A Report from Europe

[Tidewater]

WOW! Thousands of Catholics and Protestants in Belfast, Northern Ireland are currently marching TOGETHER against Mass Immigration.

When these two communities are putting their differences aside and coming together, you know you’ve messed up.

This is incredible!

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1903892181825597644

I had an Irish student last week and he told me he believes that Ulster will come back to Ireland over Brexit and the crappy situation in the UK.

 

[crimsonaudio]

There is a joke in European circles that copper wire was invented by two Dutchmen fighting over a penny.

I literally laughed aloud.

 

[Tidewater]

Anti-immigration protest and counter rally gather at city hall

A lot of that is the European Court of Human Rights, a subordinate organisation of the EU, which seems to take the position that "The EU is a good thing, and most Europeans believe it is a good thing, so we can abuse the crap out of Europeans because they have to put up with our abuse.
The ECHR is the body that ruled that member states have to take in just about anyone who claims asylum and the recipient state has a legal responsibility to house, feed them, and care for them for an extended period.
"Human rights" is a malleable concept meaning a lot of different things to a lot of different people, and a lot of that trumps English Common Law. The way it is applied in Canada and the EU is different from the way American's Founder conceived of rights (individual ac tions the government cannot outlaw or take away). The English Common Law tradition is that the government cannot compel speech. Human Rights law says the government can compel speech.
If someone in the US suggests we open a Human Rights Court or adopt Human Rights Law, I would vehemently oppose. Not because I disagree with human rights, but because the tyrants running Human Rights law see it as a means to overcome all restraints on government ("After all, we are simply pursuing human rights. You do not oppose human rights, do you?"). Bad, bad idea.

 

[Its On A Slab]

The fiscal bazooka... that is one I must add to my lexicon!

Sounds a lot like a Steely Dan. Also named after a device sold at adult bookstores.

 

[crimsonaudio]

A lot of that is the European Court of Human Rights, a subordinate organisation if the EU, which seems to take the position that "The EU is a good thing, and most Europeans believe it is a good thing, so we can abuse the crap out of Europeans because they have to put up with our abuse.
The ECHR is the body that ruled that member states have to take in just about anyone who claims asylum and the recipient state has a legal responsibility to house, feed them, and care for them for an extended period.
"Human rights" is a malleable concept meaning a lot of different things to a lot of different people, and a lot of that trumps English Common Law. The way it is applied in Canada and the EU is different from the way American's Founder conceived of rights (individual ac tions the government cannot outlaw or take away). The English Common Law tradition is that the government cannot compel speech. Human Rights law says the government can compel speech.
If someone in the US suggests we open a Human Rights Court or adopt Human Rights Law, I would vehemently oppose. Not because I disagree with human rights, but because the tyrants running Human Rights law see it as a means to overcome all restraints on government ("After all, we are simply pursuing human rights. You do not oppose human rights, do you?"). Bad, bad idea.

I'll never understand why so many Euro politicians just throw their hands up as if they have no say in what their people are subjected to due these treaties and agreements.

Maybe it's the typical Euro mindset (which is honestly quite different than the typical American mindset ime) but were I the leader of a country and didn't want to accept these future rocket scientists immigrants I'd simply tell the ECHR to pound sand.

 

[Tidewater]

I'll never understand why so many Euro politicians just throw their hands up as if they have no say in what their people are subjected to due these treaties and agreements.

Maybe it's the typical Euro mindset (which is honestly quite different than the typical American mindset ime) but were I the leader of a country and didn't want to accept these future rocket scientists immigrants I'd simply tell the ECHR to pound sand.

Europe has a media echo chamber. And any politician who suggests withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the ECHR is immediately and permanently branded as a ... [wait for it] racist!
No matter how damaging uncontrolled immigration is, politicians are deathly afraid of the r-word so they will gladly watch the destruction of their own countries if that is what the ECHR demands.

 

[arthurdawg]

I think in thirty years they might have figured it out. They had the fissile material, the rockets (with fire control mechanisms).
The fear at the time (because Russia and Ukraine were so screwed up and shot through with corruption) was losing control of one or more of the bombs and some enterprising terrorist loading it into a crate marked "Farm Machinery" and shipping it to Baltimore or New York in the hold of a ship and, while waiting to clear customs, boom.
The fewer countries had nukes, the fewer potential leakage points for a bomb to end up in nefarious hands.

Thanks for the Kellog Link, it clarified some of the options.

Heck, Ukraine would be flying nuclear drones all over with that they have done so far in the war!

 

[Tidewater]

Thanks for the Kellog Link, it clarified some of the options.

Heck, Ukraine would be flying nuclear drones all over with that they have done so far in the war!

The Kellogg plan was a proposal. Once all sides get to inject their preferences and "must haves," the actual deal adopted will look different.
Russia inserted some "non-starters" into their going in position and those will have to be dealt with or no deal will be possible.

