Hacker News Reader

Comment by cbeach | Hacker News Reader

Several of my smartest and most ambitious friends have emigrated from London to Aus and Japan. Destinations that have sensible immigration policies, and which have maintained their cultural integrity.

A country is not a country without borders. When I emigrate I will choose a country based on its singular culture, and crucially, how well it maintains that culture. Why would I choose a country that's right for me now but risks changing in the future when I have kids there?

Multi-ethnicity in London is great. Multiculturalism in London is a sickness. No one chooses to move here for "London's culture," because it doesn't have an identifiable culture. So people come here expecting to maintain their own culture in a bubble instead, resulting in ghettos, self-segregation and rising tension.

View on HN

Is "sensible" a euphemism for "don't allow brown people in"? I've never heard Japan's immigration policies described as sensible before. Japan as a country is dying because of their low birthrate and overly restrictive immigration policies. What's sensible about that?

"Sensible" is a euphemism for "don't allow religious fundamentalists with a deep-seated hatred of the West in"

Additionally, this demographic (I won't name the religion - I'm sure you know the one I'm describing) has a male unemployment rate of 50% and female unemployment rate of 75% in the UK.

You don't die as a country through low birthrates - this could only happen in a bygone era that required massive labourforce, agriculture, factory work etc. No - the modern economy does not require "throwing bodies at the problem." We are entering the age of automation, a having more humans in a country is not as important as having the smartest humans to build the automation.

In fact having more humans in the country just creates an aging population timebomb. This problem is confounded by immigration. Not resolved by immigration. Immigrants age just like the rest of us.

Literally every statement in this comment of yours needs a reliable source.

Happy to oblige:

http://examine-islam.org/islam-and-the-uk-some-facts/

Yes but that includes none of the the statements you made. You said unemployment rate of Muslim women is 75%. According to this 29% of Muslim women are in full time employment compared to 50% of general population. Yet, unemployment rate of general population is not 50%. There is a huge different between lack of full time employment and unemployment.

Every other statement after that is also utter nonsense pseudo opinion.

"More than half of Muslim men and three quarters of Muslim women are unemployed."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8054436/Indians-and-C...

You're just pointing to the statistical bias in British media. There is a huge different between not being in FULL time employment and being unemployed.

Since we're pointing at random articles: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-musli...

"The recent national Labour Force survey showed the unemployment rate among Muslim women was 18 per cent, compared with 9 per cent for Hindu women and 4 per cent for white Christian women."

No doubt unemployment rate is higher for Muslim women, and it is a problem. But citing figures that out of your pocket isn't gonna help.

Your article is showing a different type of measure, but it's showing the same glaring problem - Muslim women are not working in this country - not nearly as many of them as other demographics. I don't care whether a Muslim commentator thinks the cause for this is anti-Muslim "bias." There isn't an institutionalised anti-Muslim bias in our workplaces, and if there was you'd have to ask "why?" - is it the five-times-a-day prayer breaks? The 30 days of fasting leaving workers unable to properly function? The subjugation of women in Muslim society? All of these factors could explain the figures we see, and they're all the fault of Islam. Not of Western employers.

Your sources are second hand, and old. The article you picked was from The Telegraph and was published in 2010, about the government report "Is Britain Fairer?", which was also published in 2010.

The latest report, from 2015, makes for interesting reading. It shows that:

a. White people have a higher rate of employment than for ethnic minorities generally (74.7% vs. 59.3%)

b. Men have a higher rate of employment than women, and women are more likely to be in part-time work and less likely to be in senior management positions.

c. Religious minorities are more likely to be unemployed, and in particular Muslim men experience the highest levels of unemployment.

There's no analysis though of why any of this is the case though. All the things you highlight aren't necessarily issues that can't be overcome. But you have selectively cherry-picked what you want to see, and I can't see that you can provide any sources that back up your assertions about why Muslims face high unemployment.

As a brown person, I'd really like to see people distinguish between race and culture. Culture is a much stronger predictor of behaviour and compatibility than race / skin colour.

So what if they have low birthrate? I love visiting Japan and quite enjoy their culture. I don't want them to change and become "multicultural" and lose their cultural identity. And as a brown person, I actually agree with him and the comment below. There is one particular religion and a majority of its followers that are fundamentally incompatible with the modern world.

If you are pointing to Australia as an argument against multiculturalism, then you're pointing to the wrong country. Our society is one of the most multicultural in the world.

And I have news for you - I have a number of friends who have moved to London for "London's culture".

How outraged will you be when those sensible immigration policies reject your dirty London culture?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com