Migration Megathread

oscarBravo · 12-02-2019 10:48pm

Sand wrote: »

Ironically English women go to work to pay for the Islamic mothers having the children those English women themselves cant afford to have.

I like how you snuck that Muslim women (sorry, "Islamic women") versus English women dichotomy in there. Like recedite before you, who argued that it was impossible to be both Muslim and French, you're implying that you can be either Muslim or English, but not both.

Odhinn · 13-02-2019 1:33pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I like how you snuck that Muslim women (sorry, "Islamic women") versus English women dichotomy in there. Like recedite before you, who argued that it was impossible to be both Muslim and French, you're implying that you can be either Muslim or English, but not both.

....and that "muslim" automatically equates to a specific strict sect of Islam and/or militancy.

Brian? · 13-02-2019 1:49pm

splashuum wrote: »

It was found that Muslim women were 71% more likely than white Christian women to be unemployed, even comparing women with similar language abilities, education, marital status, number of children. (BBC article from 2016)

Unfortunately quite a large % of Non-Native Islamic women who live in Ireland contribute zero to the economy. Many instead depend on the Irish welfare system. Having previously lived with Muslim people I have seen that some Muslim women feel it’s against their religion to work.

House wives contribute zero to the economy? Can you substantiate this point.

splashuum · 13-02-2019 9:33pm

Brian? wrote: »

splashuum wrote: »

It was found that Muslim women were 71% more likely than white Christian women to be unemployed, even comparing women with similar language abilities, education, marital status, number of children. (BBC article from 2016)

Unfortunately quite a large % of Non-Native Islamic women who live in Ireland contribute zero to the economy. Many instead depend on the Irish welfare system. Having previously lived with Muslim people I have seen that some Muslim women feel it’s against their religion to work.

House wives contribute zero to the economy? Can you substantiate this point.

I didn’t mention the word housewife. I’m not quite sure what your trying to get at. You also ignored all my other statements.

RustyNut · 13-02-2019 9:46pm

splashuum wrote: »

It was found that Muslim women were 71% more likely than white Christian women to be unemployed, even comparing women with similar language abilities, education, marital status, number of children. (BBC article from 2016)

Unfortunately quite a large % of Non-Native Islamic women who live in Ireland contribute zero to the economy. Many instead depend on the Irish welfare system. Having previously lived with Muslim people I have seen that some Muslim women feel it’s against their religion to work.

I think we need more stats here. How about non white Christian women? White non Christian women? What about native Muslim women? Have you any evidence to back up the claim that "Non-Native Islamic women who live in Ireland contribute zero to the economy " ? What is "quite a large percentage"?

Brian? · 14-02-2019 12:38pm

splashuum wrote: »

I didn’t mention the word housewife. I’m not quite sure what your trying to get at. You also ignored all my other statements.

You said:

Unfortunately quite a large % of Non-Native Islamic women who live in Ireland contribute zero to the economy. Many instead depend on the Irish welfare system. Having previously lived with Muslim people I have seen that some Muslim women feel it’s against their religion to work.

If a woman chooses to stay at home and raise a family, is she contributing nothing to the economy? That’s the implication you’re making.

Brian? · 14-02-2019 12:46pm

RustyNut wrote: »

I think we need more stats here. How about non white Christian women? White non Christian women? What about native Muslim women? Have you any evidence to back up the claim that "Non-Native Islamic women who live in Ireland contribute zero to the economy " ? What is "quite a large percentage"?

You’re not going to get that Answer, it’s far too easy to say “I know some Muslim women who don’t work, ergo none of them want to work.”

I live in Eindhoven, The Netherlands. Massive Muslim population as a % or the whole. Not sure about how high a % in fairness. It’s not unusual that my bus driver is a Muslim woman wearing a Hijab. The retail staff seem to be about 25% Muslim women in hijabs. That’s just the Muslim women it’s easy to see.

I work with a lot of people of Turkish or are recent Turkish immigrants, a good % are women, no hijab but it’s a fair guess they might be Muslim. I’m not rude enough to ask.

I work with some other Muslim women, who do wear hijabs. Mostly first generation immigrants. Uzbek, Tajik, gulf states etc.

There’s a Tuesday market in the city centre. Dozens of Muslim women running stalls.

So what about that anecdotal evidence?

Brian? · 14-02-2019 12:50pm

As someone who lives on mainland Europe where this takeover is in full effect, I can tell you it’s hell. It’s a nightmare trying to avoid eating kebabs. Otherwise it’s grand.

Sand · 14-02-2019 8:42pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

This doesn't make any sense. Child benefits are agnostic as to religion - it is either possible to rear children on the allowances or it isn't.

What this to do with the subject? Obviously child benefits are received by those who have more children.

weisses wrote: »

Whats your issue ? ... 1 income family was the norm in the west a couple of decades ago ... where the mother actually had time to raise a larger family

I'm correcting Odhinn's erroneous belief. Odhinn now accepts that yes, non-indigenous people are having less children than immigrant communities. He has now adjusted his view to hoping everything will somehow converge in future without there being any significant demographic change.

