Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    2. GTANet 20th Anniversary

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Cayo Perico Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    2. GTA VI

    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Announcements

    2. Support

      1. Court House
    3. Suggestions

The Migration Crisis


Recommended Posts

@Sivis, Is it really a surprise that high immigration areas have a more positive view of immigration? Tower Hamlets is hardly going to be a UKIP stronghold now is it lol. Immigrants obviously have a positive opinion of themselves and the thing that brought them/their parents/their grandparents to this country. It'd be interesting to see for example, views of white British people in areas with high immigration. I wonder if the native residents of Luton, Bradford, the immigrant areas of Birmingham, have a high opinion of immigration. I somehow doubt it. How do you explain the phenomenon of white flight being very prevalent when an area's demographics start to shift in favour of immigrants? London now being less than 50% white British isn't just because of immigration, it's also because huge numbers of white British people moved away from areas that started getting more immigrants. This idea that people who live amongst migrants don't mind it and see it positively is completely false.

 

High income areas tend to have low levels of immigration, they don't deal with it's negative effects. It's typical moral highground NIMBYism. The people that actually live in immigrant areas tend to move away. When an area sees a small immigrant population arise and then begin to grow, you always see the native population move away. My city is a perfect example, even just a decade ago there were virtually no Polish people living here, now there are thousands. When they started to come they came to a small area. It became clear this area was going to become more and more Polish and so native people no longer bought houses or rented in that area, the only people doing so were Poles. And it's a cycle which keeps feeding itself. The more Polish it became, the less native people wanted to live there. In this way in the space of just a decade you can get huge demographic shifts. It's not because the Poles are more dirty or more crime prone or unfriendly, the British people moving away didn't fear or hate the Poles, they moved away because people don't want to be in an area that's foreign to them, and they don't want to feel like outsiders. Which is also true of the immigrant populations that effectively live in enclaves, but then they shouldn't move to a foreign country if that's how they feel.

 

I don't really get your point about those newspapers, because the majority of papers including broadsheets like The Telegraph read by those on higher incomes have anti immigration stances. The majority of British people think immigration is too high, even those with higher levels of education and higher incomes. Which is why I also don't get your obsession with the working class and their lower education levels. You wouldn't be saying that the education level of someone like Jacob Rees Mogg is relevant now would you, even though he's anti immigration. You normally love to point out that correlation doesn't equal causation. The working class have a lower opinion of immigration because it actually can affect them more. It affects where they live more, it affects their job prospects more. Which is why even areas not affected by immigration can still have a negative opinion of it, because they can sympathise with the areas that are affected and they don't want the same happening to them. I'm not saying education level plays no role at all, but you really are overstating it. But the idea that it makes people 2nd class citizens is just bizarre.

 

@Marwin, You are totally and completely wrong. Why the f*ck would I want to live in Little Oslo? You assume I'd be fine with you because you're white, but like I've said a million times, it doesn't make a difference. I'd prefer Little Oslo to Little Damascus or Little Lagos, but I'd still prefer even more that none of them existed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sivis, Is it really a surprise that high immigration areas have a more positive view of immigration? ...It'd be interesting to see for example, views of white British people in areas with high immigration.

If you look more generally at London boroughs which don't have abnormally high numbers of immigrants, the same trends exist. The correlation seems to suggest that the more exposure that people have to immigrants and the effects of immigration, the more positive their views of it.

 

 

How do you explain the phenomenon of white flight being very prevalent

"White flight is" largely considered by economists and political scientists to be entirely mythical. Largely because the apparent correlation between ethnic/demographic changes and the dispersion of white domestic citizens doesn't actually exist- the "flight" aspect does exist but there's no ethnic driver behind it.

 

 

London now being less than 50% white British isn't just because of immigration

Citation needed.

 

 

High income areas tend to have low levels of immigration

Empirically false. Inner London, Edinburgh, Cambridge, Reading, Luton, Slough, Bristol...all appear in the top ten cities in the UK for income, and all have higher than average levels of immigration compared both regionally and nationally.

 

 

The people that actually live in immigrant areas tend to move away.

Which has, according to most research on the subject, absolutely nothing to do with the actual immigration.

