Europe submits voluntarily

[repoman]

This is spiritual leader of the anti immigration movement, Weev...

 

[repoman]

Love is Giant Wall (I think I haven't posted this before)

 

[bilby]

Sure. But there is no evidence whatsoever that 'best' means 'welfare'.

If you ask the refugees, you will find that what they really want is a job, not a hand-out. And they are denied both, while the fascist morons complain that they are taking so much of both as to harm the locals. The anti-refugee argument is built upon a vast edifice of lies, half-truths and illogic.

If someone offered you say, $2000 a week for doing fuck all but pray five times a day, and another offered you the same but with no praying time, but you'd have to work your ass off doing manual labour. Which would you choose?

If someone offered you a million dollars an hour for scratching your arse, and another offered you a dollar a year to break rocks with a sledgehammer, which would you choose?

I'll take 'Things nobody is offering to refugees' for $10 please Alex.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Okay. Point given. Let me re phrase it then. Shia/Sunni have been at war with each other since the paedophile's death!

There was no "war" between these groups in Iraq for hundreds of years until the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people.

Sunni and Shiite lived side by side, not even knowing what the other was.

It is a LIE to say there was sectarian violence between these groups in Iraq before the US terrorist attack that blew up the place.

That attack, like many attacks in history set these people back hundreds of years. Mission Accomplished!

There were tensions between the groups before Saddam took over. I would agree with this WIKI statement. Nonetheless despite atrocities, he raised the living standards of the people and generally resolved or as I said earlier contained any divisions. As an ally of Europe and the US he received the weaponry to attack the Kurds. You mentioned this earlier.

cut and pasted directly from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

After the Ba'athists took power in 1968, Saddam focused on attaining stability in a nation riddled with profound tensions. Long before Saddam, Iraq had been split along social, ethnic, religious, and economic fault lines: Sunni versus Shi'ite, Arab versus Kurd, tribal chief versus urban merchant, nomad versus peasant.[33] The desire for stable rule in a country rife with factionalism led Saddam to pursue both massive repression and the improvement of living standards.[33] unquote

He also started a campaign in the 1970s to promote literacy amongst women.

Here is another cut and paste but I have not looked in detail to establish as much as possible the facts.

On 16 March 1988, the Kurdish town of Halabja was attacked with a mix of mustard gas and nerve agents, killing 5,000 civilians, and maiming, disfiguring, or seriously debilitating 10,000 more. (see Halabja poison gas attack)[61] The attack occurred in conjunction with the 1988 al-Anfal Campaign designed to reassert central control of the mostly Kurdish population of areas of northern Iraq and defeat the Kurdish peshmerga rebel forces. The United States now maintains that Saddam ordered the attack to terrorize the Kurdish population in northern Iraq,[61] but Saddam's regime claimed at the time that Iran was responsible for the attack[62] which some[who?] including the U.S. supported until several years later.

 

[untermensche]

There were tensions between the groups before Saddam took over. I would agree with this WIKI statement.

Where exactly in the world are there no tensions?

Give me the last time before the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people in 2003 that a mosque was bombed in Iraq by either Shiite or Sunni.

And I don't mean this:

Bombing of Iraq (1998)

Some critics of the Clinton administration, including Republican members of Congress,[24] expressed concern over the timing of Operation Desert Fox.[25] The four-day bombing campaign occurred at the same time the U.S. House of Representatives was conducting the impeachment hearing of President Clinton. Clinton was impeached on December 19, the last day of the bombing campaign.

There were dozens of Iraqi civilians killed by missiles that missed their targets, possibly as many or more Iraqi military, and no U.S. or British casualties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_%281998%29#cite_note-27

We know exactly how many people were killed in the last attack in Paris. The same with 911.

But when they are US victims it is "dozens" of nameless faceless nobodies.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Where exactly in the world are there no tensions?

Give me the last time before the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people in 2003 that a mosque was bombed in Iraq by either Shiite or Sunni.

And I don't mean this:

Bombing of Iraq (1998)

Some critics of the Clinton administration, including Republican members of Congress,[24] expressed concern over the timing of Operation Desert Fox.[25] The four-day bombing campaign occurred at the same time the U.S. House of Representatives was conducting the impeachment hearing of President Clinton. Clinton was impeached on December 19, the last day of the bombing campaign.

There were dozens of Iraqi civilians killed by missiles that missed their targets, possibly as many or more Iraqi military, and no U.S. or British casualties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_%281998%29#cite_note-27

We know exactly how many people were killed in the last attack in Paris. The same with 911.

But when they are US victims it is "dozens" of nameless faceless nobodies.

We know hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of the needless wars in Iraq. Possibly up to one million. This includes US and allied troops who entered a war built on a pack of lies. UNESCO and UN records can show this. What we replaced Saddam with is a complete disaster where much of the country is now totally splintered into fiefdoms with a token puppet administration.

 

[TSwizzle]

Over a million "refugees" have made it to Europe;

More than a million people have now reached Europe through irregular means in 2015, the International Organisation for Migration has announced, in what constitutes the continent’s biggest wave of mass migration since the aftermath of the second world war.
The overall figure is a four-fold increase from 2014’s figures, and has largely been driven by Syrians fleeing their country’s civil war. Afghans, Iraqis and Eritreans fleeing conflict and repression are the other significant national groups.

