Migration Megathread

anotherfinemess · 08-11-2018 11:09pm

I have been reading 'Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam' by Mark Curtis. It explains a lot of how this all came about and gives nuts and bolts details of how UK/US meddling in muslim countries to control oil etc has morphed into the mess we are not supposed to notice today. No solution offered unfortunately.

Midlife · 08-11-2018 11:49pm

Sand wrote: »

The Irish Times has drawn attention to the economic performance of non-EU migration in Ireland, specifically African migrants. As we have seen in the UK, non-EU migrants are an economic cost, not a benefit. That same story appears to be playing out in Ireland too.

The ESRI reports that:

- EU migration is positive. Western EU migrants are only 4% unemployed, compared to 7% of Irish people.
- Non-EU migration is not economically positive. The employment rate for African nationals in particular is just 45%, and the unemployment rate is over twice the Irish rate. Their economic performance is not catching up with the Irish average. It actually worsened between 2016 and 2017.
- Non-EU nationals as a whole were much more likely to live in consistent poverty, affecting 29% of the group as opposed to 8% of Irish people.

Can you please reference or cite the document where it says this.

I think you might be adding a bit of your own take on things here.

You can't cite an ESRI study by just cherry picking things in fairness.

Sand · 09-11-2018 12:59am

Midlife wrote: »

Can you please reference or cite the document where it says this.

I think you might be adding a bit of your own take on things here.

You can't cite an ESRI study by just cherry picking things in fairness.

You're only challenging the bits in bold?

James Brown · 09-11-2018 3:47pm

Won't be long now before the alt-right move on to the poor, (more so) and get bored of the whole Muslim menace.

Sand · 16-11-2018 11:25pm

It is the poorest who have suffered the most from mass migration. They have not had the money to join the flight from diversity to the suburbs. They have been forced to compete for their wages with the third world labour whilst their employers are protected from third world manufacturers by tariffs and regulations. It is their daughter's who have been exposed to the sexual morality imported from the hill tribes of Pakistan. It was their traditional political representatives who abandoned them for the lure of new voters.

The richest have done well from mass migration. Who cares who serves their coffee so long as they do it for the least possible price? The poor have suffered.

Midlife · 17-11-2018 9:02am

Sand wrote: »

It is the poorest who have suffered the most from mass migration. They have not had the money to join the flight from diversity to the suburbs. They have been forced to compete for their wages with the third world labour whilst their employers are protected from third world manufacturers by tariffs and regulations. It is their daughter's who have been exposed to the sexual morality imported from the hill tribes of Pakistan. It was their traditional political representatives who abandoned them for the lure of new voters.

The richest have done well from mass migration. Who cares who serves their coffee so long as they do it for the least possible price? The poor have suffered.

Haha,

Had a few drinks last night?

Nice to see your true colours. You drop in once a week, don't answer questions and are basically bordering on hate speech above with the 'daughter's...hill tribes of pakistan' comment.

I mean really? Lock up your daughters?

cryptocurrency · 17-11-2018 9:28am

Calling someone hate speech here seems a bit of a stretch

Midlife · 17-11-2018 10:18am

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Calling someone hate speech here seems a bit of a stretch

My comments are a bit of a stretch?

cryptocurrency wrote: »

It is their (poor people's) daughters who have been exposed to the sexual morality imported from the hill tribes of Pakistan

Really. The above quote is thanked multiple times but saying it's bordering on hate speech is a stretch?

Guess I must have it all backwards so.

Fr Tod Umptious · 17-11-2018 10:28am

Sand wrote: »

It is the poorest who have suffered the most from mass migration. They have not had the money to join the flight from diversity to the suburbs. They have been forced to compete for their wages with the third world labour whilst their employers are protected from third world manufacturers by tariffs and regulations. It is their daughter's who have been exposed to the sexual morality imported from the hill tribes of Pakistan. It was their traditional political representatives who abandoned them for the lure of new voters.

The richest have done well from mass migration. Who cares who serves their coffee so long as they do it for the least possible price? The poor have suffered.

Thats why i can never figure out the left.
They are supposed to be there to support the rights of the working class (well that's what their origins were based on)

Yet they totally allow the local working class be undermined by favouring loose immigration laws.

Midlife · 17-11-2018 10:32am

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Thats why i can never figure out the left.
They are supposed to be there to support the rights of the working class (well that's what their origins were based on)

Yet they totally allow the local working class be undermined by favouring loose immigration laws.

