UN Migration Pact - Criticising Migration = Hate Crime

[StriderX]

I have no issue with skilled migration and this article and thread has not been about skilled migration but about the UN trying to 'force' a hate crime definition and in essentially open up all migration to be free from control.

Skilled migrants will migrate and generally add to the economy. Unskilled migrantion, simply moving for food/safety etc, could be more controlled by removing the root cause and help grow a standard of living in the point of departure.

Do you see mass migration between western european powers? No, you absolutely see some skilled migration and people pursuing some job opportunities but you do not see what you see from the third world as standards are broadly similar. This is what we should seek to promote and encourage as opposed to dealing with issues at the end point.

So you want to uplift 6 billion people from poverty? You realise that the more you share Wealth across the world the worse it gets for advanced economies right? Atleast until technology catches up to eliminate a lot of issues, there will always need to be a majority poor for our consurmist waste based society to merely exist.

That means there will be an infinitely increasing migration pattern, the root of the problem isn't as simple as making their lives better, we've pooped out a bit too much baby wise.

 

[dowie]

Making their lives better goes a long way to helping tbh... see Hans Rosling's videos on youtube, also note what happens to the birth rate.

 

[StriderX]

Making their lives better goes a long way to helping tbh... see Hans Rosling's videos on youtube, also note what happens to the birth rate.

Yes over the very long generational term, but right now? It's irrelevant and the backlash isn't going to stop.

 

[Amp34]

I have no issue with skilled migration and this article and thread has not been about skilled migration but about the UN trying to 'force' a hate crime definition and in essentially open up all migration to be free from control.

Skilled migrants will migrate and generally add to the economy. Unskilled migrantion, simply moving for food/safety etc, could be more controlled by removing the root cause and help grow a standard of living in the point of departure.

Do you see mass migration between western european powers? No, you absolutely see some skilled migration and people pursuing some job opportunities but you do not see what you see from the third world as standards are broadly similar. This is what we should seek to promote and encourage as opposed to dealing with issues at the end point.

Where are you getting that from?

The main just seems to be about allowing all migrants to be treated like humans. It specifically states that hate crime definitions are a matter for the individual states and that it has nothing to do with who can be let in.

And yes, you do see mass migration between western European powers. As an example, take London, "Frances sixth largest city".

Making their lives better goes a long way to helping tbh... see Hans Rosling's videos on youtube, also note what happens to the birth rate.

Problem is a lot of people that are anti immigration are also anti foreign aid/help as well.

A prime example of which are some of the parties aligned with those MEP's (not sure about those specific MEP's though)...

 

[Amp34]

Austria, Slovenia, Norway, Finland, Japan, Poland. My favorite part of the U.S. is New England, the sense of community there is so strong compared to somewhere like New York State. Maybe population density and city life is a big factor I dunno.

In terms of race and ethnicity, White Americans made up 83.4% of New England's population, of which 77.7% were whites of non-Hispanic origin. Black Americans composed 7.3% of the region's population, of which 6.9% were blacks of non-Hispanic origin. Native Americans made up 0.3% of the population, numbering 37,234. There were just over 500,000 Asian Americans residing in New England at the time of the survey, making up 3.5% of the region's population. There were 158,282 Chinese Americans, constituting 1.1% of the region's total population, and 119,140 Indian Americans (0.8%). Japanese Americans numbered 14,501 (0.1%).

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

It's ethnically and nationally much more diverse than the UK (although it is less diverse than the US as a whole) much like most of the new world (inc Canada, NZ and Australia).

Over 15% of people in Norway are immigrants or born of Immigrant parents.

I think it's probably the "holiday blinkers" that make you feel the way you do.

 

[Mason-]

we've pooped out a bit too much baby wise.

Who’s we? At the eve of WW1 people of ‘European descent’ were 38% of the world population, now its 6.5%.

 

[Amp34]

From what I can see and experienced it complicates life and creates more chaotic environments devoid of common meaning.

American cities are basically massive commercial enterprises and that is really all you can end up with in my opinion if you follow this path.....a shared capitalist experience.

I live in a small coastal town and I love it's history and heritage and character. I work for a European company and had colleagues visit where I live. They loved it's quirky Britishness, why would you want to dilute this?

If you love where you live then maybe you see things differently.

Personally I'm not someone advocating "diversity" for diversities sake. I like a lot of the benefits (largely food and social related) but wouldn't go out of my way to try and force it.

HOWEVER

A lot of the diversity in the UK is a function of growth and capitalism/the economy. It basically all boils down to money.

Which leaves the question - in a country where the "native" birth rate has fallen to non replacement levels you (broadly*) have two options:

Would you prefer your small coastal town to start having a decline in population and prosperity, creating gradual abandonment and quite possibly a reduced flow of money and increasingly suppressed economy, or

Would you prefer your town to prosper, but change character slightly due to an influx of people with different heritage and culture.

That question relates both to an individual town like yours, but also to entire countries. It's one of the major reasons successive governments are so intent on allowing so many migrants into the UK, into France and Germany, Australia and New Zealand, Canada and the USA. That's one of the reasons why the (apparently) anti Immigration Conservative party have done nothing to stop either non EU immigration (which they have complete control over) or EU immigration (where they have a lot of mechanisms they have never used).

