Society/Culture Why I blame Islam for the fact it's raining today.... part 2

[Chief]

Reminder: This isn't the Israel/Hamas thread. Go to the Israel/Hamas thread if you want to talk about that. Thanks.

Mid East - Israel declare war after Hamas attack II

Part I: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/israel-declare-war-after-hamas-attack.1371828/page-47#post-81443295 Thread Rules: Alright. I recognise that this is a fraught topic for any number of you posting here. Some of you will have family in Israel or Palestine. Some of you will have...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Carringbush2010]

It's always 'brown people' and 'boat people' that cop it.

Yep, but not from the majority of the population, usually from racist aholes, which btw, and I'll keep saying it til I'm blue in the. This sort of mind set is very much a minuscule percentile.

That's why I hate this thread. I hate having to defend a Religion that I personally abhor.

Agreed, but you don't have to defend it, just point why islam is not a societal life changing threat.

That's why we have literal Neo Nazis, white nationalist thugs and similar burning down the UK at the moment. They want 'the brown people' out.

Again phuq all of this type of person in liberal democracies in the scheme of things, this is why I abhor the media, they sensationalize everything and then everyone thinks neo nazis live on every street corner.

Just like the morons who think that hardline jihadi islamists are 'gonna take over' and are arriving in their millions to 'take over' against our will.

With reference to 'boat people' if the people on the boats were White British, fleeing a mass conflict in the UK, the discourse around them would be totally different. Heck, people would be throwing open their homes for those refugees, and there is no chance in hell we would be locking them up in camps offshore.

You see, it's not about 'protecting the border'. It's about keeping out the brown people.

Again, this is not a widespread sentiment, for Jan and Joe public it IS about border protection, if you think Jan and Joe public have hypocritical view points for 'brown' v 'white' people. Think again.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Afghanistan was one( not sure how 'liberal' exactly but they claim to have been one) before the Taliban.

Lebanon could claim to be another. Although still a 'democracy', it's clear that Islamist group like Hezbollah are teh ones that hold sway over the country.

Afghanistan and Lebanon? You're clutching at straws if you think these nations have had a seismic cultural shift coz islam.

Hardly gives the impression they were liberal democracies in a sense like we are.

Yeah nah, this doesn't pass the pub test.

 

[Malifice]

White illegals generally aren't prone contribute to increasing rates of violent crimes in major cities, would be the main reason people tend not to complain about them. Feel free to bring up some examples where I may be wrong.

There is literally zero causative links between ethnicity and Crime. While certain ethnic groups are overrepresented in crime stats, those numbers always come down to socio-economic causes (poverty mainly) as being the causative factor.

Sorry to break it to you, but skin color doesn't cause someone engage in robbery. Poverty does.

And what the **** are you basing your argument that 'white illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than brown illegal immigrants' on?

Having said that, people in the UK also complain a hell of a lot about the Polish, and they are indeed white.

They're actually Slavic, so Hitler and modern Neo Nazis would have disagreed with you.

Did you see how the Rohingya refugees were treated in Aceh, just last year? These were Muslims who arrived from Burma in Aceh, a Provence that is under Sharia law in Indonesia.

They welcomed them, then had to kick them out because they commit crimes and sexual assaults on the local population.

It's a bit more complicated than that:

However, the narrative has now flipped. The Acehnese people no longer view the refugees as welcome guests and the old narrative – of Rohingyan refugees being victims of a religious conflict and crimes supported by the Myanmar government – has faded away.

Social media also plays a key role in shaping and circulating current perceptions, especially the coverage of Rohingya refugees in Malaysia. In Malaysia, the presence of Rohingya refugees is causing two main issues. First, there has been an increase in criminal incidents, such as assaults, within refugee camps.

Second, there is a perceived economic threat due to the number of refugees working informal jobs. Local online media in Aceh are sharing news about these issues, suggesting that accepting Rohingya refugees could lead to similar problems in their region.

