Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Migration Megathread

16970727475

Comments

  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,261 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    A few things to point out about this issue.

    The main reason why France has a high Muslim population and Poland doesn't has little to do with Poland's refusal to take in a portion of the refugees from the war in Syria and a lot more to do with the fact that France colonised a large swath of North Africa during the late 19th century. Indeed, prior to its independence, Algeria wasn't even a colony of France but rather part of Metropolitan France.

    In addition to the incorporation of Algeria, there were significant waves of migration into France during the 20th century from the colonies and former colonies, most notably after the First World War where the loss of six million men led to significant labour shortages and again during the economic boom of the 60s and 70s.

    Poland, on the other hand, did not colonise any of North Africa during the 19th century, mainly because it neither enjoyed close proximity to the region nor did it exist as an independent state itself.

    Secondly, the French approach to integration of immigrants is the exact opposite of so-called "multiculturalism", where different cultures co-exist side-by-side.

    The principal of laicite is heavily enshrined in French law. From the state's perspective, you're French first and foremost and if you think that clashes with your culture/religion, tough luck. Hence the ban on religious clothing such as burqas etc in schools and hospitals.

    Incidentally, the policy originated long before the arrival of immigrants in France and has its roots in the 19th century when the clash between right wing Catholics and left wing secularists almost ripped the country apart.

    One of the reasons radical Islam has taken hold among some French muslims is because, despite this insistence at state level that everyone is French, in practice people tend to be treated differently depending on their origins. As Tony Judt said in his book Postwar:
    Islam, in contrast, was expanding its appeal—particularly among the young, for whom it served increasingly as a source of communal identity and collective pride in countries where citizens of Arab or Turkish or African provenance were still widely seen and treated as 'foreigners'. Whereas their parents and grandparents had made strenuous efforts to integrate and assimilate, young men and women in Antwerp or Marseille or Leicester now vociferously identified both with the land of their birth—Belgium or France or Britain—and with the religion and region of their family's roots.

    That, of course, does not excuse Islamic terrorism in France (in the same way that say, discrimination against Catholics in Northern Ireland didn't excuse IRA terrorism), but does put context on it.

    Finally, and most pertinently, while the perpetrator yesterday appears to have been a Muslim, he doesn't at present appear to have been a terrorist:
    He was later identified by prosecutors as Nathan C, a 22-year-old with a history of mental illness for which he had been admitted to hospital.

    According to French media, witnesses heard him say that he was "out of medication".

    Prosecutors said that some religious items were later found in his bag, but that there was "no evidence at this stage suggesting he was radicalised".


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,651 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    A few things to point out about this issue.

    The main reason why France has a high Muslim population and Poland doesn't has little to do with Poland's refusal to take in a portion of the refugees from the war in Syria and a lot more to do with the fact that France colonised a large swath of North Africa during the late 19th century. Indeed, prior to its independence, Algeria wasn't even a colony of France but rather part of Metropolitan France.

    In addition to the incorporation of Algeria, there were significant waves of migration into France during the 20th century from the colonies and former colonies, most notably after the First World War where the loss of six million men led to significant labour shortages and again during the economic boom of the 60s and 70s.

    Poland, on the other hand, did not colonise any of North Africa during the 19th century, mainly because it neither enjoyed close proximity to the region nor did it exist as an independent state itself.

    Secondly, the French approach to integration of immigrants is the exact opposite of so-called "multiculturalism", where different cultures co-exist side-by-side.

    The principal of laicite is heavily enshrined in French law. From the state's perspective, you're French first and foremost and if you think that clashes with your culture/religion, tough luck. Hence the ban on religious clothing such as burqas etc in schools and hospitals.

    Incidentally, the policy originated long before the arrival of immigrants in France and has its roots in the 19th century when the clash between right wing Catholics and left wing secularists almost ripped the country apart.

    One of the reasons radical Islam has taken hold among some French muslims is because, despite this insistence at state level that everyone is French, in practice people tend to be treated differently depending on their origins. As Tony Judt said in his book Postwar:



    That, of course, does not excuse Islamic terrorism in France (in the same way that say, discrimination against Catholics in Northern Ireland didn't excuse IRA terrorism), but does put context on it.

    Finally, and most pertinently, while the perpetrator yesterday appears to have been a Muslim, he doesn't at present appear to have been a terrorist:

    I’d like to thank this 20 times.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭ Briggs Full Sunblock


    splashuum wrote: »
    Yet another radical Islamist responsible for murdering the innocent today in Paris.
    Bomb squad now apparently on the scene.
    When will this end? The once romantic Paris has turned rotten.
    You have to ask yourself the question, if France had taken a similar immigration stance to what Poland are doing now, would we have even seen a terrorist attack ?
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50986028

    Another day, another knife weilding, bearded 'shouty man' running at people in the street, this time in Metz.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7854159/French-police-shoot-wound-knifeman-shouting-Allahu-akbar-Metz.html

    And yet again, like yesterday in Paris, this was classed as a 'mental health malfunction' (even though he was on a watch list).


