IMMIGRATION thread

[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.