EU. It seems little more than a fanciful conspiracy theory boosted ultimately by the underlying prejudice of its proponents.

To be honest it's a well-worn path throughout human history:

1. Foreigners from X-land arrive.
2. Some X-landers struggle with some aspects of living in new country.
3. People more interested in hearing exciting stories of X-landers causing trouble than boring stories of X-landers going about their normal daily lives (i.e Daily Express-type media knows '300 X-landers convicted of MURDER AND RAPE last year' gets more hits than '1,000,000 X-landers DID NOTHING BUT GO ABOUT THEIR LIVES QUIETLY AND PEACEFULLY last year.
4. Barrage of media about delinquent or violent X-landers leads to widespread belief that X-landers are inherently delinquent, violent, and lack the same levels of decency as natives.
5. X-landers who get jobs blamed for 'taking peoples jobs' and those who don't get jobs blamed for 'taking peoples welfare' .
6. Years go by. World does not end. Natives grow up with X-landers and become used to them and mix with them/their children in the normal course of daily life.

. . . .

7. Foreigners from Z-land arrive. Recommence process replacing 'X-lander' with 'Z-lander'.

So it is -- so it shall always be.

Gravelly · 14-05-2018 2:56pm

ArthurDayne wrote: »

To be honest it's a well-worn path throughout human history:

1. Foreigners from X-land arrive.
2. Some X-landers struggle with some aspects of living in new country.
3. People more interested in hearing exciting stories of X-landers causing trouble than boring stories of X-landers going about their normal daily lives (i.e Daily Express-type media knows '300 X-landers convicted of MURDER AND RAPE last year' gets more hits than '1,000,000 X-landers DID NOTHING BUT GO ABOUT THEIR LIVES QUIETLY AND PEACEFULLY last year.
4. Barrage of media about delinquent or violent X-landers leads to widespread belief that X-landers are inherently delinquent, violent, and lack the same levels of decency as natives.
5. X-landers who get jobs blamed for 'taking peoples jobs' and those who don't get jobs blamed for 'taking peoples welfare' .
6. Years go by. World does not end. Natives grow up with X-landers and become used to them and mix with them/their children in the normal course of daily life.

. . . .

7. Foreigners from Z-land arrive. Recommence process replacing 'X-lander' with 'Z-lander'.

So it is -- so it shall always be.

Do the Native Americans fit nicely into this story? What about the Australian Aborigines? Or the Lebanese Christians, or the Taiwanese, or, that favorite of the left, Palestinians? Do you think they'd all have a good 'ol laugh at your witty little story?

ArthurDayne · 14-05-2018 3:01pm

Gravelly wrote: »

Do the Native Americans fit nicely into this story? What about the Australian Aborigines? Or the Lebanese Christians, or the Taiwanese, or, that favorite of the left, Palestinians? Do you think they'd all have a good 'ol laugh at your witty little story?

Well no Gravelly they don't fit into this story as we are talking about immigration here and not colonial/military conquest or invasions. Muslims aren't exactly landing on the beaches with armies and sticking the crescent moon flag in the sand . . .

Gravelly · 14-05-2018 3:06pm

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Well no Gravelly they don't fit into this story as we are talking about immigration here and not colonial/military conquest or invasions. Muslims aren't exactly landing on the beaches with armies and sticking the crescent moon flag in the sand . . .

invasion
ɪnˈveɪʒ(ə)n/Submit
noun
an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.

LuckyLloyd · 14-05-2018 3:08pm

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Again, the mistake you're making is the crude categorisation by skin colour, as if German Protestants, Italian Catholics and Ukrainian Jews, for example, are all one homogenous group. They weren't. There were successive waves of immigration that altered the make-up of the US and they're continuing to this day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots

And successive incididences of racical / cultural tension related to that constant change.

Chips Lovell · 14-05-2018 3:12pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

And successive incididences of racical / cultural tension related to that constant change.

Exactly. It's nothing new.

LuckyLloyd · 14-05-2018 3:13pm

I don't think words like "invasion" or "takeover" are particularly helpful or relevant. This discussion requires less sensationalism. The changes society has undergone over the past thirty years are dramatic enough on their own.

ArthurDayne · 14-05-2018 3:24pm

Gravelly wrote: »

invasion
ɪnˈveɪʒ(ə)n/Submit
noun
an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.

