Migration Megathread

esteve · 09-08-2019 10:35pm

Sand wrote: »

Oh, analogy time? I have one too. I would think if you were a fire investigator you could need to do a little more than say "Well, everyone died of smoke inhalation. Case closed". The origin and cause needs to be determined so that policies are changed and further avoidable deaths do not occur. Pretending that the only lesson to learn from a migrant shoving a boy under a train is that safety rails need to be installed is wilfully stupid.

The reality is mass migration gave the killers of Ebba Akerlund and this German boy access to their victims. Mass migration made the parents of Alan Kurdi and Valeria Martinez think it was sensible to place their children in the hands of criminal organisations and at risks that were ultimately fatal. You are willing to accept their deaths as the cost of doing business. I am not.

Why do you think a case where one migrant tortured and murdered two other migrants in Hong Kong has any bearing on my view (supported by the evidence) that mass migration is a bad policy for Europeans? I'm genuinely curious.

Its for China to determine its own migration policy. I'd note that China was 94% Han in 1953 and is 92% Han in 2010, so they have clearly chosen a very different path to Europe and the USA. British bankers in China, how ever despicable, are not comparable to the mass migration that has irreversibly harmed Europeans interests over the past 50-70 years. There is no 'home grown' insurgency waged by migrant British bankers in China.

There are terrible people in every society, and there is no way to prevent all crime, but that's not an argument for why European governments should pursue mass migration against the interests of Europeans.

Think about it: You could cut rapes in Sweden to less than 42% of its current rate by ending mass migration. Foreign born men are 58% of the current figure, hugely over-represented. Of course, indigenous Swedes will still commit rapes. But that's not an argument for accepting mass migration to more than double, even triple, the number of rapes that would otherwise occur.

But again, the progressive, feminist government of Sweden seems willing to accept that trade-off. So long as its not their sister or daughter. But who knows, maybe they would accept that for the greater good of mass migration.

In the case I highlighted why does it matter that the victims were also migrants, why do you feel the need to mention this? Law is impartial and it applies to everyone, regardless of race, religion, nationality. If you are in a country you are bound by the laws of that place. A crime is a crime regardless of your heritage. A victim is also a victim regardless of their migrant status.

If the immigrant status of the victims is important to you, then I would ask in all the cases you highlight of immigrants committing crimes, are all the victims non immigrants? Of the 40 whatever percentage of rapes committed by immigrants in Sweden (as you purport), are all the victims non immigrants? This seems important to you so I trust you know the answer.

By your own analogy the entire immigration policy should be based on the actions of specific individuals? You like to take specific examples and guilt people to agree with you ie we can accept these victims and crimes as a price worth paying for migration to continue. You then use these specific examples to generalise all migrants. Do you not see how this could be dangerous? On a lighter note its like saying you are a piss head because you are Irish. On a more serious note it can lead to far darker conversations and opinions, and eventually actions.

Again if you are against migration to Europe you must also be against migration in all its cases as people are capable of doing terrible things. By your logic migrants from anywhere will commit crimes because anybody is capable of committing a crime. As Irish people we have a
history of migration. Were all Irish immigrants saints? Of course not but the vast majority were.

I think I am understanding your thought process though. You are okay with migrants in Sweden as long as they are not rapists? Or is it that if there was no migration to Sweden rapes would fall by 40 something percent?

esteve · 09-08-2019 10:37pm

Sand wrote: »

Oh, analogy time? I have one too. I would think if you were a fire investigator you could need to do a little more than say "Well, everyone died of smoke inhalation. Case closed". The origin and cause needs to be determined so that policies are changed and further avoidable deaths do not occur. Pretending that the only lesson to learn from a migrant shoving a boy under a train is that safety rails need to be installed is wilfully stupid.

The reality is mass migration gave the killers of Ebba Akerlund and this German boy access to their victims. Mass migration made the parents of Alan Kurdi and Valeria Martinez think it was sensible to place their children in the hands of criminal organisations and at risks that were ultimately fatal. You are willing to accept their deaths as the cost of doing business. I am not.

Why do you think a case where one migrant tortured and murdered two other migrants in Hong Kong has any bearing on my view (supported by the evidence) that mass migration is a bad policy for Europeans? I'm genuinely curious.

Its for China to determine its own migration policy. I'd note that China was 94% Han in 1953 and is 92% Han in 2010, so they have clearly chosen a very different path to Europe and the USA. British bankers in China, how ever despicable, are not comparable to the mass migration that has irreversibly harmed Europeans interests over the past 50-70 years. There is no 'home grown' insurgency waged by migrant British bankers in China.

There are terrible people in every society, and there is no way to prevent all crime, but that's not an argument for why European governments should pursue mass migration against the interests of Europeans.

Think about it: You could cut rapes in Sweden to less than 42% of its current rate by ending mass migration. Foreign born men are 58% of the current figure, hugely over-represented. Of course, indigenous Swedes will still commit rapes. But that's not an argument for accepting mass migration to more than double, even triple, the number of rapes that would otherwise occur.

But again, the progressive, feminist government of Sweden seems willing to accept that trade-off. So long as its not their sister or daughter. But who knows, maybe they would accept that for the greater good of mass migration.

In the case I highlighted why does it matter that the victims were also migrants, why do you feel the need to mention this? Law is impartial and it applies to everyone, regardless of race, religion, nationality. If you are in a country you are bound by the laws of that place. A crime is a crime regardless of your heritage. A victim is also a victim regardless of their migrant status.

If the immigrant status of the victims is important to you, then I would ask in all the cases you highlight of immigrants committing crimes, are all the victims non immigrants? Of the 40 whatever percentage of rapes committed by immigrants in Sweden (as you purport), are all the victims non immigrants? This seems important to you so I trust you know the answer.

By your own analogy the entire immigration policy should be based on the actions of specific individuals? You like to take specific examples and guilt people to agree with you ie we can accept these victims and crimes as a price worth paying for migration to continue. You then use these specific examples to generalise all migrants. Do you not see how this could be dangerous? On a lighter note its like saying you are a piss head because you are Irish. On a more serious note it can lead to far darker conversations and opinions, and eventually actions.

Again if you are against migration to Europe you must also be against migration in all its cases as people are capable of doing terrible things. By your logic migrants from anywhere will commit crimes because anybody is capable of committing a crime. As Irish people we have a
history of migration. Were all Irish immigrants saints? Of course not but the vast majority were.

