gave up years ago m8

bout 25 years late for 1984, but slowly getting there

I've already got a phone.

double you tee eff, UK sucks!

That's because the GVT are actually starting to realise that it was not such a good idea to let in millions of immigrants on bannana boats, many of whom have a fucked bainwashed ideolgy of life-at least compared to one of the most advanced and civil countries in the world.

This country is being bum raped because the GVT can't admit they've lost track of immigration (though they are starting to-and then the fun will begin-interfighting, you name it, all the shit I forseen), they have a billion different identities all pulling in the different directions and some want to destroy the country.

And now a few decades on the long term effect is starting to become apparent. Give it another 30 years, then see how it looks. Actually give it a few years, when the econmoy is crap and immigrants are preparared to work for lower salries than british people (keep down such salaries and forcing a lower quality of life), not because they are better but because they are USED to a lower quality of life in their native countries, meanwhile brtish people are going to have a much tougher time to compete because we enjoy one of the higher standards of living, what do we do next, employ eithopians in exchange for letting them live to push out the immigrants?

That is what this stuff is really for, its to try and keep a lid on the the amount of unchekced, unneccarasry crap they have let into this country. Who then go on to breed the same kind of crap.
Not all, but it only takes a small % to make a mess and that threshhold has already arrived.

Do you really think they are doing this bank robbers and the odd serial rapist, the odd benefit fraudster>

It's to keep track of the people who want to do the biggest amount of damage. And 99.9% of those people are immigrants.

Meanwhile the useless c**ts in parliment are talking about bendy buses, and implementing every other solution, before they accept that they have a major social and cultural problem looming.
And its because they've given no considertion, because some short sighted idiot says "oh its good for the economy", but it was short sighted.

Also a crapload of crime in this country is due to immigrants and the connections they have to other countries, Morocco, packistant, you name it, the worse shit that goes on in this country is imported. Immigrants make it MUCH MUCH easier.

One of the things that made this country great was we were an island, we were not conencted to europe so it made it a great deal easier to police certain things, but given they've let in everyone, from every country, there is no shortage of connections.

I'm not saying all immigrants are bad, but what i am saying is, you can't polic this stuff.

If 50-60 years ago GVT could see the tworld now, do you really think they would have been so laxed over the last few decades?
the problem they have is that its too late, the damage has already been done and what are they doing, running around compromising innocent peoples freedom, and slowly heading towards a Eurocummuinst state which crashed and burned, and pretty much fucked up the rest of Europe when it happened.

Too late, full of typos and crap I know but you get my point and if you're average and have no opion, feel free to call me a racist.
Along with our pm's
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20081018/tuk-immig...a1618.html

Ahead of the curve since day one.

There is some truth in what you say about the economy being ruined by immigrant (lower salaries, etc..) BUT you're pretty wrong with that sentence :

Also a crapload of crime in this country is due to immigrants and the connections they have to other countries, Morocco, packistant, you name it, the worse shit that goes on in this country is imported. Immigrants make it MUCH MUCH easier.

I guess you've never been in Morocco to say that, people there are friendly and very hospitable, much more than here in Europe. The fact that there are crimes committed by immigrants in your country is due to the policy in your country that want to isolate immigrants from british people, so that they don't feel being british and then MAYBE they want to go back to their country once they have some money : which is stupid and has pretty much failed. It's the because they don't feel british and your gouvernement didn't encourage them to adopt british culture that you end up having crimes with these immigrants : When you treat people like shit that's what happens.
Sorry, i can't explain better, my english is poo...





Also,

RACIST.

Nevermind, he's pretty much wrong with everyting he ever writes. :)

I guess you've never been in Morocco to say that, people there are friendly and very hospitable, much more than here in Europe. The fact that there are crimes committed by immigrants in your country is due to the policy in your country that want to isolate immigrants from british people, so that they don't feel being british and then MAYBE they want to go back to their country once they have some money : which is stupid and has pretty much failed. It's the because they don't feel british and your gouvernement didn't encourage them to adopt british culture that you end up having crimes with these immigrants : When you treat people like shit that's what happens.
Sorry, i can't explain better, my english is poo...

Yet in Sweden, it is 2.5 times as likely for immigrant or offspring of immigrant to commit criminal offence. In violent crimes middle-easterners and africans are grossly overrepresented.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxsfZm0YDk0

Does Sweden also treat it's immigrants like shit?

What kind of justification that is for a crime? I don't like being at someone's home, therefore... let's see I am allowed to rape his wife and steal his stereo. But hey buddy, you asked for it!

poverty is the biggest the reason for crime and immigrants are poorest minority, its that easy really.

If it would be, the native unemployed, native students and all poor immigrants would be equally likely to rape, commit violent crimes and robberies as african immigrants.

are u seriously trying to prove that skin color is the biggest reason for crimes?

I never said anything about skincolour. Instead, my interpretation of all the material and statistics I've read about immigration is, that the country and cultural background one immigrated from implifies more about one's odds for committing certain types of crimes, rather than general poorness or the policies of receiving country.

racism is more apparent with a different skin, so it makes it harder to integrate into society.

he never mentioned skin colour, nor did he imply it. When there are obvious cultural differences, an "us & them" mentality is easily acquired. For instance when I see a muslim woman wearing what looks a like a bed sheet, with only her hands and half her face uncovered in a warm(ish) climate I can't help but think she's deluded about some deity above the clouds that sanctions this form of dressing. Integration with ppl who carry her mentality will be more difficult since she probably believes I'm going to "hell" in a hand basket for not taking up her religion. Fuck that. I'm starting to think that one dominant identity has to prevail in a society that's diverse. I mean the USA is made up of native indians, european setlers etc, and now their previous identities have been replaced by an american identity. I know that Jews ar still Jewish, and Italians still remember their heritage etc, but they're american 1st and Jewish/italian/whatever second, and that's a necessary thing for integration to work. Similar thing is true of Brazil and Australia. Let the melting pot stew and we'll conform, but too much too soon has an unsettling effect

he never mentioned skin colour, nor did he imply it.

Hah don’t be obtuse! It’s implied.

