Europe submits voluntarily

[Jolly_Penguin]

Immigration isn't itself a bad thing. Immigration is actually a very good thing. Immigration without integration and with cultural norms and values coming in that clash with the country the people come to, that IS a bad thing. I don't see any logic or reason against that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Meanwhile, Australia's ASIO head told reporters and parliament that refugees are not connected to terrorists attacks.

This after all Australian terrorist attacks can be traced to refugees past and present. The latest just days ago.

Clearly, you are better informed about terrorism in Australia than the head of ASIO.

The point is the governments are trying to pretend there isn't a problem when there is. The common element is radical Islam, but you can't discuss the Emperor's lack of attire.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Immigration isn't itself a bad thing. Immigration is actually a very good thing. Immigration without integration and with cultural norms and values coming in that clash with the country the people come to, that IS a bad thing. I don't see any logic or reason against that.

Take Britain. In 2015 it was one million houses short. I think this figure is higher because in the last 30 years more pack into a house or even a room.

Neither Labour or Tory built enough each year. To make matters worth, Thatcher allowed council tenants to buy their own houses but these were not replaced with more infrastructure spending.

Immigration was once around 30,000 per year. Last year it was 20 times that (down to around 300,000 taking into account those who left the UK).

Where can we put everyone?

 

[angelo]

Immigration isn't itself a bad thing. Immigration is actually a very good thing. Immigration without integration and with cultural norms and values coming in that clash with the country the people come to, that IS a bad thing. I don't see any logic or reason against that.

If examples coming out of England and the rest of Europe are any guidance, integration and assimilation is the last thing most islamic immigrants want!

 

[TSwizzle]

Immigration isn't itself a bad thing. Immigration is actually a very good thing.

The situation facing Europe (the so called "refugee crisis") isn't really about immigration. The vast majority of these "refugees" are chancers.

Immigration without integration and with cultural norms and values coming in that clash with the country the people come to, that IS a bad thing. I don't see any logic or reason against that.

Take a drive through some of the more "vibrant" parts of an English city (probably similar in other European towns, e.g. Rinkeby in Sweden)) and you will soon discover that integration is a busted flush.

 

[LordKiran]

The situation facing Europe (the so called "refugee crisis") isn't really about immigration. The vast majority of these "refugees" are chancers.

Immigration without integration and with cultural norms and values coming in that clash with the country the people come to, that IS a bad thing. I don't see any logic or reason against that.

Take a drive through some of the more "vibrant" parts of an English city (probably similar in other European towns, e.g. Rinkeby in Sweden)) and you will soon discover that integration is a busted flush.

How could you possibly know that? Why do you insist this when people who live there insist otherwise?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Take a drive through some of the more "vibrant" parts of an English city (probably similar in other European towns, e.g. Rinkeby in Sweden)) and you will soon discover that integration is a busted flush.

Rinkeby is rapidly gentrifying, pushing the immigrants out. In 20 years it'll be mostly white, since the immigrants won't be able to afford to live there. This btw is probably a big reason for the last years conflicts. Stockholm has an acute housing shortage (because of idiotic price fixing of the rental market). The poor are pushed further and further away from the city center. It's complicated to explain. But in Stockholm it's highest status to live as close to the city centre as possible. The gentrification of Rinkeby has been going on for 20 years now. So this is nothing new.

The latest conflicts is a class struggle. Immigrants usually make up the poorest segment of any society. There's plenty of white trash in Rinkeby who are also getting priced out. They're also restless.

This is a much more accurate description of what is going on in Rinkeby.

 

[TSwizzle]

Take a drive through some of the more "vibrant" parts of an English city (probably similar in other European towns, e.g. Rinkeby in Sweden)) and you will soon discover that integration is a busted flush.

Rinkeby is rapidly gentrifying, pushing the immigrants out. In 20 years it'll be mostly white, since the immigrants won't be able to afford to live there.

English is probably a second language for you but I must ask, do you know what the word "rapid" means ? Because "in 20 years" is not "rapid". That is a long time.

This btw is probably a big reason for the last years conflicts.

Conflicts ? What conflicts ? You assured us there was nothing going on in Rinkeby, just harmless high jinks.

Stockholm has an acute housing shortage (because of idiotic price fixing of the rental market).

Could the housing shortage be caused by the idiotic mass importing of "refugees" when you have no housing ?

This is a much more accurate description of what is going on in Rinkeby.

Not from the footage I've seen.