 

 

I don't really get your point about those newspapers, because the majority of papers including broadsheets like The Telegraph read by those on higher incomes have anti immigration stances.

The Telegraph's stance has typically been mildly skeptical, but it's tempered rather than outright anti-immigration vitriol like the ragtops or proper right-wing papers. The Times doesn't seem to sway either way. The Guardian, Observer, Independent and Financial Times, all of which are typically read amongst mid and higher income groups, all have generally positive views on immigration. The FT, despite being clearly right-leaning, is very pro-immigration; largely because it's written for people who actually have coherent views on it.

 

 

The working class have a lower opinion of immigration because it actually can affect them more.

But this is a trend that exists regardless of whether or not they're resident in an area with high or low levels of immigration. So it's not actually born out of direct effects on the individual, but just seems to be a manifestation of some kind of herd mentality amongst low-income groups. It's interesting to see the transition for the traditional left amongst these groups in society.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The working class are anti-immigration because their lives have gotten progressively more difficult, and immigrants are an easy scapegoat now that the labour movement has been smashed. If working class people were organising themselves and trying to affect policy, you'd see immigration drop on their list of priorities.

 

The reason areas with high immigration are in favour of it is because multiculturalism is apart of their daily lives, and they don't want to disrupt that for some aesthetic notion of insular national purity. London is, according to you, 50% 'not white British' so why you think the whites in London will be walking around all day lamenting their loss of identity is beyond me.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@Sivis, Is it really a surprise that high immigration areas have a more positive view of immigration? ...It'd be interesting to see for example, views of white British people in areas with high immigration.

1. If you look more generally at London boroughs which don't have abnormally high numbers of immigrants, the same trends exist. The correlation seems to suggest that the more exposure that people have to immigrants and the effects of immigration, the more positive their views of it.

 

How do you explain the phenomenon of white flight being very prevalent

2. "White flight is" largely considered by economists and political scientists to be entirely mythical. Largely because the apparent correlation between ethnic/demographic changes and the dispersion of white domestic citizens doesn't actually exist- the "flight" aspect does exist but there's no ethnic driver behind it.

 

London now being less than 50% white British isn't just because of immigration

3. Citation needed.

 

High income areas tend to have low levels of immigration

Empirically false. Inner London, Edinburgh, Cambridge, Reading, Luton, Slough, Bristol...all appear in the top ten cities in the UK for income, and all have higher than average levels of immigration compared both regionally and nationally.

 

The people that actually live in immigrant areas tend to move away.

Which has, according to most research on the subject, absolutely nothing to do with the actual immigration.

 

I don't really get your point about those newspapers, because the majority of papers including broadsheets like The Telegraph read by those on higher incomes have anti immigration stances.

4. The Telegraph's stance has typically been mildly skeptical, but it's tempered rather than outright anti-immigration vitriol like the ragtops or proper right-wing papers. The Times doesn't seem to sway either way. The Guardian, Observer, Independent and Financial Times, all of which are typically read amongst mid and higher income groups, all have generally positive views on immigration. The FT, despite being clearly right-leaning, is very pro-immigration; largely because it's written for people who actually have coherent views on it.

 

The working class have a lower opinion of immigration because it actually can affect them more.

5. But this is a trend that exists regardless of whether or not they're resident in an area with high or low levels of immigration. So it's not actually born out of direct effects on the individual, but just seems to be a manifestation of some kind of herd mentality amongst low-income groups. It's interesting to see the transition for the traditional left amongst these groups in society.

 

 

1. & 2. & 3. White flight is definitely not a myth. It's a well documented phenomenon worldwide. And that article doesn't say it's mythical, it just splits hairs by saying "it's not white people being repulsed by immigrants it's white people being attracted to other white people". The article states white people living in mixed areas in London tend to be mostly young, and they then move when they're a bit older and better off. Which to me says the white people in the mixed areas live there not because they like the mixed nature but because of economic reasons, and then move to white areas when they can afford to. If it was just about the people in these areas becoming better off, then you'd expect a similar level of movement away regardless of ethnicity. But that's not what happens, it tends to be just the white people moving away. And where do they go? Not to mixed higher income areas, to white higher income areas. Your article even states this.