When there are obvious cultural differences, an "us & them" mentality is easily acquired. For instance when I see a muslim woman wearing what looks a like a bed sheet, with only her hands and half her face uncovered in a warm(ish) climate I can't help but think she's deluded about some deity above the clouds that sanctions this form of dressing.

You offer any rationale for this fear?

Integration with ppl who carry her mentality…

Your perceptions & fear have already formed your opinion – it’s you who’s intolerant, you refusing to integrate.

…will be more difficult since she probably believes I'm going to "hell" in a hand basket for not taking up her religion.

That’s common to the extremes of all religion. I can’t imagine why you’ve picked on Islam though…

Fuck that. I'm starting to think that one dominant identity has to prevail in a society that's diverse.

There’s a very clear British identity. Shared anecdotally by many first, second & third generation migrants. Could it be your prejudice, fear & hatred is clouding your vision?

A persons an individual, judge them by what they say, what they do, not how they look – or what deity they chose to worship. Very un-British squire.

I mean the USA is made up of native indians, european setlers etc, and now their previous identities have been replaced by an american identity.

Unfortunate example! The US is as bad a figurehead as one could pick.

I know that Jews are still Jewish, and Italians still remember their heritage etc, but they're american 1st and Jewish/italian/whatever second, and that's a necessary thing for integration to work. Similar thing is true of Brazil and Australia. Let the melting pot stew and we'll conform, but too much too soon has an unsettling effect

American patriotism is a perverse thing. And not something I want to see copied. Nay any kind of patriotism…

he never mentioned skin colour, nor did he imply it.

Hah don’t be obtuse! It’s implied.

Where? You didn't even bother reading my reply, yet you deducted conversation about culture into a conversation about genetics.

Integration with ppl who carry her mentality…

Your perceptions & fear have already formed your opinion – it’s you who’s intolerant, you refusing to integrate.

You couldn't be more right. Who wants to live in Islamic nation?

…will be more difficult since she probably believes I'm going to "hell" in a hand basket for not taking up her religion.

That’s common to the extremes of all religion. I can’t imagine why you’ve picked on Islam though…

I can.

American patriotism is a perverse thing. And not something I want to see copied. Nay any kind of patriotism..

It is perverse, but there is no single unifying "human race" culture. It's all fragmented and perpetuated little groups who speak different languages, hold different values etc; in this climate, u must have patriotism in the absence of a unifier, otherwise you're a collection of ppl all wanting different things and so society stays fragmented due to differing goals.

You offer any rationale for this fear?

it's not fear i feel, but alienation.

Your perceptions & fear have already formed your opinion – it’s you who’s intolerant, you refusing to integrate.

and

That’s common to the extremes of all religion. I can’t imagine why you’ve picked on Islam though…

Not true, there is a section in the quran detailing that hell is the destination of the "Kafir" (ANY non believer e.g. christian, atheist, Jew w/e). You just haven't read the book, and anyone that denies this, also hasn't read the book. It is extremely divisive, it is not me who is so.

Can u accept the the opinion that you are going to hell? Do u not find it irritating and kind of a road block with forming relations with anyone who thinks it? You're blinded by this politically correct "accept all things and all people" ideal. which is noble, but that noble attitude won't be reciprocated. You disregard how beliefs and indoctrination can effect individuals to the point where they each keep to their own, which is no way to be. Sometimes u need to call BS even at the risk of being alienated yourself, because at least you were truthful to yourself.

It is perverse, but there is no single unifying "human race" culture. It's all fragmented and perpetuated little groups who speak different languages, hold different values etc; in this climate, u must have patriotism in the absence of a unifier, otherwise you're a collection of ppl all wanting different things and so society stays fragmented due to differing goals.

It’s not pride in ones upbringing or local environment – which I can accept. I’m proud of my family. I’m proud of my friends. Their achievements, their attitude, their upbringing. It’s the irrational patriotism. And more to it – how does one define where patriotism begins? Is it locality, nationality, geography? Street, Town, County, Country, Continent? Proud of one, of none, of all? The culture and identity of each region within England itself differs so drastically. I see no logic in blind patriotism – coupled with, sadly, the ever present bigotry associated. As such I don’t believe patriotism is, or can be used as a unifier. Pride in ones local community on the other hand, which requires tolerance and acceptance of all – can.

You offer any rationale for this fear?
it's not fear i feel, but alienation.

Alienation from whom?

Your perceptions & fear have already formed your opinion – it’s you who’s intolerant, you refusing to integrate.
and
That’s common to the extremes of all religion. I can’t imagine why you’ve picked on Islam though…
Not true, there is a section in the quran detailing that hell is the destination of the "Kafir" (ANY non believer e.g. christian, atheist, Jew w/e). You just haven't read the book, and anyone that denies this, also hasn't read the book. It is extremely divisive, it is not me who is so.

As with Christianity, interpretation is paramount. I’ve read little more than the odd extract, and I’m certainly no religious scholar (Ulema :] ).

Can u accept the the opinion that you are going to hell? Do u not find it irritating and kind of a road block with forming relations with anyone who thinks it?

It’s their duty as good Muslims to convert you! “La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammadu Rasul Allah”.

No not really. Maybe there aren’t many radicals around this neck of the woods (you’ve come across many?). There’s many that practice Islam, as there are Christians – but most don’t appear zealots. I’ve never once had a Muslim tell me I’m going to hell (a few Christian nut jobs though!). But that doesn’t mean I perceive all Christians based on this one nut job.

You're blinded by this politically correct "accept all things and all people" ideal. which is noble, but that noble attitude won't be reciprocated.

My tolerance isn’t formulated by any desire for political correctness [sic] or nobility – it’s life experience. Not being a sociologist I can’t make any informed generalisation, and am at pain not to. I’ve lived with and worked alongside people from Malawi, Poland, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Romania, Egypt, Hong Kong, Japan, Iraq to name a few. Some, as people, I’ve disliked. Most their culture bemused (Malawi girl can dance!) but one to one, by and large, most people I’ve come across are friendly, interesting & kind. Could my experience differ as I don’t prejudge others as some are predisposed to do? It just seems illogical to me to do so.

