Migration Megathread

oscarBravo wrote: »

My "lazy pejorative" is a response to an absurd premise. If you want to start a conversation from the premise that it's perfectly OK for white people to be angry about non-white immigration, you should do so on Stormfront.

What is your view on the Boyle Heights campaign?

You've stated that it's an objective fact that large-scale immigration is a bad thing. That's not the basis for a rational discussion, it's a statement of prejudice.

Is stating immigration is good a prejudice?

I get that it's easier to respond to being called out on it by calling it a lazy pejorative than to actually question your premises, but we're still no closer to an intelligent conversation as a result.

Oscar, I've asked you two questions above. You can respond to them honestly, or you can keep throwing out pejoratives and straw-manning me. If you don't want to discuss the issues honestly, you can save yourself a lot of time by recognising that.

Conservatory wrote: »

I see it like this. We need young working age people to pay our pensions.

That assumes those coming have the relevant skills ( language, reading, education etc.) That is not the case. If you want to bring in skilled people to pay for pensions, there are tens of millions of people in south America, China and India who would be happy to get a visa and more qualified to work in areas

Conservatory wrote: »

A great side effect to the war on terror is loads of young families fleeing to their oppressors to pay the pensions of their oppressors.

that depends on who you call their oppressors- large numbers are coming from Afghanistan or subsaharan Africa- who are their "oppressors"? Most are going to Germany- who are they "oppressing"? For those going to a place which"oppressed" their homeland ( whether real or perceived), how well is that person going to integrate into the land of their oppressors?

I think the U2 song bullet the blue sky touched on it in the 80s.
We are plundering the Middle East for its labour force in a way. Mad really but what are the alternatives?

Return home economic migrants from Afghanistan etc. - in the alternative ( is that is not working), set up migrant processing stations in locations that they are unlikely to like if they are coming for economic reasons ( St Helens, Falklands, French Dom-Toms etc)
Provide resources for refugees as close to their countries of origin as possible- where the resources go furthest, so you can help the most and you can help the most vulnerable at least equally ( women, children, disabled and the old).
If you want immigration for economic reasons, do so on a merit basis with a preference for people from countries which have a proven track record for assimilation ( including 2nd and 3rd generation). Ensure that the economic purposes being served are long term interests and not short term ( e.g. not propping up ailing legacy industries which will shortly collapse anyway- such as the large immigration into the northern England in support of the textile industry - leaving you instead with a large long term unemployed immigrant population).

cd07 wrote: »

Wonder where all that extra grub comes from and the health issues it may be throwing up GM crops etc...cancer etc...

Sure why not do bit of research yourself on it if your interested? - rather than throwing out words like GM crops and cancer when you obviously don't have a clue.

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Multiculturalism is one of those words that's widely misunderstood. It's not about assimilation, it's the opposite in fact, it means plural cultures existing side by side.

Well put, but therein lies something we should be concerned about. In countries where the official state religion is now Muslim, what is the treatment of religious minorities and atheists\agnostics like? Poor enough looking at reports from Amnesty and other organisations. So I do wonder what life would be like in a majority Muslim European country in 75-100 yrs or whatever.

facehugger99 wrote: »

Simple thinking more like.

The 'chocolate bar' is not static, in fact the chocolate bar has been getting bigger every year.

You have assumed that while population increases, the available resources remain static. These scare-theories were being peddled back in the late-60's and have been widely debunked in the intervening decades. Today less people die of starvation than did 40 years ago, despite the population more than doubling in the same period. The percentage of the world's population who qualify as "undernourished" (according to the UN) has fallen by more than half in the same period, from 33% to 16%.

The trend is in the opposite direction of what you have predicted.

The amount of land in the world is static on human timescales. The amount of land in Ireland and Europe more certainly so, given the relative lack of intensely active tectonic and volcanic zones. So by extension, the higher number of people that want to live in a given region, either the more expensive the land becomes or the more it has to be sub-divided, leading to a drop in quality of life.

Hell, Varadkar himself alluded to this when he talked about people needing to give up on having houses with gardens - this wouldn't be the case if there was a population decline in Dublin, quite obviously. So as far as land and housing in a given politically defined sovereign region goes, the resource very much is finite, and that's where in my view population growth is a factor in falling quality of life through rising land and rental prices.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The amount of land in the world is static on human timescales. The amount of land in Ireland and Europe more certainly so, given the relative lack of intensely active tectonic and volcanic zones. So by extension, the higher number of people that want to live in a given region, either the more expensive the land becomes or the more it has to be sub-divided, leading to a drop in quality of life.

