The only explanation we are ever given about migration, is that we are not having enough babies, at the same time there is zero effort to support families. Politicians seem to forget that migrants will retire someday, then what? More migrants?
precisely. It seems like most humans cant think long-term. They want a short-term solution. The long term consequences be damned. It's impossible to keep growing unrestricted. Countries did just fine 100 years ago with a drastically smaller population. The answer should be automation and a reform of cultural customs. We should go back to promoting family values and support systems. We outsourced care for our elders. Also the food that we consume make us sicker. There are towns in Japan where the elders remain vital and healthy. Why? A good diet. If we would just emulate their habits we could resolve a lot of issues. Im against immigration, especially from backwards cultures. A few 100 people a year is enough. Immigration is not a human right. A country should be extremely selfish about maintaining their country's ethnic make-up. Pathological altruism is part of the reason why we are in this mess. History repeats, why do we bother writing history books if most dont read em or learn the lessons of the past?
Who control medias, control also universities. 😉 For the last 50 years. .... How much tax paid Amazon? Pennies. Amazon is owned of course by Muslims. Who created WOKE culture and what for? Why people are afraid to speak about Palestine at work? Devide and rule.
It's all lies. The way to encourage a greater birth rate is by making housing _more_ affordable by drastically cutting back a population of migrants all putting pressure on housing stock. The next step is to encourage younger families by incentivising women to go to Uni and start training for a career once their kids are established in school, at age 5 or 6. If University fees were cut by 2/3 for older students, or even made free for women with 2+ children, this would make them rethink their career paths. Because the current pattern isn't working. Not at all. There are _many_ mid 30s women who are childless and unhappy with a job that has taken their prime years and given them nothing of value in return, other than a new car and some foreign holidays. Our current system is visibly, and demonstably, failing, to continue with it is just madness.
At the time of the Brexit referendum a socialist colleague of mine made the common assertion that we need immigration. When I asked why, he just walked away. Good to see that this is now being discussed at a higher level.
Anybody could see Brexit coming from miles away - it’s one thing for people from Europe moving around but the demographics of The EU have changed drastically and the countries hit the hardest are the ones with limited populations (Sweden), isolated ones (island nations like The UK) or the ones that are economically robust (Northern Europe) - it is the dream of most migrants to come to these areas because they’re like heaven compared to where they were from and they bring even more sophisticated crimes with them. Despite Brexit, this hasn’t stopped the flow either - there’s a huge amount of money to be made in human smuggling and agents who cheat the system.
Is Europe being destroyed by Diversity ? And is it necessary , if so why ? If everyone stays in their own country or culture as it has been for thousands of years things worked just fine .
We’ve always had diversity. There are 195 countries. If you go to any one country it’s different from another. Don’t need to move a million people from one country to another, in order to prove how great a country is. They could be talking about Canada right now - the majority of immigrants have been from two countries, India and China, for years. This isn’t multiculturalism when most people come from two countries. The governments of these and many other countries don’t respect democracy or human rights, compared to western democracies. But if you ask, why did a small country north of the United States, which was English and French for hundreds of years (and Indigenous before that) suddenly declare that it can’t survive unless the demographics of the country are changed drastically - you can’t - that’s bigoted, that’s racist, that’s offensive. This immediately shuts down any discussion of immigration policy so the government can continue to do whatever it wants, without limits.
Says how little you know about how "democracy" is being followed in the US. There are 2 types of Indians who land up in Canada .... 1 is the educated class and they not only contribute to the local economy but are law abiding and peaceful, while the 2nd group is the low IQ khalistani rats who have a long track record of criminal activities, don't contribute to the economy all the while creating a law and order problem. Not sure about Chinese but most of them aren't violent and fairly educated. It's usually the less educated immigrants that the West has a soft spot for who end up fucking up the environment. Who are the ones protesting on the streets of the West?......not the educated immigrants who are busy with their jobs. The illiterate "peacefulls" who want to enforce their version of Sharia are the ones with loads of time on hand who create the rukus. But hey.....the liberals want even more of these pathetic poor illiterate Islamic people imported into the West Enjoy the $hit show.
Migration should not be forced on any country - British people were not asked--Now we see/face the fact that not everyone is happy about this - We now live in a multi cultural/diverse but DIVIDED Britain - I will soon be housebound n already have had 2 come 2 terms with not being able 2 see my Doctor i could not even be given a telephone conversation the receptionist said i will have 2 wait maybe 3or4wks--Id rang my surgery for 3days 2b told this--Britain has done its duty - NOW it is time 2say - ENUF IS ENUF-THIS IS WHAT YOU GET WITH A WEAK GOVERMENT
The problem is that quite a high percentage of people who rise to the top of politics, NGO's and professions are miserable, angry people who are resentful and seek retribution.
