IMMIGRATION thread

[Beskar]

Are you suggesting it is good that the police was refusing to deal with sexual assaults due to the perpetrators belonging to a group which would lead to gains by a certain political party?

Considering I didn't at any point make any comments referring to the topic, it would be a very long stretch to suggest that I was suggesting anything of the sort.

She was born and raised in Sweden and spoke Swedish, fully integrated into society, even graduating from a uni.
What does it take for you to view someone with roots in immigration to be viewed as Swedish?

It is not me who has the issue.

[Montmorency]

Doesn't matter. Wherever it is - just ship'em back.

And yet one of the oft-cited dilemmas regarding the admission of refugees is that 'we don't know where they are coming from'.

Once again, the most reasonable solution seems to be the colonization of Neo-Prussia.

Generally speaking, most social upheaval tends to come from the younger generations, not the older ones. With a decreasing younger fraction of the population, the country could just as well become more stable.

Another disconnected generalization without regard for causality. Generally speaking, the old have been far too infirm and far too few in number to even constitute a distinct demographic in the first place.

If you want anecdotes, look to the readiness of "senior citizens" to march and gather in protest in the United States and Japan on conservative planks and for self-advocacy.

Do people not realise that 'immigrants' are actually people?

If we are prepared to embark on a full program of integration, then let us do so - swiftly, much more so than now. If we are holding most asylum seekers temporarily, then closed internment camps are the most effective and humane way of both accounting for the population and providing for/ensuring access to vital goods and services. The quality of conditions under internment obviously depends on funding levels and protocol and oversight in place; we must recognize the difference between conditionally (i.e. 'don't run off') housing asylum seekers in facilities well-provided with heating, food, water, medicine, books, and communications equipment and any of the abusive examples readily citable from modern history.

[Fragony]

Do people not realise that 'immigrants' are actually people?

Of course, but you would expect refugees to give a sigh of relief the second they are in a country where they are safe, and can't wait to return to their homes once it's safe to do so. I would put these brackets on refugees, like this; 'refugees'

[Pannonian]

Of course, but you would expect refugees to give a sigh of relief the second they are in a country where they are safe, and can't wait to return to their homes once it's safe to do so. I would put these brackets on refugees, like this; 'refugees'

Look after the women and children as though they are natives. Train the men as an army, under European officers, to fight ISIS. If we can't trust them with heavy weapons, then train them as light infantry with European forces providing heavy lifting. Those who aren't suitable for fighting as front line infantry can work in the logistical tail instead. Those who won't work towards this should be interned until such a time as they can be deported back to Syria. Those who distinguish themselves can be offered EU citizenship, distributed between the EU countries.

[Montmorency]

Look after the women and children as though they are natives. Train the men as an army, under European officers, to fight ISIS. If we can't trust them with heavy weapons, then train them as light infantry with European forces providing heavy lifting. Those who aren't suitable for fighting as front line infantry can work in the logistical tail instead. Those who won't work towards this should be interned until such a time as they can be deported back to Syria. Those who distinguish themselves can be offered EU citizenship, distributed between the EU countries.

Or just form an Arabische Legion to counter Putin.

And annex Neo-Prussia with it.

[Pannonian]

Or just form an Arabische Legion to counter Putin.

And annex Neo-Prussia with it.

If they want to sign up for longer, feel free. If they distinguish themselves like the Gurkhas do with the British Army, I'd welcome them. I'd put other indeterminate Muslims from the Maghrebi countries in the same boat. They can earn EU citizenship by providing something that we're short of, and doing something that concretely demonstrates their commitment to the EU. If they don't want to do that, they can be interned as threats to national security until such a time as we can find a place for them elsewhere. Women and children (and they'd have to be bloody obviously children to qualify as such) can be dealt with as though they are natives.

[Montmorency]

That's one spin to put on it, but the more interesting implication (as I see it) of my comment is that if Germany were to reach a point where there was political will to deport hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers, then a political will for irredentist Anschluss (entailing the deportation of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Russians) would not be inconceivable.

[Husar]

Doesn't matter. Wherever it is - just ship'em back.

How do you determine where to ship them to? And again, what if that country claims they cannot be returned because they are not citizens of that country? What if they come from the caliphate? Ship them to the caliphate?

Many places in Europe has had a near-static ethnic composition for more than a thousand years.

So did many places in America, people tend to get over it (or are allowed to live in reservations).

This claim appears to be directly odds with the ratio of Islamist terrorists with European citizenship to those without. The attacks are coming from within, not outside countries.