Guardian

To be fair to The Guardian, their headline appears to acknowledge that not all one million are refugees, some are *gasp* "migrants". Better ramp up the "gender sensitivity" courses.

 

[angelo]

Take note of the Guardian with a large dollop of salt!

 

[whichphilosophy]

Take note of the Guardian with a large dollop of salt!

It does repeat the case that few are really refugees for asylum but economic migrants. A dollop of salt is of course required.

 

[Bomb#20]

Finally, some free time to go through the backlog...

Doubtful, but it's obvious that no one would bother retreading through your overlong, endless attempts at muddying the waters in the first place.

By "muddying the waters", you are referring to my pointing out facts that are incompatible with your fictional narrative.

Precisely. As you can see, the point of that response was to refute DZ's characterization of such fears as irrational.

And of course, you didn't even quote that response in its entirety. As I said, it's all there in black and white.

Oh for the love of god! You're complaining I left out

"That would be lovely if police protection were a dependable way to keep people in high-crime areas from being victimized. But when the police investigate a crime and all the witnesses refuse to testify because either they're intimidated by the gangs or they see the police as the enemy, who's going to apply the lawful sanction against the street thugs?"?​

I left that out because it was more of the same and I shouldn't have to beat a dead horse for your benefit. That was a response to you writing

"And since European countries have laws prohibiting this sort of behavior, the picture you are painting of Muslims running around willy nilly, imposing sharia on hapless innocents without sanction, reeks of paranoia"​

I was explaining why you were wrong. European countries having laws prohibiting this sort of behavior does not imply that fear of such behavior reeks of paranoia, for the painfully obvious reason that such laws are very difficult to enforce, for the reasons stated. As in the other paragraph and in the rest of the context you keep ignoring, I was still refuting the charge that it's irrational to be afraid of Muslim criminals enforcing their rules.

My interpretation of it was the logical one, your incessant handwaving aside.

No, you keep persistently trying to shove the words you put in my mouth back in. Making false claims about me with reckless disregard for the truth is still unethical even though you see me as an enemy. Stop it.

I'm not disputing that there would be observable consequences; of course there would be. I'm trying to get you to say what the observable consequence of a no-go zone would be.

What you are trying to do is avoid having to actually build a case for the existence of Muslim no-go zones, because you know it will get knocked on its ass.

Trying to reframe the question changes nothing; if said zones existed, these "observable consequences" would be quite obvious, would allow for no other conclusion than that said zones exist, and you wouldn't need me to enumerate them.

Reframe the question?!? Where the heck do you get the gall to make so many baseless accusations? The question remains exactly what it always was: "Supposing, hypothetically, that there were such areas, how do you think we would know?"

But of course, even though it's painfully obvious that you buy into the idea, you have no evidence that they exist, just the rantings of right-wing lunatics. If you had something more, you'd have presented it by now.

And if I were capable of kicking a field goal no doubt I'd have done it by now even though you haven't set up the goal post yet. If I kicked a field goal before you put up a goal post, you'd see where the ball went, and then you'd put up a goal post somewhere else, and then you'd claim that the fact that the ball didn't go over where the goal post was going to be is proof that I can't kick a field goal.

Let's try it this way. Since you won't tell us what the evidence would be, how about I tell you what the evidence would be? Then you can accept that standard, or you can tell me why it's wrong, or you can once again make a spectacle of yourself refusing to answer a perfectly fair question.

If, hypothetically, there are no-go areas in European cities, there are two ways you could become aware of that fact. (a) You could fly to Europe, ask around until you hear about some areas alleged to be no-go, go up to a hundred yards or so from the periphery of one of them, loiter about until you see a cop looking in your direction, and then, in his full view, commit a crime, such as mugging someone. It would probably help if you have a confederate willing to play-act at being mugged. When the cop starts running toward you, run away from him into the reputed no-go area and see whether he comes in after you and arrests you, or breaks off the chase and doesn't enter the area. You might need to do this experiment several times to get a statistically significant sample -- it is of course entirely plausible that there are some no-go areas but there are also some other places reputed to be no-go areas that aren't really.

Or (b) You could take somebody's word for it.

You obviously are never going to carry out experiment (a). Therefore, either there simply is no hypothetical evidence you would accept for no-go areas existing, because your belief that there are none is unfalsifiable faith, or else there is somebody whose word you would take. So let's give you the benefit of the doubt and suppose for the sake of discussion that you are not a faith-based person.

If some place in a European city is a no-go area, what person in a position to know about it is a person whose word you would accept?

As we've seen, though, actually taking a concrete stance and providing the necessary evidence to support it is not your strength. You much prefer to draw discussions away from substance, constantly changing the subject by asking pointless or irrelevant questions, disingenuously misrepresenting your own words or those of others, and just generally confusing the issue.

Disingenuously? Entirely apart from the fact that you have as usual no reason to believe any of those accusations are the truth, you're now calling me a liar. That's a terms-of-use violation.

Hypocrite. You made an assertion; you said "He who makes assertions, backs them up, using credible sources."; and you're refusing to back up your assertion, even to the extent of showing there's a 51% chance you're right.

Correct, because the assertion doesn't require substantiation, for the reasons I gave.

So we agree you're a hypocrite.