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,991 ✭✭✭ambro25


    Another day, another knife weilding, bearded 'shouty man' running at people in the street, this time in Metz.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7854159/French-police-shoot-wound-knifeman-shouting-Allahu-akbar-Metz.html

    And yet again, like yesterday in Paris, this was classed as a 'mental health malfunction' (even though he was on a watch list).
    A question to you: would you expect the behaviour of people impaired by mental health malfunction to be more, or less, influenced by propaganda (irrespective of its nature, be it fundamentalist muslim or supremacist racism or...)?

    That man was known to authorities for both issues (radicalism *and* mental impairment), btw.

    I know that area *very* well, as a further btw. It is to Metz, what 'the 92' is to Paris, i.e. the local ethno-cultural ghetto, a hotbed of social disenfranchising concentrated into HLMs (flat rises) social housing since the late 80s at least. That guy was housed there, he didn't take himself into the city centre a mile away or so, chock-full of tourists most days of the week and especially at weekends. Make of that what you will.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭ Briggs Full Sunblock


    The chap yesterday (and other, day before) was clearly primarily motivated by verbally proclaiming his sky god was the 'akbar' (greatest), as he carried out the attack with raised knife.
    It's hard to say exactly how 'mental' (on a scale) someone is, when expecting to receive a dozen or more virtual-virgins in reward for such 'who's the greatest' type acts. Crazed for sure.

    Anyway, over to Germany (for 3rd day in a row in Europe) where another shouty lad with raised knife rushes the local cops in a very similar style, but was thankfully 'eliminated' before any damage was done.
    https://www.dw.com/en/germany-police-in-gelsenkirchen-shoot-dead-knife-wielding-attacker/a-51895038


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,406 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    splashuum wrote: »
    Yet another radical Islamist responsible for murdering the innocent today in Paris.
    Bomb squad now apparently on the scene.
    When will this end? The once romantic Paris has turned rotten.

    You have to ask yourself the question, if France had taken a similar immigration stance to what Poland are doing now, would we have even seen a terrorist attack ?

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50986028

    Maybe not.

    But more importantly ask yourself if Bush and Blair never invaded Iraq would we have even seen a terrorist attack in Europe.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,902 ✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    The Nal wrote: »
    Maybe not.

    But more importantly ask yourself if Bush and Blair never invaded Iraq would we have even seen a terrorist attack in Europe.

    Al Qaeda predates Bush and had terrorist goals to attack the US and Europe sincce it's inception. Somost likely you would have attacks


  • Registered Users Posts: 465 ✭✭Ballso


    Pretty sure Islamist murder sprees in Europe predate those two gob****es by over a millenia...


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,049 ✭✭✭Dannyriver


    A few things to point out about this issue.

    The main reason why France has a high Muslim population and Poland doesn't has little to do with Poland's refusal to take in a portion of the refugees from the war in Syria and a lot more to do with the fact that France colonised a large swath of North Africa during the late 19th century. Indeed, prior to its independence, Algeria wasn't even a colony of France but rather part of Metropolitan France.

    In addition to the incorporation of Algeria, there were significant waves of migration into France during the 20th century from the colonies and former colonies, most notably after the First World War where the loss of six million men led to significant labour shortages and again during the economic boom of the 60s and 70s.

    Poland, on the other hand, did not colonise any of North Africa during the 19th century, mainly because it neither enjoyed close proximity to the region nor did it exist as an independent state itself.

    Secondly, the French approach to integration of immigrants is the exact opposite of so-called "multiculturalism", where different cultures co-exist side-by-side.

    The principal of laicite is heavily enshrined in French law. From the state's perspective, you're French first and foremost and if you think that clashes with your culture/religion, tough luck. Hence the ban on religious clothing such as burqas etc in schools and hospitals.

    Incidentally, the policy originated long before the arrival of immigrants in France and has its roots in the 19th century when the clash between right wing Catholics and left wing secularists almost ripped the country apart.

    One of the reasons radical Islam has taken hold among some French muslims is because, despite this insistence at state level that everyone is French, in practice people tend to be treated differently depending on their origins. As Tony Judt said in his book Postwar:



    That, of course, does not excuse Islamic terrorism in France (in the same way that say, discrimination against Catholics in Northern Ireland didn't excuse IRA terrorism), but does put context on it.

