Migration Megathread

recedite · 10-12-2018 8:44pm

splashuum wrote: »

knifed to death

Stabbed and throat cut. Not the first time this trademark method has been used either.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-hostages-idUSKCN1060VA

Sand · 10-12-2018 10:09pm

Midlife wrote: »

Unfortunatly, Sand, no-one can comprehend the evidence in this case. If you find a single other person that understands you and is willing to explain it to me, please have them post here. Start with the economics forum and see how you get on.

In respeonse to my questioning, a signle question, you've twice clarified the question, then said you'd only be repeating yourself, then said you meant something other than what you said, and are now back to 'you don't understand'. You've added in that 'not-economically positive' is a relative term. Like i said, try the economics forum.

All in all, you really should be ashamed of yourself. not for jumping to conclusions and making a mistake but for this three week long subterfuge where you basically refused to explain yourself because you would have to admit you're wrong. Grow up ffs. You're supposed to be engaging in adult debate, everyone's wrong from time to time.

So one last time. Can you please explain how african unemployment being at 14% leads you to the conclusion that migration from outside the EU is not economically positive. Please explain how you judge South America, Asia and the restof the world. Please also explain how a singleunemployment figure leads you to the conclusion that a group of people are not profitable for a country.

Midlife, I'm comfortable the evidence supports my view. I've directed you to the evidence. Your inability to understand the basic evidence is your own issue. You are in denial of entirely non-controversial points that the authors of the report themselves make.

See page 26 where they summarise some lessons from Table 2.1:

In general, nationals of other EU Member States have higher employment rates than Irish nationals and those from outside the EU: nationals of the pre-enlargement ‘old’ EU Member States (EU-West) had the highest employment rate at 76 per cent. Nationals of the ‘new’ EU15-28 Member States (EU-East) also reported a high employment rate (74 per cent), and the highest activity rate (81 per cent), so there are less economically inactive people in this group. These were significantly higher than the rates for Irish nationals.

Though from reading the above you're so far into denial I cant see how you wade back out of it. You're not actually having that discussion you claimed to want when you're unable or unwilling to accept what even the ESRI are saying.

Midlife · 10-12-2018 10:16pm

Sand wrote: »

Midlife, I'm comfortable the evidence supports my view. I've directed you to the evidence. Your inability to understand the basic evidence is your own issue. You are in denial of entirely non-controversial points that the authors of the report themselves make.

See page 26 where they summarise some lessons from Table 2.1:

Though from reading the above you're so far into denial I cant see how you wade back out of it. You're not actually having that discussion you claimed to want when you're unable or unwilling to accept what even the ESRI are saying.

Erm, that's not explaining it. You're just reiterating higher employment rates. I've never questioned whether or not African migrants are more like to be unemployed. That's what the report says.

What i have issue with is you extrapolating from that that all non-EU migration is not economically positive.

And the above is yet another post in your long string to show that you can't justify that.

To take another viewpoint, by your argument and the section you've just quoted, EU immigrants are economically positive and Irish people are not. Irish people are not econimically positive in their own country because they have a lower employment rate than someone else. This is exactly what you're saying about non-EU migrants. Seriously, look again at the bit you quoted above. It says more about irish people being behind EU migrants in terms of unemployment than it does people from the rest of the world.

First question. If the above line is incorrect, please explain why.

Second question if you've answered the first. Can i ask you if Asian people taken as a group alone by your baromoter are economically positive? If not can you explain how not?

Sand · 10-12-2018 11:02pm

Midlife wrote: »

Erm, that's not explaining it. You're just reiterating higher employment rates. I've never questioned whether or not African migrants are more like to be unemployed. That's what the report says.

You are overly focusing on African migrants. The report says the EU migrants are more active than Irish who are more active than non-EU migrants.

Midlife · 10-12-2018 11:19pm

Sand wrote: »

You are overly focusing on African migrants. The report says the EU migrants are more active than Irish who are more active than non-EU migrants.

Could you answer some of my questions please?

Apologies if I overfocussed on African migrants, I think you led it down that route though. For the record, here's the section of your post which started this conversation.

Sand wrote: »

- Non-EU migration is not economically positive. The employment rate for African nationals in particular is just 45%, and the unemployment rate is over twice the Irish rate. Their economic performance is not catching up with the Irish average. It actually worsened between 2016 and 2017.

