Europe submits voluntarily

[Bomb#20]

So basically a free and liquid market in any commodity is a good thing, unless that commodity is labour?

No, of course not. Why do you ask? Did one of the people here who's opposed to unfettered immigration claim a free and liquid market in any commodity is a good thing? I'm sure I can name a dozen other commodities off the top of my head that a free and liquid market in is not a good thing. Let's see...

Guns, explosives, poisons, P4 pathogens, babies, sex with children, sex with employees, kidneys, legislators, judges, jury verdicts, votes, medical records, credit card numbers, identity papers, classified documents, pirated movies, endangered species...

Unfettered immigration goes a long way towards improving the liquidity of the labour market - a market that is typically highly illiquid even before states impose counterproductive restrictions on the flow of that commodity across their borders.

But unfettered immigration has other effects in addition to altering liquidity. A cost-benefit analysis in which you only take one effect into account is a type of kangaroo court.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No, of course not. Why do you ask? Did one of the people here who's opposed to unfettered immigration claim a free and liquid market in any commodity is a good thing? I'm sure I can name a dozen other commodities off the top of my head that a free and liquid market in is not a good thing. Let's see...

Guns, explosives, poisons, P4 pathogens, babies, sex with children, sex with employees, kidneys, legislators, judges, jury verdicts, votes, medical records, credit card numbers, identity papers, classified documents, pirated movies, endangered species...

Unfettered immigration goes a long way towards improving the liquidity of the labour market - a market that is typically highly illiquid even before states impose counterproductive restrictions on the flow of that commodity across their borders.

But unfettered immigration has other effects in addition to altering liquidity. A cost-benefit analysis in which you only take one effect into account is a type of kangaroo court.

Wait. Let's get this straight. Restricting immigration is like banning abortion. The choice is whether or not you want abortions to be carried out in proper facilities, by trained medical staff and be regulated or if you want women to get abortions in back alleys by god knows who. The number of abortions will be the same. Immigration is the same. These people will come. The question is, do we want them to be able to get legal jobs that we then can tax. Or do we want to force them to get unregulated off-the-grid-jobs that we can't tax. The number of immigrants will be the same.

We need to stop pretending we have a choice regarding on whether or not the refugees will come. The discussion needs to be; when they come, how do we deal with it?

 

[TSwizzle]

Immigration is the same. These people will come. The question is, do we want them to be able to get legal jobs that we then can tax. Or do we want to force them to get unregulated off-the-grid-jobs that we can't tax. The number of immigrants will be the same.

We need to stop pretending we have a choice regarding on whether or not the refugees will come. The discussion needs to be; when they come, how do we deal with it?

"Refugees" are not the same as immigrants/migrants, stop pretending they are the same thing.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Immigration is the same. These people will come. The question is, do we want them to be able to get legal jobs that we then can tax. Or do we want to force them to get unregulated off-the-grid-jobs that we can't tax. The number of immigrants will be the same.

We need to stop pretending we have a choice regarding on whether or not the refugees will come. The discussion needs to be; when they come, how do we deal with it?

"Refugees" are not the same as immigrants/migrants, stop pretending they are the same thing.

I meant refugees and not immigrants. Excellent point.

 

[Bomb#20]

Wait. Let's get this straight. Restricting immigration is like banning abortion. The choice is whether or not you want abortions to be carried out in proper facilities, by trained medical staff and be regulated or if you want women to get abortions in back alleys by god knows who. The number of abortions will be the same.

And you call other people's opinions retarded. Why on earth would you imagine that outlawing abortion doesn't change the number of abortions? The notion is ludicrous.

(I looked it up, by the way. After the U.S. legalized abortion, the number per year roughly doubled.)

Immigration is the same. These people will come. The question is, do we want them to be able to get legal jobs that we then can tax. Or do we want to force them to get unregulated off-the-grid-jobs that we can't tax. The number of immigrants will be the same.

If you have restrictive policies the number will be lower, just like with abortion. Duh! That said, of course you should do whatever it takes to get legal jobs for the ones who get in whom you decide not to deport. Policies that encourage them to stay in your country on welfare or in illegal jobs are pathologically irrational.

We need to stop pretending we have a choice regarding on whether or not the refugees will come. The discussion needs to be; when they come, how do we deal with it?

You need to stop pretending that the question is binary -- zero or everyone who wants in. The discussion needs to be about how many your country can handle and what needs to be done to limit the number to that level.

