Immigration immigrants in Riace, Italy, the story the press didn't (want to) tell

[LeBrok]

My definition of national success would not include depending on a rival power, China, controlling my debts nor would it include social problems like massive gun crime, a vast gap between rich and poor, black and white, lousy health provision for the poor and the disintegration of family values.

I'm not going to waste time debating every aspect of US society. The fact is the country built on migrants is the most powerful in the world, period.
What about the rest of migrant countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, etc? You don't like them either, and I'm sure you can find something wrong with them too.

 

[bicicleur 2]

It's my dream too.

Just for couple of years, then migrants will pay back in taxes and new consumerism.
I would say minority. I don't deny there are immigrants who come to take full advantage of situation, but they are in big minority.

Sometimes we have to take a chance and trust blindly. I'm sure most of Syrians will go back to their country when the war is over, and maybe they will pay back when WW3 starts in Europe (hope not). Generally speaking people are mostly good, they work, they raise kids, pay taxes, take care of kids, buy homes etc. Nothing much to wary about.

all this is just speculation
why are you telling things you simply don't know ?

the result of immigration into Europe for the last 50 years is a diseaster
Europe would have been much better without

no proper screening of who comes in
an overgenerous social security system (that's why the refugees don't want to stay in Hungary or any other Eastern or Southern European country)
and full citizenship rights from day one, without any obligations for the immigrants

it is a recipee for diseaster

I agree these refugees need help
but first the rules have to be changed drastically

no rights without obligations
and a probation time of 5 - 10 years

 

[LeBrok]

all this is just speculation
why are you telling things you simply don't know ?

What speculations? I gave you many examples of well run migrant countries.

the result of immigration into Europe for the last 50 years is a diseaster
Europe would have been much better without

Now, this is a speculation.

no proper screening of who comes in
an overgenerous social security system (that's why the refugees don't want to stay in Hungary or any other Eastern or Southern European country)
and full citizenship rights from day one, without any obligations for the immigrants

Really? Or perhaps is the fact that there is more jobs and better paid in Germany and it is easier to become full citizen in the future, and Germany is more tolerant to them.

 

[epoch]

What speculations? I gave you many examples of well run migrant countries.

No, you gave many examples of migrant countries that managed to diminish the original population so much that they are irrelevant in their own realm. There is a reason China uses Han migration to XinJiang and Tibet as *weapon*.

Now, this is a speculation.

No, bicicleur stated an *opinion*

Really? Or perhaps is the fact that there is more jobs and better paid in Germany and it is easier to become full citizen in the future, and Germany is more tolerant to them.

Now *this* is speculation.

 

[epoch]

You mean, speculated consequences based on your fear? Why speculate if we have successful Canada, US, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, all in majority built on immigrants.

You forgot South-Africa and Rhodesia. Hugely successful during Apartheid, for the white settlers at least.

The point I am trying to get across is that your successful immigration countries - some of which show considerable less ease with more immigration once we start taking a close look, but let's not get into that for now - are some of the most disastrous examples of immigration: For the original population, that is.

 

[LeBrok]

No, you gave many examples of migrant countries that managed to diminish the original population so much that they are irrelevant in their own realm.

What is your point? Are these examples less valid because original population is small?

No, bicicleur stated an *opinion*

Opinion about future is speculation. What is your point again? I never said it wasn't his opinion, didn't I?

Now *this* is speculation.

What is the point stating the obvious?
Do you think it is a valid speculation?:

perhaps is the fact that there is more jobs and better paid in Germany and it is easier to become full citizen in the future, and Germany is more tolerant to them.

 

[epoch]

From what I heard from visitors to Greece, who spoke with the migrants this summer, it quite clearly is the welfare state they seek. This Dutch newspaper article states smugglers advertise a number of nations - amongst which the Netherlands - as target for their migration because of high payment: "You'll get 1600 euro welfare if asylum is granted plus a free house. The government pays the rent"

http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1012/Nederla...mokkelaars-prijzen-opvang-Nederland-aan.dhtml

 

[LeBrok]

You forgot South-Africa and Rhodesia. Hugely successful during Apartheid, for the white settlers at least.

The point I am trying to get across is that your successful immigration countries - some of which show considerable less ease with more immigration once we start taking a close look, but let's not get into that for now - are some of the most disastrous examples of immigration: For the original population, that is.

Ok, you are not concerned that migrants are not successful, not hard working, using welfare system, like many here, but are afraid that migrants will subdue local population on par with slavery and extermination.
We know how it happened in the past. Colonialists came with guns, rendered locals a second class citizens by force and cruelty, and kept them like this till the end of apartheid.
It was done, times changed and it is over now. Aborigines in all these countries have same rights, even more rights in Canada, as population of old and new migrants. What make you think that these old times of discrimination and apartheid will be reinvented in Europe, and original population discriminated and enslaved? From all these speculations here, this is the most ridiculous one.

 

[epoch]

Ok, you are not concerned that migrants are not successful, not hard working, using welfare system, like many here, but are afraid that migrants will subdue local population on par with slavery and extermination.
We know how it happened in the past. Colonialists came with guns, rendered locals a second class citizens by force and cruelty, and kept them like this till the end of apartheid.
It was done, times changed and it is over now. Aborigines in all these countries have same rights, even more rights in Canada, as population of old and new migrants. What make you think that these old times of discrimination and apartheid will be reinvented in Europe, and original population discriminated and enslaved? From all these speculations here, this is the most ridiculous one.

