Migration Megathread

fash wrote: »

Solutions: recognizing the difficulties and prioritizing integration measures. That means being strongly aware of the limitations of our capacity (and see following point : willingness) to help.
Massively increase the resources (and the expectation of cost going forward) spent on ensuring integration of those permitted to remain.
Supporting (and listening to) minorities within the minorities: ex- Muslims, gay Muslims, women etc. - to break down group identity.
Prioritizing migration of such minorities as well as migration from countries with more secular minded populations: Turkey, Iran etc.

Couldn't agree more.

Oh, I get it...then we just agree and there's nothing to talk about.

fly_agaric wrote: »

The devil's in the details though isn't it, e.g.

"That means being strongly aware of the limitations of our capacity (and see following point : willingness) to help."

If you are opposing any more immigration, or even just want far more selectivity about immigration (asking you to suspend disbelief & assume for a sec, that some such people are not just more polite ignorant bigots) you probably think the limit is being approached. If you see no issue with current levels of immigration, you most likely think that limit is far away and we'll let just let the future worry about it anyway.

I think there is a strong moral, almost faith aspect to this. If you believe humanist ideas it is (IMO) difficult to oppose just allowing any people into the West who seek to immigrate from far poorer/unstable countries once you think Western countries are not near that capacity limit.

We are all humans & equal. Where we were born is just an accident. Borders and culture and religion are arbitrary. If you believe all that quite deeply its hard to accept just saying "no" to someone poor & uneducated living a hard life in another country (while you have a guilty, comfortable existence in a rich, well organised country).

True enough- it is also much easier to be harsh with abstract ideas of categories of people. Nevertheless for me it is more important that people agree that there is a reasonable limit of some sort that needs to be taken in to consideration - whether that limit is 1,000 or 1,000,000 is far less important and a matter for discussion. The situation in Sweden (as well as the thinking that led to it) - where politicians and opinion formers refused to admit it discuss the idea of a limit - until they were forced by reality to do so and suddenly imposed it in a strict fashion is what must be avoided.

EDIT: thinking about it, once people agree that there is a limit, the question is why are we agreeing that there should be a limit, what bad things happen if that limit is exceeded etc. - based on an empirical analysis of that, one can determine what numbers can readily be accepted.

Related to this topic of the importance of ethnic identity, the most recent slatestarcodex blog post reviews "The secret of our success" by anthropologist Joseph Henrich, which I for one found interesting.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/05/list-of-passages-i-highlighted-in-my-copy-of-the-secret-of-our-success/

Finally, the psychological machinery that underpins how we think about ‘race’ actually evolved to parse ethnicity, not race. You might be confused by this distinction since race and ethnicity are so often mixed up. Ethnic group membership is assigned based on culturally-transmitted markers, like language or dialect. By contrast, racial groups are marked and assigned according to perceived morphological traits, such as color or hair form, which are genetically transmitted. Our folk-sociologcial abilities evolved to pick out ethnic groups, or tribes. However, cues like skin color or hair form can pose as ethnic markers in the modern world because members of different ethnic groups sometimes also share markers like skin color/hair form, and racial cues can automatically and unconsciously ‘trick’ our psychology into thinking that different ethnic groups exist. And, this byproduct can be harnessed and reified by cultural evolution to create linguistically labeled racial categories and racism.

Underlining this point is the fact that racial cues do not have cognitive priority over ethnic cues: when children or adults encounter a situation in which accent or language indicate ‘same ethnicity’ but skin color indicates ‘different race’, the ethno-linguistic markers trump the racial markers. That is, children pick as a friend someone of a different race who speaks their dialect over someone of the same race who speaks a different dialect. [311] Even weaker cues like dress can sometimes trump racial cues. The tendency of children and adults to preferentially learn and interact with those who share their racial markers (mistaken for ethnic cues) likely contributes to the maintenance of cultural differences between racially marked populations, even in the same neighborhood.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

When asked to transpose your beliefs into [even attempted] solutions, you complain that other people aren't asked to do it -- which is of course nothing more than a cop-out.

It's an observation, and I think it speaks to how genuine you are in seeking a solution. For example:

And no, I don't concede that mass migration (a term you always carefully use) has been a negative for Europe.

So to summarise, you're asking me to provide a solution without accepting the terms of the problem. Let be honest - you are not interested in solutions to problems that you are in denial of.

while simultaneously firing the word 'disingenuous' around.

Because it is disingenuous.

All I ask is that you break out of this little intellectual merry-go-round you take us all on, and actually explain why anyone should ever be persuaded to your point of view if it offers no meaningful answers -- only complaints. If you think the governments are getting it wrong.. . if you think the commentators are getting it wrong . . if you think pro-immigration people are getting it wrong. . . .then (seeing as being asked to think of your own solutions seems almost offensive to you)

Again, as if I haven't already addressed this.

The problem is the policy of permitting and encouraging mass migration into Europe has been a net negative for Europeans. The solution is to end the policy of permitting and encouraging mass migration into Europe. Mass migration into Europe is not a natural state like gravity or rain. It is a policy that has been embarked upon. It is a bad policy. And like any bad policy it should be ended. This is not controversial.

Now if you want to advance the conversation, then do so. A conversation is two sided. But if you want to go back round to denial of the problem in the face of all evidence then don't blame me.

Brian? wrote: »

I’m slightly irked now. I’m waiting for at least one of the following:

1. Proof I denied the existence of the Dublin regulation

2. Proof I believe in open borders

3. Proof I claimed there are no negative effects of mass immigration

You will be waiting as the proof doesn't exist. He has you down as a libard/snowflake/virtue signalling cuck. So all the above have been projected on to you before you ve even written a word. It's the new reality.

