IMMIGRATION thread

Originally Posted by Husar:
How do you determine where to ship them to? And again, what if that country claims they cannot be returned because they are not citizens of that country? What if they come from the caliphate? Ship them to the caliphate?

They come by way of Turkey, so ship'em back there. And even better if landing is prevented. The coastal waters must be patrolled and whenever a boat with immigrants reaches Greece's waters the patrols should check permits for crossing the border, and if there are no - tow them back.

Happy Grounhog Day, Germany:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ch-subway.html

Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
Happy Grounhog Day, Germany:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ch-subway.html

Ethnic Germans and what appear to be North Africans in a physical altercation with a guy in a brown jacket (who appears to be Iranian or South Asian), another North African (Gray Jacket) arguing with and slapping the hand of one of the North Africans (Blue Jacket/Grey Hat) who was standing by, then that man (Grey Hat) and one more North African (Blue Jacket/No Hat), who had participated in subduing Brown Jacket, motioning and pointing at the cameraman or something behind him.

I'm not confident about the identifications of "North African", but the central focus of the video - the man in the brown jacket - is definitely of Iranian/South Asian extraction.

Seems like a lot going on in that video, actually.

Originally Posted by Montmorency:
Ethnic Germans and what appear to be North Africans in a physical altercation with a guy in a brown jacket (who appears to be Iranian or South Asian), another North African (Gray Jacket) arguing with and slapping the hand of one of the North Africans (Blue Jacket/Grey Hat) who was standing by, then that man (Grey Hat) and one more North African (Blue Jacket/No Hat), who had participated in subduing Brown Jacket, motioning and pointing at the cameraman or something behind him.

I'm not confident about the identifications of "North African", but the central focus of the video - the man in the brown jacket - is definitely of Iranian/South Asian extraction.

Seems like a lot going on in that video, actually.

The man with a blue jacket and no hat would appear to actually be part of the gang, possible a more cool-headed person who realises that whatever is going to happen will be better for everyone involved if the situation is de-escalated. Do note that he always attempts to prevent anyone else from "helping" as they take care of their hotblooded friend. I suppose on the lighter side of things we simply saw a case of sexual harassment and assault, as opposed to the Cologne events. And I'd agree that most of them certainly don't hail from Africa, not that it matters too much where they come from.

Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
Happy Grounhog Day, Germany:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ch-subway.html

The racist elderly germans should be prosecuted for racism and publicly shamed via media. They are also neo-nazis. Tomorrow's news: Nazism on the rise in Germany!

Originally Posted by Myth:
The racist elderly germans should be prosecuted for racism and publicly shamed via media. They are also neo-nazis. Tomorrow's news: Nazism on the rise in Germany!

That's yesterday's news already, you're late to the party.

Originally Posted by Papewaio:
Ever since I was a kid watching the NEWS the Middle East has had conflict.

Lebanon was once called the Paris of the ME. How many decades always is that from regaining its title?

What's your best guess when it will be stable?

Mine is multi-generational. Anyone leaving as a refugee is going to be like the Irish going to the U.S., highly unlikely of going back (a few did).

Not really OT but I got a really good photobook of that war, can post them later if I ever figure how that piece of shit that is an iPhone works.

Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
Even with continued immigration, population of Europe is getting old, really old, really fast.

http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content...-max-roser.png

And yet, the population here can only grow past the year 2100 because of continued immigration.

As per the source I provided earlier (graph), the population here could start declining as early as before the year 2060 if there will be little immigration.

Originally Posted by :
It pretty much does. It is safe to assume to that other countries in app. the same economic, social and cultural situation will experience similar issues.

Even if they prove more resilient, the domino effect is a *****.



Yeah, no.

Time will be the judge.

Originally Posted by :
There's no chance of that happening anytime soon.

And that's where we want to stay. Rapid, temporary climatic changes like the ones caused by massive volcanic eruptions could make the margins a lot tighter in a short amount of time.

