IMMIGRATION thread

[Sarmatian]

A counter-argument would be: So adult Syrian males are leaving their wives and children unprotected for months in a warzone?

A valid counter argument.

Consider this example, though. Let's take a hypothetical Syrian male whom we will aptly call Male. Male is 25-30 years old, has a wife and a 5-10 year old child. He lives in a small village in Syria with his family and his parents which isn't directly threatened at the moment. What are his options? He could remain there. War shows no signs of ending so the situation, while stable now, may change and the village may come under threat. The constant warfare is threatening food supplies, also. Even if they manage to survive, the future for his family looks grim. There's very little chance his child will get a chance to have an education and a what we would call "a normal life", house, job, marriage, the lot. Even in the best case scenario. In the worst case scenario they all end up dead. He's been torn for a long time. At first he hoped that it may end soon. Then a year passed, then another year passed, and then 3 more. No end in sight. The country is so devastated that even if the warfare stopped this instant, it would take years to recover. His child would still be deprived of normal life. So, he decides to try to leave. Now, where to? Gulf countries? They're full up. North Africa? The situation there isn't much better than in Syria. Horn of Africa? Not much better than Syria. Iran? Caucasus? Balkans? Unstable. Wars and/or low level warfare now or in the recent past.

So, Male thinks his best option for safety of his family is western Europe. How will he get there? The road is long, he may not have much money. He will probably be hungry, cold and generally in danger during the trip. He may be forced to deal with lowlifes and criminals. He may end up being close to his goal and those countries could close their borders, forcing him back through all that. There's no way he could take his wife and child on such a trip, full of dangers and uncertainties. So, he decides to go alone, and leaves his family in the relative safety of his village. His parents will be there to help if needed, and if the worst truly happens, his presence wouldn't have made a difference. So Male embarks on the trip alone, hoping to reach somewhere safe, and organize transport for his family at the earliest possible opportunity.

Or you could have a Male 2.0, who isn't married and has no children. The situation is the same, so instead of trying to start a family in Syria, he seeks to move to a stable country where he could start a family, raise his children in safety and provide them a normal life.

[Pannonian]

A valid counter argument.

Consider this example, though. Let's take a hypothetical Syrian male whom we will aptly call Male. Male is 25-30 years old, has a wife and a 5-10 year old child. He lives in a small village in Syria with his family and his parents which isn't directly threatened at the moment. What are his options? He could remain there. War shows no signs of ending so the situation, while stable now, may change and the village may come under threat. The constant warfare is threatening food supplies, also. Even if they manage to survive, the future for his family looks grim. There's very little chance his child will get a chance to have an education and a what we would call "a normal life", house, job, marriage, the lot. Even in the best case scenario. In the worst case scenario they all end up dead. He's been torn for a long time. At first he hoped that it may end soon. Then a year passed, then another year passed, and then 3 more. No end in sight. The country is so devastated that even if the warfare stopped this instant, it would take years to recover. His child would still be deprived of normal life. So, he decides to try to leave. Now, where to? Gulf countries? They're full up. North Africa? The situation there isn't much better than in Syria. Horn of Africa? Not much better than Syria. Iran? Caucasus? Balkans? Unstable. Wars and/or low level warfare now or in the recent past.

So, Male thinks his best option for safety of his family is western Europe. How will he get there? The road is long, he may not have much money. He will probably be hungry, cold and generally in danger during the trip. He may be forced to deal with lowlifes and criminals. He may end up being close to his goal and those countries could close their borders, forcing him back through all that. There's no way he could take his wife and child on such a trip, full of dangers and uncertainties. So, he decides to go alone, and leaves his family in the relative safety of his village. His parents will be there to help if needed, and if the worst truly happens, his presence wouldn't have made a difference. So Male embarks on the trip alone, hoping to reach somewhere safe, and organize transport for his family at the earliest possible opportunity.

Or you could have a Male 2.0, who isn't married and has no children. The situation is the same, so instead of trying to start a family in Syria, he seeks to move to a stable country where he could start a family, raise his children in safety and provide them a normal life.

And why are we expected to facilitate this?

[Shaka_Khan]

Cities with better police action will have groups who get along and trust each other. Multiculturalism works pretty well in these places. Expatriates and immigrants are welcome in these places. Unfortunately, there are people who have the opinion that more police presence equals oppression. There are ways to prevent governments from becoming tyrants and keep the cities safe at the same time.

In my opinion, it is the lack of action by the government and the police that (unintentionally) increased the crime rate in the first place. I've been to a few dangerous cities in the US. What striked me was the police living in fear as they patrolled the streets. There were many cases in which the police were unable to prevent crime from happening. When I'm in those cities, I'm not sure that the police would be able to help me if I get into a bad situation. It's very different when I'm in a safe city. Europe wouldn't be having this problem if the governments (particularly Germany and Sweden) weren't so lenient early on when it was easier to handle. Then the troublemakers would've got the message. There are people with extreme deviant behaviors in every ethnicity and race. Most of the problematic people won't act deviant if the governments show that they care about their citizens and show that they'll enforce protection strongly.

[Pannonian]

Cities with better police action will have groups who get along and trust each other. Multiculturalism works pretty well in these places. Expatriates and immigrants are welcome in these places. Unfortunately, there are people who have the opinion that more police presence equals oppression. There are ways to prevent governments from becoming tyrants and keep the cities safe at the same time.

In my opinion, it is the lack of action by the government and the police that (unintentionally) increased the crime rate in the first place. I've been to a few dangerous cities in the US. What striked me was the police living in fear as they patrolled the streets. There were many cases in which the police were unable to prevent crime from happening. When I'm in those cities, I'm not sure that the police would be able to help me if I get into a bad situation. It's very different when I'm in a safe city. Europe wouldn't be having this problem if the governments (particularly Germany and Sweden) weren't so lenient early on when it was easier to handle. Then the troublemakers would've got the message. There are people with extreme deviant behaviors in every ethnicity and race. Most of the problematic people won't act deviant if the governments show that they care about their citizens and show that they'll enforce protection strongly.

In every single culture across the world, throughout history, it is the responsibility of the guest to show extra courtesy whilst in the home of the hosts. The exception is when the incomer is a conqueror. It's why English football fans have been reviled/possibly are still reviled abroad. Multiply this by quite a few times for the current situation. It's in no way the fault of the hosts, however much you may wish to paint it so.

[Papewaio]

In every single culture across the world, throughout history, it is the responsibility of the guest to show extra courtesy whilst in the home of the hosts. The exception is when the incomer is a conqueror. It's why English football fans have been reviled/possibly are still reviled abroad. Multiply this by quite a few times for the current situation. It's in no way the fault of the hosts, however much you may wish to paint it so.

Policing is part of the preventative measures. As are IDs, communication improvement, vetting and allocation of the correct resources is social services and medical resourcing.

One part is making sure the immigrants aren't part of the cause of the issues that they are fleeing.
Another is to help the new arrivals steer clear of groups that will take advantage of them from low level criminals to bosses exploiting labour.

If all the new associates are the current societies pariahs rather then upstanding law and order types like good police then who do you think the noobs are going to pattern themselves on?

Society cannot expect people to passively integrate in the most positive manner. They will naturally conform to a range unless prompted otherwise. Even with good measures their are undesirable outcomes in every society.

[Fragony]

Being a good guest would be a good start before musing about what we could do better as a host.

[Pannonian]

Policing is part of the preventative measures. As are IDs, communication improvement, vetting and allocation of the correct resources is social services and medical resourcing.

One part is making sure the immigrants aren't part of the cause of the issues that they are fleeing.
Another is to help the new arrivals steer clear of groups that will take advantage of them from low level criminals to bosses exploiting labour.

If all the new associates are the current societies pariahs rather then upstanding law and order types like good police then who do you think the noobs are going to pattern themselves on?

Society cannot expect people to passively integrate in the most positive manner. They will naturally conform to a range unless prompted otherwise. Even with good measures their are undesirable outcomes in every society.

It makes you wonder why so many second generation Muslims are religious fundies though, after their parents did all they could to give their children a normative western life. After our experience with homegrown Islamist loons, I have little confidence that the newcomers will produce better results. Especially as the newcomers seem to be worse behaved than the previous intake of first generation Muslims, who at least tried to do their best before their idiot kids turned against their country of birth.

