IMMIGRATION thread

[Gilrandir]

Where did they come from?

Doesn't matter. Wherever it is - just ship'em back.

[Viking]

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?



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

Part of the reason so many travel to Europe is that they know they might get accepted here. They could have travelled to China or Kazakhstan, but they won't - because they don't expect to be accepted there. Once people are not let into Europe, fewer will come, because it is likely to be a waste of time, anyway.

They don't necessarily have to be sent back (which would rely on the goodwill or agreement with destination countries), we could just place them in closed interment camps that are only marginally better than the ones in e.g. Lebanon. This, too, would reduce the desire to travel to Europe.

This could be a one-time investment with significant pay-off; unlike a lot of other things you might do in order to decrease the amount of anti-social behaviour.

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.

It would continue to grow because of continued immigration. The largest post-WWII cohorts are expected die off well before the year 2100.

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

Again, that's France. Upheaval in France is a result of how that country is governed, and does not have to translate directly to other countries.

Generally speaking, most social upheaval tends to come from the younger generations, not the older ones. With a decreasing younger fraction of the population, the country could just as well become more stable.

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

Disagree.

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

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.

But a lot of them may end up unemployed or in low-paying jobs, potentially creating a new underclass of people along ethnic lines (which does not bode well for stability, cf. above).

It has nothing to do with refugees, though.

Given enough refugees, it will.

It will happen, even if you never accept a single Muslim ever again.

Not necessarily. Many places in Europe has had a near-static ethnic composition for more than a thousand years.

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.

This relates directly to your claim that it is safer for Europe (in terms of terrorism) to accept a large amount of migrants from Muslim countries rather than letting them stay there.

This claim appears to be directly odds with the ratio of Islamist terrorists with European citizenship to those without. The attacks are coming from within, not outside countries.

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

Stay classy.

[Beskar]

...we could just place them in closed interment camps...

Do people not realise that 'immigrants' are actually people?

[Montmorency]

Doesn't matter. Wherever it is - just ship'em back.

And yet one of the oft-cited dilemmas regarding the admission of refugees is that 'we don't know where they are coming from'.

Once again, the most reasonable solution seems to be the colonization of Neo-Prussia.

Generally speaking, most social upheaval tends to come from the younger generations, not the older ones. With a decreasing younger fraction of the population, the country could just as well become more stable.

Another disconnected generalization without regard for causality. Generally speaking, the old have been far too infirm and far too few in number to even constitute a distinct demographic in the first place.

If you want anecdotes, look to the readiness of "senior citizens" to march and gather in protest in the United States and Japan on conservative planks and for self-advocacy.

Do people not realise that 'immigrants' are actually people?

If we are prepared to embark on a full program of integration, then let us do so - swiftly, much more so than now. If we are holding most asylum seekers temporarily, then closed internment camps are the most effective and humane way of both accounting for the population and providing for/ensuring access to vital goods and services. The quality of conditions under internment obviously depends on funding levels and protocol and oversight in place; we must recognize the difference between conditionally (i.e. 'don't run off') housing asylum seekers in facilities well-provided with heating, food, water, medicine, books, and communications equipment and any of the abusive examples readily citable from modern history.

[Fragony]

Do people not realise that 'immigrants' are actually people?

Of course, but you would expect refugees to give a sigh of relief the second they are in a country where they are safe, and can't wait to return to their homes once it's safe to do so. I would put these brackets on refugees, like this; 'refugees'

[Pannonian]

Of course, but you would expect refugees to give a sigh of relief the second they are in a country where they are safe, and can't wait to return to their homes once it's safe to do so. I would put these brackets on refugees, like this; 'refugees'

Look after the women and children as though they are natives. Train the men as an army, under European officers, to fight ISIS. If we can't trust them with heavy weapons, then train them as light infantry with European forces providing heavy lifting. Those who aren't suitable for fighting as front line infantry can work in the logistical tail instead. Those who won't work towards this should be interned until such a time as they can be deported back to Syria. Those who distinguish themselves can be offered EU citizenship, distributed between the EU countries.

[Montmorency]

Look after the women and children as though they are natives. Train the men as an army, under European officers, to fight ISIS. If we can't trust them with heavy weapons, then train them as light infantry with European forces providing heavy lifting. Those who aren't suitable for fighting as front line infantry can work in the logistical tail instead. Those who won't work towards this should be interned until such a time as they can be deported back to Syria. Those who distinguish themselves can be offered EU citizenship, distributed between the EU countries.

Or just form an Arabische Legion to counter Putin.

And annex Neo-Prussia with it.

[Pannonian]

Or just form an Arabische Legion to counter Putin.

And annex Neo-Prussia with it.

If they want to sign up for longer, feel free. If they distinguish themselves like the Gurkhas do with the British Army, I'd welcome them. I'd put other indeterminate Muslims from the Maghrebi countries in the same boat. They can earn EU citizenship by providing something that we're short of, and doing something that concretely demonstrates their commitment to the EU. If they don't want to do that, they can be interned as threats to national security until such a time as we can find a place for them elsewhere. Women and children (and they'd have to be bloody obviously children to qualify as such) can be dealt with as though they are natives.