I think I am understanding your thought process though. You are okay with migrants in Sweden as long as they are not rapists? Or is it that if there was no migration to Sweden rapes would fall by 40 something percent?

Sand · 09-08-2019 11:08pm

esteve wrote: »

In the case I highlighted why does it matter that the victims were also migrants, why do you feel the need to mention this? Law is impartial and it applies to everyone, regardless of race, religion, nationality. If you are in a country you are bound by the laws of that place. A crime is a crime regardless of your heritage. A victim is also a victim regardless of their migrant status.

If this were true, migrants would be as invisible in crime statistics as vegetarians. They are not.

If the immigrant status of the victims is important to you, then I would ask in all the cases you highlight of immigrants committing crimes, are all the victims non immigrants? Of the 40 whatever percentage of rapes committed by immigrants in Sweden (as you purport), are all the victims non immigrants? This seems important to you so I trust you know the answer.

Its not 40% committed by immigrants. It is 58% committed by foreign born men. So, 58% of rapes in Sweden are committed by men who moved to Sweden in their own lifetime.

I just told you that in my previous post, yet you are unable to comprehend the reality of it.

By your own analogy the entire immigration policy should be based on the actions of specific individuals?

No, absolutely not. That still makes the mistake of presuming immigration policy should be based upon the actions of the immigrants. Immigration policy to Europe must be based upon the effect it has upon Europeans. The actions of individuals is just coincidental.

You like to take specific examples and guilt people to agree with you ie we can accept these victims and crimes as a price worth paying for migration to continue.

I don't imagine advocates for mass migration and open borders can feel emotions like guilt.

You then use these specific examples to generalise all migrants. Do you not see how this could be dangerous? On a lighter note its like saying you are a piss head because you are Irish. On a more serious note it can lead to far darker conversations and opinions, and eventually actions.

I don't generalise all migrants. Many migrants are fine people. But I review the evidence. The evidence shows mass migration is a bad policy, against the interests of Europeans. There is no further justification required for rejecting it as a policy for European governments.

Again if you are against migration to Europe you must also be against migration in all its cases as people are capable of doing terrible things. By your logic migrants from anywhere will commit crimes because anybody is capable of committing a crime. As Irish people we have a
history of migration. Were all Irish immigrants saints? Of course not but the vast majority were.

I see migration policy as a matter for the local governments. China operates a migration policy in the interests of its own people. I don't think it is so radical to ask European governments to do the same. As for Irish people, we are absolutely not saints. When large numbers of young, fighting age males leave home, travel away from traditional supports and constraints they tend to cause trouble. It's for Australia and the US to determine if the hassle is worth it.

I think I am understanding your thought process though. You are okay with migrants in Sweden as long as they are not rapists? Or is it that if there was no migration to Sweden rapes would fall by 40 something percent?

Actually, it would fall by more than 60%. 58% of rapes are carried out by first generation migrants. Swedish crime statistics shows that second and third generation migrant communities are heavily over-represented in all crimes, including rape. So ending mass migration would cut rapes by more than 60%, all other things being equal.

If someone came up with a policy that would cut rapes in Sweden by over 60%, people would hail them as a feminist hero of our age. But when the solution is ending mass migration, the higher priorities of some people emerge.

esteve · 09-08-2019 11:45pm

Sand wrote: »

If this were true, migrants would be as invisible in crime statistics as vegetarians. They are not.

What?

Sand wrote: »

Its not 40% committed by immigrants. It is 58% committed by foreign born men. So, 58% of rapes in Sweden are committed by men who moved to Sweden in their own lifetime.

I just told you that in my previous post, yet you are unable to comprehend the reality of it.

No, absolutely not. That still makes the mistake of presuming immigration policy should be based upon the actions of the immigrants. Immigration policy to Europe must be based upon the effect it has upon Europeans. The actions of individuals is just coincidental.

I don't imagine advocates for mass migration and open borders can feel emotions like guilt.

I don't generalise all migrants. Many migrants are fine people. But I review the evidence. The evidence shows mass migration is a bad policy, against the interests of Europeans. There is no further justification required for rejecting it as a policy for European governments.

I see migration policy as a matter for the local governments. China operates a migration policy in the interests of its own people. I don't think it is so radical to ask European governments to do the same. As for Irish people, we are absolutely not saints. When large numbers of young, fighting age males leave home, travel away from traditional supports and constraints they tend to cause trouble. It's for Australia and the US to determine if the hassle is worth it.

Actually, it would fall by more than 60%. 58% of rapes are carried out by first generation migrants. Swedish crime statistics shows that second and third generation migrant communities are heavily over-represented in all crimes, including rape. So ending mass migration would cut rapes by more than 60%, all other things being equal.

If someone came up with a policy that would cut rapes in Sweden by over 60%, people would hail them as a feminist hero of our age. But when the solution is ending mass migration, the higher priorities of some people emerge.

Strangely the victims names you list have oddly very non Germanic names. So are these victims the offspring of non crime committing immigrants?

You say stopping migration will cut rape in Sweden by 60 something percent. You can't state this with absolute certainty. You are making a direct correlation between migrants and rape when there are more factors involved. In statistics this is a super weak argument. You say you could categorically reduce rape in Sweden by one swift policy enaction and this is simply untrue while also ignoring the benefits of migration, of which there are many. Also, do you have any sources for your statistics?

You say the impact of Irish migration to the US, for example, is up to the US to decide although the US nowadays is made up of the descendants of migrants. The native population has more or less been decimated, do you not see the hypocrisy?

You say people who support migration feel no guilt.. Hmm.. Good point, well made!

I am glad you mention sweden. I was in Gdansk recently and met 3 Swedish people studying medicine. They plan to go back to sweden after their education and work as doctors, pretty damn important contribution to any society. A Uruguayan person who I also met said to me they are not real Swedish people as they are from African heritage. It didn't matter they were born and raised in Sweden. Ironically this Urugayan person is from Italian heritage, but he didn't see the irony of his opinion.

Listen Sand, you have been on boards for years and I remember discussions with you on various issues. I have openly criticised Bush, Obama, various political issues whether left or right, liberal or Conservative. How you cannot see yourself shifting further to right is alarming but not surprising as its a global issue. You never came across as a populist though

Irish Praetorian · 10-08-2019 2:05pm

esteve wrote: »

You say the impact of Irish migration to the US, for example, is up to the US to decide although the US nowadays is made up of the descendants of migrants. The native population has more or less been decimated, do you not see the hypocrisy?