If we are to receive them, they should be loyal to the UK above any other identity. If this seems unfairly exceptional when other cultures aren't told to do the same, that's because other cultures accept it a a matter of course, and adapt themselves to fit into the host society.

[Myth]

It's because the muslims want to be horse archers, yet you force them into being longbowmen.

[Shaka_Khan]

In every single culture across the world, throughout history, it is the responsibility of the guest to show extra courtesy whilst in the home of the hosts. The exception is when the incomer is a conqueror. It's why English football fans have been reviled/possibly are still reviled abroad. Multiply this by quite a few times for the current situation. It's in no way the fault of the hosts, however much you may wish to paint it so.

The fact is that the crimes are happening. You don't sit still just because you expect everyone to behave.
"It's they're fault so I don't have to do anything about it."

[Greyblades]

We are doing something about it: we're not letting them in.

[Husar]

We are doing something about it: we're not letting them in.

http://www.thenation.com/article/eur...ve-punishment/

Aspiring to the old days of empire building, slave trade and collective punishment again. And this from the people who claim their bill of rights and stuff were groundbreaking in enlightenment and human rights matters.

[Pannonian]

The fact is that the crimes are happening. You don't sit still just because you expect everyone to behave.
"It's they're fault so I don't have to do anything about it."

Is that supposed to be an argument for actively bringing in a demographic that has a recent and active history of troublemaking? Syrians are Syrians because they're from Syria. That means they have no special claim on us. We have no particular obligation towards them. If we do anything for them, it's a favour. If they want more than that, then they can ask for it from someone else as we wash our hands of them. If they want aid, then we can make an offer, and they can make a reciprocal accommodation. If they don't like it because it's not ideal, then they can hold out for a better offer from someone else.

[Gilrandir]

In general, if you had bother to look, you would see that it is connected again with poverty. Rich Muslim countries tend to have extremely low rates of violent crimes.

It's about poverty, not race or religion.

It doesn't change the ultimate result for locals: their country is becomoing more unsafe with the advent of immigrants whatever explanation is behind their behavior.

1) It was safe - Are expecting adult Syrian males to let their their wives and children deal with smugglers, officials, harsh conditions, camps, carry money for smugglers, transportation and corrupt officials, potentially wait months in winter, track back and do it all over again if a border is closed etc, etc... ALONE? Would you let your wife and child do that?

BUT: when they try to be united with their families, the latter will have to go through the same hardships involving camps, smugglers, corrupt officials and so on. Or do you mean Germany will PAY to ship the rest of the family in?

So, he decides to try to leave. Now, where to? Gulf countries? They're full up. North Africa? The situation there isn't much better than in Syria. Horn of Africa? Not much better than Syria. Iran? Caucasus? Balkans? Unstable. Wars and/or low level warfare now or in the recent past.

How does a peasant from a backward village know the state of things all over the Eastern hemisphere? And it seems that any of those places are better than Syria, so he is supposed to dash for the first safer corner, not to speculate on picking the choiciest nook.

[Pannonian]

It doesn't change the ultimate result for locals: their country is becomoing more unsafe with the advent of immigrants whatever explanation is behind their behavior.

Especially as

1. ISIS have threatened to smuggle agents among the refugees, to attack soft targets in the west.
2. They've already done it in Paris, resulting in 100+ deaths.

[Husar]

It doesn't change the ultimate result for locals: their country is becomoing more unsafe with the advent of immigrants whatever explanation is behind their behavior.

It wasn't safe before either, but noone cared. There were hand grenade attacks between rivalling biker gangs, mass gatherings of said biker gangs with huge police protection, human trafficking at a huge scale, mafia executions in cities, professional eastern european burglar gangs that would rob homes during broad daylight, mafia families from the balkans and levant that owned entire streets, engaged in drug trafficking and had feuds with each other openly on the streets and yet we kept electing Merkel and friends over and over who saved us so much money by reducing police budgets...

But yeah, all these problems are the fault of Syrian men who don't want to get drafted and die for their dictator.

Especially as

1. ISIS have threatened to smuggle agents among the refugees, to attack soft targets in the west.
2. They've already done it in Paris, resulting in 100+ deaths.

1. And we should cower in fear as soon as they say that. This way we win.
2. There was one guy who may have come disguised as a refugee, the only sensible reaction is to let a million people freeze to death in front of a barbed wire.

[Pannonian]

1. And we should cower in fear as soon as they say that. This way we win.
2. There was one guy who may have come disguised as a refugee, the only sensible reaction is to let a million people freeze to death in front of a barbed wire.

IIRC all except one of the Paris attackers had been in Syria, and had returned with the refugees via Greece.

[Viking]

It wasn't safe before either, but noone cared. There were hand grenade attacks between rivalling biker gangs, mass gatherings of said biker gangs with huge police protection, human trafficking at a huge scale, mafia executions in cities, professional eastern european burglar gangs that would rob homes during broad daylight, mafia families from the balkans and levant that owned entire streets, engaged in drug trafficking and had feuds with each other openly on the streets and yet we kept electing Merkel and friends over and over who saved us so much money by reducing police budgets...

But yeah, all these problems are the fault of Syrian men who don't want to get drafted and die for their dictator.

Note that what you quote says more.

[Pannonian]

Note that what you quote says more.

What Husar says also says a lot. "yet we kept electing Merkel and friends over and over who saved us so much money by reducing police budgets." Neither I, nor anyone in the UK, ever elected Merkel. What Merkel decides to do with Germany's borders is the business of herself and the German people who elected her. The UK's borders is the business of the British government and the British people who elected them. The presumption of others to override the security concerns of the UK is part of the reason for our Europhobia. And I speak as a Europhile.

[Sarmatian]

It doesn't change the ultimate result for locals: their country is becomoing more unsafe with the advent of immigrants whatever explanation is behind their behavior.

Not anymore that it would with a million of other people.

BUT: when they try to be united with their families, the latter will have to go through the same hardships involving camps, smugglers, corrupt officials and so on. Or do you mean Germany will PAY to ship the rest of the family in?

No, because once he's settled in and legally allowed to live and work in Germany, he can arrange for his family to come the normal way, a boat or a plane and he will have the financial means to accomplish it.

How does a peasant from a backward village know the state of things all over the Eastern hemisphere? And it seems that any of those places are better than Syria, so he is supposed to dash for the first safer corner, not to speculate on picking the choiciest nook.

Some of them do. The rest is seeing what those who do know choose as their destination and follow suit.

And, more importantly, not everybody is moving to Europe. There's three times more refugees in Turkey than in all of Europe combined.

[Greyblades]

Not anymore that it would with a million of other people.

...seriously? After all we've seen happen in Paris and Cologne you still believe that?

[Sarmatian]

...seriously? After all we've seen happen in Paris and Cologne you still believe that?

Terrorism is a threat and it will remain a threat regardless of refugees.

Terrorists are recruited from poor and uneducated people. You will never see an oil baron blow himself up. Now imagine how many more terrorists can be recruited if you return a million people to Syria, where they will struggle to acquire even basic necessities, will have no chance at getting an education and basically will have no future. How hard would it be to brainwash those people and make terrorists out of them? Not very much.

[Greyblades]

Except you wont be getting anywhere near the amount of terrorists from non muslim/middle east immigrants. Nor would they be narly as succeptable to brainwashing.

[Pannonian]

Except you wont be getting anywhere near the amount of terrorists from non muslim/middle east immigrants. Nor would they be narly as succeptable to brainwashing.

Most of the non-Muslim terrorists that we have share at least some degree of common values with normal society. Nowhere near the same sort of relish in targeting the weak, for instance. After Omagh, the worst of the Troubles-related atrocities, RIRA turned away from further civilian targeting. In contrast, Islamists have progressively turned up the level of outrage they commit, gloating and gaining support with each atrocity they commit. In terms of mentality, they bear comparison with the worst of the 20th century monsters, who are similarly alien to our society. Unlike them, Islamists are looking to commit their atrocities in our countries. And unlike then, liberal values are too firmly ingrained in our society to allow such measures as general internment. Heck, even profiling is likely to raise protests about a police state.

[Fragony]

Usually not that poor and uneducated, you are underestimating them if you think so

@Sarmatarian

[Sarmatian]

Except you wont be getting any terrorists from non muslim/middle east immigrants. Nor would they be succeptable to brainwashing.

?

Usually not that poor and uneducated, you are underestimating them if you think so

@Sarmatarian

Not those who plan and finance, those who execute. Almost all of them have little prospects in life.