You disregard how beliefs and indoctrination can effect individuals to the point where they each keep to their own, which is no way to be. Sometimes u need to call BS even at the risk of being alienated yourself, because at least you were truthful to yourself.

I agree, when required BS must be challenged at every step. Risking alienation or intimidation – to function as a society we need people to stand up. But that doesn’t mean confronting & harassing people happily going about their daily lives because of their beliefs…

I can agree on the whole patriotism of local community point, granted, wholly nationalistic patriotism might be an illusion given all the cultural discrepancies around all the different towns/cities, but neverthless that illusion CAN bond a nation. It's been demonstrated so many times. Back to religion, u sound like a drone parroting all the "subject to interpretation" get out of jail free card. The language is not subtle, it isn't an elaborate poetic and philosphical weave of ideas, it's divisive crap. Anyone even semi-coherent can see this, and no please don't take this to mean I'm calling u incoherent. U just need to read it a little more for it to hit home. On your final point, don't know why you would think I would harass anyone. More tenacity than nerd rage here, and I only call BS when someone preaches for too long, and I don't have to wait too long since it really is every muslim's job to convert all around them, however sarcasm-laden your point may have been.

I'm no fan of religion, and I accept it's potentially decisive nature. But religion, though an important factor in ones life, isn't everything about a person. You can't deny there's many moderate Muslims?

If I desired (and was a bore!;) ) I could google a few select quotes from the bible on slavery, sexism etc. Interpretation is important, it's not drone like to appreciate this, even when the passages appear literal. And if you accept ones interpretations can differ, you accept that all members of that faith aren't alike.

I also believe upbringing is a crazily important factor when considering their religious beliefs. Almost more important than the religious texts themselves. There's a few fascinating books on the relationship between Islam, its foundation, current interpretation & its role in creating law and order in otherwise lawless lands.

Your view seems to be based on the assumption that all people of faith share a common literal understanding of their chosen book.

moderates shield the fundamentalists by making faith/s a taboo subject. Other than they're fine (lol). I know full well that all believers are not alike (duh) but the religious texts themselves nevertheless are more effective at dividing ppl than just about anything else I can think of, and since these texts will forever be their reference point, it's worrying.

If I desired (and was a bore!;) ) I could google a few select quotes from the bible on slavery, sexism etc.

What would that prove? That the bible is equally full of shit? Tell me something I don't know, since the two canonised volumes are but a single prophet apart. Whatever good any religion brings, it takes with the other, two-fold. I think full and proper integration is incompatible with religion and certainly the three major monotheistic ones. U disregard irrational patriotism, but defend irrational beliefs based on religion? Why hasn't the fact that both are irrational brought you to criticise both? I picked irrational patriotism over religion because it seems to be the lesser of two evils. Patriotism is malleable and can erode but religion stands the test of time. What's your excuse?

I agree, you're right - it is hypocritical to criticise patriotism on those points yet not religion, they can both be divisive. Though I'd qualify that statement, importantly, with the fact that I despise patriotism, not the patriot, the religion, not the man of faith. This is where we differ.

Though I don't think I've offered a defence of religion - other than “Over one's mind and over one's body the individual is sovereign”.

but he man of faith makes a harmless irrational idea dangerous by internalising it.
“Over one's mind and over one's body the individual is sovereign”. Too idealistic. What about someone indoctrinated from birth? I'm not even talking religion exclusively here, but beliefs get shoved down ppl's throats more readily than you might be aware of. Kids can't protect themselves (on the whole) from this psychological battering ram. The adults who can, but don't, I have no sympathy for

but he man of faith makes a harmless irrational idea dangerous by internalising it.
“Over one's mind and over one's body the individual is sovereign”. Too idealistic.

I don’t consider idealism as a negative. Though holding such a belief is not in my eyes idealistic, it’s reasonable. Which part of the concept do you take issue with? (Assumed harm principle was self evident, you seem bright enough…)

What about someone indoctrinated from birth?

If they commit and/or plan to commit a crime prosecute them. Otherwise, what business is it of yours?

I'm not even talking religion exclusively here, but beliefs get shoved down ppl's throats more readily than you might be aware of. Kids can't protect themselves (on the whole) from this psychological battering ram. The adults who can, but don't, I have no sympathy for

Santa, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy – you don’t need to be a psychologist to form an assumed conclusion. (pray not post hoc ergo propter hoc :v ). The state mandates that evolution, science, relationships & scientific logic must be taught in all schools. What more can be done? (unless you’re seriously suggesting ‘indoctrinating’ / teaching religion is child abuse?)

Which part of the concept do you take issue with?

my point was that a person who's been indoctrinated from birth never came to their own conclusions. Instead they were brianwashed/tricked/hoaxed into it. u don't have "sovereignty" over yourself when ur mind has been prepped so effectively to absorb anything that religious texts may declare. What business is it of mine? Circle of life, we're not islands

That’s true of all parenting (under class anyone? Far greater problem…), and in the UK you can’t be completely indoctrinated to any one thing without it being challenged at least in school.

Here’s a quote I think sums up my position and where we differ “Evil isnt inherent in religion - its inherent in humanity.” I consider it facetious at best to suggest it’s anything as simple as religion = bad, ergo religious people = bad.

"I consider it facetious at best to suggest it’s anything as simple as religion = bad, ergo religious people = bad. " I did actually admit that some good comes from religion (whilst also saying it takes away two fold). I'm in admiration of your straw man though. Schools challenge religion? I remember being taken out of one science class a week in order to do religious education! I never chose to! Anecdotes are funny that way...

You’re taught science, evolution – that’s not anecdotal.

I never chose to!

You were free to opt out.

No

Your parents can withdraw you from RE.

Nobody in my year chose to do religious studies, therefore there was no class for it in years 10 & 11. In light of this, they took us out of 1 science class a week to do religious studies. I can assure you everyone opted out and whined like stuck pigs about it!

Everyone at my school was forced to do it in years 10-11 and even in the first year of sixth form.

In agreement with you over the issue of parenting but I wouldn't be glib enough to point out one particualr class

American patriotism is a perverse thing. And not something I want to see copied. Nay any kind of patriotism…

do you mean nationalism? i wouldn't consider patriotism to be such a bad thing.