Tbe seems to be an assumption that in a free society, education, bith is schooling ,& observation, will solve their cultural & religious beliefs. This has been dead wrong. They have viewed it as something to exploit, and they have!
Don't u think the acceptance should be mutual, through integration, understanding difference in backgrounds n blending people to utilize their strengths n improve on mutual weaknesses.
Multiculturalism is about yielding what you have rather than the newcomer yieding to what they find ..... try as I might I can't think of a State or polity where different cultures co-exist in peace, it might work for a while but mutual differences will always lead to mutual hostilty. Are we in the UK fated to be the next Yugoslavia, it sometimes feels like it ?
So, do u think UK would be less corrupt , make better policy decisions had it not been for multiculturalism ? Countries like Singapore, New Zealand, Canada are doing better @ integrating n setting up companies n making the society prosperous. Wonder why ? Offcourse, there are bad apples everywhere, but that shouldn't mean we throw away the good ones as well.
I'll pass over your imputation of corruption @@karatsurba4791 as Britain was renouned for the probity of its institutions until recent events intervened .... but "multiculturaism will always damage a polity by weakening trust, loosening ties of shared culture and behaviour and fragmenting society into different groups. Can you give me just one good reason why you think multiculturalism is a benefit to society at large ?
@@karatsurba4791 Canada? NZ? Integrating well?? Don't be absurd!! They're both dying societies themselves. Canada is especially bad at the present time.
In England we wanted incomers to integrate then found when we'd got too many in and couldn't stop them coming we decided to help them keep their own identities and that way wouldn't be accused of racism. Bend the knee!
Euro countries are built on monoculture, so they have a harder time adapting, especially adapting quickly to change. The US is built on multiculturalism.
People would appreciate if the speakers would have done fact based analysis n have solutions. This seems like a anti-immigration , anti-multiculturalism panel with no one challenging anothers points of view. Non-economic Immigrants are often forced out of their country due to persecution, war or other forced reasons. The impetus of integration is both ways, n in situations it does not work out, suitable steps shld be taken, rather than coloring everyone with the same brush
But the real question is, why do we have to take these people in? People in European countries do not have any obligation to take those people in, and we don't really owe them anything.
@@breebartkowiakova thanks for sharing ur thoughts. The immigration is done under refugee status for people fleeing due to persecution. Countries who have signed up with UN are obliged to take in a certain number of refugees. Generally, people who are taken in have some relatives living in the host country, as I would expect they provide proof of funds to support the refugees. However, this could be misused as well (slavery, sex trade etc). Also, stepping in their shoes, this could well have been u or me. We're fortunate n it's only humanitarian to accept genuine refugees n not accept too many, who can't be supported. As like most things, there is no good or bad refugee, n whether one adds value to the country is subjective n it's prudent to be cautious n supportive to those who deserve it. I would expect the UN provides funding to countries who intake refugees, but how that money reaches its intended target is a black box n there in lies a problem.
@@karatsurba4791 I noticed that people like you love to bring up the humanitarian issue, but the term humanitarian is highly subjective; therefore, what you consider to be humanitarian, another person may not. Also, you still haven't really addressed my original question and provided solid evidence of how exactly what is happening in their countries my problem or my fault, and why am I obligated to let them into my country?
@@breebartkowiakova well it's common sense. If humans are being harmed in a region or there is known threats to lifes of individuals then refugee status is granted. Well, I'm not obliged to convince u to provide solid evidence over a TH-cam comment. If u have a specific case to address I can address the facts on a case by case basis at my discretion. Well, no one is asking u to house them. If u have a problem then tell that to ur govt.
@@karatsurba4791No if people are forced to leave their countries they go to neighbouring countries till the problem is resolved and they return . They should not be allowed to travel half way around the world to different cultures where they have no chance of assimilating just because it might provide better benefits or opportunities, then they are no longer asylum seekers but economic migrants . At all times the need to return these people to their homeland once safe should be paramount and right to stay should never be granted once things return to safety.
The only explanation we are ever given about migration, is that we are not having enough babies, at the same time there is zero effort to support families. Politicians seem to forget that migrants will retire someday, then what? More migrants?
You as white Europeans, are to be replaced
That is the plan,
You think ALL THIS happened by accident?
Google the Kalergi plan
precisely. It seems like most humans cant think long-term. They want a short-term solution. The long term consequences be damned. It's impossible to keep growing unrestricted. Countries did just fine 100 years ago with a drastically smaller population. The answer should be automation and a reform of cultural customs. We should go back to promoting family values and support systems. We outsourced care for our elders. Also the food that we consume make us sicker. There are towns in Japan where the elders remain vital and healthy. Why? A good diet. If we would just emulate their habits we could resolve a lot of issues. Im against immigration, especially from backwards cultures. A few 100 people a year is enough. Immigration is not a human right. A country should be extremely selfish about maintaining their country's ethnic make-up. Pathological altruism is part of the reason why we are in this mess. History repeats, why do we bother writing history books if most dont read em or learn the lessons of the past?