Your hypocrisy aside, public support for legal imposition of Sharia on non-Muslim Europeans is rising. Therefore, merely extrapolating from present trends implies that it will happen.

Are you <expletive deleted> serious? For one, you've presented no sources to document this "rising" support for Sharia...

Oh for heaven's sake! Read a poll and look up demographics on-line. 40% of UK Muslims favor sharia for Britain; 25 years ago the Muslim population was less than 40% of what it is today. So even if every one of them favored sharia back then, the support has risen over that time frame, unless you want to seriously propose that 25 years ago a lot of non-Muslims wanted sharia. This is not rocket science.

..., and two, its mere existence does not lead to the logical conclusion that it will manifest into anything, for reasons that any person with basic critical thinking skills doesn't need to hear.

Nobody said it did. It's mere existence leads to the logical conclusion that it will manifest into something unless something else interrupts that rise in popularity. I simply pointed out that the existence of the trend is sufficient to make the claim that sharia isn't going to happen a positive claim.

Until you can present a plausible scenario, supported by valid data, in which Muslims impose Sharia on non-Muslim Europeans, my characterization of it as an outlandish and ridiculous idea that can be dismissed out of hand, stands.

The plausible scenario is simply that present trends continue. For you to deny that that scenario is plausible is the same thing as you asserting that something is going to interrupt the trend. Fine -- I didn't claim the trend shows sharia will happen -- all the trend shows is that you're the one making the positive claim. So quit making believe you can disprove a position you disagree with by insulting it. Put up or shut up: tell us what's going to interrupt the trend.

Is there a precedent somewhere for dismissing a juror for being a braindead idiot? There ought to be. Because <snip>

It appears we're at an impasse. The hypothesis that I'm wrong appears to imply that some improbable alternate theory must be correct; you're resisting having this explored further by refusing to pick an alternate theory. So we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Warpoet]

Jesus fuck. If you are going to continue a discussion, particularly one where you have no intention of proceeding with any modicum of intellectual honesty, at least have the decency to do so within a reasonable timeframe, not nearly a god damned month after the fact. If you can't do that, walk the fuck away.

There is no new impasse that we're just reaching now; rather, it's the same one we've had from the start: you talking out of your ass, overstating the threat posed by European Muslims and then engaging in your trademark obfuscatory gymnastics to avoid having to provide any substantiating evidence. The idea that I need to go verify firsthand the existence or non-existence of these "no-go zones," or take someone else's word for it - as though evidence from a real source were merely "someone's word" - is a fucking joke. But it's not quite as bad as your completely ass-backwards, obviously deliberate misunderstanding of demographic trends, and how the democratic process itself works.

And there's no basis to agree to disagree about your jizya claims. You pulled an assertion out of your asshole, and when pressed for evidence, could only provide material that was either highly questionable, or didn't support your claim in the first place. That's what happened; you can disagree, you're just simply wrong. But that clearly doesn't stop you from attempting to bury obvious truths with long-winded and intellectually dishonest bullshit, even if it takes you a month at a time to churn it out.

 

[Bomb#20]

But the Pew calculations assume the number of migrants will stay the same; they do not allow for one of the major subcategories of migration growing two and a half times larger.

And it hasn't.

Quote me saying it has.

You're looking at a snapshotted frame of a whole taken during a major humanitarian crisis

No, I'm not. You made that up out of whole cloth.

, and then as if you were completely and utterly incapable of reasoning beyond the level of average redneck/chav/tokkie/insert-national-equivalent-term, blindly assume that the long-term trend average has massively shifted upward when there is no bloody reason to think that's going to be the case and when it might even end up lower than the previous average.

Have you considered the merits of subjecting your first impressions to five seconds of critical thought before you divert your considerable intellect to the more pleasurable task of composing an artistic insult? You appear to have decided for no reason at all that the factor of 2.5 I was referring to is the spike in immigration due to the Syria crisis. I was referring to your own figures implying the Muslim population of Europe is going to be 2.5 times higher by 2050. That means the number of "retrieve marriages" is also going to be about 2.5 times higher by 2050 if the proportion of Muslims getting their spouses that way remains at current levels. This is basic demographics; it has nothing to do with snapshots during a major humanitarian crisis. Pew didn't allow for that gradual long-term immigration rise in their projection; therefore they have implicitly assumed that by 2050 the "retrieve marriage" rate will have fallen to 40% of its current level.

Ironically, the party actually guilty of assuming a long-term trend has massively shifted based on a snapshot taken during a temporary disruption is Pew. They calculated the 2010 immigration rate by taking a ten year average and adjusting it downward because of the general worldwide drop in migration during the Great Recession. I understand why they did it -- they were working from a 2010 snapshot of everything else. If they tried to estimate long-term trends for a hundred different variables measured over a hundred different intervals there's no expectation that the results would even be internally consistent. But it does mean they're assuming unrealistically low immigration numbers. As Pew said in the report, it's a projection, not a prediction.

 

[Bomb#20]

Except when push comes to shove you're okay with forcing your fellow inhabitants to live with increased crime and you're okay with forcing them to pay to support refugees. "I welcome the refugees with open arms. I'd do it even if it would be a huge cost to Sweden."