 

4. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article4369187.ece The Times is definitely anti immigration, and it's readership and the readership of other middle/upper market papers like The Telegraph and The Daily Mail which have an anti immigration stance, dwarf the readership of pro immigration middle/upper market papers like The Guardian, The FT, Observer and Independent. The FT is written for people who benefit from immigration, so it naturally has a pro immigration stance. No sorry I meant to say the FT are just enlightened and those door posts working at The Times and The Telegraph just don't understand immigration properly because they're poorly educated, and they obviously don't make any coherent points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The working class are anti-immigration because their lives have gotten progressively more difficult, and immigrants are an easy scapegoat now that the labour movement has been smashed. If working class people were organising themselves and trying to affect policy, you'd see immigration drop on their list of priorities.

 

The reason areas with high immigration are in favour of it is because multiculturalism is apart of their daily lives, and they don't want to disrupt that for some aesthetic notion of insular national purity. London is, according to you, 50% 'not white British' so why you think the whites in London will be walking around all day lamenting their loss of identity is beyond me.

 

So why are middle class people anti-immigration then? The idea that the working class are against high immigration levels because they're just having a bit of a hard time at the minute and blame it all on foreigners, is so bleeding condescending. First of all the reason this idea is so prevalent is because any time they do bring up identity or culture or related things, they get called racist and every other word under the sun. So instead, they try to bring up something seen as more acceptable. Because if they say their concern is just to do with their financial well being, then nobody is going to insult them or their character. So it acts as a substitute. They might genuinely believe they are being negatively affected in a financial sense as well though or that it's harder for them to get a job in their local area, and they're not necessarily wrong. Your friend Mr. Marx was critical of the "reserve army of labour", seems strange that you're in favour of it.

 

I addressed most of your 2nd paragraph in my reply to Sivis. But white people, and in fact minorities too, don't actually prefer multiculturalism. They prefer living amongst their own culture and people.

Edited by GTA_stu
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. & 2. & 3. White flight is definitely not a myth. It's a well documented phenomenon worldwide.

A well documented phenomenon with no academic credence at all. The entire theory is based on assuming causation from correlation; unless you can produce a coherent, well-evidenced case for the influx of migrants being the actual cause for the movement of largely white domestic populations to other areas I fail to see the relevance. I mean you can continue to assert that you're right and that all those academics who have actually studied the phenomenon and concluded that it isn't driven by fear of other ethnicities are simply "splitting hairs", but you're not a sociologist or anthropologist so I'm more inclined to trust their analyses than yours.

 

If it was just about the people in these areas becoming better off, then you'd expect a similar level of movement away regardless of ethnicity.

Only inasmuch as wealth permitted them; there's a far smaller proportion of non-white ethnicities in the high-paying roles that white ones so any movement would be much less pronounced. At the top end of the income bracket, extremely gentrified areas like Kensington and Chelsea do feature substantial mixing of ethnicities. Kensington is only 39% white British.

 

4. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article4369187.ece The Times is definitely anti immigration

Actually if you look back across recent issues, The Times has featured op-eds from both sides of the immigration debate. Casting it as "definitely anti-immigration" is rather disingenuous.
Link to post
Share on other sites

No academic credence at all? lol I personally learnt about this as part of my geography degree...

 

It's essentially just related to the phenomenon of segregated communities, but it's basically seeing this develop in action. An area of a city with a very high proportion of a specific minority community doesn't just come out of nowhere. Everywhere was at one point a community made up of 99.9% ethnic Brits. So how then does that area become majority Pakistani/Bengali/Afro-Caribbean? It does so by people of those cultures deliberately moving there so they can be among their people and culture, and the original inhabitants moving away. It has little to do with economics although that may play a small additional role. The primary reason though is to be around your own culture and people, because people like that. Are you seriously suggesting this doesn't apply to ethnic Brits as well? That when a previously white British area starts to become much more mixed, that white British people won't move to areas that are much more white British?

Edited by GTA_stu
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're conflating two separate phenomena in the mistaken belief they're the same.