Gravelly , I do like to try give somewhat substantial responses to people I engage with on this. But comparing Muslim immigrants or refugees fleeing from war with an army coming over to forcibly/violently remove people from their land and to claim the land as their sovereign territory is just an outrageously squalid argument.

Gravelly · 14-05-2018 3:39pm

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Gravelly , I do like to try give somewhat substantial responses to people I engage with on this. But comparing Muslim immigrants or refugees fleeing from war with an army coming over to forcibly/violently remove people from their land and to claim the land as their sovereign territory is just an outrageously squalid argument.

"substantial responses" is right :rolleyes:

I didn't compare them - did you read my post?

screamer · 14-05-2018 3:49pm

Sand wrote: »

Matt Barrett wrote: »

There's people up north have the same fear about Catholics.

Yes, and that demonstrates how deep and damaging demographic divisions can go. We have two populations, both Christian, both white (so indistinguishable from each other) and even drawn from the same Gaelic heritage if you go back far enough. And still intensely bitter hatreds and political division that has endured for 400 years and could endure for another 400. Why would you want to repeat this experience across western Europe?

Are you really betting and European and non-European groups who have much greater differences are going to get on better? The history of the former Yugoslavia doesn't bode well, let alone current events where suicide bombings and truck rampages are now a thing in Europe that requires tens of thousands of soldiers patrolling city streets. Where-ever you find diversity, you find conflict and atrocities.

The fact is populations change over time. We all live on the same planet, if Ireland becomes a Muslim majority country, that's nature at work.

This is not nature. This is policy. Look at the US 1965 Immigration Act. That was a political choice, it was not a natural occurrence. The US was actually *more* white in 1965 than the USA was throughout the 19th century. After the 1965 act that has collapsed in just 50 years. That was a choice. Many western European governments are also making or have made choices, but you don't see it discussed openly in political manifestos. If you want to see this sort of demographic change, then seek a mandate for it openly. Don't piss on my back and tell me its raining.

There was a time we had no Catholics in Ireland. This all revolves back to protectionism. How things are now for me are fine. Any equality or change in that is seen as a threat and it's understandable people become fearful of change. As borne out in the like of the US where we actually have the descendants of conquers and immigrants campaigning against immigrants and fearful of being conquered. The Aboriginals, First nations and Palestinians would have been right to be fearful on their 'settlers' from abroad. Maybe the great white west is fearful it might get a taste of it's own medicine.

So is this demographic change supposed to be a positive or a punishment?

Lets look at how it goes for whites in America. They are passing into minority status, and for the past 70 years their fellow citizens have been told that whites have undue power and wealth, that they cheated and stole it, and that they have misused it to oppress others. Lets see how that situation develops and see if they do indeed get a taste of their own medicine as you put it. Preferably from a distance.

If it works out like south Africa then white Americans will be fleeing America as they won't be able to get jobs or even hold onto them.
Immigration is good but not to the point that it destroys the culture and demographic of the country, whatever country that is. Look at Belgium for an example where a minority around the Hague became a majority and wanted lots of things changed to reflect their culture etc. It caused huge problems.

Mancomb Seepgood · 14-05-2018 3:58pm

screamer wrote: »

If it works out like south Africa then white Americans will be fleeing America as they won't be able to get jobs or even hold onto them.

Not a great example,white South Africans are far less likely to be unemployed than South Africans of other races: https://www.news24.com/analysis/ramaphosa-right-about-big-difference-between-black-and-white-unemployment-20180221?mobile=true

James Brown · 14-05-2018 4:13pm

screamer wrote: »

If it works out like south Africa then white Americans will be fleeing America as they won't be able to get jobs or even hold onto them.
Immigration is good but not to the point that it destroys the culture and demographic of the country, whatever country that is. Look at Belgium for an example where a minority around the Hague became a majority and wanted lots of things changed to reflect their culture etc. It caused huge problems.

You feel the Cherokee or Choctaw might run the immigrant white Europeans out of the U.S.?
You feel they might take back their land and reclaim all white owned property, Mugabe style?

Ireland has been transformed time and again. There is still an Irish culture, al-be-it changed from the days before the Vikings, Norse, Britons, Huguenots etc. etc.

By 'destroy' you might mean change? Immigration is nothing new.
All I can see here is a dislike of a certain kind of immigrant.

oscarBravo · 14-05-2018 4:16pm

screamer wrote: »

Look at Belgium for an example where a minority around the Hague became a majority and wanted lots of things changed to reflect their culture etc. It caused huge problems.