Odhinn wrote: »

The first generation has higher birth rates. Second, third and so on align with "native" norms. It's a well known phenomena

Even if we allow for this to happen, what does it mean when there is a new 'first generation' arriving every year, restarting the cycle? Net non-EU migration to the UK last year amounted to roughly 250,000 people.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I like how you snuck that Muslim women (sorry, "Islamic women") versus English women dichotomy in there. Like recedite before you, who argued that it was impossible to be both Muslim and French, you're implying that you can be either Muslim or English, but not both.

I'm noticing that even when the topic of birth rates between indigenous and non-indigenous populations is discussed, even then you object to the indigenous group even being acknowledged. It demonstrates how extreme your views are that you find the mention of the English as a people to be disagreeable even when its absolutely necessary to discuss the issue. You are showing us the poverty of multiculturalism.

The English are an ethnicity and a nation, not a citizenship or a state. Acknowledging the existence of the English people does not deny anyone, Muslim or otherwise, their British passport. British Muslims understand this: 60-70% of various British Muslim communities identify as exclusively British, and do not identify as being English. They don't require you to be offended on their behalf.

Sand · 14-02-2019 8:44pm

Brian? wrote: »

As someone who lives on mainland Europe where this takeover is in full effect, I can tell you it’s hell. It’s a nightmare trying to avoid eating kebabs. Otherwise it’s grand.

I know right? People give out about climate change, but it means better summers, so whose complaining?

Midlife · 14-02-2019 8:57pm

Sand wrote: »

I know right? People give out about climate change, but it means better summers, so whose complaining?

Well one is going to lead to serious [problems globally, the other will just lead to tasty food, other cultures being more visible and more brown people knocking around.

At the end of the day, I think that's what it comes down to - the brown people knocking around and a different culture.

The people go this thread who have lived, worked and integrated with muslims have no problem but we're trying to win over arguments that essentially stem from ignorance with an unhealthy dash of conformation bias.

Odhinn · 14-02-2019 9:19pm

Sand wrote: »

I'm correcting Odhinn's erroneous belief. Odhinn now accepts that yes, non-indigenous people are having less children than immigrant communities. He has now adjusted his view to hoping everything will somehow converge in future without there being any significant demographic change..

My view was in no way adjusted.

Sand wrote: »

Even if we allow for this to happen, what does it mean when there is a new 'first generation' arriving every year, restarting the cycle? Net non-EU migration to the UK last year amounted to roughly 250,000 people.
.

Dear no, not "non eu" migration.....your every pronouncement is underpinned by a deep xenophobia.

Sand wrote: »

The English are an ethnicity and a nation, not a citizenship or a state. Acknowledging the existence of the English people does not deny anyone, Muslim or otherwise, their British passport. British Muslims understand this: 60-70% of various British Muslim communities identify as exclusively British, and do not identify as being English. They don't require you to be offended on their behalf.

Hang on there - weren't you taking the line that muslims did not integrate? Shouldn't they be identifying as "muslim"?

Sand · 14-02-2019 10:30pm

Odhinn wrote: »

My view was in no way adjusted.

Of course not. For your view to be affected by new evidence it would have to be based on evidence.

Dear no, not "non eu" migration.....your every pronouncement is underpinned by a deep xenophobia.

I take it you acknowledge your convergence theory is irrelevant when a city the size of Sunderland arrives every year. The UK has already seen significant demographic change. Brexit is one of the results. You're advocating for more demographic change. You may consider the positive (tasty food) to outweigh the negative (political upheaval, social strife domestic terrorism, increased repression) but pretending that change doesn't exist is an entirely non-serious position.

Hang on there - weren't you taking the line that muslims did not integrate? Shouldn't they be identifying as "muslim"?

Who says they didn't identify as Muslim? What we do know is they overwhelmingly did not identify as English.

Brian? · 15-02-2019 12:00pm

Sand wrote: »

I know right? People give out about climate change, but it means better summers, so whose complaining?

So you completely ignore my detailed post on every day interactions and observations of well integrated Muslim women and reply to me tongue in cheek post about kebabs. Pure class.

There’s a huge difference between climate change and migration. One is inherently bad and the other isn’t.

The Muslim takeover of Europe is a massive straw man. Tasty food is absolutely not the only positive.

4068ac1elhodqr · 15-02-2019 2:42pm

Brian? wrote: »

There’s a huge difference between climate change and migration. One is inherently bad and the other isn’t.

Diverse skilled migration is great yes, can't be faulted really.
Mass economic-migration of low-skilled, non-eu, mono-cultural, meh, not so much.

Brian? wrote: »

The Muslim takeover of Europe is a massive straw man. Tasty food is absolutely not the only positive.

Agree 'takeover' is too strong a phrase, then again it really depends on what 'time-frame' is being considered for an actual 'technical majority of 50.01%' to appear, likely not within the next 50yrs. 100yrs+ perhaps.

Although even 25% may be enough to force public policy change, with average elections only seeing about 60% averages in the EU.