 

"White flight" refers to the perceived exodus of white, predominantly middle-class people from certain areas as a direct response to changes in ethnicity in those areas- historically it's been blacks, but these days it's been repurposed to encompass "immigrants" as a general group. It's been disputed by numerous academics, including the one I cited earlier, as being little more than an attempt to make political capital from demographic changes which typically have entirely separate drivers than the ethnicity of one's neighbours. If these changes were as a direct result of attitudes to foreign nationals and ethnicities then there would be clear disparity between the behaviours of people with political views in favour of or against immigrants or non-white ethnicities, but the statistics suggest no such disparity exists and people with favourable views on immigration are just as likely to leave areas with higher levels of ethnic diversity than those with negative views, so unless you'r labelling them all hypocrites I think we can firmly discount that being a reason for it.

 

The areas to which migrants can actually move are defined by their price of entry; immigrants typically lack the economic or social mobility to reside in the locations which are most desirable to more economically mobile segments of society. I don't dispute there's certainly some aspect of wanting to be alongside people with a similar cultural view (I mean that's kind of obvious, isn't it?), but there are numerous other determining factors. White people, according to Kaufmann, and to which you've conceded in your last post, live perfectly happily alongside other ethnicities in major cities and then typically move to suburban or rural areas as they become older. You seem to think that this is because they're forced to live in lower-income, immigrant heavy places when they're younger and less wealthy, but isn't it more reasonable to assert they are simply exercising their additional financial mobility by moving to typically "idyllic" locations (I mean, I aspire to go and live in the countryside in a few years but it's not because I don't like brown people, it's because I like living in relaxed rural locations), an opportunity which other ethnicities are generally less able to take?

 

Plenty more food for thought from Kaufmann

 

http://www.sneps.net/

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that there should be a disparity between those holding pro and anti immigration opinions in their movements away from high immigrant areas isn't necessarily true though. You could easily have a positive view of immigration and yet still prefer to live in an area with a high ethnic British majority than one with a high number of minorities. I think most people that have a more favourable opinion of immigration would still prefer to live in a majority ethnic British area. The two aren't exclusive in any way.

 

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/white-british-leave-colored-areas-383/

 

I know it's RT but it's an interview with Kaufmann. Towards the end of his answer to the 2nd question he actually agrees with I'm saying.

 

 

There is a problem however, in an ethnic majority that has a problem with seeing itself reflected in multiculturalism. So the ethnic majority is just uncomfortable with living as just one of a bunch of cultures in the area. For a lot of people, particularly when they have children, they'd like to move to the white area where they feel more comfortable. It does seem as though the ethnic majority has a slightly different view of the optimal share. They want to be perhaps in the majority, whereas many ethnic minorities might be content to be the minority because after all it's been their experience.

 

And in response to your 2nd paragraph, I do contend that whilst many white British people are willing to live in an area with a high minority population and may even not have a negative view on it, that they still prefer to live amongst their majority if they can, and when starting a family this is especially so. It's not just about wanting to live in a nicer area, a huge part is also wanting to live amongst your people and culture. It's a case of being happy with vanilla, but prefering chocolate, although I suppose in this case it's the other way around. If you gave white British people the choice of living in 2 areas, both had the exact same qualities in terms of schooling, policing, natural beauty, services etc, but one was 95% white British the other 60% or even lower, which do you think the majority would choose to raise a family in?

Edited by GTA_stu
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

He doesn't really agree with what you're saying, though. Moving to an area because of a prevalence of people of a particular cultural and ethnic identity, and moving away from an area because of an influx of a certain ethnic identity, aren't actually the same.

 

As for the question of whether or not white people choose an area, all else bring equal, which had a higher proportion of whites, I don't know but it's all entirely academic anyway, as such a comparison does not actually exist in the real world. To be honest, I don't think people moving to a new area to live actually give much consideration to the ethnic diversity of the region.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He doesn't really agree with what you're saying, though. Moving to an area because of a prevalence of people of a particular cultural and ethnic identity, and moving away from an area because of an influx of a certain ethnic identity, aren't actually the same.

 

They are incredibly similar. They're just 2 sides of the same coin. It doesn't matter if you move away from a fire because you're too hot or move towards the air con because you're too hot. Essentially you just want to be colder. If someone moves away from an area because of it's ethnic and cultural identity, or moves to an area because of it's ethnic and cultural identity, it's the same bloody thing, you're still moving based on reasons of ethnicity and culture. In both cases you're deliberately moving from an area that is less British to one that is more British. Unless for example you move from a Polish area to a Bengali area, but that's such a small exception that it's irrelevant.