...not least of which was moving The Hague to Belgium! Damn those pesky immigrants and their city-moving antics.

skooterblue2 · 14-05-2018 4:18pm

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Well no Gravelly they don't fit into this story as we are talking about immigration here and not colonial/military conquest or invasions. Muslims aren't exactly landing on the beaches with armies and sticking the crescent moon flag in the sand . . .

You are right they arent...... they are taxing our food through a complex system of Halal. They are running Sharia courts and their culture runs contrary to ours...... Dont ask me to start listing about Bacha Bazi and slavery

facehugger99 · 14-05-2018 4:35pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

.

It's simple maths. A chocolate bar divided between three people gives each individual more chocolate than the same bar divided between four.

Simple thinking more like.

The 'chocolate bar' is not static, in fact the chocolate bar has been getting bigger every year.

You have assumed that while population increases, the available resources remain static. These scare-theories were being peddled back in the late-60's and have been widely debunked in the intervening decades. Today less people die of starvation than did 40 years ago, despite the population more than doubling in the same period. The percentage of the world's population who qualify as "undernourished" (according to the UN) has fallen by more than half in the same period, from 33% to 16%.

The trend is in the opposite direction of what you have predicted.

Infini · 14-05-2018 7:16pm

Funny thing is that people are only fearful of the whole "muslim" angle right now because of those brain-dead, waste's of cultural, genetic and ideological space called "islamic" state and the like. Most of this crap originated from that cancerous pit of stupidity (idiot clerics) in Saudi Arabia and even the royals in charge there realise that this brand of Islam is wholly toxic to their civilisation long term and giving too many a bad name.

There are issue's were religion has been a serious problem in various parts of the world but the crap that's prevalent now isn't neccssarily gonna be the same 40 or 50 years from now. It's why these thing's are so difficult to predict.

BabyCheeses · 14-05-2018 7:57pm

Gravelly wrote: »

invasion
ɪnˈveɪʒ(ə)n/Submit
noun
an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.

What's the point in the hyperbole? People will spend more time arguing your dramatics and not the issue. Is there a reason to avoid a reasoned adult conversation?

Gravelly · 14-05-2018 8:48pm

BabyCheeses wrote: »

What's the point in the hyperbole? People will spend more time arguing your dramatics and not the issue. Is there a reason to avoid a reasoned adult conversation?

So your mate starts talking about armies and invasions and I'm the one accused of hyperbole? Adult conversation me hole.

ancapailldorcha · 14-05-2018 9:15pm

Gravelly wrote: »

"substantial responses" is right :rolleyes:

I didn't compare them - did you read my post?

Gravelly wrote: »

So your mate starts talking about armies and invasions and I'm the one accused of hyperbole? Adult conversation me hole.

Please read the charter before posting here again. This is a forum for serious discussion and the above comments fall short of this.

Conservatory · 14-05-2018 9:21pm

I see it like this. We need young working age people to pay our pensions. A great side effect to the war on terror is loads of young families fleeing to their oppressors to pay the pensions of their oppressors. I think the U2 song bullet the blue sky touched on it in the 80s.
We are plundering the Middle East for its labour force in a way. Mad really but what are the alternatives?

Darragh123789 · 14-05-2018 9:40pm

I think the real answer to globalism boils down to one question:
"is race mixing a bad thing?"

To me, preserving Irish and European culture is extremely important. To others, not so much. It saddens me that we are projected to be the smallest ethnic group in our own country by 2050. To others, this isn't a problem.

When it comes to this "Muslim takeover", I'm concerned about problems relating to jobs, residential space, terrorism etc. I'm not sure about anyone else, but post-2010 has been nothing but years of proof that we need to do something immediately.

Edit: This is my first post here, I'm not sure if I did it right.

Sand · 14-05-2018 10:31pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Fair enough. It has been some time since the last terrorist attacks in London and Paris so maybe the military presence is more subtle now or it's being scaled down. I don't know.

Yes, but there will always be another one along shortly. Paris had another attack just yesterday. After 70 years of mass migration, Europe has a "homegrown" Islamic insurgency for which which governments have no solution except to endure. While there is no easy solution, we can avoid further pursuing the policy which created (at least the conditions for) the problem.

I don't think it does. This link from 2017 gives 850 as the total number of people who have joined ISIS. Given that there are millions of Muslims in the UK this is a very low number though I do have to admit that it is higher than the number of Muslims in the armed forces (480 according to this)

ISIS not to be able to recruit any British Muslims if they are as English as anyone else. But they are.

