Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Migration Megathread

2456775

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,435 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    I personally believe Corbyn and #forthemanynotthefew resonated to a surprising degree last year for precisely these reasons. The center may very well be dead, because it isn't translating to everyone in society the way it did two decades ago.

    Yes, I believe 2016 marked the end of the "3rd Way" centrism & compassionate conservatism embraced by Clinton/Blair/Bush/Brown/Obama/Cameron/Clinton in the US and UK. The idea that the only thing that motivates people is economic self interest has been killed stone dead by Brexit and Trump.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Sand wrote: »
    The USA is already a white minority country. Stopping immigration, reducing it to zero will have no effect on that broad outcome. It might be the difference between white Americans being 20% or 30% of the US population in 100 years time (pulling those numbers out of thin air) but it doesn't mean anything significant.

    I only introduced the US as an example because a poster disbelieved that 90/10 demographics could shift to a 49/51 split in just two generations. The US is an example of where that exact event occurred due to the 1965 Immigration Act.

    What is your fear and how should it be tackled?


  • Registered Users Posts: 954 ✭✭✭caff


    I think its obvious from how successful the Irish were in their migration to the US where they outbread the indigenous hardworking WASPs and have since pushed the country into heavy debt soical chaos that we don't want to see the same happen here in Europe with Muslims.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭ Briggs Full Sunblock


    This new 4th Industrial Reveloution is a whole different ball game to the 'what about the Irish moving to the Americas' type thing.

    And the new elephant in the shop, is a robotic, automated, semi-sentiment, cloud-conscious, quantum, artifically inteligent one.
    - that means typical new migrants won't have any jobs to sail/walk into. Then what?


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,435 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Would you not agree that part of this is due to population growth throughout the 20th century?

    Seems obvious to me that, for example, Dublin's housing crisis is directly related to more people wanting to live here and therefore the city requiring a higher density of housing - which almost certainly means a reduction, however slight, in the quality of life of each citizen (smaller units, less open green space, longer commutes, whatever really) - would it not be fair to say that something similar is happening in the UK?

    The fact that the world's population literally increased by several billion people in the 20th century just cannot possible have no knock on effects towards property prices. Land is an inherently finite resource, of course land value will increase if there's more demand for it from a larger number of people than before.

    I know I keep saying this, but it astounds me that this isn't discussed as a mainstream economic and political factor, and that we don't actively incentivise people to limit population growth. Indeed, we actually do the opposite in a lot of ways - parents with kids are prioritised for state resources and social welfare in a lot of cases (not all, but a lot) which surely must be incentivising people to have kids in and of itself?

    The problem is, the social welfare that defines European societies is absolutely dependant on population growth. We need more and more grandchildren to pay for more and more grandparents. But government policies in multiple spheres (ever growing pension pots, thinking property prices have to be supported, etc) has led to massive transfers of wealth from the parents supposed to have these grand children to the grandparents. It is at least partially a factor in those parents not having sufficient grandchildren.

    We cant escape from this problem unless we make difficult choices about prioritising grandparents or grandchildren. In my view, the primary aim of a society/people is that it continues, so grandchildren are the priority.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭BabyCheeses


    Sand wrote: »
    The USA is already a white minority country. Stopping immigration, reducing it to zero will have no effect on that broad outcome. It might be the difference between white Americans being 20% or 30% of the US population in 100 years time (pulling those numbers out of thin air) but it doesn't mean anything significant.

    I only introduced the US as an example because a poster disbelieved that 90/10 demographics could shift to a 49/51 split in just two generations. The US is an example of where that exact event occurred due to the 1965 Immigration Act.

    White people aren't a minority. They are 73.3% now and in 2060 they are expected to be at 68.5% in 2060 according to this. That's 3-4 generations and still not a minority.

    What should white American's be doing to ensure they don't become a minority? Closing the borders isn't enough so something else will have to be done.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,435 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    White people aren't a minority. They are 73.3% now and in 2060 they are expected to be at 68.5% in 2060 according to this. That's 3-4 generations and still not a minority.

    Your source says this:
    The country's racial profile will be vastly different, and although whites will remain the single largest racial group in the the US, they will no longer be a majority by 2055 according to Pew Research Center. Growth in the Hispanic and Asian populations is predicted to almost triple over the next 40 years. By 2055, the breakdown is estimated to be 48% White, 24% Hispanic, 14% Asian, and 13% Black.

    I know this is a struggle to accept, but the majority of children in the US *today* are not white. By 2060 those children will be 42 years old and likely have children of their own. Do the math. This idea of the US being a white majority country belongs to 1960, not 2060.
    What should white American's be doing to ensure they don't become a minority? Closing the borders isn't enough so something else will have to be done.

    As I've stated white Americans are a minority already. Nobody cares if white Americans are still a majority of the 40+ and older age groups. They don't have children so that only tells us about the past. The demographic breakdown of US children tells us about the future. And that has changed utterly in just two generations.

    It is too late to close the border or build a wall if the aim is to prevent white Americans becoming a minority. Short of inventing a time machine and going back to 1965 there is nothing to be done. So the US is going to see more racially divisive politics as is the norm in racially divided democracies. That is unavoidable at this point.

    My only question is why you would want to repeat this experience in Europe? What is to be gained?


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 36,787 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Sand wrote: »
    I think its very fair to wonder why a people fail to reproduce themselves. I think its a damning indictment of economic, cultural and political 'advances' since the second world war that progressive Europe simply lacks the drive to sustain itself. Can a society be considered successful if it ceases having children? Is that not people voting with their feet in the most total fashion?

    I think you could have an extensive discussion purely on that topic alone. I don't think there are clear answers. Sure, economic insecurity is a factor but how significant? Poverty is associated with high fertility throughout the world, so does it also explain low fertility? Africa is going through a population boom despite being much poorer than Europe and far more economically insecure.

    The conventional 3-bed semi detached is growing ever smaller and less suited for raising a family. That could be a factor, but even 2-3 generations ago, large families were raised in small houses and bunk beds are still a thing.

    It's fairly well documented I would think that poorer people are more likely to produce more children that wealthier people. We see it with Africa as well as working class (or, if you'd prefer, welfare class) enclaves in the West. I think that it is part and parcel of economic development that when people have more in their pockets and opportunities to choose a better lifestyle, they are less likely to have children. Where I am from, a job was something you had to have to pay the bills. You did it, you moaned about it and eventually you would build a house, get married and have a few children. Such a lifestyle is incompatible with modern trends like continuing professional development, climbing the ladder, working extra hours, trips abroad for business and pleasure, etc...
    Sand wrote: »
    I think there is cultural reasons as well: women have entered the workforce, men have not exited it so raising a family has to come second to careers, especially through peoples 20s and early 30s when each is seeking to get those critical promotions [Disclaimer - I am not saying the solution is patriarchy!]. And despite both working, people are actually relatively less wealthy than their parents or grandparents were at the same point in the lives. The aforementioned 3 bed is increasingly out of young peoples reach.

    Again, my view of all these factors is that they are not natural, it is not an act of god, or simply the way of the world over which we are powerless. It is a result of policies. Governments enact policies. We have, or should have, power over governments. We need governments to enact better policies.

