Page 8 of 12

Re: European refugee crisis [split]

Posted: 2015-09-21, 18:32
by Yasna
vijayjohn wrote:
Yasna wrote:Japan has chosen very carefully who it lets in the country.

So? It still has had to let more foreigners in over time.

You seem to be missing the key distinction here. Japan has not had to let in more foreigners. It has chosen to. That's what countries like Japan, Hungary, and Poland want. The right to carefully choose who they let in.

So what's the point of effectively housing North Korea's propaganda machine then?

When Japan annexed Korea, all Koreans became Japanese citizens. Some of these Koreans then immigrated to Japan for work. It wouldn't be very humane to kick out Koreans who immigrated to Japan under these circumstances.

That's another important point. It's a lot easier to control immigration flows before they enter the country, than to later try to deport thousands of people.

Re: European refugee crisis [split]

Posted: 2015-09-21, 18:42
by Levike
vijayjohn wrote:I would love to be able to understand your perspective on this issue, but it makes zero sense to me.

"Japan has not had to let in more foreigners. It has chosen to. That's what countries like Japan, Hungary, and Poland want. The right to carefully choose who they let in." - Yasna, 2015

This is my perspective.

Re: European refugee crisis [split]

Posted: 2015-09-21, 18:50
by vijayjohn
Yasna wrote:You seem to be missing the key distinction here.

I'm skeptical as to whether that distinction really matters. Even if Japan has chosen to let more immigrants in, it's still found compelling reasons to do that.
That's what countries like Japan, Hungary, and Poland want. The right to carefully choose who they let in.

No one is saying any of these countries shouldn't have the right to carefully choose who they let in. But I'm questioning the point of putting a lot of restrictions on that and whether it actually benefits the country in the long run. I see no reason to believe that it does.

Re: European refugee crisis [split]

Posted: 2015-09-21, 19:30
by Marah
Arguably, they might need to let more migrants in to fight the problems of an aging demography and deflation. :?

Re: European refugee crisis [split]

Posted: 2015-09-21, 21:27
by Yasna
vijayjohn wrote:Except they're going to come in anyway if they really want to.

That's just false. If the barriers to immigration are made high in one place, most would-be immigrants will start looking elsewhere. And migrants will adjust especially rapidly in an age where they can use the internet at any time to carefully compare the risks and benefits of attempting to migrate to any number of countries.

vijayjohn wrote:
Yasna wrote:You seem to be missing the key distinction here.

I'm skeptical as to whether that distinction really matters. Even if Japan has chosen to let more immigrants in, it's still found compelling reasons to do that.
That's what countries like Japan, Hungary, and Poland want. The right to carefully choose who they let in.

No one is saying any of these countries shouldn't have the right to carefully choose who they let in. But I'm questioning the point of putting a lot of restrictions on that and whether it actually benefits the country in the long run. I see no reason to believe that it does.

Well that depends on how you weigh several different variables. Are high GDP and ethnic diversity of utmost importance to you? If yes, you might want to let in more immigrants. Is social cohesion of utmost importance to you? If yes, you might want to let in fewer immigrants.

It seems like you have been conflating these two issues, 1. the feasibility of severely restricting immigration and 2. whether it is in a country's national interest to severely restrict immigration.

Re: European refugee crisis [split]

Posted: 2015-09-22, 3:07
by vijayjohn
Yasna wrote:
vijayjohn wrote:Except they're going to come in anyway if they really want to.

That's just false.

Oh, right, so the reason why we have so many immigrants from Mexico down here in Texas is because our state government wants them to cross the border!
Is social cohesion of utmost importance to you? If yes, you might want to let in fewer immigrants.

Forgive me for thinking we both come from and live in a country where the need for social cohesion and the arrival of new immigrants are not mutually exclusive.

Re: European refugee crisis [split]

Posted: 2015-09-22, 5:09
by Yasna
vijayjohn wrote:
Yasna wrote:
vijayjohn wrote:Except they're going to come in anyway if they really want to.

That's just false.

Oh, right, so the reason why we have so many immigrants from Mexico down here in Texas is because our state government wants them to cross the border!

Allow me to quote myself:
Yasna wrote:But a lot depends on how long the border is, and how passable the terrain is.

If Trump or one of those other nuts gets elected and invests what it takes to close off the border (not that I think it's a good idea), you can be sure that most would-be Mexican immigrants will either stay put or look elsewhere.

Forgive me for thinking we both come from and live in a country where the need for social cohesion and the arrival of new immigrants are not mutually exclusive.

You really don't see how immigration and social cohesion conflict with each other? Just look at the rise of the anti-immigration parties all over Western Europe, or the Tea Party in the US. Look at the 1981 England riots. You don't think those are signs of weakening social cohesion caused in large part by high immigration levels?

Re: European refugee crisis [split]

Posted: 2015-09-22, 16:45
by Tenebrarum
Yasna wrote:You really don't see how immigration and social cohesion conflict with each other? Just look at the rise of the anti-immigration parties all over Western Europe, or the Tea Party in the US. Look at the 1981 England riots. You don't think those are signs of weakening social cohesion caused in large part by high immigration levels?