Disinformation in social media is another key challenge. There have been suggestions spread by random accounts on Facebook and Instagram that Rohingya refugees are motivated by the acquisition of land – and this has triggered negative perceptions. The users who disseminate this fake news harness outrage over the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict to draw unfair comparisons with illegal settlements in the West Bank.

https://indonesiaatmelbourne.unimelb.edu.au/whats-driving-acehs-backlash-against-rohingya-refugees/

Or in other words 'der taking our jobs, they're taking over the country and they're all criminals'.

So the good people of Aceh are just mirroring the usual backlash that's directed by the majority towards every single migrant group, in every single country, in the history of human existence.

If you checked the statistics of knife-crime and sexual assaults against minors, you'd probably have a better understanding of why people are fed up.

Sexual assaults on minors (and to a lesser degree, knife crime) are overwhelmingly perpetrated by men. There is literally zero evidence of increased sexual assaults or knife attacks by 'Muslims'. However there is overwhelming evidence of a causal link between gender and sex assaults (and mass casualty events like terror attacks, serial killers and mass shootings are almost invariably caused by blokes, Domestic violence and rape are also heavily gendered).

Are you saying we should ban immigration by 'Men' due to the threat they pose?

A 'Yes' or 'No' will suffice.

I also find it completely ironic that people come into this thread and call right-winger a all kinds of names under the sun, yet defend at all costs a far-right wing ideology.

No-one is defending the ideology. Certainly not me.

We're defending the right of people to worship how they want, as long as they don't harm anyone else, without people like you managing to impose all kind of bans and restrictions on them, and labeling them 'rapists' (like you've done three times now in this post).

Well, we have a perfect and unfortunate example of this exact scenario: Ukraine.

Hahaha. Ukraine is literally an ethnic conflict at its core. You realize that right?

Millions of people fled(mostly women and children) and apart from that English woman who lost her husband to a Ukrainian lady, as far as I am aware they haven't been forming gangs, committing violent crimes, gang-raping women(we saw this happen to an Australian woman on the eve of the Olympics, perpetrators identified as African, same thing happened at the Rugby world cup), etc. Most have even returned home to a warzone.

That's four times now that you've made the allegation that 'brown people are more inclined to be rapists than white people are.'

Four times you've made a comment that contains heavily inferred racist overtones.

Let me ask you directly.

Do you think a persons race/ ethnicity causes them to commit crimes (like rape) at a different frequency when compared to a person of a different race/ ethnicity?

Yes or No please.

 

[bzparkes]

Afghanistan and Lebanon? You're clutching at straws if you think these nations have had a seismic cultural shift coz islam.

Hardly gives the impression they were liberal democracies in a sense like we are.

Yeah nah, this doesn't pass the pub test.

Women could go to uni, didn't have to wear hajib, could wear miniskirts, work, etc. That was all in Afghanistan, before it started sliding the other way from the mid 70s until 1996.

Lebanon definitely more liberal but like all Islamic countries, minorities are persecuted.

I didn't count Iran because the leader there was the Shah.

 

[Malifice]

Again, this is not a widespread sentiment, for Jan and Joe public it IS about border protection.

Then why focus on a handful of 'boat arrivals' and not on the tens of thousands of people currently overstaying Visas?

 

[Malifice]

OK, take the current population of Australia , immigrants and all.
Double it with more migrants.
The economy will improve. Will the standard of living improve?

Yes. The paper I showed you just literally explained that to you, and explained it in great detail why the standard of living will improve.

GDP, wages and government spending will improve drastically, which all contribute towards your standard of living.

House prices will also continue to increase, which is either a bad thing (if you rent) or a good thing (if you own).

 

[Ghost Patrol]

So what's the problem then? If there's no societal threat, what's your beef?

The most dangerous Australians weren't illegal immigrants or Islamists.

-Gareth and Nathaniel Train
-Brenton Tarrant
-Martin Bryant

Clearly there's something else going on in this thread.

 

[Malifice]

The most dangerous Australians weren't illegal immigrants or Islamists.

-Gareth and Nathaniel Train
-Brenton Tarrant
-Martin Bryant

Clearly there's something else going on in this thread.

Check out the names of our serial killers (Snowton, Birnies, Edwards, Denyer etc) and mass shooters (Knight etc).

https://www.google.com/search?q=lis...g4NjY5ajBqOagCALACAQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

While you're at it, check out the genders of all our serial killers, mass killers and worst criminals. 99.99 percent of them are blokes.