How many times more can you post without justifying that comment?

recedite · 11-12-2018 11:01am

Sand wrote: »

The common myth that all migration is economically positive, but even the ESRI acknowledge in this report that the origin of the migrant is important when considering the outcomes.

To the extent Ireland needs migrants, the evidence is its better to source them from within the EU under existing freedom of movement - which we have no choice in anyway.

Sand is referring to "all" migration that we can control. We cannot control migration from the EU, as long as we are in the EU.

Midlife wrote: »

Yes, and with due respect, you're wrong to say that. It's a massive generalisation that the report does not allude to.
For example, from the same report, Irish nationals unemployment is 7.1%, UK is 7.2%, East EU is 8% and Asia is 8.7%.

You are generalising yourself there. Asia? Do you mean Bangladesh, or China or India, or Japan?
There's a vast difference between a guy from Bangladesh coming in as a an asylum seeker and a guy from China coming in on a working visa who already has a job lined up in a Chinese restaurant. Or an Indian programmer who has a job lined up.

The vast difference can best be summed by the tragedy last year when a respectable Japanese worker in Drogheda was murdered by a migrant who randomly wandered into this country with no paperwork whatsoever, and who still lives here apparently.

11-12-2018 5:47pm

recedite wrote: »

The vast difference can best be summed by the tragedy last year when a respectable Japanese worker in Drogheda was murdered by a migrant who randomly wandered into this country with no paperwork whatsoever, and who still lives here apparently.

Dundalk it was. A student who got a job in a factory to support himself while here.

recedite · 11-12-2018 8:58pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Dundalk it was. A student who got a job in a factory to support himself while here.

Correct yes. A very fine fellow by all accounts, law abiding, hard working, and very popular with his workmates.

But now we are left in a situation where the taxpayer funds the indefinite stay in this country of his murderer, who arrived here unannounced, uninvited, and unwanted.

fly_agaric · 11-12-2018 9:33pm

recedite wrote: »

The vast difference can best be summed by the tragedy last year when a respectable Japanese worker in Drogheda was murdered by a migrant who randomly wandered into this country with no paperwork whatsoever, and who still lives here apparently.

That was a very (very) strange one + had forgotten about it. Was it ever established who the man actually was or where he really came from in the end? Think he is under psychiatric care or something now (or was last I read anything about it in the news).

no.8 · 11-12-2018 9:41pm

fly_agaric wrote:

That was a very (very) strange one + had forgotten about it. Was it ever established who the man actually was or where he really came from in the end? Think he is under psychiatric care or something now (or was last I read anything about it in the news).

He should be dropped in the water...say mid-Atlantic

Midlife · 11-12-2018 9:43pm

recedite wrote: »

Sand is referring to "all" migration that we can control. We cannot control migration from the EU, as long as we are in the EU.

You are generalising yourself there. Asia? Do you mean Bangladesh, or China or India, or Japan?
There's a vast difference between a guy from Bangladesh coming in as a an asylum seeker and a guy from China coming in on a working visa who already has a job lined up in a Chinese restaurant. Or an Indian programmer who has a job lined up.

The vast difference can best be summed by the tragedy last year when a respectable Japanese worker in Drogheda was murdered by a migrant who randomly wandered into this country with no paperwork whatsoever, and who still lives here apparently.

With due respect to the points you make, I think you should again read Sand's initial comment and my response to it.

I'm not saying you should or shouldn't accept migrants.

The generalisation is kind of my point. The report doesn't differentiate. It just says Asia. This is kind of my problem with Sand's judgement. He cherry-picked the high African unemployment statistic and generalised that all non-EU migration is unprofitable for the country. I'm pretty sure you can see how wrong that is from your explination above.

Mentioning the Asian statistic in the report kind of tears that argument apart as they're pretty much on par with UK and parts of Europe.

And as you as sensible enough to point out, taking Asia as a group is massivly vague. Sand's initial argument lumps your highly trained Hyderbadi contract worker in with uneducated Sudanese asulym seekers.