 

[crimsonaudio]

The Kellogg plan was a proposal. Once all sides get to inject their preferences and "must haves," the actual deal adopted will look different.
Russia inserted some "non-starters" into their going in position and those will have to be dealt with or no deal will be possible.

Recognizing I have zero experience in multi-national negotiations, I'm left wondering if these Russian demands aren't just stall tactics to enable them to gobble up more / all of Ukraine. Or maybe asking the preposterous is a common starting point in these negotiations, I've no idea.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

I had an Irish student last week and he told me he believes that Ulster will come back to Ireland over Brexit and the crappy situation in the UK.

They've had a bunch of arguments over that since the early 1600s when England exported a bunch of Protestants to Ulster and displaced the local population.

Some of those arguments have gotten pretty nasty. The Troubles form the 1960s to the 1990s are what we today remember the most. But they're just the most recent major actions and were the the longest-lasting. There were lots before them -- the Easter Uprising of 1916 being just one -- and some minor ones after.

Point being, I'm curious -- did the student you talked to say why he thinks Ulster will really return to Ireland this time?

 

[Tidewater]

Recognizing I have zero experience in multi-national negotiations, I'm left wondering if these Russian demands aren't just stall tactics to enable them to gobble up more / all of Ukraine. Or maybe asking the preposterous is a common starting point in these negotiations, I've no idea.

I think it is an extreme position at the beginning that over the course of the negotiations, you give in on to show how reasonable your side is being. The Soviets pulled the same crap in SALT I and START.

 

[Tidewater]

They've had a bunch of arguments over that since the early 1600s when England exported a bunch of Protestants to Ulster and displaced the local population.

Some of those arguments have gotten pretty nasty. The Troubles form the 1960s to the 1990s are what we today remember the most. But they're just the most recent major actions and were the the longest-lasting. There were lots before them -- the Easter Uprising of 1916 being just one -- and some minor ones after.

Point being, I'm curious -- did the student you talked to say why he thinks Ulster will really return to Ireland this time?

He did, because Ulstermen (mostly Protestants, but maybe more accurately described as "politically Protestant" since the UK is becoming one of the least religious countries in the world) will want it, so they can get back into the EU. The English see them as expensive and difficult. The Scots do not like them much. Why not abandon the two nationalities that do not care for you and join the one that does? And, at the same time, get back into the EU by the back door?
I believe that is the thinking. Ireland is like the Middle East, though, in that someone on one side will do something stupid to derail the whole process.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

He did, because Ulstermen (mostly Protestants, but maybe more accurately described as "politically Protestant" since the UK is becoming one of the least religious countries in the world) will want it, so they can get back into the EU. The English see them as expensive and difficult. The Scots do not like them much. Why not abandon the two nationalities that do not care for you and join the one that does? And, at the same time, get back into the EU by the back door?
I believe that is the thinking. Ireland is like the Middle East, though, in that someone on one side will do something stupid to derail the whole process.

So he thinks that (1) a demographic that has historically opposed re-unification with Ireland has changed its mind, and (2) the UK is fed up enough to say, “Good riddance.”

I have no idea whether he’s right or wrong, or overstates his case. It’ll be interesting to watch the movie.

 

[mdb-tpet]

Europe has a media echo chamber. And any politician who suggests withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the ECHR is immediately and permanently branded as a ... [wait for it] racist!
No matter how damaging uncontrolled immigration is, politicians are deathly afraid of the r-word so they will gladly watch the destruction of their own countries if that is what the ECHR demands.

I'm not sure exactly who the immigration is from, but certainly there's a lot of push back from immigration from Africa. But as for migration, the US is an interesting counter example where we have 50 states and as far as I've seen, you can move pretty much anywhere you want in these 50 states that isn't protected land as long as you can afford the cost and find a place to rent/buy. Why should the EU be different in the long run? Gentrification and cultural dilution are a real things with real problems, but laws and rules opposing migration are not any prettier.

 

[Tidewater]

I'm not sure exactly who the immigration is from, but certainly there's a lot of push back from immigration from Africa. But as for migration, the US is an interesting counter example where we have 50 states and as far as I've seen, you can move pretty much anywhere you want in these 50 states that isn't protected land as long as you can afford the cost and find a place to rent/buy. Why should the EU be different in the long run? Gentrification and cultural dilution are a real things with real problems, but laws and rules opposing migration are not any prettier.

Good questions.
Illegal immigration (and refugees, which are not the same) in Europe is a little different from immigration in the US.
Most in Europe are from the Middle East, with a healthy admixture of Africans. Many of these are Muslims whereas in America thety are more likely to come from Latin America. That may sound like no big deal but the Muslim conception of the individual, the state and religion are very different from Western conceptions. Plus the cultural leap for ostensible Christians (or atheists) from Latin America who write in Latin script is less than it is for Muslims who write in Arabic script.

Second, the EU is not a Union in the same way the US is. There are serious reservations of power for the constituent republics. It might be closer to the US under the Articles of Confederation than under the Constitution.