 

It's not just about which area has a higher proportion, nobody would really care about a difference between an area that's 90% ethnic British or 85% ethnic British, but it's whether people care when there's a significant difference. Like 95% and 50%. And generally people do care, which is what Kaufmann said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They're really, really not though. I have no idea why you think they are. Your analogy is utterly nonsensical.

 

Kaufmann agrees that white people typically move to areas largely inhabited by other whites, but he stops well short, even in that RT interview, of actually claiming (or even really suggesting) that it's actually because the area is inhabited largely by whites. He speculates that they have a different perspective on the "optimal share" to non-whites, but never actually claims this is any real driver in defining where people live.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So why are middle class people anti-immigration then?

Their lives have also gotten more difficult.

 

 

 

The idea that the working class are against high immigration levels because they're just having a bit of a hard time at the minute and blame it all on foreigners, is so bleeding condescending.

Well, it is what it is. It's also why people are obsessed with benefit cheats or whatever.

 

It's also not that 'they're having a rough go at the moment' but that organisations which fight for the working class have been dismantled, as have the industries which used to congregate working class people. Rather than working in a factory people now work in shops with a scant few other people that can be easily replaced.

 

Do you think if we had a general strike 'no more foreigners' would be on the agenda? No, if people managed to organise a coherent, society wide movement it would include immigrants, immigrants and natural born citizens would have solidarity with each other, hence working class movements are always anti-racist.

 

 

 

Your friend Mr. Marx was critical of the "reserve army of labour", seems strange that you're in favour of it.

'Reserve army of labour' doesn't always mean black people, it refers to groups which are consistently unemployed that can be mobilised should the time come. In Britain it refers to the predominantly white underclass.

 

Any argument about a sordid economic agenda driving immigration doesn't really apply to Britain where high immigration is the result of various treaties with European countries and former imperial territories. At any rate, I'm not interested, as I believe in free movement and enjoy living in a multicultural society. I don't want people like you turning my life on its head because of spurious aesthetic appeals.

 

 

 

I addressed most of your 2nd paragraph in my reply to Sivis. But white people, and in fact minorities too, don't actually prefer multiculturalism. They prefer living amongst their own culture and people.

What so white people in London are walking around like "where's all the fish and chip shops, lost me lion pride haven't I?" It's Little Kingston over there, and people seem fine with it considering they adopt the cultural mannerisms and outlook of Jamaicans. Oh but then as soon as they can afford it they pack up their bulldogs and their royal wedding silverware and head for Worcester.

 

Have you ever been to London?

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

London may be less than 50% white British overall, but white British is still a majority in London so I don't see the relevance of pointing this out in the first place. Furthermore, a significant portion of Londoners are none white British, though going by your views and statistics here, it seems they don't count in your statistics for how many people are 'native' which says more about you than anyone else.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

The arrival of refugees in a town somewhere in eastern Germany last night. "Welcomed" by some idiots. I got used to these clowns, shouting "Resistance" and "We are the people" and what not. But seeing how the police is dragging the scared child out of the bus is just sickening. These guys are a disgrace for the German people.

 

 

EDIT: Can't stress enough how much I despise this scum (not talking about the refugees obviously).

Edited by Der_Don
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't recall if I asked this here or on a similar thread on a different forum, how many Germans, Dutch, etc. are for the refugees coming in, as opposed to those who are against it? Almost all the Europeans I talk to regularly online from here I asked their opinion and it was negative, but I don't know if there was a proper poll or survey taken regarding that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't recall if I asked this here or on a similar thread on a different forum, how many Germans, Dutch, etc. are for the refugees coming in, as opposed to those who are against it? Almost all the Europeans I talk to regularly online from here I asked their opinion and it was negative, but I don't know if there was a proper poll or survey taken regarding that.

Refugees != refugees. It depends on what's the reason for the escape. According to infratest dimap the acceptance to take in refugees who try to escape from war (e.g. Syrians) is very high (94 %). When it comes to refugees who are persecuted for political or religious reasons the acceptance is lower (73 %). Economic refugees (e.g. people from the Balkans) are the least accepted group (25 %).

