Europe submits voluntarily

[Axulus]

It should potentially alter it: how many of those types can a healthy society tolerate? Surely there is a percentage limit for a healthy functioning Western liberal secular democracy, where when the percent goes over that threshold, the society takes a turn for the worse?

I imagine that that 'tipping point' is FAR in excess of the numbers currently being mischaracterised as a 'flood' by the media. The total number of Syrian refugees (excluding internally displaced persons still in Syria) is about 3 million; That's about 0.2% of the EU population.

If they all had exactly identical political beliefs, and were all granted full citizenship and voting rights (neither of which is close to being true), then their effect on poll results would likely still be comparable to the margin of error in the polls. If they ALL went ONLY to the UK, then maybe their political power would be enough to influence party policy at Westminster; but that's really not going to happen.

I agree. However, I think the conversation would be more productive to pin them down on a tipping point number (or at least some sort of "danger zone" percentage range), get them to justify that number/zone, and then get them to justify why they think that tipping point is in any way a realistic possibility and significantly more likely to occur by letting in X number of Muslim refugees and immigrants.

 

[bilby]

I imagine that that 'tipping point' is FAR in excess of the numbers currently being mischaracterised as a 'flood' by the media. The total number of Syrian refugees (excluding internally displaced persons still in Syria) is about 3 million; That's about 0.2% of the EU population.

If they all had exactly identical political beliefs, and were all granted full citizenship and voting rights (neither of which is close to being true), then their effect on poll results would likely still be comparable to the margin of error in the polls. If they ALL went ONLY to the UK, then maybe their political power would be enough to influence party policy at Westminster; but that's really not going to happen.

I agree. However, I think the conversation would be more productive to pin them down on a tipping point number (or at least some sort of "danger zone" percentage range), get them to justify that number/zone, and then get them to justify why they think that tipping point is in any way a realistic possibility and significantly more likely to occur by letting in X number of Muslim refugees and immigrants.

There is also the argument that, if we take it as read that Islam (or radical Islam) is uniquely or especially dangerous, then letting refugees settle in secular democracies may significantly reduce the exposure of people (particularly infants) to indoctrination into the faith, and therefore may be a desirable outcome; A child who grows up in Syria is far less likely to become an atheist (or a non-Muslim) than the same child growing up in Germany.

 

[untermensche]

These petty irrational fears and slanders of "the other" have been propagated for a long time.

At one time in the US it was "the Irish".

People assimilate.

 

[dystopian]

Where not talking just about refugees and asylum but the hoards of others who come in
See
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06077/SN06077.pdf
If you look at the known migrants that alone adds up to around 641,000 and excludes unknowns coming in on trucks That the size of a city. You can reduce this by approximately one half for those leaving the UK but is still a huge figure which is the size of one or two towns every year.
Adding up the figures over a period of years runs into millions.

First, these are two separate issues. One can not conflate refugees with regular immigrants.

Secondly, the numbers you post STILL do not justify this type of language nor this type of dramaqueen antics you keep pushing. These numbers do not represent "hoards". Or even hordes. Or floods, or swarms, or whatever other hyperbole you want to use.

Third, according to the document you linked, 14% of immigrants are actually already British nationals (ie; they were British people living abroad and returning home)

Fourth, 38% (excluding that 14% from the UK) are from EU countries; given that the whole 'we don't want islam here!' argument is inextricably linked to this whole debate, that's an important fact to consider. Though I'm sure the self-awareless xenophobes will find just as much reason to complain about Poles and other Eastern Europeans; but even they would have to accept the argument that European immigrants are much easier to integrate: it's their own argument, pretty much, after all.

Fifth, looking at the reasons for immigration, we see work as the primary motivation to migrate. Immigrants make the move either because they get a job that requires them to move, or because they're hoping to get one in the UK. Contrary to what many want to believe, these immigrants are NOT a threat to the jobs of anyone else (studies have found no correlation between immigration and the unemployment rate), are NOT a threat to UK wages (studies have found no correlation between wage levels and immigration), and are in fact LESS likely to be unemployed than native britons. - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...nt-or-reduced-wages-study-finds-10075047.html

Sixth, the second most popular reason (almost as popular as work) for immigration, is formal study. In other words, university/college students are counted as immigrants. Surely you can't think of these as a bad influence on your country.