'But the Muslims are out to get us so we should ban them from entering the country'.

Blokes are the one we should be worried about. If anyone wants to talk about restricting 'men' from entering Australia, I'm all ears.

 

[bzparkes]

There is literally zero causative links between ethnicity and Crime. While certain ethnic groups are overrepresented in crime stats, those numbers always come down to socio-economic causes (poverty mainly) as being the causative factor.

Sorry to break it to you, but skin color doesn't cause someone engage in robbery. Poverty does.

Yeah, so why let so many of them in with open arms? Literally my point. Thanks for explaining it more broadly.

It would be wonderful if the world was more educated and wealthier but that's a topic for a different thread.

And what the **** are you basing your argument that 'white illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than brown illegal immigrants' on?

Well, you answered your own question above. White 'illegal' immigrants tend to be illegal because they overstay visas, which would indicate they have more money.

I imagine the same could be said for many Asians who also overstay.

They're actually Slavic, so Hitler and modern Neo Nazis would have disagreed with you.



It's a bit more complicated than that:

However, the narrative has now flipped. The Acehnese people no longer view the refugees as welcome guests and the old narrative – of Rohingyan refugees being victims of a religious conflict and crimes supported by the Myanmar government – has faded away.

Social media also plays a key role in shaping and circulating current perceptions, especially the coverage of Rohingya refugees in Malaysia. In Malaysia, the presence of Rohingya refugees is causing two main issues. First, there has been an increase in criminal incidents, such as assaults, within refugee camps.

Second, there is a perceived economic threat due to the number of refugees working informal jobs. Local online media in Aceh are sharing news about these issues, suggesting that accepting Rohingya refugees could lead to similar problems in their region.

Disinformation in social media is another key challenge. There have been suggestions spread by random accounts on Facebook and Instagram that Rohingya refugees are motivated by the acquisition of land – and this has triggered negative perceptions. The users who disseminate this fake news harness outrage over the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict to draw unfair comparisons with illegal settlements in the West Bank.

https://indonesiaatmelbourne.unimelb.edu.au/whats-driving-acehs-backlash-against-rohingya-refugees/

Or in other words 'they're taking our jobs, they're taking over the contry and they're all criminals'.

So just mirroring the usual backlash that's directed by the majority towards every single migrant group, in every single country, in the history of human existence.

Find me a more reputable source than a pro-refugee academic at Melbourne university please.

Was this peer-reviewed, for instance?

Sexual assaults on minors (and to a lesser degree, knife crime) are overwhelmingly perpetrated by men. There is literally zero evidence of increased sexual assaults or knife attacks by 'Muslims'. However there is overwhelming evidence of a causal link between gender and sex assaults (and mass casualty events like terror attacks, serial killers and mass shootings are almost invariably caused by blokes, Domestic violence and rape are also heavily gendered).

Are you saying we should ban immigration by 'Men' due to the threat they pose?

A 'Yes' or 'No' will suffice.

Dumb attempt at a gotcha, if you want to try having a 'discussion' try leading with an open question instead of 'If you disagree with me you're a racist', or 'Are you a bigot? Yes or no'.

Of course sexual assaults are overwhelming done by men. In fact, it's even more of an issue in Muslim countries, such as Pakistan, where a child is r*ped on average every 2 hours.

A child was sexually abused every two hours in Pakistan this year, NGO says

Islamabad-based NGO records 2,227 cases of child sexual abuse in the country between January and June.

www.aljazeera.com

Surprisingly, more boys were reported as victims than girls in this particular article.

Domestic violence is also very prevalent among Islamic communities, as it is far more socially acceptable to do so, as preached in the Quran.

No-one is defending the ideology. Certainly not me.

You literally just said in your previous post that you 'hate' coming to this thread to defend Islam.

WTF?

We're defending the right of people to worship how they want, as long as they don't harm anyone else, without people like you managing to impose all kind of bans and restrictions on them, and labeling them 'rapists' (like you've done twice now in this post).