This isn't just happening in prosperous western nations, it's happening all over the world. Many of the countries are quite happy to allow all these migrant in - it boosts their economy and they do things the locals don't want to/can't do - but then they treat them like ****, some end up as not far off indentured workers, others are taken advantage of by authorities and other state mechanisms. The UN compact is designed to try and change that.

*There are other options, most notably what Japan has been trying to do for the last couple of decades - persuade people to have more kids. Apparently, as they have found out, it's quite difficult to do, even when they have a minister dedicated to just that.

 

[Hades]

Would you prefer your small coastal town to start having a decline in population and prosperity, creating gradual abandonment and quite possibly a reduced flow of money and increasingly suppressed economy, or

Would you prefer your town to prosper, but change character slightly due to an influx of people with different heritage and culture.

Ten or twenty years ago I would have agreed with that question. But in recent years I've seen how fast automation and AI is progressing. Within the next twenty years we will have replaced many jobs with automation. So if we encourage mass migration now, we'll just be building up twice as big a problem tomorrow. I am of the opinion that small communities will prosper in the medium to long term while large communities will suffer significant social collapse. I hope I am wrong.

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

Another disengenious point!

Eu migrants are, on average, younger then the UK working age and above average.

Older people are the most common users of the NHS and EU migrants are vastly underrepresented in this group compared to the general population.

On

So? People have babies, so what?

There were 626,203 deliveries in NHS hospitals during 2017-18, a decrease of 1.6 per cent from 2016-17

The NHS treat 1.4 million people every 24 hours, so births are a tiny part of NHS usage.

Still costs 300+ million a year to deliver those migrant babies. Far more if you factor in non vaginal births and a huge amount more afterwards untill adulthood.

Let's also not forget this gem
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...uit-against-nhs-midwives-fail-explain-needed/

Added legal payouts and expenses because uneducated migrant imbeciles don't know you have to feed a baby.

 

[StriderX]

Ten or twenty years ago I would have agreed with that question. But in recent years I've seen how fast automation and AI is progressing. Within the next twenty years we will have replaced many jobs with automation. So if we encourage mass migration now, we'll just be building up twice as big a problem tomorrow. I am of the opinion that small communities will prosper in the medium to long term while large communities will suffer significant social collapse. I hope I am wrong.

You must be joking?

Everything has for the last several millennia pointed towards massive metropoli being the norm and tiny communities dying out, it's happened so often across so many cultures, it's a human nature. I have no desire to live in a pointless little village when it all does is damage the local environment.

 

[MookJong]

You must be joking?

Everything has for the last several millennia pointed towards massive metropoli being the norm and tiny communities dying out, it's happened so often across so many cultures, it's a human nature. I have no desire to live in a pointless little village when it all does is damage the local environment.

Enjoy your shopping retail parks and chain burger restaurants, I'm off to take the dog on the beach.

 

[VincentHanna]

Though there's plenty of coastal cities around the World with beaches...

 

[Hades]

You must be joking?

Everything has for the last several millennia pointed towards massive metropoli being the norm and tiny communities dying out, it's happened so often across so many cultures, it's a human nature. I have no desire to live in a pointless little village when it all does is damage the local environment.

A fundamental shift is occurring in the workplace and in our shopping habits. Like many others I no longer need an office. I can work anywhere that I have an internet connection. I don't need to live near a large city for work.

High street shops are closing down as we move to online shopping. I don't need to live near a large city for shopping.

If I, and many others, don't need to live near a large city for either work or shopping then why wouldn't people instead shift to more pleasant rural areas which are cheaper and offer a higher quality of life?

 

[LabR@t]

Spoilling nice rural areas with and influx of Audi's and rude people always in a hurry.

 

[LabR@t]

You must be joking?

Everything has for the last several millennia pointed towards massive metropoli being the norm and tiny communities dying out, it's happened so often across so many cultures, it's a human nature. I have no desire to live in a pointless little village when it all does is damage the local environment.

Little villages do not damage the environment, they are self sufficient

 

[VincentHanna]

Little villages do not damage the environment, they are self sufficient

What are you talking about? You think that people who live in villages don't have cars and use plastic and import food?

 

[LabR@t]

Shocker as he finds out lots grow their own food, use farm shops, not everyone desires new cars, foreign holidays and the latest 60" Tv

 

[VincentHanna]

I lived in a village for 7 years...

It didn't have gas lines so every house had to have oil delivered for heating.
Everyone had cars
There was one pub, and one restaurant.
There wasn't a local shop

The nearest town was 3 miles away, which isn't far but it was far from self-sustaining

 

[StriderX]

Shocker as he finds out lots grow their own food, use farm shops, not everyone desires new cars, foreign holidays and the latest 60" Tv

Why do they need cars if they don't need to go anywhere? When you live in a city, you can you know... walk without touching a single guzzling monstrosity.

As above, i have also experienced the glee of crappy village, no amenities, deliveries take too long and when the Snow hits hard, you're ******. Everyone seems to either ride in huge dirty jeeps or old dirty bangers with poor MPG. Plenty of the "ahem" "higher class" residents of the village looooooooove going on holiday every other month, especially if they're landlords.

It's sad, the people are sad and the environment is worse off. Thankfully these places are dying.

 

[robfosters]

There needs to be a balance. It would be awful for places like the Cotswolds to lose their villages. They’re part of England’s charm and culture. I can’t think of anything worse than a UK rammed with over populated cities.