Who control medias, control also universities. 😉
For the last 50 years.
....
How much tax paid Amazon?
Pennies.
Amazon is owned of course by Muslims.
Who created WOKE culture and what for?
Why people are afraid to speak about Palestine at work?
Devide and rule.
True! "Zero" support for young families, because it's cheaper & easier to "import" people from the 3rd World!...
It's all lies. The way to encourage a greater birth rate is by making housing _more_ affordable by drastically cutting back a population of migrants all putting pressure on housing stock.
The next step is to encourage younger families by incentivising women to go to Uni and start training for a career once their kids are established in school, at age 5 or 6. If University fees were cut by 2/3 for older students, or even made free for women with 2+ children, this would make them rethink their career paths. Because the current pattern isn't working. Not at all. There are _many_ mid 30s women who are childless and unhappy with a job that has taken their prime years and given them nothing of value in return, other than a new car and some foreign holidays. Our current system is visibly, and demonstably, failing, to continue with it is just madness.
We were never asked,
There were no votes for this,
And now its a total failure we have to smile and clap like seals and say it's great,😡😡
At the time of the Brexit referendum a socialist colleague of mine made the common assertion that we need immigration. When I asked why, he just walked away. Good to see that this is now being discussed at a higher level.
Anybody could see Brexit coming from miles away - it’s one thing for people from Europe moving around but the demographics of The EU have changed drastically and the countries hit the hardest are the ones with limited populations (Sweden), isolated ones (island nations like The UK) or the ones that are economically robust (Northern Europe) - it is the dream of most migrants to come to these areas because they’re like heaven compared to where they were from and they bring even more sophisticated crimes with them. Despite Brexit, this hasn’t stopped the flow either - there’s a huge amount of money to be made in human smuggling and agents who cheat the system.
That's a common response; they just walk away and consider it a mic drop.
Is Europe being destroyed by Diversity ? And is it necessary , if so why ? If everyone stays in their own
country or culture as it has been for thousands of years
things worked just fine .
Yeah, I don't remember any world wars or anything like that in the last thousand years.
We’ve always had diversity. There are 195 countries. If you go to any one country it’s different from another. Don’t need to move a million people from one country to another, in order to prove how great a country is. They could be talking about Canada right now - the majority of immigrants have been from two countries, India and China, for years. This isn’t multiculturalism when most people come from two countries. The governments of these and many other countries don’t respect democracy or human rights, compared to western democracies. But if you ask, why did a small country north of the United States, which was English and French for hundreds of years (and Indigenous before that) suddenly declare that it can’t survive unless the demographics of the country are changed drastically - you can’t - that’s bigoted, that’s racist, that’s offensive. This immediately shuts down any discussion of immigration policy so the government can continue to do whatever it wants, without limits.
Says how little you know about how "democracy" is being followed in the US.
There are 2 types of Indians who land up in Canada .... 1 is the educated class and they not only contribute to the local economy but are law abiding and peaceful, while the 2nd group is the low IQ khalistani rats who have a long track record of criminal activities, don't contribute to the economy all the while creating a law and order problem.
Not sure about Chinese but most of them aren't violent and fairly educated.
It's usually the less educated immigrants that the West has a soft spot for who end up fucking up the environment.
Who are the ones protesting on the streets of the West?......not the educated immigrants who are busy with their jobs.
The illiterate "peacefulls" who want to enforce their version of Sharia are the ones with loads of time on hand who create the rukus.
But hey.....the liberals want even more of these pathetic poor illiterate Islamic people imported into the West
Enjoy the $hit show.
Migration should not be forced on any country - British people were not asked--Now we see/face the fact that not everyone is happy about this - We now live in a multi cultural/diverse but DIVIDED Britain - I will soon be housebound n already have had 2 come 2 terms with not being able 2 see my Doctor i could not even be given a telephone conversation the receptionist said i will have 2 wait maybe 3or4wks--Id rang my surgery for 3days 2b told this--Britain has done its duty - NOW it is time 2say - ENUF IS ENUF-THIS IS WHAT YOU GET WITH A WEAK GOVERMENT
The problem is that quite a high percentage of people who rise to the top of politics, NGO's and professions are miserable, angry people who are resentful and seek retribution.
Perhaps it's only those sorts who are being selected from the larger pool
REPLACEMENT. WAKE UP
@mattmako2764 Exactly! People are so weak and brainwashed!
@@amialal4510100% it is true
RIP Europe
The enemy within is the government.