In the UK the natives have far easier access to benefits. Though there's plenty in the criminal justice system & it'd be true to state the most easily recognisable common factor is socio-economic background, poverty.

Yes, but if it was about government's treatment, the crime rates would drastically decrease when going to more 'well-treating' countries. Yet they seem the sustain and the certain groups seem to be more committed to certain types of crimes.

I don't believe poverty is an unsustainable mystical evil without causality. Scandinavia wants to and does give everyone job who wants one. We have lack of labour not only in the sort of 'not-fun' entry-level jobs, but also in engineers, doctors, nurses aswell. We have free education, we have full benefits. We give and give, and we get more crime and less employment in return.

A fact is that public expenses of immigration outwave the public profits to our system. Even though this is supported by researchers, (Martin Feldstein, Harvard University; Xavier Sala-i-Martin, Columbia University) our current political culture still bases it's immigration policy to the assumption that immigration is a magic trick that solves everything.

what you seriously need to realize is that the history of civilisation is a history of immigration not isolation. period.

?

fixed borders are a made-up thing that never hold their shape for thatlong (longer when it's and island o/c.)

Look at the Iraq to see how some fantasy borders the British drew up a few decades ago help to assure peace and such.

On the other hand you technically always have immigration everywhere. In Germany regions maybe 50 kms apart have different languages and (to some degree) customs. And ad a few centuries back those were sovereign states which waged war with each other every so often. So back then you wouldn't let those criminal and evil foreigners in.
And todayl only daft people argue that forming a bigger German nation was bad.

Another example: We and that includes you Swedes owe our language to Indinan influences, our numbers to Arabians.
You can bet that was due to immigrants, too.

And way back before all that there weren't even countries or borders. Most humans were nomads. Guess how the invention of the fire or language spread.

And even further back, movement and adaption is what fueled the evolution. If apes had been conservative they would have never come down from the trees.

Yes, immigration can have negative aspects which should be adressed and solved but not by simply locking up borders, but in my opinion people who condemn immigration as a whole simply show their inability to learn from history.


Civilisation is a process.

I'm a finn btw.

Thanks for this valuable lesson. What I learnt from you:

- Indendency and democracy of every nation ever founded including East-Timor, Estonia, Kosovo - or a fight for it- Tibet, Checenya, is a made-up fantasy thing and equally comparable to Anglo-saxian/American imperialism.

- Only way to exchange knowledge is through immigration. (Welcome to Finland! Or am I right now in Germany?)

- Pointing out that Scandinavian wellfare-state cannot just possibly fund everyone that comes here means denying history. But I guess becks wouldn't mind if we would address them all to live under his roof?

Also, we wouldn't have atom energy or valuable information about human anatomy without world war ii and war has been one of the most key components through human history; just throwing it in if you would like to make the argument about promoting war.

- Only way to exchange knowledge is through immigration. (Welcome to Finland! Or am I right now in Germany?)

of course it isn't. But I wasn't talking about exchanging knowledge, was I.
I was talking about merging knowledge and developing new ideas on that basis. The difference from earlier time to today is that due to basically no travelling time a few years of living abroad make sense to broaden your horizon. And I can honestly say if I hadn't spend time abroad I would be a different person.


Just three reasons why your war comparison is absolute bullshit:
1. Immigration itself never killed anyone, while in war that is a main goal.
2. Immigration is a decision on a very small scale, either by an individual, a family or a tribe at most, but on a grander scale it is something that simply happens. War is always a conscient decision by either group or and individual who represent a larger group.
3. e.g. Dynamite was developed for good uses before it was used in war. Chances are that Nuclear Power plants would have been developed regardless of WWII. Scientists are curious after all.
4. People immigrate if their current life is difficult compared to other countries and they want a shot at a better life (thereby unintentionally risking lower standards in the country they go. War is (mostly) waged when your by those whose life is already better and who want to improve it even more by destroying others.


I wrote the list, becuase I think you should add a lot more depth to your thought. Just as before I wasn't directly referring to the content of your post (except where I wrote that problems must be adressed) but that you should always consider the benefits of immigration.


Allin all:
No, you didn't learn a thing right now.
But I suppose it is one of the topics you simply have to think about and realize for yourself, or else Freud's quote would be much more famous.

You're right, I didn't learn a thing. You aren't very educating. All in all - I must say your math skills are up to par with your understanding of the issue.

I love it how you're asserting the whole discussion as it would be a matter of my self-realization, assumed stubborness towards new cultures and lack of deep values after you've basically sunk zero thought to postulate any factual arguments to fit the current situation from your vague general mantra.

You know, not everybody in Finland lives like a rockstar. Our elderly can't get decent pensions, our youth lack school doctors, our students lack apartments, our budget is already predicted to have a billion euro deficit, our tax burden is amongst the largest in the world.

As our system is already kneedeep in trouble with problems at hand and unable to integrate and provide for existing citizens, how are we supposed to handle even more?

Please, mind opening my closed mind with another story. I liked the one about the apes and the trees.

funny you should mention my math skills. considering i was always best in my class in every school I went to and among the top at uni (math for engineers) I'll guess my understanding is good enough :)

/edit:

and no mathematician considers counting a math skill ;)

And how do you propose stopping immigration?

Let me start that I am not anti-"legal immigration", if it's done properly. I don't know anything about illegal immigration, so I'll shut up about it .

From best to worst:

1. the system explained below
2. no immigration
3. our current system

First, I would not expand a program that has been based on very weak foundation. Already now ministry of immigration is a mess, the decisions of whether we approve or disprove applications are unclear, we don't use pointing system, we don't have good direction, we don't investigate results of spending.

I wouldn't just hand out permanent permits for un-work-related reasons around. Why? If we want to solve humanitarian crises, that money makes around 9999x more good spent as a foreign aid or through non-profit organizations. Bring handful of people to Finland because our left-wing lesbians need their moral drug, or save million people by buying them drugs for malaria?

I would only give temporary working permits, green cards, without ability to receive state benefits. Those could be after some evalution period to be 'upgraded' to full citizenships. I think USA/Canada has system very much alike.

