Europe submits voluntarily

[LordKiran]

It is not. All those unvetted mass migrants (a million in 2015 alone) should never have been allowed into Germany . Merkel alone bears the responsibility for that as she decided to open the floodgates without consulting with the Bundestag or even her cabinet.

Eww...That woman.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Eww...That woman.

Why did I even watch that. So predictable and so dumb. Of course immigrants have every incentive to assimilate. They want to get jobs. But changing your religion isn't not assimilating. Assimilating is stuff like learning the language, figuring out social codes for how the jobs market works. Figuring out how to get laid in the new country. Figuring out how to buy food cheaply. Figuring out how to use services without getting over-charged.

She also has zero understanding for how ethnicity works. The Middle-East may be almost entirely Islamic. But very few of them see it as their prime identity. They primarily identify with their little specific ethnic subdivision. They're not denying refugee status to their own people. They're denying it to people they don't identify with. And it's these kinds of ethnic divisions that make the Middle-East backward and poor. The West is rich partly because we've managed to move beyond it. We don't want to go back to tribalism. They we too will become poor again. Why am I even writing this... everybody, not retarded, should understand this.

When nationalism first started, the point was to break tribal ties. It was Isabella of Spain who wanted to create a single identity out of a ethnically and linguistically diverse Spain. Just to make it easier to rule. The point was to create a bigger identity out of smaller identities, because it's better for lots of things. But it's an artificial construct. And as such it's infinitely malleable. There's no problem saying that a newly arrived Muslim immigrant to Sweden is now a Swede. It does not violate what nations mean.

 

[angelo]

It does matter when muslims create an islamic society within a society.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It does matter when muslims create an islamic society within a society.

But what do you mean by that? I'm a Swede living in Denmark. Am I creating a Swedish society within Denmark? You're saying stuff as if it's obvious what it means. WTF do you mean? And why does it matter? The term "Islamic" is about as vacuous as the term Christian or Jewish.

 

[angelo]

It does matter when muslims create an islamic society within a society.

But what do you mean by that? I'm a Swede living in Denmark. Am I creating a Swedish society within Denmark? You're saying stuff as if it's obvious what it means. WTF do you mean? And why does it matter? The term "Islamic" is about as vacuous as the term Christian or Jewish.

How many Molanbeeks [ spel ] do you think have to exist before it becomes obvious?

 

[DrZoidberg]

But what do you mean by that? I'm a Swede living in Denmark. Am I creating a Swedish society within Denmark? You're saying stuff as if it's obvious what it means. WTF do you mean? And why does it matter? The term "Islamic" is about as vacuous as the term Christian or Jewish.

How many Molanbeeks [ spel ] do you think have to exist before it becomes obvious?

You're assuming that the problem of Molanbeek is that it's population are predominantly Muslim.

Here's an example of what I mean. When the Somalian government collapsed in 1991 and civil war broke out, Somalian refugees flooded out of the country. The educated Somalis were attracted to USA's free market and pluralistic society. The uneducated were attracted to Europe's generous social welfare. They were all Muslim. Somalis in USA became very prosperous and is an immigration success story. The Somalis to Europe... not so much. It seems like religion was a non-factor here.

It's the exact same thing with Iranian refugees. Almost all Muslim. They all hate the Islamic government. But retained their religion. The educated Iranians were extremely succesful, assimilated just fine. The uneducated... not so much. Again... religion seems to be a non-factor.

Molanbeek was first built up as a working class suburb for workers in industry. At no point have rich people lived there. Everybody who have ever moved there did so because they were poor. Do you seriously think that the biggest problem with Molanbeek is Islam? It was a problem neighborhood back when it was 100% white and Christian. Or are you going to blame that on Islam as well?

 

[Jayjay]

How many Molanbeeks [ spel ] do you think have to exist before it becomes obvious?

You're assuming that the problem of Molanbeek is that it's population are predominantly Muslim.

