French Presidential Election

[Viking]

And it's a pure coincidence that they all ended up with corrupt governments and rebels after colonialization "ended"?

Or that their corrupt governments defend their power with weapons bought from us?

Fine, we'll send down assassins to take out the corrupt leaders and take all the weapons back from relevant rebels and militaries. What happens then, and how likely would it be that this scenario would be very different from one where we didn't do the bad things (which you accuse us of doing) after their independence?

For one, it's not that electricity went out in Syria, you can probably find pictures of what used to be their homes aplenty.

Can be rebuilt.

First of all, you could lock the ten from outside in a separate room if they just want to stay for one night...

Well, you said locking up people was bad; plus it might be cheaper to keep them outside, and then you get more money for disinfecting gel.

Secondly, they were not really outside anymore, but they already entered your neighbor's home already and you're afraid they might murder two people and starve due to your neighbor not being as rich as you, if they all stay there...

Whatever is the case, another option is to send them to yet other neighbours, where the 10 are less likely to murder inhabitants.

Blaming the problems only on them and their governments as you did above is not going to tackle the causes at all.

Blaming only whom?

Eh, they weren't back then either, the US just refused them, they could have tried any other country that would not have required them to cross the Atlantic, such as Sweden or Switzerland, pretty much what you say about them now.
http://history-switzerland.geschicht...itzerland.html

The treaty came to be because back then it was seen as wrong for the USA to have rejected them and apparently noone said the US could have paid Switzerland to take even more because it was so much closer. How are you not ignoring the historic context and changing definitions of refugees etc. around to suit your agenda of ethnic purity?

What we have learnt from contemporary history is that taking massive amounts of immigrants from radically different cultures is not a great idea, either.

You have yet to prove any of those claims.

I've already covered this ground:

[The point is] that law and order is unravelling different places (cities and neighbourhoods) in Europe because of mass-immigration, while mass-immigration continues. Whatever the percentages are for natives and immigrants when it comes to antisocial behaviour, that doesn't particularly matter unless you can use it to both actually restore law and order in these places and prevent lawlessness from spreading

So again, percentages are not so important; although I would expect that you would find that the percentages of antisocial behaviour stemming from migrants (first, second and third generation) is higher than natives in Sweden and France, certainly in specific cities.

here you have another report from the USA:
https://insight.kellogg.northwestern...increase_crime

Parts of it agrees with me, actually:

But Spenkuch did discover a modest positive correlation between immigration and property crime, although this effect is only present with regard to “immigrants with the poorest labor market outcome,” he says, such as those from Mexico. An increase in immigrants with better economic prospects, such as those from Canada, is not associated with any increase in property crime.

The lack of correlation with violence is interesting, but a single study in a single country is not the definite answer.

I've quoted the German police before as saying the correlation is minimal and

[...]

If Malmö is somehow special and different, then it cannot be used to make a general point about immigration anyway...

As with the study above, I'd like to take a look at the way the data was gathered, analysed and how the conclusions were drawn.

When you see similar things happening in both France and Sweden, it would not appear likely that Malmö is a very unusual (i.e. unlikely) scenario given massive amounts of relevant immigrants settling in one city or neighbourhood.

Perhaps Sweden managed to increase ratios and "tolerance" to a point where it does get problematic, but that does not prove anything about spreading 2 million people over the European mainland. At least according to German law, many of the 2 million are not allowed to stay anyway, that the whole extradition is sometimes handled in a rather sub-optimal way is a different problem and not the fault of the refugees

Most of the countries that already have very large immigrant communities (France, UK, Germany) are also the ones who in theory would be the most capable of receiving immigrants, in terms of wealth and population size; and of course it is perfectly understandable that those countries that still are very homogenous want to preserve that; and they can't know how many 'exceptional circumstances' will require them to take in yet more immigrants in the future.

That is a lot of assumption again with nothing to actually back it up, might as well close all prisons if you're right because the criminals will just criminal on once they get out anyway, better to throw them all out of the country into Norway (and pay Norway to take them) or so.

What are the controversial assumptions? Many countries struggle with full prisons. In fact, this country is sending prisoners to the Netherlands (who mysteriously have plenty of room) because the jails here are too full.

That getting high levels of crime under control should cost a lot of extra money in most cases should be pretty obvious; I don't have any indication that the Swedish (or French) police is so ineffective because the police officers are too busy drinking tea.

So now anyone can lose their citizenship if they are criminals?

If they came as adults, why not.

[Brenus]

"Fine, we'll send down assassins to take out the corrupt leaders and take all the weapons back from relevant rebels and militaries." Are you crazy? They were and are OUR corrupted leaders...
And when a potential threat to them appeared/s, we sent/d assassins to take them out... Kind of operation Condor...

[Husar]

The lack of correlation with violence is interesting, but a single study in a single country is not the definite answer.

Given that you used some four or five incidents from Malmö to "prove" that there is supposedly a problem in the first place, I'd place the ball squarely in your court now...