    I absolutely agree. However, a better government begins with a better electorate. Unfortunately, populists on both sides look like they're here to stay for the short term at least. They might do damage or they might not. It is too early to tell. If people are simply going to vote to keep the other guy out, because it is how the parents voted or how they themselves have always voted then things seem unlikely to change sadly. Given the enormous challenges facing humanity like AI, antibiotic resistance, climate change, etc, a global response is required.
    Sand wrote: »
    There also seems to be a persistent message that not having children is a good thing. Noble even. A sacrifice made for the good of the world. I don't think this is a significant factor in most peoples decision making, but it cant be without some effect that progressive people are telling other progressive people that its better for the environment to be childless.

    I mention this aspect because I dont think the solution is entirely about offering grants and handouts. Japan has tried this with little effect. There is no simple solution to a complex problem.

    Let's be honest, we're pretty bad for the environment. Appalling even. And there are likely to be, what, 10 billion of us by the halfway point of this century. Having fewer children is no bad thing in and of itself. However, given the way that many Western societies are structured in terms of healthcare, infrastructure, care and the like, people are living longer and dying in much more expensive ways. A pool of young, healthy people is needed to provide the wealth needed to support the elderly. It was fine a few centuries ago, you retired earlier and died in your sleep or from an accident or of a heart attack. Relatively quick, painless and cheap. Nowadays, workplaces and roads are safer so now it's obesity, cancer and dementia which cost significantly more resources to even deal with, nevermind investigate and research properly. And then, old people vote which brings me back to my previous comment about needing a better electorate. Remember Theresa May's gambit last year? That would have been a difficult trick for a competent leader to pull off given a year or two.

    Fewer people wouldn't be a bad thing so long as it happens in a sustainable manner, an idea which seems like a fantasy today sadly.
    Sand wrote: »
    Nothing significant? Have you not noticed that a drivelling moron is sitting in the White House? He was propelled there by the racial turmoil and angst which has been set in motion by these demographic changes. That turmoil is not going to get better - its going to get worse.

    Already, there is very clear voting blocs by race in America. Blacks gave an 80% preference to Dems in 2016. Latinos gave a 36% lead to Dems in 2016. Whites gave at 21% lead to Reps in 2016.

    And this cant even be excused by education (Trump won white voters with a college degree, 49% vs 45%), nor by misogyny (Trump won white women (against a woman candidate!) by 52% vs 43%.). What pushed Trump over the line though was his performance amongst whites without a college degree. He simply swept up in a way not before seen. They came out and voted in droves for a "Republican" candidate who swapped the dog-whistle for a megaphone turned up to 11.

    The Democrats are the party of the African and Latin Americans, and the Republicans are the party of white Americans in the same way as SF and the DUP divide up Catholic and Protestant votes with a similarly debilitating effect on society as a whole. NI has fallen into distrustful paralysis secured by ever more and ever higher "peace" walls between communities, and the US struggles to pass a budget where compromise with the other side is seen as treachery.

    In the era of racially charged identity politics which now define the US, those links of party and race are going to get stronger and stronger. So you might consider all this trivial, but it's happening even if you don't approve of it.

    America seems to be a special case where its citizens seem to be unique in their cultural aversion if not outright antipathy to the state. That this situation has arisen is a damming indictment of US politics and the two parties which are solely interested in their own welfare. People in the US have consistently been voting against their own interests for a long time now. Only an utterly broken system could gift the world President Trump. Had Hilary Clinton won, 4 of the last 5 US Presidents would have been from 2 families. This is probably the most ethnically and culturally diverse nation in the world with a population of over 300 million people and they get to choose between A or B for their head of state.

    Laissez-faire is not the solution to every problem. When governments have no interest in investing in services to accommodate immigrants or preventing ghettoes, or limiting the numbers in such a manner to protect said services then you can't be surprised when problems like this emerge. The US is the most unequal nation in the world with social problems unheard of in Europe.
    Sand wrote: »
    My only question is why would you want to repeat this division and turmoil in Europe? What is to be gained?

    I'm not so sure that it would. The US is... exceptional. Europeans on the other hand seem to have little to no problem for the most part with their elected officials managing things and involving themselves in various problems.

    Look, we both know that there have been some problems. Ultimately, I think that the EU or the nations of Europe need to come up with some sort of agreement on how to manage migration. I think some migration is a good thing but it needs to be managed. Immigrants could be encouraged to settle in areas suffering from high levels of emigration for example. They can also do jobs that local people might not be too keen on doing.

    But it needs to be managed. Closed off, isolated and impoverished communities or ghettoes do noone any favours, not the government, not the state providers of services and not the residents of the affected areas either.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭BabyCheeses


    Sand wrote: »
    Your source says this:



    I know this is a struggle to accept, but the majority of children in the US *today* are not white. By 2060 those children will be 42 years old and likely have children of their own. Do the math. This idea of the US being a white majority country belongs to 1960, not 2060.



    As I've stated white Americans are a minority already. Nobody cares if white Americans are still a majority of the 40+ and older age groups. They don't have children so that only tells us about the past. The demographic breakdown of US children tells us about the future. And that has changed utterly in just two generations.

    It is too late to close the border or build a wall if the aim is to prevent white Americans becoming a minority. Short of inventing a time machine and going back to 1965 there is nothing to be done. So the US is going to see more racially divisive politics as is the norm in racially divided democracies. That is unavoidable at this point.

    My only question is why you would want to repeat this experience in Europe? What is to be gained?

    It says:
    By 2060, the breakdown is projected to be the following: 68.5% White (43.6% Non-Hispanic), 14.3% Black, 1.3% American Indian, and 9.3% Asian.

    Speaking Spanish/Portuguese doesn't stop you from being white.

    Repeat what experience? Minorities have no interest in voting for the party the purposely tried to attract racists? Could always try a reverse Southern Strategy and see how it goes.

    Roy Moore wasn't elected thanks to black voters turning out in Alabama. Sounds pretty good to me.

    According to the OP it's already too late, they are here and out breeding us like in America. Are we just going to twiddle our thumbs and wait for someone to come out with ethnic cleansing so others can defend him from anyone who says he is racist? Do we just argue about this online as the caliphate gets built? What is it that the OP wants done?

    I still remember when it was the eastern Europeans coming to bring doom. Now they're a great bunch of lads.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,435 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    It says:

    Speaking Spanish/Portuguese doesn't stop you from being white.

    Look, you've got a source that contradicts itself and its not a good sign. Lets try match up all the numbers. It cites a Pew Research report which indicates in 2055, 48% white, 23% Hispanic.

    Later on it claims by 2060, the US will be 68.5% white, or 43.6% white if Hispanics are discounted. (Pew predicts 46% white by 2065).

    These projections cannot be simultaneously all be true. It hinges on the definition of white, and hispanic in either projection. And yes there is overlap but not to the extent required to align both projections from your one source. For Pew to agree with the later claim, to make 68.5% white (2060) from 48% White and 23% Hispanic (2055), 90% of the Hispanic population has to be White.

    That simply is not probable at all as currently only about 53% of Hispanic-Americans self identify as white. Neither is it likely that the non-Hispanic white population will drop from 48% white in 2055 to 43.6% white in 2060. That is not a decline, that is a cliff edge in 5 years.

    You've got a dubious source which is summarising conflicting predictions and you're just picking the one that suits you and ignoring the other. We can continue arguing about the number of angels dancing on pin, but its just a distraction from the reality that is happening. The US has less white children being born today, than non-white children. 1960 white America is gone. And it is not coming back. Get over it.
    Repeat what experience? Minorities have no interest in voting for the party the purposely tried to attract racists? Could always try a reverse Southern Strategy and see how it goes.