Tbe seems to be an assumption that in a free society, education, bith is schooling ,& observation, will solve their cultural & religious beliefs. This has been dead wrong.
They have viewed it as something to exploit, and they have!
Multiculturalism is destructive. It is important to keep our heritages and whoever comes to our countries MUST adapt.
Don't u think the acceptance should be mutual, through integration, understanding difference in backgrounds n blending people to utilize their strengths n improve on mutual weaknesses.
There is no need for third world people in Europe; none !
Excellent point
Bad point. A small overcrowded country like ours needs migrants like a hole in the head.
Multiculturalism is about yielding what you have rather than the newcomer yieding to what they find ..... try as I might I can't think of a State or polity where different cultures co-exist in peace, it might work for a while but mutual differences will always lead to mutual hostilty. Are we in the UK fated to be the next Yugoslavia, it sometimes feels like it ?
Look at Sweden, for example.
EVEN CREATURES FROM ANOTHER PLANETS DO NOT PRACTICE MULTICULTURISM THEY ALL SEEM THE SAME IN THEIR OWN GROUP.
So, do u think UK would be less corrupt , make better policy decisions had it not been for multiculturalism ?
Countries like Singapore, New Zealand, Canada are doing better @ integrating n setting up companies n making the society prosperous. Wonder why ?
Offcourse, there are bad apples everywhere, but that shouldn't mean we throw away the good ones as well.
I'll pass over your imputation of corruption @@karatsurba4791 as Britain was renouned for the probity of its institutions until recent events intervened .... but "multiculturaism will always damage a polity by weakening trust, loosening ties of shared culture and behaviour and fragmenting society into different groups.
Can you give me just one good reason why you think multiculturalism is a benefit to society at large ?
@@karatsurba4791 Canada? NZ? Integrating well?? Don't be absurd!! They're both dying societies themselves. Canada is especially bad at the present time.
How is your English grammar? Is it "Me and my colleagues" or should it be " My colleagues and I"?
Only those willing to run afoul of the law can truly be said to champion a cause
In England we wanted incomers to integrate then found when we'd got too many in and couldn't stop them coming we decided to help them keep their own identities and that way wouldn't be accused of racism. Bend the knee!
Ashley pops up everywhere!
The biggest issue of the integration is that some cohorts might be committed to a Grand Game at odds with that of the State
Sweden died
melodrama.
Not yet.
All in time
Not is, that’s a ship that’s long sailed.
Euro countries are built on monoculture, so they have a harder time adapting, especially adapting quickly to change. The US is built on multiculturalism.
People would appreciate if the speakers would have done fact based analysis n have solutions. This seems like a anti-immigration , anti-multiculturalism panel with no one challenging anothers points of view.
Non-economic Immigrants are often forced out of their country due to persecution, war or other forced reasons. The impetus of integration is both ways, n in situations it does not work out, suitable steps shld be taken, rather than coloring everyone with the same brush
But the real question is, why do we have to take these people in? People in European countries do not have any obligation to take those people in, and we don't really owe them anything.
@@breebartkowiakova thanks for sharing ur thoughts. The immigration is done under refugee status for people fleeing due to persecution. Countries who have signed up with UN are obliged to take in a certain number of refugees. Generally, people who are taken in have some relatives living in the host country, as I would expect they provide proof of funds to support the refugees. However, this could be misused as well (slavery, sex trade etc).
Also, stepping in their shoes, this could well have been u or me. We're fortunate n it's only humanitarian to accept genuine refugees n not accept too many, who can't be supported. As like most things, there is no good or bad refugee, n whether one adds value to the country is subjective n it's prudent to be cautious n supportive to those who deserve it.
I would expect the UN provides funding to countries who intake refugees, but how that money reaches its intended target is a black box n there in lies a problem.
@@karatsurba4791 I noticed that people like you love to bring up the humanitarian issue, but the term humanitarian is highly subjective; therefore, what you consider to be humanitarian, another person may not. Also, you still haven't really addressed my original question and provided solid evidence of how exactly what is happening in their countries my problem or my fault, and why am I obligated to let them into my country?
@@breebartkowiakova well it's common sense. If humans are being harmed in a region or there is known threats to lifes of individuals then refugee status is granted.
Well, I'm not obliged to convince u to provide solid evidence over a TH-cam comment. If u have a specific case to address I can address the facts on a case by case basis at my discretion.
Well, no one is asking u to house them. If u have a problem then tell that to ur govt.
@@karatsurba4791No if people are forced to leave their countries they go to neighbouring countries till the problem is resolved and they return . They should not be allowed to travel half way around the world to different cultures where they have no chance of assimilating just because it might provide better benefits or opportunities, then they are no longer asylum seekers but economic migrants . At all times the need to return these people to their homeland once safe should be paramount and right to stay should never be granted once things return to safety.