Seventh, a large and significant percentage of those immigrants are only temporary residents, as in the case of those seeking formal education, or whose jobs are only temporary assignments; whereas you're just blindly adding everything up and expecting them to stay forever.

Eight, even if we were talking about millions, (and this has been explained to you before) that is well within the UK's capacity to deal with (especially given that net migrations have historically fluctuated between positive and negative, and will certainly keep doing so).

Ninth, harkening back to point five; immigrants are a *net positive* to the UK economy. They tend to be employed, they pay taxes, and are less likely than native britons to call upon services that cost you money. These people are *not* a drain on your resources, they *add* to them.

 

[dystopian]

They are not like us.

They don't eat the same food. They don't have the same religious views. They have different ideas about how many children to have. They compete with us for jobs. Their cooking smells are offensive.

Speaking in regards to both neighbours and people who are not natives (or at least aren't white natives); I can say with certainty that my neighbour's cooking smells a hell of a lot better than any Dutch (or British) cooking I've ever smelled.

 

[arkirk]

The other night Jerry Brown was on TV discussing our California Draught. We have 38 million people here and have had draught conditions now for about six years. The word Jerry strayed to and kept using when questioned about..."What if the draught is here to stay?" was that our regimens related to water will have to become more sophisticated and elegant. My first thought was he was dodging the issure, however it should be clear to us that if we survive to become more sophisticated things that are problems today to a disorganized dissonant society will indeed become less threatening with increased understanding of what we MUST DO TO SURVIVE. We collectively are gaining in the knowledge department and crude environmental disruptions in the name of energy and or supply, will indeed have to be more elegant and restrained.

I feel that problems with overpopulation are nowhere near the scope of problems we seem to have understanding each others human needs. This does not have to be a tryranny of bureaucratic dictations but rather the dictates of common sense and consensus. It really is just a matter of getting everybody enough of what they need to survive, and not a matter of good and evil as the Neo Nazis would make it.

 

[bilby]

The other night Jerry Brown was on TV discussing our California Draught. We have 38 million people here and have had draught conditions now for about six years. The word Jerry strayed to and kept using when questioned about..."What if the draught is here to stay?" was that our regimens related to water will have to become more sophisticated and elegant. My first thought was he was dodging the issure, however it should be clear to us that if we survive to become more sophisticated things that are problems today to a disorganized dissonant society will indeed become less threatening with increased understanding of what we MUST DO TO SURVIVE. We collectively are gaining in the knowledge department and crude environmental disruptions in the name of energy and or supply, will indeed have to be more elegant and restrained.

I feel that problems with overpopulation are nowhere near the scope of problems we seem to have understanding each others human needs. This does not have to be a tryranny of bureaucratic dictations but rather the dictates of common sense and consensus. It really is just a matter of getting everybody enough of what they need to survive, and not a matter of good and evil as the Neo Nazis would make it.

Is California Draught a beer? If so, I hope the brewery has an independent water supply, because I understand the state is currently in drought.

 

[barbos]

People assimilate.

Or not and then go to Syria and cut throats of captured journalists.
Europe and especially Great Britain does piss poor job of assimilating these people.

 

[untermensche]

People assimilate.

Or not and then go to Syria and cut throats of captured journalists.
Europe and especially Great Britain does piss poor job of assimilating these people.

I think these people left Great Britain because Great Britain first attacked and killed many Muslims.

 

[dystopian]

People assimilate.

Or not and then go to Syria and cut throats of captured journalists.
Europe and especially Great Britain does piss poor job of assimilating these people.

These people represent a tiny minority. Furthermore, most of them are not in fact immigrants but people who were born here to parents who immigrated; and the xenophobic nature of their countries of birth combined with the existential angs that defines their mostly young adolescent lives makes them feel unwelcome and inclined to 'embrace' what they think are their roots (for all sorts of faulty reasons, some of which we are directly to blame for). More often than not, the parents of the kids who make the move don't understand (and certainly didn't encourage it), and try to do everything in their power to get them back.

Assimilation/integration is a two way street. We can't expect people to integrate when we keep treating them like shit.