Hell, Varadkar himself alluded to this when he talked about people needing to give up on having houses with gardens - this wouldn't be the case if there was a population decline in Dublin, quite obviously. So as far as land and housing in a given politically defined sovereign region goes, the resource very much is finite, and that's where in my view population growth is a factor in falling quality of life through rising land and rental prices.

So land is the 'chocolate bar' now is it? :rolleyes:

Stupid analogy.

and Varadakar was talking ****e as per usual.

hatrickpatrick wrote:

The amount of land in the world is static on human timescales. The amount of land in Ireland and Europe more certainly so, given the relative lack of intensely active tectonic and volcanic zones. So by extension, the higher number of people that want to live in a given region, either the more expensive the land becomes or the more it has to be sub-divided, leading to a drop in quality of life.

Then explain how the world is far richer and better off than say 60/70 years ago. Far bigger human population but far less poverty and far more advanced technologically. It's not perfect look at Global warming but even 50 years ago we weren't aware of the concept. That population has also been concentrated in ever closer spaces as a result of urbanisation. It hasn't had a overall negative impact.

On the whole topic of race. The national geographic magazine has an article on this(don't have a link to hand). But the point was made that there is more human genetic diversity in Africa than the rest of the world combined. There is no one African race. One of the reasons the article put forward was that humans have lived in Africa for far longer than the rest of the world and different "races" have had more time to develop.

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I don't think it's anything to be concerned about, since it's extremely unlikely Europe would be majority Muslim within a century, let alone that Islam be the state religion in any European state.

It worth noting that when the 1965 immigration act was introduced, its backers assured people it would not change American demographics. It did, in just two generations. And when Enoch Powell was ostracised for warning about the likely outcome of the policies being pursued in the 1960s, people were again assured that it was hopelessly alarmist. And yet, the English are now a minority within their own capital.

At every point in the past 70 years, the so-called alarmist view has been more accurate than the complacent view, so your assurances hold little weight.

Sand wrote: »

Well, I'd hope given the arguments I've made and evidence I have provided I'd think my position should be clear. However, I can see you're still flailing away against a strawman, ignoring what you cant fit into your pre-conceived conclusion.

Obviously the white people who instituted the system were preventing assimilation in that scenario. When Malcolm X preached black separatism, who was preventing assimilation? Today, when people preach white privilege and cultural appropriation who is preventing assimilation? When black college professors are preaching that white people have to be killed to achieve justice, who is preventing assimilation?

You start from the bias that the racial division in America is purely a white American problem. It's not. It's not even an American problem. Its a human problem. Where you have multiple cultural groups you will have division and strife because neither group wants to lose their own identity.

My question to the people who disagree with my opinion on this is to put forward a positive argument for why Europe should continue down the path it is on when we can so clearly see the problems and troubles that are created?



Yes, cultures alienated from each other, sharing only the same territory, requiring immense amounts of legislation and government funded organisations to referee non-confrontational interactions. Think Northern Ireland, but everywhere.

Again, nobody can explain why this is a positive outcome.



Thanks Oscar.

You write well Sand, though I'd have to say that the thematic direction your last few posts have taken on this thread is one that should be challenged.

Saying 'racial division is a human problem' as if it were some inevitable consequence of racial mixing is simply a fallacy -- the impossibility of racial coexistence is a perceived problem by some people and the effects of interracial strife are only felt when people allow the perception of that problem to overcome their sense of rationalism. Why do I say rationalism? Because there is no rational basis for racial tension -- there is no scientifically-based compelling body of evidence which would suggest that racial mixing (whether on sociological or genetic basis) has any adverse effects in-and-of-itself. The problems arrive when people peddle this argument of 'the races can't coexist', and people buy it because its easier to just perceive that problems in your society are caused by the guys with the black skin etc. The dangerous thing about the views you are espousing here is that they form the respectable face of an argument which is simply fallacious and serves society in absolutely no way -- whether intellectually or practically.

Nobody is going to dispute that racial division is a problem which is not purely driven by whites -- but whether racially divisive language or policies emanate from a white man, a black man or an Inuit, it does not change the fact that their point has no scientific rational basis. It is instead based on prejudices against 'outsiders' not understanding 'insiders' -- and people irrationally allow skin colour to be the utterly superficial barometer of how capable someone is of interacting harmoniously with them.

As for your question -- the premise is absurd. The real question is : faced with the fact that, since our species has existed, its various sub-varieties have mixed, intermingled and interbred and that therefore this mixing is an inevitable phenomenon -- is it better to stand Canute-like against it or to embrace and make the best of it ?

History teaches us that those who take the Canute path lead us to hate and war.