The UK is nervous about accepting refugees from anywhere. The government has managed to make refugee mean the same thing as immigrant. Islam is just an excuse, this time.

Well, not only Islam. Absorbing thousands, tens of thousands or even millions of immigrants with little education and no work skills (by Western standards) is just a little daunting.

Maybe, the parents will take on low-skill jobs like road work or cleaning. Or maybe they will discover that they can live better on welfare than they ever can by working. Which will they choose?

What about their children? Will their children see education as important? Or will they join street gangs, avoid education, and turn into criminal parasites? (BlackLivesMatter? Urban blacks have made their choice, and this is the real issue.)

"What about their children?"

Well, 99% of the population of the US is descended from immigrants. It's probably 90% of the UK and most of Europe too.

"Well, 99% of the population of the U.S. descended from immigrants."

True. but those immigrants wanted to assimilate, work hard, learn English, and shared the same religious philosophy.

It is different this time.

"It's probably 90% of the UK and most of Europe too."

Depends on how tenuous you want to define that. Europe is much more nationally homogeneous than the US. So if you want to say 99% of Americans are descended from Indians, cause hey 20 generations ago there might have been a native american, then maybe you have a point. But at that point we are all African Americans too.

... and the fact that it is mostly men. I'd be less worried about 800,000 new folks next door if it were families, and not young men with no prospects traumatized by war.

I did perk up when I heard that the automakers were hiring, but still, I'd be happier if it were 400k men, 400k women.

The government has managed to make refugee mean the same thing as immigrant.

So, you're saying that when the situation at home is normalized and there is small chance of political repercussions due to fleeing said home, they'll cheerfully go back home?

How much money do you have? I'm asking because I have a bridge to sell you. That, and it is morally wrong to allow suckers to keep their money.

Wut?

Ben, my understanding is that Americans that are at least a small part Native American are around 5% of the population, not 99%. Not everyone is descended from the colonists, a lot of immigration is more recent.

I posted this in today's linkie roundup, but it is on topic in this post: Spengler explains why the House of Saud is reluctant to take refugees, and why the Europeans will pay a steep, steep price for their moment of feel-goodery.

To paraphrase Milton Friedman, you can have open borders, you can have a welfare state, but you can not have both at the same time. Go ahead, tell the refugees they can't have welfare benefits.

We live in interesting times.

and not young men with no prospects traumatized by war

Is that an accurate assessment of the situation? you're closer geographically speaking, and I'm guessing European reporting is a bit more accurate than in the US. If that is actually so, then there's this as well: more than a few of them where active participants in said war.

Europe is in a lot more trouble than I thought.

The stats I've seen (I forget where, the Spiegel, maybe?) that the refugees are around 70% young, single men.

Well, then, goodbye Europe! they've accomplished what Suleiman was unable to do by force of arms: invade and colonize Europe.

NicoleK,

That was my point. Go back far enough and you can find a common ancestor. Using the out of africa theory we are all native africans, native americans, native whatevers. Heck, Elizabeth Warren was native american because she kinda thought her grandma might have mentioned a native american once.

But using a more reasonable definition, yes around 5% of americans have indian ancestry. And only ~25% of UK citizens have immigrant ancestry, not 90%. For many European nations it is much less than 25% with immigrant ancestry.

I have absolutely no sympathy for these so called muslim refugees. They were quite content to follow their religion of hate as long as it was Christian, Jewish, atheist, groups being killed or abused by their fucking Sharia laws.

Now that the really sicko super fundamentalists have turned on them for not being muslim enough they want to bring their stone age culture to the west. Boo fucking hoo. It's their bullshit religion. Let them stay where they are and live with the consequences of their "faith."

Here are official data from the UNHCR. 72% men, just 13% women, 15% children:

http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.html

Look at the map. There are dozens of countries between Syria and Germany. If these were refugees desperately seeking shelter from civil war, any of those countries could provide it. But no, they're barging through European borders and demanding to all be let in to the wealthiest nations, where they imagine the streets are paved with gold and welfare benefits.

Yes this is an outright invasion, and when in history has that ever ended well for the nations being invaded?

Jay - exactly! And how soon before they decide that WE, who take them in, aren't Muslim enough and they turn on us?

After all, while we were there saving their butts from al Qaeda and Saddam a lot of them complained that we needed to get out. So, we did.

Scary thought: Hidden among those thousands of refugees are hundreds of ISIS soldiers.

Sorry, but I think that's a stupid thought.

For a start, ISIS have lots of EU passport holders in their ranks, and probably lots of US ones too. They don't need this excuse.