I haven't labeled them rapists. It really melts my brain how people come into this thread half-cocked and get offended at everything without making the bare minimum effort to decipher my posts.

I also never said there should be restrictions on them either. Stop making stuff up to fit your narrative.

Please do better.

Hahaha. Ukraine is literally an ethnic conflict at its core. You realize that right?

Wrong, it's Putin trying to steal resources and shore up his legacy but that's another topic that's irrelevant to this thread.

That's three times now that you've made the allegation that 'brown people are more inclined to be rapists than white people are.'

Nope, wrong again. I highlighted issues brought to Europe by truckloads of illegals entering the country unchecked.

I imagine if 500k+ bogans from Punchbowl, Frankston, etc turned up on the doorstep of an African nation in a short period of time, they'd experience similar issues.

You correctly said that poverty is the issue, then went away from that assertion for lame 'gotcha' attempts.

Three times you've made a comment that contains heavily inferred racist overtones.

I understand that this discussion may be uncomfortable for you however that doesn't make it racist.

Let me ask you directly.

Do you think a persons race/ ethnicity causes them to commit crimes (like rape) at a different frequency when compared to a person of a different race/ ethnicity?

Yes or No please.

No, I don't.

But for some reason that's all people in this thread focus on and try to target me with.

I've said it numerous times that education(or lack thereof) is the primary culprit in people behaving badly, which is seconded by their culture, upbringing and environment.

Now before some knob tries to label me with the R word for bringing up culture, growing up in a WHITE household, where the culture around you is a dole bludger, didn't finish school, all do drugs, etc is going to be conducive to people growing up amongst that environment behaving badly.

They're going to be far more likely to steal, take drugs, commit sexual assaults, etc.

Make sense now? I mean, this is way off topic anyway.

 

[bzparkes]

Yes. The paper I showed you just literally explained that to you, and explained it in great detail why the standard of living will improve.

For who?

GDP, wages and government spending will improve drastically, which all contribute towards your standard of living.

Man, you must put a lot of faith in the government to do the right thing.

House prices will also continue to increase, which is either a bad thing (if you rent) or a good thing (if you own).

So, rich get richer and poor get poorer?

 

[JackOutback]

Yep, but not from the majority of the population, usually from racist aholes, which btw, and I'll keep saying it til I'm blue in the. This sort of mind set is very much a minuscule percentile.

The number of 'hood wearing racists' tends to be small, but the number of people who can be convinced that brown people are here to steal your jobs, livelihood, way of life can make it depressingly mainstream. Look at the Howard years, he dressed it up, but he was a racist arseh*le at heart.

 

[Malifice]

For who?

Everyone. Read the damn paper!

GDP, wages and standard of living rise due to immigration.

So, rich get richer and poor get poorer?

You're a Socialist now?

 

[RedStarUncle]

Yes. The paper I showed you just literally explained that to you, and explained it in great detail why the standard of living will improve.

GDP, wages and government spending will improve drastically, which all contribute towards your standard of living.

House prices will also continue to increase, which is either a bad thing (if you rent) or a good thing (if you own).

Off-topic... but the idea that increased population correlates to increased GDP and wealth and therefore increased standard of living, therefore you can infinitely continue to increase population with a resulting increased standard of living, isn't very sensible.

At some point the trend is going to break for multiple reasons. Population won't have access to housing, services, etc. Businesses can't just magically and efficiently turn more employees into more profits infinitely. Hard or soft limited resources (food, power, space, etc.) don't sustain infinite populations. Wealth divides will increase.

 

[bzparkes]

Everyone. Read the damn paper!

GDP, wages and standard of living rise due to immigration.

Sure they do, if done properly.

Which is entirely the argument here.

You're a Socialist now?

 

[Malifice]

Yeah, so why let so many of them in with open arms?

We dont! Most of our immigration comes from the skilled immigration program and students. We let in bugger all humanitarian applicants.

Find me a more reputable source than a pro-refugee academic at Melbourne university please.

Was this peer-reviewed, for instance?

No, but at least Im providing sources. You keep making assertions about 'Muslims being more prone to being rapists' without any source to back it up at all.

Of course sexual assaults are overwhelming done by men.