Whether or not we should take either into the country is a spearate conversation but including both in a general non-white group and then saying they all cost us money is very very poor form, and fairly racist to be honest.

fly_agaric · 11-12-2018 9:53pm

no.8 wrote: »

He should be dropped in the water...say mid-Atlantic

No, don't agree with that. He is our problem now and likely forever more but he should never have gotten into Ireland in the first place. We (and the UK) have some natural advantages being island(s) when it comes to keeping people we don't want here out, but in this instance authorities still managed to mess up.:rolleyes:

recedite · 11-12-2018 10:34pm

Midlife wrote: »

Whether or not we should take either into the country is a spearate conversation but including both in a general non-white group and then saying they all cost us money is very very poor form, and fairly racist to be honest.

Did Sand differentiate between migrants according to skin colour? I must have missed that.

I think he did say that those from the continent of Africa have a lower than average success at finding gainful employment, which was backed up by the statistics.

Perhaps you could tell us what the stats say about the % of African migrants now living in Ireland who arrived here originally holding a work permit?
That might give more of a clue about this phenomenon.
It is possible for Irish employers to recruit unskilled workers abroad, but such employers normally seek out people who want to work. The govt. announced this year they would be making that process even easier.

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/visas-for-lowskilled-migrants-may-be-loosened-36456499.html

Midlife · 11-12-2018 11:32pm

recedite wrote: »

Did Sand differentiate between migrants according to skin colour? I must have missed that.

I think he did say that those from the continent of Africa have a lower than average success at finding gainful employment, which was backed up by the statistics.

As you mentioned, he said that those from the continent of Africa have a lower than average success at finding gainful employment, which was backed up by the statistics. He used this as his evidence that all non-EU migration was not economically profitable for the country.

I personally think that saying that people not from the EU cost the country money is a very dangerous thing to be throwing around.

Saying it's based on statistics when it's not is either mistaken or dishonest.

But not admitting when you're wrong about something like that is poor form.

I get you're taking the side you normally take recedite and that you probably agree with Sand on most things but I'm pretty sure you can see that he's wrong here.

Just to post it again. 3 weeks and waiting for an explination.

Sand wrote:

- EU migration is positive. Western EU migrants are only 4% unemployed, compared to 7% of Irish people.
- Non-EU migration is not economically positive. The employment rate for African nationals in particular is just 45%, and the unemployment rate is over twice the Irish rate. Their economic performance is not catching up with the Irish average. It actually worsened between 2016 and 2017.

11-12-2018 11:57pm

fly_agaric wrote: »

That was a very (very) strange one + had forgotten about it. Was it ever established who the man actually was or where he really came from in the end? Think he is under psychiatric care or something now (or was last I read anything about it in the news).

There's been over a dozen hearings and still very little confirmed. But sure the judge and solicitors will get paid each time they wheel him out to rant for a minute.

recedite · 12-12-2018 10:29am

Midlife wrote: »

Saying it's based on statistics when it's not is either mistaken or dishonest.

His argument was correct and was backed up by the stats, it is dishonest of you to say otherwise.
Your beef with him is that the stats were too generalised (in comparing EU migration (which we cannot control) to "all" non-EU migration (which we can control).
Its a flimsy argument when you yourself were not differentiating between different countries. Or to take the real elephant in the room, you do not differentiate between "all" migrants arriving with valid permits and "all" those arriving with only a sob story and no invitation.

I'd be delighted to see stats published on a country by country basis, and correlated with what % of them had work/study permits. I'm sure with that more specific info, we could advance this discussion and point to those countries where people just don't feel the need for such things.

12-12-2018 10:31am

its funny i find my life entirely unaffected by the muslim takeover

am i doing something wrong

Midlife · 12-12-2018 5:11pm

recedite wrote: »

His argument was correct and was backed up by the stats, it is dishonest of you to say otherwise.
Your beef with him is that the stats were too generalised (in comparing EU migration (which we cannot control) to "all" non-EU migration (which we can control).
Its a flimsy argument when you yourself were not differentiating between different countries. Or to take the real elephant in the room, you do not differentiate between "all" migrants arriving with valid permits and "all" those arriving with only a sob story and no invitation.

I'd be delighted to see stats published on a country by country basis, and correlated with what % of them had work/study permits. I'm sure with that more specific info, we could advance this discussion and point to those countries where people just don't feel the need for such things.

Then please explain what 'not economically positive' means. After some time Sand said it's a relative term. I'm not so sure. 'Economically negative' or 'economicallly neutral' means that you are either losing money or breaking exactly even. I'mm not so sure how you can take another meaning from the phrase 'not economically positive'.

