Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What is the immigration problem?

I don't see that "mass" immigration has any useful definition. It seems to mean "more than I like".

A lot of the so-called problem is people not liking immigration because it's change. A lot of the real problems turn out to be temporary, solvable or just false.

There also are plusses to immigration.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is the immigration problem?

Immediate and long term housing crisis, employment opportunities redirected, strains on healthcare and education due to the population surge and tensions between different cultural groups primarily.

That is enough.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

There also are plusses to immigration.

Most positive immigration is either a conscience salve to allow refugees into the UK, or respond to a required skill shortage.

However the former has problems with 'Trojan horse' immigration, the latter because it defers rather than solves problems. Instead of importing skilled people we need to educate the ones we have got properly, deal with rising tuition costs and failing state education.
The UK has potential for an excellent education system, but it is inaccessible to most and large sections are dogmatised.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is the immigration problem?

People like you putting Immigration on a pedestal because "muh diversity!" and denouncing any and all criticism of uncontrolled mass immigration as racist, which obstructs any attempts to deal with the drawbacks of mass immigration.

I don't see that "mass" immigration has any useful definition. It seems to mean "more than I like".

Only because you're wilfully ignorant.

A lot of the so-called problem is people not liking immigration because it's change. A lot of the real problems turn out to be temporary, solvable or just false.

But these problems are NOT being solved, are they?

There also are plusses to immigration.

Well no gak. Nobody is denying that. Nobody is calling for immigration to be shut down entirely and for the borders to be closed, they're arguing for it to be controlled. But there are also severe problems with accepting more immigration than we can realistically absorb, problems which you just shrug your shoulders at.

You're being wilfully obtuse. You seriously cannot see any problems with mass immigration? What about the migrant camps in Calais? What about the huge un-integrated communities in Paris and elsewhere in France and Belgium that are becoming hotbeds of radicalisation? What about the mass rapes and sexual assaults across Germany? What about the riots, grenade attacks and no go areas in Sweden? What about the migrants and people smuggling across the Mediterranean? What about the high unemployment amongst immigrants? (which you yourself mentioned a couple weeks ago).

Immigration needs to be slow and carefully managed to ensure that immigrants can be properly integrated, housed, educated and employed, without causing excessive strain on housing, education, healthcare, transport or causing resentment among the native populations who often find themselves becoming an ethnic minority in the towns and neighbourhoods they've lived in for their entire lives..

Instead what we have now is mass movements of people into Europe on a scale not seen for centuries, Do you really think the current level of immigration into Europe is sustainable? That we can realistically absorb and integrate such huge numbers of people into European communities without them settling into marginalized ethnic ghettos, languishing in unemployment, lack of opportunities and education? Without ethnic tensions deteriorating and descending into social unrest and violence?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is the immigration problem?

People like you putting Immigration on a pedestal because "muh diversity!" and denouncing any and all criticism of uncontrolled mass immigration as racist, which obstructs any attempts to deal with the drawbacks of mass immigration.

I don't see that "mass" immigration has any useful definition. It seems to mean "more than I like".

Only because you're wilfully ignorant.

Define "mass immigration" for us in the ignorant masses then.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
What about the riots, grenade attacks and no go areas in Sweden?

There are no "no go" areas in Sweden, we've been over this repeatedly. You're either lying or not interested in having a reasoned discussion on the subject.

Where in this thread are people denying that there are problems with immigration? Taking issue with the fact that you repeatedly complain about things that aren't actually true is not denying that there are problems, it's trying to keep the discussion focussed on the actual problems.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is the immigration problem?

People like you putting Immigration on a pedestal because "muh diversity!" and denouncing any and all criticism of uncontrolled mass immigration as racist, which obstructs any attempts to deal with the drawbacks of mass immigration.

I don't see that "mass" immigration has any useful definition. It seems to mean "more than I like".

Only because you're wilfully ignorant.

Define "mass immigration" for us in the ignorant masses then.