Even (moderate) projections/estimates for places like Sweden have their Muslim population to be circa 20.5% by 2050. (With high projections 30.6%).

Now back in 2000, they would have been, 1%, 2%? Something like that.

So thats approx +20% in 50yrs.

Thus In 100yrs Sweden is a 41% Muslim country by moderate estimates, high estimates, that's 61.2%.

Brian? · 15-02-2019 4:09pm

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Diverse skilled migration is great yes, can't be faulted really.
Mass economic-migration of low-skilled, non-eu, mono-cultural, meh, not so much.

There’s a few leaps to come to the view point that there is mass immigration of “low-skilled, non-eu, mono-cultural” people.

Even if I agree that it is true, I’m still not convinced it’s inherently a bad thing.

Agree 'takeover' is too strong a phrase, then again it really depends on what 'time-frame' is being considered for an actual 'technical majority of 50.01%' to appear, likely not within the next 50yrs. 100yrs+ perhaps.

Although even 25% may be enough to force public policy change, with average elections only seeing about 60% averages in the EU.

Even (moderate) projections/estimates for places like Sweden have their Muslim population to be circa 20.5% by 2050. (With high projections 30.6%).

Now back in 2000, they would have been, 1%, 2%? Something like that.

So thats approx +20% in 50yrs.

Thus In 100yrs Sweden is a 41% Muslim country by moderate estimates, high estimates, that's 61.2%.

So we are agreed there is no takeover. Cool. Is there too much inward migration? That is actually the real debate worth having. Is it worth having that debate based on religious grounds? No, I don’t think so. I think if we decide that we don’t need low skilled migrants, we don’t need any low skilled migrants. Why their religion is any issue is not something that I feel should matter.

I would like to see the source of your projections as well. It seems a little off to me. But it could be correct.

4068ac1elhodqr · 15-02-2019 4:25pm

Brian? wrote: »

There’s a few leaps to come to the view point that there is mass immigration of “low-skilled, non-eu, mono-cultural” people.

Even if I agree that it is true, I’m still not convinced it’s inherently a bad thing.

Unless the poor and corrupt states are sending their very best and brightest (Doctors 'n Engineers en al - who could all apply directly for skilled migration).

Instead of risking lifes, paying trafficing fees, across the Med on boats, or crossing multiple safe EU states towards the more beneficary NW regions... {leading to brain drain in their own abandoned countries}.

Yes, it's more likely these are low-skilled. As you probably know automation will replace all current jobs for Males, by approx 38.5%, higher again for younger males (18-25) come 2030, as forcast by PWC on OECD figures, as projected for Ireland.

Brian? wrote: »

So we are agreed there is no takeover. Cool. Is there too much inward migration? That is actually the real debate worth having. Is it worth having that debate based on religious grounds? No, I don’t think so. I think if we decide that we don’t need low skilled migrants, we don’t need any low skilled migrants. Why their religion is any issue is not something that I feel should matter.

I would like to see the source of your projections as well. It seems a little off to me. But it could be correct.

Not agreed, but not fully disagreed.

Unless of course you can exactly define a concept of takeover and specify the timespan being considered before posing the question.

But ok, 'Influence of public policy' would of course be more suitable phrase. Is that takeover? i.e. to 'replace or heavily affect' many, mnay aspects of current European daily life, schools, education, employment, holidays, taxation, foreign policy, food production and sales etc. Maybe.

2050 estimates are publised by the PEW, most people with any real interest in migration, would already be well aware of these widely published forecasts and scenarios.

Brian? · 15-02-2019 5:02pm

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Unless the poor and corrupt states are sending their very best and brightest (Doctors 'n Engineers en al - who could all apply directly for skilled migration).

Instead of risking lifes, paying trafficing fees, across the Med on boats, or crossing multiple safe EU states towards the more beneficary NW regions... {leading to brain drain in their own abandoned countries}.

Which opens the question, how do we prevent migration by helping poor and corrupt states develop?

Yes, it's more likely these are low-skilled. As you probably know automation will replace all current jobs for Males, by approx 38.5%, higher again for younger males (18-25) come 2030, as forcast by PWC on OECD figures, as projected for Ireland.

Automation will only create different jobs, most highly skilled. So this is a valid argument to limit inward migration. But it is a much stronger argument to retrain the current populace. Ironically, as someone who works in high tech manufacturing I have much less to fear from the increased automation I produce and am faced with a problem of hiring highly skilled workers. This was true for both my last job in Ireland and current job in the Netherlands. The lack of highly skilled workers is a much greater threat to Irish prosperity than some Muslim immigrants.

Not agreed, but not fully disagreed.

Unless of course you can exactly define a concept of takeover and specify the timespan being considered before posing the question.

But ok, 'Influence of public policy' would of course be more suitable phrase. Is that takeover? i.e. to 'replace or heavily affect' many, mnay aspects of current European daily life, schools, education, employment, holidays, taxation, foreign policy, food production and sales etc. Maybe.

It's absolutely true that a more diverse populace will mean a change in public policy. This is something we can absolutely control right now and something that should be debated. Without the hyperbole of a Muslim takeover bogeyman.

