Arab or Hispanic, legal or illegal, in North America or in Europe, the last 45 years have marked the emergence of a new kind of immigrant. He isn’t new to history, but he’s quite unlike the customary refugee, exile, asylum-seeker, settler or pioneer.

The new immigrant demands an unearned share of the security and wealth of the developed countries. The new immigrant is an invader.

The invader-immigrant appears in times of fundamental population shifts, the great migrations of history. Such migrations occur from time to time. They did, for instance, between the 3rd and the 5th centuries. Just as the invader-migrants of other historic periods could be of any tribe — Hun, Gepid, Lombard, Avar, to name a few — the invader-migrants of our times may be Asian, Levantine or Caucasian. They may be Muslim, Sihk, Christian or anything else. Invasion as a concept isn’t race- or religion-specific, though it’s usually tied to specific groups and cultures at specific points in time.

With more Syrians en route, Sweden struggles to maintain identity as country where refugees are welcome
Whatever their background, the new kind of immigrant doesn’t simply compete with the host population for economic opportunity and space (which can be shared) but for identity, which cannot. Immigrants can and do create jobs, but can’t create identities for the host population, only compete for the existing identity of a nation.



In 1989, 12,000 East German refugees managed to get into Hungary as “tourists,” through what was then communist Czechoslovakia. The reform-communist government of Hungary, after some hesitation, allowed them to escape to what was then West Germany. It was a fine gesture. Still, as I wrote at the time, while 12,000 East Germans could escape to the West, the whole of East Germany couldn’t transfer to West Germany. It simply couldn’t be done.

Emigration is never a solution. A few thousand or maybe even a few million Muslim refugees can be accommodated in Europe, Canada or in the United States. But ultimately, the whole of the Middle East cannot come to the West. It doesn’t matter whether refugees are “political,” “economic” or a mixture of both. It doesn’t matter whether they’re fleeing communism, theocracy or poverty. It doesn’t matter whether they’re escaping Marxist dictators, tin-pot generals, ayatollahs or ISIL.

It’s not a question of selfishness or racism. It’s just a physical impossibility
The whole of the miserable, mismanaged, tyrannized and overpopulated world cannot transfer to a handful of civilized and prosperous countries in Western Europe or North America. It’s not a question of selfishness or racism. It’s just a physical impossibility.

Accepting refugees for humanitarian reasons is a Band-Aid solution — it’s fine, just as Band-Aids are fine. But only a charlatan would offer a Band-Aid as a substitute for open-heart surgery.
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/george-jonas-our-band-aid-solution-to-the-refuge...

Karnal wrote on Apr 17^th, 2018 at 7:47pm:



That's the caliber of your partisans, Muslims. Ten rupee give him, poor Paki. He fantasises about being Scottish, don't you know. Karnal Al Macdonald.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 17^th, 2018 at 11:06am:

Arab or Hispanic, legal or illegal, in North America or in Europe, the last 45 years have marked the emergence of a new kind of immigrant. He isn’t new to history, but he’s quite unlike the customary refugee, exile, asylum-seeker, settler or pioneer.

The new immigrant demands an unearned share of the security and wealth of the developed countries. The new immigrant is an invader.

The invader-immigrant appears in times of fundamental population shifts, the great migrations of history. Such migrations occur from time to time. They did, for instance, between the 3rd and the 5th centuries. Just as the invader-migrants of other historic periods could be of any tribe — Hun, Gepid, Lombard, Avar, to name a few — the invader-migrants of our times may be Asian, Levantine or Caucasian. They may be Muslim, Sihk, Christian or anything else. Invasion as a concept isn’t race- or religion-specific, though it’s usually tied to specific groups and cultures at specific points in time.

With more Syrians en route, Sweden struggles to maintain identity as country where refugees are welcome
Whatever their background, the new kind of immigrant doesn’t simply compete with the host population for economic opportunity and space (which can be shared) but for identity, which cannot. Immigrants can and do create jobs, but can’t create identities for the host population, only compete for the existing identity of a nation.



In 1989, 12,000 East German refugees managed to get into Hungary as “tourists,” through what was then communist Czechoslovakia. The reform-communist government of Hungary, after some hesitation, allowed them to escape to what was then West Germany. It was a fine gesture. Still, as I wrote at the time, while 12,000 East Germans could escape to the West, the whole of East Germany couldn’t transfer to West Germany. It simply couldn’t be done.

Emigration is never a solution. A few thousand or maybe even a few million Muslim refugees can be accommodated in Europe, Canada or in the United States. But ultimately, the whole of the Middle East cannot come to the West. It doesn’t matter whether refugees are “political,” “economic” or a mixture of both. It doesn’t matter whether they’re fleeing communism, theocracy or poverty. It doesn’t matter whether they’re escaping Marxist dictators, tin-pot generals, ayatollahs or ISIL.

It’s not a question of selfishness or racism. It’s just a physical impossibility
The whole of the miserable, mismanaged, tyrannized and overpopulated world cannot transfer to a handful of civilized and prosperous countries in Western Europe or North America. It’s not a question of selfishness or racism. It’s just a physical impossibility.

Accepting refugees for humanitarian reasons is a Band-Aid solution — it’s fine, just as Band-Aids are fine. But only a charlatan would offer a Band-Aid as a substitute for open-heart surgery.
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/george-jonas-our-band-aid-solution-to-the-refuge...

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 17^th, 2018 at 4:10pm:


Trying to intimidate people eh? If the hood is white of course.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 11:18am:


You forgot to mention the "or try to intimidate people" bit. It can be difficult to get your story straight when trying to make a distinction between Muslims and Nazis eh?

What if a KKK member is just down at the shops trying to buy some cornflakes for breakfast, like any other normal person? Or Muslim, at least.

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 7:59am:


That's true, FD. KKK members who wear their hoods to go shopping can't possibly be guilty of offending decent white people everywhere.

But your Muslim -

GUILTY.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 9:34am:


Of course there's a difference. The KKK person is simply doing their shopping. The Muselwoman's launching a terrorist attack.

Chalk and cheese, innit.

Karnal wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 12:52pm:

Sarcasm aside, I don't understand the whole deal about being a ninja. Ninja women are up on centre stage when in public. It goes against not wanting to be noticed. They'd be better off going el naturale. Very strange indeed.