Migrant watch (merged topic)

[vtsnowedin]

Then there will be the wall I will require for keeping the starving hoards off my vegetables when TSHTF. That will have to be even higher if we let hundreds of thousands of migrants in.

That wall can be built out of corpses.

[3rdRock]

Superior IQ's? Walls? Fences? Moats?

Jesus, I suspect some of you won't be happy until TPTB build a few of these ...

Be careful what you wish for.

I'm sure our right-wing corporate masters would be only too willing to oblige and when all of the 'dreaded' Moslem's have been removed, who's next?

[vtsnowedin]

Superior IQ's? Walls? Fences? Moats?

Jesus, I suspect some of you won't be happy until TPTB build a few of these ...

Be careful what you wish for.

I'm sure our right-wing corporate masters would be only too willing to oblige and when all of the 'dreaded' Moslem's have been removed, who's next?

Not happy about it at all but I can see where the desperation caused by over population,climate change and the eventual decline in fossil fuel (use if not supply) will drive peoples to such heinous acts in National self defense.
It is not the quick ,easy, or just solution but it is what we will come to if we don't find better more humane solutions.

[biffvernon]

What's wrong with a fence for keeping two groups of football fans away from each other? Thankfully they aren't needed for rugby fans.

Not my area of expertise, Ken as I've never ever been to a football match that requires a fence. It seems a crazy idea. I thought football was a game. If it requires fences as you describe I suggest that the whole idea be abandoned, consigned to history along with gladiatorial combat bear baiting and fox-hunting.

[biffvernon]

Any fence higher than is required for keeping cattle in a field should not exist.

What's wrong with fences to prevent footballs and rugby balls from hitting the road?

Good point, and round tennis courts or you lose a lot of balls. All rules have their exceptions, but 3rdRock is spot on.

[UndercoverElephant]

It is not the quick ,easy, or just solution but it is what we will come to if we don't find better more humane solutions.

Yes. This is what Biff and 3rd Rock do not appear understand. In the long run, we are not faced with a choice between fences/walls/moats and letting everybody in. We are faced with a choice between fences/walls/moats now, or something far worse later on. This has been pointed out again and again, but the message just doesn't seem to get through. If we allow unlimited immigration into the UK/Europe then we will find ourselves over-run with people on the far right advocating and implementing extreme solutions to the resulting problems long before we are over-run with immigrants. If we want to end up with a "final solution" of the sort intimated by 3rd Rock, then bringing down the fences and letting a flood of migrants in is the fastest way to make it happen.

[the_lyniezian]

It is not the quick ,easy, or just solution but it is what we will come to if we don't find better more humane solutions.

Yes. This is what Biff and 3rd Rock do not appear understand. In the long run, we are not faced with a choice between fences/walls/moats and letting everybody in. We are faced with a choice between fences/walls/moats now, or something far worse later on. This has been pointed out again and again, but the message just doesn't seem to get through. If we allow unlimited immigration into the UK/Europe then we will find ourselves over-run with people on the far right advocating and implementing extreme solutions to the resulting problems long before we are over-run with immigrants. If we want to end up with a "final solution" of the sort intimated by 3rd Rock, then bringing down the fences and letting a flood of migrants in is the fastest way to make it happen.

It seems to me "fences, walls and moats" are only half the solution, though. If some of these migrants really are as desparate as the risks they are willing to take suggests, all keeping the entirity of them out will do will be to shift the problem to some other part of the world (never mind as long as we're alright Jack). Nor it seems will phsical barriers of this sort deter the really desparate from finding another way (lurking in the back of lorries &c.) It is worth considering in the short term if we can help some of those deparately in need, moreso than we do now. However, the real solution will have to be to bring to an end the hand-wringing of TPTB as they stand at the moment, and a new set of rules governing international migration so we can deal with people more thoroughly and promptly before they build up to unsustainable numbers, yet fairly. This may not be the solution that the far right and concerned-but-unthinking citizens (read 90% of people who comment on Yahoo News which is my latest timewaster at the moment, to my shame), or those "bleeding hearts" amongst migrants rights activists might want, and may be popitically unpopular somehow, but...

If you can enlighten me further, or find any flaws in this argument, I'd welcome it.

[vtsnowedin]

It is not the quick ,easy, or just solution but it is what we will come to if we don't find better more humane solutions.

Yes. This is what Biff and 3rd Rock do not appear understand. In the long run, we are not faced with a choice between fences/walls/moats and letting everybody in. We are faced with a choice between fences/walls/moats now, or something far worse later on. This has been pointed out again and again, but the message just doesn't seem to get through. If we allow unlimited immigration into the UK/Europe then we will find ourselves over-run with people on the far right advocating and implementing extreme solutions to the resulting problems long before we are over-run with immigrants. If we want to end up with a "final solution" of the sort intimated by 3rd Rock, then bringing down the fences and letting a flood of migrants in is the fastest way to make it happen.