This is a classic flawed argument: The Straw Man. I was only refuting your argument that yours is a highly successful migration society as its very existence is an eternal source of humiliation to the original people.

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

 

[LeBrok]

From what I heard from visitors to Greece, who spoke with the migrants this summer, it quite clearly is the welfare state they seek. This Dutch newspaper article states smugglers advertise a number of nations - amongst which the Netherlands - as target for their migration because of high payment: "You'll get 1600 euro welfare if asylum is granted plus a free house. The government pays the rent"

http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1012/Nederla...mokkelaars-prijzen-opvang-Nederland-aan.dhtml

Are you sure this is the only reason behind choosing countries? Tolerant society, low unemployment, faster track for citizenship has nothing to do with it? "The lazy bastards are coming for social services."
Perhaps you should believe me just a bit, as I have lived around migrants most of my life. I should know something.

Tell me how long migrants can stay on this government program? I'm sure it is a temporary help, the kickstart of new life. Mind you that everyone today with smartphone or cheap tablet can access all the information on the net. They also talk to their families and friends who are already in the West, on a phone, how it actually is, or can learn from third party. Smugglers' rosy information is not the only one they got.

 

[epoch]

Perhaps you should believe me just a bit, as I have lived around migrants most of my life. I should know something.

I don't. I have lived among them for the majority of my life as well.

 

[bicicleur 2]

What speculations? I gave you many examples of well run migrant countries.

Now, this is a speculation.

Really? Or perhaps is the fact that there is more jobs and better paid in Germany and it is easier to become full citizen in the future, and Germany is more tolerant to them.

I'm not talking about immigration in other countires, I'm talking about immigration in Europe.
You just have to visit some suburbs of some northeast-European cities to see the diseaster.
And you won't find this in your native country Poland because they didn't attract these golddiggers.

If Europe don't change its immigration rules the diseaster is likely to repeat itself.

 

[Sile]

The hungarian president stated correctly , that these immigrations are a German problem and not a European problem..............one cannot expect that Greece with 50% unemployed to take any immigrants do we !
Do we expect italy to take any with 20% unemployed of their own people or Spain, Ireland, Portugal etc ?

The nation that boasts that they have no employment problems, Germany ( and anyone one else) , should be the ones that take all the immigrants..............I find it illogical to place them ( illegal immigrants ) into nations which have no work for them.

 

[LeBrok]

I don't. I have lived among them for the majority of my life as well.

Looking at them in the street, or you have migrant friends?
Are you doing a proper research about the scope of government assistance to new migrants , or newspaper knowledge is good enough for you? Checking few government sites in Dutch shouldn't be a problem for you. What about some stats how many works and pay taxes after 2-5-10 years of assimilation? That would be really factual on this subject.

 

[LeBrok]

I'm not talking about immigration in other countires, I'm talking about immigration in Europe.
You just have to visit some suburbs of some northeast-European cities to see the diseaster.
And you won't find this in your native country Poland because they didn't attract these golddiggers.

I don't know how to explain these suburbs there, they don't exist in Canada in spite of taking 300,000 migrants a year from around the world. Sure there are some enclaves in every city were migrants find houses more affordable and tend to conglomerate there, at least at the beginning. However not anything remotely resembling slams like district. I'm not sure why Belgium or Holland might attract "gold diggers" but not Canada?

If Europe don't change its immigration rules the diseaster is likely to repeat itself.

I agree, something is wrong. I also agree flow of migrants should be controlled.

I'm just thinking maybe some sort of different help should be extended to war refugees, which overwhelm any system by hundred thousands. Few city/camps for temporary refugees in Europe? Nicer and bigger refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan financed by EU? I mean so nice, so the refugees want to stay there and not fleeing to Germany.

 

[LeBrok]

This is a classic flawed argument: The Straw Man. I was only refuting your argument that yours is a highly successful migration society as its very existence is an eternal source of humiliation to the original people.

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

Please stop, you are arguing now that emigrants can't be successful without humiliation of locals.
You really think Canada, US or Australia would be quite different, not successful, if these land were unoccupied on migrants arrival? Or you think they are only successful, because they made locals miserable? Or wherever migrants settle they will make locals poor and miserable by definition? It was a ridiculous argument to start with.

Let's talk to local, Epoch:
Are you feeling humiliated, enslaved, poor, miserable already, or you are just afraid it is coming in the future?

 

[epoch]

Let's talk to local, Epoch:
Are you feeling humiliated, enslaved, poor, miserable already, or you are just afraid it is coming in the future?

Let's indeed do talk local: What is your advocacy? Why are you on such a mission to teach us how we should feel about this? It almost looks like you don't talk to the Europeans here. It seems you try to teach us.

Why?

 

[epoch]

I agree, something is wrong. I also agree flow of migrants should be controlled.

Good. Who are you going to leave out? How are you going to leave them out?

 

[epoch]

Please stop, you are arguing now that emigrants can't be successful without humiliation of locals.
You really think Canada, US or Australia would be quite different, not successful, if these land were unoccupied on migrants arrival?

That is exactly the issue. Because let's assume the opposite: Let's assume the natives weren't wiped away by disease. You still think the America's would be welcoming migrants?

 

[Kardu]

You mean, speculated consequences based on your fear? Why speculate if we have successful Canada, US, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, all in majority built on immigrants.

Hmmm, "Canada, US, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan"... societies and political-economical systems built by "migrants" from peoples with higher than average IQ. Coincidence?

And don't forget, please, monoethnic Japan and South Korea..