Here's an example of what I mean. When the Somalian government collapsed in 1991 and civil war broke out, Somalian refugees flooded out of the country. The educated Somalis were attracted to USA's free market and pluralistic society. The uneducated were attracted to Europe's generous social welfare. They were all Muslim. Somalis in USA became very prosperous and is an immigration success story. The Somalis to Europe... not so much. It seems like religion was a non-factor here.

It's the exact same thing with Iranian refugees. Almost all Muslim. They all hate the Islamic government. But retained their religion. The educated Iranians were extremely succesful, assimilated just fine. The uneducated... not so much. Again... religion seems to be a non-factor.

Molanbeek was first built up as a working class suburb for workers in industry. At no point have rich people lived there. Everybody who have ever moved there did so because they were poor. Do you seriously think that the biggest problem with Molanbeek is Islam? It was a problem neighborhood back when it was 100% white and Christian. Or are you going to blame that on Islam as well?

The obvious solution here is to discriminate immigrants based on education and wealth. Take the rich and smart ones, and tell the uneducated ones to fuck off. The fact that poverty and lack of education correlates with Islam is coincidental.

 

[LordKiran]

You're assuming that the problem of Molanbeek is that it's population are predominantly Muslim.

Here's an example of what I mean. When the Somalian government collapsed in 1991 and civil war broke out, Somalian refugees flooded out of the country. The educated Somalis were attracted to USA's free market and pluralistic society. The uneducated were attracted to Europe's generous social welfare. They were all Muslim. Somalis in USA became very prosperous and is an immigration success story. The Somalis to Europe... not so much. It seems like religion was a non-factor here.

It's the exact same thing with Iranian refugees. Almost all Muslim. They all hate the Islamic government. But retained their religion. The educated Iranians were extremely succesful, assimilated just fine. The uneducated... not so much. Again... religion seems to be a non-factor.

Molanbeek was first built up as a working class suburb for workers in industry. At no point have rich people lived there. Everybody who have ever moved there did so because they were poor. Do you seriously think that the biggest problem with Molanbeek is Islam? It was a problem neighborhood back when it was 100% white and Christian. Or are you going to blame that on Islam as well?

The obvious solution here is to discriminate immigrants based on education and wealth. Take the rich and smart ones, and tell the uneducated ones to fuck off. The fact that poverty and lack of education correlates with Islam is coincidental.

This is already how we do things. Exceptions are made for refugees and not everyday immigrants.

 

[Jayjay]

The obvious solution here is to discriminate immigrants based on education and wealth. Take the rich and smart ones, and tell the uneducated ones to fuck off. The fact that poverty and lack of education correlates with Islam is coincidental.

This is already how we do things. Exceptions are made for refugees and not everyday immigrants.

And that's one of the reasons why America gets better immigrants than Europe. Other reasons include worse welfare safety net, and the Atlantic ocean.

 

[LordKiran]

This is already how we do things. Exceptions are made for refugees and not everyday immigrants.

And that's one of the reasons why America gets better immigrants than Europe. Other reasons include worse welfare safety net, and the Atlantic ocean.

To be totally honest I'd gladly take them here. More people means more productivity, more soldiers, more power, more everything. Any short term negative effects would be short lived and well worth having more people rather than less.

 

[Trausti]

And that's one of the reasons why America gets better immigrants than Europe. Other reasons include worse welfare safety net, and the Atlantic ocean.

To be totally honest I'd gladly take them here. More people means more productivity, more soldiers, more power, more everything. Any short term negative effects would be short lived and well worth having more people rather than less.

Huh.

Hmm

 

[LordKiran]

To be totally honest I'd gladly take them here. More people means more productivity, more soldiers, more power, more everything. Any short term negative effects would be short lived and well worth having more people rather than less.

Huh.

Hmm

I don't get what you're trying to show here. That in shitty wartorn failed nations people don't have money or jobs? We know that. It's why they try to leave.