 

[whichphilosophy]

"Refugees" are not the same as immigrants/migrants, stop pretending they are the same thing.

I meant refugees and not immigrants. Excellent point.

Not all the people pouring into Europe are refugees. Some are but not all. Europe's soft touch policy has encouraged criminal snake heads to run highly profitable businesses smuggling people into Europe knowing no action is taken against those who throw away their ID
Germany has hundreds of thousands of homeless people while Merkel shows off to the world how many she can take in from outside Germany.

 

[Jokodo]

I meant refugees and not immigrants. Excellent point.

Not all the people pouring into Europe are refugees. Some are but not all. Europe's soft touch policy has encouraged criminal snake heads to run highly profitable businesses smuggling people into Europe knowing no action is taken against those who throw away their ID
Germany has hundreds of thousands of homeless people while Merkel shows off to the world how many she can take in from outside Germany.

So what kind of action do you propose against people without an ID?
If someone arrives without one, there are several distinct possibilities:
- they threw it away
- they had it stolen
- they were never issued one (because they never thought they'd need one until it was to late, or because they come from a country with a corrupt government where you need to be buddies with the ruling party in order to get one)

Exactly what kind of action do you propose against people arriving without an ID that wouldn't blatantly violate in dubio pro reo?

 

[Jayjay]

Not all the people pouring into Europe are refugees. Some are but not all. Europe's soft touch policy has encouraged criminal snake heads to run highly profitable businesses smuggling people into Europe knowing no action is taken against those who throw away their ID
Germany has hundreds of thousands of homeless people while Merkel shows off to the world how many she can take in from outside Germany.

So what kind of action do you propose against people without an ID?
If someone arrives without one, there are several distinct possibilities:
- they threw it away
- they had it stolen
- they were never issued one (because they never thought they'd need one until it was to late, or because they come from a country with a corrupt government where you need to be buddies with the ruling party in order to get one)

Exactly what kind of action do you propose against people arriving without an ID that wouldn't blatantly violate in dubio pro reo?

Politely turn them away at the border. "No shirt, no shoes, no service."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And you call other people's opinions retarded. Why on earth would you imagine that outlawing abortion doesn't change the number of abortions? The notion is ludicrous.

(I looked it up, by the way. After the U.S. legalized abortion, the number per year roughly doubled.)

I think that's bad data--a failure to count all the abortions. The thing is a jump like that should have been reflected in a decline in the birth rate--and I see no jump in that data.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not all the people pouring into Europe are refugees. Some are but not all. Europe's soft touch policy has encouraged criminal snake heads to run highly profitable businesses smuggling people into Europe knowing no action is taken against those who throw away their ID
Germany has hundreds of thousands of homeless people while Merkel shows off to the world how many she can take in from outside Germany.

So what kind of action do you propose against people without an ID?
If someone arrives without one, there are several distinct possibilities:
- they threw it away
- they had it stolen
- they were never issued one (because they never thought they'd need one until it was to late, or because they come from a country with a corrupt government where you need to be buddies with the ruling party in order to get one)

Exactly what kind of action do you propose against people arriving without an ID that wouldn't blatantly violate in dubio pro reo?

One simple test they could do: Require all refugees to make a list of family members they wish to bring over--names, addresses, dates of birth etc, the usual sort of information that's asked for.

Once you have that data anyone whose relatives aren't in Syria you deport to whatever country they were listed as being in.

Also, such people are never allowed to bring over anyone that's not on that list.

 

[angelo]

I meant refugees and not immigrants. Excellent point.

Not all the people pouring into Europe are refugees. Some are but not all. Europe's soft touch policy has encouraged criminal snake heads to run highly profitable businesses smuggling people into Europe knowing no action is taken against those who throw away their ID
Germany has hundreds of thousands of homeless people while Merkel shows off to the world how many she can take in from outside Germany.

If there were to be an election in Germany tomorrow, there's a more than even chance she would be thrown out of office, and rightly so. It explains her hardened stand of the last few weeks. She now plans to send back all those who fail to qualify as genuine refugee.

If all immigration to a modern western economy from anywhere by any group is financially positive then it follows that the Cuban immigration to Florida as well as the Muslim immigration to the UK will be financially positive. The Cuban dissidents were, on average, not well educated. These two waves immigration are comparable demographic-wise. They are equivalent. The only difference is that one group is Christian, and the other Muslim.