So Jeremy Corbyn is right up your alley then?

As an aside, do not you feel that right wing politicians championing the cause of poor people brings a similar level of irrationality?

Wanderer78 · 17-11-2018 10:33am

Fr Tod Umptious wrote:

Thats why i can never figure out the left. They are supposed to be there to support the rights of the working class (well that's what their origins were based on)

The political left have been nothing but a disaster for decades now, but I'd be more concerned for the relatively free movement of capital than the free movement of people, I do think this has far more damage to our economies

ancapailldorcha · 17-11-2018 11:46am

Mod: Cut out the personal attacks and sloganeering please.

Midlife · 17-11-2018 12:22pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Mod: Cut out the personal attacks and sloganeering please.

Apologies.

Midlife · 17-11-2018 12:28pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

The political left have been nothing but a disaster for decades now, but I'd be more concerned for the relatively free movement of capital than the free movement of people, I do think this has far more damage to our economies

Agree 100%.

And while the wealthy take more and more for thelselves, they convince people that it's all the fault of other poor people

I keep coming back a very prophetic final line in the movie 'the big short'. this was before the lurch to the right and before Trumpism in the states but it goes 'I've a feeling when this (the downturn) all blows over that we'll just end up blaming poor people and immmigrants'

Relatively speaking the lower-middle class and down in the UK and the US is doing worse thena their parents with a smaller share of the national GDP.

That is not the fault of immigrants.

fly_agaric · 17-11-2018 6:36pm

Midlife wrote: »

Had a few drinks last night?

You drop in once a week, don't answer questions and are basically bordering on hate speech above with the 'daughter's...hill tribes of pakistan' comment.

I mean really? Lock up your daughters?

As a "lurker" more honest description would be the poster laid out his arguments, often in the face of very thinly veiled insults like above and spent a large amount of time composing detailed replies and explaining his position. The thread is pretty much "over" at this point. There are (probably) no new arguments after 40 odd pages.

As for "daughters", going by the news over the sea would be telling them to be somewhat leary of Pakistanis/Bangladeshis bearing gifts if I had any tweenage/teenage ones and lived in one of the north England towns + cities that have been in the news for all the wrong reasons!

Midlife · 17-11-2018 11:21pm

fly_agaric wrote: »

As a "lurker" more honest description would be the poster laid out his arguments, often in the face of very thinly veiled insults like above and spent a large amount of time composing detailed replies and explaining his position. The thread is pretty much "over" at this point. There are (probably) no new arguments after 40 odd pages.

As for "daughters", going by the news over the sea would be telling them to be somewhat leary of Pakistanis/Bangladeshis bearing gifts if I had any tweenage/teenage ones and lived in one of the north England towns + cities that have been in the news for all the wrong reasons!

Well the last time he laid out 'his arguments' he didn't reply to questioning about them. I feel this is because he knows his arguments are thin, as i mentioned he cherry picked from the ESRI report last time out, while ignoring clear statistics that aren't on his side.

That's one problem i have. The second I have is to judge a billion or so people to be child abusers due to the acts of some gangs in the north of England. I have a real problem with that.

Maybe you can explain how you rationalise it so easily but i really can't see it as anything but racism.

Eric Cartman · 18-11-2018 1:27pm

Midlife wrote: »

Agree 100%.

And while the wealthy take more and more for thelselves, they convince people that it's all the fault of other poor people

I keep coming back a very prophetic final line in the movie 'the big short'. this was before the lurch to the right and before Trumpism in the states but it goes 'I've a feeling when this (the downturn) all blows over that we'll just end up blaming poor people and immmigrants'

Relatively speaking the lower-middle class and down in the UK and the US is doing worse thena their parents with a smaller share of the national GDP.

That is not the fault of immigrants.

People blame the muslims for the increase in rape, violence against women , extremism and terrorism , that 'blaming the immigrants for taking our jobs' trope is old and only really perpetuated by poor uneducated native people in countries.

However economically , explain to me how its the fault of rich people , the perceived ills of our economic world ? , why is it ok to tar the rich with a brush and not the poor ?

Midlife · 18-11-2018 1:38pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

People blame the muslims for the increase in rape, violence against women , extremism and terrorism , that 'blaming the immigrants for taking our jobs' trope is old and only really perpetuated by poor uneducated native people in countries.