1. Why would it lead to increased crime? Do you have any actual arguments other than you just feel it in your bones?

Are you seriously disputing that migrants and their children are high-crime demographics? According to Wikipedia, "In 1998, there were 1,746,921 inhabitants of foreign background and their descendants (foreign born and children of international migrants) composing around 20% of the Swedish population.". So how much crime did they commit? Here's the citation) from Wikipedia's Immigration_and_crime#Sweden page:

A report studying 4.4 million Swedes between the ages of 15 and 51 during the period 1997-2001 found that 25% of crimes were committed by foreign-born individuals while and additional 20% were committed by individuals born to foreign-born parents.​

So according to your government, immigrants and their children were over twice as likely to commit crimes. (That's an average over all source countries. "The differences in crime participation from different countries of origin are very large. They vary between a minimum of 60 per thousand and a high of 200 per thousand." From the chart on page 52, the source countries of people more than three times as likely to commit crimes as Swedes are as follows: Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Chile, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Syria.)

2. I think this immigration will pay for itself pretty quickly.

Why do you think that? How will it pay for itself when you have cops whose job it is to try to catch refugees getting jobs and stop them?

All you need to do is stay in denial about what's right in front of your face: the fact that your conscience comes with a huge cost to Sweden.

Yes, it is expensive for Sweden. But in the big picture it's not particularly expensive. And there is a war in Syria. To me it's just the right thing to do

Do you have an argument for why it's the right thing to do that isn't an ad hominem argument? What moral theory says it's the right thing to do? How did the Swedes incur this liability for the problems of the world? Does being lucky enough to be born to ancestors who didn't screw up their country create a debt to people who were unlucky enough to be born to ancestors who did?

and I'm prepared to pay the price.

And you're also prepared to force your neighbors to pay the price too, Mr. "This is free country. We don't force people to do anything here. I'd like it to stay that way."

Also... if they chose to stay in Sweden we'll get the money back with interest. This is something that pays for itself in the long run.

Only if you let them get jobs, and only if their descendants assimilate and stop being a high-crime demographic. Which invites the question, do your you-have-to-stay-on-welfare cops also stop refugees' children from getting jobs?

Your government just diverted 8 billion krona from its foreign aid budget to partially defray costs of resettling refugees in Sweden and you're still telling yourself the policy you support doesn't cost your common people anything. Your perception of good and bad is obstructing your perception of true and false.

I don't have a problem with this. My opinion is that this money is ear-market for helping people in need where ever they may be.

You understand, don't you, that the reason it was 8 billion krona was because that's what EU rules allowed? It's not because that was the total bill. Sweden is diverting money from a lot of other budget areas too.

Who ever needs it the most gets it. Right now the Syrian refugees are the in the greatest need. So they get it.

Are you suggesting that the Syrian refugees who were able to pay their way to Sweden need this money more than the ones who weren't? For that matter, why would you think a guy who made it out of Syria to anywhere is in greater need than any random one of the hundreds of millions of people in the world subsisting on under $2 a day?

I think that's fine. I understand that other people who are used to getting that money are miffed. Such is life. It's our money. We get to spend it any way we want.

Cost to support a Syrian refugee in Sweden for a year: $52000 (Source)

Cost to support a Syrian refugee in Turkey for a year in "the nicest refugee camp in the world": $1700 (Source)

Why on earth do Swedes want to spend $52000 to save one person when they could save thirty?

You have every right to sacrifice your own best interests on the altar of your feeling of not having inherited the right to Sweden. But what right do you have to sacrifice the best interests of your fellow Swedes, and the best interests of the immigrants Sweden has already taken in?

But where is the sacrifice? Could you please explain what it is I am sacrifice? What is Sweden losing, except some money in the short term, which we most likely will earn back.

You're sacrificing your low-crime paradise.

Violent Crimes in Swedish Municipalities 1975-2012

Maybe they theoretically could; but with the numbers you're taking in a large fraction are bound to wind up joining the unemployed and impoverished underclass, living in ghettos where there's little secular civil society for them to fit into. Their kids' life-experience is unlikely to teach them to fit in just fine in secular Europe.

Ok, that's quite a colourful image you paint. The next step is arguing for why you think this is bound to happen. The studies I've seen tell a different story.

You've seen studies that say few are going to join the unemployed and impoverished underclass and move to ghettos? How did these studies acquire their oracular power? A large fraction of the previous waves of migrants joined the unemployed and impoverished underclass and moved to ghettos. That's how they became ghettos in the first place! So your studies are predicting a massive change for the better with the new round of migrants? What's different now? Will the latest migrants have a much easier time finding jobs now that there are so many more migrants competing for the limited number of careers that don't require speaking Swedish? Will the latest migrants be better able to afford expensive non-ghetto apartments now that the housing shortage is worse than ever?

Send a donation to a relief agency. You can help more refugees per krona by helping Jordan put them up than by putting them up in Sweden.

It depends what the goal is. If the goal is human storage until the war is over, then yes. But I think we can do better than that. Jordan and Lebanon are pushed to their limit. They're overwhelmed by the number of refugees.

There are 938,000 Syrian refugees in Jordan! Do you seriously imagine that taking one of them out of Jordan will help Jordan as much as giving Jordan $52,000 will?!?

It's much harder to integrate the refugees into society allowing them to work. It's better to spread them out over the world. Like Sweden for instance. Here they can live in peace and find jobs and such.