After then, please explain how a statistic on African unemployment means that non-EU migration is 'not economically positive'.

James Brown · 12-12-2018 5:23pm

Deleted User wrote: »

its funny i find my life entirely unaffected by the muslim takeover

am i doing something wrong

That's because you don't know about it

splashuum · 12-12-2018 6:17pm

14 shot in strasbourg last night by a radical islamist. 4 dead.

James Brown · 12-12-2018 6:21pm

splashuum wrote: »

14 shot in strasbourg last night by a radical islamist. 4 dead.

What's your point regarding this thread?

splashuum · 12-12-2018 6:40pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

splashuum wrote: »

14 shot in strasbourg last night by a radical islamist. 4 dead.

What's your point regarding this thread?

Take a look at the thread title.

oscarBravo · 12-12-2018 7:16pm

splashuum wrote: »

Take a look at the thread title.

The Strasbourg shooter single-handedly took over Europe?

James Brown · 12-12-2018 7:20pm

splashuum wrote: »

Take a look at the thread title.

The French man likely guilty of the shooting is taking over Europe? I'd suggest if anything can be taken from recent weeks Macron is closer to resigning than leading the French to take over Europe, let alone one lone gunman.

splashuum · 12-12-2018 7:30pm

Who said anything about any nationality ? And who suggested any one person is taking over europe? Where are you getting these presumptions as I certainly didn’t suggest what you are saying.

oscarBravo · 12-12-2018 7:32pm

splashuum wrote: »

Who said anything about any nationality ? And who suggested any one person is taking over europe? Where are you getting these presumptions as I certainly didn’t suggest what you are saying.

So, what was the point of your post?

James Brown · 12-12-2018 7:41pm

splashuum wrote: »

Who said anything about any nationality ? And who suggested any one person is taking over europe? Where are you getting these presumptions as I certainly didn’t suggest what you are saying.

To be fair all I had to work with was your news post and telling me to read the thread title.
You've yet to clarify what your point is.

splashuum · 12-12-2018 8:03pm

To Matt and Oscar this thread is about the alleged “Muslim takeover” of Europe.
My most recent posts on this thread included the barbaric knifing of an Irish teacher by a enraged Muslim which happened last week.
As we know the teacher in question allegedly showed an image of Mohammed in class which seemed to have caused the enragement.
I also brought up the radical Islamist shooter who rampaged Strasbourg last night.
Many would interpret this weeks events as a possible catalyst or beginning of a “Muslim takeover”.
And many would agree this is the correct thread to discuss such matters.

DeadHand · 12-12-2018 8:59pm

The entirely predictable Strasbourg attack is a symptom of the Islamification of French society rather than a catalyst of any supposed “Muslim takeover” of Europe- though that is certainly something will be on the cards in a few generations time as demographics shift, Islam being an inherently supremacist force immune to any kind of reform.

The incident is certainly relevant to this conversation as it proves, yet again, the catastrophe mass Islamic immigration has been for European societies.

Attacks of this nature have increased in frequency and intensity as the Muslim portion of Europe’s population has grown and will continue to do so. Yet, the boats continue to cross the Med as Europe invites more misery upon itself.

The more politically minded Islamists most curse their more proactive brethern when these regular atrocities take place- they could achieve a dominant place for their ideology in Europe without the added violent insurgency given time, demographic realities and the current weakness of European culture.

Imagine their bemused glee when fellow Islamists can openly slaughter native Europeans, yet many Europeans will still make excuses, defend Islam, tolerate Islamism and insist we import more of it. They’ll still insist it’s imaginary “Nazis” that are the real threat while the Islamist death toll mounts.

European pro-immigration elites and their supporters do not so much have blood on their hands at this stage as they are bathing in it daily.

And we’ve seen nothing yet, we’re still at the start of what will be a sickening war for Europe’s future. It’s our children and grandchildren that will live with the worst consequences of Europe’s self-destruction.

James Brown · 12-12-2018 9:08pm

splashuum wrote: »

To Matt and Oscar this thread is about the alleged “Muslim takeover” of Europe.
My most recent posts on this thread included the barbaric knifing of an Irish teacher by a enraged Muslim which happened last week.
As we know the teacher in question allegedly showed an image of Mohammed in class which seemed to have caused the enragement.
I also brought up the radical Islamist shooter who rampaged Strasbourg last night.
Many would interpret this weeks events as a possible catalyst or beginning of a “Muslim takeover”.
And many would agree this is the correct thread to discuss such matters.