Except that the areas which voted for Leave tended to exhibit the lowest levels of immigraiton. From The Economist:

This suggests that it wasn't a loss of English culture and identity which fuelled the Leave vote but a perceived loss of said culture and identity.

Well, yes, but I think people are misinterpreting that correlation.

Those areas will have likely seen whats happening in areas of high immigration and in their capital. They may even have left those areas themselves (white flight again) or know someone who has. There are English communities in London that have simply ceased to be. Eastenders still portrays a cast that is overwhelmingly English, but its a fantasy in more ways than one as those English communities are gone in reality.

And the areas which high immigration? By that point the English are the minority in any vote. You cant expect these areas to be concerned about the loss of English identity.

I don't know exactly what is behind it. I've mentioned economics before. However, many bastions of collectivism have collapsed such as organised religion, trade unions, workers clubs (Saw one in Battle. Had no idea they even existed), etc. Today's people seem to be much more focused on the individual which is good in a liberal sense but bad in that these social outlets have largely disappeared. Social media and the internet are also likely to be playing a part in this.

Yes, I think an undermining of collective institutions has played a role in it to. What was restrictive to some did provide support to others. Their hollowing out has not been an unqualified success. Freedom can go hand in hand with increased freedom to fail to compete economically, socially, politically. It does feed back into the neo-liberalism issue.

You say that new immigrants are hostile to British heritage but I disagree. I'm not seeing much in the way of hostility from most immigrants. If anyone is hostile to British heritage, it's modern University students but that's a discussion for somewhere else methinks.

Well, I admit I was thinking of university students. There was an incident last year where Cambridge students (of a migrant background) called for the English curriculum to be decolonised: i.e. remove English authors from the curriculum in favour of non-English authors. What I took from that is that when immigration was sold, it was assured that the new arrivals would integrate and become British/English. What has actually happened is the British have had to adapt to the new arrivals.

I agree, many immigrants are Anglophiles, but new immigrants have their own cultures, of which they are proud. They are not going to sacrifice them and become just as English as the English themselves. There is a clip from Sky News going around a Northern UK town and asking a local British woman (clad in burka) "What does being British mean to you?". To which she replied "I don't understand this?"

If Britain is going to continue to accept mass migration, and the rapid demographic shifts that comes with it, Britain is going to have to compromise itself to the point that British identity is meaningless and UK is simply a place to do business.

The English identity is evolving. The result of this is that some people will feel left behind. Traditional policies of leaving them to it have been proven to foment festering pits of resentment which have allowed for the rise of UKIP/Trump and put the UK in a position where its own politicians are undermining checks and balances on government power.

Well, English identity always evolves and will continue to evolve. That is normal and organic. Culture and nationality is never fixed. But that is not what is happening in the UK.

British identity is being devolved so the barriers to entry are as low as possible so that literally anyone can arrive and declare themselves (in broken English) to be just as British as Admiral Nelson after they complete a government approved training course. In my view, this British identity is increasingly detached from English identity. They are two very different things these days.

I'm old enough to remember the time when the right-wing tabloids had their sights trained firmly on the working and welfare classes. If you were poor, you were told to get a job. If it wasn't paying enough, you should go do a course at your own expense. Don't have the money? You should have made better life choices. Ditto for families living on the breadline, people claiming disability benefits, etc...

They still do have their sights trained on the working and welfare classes. I don't think they ever let up.

When the Eastern nations acceded to the EU, newspaper editors realised that they could make more money by selling Xenophobia to the working classes instead of selling classism to the middle classes. Younger people are less likely to rely on traditional media for information so that market is already dry so there is no risk of alienating readers. If Brexit succeeds in cutting immigration levels and Mrs. May's hostile environment persuades the Muslims to leave then there's not a shread of doubt in my mind that they'll go back to bashing the lower classes once again. There needs to be a villain after all.

I think the working classes and the new immigrants would always have opposed interests. Again, if they wouldn't do the work the middle and upper classes would simply import people who would.

I might check out that book. Sounds like it might be interesting.