This is bit of a pet issue of mine so I hope you'll excuse me for butting in, but there are three key issues I like to make regarding the issue of Irish migration to the US.

Firstly I would ask people to recognize the differences in the economic circumstances; Irish migrants to the US during the highpoint of that migration (mid to late nineteenth century) were key to providing highly in-demand unskilled labour, to handle everything from domestic work to cutting railway crossings. In short, they Irish in America could move, more or less pay their own way and gradually contribute. In contrast, today's mass migration typically involves the same low skill labour, which is in far less demand.

Secondly, and adjunct to this first point, it should be recalled that this migration proceeded to a country which lacked the kind of social safety net and government spending that we see today - it was much more a cost borne by the migrant themselves and their family (or some willing charities). By contrast, modern states have a far bigger burden on expenditure to ensure the provision of education, healthcare, welfare etc, and that is before we get to consider the particular costs of handling migrant needs.

Thirdly, the often unspoken aspect of Irish migration to the US which has been flagged here, is it's role in the continuing displacement and disruption of the native American population. Now this was more of a German-American thing but simply put, the mass movement of peoples involved enormous tracts of the US being cleared of natives and given over to new settlers. It is not possible to square the circle of condemning the destruction of the native way of life whilst celebrating the mass movement of people - the two were intimately linked.

Sand · 10-08-2019 4:36pm

esteve wrote: »

You say stopping migration will cut rape in Sweden by 60 something percent. You can't state this with absolute certainty.

Not having pursued mass migration would mean rapes in Sweden dropping by over 60%, all other things being equal. We can state this because 58% of rapes in Sweden are carried out by foreign born men.

You are making a direct correlation between migrants and rape

I'm noting that foreign born males are hugely over-represented in rapes in Sweden. I'm drawing a fairly reasonable conclusion that permitting those foreign born men into Sweden has doubled/tripled rapes in Sweden.

while also ignoring the benefits of migration, of which there are many.

A larger array of ethnic restaurants?

There are no benefits mass migration. The evidence shows mass migration is an economic burden on the indigenous population, that it leads to ethnic strife, terrorism, the growth of a NGO industry and restriction of freedoms and liberty. In no way does it benefit Europeans

Also, do you have any sources for your statistics?

I always do. It was provided earlier in the thread.

You say the impact of Irish migration to the US, for example, is up to the US to decide although the US nowadays is made up of the descendants of migrants. The native population has more or less been decimated, do you not see the hypocrisy?

Yes, mass migration of Europeans into America was a cataclysmic event for the indigenous peoples. They lost everything. Mass migration always leads to negative outcomes for the indigenous people. I already discussed this at length earlier in the thread.

The awful outcome of mass migration for native Americans is not an argument for Europeans permitting mass migration against their own interests.

You say people who support migration feel no guilt.. Hmm.. Good point, well made!

Are you saying you do feel guilt about the victims of the mass migration policy you advocate for?

I am glad you mention sweden. I was in Gdansk recently and met 3 Swedish people studying medicine. They plan to go back to sweden after their education and work as doctors, pretty damn important contribution to any society. A Uruguayan person who I also met said to me they are not real Swedish people as they are from African heritage. It didn't matter they were born and raised in Sweden. Ironically this Urugayan person is from Italian heritage, but he didn't see the irony of his opinion.

That is an interesting anecdote.

Listen Sand, you have been on boards for years and I remember discussions with you on various issues. I have openly criticised Bush, Obama, various political issues whether left or right, liberal or Conservative. How you cannot see yourself shifting further to right is alarming but not surprising as its a global issue. You never came across as a populist though

I don't see how it is controversial to follow the evidence and recognise mass migration into Europe is clearly against the interests of Europeans. Europeans have a legitimate right to expect their governments will make policy that is in their interests. If European peoples increasingly turn to 'populist' parties, its because those parties prioritise their interests. This is normal.

It's your views that are incredibly radical. There is no moral virtue to pursuing awful and unpopular policies against the interests of the people a government is supposed to represent.

esteve · 10-08-2019 7:24pm

Sand wrote: »

Not having pursued mass migration would mean rapes in Sweden dropping by over 60%, all other things being equal. We can state this because 58% of rapes in Sweden are carried out by foreign born men.

I'm noting that foreign born males are hugely over-represented in rapes in Sweden. I'm drawing a fairly reasonable conclusion that permitting those foreign born men into Sweden has doubled/tripled rapes in Sweden.

A larger array of ethnic restaurants?

There are no benefits mass migration. The evidence shows mass migration is an economic burden on the indigenous population, that it leads to ethnic strife, terrorism, the growth of a NGO industry and restriction of freedoms and liberty. In no way does it benefit Europeans

I always do. It was provided earlier in the thread.

Yes, mass migration of Europeans into America was a cataclysmic event for the indigenous peoples. They lost everything. Mass migration always leads to negative outcomes for the indigenous people. I already discussed this at length earlier in the thread.

The awful outcome of mass migration for native Americans is not an argument for Europeans permitting mass migration against their own interests.

Are you saying you do feel guilt about the victims of the mass migration policy you advocate for?

That is an interesting anecdote.

I don't see how it is controversial to follow the evidence and recognise mass migration into Europe is clearly against the interests of Europeans. Europeans have a legitimate right to expect their governments will make policy that is in their interests. If European peoples increasingly turn to 'populist' parties, its because those parties prioritise their interests. This is normal.

It's your views that are incredibly radical. There is no moral virtue to pursuing awful and unpopular policies against the interests of the people a government is supposed to represent.

I was going to take the time to respond but when you say that the only benefit of mass migration are ethnic restaurants... I mean come on!

The Turkish immigrants did not rebuild Germany after WW2, they just sold kebabs!

My views are radical and those of populist parties in Europe only have the populations interests at heart,okay if you say so! History will prove you wrong, just as it did with the populism policies that resulted in WW2

Sand · 10-08-2019 10:13pm

esteve wrote: »

I was going to take the time to respond but when you say that the only benefit of mass migration are ethnic restaurants... I mean come on!

I didn't even say it was a benefit.

The Turkish immigrants did not rebuild Germany after WW2

Correct. Germans did.

My views are radical and those of populist parties in Europe only have the populations interests at heart,okay if you say so! History will prove you wrong, just as it did with the populism policies that resulted in WW2

Your policies of mass migration have resulted in men suicide bombing children attending an Ariane Grande concert. And yet you cant accept that you are wrong. You're living back in the 1930s, when 2019 has it's own problems. Mass migration must continue at any cost. Right?

esteve · 11-08-2019 11:07am

Sand wrote: »

I didn't even say it was a benefit.