I don't believe a terrorist attack or crazed French Muslim killing people is an effort to assist Muslim immigrants in taking over Europe. I don't see any connection. The thread is about immigration. If you want to go by the title alone, how does a religious extremist aid in Muslims conquering say France or taking over Europe? Is that the part 'nobody knows', the part that makes no sense?

James Brown · 12-12-2018 9:14pm

DeadHand wrote: »

The entirely predictable Strasbourg attack is a symptom of the Islamification of French society rather than a catalyst of any supposed “Muslim takeover” of Europe- though that is certainly something will be on the cards in a few generations time as demographics shift, Islam being an inherently supremacist force immune to any kind of reform.

The incident is certainly relevant to this conversation as it proves, yet again, the catastrophe mass Islamic immigration has been for European societies.

Attacks of this nature have increased in frequency and intensity as the Muslim portion of Europe’s population has grown and will continue to do so. Yet, the boats continue to cross the Med as Europe invites more misery upon itself.

The more politically minded Islamists most curse their more proactive brethern when these regular atrocities take place- they could achieve a dominant place for their ideology in Europe without the added violent insurgency given time, demographic realities and the current weakness of European culture.

Imagine their bemused glee when fellow Islamists can openly slaughter native Europeans, yet many Europeans will still make excuses, defend Islam, tolerate Islamism and insist we import more of it. They’ll still insist it’s imaginary “Nazis” that are the real threat while the Islamist death toll mounts.

European pro-immigration elites and their supporters do not so much have blood on their hands at this stage as they are bathing in it daily.

And we’ve seen nothing yet, we’re still at the start of what will be a sickening war for Europe’s future. It’s our children and grandchildren that will live with the worst consequences of Europe’s self-destruction.

You're mixing yourself up. The shooter was French. As for Islam, do you know how many rapes, murders and drug deals are carried out by Christians? And they have already taken over, but I assume that's okay? And before you talk further about Muslims coming here and trying to mould society to their will, that's what people do in a democracy and are free to do. Do you think some fanatic killing people will assist in the take over? Or maybe you are playing right into the hands of ISIS who want fighting based on religion? How about we work on the murdering fanatics and leave people alone just because you might have a bigoted opinion of their beliefs?

4068ac1elhodqr · 12-12-2018 9:23pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Is that the part 'nobody knows', the part that makes no sense?

Most (moderate) estimates are that several of the larger countries (France, Germany, Sweden) in Europe, will be circa 20% Muslim by 2050.

Takeover is perhaps much too strong a phrase (well, pending timeframes), but there would need to be significant adjustment in the normal lifestlye of all Europeans, to accomodate their cultural beliefs.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

As for Islam, do you know how many rapes, murders and drug deals are carried out by Christians? And they have already taken over, but I assume that's okay?

For the prison polulation in Eng & Wales 2016, there is an almost 300% over-represenation from the followers of Islam. I.e. 15% of the prison population. If anything, Christians are very much under-represented, so too are buddists, jews, hindus, pagans etc etc.

Very sorry for all the facts and details.

DeadHand · 12-12-2018 9:56pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You're mixing yourself up. The shooter was French??

Ask yourself, why is Islam, an ideology alien to France for most of the history of both, such a powerful force on the current French cultural landscape that a young French man can end up radicalized in prison and carry out Islamic Jihad on his countrymen?

How are we at that point?

I’ll give you a clue: it begins with “I” and has eleven letters.

recedite · 12-12-2018 10:11pm

Being born in a stable does not make you a horse.
To be French is to be a citizen of La Republique, the secular country which prides itself in the hallowed concept of Laicite.
To support the Enlightenment and its principles of liberty, fraternity, and equality for fellow citizens.
Islam is the opposite to all that.

Midlife · 12-12-2018 10:20pm

recedite wrote: »

Being born in a stable does not make you a horse.
To be French is to be a citizen of La Republique, the secular country which prides itself in the hallowed concept of Laicite.
To support the Enlightenment and its principles of liberty, fraternity, and equality for fellow citizens.
Islam is the opposite to all that.

No. Hardline Islam is the opposite of that. Even the link you posted about the concept of secularism has a big section about secularism in Turkey.