2050 estimates are publised by the PEW, most people with any real interest in migration, would already be well aware of these widely published forecasts and scenarios.

I'm not some with a "real interest" in migration, apart from being a migrant of course. And being married to someone who immigrated to Ireland.

I have read many forecasts on population and migration, but sometimes it's hard to see the woods for the trees. There are many conflicting forecasts for both, with vested interests skewing data to suit agendas. On both sides.

Brian? · 15-02-2019 5:11pm

I checked PEW out of interest

The high end projection of Muslim population growth for Europe in this article is a growth from 5% to 14% by 2050 in both articles:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/11/29/5-facts-about-the-muslim-population-in-europe/

http://www.pewforum.org/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-population/

This is the high end, the range varies from 7.4 to 14%. Definitely a shift in demographics, but not a takeover

ancapailldorcha · 15-02-2019 7:41pm

This thread is not about Israel. Post deleted.

4068ac1elhodqr · 15-02-2019 8:05pm

Brian? wrote: »

Which opens the question, how do we prevent migration by helping poor and corrupt states develop?

Exactly, fix a leak where it exits, rather than mopping up the aftereffects. Does require more effort from e.g. US & EU to invest, but with that, it requires managing investments which is trickier, to prevent obvious corruption.

So onus also falls the countries leaders there, to take (their) responsibity and end (their) state corruption, for the sake of (their) own citizens future - when/if additional inwards investment arrives.

However China (the next superpower) is busy themselves on a 'takeover' or sorts on Africa, new roads, heavy industry even attempts to own actual ports.

However they have so far demonstrated very little tolerance or time for religious ideologies.

Brian? wrote: »

Automation will only create different jobs, most highly skilled. So this is a valid argument to limit inward migration. But it is a much stronger argument to retrain the current populace. Ironically, as someone who works in high tech manufacturing I have much less to fear from the increased automation I produce and am faced with a problem of hiring highly skilled workers. This was true for both my last job in Ireland and current job in the Netherlands. The lack of highly skilled workers is a much greater threat to Irish prosperity than some Muslim immigrants.

The EU already has a catchment of 1/2billon to cherry pick from. Yes new roles will only be highly skilled, anything even medium education levels won't suffice.

On-job training is ineed the most important factor, and something that countries such as Turkey score very pooorly on. Interesting, this month Amazon will open a shop in London with no staff, no checkout, no security. Biometrics and automation only, a sign of things to come?

Brian? wrote: »

It's absolutely true that a more diverse populace will mean a change in public policy. This is something we can absolutely control right now and something that should be debated. Without the hyperbole of a Muslim takeover bogeyman.

Only yesterday a mixed community school in Birmingham was forced to close as a (mainly Muslim) crowd of 300 took to street protest - over discussions or lessons it was having regarding sex education/theory. That is not debating.

Brian? wrote: »

I have read many forecasts on population and migration, but sometimes it's hard to see the woods for the trees. There are many conflicting forecasts for both, with vested interests skewing data to suit agendas. On both sides.

It is what it is, and the reactions are what they are. Worth noting the EU total % mentioned, are skewed as some countries such as Poland/Hungry reject from the outset any non-eu migration, thus they will remain at 0.1% circa of their population, even by 2050. Whereas Sweden will likely be 20%.

Odhinn · 15-02-2019 8:56pm

Sand wrote: »

Who says they didn't identify as Muslim? What we do know is they overwhelmingly did not identify as English.

According to you they don't integrate, a point you try to ram home frequently. Yet there they are identifying as "british". You're contradicting yourself.

ancapailldorcha · 16-02-2019 11:39am

This isn't the place for one-liners and lazy generalisations. Post and response deleted.

fly_agaric · 18-02-2019 10:02pm

Brian? wrote: »

I would like to see the source of your projections as well. It seems a little off to me. But it could be correct.

After use of google, Looks like its from here...
http://www.pewforum.org/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-population/
(edit: have not read every page, but given how long this thread has gone on and that all points have been covered, probably someone posted it already...)
(edit again just noticed you linked the source in a later post - apologies for not reading on before replying)

It is going to be interesting if these projections come to pass alright.
Islamic political parties having the swing vote in elections in some countries.

Also if a new generation "whatever snappy name advertisers come up with" ISIS type movement kicks off in Europe of the 2050s there may be just too many recruits and sympathisers for EU security services to get a handle on without adopting some drastic Chinese/Stasi-type police state measures using whatever nightmarish technology is available! Good bye what civil liberties and privacy remain to us. I am not a very optimistic person about the end results of Islamic immigration and population growth in Europe....hopefully I'll be pushing up daisies by then.

Sand · 18-02-2019 10:15pm

Brian? wrote: »

So you completely ignore my detailed post on every day interactions and observations of well integrated Muslim women and reply to me tongue in cheek post about kebabs. Pure class.

I respond to posts as I find them. Your earlier post was directed to another poster, not to me. For the record, the only difference between the two posts was your first post was longer.

There’s a huge difference between climate change and migration. One is inherently bad and the other isn’t.

