"Boris Trump" quits and sends administration into chaos

yup! google is my plan, if I get time and inclination I will learn all there is to know about this growing immigration.

I know you have a habit of trying to avoid questions, so I got that.

LOOK WHAT i FOUND!

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

Awesome info

Well, nice googling except we are not talking about the US but about Europe.

So apples and orange mate.

And avoiding is not refusing to educate you in how the world is, I am not a teacher nor do I have time to actually google for you.

ah i see, so illegal immigration is going down in the U.S. but not related to your comment.

good point, I would look up on the internets for non-US but I need to know which countries specifically you are are refering to

i think despite our best intentions, humans are at heart still scared little primates from sub-saharan africa with an instinctual mistrust of those not in our own tribes. this instinct was honed over hundreds of thousands of years ( or 1 day if you literally believe the bible ) and isn't easily cast aside.

a savy politician can easily tap into it, inflate statistical information to stoke those fears, use anecdotal evidence to generalize millions of people, etc..

imo the countries that work the hardest to avoid those pitfalls will ultimately be the ones that end up the strongest economically and culturally.

What a very should we say Ultra-far-left-leaning view

You need to look at this from two sides, there is immigration where people who can benefit the nation come and then there is "refugees and glory hunters" where most come to a country with no intention of integrating, no intention of taking part in any other way than benefitting from the social safety net that a specific nation has.

With the first it benefits the nation and anyone can´t be against that, with the second you have a group coming into a nation with the sole purpose of benefitting from the social safety net and not take part in the heavy lifting, which in the end will provide a massive burden on the government and on the taxpayers. Which means that social safety net is going to be diminished for everyone because there is simply not enough money to go around and take care of a massive influx.

So people, of course, start to see the problem and don´t want to see their hard work be destroyed because of some utopian idea that the west is so rich that we can afford to carry the whole world.

Great post. I mean lets be honest. Immigrants reshaped America. That's why Japans economic growth is slowing down, while China actively encourages immigration.

Immigrants tend do better than naturalized citizens...............

Well, some may do but most end up just adding to the benefit line.

Also, there is a difference between America and Europe. Europe being the main topic.

Well you're no expert on Europe............you barely know the US.

And here we go , back to the useless insults.

No surprise though, you don´t deal well with facts.

fair enough. as i said, it is my opinion. i think i generally have a more favorable outlook on humanity than others.

hard data on the distribution of what you would consider moochers vs. hard-working immigrants would be interesting to see. as well as what % of those coming in are actually receiving social safety net services.

Sweden - https://www.ft.com/content/838d60c2-0961-11e7-97d1-5e720a26771b

Germany - https://www.ft.com/content/bea8507e-64cb-11e8-90c2-9563a0613e56 / https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-immigration-integration/refugee-crisis-influx-no-boon-for-german-integration-study-idUSKBN1DG2CF

That is just two countries and while it´s good that Germany is seeing a 10% decline, it´s interesting to see 40% is unemployed,

Also, Germany is not as generous as Sweden with its social system. Which is also explaining some of the massive cost increase Sweden is seeing. which is more than doubled in the last 3 years.

You didn't post any facts. Nor did you refute what I said.............

@LJS9502_basic: Well, that is your opinion

So not outright hating immigration puts you in ultra far left?

No It's not an opinion. You did not post facts. Period.

2 FT articles behind paywall aren't helpful but thanks for the other link. you seem to be concerned primarily with short term affects of increased immigration. i had seen data that does show increased immigration does strain systems in the short term, leads to decreased social cohesion ( again, those primate brains we all have ). i'm curious about long term generational type affects. as an example, increased spending on education is a short term strain on resources leading to long term gains overall. going out an running 5 miles every morning sucks, but being much healthier 20 years down the line is a significant payoff.

That is funny if you google the FT articles and go that way the articles is open so google the two FT times articles.

But i am concerned with the short term and long term , on the short term it will destroy the rich countries safety net, which is not sustainable with a massive influx of refugees who can´t speak the language and who come with so much bagage.

And the articles discuss the long-term effect as well, like

https://www.ft.com/content/838d60c2-0961-11e7-97d1-5e720a26771b

The education system is already under pressure. Mats Hansson, the city’s strategic planner, says that in his first 20 years in the city Malmo built three schools. Now it has to build up to three every year to meet demand from local people and new arrivals. In Varner Rydenskolan, a school for six- to 16-year-olds in Rosengard, the problems and opportunities of modern Sweden collide. The school had to be closed for a day in 2015 due to violence. In January a pupil was shot dead at a bus stop in Rosengard."

