IMMIGRATION thread

[Pannonian]

The line is fudged. What is acceptable to you (an eastern European who recently acquired UK citizenship voting against the monarchy) would be sacrilegious to some British, who would use similar reasoning you applied to migrants - not one of us, not a good guest, no respect for the country he came to etc, etc...

So, yes, there is a line, but it is on a different place for different people.

But, even though I may not appear like it, I'm not very "liberal" in that regard. I don't believe in multiculturalism, and I would make sure every effort is taken that immigrants integrate into society, and that would be the highest priority, even if it meant suspending some of their civil rights for a certain time.

It's just that I never had the chance to speak about it, because I never got past "muslim darkies = bad" here.

And this is SO not my point.

The line is only fudged for those who really want to see it that way. The majority may not be able to agree on what Britishness is. But the majority can certainly agree on what anti-Britishness is. ISIS is the antithesis of Britishness. We see no positives in them. Anyone who supports them is not what I would call British in values. And anyone who looks to excuse those who support them is for me an apologist.

[Gilrandir]

Actually I support to close the borders and send everyone back because accepting more people into our welfare state than we usually do when we are experiencing an economic downturn, with shortages in housing and jobs, would be tantamount to economic suicide.

According to Sarmatian, if you have shortages in jobs and housing it means you have let too few immigrants in.

[wooly_mammoth]

Are you certain they were children-children and not primitives in their 30s claiming to be 12? If it's the latter type of "children" (I understand they are quite common in Sweden), I'm really glad they got into physical contact with someone of their own size and strength.

[Fragony]

Are you certain they were children-children and not primitives in their 30s claiming to be 12? If it's the latter type of "children" (I understand they are quite common in Sweden), I'm really glad they got into physical contact with someone of their own size and strength.

You can certainly see the difference between a 13 year old girl and a grown woman, but I know what you are hinting at. A lot of underaged aren't underage at all and have fake identities.

Also wonder where the pics with evidence of assault are, media would have used them for boohoohoo

[Sarmatian]

Why?

If there were no children, it excuses what they did?

Come on, this deserves at least 50 posts from you Frags. A "throng" of adult males thought it was ok to beat up other people because they are different. It was organized and deliberate. You threw a fit over children of the childless mutti attacking people in Cologne. Where's the outrage now? Just "it's no ok." and "maybe it's a conspiracy, there are no photos" ?

[Fragony]

Why?

If there were no children, it excuses what they did?

Come on, this deserves at least 50 posts from you Frags. A "throng" of adult males thought it was ok to beat up other people because they are different. It was organized and deliberate. You threw a fit over children of the childless mutti attacking people in Cologne. Where's the outrage now? Just "it's no ok." and "maybe it's a conspiracy, there are no photos" ?

What makes you think I think it's ok, but I am naturally suspicious. If it's actually true that a 13 year old girl was beaten up by a group of skins there would be more journalists on her story and broken face than flies on a turd. Without saying it never happened I smell bull on this one. It usually is.

Not denying that there have been attacks.

[Sarmatian]

What makes you think I think it's ok, but I am naturally suspicious. If it's actually true that a 13 year old girl was beaten up by a group of skins there would be more journalists on her story and broken face than flies on a turd. Without saying it never happened I smell bull on this one. It usually is.

Not denying that there have been attacks.

You focus more on whether there was a child in there than on the event itself. Hundreds of adult males attacked and beaten up people, without provocation. It wasn't spontaneus, it wasn't random.

Last time it happened, you declared that a million people should be barred entry and sent home. What are we supposed to do now?

[rajpoot]

How could the governments not see this coming. Hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants thronging into Europe at a time when anti-Islamic sentiment is bubbling like a pot on high heat, thanks to ISIS and whatever other homegrown terrorists keep popping up all around the globe....
The fact that it took so much time for these incidents to gain momentum is the real surprise to me.
And if I'm any judge this is only the beginning.

[Husar]

Picture?

Warning: Somewhat graphic, possibly more so if you have children yourself.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.bild.de/regional/chemnitz...5952.bild.html

[Fragony]

You focus more on whether there was a child in there than on the event itself. Hundreds of adult males attacked and beaten up people, without provocation. It wasn't spontaneus, it wasn't random.

Last time it happened, you declared that a million people should be barred entry and sent home. What are we supposed to do now?

First, what you say simply isn't true. There have been attacks yes but not on that scale, that's a big thumb you are sucking on. Second, also simply not true because I never said such a thing. Two very big thumbs.

edit, I agree with Rajjput, it doesn't surprise me at all either.

edit @hussie I stand corrected

[Husar]

First, what you say simply isn't true. There have been attacks yes but not on that scale, that's a big thumb you are sucking on. Second, also simply not true because I never said such a thing. Two very big thumbs.