I would concentrate all of our work-based immigration to come from one country, say, China. It makes much more sense to teach one class of finnish teachers china(or english) and travel them to one embassy than every language/country in the world. It also makes much more sense if we work together with companies to give already adequate jobless person a job, rather than spend tens of thousands of euros to get say, someone here who doesn't have the skills to survive in our culture, is less likely to integrate and just leaves hanging in the system.

afaik epidemics are not considered grounds for immigration for humanitarian reasons.
The accepted reasons are usually civil war or the oppersion of a ethnic or religious group by the country itself.
And in that case offering foreign aid to that country seems more like an incentive for more civil wars and oppression.

I meant Immigration as a tool of humanitarian issues anywhere for whatever reasons as a whole versus the other tools to solve humanitarian issues anywhere for whatever reasons. With humanitarianism I meant to improve human welfare anywhere for whatever reasons.

ok, Now I understand what you mean.

But isn't that done already?
Take Africa:
All those red cross camps and food deliveries and so on. And add all the foreign aid in currency and knowledge. I don't know the actual numbers but I'm sure that reaches many more people than the number that gets actually accepted as legal immigrants in Europe.

(Okay, sorry, I deleted the previous to make sure there's no missconceptions)

What I mean is, We got 100.000 euros. There are people suffering from various things in the world, somewhere people are just dying because there is no food/healthcare. Somewhere people are dying because of the political issues.

If you immigrate one person from say Iraq to Finland, I don't know if that's enough to get him a crappy apartment, health care, food, + all bureacracy etc etc. And still he know no-one, is a victim of racism, gets no job, his life becomes more tolerable, but far from the best.

-We make 1 persons life better/Save 1 person.

If we put that to poorest africa, let's say somewhere where people are just dying from hunger. Imagine all the things we can do. Education, farms, proper healthcare or simply buy food. They can party a year with it and maybe get some industry going.

-We make 200 persons life better/Save 200 persons.

Okay, maybe the numbers are emphasized to proove my point, but maybe you understand it or can make up a better example to proove it. The leading principles is the "value for money". I mean of course we are doing things already, but millions of people still are dying from easily curable, petty things, non-political things, and their suffering is more cost-efficient to prevent.

As I said in my previous post I understand what you want to say.

And I also believe that is what is mostly done. At least in this country, I don't know the Finnish laws (that is what you are referring to, right?). But I do know that complaint to yours are voiced here frequently as well.
In my live I have only met one Iraqi that I know of, and he lived in Germany since the 70s and is a studied engineer.
Likewise, most Africans I meet here are students, who either find a job or have to leave after finishing their studies.
Of course there are also illegal immigrants but as you said they are a different matter.

So my point is that already for every immigrant from third world (!) countries that actually gets accepted many more are helped where they live.

I suppose I should take the time to read the Finnish laws, but I don't have the time atm.

It's not as much about law as it is about our economic model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model . High taxes, good services... our system can't take immigration like USA or more liberal(=libertarian) country can.

I don't understand your point exactly.

If million people can be saved with malaria-shots, do we save only 800.000 people suffering from malaria and get some dude a heart-surgery and some other dude cancer treatment, because it just brings good old fun and excitement to that boring and monotous everyday schedule?

Or do you mean that we should seek long-term solutions by immigrating few, who would then go back to their country of origin to do good deeds?

At any rate, I don't understand the demand for immigrancy to our countries even in this model. I would assume that it would be better idea to for say, EU, to send supplies or gather round a group of experts and send them there to build schools/teach/whatever, than to ship every uneducated person here one by one and then anxiously hope that atleast one will go back to execute the plan and is fortunate to have needed supplies/etc.

I know immigrants too. The vietnamese immigrants tried to sneak to my gym without paying and got caught. The gypsies like to fight at 2 a.m outside this area. The one I know supports Vendetta and is unemployed. The black person I met tried to steal my tools when I worked as a construction worker through my years of odd jobs. One black person has a restraining order to this guy I know. One black person I know is very nice and educated. Again, one shouldn't make judgements from personal view because they might lead to generalization.

my point is that your demands are already met.

Hiring engineers (other highly educated people) from other country serves us directly and can hardly be seen as humanitarian.
Inviting students to study here can help us, too. But is also a different form of foreign aid that can have a good benefit.

Saving a live trough operation is most paid for by individuals or organisations who want to make themselves feel better or for image reasons. Again not a valid argument.

In effect what you ask for is already done.
I just looked up the numbers:

http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_vaesto_en.html#Foreigners

Are you joking? The biggest non - neighbouring group are Somalians with less than 5000. That's less than 0.1% of your population...

Oh and you should do a little more reasearch on your own if you think Finnland is he only place with high taxes and high social benefits...

my point is that your demands are already met.

So now you're saying there is no hunger or treatable disease in the world. I bet WHO is one big conspiracy too.

http://www.malarianomore.org/malaria/index.php

Hiring engineers (other highly educated people) from other country serves us directly and can hardly be seen as humanitarian.

Inviting students to study here can help us, too.

Gee, thanks for the counter-argument you just presented. ( Do you actually think before/while writing or read-proof your texts at all ? )

Saving a live trough operation is most paid for by individuals or organisations who want to make themselves feel better or for image reasons. Again not a valid argument.

Those bastards! Helping other people makes them feel good. How dare they? You should try it, though.

(Naturally this doesn't apply to anyone supporting immigration)

Are you joking? The biggest non - neighbouring group are Somalians with less than 5000. That's less than 0.1% of your population...

Again, math. Likeness of committing a violent crime or being unemployed isn't same thing as the population of immigrants. What you should demand is better education, if you never were told the difference.

Oh and you should do a little more reasearch on your own if you think Finnland is he only place with high taxes and high social benefits...

No, Instead of dismissing all the valid arguments your opposition makes just to nitpick whilst tooting your own horn you should actually read a few of my posts and think.

- My starting argument was made about Sweden.

- I already explained you in detail the various problems our system faces as it is, to raise taxes any more is sheer impossibility, yet we need to wave some magic want to get billion euros more to cover the existing costs.

maybe you should keep your own texts in mind while reading mine.