    Finally, and most pertinently, while the perpetrator yesterday appears to have been a Muslim, he doesn't at present appear to have been a terrorist:

    Doesn t context and historical truth look really well when placed in a sea of emotional snowflakery fear and latent bigotry. Well done you


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,435 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    The main reason why France has a high Muslim population and Poland doesn't has little to do with Poland's refusal to take in a portion of the refugees from the war in Syria and a lot more to do with the fact that France colonised a large swath of North Africa during the late 19th century.

    There is little or no correlation between post-imperial countries and mass migration. Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Ireland and so on didn't have empires, yet have the same mass migration experience as countries who did. Sweden is likely worse. Mass migration, as experienced by European countries, occurred almost entirely after the loss of empire. Not during it.

    What explains why France has high migrant populations from outside Europe and Poland does not is policy. France pursued a bad policy against the interests of its people. Poland did not follow that policy. So France gets suicide bombings, truck attacks and terrorist atrocities. Whereas Poland does not.
    Secondly, the French approach to integration of immigrants is the exact opposite of so-called "multiculturalism", where different cultures co-exist side-by-side.

    The principal of laicite is heavily enshrined in French law. From the state's perspective, you're French first and foremost and if you think that clashes with your culture/religion, tough luck.

    None of this is particularly unique to France. This belief system does actually correlate with imperialism, specifically European imperialism. French, British and Russian identities had to be diluted and expanded to try include conquered populations. Anyone from Tasmania to Alaska could and should be British. Persisting with these failed policies in the 21st century is dangerous and foolish.
    One of the reasons radical Islam has taken hold among some French muslims is because, despite this insistence at state level that everyone is French, in practice people tend to be treated differently depending on their origins.

    Which only highlights the failure of the French policy. The French state is an imperial state that has yet to grasp the empire is over. In the meantime, the French people are without a state that represents them.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,104 ✭✭✭ Channing Silly Blackhead


    I'd be interested to hear what people think of this - Bono's charity was addressing the Joint Oireachtas Committee on economic migrants recently.

    Basically the video has a guy saying that Ireland's mainly senior population in a few years will require a lot of migration, ideally from Africa, to balance out the payment of pension funds.

    I'm never one of those people who shouts "look after our own" during these conversations and I don't intend to start now. I'm just wondering how our infrastructure, housing, medical and education systems will cope with the boom in population he's putting forward.

    As a thirty year old who would like to start a family, factors like money and the incredible expense required (if you want to bring up an even half-decent child) are a huge factor in my deciding not to have children. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just somehow distribute the money given through taxation in a progressive way to remedy the current problems. Then we wouldn't need the appalling direct provision centres, we could just fill up all the empty houses. When people got sick, they could be looked after properly instead of adding further stress to the health service when they inevitably have to return to hospital, because they weren't treated properly the first time. I'm not even going to get into education - suffice to say, as an educator, I just presume at this stage that the government wants the next generation to be totally ignorant, which is why the education system is so underfunded.

    So where is the incentive for Irish people to reproduce? If there isn't one, are we all just going to settle for a future society where everyone is crammed into cities designed for far fewer people and we mostly import our youthful workforce? This, to me, is a very bleak future for anyone; Irish or any other nationality.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,439 ✭✭✭✭briany


    We're in a time where there is a bit of Islamic extremism going on in Europe, but there used to be a time (before the mid 2000s) where it wasn't going on so much. So, as Baldrick said - how did we get from one case of affairs to the other case of affairs?

    It can't be simply that migration is to blame because countries like France and Britain have had several decades without really any such incidents despite having significant Muslim populations throughout this time. And, as pointed out above, these people didn't even come there out of a desire on the part of the host countries to showcase their political correctness. Liberalism was at play, but it appears to be economic liberalism, rather than the loosely-defined term slung around by social critics today.

    So, what changed that young Muslim men born in, say, Bradford would want to go around knifing people? Again, there were young Muslim men in Bradford 25 years ago, too, but not a one of them appeared to be thinking of carrying out the same kind of attacks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,439 ✭✭✭✭briany


    Two things changed

    Saudi Arabia spending billions in radicalisation in order grow their bat**** crazy religious sect

    Russia is busy funding and agitating anyone (be it islsmists or far right and far left nut cases ) who can help it keep West busy with internal problems and not focus on Putin's feckwittery

    Who are these mysterious donors who operate with impunity throughout the gulf region? Governments there seem to be doing f all to stop them. It'd be one thing if Saudi Arabia were a hostile country to the West, but it (ostensibly) is not. That is to say that the House of Saud don't seem interested in religious extremism and just want the money to keep rolling in, so they'll cosy up to the USA et al no problem.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,242 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    briany wrote: »
    We're in a time where there is a bit of Islamic extremism going on in Europe, but there used to be a time (before the mid 2000s) where it wasn't going on so much. So, as Baldrick said - how did we get from one case of affairs to the other case of affairs?