 

[LordKiran]

Rinkeby is rapidly gentrifying, pushing the immigrants out. In 20 years it'll be mostly white, since the immigrants won't be able to afford to live there.

English is probably a second language for you but I must ask, do you know what the word "rapid" means ? Because "in 20 years" is not "rapid". That is a long time.

This btw is probably a big reason for the last years conflicts.

Conflicts ? What conflicts ? You assured us there was nothing going on in Rinkeby, just harmless high jinks.

Stockholm has an acute housing shortage (because of idiotic price fixing of the rental market).

Could the housing shortage be caused by the idiotic mass importing of "refugees" when you have no housing ?

This is a much more accurate description of what is going on in Rinkeby.

Not from the footage I've seen.

20 years is actually a pretty fast speed in the context of shifting demographics and large-scale land development.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Rinkeby is rapidly gentrifying, pushing the immigrants out. In 20 years it'll be mostly white, since the immigrants won't be able to afford to live there.

English is probably a second language for you but I must ask, do you know what the word "rapid" means ? Because "in 20 years" is not "rapid". That is a long time.

I think that's rapid when it comes to city planning. Things never happen fast when it comes to geographical demographics. Hiroshima and Nagasaki being exceptions.

This btw is probably a big reason for the last years conflicts.

Conflicts ? What conflicts ? You assured us there was nothing going on in Rinkeby, just harmless high jinks.

I'm not talking about riots. I'm talking about politics. The poor residents are getting very angry that the only coffee they can buy on the main square today is a mocha latte ristretto for €4. Last time I was there last winter I ate a hipster hamburger for €16. Ten years earlier I bought a €2 kebab at the same place. Services are increasingly targeting people with means.

Stockholm has an acute housing shortage (because of idiotic price fixing of the rental market).

Could the housing shortage be caused by the idiotic mass importing of "refugees" when you have no housing ?

The price fixing started in the 1940'ies. Back then people would pay money to watch "negroes" on stage just because they were black. So, hardly. It had turned into a major problem by 1960.

Sweden has lots of housing. Just not where there are any jobs. That's where we're putting our refugees today. In the Balkan war of the 90'ies we stuck the refugees in Malmø (where I live now) because there was lots of empty buildings. Well... that turned to complete shit. Good news is that it's easy to find cheap high quality drugs. It's only now starting to get it's act together. Today Malmø is a nice city again. It only took 30 years and one of the biggest ever bridges built to get there.

Sweden's history of handling refugees and immigrants is a cavalcade of idiocy. Lots of our refugees get an education here and then move to the UK or USA. Who are much better at integrating immigrants. We don't treat refugees and immigrants as an asset. We treat them like passive children. Immigrants here have to work damn hard to break into society. Unnecessarily.

That's btw the main reason why I'm so pro-immigration. I want Sweden to stop being an insular mono-culture. It damages innovation and our economy. Don't get me wrong. Sweden is an extremely well run country. There's a reason our economy is a top performer in spite of high degrees of welfare. But just because we do some things well, doesn't mean we do everything well.

This is a much more accurate description of what is going on in Rinkeby.

Not from the footage I've seen.

 

[Trausti]

Immigration isn't itself a bad thing. Immigration is actually a very good thing. Immigration without integration and with cultural norms and values coming in that clash with the country the people come to, that IS a bad thing. I don't see any logic or reason against that.

Take Britain. In 2015 it was one million houses short. I think this figure is higher because in the last 30 years more pack into a house or even a room.

Neither Labour or Tory built enough each year. To make matters worth, Thatcher allowed council tenants to buy their own houses but these were not replaced with more infrastructure spending.

Immigration was once around 30,000 per year. Last year it was 20 times that (down to around 300,000 taking into account those who left the UK).

Where can we put everyone?

And why are you taking them? You're a small island chain. Send them to Libya or Saudi Arabia. Lots of space there.

 

[angelo]

Meanwhile, Britain may have just dodged a bullet [for now] by keeping extreme leftie Corbyn out of number ten.
Some of his supporters were chanting: " Tories out, Labour in, refugees in!"
Apparently nearly 50% of British voters still believe in father xmas!

 

[bilby]

Meanwhile, Britain may have just dodged a bullet [for now] by keeping extreme leftie Corbyn out of number ten.
Some of his supporters were chanting: " Tories out, Labour in, refugees in!"
Apparently nearly 50% of British voters still believe in father xmas!