It is. Its written by what I would describe as a disillusioned Labour member. He has a couple of points that are clearly his pet issues (Iraq war, constitutional reforms, etc) which he tries to link to Brexit and Trump, and his focus on Trump/US is clearly weaker. But he does have some very good insights.

skooterblue2 · 14-05-2018 10:34pm

Conservatory wrote: »

I see it like this. We need young working age people to pay our pensions. A great side effect to the war on terror is loads of young families fleeing to their oppressors to pay the pensions of their oppressors. I think the U2 song bullet the blue sky touched on it in the 80s.
We are plundering the Middle East for its labour force in a way. Mad really but what are the alternatives?

So how did that work out in Lebanon? Y'know the place they used to call "Paris of the East"? We are plundering the middle easts labour force? All them engineers and Doctors? I have seen their Doctors and they couldnt literally "Tell the difference between an Xray of an Knee and an ankle". 19 of 220 couldnt pass a basic english exam, we can keep our own doctors. As for engineers? Name one project going on in the middle east that isnt built with foreign labour? We have to send overseas aid of 560 million to pay for countries that tell us we are racist? After we send missionaries over with aid and medication? They tax our food with Halal. When will this madness end?

Conservatory · 14-05-2018 10:44pm

skooterblue2 wrote: »

So how did that work out in Lebanon? Y'know the place they used to call "Paris of the East"? We are plundering the middle easts labour force? All them engineers and Doctors? I have seen their Doctors and they couldnt literally "Tell the difference between an Xray of an Knee and an ankle". 19 of 220 couldnt pass a basic english exam, we can keep our own doctors. As for engineers? Name one project going on in the middle east that isnt built with foreign labour? We have to send overseas aid of 560 million to pay for countries that tell us we are racist? After we send missionaries over with aid and medication? They tax our food with Halal. When will this madness end?

We can’t keep our own doctors or nurses or teachers they head abroad to better conditions according to many reports. We need low wage willing staff. Dry wallers cleaners garage workers shop staff. They are all here to be seen. It drives the wages down also. Diluting the labour market. Surely you don’t think we suddenly want to save all these peoples lives. We need a cheaper labour force to pay our pensions. What’s the problem with what religion they practice in their own home. Taxi drivers bus drivers, I heard a bus driver complaining the other day his hours were too hectic and he pulling 800 quid a week driving a bus. Not for long he won’t. We need multiculturalism to get them wages down and make our services more economical.

Sand · 14-05-2018 10:51pm

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Again, the mistake you're making is the crude categorisation by skin colour, as if German Protestants, Italian Catholics and Ukrainian Jews, for example, are all one homogenous group. They weren't. There were successive waves of immigration that altered the make-up of the US and they're continuing to this day.

I'm not making the categorisation. The US government census and various other researchers are. They do so because they view the categorisation as useful. Stop trying to score virtue points, it is tiresome. I didn't create the categorisations, I did not impose them, I'm observing the trends they are reporting.

And skin colour does still seem to be an important factor in the ethnic identity politics in the US. Was Obama the 44th American President of the USA? I cant recall for sure, because all we were told was he was the 1st black President of the USA. This was why people should vote for him. To make history. World history, over something so meaningless? When a US police officer shoots a suspect, the skin colour of the officer and the victim are often considered extremely important to report. And so on.

All those German Protestants, Italian Catholics and Ukrainian Jews arrived at the US after the arrival of Africans to the US. Yes, there was strife. Yet all those groups are now categorised as White, and are broadly assimilated under the identity of white American because they were all broadly white European. They are all guilty of white privilege purely on the basis of skin colour.

Yet, the Africans who arrived before them never assimilated into white American identity despite having more time to do so. And going by contemporary US identity politics, Africans will never assimilate into white American identity. They have, and seemingly will continue to maintain, their own African American identity with all the division and strife that entails.

skooterblue2 · 14-05-2018 10:53pm

Conservatory wrote: »

We can’t keep our own doctors or nurses or teachers they head abroad to better conditions according to many reports. We need low wage willing staff. Dry wallers cleaners garage workers shop staff. They are all here to be seen. It drives the wages down also. Diluting the labour market. Surely you don’t think we suddenly want to save all these peoples lives. We need a cheaper labour force to pay our pensions. What’s the problem with what religion they practice in their own home. Taxi drivers bus drivers, I heard a bus driver complaining the other day his hours were too hectic and he pulling 800 quid a week driving a bus. Not for long he won’t. We need multiculturalism to get them wages down and make our services more economical.

Good work aint cheap, cheap work aint good.