    It can't be simply that migration is to blame because countries like France and Britain have had several decades without really any such incidents despite having significant Muslim populations throughout this time. And, as pointed out above, these people didn't even come there out of a desire on the part of the host countries to showcase their political correctness. Liberalism was at play, but it appears to be economic liberalism, rather than the loosely-defined term slung around by social critics today.

    So, what changed that young Muslim men born in, say, Bradford would want to go around knifing people? Again, there were young Muslim men in Bradford 25 years ago, too, but not a one of them appeared to be thinking of carrying out the same kind of attacks.

    What an odd post.

    A 'bit' of Islamic extremism. Ah shur as long as it's just a 'bit'. Shur only a bit of the population died because of this. As long as it's just a bit what's the problem.

    I think the point your trying to make, very badly if I may say, is that the only problem with multiculturalism - is 'just' terrorism. Erm, okay.

    Finally, you showed astonishingly poor judgement and insensitivity with your makey-upy Muslim knife problem in Bradford - of all places. The first place that Muslim pedophile grooming gangs were uncovered and continue to be uncovered across England in jaw dropping numbers.

    What is pretty clear to me on this thread is there are people who hold ideological opinions that cloud their judgement.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,191 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    The Greek authorities are coming under severe pressure trying to keep the illegals out at the Turkish border.

    Meanwhile the residents of Lesbos are under seige from the illegals there and more of them are arriving all the time.

    Looks like it could be like 2015 all over again.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,755 ✭✭✭fly_agaric


    ^^Paying a sort of protection money to someone like Erdogan to make a hard problem go away was always going to end like this.

    "Europe" might just have up the danegeld paid to Turkey & hope he's happy with that (until next time) since we are probably incapable of any other collective action. Nice border you have there there...would be a shame if something bad happened it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭mvl


    The Germans seem to want to avoid the previous loss of control how they call it now - some pressure is put on Merkel to be more clear about change of status (by comparison with 2015). From a recent article in DW:
    Friedrich Merz, who is gunning to lead Merkel's center-right Christian Democrats (CDU), spoke out against accepting more refugees from Turkey.He said Berlin needs to send a clear signal: "There is no point in coming to Germany. We cannot take you in....
    In order to reduce the migration flows, it would be helpful if Ms. Merkel clearly and publically stated that uncontrolled entry into Germany no longer exists," Lindner said. "We've been saying for years that in the event of a crisis, it must also be possible to deny entry at the German border which is something our European partners already do," he added.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,573 ✭✭✭Infini


    They should withdraw the right to claim any sort of asylum if theyre caught crossing illegally, they either get thrown back over the border or deported back to whatever country they came from without appeal. I've no problem with legal migration but not illegal migration.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,755 ✭✭✭fly_agaric


    mvl wrote: »
    The Germans seem to want to avoid the previous loss of control how they call it now - some pressure is put on Merkel to be more clear about change of status (by comparison with 2015). From a recent article in DW:
    Friedrich Merz, who is gunning to lead Merkel's center-right Christian Democrats (CDU), spoke out against accepting more refugees from Turkey.He said Berlin needs to send a clear signal: "There is no point in coming to Germany. We cannot take you in....
    In order to reduce the migration flows, it would be helpful if Ms. Merkel clearly and publically stated that uncontrolled entry into Germany no longer exists," Lindner said. "We've been saying for years that in the event of a crisis, it must also be possible to deny entry at the German border which is something our European partners already do," he added.

    The statements coming from EU & European leaders seem quite different vs the migrant crisis in 2015 (e.g. https://www.euronews.com/2020/03/03/greece-migrant-crisis-is-an-attack-by-turkey-on-the-eu-austria - I thank Greece for being our European ‘aspida’ from von der Leyen).

    No signs of any of them calling on Greece to admit all the migrants to claim asylum or kowtowing to Turkey/appeasing Erdogan with more money or support for his policies in Syria. My cynicism above might have been misplaced


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,435 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    briany wrote: »
    We're in a time where there is a bit of Islamic extremism going on in Europe, but there used to be a time (before the mid 2000s) where it wasn't going on so much. So, as Baldrick said - how did we get from one case of affairs to the other case of affairs?

    You're confusing symptoms with the root cause. The root cause is 70 years mass migration from outside Europe creating foreign enclaves in Western European cities and towns. These enclaves are not and cannot be assimilated and they are constantly reinforced by more mass migration from the old country. If you listen to the likes of Ash Sarkar, its wrong to even expect these enclaves to assimilate with the indigenous people. Why should they? Increasingly, the indigenous people are told they are the ones who must give up their identity and assimilate.