Correct. Germans did.

Your policies of mass migration have resulted in men suicide bombing children attending an Ariane Grande concert. And yet you cant accept that you are wrong. You're living back in the 1930s, when 2019 has it's own problems. Mass migration must continue at any cost. Right?

And here we go full circle in your argument, muslim migration results in sucidie bombings and it seems it is a cost I am willing to pay? Slightly slanerdish at the least.

I don't have the time to discuss suicide bombings just as you don't háve time to rerefernce the staisitcs you quote, and not for the first time.

It's an overly simple argument to say mass migration results in suicide bombing when it is more complex than that, while also ignoring all the vast majority of the Muslims who deplore these actions.

Let populism continue and see where it leads us, it has to be much better than my 'radical policies'.

Sand · 11-08-2019 1:37pm

esteve wrote: »

And here we go full circle in your argument, muslim migration results in sucidie bombings and it seems it is a cost I am willing to pay? Slightly slanerdish at the least.

You are able to acknowledge mass migration was awful for native Americans. You're unable to contest that it is awful for Europeans. Yet you persist in calling for mass migration. If you're not willing to accept the outcomes, why do you advocate for the policy?

I don't have the time to discuss suicide bombings just as you don't háve time to rerefernce the staisitcs you quote, and not for the first time.

Just as advocates of mass migration like yourself and Brian don't have time to read the evidence I provide. I already provided the evidence - go to the top of this page. Hit Search This Thread and then Advanced Search. Set user to Sand, 58 as key word.

You're suffering from wilful ignorance. You're proclaiming on a topic you know little about and have spent no time researching. You don't want to see information that challenges your beliefs. That is your problem, not mine.

It's an overly simple argument to say mass migration results in suicide bombing when it is more complex than that, while also ignoring all the vast majority of the Muslims who deplore these actions.

Mass migration results in ethnic enclaves which result in ethnic strife. You simply cannot have an Islamic insurgency in the UK without Islamic communities to recruit from. Poland does not have an Islamic insurgency because they have not permitted mass migration to form Islamic enclaves in their country.

Let populism continue and see where it leads us, it has to be much better than my 'radical policies'.

Your radical policies, carried out against the interests of Europeans, have already led us to a very grim present - much of which cannot be solved, but only endured. When you are using 'populism' as a pejorative to describe political parties that attempt to govern in the interests of Europeans, it only underlines how unreasonable and fanatical your own views are.

weisses · 11-08-2019 1:44pm

Sand wrote: »

Your radical policies, carried out against the interests of Europeans, have already led us to a very grim present - much of which cannot be solved, but only endured. When you are using 'populism' as a pejorative to describe political parties that attempt to govern in the interests of Europeans, it only underlines how unreasonable and fanatical your own views are.

What populist party governs the interest of Europeans ?

rossie1977 · 11-08-2019 2:26pm

Poland has smaller population than Germany or UK yet murder level similar https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/EDN-20180222-1

4068ac1elhodqr · 11-08-2019 2:38pm

rossie1977 wrote: »

Poland has smaller population than Germany or UK yet murder level similar https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/EDN-20180222-1

Didn't London overtake NYC from crime earlier this year? 160,000 voilent crimes just in June for E&W.

If you want to glance at the Pris-Pop for Eng & Wales, you'll find white males are a minority for proportional representation. Some other 'ideology' leads the way it seems.

esteve · 11-08-2019 3:04pm

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Didn't London overtake NYC from crime earlier this year? 160,000 voilent crimes just in June for E&W.

If you want to glance at the Pris-Pop for Eng & Wales, you'll find white males are a minority for proportional representation. Some other 'ideology' leads the way it seems.

Not all Welsh people are white, so if you only look at that demographic you may the mis representation you allude to.

Brian? · 11-08-2019 4:02pm

Sand wrote: »

You are able to acknowledge mass migration was awful for native Americans. You're unable to contest that it is awful for Europeans. Yet you persist in calling for mass migration. If you're not willing to accept the outcomes, why do you advocate for the policy?

Just as advocates of mass migration like yourself and Brian don't have time to read the evidence I provide. I already provided the evidence - go to the top of this page. Hit Search This Thread and then Advanced Search. Set user to Sand, 58 as key word.

You're suffering from wilful ignorance. You're proclaiming on a topic you know little about and have spent no time researching. You don't want to see information that challenges your beliefs. That is your problem, not mine.

Mass migration results in ethnic enclaves which result in ethnic strife. You simply cannot have an Islamic insurgency in the UK without Islamic communities to recruit from. Poland does not have an Islamic insurgency because they have not permitted mass migration to form Islamic enclaves in their country.

Your radical policies, carried out against the interests of Europeans, have already led us to a very grim present - much of which cannot be solved, but only endured. When you are using 'populism' as a pejorative to describe political parties that attempt to govern in the interests of Europeans, it only underlines how unreasonable and fanatical your own views are.

Hold your horses. I have never been an advocate of mass immigration. You've simply made that up.

I want sensible immigration control, which includes taking in a reasonable of refugees. I don't believe in allowing people to drown in the Mediterranean is a good thing.

But somehow in your mind that adds up to me advocating for mass immigration. I think you need to be more honest here. You're not anti mass immigration, you're anti immigration. At least own your own position. You believe Europe will be better without immigrants, full stop.

I wonder sometimes if you even consider them people, you never refer to them as people.

Brian? · 11-08-2019 4:05pm

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Didn't London overtake NYC from crime earlier this year? 160,000 voilent crimes just in June for E&W.

If you want to glance at the Pris-Pop for Eng & Wales, you'll find white males are a minority for proportional representation. Some other 'ideology' leads the way it seems.

If you mean Muslim, just say it.

Sand · 11-08-2019 4:11pm

weisses wrote: »

What populist party governs the interest of Europeans ?

Populist is a pejorative, not a useful classification. Any party which takes policies to limit or prevent mass migration is governing in the interest of Europeans.

rossie1977 wrote: »

Poland has smaller population than Germany or UK yet murder level similar https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/EDN-20180222-1

If you add Islamic enclaves and resulting terrorism on top, will that make the existing problems better or worse? You might as well say it makes no difference if a novice swimmer ties a concrete block to their foot before they jump in.

Whatever existing problems European countries have, they can better face them without mass migration causing more problems.

Sand · 11-08-2019 4:15pm

Brian? wrote: »

I don't believe in allowing people to drown in the Mediterranean is a good thing.