Corbyn isn't extreme. He's just been painted as such by the tabloid press.

But they have overplayed it, and when the British public saw him campaigning, they realized that they had been lied to. That's why the May administration is limping its way to total defeat; There will likely be another election in short order, and Corbyn will win it.

It's a well known failing of propaganda; Describing your enemy in hyperbolic terms is fine, but when you do it, you need to be cautious not to allow the truth to destroy your lies.

In WWI, the British and Germans both inspired people to enlist with propaganda. The British described 'The Hun' as brutal animals who would stop at nothing to despoil everything they touched. The Germans described the British as contemptible weaklings who would flee at the first sight of German bayonets.

The fact was, both armies were made up of young men of very similar character and disposition; Both sets of propaganda were untrue. But crucially, when the soldiers arrived at the front, they found an ugly, despoiled landscape, full of acts of appalling brutality (on both sides). This reality was completely compatible with the British propaganda, and it was easy for the British troops to continue to trust what they were told about their enemy. But reality was not compatible with the German propaganda; The British troops didn't run away, they gunned people down ruthlessly. This had a profound effect on German troops, who immediately realized that they were being lied to by their leaders. Whether this was a major factor in the final outcome of the fighting on the Western Front is impossible to say; But in a finely balanced war of attrition, it certainly didn't help the German cause.

Corbyn isn't extreme; He merely opposes the failed Thatcherite economic policies that received wisdom held were the only possible path to electoral success in Britain. Of course, since 1979, no other platform has been successful - but then, since the sudden death of John Smith in 1994, no other platform has been seriously considered by a major political party. Opposing two decades of bi-partisan support of neo-con economics seems extreme to those who have benefited from those economics; But the majority of the British people have been increasingly harmed by the insane policy of 'Austerity', whereby the response to economic decline is to pursue an ideological path that demonstrably makes the problem worse, not better.

It's the economy, stupid. People care about immigration, and Brexit, and the NHS, and the railways, and tax evasion. But ultimately, they really care about being able to earn enough to feed their families. And increasingly, its becoming clear that this is only going to get more and more difficult under the Tories, as the wealth is funneled into the pockets of the already wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

 

[angelo]

There's a lesson for Australian politicians to be learned. The average middle class would even vote for a socialist party providing there's oodles of cash in it for them. But pray tell, where's the money going to come from? You can't tax corporations and high income earners out of existence.
If you do that, where's the employment opportunity going to come from? Not forgetting of course that corporations employ millions of tax paying employees and despite what the left thinks, they also pay up to 35% tax on their profits.
Trump wants to lower the corporate tax rate to under 25% in order to boost employment and stop these same corporations from setting up in lower taxed nations and taking jobs with them.

 

[bilby]

There's a lesson for Australian politicians to be learned. The average middle class would even vote for a socialist party providing there's oodles of cash in it for them. But pray tell, where's the money going to come from? You can't tax corporations and high income earners out of existence.
If you do that, where's the employment opportunity going to come from? Not forgetting of course that corporations employ millions of tax paying employees and despite what the left thinks, they also pay up to 35% tax on their profits.
Trump wants to lower the corporate tax rate to under 25% in order to boost employment and stop these same corporations from setting up in lower taxed nations and taking jobs with them.

It's not a dichotomy, it's a continuum.

When taxes are too high, and/or benefits to the masses too large, that's bad. When taxes are too low, and/or benefits to the masses are too small, that's bad too.

Most OECD economies, including the USA, UK and Australia are currently in the latter condition; Tax increases (and/or increasing the progressiveness of taxation) and increased payments from government to the poor (and/or changes to regulations, laws, and conditions of employment to increase the amount paid to workers in wages) are all sensible policies in the current climate; If, as and when the distribution of wealth becomes sufficiently flat as to discourage growth through a shortage of capital, then the reverse policies become the sensible approach.

Right now, the scales are massively unbalanced from the mid-point where economic growth and the well being of the citizenry are maximized; And the right wing policy is to pile ever more weight onto the wrong side of the balance, under the stupid ideology that says that what worked in the 1970s and early 1980s must work FOREVER.

There isn't one set of policies that is always the best; Left-wing policies are best when wealth distribution is highly polarized, inflation is low, unemployment is high, and growth is stagnant. Right-wing policies are best when wealth distribution is fairly flat, inflation is high, unemployment is low, and growth is rapid.