As someone concerned with climate change, do you accept that mass migration from poor countries to rich countries speeds climate change along?

The Muslim takeover of Europe is a massive straw man. Tasty food is absolutely not the only positive.

Then please, by all means list the benefits to Europeans of permitting mass migration into Europe. I've been asking advocates of mass migration to provide some reason Europeans should support this and there has been zero, absolutely zero genuine reasons provided.

Odhinn wrote: »

According to you they don't integrate, a point you try to ram home frequently. Yet there they are identifying as "british". You're contradicting yourself.

You are conflating identifying as British with being integrated with the indigenous people. There is no clear reason why you should think this is one and the same. If you read the piece you'll have noticed that the indigenous people overwhelmingly (72%) preferred to identify as English, not British. That divergence in identity between indigenous and non-indigenous communities is not evidence of integration, quite the opposite.

The reality is British identity, if it ever existed, has been devalued to being no more than a series of vague claimed values. The identity is so open as to be valueless. Shamima Begum identifies as being British and is recognised as being British. This highlights how little it is worth.

Again, all this is a tangent from the original point. They do not identify as being English. So people like OB being offended on their behalf is completely unnecessary.

Midlife · 18-02-2019 11:41pm

Sand wrote: »

The reality is British identity, if it ever existed, has been devalued to being no more than a series of vague claimed values.

As opposed to?

Sand · 25-02-2019 9:10pm

Midlife wrote: »

As opposed to?

More robust national identities based on a shared heritage and shared future. Polish national identity endured even after the Polish state was removed from the map. Because the identity endured, the Polish state re-emerged. British identity on the other hand was at first a Protestant identity shared by English and Scottish Protestants, then an jingoistic imperial identity, and now post the wars of religion and post the age of empire, it is just a list of claimed values: democracy; the rule of law; individual liberty; mutual respect for and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs and for those without faith (Ofsted 2014).

These are claimed as distinctly British values, but they're equally American values. Or Irish values. Or Japanese values. Or South African values. Or Russian values. Or Egyptian values. Or Iraqi values. Or Indian values. Or Pakistani values. Or Bangladeshi values.

Because the British can no longer claim to be a people with a shared heritage, they must instead attempt to unify around the talking points for a Miss USA pageant speech. The indigenous people of the UK prefer their own enduring identities.

Midlife · 25-02-2019 9:51pm

Sand wrote: »

More robust national identities based on a shared heritage and shared future. Polish national identity endured even after the Polish state was removed from the map. Because the identity endured, the Polish state re-emerged. British identity on the other hand was at first a Protestant identity shared by English and Scottish Protestants, then an jingoistic imperial identity, and now post the wars of religion and post the age of empire, it is just a list of claimed values: democracy; the rule of law; individual liberty; mutual respect for and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs and for those without faith (Ofsted 2014).

These are claimed as distinctly British values, but they're equally American values. Or Irish values. Or Japanese values. Or South African values. Or Russian values. Or Egyptian values. Or Iraqi values. Or Indian values. Or Pakistani values. Or Bangladeshi values.

Because the British can no longer claim to be a people with a shared heritage, they must instead attempt to unify around the talking points for a Miss USA pageant speech. The indigenous people of the UK prefer their own enduring identities.

So based on our shared heritage and future, a European identity would be equally as valid?

Also why is an English identity more valid than a British identity?

Sand · 25-02-2019 10:45pm

Midlife wrote: »

So based on our shared heritage and future, a European identity would be equally as valid?

It depends on if you are proposing it as a replacement for national identities or merely a complement to them. The former would provoke a backlash. The latter wouldn't be too controversial. Even Brexiteers deny they anti-European. But broad, weak identities will always lose out to more coherent identities. You and an Italian may both identify as European. But that doesn't mean you're Italian.

Also why is an English identity more valid than a British identity?

I've already explained why I believe less value is placed on an identity which anyone from anywhere can plausibly claim. You could equally wonder why diamonds cost more than water.

But regardless of the reason, the indigenous people of the UK prefer to identify as English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish rather than British. They consider an English identity more valid than a British identity.

Midlife · 26-02-2019 12:31am

Sand wrote: »

It depends on if you are proposing it as a replacement for national identities or merely a complement to them. The former would provoke a backlash. The latter wouldn't be too controversial. Even Brexiteers deny they anti-European. But broad, weak identities will always lose out to more coherent identities. You and an Italian may both identify as European. But that doesn't mean you're Italian.

I've already explained why I believe less value is placed on an identity which anyone from anywhere can plausibly claim. You could equally wonder why diamonds cost more than water.

But regardless of the reason, the indigenous people of the UK prefer to identify as English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish rather than British. They consider an English identity more valid than a British identity.

Are they correct to consider that, or if it not just natural that they'd consider their own identity more valuable regardless of whether it actuallly has an value or not.

Do you think an English identity is more valuable than a British Identity? Or it's somehow evidence of belonging to a place.

Is it based on anything more than race?

Sand · 26-02-2019 9:15pm

Midlife wrote: »

Are they correct to consider that, or if it not just natural that they'd consider their own identity more valuable regardless of whether it actuallly has an value or not.

Does any identity have value? How is it measured in your opinion? What do you mean by correct or incorrect in this context?

Do you think an English identity is more valuable than a British Identity? Or it's somehow evidence of belonging to a place.

Is an identity open to anyone less valuable than one which is not open to everyone? Is it worthwhile to identity as being a biological human or can that simply be taken for granted?

Is it based on anything more than race?

What do you mean by race?

Midlife · 26-02-2019 10:24pm

Sand wrote: »

Does any identity have value? How is it measured in your opinion? What do you mean by correct or incorrect in this context?

Is an identity open to anyone less valuable than one which is not open to everyone? Is it worthwhile to identity as being a biological human or can that simply be taken for granted?

What do you mean by race?

I'm not sure how much value identity has to be honest. Your comment that British identity is somehow not as valuable as English identity, in that it's not a sign of integration has me confused.

If someone identifies as say a Londoner or British, it's not the same or as key as identifying as English. That's the bit I don't really get.

I wouldn't say identity is open to anyone. For example, I living in ireland can't identify as British. But if I move there pay taxes, educate my children there and see my future there, surely that's integration.

I'm not sure why not identifying as 'English' but rather British makes a difference.

Sand · 26-02-2019 10:58pm

Midlife wrote: »

I'm not sure how much value identity has to be honest. Your comment that British identity is somehow not as valuable as English identity, in that it's not a sign of integration has me confused.

If someone identifies as say a Londoner or British, it's not the same or as key as identifying as English. That's the bit I don't really get.

I wouldn't say identity is open to anyone. For example, I living in ireland can't identify as British. But if I move there pay taxes, educate my children there and see my future there, surely that's integration.

I'm not sure why not identifying as 'English' but rather British makes a difference.

Why can you not identify as British while living in Ireland?

If you moved to the UK, paid your taxes there, educated your children there and see your future there are you no longer Irish? If an unforseen event like Brexit causes you to re-assess your future and you return to Ireland, are you then no longer British?

Midlife · 26-02-2019 11:25pm

Sand wrote: »

Why can you not identify as British while living in Ireland?

If you moved to the UK, paid your taxes there, educated your children there and see your future there are you no longer Irish? If an unforseen event like Brexit causes you to re-assess your future and you return to Ireland, are you then no longer British?

I'm at a loss to understand where this is going.

The key point is moved to the UK. I think that's obvious.

I'm unsure why you're incapable of doing anything other than answering questions with questions.

You've made a distinction bwteen British values and indigenous values. You seem to feel that 'English' values are more worthy from your posting. I'm just asking why that is?

What defines English values that makes them more worthy?

It's a straightforward question.

Sand · 27-02-2019 12:16am

Midlife wrote: »

I'm at a loss to understand where this is going.

The key point is moved to the UK. I think that's obvious.

I'm unsure why you're incapable of doing anything other than answering questions with questions.

I'm struggling to follow your position. You mention concepts, thoughts and ideas. Then you drop them with no continuation or further reference. If you look back at your recent posts, its just a stream of consciousness with no purpose. So I must ask questions to help you organise your thoughts. I'm trying to help you.

But I get the sense you haven't really thought about these issues at all so it may take far more time than we have to get something useful.

You've made a distinction bwteen British values and indigenous values. You seem to feel that 'English' values are more worthy from your posting. I'm just asking why that is?

What defines English values that makes them more worthy?

Incorrect. I've noted British is reduced to a vague, indistinct 'values' identity which must be taught in schools like maths or geography. English is not a values based identity. It doesn't need to be taught. It is a nationality or ethnicity and this makes it more robust. National groups tend to endure while claimed "values" vary with the times.

The above is my opinion as to why there is a preference. But what is not a matter of opinion is that indigenous people in the UK prefer to identify as English instead of British, and that non-indigenous people prefer to identify as British, not English. For the indigenous people, their English identity is more valuable to them than a British identity.

Midlife · 27-02-2019 5:00pm

Sand wrote: »

I've noted British is reduced to a vague, indistinct 'values' identity which must be taught in schools like maths or geography. English is not a values based identity. It doesn't need to be taught. It is a nationality or ethnicity and this makes it more robust. National groups tend to endure while claimed "values" vary with the times.

The above is my opinion as to why there is a preference..

Thanks for clarifying.

I was wondering what you meant by 'English' identity but you seem to be saying it's essentially race/ethnicity.

You're saying that ethnicity/nationality is more robust than an identity based on shared values.

Firstly, can I ask you what alternate values the English identity has that makes it more robust or is it simply that race enduring? Like the article suggests, is the English identity just about 'whiteness'?

If it is, does this have a use or is it just a sign of entrenchment?

Secondly, your point was that identifying as British is not a sign of integration. But if English is based on ethnicity, then surely no-one can ever integrate. Do you view it as a generational thing, like maybe it takes a couple of generations or is nationality like 'English' fixed and never something a group of people can adopt.

This is worrying, because it means that religion, skillled labour, etc don't matter at all.

Sand · 27-02-2019 10:51pm

Midlife wrote: »

Firstly, can I ask you what alternate values the English identity has that makes it more robust or is it simply that race enduring?

Ethnicity don't have values. They're more robust because values are ever shifting. Do you think the British values established by Ofsted in 2014 were equally British values in 1914, 1814, 1714, 1614 or 1514?

Like the article suggests, is the English identity just about 'whiteness'?

Clearly not. Polish people are not English. But its inescapable that the English are a European people. Equally, the Zulus are an African people. You cant simply live in South Africa for a few years and claim to be just as much a Zulu as anyone else. No one would consider it credible. And equally a Nigerian would be unable to make the same claim.

If it is, does this have a use or is it just a sign of entrenchment?

Why does identity have to have a use? Think of it this way. Does your family have to have a use?

Secondly, your point was that identifying as British is not a sign of integration. But if English is based on ethnicity, then surely no-one can ever integrate. Do you view it as a generational thing, like maybe it takes a couple of generations or is nationality like 'English' fixed and never something a group of people can adopt.

Generational. Clearly other peoples have assimilated into the English over time. Look at English nationalist Tommy Robinson! However in Robinson's case, his parents hailed from another European people, spoke English and practised Christianity. His mother later remarried an Englishman. Even with all those advantages its not a sure thing: Northern Ireland is evidence of people with great similarities still hopelessly divided. Nigerians face significant discrimination in South Africa.

Its even harder for people who hail from entirely different continents, don't speak English and practise an entirely alien religion and largely do not marry outside their own ethnic groups, let alone English people.

This is worrying, because it means that religion, skillled labour, etc don't matter at all.

They largely don't. The English are an ethnicity, not a football team. There is no particular need to recruit the best people from around the world for your nation. In fact, there is some extremely worrying implications for those in the indigenous population who cant keep up with the competition from the rest of the world. What happens to them in this new meritocratic identity? Just retired to council estates and sedated with dole payments?

That approach, as pursued by the British, creates all sort of political alienation and upheaval as we've seen with Brexit.

Midlife · 28-02-2019 6:49pm

Sand wrote: »

Why does identity have to have a use? Think of it this way. Does your family have to have a use?

Yes. I would definitly hope that my family are beneficial to society and go about their lives with a particular set of values and bring some decency to their dealings with others. I would say there are families that are sadly, of no use but I wouldn't want my children to grow up like that.

If as you suggest, that the 'English' identity, is just barrier to integration that has no real use, then who cares if it's diluted? There'll be tension surely but if anything then we should focus on the 30 odd percent who identify as British and look to increase that. Values, as you say, may shift but what's the point of working to protect a national identity if it doesn't bring anything good.

It's a long game clearly, generational as you say, but one worth playing I feel.

Additionally, if as we agree, Religion and skilled labour etc largely don't matter when it comes to integration, then what is this thread actually about?

Sand · 28-02-2019 7:49pm

Midlife wrote: »

Yes. I would definitly hope that my family are beneficial to society and go about their lives with a particular set of values and bring some decency to their dealings with others. I would say there are families that are sadly, of no use but I wouldn't want my children to grow up like that.

And what do you propose is done with those who you judge are of no use?

If as you suggest, that the 'English' identity, is just barrier to integration that has no real use, then who cares if it's diluted? There'll be tension surely but if anything then we should focus on the 30 odd percent who identify as British and look to increase that. Values, as you say, may shift but what's the point of working to protect a national identity if it doesn't bring anything good.

It's a long game clearly, generational as you say, but one worth playing I feel.

I'll admit I admire your momentary lapse into honesty about your extremist views. We'll get further in the conversation when you're honest. You're advocating that for mass migration and multiculturalism to work in the UK, the indigenous peoples must abandon their own identity.

I wont say you're wrong, but can you explain why the indigenous people should would ever want to pursue the end of themselves? What is the advantage to Europeans? Why should European politicians support policies to bring this about? What good does it bring Europeans?

Additionally, if as we agree, Religion and skilled labour etc largely don't matter when it comes to integration, then what is this thread actually about?

Its about the obvious outcomes of mass migration into Europe. The OP focused on muslim migration, but that is just a subset of the wider issue.

Midlife · 28-02-2019 8:08pm

Sand wrote: »

I'll admit I admire your momentary lapse into honesty about your extremist views. We'll get further in the conversation when you're honest.

Haha. Nice try.

Sand wrote: »

You're advocating that for mass migration and multiculturalism to work in the UK, the indigenous peoples must abandon their own identity.

Not at all. I really don't want you to think that. I'm Irish but have no problem with someone who considers themselves Nigerian Irish or Pakistani Irish. I'm not abandoning my identity, I'm just accepting that mine is not the only valid one in this nation. I'm accepting that in generations Irish identity will have evolved.

Sand wrote: »

I wont say you're wrong, but can you explain why the indigenous people should would ever want to pursue the end of themselves?

You can't tell me a single thing that identity is good for but abandoning it is the end of oneself? That makes no sense.