Why on earth do you believe it's harder in Jordan than in Sweden to integrate the refugees into society allowing them to work? This is not rocket science. Jordan is an Arabic-speaking country. Sweden is a Swedish-speaking country. The refugees speak Arabic. The refugees don't speak Swedish.

Note that this is hardly the first time the Swedish government has criticized the other EU countries for not taking their fair share of migrants. It's been doing that for years. Your government regarding asylum seekers as a burden goes back at least to 1997, when it signed onto the Dublin Convention.

The question is, why? If all migration is only a net benefit to the recipient country, why on earth has your government been trying to talk the rest of the EU into redirecting that net benefit away from Sweden?

It's an easy answer. Xenophobia. There's a general unease about losing some sort of ineffable Swedishness or Swedish culture by taking in refugees. The fact that it is nonsense doesn't stop people from acting on it.

So you're saying not only are the Sweden Democrats xenophobes, but the Alliance of Moderates, Centrists, Liberals and Christian Democrats are also xenophobes, and even the Social Democrats are xenophobes. The very people enforcing a cordon sanitaire aganst the SD because they're xenophobes are themselves xenophobes. Do I have that right? Is there anybody in Sweden you won't call a xenophobe? The Greens perhaps? Can you explain how a country apparently populated and ruled almost exclusively by xenophobes was able to decide to take in so many more refugees per capita than the rest of Europe?

They're doing it for racist reasons. It's got nothing to do with actual reality. In Sweden we have a racist political party called Sweden Democrats. ... This new policy is a desperate attempt to halt the Sweden Democrats from getting higher ratings.

1994: Sweden Democrats' vote = 0.3%
1997: Sweden signs Dublin Convention.
1998: Sweden Democrats' vote = 0.4%
2002: Sweden Democrats' vote = 1.4%
2006: Sweden Democrats' vote = 2.9%
2010: Sweden Democrats' vote = 5.7%
2014: Sweden Democrats' vote = 12.9%

(Source)

And this somehow proves they are not racists? The Sweden Democrats sprung from...

Dude! Read! Don't consult your inner vision and decide I meant something utterly unrelated to what I wrote.

No, what this somehow proves is that your government treating asylum seekers as a burden is transparently not motivated by fear of racist Sweden Democrats. They were doing it long before the SD became a plausible threat to keeping their jobs. Duh!

...the Swedish neo-nazi movement. <long pointless digression on wicked SDers and pathetic regular politicians snipped> "it's like the other parties have completely forgotten how to do politics".

http://www.theguardian.com/world/vi...e-young-supporters-of-swedens-far-right-video

That's an ad hominem argument. Do you think ad hominem arguments are logical?

Are you somehow trying to argue that the film doesn't prove that these people are racist?

Do you even listen to yourself? Exactly which part of "ad hominem argument" don't you understand? No, of course I am not trying to argue that the film doesn't prove that these people are racist. I assume it does prove that -- I didn't watch it since I'm already permanently far too pressed for time to do TFT debates justice, and the SD's racism isn't germane to any of the points in dispute. Why do you persistently ignore what I write and make believe that I'm denying the SD's racism?

The fact that the SD really is racist has no magic power to retroactively cause your government to have treated immigrants as a burden due to fear of the SD. And the fact that the SD really is racist, plus the fact that racism really is bad, plus the fact that the SD regard immigrants as a burden, have no magic power to cause immigrants not to be a burden. An ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy, even when the awful thing you accuse your opponent of is true. Deal with it.

The SD wouldn't be getting 12.9 of the vote if your mainstream parties had shown any willingness to compromise on their insanity, or even any willingness to discuss the matter civilly and refrain from using ad hominem arguments against the "unwashed masses" whenever your mainstream parties tell them to believe something that sounds ridiculous to them and they "no longer blindly obey and respect figures of authority".

Too bad the research doesn't show it's "insanity". All the research shows that it is very wise policy. Both humanitarian as well as fiscally.

Suppose somebody tells you something that sounds ridiculous to you. Suppose his approach to convincing you is telling you "the research" shows he's right, but he doesn't show you that research. Suppose you express skepticism. Suppose he reacts to your skepticism, not by giving you a comprehensible explanation, but by calling you the worst name he can think of. Would that convince you? Would it induce you to respect him? That's how your ruling class has been treating your great unwashed. That's how you are treating them, every time you equate their perceiving immigrants as a burden with racism. That's why 12.9% of your voters went for the SD. 12.9% of your voters haven't "sprung from the Swedish neo-nazi movement".

So what's your theory? That taking in hundreds of thousands of refugees and supporting them on welfare and stopping them from getting jobs isn't going to result in an exception to your rule that "all migration" is only a net benefit to the recipient country? That you still won't lose any money on it? That limiting the inflow is still a misguided mistake, even though they aren't producing anything for your country, provided the fact that they aren't producing anything is your fault?

If we take any winnings from something and just burn it. That isn't evidence that the system isn't working. We could instead... just not burn the money. In USA they didn't put up artificial barrier to the Cubans to find work. They just let the Cubans get on with it. No regulations. My suggestion is that we do the same here.

I don't get the facepalm.