So you mean the root cause of "weakening social cohesion" is some parts of society see people of different skin colours and cultural backgrounds as lesser beings than them, and thus get upset when the crowd around them becomes more diverse? And capitulating to such mentality, by keeping society "homogeneous", would make the country better as a whole?

Re: European refugee crisis [split]

Posted: 2015-09-22, 16:47
by linguoboy
Yasna wrote:
Forgive me for thinking we both come from and live in a country where the need for social cohesion and the arrival of new immigrants are not mutually exclusive.

You really don't see how immigration and social cohesion conflict with each other? Just look at the rise of the anti-immigration parties all over Western Europe, or the Tea Party in the US. Look at the 1981 England riots. You don't think those are signs of weakening social cohesion caused in large part by high immigration levels?

That's really an odd year to pick to make your case. The UK had been in recession for a year and unemployment rates had nearly doubled (from 5.3% in 1979 to over 10% in 1981; they peaked in 1984 at nearly 12%). Crime was on the rise and the Metropolitan Police responded by launching "Operation Swamp 81" in predominately-Black Brixton, an initiative not unlike NYC's stop-and-frisk except that officers were also allowed to arrest people merely on the suspicion of wrongdoing. Shockingly, the locals were upset by that and decided not to submit to such treatment. The subsequent Scarman Report put the blame firmly on police abuse of authority and recommended a major overhaul of their methods.

Re: European refugee crisis [split]

Posted: 2015-09-22, 17:13
by Ludwig Whitby
Controlling immigration would make a country better as a whole. Let's look at Malmö's neighbourhood called Rosengård (where the famous Zlatan comes from!)

http://malmo.se/download/18.3964bd3611d ... 081119.pdf

These are the official statistics from the city of Malmö's official site:

Born abroad - 60%
Born in Sweden with both parents born abroad - 26%

Employed - 38% (men - 41%, women - 34 %)
Registered as unemployed - 8%
On welfare - 21%


If the current trends continue, each major city in (Western) Europe will have its own Rosengård. Your choice.

Re: European refugee crisis [split]

Posted: 2015-09-22, 17:21
by linguoboy
Ludwig Whitby wrote:If the current trends continue, each major city in (Western) Europe will have its own Rosengård. Your choice.

Because there's nothing more accurate or reliable in the entire field of statistics than extrapolating from a single data point.

Re: European refugee crisis [split]

Posted: 2015-09-22, 17:46
by Ludwig Whitby
linguoboy wrote:
Ludwig Whitby wrote:If the current trends continue, each major city in (Western) Europe will have its own Rosengård. Your choice.

Because there's nothing more accurate or reliable in the entire field of statistics than extrapolating from a single data point.

Sophistry.

Facts:
Immigrants tend to settle in cities.
There is noticeable segregation, with some parts of the city having almost no immigrants, while others having a large number of them.
Immigrants have lower levels of employment.
Sweden has more immigrants per capita than any other European country.

I think it's safe to assume that what is happening today in the major cities of Sweden will happen in other major cities of Europe, if the immigration is not kept on a low level. In fact, It's already happening in some cities, such as Paris.

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21 ... -banlieues

Re: European refugee crisis [split]

Posted: 2015-09-22, 18:11
by linguoboy
Ludwig Whitby wrote:Immigrants tend to settle in cities.

Everyone tends to settle in cities. Urbanisation has just passed the halfway mark worldwide and is only projected to rise.

Ludwig Whitby wrote:There is noticeable segregation, with some parts of the city having almost no immigrants, while others having a large number of them.

This varies by city. Moreover, places don't remain segregated just because they started out that way. The neighbourhood just south of where I live is called "Andersonville" because it was historically a concentration point of Swedish settlement. Nowadays more Somalis live there than Swedes.

Not only have immigrants been moving out to the suburbs for as long as these have existed, they're increasingly skipping urban neighbourhoods altogether and settling there directly. Again, suburbanisation of immigrant populations in the USA has passed the 50% mark and continues to rise:
Overall, three quarters (76 percent) of the growth in the foreign-born population between 2000 and 2013 in the largest metro areas occurred in the suburbs. In 53 metro areas, the suburbs accounted for more than half of immigrant growth, including nine metros in which all of the growth occurred in the suburbs: Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Grand Rapids, Jackson, Los Angeles, Ogden, Rochester, and Salt Lake City.


Ludwig Whitby wrote:Immigrants have lower levels of employment.

Not always the case. In fact, in several EU countries, it's precisely the opposite. (See Figure 2. Compared to other EU countries, Sweden is actually the outlier in regards to the discrepancy between native-born and foreign-born employment rates. So, again, a terrible data point to make projections from.)

Ludwig Whitby wrote:Sweden has more immigrants per capita than any other European country.

Citation, please? Eurostat puts it fifth among EU countries, practically on a par with Austria and far, far behind Luxembourg. It's not even highest among Nordic countries, placing well behind both Norway and Iceland.