You also say that identity can and does change over generations but we must be steadfast in this one not changing? Why?

Everything you've said so far is that identity is just a 'thing', that it doesn't really matter, it's of no use. But suddenly changing or diluting it is a serious issue. Why?

Sand wrote: »

What is the advantage to Europeans? Why should European politicians support policies to bring this about? What good does it bring Europeans?

Whether or not you believe that people should move to a new country is up to you.

However, given that you say English identity is of no use in of itself and seems to just be a barrier to integration, I don't think that perserving identity should be the argument you use to keep foreigners away from your country. Pick an economic one if you want, that would at least be rational.

I find it hard take anything other than 'we like things the way they are and don't like foreigners around here' from your arguments.

Perhaps if you explained what good English identity or rather identity itself is, that would help.

I mean if you explain that tolerance is a valuable part of the Irish identity and you don't want intolerant people coming to the country. That makes sense.

Thanks

splashuum · 28-02-2019 8:23pm

https://twitter.com/prisonplanet/status/1101193370259648513?s=21

18% of babies born in France are now given Islamic names.

Midlife · 28-02-2019 8:40pm

splashuum wrote: »

https://twitter.com/prisonplanet/status/1101193370259648513?s=21

18% of babies born in France are now given Islamic names.

Erm, is that a guy with a joint hanging out of his mouth just stating that on twitter with no source?

Edit: He's also retweeting reports from Alex Jones about the alien base in San Fransisco where astronauts are made to take loads of drugs.

Timberrrrrrrr · 28-02-2019 10:26pm

splashuum wrote: »

https://twitter.com/prisonplanet/status/1101193370259648513?s=21

18% of babies born in France are now given Islamic names.

Quite a few posters asking questions if you in this thread that you started, any chance you might revisit it and answer them?

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057956999/1/#post109449454

Das Reich · 01-03-2019 7:33pm

Most "british" don't even know what that term means. Asked this frequently everytime I heard someone calling themselves, some said is to refer to someone born in uk, others to someome born in Great Britain, others to someone born on British Islands. I think is used only to replace the more politically incorrect "English" so they get away with all their bad colonialism history.

James Brown · 01-03-2019 9:23pm

Das Reich wrote: »

Most "british" don't even know what that term means. Asked this frequently everytime I heard someone calling themselves, some said is to refer to someone born in uk, others to someome born in Great Britain, others to someone born on British Islands. I think is used only to replace the more politically incorrect "English" so they get away with all their bad colonialism history.

I go abroad a fair bit and people tend to think it's all the UK/Britain. Or they think the entire island of Ireland is one country that use to have violence but it's grand now. I've yet to meet anyone who knows the actual situation. On that note I've met some English who wouldn't pretend to know or care.

creeper1 · 02-03-2019 6:09am

https://youtu.be/uUI9yn8zwX0

In the above video you can see migrants just recently making a crossing from Calais to Dover on a dinghy.

I heard about these crossing at Christmas. Does the fact that they are still happening mean that British authorities are actually granting asylum to people arriving in this manner?

Also note in the video the blatant disregard the migrants have for the French coast guard.

oscarBravo · 02-03-2019 6:08pm

creeper1 wrote: »

Does the fact that they are still happening mean that British authorities are actually granting asylum to people arriving in this manner?

If they apply for asylum, and their application is accepted, then yes: the authorities are granting them asylum. Why?

4068ac1elhodqr · 02-03-2019 8:17pm

creeper1 wrote: »

https://youtu.be/uUI9yn8zwX0

In the above video you can see migrants just recently making a crossing from Calais to Dover on a dinghy.

I heard about these crossing at Christmas. Does the fact that they are still happening mean that British authorities are actually granting asylum to people arriving in this manner?

Also note in the video the blatant disregard the migrants have for the French coast guard.

These are mostly Iranians who are exploting a weak/unsecure Eastern EU border, to make the trek across many, many safe eu countries, and to their final destination of choice: pre-brexit-uk.

If they show up with no documentation, id or visa it's hard to refuse them application. Read somewhere only approx 10% of the 100 or so per month are returned to France.

Many, many more make it in via the back of HGVs, but that sort of thing won't make the media headlines compared to a few lads sailing into the Kent coast on an inflatable, causing considerable time and expense for the emergency services.

creeper1 · 03-03-2019 8:34am

Anybody who arrives at Dover by dingy should be automatically denied asylum.

One of the reasons that the deal with turkey has been moderately successful is because the incentive for taking risky trips to lesbos was nullified.

Those taking the trips are returned and replaced by migrants from refugee camps.

Also the Australians had to be really clear that no asylum was on offer to illegal boat arrivals. The Australians actually managed to force trump to take some of their migrants so committed were they to the principle that arrivals like they were having could never, ever deliver successful asylum claims.

oscarBravo · 03-03-2019 12:24pm

creeper1 wrote: »

Anybody who arrives at Dover by dingy should be automatically denied asylum.

Why not just shoot them? Seeing as we're denying them basic human rights, why be half-hearted about it?

Migration Megathread

Comments