Europe submits voluntarily

[Jayjay]

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.

Immigrants are overrepresented in the crime statistics even when accounting for income level. Poverty is a factor, but keep in mind that if immigrants are and their offspring even after several generations still haven't dug themselves out of poverty, that's a problem. There is no benefit in having a permanent underclass of second-class citizens living in ghettoes who have no means or motivation to integrate... the problems in France and Sweden should should be a warning to every other country not to let things get that far.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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

For avoidance of doubt, MIGRANTWATCH is not a right wing group as it contains members from all parties

Immigration is extremely expensive for Britain. See the article highlighting a profound omission from a leading study in the UK where immigration is costly to the economy. Some immigration is good, but flooding the country with anyone is not.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/380

Recent immigrants from 2001 to 2011 might have cost over £25 bn

Migration Watch UK today issued a new assessment of the cost of immigration to the tax payer. The outcome is that immigrants cost the taxpayer over £140 billion or more than £22 million a day over the 17 years 1995 - 2011.

The Migration Watch study followed the methodology of a recent paper from the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM) but queried some very unrealistic assumptions. Even on their own assumptions, CReAM had calculated that the overall effect of immigration since 1995 has been a net cost of £95 billion. This result was contained in a table annexed to their paper but it was not even mentioned in the text of the report, still less in the summary or the press release - a truly astonishing omission.

 

[Warpoet]

For avoidance of doubt, MIGRANTWATCH is not a right wing group as it contains members from all parties

That doesn't mean much. This a predominately left-leaning board, but we've still got shitloads of people with an obvious axe to grind against immigrants. Particularly the Mooslim variety.

 

[DrZoidberg]

For avoidance of doubt, MIGRANTWATCH is not a right wing group as it contains members from all parties

That doesn't mean much. This a predominately left-leaning board, but we've still got shitloads of people with an obvious axe to grind against immigrants. Particularly the Mooslim variety.

The idea is that Muslim culture is somehow anathema to western culture and that if we allow Muslims to settle here it'll be the fall of western culture somehow. They're still struggling to demonstrate this IMHO.

 

[angelo]

That doesn't mean much. This a predominately left-leaning board, but we've still got shitloads of people with an obvious axe to grind against immigrants. Particularly the Mooslim variety.

The idea is that Muslim culture is somehow anathema to western culture and that if we allow Muslims to settle here it'll be the fall of western culture somehow. They're still struggling to demonstrate this IMHO.

How do you demonstrate what is basically a future event that could take up to two centuries to occur?
But perhaps not is all lost as politicians are starting to wake up to the concerns of the people who vote for them at election time.

 

[dystopian]

How do you demonstrate what is basically a future event that could take up to two centuries to occur?

If the reason you can't demonstrate your predictions are true is the exact same reason why a psychic can't demonstrate the truth of his prediction that the Earth will be entering a higher dimensional vibrational plane in a century or so as told to him by Zenthar the Ultraspirit...

...you're probably both full of roughly the same amount of shit.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The idea is that Muslim culture is somehow anathema to western culture and that if we allow Muslims to settle here it'll be the fall of western culture somehow. They're still struggling to demonstrate this IMHO.

How do you demonstrate what is basically a future event that could take up to two centuries to occur?
But perhaps not is all lost as politicians are starting to wake up to the concerns of the people who vote for them at election time.

Obviously our current civilisation will collapse and be replaced by something else within the next 50-200 years. And if history is a good guide it'll probably be something much better than any now living could imagine.

 

[TSwizzle]

The idea is that Muslim culture is somehow anathema to western culture and that if we allow Muslims to settle here it'll be the fall of western culture somehow. They're still struggling to demonstrate this IMHO.

You may see it for yourself soon enough but you will dogmatically chant your mantra of "everything is fine, I love spicy halal food."

 

[angelo]

How do you demonstrate what is basically a future event that could take up to two centuries to occur?
But perhaps not is all lost as politicians are starting to wake up to the concerns of the people who vote for them at election time.

Obviously our current civilisation will collapse and be replaced by something else within the next 50-200 years. And if history is a good guide it'll probably be something much better than any now living could imagine.

If Muslims, which is the fastest growing cult has its way, the world will fall back to something like the dark ages!

 

[angelo]

How do you demonstrate what is basically a future event that could take up to two centuries to occur?

If the reason you can't demonstrate your predictions are true is the exact same reason why a psychic can't demonstrate the truth of his prediction that the Earth will be entering a higher dimensional vibrational plane in a century or so as told to him by Zenthar the Ultraspirit...

...you're probably both full of roughly the same amount of shit.

Apart from Malaysia, Singapore and a few other majority moslem countries, how many others are first world? Take the oil and the Western technology that developed the reserves from all Middle East countries, and all of them would go back to being the stink holes that they were before the discovery of oil.

 

[untermensche]

Obviously our current civilisation will collapse and be replaced by something else within the next 50-200 years. And if history is a good guide it'll probably be something much better than any now living could imagine.

If Muslims, which is the fastest growing cult has its way, the world will fall back to something like the dark ages!

What's driving the world towards destruction is the religion of the "state".

Those who worship the "state" applaud the worst crimes and have no sense of morality. They think they have the right to commit the most atrocious acts of violence on whims and petty irrational fears.

It is the religion that will destroy the world.

Not this fractured nothing, Islam.

 

[whichphilosophy]

For avoidance of doubt, MIGRANTWATCH is not a right wing group as it contains members from all parties

That doesn't mean much. This a predominately left-leaning board, but we've still got shitloads of people with an obvious axe to grind against immigrants. Particularly the Mooslim variety.

It was actually quoting a study which claimed overall immigration is beneficial (and in many cases it is) but the deficit findings were omitted. This actually contains people from all parties. There is nothing to suggest it is anti Islamic.

 

[Bomb#20]

Apart from Malaysia, Singapore and a few other majority moslem countries, how many others are first world?

Singapore is only 15% Moslem. They're outnumbered even by atheists and by Christians; they're outnumbered two-to-one by Buddhists.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If Muslims, which is the fastest growing cult has its way, the world will fall back to something like the dark ages!

What's driving the world towards destruction is the religion of the "state".

Those who worship the "state" applaud the worst crimes and have no sense of morality. They think they have the right to commit the most atrocious acts of violence on whims and petty irrational fears.

It is the religion that will destroy the world.

Not this fractured nothing, Islam.

The religious leaders are the shepherds of large flocks to serve the King or state. In China Three Self Church have 57,000 churches under its wings. However, having lived in Beijing for some years, it is safe city where its reforms and benefits to the public far outweigh any concerns, given no perfect state exists. In Tibet the life expectancy has doubled and literacy increased since the communists took over but Tibet still has its own Dalai Llama

Before separation of the Church from the State, religion was effectively a political system. In controlling the Church once controlled the state. The history of the Christian Church is of course filled with atrocities, where we are fortunate Nuclear power did not exist at that time.

 

[Bomb#20]

How can restricting immigration be paranoia?

How can it be rational?

A person who supports the UKIP because they don't want immigrants to come to the UK is basically saying that the 60 million random strangers that he has never met who currently live in the UK are acceptable to him, but a few tens of thousands more random strangers he has never met will cause a problem.

That's a fundamentally insane position to take.

That's an unreasonable claim, three times over.

First, no, all such a person is saying is that a few tens of thousands more random strangers he has never met will cause a problem. Opposing immigration in no way involves saying the 60 million random strangers who currently live in the UK are acceptable to him. At least a few tens of thousands of the random strangers currently living in the UK will also cause a problem. However, there appears to be no practical way to get the tens of thousands of immigrants who will cause a problem to go home. And in addition, there are at least tens of thousands who will cause a problem who can't be sent home because they already are home. That makes three problems the UK has. Two of them are not solvable. But to infer "When you have three problems and you can't solve two, trying to solve the third is a fundamentally insane position to take." is a fundamentally insane position to take.

Second, while I recognize that you have long been sounding like you think ecological concepts like carrying capacity don't apply to H. sapiens and anybody who values low population density is fundamentally insane, that's a whole separate debate from your contention that there's a contradiction between accepting those who are in the UK and rejecting newcomers. For purposes of the current thread, you don't get to take for granted your counterintuitive conclusion that there's no such thing as overpopulation. We are not talking about a few tens of thousands more random strangers. We are talking about a few tens of thousands more random strangers this month, plus another few tens of thousands more random strangers next month, plus every month into the foreseeable future. Three hundred thirty-six thousand more this year, a million more in three years, ten million more in thirty years. Anybody who thinks Britain is already overpopulated or close to it is perfectly entitled to regard the one-month shutter speed you choose to limit your mental photograph of immigration to as an arbitrary and thoughtless exercise in "Look how much straw the camel is already carrying; one more straw obviously won't make a difference.". True, this month will probably not be the month that tips Britain's population density over the edge from acceptable to unacceptable. But insisting that others ought not to think further ahead than one month just because you won't is a fundamentally insane position to take.

And third, the contention that it's insane to regard new immigrants as unacceptable and current residents as acceptable appears to rely on the premise that there are no statistical differences between the immigrant and resident populations that would tend to impact their acceptability. That premise is an article of faith; you don't have a reason to think it's true. The percentage of people currently in Britain who are already up to speed on living in a way that doesn't impose substantial negative externalities on their neighbors is not necessarily equal to that percentage among the candidates for next month's few tens of thousands more random strangers. To consider it irrational to fail to take it on faith that those percentages are equal is a fundamentally insane position to take.

... No restrictions on movement of people whatsoever? All people would need to do is turn up at a welfare office and demand welfare?

...
Freedom of movement need not entail the right to claim welfare at one's destination.

Not everyone is entitled to welfare where they are; why would you imagine that they would be where they are not?

Um, for the painfully obvious reason that the same phenomenon that causes border controls to go away is also what causes immigrants' welfare claims to be honored: government power falling into the hands of ideologues who think it's racist to pursue the best interests of their country's citizens. In some alternate universe where freedom of movement were happening because government power had fallen into the hands of radical libertarians who abolished welfare, you'd be right. But this isn't that universe. This is a universe where radical libertarianism appeals to 2% of the electorate and the people pushing open border policies are primarily multicultural nihilists.

 

[whichphilosophy]

How can it be rational?

A person who supports the UKIP because they don't want immigrants to come to the UK is basically saying that the 60 million random strangers that he has never met who currently live in the UK are acceptable to him, but a few tens of thousands more random strangers he has never met will cause a problem.

That's a fundamentally insane position to take.

That's an unreasonable claim, three times over.

First, no, all such a person is saying is that a few tens of thousands more random strangers he has never met will cause a problem. Opposing immigration in no way involves saying the 60 million random strangers who currently live in the UK are acceptable to him. At least a few tens of thousands of the random strangers currently living in the UK will also cause a problem. However, there appears to be no practical way to get the tens of thousands of immigrants who will cause a problem to go home. And in addition, there are at least tens of thousands who will cause a problem who can't be sent home because they already are home. That makes three problems the UK has. Two of them are not solvable. But to infer "When you have three problems and you can't solve two, trying to solve the third is a fundamentally insane position to take." is a fundamentally insane position to take.

Second, while I recognize that you have long been sounding like you think ecological concepts like carrying capacity don't apply to H. sapiens and anybody who values low population density is fundamentally insane, that's a whole separate debate from your contention that there's a contradiction between accepting those who are in the UK and rejecting newcomers. For purposes of the current thread, you don't get to take for granted your counterintuitive conclusion that there's no such thing as overpopulation. We are not talking about a few tens of thousands more random strangers. We are talking about a few tens of thousands more random strangers this month, plus another few tens of thousands more random strangers next month, plus every month into the foreseeable future. Three hundred thirty-six thousand more this year, a million more in three years, ten million more in thirty years. Anybody who thinks Britain is already overpopulated or close to it is perfectly entitled to regard the one-month shutter speed you choose to limit your mental photograph of immigration to as an arbitrary and thoughtless exercise in "Look how much straw the camel is already carrying; one more straw obviously won't make a difference.". True, this month will probably not be the month that tips Britain's population density over the edge from acceptable to unacceptable. But insisting that others ought not to think further ahead than one month just because you won't is a fundamentally insane position to take.

And third, the contention that it's insane to regard new immigrants as unacceptable and current residents as acceptable appears to rely on the premise that there are no statistical differences between the immigrant and resident populations that would tend to impact their acceptability. That premise is an article of faith; you don't have a reason to think it's true. The percentage of people currently in Britain who are already up to speed on living in a way that doesn't impose substantial negative externalities on their neighbors is not necessarily equal to that percentage among the candidates for next month's few tens of thousands more random strangers. To consider it irrational to fail to take it on faith that those percentages are equal is a fundamentally insane position to take.

... No restrictions on movement of people whatsoever? All people would need to do is turn up at a welfare office and demand welfare?

...
Freedom of movement need not entail the right to claim welfare at one's destination.

Not everyone is entitled to welfare where they are; why would you imagine that they would be where they are not?

Um, for the painfully obvious reason that the same phenomenon that causes border controls to go away is also what causes immigrants' welfare claims to be honored: government power falling into the hands of ideologues who think it's racist to pursue the best interests of their country's citizens. In some alternate universe where freedom of movement were happening because government power had fallen into the hands of radical libertarians who abolished welfare, you'd be right. But this isn't that universe. This is a universe where radical libertarianism appeals to 2% of the electorate and the people pushing open border policies are primarily multicultural nihilists.

As I mentioned, restricting immigration does not equate with paranoia. You answered a lot of different points, but the issue is for the time being we are full enough. We can take a few immigrants or people with work contracts but not millions during a ten year period.

 

[untermensche]

What's driving the world towards destruction is the religion of the "state".

Those who worship the "state" applaud the worst crimes and have no sense of morality. They think they have the right to commit the most atrocious acts of violence on whims and petty irrational fears.

It is the religion that will destroy the world.

Not this fractured nothing, Islam.

The religious leaders are the shepherds of large flocks to serve the King or state. In China Three Self Church have 57,000 churches under its wings. However, having lived in Beijing for some years, it is safe city where its reforms and benefits to the public far outweigh any concerns, given no perfect state exists. In Tibet the life expectancy has doubled and literacy increased since the communists took over but Tibet still has its own Dalai Llama

Before separation of the Church from the State, religion was effectively a political system. In controlling the Church once controlled the state. The history of the Christian Church is of course filled with atrocities, where we are fortunate Nuclear power did not exist at that time.

Those caught up in the delusion of the State tend to defend and accept any and all abuses by the state.

It is possible to have states without the apish delusions and mental blindness to the crimes committed by that state.

But then one does not get to cry at the playing of the right national anthem or when the right group of hockey players wins the gold medal.

A person is caught up in a state by sheer chance of birth.

But a person has a choice if they accept the religion of the state and all that goes with it.

Like cheering as the state launches an unprovoked attack, based on irrational fears, on a nation that did not attack it. And then a blindness to all that this attack caused and what we are living with today as a result. Like people fleeing war zones.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The religious leaders are the shepherds of large flocks to serve the King or state. In China Three Self Church have 57,000 churches under its wings. However, having lived in Beijing for some years, it is safe city where its reforms and benefits to the public far outweigh any concerns, given no perfect state exists. In Tibet the life expectancy has doubled and literacy increased since the communists took over but Tibet still has its own Dalai Llama

Before separation of the Church from the State, religion was effectively a political system. In controlling the Church once controlled the state. The history of the Christian Church is of course filled with atrocities, where we are fortunate Nuclear power did not exist at that time.

Those caught up in the delusion of the State tend to defend and accept any and all abuses by the state.

It is possible to have states without the apish delusions and mental blindness to the crimes committed by that state.

But then one does not get to cry at the playing of the right national anthem or when the right group of hockey players wins the gold medal.

A person is caught up in a state by sheer chance of birth.

But a person has a choice if they accept the religion of the state and all that goes with it.

Like cheering as the state launches an unprovoked attack, based on irrational fears, on a nation that did not attack it. And then a blindness to all that this attack caused and what we are living with today as a result. Like people fleeing war zones.

It's interesting to note that as a whole humans are not that far removed from chimpanzees, only more complex. The state has long since replaced the tribe and though our technological thinking has advanced. our politics has not.

 

[angelo]

Democracy as practised in most Western countries is fairly advanced, if one removes the politically correct alarmists.

 

[Warpoet]

Democracy as practised in most Western countries is fairly advanced, if one removes the politically correct alarmists.

Wait a second, exactly where the fuck do you get the balls to accuse others of alarmism?