Where did you come up with that? How does mass migration of people from moderate to low IQ nations benefit recipient nations with moderate to high IQ? Wouldn't that drag the average national IQ down? How would it be financially positive for, say, Germany to trade its average national IQ of 102 for, say, the Syrian average national IQ of 83?

This is already weighing down once high educational achievement in Sweden: http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/08/immigration-helps-explain-swedens-school-trouble/

If it is honestly thought that mass immigration is financial pixie dust, then one ought to direct the flow of migrants to countries which actually need an upsurge in their GDP - like Niger, Yemen, or Myanmar. But it is the Western countries, which are already well-to-do, where the flow is encouraged. Should you poo-poo that IQ actually matters for long-term financial prosperity, cling instead to a moral position that it is wrong for the Western countries to hoard all that migrant vibrancy.

Exactly. If migration was the godsend solution for a nation to prosper.

 

[Jokodo]

So what kind of action do you propose against people without an ID?
If someone arrives without one, there are several distinct possibilities:
- they threw it away
- they had it stolen
- they were never issued one (because they never thought they'd need one until it was to late, or because they come from a country with a corrupt government where you need to be buddies with the ruling party in order to get one)

Exactly what kind of action do you propose against people arriving without an ID that wouldn't blatantly violate in dubio pro reo?

Politely turn them away at the border. "No shirt, no shoes, no service."

So you propose giving up due process?

Can it get any more anti Western values?

 

[DrZoidberg]

And you call other people's opinions retarded. Why on earth would you imagine that outlawing abortion doesn't change the number of abortions? The notion is ludicrous.

(I looked it up, by the way. After the U.S. legalized abortion, the number per year roughly doubled.)

There's a problem collecting statistics on things that are illegal. I only know the research on illegal abortion in Sweden. In Sweden, before abortion was legalised there were zero practical obstacles to getting abortions. Everybody knew somebody who knows somebody. Anybody who wanted to could do it. In Sweden at least, the idea that number of actual abortions went up when it was legal is just silly. Having an abortion is not a light choice a woman takes. Women who want to get abortions are highly motivated.

Immigration is the same. These people will come. The question is, do we want them to be able to get legal jobs that we then can tax. Or do we want to force them to get unregulated off-the-grid-jobs that we can't tax. The number of immigrants will be the same.

If you have restrictive policies the number will be lower, just like with abortion. Duh! That said, of course you should do whatever it takes to get legal jobs for the ones who get in whom you decide not to deport.

If the abortion argument doesn't work on you. Try drugs. The exact same situation. Making it illegal has zero impact on actual drug use. And just like with drugs making it illegal just removes whatever taxes having it legal would have generated. Funny how you think reality is "pathologically irrational".

Policies that encourage them to stay in your country on welfare or in illegal jobs are pathologically irrational.

Why would that follow? Just letting them stay legally and giving them money are two completely different things. Giving them money is something we can actually control.

We need to stop pretending we have a choice regarding on whether or not the refugees will come. The discussion needs to be; when they come, how do we deal with it?

You need to stop pretending that the question is binary -- zero or everyone who wants in. The discussion needs to be about how many your country can handle and what needs to be done to limit the number to that level.

ha ha ha ha. Good luck with that approach. Don't let the fact that it hasn't worked for anyone stop you.

 

[angelo]

There's a problem collecting statistics on things that are illegal. I only know the research on illegal abortion in Sweden. In Sweden, before abortion was legalised there were zero practical obstacles to getting abortions. Everybody knew somebody who knows somebody. Anybody who wanted to could do it. In Sweden at least, the idea that number of actual abortions went up when it was legal is just silly. Having an abortion is not a light choice a woman takes. Women who want to get abortions are highly motivated.

Immigration is the same. These people will come. The question is, do we want them to be able to get legal jobs that we then can tax. Or do we want to force them to get unregulated off-the-grid-jobs that we can't tax. The number of immigrants will be the same.

If you have restrictive policies the number will be lower, just like with abortion. Duh! That said, of course you should do whatever it takes to get legal jobs for the ones who get in whom you decide not to deport.

Policies that encourage them to stay in your country on welfare or in illegal jobs are pathologically irrational.

We need to stop pretending we have a choice regarding on whether or not the refugees will come. The discussion needs to be; when they come, how do we deal with it?

You need to stop pretending that the question is binary -- zero or everyone who wants in. The discussion needs to be about how many your country can handle and what needs to be done to limit the number to that level.

ha ha ha ha. Good luck with that approach. Don't let the fact that it hasn't worked for anyone stop you.