 

[barbos]

Or not and then go to Syria and cut throats of captured journalists.
Europe and especially Great Britain does piss poor job of assimilating these people.

I think these people left Great Britain because Great Britain first attacked and killed many Muslims.

And Hitler murdered 6 million jews because they did no let him into the art school.
I think they left GB because GB did piss poor job assimilating them.

- - - Updated - - -

Or not and then go to Syria and cut throats of captured journalists.
Europe and especially Great Britain does piss poor job of assimilating these people.

These people represent a tiny minority.

That remains to be seen.

Furthermore, most of them are not in fact immigrants but people who were born here to parents who immigrated;

And that supposed to look better on Great Britain?

 

[dystopian]

That remains to be seen.

No it doesn't, it's a fucking fact. We're talking numbers that don't even exceed more than a few hundred for most countries; which *is* a tiny minority no matter how you look at it, and that isn't even considering the fact we don't know how many of those few hundred are joining ISIS and how many are going to fight the Syrian government.

And that supposed to look better on Great Britain?

It makes it a *british* problem, instead of an immigrant problem. Some people would love nothing more than to use it as an excuse to rant against immigrants from arabic countries and how dangerous they are... but that argument is completely demolish when it turns out that it is people who were born in Brittain who are taking the plunge, especially when the reason they're doing it can be traced to the way these kids are treated by the society they were born into.

 

[Jokodo]

Oh crap. My boss is on vacation in Europe right now. Should I try to warn him about the impending apocalypse? Or is it already too late?

Its a matter of Maths.
Take a European population with 15% Muslims .

There is no European country (outside South East Europe with historical presence of Islam) with 15% Muslims. So your math is wrong.

Then compare a 1.6 to an 8.1 birth rate.

The last time any country had an 8.1 total fertility rate was in 1970, when Rwanda and Kenya (incidentally both Christian majority countriees) had TFRs of 8.2 and 8.1 respectively (link).

The only large demographic within a Western country to have a similarly high TFR are Haredi Jews in Israel.

This source states the TFR for Muslims in Europe at 2.1 - nowhere near your numbers. And the only reason it is so "high" is that the numbers include first generation immigrants from poor countries - by the second generation, minorities' social structures largely blend in with the majority population.

I spot another math fail.

 

[Jokodo]

Oh noes! Europe is helping people fleeing from the horrors of war! But the people they're helping are MUSLIMS! And there's a lot of them! Well you know, still a tiny minority compared to the natives BUT DOOM AND GLOOM THE END TIMES ARE NIGH!

OH NOES! EVERYONE PANIC!

Ive worked for quite a few years in Muslim countries. Its not a problem. I get on with Arabs. I have Palestinian friends. The problem for Europe is the maths. We have a low birth rate compared to Muslims, especially those in Europe.

Data please? Yes, globally, Muslims tend to have high birth rates, but that's because Muslims tend to live in poor countries and poor countries tend to have high birth rates - same goes for Christian majority countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Within Europe, Muslims tend to have slightly higher birth rates than non-Muslims, but not drastically and the difference is essentially gone by the second generation.

Europe is very likely to become Muslim but if like Christianity it reforms and allows a secular system there would not be too much to worry about.

If you want to see really racist immigration policies get a look at those in the UAE

If you want to see a really repressive policy towards recreational drugs, get a look at Malaysia. So what? I can still argue for decriminalisation where I live.

 

[Jokodo]

Not all of these "migrants" are actual refugees. And there should be a way to help people fleeing wars without giving away Europe's future. Why can't the Muslim world do more to take in these people? Why can't more of them stay in Turkey, where they are coming through anyway?

There are currently close to two million Syrian refugees in Turkey.

Why can't Saudi Arabia, which is both rich, Muslim and has a lot of empty space, take a few hundred thousand of their fellow Muslims?

Because their government is different only in degree from the regime many of the refugees are fleeing from, and they rightly fear that letting in hundreds of thousands of educated people in the relatively secular and multicultural society Syria was before the war broke out will destabilise their theocracy, and also because they're selfish pricks.

A civilised democratic society that considers it a good idea to model itself after one of the worst autocratic regimes out their has forfeited its right to call itself civilised.