It seems to me "fences, walls and moats" are only half the solution, though. If some of these migrants really are as desparate as the risks they are willing to take suggests, all keeping the entirity of them out will do will be to shift the problem to some other part of the world (never mind as long as we're alright Jack). Nor it seems will phsical barriers of this sort deter the really desparate from finding another way (lurking in the back of lorries &c.) It is worth considering in the short term if we can help some of those deparately in need, moreso than we do now. However, the real solution will have to be to bring to an end the hand-wringing of TPTB as they stand at the moment, and a new set of rules governing international migration so we can deal with people more thoroughly and promptly before they build up to unsustainable numbers, yet fairly. This may not be the solution that the far right and concerned-but-unthinking citizens (read 90% of people who comment on Yahoo News which is my latest timewaster at the moment, to my shame), or those "bleeding hearts" amongst migrants rights activists might want, and may be popitically unpopular somehow, but...

If you can enlighten me further, or find any flaws in this argument, I'd welcome it.

I doubt if I can bring any enlightenment to the argument.
The course of closing borders with fences and whatever else it takes to truly close them is a death sentence to most of those who would otherwise come across those borders. Nothing fair or humanitarian about it. It's only redeeming quality is it keeps the death on that side of the border and lets our families on this side live on.
As hard as that choice might be I expect we will come to something like it before we let recent arrivals start to roam the streets raiding our homes and kidnapping our children.

[UndercoverElephant]

It seems to me "fences, walls and moats" are only half the solution, though. If some of these migrants really are as desparate as the risks they are willing to take suggests, all keeping the entirity of them out will do will be to shift the problem to some other part of the world (never mind as long as we're alright Jack).

Yes, that is inevitable. But exactly the same process will be going on everywhere. New Zealand's looking pretty good...

Nor it seems will phsical barriers of this sort deter the really desparate from finding another way (lurking in the back of lorries &c.)

Yes, obviously.

It is worth considering in the short term if we can help some of those deparately in need, moreso than we do now.

I am all for helping people in the short-term, provided it is in a way that doesn't create bigger long-term problems.

However, the real solution will have to be to bring to an end the hand-wringing of TPTB as they stand at the moment, and a new set of rules governing international migration so we can deal with people more thoroughly and promptly before they build up to unsustainable numbers, yet fairly.

That's like waiting for a global agreement to tackle climate change. Yes, that would be the real solution. But no, it isn't ever going to actually happen.

This may not be the solution that the far right and concerned-but-unthinking citizens (read 90% of people who comment on Yahoo News which is my latest timewaster at the moment, to my shame), or those "bleeding hearts" amongst migrants rights activists might want, and may be popitically unpopular somehow, but...

I can't speak for the people on Yahoo News or anywhere else. But I can tell you that I don't want to be advocating a hardline policy on immigration given the amount of desperate people out there right now. The problem is that however much I might want a global agreement on a new set of rules governing migration, it simply isn't going to happen.

In this respect, I think you're thinking wishfully in the same way Biff does. He wants global agreements. He want global governance. He even wants sociallly-conscious global governance. These are worthy ideals, but have nothing to do with reality. There *IS* a movement towards globalism, but not towards some sort of global socialism but a much nastier globalisation where corporations, banks and secret cabals have all the power, and ordinary people are crushed like ants...or maybe that should be bees.

The crux of the matter is this: as the global situation gets ever tougher as population levels rise, climate change starts to really bite, and fossil fuels and other resources deplete, the chances of the establishment of a "responsible, sane and fair global system of governance" become less likely, not more. In other words, as more and more shit hits the fan, what will inevitably happen is that globalisation (the corporate version that exists, not the socialist-ethical version that doesn't) will go into reverse. It has to, because that's the only way those who will survive, will survive.

J2M said that the most xenophobic nations will survive. I think he's wrong, but he's not completely on the wrong track either. What this ultimately boils down to is that evolution is going to have to take another stab at creating a hominid that is worthy of surviving, because the current version isn't. And that means survival of the fittest societies. I can't help the historical connotations of that statement; I believe it is where we are heading.

Even more simply: we are heading for die-off. Are you going to survive, or aren't you?

[biffvernon]

the real solution will have to be... a new set of rules governing international migration so we can deal with people more ... fairly.

There's noting fair about a world where wealth is distributed so unevenly that some folk are billionaires while others starve, where some folk live in security while others endure war.

The 'new set of rules governing international migration' needs to be no rules. That will provide the incentive for the rich and the secure to ensure a fairer distribution of wealth and security, removing the push factor for migration.

Anything less is a denial of morality. The choice between international socialism and national socialism is stark.

[biffvernon]

"It bothers me that Gary from down the road genuinely thinks these families on home-made rafts are leaving Syria and other parts of North Africa to take his job in B&Q. No, seriously, he genuinely believes these people risked life and limb to cross an ocean and stack some shelves for £6 an hour. And you know it must be true because Bob and Sandra have said the same thing after their recent holiday to Kos, which was totally ruined by the scenes of distraught, starving people fleeing war torn countries right before their eyes. I mean, how dare they right? Let's not even get started on Dean and Andrea who had to queue for hours in the euro tunnel to get into France all because of the Calais migrants. Who are they to just wash up on these beaches or cause HUGE delays in the euro tunnel on a summer holiday (come on, what inconsiderate timing) and remind us that there are bigger problems in the world than our own?
The rhetoric that people are fleeing war torn countries, where their governments want them dead and their life has no value, for reasons as trivial as a better job shows really just how sheltered we are. To not be able to see past the fact that these people are simply desperately trying to save their own lives is not one due to lack of education or understanding. It's due to not wanting to. We don't want to see that people genuinely need our help, because that means we have to do something about it. We'd rather turn a blind eye and spin some scare stories because it's easier that way".