    Roy Moore wasn't elected thanks to black voters turning out in Alabama. Sounds pretty good to me.

    Yes, racial groups voting on racial lines for racial interests. You view this battle won in the struggle as a good news story. I view the racially divided politics as bad news.
    According to the OP it's already too late, they are here and out breeding us like in America. Are we just going to twiddle our thumbs and wait for someone to come out with ethnic cleansing so others can defend him from anyone who says he is racist? Do we just argue about this online as the caliphate gets built? What is it that the OP wants done?

    I like how you consider there is only two options: total inaction, or forth reich style ethnic cleansing. It advertises how seriously you are engaging with the issue.
    I still remember when it was the eastern Europeans coming to bring doom. Now they're a great bunch of lads.

    The Polish in Ireland are a different proposition in many ways. Firstly they represent 2.57% of the population. Secondly, they came for economic reasons and large numbers have left since 2008 so its not an ongoing trend. Direct flights between Warsaw and Dublin are surprisingly thin on the ground these days. Thirdly, in 1-2 generations people of Polish descent in Ireland will be completely indistinguishable from ethnic Irish people apart from perhaps an odd surname. They will be assimilated into Ireland in the same way as the Vikings, Normans and English*.

    This is not what is happening in countries like Sweden where by 2050 Muslim migrants alone will be 30% of the Swedish population. The Muslim migrants are on track to assimilate the Swedes, not the other way around.

    *Though arguably, in the last case: Irish people speak English today, not Gaelic. And consider borrowed English phrases such as "craic" as being the definition of Irishness. So you could say the English settlers assimilated the Gaelic Irish. Not the other way around.


  • Advertisement
  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Sand wrote: »
    My only question is why would you want to repeat this division and turmoil in Europe? What is to be gained?
    You ask a simplistic question as if it had a simplistic answer.

    Sure, division and turmoil can follow from migration. But that leads in turn to a swathe of other questions: why do they follow? Is turmoil an inevitable and inherent aspect of migration, or is it an indirect consequence because of people's reaction to migration? If the latter, why must the answer be to restrict migration, rather than to persuade people not to react so negatively to it? And even if we accept that some people are physically incapable of not reacting negatively to migration, does that mean that we should just meekly accept those people's reaction, and not bother fully analysing the pros and cons of migration?

    The answer to the second question - "what is to be gained?" - depends on your perspective. If your perspective is that of a migrant, the answer is an improved quality of life. If your perspective is that of an existing resident of Europe, well, it's pretty much the same answer - unless you define your quality of life by whether or not you're living in perfect cultural homogeneity.

    But the worst aspect of your question is the inherent false dichotomy it contains. The very phrasing of the question implies a simple choice: either we allow migration, which is bad, or we prevent migration, which is good. With all due respect, I reject your premise.

    If you're concerned about migration causing division and turmoil, maybe you should be asking why some people are determined to respond to migration with division and turmoil?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    It's an interesting conversation with good arguments on both sides, I just think it's not seeing the forest for the trees. There is a greater force at play here that is causing this rapid shift in demographics and culture. It is a force of nature which is irrepressible and makes trying conserve present day culture or ethnicity by way of government policy, a hopelessly futile task; one which will most likely lead to more harm than good.

    The force i'm talking about is technological development. Every problem identified is a consequence of it. It has caused lower child mortality leading to more living adults which are living longer, leading to rapid population growth, sustained through increasing abundance. It has wrecked havoc on established industries and caused significant structural unemployment and underemployment, leading to resentment and fear for the future which gives rise to populist movements like Trump and Brexit. It has increased education attainment, leading to greater personal aspirations resulting in lower birth rates. It has caused the world to shrink through a global communication and transportation network that both increases trans cultural transfer of ideas and at the same time facilitates the accelerating migration of people around the globe. Migration which has always happened just at a much slower pace due to technological limitations rather than government policy.

    It's also going to get worse because the rate of technological development is accelerating exponentially, meaning all the change we have seen in the last century will be small in comparison to the next. Things like AI, genetic editing, space colonisation, life extension, possibly even immortality are going to alter society in ways we can barely conceive of.

    The rate of change in society for the past century has led to a situation today where a late 20 something person living in Dublin today has more culturally in common with a person from Shenzhen, China than they do with their own great grandparents at the same age. They both likely have completed second/third level education and work jobs in service or manufacturing sectors. Commuting to work everyday by car or public transport, shopping in a supermarket, internet dating, fiddling with the same smartphones, listening to similar pop music, watching the same/similar movies, playing the same video games. Contrast that to the differences between them and their own great grandparents less than a century ago.

    Social attitudes are also progressing globally along the same curve, with greater tolerances for religious, sexual, racial and gender equality pretty much universally with localised exceptions mainly due to conflicts (conflicts themselves are decreasing in quantity and severity). Even in countries like Saudi Arabia which are far behind, are still progressing albeit at a slower pace, but with great potential for rapid acceleration.

    The situation is that your own grandchildren in the far future will have far more in common with their peers from the opposite side of the world than they will with present day you.

    The rub is that the rate of change means that ethnicity and culture cannot be conserved or controlled so arguing about whether it's desirable is entirely academic. The best we can do is preserve records and artefacts so that future generations can understand us and where they came from.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭BabyCheeses


    Sand wrote: »
    Look, you've got a source that contradicts itself and its not a good sign. Lets try match up all the numbers. It cites a Pew Research report which indicates in 2055, 48% white, 23% Hispanic.

    Later on it claims by 2060, the US will be 68.5% white, or 43.6% white if Hispanics are discounted. (Pew predicts 46% white by 2065).

    These projections cannot be simultaneously all be true. It hinges on the definition of white, and hispanic in either projection. And yes there is overlap but not to the extent required to align both projections from your one source. For Pew to agree with the later claim, to make 68.5% white (2060) from 48% White and 23% Hispanic (2055), 90% of the Hispanic population has to be White.

    That simply is not probable at all as currently only about 53% of Hispanic-Americans self identify as white. Neither is it likely that the non-Hispanic white population will drop from 48% white in 2055 to 43.6% white in 2060. That is not a decline, that is a cliff edge in 5 years.

    You've got a dubious source which is summarising conflicting predictions and you're just picking the one that suits you and ignoring the other. We can continue arguing about the number of angels dancing on pin, but its just a distraction from the reality that is happening. The US has less white children being born today, than non-white children. 1960 white America is gone. And it is not coming back. Get over it.

    Fine, we'll just use your sources which all still say the same, white people are and will continue to be the majority for the next few decades.

    YOUR link says 50.2% of children under the age of one year are racial or ethnic minority which is including Hispanics. This leaves 49.8% of babies born being non-Hispanic white. I don't see the exact number of Hispanic white babies being born but I would be surprised if it is less than 0.2% even if they are not white enough for your liking.

    The majority of Americans are white.
    The majority of children being born are white.
    The majority in 40 years is likely to still be white.

    Going by the trend, one day white people will no longer be the majority but still be the largest group. That day is not today.

    In the 2010 census 72.4% of the population where white. There has been an estimated increase in population of about 20 million, less than 10% of the population. A lot of white people would have to disappear and be replaced by non-white people for them to no longer be the majority.