Neither do I. We fully agree. Rescue them back to Libya. Do not traffick them to Europe.

You're not anti mass immigration, you're anti immigration. At least own your own position. You believe Europe will be better without immigrants, full stop.

I use the term mass migration precisely because I am not opposed to immigration, where it is judged to be in the interests of Europeans. But mass migration is entirely something else.

rossie1977 · 11-08-2019 4:29pm

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Didn't London overtake NYC from crime earlier this year? 160,000 voilent crimes just in June for E&W.

For maybe a month. NYC has still more crime and double the amount of murder that London has.

Knife crime has increased in UK and gets lots of press coverage especially in US but you are still statistically as likely to be killed by a knife in the US as the UK. (0.48 vs.0.49

If you want to glance at the Pris-Pop for Eng & Wales, you'll find white males are a minority for proportional representation. Some other 'ideology' leads the way it seems.

Proportionally white males in the UK tend to be richer and more educated than white males in say Poland, Lithuania or Latvia hence violent crime among that group in UK is lower.

There is a clear correlation between violent crime and social standing.

Brian? · 11-08-2019 5:17pm

Sand wrote: »

Neither do I. We fully agree. Rescue them back to Libya. Do not traffick them to Europe.

I use the term mass migration precisely because I am not opposed to immigration, where it is judged to be in the interests of Europeans. But mass migration is entirely something else.

Why not reply to my whole post, this reply is a bit disengenous. Do you accept I'm not advocating for mass immigration and retract your earlier comment?

4068ac1elhodqr · 11-08-2019 7:18pm

rossie1977 wrote: »

There is a clear correlation between violent crime and social standing.

Is only one factor, and being slightly poorer in a 1st world country shouldn't make you x3 times more likely to get involved in very serious crime.

Also other minorities don't display such traits, the Buddists and Hindus aren't all rolling in cash.

The best idea would be to seek better integration, this includes lettting Muslim females head off to Uni on their own, and build a career on their own, and mingle/network on their own to escape the trap of poverty. Having just one breadwinner isn't enough these days in the Western World.

Sand · 11-08-2019 7:53pm

Brian? wrote: »

Why not reply to my whole post, this reply is a bit disengenous. Do you accept I'm not advocating for mass immigration and retract your earlier comment?

If your position is that so-called rescue ships should be rescuing migrants back to Libyan ports, and should be barred from European ports then I'll have to re-evaluate your wider views. Afterall, we have little to disagree on if that is your position.

But I think that you don't agree with barring NGO ships from European ports.

Brian? · 11-08-2019 9:32pm

Sand wrote: »

If your position is that so-called rescue ships should be rescuing migrants back to Libyan ports, and should be barred from European ports then I'll have to re-evaluate your wider views. Afterall, we have little to disagree on if that is your position.

But I think that you don't agree with barring NGO ships from European ports.

I don’t. Mainly because there is no functioning government really in Libya. So who’s going to deal with the migrants. This doesn’t mean I am an advocate of mass migration.

They’re not “so called rescue” ships. They are rescuing people.

esteve · 11-08-2019 9:59pm

Sand wrote: »

You are able to acknowledge mass migration was awful for native Americans. You're unable to contest that it is awful for Europeans. Yet you persist in calling for mass migration. If you're not willing to accept the outcomes, why do you advocate for the policy?

I mentioned Native Americans to highlight the absolute hypocrisy of Europeans, Irish included. Also what happened to Native Americans was not migration, nor mass migration; it was colonisation. The fact you are trying to now link this to the muslim migration to Europe is odd as they are completely different things. Europeans are not under threat like Native Americans were, nor are the Irish.

Sand wrote: »

Just as advocates of mass migration like yourself and Brian don't have time to read the evidence I provide. I already provided the evidence - go to the top of this page. Hit Search This Thread and then Advanced Search. Set user to Sand, 58 as key word.

You're suffering from wilful ignorance. You're proclaiming on a topic you know little about and have spent no time researching. You don't want to see information that challenges your beliefs. That is your problem, not mine.

You actually haven't proved any evidence, only opinion. You presented some statistics, then from this draft your own opinion piece. You don't even have the time to repost the source of your statistics. You will have to forgive me for asking to see the source, you see following and posting on threads from a mobile is not easy.

You seem to have this self righteous belief that you are an authority on this matter and are presenting factual information when you haven't, you have only presented your opinion, just as I have.

Sand wrote: »

Mass migration results in ethnic enclaves which result in ethnic strife. You simply cannot have an Islamic insurgency in the UK without Islamic communities to recruit from. Poland does not have an Islamic insurgency because they have not permitted mass migration to form Islamic enclaves in their country.

Perhaps, but the vast majority of muslim migrants do not commit attacks. There are countries that have never suffered attacks even though they have welcomed muslim refugees from war torn countries. Radicalisation is the cause of attacks and the cause of this is far more complex. Radicalisation is the real cause of most attacks just as those on muslims or other ethnic minorities.

You mentioned Europeans having to endure the results of muslim migration. I truly hope their definition of endurance is different to that of Anders Breivik and the assailant in the mosque attack in New Zealand. The aforementioned also believe that it is people like me who are really responsible and drove them to their actions. They also have far deeper and darker theories and opinions but I am sure you steer well clear of that sort of thing.

Sand wrote: »

Your radical policies, carried out against the interests of Europeans, have already led us to a very grim present - much of which cannot be solved, but only endured. When you are using 'populism' as a pejorative to describe political parties that attempt to govern in the interests of Europeans, it only underlines how unreasonable and fanatical your own views are.

I don't have policies, governments do. What I do have is beliefs and opinions. You don't even know what they are but purport you do and then sensationalise them. You suggest I am willing to accept muslim attacks in Europe as a 'price to pay'. This is absurd and borders on slanderous conjecture/defamation.

Experience_day · 14-08-2019 2:01pm

Brian? wrote: »

I don’t. Mainly because there is no functioning government really in Libya. So who’s going to deal with the migrants. This doesn’t mean I am an advocate of mass migration.

They’re not “so called rescue” ships. They are rescuing people.

Arguably, could it not be said that they are actually hindering people? If I was in that region and heard that ships would pick you up geographically close, I'd be far more likely to chance my arm? Certainly more so than if I was to trust a rickety POS for the entire voyage?

Sand · 16-08-2019 8:49pm

Brian? wrote: »

I don’t. Mainly because there is no functioning government really in Libya. So who’s going to deal with the migrants. This doesn’t mean I am an advocate of mass migration.