[biffvernon]

Some interesting thoughts on the complexity of migration.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/a ... ountryside

From the forested plains of northern Germany to the dusty hills of the Spain-Portugal border, from the agricultural heartlands of la France profonde to the subsistence farms of Greece and Slovakia, Europe is facing a silent blight: a steady, almost unremarked haemorrhage of people leaving the countryside and moving to the more prosperous cities.

[3rdRock]

Even more simply: we are heading for die-off. Are you going to survive, or aren't you?

Frankly, I don't want to 'survive' in a world where compassion is seen as a sign of weakness and selfishness replaces a sense of humanity.

We've been there and tried that centuries-old, imperialistic model before - it doesn't work, has never worked and in most cases, has led directly to the overwhelming shit storm we find ourselves in today.

I may well be very naive and like Jeremy Corbyn, strive for high ideals which will ultimately prove to be totally unrealistic and in many cases, laughable, in the eyes of a cynical 'Thatcher Generation' who have been brought up to believe that 'might is right'.

I think I'll leave that 'Mad Max' scenario to those who foolishly believe that a world of fear, inequality, fences, walls, tribal isolationism and global terror, is a world worth fighting for.

[jonny2mad]

the real solution will have to be... a new set of rules governing international migration so we can deal with people more ... fairly.

There's noting fair about a world where wealth is distributed so unevenly that some folk are billionaires while others starve, where some folk live in security while others endure war.

The 'new set of rules governing international migration' needs to be no rules. That will provide the incentive for the rich and the secure to ensure a fairer distribution of wealth and security, removing the push factor for migration.

Anything less is a denial of morality. The choice between international socialism and national socialism is stark.

if you have have people with a average IQ of 59 and a continent with a average of 70 your not going to develop a wealthy society, so basically everything you have been taught and believe about equality or morality and international socialism is bunk, very dangerous bunk .

That we can give aid to africa comes down to the fact we have people intelligent enough to produce invention and technology and because we still have resources . what you would do is get rid of that ability to produce invention and the new technology and bring our societys down to the misery level of africa


Its not the rest of the worlds fault its biology

35-49 - Moderately retarded

Can learn simple life skills and employment tasks with special education. May be employed in special settings, and achieve some independence. Often socially immature. Self-awareness - having an inner image of self, realizing that one is a person separate from the others around one - may exist from here on, but is not guaranteed to exist as it depends on more than intelligence alone. The most intelligent animals, such as some chimpanzees, bonobos, parrots, and dolphins, are in this range. Bonobo or chimpanzee I.Q. scores are sometimes even quoted as high as 80 or 90, but those are childhood age-peer scores that correspond to adult I.Q.'s of only just over 40.

50-69 - Mildly retarded

Educable, can learn to care for oneself, employable in routinized jobs but require supervision. Might live alone but do best in supervised settings. Immature but with adequate social adjustment, usually no obvious physical anomalies.

Moderate and mild retardation, contrary to the more severe forms, are typically not caused by brain damage but part of the normal variance of intelligence, and therefore largely genetic and inherited. This is important with regard to the question whether or not retarded persons should have children; for especially the moderate and mild forms of retardation, with which it is physically possible to have children, are the most likely to be inherited.
70-79 - Borderline retarded

Limited trainability. Have difficulty with everyday demands like using a phone book, reading bus or train schedules, banking, filling out forms, using appliances like a video recorder, microwave oven or computer, etcetera, and therefore require assistance from relatives or social agencies in the management of their affairs. Can be employed in simple tasks but require supervision.

http://paulcooijmans.com/intelligence/iq_ranges.html

[jonny2mad]

Even more simply: we are heading for die-off. Are you going to survive, or aren't you?

Frankly, I don't want to 'survive' in a world where compassion is seen as a sign of weakness and selfishness replaces a sense of humanity.

We've been there and tried that centuries-old, imperialistic model before - it doesn't work, has never worked and in most cases, has led directly to the overwhelming shit storm we find ourselves in today.

I may well be very naive and like Jeremy Corbyn, strive for high ideals which will ultimately prove to be totally unrealistic and in many cases, laughable, in the eyes of a cynical 'Thatcher Generation' who have been brought up to believe that 'might is right'.

I think I'll leave that 'Mad Max' scenario to those who foolishly believe that a world of fear, inequality, fences, walls, tribal isolationism and global terror, is a world worth fighting for.

Well die then don't survive dont talk about it end the agony , but please don't ruin things for people who wish to survive. don't drag down our societys which people like yourself are sadly doing .

If you have noticed I have said people like yourself are saying they want to die thats your zeitgeist, thats the zeitgeist of the modern west .

Apart from a tiny number of people who somehow haven't fallen for the cultural marxism programming