    Sand wrote: »
    Yes, racial groups voting on racial lines for racial interests. You view this battle won in the struggle as a good news story. I view the racially divided politics as bad news.

    Please don't associate pedophilia as a white people thing. That was the whole scandal around Roy Moore, he was accused of going after teenage girls.

    Racially divided politics is nothing new in the US, it was even a strategy by the republican parties. White people trying to attract racist white voters, the minorities did nothing wrong except exist. I'm guess you are also against parties like UKIP, VVD, NF? Parties who aim to attract the natives against the minorities.
    Sand wrote: »
    I like how you consider there is only two options: total inaction, or forth reich style ethnic cleansing. It advertises how seriously you are engaging with the issue.

    It's hard to seriously engage with the issue when if we assume there is an issue all I am met with is blank stares in how to deal with it.

    I asked what the options were, you or nobody else answered.

    Sand wrote: »
    The Polish in Ireland are a different proposition in many ways. Firstly they represent 2.57% of the population. Secondly, they came for economic reasons and large numbers have left since 2008 so its not an ongoing trend. Direct flights between Warsaw and Dublin are surprisingly thin on the ground these days. Thirdly, in 1-2 generations people of Polish descent in Ireland will be completely indistinguishable from ethnic Irish people apart from perhaps an odd surname. They will be assimilated into Ireland in the same way as the Vikings, Normans and English*.

    This is not what is happening in countries like Sweden where by 2050 Muslim migrants alone will be 30% of the Swedish population. The Muslim migrants are on track to assimilate the Swedes, not the other way around.

    *Though arguably, in the last case: Irish people speak English today, not Gaelic. And consider borrowed English phrases such as "craic" as being the definition of Irishness. So you could say the English settlers assimilated the Gaelic Irish. Not the other way around.

    Muslims aren't here for economic reasons? I'm sure you are busy correcting anyone who uses the term "economic migrants".

    There are twice as many Poles as Muslims in Ireland so I guess we're fine here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,483 ✭✭✭ArthurDayne


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You ask a simplistic question as if it had a simplistic answer.

    Sure, division and turmoil can follow from migration. But that leads in turn to a swathe of other questions: why do they follow? Is turmoil an inevitable and inherent aspect of migration, or is it an indirect consequence because of people's reaction to migration? If the latter, why must the answer be to restrict migration, rather than to persuade people not to react so negatively to it? And even if we accept that some people are physically incapable of not reacting negatively to migration, does that mean that we should just meekly accept those people's reaction, and not bother fully analysing the pros and cons of migration?


    The answer to the second question - "what is to be gained?" - depends on your perspective. If your perspective is that of a migrant, the answer is an improved quality of life. If your perspective is that of an existing resident of Europe, well, it's pretty much the same answer - unless you define your quality of life by whether or not you're living in perfect cultural homogeneity.

    But the worst aspect of your question is the inherent false dichotomy it contains. The very phrasing of the question implies a simple choice: either we allow migration, which is bad, or we prevent migration, which is good. With all due respect, I reject your premise.

    If you're concerned about migration causing division and turmoil, maybe you should be asking why some people are determined to respond to migration with division and turmoil?

    That was very well expressed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,435 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Fewer people wouldn't be a bad thing so long as it happens in a sustainable manner, an idea which seems like a fantasy today sadly.

    I agree to the extent that Europe is a small minority of the worlds population (15%) and the vast majority of the growth is going to occur outside Europe. So a unilateral effort is not going to be effective. There is a certain amount of cognitive dissonance in the idea that less children are good, but we must have more immigrants to keep up consumption. It adds up to more pollution no matter if its old Europeans or new Europeans doing the polluting.

    Once it is accepted that Europe needs to re-evaluate how social welfare is implemented and funded, a declining European population is not actually a terrible thing. It frees up infrastructure which is creaking under the strain in many countries, brings good housing back into reach of more people as demand declines, and as automation reduces jobs it provides some relief if there is less people seeking them.
    I'm not so sure that it would. The US is... exceptional. Europeans on the other hand seem to have little to no problem for the most part with their elected officials managing things and involving themselves in various problems.

    But the same problems are emerging in Europe, as Europe begins the same journey the US began back in the 1960s. If anything, its already worse. Armed soldiers patrol the streets of European capitals. Ethnic ghettos have emerged and continue to grow as indigenous Europeans flee the benefits of diversity: London was an English city for at least 1000 years, and now English people are a minority in their own capital in just 70 years. Every medium sized UK town seems to have it's own Pakistani rape gang who are racially targeting their victims. More British Muslims signed up to fight for ISIS 2,500 miles from "home" than were serving in the British Army at the same time. European cities have to invest in putting up vehicle barriers [aka Allahu Akbarriers] around public spaces because new Europeans ramming through a crowd in a truck is a thing now. We're already seeing the emergence of racial voting blocs. Suicide bombings are now a persistent threat to children attending pop concerts.

    All the warning signs are flashing amber and red. There is no indication Europeans are any better equipped to handle the problems of mass immigration and multiculturalism.
    Look, we both know that there have been some problems. Ultimately, I think that the EU or the nations of Europe need to come up with some sort of agreement on how to manage migration. I think some migration is a good thing but it needs to be managed. Immigrants could be encouraged to settle in areas suffering from high levels of emigration for example. They can also do jobs that local people might not be too keen on doing.

    But it needs to be managed. Closed off, isolated and impoverished communities or ghettoes do noone any favours, not the government, not the state providers of services and not the residents of the affected areas either.

    Well, we are getting, and will continue to get closed off and isolated communities. Because the indigenous people flee diversity, and the new arrivals are not so keen on it either. The each congregate around others of their own ethnicity, and ghettos develop. This is natural human behaviour and has emerged in every scenario where diversity occurs.

    It's especially going to happen if we view immigrants as the people who are going to do the jobs we don't want to do. That implies a lower caste status right from the off.

    I think I should stress, I've no issue with immigration as such. I am careful to reference mass immigration as the problem. Mass immigration creates rapid demographic change. Rapid demographic change causes strife, division and in the worst occurrences outright war. What Europe has been going through in the last few decades is not normal: it is abnormally high levels of mass migration, causing demographic changes, leading to strife and division. The UK has been importing hundreds of thousands of people every single year for the last 20 years. It is unprecedented. That sort of pressure on a society leads to revolutions like Brexit.

    I cannot see why anyone would look at the evidence of the past 70 years and think more of the same is going to lead to a happy outcome for Europeans.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,435 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You ask a simplistic question as if it had a simplistic answer.

    Sure, division and turmoil can follow from migration. But that leads in turn to a swathe of other questions: why do they follow? Is turmoil an inevitable and inherent aspect of migration, or is it an indirect consequence because of people's reaction to migration? If the latter, why must the answer be to restrict migration, rather than to persuade people not to react so negatively to it? And even if we accept that some people are physically incapable of not reacting negatively to migration, does that mean that we should just meekly accept those people's reaction, and not bother fully analysing the pros and cons of migration?

    You're presenting a subjective view of the issue against my own objective view. It's a bad policy, so it shouldn't be enacted. Claiming its a bad policy only because people react negatively to a bad policy doesn't change that they do and it is. The first duty of any government is prudence. Europeans were handed down their countries by their forefathers, and they owe it to their children not to invite in unnecessary problems merely for the sake of an experiment or virtue signalling.