What is interesting to see is that the acceptance for taking in refugees from war torn countries is on a constant high level over the last 12 months while the acceptance for economic refugees has dropped from 41 % to 25 % in the same period of time.

 

csm_ARD-DeutschlandTREND_Februar2016_21_

 

http://www.infratest-dimap.de/umfragen-analysen/bundesweit/ard-deutschlandtrend/2016/februar/

 

This only a poll for Germany though. Polls from countries like France, England or Eastern European states will differ greatly I assume.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35741494

 

So it looks like some sort of attempt to respond to the crisis is actually being made now. Only took a couple years. I know there have been "summits" and "talks" previously, but that was dealing with the symptons rather than looking for a cure. Previous efforts focused on where to send them or who should take them, now, finally, there is some effort made to actually reduce the flow in some meaningful way. Closing the Balkan route is the option that is apparently being discussed. That's the route the majority take into the EU. So hopefully it should stem the tide quite a bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most EU countries want to close the Balkans route, only Merkel is against it. She shames our country everyday. Erdogan wants to build a city for refugees in Northern Syria That's probably the first smart proposition I ever heard from him.

Edited by Stephan90
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Have any of these refugees thought about settling in the UAE or one of the other gulf states? Especially when the distance to get there is shorter and less obstacles than getting from Syria to Germany, I don't see why they're all splitting to Europe when they could just go to another Islamic country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They really couldn't though. Jordan and Lebanon have taken in massive amounts of refugees despite both countries barely being able to because the gulf states have been extremely resistant to take them in.

 

 

I definitely agree that they'd be better off going to Gulf states for the sake of easier cohesion, but this is sadly not a reality.

Edited by Failure
Link to post
Share on other sites

The culture in parts of Syria has more in common with Europe than the gulf states tbh.

 

Yes, the culture of the more secular/alawite parts. However many of the refugees are Sunnis fleeing the Assad regime/Hezbollah/Iranian militias. Sunnis could realistically be taken in by the Sunni Gulf states.

 

 

As for Shiites fleeing ISIS and religious minorities like Yazidis and Druze, you're definitely right in saying that they'd be better off in Europe (or in the Kurdish autonomous zones which have recently guaranteed minority rights). In my eyes the only thing preventing the destruction of Syrian Druze by Al-Nusra is Israel's policy of giving treatment to any wounded fighters that turn up on the border with the Israeli Golan.

 

 

In general I support Europe and the US taking in a certain, fairly significant amount of refugees, but it's been organised very badly. The US is taking very few refugees whilst Germany's been virtually overwhelmed. Given that the US has a history of taking in beleaguered people from all over the world whilst Germany is largely homogeneous except for a few Turkish enclaves, this is hardly ideal. The burden should be spread more evenly and more coordination is needed. It's great that Europe as a whole is taking people in, but the absorption processes of nation states are wildly different, with some states doing very little in this regard. We've got countless Sunni Muslims coming from countries ravaged by war--if they just enter into the established Islamic communities of the West they're going to be rallying points for those who want to antagonise the West and the Shia world. Absorption has to meaningful: these people need to be taught English and learn about the civics of their new country. It's frustrating that there's never any pressure on the Gulf states in this regard. I mean it's bad enough that Palestinian refugees are being denied citizenship as a cynical political tool against Israel.

Edited by Failure
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...

France is closing Calais 'Jungle' camp today. Some 7.000 people will be removed to other locations.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37745386

 

 

Almost 2,000 migrants have been bussed away from the "Jungle" in Calais as French authorities clear the camp.

At least 7,000 people have been living there in squalid conditions.

Migrants queued peacefully to be processed, but there are concerns some will refuse to go because they still want to get to the UK.

Almost 200 children from the camp have been brought to the UK, some of them under the "Dubs" arrangement, according to UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd.

The number includes 60 girls who were at high risk of sexual exploitation, she said.

But process of transferring some of the estimated 1,300 unaccompanied children from the camp was halted on Monday at the request of the French.

The dismantling of the camp is expected to start on Tuesday.

Edited by acmilano
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

"Wir schaffen das."

'Islamic State' reportedly training terrorists to enter Europe as asylum seekers

Meanwhile, investigations have revealed that all nine men involved in the attacks had traveled to Europe together with the stream of refugees that entered the continent in 2015.