Or didn't you write this

Bring handful of people to Finland because our left-wing lesbians need their moral drug, or save million people by buying them drugs for malaria?

and this???

If million people can be saved with malaria-shots, do we save only 800.000 people suffering from malaria and get some dude a heart-surgery and some other dude cancer treatment, because it just brings good old fun and excitement to that boring and monotous everyday schedule?

In my reply I said that the handful brought in is done by indivduals or companies not the country, and is therefore not a systematic solution. Hence their is no money spend on it by the country?
Oh and you were the one comparing cancer treatment to "good old fun", weren't you?

While on the other hand all people that are no oppressed for political reason have to stay in Africa and get help their already.
Sure it would be better to spend more money. But that was never mentioned by you in your previous comment so don't act like it was.

About math:
The equation that you need to solve is to find a maximum wellfare for all human beings on this earth with the additional conditions:
the the average wellfare of any European country may not decrease and in fact must rise a noticeable amount (due to us being our greedy selves),
it is also to discuss whether this should apply to all people living in those countries, all citizens or all who can prove blood relations to the original ethnicities of that country (which is apparantly what you demand)

Now that would be worth solving, except it has too many variables which can only guessed and/or unreliably measured.
What you are doing are shopkeeper's calculations and have no point except making polemic short term "answers".

No, Instead of dismissing all the valid arguments your opposition makes just to nitpick whilst tooting your own horn you should actually read a few of my posts and think.

Likewise.
Actually, doesn't matter if you read my posts or not, you really have a lot of thinking to do.

My education is fine btw. not only math and statistics, but also lectures on business economics, macroeconomics and only called "business politics and public choice". My aunt also worked for an foreign aid organisation and my father lived in Africa for seven years.
What's your background if I may ask?

And finally you need to seriously work on your writing style. You constantly jump between Sweden and Finnland without writing so and then blame me for not noticing....

maybe you should keep your own texts in mind while reading mine.

Or didn't you write this

Bring handful of people to Finland because our left-wing lesbians need their moral drug, or save million people by buying them drugs for malaria?

and this???

If million people can be saved with malaria-shots, do we save only 800.000 people suffering from malaria and get some dude a heart-surgery and some other dude cancer treatment, because it just brings good old fun and excitement to that boring and monotous everyday schedule?

In my reply I said that the handful brought in is done by indivduals or companies not the country, and is therefore not a systematic solution. Hence their is no money spend on it by the country?
Oh and you were the one comparing cancer treatment to "good old fun", weren't you?

In both of them I'm repeating the same old liturgy about how little sense this form of non-directional immigration makes. How does my latter question imply, that those heartsurgeries must be provided by private, not public means? The whole point was to clarify and make some sense out of your confusing position in the debate. The latter model is the whole model of immigration. Immigration as a form of humanitarian aid is like letting those 200.000 people die to save that one person. It's really hard for me to believe, that anyone would be stupid enough to think that the last crisis on earth left would be the political oppression of countries like Sudan and that all of our living effort had been already used to all the more cost-efficient problems in the world.

While on the other hand all people that are no oppressed for political reason have to stay in Africa and get help their already.

Can someone translate this to english for me?

Sure it would be better to spend more money. But that was never mentioned by you in your previous comment so don't act like it was.

Nor was it mentioned in my present comments. I swear to my grandpa's balls, that I have no idea where you got that from nor that I would be acting. I don't support more spending or worldhealing from state's part, atleast not before we can pull our shit together in this country. My point is - If we absolutely must do it, there's better means than through immigration.

About math:
The equation that you need to solve is to find a maximum wellfare for all human beings on this earth with the additional conditions:
the the average wellfare of any European country may not decrease and in fact must rise a noticeable amount (due to us being our greedy selves),
it is also to discuss whether this should apply to all people living in those countries, all citizens or all who can prove blood relations to the original ethnicities of that country (which is apparantly what you demand)

Why do I need to solve that to address that immigration is stupid and wasteful and does little good considering it's costs?

My education is fine btw. not only math and statistics, but also lectures on business economics, macroeconomics and only called "business politics and public choice". My aunt also worked for an foreign aid organisation and my father lived in Africa for seven years.
What's your background if I may ask?

...and my grandma has a black cat. This is all very impressive, but I honestly am not seeing any of your acquired skills or knowledge in very good use in this debate. I'm a med student.

And finally you need to seriously work on your writing style. You constantly jump between Sweden and Finnland without writing so and then blame me for not noticing....

I don't understand what major difference does it make. I don't have to live in Sweden to think that them to base their public policy on their ethnic ties to Germanic tribes in B.C. times would be quite possibly the most retarded idea ever invented.

Why do I need to solve that to address that immigration is stupid and wasteful and does little good considering it's costs?

Because if you actually knew math and/or macroeconomics you might realise that that would be the formula to actually calculate the best methods of helping.
And you would have to include ALL side effects of immigration and foreign aid (both positive and negative, you know like indebting countries through this "aid")

But instead you calculate the crimerate for one immigrant group., which for such low numbers is complete nonsense.
And simply assume random numbers.
And more importantly don't bother to collect all aspects but just choose the negatives for immigration and the postive sides for foreign aid.
How immensely scientific, I salute you.

In an argument you can select one side, when you mention math you have to cover everything or else you fail.

But I really find it ironic that you first doubt my education than my statements and really have nothing to back up your own points.

This one is over for me.

Why do I need to solve that to address that immigration is stupid and wasteful and does little good considering it's costs?

Because if you actually knew math and/or macroeconomics you might realise that that would be the formula to actually calculate the best methods of helping.

And you would have to include ALL side effects of immigration and foreign aid (both positive and negative, you know like indebting countries through this "aid")

No, if you would have any ability to actually apply the theories provided to you correctly or actually give a single rational thought to the whole idea, you would understand two things. That

a) In order to decide between these two existing tools, I don't need to invent the most perfect means conceivable to practise foreign aid to understand that simply through sheer overal price level the buying power in virtually any other country is better.

b) The theory, that 'the best' possible aid can be found by creating new complicated algorithm based on macroeconomical theories that take into account every variable conceivable, is your personal opinion. To you to state it as a fact, is your inability to apply your field correctly or understand the limitations of it.