    Ethnic conflict is the inevitable result of multiple peoples attempting to share the same territory. It isnt limited to outright terrorism - it can be as banal as distrust and political instability. The symptoms are almost coincidental - the cause is mass migration creating ethnic enclaves, stoking conflict. Multi-ethnic states have been attempted in Europe's past. Absent massive state repression of personal freedoms, they inevitably break down - peacefully or otherwise - into nation states.

    I am persistently puzzled why people accept without complaint policies which are so clearly against the interests of Europeans. We live in a time where local authorities in England identify 18,700 new child grooming victims in one 12 month period in England alone, yet the UK government is suppressing report into the characteristics of these gangs because its not in the public interest! There is a stubborn refusal to address the reality of these gangs because the answers as to how and why English girls were specifically targeted on ethnic grounds would be damning. Instead we're supposed to be outraged by the so-called 'Windrush scandal'! The different groups in UK society clearly have different priorities.

    Mass migration creates the conditions for ethnic strife. The question to ask is why is this policy of mass migration pursued by European governments when it is so clearly against the interests of Europeans? It is a bad policy, and it should be ended.
    It's backfiring on Erdogan instead of him getting money EU realised it could be spent on helping members. He overplayed his hand.

    I would hope you are right, but to my knowledge Greece and Bulgaria have only received kind words. Given its an EU border, I'd be happier if Greece and Bulgaria received direct assistance to secure that border from attacks by these so-called 'refugees'.

    It's probably legally difficult for European armies to deploy units to the border itself, but surely aid can be provided in the shape of non-lethal equipment (water cannons etc), unmanned drones and potentially patrol vessels to enforce the sea border. The greater European resources are deployed, the less able Berlin, Madrid, Rome and Paris are to duck out of it when it gets difficult. We can fully expect Erdogan to force a stampede to the border. He cant lose - either the border is broken and 3-4 million surge into Europe, or he gets to crow about how evil the Greeks are keeping them out.

    I fear Merkel is waiting in the wings to sabotage the whole affair as she did in 2015. Europe will be safer when she finally gets off the stage.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,651 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Sand wrote: »
    You're confusing symptoms with the root cause. The root cause is 70 years mass migration from outside Europe creating foreign enclaves in Western European cities and towns. These enclaves are not and cannot be assimilated and they are constantly reinforced by more mass migration from the old country. If you listen to the likes of Ash Sarkar, its wrong to even expect these enclaves to assimilate with the indigenous people. Why should they? Increasingly, the indigenous people are told they are the ones who must give up their identity and assimilate.

    Ethnic conflict is the inevitable result of multiple peoples attempting to share the same territory. It isnt limited to outright terrorism - it can be as banal as distrust and political instability. The symptoms are almost coincidental - the cause is mass migration creating ethnic enclaves, stoking conflict. Multi-ethnic states have been attempted in Europe's past. Absent massive state repression of personal freedoms, they inevitably break down - peacefully or otherwise - into nation states.

    I am persistently puzzled why people accept without complaint policies which are so clearly against the interests of Europeans. We live in a time where local authorities in England identify 18,700 new child grooming victims in one 12 month period in England alone, yet the UK government is suppressing report into the characteristics of these gangs because its not in the public interest! There is a stubborn refusal to address the reality of these gangs because the answers as to how and why English girls were specifically targeted on ethnic grounds would be damning. Instead we're supposed to be outraged by the so-called 'Windrush scandal'! The different groups in UK society clearly have different priorities.

    Mass migration creates the conditions for ethnic strife. The question to ask is why is this policy of mass migration pursued by European governments when it is so clearly against the interests of Europeans? It is a bad policy, and it should be ended.



    I would hope you are right, but to my knowledge Greece and Bulgaria have only received kind words. Given its an EU border, I'd be happier if Greece and Bulgaria received direct assistance to secure that border from attacks by these so-called 'refugees'.

    It's probably legally difficult for European armies to deploy units to the border itself, but surely aid can be provided in the shape of non-lethal equipment (water cannons etc), unmanned drones and potentially patrol vessels to enforce the sea border. The greater European resources are deployed, the less able Berlin, Madrid, Rome and Paris are to duck out of it when it gets difficult. We can fully expect Erdogan to force a stampede to the border. He cant lose - either the border is broken and 3-4 million surge into Europe, or he gets to crow about how evil the Greeks are keeping them out.

    I fear Merkel is waiting in the wings to sabotage the whole affair as she did in 2015. Europe will be safer when she finally gets off the stage.

    What's your solution?

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Registered Users Posts: 339 ✭✭IAmTheReign


    Sand wrote: »
    I would hope you are right, but to my knowledge Greece and Bulgaria have only received kind words. Given its an EU border, I'd be happier if Greece and Bulgaria received direct assistance to secure that border from attacks by these so-called 'refugees'.