[Papewaio]

Of course, but you would expect refugees to give a sigh of relief the second they are in a country where they are safe, and can't wait to return to their homes once it's safe to do so. I would put these brackets on refugees, like this; 'refugees'

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).

[Pannonian]

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).

Fortunately, there aren't many of them, so whatever country they end up in can deal with them with ease.

[Fragony]

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.

[Viking]

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.

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.

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.

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

No.

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.

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.

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.

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:

- 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.

[Sarmatian]

It would continue to grow because of continued immigration. The largest post-WWII cohorts are expected die off well before the year 2100.

No.

Even with continued immigration, population of Europe is getting old, really old, really fast.

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

Again, that's France. Upheaval in France is a result of how that country is governed, and does not have to translate directly to other countries.

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 *****.

Generally speaking, most social upheaval tends to come from the younger generations, not the older ones. With a decreasing younger fraction of the population, the country could just as well become more stable.

Yeah, no.

Disagree.

Based on?

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.YLD.CREL.KG

This is cereal yield data by world bank. I don't know how familiar you are with soil quality of some of the countries, but let me tell you that the soil in Ukraine is probably even better than in Netherlands but the the yield in Netherlands is over twice that of Ukraine.

Very, very few countries in the world are getting maximal possible yields. Very few countries are using a 100% of their potential. Or literally creating new areas for food production by draining swamps, for instance. Just by applying the latest standards in the entire world, you would be able to increase the yield several times over.

That is not even taking into account the improvements new technologies have yet to bring. In the 18th century, calculations were made that the world would be hungry in the 19th century. There's no chance of that happening anytime soon.

You're not able to differentiate between a general economic situation in a given area and the ability of an area to produce food. 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.

You've started from a premise that the planet is at the very end of its ability to produce enough food, which is wrong, Then, you applied a faulty reasoning and reached a conclusion.

Thus, you're approaching "not even wrong" status fast, but at the moment you're at "no use explaining it further" category.

But a lot of them may end up unemployed or in low-paying jobs, potentially creating a new underclass of people along ethnic lines (which does not bode well for stability, cf. above).

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.

Not necessarily. Many places in Europe has had a near-static ethnic composition for more than a thousand years.

That is because you assume that you and a Viking are one and the same.

This relates directly to your claim that it is safer for Europe (in terms of terrorism) to accept a large amount of migrants from Muslim countries rather than letting them stay there.

This claim appears to be directly odds with the ratio of Islamist terrorists with European citizenship to those without. The attacks are coming from within, not outside countries.

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%.

This is rational thinking 101.

Stay classy.

You assume I care how I'm being perceived.

[Husar]

Doesn't matter. Wherever it is - just ship'em back.

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?

Many places in Europe has had a near-static ethnic composition for more than a thousand years.

So did many places in America, people tend to get over it (or are allowed to live in reservations).

This claim appears to be directly odds with the ratio of Islamist terrorists with European citizenship to those without. The attacks are coming from within, not outside countries.

Then why are outside people supposedly the problem?

Look after the women and children as though they are natives. Train the men as an army, under European officers, to fight ISIS. If we can't trust them with heavy weapons, then train them as light infantry with European forces providing heavy lifting. Those who aren't suitable for fighting as front line infantry can work in the logistical tail instead. Those who won't work towards this should be interned until such a time as they can be deported back to Syria. Those who distinguish themselves can be offered EU citizenship, distributed between the EU countries.

A lot of them are apparently fleeing from potential army service or from getting recruited by terrorist organizations, what should they do? Stay there and join the terrorists because they have to fight anyway?

On the one hand we claim they're all way too violent for our culture and then we suggest to turn the peaceful ones into killers?

[Pannonian]

A lot of them are apparently fleeing from potential army service or from getting recruited by terrorist organizations, what should they do? Stay there and join the terrorists because they have to fight anyway?

On the one hand we claim they're all way too violent for our culture and then we suggest to turn the peaceful ones into killers?

Look after the women and children as though they are natives. Train the men as an army, under European officers, to fight ISIS. If we can't trust them with heavy weapons, then train them as light infantry with European forces providing heavy lifting. Those who aren't suitable for fighting as front line infantry can work in the logistical tail instead. Those who won't work towards this should be interned until such a time as they can be deported back to Syria. Those who distinguish themselves can be offered EU citizenship, distributed between the EU countries.

Modern armies have long tails, along the ratio of 9 in the rear to 1 at the front (from what I can remember of WWII numbers). If they're unwilling to be killers in the service of the EU, there is that route, although I'd disqualify them from any chance of qualifying for EU citizenship. That is still working towards their own liberation, within an EU project. If they're unwilling to do even that, then why should we provide them with any succour? As seen in the current situation, if EU countries lack teeth, there is no incentive to do what they request. People who have no permission to be here, and where we don't have a stable state to deal with, will do whatever they want.

[Husar]

Modern armies have long tails, along the ratio of 9 in the rear to 1 at the front (from what I can remember of WWII numbers). If they're unwilling to be killers in the service of the EU, there is that route, although I'd disqualify them from any chance of qualifying for EU citizenship. That is still working towards their own liberation, within an EU project. If they're unwilling to do even that, then why should we provide them with any succour? As seen in the current situation, if EU countries lack teeth, there is no incentive to do what they request. People who have no permission to be here, and where we don't have a stable state to deal with, will do whatever they want.

So we're just saying that all of them will be criminals if we do not indoctrinate them and let everyone from an unstable nation fight against ISIS even if they're not from that area? Or will there be an army for each country that is unstable and has refugees arriving here?

[Pannonian]

So we're just saying that all of them will be criminals if we do not indoctrinate them and let everyone from an unstable nation fight against ISIS even if they're not from that area? Or will there be an army for each country that is unstable and has refugees arriving here?

This is what I'm talking about when I refer to bleeding heart liberals and the ingrainment of liberal values in our society. The latter is good, within reason. But not when it's done by the former, who lay the blame for everything on the majority culture, and who will excuse each and every infringement by the minority, using legalistic arguments to fuzz what should be abundantly clear to anyone who takes a step back to see the whole picture.

And here is the invocation of liberal values by bleeding heart liberals that I was talking about. Nothing about how to solve the problem of hundreds of thousands of people who have already proven to be problematic socially and more immediately a shield for terrorists, but instead, all the effort is aimed at putting the blame on the host countries. Disguised, of course, as a complete misconstruing of what anyone says that doesn't fit the narrative of the west is bad.

Oh well, the Syrians are in Germany and elsewhere on the mainland, not in Britain. Britain is better able than most to control its borders unilaterally, so if you don't want to use them thus, you can deal with them in whatever way you want. As long as we're not taking them. I won't shed a tear if they decide to stay in Germany indefinitely, because the likes of yourself are uncomfortable with making them go back.

[Husar]

And here is the invocation of liberal values by bleeding heart liberals that I was talking about. Nothing about how to solve the problem of hundreds of thousands of people who have already proven to be problematic socially and more immediately a shield for terrorists, but instead, all the effort is aimed at putting the blame on the host countries. Disguised, of course, as a complete misconstruing of what anyone says that doesn't fit the narrative of the west is bad.

What? Where are these hundreds of thousands of people and how have they proven to be problematic? Is it already problematic to be a muslim or wear a headscarf? And you're also miscontruing what I said, I wasn't asking you to blame us, I was saying we may have to be blamed IF we implement what you suggest because I see some problems with your suggestion. Instead of having a serious discussion about possible problems you cry that I want you to hate yourself, which is complete nonsense.

[Pannonian]

What? Where are these hundreds of thousands of people and how have they proven to be problematic? Is it already problematic to be a muslim or wear a headscarf? And you're also miscontruing what I said, I wasn't asking you to blame us, I was saying we may have to be blamed IF we implement what you suggest because I see some problems with your suggestion. Instead of having a serious discussion about possible problems you cry that I want you to hate yourself, which is complete nonsense.

Mea culpa then. Let the status quo continue indefinitely, to our satisfaction.

[Snowhobbit]

So we're just saying that all of them will be criminals if we do not indoctrinate them and let everyone from an unstable nation fight against ISIS even if they're not from that area? Or will there be an army for each country that is unstable and has refugees arriving here?

I think that particular argument hinges on the fallacy that most of the "refugees" are from Syria. Quite a few from Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia arrived in Germany last year :D

[Gilrandir]

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.

[Gilrandir]

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

[Viking]

Do people not realise that 'immigrants' are actually people?

Criminals are people, too; yet we lock them up in prisons for years. It's not a 'realisation' that is particularly relevant in this context.

Another disconnected generalization without regard for causality. Generally speaking, the old have been far too infirm and far too few in number to even constitute a distinct demographic in the first place.

If you want anecdotes, look to the readiness of "senior citizens" to march and gather in protest in the United States and Japan on conservative planks and for self-advocacy.

I'd also add that the young may be more impulsive, and that they presumably have more hormones raging in their blood.

[Beskar]

Criminals are people, too; yet we lock them up in prisons for years. It's not a 'realisation' that is particularly relevant in this context.

Justice system works on a principle of reforming offenders and separating those who are proven dangerous to society from society.

It is not about locking people up just because they are from a different country.

[Viking]

Justice system works on a principle of reforming offenders and separating those who are proven dangerous to society from society.

It is not about locking people up just because they are from a different country.

No one would be locked up for being from a different country. The rationale for the internment camps has already been provided.

[Beskar]

No one would be locked up for being from a different country. The rationale for the internment camps has already been provided.

Been provided a few times in history, I don't agree with your solution to the refugee problem.

[Pannonian]

Been provided a few times in history, I don't agree with your solution to the refugee problem.

There aren't any refugees, and there certainly isn't a refugee problem. Husar says so. We can just carry on as normal.