The Australian government started turning boats around back to wherever they came from, [in this case, Indonesia] a couple of years ago. From thousands of arrivals the year before, the policy resulted in less than 100 arriving last year, and even less this year. Now we are in the position to accept 12.000 genuine refugees. This Wouldn't have been possible under the previous governments fractured border policies.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There's a problem collecting statistics on things that are illegal. I only know the research on illegal abortion in Sweden. In Sweden, before abortion was legalised there were zero practical obstacles to getting abortions. Everybody knew somebody who knows somebody. Anybody who wanted to could do it. In Sweden at least, the idea that number of actual abortions went up when it was legal is just silly. Having an abortion is not a light choice a woman takes. Women who want to get abortions are highly motivated.

Immigration is the same. These people will come. The question is, do we want them to be able to get legal jobs that we then can tax. Or do we want to force them to get unregulated off-the-grid-jobs that we can't tax. The number of immigrants will be the same.

If you have restrictive policies the number will be lower, just like with abortion. Duh! That said, of course you should do whatever it takes to get legal jobs for the ones who get in whom you decide not to deport.

Policies that encourage them to stay in your country on welfare or in illegal jobs are pathologically irrational.

We need to stop pretending we have a choice regarding on whether or not the refugees will come. The discussion needs to be; when they come, how do we deal with it?

You need to stop pretending that the question is binary -- zero or everyone who wants in. The discussion needs to be about how many your country can handle and what needs to be done to limit the number to that level.

ha ha ha ha. Good luck with that approach. Don't let the fact that it hasn't worked for anyone stop you.

The Australian government started turning boats around back to wherever they came from, [in this case, Indonesia] a couple of years ago. From thousands of arrivals the year before, the policy resulted in less than 100 arriving last year, and even less this year. Now we are in the position to accept 12.000 genuine refugees. This Wouldn't have been possible under the previous governments fractured border policies.

There's a difference. Australia is an island far away from everything else. There is nothing practical that can prevent anybody from moving freely all over Eurasia and Africa. Anybody can move at will all over. The only thing we can regulate somewhat is the speed at which they travel, ie type of transport. Plenty of the Syrian refugees have walked long distances on their trek. Good luck outlawing that mode of transport. Did a quick calculation. It's realistic to walk from Damascus to Stockholm in less than three months. That's a conservative calculation.

But just comparing Australia to North Africa is also interesting. The amount of water is a factor. The distance between Africa and Europe is too small to be a factor. There might as well be an overland connection. This is interesting considering all the planes and ships patrolling the waters. They hardly catch anybody. The chance of sinking is greater than getting caught. And hardly anybody sinks. It's virtually impossible not to be spotted by Australias coast guard when approaching.

There's a transport system for drugs into Sweden via Poland and across the Baltic. Sweden used to patrol this route to stop the trade. Now we've stopped. The cops decided it's pointless to even try. It's way too easy. If it's true for drugs it's true for people.

 

[whichphilosophy]

There's a problem collecting statistics on things that are illegal. I only know the research on illegal abortion in Sweden. In Sweden, before abortion was legalised there were zero practical obstacles to getting abortions. Everybody knew somebody who knows somebody. Anybody who wanted to could do it. In Sweden at least, the idea that number of actual abortions went up when it was legal is just silly. Having an abortion is not a light choice a woman takes. Women who want to get abortions are highly motivated.

Immigration is the same. These people will come. The question is, do we want them to be able to get legal jobs that we then can tax. Or do we want to force them to get unregulated off-the-grid-jobs that we can't tax. The number of immigrants will be the same.

If you have restrictive policies the number will be lower, just like with abortion. Duh! That said, of course you should do whatever it takes to get legal jobs for the ones who get in whom you decide not to deport.

Policies that encourage them to stay in your country on welfare or in illegal jobs are pathologically irrational.

We need to stop pretending we have a choice regarding on whether or not the refugees will come. The discussion needs to be; when they come, how do we deal with it?

You need to stop pretending that the question is binary -- zero or everyone who wants in. The discussion needs to be about how many your country can handle and what needs to be done to limit the number to that level.

ha ha ha ha. Good luck with that approach. Don't let the fact that it hasn't worked for anyone stop you.

The Australian government started turning boats around back to wherever they came from, [in this case, Indonesia] a couple of years ago. From thousands of arrivals the year before, the policy resulted in less than 100 arriving last year, and even less this year. Now we are in the position to accept 12.000 genuine refugees. This Wouldn't have been possible under the previous governments fractured border policies.