Today I learned that mass immigration means blue, white, and green tents. Who would've thunk it?

Like I said, wilfully ignorant. When confronted with the problems of mass immigration, you just shrug your shoulders and laugh.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Like I said, wilfully ignorant. When confronted with the problems of mass immigration, you just shrug your shoulders and laugh.

I asked for a definition of what "mass immigration" is and you provided a non-answer. You're not arguing in good faith. There isn't going to be any gainful discussion on the problems of mass immigration if you can't even formulate what mass immigration is in the first place.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is the immigration problem?

People like you putting Immigration on a pedestal because "muh diversity!" and denouncing any and all criticism of uncontrolled mass immigration as racist, which obstructs any attempts to deal with the drawbacks of mass immigration.

I don't see that "mass" immigration has any useful definition. It seems to mean "more than I like".

Only because you're wilfully ignorant.

Define "mass immigration" for us in the ignorant masses then.

Immigration plus lots of it.

Simple.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
What about the riots, grenade attacks and no go areas in Sweden?

There are no "no go" areas in Sweden, we've been over this repeatedly.

Malmo is a 'no go' area, if you are a Jew.
Not everyone is effected so the problem doesn't exist, am I doing it right?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

You're either lying or not interested in having a reasoned discussion on the subject.

The opposite is actually true, but there is a head in sand denial culture in Sweden, just like there was under New Labour in the UK. Fingers are pointed at anyone who dares say there is a problem.

Let us look at the argument being posted:

So you either have to flatly agree with the zeitgeist of opinion here presented by Almighty Walrus (though it is not his fault , or you are not 'intersted' in 'reasoned discussion'.
This about sums up the brainwashing and heavy handedness endemic to political correctness.
i.e "discussion" is prohibited unless you agree a priori with the arguments presented.

What follows is naturally not reasoned discussion of any kind, but an ideological soundboard.
Horrible thing is, people don't realise they are being channeled into indoctrination.

Essentially the arguments Shadow Captain Edithae's forwards are indistinguishable from heresy in Sweden, they are wrong by cultural dictat rather than opposed by logic.

 Orlanth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is the immigration problem?

People like you putting Immigration on a pedestal because "muh diversity!" and denouncing any and all criticism of uncontrolled mass immigration as racist, which obstructs any attempts to deal with the drawbacks of mass immigration.

I don't see that "mass" immigration has any useful definition. It seems to mean "more than I like".

Only because you're wilfully ignorant.

Define "mass immigration" for us in the ignorant masses then.

Immigration plus lots of it.

Simple.

Ignoring the rest of your post, this is a start. What level of immigration constitutes "mass" immigration? Where do we draw the limit? What distinguishes "mass" immigration from just immigration other than an arbitrary number?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There are no "no go" areas in Sweden, we've been over this repeatedly. You're either lying or not interested in having a reasoned discussion on the subject.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There are no "no go" areas in Sweden, we've been over this repeatedly. You're either lying or not interested in having a reasoned discussion on the subject.

Says who? Swedish Police chiefs? I'm sure they're entirely trustworthy, with no motive whatsoever to lie about the problems in their areas of jurisdiction.

Who is saying there is? Further, you're now making the assertion that Swedish police is lying about their own official classification of areas. Do you have any evidence for this accusation?

Well these statistics show that for the last twenty years, with a few exceptions, net immigration has risen to a level of around 250,000. That's what I would call mass immigration. An average of quarter of a million people arriving here every year.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Like I said, wilfully ignorant. When confronted with the problems of mass immigration, you just shrug your shoulders and laugh.

I asked for a definition of what "mass immigration" is and you provided a non-answer. You're not arguing in good faith. There isn't going to be any gainful discussion on the problems of mass immigration if you can't even formulate what mass immigration is in the first place.

A glib question begets a glib response.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Like I said, wilfully ignorant. When confronted with the problems of mass immigration, you just shrug your shoulders and laugh.