Ludwig Whitby wrote:I think it's safe to assume that what is happening today in the major cities of Sweden will happen in other major cities of Europe, if the immigration is not kept on a low level.

If you think that, then I think you need to go back to school. See if you can find a class on interpreting statistical data, and maybe study some sociology while you're at it.

Re: European refugee crisis [split]

Posted: 2015-09-22, 18:12
by Johanna
The main problem with Rosengård and similar areas isn't the ethnicity of people who live there, it's that if you're unemployed it's really hard to find somewhere to live in an area that isn't one of those from the late 60's and early 70's with Soviet style apartment buildings. And for natural reasons, refugees and their families don't have jobs when they get here.

This situation isn't anything new either, the difference is that 70 years ago it was poor people moving from the countryside to the cities that ended up in these economically segregated areas, nowadays it's refugees and their families. And it is possible to fix, we were well on our way of doing that for a couple of decades, but then the attitudes shifted much more to the right economically, which made housing policies favor those with money and left poor people with less choices and less opportunities and again left entire cities quite rigidly segregated along socio-economic boundaries.

But sure, blame the powerless, not the people in charge who would probably have a meltdown if you as much as hinted at poor people living anywhere close to them.

By the way, if you're on welfare you have to be registered as unemployed, if you aren't you don't get any money. The only other way it could happen is if you're officially on sick leave but haven't worked up any sick pay, then you get welfare instead so that you can survive, but that requires a doctor signing off on it every 1-2 months and accepting treatment and participation in programs that will help you get better and able to hold a job eventually.

The same rules apply to all, citizens and those with permanent residency permits alike.

Re: European refugee crisis [split]

Posted: 2015-09-22, 19:43
by TeneReef
Migrants don't want to stay in Slovenia because they consider it a poor country. :mrgreen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=13&v=VvrdddkC6k0

Re: Random Politics Thread

Posted: 2015-09-22, 22:29
by Патрислав Андреевич
I hate the current "Polish" government. Fucking traitors should be hanged for this. Turning backs on our only allies and licking Germany's butt. Shame. I'm truly ashamed of Poland, like never before.

Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia -- all voted against the dumb quotas. And the "Polish" government betrayed them AND own people. Shame.

Image

The ruling party is going away after next month's general election, and the only thing they're leaving behind is a big mess. And they can do that because they'll face no consequences, and instead will get a treat from the masters, just like Tusk. Fuck them.

In the name of the Polish nation, I wish to apologize to our allies from Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, and Romania for unresponsible actions of the Polish government under Ewa Kopacz. We're with you.

Re: Random Politics Thread

Posted: 2015-09-23, 6:19
by Varislintu
Патрислав Андреевич wrote:Fucking traitors should be hanged for this.


Much manly, so bravery!

Re: Random Politics Thread

Posted: 2015-09-23, 8:12
by Levike
Патрислав Андреевич wrote:I hate the current "Polish" government. Fucking traitors should be hanged for this. Turning backs on our only allies and licking Germany's butt. Shame. I'm truly ashamed of Poland, like never before.

Shame! Shame! Shame!

Image

On the other hand it warms my heart that Romanians and Hungarians can finally settle on something.
I like going on Romanian forums and online news sites to see that they overall agree with Hungary's stance.

Slovakia announced that it won't comply. Yay, for the Slovaks.

Re: Random Politics Thread

Posted: 2015-09-23, 13:02
by Патрислав Андреевич
Varislintu wrote:
Патрислав Андреевич wrote:Fucking traitors should be hanged for this.

Much manly, so bravery!

It's not, it's normal. Highest punishment for traitors. Unfortunately, in Polish law there's only maximally 10 years of prison for "actions against Polish national interest while representing Poland". I hope they'll get at least that, but I'm not so sure, justice is not on the victims', but the bullies' side... :(

Levike wrote:
Патрислав Андреевич wrote:I hate the current "Polish" government. Fucking traitors should be hanged for this. Turning backs on our only allies and licking Germany's butt. Shame. I'm truly ashamed of Poland, like never before.

Shame! Shame! Shame!

http://media.giphy.com/media/xTiTnv7d1l ... /giphy.gif

Poles would join that march against "our" government, together with Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks... We are even more outraged about this than you, and we yell "Shame!" the loudest. I'm sorry in the name of myself and the Polish nation, the servants of Brussels-Berlin are not representative of us. :?


Hmm, I didn't want to post it in this thread because the "refugees" are only background to it, and not that important. The main point was about treason and irresponsible decisions against both the nation's will and our allies. Poland's alone now. But if you think it's more appropriate here...



-----
Furthermore, I consider that the EU must be destroyed.

Re: Random Politics Thread

Posted: 2015-09-24, 5:53
by Varislintu
Патрислав Андреевич wrote:
Varislintu wrote:
Патрислав Андреевич wrote:Fucking traitors should be hanged for this.

Much manly, so bravery!

It's not, it's normal. Highest punishment for traitors.


Oh you think hanging is normal? Personally I think that's so last Tuesday. I think crucifying traitors is the bee's knees nowadays, like they do in Saudi Arabia. Now that is patriotic and normal! :yep: