Europe submits voluntarily

[TSwizzle]

I'm not the one suggesting the statistics need "adjusting" to match the "correct" reality.

You're the one who wants to ignore that fact that now and again we change how statistics are collected.

Ignore "the fact" ?!!! I'm pointing it out !!!

 

[DrZoidberg]

You're the one who wants to ignore that fact that now and again we change how statistics are collected.

Ignore "the fact" ?!!! I'm pointing it out !!!

What do you mean?

 

[Underseer]

Interesting times indeed. After 1,200 years or so of battling islamic aggression, christendom has surrendered in the most unimaginable way. Well played to mullahs, they have played a blinder.

Just out of curiosity, what should European nations do in order to "not submit"?

Bar certain immigrants based on religion?

Would that count as "not submitting" to you?

Or is it perhaps something else?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Interesting times indeed. After 1,200 years or so of battling islamic aggression, christendom has surrendered in the most unimaginable way. Well played to mullahs, they have played a blinder.

Just out of curiosity, what should European nations do in order to "not submit"?

Bar certain immigrants based on religion?

Would that count as "not submitting" to you?

Or is it perhaps something else?

The problem is the quantity not the race or religion.

We should allow those who are genuinely seeking asylum and allow some to work on contract to provide certain skills that are genuinely required. Hong Kong for instance has strict laws against unfair competition from cheap labour in order to protect its own workforce. That is to say migrant workers on contract must be paid a minimum for certain categories. The employer must also show that he tried to get the same skills within HK but could not. China also protects its own workshop and so does the UAE.

Mantras such as driving in immigrants to do jobs the British can't do are purely derogatory and racist in the real sense. Old people's backsides were getting wiped and hotel beds were being made for hundreds of years before we flooded the UK with the rest of the world. Of course people married to British citizens should be permitted into the country. Workers on contract also. However if we hoover up all the skilled people from around the world we can cause brain drains in their own countries.

Migration into the UK and Europe for instance was nothing near the endemic proportions we have today. By the way integration is a pretty terrible word which can denote sheepish conformity. Did the Chinese or Hassidic Jews integrate, yet they did not harm. We must simply enforce our laws of right and wrong. In Arabic countries disrespect for women is met with harsh retribution. The very few who violate these codes in Western society must expect to be subject to Western laws, without excuses that they are traumatized. Similarly British born citizens should not excuse their actions by saying they had a bad childhood..

We don't need so many migrants in Europe.

By the way if applied properly, I believe that Shariah Law for civil matters is pretty sensible. For instance in UAE law, the Shariah guiding principle is that all dealings were done in good faith openness and transparency. I found some pretty good points when reading the UAE Civil Code and Labour laws. However in Europe and the USA the only difference is we insist on our rights much more.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Done!

Why not shoot the messenger. A far quicker way to shut them up!

What Messenger Mhd?

 

[Underseer]

Just out of curiosity, what should European nations do in order to "not submit"?

Bar certain immigrants based on religion?

Would that count as "not submitting" to you?

Or is it perhaps something else?

The problem is the quantity not the race or religion.

We should allow those who are genuinely seeking asylum and allow some to work on contract to provide certain skills that are genuinely required. Hong Kong for instance has strict laws against unfair competition from cheap labour in order to protect its own workforce. That is to say migrant workers on contract must be paid a minimum for certain categories. The employer must also show that he tried to get the same skills within HK but could not. China also protects its own workshop and so does the UAE.

Mantras such as driving in immigrants to do jobs the British can't do are purely derogatory and racist in the real sense. Old people's backsides were getting wiped and hotel beds were being made for hundreds of years before we flooded the UK with the rest of the world. Of course people married to British citizens should be permitted into the country. Workers on contract also. However if we hoover up all the skilled people from around the world we can cause brain drains in their own countries.

Migration into the UK and Europe for instance was nothing near the endemic proportions we have today. By the way integration is a pretty terrible word which can denote sheepish conformity. Did the Chinese or Hassidic Jews integrate, yet they did not harm. We must simply enforce our laws of right and wrong. In Arabic countries disrespect for women is met with harsh retribution. The very few who violate these codes in Western society must expect to be subject to Western laws, without excuses that they are traumatized. Similarly British born citizens should not excuse their actions by saying they had a bad childhood..

We don't need so many migrants in Europe.

By the way if applied properly, I believe that Shariah Law for civil matters is pretty sensible. For instance in UAE law, the Shariah guiding principle is that all dealings were done in good faith openness and transparency. I found some pretty good points when reading the UAE Civil Code and Labour laws. However in Europe and the USA the only difference is we insist on our rights much more.

Ah, so in order to not "submit to Islam," we need to deal with immigrants the same way Saudi Arabia does? Brilliant.

 

[bilby]

Just out of curiosity, what should European nations do in order to "not submit"?

Bar certain immigrants based on religion?

Would that count as "not submitting" to you?

Or is it perhaps something else?

The problem is the quantity not the race or religion.

No, it that cannot be true. Europe is full of people that don't know each other. More than half a million new resident strangers arrive in the UK alone every year, via maternity hospitals; and yet nobody is complaining about those arrivals, none of whom will pay taxes or get jobs for at least 14 years.

The thing that sets the half-million new maternity arrivals, who nobody complains about, apart from the half-million new immigrants, who are complained about endlessly, is their race and religion. The quantity is (very roughly) the same, and is weighted towards newborns - about 520,000 immigrants and about 600,000 babies per annum.

If the quantity was the problem, the Daily Mail, National Front, Britain First and UKIP would be attacking children as viciously and frequently (or even more viciously and frequently) as they attack immigrants.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The problem is the quantity not the race or religion.

We should allow those who are genuinely seeking asylum and allow some to work on contract to provide certain skills that are genuinely required. Hong Kong for instance has strict laws against unfair competition from cheap labour in order to protect its own workforce. That is to say migrant workers on contract must be paid a minimum for certain categories. The employer must also show that he tried to get the same skills within HK but could not. China also protects its own workshop and so does the UAE.

Mantras such as driving in immigrants to do jobs the British can't do are purely derogatory and racist in the real sense. Old people's backsides were getting wiped and hotel beds were being made for hundreds of years before we flooded the UK with the rest of the world. Of course people married to British citizens should be permitted into the country. Workers on contract also. However if we hoover up all the skilled people from around the world we can cause brain drains in their own countries.

Migration into the UK and Europe for instance was nothing near the endemic proportions we have today. By the way integration is a pretty terrible word which can denote sheepish conformity. Did the Chinese or Hassidic Jews integrate, yet they did not harm. We must simply enforce our laws of right and wrong. In Arabic countries disrespect for women is met with harsh retribution. The very few who violate these codes in Western society must expect to be subject to Western laws, without excuses that they are traumatized. Similarly British born citizens should not excuse their actions by saying they had a bad childhood..

We don't need so many migrants in Europe.

By the way if applied properly, I believe that Shariah Law for civil matters is pretty sensible. For instance in UAE law, the Shariah guiding principle is that all dealings were done in good faith openness and transparency. I found some pretty good points when reading the UAE Civil Code and Labour laws. However in Europe and the USA the only difference is we insist on our rights much more.

Ah, so in order to not "submit to Islam," we need to deal with immigrants the same way Saudi Arabia does? Brilliant.

In Saudi, its own citizens are treated badly (some in poverty while 5,000 princes have a good time) let alone illegal migrants, and sometimes legal ones on contract. Saudi is really a last resort.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The problem is the quantity not the race or religion.

No, it that cannot be true. Europe is full of people that don't know each other. More than half a million new resident strangers arrive in the UK alone every year, via maternity hospitals; and yet nobody is complaining about those arrivals, none of whom will pay taxes or get jobs for at least 14 years.

The thing that sets the half-million new maternity arrivals, who nobody complains about, apart from the half-million new immigrants, who are complained about endlessly, is their race and religion. The quantity is (very roughly) the same, and is weighted towards newborns - about 520,000 immigrants and about 600,000 babies per annum.

If the quantity was the problem, the Daily Mail, National Front, Britain First and UKIP would be attacking children as viciously and frequently (or even more viciously and frequently) as they attack immigrants.

Quantity coming over is the problem.
If a person is born in Britain they can only become a British Citizen if one of your parents is a British citizen.
If neither of a child's parents are British, a child born in the UK can only after 10 years and has never spent more than 90 days outside the country.

Out of control mass immigration into Europe is not the fault of those who pour in but that of those in Euro management who drive them in. I am not aware of the UKIP attacking immigrants. It enjoys a certain amount of diverse votes and has fielded minority candidates. Britain First is a minor organisation that enjoys hardly any electoral support. One of its asinine stunts is to enter mosques and give out Christian bibles. They don't realize of course that Islam encompasses the New and Old Testaments. Some may say this makes them worse

 

[angelo]

The end of the Roman Empire was mainly caused by the mass immigration of the hordes. In Europe, we are today witnessing a repeat of that same history.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/behlal-azkan/eu-refugee-deal-human-rights_b_9410404.html?ir=World?

 

[bigfield]

The end of the Roman Empire was mainly caused by the mass immigration of the hordes. In Europe, we are today witnessing a repeat of that same history.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/behlal-azkan/eu-refugee-deal-human-rights_b_9410404.html?ir=World?

Ahahahahaha!

 

[bilby]

No, it that cannot be true. Europe is full of people that don't know each other. More than half a million new resident strangers arrive in the UK alone every year, via maternity hospitals; and yet nobody is complaining about those arrivals, none of whom will pay taxes or get jobs for at least 14 years.

The thing that sets the half-million new maternity arrivals, who nobody complains about, apart from the half-million new immigrants, who are complained about endlessly, is their race and religion. The quantity is (very roughly) the same, and is weighted towards newborns - about 520,000 immigrants and about 600,000 babies per annum.

If the quantity was the problem, the Daily Mail, National Front, Britain First and UKIP would be attacking children as viciously and frequently (or even more viciously and frequently) as they attack immigrants.

Quantity coming over is the problem.
If a person is born in Britain they can only become a British Citizen if one of your parents is a British citizen.
If neither of a child's parents are British, a child born in the UK can only after 10 years and has never spent more than 90 days outside the country.

You misunderstand; I am talking about the children of British Citizens.

If quantity is the problem, then those new citizens arriving via vaginas are a bigger problem than the non-citizens arriving by trains, planes, and automobiles.

Clearly almost nobody thinks that 'vagina people' are more of a problem than 'boat people'; so, logically, quantity cannot be the criterion for declaring new arrivals as problematic.

So you are wrong.

 

[faded_Glory]

If a person is born in Britain they can only become a British Citizen if one of your parents is a British citizen.
If neither of a child's parents are British, a child born in the UK can only after 10 years and has never spent more than 90 days outside the country.

This is incorrect. Children born in Britain since 1983 are automatically British citizens if their parents were 'legally settled' in the UK at the time of birth, even if they were not British citizens themselves.

[url]https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship [/URL]

 

[whichphilosophy]

Quantity coming over is the problem.
If a person is born in Britain they can only become a British Citizen if one of your parents is a British citizen.
If neither of a child's parents are British, a child born in the UK can only after 10 years and has never spent more than 90 days outside the country.

You misunderstand; I am talking about the children of British Citizens.

If quantity is the problem, then those new citizens arriving via vaginas are a bigger problem than the non-citizens arriving by trains, planes, and automobiles.

Clearly almost nobody thinks that 'vagina people' are more of a problem than 'boat people'; so, logically, quantity cannot be the criterion for declaring new arrivals as problematic.

So you are wrong.

I thought all births came via Virginas. More British children are born to British Citizens than anyone else in the UK. However we don't need more.

 

[bigfield]

You misunderstand; I am talking about the children of British Citizens.

If quantity is the problem, then those new citizens arriving via vaginas are a bigger problem than the non-citizens arriving by trains, planes, and automobiles.

Clearly almost nobody thinks that 'vagina people' are more of a problem than 'boat people'; so, logically, quantity cannot be the criterion for declaring new arrivals as problematic.

So you are wrong.

I thought all births came via Virginas. More British children are born to British Citizens than anyone else in the UK. However we don't need more.

You may not need them, but you can definitely benefit from them.

Besides, aren't you in Beijing? Who is this 'we'?

 

[whichphilosophy]

If a person is born in Britain they can only become a British Citizen if one of your parents is a British citizen.
If neither of a child's parents are British, a child born in the UK can only after 10 years and has never spent more than 90 days outside the country.

This is incorrect. Children born in Britain since 1983 are automatically British citizens if their parents were 'legally settled' in the UK at the time of birth, even if they were not British citizens themselves.

[url]https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship [/URL]

This is true for that part (last part of the sentence) which I forgot. Generally if someone has a few million pounds to invest or particular innovative scientific or entrepreneurial skills( and possibly will become a British citizen) they can become British citizens. However someone on a work permit will be eligible. You won't find tourists or illegal immigrants in that category.

I think Britain will believe more of Cameron's baseless promises of getting a special deal with the Eu so that the public will vote to remain in the Union.

My wife is from the Philippines and we were looking at this earlier on.



https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/application-to-settle-in-the-uk-form-seto


Use this form if you want to apply for settlement in various categories:
•work permit holder
•dependant of work permit holder
•PBS dependant
•employment not requiring a work permit
•businessperson
•innovator
•investor
•highly skilled migrant
•highly skilled migrant under the terms of the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme indefinite leave to remain judicial review policy document
•self-employed lawyer
•writer, composer or artist
•Tier 1 (General) migrant
•Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant
•Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant - accelerated route
•Tier 1 (Investor) migrant
•Tier 1 (Investor) migrant - accelerated route
•Tier 2 migrant
•UK ancestry
•bereaved partner
•other purposes not covered by other application forms

End of quote. (Some paperwork involved.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The end of the Roman Empire was mainly caused by the mass immigration of the hordes. In Europe, we are today witnessing a repeat of that same history.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/behlal-azkan/eu-refugee-deal-human-rights_b_9410404.html?ir=World?

And worse still they didn't have any visas.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I thought all births came via Virginas. More British children are born to British Citizens than anyone else in the UK. However we don't need more.

You may not need them, but you can definitely benefit from them.

Besides, aren't you in Beijing? Who is this 'we'?

I just came back from Beijing. I worked there with a work visa as I had supposedly special requirements in contracts and projects. (Saved the company a few million here and there). Without a valid visa it's the bum's rush.

 

[Bomb#20]

I wasn't disparaging your source, just telling you why I didn't know whether it contained the information I requested. You could have just said "No." Yes, the link worked in a different browser; good idea, thanks. It doesn't contain any such statistics; all it implies is that if they were to choose European names they'd benefit*

Then we're just talking about different things, since I think it proves what I say it proves.

Well, why in the world do you think that??? Quote something from it. Show some reasoning. Your link reports an experiment measuring how employers from the host culture respond to immigrants; it doesn't say a bloody word about what immigrants do.

So I'll ask you again. Were the stealing, the pressuring each other into crime, and the extreme punishments the best parts of the culture of India, the best parts of Swedish culture, or the best parts of the culture of one of the intermediate countries Gypsies' ancestors migrated into and then out of?

Stealing is part of both/all cultures. It's what people do if they feel they have to. I'd reformulate it, if people steal the surrounding culture has failed. Yes, I'm aware I'm blaming the victim here. But largely this is true. What fuels stealing/immoral appropriation is income gaps. People at the bottom of the ladder feel they're justified in stealing. People at the top of the ladder feel superior, so they need not care about the harm they cause lesser people.

Extreme punishments is just another result of agrarian social values. ...

... If you're completely dependent on people who belong to your group, and if that group has low status you'll use desperate methods in keeping those in the group in the group. ...

I didn't ask which cultures they're part of. I didn't ask whose fault they were. I didn't ask what causes them. Which culture are they the BEST parts of? This thread isn't about explaining Gypsies. This thread is about the current migration issue. The Gypsies are only relevant to the extent that they shed light on whether your general theory of immigration is correct. You claim immigrants' cultures are formed out of the combination of their old culture with the host country's culture, by merging the BEST parts of each, and discarding the WORST parts of each. So I'm asking you to tell me which culture are stealing, pressuring each other into crime, and extreme punishments some of the BEST parts of? Do you understand the question now? It calls for you to judge whether those cultural traits are problematic, in comparison with cultures' other traits.

What should be painfully obvious is that sometimes immigrant cultures retain bad aspects of the two preexisting cultures, and discard good aspects. Migration has no magical power to induce people to make wise or moral collective decisions. Like any other immigrants, the current waves of Middle Easterners will inevitably end up with mosaics -- both good parts and bad parts of their traditional cultures, mixed with both good parts and bad parts of the host countries' cultures. Your theory is wrong. Inferring from your theory that the current problems in the immigrant communities will go away is unwarranted, because your theory is wrong.

Social norms are universal. All societies apply direct or indirect methods of controlling the behaviour of others. The type of these depend on incentives. If you're completely dependent on people who belong to your group, and if that group has low status you'll use desperate methods in keeping those in the group in the group. That's why gypsies behave the way they do. Or to reformulate it. Gypsies with strong gypsy norms are more likely to succeed within their community. Gypsies who don't end up being isolated by both society and other gypsies. So that would then be an inferior cultural strategy. And explains why Gypsy culture is the way it is. It's self re-enforcing. All superior cultural strategies are. While inferior cultural practices is like walking around in shoes that don't fit. Each step is annoying. Eventually bits will get knocked off.

So does "superior" mean "making you more likely to fit in and succeed in your community" then?

This argument came out of whichphilosophy's "The concern is the high volume of people coming in when the country does not have endless jobs to offer." and your response, "I don't think it is a problem. In fact, I think it's awesome. ... There will be a natural evolution to better adapted behaviours. Bottom line, we need to worry less and just let people get on with life. Just get out of people's way as much as possible. Let them do their thing and trust people's ability to figure out what is best for them."

If the thing you're getting out of the way of and letting them do is figure out what's best for them, in the sense of making them more likely to fit in and succeed in their community, then why the bejesus would that be any evidence that its "awesome" and not "a problem"??? As we've seen, sometimes what's best for an immigrant and makes him succeed in his community is stealing, pressuring his fellow immigrants into becoming criminals, and imposing extreme punishments. Does that make those behaviors not a problem? Does that make them awesome? If a Middle Eastern man beats his wife, beats his gay son, forces his daughter to marry his cousin from the old country, and looks the other way when his cousin commits an "honor killing", that may well exhibit strong norms that make him more likely to succeed within his community. Those cultural traits may well be better adapted to getting him what's best for him within his community than evolving into a civilized person would be. But this is not evidence that its awesome and not a problem.

Every example of Islamic misogyny we criticise them for is practices that we did in Sweden a hundred years ago.

A hundred years ago Sweden had virtue police who'd shove a woman back into a burning building for not being dressed modestly enough for outdoors?

I don't think that has ever happened anywhere.

March 11, 2002, Saudi Arabia

What later made Sweden so super-feminist is arguably the day-care reforms. ... Because of Swedish day-care women don't need to make that choice (as often). This leads to male and female salaries becoming a lot more equal. And leads to all kinds of social results, since money defines what it is we prioritise in society...

Like I said. It's all about incentives. What happens when a Muslim family moves here? They have choices. Stay at home mom = little money. Or working mom = lot's of money. Everybody likes money. There's just no incentive at all to be a stay-at-home mom in Sweden. Today in Sweden we have no reliable numbers on stay-at-home moms. Today it's seen as a result of some disability. And the numbers are conflated with just being unemployed or unable to have a real job.

So the bottom line is, as long as you continue to have cops whose job it is to prevent migrants from getting jobs, your immigrant women will remain unemployed, so they'll go on having nothing better to do than be stay-at-home moms, so your immigrant men will not get one extra krona by evolving into women's libbers.

And as long as your ruling parties know that if they let the wages and employment prospects of the unskilled Swedes who would most directly compete with migrants for low-skill jobs decline, even more of them will vote for the Sweden Democrats, they're going to keep the employment police employed.

I posted two examples of groups of people opposing mass Muslim immigration -- China, and previous rounds of middle-eastern immigrants to Europe -- where the blatantly obvious motivation was their perception of what was in their own self-interest, and where you had ignored that explanation out of hand and instead accused those people of being motivated by racism. You quite evidently did not trust their ability to figure out what is best for them. So I urge you to take your own advice, and let them do their thing and trust their ability to figure out what is best for them.

The freedom to curtail other people's freedom and oppress them isn't a freedom at all. You are deeply confused what it means to leave people alone and just get on with life. This isn't it.

Oh, I see, so by "let them do their thing", you meant "freedom". And by "freedom", you mean "I get to do what I want and they get to do what I want". That's not letting them do their thing. That's letting them do your thing. If you figure not letting people immigrate to some country curtails their freedom and oppresses them, well, doesn't letting in war refugees and people who look like war refugees while keeping out Burundian poverty refugees curtail freedom and oppress people too?

In any event, you're missing the point. I didn't call rejecting immigrants "freedom". I simply pointed out that the Chinese apparently think keeping out the refugees is best for them, and you don't think it's best for them, and you don't trust their ability to figure out what's best for them. They evidently think China is already full. It's so full that they've resorted to one-child policies and forced abortions -- policies they apply against the Han even more strictly than they do against ethnic minorities. And yet for some reason you trust your own mind-reading abilities more than you trust them to act in their own self-interest. Somehow you magically know that keeping out the refugees wasn't motivated by self-interest. It was "just pure racism", according to the guy who said "trust people's ability to figure out what is best for them".

 

[angelo]

Europe submits voluntary is the title of this thread. Funnily enough, that's exactly what islam means. It means " submit" and this death cult will not ease up until the whole planet submits to allah and the paedophile so called prophet!

Remember, there is no moderate or extreme islam. Islam is one! Letting in the invaders in present numbers can only ever end in the West submitting to islam, and voluntarily ending Western culture within say, a century maximum.