As are serial killings and mass casualty events (mass shootings, terror attacks etc) which are almost exclusively done by blokes, murders and assaults (strongly gendered) plus rapes and sexual assaults and more.

If your position is we should 'ban entry to migrants who are more prone to commit offences like rape, murder and mass killings' surely you would start by suggesting we ban immigration (of all sorts) by men.

But instead of going after 'men' (who objectively are the overwhelming prime offenders of sex assaults, rapes, murders, mass killings, serial killings and domestic violence) you argue we should ban 'Muslims'.

Explain this disconnect to me.

I haven't labeled them rapists.

Yes you did. Four times.

You're framing an argument for reducing immigration from Muslim (and African) nations, because 'Muslims are more likely to commit rapes'. You expressly (and implicitly) made this exact argument 4 times in the prior thread, and again in this one.

I also never said there should be restrictions on them either.

No, but its clearly your goal. You want the Government to ban or restrict (legally) entry to Australia from Muslims and Africans.

If you dont what the Government to restrict entry to them, I'm happy to be corrected.

Wrong, it's Putin trying to steal resources and shore up his legacy but that's another topic that's irrelevant to this thread.

There is an underlying ethnic conflict between Ukrainians (who speak Ukrainian) and Russian speakers in the Eastern Oblasts. Many of those Russian speakers in the annexed Eastern Oblasts (in some cases, a plurality) want to be part of Russia.

Im serious. Look it up.

I understand that this discussion may be uncomfortable for you however that doesn't make it racist.

I've said it numerous times that education(or lack thereof) is the primary culprit in people behaving badly, which is seconded by their culture, upbringing and environment.

Isn't that simply grounds for better access to education, improving employment opportunities, assistance with assimilation and other measures?

Because I'm not seeing how 'othering' a bunch of new migrants, and pointing out fictional 'increased rape rates and knife crime rates of Muslims' really helps with assimilation.

 

[Malifice]

Off-topic... but the idea that increased population correlates to increased GDP and wealth and therefore increased standard of living, therefore you can infinitely continue to increase population with a resulting increased standard of living, isn't very sensible.

Why?

The above sentence literally describes the history of this country post European arrival. Waves of immigration, and increasing GDP and standards of living.

It also describes the history of the USA post European arrival.

People arrive, work, pay taxes, get promoted, earn more, buy property, invest (through that property and their Super at a minimum) pay more taxes, have kids, rinse and repeat.

I mean yeah, we'll eventually reach a population limit. But that's certainly not on the horizon any time soon.

If you want to see a notoriously insular country with problems due to low migration and tough immigration rules (a slowing economy, and an ageing population) look at Japan.

In 2020, the International Monetary Fund predicted that "the ageing and shrinking population will strain Japan’s public finances, as age-related spending – such as on healthcare and pensions – rises while the tax base shrinks”.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/09/elderly-oldest-population-world-japan/

Less people working (less tax and less money circulating in the economy) + more people retired (costing more tax dollars on Health etc, and not generating any economic activity) = big problems and economic disaster.

Studies are predicting a worker shortage of up to 11 million people by 2040 unless they increase immigration levels (or the birth rate suddenly spikes). There just wont be enough workers to work the jobs they need to maintain GDP (let alone increase it), and their economy will collapse.

They're managing to keep afloat for now, but if they dont do something soon, they're ****ed.

 

[bzparkes]

We dont! Most of our immigration comes from the skilled immigration program and students. We let in bugger all humanitarian applicants.



No, but at least Im providing sources. You keep making assertions about 'Muslims being more prone to being rapists' without any source to back it up at all.



As are serial killings and mass casualty events (mass shootings, terror attacks etc) which are almost exclusively done by blokes, murders and assaults (strongly gendered) plus rapes and sexual assaults and more.

If your position is we should 'ban entry to migrants who are more prone to commit offences like rape, murder and mass killings' surely you would start by suggesting we ban immigration (of all sorts) by men.

But instead of going after 'men' (who objectively are the overwhelming prime offenders of sex assaults, rapes, murders, mass killings, serial killings and domestic violence) you argue we should ban 'Muslims'.

Explain this disconnect to me.



Yes you did. Four times.