I asked for a definition of what "mass immigration" is and you provided a non-answer. You're not arguing in good faith. There isn't going to be any gainful discussion on the problems of mass immigration if you can't even formulate what mass immigration is in the first place.

A glib question begets a glib response.

You're calling people wilfully ignorant and then refusing to actually explain your argument when people ask you to. I can't read your mind, so I need you to explain how you define "mass immigration". Would you prefer I made up strawmen instead?

EDIT: I'll back off before another thread gets locked due to us having the same circular debate we've had seventyfive billion times already.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Ignoring the rest of your post, this is a start.

Wise of you, because you know you cannot answer it.

Pride prevents you from accepting your position is wrong, and doctrine prevents you from engaging in discussion because the conditioning in Sweden at the moment limits you to pointing fingers at critics or issuing blank denials.

It is a mental trap, and it isn't your fault. Like with New Labour, this form of conditioning generates a powerbase which is attractive to centralised government.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

What level of immigration constitutes "mass" immigration? Where do we draw the limit? What distinguishes "mass" immigration from just immigration other than an arbitrary number?

Daft questions when you think about it. You are asking what is 'a lot', the answer varies and leaves wriggle room for dishonest denial.
This is used a lot in Sweden, particularly to deny the evidence for endemic rape culture. Germany is also now beginning to see this.
Is this just a semantic to avoid having to look at the issue.

So lets conceptualise the mass immigration into Europe at this time, then at least the infographic can answer your question. Hopefully you can accept the answer and see the immigration into Europe is problem level mass immigration:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis



Source the 'Eurostat' an EU statistical directorate (just in case you wonder if I sourced this from a far right hate site).

If everyone could stop trying to "prove" that they are superior by insisting that the other side of an argument is indoctrinated, or whatever buzzword of the week you decide to go with, that'd be great.

And while that may sound like a suggestion, be assured that it is not. Any more talking down to other users will be dealt with, harshly, and you don't want to start UK politics down the path to the same state that US politics is in.

Last warning for the thread.

Now that map does actually show a massive issue with the EU.


People should be registering for asylum in the first county that they enter. There should not be that many people applying for Asylum on a country which isn't at the EUs border.


The camps at Calais are entirely France's fault. Because they know they want to come to the UK as it is apparently some land of milk and honey, so they let them go through it.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Now that map does actually show a massive issue with the EU.


People should be registering for asylum in the first county that they enter. There should not be that many people applying for Asylum on a country which isn't at the EUs border.


The camps at Calais are entirely France's fault. Because they know they want to come to the UK as it is apparently some land of milk and honey, so they let them go through it.

How is how individual countries letting people pass through their country an issue of the EU, that's going to happen regardless.

Indeed that was the agreement from the days of Schengen. And it held (creating a completely different beast in the process)until the numbers spiked with the refugee crisis. However nor Greece, nor Italy not anyone country on it 'sown can provide shelter in humanitarian conditions for the flood of people that came with the Syrian refugee status. And when we asked for support the central Europe raised barbed wire fence and set the army to watch the borders.

konst80hummel wrote:
Indeed that was the agreement from the days of Schengen. And it held (creating a completely different beast in the process)until the numbers spiked with the refugee crisis. However nor Greece, nor Italy not anyone country on it 'sown can provide shelter in humanitarian conditions for the flood of people that came with the Syrian refugee status. And when we asked for support the central Europe raised barbed wire fence and set the army to watch the borders.

Put them all on a flight to Germany. Merkel invited them after all.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Now that map does actually show a massive issue with the EU.


People should be registering for asylum in the first county that they enter. There should not be that many people applying for Asylum on a country which isn't at the EUs border.


The camps at Calais are entirely France's fault. Because they know they want to come to the UK as it is apparently some land of milk and honey, so they let them go through it.

How is how individual countries letting people pass through their country an issue of the EU, that's going to happen regardless.

Because the EU had the power to prevent this from happening, but couldn't do it.