It means you're in denial of being an advocate of mass migration. Your priority is not rescuing people from drowning. Travelling to Europe means 'rescue' ships are out of position longer. Libya is closer. Ships out of position for longer means more people at risk of drowning.

But your absolute priority is transporting them to Europe. The so called rescues is just an excuse.

They’re not “so called rescue” ships. They are rescuing people.

Still haven't read the Frontex report I see. They are trafficking people.

esteve wrote: »

I mentioned Native Americans to highlight the absolute hypocrisy of Europeans, Irish included. Also what happened to Native Americans was not migration, nor mass migration; it was colonisation. The fact you are trying to now link this to the muslim migration to Europe is odd as they are completely different things. Europeans are not under threat like Native Americans were, nor are the Irish.

No it was mass migration. And it was awful for indigenous people. As it is awful for Europeans. Your guilt about it is not a reason for Europeans to pursue awful policies against their own interests.

You actually haven't proved any evidence, only opinion. You presented some statistics,

So I did then provide evidence.

You seem to have this self righteous belief that you are an authority on this matter and are presenting factual information when you haven't, you have only presented your opinion, just as I have.

I'm not an authority. But I do follow the evidence, and I seek an evidence based policy in the interests of Europeans. That people are in wilful denial of the evidence only speaks to their own bias.

Perhaps, but the vast majority of muslim migrants do not commit attacks. There are countries that have never suffered attacks even though they have welcomed muslim refugees from war torn countries. Radicalisation is the cause of attacks and the cause of this is far more complex. Radicalisation is the real cause of most attacks just as those on muslims or other ethnic minorities.

Your initial point is just a variation of NAXALT. Because we can state something is true for all members of a population, we cannot (or should not) draw any conclusions about the population as a whole. Not all smokers get cancer, ergo its wrong to connect smokers and cancer. In short, I don't put any weight in that argument.

Your second point is that the causes of ethnic conflict and radicalisation are complicated. Regardless of this being true or not, why do Europeans have to solve them? Why not avoid the complicated problems of ethnic conflict and radicalisation in the first place?

The problems of Yugoslavia were indeed complicated, but why should Europeans have those problems imposed on them?

You mentioned Europeans having to endure the results of muslim migration. I truly hope their definition of endurance is different to that of Anders Breivik and the assailant in the mosque attack in New Zealand. The aforementioned also believe that it is people like me who are really responsible and drove them to their actions. They also have far deeper and darker theories and opinions but I am sure you steer well clear of that sort of thing.

Ethnic conflict is not a one-way street. It never is. All sides in that conflict will carry out atrocities against innocents. That seems to be part of the cost advocates of open borders are willing to pay. I disagree.

I don't have policies, governments do. What I do have is beliefs and opinions. You don't even know what they are but purport you do and then sensationalise them. You suggest I am willing to accept muslim attacks in Europe as a 'price to pay'. This is absurd and borders on slanderous conjecture/defamation.

Let me set it another way. I'm calling for an end to mass migration and the setting of evidence based policies by Europeans governments in favour of Europeans. That is it.

Yet you find this highly objectionable. What precisely do you disagree with above? Is it the end to mass migration? Evidence based policies? European governments acting in the interests of Europeans?

Experience_day wrote: »

Arguably, could it not be said that they are actually hindering people? If I was in that region and heard that ships would pick you up geographically close, I'd be far more likely to chance my arm? Certainly more so than if I was to trust a rickety POS for the entire voyage?

That is entirely the case. When so called rescue ships were withdrawn, crossings and deaths went down. With the traffickers returning, you can expect more to attempt the crossing and more to drown.

The aim is not to save these people. It is to traffick them to Europe.

old_aussie · 17-11-2019 10:21am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

So we ve had 'the evil ones', 'the Muslims', 'the blacks', what else?

I think you might have overlooked China.

I think with President Xi's persecution of muslims in China, that more refugees will come flooding to Europe

splashuum · 28-11-2019 12:18am

Very sad state of affairs in Sweden. Local municipal funding slashed because of Islamic migrants.

https://twitter.com/v_of_europe/status/1199621680106262529?s=21

Sand · 04-12-2019 8:13pm

The myth that non-EU/EEA migrants will pay for the pensions of Europeans is shown up for what it is. All the evidence demonstrates they are an economic burden rather than a benefit. Ignorance is not an excuse for bad policy anymore. Europe has been desperately trying to make mass migration work since the 50s and 60s. A record of failure only comparable to the Chernobyl nuclear plant.

Who is going to speak for the interests of the Swedish people when the Swedish government will not?

weisses · 06-12-2019 11:14am

Sand wrote: »

The myth that non-EU/EEA migrants will pay for the pensions of Europeans is shown up for what it is. All the evidence demonstrates they are an economic burden rather than a benefit. Ignorance is not an excuse for bad policy anymore. Europe has been desperately trying to make mass migration work since the 50s and 60s. A record of failure only comparable to the Chernobyl nuclear plant.

Who is going to speak for the interests of the Swedish people when the Swedish government will not?

I suggest you visit any hospital in the state ... Then turf all the foreigners or migrants ... And then try to figure out how that hospital would function without them present.... Then post back here with a solution

Brian? · 06-12-2019 11:28am

Sand wrote: »

The myth that non-EU/EEA migrants will pay for the pensions of Europeans is shown up for what it is. All the evidence demonstrates they are an economic burden rather than a benefit. Ignorance is not an excuse for bad policy anymore. Europe has been desperately trying to make mass migration work since the 50s and 60s. A record of failure only comparable to the Chernobyl nuclear plant.

Who is going to speak for the interests of the Swedish people when the Swedish government will not?

Yeah this Europe place is really a ****hole.

Only 7 of the top 10 countries for quality of life are in Europe. We should build a fence around it now to stop it getting any worse. /sarcasm

Where do you live and get your news from? Europe is a wonderful place to live because multiculturalism, not in spite of it.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-rankings

fly_agaric · 07-12-2019 1:52pm

Brian? wrote: »

Europe is a wonderful place to live because multiculturalism, not in spite of it.

Europe (or the rich/urbanised bits of it) becomes more and more "multicultural", partly because it really is a very good place to live/work/study etc. When you look around the world and compare, it has an awful lot of positives going for it. This correlation/association vs causation stuff is confusing at the best of times.

4068ac1elhodqr · 07-12-2019 2:50pm

Brian? wrote: »

Europe is a wonderful place to live because multiculturalism, not in spite of it.