The facepalm is because you are making an argument of the form "If we did X then Y would be a net benefit. Therefore Y is a net benefit." That's an illogical argument, an invalid inference. Advocating doing X, to somebody who's already in favor of doing X, has no magic power to make an illogical argument logical. You are treating the circumstance that it's Sweden's fault that the immigrants can't get jobs as if it were a good reason to believe that all those unemployed people are a benefit to your country. It is not a good reason.

Whose fault it is does not change the consequences of a massive largely unemployed immigrant underclass with nothing better to do all day than listen to radical preachers. First fix your stupid cruel policies that stop refugees from working. Then enact some serious programs to create jobs for them. Then wait for all those policy changes to have their effect and actually bring refugees' unemployment rate down to normal levels for a prosperous country. Then, only then, reopen the spigot.

That's not how political change is made. People are irrationally afraid of change. Unless the fault in the system is demonstrated people won't get it. I think the only way is to let people in until the system breaks and then they remove all these retarded and useless limitations on refugee labour.

Yes, there's a correlation between all manner of social problems and unemployment. We don't want these people just lying around. We want to get them working. So these laws need to change. The refugees aren't the problem. Only the law is.

That's not a valid inference. The fact that the law is a problem is not a reason to believe the refugees aren't also a problem. Back when you had the law and not the refugees, Sweden worked.

Incidentally, do you seriously imagine that you wouldn't still have a severe unemployment problem among refugees even if the stupid law were repealed? You've got plenty of Swedes who can't find jobs either, and they speak Swedish.

Your government appears to be full of people who think giving a refugee a welfare check instead of a job counts as being nice to him. It's not nice. Wring out your ideology-soaked brains and switch to

Niceness has got nothing to do with it.

Niceness has got everything to do with it -- your rulers have dealt with the conflict between the pressure to let people in and the pressure to keep jobs available for Swedes by refusing to make that hard choice, because letting refugees come in and live on welfare satisfies both pressure groups, and they decided that was an acceptable solution, because they thought letting refugees come in and live on welfare was being nice to them. Your rulers should have made the hard choice.

It's labour protection. This is about Sweden's working class worried that the immigrants competing for jobs. In order to ease their anxiety we just forbid the refugees from working.

Well.. labour (or market) protection has never worked for any country ever. It always ends in impoverishing everybody. But politics is rarely about wisdom and science. It's usually about pandering. This is pandering.

Letting the refugees in is pandering as well. If you don't recognize it as pandering, that's because it's pandering to people like you.

Yes. So stop telling the "unwashed masses" they're racists and start telling them what your plan is for getting your imbecilic government to change the laws that are filling your country with ghettos.

My plan is the bill. When we see the bill for giving all the refugees an all inclusive all expense paid vacation to Sweden we might start looking for an alternative solution. My hope is that we won't think it's worth it and just let the refugees go out and get jobs... just like anybody else in Sweden.

I.e., the beatings will continue until morale improves. "That's not how political change is made."

The refugees are very expensive. You've agreed they are, even if you define it as not counting as a real burden because it's Sweden's own fault for not letting them work. The burden remains, regardless of whose fault it is. So consider how that burden is being shared across Sweden's social classes. When you give refugees an all inclusive all expense paid vacation to Sweden, the burden is carried by your taxpayers. That means it's paid mainly by the rich and by your long-suffering middle class. In addition, the unemployed refugees tend to move into poor neighborhoods, which become high-crime ghettos, causing the Swedes with money to move out, so the crime hurts mainly the very poor. So the burden of the refugees is currently borne primarily by the very poor, the middle, and the rich. So who isn't bearing much of it? The lower-class workers. The people who are one missing paycheck away from not being able to pay their bills.

So what happens when you let the refugees go out and get jobs just like anybody else in Sweden? Most of those refugees are not going to open businesses or resume their old Syrian jobs as doctors and lawyers. They're going to be pounding the street looking for low-skill low-pay jobs, competing with the Swedish demographic currently being hurt least by their presence. To let refugees work is to massively shift the burden of Sweden hosting hundreds of thousands of refugees -- it shifts the burden away from the very poor, away from the middle class, away from the rich, onto the shoulders of the working poor. Low-skilled wages will stagnate, and unemployment among low-skilled Swedes will rise. Low-skilled Swedes will correctly perceive that the coming of the refugees has made their own lives harder than ever. So you tell me. What will those poorer-than-before low-skilled Swedes do in response? Which party will they vote for?

Your mainstream parties are just as capable of figuring this out as I am. Given a choice between driving the Swedish lower class into the arms of the Sweden Democrats, or else slamming the door to refugees shut, which choice do you think an SSDP government that you've already stipulated is scared out of its gourd by the SD will make? Oh, wait, we already know the answer to that one, don't we?

So no. Showing Swedes the bill for giving all the refugees an all inclusive all expense paid vacation to Sweden is not an effective strategy for getting your imbecilic government to let the refugees get jobs. Do you have a Plan B?

 

[Bomb#20]

Exactly how does being nice to the migrants we have now work if the rationalisation for stopping to bring in more is explicitly "they're Muslims, we don't need no Muslims"?

Why would the fact that you don't need someone stop you from being nice to him? Most of us encounter people we don't need every day and aren't mean to them. It's not as though a migrant came where he wasn't needed because he's a bad person; he came because he was living in a pesthole -- if we'd been in his shoes most of us would have done the same. ...