    It's probably legally difficult for European armies to deploy units to the border itself, but surely aid can be provided in the shape of non-lethal equipment (water cannons etc), unmanned drones and potentially patrol vessels to enforce the sea border. The greater European resources are deployed, the less able Berlin, Madrid, Rome and Paris are to duck out of it when it gets difficult. We can fully expect Erdogan to force a stampede to the border. He cant lose - either the border is broken and 3-4 million surge into Europe, or he gets to crow about how evil the Greeks are keeping them out.

    I fear Merkel is waiting in the wings to sabotage the whole affair as she did in 2015. Europe will be safer when she finally gets off the stage.

    Greece are receiving direct assistance from the EU. FRONTEX, the EU border security agency, are putting together a rapid border intervention team to help them secure their borders.

    The problem with FRONTEX at the moment is that up until now they have to request border security personnel from other members states so it takes time to mobilise. As of next year they'll have their own standing border security staff they'll be able to deploy anywhere in the EU.

    https://www.tovima.gr/2020/03/02/international/rapid-response-from-frontex-to-greek-request-of-aid-to-guard-eastern-borders/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭ Briggs Full Sunblock


    .... FRONTEX, the EU border security agency, are putting together a rapid border intervention team to help them secure their borders.
    The problem with FRONTEX at the moment is that up until now they have to request border security personnel from other members states so it takes time to mobilise...
    Sure defeats the notion of 'rapid', Turkey yesterday already moved some armed commandos towards the Greek border, they really don't want to keep the thousands (or millions), funded and assumed to be under their responsibility.

    Wonder if there is a potential for conflict if Turkey continues it's stance.

    Regardless after the mess if over, they'll still be joing the EU, not today, not tommorow, 2035-40 certainly.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    I take it Covid 19 makes this all irrelevant now.



    The situation is one where I cannot go to the pub with a bunch of people from, say, Donaghmede. Just in case we start a trend, and a load of people from Finglas turn up, too.


    So I take it that means the whole migration issue needs to be seen in a new light.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,435 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Brian? wrote: »
    What's your solution?

    I'm not sure I believe you're asking a genuine question. Before we can talk about solutions, we need to agree there is a problem. If I understand your position correctly, you don't consider mass migration to be a problem despite all evidence to the contrary.

    I'll point you back to post #1957 but I'll also outline some thoughts on what a solution looks like. I guarantee you'll disagree with all of it, but that's because you don't agree there is a problem to solve in the first place.

    I consider mass migration and climate change to be comparable problems. Both create critical problems in the long term which are ignored and suppressed in the short term at the behest of motivated and well funded interest groups. Denial of climate change and denial of mass migration are one and the same. So the problem is two-fold - direct effects that need to be re-mediated, and education to combat the misinformation spread by those interest groups fuelling the denial.

    I've repeatedly stated that the policy of mass migration by European governments needs to be ended. In short this means that when we discuss the problems of European states, mass migration is immediately discounted as a solution because of the harmful effects it has on European peoples. Pension crisis? Staffing health care? Low skill labour shortages? Declining populations? Economic growth? All of these must be solved without mass migration being proposed as a solution. Afterall, these are merely symptoms of a malaise within the indigenous people - the problems of the indigenous people are not solved by importing new people.

    A concrete measure towards this would be for European states to officially recognise the indigenous peoples of their territory. I.E. the UK would recognise the English, Scots, Welsh and (Northern) Irish ethnic groups as the indigenous peoples of the UK and extend to those groups all the rights offered under UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Those rights, when implemented to their fullest extent, would decisively end the UK's mass migration policy.

    Apart from regular migration, NGOs and open borders activists have gamed the various treaties on refugees to enable mass migration by people who were never intended to be covered by those treaties. Those NGOs and activists correctly calculate that they can exhaust the state's efforts to remove failed asylum seekers. As recently as last month, the removal of convicted criminals from the UK was protested and held up. These rights for refugees were extended under treaties drawn up in the immediate aftermath of WW2 to solve the immediate problem of significant numbers of displaced populations in the newly redrawn Europe. They've been expanded since to the point where they are unrecognisable from their original intentions and limitations, and not fit for purpose in a world of widely available air, train and motor transport. Therefore its necessary for European states to withdraw from these treaties as they limit their ability to defend their own borders. If that is not possible for political reasons, I'd suggest following the lead of Hungary and criminalising the NGOs which are gaming the system. Where they assist a rejected asylum claim they should be held criminally responsible. Equally, European governments control a variety of sparsely populated island and enclaves across the world - in the interim, refugees could be held there while their claims are processed. Both measures taken together would significantly decrease false asylum claims.