Sand · 14-05-2018 10:55pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you're going to claim that the xenophobia you're espousing - and yes, it's pretty much a dictionary definition of xenophobia - is simply a statement of objective fact, there's no possibility of a rational discussion on the topic.

If your only contribution is throwing out lazy pejoratives, then I agree.

4068ac1elhodqr · 14-05-2018 11:01pm

Conservatory wrote: »

We can’t keep our own doctors or nurses or teachers they head abroad to better conditions according to many reports. We need low wage willing staff. Dry wallers cleaners garage workers shop staff. They are all here to be seen. It drives the wages down also. Diluting the labour market. Surely you don’t think we suddenly want to save all these peoples lives. We need a cheaper labour force to pay our pensions. What’s the problem with what religion they practice in their own home. Taxi drivers bus drivers, I heard a bus driver complaining the other day his hours were too hectic and he pulling 800 quid a week driving a bus. Not for long he won’t. We need multiculturalism to get them wages down and make our services more economical.

Yes, because automation will eliminate the need for humans in 50% of all current roles by 2030 including driving buses. Add in the car powerwashers, garages, lawnmowers, minicabs, shop staff, restraunts, warehousing staff just to name a few.

Sure the niche sectors requiring very highly educated, fluent and talented will still be in demand. But in the future, natives laden with educational debt will have to compete with new cut-price arrivals, for whatever scraps the 24/7 robots can't fulfil for those 'zero-hour' gigs.

Now if the goverments don't provide high UBI (leading to hyper inflation), what in all reality, is the outlook like for the next generation(s)?

MayoSalmon · 14-05-2018 11:12pm

Darragh123789 wrote:

I think the real answer to globalism boils down to one question: "is race mixing a bad thing?"

Has fook all to do with race honestly. Is multiculturalism is good thing is a different question. It works in America as every ethnic group is able to assimilate and ultimately consider themselves Irish-American Asian-American or whatever.

By the looks of all the news stories that come out of France, Sweden and Germany etc that kind of assimilation doesn't seem to occurring which is a very worrying for the future of Europe and these countries in particular.

Conservatory · 14-05-2018 11:13pm

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Yes, because automation will eliminate the need for humans in 50% of all current roles by 2030 including driving buses. Add in the car powerwashers, garages, lawnmowers, minicabs, shop staff, restraunts, warehousing staff just to name a few.

Sure the niche sectors requiring very highly educated, fluent and talented will still be in demand. But in the future, natives laden with educational debt will have to compete with new cut-price arrivals, for whatever scraps the 24/7 robots can't fulfil for those 'zero-hour' gigs.

Now if the goverments don't provide high UBI (leading to hyper inflation), what in all reality, is the outlook like for the next generation(s)?

You are thinking about the future buddy, climate change could probably kill everyone by then. We have to grab it while the going is good. If you are an employer you want multiculturalism. Loads of it. More people to sell to and more people to scrape that wage down, honestly who cares what shaped church they go to.
Have you any idea how many pensions the state are paying out these days?
Why should I care about what the fellas that fund mine look like?

oscarBravo · 14-05-2018 11:16pm

Sand wrote: »

If your only contribution is throwing out lazy pejoratives, then I agree.

My "lazy pejorative" is a response to an absurd premise. If you want to start a conversation from the premise that it's perfectly OK for white people to be angry about non-white immigration, you should do so on Stormfront.

You've stated that it's an objective fact that large-scale immigration is a bad thing. That's not the basis for a rational discussion, it's a statement of prejudice. It's not quite as blatant as the chap who claimed that Muslims are a majority in the Hague - that well-known Belgian city - but it's still a blithe expression of xenophobia.

I get that it's easier to respond to being called out on it by calling it a lazy pejorative than to actually question your premises, but we're still no closer to an intelligent conversation as a result.

Sand · 14-05-2018 11:28pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

My "lazy pejorative" is a response to an absurd premise. If you want to start a conversation from the premise that it's perfectly OK for white people to be angry about non-white immigration, you should do so on Stormfront.

What is your view on the Boyle Heights campaign?

You've stated that it's an objective fact that large-scale immigration is a bad thing. That's not the basis for a rational discussion, it's a statement of prejudice.

Is stating immigration is good a prejudice?

I get that it's easier to respond to being called out on it by calling it a lazy pejorative than to actually question your premises, but we're still no closer to an intelligent conversation as a result.

Oscar, I've asked you two questions above. You can respond to them honestly, or you can keep throwing out pejoratives and straw-manning me. If you don't want to discuss the issues honestly, you can save yourself a lot of time by recognising that.