You're framing an argument for reducing immigration from Muslim (and African) nations, because 'Muslims are more likely to commit rapes'. You expressly (and implicitly) made this exact argument 4 times in the prior thread, and again in this one.



No, but its clearly your goal. You want the Government to ban or restrict (legally) entry to Australia from Muslims and Africans.

If you dont what the Government to restrict entry to them, I'm happy to be corrected.



There is an underlying ethnic conflict between Ukrainians (who speak Ukrainian) and Russian speakers in the Eastern Oblasts. Many of those Russian speakers in the annexed Eastern Oblasts (in some cases, a plurality) want to be part of Russia.

Im serious. Look it up.



Isn't that simply grounds for better access to education, improving employment opportunities, assistance with assimilation and other measures?

Because I'm not seeing how 'othering' a bunch of new migrants, and pointing out fictional 'increased rape rates and knife crime rates of Muslims' really helps with assimilation.

For the last time: I am not talking about Australia.

 

[Malifice]

For the last time: I am not talking about Australia.

Shouldn't we though? Australia (and the USA, Canada, NZ) are pretty clear cut examples of majority immigrant nations that are absolutely killing it with quality of life, GDP, political and economic freedoms and so forth, and shining examples of why mass immigration works.



Why can Australia with literally over twice as many per capita immigrants than the UK make it work, while the Brits cant?

 

[RedStarUncle]

Why?

The above sentence literally describes the history of this country post European arrival. Waves of immigration, and increasing GDP and standards of living.

It also describes the history of the USA post European arrival.

People arrive, work, pay taxes, get promoted, earn more, buy property, invest (through that property and their Super at a minimum) pay more taxes, have kids, rinse and repeat.

I mean yeah, we'll eventually reach a population limit. But that's certainly not on the horizon any time soon.

If you want to see an insular country with problems due to low migration (a slowing economy, and an ageing population) look at Japan.



https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/09/elderly-oldest-population-world-japan/

Less people working (less tax and less money circulating in the economy) + more people retired (costing more tax dollars on Health etc, and not generating any economic activity) = big problems and economic disaster.

Studies are predicting a worker shortage of up to 11 million people by 2040 unless they increase immigration levels (or the birth rate suddenly spikes). There just wont be enough workers to work the jobs they need to maintain GDP (let alone increase it), and their economy will collapse.

They're managing to keep afloat for now, but if they dont do something soon, they're ****ed.

Japan's problem isn't that they don't have population growth. Even if you put aside that they have or risk population decline, the real problem is that they have a decreasing percentage of productive workers within their stagnant population.

If the ratios were also stagnant... what's the problem? Why does the economy need to grow to maintain a static population with a static distribution and a high standard of living?


I certainly don't dispute that Australia's, America's, and other nations' stories over the past century is more or less uninterrupted population growth correlated with a trending increased wealth and standard of living. And I bet if you asked people 50 years ago if you thought that trend could continue to a population of over 20million in Australia they'd be sceptical yet here we are.

But I can't believe it can continue forever. And I believe the only reason to push for that is because you're a corporation wanting more employees to feed more profits and knowing you can dispense with those employees at the drop of a hat and make it the government's problem if things start going pear-shaped.

We need migration in Australia because it's our path to levelling out the increased ratio of retirees to productive workers that will drain the economy unless we do something. But we don't need migration just because never-ending growth is never-endingly good. Growing wealth relative to population is what matters. Maybe more migration is a means to that end, maybe it isn't. But surely there's a finite point at which more population means less wealth per person not more.



Anyway that's all largely beside the point of this thread. Which is more the idea that migration is only ok or not if migrants are "like us". Which is why the debate around migration usually gets muddied as an excuse to be racist without sounding racist. But most people arguing aren't genuine about their migration concerns, they're just concerned about the wrong kind of foreigner. A point already made many times over on here.

 

[bzparkes]

Why can Australia with literally over twice as many per capita immigrants than the UK make it work, while the Brits cant?

That's exactly the point people are making, and you've even said the crimes issues come from it yourself:

The illegals entering Britain, and broader Europe, come from poverty, aren't well-educated and are almost exclusively young men leaving Islamist regimes.