    I could equally say inequality is not a bad outcome, its just people react badly to inequality. Should we meekly accept their reaction, or not both fully analysing the pros and cons of inequality?
    The answer to the second question - "what is to be gained?" - depends on your perspective. If your perspective is that of a migrant, the answer is an improved quality of life. If your perspective is that of an existing resident of Europe, well, it's pretty much the same answer - unless you define your quality of life by whether or not you're living in perfect cultural homogeneity.

    Seeing as both indigenous Europeans and migrants do everything they can to separate from each other, cultural homogeneity is something they do seem to value over diversity.

    I don't think you can say the indigenous Europeans have benefited from mass immigration. The English communities which used to exist in London and no longer do didn't. The Europeans who have to pay higher taxes to fund the social welfare for migrant communities who have persisting unemployment don't benefit. And I don't think the English girls who were doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight if they didn't submit to gang rape benefited from diversity either.

    On the plus side, there are some cultural and artistic treasures such as 'Mans not hot'. So swings and roundabouts.
    But the worst aspect of your question is the inherent false dichotomy it contains. The very phrasing of the question implies a simple choice: either we allow migration, which is bad, or we prevent migration, which is good. With all due respect, I reject your premise.

    I didn't reference migration actually. I asked why you would want to recreate the racial strife and division in Europe.

    As I mentioned in my last post I try to reference mass immigration as the problem, not immigration. Zero immigration is completely unrealistic given necessity for trade, study, diplomacy, marriage etc. But the last 50-70 years are not normal. It is unprecedented mass immigration, and it is clearly bad and we should prevent it.
    If you're concerned about migration causing division and turmoil, maybe you should be asking why some people are determined to respond to migration with division and turmoil?

    As above, it doesn't matter *why* they are, any more than it matters why fire is hot. They are, it is. Mass immigration is a bad policy. Sticking your hand in fire is bad policy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭Mutant z


    The Muslim population of this country according to the census is about 63000 which i believe is an underestimate but in any case its growing and growing rapidly at the expense of the indigenous population we are in for a rocky road ahead.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 36,787 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Sand wrote: »
    I agree to the extent that Europe is a small minority of the worlds population (15%) and the vast majority of the growth is going to occur outside Europe. So a unilateral effort is not going to be effective. There is a certain amount of cognitive dissonance in the idea that less children are good, but we must have more immigrants to keep up consumption. It adds up to more pollution no matter if its old Europeans or new Europeans doing the polluting.

    Once it is accepted that Europe needs to re-evaluate how social welfare is implemented and funded, a declining European population is not actually a terrible thing. It frees up infrastructure which is creaking under the strain in many countries, brings good housing back into reach of more people as demand declines, and as automation reduces jobs it provides some relief if there is less people seeking them.

    Older voters aren't going to tolerate any erosion of their benefits and, as I said we need a certain amount of healthy taxpayers to fund their pensions and other benefits. An overall population decline done in a sustainable manner could be a good thing but I don't see it happening.
    Sand wrote: »
    But the same problems are emerging in Europe, as Europe begins the same journey the US began back in the 1960s. If anything, its already worse. Armed soldiers patrol the streets of European capitals. Ethnic ghettos have emerged and continue to grow as indigenous Europeans flee the benefits of diversity: London was an English city for at least 1000 years, and now English people are a minority in their own capital in just 70 years. Every medium sized UK town seems to have it's own Pakistani rape gang who are racially targeting their victims. More British Muslims signed up to fight for ISIS 2,500 miles from "home" than were serving in the British Army at the same time. European cities have to invest in putting up vehicle barriers [aka Allahu Akbarriers] around public spaces because new Europeans ramming through a crowd in a truck is a thing now. We're already seeing the emergence of racial voting blocs. Suicide bombings are now a persistent threat to children attending pop concerts.

    All the warning signs are flashing amber and red. There is no indication Europeans are any better equipped to handle the problems of mass immigration and multiculturalism.

    Where are the Europeans fleeing and to where do they seek refuge? I have been living in London for well over a year and a half now and haven't seen a single armed soldier. Not a one and I work in the centre of the city.

    Now, you say English people are a minority. Do you mean white English people or is it that non-white English people are not actually English?

    Regarding your claim of Muslims heading off to fight for IS, how many didn't? Considering that the UK has millions of Muslims, almost all of whom did not leave to fight for IS, I am not sure why you are citing this.
    Sand wrote: »
    Well, we are getting, and will continue to get closed off and isolated communities. Because the indigenous people flee diversity, and the new arrivals are not so keen on it either. The each congregate around others of their own ethnicity, and ghettos develop. This is natural human behaviour and has emerged in every scenario where diversity occurs.

    It's especially going to happen if we view immigrants as the people who are going to do the jobs we don't want to do. That implies a lower caste status right from the off.

    I think I should stress, I've no issue with immigration as such. I am careful to reference mass immigration as the problem. Mass immigration creates rapid demographic change. Rapid demographic change causes strife, division and in the worst occurrences outright war. What Europe has been going through in the last few decades is not normal: it is abnormally high levels of mass migration, causing demographic changes, leading to strife and division. The UK has been importing hundreds of thousands of people every single year for the last 20 years. It is unprecedented. That sort of pressure on a society leads to revolutions like Brexit.

    I cannot see why anyone would look at the evidence of the past 70 years and think more of the same is going to lead to a happy outcome for Europeans.

    Again, you're looking at it entirely through the prism of immigration. On Brexit, there are swathes of people across the UK who grew up in households where their Dad worked while Mum stayed at home. Now, those people work zero-hour contracts and living in houseshares. Stagnant wages along with protectionist housing policies have done more to stoke resentment in my opinion not forgetting biting austerity and the slashing of local services begun by the coalition government of 2010-2015. As you say, the UK has been importing people for a long time. Why has Brexit only just happened when UKIP has existed since 1993? My answer is that it is a perfect storm of austerity, stagnant wages, economic inequality, a skewed jobs market awash with McJobs and zero hour contracts, a lack of security, and problems both real and perceived with immigration.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,435 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Fine, we'll just use your sources

    Okay, glad we could move past this.
    Please don't associate pedophilia as a white people thing. That was the whole scandal around Roy Moore, he was accused of going after teenage girls.

    Racially divided politics is nothing new in the US, it was even a strategy by the republican parties. White people trying to attract racist white voters, the minorities did nothing wrong except exist. I'm guess you are also against parties like UKIP, VVD, NF? Parties who aim to attract the natives against the minorities.

    Uh, I never mentioned paedophilia. You referenced the defeat of Roy Moore as being a triumph for black people. I.E. racial politics.
    It's hard to seriously engage with the issue when if we assume there is an issue all I am met with is blank stares in how to deal with it.

    I asked what the options were, you or nobody else answered.

    You're asking what the solution is for the USA. I'm telling you, there is no solution in 2018 bar building a time machine and stopping the 1965 immigration act. Racial division is the present and the future of the USA. You cannot do anything to solve that.

    What you're missing is I only referenced the US to show how demographics can rapidly shift in just two generations. The problem that can be solved is Europe. And the solution there is two fold: A) End mass immigration into Europe. B) Examine and address the causes of Europeans failing to have children.
    Muslims aren't here for economic reasons? I'm sure you are busy correcting anyone who uses the term "economic migrants".

    There are twice as many Poles as Muslims in Ireland so I guess we're fine here.

