Are violent men more inclined to migration, are those who survive the ones prepared to be violent, or does the process of migrating lead to people being more willing to use violence?
"What little support is given comes from refugee charities not the system itself. Put simply our system of managing asylum and undocumented migration fails both British communities and also the migrants themselves."
The responses to this piece illustrate the impossibility of developing an actual system for accommodating migrants. Any statement, suggestion, or observation is met with "You're a racist!" or is similarly disconnected from the topic....so nothing happens.
Successful solutions to problems need dissections of said problems before satisfactory solutions can be developed. Shouting down discussion...any discussion of any element... is so much of the "progressive" game plan, it's no wonder there's no intelligent public discourse. Anyone with an observation or idea is more likely to censor themselves than to say what they're thinking...so nothing happens.
Arendt observed that the advantage fascists of the 30's had was taking any fact and subverting it with a motive, thereby turning said fact into a morality play instead discussing the effects of the fact. C.S. Lewis wrote eloquently of "the Devil" using distraction to keep actual issues off the table and keep people arguing. Distraction. It works.
We've been here before. It's all been said before, but no one was listening so it all has to be said again.
"Put simply our system of managing asylum and undocumented migration fails both British communities and also the migrants themselves."
Why do we have a system at all? There are no war torn countries around us, just advanced Western societies. Why should (genuine) refugees be allowed to choose which country they migrate to?
Migration, legal and illegal, is a net cost to the public purse of billions of pounds something we have never voted for.
Our 'compassion' is Darwinian, given only to the strongest who make it here. In Sudan, The Congo and elsewhere there are hundreds of thousands of people (or more) no less deserving of compassion. Should we bring them all here? Is there an upper limit to how many we can accommodate?
"All this raises a question about what appears to be a greater tendency to violence among migrants. "
Do you have evidence to support this statement? I'd love to see something to establish the veracity of this trope, other than what Elon happens to be saying on Twitter today.
There's plenty of homegrown men in the UK who are violent, abusive, and criminally minded. And not unexpectedly, i'm sure there's an equal percentage of similarly inclined individuals amongst the cohort of men headng across the Channel.
This is not an immigrant/native question. This is a male delinquency question. Why do men enjoy beating, abusing, and killing. That question would better occupy your time than advancing tropes about immigrants to the UK.
I was, I think, being fair-minded here. And suggesting I get my trope (or whatever cool word you’ve adopted) from Elon Musk is a bit off. And I literally provided links to the evidence of migrants having serious mental health problems and, if I read what I wrote correctly, suggested that we could provide better support for often traumatised people and, in doing so, improve community safety. Did you read something else?
As you say yourself, in your own piece, mental health problems do not equal tendency towards violence. On your own words, evidence of mental health problems is of no causative relevance. So why mention it?
Sometimes, may I diplomatically suggest, it's okay to say you were wrong. And retract a statement.
Unless, of course, you do have evidence to support your statement? Given the radio silence in your reply, I conclude you have naught in that regard.
And, in closing, trope is a perfectly adequate use of the English language. It is not "cool" as you suggest, it is merely accurate, historically documented, use of the English language to describe generalisations about groups of individuals by authors looking to evoke less than favourable feelings amongst the populace.
As you say yourself, in your own piece, mental health problems do not equal tendency towards violence. On your own words, evidence of mental health problems is of no causative relevance. So why mention it?
Sometimes, may I diplomatically suggest, it's okay to say you were wrong. And retract a statement.
Unless, of course, you do have evidence to support your statement? Given the radio silence in your reply, I conclude you have naught in that regard.
And, in closing, trope is a perfectly adequate use of the English language. It is not "cool" as you suggest, it is merely accurate, historically documented, use of the English language to describe generalisations about groups of individuals by authors looking to evoke less than favourable feelings amongst the populace.
Given I'm not wrong I see no reason to change anything I wrote. You seem a bit hung up on the idea that there isn't a relationship between mental health problems and violence. Which is obviously not the case.
Substack is supposed to be the platform of intellectual, reasoned, informed debate; as opposed to its peers where clickbait, low-brow content rules the roost. You're doing a disservice to yourself, and the platform.
You've failed to substantiate one of your central claims namely:
"All this raises a question about what appears to be a greater tendency to violence amongst migrants"
I've asked twice now for you to provide evidence that this central claim is true. Statistics... Academic paper... Testimony... Expert opinion... Nothing, you've simply sidestepped.
I see your ego is too fragile to calmly retract your claim. Oh well. Par for the course in today's immigrant fueled, low information, click bait media industry. Shame.