However economically , explain to me how its the fault of rich people , the perceived ills of our economic world ? , why is it ok to tar the rich with a brush and not the poor ?

I disagree quite strongly with your first statement (though i'm not sure you blame them, just that you're saying theey are blamed). However i'm not sure there's any point in discussing it.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's the fault of rich people. Just that the system has slowly been tweaked to filter a larger and larger portion of wealth to the already wealthy.

Sand · 18-11-2018 3:40pm

Midlife wrote: »

Well the last time he laid out 'his arguments' he didn't reply to questioning about them.

I did reply. I asked you to clarify your question. You did not. You only posted again to vomit up some bitterness. However you did apologise for that, and I accept your apology.

I feel this is because he knows his arguments are thin

What I know is that you are not actually listening to anything that is stated.

That's one problem i have. The second I have is to judge a billion or so people to be child abusers due to the acts of some gangs in the north of England. I have a real problem with that.

See? Exaggerate much?

Eric Cartman · 18-11-2018 7:21pm

Midlife wrote: »

I disagree quite strongly with your first statement (though i'm not sure you blame them, just that you're saying theey are blamed). However i'm not sure there's any point in discussing it.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's the fault of rich people. Just that the system has slowly been tweaked to filter a larger and larger portion of wealth to the already wealthy.

What I mean is

"De foreigners are taking our jobs" firstly isn't true obviously, but secondly is an argument only used and perpetuated by the long term unemployed , I think you'd have more chance of winning the lotto than finding somebody on over 40k a year making that argument. As a result, I don't think the objection to muslims could be in any way economic or considered to be economic, why the debate between rich and poor has entered this thread is puzzling.

Realistically people are opposed to muslims because of the toxic elements in their culture. This really boils down to an issue of religion again, Devout muslims (as with almost any religion) are toxic to our modern free society as the countries they are coming from often lack so far behind on womens rights, LGBT rights etc.. which make integration a lot harder. Radical clerics 'helping' confused people integrate into European society have inevitably just made their followers more devout, the community more insular and allowed the seeds of resentment and hatred for western customs to flourish (even in second generation immigrants).

I think if it was all Abdul the Iranian scientist who was born muslim but is no longer coming in then everyone would be fine with it in time (aside from nutter extremist groups born out of a lack of education in primarily working class areas) but sadly its not. These pop up mosques, self declared clerics, 'community activists' and groups like the muslim brotherhood need to be scrutinised heavily, any faith based schools need to have the curriculum scrutinised heavily and the children taught from an early age to integrate into native western society and to be on guard for customs and attitudes that their parents or grandparents may harbour that are not viable in western nations.

Midlife · 18-11-2018 7:47pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

What I mean is

"De foreigners are taking our jobs" firstly isn't true obviously, but secondly is an argument only used and perpetuated by the long term unemployed , I think you'd have more chance of winning the lotto than finding somebody on over 40k a year making that argument. As a result, I don't think the objection to muslims could be in any way economic or considered to be economic, why the debate between rich and poor has entered this thread is puzzling.

Realistically people are opposed to muslims because of the toxic elements in their culture. This really boils down to an issue of religion again, Devout muslims (as with almost any religion) are toxic to our modern free society as the countries they are coming from often lack so far behind on womens rights, LGBT rights etc.. which make integration a lot harder. Radical clerics 'helping' confused people integrate into European society have inevitably just made their followers more devout, the community more insular and allowed the seeds of resentment and hatred for western customs to flourish (even in second generation immigrants).

I think if it was all Abdul the Iranian scientist who was born muslim but is no longer coming in then everyone would be fine with it in time (aside from nutter extremist groups born out of a lack of education in primarily working class areas) but sadly its not. These pop up mosques, self declared clerics, 'community activists' and groups like the muslim brotherhood need to be scrutinised heavily, any faith based schools need to have the curriculum scrutinised heavily and the children taught from an early age to integrate into native western society and to be on guard for customs and attitudes that their parents or grandparents may harbour that are not viable in western nations.

Hard to disagree with any of that.

the one point I'd add is that secular Islam is hugely downplayed/fotgotten about. I've been basically laughed at for mentioning it at times but I've met a lot of new Irish citizens who observe Ramadan and wear headscarves but are equally progressive in terms of womens and LGBT rights etc.

My main problem is that all of these are lumped in with the worst stories you hear and they're all treated as one homogonous group.