    Polish people can be assimilated. Lapsed Catholics who have issues with alcohol will fit in just fine in Ireland. Migration from within a region is much easier to handle than migration from outside a region.

    White South Africans have been present in the cape for centuries, but they haven't been assimilated by the local Africans, and they never will be.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,435 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    sink wrote: »
    It's an interesting conversation with good arguments on both sides, I just think it's not seeing the forest for the trees. There is a greater force at play here that is causing this rapid shift in demographics and culture. It is a force of nature which is irrepressible and makes trying conserve present day culture or ethnicity by way of government policy, a hopelessly futile task; one which will most likely lead to more harm than good.

    Well, lets look at China. A country which in the early 20th century was the plaything of various imperialistic powers, both European and Asian. It is now plugged into the global economy and indeed a huge engine of the global economy. It remains 92% Han, down from 93% in the 1950s. Economic, political and even cultural change does not require demographic change.
    The rate of change in society for the past century has led to a situation today where a late 20 something person living in Dublin today has more culturally in common with a person from Shenzhen, China than they do with their own great grandparents at the same age. They both likely have completed second/third level education and work jobs in service or manufacturing sectors. Commuting to work everyday by car or public transport, shopping in a supermarket, internet dating, fiddling with the same smartphones, listening to similar pop music, watching the same/similar movies, playing the same video games. Contrast that to the differences between them and their own great grandparents less than a century ago.

    I will disagree with you there. Your 20 something Dubliner would be able to converse with their great grandparent. If the same Dubliner was to bump into his cultural cousin in Shenzhen, for all their cultural similarity they would be reduced to pointing and drawing pictures to discuss their deep shared cultural heritage. And what shared culture would they be discussing anyway? Their shared love of the consumer products of Apple Corporation? On this rock they will build their church?

    When we talk about culture, I think I can show you what shared culture is. Look at this video, "Becoming Men".

    It's contemporary footage of young Dubliners today playing in the canals and rivers of Dublin. It is overlaid with an old man talking about the Dublin of his youth and how he and his friends played 50-60 years before. The beauty of the film is how the old man's account describes the activities of his grandchildren. That is a shared culture. It is not unchanged, but that man and his grandson could actually recognise each other as being connected in a way beyond simply customers of the same corporation.
    Social attitudes are also progressing globally along the same curve, with greater tolerances for religious, sexual, racial and gender equality pretty much universally with localised exceptions mainly due to conflicts (conflicts themselves are decreasing in quantity and severity). Even in countries like Saudi Arabia which are far behind, are still progressing albeit at a slower pace, but with great potential for rapid acceleration.

    I think the hope for linear progression to a global convergence of morality and values is a bit naive. I cant recall the exact quote (I think it might be connected to Napoleon being in Egypt), but there was a famous Enlightenment philosopher who like yourself excitedly described the great awakening of progressive values in the Islamic world and predicted they would quickly join the Enlightenment. 220 years later ISIS is still cutting peoples heads off for insulting the Prophet.
    The rub is that the rate of change means that ethnicity and culture cannot be conserved or controlled so arguing about whether it's desirable is entirely academic. The best we can do is preserve records and artefacts so that future generations can understand us and where they came from.

    As above, it can of course be controlled. China has controlled it whilst benefiting immensely from globalisation. Ethnicity has survived where monarchies, ideals and even states have fallen. Look at Poland. The state of Poland disappeared in the late 18th century, but the Polish people didn't and the state re-emerged. More recently, look at the Germans. Divided between idealogical camps, a front line in the cold war but East Germans felt a shared kinship with West Germans, over and beyond that shared with the ideological comrades in the USSR. Ethnicity has outlasted philosophies.

    Why skate uphill?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,267 ✭✭✭fash


    I would just like to say that I am pleasantly surprised at the quality of posting and the mutual respect from everyone on the thread - perhaps I shouldn’t be.

    Personally I think the jury is out on Sunni Muslim migration in particular - the problem is that they (surprisingly) actually believe in their religion, which seems to have been unexpected when they were brought in.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,435 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Where are the Europeans fleeing and to where do they seek refuge?

    They flee from diverse areas and seek refuge in homogeneous areas. The concept of white flight is well established. And its not one sided, the new arrivals congregate on areas where they will find their cultural kin.
    I have been living in London for well over a year and a half now and haven't seen a single armed soldier. Not a one and I work in the centre of the city.

    I visit London from time to time for work, specifically Canary Wharf and I notice the much tougher security and vehicle barriers in those areas than exists in similar institutions in Dublin.

    In London there have been armed soldiers. In France, Opération Sentinelle is the single biggest task of the French Army and deploying 10,000 soldiers is hugely affecting what is a small army with an immense number of tasks and demands placed on it. You might not have seen them, but they are there.
    Now, you say English people are a minority. Do you mean white English people or is it that non-white English people are not actually English?

    That's a difficult question actually. You could discuss this for quite a while and never reach a simple answer. English is a nationality which has existed at least back to the Anglo-Saxon invasion. There are no English passports, and for all it matters there is no English state. But it still exists. It predates the UK and it will likely outlast the UK. UK/Britain is a state, it issues passports. The new inhabitants of London do hold them and are unarguably British citizens. So while London might arguably be just as British as it was in the time of Mary Poppins, I don't think you can say it is just as English.

    The odd thing is, British nationalists would likely disagree with me. Britain is a multi-national identity. English, Scottish, Welsh and to some extent at least Irish. Part of British nationalism (which is an oxymoron in my view) would insist anyone can be British, and everyone in the current territory was always British. They just didn't know it yet. This viewpoint feeds into the "global Britain" Brexit we're currently seeing.
    Regarding your claim of Muslims heading off to fight for IS, how many didn't? Considering that the UK has millions of Muslims, almost all of whom did not leave to fight for IS, I am not sure why you are citing this.

    I'm citing it because it demonstrates the division: English people fight for the British army and British interests. The British army is built on working class English people. The idea that English people would be more attracted to travelling 2,500 miles to fight for a force that is hostile to England, over fighting for the British army? Its unthinkable. But the situation is reversed for the British Muslims. It seems more palatable to fight for a "foreign" force than to fight for the British Army.

    That this is strange or odd of course presumes that British Muslims and English people are one and the same and interchangeable. I cite this because it demonstrates how different they are.
    Again, you're looking at it entirely through the prism of immigration. On Brexit, there are swathes of people across the UK who grew up in households where their Dad worked while Mum stayed at home. Now, those people work zero-hour contracts and living in houseshares. Stagnant wages along with protectionist housing policies have done more to stoke resentment in my opinion not forgetting biting austerity and the slashing of local services begun by the coalition government of 2010-2015. As you say, the UK has been importing people for a long time. Why has Brexit only just happened when UKIP has existed since 1993? My answer is that it is a perfect storm of austerity, stagnant wages, economic inequality, a skewed jobs market awash with McJobs and zero hour contracts, a lack of security, and problems both real and perceived with immigration.

    Not entirely. I think I've been clear that Europeans failing to have children is a sign of deep problems in the last 50-70 years of European policy. Those problems would exist with or without migration. There are huge pressures on Europeans and if anything immigration is cited as a solution, so its a response in many ways rather than the precursor.

    Brexit is clearly a result of deep problems but the English are uniquely obsessed with the EU and the perceived loss of their identity. Brexit was driven by the English and English identity over and beyond British identity. 'The Lure of Greatness' book cites surveys which demonstrates that the English are standouts in believing the EU holds far more power than it actually does: the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish align with the European norm. But for the English the EU is a terrible threat. The Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish are largely exposed to the same media, so the undoubtedly toxic British media isnt a total explanation.

    England is unduly exposed to the benefits of diversity and the strains on infrastructure, housing and so on. They are seeing their towns become non-English. They are seeing their capital become non-English. They are seeing their government become non-English. Whats more, the new immigrants are hostile to British heritage, which is denounced as racism, imperialism, colonialism.

    The Lure of Greatness presents a very convincing argument that a revolt against neoliberalism - the idea of competition in itself being a good thing - is underpinning Brexit and indeed Trump. The idea of competition as a good has been extended to demographics. You see traces of it here in some posters. If Americans lose out to new immigrants, they deserve to lose. If English people lose out to new immigrants, they deserve to lose. There is a race to the bottom, to the zero hour contracts which English people must take or else new immigrants will be brought in to "do the jobs English people wont do".

    I don't think you can divide the problem and put economic pressures in one bucket and immigration into the other bucket. It is the same pressure on the indigenous European population. Out-compete the third world, or the third world will come to Europe to do it for you.

    Brexit is an ugly, wrong, stupid response. The problem is not the EU. If anything, the EU is protectionist. It is the British government which has endorsed this, and the British government which has driven a globalist stance at the EU. But the grievances behind Brexit are very real and very understandable. The absolute tragedy is that those grievances are being co-opted by slime like JRM to further the transition of the UK from a country to Airstrip One.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 36,787 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Sand wrote: »
    They flee from diverse areas and seek refuge in homogeneous areas. The concept of white flight is well established. And its not one sided, the new arrivals congregate on areas where they will find their cultural kin.

    Indeed it is but it only applies to some white people. Some move, some don't. If you're a foreigner moving abroad and you know of people of the same nationality then you're going to find it convenient to be near those people.
    Sand wrote: »
    I visit London from time to time for work, specifically Canary Wharf and I notice the much tougher security and vehicle barriers in those areas than exists in similar institutions in Dublin.

    In London there have been armed soldiers. In France, Opération Sentinelle is the single biggest task of the French Army and deploying 10,000 soldiers is hugely affecting what is a small army with an immense number of tasks and demands placed on it. You might not have seen them, but they are there.

    Fair enough. It has been some time since the last terrorist attacks in London and Paris so maybe the military presence is more subtle now or it's being scaled down. I don't know.
    Sand wrote: »
    I'm citing it because it demonstrates the division: English people fight for the British army and British interests. The British army is built on working class English people. The idea that English people would be more attracted to travelling 2,500 miles to fight for a force that is hostile to England, over fighting for the British army? Its unthinkable. But the situation is reversed for the British Muslims. It seems more palatable to fight for a "foreign" force than to fight for the British Army.

    That this is strange or odd of course presumes that British Muslims and English people are one and the same and interchangeable. I cite this because it demonstrates how different they are.

    I don't think it does. This link from 2017 gives 850 as the total number of people who have joined ISIS. Given that there are millions of Muslims in the UK this is a very low number though I do have to admit that it is higher than the number of Muslims in the armed forces (480 according to this)
    Sand wrote: »
    Not entirely. I think I've been clear that Europeans failing to have children is a sign of deep problems in the last 50-70 years of European policy. Those problems would exist with or without migration. There are huge pressures on Europeans and if anything immigration is cited as a solution, so its a response in many ways rather than the precursor.

    Immigration needs to be managed with investment in services and the allocation of resources which is anathema to the decades of laissez-faire government that the British elecroate has consistently voted for.
    Sand wrote: »
    Brexit is clearly a result of deep problems but the English are uniquely obsessed with the EU and the perceived loss of their identity. Brexit was driven by the English and English identity over and beyond British identity. 'The Lure of Greatness' book cites surveys which demonstrates that the English are standouts in believing the EU holds far more power than it actually does: the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish align with the European norm. But for the English the EU is a terrible threat. The Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish are largely exposed to the same media, so the undoubtedly toxic British media isnt a total explanation.

    England is unduly exposed to the benefits of diversity and the strains on infrastructure, housing and so on. They are seeing their towns become non-English. They are seeing their capital become non-English. They are seeing their government become non-English. Whats more, the new immigrants are hostile to British heritage, which is denounced as racism, imperialism, colonialism.

    Except that the areas which voted for Leave tended to exhibit the lowest levels of immigraiton. From The Economist:

    20160716_woc890.png

    This suggests that it wasn't a loss of English culture and identity which fuelled the Leave vote but a perceived loss of said culture and identity. I don't know exactly what is behind it. I've mentioned economics before. However, many bastions of collectivism have collapsed such as organised religion, trade unions, workers clubs (Saw one in Battle. Had no idea they even existed), etc. Today's people seem to be much more focused on the individual which is good in a liberal sense but bad in that these social outlets have largely disappeared. Social media and the internet are also likely to be playing a part in this.

    You say that new immigrants are hostile to British heritage but I disagree. I'm not seeing much in the way of hostility from most immigrants. If anyone is hostile to British heritage, it's modern University students but that's a discussion for somewhere else methinks.

    The English identity is evolving. The result of this is that some people will feel left behind. Traditional policies of leaving them to it have been proven to foment festering pits of resentment which have allowed for the rise of UKIP/Trump and put the UK in a position where its own politicians are undermining checks and balances on government power.
    Sand wrote: »
    The Lure of Greatness presents a very convincing argument that a revolt against neoliberalism - the idea of competition in itself being a good thing - is underpinning Brexit and indeed Trump. The idea of competition as a good has been extended to demographics. You see traces of it here in some posters. If Americans lose out to new immigrants, they deserve to lose. If English people lose out to new immigrants, they deserve to lose. There is a race to the bottom, to the zero hour contracts which English people must take or else new immigrants will be brought in to "do the jobs English people wont do".

    I don't think you can divide the problem and put economic pressures in one bucket and immigration into the other bucket. It is the same pressure on the indigenous European population. Out-compete the third world, or the third world will come to Europe to do it for you.

    Brexit is an ugly, wrong, stupid response. The problem is not the EU. If anything, the EU is protectionist. It is the British government which has endorsed this, and the British government which has driven a globalist stance at the EU. But the grievances behind Brexit are very real and very understandable. The absolute tragedy is that those grievances are being co-opted by slime like JRM to further the transition of the UK from a country to Airstrip One.

    I'm old enough to remember the time when the right-wing tabloids had their sights trained firmly on the working and welfare classes. If you were poor, you were told to get a job. If it wasn't paying enough, you should go do a course at your own expense. Don't have the money? You should have made better life choices. Ditto for families living on the breadline, people claiming disability benefits, etc... When the Eastern nations acceded to the EU, newspaper editors realised that they could make more money by selling Xenophobia to the working classes instead of selling classism to the middle classes. Younger people are less likely to rely on traditional media for information so that market is already dry so there is no risk of alienating readers. If Brexit succeeds in cutting immigration levels and Mrs. May's hostile environment persuades the Muslims to leave then there's not a shread of doubt in my mind that they'll go back to bashing the lower classes once again. There needs to be a villain after all.