    Of course these are drastic actions. No European government is going to recognise the indigenous people or withdraw from international treaties on refugees. We live in an era where people parrot Orwellian slogans like "Diversity is strength" and mindlessly believe that migrants actually *cause* economic growth. Its still taken as fact that the state must prioritise the provision of cheap unskilled labour and consumption to corporations over the interests of their people. The corporations who benefit from the current paradigm obviously support and fund its continuation by political lobbying and funding. But at one point, people believed slavery was just and defensible so the situation is not hopeless. Education is a necessary first step to build up the capacity to take action.

    For example, the anniversary of the savage and brutal murder of Kriss Donald recently passed. I'd suggest the date is commemorated as a national day in the UK, with the time taken to educate people as to the negative and harmful effects of mass migration on the people of the UK. The systematic rape and torment of English girls by Asian gangs should also be marked separately, with systematic education to prevent it from ever occurring again. Media and the arts can also play a role and should be funded to do so. Ultimately, some examples must be made. We live in a world where people buying toilet rolls are demonised. The political and police leaders who ignored and permitted atrocities like Rotheram should be held criminally responsible.

    I am using the example of the UK, but other European countries which 'enjoy' mass migration have their own atrocities to commemorate. Ultimately, people must be given the information necessary to acknowledge the problem to then force a political decision. And of course, you cannot ignore those groups and people peddling corporate falsehoods in support of mass migration. Their efforts should be defunded or deplatformed where possible. Existing hate speech legislation can be employed with no modifications to harass and silence them. At the very least they should be continually confronted and challenged with the reality that mass migration is a negative for Europeans. They have no convincing answer in response.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,435 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Balf wrote: »
    I take it Covid 19 makes this all irrelevant now.



    The situation is one where I cannot go to the pub with a bunch of people from, say, Donaghmede. Just in case we start a trend, and a load of people from Finglas turn up, too.


    So I take it that means the whole migration issue needs to be seen in a new light.

    Actually, Covid 19 is an interesting example of the perils of mass migration and prioritisation by European states of corporate interests over those of their own people. How else did a virus which originated in Chinese wet markets kill thousands of Italians in just a few weeks? It didn't walk to Italy.

    The virus spread on the networks created by mass migration. It was permitted to do so because governments were appalled at the idea of interrupting corporate profits by methods so crude and obtuse as a ban on travel or the enforcement of borders. As recently as a week ago, advocates of open borders were pretending borders couldn't be enforced.

    The virus didn't originate on Donaghmede or Finglas. If people from those areas are infected, it is because they were exposed to external vectors. The Irish government had a short window to prevent transmission from outside the country. It failed to do so because economic interests were prioritised. It is indeed a salutatory example, but not in the way you believe.

    Over the next few weeks and months, we're all going to learn how measure thought impossible are very possible with the right motivation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,435 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Regardless after the mess if over, they'll still be joing the EU, not today, not tommorow, 2035-40 certainly.

    If Poland and Hungary are not in compliance with EU values, then the likes of a quasi Islamic Turkey can never be admitted. Either the European values of Poland/Hungary wins out, or the neoliberal values of the current EU regime wins out. Either way, Turkey is disqualified.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,651 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Sand wrote: »
    I'm not sure I believe you're asking a genuine question. Before we can talk about solutions, we need to agree there is a problem. If I understand your position correctly, you don't consider mass migration to be a problem despite all evidence to the contrary.

    I'll point you back to post #1957 but I'll also outline some thoughts on what a solution looks like. I guarantee you'll disagree with all of it, but that's because you don't agree there is a problem to solve in the first place.

    I consider mass migration and climate change to be comparable problems. Both create critical problems in the long term which are ignored and suppressed in the short term at the behest of motivated and well funded interest groups. Denial of climate change and denial of mass migration are one and the same. So the problem is two-fold - direct effects that need to be re-mediated, and education to combat the misinformation spread by those interest groups fuelling the denial.

    I've repeatedly stated that the policy of mass migration by European governments needs to be ended. In short this means that when we discuss the problems of European states, mass migration is immediately discounted as a solution because of the harmful effects it has on European peoples. Pension crisis? Staffing health care? Low skill labour shortages? Declining populations? Economic growth? All of these must be solved without mass migration being proposed as a solution. Afterall, these are merely symptoms of a malaise within the indigenous people - the problems of the indigenous people are not solved by importing new people.

    A concrete measure towards this would be for European states to officially recognise the indigenous peoples of their territory. I.E. the UK would recognise the English, Scots, Welsh and (Northern) Irish ethnic groups as the indigenous peoples of the UK and extend to those groups all the rights offered under UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Those rights, when implemented to their fullest extent, would decisively end the UK's mass migration policy.

