IMMIGRATION thread

[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.

[Montmorency]

That's one spin to put on it, but the more interesting implication (as I see it) of my comment is that if Germany were to reach a point where there was political will to deport hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers, then a political will for irredentist Anschluss (entailing the deportation of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Russians) would not be inconceivable.

[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.

[Montmorency]

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".

[Pannonian]

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[Gilrandir]

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

[Fragony]

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

[Snowhobbit]

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.

[Husar]

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

Yeah, talking about TTIP, which is getting ready very soon. And while the US steals all our jobs that way, we complain about poor people stealing our jobs.

Oh wait, Italy? You mean you expected a country that re-elected a media mogul who was BFFs with Gadaffi, and that now gives him another chance in politics after he was ousted for being corrupt and trying to undermine democratic principles, to be better than that?

As for swallowing all demands of a moneybag, that's capitalism, ever heard of Sheldon Adelson?
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign...rubio-guessing

Politicians visit this guy's home in order to get funding from him to run for president. I assume it looks like this:

[Sarmatian]

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%)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Viking]

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.

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

Duh.

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

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

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).

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.

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..).

[Sarmatian]

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.

It is a short term solution, but it a solution. You can't raise pension age by 5-10 years immediately and expect no backlash. You can raise it little by little over the next several decades. Bottom line - there is no other way at the moment. You can argue that the backlash won't be that significant it might be better to ride out the storm (with which I disagree), no political establishment will consider it, so it is moot.

Duh.

So why go there? If there's a global catastrophe that threatens world's ability to produce food, we're screwed, 50,000 Muslims more or less in a specific country.

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

That is very,very true.

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).

We're talking realistic solution for our age. I don't really give a rat's ass what human's go do in the 29th century.

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

It also happens to be the least populated, most out of the way place in Europe, with the worst climate.

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..).

That kind of flies in the face of every single civil liberty and human right, like presumption of innocence. It also defies logic to claim there is a a serious threat when there have been a few dozen, or even hundreds, a European Muslim terrorists out of a population of 50 000 000.

It sometimes defies belief how deep this subconscious racism and bigotry goes. For comparison sake, imagine if US closed its borders for well-off white males, because school shooters are predominantly well-off white, Christian males. Imagine how ludicrous that would even sound. No one would even think about it, because, it's us . We won't think there's a problem with us. We'll seek individual reasons for every single one. No one would stop for a second to think there's something inherently wrong with well-off white, Christian males that makes them a security danger, but most have no problem with labeling another group as problematic based on actions of a very few.