If they were families/women and children and educated, coming through the proper channels, literally nobody would give a shit, other than the crazy far-right nutjobs and everyone would look at them like the complete morons they are.

Instead, that isn't happening and the native population of Europe is starting to gravitate toward the far-right because they are the only ones promising a solution to this mess that the EU and Merkel created.

Now the greater threat of these parties is that they're all pretty much sponsored by Russia/Putin, which would create an even bigger issue in Europe.

But that's another discussion in itself.

 

[Malifice]

The illegals entering Britain, and broader Europe, come from poverty, aren't well-educated and are almost exclusively young men leaving Islamist regimes.

Except that's not true.

• About half (52%) of the UK’s unauthorized immigrants living in the UK in 2017 were from Asian countries. One-in-five (20%) were from sub-Saharan African countries, while about one-in-ten (11%) were from Middle East-North Africa countries. The remaining share (16%) had nationalities from the Americas and other European countries besides EU-EFTA countries.
• Almost equal shares of unauthorized immigrants in the UK were male (48%) and female (52%) in 2017. The majority (58%) in 2017 were under 35 years old.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/fact-sheet/unauthorized-immigrants-in-the-united-kingdom/

Note, the above statistics are from 2017 (pre Brexit) so they dont count EU nationals (European 'illegals' arent yet a thing, so dont feature above).

Only 11 percent of 'illegals' come from the Middle East/ North Africa (Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Iran, Morocco, Jordan etc), and among the more than 1 million 'illegals', there were more women (52 percent) than blokes (48 percent).

I guess 'Asia' includes half of Turkey (not really an 'Islamist regime') and the 'Stans/ Bangladesh (Islamic), but I dare say China, SEA and especially India account for most of those listed as 'Asian'.

Where are you getting your numbers from that Britain's 'illegals' are overwhelmingly 'Muslim men'?

 

[Malifice]

Or bzparkes are you referring to this:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Channel_migrant_crossings_(2018–present)

Where a few thousand people have likely made it to shore each year (and not been intercepted and detained)?

I agree that most of those arrivals are coming from Middle eastern countries, and most of them are fleeing from Islamic (or Baathist) regimes or ISIS. I also agree that most of them are men.

Are you saying those 'illegals' (the ones fleeing from ISIS, the Iranian regime, the conflict in Syria etc) are the problem 'illegals'... but the 1,000,000+ 'illegals' currently in the UK are not so bad?

If your argument is simply, 'the Government should enact measures to stop the above, in a humane way, that complies with the Rule of Law' I actually agree with you.

Is that your argument?

 

[bzparkes]

Except that's not true.

• About half (52%) of the UK’s unauthorized immigrants living in the UK in 2017 were from Asian countries. One-in-five (20%) were from sub-Saharan African countries, while about one-in-ten (11%) were from Middle East-North Africa countries. The remaining share (16%) had nationalities from the Americas and other European countries besides EU-EFTA countries.
• Almost equal shares of unauthorized immigrants in the UK were male (48%) and female (52%) in 2017. The majority (58%) in 2017 were under 35 years old.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/fact-sheet/unauthorized-immigrants-in-the-united-kingdom/

Note, the above statistics are from 2017 (pre Brexit) so they dont count EU nationals (European 'illegals' arent yet a thing, so dont feature above).

Only 11 percent of 'illegals' come from the Middle East/ North Africa (Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Iran, Morocco, Jordan etc), and among the more than 1 million 'illegals', there were more women (52 percent) than blokes (48 percent).

I guess 'Asia' includes half of Turkey (not really an 'Islamist regime') and the 'Stans/ Bangladesh (Islamic), but I dare say China, SEA and especially India account for most of those listed as 'Asian'.

Where are you getting your numbers from that Britain's 'illegals' are overwhelmingly 'Muslim men'?

Pre-2017 statistics is your problem.

The EU’s new plan to address migration

The EU's new Asylum and Migration Pact requires difficult compromises on national and EU levels. June EU elections will determine what is achievable.

www.gisreportsonline.com

The issues have all come post that year.