The attacks on immigrants in Germany range in the hundreds, maybe each one of a smaller scale than Cologne but all together a huge deal. I would even assume that most of the immigrants who do get attacked are the innocent kind, often students, children, women. You hardly hear that someone from the lebanese mafia was attacked by neo nazis, they'd rather beat pregnant women:

http://www.welt.de/vermischtes/artic...-gequaelt.html

There you go, Switzerland, I thought they don't let many immigrants in, so what's their excuse?

[Fragony]

The attacks on immigrants in Germany range in the hundreds, maybe each one of a smaller scale than Cologne but all together a huge deal. I would even assume that most of the immigrants who do get attacked are the innocent kind, often students, children, women. You hardly hear that someone from the lebanese mafia was attacked by neo nazis, they'd rather beat pregnant women:

http://www.welt.de/vermischtes/artic...-gequaelt.html


There you go, Switzerland, I thought they don't let many immigrants in, so what's their excuse?

Zurich also had their problems at NYE as well but there is never an excuse to behave like that. But don't pretend as if it is a razzia of some sorts. It's something everybody could have seen comming, now that the attitude towards immigrants has changed after the mibehaviour particulary in Collogne there is going to be more of this. As always the wrong people are on the receiving end.

[Husar]

Zurich also had their problems at NYE as well but there is never an excuse to behave like that. But don't pretend as if it is a razzia of some sorts. It's something everybody could have seen comming, now that the attitude towards immigrants has changed after the mibehaviour particulary in Collogne there is going to be more of this. As always the wrong people are on the receiving end.

There were previously reports about nazi groups hunting people down and beating or even killing them. It is indeed not surprising that there is more of it now. But bowing to nazi demands and giving these thugs what they want cannot be a solution, I heard apeasement does not work anyway.

[Fragony]

There were previously reports about nazi groups hunting people down and beating or even killing them. It is indeed not surprising that there is more of it now. But bowing to nazi demands and giving these thugs what they want cannot be a solution, I heard apeasement does not work anyway.

Heard that as well. I don't disagree with you, such attacks must be stopped with all means possible imho. Not just because you just don't attack innocent people unless you are a psychopath, but also that I as a decent opposer of immigration don't want to be associated with such things. I fully understand that there is a major vica versa to that but I never spoke ill of nice behaving immigrants, these neo-nazi's are as welcome as the inquisition for violentless opposition to idiotic policy.

[Viking]

Of course it is increasing. It was increasing in China during one child policy. People live longer. When they live longer they put much greater burden state finances through pensions and health insurance. We can't kill them off early, so other actions are taken to balance the budget, both short and long term. Hence, immigration.

Except it may continue to grow well beyond 2100.

It will ruin state finances and cause social upheavals, conflicts and revolutions. Then it will pass. Other actions are taken in conjunction with it, like people having to work longer, which caused a massive unrest in France a few years back. It will take time and delicate touch and immigration is the only solution for the immediate future, like the next several decades. Even in the best case, it will be needed sporadically later.

France's problems are France's own. The ironic thing is that some of the worst riots in France were by non-Westeren immigrants.

This isn't Civilization. Growth is now based on various economic factors, not on ability to grow food locally. Food is cheap, transporting it is cheap and it is plentiful.

But, situations change. A few years ago, Syria was ok. Then there were drought that started an unrest, which turned into an upheaval which grew to open war. And suddenly a country can't support it's population, so a lot of join the various armed groups, some hunker down and hope for the best and some try to emigrate.

This is beside the point. There is an upper limit on resources that no amount of trade can circumvent. The greater the global population, the closer you are to this limit.

If you free up some space in a country, it is likely to indirectly encourage more reproduction, since conditions are less harsh now than they would have been if none had emigrated.

If people either did not or could not emigrate, the local population would reach the ceiling that it can not pass sooner. This would give a lower global population as well, since the populations of the other countries had already reached their maximum values, even without resource shortages. With the emigration from the surplus countries to the other countries, the populations in all countries can grow in parallel towards the global ceiling.

You're equating overall situation with situation in specific areas. Unemployment is on the rise in Norway, yet there is still not enough nurses.

We cannot expect that non-Western immigrants will have an ideal ratio of nurses among them (or even that their nurse education is immediately applicable here); which can in turn lead to a further increase in unemployment.

Possibly.