Still, Rosengard — with well-maintained housing, open spaces and playgrounds — is nothing like the worst banlieue in France. “I had some visitors from St Denis [just outside Paris]. They laughed at me — is this what a segregated area looks like?” says Anders Malmqvist, Malmo’s director of education. The problems in Rosengard, however, are real. Many immigrants live in overcrowded flats, often shared. Jobs are scarce. In Herrgarden, perhaps the most deprived part, the employment rate in 2015 was 27 per cent. In Sweden as a whole, it was 78 per cent. The unemployment rate for foreign-born people in Malmo is four times that of those born in Sweden.

So the concern is not just limited to Sweden or Germany but is across europe, France having it the worst wave which the many terrorist attacks there also showcase.

Who said anything about hating?

No, what puts you on the far-left is refusing to see the problems society is met with by allowing massive groups so different and not easily integrated into the society comes with.

Read the articles and you will see the problems Sweden and Europe are faced with.

His post stated that nations which avoid using anecdotes and inflate statistical information to (essentially scare tactics) attack something will in his opinion be better of in the long run. If you want to treat people differently because of where they come from when they apply for legal stay in US, use facts, not lies.

His post says nothing about turning a blind eye to immigration and the problem it causes. However using populists moves to fight it isn't the way to do it.

That is a very nice way of removing the core message from the post. What he said was that people are scared of anyone not like them, which is far from the truth, when the real issue and why even moderates can fall behind the party who advocates for a hold to the open door policies.

And yes the post does not specifically state that people are turning a blind eye, since it itself turns a blind eye to the problem and puts all the chips on the race issue.

No he's correct. Most hate stems from fear. And when the message is that immigrants are criminals and after jobs etc then it aligns with those fears to where no one bothers to get to know the actual people.

I don't think it's as far from the truth as you like to believe. Look at the political messaging we see regarding immigration polices. In the US immigrants are painted as criminals, drug dealers, gang members, and terrorist. Those images are used specifically to invoke fear in voters and it clearly works. That instinctual distrust IS there. If the fear wasn't part of all of it, those messages would fall flat.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe it is a binary issue where the answer is either open borders (as some on the right insist those on the left are pushing, again pushing the fear angle ) or a complete lock down of a country where legitimate refugees and asylum seekers as well as qualified immigrants are cast aside ( as some on the left insist those on the right are pushing ). Politicians like to portray it that way because it is easier to demonize their opponents.

Our policies need to be based on sound information, non-anecdotal evidence and devoid of appeals to emotion. The problem is those discussions are boring and voters have more important things to concern themselves with. Bring it home to them by hinting that in 10 years their country will adopt Sharia law or point out 2 specific instances where a immigrant committed a crime and they'll fucking vote.

If you're chief argument is the appeal to fear, you've failed that test already.

Is the appeal for evidence rather than emotion and generalization an ultra-left concept?!

Does not compute. Re-read my last paragraph above your quoted post.

Well, of course, it´s not far from the truth if you go to either polar side, the ultra-far-left is using emotions to get their opinion through, the ultra-right wing is doing the same thing. But those polar caps, does not win election , what win elections is the middle moderate voter who for most react to what affects them and their families personally and not what some emotional tween/teen yells.

And I think we pretty much agree here about borders, the answer is not to close in and build a wall and keep everyone out, that will destroy a society as much as the opposite, where you remove borders and just let everyone in because after all, we are a rich society. All nations need qualified immigrants, especially when the native population birthrate is on a decline and closing in on a 0 rate and even a negative growth. Which is my biggest problem, can you justify allowing some illegal entry , a illegal who in most instances never moves out of their socio-economic class and who stays put in the lower end tier, (not saying everyone is like that) instead of having a well-educated immigrant coming in who for most end up benefiting the society as a whole and who moves out of their initial class and upwards.

I have friends who spend years trying to get entry to the US and where some simply gave up because the trouble of actually getting entry was too costly and they decided to go to other countries where their education was more valued.

And of course politicians are able to appeal to emotions, politicians are the used-car salesmen of the world without actually selling a used car.

Also again we agree, policies need to be based on facts not emotions, we should not let either said dictate our policies are made, and especially not emotions. Emotions are the downfall of any society.

And my argument is not fear, it´s reason and facts, the fact is when it comes to Europe, that if they wish to keep their social safety net, they can´t afford to feed the huge massive refugee wave. As to America, well again we can´t afford to have a huge massive illegal population run rampant in our country, but the main focus here should be the law, We have borders and we have an immigration policies based on the fact that we need to control who comes in , and as long as we deny legal immigration entry, legal immigration who is factual way less criminal than their "illegal counterparts" and also who benefits this country a lot more. We can´t allow illegals to play on our emotions and stand and cry because they can afford to travel all the way over here, but for some reason they can´t afford to stay in their home country.

Nah, as they say that duck don´t fly.