According to this, 380k people 'irregularly' crossed the border into Europe in 2023 alone, where they mostly pass through southern & eastern Europe to get to predominantly Germany, France and the UK.

In that same year, there were more than 1 million asylum claims.

There's a reason France and Germany are looking to tighten up their laws, Denmark got a far-right prime minister, as did Italy.

There's enough videos online of rubber boats bringing dozens of young men from Africa to Europe on a daily basis, facilitated by NGOs. Hell, they film themselves ripping up their ID and throwing it into the sea so they can't be identified and sent home. They simply game the system.

Then you only need to see the various travel warnings about traveling to tourist hotspots, such as the Eiffel tower, to see there is a growing problem that can't be ignored over there any longer.

If these 'immigrants' came through the correct channels, we'd be seeing none of this and barely anyone would be talking about it.

 

[bzparkes]

Or bzparkes are you referring to this:

View attachment 2071463

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Channel_migrant_crossings_(2018–present)

Where a few thousand people have likely made it to shore each year (and not been intercepted and detained)?

There's a lot. the issue is(as per the post I just made) that they get rid of their IDs, so they can't be sent home.

I agree that most of those arrivals are coming from Middle eastern countries, and most of them are fleeing from Islamic (or Baathist) regimes or ISIS. I also agree that most of them are men.

Yes, this is an issue. A number of identified ISIS members have been identified freely roaming around the streets of Europe. I believe I read a report stating that the Syrian 'refugee' who killed the German police officer at the AFD rally a couple of months ago had been arrested multiple times, directed to leave(never did of course) and was a former ISIS member.

Same with the bloke who shot those tourists in Denmark(I think) a couple of years ago.

Are you saying those 'illegals' (the ones fleeing from ISIS, the Iranian regime, the conflict in Syria etc) are the problem 'illegals'... but the 1,000,000+ 'illegals' currently in the UK are not so bad?

I'm saying that all illegals potentially can cause issues but the unvetted ones from terrorists hotspots do pose a significant threat, yes.

Someone's grandma from Vietnam who never went home and hid in the family attic, not so much.

If your argument is simply, 'the Government should enact measures to stop the above, in a humane way, that complies with the Rule of Law' I actually agree with you.

Is that your argument?

Yes. Perhaps I haven't articulated it correctly but that's the crux of it. The issue in EU is the law is incredibly favourable to illegals entering the country claiming asylum, to the point that EU member states pay $20k Euros for each claimant they refuse.

EU states must apply migration pact or face legal action: Commissioner

EU countries failing to implement the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, narrowly endorsed by the European Parliament on Wednesday, could face legal action, the bloc's home affairs chief has warned. #EuropeNews

www.euronews.com

They're basically forcing member states to take asylum seekers with these laws, which seems inherently bizarre to me.

 

[Malifice]

Pre-2017 statistics is your problem.

The EU’s new plan to address migration

The EU's new Asylum and Migration Pact requires difficult compromises on national and EU levels. June EU elections will determine what is achievable.

www.gisreportsonline.com

The issues have all come post that year.

Britain is no longer part of the EU.

Please use British figures like I did.

If these 'immigrants' came through the correct channels, we'd be seeing none of this and barely anyone would be talking about it.

You're assuming someone fleeing ISIS in Iraq or the Syrian regime or the conflict in Sudan have access to 'the correct channels'

You do agree that most of the main countries listed (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon) are all currently engaged in war, mass civil unrest, or sectarian and ethnic conflicts right?

And that consequently there is a damn good chance that someone from those countries, probably has a pressing need to leave?

I'd like to ask you a question. I'd like to see if your reluctance to accept 'illegals' extends to non-Muslims.

Many Jewish refugees from Nazi oppression tried to leave Germany in the 30's. Many were unable to 'lawfully' leave Germany, or lacked the funds to do so, and many countries refused to take them.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/german-jewish-refugees-1933-1939

Famously, this included 937 German Jews on the St Louis, who attempted to enter the USA 'illegally, by boat' to flee from the Nazis.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/voyage-of-the-st-louis

My question to you is this -

1. Do you think those countries that refused them entry should have done so (was it the right thing to do), and
2. Should those countries have accepted those refugees even if they entered 'illegally'?