 

[angelo]

Huh.

Hmm

I don't get what you're trying to show here. That in shitty wartorn failed nations people don't have money or jobs? We know that. It's why they try to leave.

Are people [ predominantly men] fleeing from islamic countries for any reason islamaphobes?

 

[LordKiran]

I don't get what you're trying to show here. That in shitty wartorn failed nations people don't have money or jobs? We know that. It's why they try to leave.

Are people [ predominantly men] fleeing from islamic countries for any reason islamaphobes?

*Sigh* okay I'm going to explain this to you again because I know it's been explained to you before.

The reason men make up the bulk of migrants is because that way if they get granted asylum they can have the rest of the family moved over. It makes perfect logical sense to send only one strong young person ahead because:

A: They can cover ground more quickly

B: They aren't as vulnerable as a group of women and children moving together on a dangerous trip to Europe

C: If they get there and are denied asylum then all the time money and risk moving everyone at once would have been for nothing

D: If the person traveling happens to die on the trip then at least its only that one person and not everyone

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't get what you're trying to show here. That in shitty wartorn failed nations people don't have money or jobs? We know that. It's why they try to leave.

Are people [ predominantly men] fleeing from islamic countries for any reason islamaphobes?

This was also when Angry Birds was at peak popularity, ie Finlands only export since Nokia folded.

People are fleeing from the "Islamic" countries because it's politically unstable. There's a couple of reasons for that.

1) Ottoman empire heritage. The last hundred years of Ottoman rule was horrendously dysfunctional, and they didn't go down gracefully. They tried their best to fight social and technological innovation. When it folded they created a mess comparable to the mess the colonial powers left when leaving Africa. Stable social institutions are built evolutionarily over long periods of time. Step-by-step powers are balanced against each other. The worst thing that can happen is a sudden collapse of power. That leaves a mess that can take centuries to sort out.

2) Oil. One of the worst things that can happen to a country with weak social institutions (aka developing country) is one valuable resource, in an otherwise impoverished country. Because of how incentives work. Those in power have no incentives to care about the population. Their only incentive comes from controlling and selling the valuable resource. Power in those countries is not derived from the people. It's artificially propped up by foreign powers (by buying the resource). That has so far almost always led to brutal dictatorships. The exceptions are exceptionally rare. I think Botswana and Norway are the only ones.

3) Due to the Middle-East's geographic location it's a cross-roads region. Back in history whenever an empire wanted to expand, the Levant was the doormat before any conquest. So whenever a new empire took over the conquerors would put their ethnic group on top like icing on a cake. And this happened very many times. The result is an extremely ethnically and linguistically fractured society. This is not a problem in a modern society with stable and democratic institutions. But it is a problem in developing countries. Where ethnic/tribal loyalty is more important than ideology. It's a bit of a Catch-22. If we look how Europe did it... it was not pretty. They used nationalism to ban and wipe out cultures and languages. At the time of the French revolution only 12% of France's people spoke French at all, and they had over 400 languages. Now they're down to a handful and they all speak French. It would be great if we could avoid that in the Middle-East. BTW, this is what Saddam and Assad tried to do in Syria and Iraq. The Baath party. Politically correct in the 19'th century. Not as cool in the 21'st.

 

[angelo]

Are people [ predominantly men] fleeing from islamic countries for any reason islamaphobes?

*Sigh* okay I'm going to explain this to you again because I know it's been explained to you before.

The reason men make up the bulk of migrants is because that way if they get granted asylum they can have the rest of the family moved over. It makes perfect logical sense to send only one strong young person ahead because:

A: They can cover ground more quickly

B: They aren't as vulnerable as a group of women and children moving together on a dangerous trip to Europe

C: If they get there and are denied asylum then all the time money and risk moving everyone at once would have been for nothing

D: If the person traveling happens to die on the trip then at least its only that one person and not everyone

What a load of hogwash. So what you're really saying is that million muslims Merkel allowed to enter Germany will in future really be 4-6 million?