Think about it, use EU money to set up asylum camps in Italy and Greece so they don't have to pay for it. Then have the countries of Europe to agree to take X amount of refugees per X population (so it's fair). And them randomly allocate refugees to countries. Boom. Suddenly the problem isn't so bad and it takes the pressure off Greece and Italy to do something about the people that wash up on their shores.

You could even fund vessels to transport people across the med so they don't die on the way over or lose everything to gang lords who own fishing ships.

But no, instead they shoved their fingers in their ears and closed their eyes and then complain when the fan is covered in poop.

And if the EU forced member states to take in refugees in that manner we'd never hear the end of the sovereignty complaints.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And if the EU forced member states to take in refugees in that manner we'd never hear the end of the sovereignty complaints.

That's why I said agree.

If you don't want to take refugees then pay more towards the relief effort.

How do you "have someone agree"? How could the EU make nations agree without opening up themselves for sovereignty-related complaints? Orban et. al. in Hungary already used "the EU is violating or sovereignty and they'll force us to take refugees!" in the election campaigns there.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How do you "have someone agree"? How could the EU make nations agree without opening up themselves for sovereignty-related complaints? Orban et. al. in Hungary already used "the EU is violating or sovereignty and they'll force us to take refugees!" in the election campaigns there.

Then let the, not take them, and have everyone in the EU know that Hungary refused to help the crisis and let the bad press do its work back home.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How do you "have someone agree"? How could the EU make nations agree without opening up themselves for sovereignty-related complaints? Orban et. al. in Hungary already used "the EU is violating or sovereignty and they'll force us to take refugees!" in the election campaigns there.

Then let the, not take them, and have everyone in the EU know that Hungary refused to help the crisis and let the bad press do its work back home.

...which is what we're currently doing.

Something tells me that Hungary can live with the bad press. I don't think it fazes them.

Since refugees aren't immigrants this is tangential to the actual topic.

Immigration will always be a sticking point in politics, but you can't ignore it was one of the major factors in the lead up to Brexit. It remains extremely unlikely the Conservatives will ever reach their desired target until freedom of movement becomes invalid after concluding the Brexit deal/no deal. I for one believe immigration should be tightly controlled in reflexion to the economy and what positions are needed. The problem with mass migration is that it is primarily unskilled migration. We will be needing more skilled labour such as engineers rather than field workers as time goes on. We are luckier than most European countries for actually having a physical body of water between us rather than a land border, the central countries will never be able to control to control their immigration even if they helped each other. The whole Asylum seeker-jump on the band wagon economic migrant crisis proved how woefully inadequate the EU was/n't prepared to stop it. As much as they can try and register people to stay in one place they will never truly know who or how many people they have. Going back to us, at some point we will reach saturation in my opinion in which the unskilled jobs are either being replaced by machines or that the industry does not require more bodies, this will be the true end and shift in immigration.

Now straying back to topic (I haven't read pages back), I do like some of what the Labour Party are proposing. Nationalisation of key infrastructure such as water which is vital to life is common sense and I fully support it, however the sheer list of what they want to bring back doesn't balance the books even with tax increases with businesses and the rich. I think it would be highly likely that most taxes would increase. It will be a blue moon when VAT and fuel duty go down! I do not like Corbyn, he seems to wishy washy to me, trying to hold Labour roots but follow a flow of what will be popular. I think the Labour Party would be a bad choice for the UK's future negotiations with the EU. The party would backtrack and make too many concessions to be outside of the EU but still within.

As for the other parties well UKIP are consigned to the history books, the Green Party is still on the fringe and the Loony Democrat Party are just there to make things worse with stupid ideas such as legalising cannabis and causing eternal havoc with a second referendum because if you don't agree with the result do it again until you get the outcome you want!

I am sorry if this sounds like a rant but a lot of the options in the election just leave a bad taste in my mouth. Labour offers a good deal of change that I agree with, but at the end of the day I think the current government still offer the most conclusive option to the end of Brexit. After that, then have some internal change not the other way around. I will vote Conservative this time, but after that I will vote for some change in the next general election.