General Election

[cmdc]

Restrict it further then. There needs to be a brief halt to immigration from at least certain places until we can deal with the problem we have at hand. Internally.

 

I'll leave it here, but I think immigration is a red herring here. You'll struggle to find anyone in security/intelligence/counter-terrorism who seriously thinks that an immigration ban would help in any way - more likely they'll say that on balance it is more dangerous.

[TRVMP]

Publicly noticing the demographics of terrorists is likely to get an intelligence analyst fired. "It's nothing to do with Islam!" says the spokesman as the third-generation British Muslim blows up his office.

 

Anyway, we need the young men of the Middle East to come en masse and pay our pensions and fund our security state.

 

Here's a question for the "let them in or they'll kill us" advocates - how many residents of the Calais refugee camp have killed Brits since they were so cruelly denied their birthright of Albion's soil?

[cmdc]

Publicly noticing the demographics of terrorists is likely to get an intelligence analyst fired. "It's nothing to do with Islam!" says the spokesman as the third-generation British Muslim blows up his office.

 

Anyway, we need the young men of the Middle East to come en masse and pay our pensions and fund our security state.

 

Here's a question for the "let them in or they'll kill us" advocates - how many residents of the Calais refugee camp have killed Brits since they were so cruelly denied their birthright of Albion's soil?

 

I don't think there is a 'let them in or they'll kill us' brigade. I've certainly never come across that argument.

[TRVMP]

It is exactly what you're arguing. How could "immigration restriction makes us 'less safe'" possibly mean anything else? Safety here is a euphemism for avoiding blood on the streets. If by preventing immigration we make it "less safe", only allowing immigration prevents blood on the streets. Only letting them in stops them from killing us.

[cmdc]

It is exactly what you're arguing. How could "immigration restriction makes us 'less safe'" possibly mean anything else? Safety here is a euphemism for avoiding blood on the streets. If by preventing immigration we make it "less safe", only allowing immigration prevents blood on the streets. Only letting them in stops them from killing us.

 

If by "exactly" you mean "not at all" then yes.

[TRVMP]

If by "exactly" you mean "not at all" then yes.

 

Can you explain your formulation to me then? Because the logic seems quite clear.

 

My formulation is: "Less Islamic immigration makes us safer." (I define "safety" as "having fewer Islamic terror attacks.") My reading is that you disagree with this. Do I have that right?

 

If one disagrees with it, one would apply the conservation of expected evidence theory and conclude that "more Islamic immigration makes us safer" (and, necessarily, its corollary, "less Islamic immigration makes us less safe.") Using safety as earlier defined - Islamic terror attacks - the only grammatically sensible outcome here is that "failure to allow Islamic immigration results in Islamic terror attacks."

 

What part of this am I getting wrong?

[Cet Homme Charmant]

 Ban them and wash them out and then reevaluate our immigration policy.

The Westminster Bridge terrorist, the Manchester bomber, and two of the three London Bridge terrorists were British citizens. What would you ban them from?

[TRVMP]

If British citizens have a propensity towards random acts of terrorist violence it seems prudent to create as few future British citizens as possible. Curbing immigration would be an easy way to stop the threat of the next generation of Britons, knowing as we do that British citizens are dangerous.

[cmdc]

If British citizens have a propensity towards random acts of terrorist violence it seems prudent to create as few future British citizens as possible. Curbing immigration would be an easy way to stop the threat of the next generation of Britons, knowing as we do that British citizens are dangerous.

They don't. Nor do immigrants. And the relatively small number who do have criminal intent are not random - they are much more often than not known to our police/security services who need resources and intelligence to investigate them fully.

[TRVMP]

They don't. Nor do immigrants. And the relatively small number who do have criminal intent are not random - they are much more often than not known to our police/security services who need resources and intelligence to investigate them fully.

 

Fancy addressing my post from earlier, and then we'll get to this one?

[cmdc]

Can you explain your formulation to me then? Because the logic seems quite clear.

 

My formulation is: "Less Islamic immigration makes us safer." (I define "safety" as "having fewer Islamic terror attacks.") My reading is that you disagree with this. Do I have that right?

 

If one disagrees with it, one would apply the conservation of expected evidence theory and conclude that "more Islamic immigration makes us safer" (and, necessarily, its corollary, "less Islamic immigration makes us less safe.") Using safety as earlier defined - Islamic terror attacks - the only grammatically sensible outcome here is that "failure to allow Islamic immigration results in Islamic terror attacks."

 

What part of this am I getting wrong?

I don't agree that less immigration makes us safer, no, but I don't think that more immigration makes us safer. Immigration, to me, is a red herring here.

[Cet Homme Charmant]

If British citizens have a propensity towards random acts of terrorist violence it seems prudent to create as few future British citizens as possible. Curbing immigration would be an easy way to stop the threat of the next generation of Britons, knowing as we do that British citizens are dangerous.

That's not answering my question though, is it? Once again, what would you ban the 4 British citizens who carried out the recent atrocities from? 

[TRVMP]

That's not answering my question though, is it? Once again, what would you ban the 4 British citizens who carried out the recent atrocities from? 

 

Well, I can't speak for ToM who posted it, so I don't know the answer to that. My contention is that reducing the number of future British citizens will reduce the likelihood of such attacks, ergo reducing immigration significantly will stop the British menace.

[TRVMP]

I don't agree that less immigration makes us safer, no, but I don't think that more immigration makes us safer. Immigration, to me, is a red herring here.

 

It's only a red herring if you think that significant demographic and cultural changes don't make a difference to populations, which would be a pretty stunning denial. What accounts for the growth of Islam in the UK since WW2 - is it because of conversion of the indigenous population or the arrival of a new population? It's obviously the latter. So adjusting immigration numbers higher or lower would from Muslim areas would presumably have an effect, right? And it would have an effect on future demographics, right? Is that non-controversial enough? You don't need to believe that "demography is destiny" (although to a certain extent I do believe this) to acknowledge that changing demographics result in changing cultures.

 

To then move onto your next point, i.e. your last post, I personally don't like the idea that we need a massive security/police state to corral our own citizens. It doesn't sit right with me. This is something on which we're unlikely to agree. Plenty of people seem to be into that stuff but I'd rather a smaller state.

[Cet Homme Charmant]

Well, I can't speak for ToM who posted it, so I don't know the answer to that. 

So why did you respond then?

[TRVMP]

So why did you respond then?

 

Because it's a public forum and I raised a relevant point in a trenchant way.

[TheGoon]

Curious to see what the 18/24 turnout is tomorrow. They really could play a rather large part in this if they can be bothered.

[TRVMP]

One would hope they are more motivated than usual, given that there is a chance (albeit a slim one) of actual change.

[Maxwell House]

Ban what? An entire faith or immigration as a whole? I'm not having a go I'm just curious as of to what you mean.

We can start by Banning the Burka.

[TRVMP]

In fairness I think the forum is pretty tolerant about any form of headgear.