Europe is/was wonderful, and has been ever since the Age of Enlightenment, and before that: The Renaissance. With centuries of actual 'European' (forward-thinking) multiculturalism, and small amounts of wider global influence.

Aside from a couple of short blips, it's been generally good. However one could suggest that ever since 2015, it has taken a sharp backwards turn, directly as a result of 'very specific cultural factors or backwards ideologies'.

Sweden perhaps is a prime example (rising crime and female-only music festivals), with the UK not far behind (strange also that 17.4m actually choose to leave the 'great' EU, in 2016).

<mod - please provide links to statistics rather than screenshots of same>

stefanovich · 08-12-2019 11:59am

weisses wrote: »

I suggest you visit any hospital in the state ... Then turf all the foreigners or migrants ... And then try to figure out how that hospital would function without them present.... Then post back here with a solution

You are highlighting a subset that are, without doubt, making a net contribution to society.

They are a subset however and cannot be held up as a representative sample.

Brian? · 08-12-2019 2:43pm

fly_agaric wrote: »

Europe (or the rich/urbanised bits of it) becomes more and more "multicultural", partly because it really is a very good place to live/work/study etc. When you look around the world and compare, it has an awful lot of positives going for it. This correlation/association vs causation stuff is confusing at the best of times.

I’m being obtuse, are you saying multiculturalism hasn’t made Europe a great place to live?

weisses · 08-12-2019 2:55pm

stefanovich wrote: »

You are highlighting a subset that are, without doubt, making a net contribution to society.

They are a subset however and cannot be held up as a representative sample.

To bad some posters cannot make these distinctions.

Maybe non EU migrants who are making an effort using their skills read the waffle I was quoting.

Irish Praetorian · 08-12-2019 3:14pm

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Sweden perhaps is a prime example (rising crime and female-only music festivals), with the UK not far behind (strange also that 17.4m actually choose to leave the 'great' EU, in 2016).

Steady on chief, you want to make an argument against mass migration fine, I'm fairly sympathetic to that position myself. But don't go conflating the mass movement of peoples within Europe with mass migrations from people outside of Europe into it -those are clearly two different phenomena and as your own statistics bear out, EEA migration has a tendency to have a far greater economic benefit to a country than non-EEA.

Really, I can understand peoples complaints on the migration question, but they key is to come up with a sensible response rather than trying to up-end everything in the political equivalent of a temper tantrum.

Limpy · 08-12-2019 3:37pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Steady on chief, you want to make an argument against mass migration fine, I'm fairly sympathetic to that position myself. But don't go conflating the mass movement of peoples within Europe with mass migrations from people outside of Europe into it -those are clearly two different phenomena and as your own statistics bear out, EEA migration has a tendency to have a far greater economic benefit to a country than non-EEA.

Really, I can understand peoples complaints on the migration question, but they key is to come up with a sensible response rather than trying to up-end everything in the political equivalent of a temper tantrum.

I reckon if we in the West stopped bombing/sanctioning some countries into the stone age less people would be forced to leave. Its an assimilate or die attitude. Case in point Libya/Ghaddifi

4068ac1elhodqr · 08-12-2019 4:12pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Steady on chief, you want to make an argument against mass migration fine, I'm fairly sympathetic to that position myself. But don't go conflating the mass movement of peoples within Europe with mass migrations from people outside of Europe into it -those are clearly two different phenomena and as your own statistics bear out, EEA migration has a tendency to have a far greater economic benefit to a country than non-EEA.
Really, I can understand peoples complaints on the migration question, but they key is to come up with a sensible response rather than trying to up-end everything in the political equivalent of a temper tantrum.

Agree they are seperate (but still inter-realted), not disputing that.

As the (crime statistics) uploaded figures (that someone has since unjustly removed) show
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Finland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwjRy-CDqqbmAhWJN8AKHSIiCEQQFjAAegQIAxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fresearchbriefings.files.parliament.uk%2Fdocuments%2FSN04334%2FSN04334.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1QXEdRutpqTkp93H5IqJhD
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/669094/statistics_on_race_and_the_criminal_justice_system_2016_v2.pdf *
*The very latest from UK shows Muslims are now 400% over-represented, also Albanians (who are currently the largest IPO applicants to Ireland) are their (Eng&Wales) single largest nationality of foreign prisoners.

...and also as brexit shows, the mass movement 'into' (and thus through) Europe, has been and continues to be a very major issue.

The open invite from Merkel for 1m+ mostly from Islamic/Muslim countries caused (and continues) to cause, massive repercussions across the EU.
Likely it's a simple clash of ideologies, but it's not to be confused with centuries upon centuries of European mass migration (within Europe). The 2015 event benchmark has/will signal the end of the European project.

The problem with the EU is that one single porous border, effects everyone's border, as it further expands (now into Western Balkans), problems will further multiply, into further division.

Irish Praetorian · 08-12-2019 4:22pm

Limpy wrote: »

I reckon if we in the West stopped bombing/sanctioning some countries into the stone age less people would be forced to leave. Its an assimilate or die attitude. Case in point Libya/Ghaddifi

I wouldn't entirely disagree with that, but I don't think that's the whole or majority of the picture - a lot of these places have issues around instability and under-development that long proceed any recent campaign of foreign involvement. The go-to example is Eritrea which has seen no shortage of internal troubles and refugees flowing out, but not much in the way of western intervention. And that's before we consider anyone who might want to make an economic case.

The long and the short of it is the EU has a lot of people who want to come but can't take everyone. The debate might be much enriched if people operated from a perspective of how many can be taken in reasonably, rather than empty squawks of how we must help people, often for dubious or half cooked reasons. It's not pleasant, not by any means, but a sober reading of the situation is required.

fly_agaric · 08-12-2019 5:19pm

Brian? wrote: »

I’m being obtuse, are you saying multiculturalism hasn’t made Europe a great place to live?

The pages you linked talk about the specific countries' wealth/economies, their security situation, good government & rule of law, good health & education & welfare systems etc. The "multiculturalism" or not of the country is not going to be a cause of that. Having these fundamentals in place will encourage many immigrants to come if they are allowed in, making the country more "multicultural".
I don't recall non European muslims (or any other types of immigrants really) making a bee-line to improve little Ireland during the 80s. First the improvement in the economic situation/relative liberalisation of society here (making it a better place to live), then the influx of immigrants attracted by that.