The policy was also successful as the potential arrivals also learned that if they came illegally by boat they would not be processed in Australia. The UKIP proposes to follow this same policy despite the fact we are in fact controlled by the EU. Then we can look at genuine refugees. Perhaps if we cease instigating wars in the region, even less will come.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Not all the people pouring into Europe are refugees. Some are but not all. Europe's soft touch policy has encouraged criminal snake heads to run highly profitable businesses smuggling people into Europe knowing no action is taken against those who throw away their ID
Germany has hundreds of thousands of homeless people while Merkel shows off to the world how many she can take in from outside Germany.

If there were to be an election in Germany tomorrow, there's a more than even chance she would be thrown out of office, and rightly so. It explains her hardened stand of the last few weeks. She now plans to send back all those who fail to qualify as genuine refugee.

If all immigration to a modern western economy from anywhere by any group is financially positive then it follows that the Cuban immigration to Florida as well as the Muslim immigration to the UK will be financially positive. The Cuban dissidents were, on average, not well educated. These two waves immigration are comparable demographic-wise. They are equivalent. The only difference is that one group is Christian, and the other Muslim.

Where did you come up with that? How does mass migration of people from moderate to low IQ nations benefit recipient nations with moderate to high IQ? Wouldn't that drag the average national IQ down? How would it be financially positive for, say, Germany to trade its average national IQ of 102 for, say, the Syrian average national IQ of 83?

This is already weighing down once high educational achievement in Sweden: http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/08/immigration-helps-explain-swedens-school-trouble/

If it is honestly thought that mass immigration is financial pixie dust, then one ought to direct the flow of migrants to countries which actually need an upsurge in their GDP - like Niger, Yemen, or Myanmar. But it is the Western countries, which are already well-to-do, where the flow is encouraged. Should you poo-poo that IQ actually matters for long-term financial prosperity, cling instead to a moral position that it is wrong for the Western countries to hoard all that migrant vibrancy.

Exactly. If migration was the godsend solution for a nation to prosper.

The problem is the electorate still vote for the same major groups. Moderate parties can also be against unreasonable levels of immigration. Some are but not really in a manner that they would take positive steps for this.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Not all the people pouring into Europe are refugees. Some are but not all. Europe's soft touch policy has encouraged criminal snake heads to run highly profitable businesses smuggling people into Europe knowing no action is taken against those who throw away their ID
Germany has hundreds of thousands of homeless people while Merkel shows off to the world how many she can take in from outside Germany.

So what kind of action do you propose against people without an ID?
If someone arrives without one, there are several distinct possibilities:
- they threw it away
- they had it stolen
- they were never issued one (because they never thought they'd need one until it was to late, or because they come from a country with a corrupt government where you need to be buddies with the ruling party in order to get one)

Exactly what kind of action do you propose against people arriving without an ID that wouldn't blatantly violate in dubio pro reo?

It wouldn't invalidate that doctrine (in dubio pro reo) as this doctrine implies a a court can't convict a defendant when doubts about his or her guilt remain. In the absence of ID he or she needs to provide a birth date and proper name for records to be tracked but many are refusing to do this so as to play the system. How many Syrians do you know speak Bangladeshi dialects. If they refuse there is no place for them.

Sweden is borrowing money to pay for its influxes
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...ast-idUSKCN0SG0I220151022#G42BGogsSCt2sdSW.97
Soaring asylum numbers force Sweden to cut costs, borrow more
Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/22/us-europe-migrants-sweden-forecast-idUSKCN0SG0I220151022#ZOaVgY8S6wIdOgBa.99
Perviously in the days Britain had a border anyone entering without an ID or reasonable case got the bum's rush if they refused to leave. If they are genuine asylum seekers they can give their names addresses and will try to keep some ID. Now anyone can come without any checks by playing the system. ISIS of course will never send anyone to Europe because that would be not good cricket.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Politely turn them away at the border. "No shirt, no shoes, no service."

So you propose giving up due process?

Can it get any more anti Western values?

We do have a due process, but we must sometimes review this where the purpose is defeated by loopholes.

 

[Jayjay]

Politely turn them away at the border. "No shirt, no shoes, no service."

So you propose giving up due process?

Can it get any more anti Western values?

Due process for what? Nobody is charging the would-be immigrants with a crime. If they don't have necessary qualifications to enter, they are free to go and pursue opportunities elsewhere. As to what those qualifications might be, it's really up to them to prove that they need asylum, for example.