Then why are outside people supposedly the problem?

Look after the women and children as though they are natives. Train the men as an army, under European officers, to fight ISIS. If we can't trust them with heavy weapons, then train them as light infantry with European forces providing heavy lifting. Those who aren't suitable for fighting as front line infantry can work in the logistical tail instead. Those who won't work towards this should be interned until such a time as they can be deported back to Syria. Those who distinguish themselves can be offered EU citizenship, distributed between the EU countries.

A lot of them are apparently fleeing from potential army service or from getting recruited by terrorist organizations, what should they do? Stay there and join the terrorists because they have to fight anyway?

On the one hand we claim they're all way too violent for our culture and then we suggest to turn the peaceful ones into killers?

[Pannonian]

A lot of them are apparently fleeing from potential army service or from getting recruited by terrorist organizations, what should they do? Stay there and join the terrorists because they have to fight anyway?

On the one hand we claim they're all way too violent for our culture and then we suggest to turn the peaceful ones into killers?

Look after the women and children as though they are natives. Train the men as an army, under European officers, to fight ISIS. If we can't trust them with heavy weapons, then train them as light infantry with European forces providing heavy lifting. Those who aren't suitable for fighting as front line infantry can work in the logistical tail instead. Those who won't work towards this should be interned until such a time as they can be deported back to Syria. Those who distinguish themselves can be offered EU citizenship, distributed between the EU countries.

Modern armies have long tails, along the ratio of 9 in the rear to 1 at the front (from what I can remember of WWII numbers). If they're unwilling to be killers in the service of the EU, there is that route, although I'd disqualify them from any chance of qualifying for EU citizenship. That is still working towards their own liberation, within an EU project. If they're unwilling to do even that, then why should we provide them with any succour? As seen in the current situation, if EU countries lack teeth, there is no incentive to do what they request. People who have no permission to be here, and where we don't have a stable state to deal with, will do whatever they want.

[Viking]

Do people not realise that 'immigrants' are actually people?

Criminals are people, too; yet we lock them up in prisons for years. It's not a 'realisation' that is particularly relevant in this context.

Another disconnected generalization without regard for causality. Generally speaking, the old have been far too infirm and far too few in number to even constitute a distinct demographic in the first place.

If you want anecdotes, look to the readiness of "senior citizens" to march and gather in protest in the United States and Japan on conservative planks and for self-advocacy.

I'd also add that the young may be more impulsive, and that they presumably have more hormones raging in their blood.

[Husar]

Modern armies have long tails, along the ratio of 9 in the rear to 1 at the front (from what I can remember of WWII numbers). If they're unwilling to be killers in the service of the EU, there is that route, although I'd disqualify them from any chance of qualifying for EU citizenship. That is still working towards their own liberation, within an EU project. If they're unwilling to do even that, then why should we provide them with any succour? As seen in the current situation, if EU countries lack teeth, there is no incentive to do what they request. People who have no permission to be here, and where we don't have a stable state to deal with, will do whatever they want.

So we're just saying that all of them will be criminals if we do not indoctrinate them and let everyone from an unstable nation fight against ISIS even if they're not from that area? Or will there be an army for each country that is unstable and has refugees arriving here?

[Pannonian]

So we're just saying that all of them will be criminals if we do not indoctrinate them and let everyone from an unstable nation fight against ISIS even if they're not from that area? Or will there be an army for each country that is unstable and has refugees arriving here?

This is what I'm talking about when I refer to bleeding heart liberals and the ingrainment of liberal values in our society. The latter is good, within reason. But not when it's done by the former, who lay the blame for everything on the majority culture, and who will excuse each and every infringement by the minority, using legalistic arguments to fuzz what should be abundantly clear to anyone who takes a step back to see the whole picture.

And here is the invocation of liberal values by bleeding heart liberals that I was talking about. Nothing about how to solve the problem of hundreds of thousands of people who have already proven to be problematic socially and more immediately a shield for terrorists, but instead, all the effort is aimed at putting the blame on the host countries. Disguised, of course, as a complete misconstruing of what anyone says that doesn't fit the narrative of the west is bad.

Oh well, the Syrians are in Germany and elsewhere on the mainland, not in Britain. Britain is better able than most to control its borders unilaterally, so if you don't want to use them thus, you can deal with them in whatever way you want. As long as we're not taking them. I won't shed a tear if they decide to stay in Germany indefinitely, because the likes of yourself are uncomfortable with making them go back.