For one, this is sheer impossibility. Many variables, including the question itself are deeply qualitive, unmeasurable or unpredictable. If anything, anyone who has studied economics would be more likely to make the argument that it's more use to the money to build pyramids in Africa than ship all the people here.

Second, it's ineffective and vague. If we would need to choose between Communism or Mixed economy; going to war with iraq or not, one could make the argument that we have no sufficient data out of any of these.

But instead you calculate the crimerate for one immigrant group., which for such low numbers is complete nonsense.
And simply assume random numbers.
And more importantly don't bother to collect all aspects but just choose the negatives for immigration and the postive sides for foreign aid.
How immensely scientific, I salute you.

It's ironic, that you can make up your mind out of thin air in the next paragraph after giving me a lecture of making hasty decisions using incorrect data. When did I ever said anything about the amount of population? It's a fact that immigrants are more likely to commit crime and have lower unemployment rates. It's ironic, how 30% of Finland's rapes being committed by immigrants is nonsense, when Finland, with it's effective population little over 5 million, would have an enormous impact for the cause when dealing with 190 million refugees.

I don't understand why do I need to know every indirect effect of immigration in order to make a strong argument using existing data and cost-efficiency that best way to aid humanitarian crises isn't shipping every victim of political oppression to Finland. I am sorry, having an african voodoopriest may have much to offer to our society, but taking into account the current demands and needs of Finland and world, I am more concerned about our employment and crime.

amazing how everything I say is a personal opinion even though the theory of "social welfare" actually exists.
While everything you say should be considered a fact.

And then you equal foreign aid to buying stuff for people, which is just a part of it.

The way I see it, your main thought is:

I want the foreigners out, all of them!

And then you start looking for arguments.

Well, or let's say it's a form of various types of foreign aid one can exercise.

Listen, I would love to stop this, if you don't mind.

My point is, If I love or hate immigrants or perceive them as completely psychobiosocial individuals with their own personality, the question should be about if it's the best thing to spend right now, or if it's the best output to get across the results we want.

You have to understand that it's not the only thing we spend on. Our government loves to spend on dozens of other things, many of which I would have a look before this. If the discussion would've been about those, my views would of been critical aswell.

I actually agree with those last statements, except I believe its is already done to ahigher degree than you think.

but that really is an opinion, so yeah let's stop here.

also:

I can has look at single statistics too.

Finns have such a high homicide rate compared to many European but also islamic states.
Maybe it's time the Finns to go back where they came from and die there and make way for more law abiding people. hurr durr.

THAT is what I meant with polemic use of statistics.

But you go ahead, keep your blinders on. Life is much easier that way...

Well, if Germany doesn't want finns, you should have every right not to take us! I am all for your independency and democracy. It's up to us to get our shit right, not for you to just accept every demand we make. Crime rate is high in Finland. I would use the statistics on actual crimes committed by finns in your country though.

you misunderstand my point.

If you want to lower the homicide rate in Finland it would be wisest to immigrate lots of Germans, Arabians, French and so on.

Of course that doesn't make any sense in reality, but that what often happens if you use one single statistic number by itself.

Other examples:
- It is well researched that rape charges are violated if the rapist is a stranger to the victim (some reports state a ratio of up to 1:20!) and thereby it's arguable that rapes by foreigners are more likely to be counted.
- It is not likely that all illegal immigrants are included in the numbers for each ethnicity, but of course everyone charged will be counted. So dividing charges by the numbers of counted people from that country does most likely not yield the correct rate.

While I do have to say that those numbers will most likely not bring the rates of all ethnicities down to the average ignoring those factors is polemic.

While that may be true, I do still believe they're fairly accurate to reality and there are correlations that can be established between cultural backgrounds, unemployment or certain type of criminal behaviour. I also would like to point out that the causality isn't necessarily in that order. That's why also, if, scrolled 20 pages up, I would found the immigration system heavily to integrate through work (and obvious benefits to both parties).

I would also like to say that political correctness we mustn't also forget accountability of individual's actions, healthy pragmatism and being truthful. Some comforting ideas in the past have not been the best practises in the end.

To recruit any non-EU citizen one must show you've exhausted all attempts to recruit a suitable EU citizen. Only then can one think about advertising for a non-EU applicant, and then apply for a work permit. (cross fingers + wait)

Non-EU citizens can't easily legally enter Europe.

Lmao, good find :) That's about as retarded as one would expect from EU.

"Civilisation is a process"

Many parts of which tend to repeat themselves.

yes, somewhat like fractal structures.

But that quote actually goes like this:

"I may now add that civilization is a process in the service of Eros, whose purpose is to combine single human individuals, and after that families, the races, people and nations, into one great unity, the unity of mankind. " (Freud)

"Does Sweden also treat it's immigrants like shit?"

Yes.

Based on what? Correct me if I am wrong but I was under impression that immigrants receive full benefits including free healthcare, childcare, education, career planning, possibility to retain their own culture, state-supported housing, and some times are subject of positive discrimination - meaning they are employed before more qualified native. If this is all "shitty treatment", I would love to hear your definition of non-shitty.

Based on the fact that I live here. You can't understand everything just looking at statistics and numbers. There's still a lot of discrimination and it's not going the right way with political parties such as sverigedemokraterna growing more and more popular.
Just because Sweden might be better for immigrants than other countries doesn’t mean it’s good and has no room for improvement. I’m quite sure a native person has an easier time finding a job than an equally qualified immigrant.

Yes, but you can understand the problem in more fully and accurately than from self-made assumptions from one person's perspective. Often problems of immigration seem to concentrate on certain areas more than others (eg. outerior of big cities, rather than the countryside). Most politicians don't have to deal with the problems, because they live on the 'nice neighborhoods'. If you only see immigrants in your workplace, this might lead to assumption that their employment level is 100%, or if you only are raped by one, you might generalize that all immigrants are rapists.

Yeah! I never understood why you let all this Irish immigrants on their banana boats into your country! Look what they did!!

The fuck, are you saying you support the NIR? Honestly, I read this like I would any comment, which is ignoring the posters name, got to the bottom and thought "what the fuck is this incoherent hijacking" at which point I realised it was you.