Nermal · 14-05-2018 11:32pm

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Gravelly , I do like to try give somewhat substantial responses to people I engage with on this. But comparing Muslim immigrants or refugees fleeing from war with an army coming over to forcibly/violently remove people from their land and to claim the land as their sovereign territory is just an outrageously squalid argument.

Statistically, the result will be the same.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Maybe the great white west is fearful it might get a taste of it's own medicine.

It's a perfectly logical fear, isn't it? I don't want my children or grandchildren to 'get a taste of that medicine', I would rather they were doing the prescribing, thanks.

Conservatory · 14-05-2018 11:45pm

Nermal wrote: »

Statistically, the result will be the same.

It's a perfectly logical fear, isn't it? I don't want my children or grandchildren to 'get a taste of that medicine', I would rather they were doing the prescribing, thanks.

A natives grandchild was on a bus the other day attacking a driver. I’d gladly take in ten lads who will contribute to my pension in minimum wage jobs for a fella who will probably not contribute anything but hassle.
The real problem as I see it is the growing number who still don’t even pay their bin charges. There’s a fella on my road that goes out and puts his rubbish in the corpo bin at the top of the road. Every evening. Probably spends the day then moaning about the foreigners.
Of course there will be a few years rounding up the few bad apples that get in but after that it’s a utopia of cheep labour.

cd07 · 14-05-2018 11:47pm

facehugger99 wrote:

You have assumed that while population increases, the available resources remain static. These scare-theories were being peddled back in the late-60's and have been widely debunked in the intervening decades. Today less people die of starvation than did 40 years ago, despite the population more than doubling in the same period. The percentage of the world's population who qualify as "undernourished" (according to the UN) has fallen by more than half in the same period, from 33% to 16%.

facehugger99 wrote:

The trend is in the opposite direction of what you have predicted.

facehugger99 wrote:

The 'chocolate bar' is not static, in fact the chocolate bar has been getting bigger every year.

Wonder where all that extra grub comes from and the health issues it may be throwing up GM crops etc...cancer etc...

fash · 15-05-2018 5:22am

Conservatory wrote: »

I see it like this. We need young working age people to pay our pensions.

That assumes those coming have the relevant skills ( language, reading, education etc.) That is not the case. If you want to bring in skilled people to pay for pensions, there are tens of millions of people in south America, China and India who would be happy to get a visa and more qualified to work in areas

Conservatory wrote: »

A great side effect to the war on terror is loads of young families fleeing to their oppressors to pay the pensions of their oppressors.

that depends on who you call their oppressors- large numbers are coming from Afghanistan or subsaharan Africa- who are their "oppressors"? Most are going to Germany- who are they "oppressing"? For those going to a place which"oppressed" their homeland ( whether real or perceived), how well is that person going to integrate into the land of their oppressors?

I think the U2 song bullet the blue sky touched on it in the 80s.
We are plundering the Middle East for its labour force in a way. Mad really but what are the alternatives?

Return home economic migrants from Afghanistan etc. - in the alternative ( is that is not working), set up migrant processing stations in locations that they are unlikely to like if they are coming for economic reasons ( St Helens, Falklands, French Dom-Toms etc)
Provide resources for refugees as close to their countries of origin as possible- where the resources go furthest, so you can help the most and you can help the most vulnerable at least equally ( women, children, disabled and the old).
If you want immigration for economic reasons, do so on a merit basis with a preference for people from countries which have a proven track record for assimilation ( including 2nd and 3rd generation). Ensure that the economic purposes being served are long term interests and not short term ( e.g. not propping up ailing legacy industries which will shortly collapse anyway- such as the large immigration into the northern England in support of the textile industry - leaving you instead with a large long term unemployed immigrant population).

fash · 15-05-2018 5:29am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

By 'destroy' you might mean change? Immigration is nothing new.
All I can see here is a dislike of a certain kind of immigrant.

Mass immigration is new. Just copying and pasting something from Douglas Murray on this point ( in reference to the UK):
"Roughly 50,000 Huguenots came to Britain after 1681. This was equal to a couple of months of immigration by the turn of the 21st century. The entire Ugandan Asian immigration into Britain in the early 1970s (caused by Idi Amin's expulsion of Asians from Uganda) numbered around 30,000. This constituted six weeks' worth of immigration by the late 1990s"

Migration Megathread

Comments