Yes but who made the " pesthole" as you call it?

Not the migrants. Their ancestors. Which parents they picked isn't the migrants' fault.

By huge numbers of these people fleeing from said " pesthole" and settling in Europe and bringing with them a backward, unchanging culture, they'll make the host nation a " pesthole" in a few decades as well!

If that's a high-probability outcome, that's a reason to keep more from coming. It's not a reason not to be nice to the ones who already came. Being mean to them won't get them to go home because home is a pesthole. And being mean to them only makes them more likely to make the host nation a pesthole in a few decades.

 

[Bomb#20]

Sure. But Germany is kind of unusual in this respect: its Muslim population is massively dominated by people with origins in one country, and that country isn't a basket case. This subthread came from a discussion about Sweden. Swedes who marry Iraqis and Syrians and Somalis don't normally move to those countries. (Emigration to Iran is fairly common, though.) The method dystopian was relying on may well be appropriate for Germany; but like politics, all demographic projections are local. It isn't reasonable to take for granted that roughly 2 kids per couple means you won't get exponential growth of a subpopulation. First you have to find out how commonly "retrieve marriage" is practiced.

Whatever this subthread came from, dystopian's post to which you replied talked about "muslims and other descended-from-immigrant populations in Europe" so that's what your "they" in "they do have a much higher rate of producing grandchildren in Europe" clearly refers to. Limiting it to Somalis in Sweden post-hoc is goalpost shifting.

The goalpost is exactly where it always was. It is precisely at dystopian's claim that "The quoted type of arrangements are obviously included in the immigration part of the projection calculations." -- a claim I debunked. His appeal to the Pew projection as evidence against future exponential growth in the Muslim population fails. Anybody claiming it's not going to happen needs to produce a study that explicitly considers "retrieve marriage".

As for specifically whether Muslim immigrants have a much higher rate of producing grandchildren in Europe than locals, that's not limited to Somalis in Sweden. But Somalis in Sweden are probably a better comp for Somalis throughout Europe than Turks in Germany are; likewise for other ethnicities. When ethnic Somalis and Arabs and Pakistanis are practicing retrieve marriage far more often than the reverse but ethnic Turks are moving to Turkey as often as coming from there, that's going to cut the resulting population growth rate in proportion to the fraction of the Muslim immigrants in Europe who are from Turkey. That's not enough to cut it down to ethnic Europeans' rate of grandchild production.

Exactly how does being nice to the migrants we have now work if the rationalisation for stopping to bring in more is explicitly "they're Muslims, we don't need no Muslims"?

Why would the fact that you don't need someone stop you from being nice to him? Most of us encounter people we don't need every day and aren't mean to them. It's not as though a migrant came where he wasn't needed because he's a bad person; he came because he was living in a pesthole -- if we'd been in his shoes most of us would have done the same. And it's not as though being mean to him is likely to get him to go home -- even if life in Sweden stinks because people are mean to him, it's still better than where he was. Besides, if the locals let someone in and are then mean to him, that's a recipe for disaster -- he'll probably have a kid who'll grow up angry and uncooperative and destructive because he resents Swedes for being mean.

Except that's not how people work. If you indoctrinate them that Muslims are bad for us, they'll take it out on the closest targets at hand - which is domestic Muslims.

On what planet have your people been indoctrinated that Muslims are bad for them? That's something the commoners figured out for themselves. The indoctrination has been massively in the other direction and your ruling class is just ticked off that their indoctrination attempts didn't take as well as they were hoping.

As far as taking it out on the closest targets at hand goes, yes, that's a psychological problem you're going to have to deal with. But you're going to have to deal with that problem whether you allow massive additional immigration or not. And your current approach -- indoctrinating the common people that Muslims are good for them -- is not going to work, for the very obvious reason that those you're trying to persuade will think the indoctrinators are, very obviously, lying to them. So try an alternative approach. Maybe if you explain to your commoners that anti-immigration and anti-immigrant are not the same thing, and that while they have every reason to think stopping further immigration could alleviate their pain, hurting the immigrants who've already arrived is only going to make things worse, then your commoners might be inclined to listen. Surely hearing something about immigration from their rulers that actually makes a lick of sense will at least get their attention, just from the sheer novelty of the experience.

 

[angelo]

Moslem immigration to Western countries is not good for both, moslems themselves or Western culture which islam is not compatible with.

 

[arkirk]

Moslem immigration to Western countries is not good for both, moslems themselves or Western culture which islam is not compatible with.

You still don't seem to understand that this is not a matter of choice for some of these people...not unless you believe that being killed is a viable choice. Do you believe that? If you so , you have a lot of company...believing that it is okay to send these people back to death. It is a shirking of your responsibility as a civilized human being to "not understand."

 

[angelo]

Moslem immigration to Western countries is not good for both, moslems themselves or Western culture which islam is not compatible with.

You still don't seem to understand that this is not a matter of choice for some of these people...not unless you believe that being killed is a viable choice. Do you believe that? If you so , you have a lot of company...believing that it is okay to send these people back to death. It is a shirking of your responsibility as a civilized human being to "not understand."

Is it a viable choice for Western culture to commit suicide? Surely the preservation of our culture should take precedence!