Brian? · 08-12-2019 7:09pm

fly_agaric wrote: »

The pages you linked talk about the specific countries' wealth/economies, their security situation, good government & rule of law, good health & education & welfare systems etc. The "multiculturalism" or not of the country is not going to be a cause of that. Having these fundamentals in place will encourage many immigrants to come if they are allowed in, making the country more "multicultural".
I don't recall non European muslims (or any other types of immigrants really) making a bee-line to improve little Ireland during the 80s. First the improvement in the economic situation/relative liberalisation of society here (making it a better place to live), then the influx of immigrants attracted by that.

Immigrants are absolutely attracted by economic success. Their arrival helps drive the success. Without the workers provided by economic migration, the economic growth of Europe would have been stunted.

I’m biased though. I’ve a number of first and 2nd generation Muslim colleagues and I love kebabs.

RandomName2 · 08-12-2019 7:25pm

Brian? wrote: »

Immigrants are absolutely attracted by economic success. Their arrival helps drive the success. Without the workers provided by economic migration, the economic growth of Europe would have been stunted.

I’m biased though. I’ve a number of first and 2nd generation Muslim colleagues and I love kebabs.

The idea of uneducated migrants being an economic benefit is largely antiquated. A large influx of poorly educated migrants is fine when you have a large volume of laboring jobs and a large primary economic sector. These types of positions have been diminishing for decades, particularly in the last decade. I'm not sure how many people you think can be supported as kebab sales people, but I'd suggest it's not many.

So if the case is that you have to wait for the second generation of migrants in order to be a net benefit on the whole, then the situation is that it's simply damage mitigation in relation to the economic impact of large scale migration. This just stands to reason.

Sand · 11-12-2019 7:56pm

weisses wrote: »

I suggest you visit any hospital in the state ... Then turf all the foreigners or migrants ... And then try to figure out how that hospital would function without them present.... Then post back here with a solution

How about training our medical staff rather than leeching off the resources of poorer countries?

Not only would we minimise medical malpractice, it would increase stable career paths for Europeans. Win win. European nations can easily afford to fund enough medical professionals from within our own populations. European governments simply choose not to do so, preferring to spend the money on increased social welfare for non-EEA migrants and their descendants. It is a bad policy, and like all bad policies it can be ended.

Brian? wrote: »

Yeah this Europe place is really a ****hole.

Only 7 of the top 10 countries for quality of life are in Europe. We should build a fence around it now to stop it getting any worse. /sarcasm

Where do you live and get your news from? Europe is a wonderful place to live because multiculturalism, not in spite of it.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-rankings

When you have to invent strawmen, it shows how weak your views are.

I didn't say Europe was a ****hole. But the lives of Europeans are clearly worse than they would otherwise be due to mass migration. Mass migration is a bad policy, against the interests of Europeans, and like any bad policy it should be ended.

Sand · 11-12-2019 8:12pm

Limpy wrote: »

I reckon if we in the West stopped bombing/sanctioning some countries into the stone age less people would be forced to leave. Its an assimilate or die attitude. Case in point Libya/Ghaddifi

Being trafficked into Europe is a costly endeavour. Smugglers don't do it for free - apart from the 'rescue ships' and even they are funded. The migrants beg, borrow or steal the money from micro-finance organisations, friends or family. The Vietnamese who died in the back of the truck in the UK a few weeks back had each paid tens of thousands for their trip, borrowed from family members who expected a return when their relative was earning in the UK. It was an investment and it went wrong. Many Africans are reluctant to return home because they stole the money from relatives.

The idea of desperate refugees fleeing US carpet bombing - honestly, if you believe that then you probably still believe in Santa. There are push and pull factors, but ultimately its motivated by financial gain.

Brian? · 11-12-2019 11:13pm

Sand wrote: »

How about training our medical staff rather than leeching off the resources of poorer countries?

Not only would we minimise medical malpractice, it would increase stable career paths for Europeans. Win win. European nations can easily afford to fund enough medical professionals from within our own populations. European governments simply choose not to do so, preferring to spend the money on increased social welfare for non-EEA migrants and their descendants. It is a bad policy, and like all bad policies it can be ended.

When you have to invent strawmen, it shows how weak your views are.

I didn't say Europe was a ****hole. But the lives of Europeans are clearly worse than they would otherwise be due to mass migration. Mass migration is a bad policy, against the interests of Europeans, and like any bad policy it should be ended.

You say the lives of Europeans are clearly worse. How so? What metrics are using the measure this?

Sarcasm isn’t a strawman.

RandomName2 · 11-12-2019 11:22pm

Brian? wrote: »

You say the lives of Europeans are clearly worse. How so? What metrics are using the measure this?

Sarcasm isn’t a strawman.

Sarcasm ins't a strawman but saying that Sand was wrong about declaring Europe to be a sh*thole, if he didn't actually say this, is most definitely a strawman.

Personally I think it's way too broad a statement to say that European life is worse due to mass migration. Most Europeans are unaffected, even by the recent migrant crisis. Well, it depends where you are talking. Poland cannot really be compared to Greece. Marseille or Malmo can't really be compared to Edinburgh or Zurich. Any negative effects of mass migration are predominantly local.

4068ac1elhodqr · 12-12-2019 12:24am

RandomName2 wrote: »

Any negative effects of mass migration are predominantly local.

So just the UK, Sweden, Italy, France, Germany Belgium then (and so on). Granted Poland and the V4 have choosen (by themselves) not to be effected in any meaningful way.

Also the issue is very specifc to mostly illegal (or questionable) (non-eu) mass (mostly economic) migration, and from specific areas: that of the Mid-East and Sub-Sahara Africa.

ancapailldorcha · 12-12-2019 4:51pm

No more link dumps and snappy comments please. Post deleted.

Sand · 12-12-2019 7:49pm

Brian? wrote: »

You say the lives of Europeans are clearly worse. How so? What metrics are using the measure this?

Sarcasm isn’t a strawman.

Deaths, injuries and security costs resulting from 'home grown' Islamic terrorism. Increased criminality - particularly sex crimes against the young and vulnerable. Increased pressure on housing stock and services. Increased economic costs to subsidise migrants and their descendants. Increased economic insecurity. Reduced civic trust and engagement. Diversion of political leadership from productive ends to completely self inflicted issues like FGM in Ireland. Increased repression and loss of freedom. All entirely avoidable without mass migration.

You can look back at my posts through this thread for further details. Maybe you're willing to trade the girls of Rotherham to predators for a greater availability of kebabs. I am not.

Migration Megathread

Comments