IMMIGRATION thread

[Sarmatian]

You seek to fudge a line where the line is bloody clear for Islamists. Britain doesn't ask much of its people to be considered satisfactorily British. There is quite some degree of latitude in political disagreement that the identity allow. What Islamists do is distance themselves as much from this identity as they can. There are those who actively fight against Britain. In previous times, they would have been hanged or shot for treason. Then there are those who cheer them on. In previous times they would have been interned as a threat to the country's security.

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.

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.

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.

As a marker of how distinct the line is that Sarmatian is trying to legalistically fuzz, ISIS told a son to execute his own mother for urging him to leave the state. Anyone who supports such a state is in no way satisfactorily British, no matter how anyone tries to fudge the line and equate them with us.

And this is SO not my point.

The migrants/ageing argument is essentially that newcomers will help the existing younger generation pay for the pensions of older generations. The problem is that refugees, in general, tend to have very poor employment rates even years or decades after they first arrived in the host country. This might be due to lax integration policies in the past though, that are still influencing today's figures.

^ there goes first one, adieu

there was a second on your list Sarmatarian. And many more

That is not a debunk, that is an arbitrarily and subjectively made conclusion without any numbers to support it, and without taking into consideration how much of an effect they have, even if their employment rates are lower than employment rates of host country youth.

That was for Krazilec.

For Frags - Make an effort, dude. You're not a child, don't hide behind other people. I want to see you debunking it.

We are not punishing anyone by not letting them in; it would be a security measure. When stores are locked for the night, it's not to punish the population collectively for theft because some people are likely to take goods with them without leaving money behind; it is a security measure.

Blimey, it feels like I'm playing a simul here.

Thing is, the population is still increasing in many European countries, including this one (when I was younger, I remembered the figure as 4.5). Without immigration, we would be closer to stagnation here.

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.

It will come and pass. If you import a lot of young people to fix it, you'll have a new wave of elderly people down the line.

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.

If there weren't enough resources, these countries wouldn't have a growing population in the first place - they'd all starve to death.

It's like if you have two islands with one population each of deers. One population has 0 net growth, while the other has a strong growth. The growth of the second population could have gone on until there became too many of them, and there was not enough food to sustain more growth. Alternatively, we could continuously move some of the surplus of the second population to the island of the first, and gradually both islands would become overpopulated, even if the transferred deers adopt the zero-growth reproduction pattern of the original natives.

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 simply untrue. There is no need for more migration to e.g. Norway. Unemployment is on the rise here.

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

Odds are there are more wars coming in the future. And "for a few years"? That wasn't much.

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.

The Muslim population in Europe is a long term security issue; as can be seen by the number of second-generation immigrants that have become terrorists. Third, fourth etc. generations are likely to continue these trends to different degrees (it could also go in waves).

They don't really have to become terrorists, either. Having a significant fraction of the population in a country not feeling like their home country is theirs won't do good in times of crisis, like during war - or even just in general.

In the US, after one and half a century without slavery, they still haven't managed to brigde the European vs. African divide. Makes one wonder how much better the Muslim vs. non-Muslim relations will be in Europe one century from now on.

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.