Migration Megathread

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

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.