As you say though, yes integration and education are mandatory.

Eric Cartman · 18-11-2018 8:04pm

Midlife wrote: »

Hard to disagree with any of that.

the one point I'd add is that secular Islam is hugely downplayed/fotgotten about. I've been basically laughed at for mentioning it at times but I've met a lot of new Irish citizens who observe Ramadan and wear headscarves but are equally progressive in terms of womens and LGBT rights etc.

My main problem is that all of these are lumped in with the worst stories you hear and they're all treated as one homogonous group.

As you say though, yes integration and education are mandatory.

And I think this needs to be brought up more that there are people from these regions that don't believe in the old book , Observing ramadan is often just done to appease parents or as a tradition that they grew up with, similar to athiests participating in christmas.

The only point id have some disagreement on is tye headscarf, I still personally see it as a representation of female opression by theocratic cultures, I do believe some choose to wear it, but theres definitely a lot of pressure from families etc.. for women to continue wearing it in western countries. The hijab not so many issues with but I do feel the burkah is a security risk and almost certainly a tool of opression and has no place in western society.

ancapailldorcha · 20-11-2018 3:24pm

Rants deleted.

dr.fuzzenstein · 20-11-2018 3:57pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

People blame the muslims for the increase in rape, violence against women , extremism and terrorism , that 'blaming the immigrants for taking our jobs' trope is old and only really perpetuated by poor uneducated native people in countries.

However economically , explain to me how its the fault of rich people , the perceived ills of our economic world ? , why is it ok to tar the rich with a brush and not the poor ?

To me the problem with "rich people" (or large companies) would be the innocent phrase "maximising profit".
It means increasing the bottom line and shareholder payouts at any cost and exploring any legal (or very grey area legal) avenue for one purpose and one purpose alone:
To spend as little money as possible making as much money as possible.
Dismanteling unions, zero hour contracts, finding THE cheapest supplier, moving production to third world countries, dismanteling pension schemes, finding every and any tax loophole to get tax to as close as zero as possible (hello Ireland), funneling profit through overseas taxhavens, asserting political influence to have health and safety as well as environmental regulation watered down, getting politicians to supply dodgy grants to established companies, getting fewer people to do more work, basically what we see every day.
And this is just the legal stuff.
This has decimated entire areas in the US alone where there are no jobs and it's almost a third world country.
If it means firing people, cutting down the rain forest, poisoning the sea, the land, the air, supporting dodgy regimes to get at cheap materials, it's all fine and dandy, as long as shareholders get a few extra cent.
It's basically pissing on the planet for a few dollar more.
Global commerce has been the worst thing for the planet and it's people since the Crusades and the Black Death. All so people can fall over each other to spend €1000 on that shiny new iPhone.

The "poor" people just react badly by electing the worst possible asshole (always a right winger) into power. For some reason they don't seem to care that they knowingly are making things worse for themselves. Trump being the case in point and demonstrates nicely how the elite is fcuking everyone over and they're (i.e. everyone) fighting amongst themselves.

Sand · 21-11-2018 9:07pm

Midlife wrote: »

the one point I'd add is that secular Islam is hugely downplayed/fotgotten about. I've been basically laughed at for mentioning it at times but I've met a lot of new Irish citizens who observe Ramadan and wear headscarves but are equally progressive in terms of womens and LGBT rights etc.

Surely secular Islam is seen in its proper context? Pew Research has found that Muslim acceptance of LGBT in Islamic/middle eastern countries only exceeds single digits in a single country, Lebanon. Homosexuality remains punishable by death in many Islamic/Middle Eastern countries. If you're claiming your anecdotes are a contradiction of that reality, then you'll have to get used to being laughed at.

As you say though, yes integration and education are mandatory.

Mandatory? You would force them to integrate? What would you do if they say no?

Das Reich · 22-11-2018 6:56pm

Sand wrote: »

Surely secular Islam is seen in its proper context? Pew Research has found that Muslim acceptance of LGBT in Islamic/middle eastern countries only exceeds single digits in a single country, Lebanon. Homosexuality remains punishable by death in many Islamic/Middle Eastern countries. If you're claiming your anecdotes are a contradiction of that reality, then you'll have to get used to being laughed at.

Mandatory? You would force them to integrate? What would you do if they say no?

In Lebanon christians went from 80% a hundred years ago to 40% now. I am sure it will get more radicalized as the christians become smaller.