[Husar]

And here is the invocation of liberal values by bleeding heart liberals that I was talking about. Nothing about how to solve the problem of hundreds of thousands of people who have already proven to be problematic socially and more immediately a shield for terrorists, but instead, all the effort is aimed at putting the blame on the host countries. Disguised, of course, as a complete misconstruing of what anyone says that doesn't fit the narrative of the west is bad.

What? Where are these hundreds of thousands of people and how have they proven to be problematic? Is it already problematic to be a muslim or wear a headscarf? And you're also miscontruing what I said, I wasn't asking you to blame us, I was saying we may have to be blamed IF we implement what you suggest because I see some problems with your suggestion. Instead of having a serious discussion about possible problems you cry that I want you to hate yourself, which is complete nonsense.

[Beskar]

Criminals are people, too; yet we lock them up in prisons for years. It's not a 'realisation' that is particularly relevant in this context.

Justice system works on a principle of reforming offenders and separating those who are proven dangerous to society from society.

It is not about locking people up just because they are from a different country.

[Pannonian]

What? Where are these hundreds of thousands of people and how have they proven to be problematic? Is it already problematic to be a muslim or wear a headscarf? And you're also miscontruing what I said, I wasn't asking you to blame us, I was saying we may have to be blamed IF we implement what you suggest because I see some problems with your suggestion. Instead of having a serious discussion about possible problems you cry that I want you to hate yourself, which is complete nonsense.

Mea culpa then. Let the status quo continue indefinitely, to our satisfaction.

[Viking]

Justice system works on a principle of reforming offenders and separating those who are proven dangerous to society from society.

It is not about locking people up just because they are from a different country.

No one would be locked up for being from a different country. The rationale for the internment camps has already been provided.

[Beskar]

No one would be locked up for being from a different country. The rationale for the internment camps has already been provided.

Been provided a few times in history, I don't agree with your solution to the refugee problem.

[Pannonian]

Been provided a few times in history, I don't agree with your solution to the refugee problem.

There aren't any refugees, and there certainly isn't a refugee problem. Husar says so. We can just carry on as normal.

[Papewaio]

Of course, but you would expect refugees to give a sigh of relief the second they are in a country where they are safe, and can't wait to return to their homes once it's safe to do so. I would put these brackets on refugees, like this; 'refugees'

Ever since I was a kid watching the NEWS the Middle East has had conflict.

Lebanon was once called the Paris of the ME. How many decades always is that from regaining its title?

What's your best guess when it will be stable?

Mine is multi-generational. Anyone leaving as a refugee is going to be like the Irish going to the U.S., highly unlikely of going back (a few did).

[Pannonian]

Ever since I was a kid watching the NEWS the Middle East has had conflict.

Lebanon was once called the Paris of the ME. How many decades always is that from regaining its title?

What's your best guess when it will be stable?

Mine is multi-generational. Anyone leaving as a refugee is going to be like the Irish going to the U.S., highly unlikely of going back (a few did).

Fortunately, there aren't many of them, so whatever country they end up in can deal with them with ease.

[Husar]

Mea culpa then. Let the status quo continue indefinitely, to our satisfaction.

No, we obviously need to tighten some laws and get rid of people who hate us, I'm absolutely with you on that one, I just think they need to be judged on a more individual basis (maybe with the exception of say, being a proven member of a mafia group). I'm in favor of helping those who can behave and sentencing those who can't to either prison or extradition. The current problem are inadequate laws and a lack of enforcement and police capacity, at least in Germany. It is absolutely possible that politicians are/were too lax as Fragony says it regarding the enforcement of laws or actually doing something about crimes committed by immigrants. The same id true about nazi crimes here as the Sauerland group showed. I'm not saying we are responsible for what these people do, but we are responsible for protecting ourselves from these people. I am against solutions that target entire populations for the mistakes of a minority among them.

[Pannonian]

No, we obviously need to tighten some laws and get rid of people who hate us, I'm absolutely with you on that one, I just think they need to be judged on a more individual basis (maybe with the exception of say, being a proven member of a mafia group). I'm in favor of helping those who can behave and sentencing those who can't to either prison or extradition. The current problem are inadequate laws and a lack of enforcement and police capacity, at least in Germany. It is absolutely possible that politicians are/were too lax as Fragony says it regarding the enforcement of laws or actually doing something about crimes committed by immigrants. The same id true about nazi crimes here as the Sauerland group showed. I'm not saying we are responsible for what these people do, but we are responsible for protecting ourselves from these people. I am against solutions that target entire populations for the mistakes of a minority among them.