 

[LordKiran]

*Sigh* okay I'm going to explain this to you again because I know it's been explained to you before.

The reason men make up the bulk of migrants is because that way if they get granted asylum they can have the rest of the family moved over. It makes perfect logical sense to send only one strong young person ahead because:

A: They can cover ground more quickly

B: They aren't as vulnerable as a group of women and children moving together on a dangerous trip to Europe

C: If they get there and are denied asylum then all the time money and risk moving everyone at once would have been for nothing

D: If the person traveling happens to die on the trip then at least its only that one person and not everyone

What a load of hogwash. So what you're really saying is that million muslims Merkel allowed to enter Germany will in future really be 4-6 million?

Can you point out anything specifically that is hogwash and why?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Eww...That woman.

Why did I even watch that. So predictable and so dumb. Of course immigrants have every incentive to assimilate. They want to get jobs. But changing your religion isn't not assimilating. Assimilating is stuff like learning the language, figuring out social codes for how the jobs market works. Figuring out how to get laid in the new country. Figuring out how to buy food cheaply. Figuring out how to use services without getting over-charged.

She also has zero understanding for how ethnicity works. The Middle-East may be almost entirely Islamic. But very few of them see it as their prime identity. They primarily identify with their little specific ethnic subdivision. They're not denying refugee status to their own people. They're denying it to people they don't identify with. And it's these kinds of ethnic divisions that make the Middle-East backward and poor. The West is rich partly because we've managed to move beyond it. We don't want to go back to tribalism. They we too will become poor again. Why am I even writing this... everybody, not retarded, should understand this.

When nationalism first started, the point was to break tribal ties. It was Isabella of Spain who wanted to create a single identity out of a ethnically and linguistically diverse Spain. Just to make it easier to rule. The point was to create a bigger identity out of smaller identities, because it's better for lots of things. But it's an artificial construct. And as such it's infinitely malleable. There's no problem saying that a newly arrived Muslim immigrant to Sweden is now a Swede. It does not violate what nations mean.

You can google 'housing shortage Sweden, Germany, UK etc.'
We have acute housing shortages in Europe, plus driving in qualified migrants among the unqualified ones causes brain drains in their own countries.

Driving in migrants to areas with limited jobs does not create jobs in all cases but as created sweatshops and human trafficking.

 

[angelo]

*Sigh* okay I'm going to explain this to you again because I know it's been explained to you before.

The reason men make up the bulk of migrants is because that way if they get granted asylum they can have the rest of the family moved over. It makes perfect logical sense to send only one strong young person ahead because:

A: They can cover ground more quickly

B: They aren't as vulnerable as a group of women and children moving together on a dangerous trip to Europe

C: If they get there and are denied asylum then all the time money and risk moving everyone at once would have been for nothing

D: If the person traveling happens to die on the trip then at least its only that one person and not everyone

What a load of hogwash. So what you're really saying is that million muslims Merkel allowed to enter Germany will in future really be 4-6 million?

Do you now dispute, on your own statement the figure of over 4- 6 million immigration in to Germany alone?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Huh.

Hmm

I don't get what you're trying to show here. That in shitty wartorn failed nations people don't have money or jobs? We know that. It's w hy they try to leave.

We're 2 million homes short in the UK. You can google housing shortages, Germany, Sweden etc and also see there is a problem. In the UK there are up to 1 million people on zero rated contracts, many of whom received no or little work. This disguises unemployment.

We lack schools and teachers. There are genuine refugees and certain skills but there also economic migrants flooding in from Africa,Asia and the Middle East. Keep them in their own countries and direct the problem to their own governments while also reducing brain drains and human trafficking and ISIS cadres. Foreign experts can come on a work visa and go back home upon contract expiry, just Westerners do in most countries such as the Middle East, India and Pakistan etc