 

Yes, this is an article from today. Even though ISIS already gave a warning more than a year ago that they are actively smuggling jihadis across into Europe.

How reassuring that the BND only found out about it recently.

I feel sad for my fellow European patriots. Their lives and those of their families are in danger because of that feebleminded chancellor who deserves to be tried for treason.

At least Americans can feel more at ease, under Trump's administration there won't be any so called "refugees" pouring into the country.

Edited by Mythical_Lotus
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

You do know that the majority of Islamist terrorist attacks are conducted by naturalised citizens, don't you? Of course you don't, but you would if you actually did some research into the subject.

 

It's funny, socially inclusive nations that don't have the same kinds of xenophobic, aggressive anti-immigrant and islamophobic undercurrents don't really have problems with violent extremism. Why do you think that is?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. You do know that the majority of Islamist terrorist attacks are conducted by naturalised citizens, don't you? Of course you don't, but you would if you actually did some research into the subject.

 

2. It's funny, socially inclusive nations that don't have the same kinds of xenophobic, aggressive anti-immigrant and islamophobic undercurrents don't really have problems with violent extremism. Why do you think that is?

1. So what, is that supposed to make me feel more accepting of Muslim immigrants, knowing that their children have just as high of a potential to become radicalized as those from Muslim majority countries?

 

2. It's funny, can you list those nations?

Also, I'm pretty sure Hungary, Romania, Poland etc. aren't what you would describe as "inclusive nations", yet there have been ZERO incidents of islamic terror attacks on their respective territories. Why do you think that is? Could it be because of the very low percentage of Muslims?

 

How Tunisia Became a Top Source of ISIS Recruits

 

Sheesh, I can only imagine the waves of horrendous "islamophobia" that have struck Tunisia, forcing thousands of followers from the religion of peace™ in becoming violent, sadistic savages.

Edited by Mythical_Lotus
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. You do know that the majority of Islamist terrorist attacks are conducted by naturalised citizens, don't you? Of course you don't, but you would if you actually did some research into the subject.

 

2. It's funny, socially inclusive nations that don't have the same kinds of xenophobic, aggressive anti-immigrant and islamophobic undercurrents don't really have problems with violent extremism. Why do you think that is?

 

1. Considering naturalised citizens vastly outnumber migrants, that's not surprising. Not really relevant to his point though.

 

2. Sweden is just about the most socially inclusive nation around, yet has huge numbers of extremists and is one of the highest contributors of jihadis to IS, per capita, in Europe. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37578919 Poland on the other hand is comparatively "xenophobic" and " anti-immigrant" yet doesn't have the same problem. I wonder why.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. So what, is that supposed to make me feel more accepting of Muslim immigrants, knowing that their children have just as high of a potential to become radicalized as those from Muslim majority countries?

...no, it's simply am observation that thus far the impacts of mass asylum on the general trends of Islamic extremism is fairly negligible, therefore dedicating such vitriol to the issue whilst handily ignoring the far larger issue of domestic radicalisation is reactionary fear-mongering at it's finest.

 

Since we're on the subject, do you know what group exhibits the greatest propensity towards violent radicalism? Muslim converts, regardless of ethnic heritage- people who typically convert to Islam in prison and who already possess many of the antisocial hallmarks which define violent extremists from religious believers.

 

It's funny, can you list those nations?

Finland, Denmark, Norway...basically the same countries I'd cite as examples of doing most things pretty well, including encouraging social cohesion.

 

Why do you think that is? Could it be because of the very low percentage of Muslims?

That does play a role, but the insinuation that the only way of maintaining an extremely low risk from Islamist terrorist is to restrict their presence is false. Albania, Macedonia, Cyprus, Georgia and Montenegro all maintain sizeable, engrained and long-standing Muslim populations without suffering from extremism. Lichtenstein, Denmark, Bulgaria, Greece and Switzerland all have Muslim populations above 4%. Further afield, Canada manages to largely avoid the Islamist issues that plague other English speaking Western countries.