[Viking]

Given that you used some four or five incidents from Malmö to "prove" that there is supposedly a problem in the first place, I'd place the ball squarely in your court now...

That wasn't even the number of links that I posted. I'll requote:

Over 70 car fires have occurred in Malmö since July 1st this year [2016]

Malmö has experienced thirty explosions this year [2015]

To add to the last one, regarding the number of separate incidents:

Since the start of the new year [2015] Malmö has on average been rocked by an explosion a week.

and the previous year:

In 2014 a total of 25 blasts took place in Malmö.

http://www.thelocal.se/20150824/you-...u-live-in-malm

Then there's the murder rate:

Malmö

City population: 318,107 (2014) [1] (32% born abroad + 12% born in Sweden with both parents born abroad = 44% of the population with significant immigrant background [2])

Murders:

2016: at least 11 per a previous post
2015: at least 6 [3]
2011: 8 [3]

Average: 8.33

Oslo

City population: 634 463 (2014) [4]

Murders between 2011-2015: 6, 11, 9, 7, 7, 10; average: 8.33 [5]

While murder statistics for Malmö were difficult to get hold of (and therefore incomplete), you can see that something funny is going on. Not only is Oslo almost twice as large as Malmö, but its metropolitan area should also be significantly larger. The murder ratio for Malmö would seem to be almost twice that of Oslo, even though Malmö is a much smaller city.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Chicago 2016:

2.72M persons; 762 homicides.

Per capita that would be:

Malmo 3.45/100k

Oslo 1.73/100k

Chicago 2.33/100k....

er, sorry, that was the monthly average. 28.02

[Viking]

Quite, and having a majority population of around 45%, it fits a more general pattern.

Being much larger than Malmö, the distance from a troubled neighbourhood to the nearest calm neighbourhood can be much larger, and that probably helps driving crime rates up.

I think when you have significant segregation and a large minority population (in absolute numbers), minority youth will risk feeling disconnected from and lose respect for the system that is dominated (even if proportionally) by the majority population, and be more likely to chose a path that involves crime. Crime often involves competition, and criminal competition often involves murder.

[Husar]

Quite, and having a majority population of around 45%, it fits a more general pattern.

Being much larger than Malmö, the distance from a troubled neighbourhood to the nearest calm neighbourhood can be much larger, and that probably helps driving crime rates up.

I think when you have significant segregation and a large minority population (in absolute numbers), minority youth will risk feeling disconnected from and lose respect for the system that is dominated (even if proportionally) by the majority population, and be more likely to chose a path that involves crime. Crime often involves competition, and criminal competition often involves murder.

And that's why your daydream of segregated nations that compete over limited resources, dominated by a few very wealthy and powerful nations, would inevitably lead to more conflict, murder and possibly world wars, right?

If your argument is that the multicultural ghettoization is a terrible thing, then I'm with you, the goal needs to be to break up cultural barriers and mix people up more and more. But national segregation is not better than neighborhood segregation, it just pits armies against one another instead of criminal gangs. And armies do far more damage...

[Viking]

I think a world composed of homogeneous nation states would be much more peaceful than we world we currently have. A lot of rebellions have been started with the purpose of carving out or reclaiming space for a people that had no independence. Do you think the UK would have been better off if Ireland had not been granted complete independence? If Northern Ireland is anything to go by, it wouldn't.

Furthermore, force has many times been used with the purpose of adjusting borders according to ethnicity; the annexation of Sudetenland and the annexation of Crimea being relevant examples.

In sum, heterogeneity within countries has inspired a lot of violence and bad behaviour.

I don't see how a world of culturally homogeneous countries would make it easier for large and wealthy countries to dominate (if anything, some larger countries would get split up). Smaller countries would have to band together in order to be stronger when facing larger countries, but they do not need to have open borders with one another in order to accomplish this. If the EU had stuck with political and economical cooperation rather than gradually morphing into the USE, it may had been in a much better/more stable state today.

the goal needs to be to break up cultural barriers and mix people up more and more

Yet that's not always realistically achievable in the near to medium term (or even long term), and naturally gets more difficult the more immigrants are settled.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And that's why your daydream of segregated nations that compete over limited resources, dominated by a few very wealthy and powerful nations, would inevitably lead to more conflict, murder and possibly world wars, right?

If your argument is that the multicultural ghettoization is a terrible thing, then I'm with you, the goal needs to be to break up cultural barriers and mix people up more and more. But national segregation is not better than neighborhood segregation, it just pits armies against one another instead of criminal gangs. And armies do far more damage...

The problem with multiculturalism is that it has not been shown to actually, well, work.

Assimilation works. Comes at a price, but it works.

Cultural hybridity works. Doesn't necessarily come without cost, as the cognitive dissonance of being one way with one group and a different culture with another is mentally straining.

True multiculturalism has not worked past the individual level.

Culture is an aspect of identity and identity is a human need.


On the other hand, you are also correct in that truly homogenous nations have had as many and as challenging -- if different -- issues to confront as have more heterogeneous societies.