If you can't see that lumping all of Islam together and villifying the entire culture doesn't help, then I don't know what to say to you.

What did Liberty, Fraternity and Equality say about Empire by the way?

oscarBravo · 12-12-2018 10:23pm

recedite wrote: »

Being born in a stable does not make you a horse.

So, no true Frenchman?

To be French is to be a citizen of La Republique, the secular country which prides itself in the hallowed concept of Laicite.
To support the Enlightenment and its principles of liberty, fraternity, and equality for fellow citizens.
Islam is the opposite to all that.

Yeah, nothing says "secular republic" like "adherents of the wrong religion can't be citizens".

James Brown · 12-12-2018 10:34pm

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Most (moderate) estimates are that several of the larger countries (France, Germany, Sweden) in Europe, will be circa 20% Muslim by 2050.

Takeover is perhaps much too strong a phrase (well, pending timeframes), but there would need to be significant adjustment in the normal lifestlye of all Europeans, to accomodate their cultural beliefs.

If that's the will of the people so be it. You can't treat someone like a criminal or second class citizen because they want to ban abortion or vote in Renua.

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

For the prison polulation in Eng & Wales 2016, there is an almost 300% over-represenation from the followers of Islam. I.e. 15% of the prison population. If anything, Christians are very much under-represented, so too are buddists, jews, hindus, pagans etc etc.

Very sorry for all the facts and details.

Yes and the same is true of other minorities and the poor, but we could work towards addressing that.

James Brown · 12-12-2018 10:35pm

DeadHand wrote: »

Ask yourself, why is Islam, an ideology alien to France for most of the history of both, such a powerful force on the current French cultural landscape that a young French man can end up radicalized in prison and carry out Islamic Jihad on his countrymen?

How are we at that point?

I’ll give you a clue: it begins with “I” and has eleven letters.

When the IRA were carry out attacks in England, would you back moves towards all Irish or was that different? The only difference I can see is allegiance to a religion over a country, guilty and innocent alike.

James Brown · 12-12-2018 10:36pm

recedite wrote: »

Being born in a stable does not make you a horse.
To be French is to be a citizen of La Republique, the secular country which prides itself in the hallowed concept of Laicite.
To support the Enlightenment and its principles of liberty, fraternity, and equality for fellow citizens.
Islam is the opposite to all that.

What bull.
So to be Irish you need play Hurling and wear Aran sweaters?

Midlife · 12-12-2018 10:42pm

If you read history, you'll see that there's a recipe for religious extremism and an antidote to it.

**** sake, there's even Buddhist terrorism if you create the conditions for it.

splashuum · 12-12-2018 10:44pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I don't believe a terrorist attack or crazed French Muslim killing people is an effort to assist Muslim immigrants in taking over Europe. I don't see any connection. The thread is about immigration. If you want to go by the title alone, how does a religious extremist aid in Muslims conquering say France or taking over Europe? Is that the part 'nobody knows', the part that makes no sense?

As creator of this thread, I never once used the word immigration in the opening post. To suggest this thread is solely about immigration would be false. I intended for people to reasonably discuss the potential dangers, impacts etc of what Steyn talks about. Immigration is certainly one of these topics but is not limited to such.

In addition the "nobody knows" part are not my words but the words of the author Steyn, who included it in the articles title. If we are to civilly discuss the statistics in the article, it suggests we are being vastly out-bred by the muslim population. If this is to be true, that obviously means we will have a much much larger muslim population in the EU, which inevitably means a much higher risk of islamic based attacks. If you look at Poland for instance, They have had zero terror attacks mainly down to strict policies implemented by the government.
I didn't intend or want terror attacks to be the main topic of conversation in this thread but the topic certainly qualifies for discussion.

weisses · 12-12-2018 10:52pm

splashuum wrote: »

As creator of this thread, I never once used the word immigration in the opening post. To suggest this thread is solely about immigration would be false. I intended for people to reasonably discuss the potential dangers, impacts etc of what Steyn talks about. Immigration is certainly one of these topics but is not limited to such.

In addition the "nobody knows" part are not my words but the words of the author Steyn, who included it in the articles title. If we are to civilly discuss the statistics in the article, it suggests we are being vastly out-bred by the muslim population. If this is to be true, that obviously means we will have a much much larger muslim population in the EU, which inevitably means a much higher risk of islamic based attacks. If you look at Poland for instance, They have had zero terror attacks mainly down to strict policies implemented by the government.
I didn't intend or want terror attacks to be the main topic of conversation in this thread but the topic certainly qualifies for discussion.

So without significant immigration how do you believe this "takeover" would take place ?

splashuum · 12-12-2018 11:22pm

weisses wrote: »

splashuum wrote: »

As creator of this thread, I never once used the word immigration in the opening post. To suggest this thread is solely about immigration would be false. I intended for people to reasonably discuss the potential dangers, impacts etc of what Steyn talks about. Immigration is certainly one of these topics but is not limited to such.

In addition the "nobody knows" part are not my words but the words of the author Steyn, who included it in the articles title. If we are to civilly discuss the statistics in the article, it suggests we are being vastly out-bred by the muslim population. If this is to be true, that obviously means we will have a much much larger muslim population in the EU, which inevitably means a much higher risk of islamic based attacks. If you look at Poland for instance, They have had zero terror attacks mainly down to strict policies implemented by the government.
I didn't intend or want terror attacks to be the main topic of conversation in this thread but the topic certainly qualifies for discussion.

So without significant immigration how do you believe this "takeover" would take place ?

“Steyn explained, it will take only two generations for the current Muslim population (sitting at about 10-percent) to have as many grandchildren as post-Christian secularists (who currently make up the other 90 percent). This is due, he said, to Muslims having on average 3.5 children per couple compared to post-Christian secularists who have only 1.3 children per couple”

Take into consideration the word “current Muslim population”.
This segment is literally from the very first post in this thread. It’s very unfortunate that some Boards.is users will not even read the OP’s original thread starting post before commenting and asking answered questions.

4068ac1elhodqr · 12-12-2018 11:37pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If that's the will of the people so be it.

Suppose sending Europe back to the dark ages wouldn't be so bad, divorce proceedings would be speedy and there might be less female car drivers on the road. Not so sure about all that FGM, and painful slaughter slow of livestock though.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yes and the same is true of other minorities and the poor, but we could work towards addressing that.

(One) other very small culture of sorts in Ireland, but that's about it really.

Ah the poor... Would supporting all women folk into further education and university help much to address that? Or is schooling towards independent thought and critical opinionated thinking still largely frowned upon?

recedite · 13-12-2018 2:55pm

Midlife wrote: »

No. Hardline Islam is the opposite of that. Even the link you posted about the concept of secularism has a big section about secularism in Turkey.

Turkey is an interesting case, and I'm a big fan of Mustapha Ataturk who founded the modern secular state. But Atatturk was no fan of Islam. This is one of his best quotes...

For nearly five hundred years, these rules and theories of an Arab Shaikh and the interpretations of generations of lazy and good-for-nothing priests have decided the civil and criminal law of Turkey. They have decided the form of the Constitution, the details of the lives of each Turk, his food, his hours of rising and sleeping the shape of his clothes, the routine of the midwife who produced his children, what he learned in his schools, his customs, his thoughts-even his most intimate habits. Islam – this theology of an immoral Arab – is a dead thing. Possibly it might have suited tribes in the desert. It is no good for modern, progressive state. God’s revelation! There is no God! These are only the chains by which the priests and bad rulers bound the people down. A ruler who needs religion is a weakling. No weaklings should rule!

The Turk's downfall came when those same illiterate arab camelherders were bought over by the British army 100 years ago, and as they turned they stabbed the Turks in the back.
Here's the Islamic view of Ataturk and secular Turkey; A brief history of the life and policies of one of the most vehement enemies of Islam, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was the founder of the secular Turkish state

Turkey, as a state, has ebbed and flowed ever since between these two conflicting ideologies. Currently we are in a waning phase, as Erdogan is a former card-carrrying Muslim Brotherhood member.

oscarBravo wrote: »

So, no true Frenchman? Yeah, nothing says "secular republic" like "adherents of the wrong religion can't be citizens".

Your mistake is in thinking Islam is only a religion.
It is that, but more importantly it is an ideology.

One that is incompatible with secularism, democracy, liberalism, feminism, gay rights, equal rights, freedom of religion, free speech, or basically any values that that western civilisation holds dear.

James Brown · 13-12-2018 3:21pm

splashuum wrote: »

As creator of this thread, I never once used the word immigration in the opening post. To suggest this thread is solely about immigration would be false. I intended for people to reasonably discuss the potential dangers, impacts etc of what Steyn talks about. Immigration is certainly one of these topics but is not limited to such.

In addition the "nobody knows" part are not my words but the words of the author Steyn, who included it in the articles title. If we are to civilly discuss the statistics in the article, it suggests we are being vastly out-bred by the muslim population. If this is to be true, that obviously means we will have a much much larger muslim population in the EU, which inevitably means a much higher risk of islamic based attacks. If you look at Poland for instance, They have had zero terror attacks mainly down to strict policies implemented by the government.
I didn't intend or want terror attacks to be the main topic of conversation in this thread but the topic certainly qualifies for discussion.

I am telling you that a number of posters and the vast number of posts are on immigration. I then went on to go solely by the title and discuss how a lone French muslim shooter could be taking over Europe.

James Brown · 13-12-2018 3:23pm

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Suppose sending Europe back to the dark ages wouldn't be so bad, divorce proceedings would be speedy and there might be less female car drivers on the road. Not so sure about all that FGM, and painful slaughter slow of livestock though.

(One) other very small culture of sorts in Ireland, but that's about it really.

Ah the poor... Would supporting all women folk into further education and university help much to address that? Or is schooling towards independent thought and critical opinionated thinking still largely frowned upon?

That's the way the world works. It happened in Ireland with DeValera and the RCC. We might not like it, but if the majority does, that's how it will be. Unless you are suggesting we carry out immoral and illegal activity to fight people because we don't like how they think, become like ISIS?

Minorities and the poor, people like you and I but poorer, taking up the lions share in prison's is a socio economic issue. There's kicking someone to death in Tallaght and kicking someone to death in D4 for example, (getting let out for your degree exams and having a pint on St. Patrick's day).
And yes, if the critical thought doesn't suit you, seems you'd have a problem. Free thought as long as you agree with it.

James Brown · 13-12-2018 3:31pm

recedite wrote: »

...

Your mistake is in thinking Islam is only a religion.
It is that, but more importantly it is an ideology.

One that is incompatible with secularism, democracy, liberalism, feminism, gay rights, equal rights, freedom of religion, free speech, or basically any values that that western civilisation holds dear.

Your mistake, putting it mildly, is taking the vast minority extremist element who claim to follow Islam, (many Muslims say they are not) and crediting the entire people with the same characteristics. It's quite literally an ignorant point of view.

4068ac1elhodqr · 13-12-2018 3:38pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's the way the world works. It happened in Ireland with DeValera and the RCC. We might not like it, but if the majority does, that's how it will be. Unless you are suggesting we carry out immoral and illegal activity to fight people because we don't like how they think, become like ISIS?

Minorities and the poor, people like you and I but poorer, taking up the lions share in prison's is a socio economic issue. There's kicking someone to death in Tallaght and kicking someone to death in D4 for example.

1/10 poor attempt.

The RCC is very far from perfect, but has been the majority for multiple, upon multiple of generations.

What your suggesting, indeed encouraging is the 'forced replacement of the majority' with a somewhat backwards 'minority'. The way the world works, is that it is made up of many countries, each with their own sovereign borders, languages, laws, traditions and culture.

Unless your suggesting the cleansing of modern western cultures and the forced, unwanted imposition of other slightly backward medieval cultures, just for the sake of it.

Maybe you would be first in line to help burn artworks, scultpures and any iconology as ISIS has done in Syria?

Your 'random and somewhat desperate' point regarding wealth distribution, has little to do with culture, but rather global fiscal policy and habits of the super-rich like the Sultans of SA who are often seen blocking Harrods with their supercars.

Ireland already offers more in charity and direct overseas aid than perhaps any other nation per head.

recedite · 13-12-2018 4:12pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Your mistake, putting it mildly, is taking the vast minority extremist element who claim to follow Islam, (many Muslims say they are not) and crediting the entire people with the same characteristics. It's quite literally an ignorant point of view.

What entire people? What same characteristics?

We are not talking about a race of people here. We are talking about an ideology.
There are rules and laws about everything. Its called sharia.
People who follow the rules are not extremists. They are simply followers of Islam, doing it right.

Migration Megathread

Comments