Second, they have no particular interest in attacking the West. Not that they'd be against it, but they have better things to do right now.

Third, who cares. If 100k Syrians live because "we" let them into the EU, and 10 terrorists come and kill 100 people, we are up 99.9k people. Syrians are people too.

Security is a concern, but it is NOT the only concern. Liberty is important too. I'd have thought that readers of this blog would be happier with that equation than most.

There was a story a while back- a couple of months ago- about how a group of migrants from Ghana and Nigeria got into an argument over religion and the Muslims threw the Christians over the side of the boat into the Mediterranean.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3042001/Aid-agency-says-41-migrants-feared-dead-new-sea-tragedy.html

I don't think these people understand the root of their problems, and I don't think they'll be reformed, no matter where there are.

The question I have- seriously- is WHY are 70% of the migrants young men? Are women and children being left behind? Thrown off the boat? Being taken in before they get to Europe?

It's a tough journey, it's always going to be that young men are more likely to risk it and more likely to survive it.

I'd bet that young men are the majority of migrants from any country to any other, at any period of history.

Ahw,

It is mostly men because they have nowhere to go. A young man who is not producing is not accepted. Relatives will not provide them with shelter and food. Women and children are treated differently.

That is also why many people have called this the spearhead of the invasion. If those roughly 700,000 men find a home you can expect 700,000+ second wave refugees to join them. Assimilating 1.5-2 million people is a daunting task.

There was a story a while back- a couple of months ago- about how a group of migrants from Ghana and Nigeria got into an argument over religion and the Muslims threw the Christians over the side of the boat into the Mediterranean.

Yeah, they killed the Christians, and Italy which is somewhat considered a Christian country let them in! Stupid white liberal guilt is going to be the end of the white race,and then the end of all non-whites that do not subscribe to Islam, well except China, Russia..they are not going to be conned

Third, who cares. If 100k Syrians live because "we" let them into the EU, and 10 terrorists come and kill 100 people, we are up 99.9k people. Syrians are people too

What if the 100 included every single person you have ever loved in your life? Still ok with that? Did not think so...

I'm less concerned with the short-term possibility of getting blown up by a DAESCH attack, and more concerned with the potential long-term repercussions.

Walking around Paris at night is hell with all the sexual harassment... and no, it isn't the indigenous Frenchmen doing it. Train stations in Switzerland have always been seedy, they are progressively more so. Burglaries are up.

Schools in the cities are having a hard time teaching, because so many students come from places where women aren't respected, and their fathers tell the boys that they don't have to listen to female teachers. Not to mention the difficulty of teaching classes when half the kids can't understand you.

I know a lot of folks on this board are against feminism, but I'm pretty happy with the results and have no desire for society to regress into a pre-feminist state due to a cultural shift in the population.

For a start, ISIS have lots of EU passport holders in their ranks, and probably lots of US ones too. They don't need this excuse.

It isn't an excuse. It's an opportunity. And a good portion of passport holders are already on watch lists, and will be likely arrested once they set foot in their home country.

Besides, they can now get in hundreds, if not thousands of their best and brightest into an enemy's relatively unsecured flank and allow them to open up a new front. That isn't stupid. That's classic Sun Tzu.

Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.

Besides, at what point will the EU whine that the USofA needs to take some of these refugees? giving ISIS further reach than they might hope for?

I know a lot of folks on this board are against feminism

I'm against a feminism that wants to treat women like special little snowflakes, and would paint me an evil, rapacious monster simply because I can pee standing up. And my worst sin? desiring sex with women. They might cut me some slack if I were gay.

Of course, there is an anti-sex component to western feminism, so they do share that with the Islamists...enemy of my enemy and all that.

NicoleK,

I am opposed to female supremacism just like I am opposed to male supremacism. Modern feminism isn't for equality. It is for female dominance.

What's next for Europe?

Something like this.

Well, 99% of the population of the US is descended from immigrants. It's probably 90% of the UK and most of Europe too.

"I know a lot of folks on this board are against feminism, but I'm pretty happy with the results and have no desire for society to regress into a pre-feminist state due to a cultural shift in the population."

You're not talking about a pre-feminist state. You're talking about a pre-modern state. Differen thing. But do note how Western feminists, while whining 24/7 about microaggressions against them, are blase about the raping and killing of Third World women. Sure, they'll Tweet a hashtag. And what good does that do? Actually fixing the problem requires the actions of rough and hard men of Western values, the kind of person that feminism regards as the absolute incarnation of evil in the universe. Being hypocritical means never having to examine your own beliefs.