Midlife · 22-11-2018 10:58pm

Sand wrote: »

Surely secular Islam is seen in its proper context? Pew Research has found that Muslim acceptance of LGBT in Islamic/middle eastern countries only exceeds single digits in a single country, Lebanon. Homosexuality remains punishable by death in many Islamic/Middle Eastern countries. If you're claiming your anecdotes are a contradiction of that reality, then you'll have to get used to being laughed at.

Mandatory? You would force them to integrate? What would you do if they say no?

Before we get into another report (which i think maybe you've selected the favourable bits from), I think you shuold answer the questions from the last time you cited something.

I believe this is the third time I've asked.

If you want to debate with me, then fine. I'm not really up for you dropping in every so often, posting replies to comments I made to others and then swiftly moving on. I think you have to back up your own stuff first.

I'm not having a go at you. I just think that the kind of debate where we just bang out soundbytes every week is a bit pointless.

Sand · 23-11-2018 1:07pm

Midlife wrote: »

Before we get into another report (which i think maybe you've selected the favourable bits from), I think you shuold answer the questions from the last time you cited something.

I believe this is the third time I've asked.

If you want to debate with me, then fine. I'm not really up for you dropping in every so often, posting replies to comments I made to others and then swiftly moving on. I think you have to back up your own stuff first.

I'm not having a go at you. I just think that the kind of debate where we just bang out soundbytes every week is a bit pointless.

You say that, but you practise that sort of approach. I remember you flounced out of this thread a few weeks back loudly announcing you had no interest whatsoever in discussing anything with me. Now, in between the insults and personal attacks, you are back claiming you want a high minded debate again.

Whereas I've always been willing to discuss the evidence, you're clearly not. I can understand why, the evidence is clear that mass migration is a negative policy for Europeans. If you're in favour of mass migration, the last thing you want to discuss is the evidence.

So to clarify your question, again: you only challenge the bits in bold from your post 664? I ask because you're simultaneously challenging that mass migration is positive but also that it is negative, which if accurate is a unique view on mass migration. You're apparently accepting that the ESRI finds non-EU immigrants, particularly Africans have higher unemployment and less labour participation but at the same time rejecting that this is a economically negative outcome. Which is a unique view on economic outcomes. I've been asking you to clarify what your question is because that's what I am taking from 664, and it doesn't make sense. So either clarify your question, or flounce off again.

James Brown · 23-11-2018 5:03pm

I think the thread title is long overdue a change. This is a thread about immigration and not bigoted scaremongering about Muslims...I think.

Midlife · 23-11-2018 10:50pm

Sand wrote: »

So to clarify your question, again: you only challenge the bits in bold from your post 664?

There may be more but please explain them for the moment.

Just to quote again...

Sand wrote: »

The Irish Times has drawn attention to the economic performance of non-EU migration in Ireland, specifically African migrants. As we have seen in the UK, non-EU migrants are an economic cost, not a benefit. That same story appears to be playing out in Ireland too.

The ESRI reports that:

- EU migration is positive. Western EU migrants are only 4% unemployed, compared to 7% of Irish people.
- Non-EU migration is not economically positive. The employment rate for African nationals in particular is just 45%, and the unemployment rate is over twice the Irish rate. Their economic performance is not catching up with the Irish average. It actually worsened between 2016 and 2017.
- Non-EU nationals as a whole were much more likely to live in consistent poverty, affecting 29% of the group as opposed to 8% of Irish people.

While there is not yet detailed figures to the level identified in the UK, the indications are non-EU migrants contribute less economically, and demand more in social spending than the average Irish person. Statistically, migrants will be younger so wont yet reflect the pension and health costs of older Irish people. Yet. They will grow old too though.

Despite all the claims that mass migration is an absolute economic benefit, the reality is non-EU migrants will not pay the pensions of Irish people. Irish people (and indeed EU migrants) will work longer and harder to pay the pensions of the non EU migrants. At some point policies on mass migration has to take account of the evidence, not the feel good myths.

Midlife wrote: »

Can you please reference or cite the document where it says this.

I think you might be adding a bit of your own take on things here.

You can't cite an ESRI study by just cherry picking things in fairness.

Rather than answering with a question, can you maybe answer with an answer?

I think the bits in bold are your words rather than the report. I'm just asking you to explain or justify them.

Migration Megathread

Comments