Let's not kid ourselves. Situations change. Economic prospects of areas change. People will follow those trends, and if the change is big enough or rapid enough, we will get in a situation like this again. It will be very hard and sometimes impossible to stop that.

So in other words, drastic changes in the ethnic composition of certain European countries is set to continue if non-Western immigrants keep getting accepted at current rates.

Really? I'd like to see numbers on that. How many muslims are there in Europe and how many have been involved in terrorist activities.

I'd rather turn the challenge around: how many perpetrators of Islamist terrorist attacks in Europe did not have European citizenship? Off the top of my head, I can only think of the Madrid train bombings as a possible example.

As for second generation immigrants becoming terrorists: as an example, 3 out of 4 of the suicide bombers of the 2005 London attacks were born in England:

• Mohammad Sidique Khan - born in Leeds
• Hasib Hussain - born in Leeds
• Shehzad Tanweer - born in Bradford

I am not aware of any third generation terrorists yet, but I suspect it is only a matter of time (if I haven't simply missed any such individuals).

Even if the store is not locked yet closed, you still aren't allowed to buy an ananas (i.e. you'd still be "punished"), your argument makes no sense.

No, I am not punished because there is not intent to harm me or anyone else. There is no punishment involved.

Then why not start with the most urgent ones?

This is urgent; it's going on right now.

weed out the undesirables?

In terms of keeping out the ones most likely to offend, it's not realistic. In terms of cultural clashes and segregation, it's not relevant.

[Fragony]

THE BRITISH AND UKRAINIANS CALL IT A SAFE COUNTRY AND SAY I MUST STAY!!!

Of nu use to be reasobable, exhibit number a ^

Nobody is shouting. Redicule, the last bastion of someone without real arguments.

poke poke lmao....wtf it doesn't work

Rare video of Merkel in her younger days http://bestofvine.org/v/83080/disney...-zero-patience

[Husar]

No, I am not punished because there is not intent to harm me or anyone else. There is no punishment involveed.

Yes, I'm glad you saw the other mistake yourself.

This is urgent; it's going on right now.

So is everything else.

In terms of keeping out the ones most likely to offend, it's not realistic. In terms of cultural clashes and segregation, it's not relevant.

If fighting criminals is not realistic, should we further cut police budgets? But throwing all muslims/middle easterners out of the country IS realistic instead? Please explain how segregation, crime and cultural clashes are not related.

[Husar]

Nobody is screaming. So normal.

Of nu use to be reasobable, exhibit number a ^

Nobody is shouting. Redicule, the last bastion of someone without real arguments.

poke poke lmao....wtf it doesn't work

First of all, why two replies to the same post?

I assume you desperately want an answer, so here it is:

I replied in the same way the question was asked, if that means I was shouting/screaming, than the other guy was shouting/screaming, too. So yes, somebody else was shouting, you're wrong.

[Pannonian]

Yes, I'm glad you saw the other mistake yourself.

So is everything else.

If fighting criminals is not realistic, should we further cut police budgets? But throwing all muslims/middle easterners out of the country IS realistic instead? Please explain how segregation, crime and cultural clashes are not related.

Keeping them out of the country is certainly realistic. All we have to do is maintain the status quo. It's you who are arguing to change that status quo.

[Fragony]

First of all, why two replies to the same post?

I assume you desperately want an answer, so here it is:

I replied in the same way the question was asked, if that means I was shouting/screaming, than the other guy was shouting/screaming, too. So yes, somebody else was shouting, you're wrong.

Ah foggetabouit, see it all the time. You have no arguments so you try to make those who disagree look hysterical. But those who do aren't shouting but being reasonable, a courtisy that's never rewarded with any courtisy, only hyperbole. It doesn't make me angry but it does dissapoint because no cliché is left behind.

[Viking]

Yes, I'm glad you saw the other mistake yourself.

?

So is everything else.

This takes us back to:

You can take the initiative to solve one security issue without simultaneously committing yourself to solve any security issue you can possibly think of ASAP.

The thing about this solution is that can be relatively simple to implement successfully (relative to how large the drop in unwanted behaviour would be, rather than the ability to keep every disallowed person out); which speaks for its prioritisation.

If fighting criminals is not realistic, should we further cut police budgets? But throwing all muslims/middle easterners out of the country IS realistic instead? Please explain how segregation, crime and cultural clashes are not related.

None of this was what we were talking about.

[Husar]

Keeping them out of the country is certainly realistic. All we have to do is maintain the status quo. It's you who are arguing to change that status quo.

If you mean keeping the refugees out of Britain, to a large extent it seems realistic unless we give them a lot of boats to swarm you with.
How should the Greeks and Italians go about it?