    I might check out that book. Sounds like it might be interesting.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Sand wrote: »
    You're presenting a subjective view of the issue against my own objective view. It's a bad policy, so it shouldn't be enacted.
    If you're going to claim that the xenophobia you're espousing - and yes, it's pretty much a dictionary definition of xenophobia - is simply a statement of objective fact, there's no possibility of a rational discussion on the topic.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Speaking of it being impossible to have a rational conversation:
    Mutant z wrote: »
    The Muslim population of this country according to the census is about 63000 which i believe is an underestimate but in any case its growing and growing rapidly at the expense of the indigenous population we are in for a rocky road ahead.

    You believe - without adducing any evidence (apparently you have a more reliable source than the national census, but you appear to have forgotten to cite it) - that it's an underestimate. You claim without evidence that it's growing rapidly. You claim without evidence that it's at the expense of the indigenous population. And you declare, based on this breathtaking lack of any objective facts whatsoever, that we're in for a rocky road ahead because of the existential threat posed by one percent of the population.

    Give me strength.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭BabyCheeses


    Sand wrote: »
    Uh, I never mentioned paedophilia. You referenced the defeat of Roy Moore as being a triumph for black people. I.E. racial politics.

    No I didn't.
    Sand wrote: »
    You're asking what the solution is for the USA. I'm telling you, there is no solution in 2018 bar building a time machine and stopping the 1965 immigration act. Racial division is the present and the future of the USA. You cannot do anything to solve that.

    That is nothing new. They had a war over keeping one group as property 100 years before the immigration act.
    Sand wrote: »
    What you're missing is I only referenced the US to show how demographics can rapidly shift in just two generations.

    And I was pointing out it was wrong.
    Sand wrote: »
    The problem that can be solved is Europe.

    Nope, too late.
    splashuum wrote: »
    Would like to get peoples opinions on this.
    There seems to be many writers/figures that share a similar view while claiming similar stats.

    “Mark Steyn aims to show in a video how Western Europe is apparently already in the death throes of “demographic suicide” because couples are no longer having enough children. He then shows how a thriving Muslim population in Western Europe is well on its way to filling all the empty space. “

    “Steyn explained how given the divergent birth rate between Muslims and post-Christian secularists, it will take only two generations for the current Muslim population (sitting at about 10-percent) to have as many grandchildren as post-Christian secularists (who currently make up the other 90 percent). This is due, he said, to Muslims having on average 3.5 children per couple compared to post-Christian secularists who have only 1.3 children per couple”

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/muslim-takeover-of-europe-is-biggest-story-of-our-time-and-nobody-knows-it

    We're not even safe with our own secret Muslims!
    Mutant z wrote: »
    The Muslim population of this country according to the census is about 63000 which i believe is an underestimate but in any case its growing and growing rapidly at the expense of the indigenous population we are in for a rocky road ahead.
    Sand wrote: »
    And the solution there is two fold: A) End mass immigration into Europe. B) Examine and address the causes of Europeans failing to have children.

    Great, the mass immigration buzzword I've been hearing for years. For some 1 is 1 too many and they are welcomed within the put a stop to mass immigration group.

    B I would agree with but for some reason people tend to stick to yelling about A.

    Wouldn't any political parties looking at both A and B come under racial politics?
    Sand wrote: »
    Polish people can be assimilated. Lapsed Catholics who have issues with alcohol will fit in just fine in Ireland. Migration from within a region is much easier to handle than migration from outside a region.

    I wouldn't consider the Polish to be very lapsed.
    Sand wrote: »
    White South Africans have been present in the cape for centuries, but they haven't been assimilated by the local Africans, and they never will be.

    You mean the immigrants failed to assimilate into the local Africans as the Muslims are failing to assimilate in Europe right?


    I'm still left wonder why I should be against my friends being here while supporting people who just hate them for existing. I have perfectly nice, friendly non-white friends, some are Muslims, some are Spanish. I have a nice time with them, come home and I log into boards.ie to see a thread where a car has a wheel on the curb and the comments from the same few people are always:

    "It was Muslims, Muslims bad"
    "This it the EU's fault. Thanks Merkel for killing us all!!!!"

    And of course when it turns out it had nothing to do with Muslims they still complain about Muslims and am supposed to sit here and think that yeah, these people are right, it's time to kick out my Muslim and Spanish friends!

    A good start would be for those who think the world is ending to calm down and stop being terrible people that I am ashamed to be associated with.


  • Registered Users Posts: 751 ✭✭✭quintana76


    We are being betrayed on the above issue by our establishments. Too much to gain on their part to consider the existential losses for the working class and it's long treasured cultural cohesion. They, in turn, have nowhere to turn as the far left (left in general) and the smoke salmon "socialists" all despise them with the move from class to identity politics. These groups seem more happy to excuse Islamic intolerance than stand up for the rights and desires of the people they were founded to make a better life for.
    Strange days indeed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    quintana76 wrote: »
    We are being betrayed on the above issue by our establishments. Too much to gain on their part to consider the existential losses for the working class and it's long treasured cultural cohesion. They, in turn, have nowhere to turn as the far left (left in general) and the smoke salmon "socialists" all despise them with the move from class to identity politics. These groups seem more happy to excuse Islamic intolerance than stand up for the rights and desires of the people they were founded to make a better life for.
    Strange days indeed.

    I'm on the left and have no interest in excusing islamic intolerance. I have every sympathy for the working class. I just don't see any evidence of this so called Muslim takeover of Ireland or the EU. It seems little more than a fanciful conspiracy theory boosted ultimately by the underlying prejudice of its proponents.


  • Registered Users Posts: 36,023 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If you're going to claim that the xenophobia you're espousing - and yes, it's pretty much a dictionary definition of xenophobia - is simply a statement of objective fact, there's no possibility of a rational discussion on the topic.

    Meh, I'd say he's holding a very rational discussion on the topic. You refusing to respond to his rebuttal of your post can not be reasonably based on the above imo.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Sand wrote: »
    Your source says this:



    I know this is a struggle to accept, but the majority of children in the US *today* are not white. By 2060 those children will be 42 years old and likely have children of their own. Do the math. This idea of the US being a white majority country belongs to 1960, not 2060.



    As I've stated white Americans are a minority already. Nobody cares if white Americans are still a majority of the 40+ and older age groups. They don't have children so that only tells us about the past. The demographic breakdown of US children tells us about the future. And that has changed utterly in just two generations.

    It is too late to close the border or build a wall if the aim is to prevent white Americans becoming a minority. Short of inventing a time machine and going back to 1965 there is nothing to be done. So the US is going to see more racially divisive politics as is the norm in racially divided democracies. That is unavoidable at this point.

    My only question is why you would want to repeat this experience in Europe? What is to be gained?

    What is your issue? You seem to want to preserve any white majority. Why? Are the whites somehow more deserving? This seems to be a skin colour issue for you. There is no white ethnic group that isn't a mix of several white ethnic groups. So we've already have and continue to have a mixing of cultures and religions, in the white populations of the world themselves.
    Money is king. It seems those with the most, simply want to keep it. I don't see any real argument here for white being preferable, other than I assume, you being white and liking the status quo as is. People of other colours have the same hang ups and flaws the whites do, so I can't see the 1% giving it all away no matter what colour they may blend into. Things will not radically change in that regard.
    Governments generally treat their poor with disdain. Regardless of the colour or religion, I can't see that changing either. Is the fear foreigners might take our low paying jobs?


Advertisement