"What little support is given comes from refugee charities not the system itself. Put simply our system of managing asylum and undocumented migration fails both British communities and also the migrants themselves."
The responses to this piece illustrate the impossibility of developing an actual system for accommodating migrants. Any statement, suggestion, or observation is met with "You're a racist!" or is similarly disconnected from the topic....so nothing happens.
Successful solutions to problems need dissections of said problems before satisfactory solutions can be developed. Shouting down discussion...any discussion of any element... is so much of the "progressive" game plan, it's no wonder there's no intelligent public discourse. Anyone with an observation or idea is more likely to censor themselves than to say what they're thinking...so nothing happens.
Arendt observed that the advantage fascists of the 30's had was taking any fact and subverting it with a motive, thereby turning said fact into a morality play instead discussing the effects of the fact. C.S. Lewis wrote eloquently of "the Devil" using distraction to keep actual issues off the table and keep people arguing. Distraction. It works.
We've been here before. It's all been said before, but no one was listening so it all has to be said again.
"Put simply our system of managing asylum and undocumented migration fails both British communities and also the migrants themselves."
Why do we have a system at all? There are no war torn countries around us, just advanced Western societies. Why should (genuine) refugees be allowed to choose which country they migrate to?
Migration, legal and illegal, is a net cost to the public purse of billions of pounds something we have never voted for.
Our 'compassion' is Darwinian, given only to the strongest who make it here. In Sudan, The Congo and elsewhere there are hundreds of thousands of people (or more) no less deserving of compassion. Should we bring them all here? Is there an upper limit to how many we can accommodate?
"All this raises a question about what appears to be a greater tendency to violence among migrants. "
Do you have evidence to support this statement? I'd love to see something to establish the veracity of this trope, other than what Elon happens to be saying on Twitter today.
There's plenty of homegrown men in the UK who are violent, abusive, and criminally minded. And not unexpectedly, i'm sure there's an equal percentage of similarly inclined individuals amongst the cohort of men headng across the Channel.
This is not an immigrant/native question. This is a male delinquency question. Why do men enjoy beating, abusing, and killing. That question would better occupy your time than advancing tropes about immigrants to the UK.
I was, I think, being fair-minded here. And suggesting I get my trope (or whatever cool word you’ve adopted) from Elon Musk is a bit off. And I literally provided links to the evidence of migrants having serious mental health problems and, if I read what I wrote correctly, suggested that we could provide better support for often traumatised people and, in doing so, improve community safety. Did you read something else?
As you say yourself, in your own piece, mental health problems do not equal tendency towards violence. On your own words, evidence of mental health problems is of no causative relevance. So why mention it?
Sometimes, may I diplomatically suggest, it's okay to say you were wrong. And retract a statement.
Unless, of course, you do have evidence to support your statement? Given the radio silence in your reply, I conclude you have naught in that regard.
And, in closing, trope is a perfectly adequate use of the English language. It is not "cool" as you suggest, it is merely accurate, historically documented, use of the English language to describe generalisations about groups of individuals by authors looking to evoke less than favourable feelings amongst the populace.
As you say yourself, in your own piece, mental health problems do not equal tendency towards violence. On your own words, evidence of mental health problems is of no causative relevance. So why mention it?
Sometimes, may I diplomatically suggest, it's okay to say you were wrong. And retract a statement.
Unless, of course, you do have evidence to support your statement? Given the radio silence in your reply, I conclude you have naught in that regard.
And, in closing, trope is a perfectly adequate use of the English language. It is not "cool" as you suggest, it is merely accurate, historically documented, use of the English language to describe generalisations about groups of individuals by authors looking to evoke less than favourable feelings amongst the populace.
Given I'm not wrong I see no reason to change anything I wrote. You seem a bit hung up on the idea that there isn't a relationship between mental health problems and violence. Which is obviously not the case.
Substack is supposed to be the platform of intellectual, reasoned, informed debate; as opposed to its peers where clickbait, low-brow content rules the roost. You're doing a disservice to yourself, and the platform.
You've failed to substantiate one of your central claims namely:
"All this raises a question about what appears to be a greater tendency to violence amongst migrants"
I've asked twice now for you to provide evidence that this central claim is true. Statistics... Academic paper... Testimony... Expert opinion... Nothing, you've simply sidestepped.
I see your ego is too fragile to calmly retract your claim. Oh well. Par for the course in today's immigrant fueled, low information, click bait media industry. Shame.