But the people they're helping are MUSLIMS! And there's a lot of them! Well you know, still a tiny minority compared to the natives BUT DOOM AND GLOOM THE END TIMES ARE NIGH!

Actually, Muslims are no longer a tiny minority in Europe. and their numbers are increasing. And even when they are a minority there are problems with violence/terrorism, with demands for Sharia law etc. This will only get worse by letting hundreds of thousands of more Muslims in.

You should stop reading right-wing blogs. They are no good for your brain.

 

[untermensche]

I think these people left Great Britain because Great Britain first attacked and killed many Muslims.

And Hitler murdered 6 million jews because they did no let him into the art school.
I think they left GB because GB did piss poor job assimilating them.

But these people SAY they became radicalized by watching US and British violence against Muslims, by seeing things like Abu Ghraib.

And of course this violence was massive and real and incredibly immoral.

Why should we dismiss their claims?

 

[Jokodo]

You prefer your beef with extra cruelty? Also, you can't get bacon from beef. Finally, Islam doesn't allow alcohol so all those European beers, wines and spirits might be a thing of the past by the end of the century, unless Europeans do something about it.

In most Muslim majority countries (by far), the consumption of alcohol is legal and often handled more liberally than in the US. Among those countries that do ban alcohol, about half have explicit exceptions for non-Muslims. So, how about no?

If however islam in Europe adopts and retains the culture of its host countries I think many of our civil rights will remain intact.

Experience with Muslims already in Europe shows that to be quite unrealistic.

What kind of experience are you referring to? The experience that second-generation descendants of Muslim immigrants have, as a group, lifestyles and attitudes closer to their non-Muslim peers than to their own grandchildren maybe?

There is a thread on here describing Kim Davis, the county clerk from Kentucky, as 'theocratic ruler'. Yet, prospect of islamic theocracy, which would make Kim Davis look like Richard Dawkins, is not seen as a threat by the Left. What is it with the faux-liberal blind spot when it comes to Islam?

So pretty soon the host citizens will be a minority.

And why should Europe not fight against that?

What is "host citizens" even supposed to mean?

 

[barbos]

No it doesn't, it's a fucking fact. We're talking numbers that don't even exceed more than a few hundred for most countries; which *is* a tiny minority no matter how you look at it, and that isn't even considering the fact we don't know how many of those few hundred are joining ISIS and how many are going to fight the Syrian government.

No, it's not a fucking fact. It is minority but not tiny. Besides, not all would be terrorists left for Syria and there is not so tiny minority which merely supports "tiny" minority.

And that supposed to look better on Great Britain?

It makes it a *british* problem, instead of an immigrant problem.

Yes, british should never have allowed refuge to scambag muslim preachers.
But that would contradict European values, would not it?

 

[Jokodo]

I think 1.6 versus 8.1 is a fertility rate not birth rate. But I doubt muslims in any country have 8.1 fertility rate. Maybe some have 4 but 8 is just impossible.

The figures are my error.
The problem is the quantities of people coming in and financial resources. Criminals are selling Europe to impoverished peoples and putting them in unsafe boats. The media plays this up as our the Europeans fault. The more that make it here, means more will come.

. We don't have the finances, to cope. I am currently in Italy It has an unemployment rate of around 12 per cent per some sources. Here is one
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/italy/unemployment-rate Many of the migrants are gathering again around Milan Central station. Maybe just a few hundred. A lot sit on the road side or the grass and some have a few beers to pass the time.
Wages in Italy are generally quite low and taxation is high. A lot of Italians live at home.
Even though immigrants are getting just €34.60 a day plus lunch packs to live on which isn't much the Italians cannot really afford this. If people wish to donate voluntarily that's not a problem.

They are not "getting" €34.60 per day, the institutions that put them up get that sum for boarding, which already includes the food. Some of the landlords presumably make quite some money this way, but none of it ends up as cash in the migrants' hands. There may be a small amount of pocket money for the individuals, but (while I don't know the exact conditions in Italy speficically), that's more in the region of a few tens of Euros a month.

 

[dystopian]

No, it's not a fucking fact. It is minority but not tiny.

Yes. It *is* a fact. Again, we're talking mere hundreds of people; out of a population of millions. That is tiny. Period.