MrFresh wrote: »

Give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he's trying to figure out what the Dublin Regulation is. Probably never read it before. A lot of anti-immigration people haven't a notion of what it actually is and so they believe the nonsense headlines about Merkel's open borders.

it's insane that the same people are obsessed with fake news, absolutely insane.

Brian? wrote: »

The Dublin regulation is a regulation to deal with refugees. It’s part of a plethora of laws and regulation that control immigration into the EU. I don’t see the inconsistency.

Your inability to see the inconsistency is entirely your problem. Though I kindly advise it is better to educate yourself on a topic before holding strong views on it.

I don't expect you to concede this publicly. Human beings are unfortunately built to see a view that contradicts a deeply held belief the same as a deadly attack on their very life, and you react with the same stubborn resistance. A survival trait no doubt, but not one which lends itself to truth. But privately, to yourself, you must question why you can offer two answers as to what the Dublin regulation is, be wrong both times, and yet be totally convinced you are right. Are these your own views you have reached on the evidence? Clearly they are not. So why are you parroting someone else's views? Don't explain it to me, explain it to yourself.

I didn’t offer 2 contradictory definitions of its purpose. Nice attempt at an ad hominem though. I can tell it took a while to brew up.

You did. It did not.

No. You accused me of something. I asked for proof. Can you prove any of these?

Can you quote me accusing you of these things? Let us save time. You cannot. Hence, a strawman.

I'm giving you more credit than Mr Fresh. I'm crediting that you are genuine in your mistakes and misinformation, not malicious. I am crediting that you prioritise the polices that benefit Europeans, and reject those that do not. If I am incorrect on this, let me know and I will accept that.

Moleskin wrote: »

Im just back from a holiday in Prague and Budapest. One thing I noticed was the absence of Muslims and I didnt miss them, so tired of seeing so many of these depressed looking covered up women in my neighbourhood and many many Irish people feel the same but are afraid to say it.

Refugees and there are very few genuine ones wont go to poorer countries, they will go where Government handouts are good.
The numbers of non nationals living in the North inner city of Dublin is beyond comprehension,, huge numbers in Longford and Westmeath too and anywhere were rent is cheap.

Trying to provide social housing is like filling a sieve, the more houses you build the more will come, many parts of Dublin now are like Lagos, no go areas and its lawless. Wait until the next downturn hits and then we will really reap what we let happen. The powers that be dont care about Tyrellstown or Longfird or Mullingar, its out of sight and out of mind and houses in nice areas wont be bought up by local authorities in great numbers so areas dont become ghettoes in Foxrock, Cabineteely, Howth and Clontarf.

This country is going to be in very serios trouble when the next recession hits.

I'm unsure why Muslims are so much dangerous in a recession but totally agree with your points about ghettos.

Sadly, judging from boards, when people look at Darndale or Neilstown they see 'scummers'. I guess if there's a predomintly muslim disadvantaged area, they'll see 'Muslim scummers'.

It's the Nimby crowd that are the problem. Everyone agrees with social housing as long as they're all small houses in areas they don't want to live in. Rediculous. Social housing should mean fully integrated social housing, yeah sure some people will luck out and get something we percieve they don't deserve but we know 100% we're on a path towards ghettos with anything else.

Like you say, the elite don't worry about this in their leafy Dublin suburbs and then say people who's areas are undergoing massive change should be more inclusive.

Rediculous irresponsible government.

thomas 123 wrote: »

It’s hard to have any debate on this subject when literally in the same interview at centerparcs, Leo’s considering letting Lisa smith back into the country, then In the next breath explains how he’s all for protecting child welfare after kids found a gun in the park.

I don’t care about the religion aspect, just the numbers.

The knock on affects of this current migration are going to kill us down the line. We have to remember that the majority of these people are not the hard working polish, they are not hard working Indian or even Pakistani migrants. They are people who mostly do not work and subsist. They likely feel like they have won the lotto once they get out of direct provision in Ireland, social
Welfare, free house(essentially), free education(all the way to college as the parents usually don’t work so full grant), clean water, children's allowance, illness benefit etc etc...

Then if the kids decide to stick with mommy and daddy’s “culture” we have a multiplication issue.

If Brexit goes as the leaver brits have planned, Ireland will be up a certain creek without a certain tool as we are the only English speaking welfare state left. If even 10% of what currently goes to England decide to come
here we would be overwhelmed.

Anyone who’s pro migration(in its current state) think of the following,

Do you ever want a house?

Do you want your children to have access to further education?

Do you want wages to rise?

Do you want rents to go down?

Do you want to pay less tax?

If you answered yes to any of those, engage in reasonable debate for the love of god/allah or whoever.

It’s terrible that these people don’t have to the same life as us, I understand that, but instead of them
rising to our level, they will bring us to theirs as none of this is planned.

Link...proof...research either qualitative or quantitative would be helpful ... on th other hand i've found research around xenophobia from longitudinal research by the ESRI [2002-2014] some of which I quote below. You will find hints of your demographic in the second 2 paragraphs.

'the attitude of Irish-born people towards immigrants followed our boom and bust economic cycle, shifting from positive to negative as the recession took hold and regaining some ground as the economy recovered. Responses by individuals varied, depending on financial security, educational qualifications or social class. The greatest resistance to further immigration was displayed by low-income groups that regarded foreign workers as competitors for jobs and housing.

Apart from economic considerations in opposing immigration, underlying racism and xenophobia were detected. People surveyed were less likely to oppose entry by migrants with similar ethnic or cultural antecedents'

Incipient racism is evident from findings that nearly half of Irish adults believe some cultures are superior to others, while 45 per cent take the view that individuals from certain cultures work harder.