And far more investment in education is needed if people are looking at today's conditions and thinking that wealth distribution is fairly flat, inflation is high, unemployment is low, and growth is rapid.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There's a lesson for Australian politicians to be learned. The average middle class would even vote for a socialist party providing there's oodles of cash in it for them. But pray tell, where's the money going to come from? You can't tax corporations and high income earners out of existence.
If you do that, where's the employment opportunity going to come from? Not forgetting of course that corporations employ millions of tax paying employees and despite what the left thinks, they also pay up to 35% tax on their profits.
Trump wants to lower the corporate tax rate to under 25% in order to boost employment and stop these same corporations from setting up in lower taxed nations and taking jobs with them.

Australia gets massive amounts of money from their mineral resources. Australian politicians have pushed through loads of retarded policies that succeed anyway, because Australia gets so much free money.

You can't compare Britain and Australia. The Brits actually have to earn their money. Americans have also got lots of free money from their oil. There's more Americans, so the effect is less extreme than in Australia's case. No, there's nothing Australia can learn from this. Until Australia has to take responsibility for their idiotic economic policies they'll stay stupid.

Sweden is highly successful and socialist. Today it's often cited as the best country to start a company in. There's ways to do socialism that is conducive to a healthy economy.

BTW, Sweden is extremely wealthy in mineral wealth. But we're barely extracting it. It's a tiny part of our economy. Nearly all of our wealth comes from innovation. Our most dominant export is ideas. Why? We have free universities, and we pay students a salary when studying. It's just more lucrative than extracting the minerals.

The problem isn't capitalism or socialism. Both can be done cleverly. and both can be done stupidly. One size does not fit all.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Meanwhile, Britain may have just dodged a bullet [for now] by keeping extreme leftie Corbyn out of number ten.
Some of his supporters were chanting: " Tories out, Labour in, refugees in!"
Apparently nearly 50% of British voters still believe in father xmas!

The Tories will do nothing about immigration and in that respect neither will Labour, the Lib-Dems nor the Greens.

Actually refugees are being let in, but the main problem is numerous economic migrants are pouring in where Teresa as Home Secretary and now Prime Minister can claim record amounts pouring in during her watch.

Per the Builder's Federation Report 2015 Britain was 1,000,000 houses short. I believe this is much more considering that more people pack into one house or room than before and in the last 2 years we have had record net migration.

Also:


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...may-prices-figures-quarter-2016-a7209346.html

The number of new homes completed has fallen compared to a year ago, the latest official figures show. In the second quarter of 2016, 34,920 homes were built, a fall of 2 per cent compared to the same period last year.

The fall means housebuilders are nowhere near the estimated 250,000 homes per year thought to be required to stop the housing shortage getting worse.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Take Britain. In 2015 it was one million houses short. I think this figure is higher because in the last 30 years more pack into a house or even a room.

Neither Labour or Tory built enough each year. To make matters worth, Thatcher allowed council tenants to buy their own houses but these were not replaced with more infrastructure spending.

Immigration was once around 30,000 per year. Last year it was 20 times that (down to around 300,000 taking into account those who left the UK).

Where can we put everyone?

And why are you taking them? You're a small island chain. Send them to Libya or Saudi Arabia. Lots of space there.

I can't personally stop them, but the government can but is not. Saudi Arabia and most Arab nations don't accept Migrants.

 

[angelo]

And why are you taking them? You're a small island chain. Send them to Libya or Saudi Arabia. Lots of space there.

I can't personally stop them, but the government can but is not. Saudi Arabia and most Arab nations don't accept Migrants.

Neither do some Western nations like japan which has had zero terrorist attacks of late!

 

[whichphilosophy]

I can't personally stop them, but the government can but is not. Saudi Arabia and most Arab nations don't accept Migrants.

Neither do some Western nations like japan which has had zero terrorist attacks of late!

Saudi etc have strict security. During the Arab Spring while I was in the UAE, Egyptian Nationals working there with visas didn't return home because the authorities were refusing any entry for people from that country.

The UK should be stopping those who went to Syria, Libya and other front line war zones from returning but instead they are coming and going but simply under surveillance.

We should also not be taking in economic migrants with no work visas.

The UAE however did let 100,000 Syrians in as refugees but claim they are treated as other expatriates.

http://gulfnews.com/news/uae/government/uae-has-eased-residency-rules-for-syrians-1.1582025

UAE has eased residency rules for Syrians
Those who fled violence in Syria are treated as any other expatriate — not like refugees