As a separate argument: in times when few or no countries are willing to export, it's a big deal to be self-sufficient.

Originally Posted by :
You've started from a premise that the planet is at the very end of its ability to produce enough food

No.

Originally Posted by :
New York doesn't produce enough food to feed itself, Las Vegas isn't producing enough food to feed itself. You are also looking at examples in isolation, when the system is global.

This does not relate to what I've said. The world is neither perfectly global nor perfectly local.

Originally Posted by :
By applying enough effort and resources, it can be assured that the bad effect are limited. They're used to low paying jobs, low paying jobs by western standards are miles ahead of what they used to get. They desire stability and safety.

Similar things can be said about measures to cope with an aging population without immigration.

Originally Posted by :
That is because you assume that you and a Viking are one and the same.

No, if you have near 90%+ of an ethnicity in a country in the year 1100, and the direct descendants of this ethnicity still forms 90%+ of the population several centuries later, the ethnic composition is the same.

The evolution of the norms and culture of one ethnic group is not the same as a massive influx of people from another ethnic group.

Originally Posted by :
It is nonsensical, because it doesn't give us an estimate of how dangerous Muslims are, which is the whole point of this particular argument. If there is a 100 million Muslims in Europe and ten terrorist attacks committed by Muslims, the percentage is 100%. If there's 10 Muslims in Europe and 10 terrorist attacks, the percentage is again a 100%.

The point is not "how dangerous Muslims are", but which Muslim populations give rise to the terrorists operating in Europe. Your argument was the following:

Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
- It deprives terrorist organizations and militant, radical groups from a large number of able bodied males, and impacts their manpower negatively. Makes it easier to defeat them eventually, and lowers the possibility of conflict expanding to other areas of the middle east, thus improving long term safety of Europe as a whole.

whereas actual evidence points towards the existence of Muslim populations in Europe being a much greater threat to European security than terrorist entities operating in the Middle East.

Originally Posted by :
whereas actual evidence points towards the existence of Muslim populations in Europe being a much greater threat to European security than terrorist entities operating in the Middle East.

This will necessarily be true even in the best-case scenarios of integration; the "threat" posed by terrorism is basically negligible. The whole efficacy of terrorism comes from low-cost external actors generating internal anxiety and disruption. So those on the side of accepting/retaining large numbers of migrants and refugees are correct in the sense that one of the objectives is to induce a nativist reaction against Muslims leading to further Muslim alienation in Europe, and potential unity against Europe in the core Muslim world. At the same time, this very fact of the matter depends on the existence of significant Muslim communities for terrorists to use as leverage. The pro-retention group must admit that their technical accuracy has the flipside of vindicating important concerns of those in opposition.

This is unless the pro-retention group can somehow guarantee that future attacks will be patiently met with a turned cheek (leaving aside other factors that could contribute to integration or alienation-towards-Islamism among Muslims), but it would be naive to imagine that this could be accomplished in the future given the current bitter impasse between them and those screaming "remove kebab" and the trends that have fed it. Yet another paradox that many leftists have stumbled into.

This post isn't even to advocate for any particular course of policy action, but to make it clear what the stakes are and what those favoring naturalization have to deal with for their position to have relevance or staying power. Again, to be clear this is all said with respect to the very specific claim that rejecting the refugees to this or that extent would further some of the same Islamic terrorist goals as anti-retentionists would like to counter by limiting the intake of Muslims.

It is a sort of Gordian knot for all involved, and the dangerous thing about difficult knots is that they incline towards being solved by the most straightforward means, similar to the idea that "the blade itself incites to violence".