 

[DrZoidberg]

1. Why would it lead to increased crime? Do you have any actual arguments other than you just feel it in your bones?

Are you seriously disputing that migrants and their children are high-crime demographics? According to Wikipedia, "In 1998, there were 1,746,921 inhabitants of foreign background and their descendants (foreign born and children of international migrants) composing around 20% of the Swedish population.". So how much crime did they commit? Here's the citation) from Wikipedia's Immigration_and_crime#Sweden page:

A report studying 4.4 million Swedes between the ages of 15 and 51 during the period 1997-2001 found that 25% of crimes were committed by foreign-born individuals while and additional 20% were committed by individuals born to foreign-born parents.​

So according to your government, immigrants and their children were over twice as likely to commit crimes. (That's an average over all source countries. "The differences in crime participation from different countries of origin are very large. They vary between a minimum of 60 per thousand and a high of 200 per thousand." From the chart on page 52, the source countries of people more than three times as likely to commit crimes as Swedes are as follows: Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Chile, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Syria.)

You're reading the statistics wrong. Whatever group has the lowest status in society is over-represented in crime statistics. It's because they have relatively harder to get jobs. But immigration swells the overall economy. So the effect is that it lifts non-immigrants out of poverty at the expense of immigrants. So crime-rates of non-immigrants drop (if you have immigration).

There's just too many factors to prove cultural tendencies for certain crimes. We just don't know. Most studies show that the biggest factor is poverty. Which has nothing to do with culture at all. There is no culture FOR poverty.

2. I think this immigration will pay for itself pretty quickly.

Why do you think that? How will it pay for itself when you have cops whose job it is to try to catch refugees getting jobs and stop them?

I've already linked to the study once and I know you've read it.

All you need to do is stay in denial about what's right in front of your face: the fact that your conscience comes with a huge cost to Sweden.

Yes, it is expensive for Sweden. But in the big picture it's not particularly expensive. And there is a war in Syria. To me it's just the right thing to do

Do you have an argument for why it's the right thing to do that isn't an ad hominem argument? What moral theory says it's the right thing to do? How did the Swedes incur this liability for the problems of the world? Does being lucky enough to be born to ancestors who didn't screw up their country create a debt to people who were unlucky enough to be born to ancestors who did?

Ehe? I live in Viking country. Vikings only went to heaven if they died in combat. Our highest virtue was revenge. Do you think Viking society was peaceful?

When we became Christian we engaged in almost constant wars making the country desperately poor. We only stopped with the wars (19'th century) because we were broke. Sweden became rich just in the very last generations. I have very little to be proud about when it comes to ancestors. Sweden is pretty nuovo riche

 

[angelo]

Are you seriously disputing that migrants and their children are high-crime demographics? According to Wikipedia, "In 1998, there were 1,746,921 inhabitants of foreign background and their descendants (foreign born and children of international migrants) composing around 20% of the Swedish population.". So how much crime did they commit? Here's the citation) from Wikipedia's Immigration_and_crime#Sweden page:

A report studying 4.4 million Swedes between the ages of 15 and 51 during the period 1997-2001 found that 25% of crimes were committed by foreign-born individuals while and additional 20% were committed by individuals born to foreign-born parents.​

So according to your government, immigrants and their children were over twice as likely to commit crimes. (That's an average over all source countries. "The differences in crime participation from different countries of origin are very large. They vary between a minimum of 60 per thousand and a high of 200 per thousand." From the chart on page 52, the source countries of people more than three times as likely to commit crimes as Swedes are as follows: Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Chile, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Syria.)

You're reading the statistics wrong. Whatever group has the lowest status in society is over-represented in crime statistics. It's because they have relatively harder to get jobs. But immigration swells the overall economy. So the effect is that it lifts non-immigrants out of poverty at the expense of immigrants. So crime-rates of non-immigrants drop (if you have immigration).

There's just too many factors to prove cultural tendencies for certain crimes. We just don't know. Most studies show that the biggest factor is poverty. Which has nothing to do with culture at all. There is no culture FOR poverty.

2. I think this immigration will pay for itself pretty quickly.

Why do you think that? How will it pay for itself when you have cops whose job it is to try to catch refugees getting jobs and stop them?

All you need to do is stay in denial about what's right in front of your face: the fact that your conscience comes with a huge cost to Sweden.

Yes, it is expensive for Sweden. But in the big picture it's not particularly expensive. And there is a war in Syria. To me it's just the right thing to do

Do you have an argument for why it's the right thing to do that isn't an ad hominem argument? What moral theory says it's the right thing to do? How did the Swedes incur this liability for the problems of the world? Does being lucky enough to be born to ancestors who didn't screw up their country create a debt to people who were unlucky enough to be born to ancestors who did?

Ehe? I live in Viking country. Vikings only went to heaven if they died in combat. Our highest virtue was revenge. Do you think Viking society was peaceful?

When we became Christian we engaged in almost constant wars making the country desperately poor. We only stopped with the wars (19'th century) because we were broke. Sweden became rich just in the very last generations. I have very little to be proud about when it comes to ancestors. Sweden is pretty nuovo riche

The cost will be a Swedish economy in ruins with huge budget deficits and debt within 100 years tops.
Sweden will resemble the hellholes the so called refugees come from.