Yes, only foreigners can be terrorists.
Yeah, screw those damn Poles and Indians who founded the IRA.


oh wait...

Nice going you ignorant motherfuck.

My wife is Pakistani, an English teacher who speaks better English than I (and judging from your post, you too). Funnily enough, she finds it difficult to get into this country because of the complete pigs ear of the immigration service when quite honestly she could become a valued member of society.

A side problem (...yes side) is that, admittedly, there are people who come from abroad who want to fuck this country up. HOWEVER, this is done at the expense of genuine people who truly will benefit society. Instead of blocking ALL people out, why not acknowledge the core problems of foreign policy which this government used to have and has improved upon recently as well as rejecting people for immigration unless they have a valid reason (checking legitimacy of asylum seeker claims, checking what skills other immigrants bring and whether those skills can be found here).

With regards to employment, why not allow immigrants to work here? So long as they contribute, they should be awarded. There are no jobs because this economy is banking focused with no manufacturing industry left. Why should people who seek unskilled jobs demand higher wages simply because they were born in this country? There is surplus demand for unskilled jobs therefore companies have every right to lower the wage for unskilled labour. Whereas professional jobs (other than banking) require people and will offer great reward.

Your comment is highly stereotypical and very insulting, that ONLY immigrants commit crime, what about people who were brought up in this country, surely they should be fine, right? fuck you.

Sorry for the Jamerio, albeit slightly more comprehensible.

Lower wages offering a cheaper higher quality product/service reducing costs - sound like capitalism to me. Righto good chap!

lowering salaries improves quality of product/service? better people cost (more) money

Course it's not as simple as implied! Generally (though one could make a competition argument), but not a serious extent at the level noted here.

.

Too late, full of typos and crap I know but you get my point and if you're average and have no opion, feel free to call me a racist.

The fucking irony. You ignore all the posts contradicting you as you're too fucking dim witted to realise.

Jog on little englander - you're in the minority.

He's not English, he's Welsh.

im so glad im out of that bloody shithole, exactly because of people like you

elaborate please

heh, we used anti terror legislation to seize icelandic assets in the uk in retalliation to the well reported events over there. as soon as i complete my degree i'm outta here :-)

why don't you use your account anymore?

niace.
no terrorisms in uk anymoar.
good for you, no?

stopping terrorists from using phones! good idea!

now its all good again

Especially how terrorists have NO way of getting unregistered phones.

yeah, terrorist wouldn't ever consider becoming criminals and go and steal a phone.

I guess everyone, except some delusional people realizes that "terrorists" (al Qaida, IRA and that sort" are just a cover for this move.

Well, I'm somehow expecting a government come out with their new definition of terrorism.
"Anything you do that the government doesn't like is terrorism."
e.g. not paying you taxes, reading political books, not voting for them

Check the wording on the 2001 Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act - they already can.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2001/ukpga_20...2-pb1-l1g4

lol just lol

uk is fixed now, brown is bestest, the monies is fixings and there is no problemings, plz goes homeings bies

All this does is promote theft and possibly also violence. Can't register for a phone because you're a terrorist? Kill somebody and steal theirs!

You look like cypher!

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Fuck

the

UK

.

???

I would take some economic difficulties over your surveillance society every day of the week. Not to mention the fucking chavs.

birds of doom > chavs

i'll give you greenlandic dane-ruskies that

the terrorists won

rofl, best thread in a long time. Maby I'm tired but all you guys crack me up. ^^

In germany they save your data for 6 months, then delete it.

In germany they save your data for 6 months, then delete keep it.

Me thinks ;o

one could think so, yes.

(//_o)

not really a surprise since every government would do this if it could.

Sometimes I really wonder who this government thing everybody talks about is.. I mean it's not like any of those politicians will run the country for 20 years so why the fuck would they care about saving all this data and getting the feel of some control in the first place? They'll be gone 2 elections from now anyway. It's weird imo :<

You fail to see the big picture. All politicians are supported by rich people who won't be gone after those 4 or 8 years mandate. There IS a conspiracy against the public. :(

:(((

true, but that more open in Romania than here, I think a remember smoe Romanian son of a billionaire not going to jail for murder or something?

As far as I know things are better in Romania so imagine the shit going on in Bulgaria. It's really frustrating even to walk on our streets seeing there is NO government at all. An ice skating star with gold olympic medal or something killed a guy with his Hummer while driving drunk. He got 18 months probation for this shit. The funny thing is that same motherfucker was the face of a joke anti drink-driving campaign.

Man I should really move somewhere else. Sorry for my whine.

no problem about the whine.

Don't know much aout Bulgaria I'm afraid. But here the rich people's influence is at least more hidden.

Yes, rich people's influence is definitely more hidden in civilized world.

also many people in the administration keep their jobs, even though their bosses don't get reelected

I wouldn't worry, our government is far too inept to do anything useful with the information.

I think culture is overrated. I have artsy friends who tell me they love experiencing new cultures, racist friends who tell me british culture is dying and rude posh friends who tell me I have no culture. What does it matter? What does the world lose if british culture disappears? If britain falls in an economic collapse, I'll move somewhere else; maybe I'll look back with a tear in my eye, at the place I used to call home: but that place will be the brick and mortar house which I grew up in, not some indiscriminate land mass on the horizon. If an immigrant wants to take a job, and the employer wants him to have it, why shouldn't he? If that leads to britain self destructing, then surely all the hedonistic immigrants will leave for greener pastures, and the 'loyal' britains can stay and rebuild their great country. Or, what's more likely, they'll leave too because their patriotism only extends to the comfort they feel for the familiar.

Does anyone else ever wish the world would just tear itself apart already? I mean sure, it'd suck to die, but what a show.

Well it would mean a dramatic change in the way we live our lives if at all, so I'm all for it.

YO I GOT THAT ANTHRAX AND IT'S THE BOOOMB BABY!! 60 BUX!!

The old get old and the young get stronger,
May take a week and it may take longer,
They got the guns but we got the numbers,
Gonna win, yeah, we're takin' over, come on!

lol @ melodrama of "Jesus fuck. I give up." from a 17 year old.

i love melons