Originally Posted by Montmorency:
This will necessarily be true even in the best-case scenarios of integration; the "threat" posed by terrorism is basically negligible. The whole efficacy of terrorism comes from low-cost external actors generating internal anxiety and disruption. So those on the side of accepting/retaining large numbers of migrants and refugees are correct in the sense that one of the objectives is to induce a nativist reaction against Muslims leading to further Muslim alienation in Europe, and potential unity against Europe in the core Muslim world. At the same time, this very fact of the matter depends on the existence of significant Muslim communities for terrorists to use as leverage. The pro-retention group must admit that their technical accuracy has the flipside of vindicating important concerns of those in opposition.

This is unless the pro-retention group can somehow guarantee that future attacks will be patiently met with a turned cheek (leaving aside other factors that could contribute to integration or alienation-towards-Islamism among Muslims), but it would be naive to imagine that this could be accomplished in the future given the current bitter impasse between them and those screaming "remove kebab" and the trends that have fed it. Yet another paradox that many leftists have stumbled into.

This post isn't even to advocate for any particular course of policy action, but to make it clear what the stakes are and what those favoring naturalization have to deal with for their position to have relevance or staying power. Again, to be clear this is all said with respect to the very specific claim that rejecting the refugees to this or that extent would further some of the same Islamic terrorist goals as anti-retentionists would like to counter by limiting the intake of Muslims.

It is a sort of Gordian knot for all involved, and the dangerous thing about difficult knots is that they incline towards being solved by the most straightforward means, similar to the idea that "the blade itself incites to violence".

The 7/7 attacks were met with what's practically a turned cheek towards UK Muslims. What's the result been since? 700+ UK Muslims gone off to join ISIS. Tell me what kind of persecution we've perpetuated that's prompted that many (more than have joined the British Army) to join a foreign state that's openly declared war and other hostile activities on Britain.

The Muslim exodus to ISIS was the last straw. While I don't want any action on existing UK Muslims, other than those who openly support ISIS and their like, nor do I want any more here.

Look at the silver lighning, those who go there are going to die there. Just make sure they can't come back.I don't think anybody wants IS to be annihilated, it would be pretty easy to do that. When it comes to concentrating something IS is pretty convenient.

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit:
She was born and raised in Sweden and spoke Swedish, fully integrated into society, even graduating from a uni.
What does it take for you to view someone with roots in immigration to be viewed as Swedish?

A minimum of one parent born in Sweden, with Swedish Citizenship, at least 25% Swedish blood, a Swedish name and an ancestry in Sweden stretching back to the pre-Christian period.

Then she can be considered Swedish.

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
A minimum of one parent born in Sweden, with Swedish Citizenship, at least 25% Swedish blood, a Swedish name and an ancestry in Sweden stretching back to the pre-Christian period.

Then she can be considered Swedish.

The TW take on tribal identity over time.

Originally Posted by Montmorency:
The TW take on tribal identity over time.

That might be the punchline.

ISIS is the reason why they're fleeing to Europe. As long as ISIS is still there, there'll continue to be more refugees.

Originally Posted by Viking:
And yet, the population here can only grow past the year 2100 because of continued immigration.

As per the source I provided earlier (graph), the population here could start declining as early as before the year 2060 if there will be little immigration.

Read the link you provided. Even with immigration, the population of Norway will get old. Every fifth person will be over 70 in 2060 in Norway (19% compared to 11% now).
Number of people between 80 and 90 will double (3.4% to 7%)
Number of people over 90 will triple (0.8% t0 2.5%)

Originally Posted by :
And that's where we want to stay. Rapid, temporary climatic changes like the ones caused by massive volcanic eruptions could make the margins a lot tighter in a short amount of time.

And those will or won't happen irrespective of refugees.

Originally Posted by :
As a separate argument: in times when few or no countries are willing to export, it's a big deal to be self-sufficient.

Which is way most western countries subsidize agriculture, even though could import a lot of food supplies cheaper.

Originally Posted by :
This does not relate to what I've said. The world is neither perfectly global nor perfectly local.

And what you said doesn't relate to the topic.

Originally Posted by :
Similar things can be said about measures to cope with an aging population without immigration.

No, because with active measures countries could reduce poverty and raise education levels, for general population as well as immigrants, while there's no way to magically make citizens younger.

Originally Posted by :
No, if you have near 90%+ of an ethnicity in a country in the year 1100, and the direct descendants of this ethnicity still forms 90%+ of the population several centuries later, the ethnic composition is the same.

The evolution of the norms and culture of one ethnic group is not the same as a massive influx of people from another ethnic group.

Even if we accept this as true, the only place in Europe where it is true is Scandinavia.

Originally Posted by :
The point is not "how dangerous Muslims are", but which Muslim populations give rise to the terrorists operating in Europe. Your argument was the following:

whereas actual evidence points towards the existence of Muslim populations in Europe being a much greater threat to European security than terrorist entities operating in the Middle East.

Apparently, the principal goal of the terrorist organizations is to get those Muslims to the Middle East so they could be radicalized, trained and redirected. So, them being the Middle East is instrumental.

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit:
He spoke Somali very well according to the translator. But yes he is definitely not 15, the system just incentivizes him to lie about his age

Can only say what he said, he insists that it is a black arab from northen-africa. I believe him because Somali look very different. Mate is not stupid he is fluent is six languages.

Originally Posted by Husar:
Inconsistencies in your heart my friend. You want to help people in need because you have a good heart and at the same time you would rather keep them all in poverty and squalor outside the walls of Babylon.

Glad to see that you understand that I am not an unkind person. But we don't need a Babylonian tower either.

Originally Posted by Fragony:
Can only say what he said, he insists that it is a black arab from northen-africa. I believe him because Somali look very different. Mate is not stupid he is fluent is six languages.

Not only that, but he has the ability to discern nationalities based on pictures. He's a freakin' prodigy.

Originally Posted by Fragony:
Can only say what he said, he insists that it is a black arab from northen-africa. I believe him because Somali look very different. Mate is not stupid he is fluent is six languages.

I think I'll take the view of the court interpretator before your friends analysis of a picture though.

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
A minimum of one parent born in Sweden, with Swedish Citizenship, at least 25% Swedish blood, a Swedish name and an ancestry in Sweden stretching back to the pre-Christian period.

Then she can be considered Swedish.

Wow. That is a very... Race driven method. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find support for such a restriction in any of our political parties. Going by blood ties back a millennia, sheesh. I do hope you know that the state of Sweden did not functionally exist during the pre-Christian period?

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit:
I think I'll take the view of the court interpretator before your friends analysis of a picture though

Of course so do I. He is rather defensive about his people upto the unreasonable, he will excuse anything. Not a bad guy, goes to church every sunday, really polite, but nothing can be the fault of Somali's for him, always someone else. But I can see that that guy is not 15 at least, that I am sure of, his identity is faked.

Originally Posted by Fragony:
Of course so do I. He is rather defensive about his people upto the unreasonable, he will excuse anything. Not a bad guy, goes to church every sunday, really polite, but nothing can be the fault of Somali's for him, always someone else. But I can see that that guy is not 15 at least, that I am sure of, his identity is faked.

He does not have an identity. The court documents clearly state that he has not proven his identity in Sweden. Of course group-think can lead to defensiveness up to the point of outright denial, I can certainly see why someone would want to distance themself from this "child".

Originally Posted by Montmorency:

This is unless the pro-retention group can somehow guarantee that future attacks will be patiently met with a turned cheek (leaving aside other factors that could contribute to integration or alienation-towards-Islamism among Muslims), but it would be naive to imagine that this could be accomplished in the future given the current bitter impasse between them and those screaming "remove kebab" and the trends that have fed it. Yet another paradox that many leftists have stumbled into.

Man, Europe is not only ready for another cheek, it actually is ready to swallow its values and principles to please a moneybag offering a nice contract.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6834836.html

Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
Not only that, but he has the ability to discern nationalities based on pictures. He's a freakin' prodigy.

Admit he is a peg better than you. You can discern nationalities only face to face with the people. Jealous?

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit:
He does not have an identity. The court documents clearly state that he has not proven his identity in Sweden. Of course group-think can lead to defensiveness up to the point of outright denial, I can certainly see why someone would want to distance themself from this "child".

I understand that. It's kinda tragic he wears his Dutch pasport as a batch. People who think the Netherlands is an open-minded society are deeply mistaken, he will never be one of 'us' no matter how hard he tries. It's even in our language, autochtoon (native Dutch) and allochtoon (not white, exception for people from former colonies)

Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
Read the link you provided. Even with immigration, the population of Norway will get old. Every fifth person will be over 70 in 2060 in Norway (19% compared to 11% now).
Number of people between 80 and 90 will double (3.4% to 7%)
Number of people over 90 will triple (0.8% t0 2.5%)

Yeah, but that is unavoidable; unless you expect other countries to provide you with a stream of young people for the rest of the world's existence. As things are now, only countries with low life expectancy can expect to avoid this fate in the long run. In the scenario that all countries end up similarly wealthy, there may no be countries with young people to export.

Originally Posted by :
And those will or won't happen irrespective of refugees.

Duh.

Originally Posted by :
And what you said doesn't relate to the topic.

I don't see this sub-debate going anywhere any time soon.

Originally Posted by :
No, because with active measures countries could reduce poverty and raise education levels, for general population as well as immigrants, while there's no way to magically make citizens younger.

Which is to say that any solution does not involve making citizens younger (although it is highly likely that aging can be both halted and reversed at some point in the future), but would rely on things like technology and new ways to arrange society (reforms).

Originally Posted by :
Even if we accept this as true, the only place in Europe where it is true is Scandinavia.

Which also happens/happened to consistently be one of the most peaceful places in Europe.

Originally Posted by :
Apparently, the principal goal of the terrorist organizations is to get those Muslims to the Middle East so they could be radicalized, trained and redirected. So, them being the Middle East is instrumental.

Even if we say that terrorist entities abroad are a vital part of the radicalisation, they are only an issue because there exists a Muslim population in Europe in the first place. The larger this population is, there more people might travel to whatever areas the terrorist entities are active within; and these areas don't have to be very large before they are capable of contributing to such radicalisation (and attempts at destroying such terrorist nests can also increase local radicalisation..).

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit:
Wow. That is a very... Race driven method. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find support for such a restriction in any of our political parties. Going by blood ties back a millennia, sheesh. I do hope you know that the state of Sweden did not functionally exist during the pre-Christian period?

PFH was joking. The ultimate clue can be seen in the pre-Christian Sweden part.

Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
Man, Europe is not only ready for another cheek, it actually is ready to swallow its values and principles to please a moneybag offering a nice contract.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6834836.html

It's the papacy who decided to do that, not the Italian government. I think it's rediculous but they own the place

Originally Posted by Fragony:
I understand that. It's kinda tragic he wears his Dutch pasport as a batch. People who think the Netherlands is an open-minded society are deeply mistaken, he will never be one of 'us' no matter how hard he tries. It's even in our language, autochtoon (native Dutch) and allochtoon (not white, exception for people from former colonies)

That is a bit sad frankly. What about his kids? What if he had kids with an autochtoon? I'm surprised that Netherlands has not moved on from their colonial history in their language.

Originally Posted by Pannonian:
PFH was joking. The ultimate clue can be seen in the pre-Christian Sweden part.

Smiley faces are conducive to making sure jokes are understood as such. And given his views in other threads I don't see why that post can't be taken at face value. Certainly there are people who think like that.

Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
Man, Europe is not only ready for another cheek, it actually is ready to swallow its values and principles to please a moneybag offering a nice contract.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6834836.html

Europe is a big place. In France the state visit was cancelled as the French refused to not serve wine at the lunch, and a breakfast was seen as too small.