    Apart from regular migration, NGOs and open borders activists have gamed the various treaties on refugees to enable mass migration by people who were never intended to be covered by those treaties. Those NGOs and activists correctly calculate that they can exhaust the state's efforts to remove failed asylum seekers. As recently as last month, the removal of convicted criminals from the UK was protested and held up. These rights for refugees were extended under treaties drawn up in the immediate aftermath of WW2 to solve the immediate problem of significant numbers of displaced populations in the newly redrawn Europe. They've been expanded since to the point where they are unrecognisable from their original intentions and limitations, and not fit for purpose in a world of widely available air, train and motor transport. Therefore its necessary for European states to withdraw from these treaties as they limit their ability to defend their own borders. If that is not possible for political reasons, I'd suggest following the lead of Hungary and criminalising the NGOs which are gaming the system. Where they assist a rejected asylum claim they should be held criminally responsible. Equally, European governments control a variety of sparsely populated island and enclaves across the world - in the interim, refugees could be held there while their claims are processed. Both measures taken together would significantly decrease false asylum claims.

    Of course these are drastic actions. No European government is going to recognise the indigenous people or withdraw from international treaties on refugees. We live in an era where people parrot Orwellian slogans like "Diversity is strength" and mindlessly believe that migrants actually *cause* economic growth. Its still taken as fact that the state must prioritise the provision of cheap unskilled labour and consumption to corporations over the interests of their people. The corporations who benefit from the current paradigm obviously support and fund its continuation by political lobbying and funding. But at one point, people believed slavery was just and defensible so the situation is not hopeless. Education is a necessary first step to build up the capacity to take action.

    For example, the anniversary of the savage and brutal murder of Kriss Donald recently passed. I'd suggest the date is commemorated as a national day in the UK, with the time taken to educate people as to the negative and harmful effects of mass migration on the people of the UK. The systematic rape and torment of English girls by Asian gangs should also be marked separately, with systematic education to prevent it from ever occurring again. Media and the arts can also play a role and should be funded to do so. Ultimately, some examples must be made. We live in a world where people buying toilet rolls are demonised. The political and police leaders who ignored and permitted atrocities like Rotheram should be held criminally responsible.

    I am using the example of the UK, but other European countries which 'enjoy' mass migration have their own atrocities to commemorate. Ultimately, people must be given the information necessary to acknowledge the problem to then force a political decision. And of course, you cannot ignore those groups and people peddling corporate falsehoods in support of mass migration. Their efforts should be defunded or deplatformed where possible. Existing hate speech legislation can be employed with no modifications to harass and silence them. At the very least they should be continually confronted and challenged with the reality that mass migration is a negative for Europeans. They have no convincing answer in response.

    It was a genuine question. I regularly see walls of text like the above listing the problems with immigration into Europe. Never once do I see a suggested solution. I know you want to shut down the borders, but what about the 2nd and third generation kids of migrants you point out are causing problems?

    I don't think there are no problems with migration, I do think that the net benefits outweigh the problems though. I have been pretty clear about that.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Registered Users Posts: 12,435 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Brian? wrote: »
    It was a genuine question. I regularly see walls of text like the above listing the problems with immigration into Europe.

    It's impossible to discuss complex problems in 140 character's or less. People with short attention spans just have to cope.
    Never once do I see a suggested solution. I know you want to shut down the borders,

    I didn't say I wanted to shut down the borders. That's your own projection. I've no issue with tourism, business travel and so on by individuals in normal circumstances. My objection is to mass migration of such a scale that it creates enduring enclaves in the host country.
    but what about the 2nd and third generation kids of migrants you point out are causing problems?

    There is not a huge amount that can be done. Violent criminals who retain foreign citizenship can be stripped of their citizenship and deported as was the case with Shamina Begum. Equally undocumented migrants can be deported. But there will of course remain significant enclaves of legal migrants and their descendants.

    Ultimately, without further reinforcement from the old country, they will be assimilated into the indigenous peoples but it may take several centuries - if ever.
    I don't think there are no problems with migration, I do think that the net benefits outweigh the problems though. I have been pretty clear about that.

    But all the evidence indicates the problems outweigh the benefits for the indigenous people. Your view is ideological, rather than evidence based.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭ Briggs Full Sunblock


    Sand wrote: »
    Either way, Turkey is disqualified.
    Ideally they would be. But in 5/10/20yrs they will likely still be viewed as an strategic asset, rather than an enemy.

    The WB6 will be joining next, then to follow the Barca Agreement further expansion around the Med (inc NA) will be on the cards.

    Longer term (assuming some post wu-flu normalisation), China will be on course to have the GDP of EU&US combined 2060 (not to mention fingers all across Africa). The US will likely seek a NAU, and the EU continued expansion, even romancing Ukraine, after Turkey.

    However the house of cards can be taken down with Italy following the Brexiteers, if they can prove any level of success. France, Denmark or the V4 could still get the 'jeepers' in the next few years also.


Advertisement