 

Casting the comparative lack of Muslim migrants in Eastern European states as a voluntary policy decision is also a little disingenuous. Nations with Muslim communities above about 1% of their population initially settled them long before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

 

Sheesh, I can only imagine the waves of horrendous "islamophobia" that have struck Tunisia, forcing thousands of followers from the religion of peace in becoming violent, sadistic savages.

You really don't understand the first thing about radicalisation, do you? It is reliant on political and social disenfranchisment and oppression, poverty, a lack of education, perceived persecution and a number of other factors to thrive.

 

Hostility, mistrust, misinformation and outright aggression don't exactly help either. The great irony is that the attitudes of people who critique Islamic, under thr guide if attacking Islamic extremism, from a position of ignorance actually do more to drive fundamentalism than they do prevent it.

 

2. Sweden is just about the most socially inclusive nation around, yet has huge numbers of extremists and is one of the highest contributors of jihadis to IS, per capita

Sweden has it's own problems brought about by decades of policies which don't actually improve social cohesion and instead create a confrontational silo mentality amongst different ethnicities and cultures. Denmark, Norway and Finland have been far more successful with their integrative policies.
Link to post
Share on other sites

A) ...no, it's simply am observation that thus far the impacts of mass asylum on the general trends of Islamic extremism is fairly negligible, therefore dedicating such vitriol to the issue whilst handily ignoring the far larger issue of domestic radicalisation is reactionary fear-mongering at it's finest.

 

B) Since we're on the subject, do you know what group exhibits the greatest propensity towards violent radicalism? Muslim converts, regardless of ethnic heritage- people who typically convert to Islam in prison and who already possess many of the antisocial hallmarks which define violent extremists from religious believers.

A) ffs, do you read something other than Al-Jazeera? The massive influx of mostly economic migrants from a backwards culture had no impact on society, he says:

Migrants in Germany have committed 142,500 crimes in just six months, police figures have revealed

This was the equivalent of 780 crimes a day – an increase of nearly 40 percent over 2015, according to data from Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Office.

 

Plus, do I have to remind you about the sexual assaults that happened in Cologne on New Year's Eve?

 

B) False:

“In countries such as Belgium and Germany they (converts) constitute 20 to 25 percent of the 'jihadi scene,'” says Lorenzo Vidino, a senior researcher at Zurich’s Center for Security Studies...

 

 

Finland, Denmark, Norway...basically the same countries I'd cite as examples of doing most things pretty well, including encouraging social cohesion.

You're delusional.

Supo: Islamic extremists pose increasing threat in Finland

 

Can Denmark solve its Islamic extremist problem?

 

Norway, a gathering of moderate Muslims...sure, these aren't jihadists, but up until now we've only talked about "violent extremism", we haven't tackled the subject of islamic fundamentalism and bigotry. Which of course you will find ways to defend, justify and whitewash as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anar9vIGGiY

 

That does play a role, but the insinuation that the only way of maintaining an extremely low risk from Islamist terrorist is to restrict their presence is false. Albania, Macedonia, Cyprus, Georgia and Montenegro all maintain sizeable, engrained and long-standing Muslim populations without suffering from extremism. Lichtenstein, Denmark, Bulgaria, Greece and Switzerland all have Muslim populations above 4%. Further afield, Canada manages to largely avoid the Islamist issues that plague other English speaking Western countries.

How Kosovo Was Turned Into Fertile Ground for ISIS

 

Muslims and Islamic Fundamentalism in Macedonia

 

It's becoming obvious you live in some kind of phantasy world, you categorically refuse to acknowledge that Muslim communities have a serious problem adapting to the 21st century. And yes, their religious creeds are to blame for their inability to integrate in modern Western society.

 

You really don't understand the first thing about radicalisation, do you? It is reliant on political and social disenfranchisment and oppression, poverty, a lack of education, perceived persecution and a number of other factors to thrive.

I admit, I don't have the same emotional ties with the islamic community as you do. :)

 

Anyway, Osama Bin Laden, the Underwear Bomber, the 45 Muslim doctors who planned terror raids etc. pretty much repudiate the theory that only the poor and uneducated are vulnerable to radicalization.

The above mentioned terrorists frequented Western institutions of higher education, they weren't facing financial difficulties, nobody oppressed them etc.

 

actually do more to drive fundamentalism than they do prevent it.

Sure, why not go further with your reasoning and openly blame the victim?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.