Ah foggetabouit, see it all the time. You have no arguments so you try to make those who disagree look hysterical. But those who do aren't shouting but being reasonable, a courtisy that's never rewarded with any courtisy, only hyperbole. It doesn't make me angry but it does dissapoint because no cliché is left behind.

You only reply with cryptic somethings, never an argument and even less often a link. Yet you keep accusing others of having no argument even though you are shown plenty. What are we arguing about anyway? In Beskar's thread it seemed like we agree and here you say I have no argument.

The thing about this solution is that can be relatively simple to implement successfully (relative to how large the drop in unwanted behaviour would be, rather than the ability to keep every disallowed person out); which speaks for its prioritisation.

How large would the drop in unwanted behavior be and how large would it be for other measures? And where do morals come into the equation? What would be the impact on Greece, Italy and surrounding countries? What the impact on those people stranded somewhere in the middle of winter? Would it be okay to let a few thousand people freeze to death because it's simple? What exactly are we talking about? Is this a what-if about us having kept the borders closed or are we talking about sending everybody who came back to somewhere else? And where to? What if the other country does not want them?

None of this was what we were talking about.

So it was the what-if after all? Okay, then, what should we have done and how nice would it be now then?

[Pannonian]

If you mean keeping the refugees out of Britain, to a large extent it seems realistic unless we give them a lot of boats to swarm you with.
How should the Greeks and Italians go about it?

Nice to see Germans once again wanting to impose their policies on others.

[Sarmatian]

Except it may continue to grow well beyond 2100.

Yes, it will continue to grow. That is the point. It will continue to grow because the population is living longer and subsequently gets older. Short of killing them at the age of 70, the only other option is to balance it by importing more youth.

France's problems are France's own. The ironic thing is that some of the worst riots in France were by non-Westeren immigrants.

If that is able to start mass protests, imagine what could happen after a more serious social upheaval.

This is beside the point. There is an upper limit on resources that no amount of trade can circumvent. The greater the global population, the closer you are to this limit.

If you free up some space in a country, it is likely to indirectly encourage more reproduction, since conditions are less harsh now than they would have been if none had emigrated.

If people either did not or could not emigrate, the local population would reach the ceiling that it can not pass sooner. This would give a lower global population as well, since the populations of the other countries had already reached their maximum values, even without resource shortages. With the emigration from the surplus countries to the other countries, the populations in all countries can grow in parallel towards the global ceiling.

This is so full of fail I don't know where to begin.

We're so far off a hypothetical global limit that it is absurd to even contemplate it.

In the next part you mix up economic conditions of an area and food production. I'm not going to bother responding.

We cannot expect that non-Western immigrants will have an ideal ratio of nurses among them (or even that their nurse education is immediately applicable here); which can in turn lead to a further increase in unemployment.

I never said it would be ideal. The point is that there are jobs refugees could do, some right away, some with a little training, some with more training. They wouldn't be a perpetual drain.

So in other words, drastic changes in the ethnic composition of certain European countries is set to continue if non-Western immigrants keep getting accepted at current rates.

The first part is correct. Ethnic composition has never been a static category. Just look at the ethnic composition of Europe 200 years ago, 500 years ago, a 1000 years and 2000 years ago.

It has nothing to do with refugees, though. It will happen, even if you never accept a single Muslim ever again.

I'd rather turn the challenge around: how many perpetrators of Islamist terrorist attacks in Europe did not have European citizenship? Off the top of my head, I can only think of the Madrid train bombings as a possible example.

As for second generation immigrants becoming terrorists: as an example, 3 out of 4 of the suicide bombers of the 2005 London attacks were born in England:

• Mohammad Sidique Khan - born in Leeds
• Hasib Hussain - born in Leeds
• Shehzad Tanweer - born in Bradford

I am not aware of any third generation terrorists yet, but I suspect it is only a matter of time (if I haven't simply missed any such individuals).

That is irrelevant and nonsensical. Let's say all of them, a 100%. Now you've got a result, what you're gonna do with it? Deduce that a 100% of Muslims in Europe are terrorist?

Congratulations, you're now a proud owner of a piece of information that is completely accurate and useless at the same time.

Man, Greyblades is starting to make more sense than you.

[Greyblades]

Man, Greyblades is starting to make more sense than you.

You ever heard of the saying: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"?

[Pannonian]

Yes, it will continue to grow. That is the point. It will continue to grow because the population is living longer and subsequently gets older. Short of killing them at the age of 70, the only other option is to balance it by importing more youth.

Why not import eastern Europeans instead? Why import middle easterners? It's not as though there is a shortage of eastern Europeans wanting to come here. And as you've noted, eastern Europeans hardly need to adapt, whereas middle easterners (and Maghrebians) have made a poor fist of adapting here to our satisfaction.

[Sarmatian]

Why not import eastern Europeans instead? Why import middle easterners? It's not as though there is a shortage of eastern Europeans wanting to come here. And as you've noted, eastern Europeans hardly need to adapt, whereas middle easterners (and Maghrebians) have made a poor fist of adapting here to our satisfaction.

For UK, it would be better, almost in every way. They would integrate faster, learn the language faster and so on. But it wouldn't solve the problem of Europe or even EU as a whole.

It makes UK (and Germany, France, Austria...) better but it makes the situation worse in Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Serbia... What happens in one part of Europe affects the other. Nothing illustrates it better than WW1, the latest example would be the Greek crisis.
Another issue is the fact that it is more likely that Eastern European countries would raise the standard of living before Europe as whole reaches equilibrium.
And, thirdly, globalisation - the difference between a Bulgarian and an Englishman would have been huge a 1000 years ago, smaller 500 years ago and basically nonexistent now, minus the language and religion. Take a British and a Bulgarian students now, they're very likely to be into similar music, similar sports, do similar things for fun, have similar problems, probably even have similar apps on their smartphone. My guess is that the differences would be smaller and smaller.

But, yes, for a country like UK, it would be a better short term solution. I don't think it is a valid long term solution. The better strategy would be the host country investing time and effort to make sure newcomers integrate, as the effort would certainly also help other groups in that country.

[Papewaio]

So we have bombed Syria because ISIS is too deadly.
The locals have run away from ISIS and a dictator to become asylum seekers.
ISIS attacks Paris killing 100.
So we are going to collectively punish the asylum seekers for the ISIS attacks.

Doesn't that seem slightly warped to punish the victim for the attackers success even against first world counter terrorist agencies.

Are we going to collectively punish the whole of Europe for losing 10,000 plus asylum seeker children?:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-0...l-says/7128558

"Over 10,000 unaccompanied asylum seeker children have disappeared in Europe, the EU police agency Europol says, fearing many have been whisked away into sex trafficking rings or the slave trade."

[Fragony]

@hussie, Beskar's thread is about mindless violence against immigrants, which I deeply disaprove. This one about the consequences of just letting everybody in. There is no inconsistancy

[Pannonian]

So we have bombed Syria because ISIS is too deadly.
The locals have run away from ISIS and a dictator to become asylum seekers.
ISIS attacks Paris killing 100.
So we are going to collectively punish the asylum seekers for the ISIS attacks.

Doesn't that seem slightly warped to punish the victim for the attackers success even against first world counter terrorist agencies.

Are we going to collectively punish the whole of Europe for losing 10,000 plus asylum seeker children?:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-0...l-says/7128558

"Over 10,000 unaccompanied asylum seeker children have disappeared in Europe, the EU police agency Europol says, fearing many have been whisked away into sex trafficking rings or the slave trade."

Hey, I'm consistent. I was against bombing Syria or taking part in any action there. Now I'm against letting in Syrians. I gave up on that region years ago, as everything we do and don't do is blamed on us. Let them do whatever they want, and let them bear the consequences for doing whatever they want. And as I predicted years ago, everything we've done or not done is blamed on us. At least let us continue to not do, and save money in the process. We'll get blamed either way anyway.

For UK, it would be better, almost in every way. They would integrate faster, learn the language faster and so on. But it wouldn't solve the problem of Europe or even EU as a whole.

It makes UK (and Germany, France, Austria...) better but it makes the situation worse in Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Serbia... What happens in one part of Europe affects the other. Nothing illustrates it better than WW1, the latest example would be the Greek crisis.
Another issue is the fact that it is more likely that Eastern European countries would raise the standard of living before Europe as whole reaches equilibrium.
And, thirdly, globalisation - the difference between a Bulgarian and an Englishman would have been huge a 1000 years ago, smaller 500 years ago and basically nonexistent now, minus the language and religion. Take a British and a Bulgarian students now, they're very likely to be into similar music, similar sports, do similar things for fun, have similar problems, probably even have similar apps on their smartphone. My guess is that the differences would be smaller and smaller.

But, yes, for a country like UK, it would be a better short term solution. I don't think it is a valid long term solution. The better strategy would be the host country investing time and effort to make sure newcomers integrate, as the effort would certainly also help other groups in that country.

Sounds good to me. If the individual countries want to do their bit, let them do so. But they have no right to impose their policies on other countries.