While there are 50 million foreign born people in the US (legal immigrant, green card holder, illegal immigrant) in the US, in some countries in the EU (e.g. Ireland), the ratio of immigrants to native population is stark. Poland has very few immigrants. the UK has a lot. I believe Brits are the minority of the population in greater London, for example.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Good questions.
Illegal immigration (and refugees, which are not the same) in Europe is a little different from immigration in the US.
Most in Europe are from the Middle East, with a healthy admixture of Africans. Many of these are Muslims whereas in America thety are more likely to come from Latin America. That may sound like no big deal but the Muslim conception of the individual, the state and religion are very different from Western conceptions. Plus the cultural leap for ostensible Christians (or atheists) from Latin America who write in Latin script is less than it is for Muslims who write in Arabic script.

Second, the EU is not a Union in the same way the US is. There are serious reservations of power for the constituent republics. It might be closer to the US under the Articles of Confederation than under the Constitution.

While there are 50 million foreign born people in the US (legal immigrant, green card holder, illegal immigrant) in the US, in some countries in the EU (e.g. Ireland), the ratio of immigrants to native population is stark. Poland has very few immigrants. the UK has a lot. I believe Brits are the minority of the population in greater London, for example.

Your second paragraph nails it. Assimilating a different culture is difficult under the best circumstances. It becomes exponentially more so when fundamental outlooks (like separation of church and state) are diametrically opposed.

Then add different perspectives on the acceptability of violence to achieve political and religious aims (hard to separate the two in the Muslim world), along with totally different bases for language, alphabet and numbers. That's a recipe for a not assimilating, which is a recipe for a powder keg looking for a spark to explode.

Many people think of Islam as just another religion deserving the same respect and tolerance that we extend to Judaism, Buddhism, whatever. It's not only a religion....it's a totally different outlook on life, the role of religion in government, the value of the individual (especially women), and freedom of speech, just to name a few.

 

[Tidewater]

Your second paragraph nails it. Assimilating a different culture is difficult under the best circumstances. It becomes exponentially more so when fundamental outlooks (like separation of church and state) are diametrically opposed.

Then add different perspectives on the acceptability of violence to achieve political and religious aims (hard to separate the two in the Muslim world), along with totally different bases for language, alphabet and numbers. That's a recipe for a not assimilating, which is a recipe for a powder keg looking for a spark to explode.

Many people think of Islam as just another religion deserving the same respect and tolerance that we extend to Judaism, Buddhism, whatever. It's not only a religion....it's a totally different outlook on life, the role of religion in government, the value of the individual (especially women), freedom of speech, just to name a few.

Yep. Europe sucks at integrating (and demanding integration as a condition of residence). Mollenbeek was a Muslim-majority Brussels neighborhood that hid the airport bombers for months without telling the cops.
Here are some of the tenets of integration that should be demanded:

• "Want to stay in Belgium, learn French or Flemish (preferably both)."
• "Women dressing more provocatively than you think they should are not prostitutes looking for your attention. 'Leave me alone' is a final determination. Respect that."
• "We stopped killing each other over the ways we worship (or do not worship at all) centuries ago. Get with the program. Practice your religion in your place of worship. In public, you can share your beliefs if you like, but get ready to hear 'I am unconvinced by your arguments' and let it go."

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Yep. Europe sucks at integrating (and demanding integration as a condition of residence). Mollenbeek was a Muslim-majority Brussels neighborhood that hid the airport bombers for months without telling the cops.
Here are some of the tenets of integration that should be demanded:

• "Want to stay in Belgium, learn French or Flemish (preferably both)."
• "Women dressing more proactively than you think they should are not prostitutes looking for your attention. 'Leave me alone' is a final determination. Respect that."
• "We stopped killing each other over the ways we worship (or do not worship at all) centuries ago. Get with the program. Practice you religion in your place of worship. In public, you can share your beliefs if you like, but get ready to hear 'I am unconvinced by your arguments' and let it go."

I'm actually pro-immigration. We need the growth for the economy in general. And the demographic assumptions underlying Social Security, Medicare and non-governmental pension funds simply don't work without them.

But I want immigration that is controlled. In addition to pre-residential vetting it would require assimilation (including learning to read, write and speak English) and meaningful contributions to the economy within a prescribed period of time. I'm open to discussion on the period of time, but not on the concept.

The fact that we need the immigrants doesn't mean open borders with unconditional medical care, housing and food forever for anybody and everybody that shows up on the doorstep is the answer.

 

[Tidewater]

I'm actually pro-immigration. We need the growth for the economy in general. And the demographic assumptions underlying Social Security, Medicare and non-governmental pension funds simply don't work without them.

But I want immigration that is controlled and assimilation that is required.

The fact that we need the immigrants doesn't mean open borders with unconditional free prizes for anybody and everybody that shows up on the doorstep is the answer.

I am in complete agreement.
I would hope that applicants for immigration would be asked, "How are you going to make the United States better if we admit you? What do you bring to the table?"

 

[CrimsonJazz]