Scorpion and Libertas are on point regarding the larger picture of this topic. It's refreshing to be able to have a discussion like this, and for it not to descend in to a racial diatribe.
There are two sides to the "immigration is a racial issue" coin. The leading side is the widespread and dominant belief that disliking immigration makes you racist, the flip side is the minority belief that all immigrants are low-life scumbags, ready to rape your wife and steal your possessions, parallel to that is the lack of awareness that immigration is entirely mandated(indirectly) by our governments and leaders. It's a set of beliefs that is nurtured by governments with concepts like "diversity" and "multiculturalism"
Need more proof of this?:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...ugee-posts
And some support for immigration from the leader of the UN:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...erbia.html
He's correct about large amounts of actual refugees in Syria, but the majority of people trying to enter Europe are economic migrants, transferring from poor countries with no healthcare, education or jobs. They simply want a better life which isn't unreasonable. The rest of his comments are intentionally misleading and dishonest. As a supra-national organisation, the UN is fully aware of the massive financial disparity that causes these people to want to migrate, and the shitty foreign policies that result in unnecessary proxy wars in weaker, smaller countries. It has a responsibility to address these problems, but its main role is to support the policies of the dominant members of its organisation.
The EU's dismantling and elimination of nationalism in Europe has been effective. Membership requires following EU law(accept the "refugees") and assimilating into the EU economic machine(make our leaders richer, lose your currency), and the false premise that national pride is the brother of Nazi-ism or extremism.
Regarding the potential for civil war, I believe there is almost zero chance of this, as very few countries are able to mobilise sufficient numbers to make any impact. It's naive of me, but I see the democratic process as the area where change could occur. As mentioned, we're already seeing the emergence of nationalist and/or anti-immigration political groups across Europe and in America too. Donald Trump is in some ways the US equivalent of Nigel Farage: ridiculed by the media, and championed by those who see the dilution of national identity for the benefit of a few. I do see the possibility of small, localised incidents of civil unrest that will quickly be controlled. A fortunate consequence of the immigration, both in the US and the EU, is it causes a lack of social cohesion, a lack of unity. I couldn't comment on how different ethnic groups feel about each other in the US, but in the UK there is very little mutual respect between the existing population and immigrants. They will not be rising up together anytime soon.
There are two sides to the "immigration is a racial issue" coin. The leading side is the widespread and dominant belief that disliking immigration makes you racist, the flip side is the minority belief that all immigrants are low-life scumbags, ready to rape your wife and steal your possessions, parallel to that is the lack of awareness that immigration is entirely mandated(indirectly) by our governments and leaders. It's a set of beliefs that is nurtured by governments with concepts like "diversity" and "multiculturalism"
Need more proof of this?:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...ugee-posts
Quote:Quote:
German Justice Minister Heiko Maas wants Facebook Inc. to remove racist posts targeting asylum seekers after several attacks on refugee camps in Germany over the past week.
Facebook should “urgently” review its practices when dealing with the posts, he told the company in an Aug. 26 letter obtained by Bloomberg News. Numerous users have complained to the ministry that Facebook didn’t remove xenophobic posts even after they were flagged and reviewed, arguing that the comments don’t violate its community standards. That didn’t go down well in Berlin.
It is incomprehensible that “photos of certain body parts are automatically deleted because of moral concerns, yet racist and xenophobic statements aren’t immediately removed,” Maas wrote in the letter, which was reported earlier by Tagesspiegel newspaper.
And some support for immigration from the leader of the UN:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...erbia.html
Quote:Quote:
Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General, urged countries to show compassion and do “much more” to end the escalating crisis.
“Today there are more people displaced than at any time since World War II,” said Mr Ban, speaking in Paris.
“In Syria and elsewhere, millions of people flee violence and persecution. Others try to escape poverty and seek ways of living with dignity.
“By our intervention, we must save lives, fight against trafficking and discrimination, bring judicial solutions, examine the profound causes of problems and defend human rights.”
He's correct about large amounts of actual refugees in Syria, but the majority of people trying to enter Europe are economic migrants, transferring from poor countries with no healthcare, education or jobs. They simply want a better life which isn't unreasonable. The rest of his comments are intentionally misleading and dishonest. As a supra-national organisation, the UN is fully aware of the massive financial disparity that causes these people to want to migrate, and the shitty foreign policies that result in unnecessary proxy wars in weaker, smaller countries. It has a responsibility to address these problems, but its main role is to support the policies of the dominant members of its organisation.
The EU's dismantling and elimination of nationalism in Europe has been effective. Membership requires following EU law(accept the "refugees") and assimilating into the EU economic machine(make our leaders richer, lose your currency), and the false premise that national pride is the brother of Nazi-ism or extremism.
Quote: (08-28-2015 12:35 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:
As ScorpMan points out, it'll be civil war within countries.
Regarding the potential for civil war, I believe there is almost zero chance of this, as very few countries are able to mobilise sufficient numbers to make any impact. It's naive of me, but I see the democratic process as the area where change could occur. As mentioned, we're already seeing the emergence of nationalist and/or anti-immigration political groups across Europe and in America too. Donald Trump is in some ways the US equivalent of Nigel Farage: ridiculed by the media, and championed by those who see the dilution of national identity for the benefit of a few. I do see the possibility of small, localised incidents of civil unrest that will quickly be controlled. A fortunate consequence of the immigration, both in the US and the EU, is it causes a lack of social cohesion, a lack of unity. I couldn't comment on how different ethnic groups feel about each other in the US, but in the UK there is very little mutual respect between the existing population and immigrants. They will not be rising up together anytime soon.