Whatever works for you. I want the British government to stop anyone from coming in whom we're not actively letting in. Just as I respect the right of the German government to make their own domestic and border policy, so I expect the British government to have its right to make its own domestic and border policy.

[Sarmatian]

Are you suggesting...

I wasn't suggesting anything. I just said:

There are dozens of morals in that story, and everyone can pick the one they like.

It's almost unique in that quality, it's a Rorschach's test, basically. Everyone will see what they want to see.

[Husar]

Whatever works for you. I want the British government to stop anyone from coming in whom we're not actively letting in. Just as I respect the right of the German government to make their own domestic and border policy, so I expect the British government to have its right to make its own domestic and border policy.

They may have the right, but I don't have to agree with what they do just because they have the right to do it. It's not like I'm writing letters to British MPs imploring them to import more Syrians. I do however believe that these people were a much more minor problem if spread across all EU countries because there'd be very few of them in any given place. A long-term solution to limit the influx is needed as well, not entirely sure what that would be but not screwing up countries like Iraq and Libya may help. I suppose you agree with the latter.

[Pannonian]

They may have the right, but I don't have to agree with what they do just because they have the right to do it. It's not like I'm writing letters to British MPs imploring them to import more Syrians. I do however believe that these people were a much more minor problem if spread across all EU countries because there'd be very few of them in any given place. A long-term solution to limit the influx is needed as well, not entirely sure what that would be but not screwing up countries like Iraq and Libya may help. I suppose you agree with the latter.

I was against the Iraq war on the argument given for the invasion, but I wasn't yet against foreign intervention for the right causes. After seeing how we've got flak after that both for things we've done and not done, based simply on the premise that we're wrong and the question is merely how, I gave up on all foreign intervention unless it materially benefits us. Whatever we do or not do, we're still going to be blamed for whatever happens, as the conclusion that we're in the wrong has already been arrived at. Since we're going to be in the wrong whatever happens, I'd like us to navigate the least costly and most lucrative path possible. Moral arguments matter zilch to me, since we're already morally wrong (how depends on what we're being found morally wrong for).

[Sarmatian]

It would continue to grow because of continued immigration. The largest post-WWII cohorts are expected die off well before the year 2100.

No.

Even with continued immigration, population of Europe is getting old, really old, really fast.

http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content...-max-roser.png

Again, that's France. Upheaval in France is a result of how that country is governed, and does not have to translate directly to other countries.

It pretty much does. It is safe to assume to that other countries in app. the same economic, social and cultural situation will experience similar issues.

Even if they prove more resilient, the domino effect is a *****.

Generally speaking, most social upheaval tends to come from the younger generations, not the older ones. With a decreasing younger fraction of the population, the country could just as well become more stable.

Yeah, no.

Disagree.

Based on?

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.YLD.CREL.KG

This is cereal yield data by world bank. I don't know how familiar you are with soil quality of some of the countries, but let me tell you that the soil in Ukraine is probably even better than in Netherlands but the the yield in Netherlands is over twice that of Ukraine.

Very, very few countries in the world are getting maximal possible yields. Very few countries are using a 100% of their potential. Or literally creating new areas for food production by draining swamps, for instance. Just by applying the latest standards in the entire world, you would be able to increase the yield several times over.

That is not even taking into account the improvements new technologies have yet to bring. In the 18th century, calculations were made that the world would be hungry in the 19th century. There's no chance of that happening anytime soon.

You're not able to differentiate between a general economic situation in a given area and the ability of an area to produce food. New York doesn't produce enough food to feed itself, Las Vegas isn't producing enough food to feed itself. You are also looking at examples in isolation, when the system is global.

You've started from a premise that the planet is at the very end of its ability to produce enough food, which is wrong, Then, you applied a faulty reasoning and reached a conclusion.

Thus, you're approaching "not even wrong" status fast, but at the moment you're at "no use explaining it further" category.

But a lot of them may end up unemployed or in low-paying jobs, potentially creating a new underclass of people along ethnic lines (which does not bode well for stability, cf. above).

By applying enough effort and resources, it can be assured that the bad effect are limited. They're used to low paying jobs, low paying jobs by western standards are miles ahead of what they used to get. They desire stability and safety.

Not necessarily. Many places in Europe has had a near-static ethnic composition for more than a thousand years.

That is because you assume that you and a Viking are one and the same.

This relates directly to your claim that it is safer for Europe (in terms of terrorism) to accept a large amount of migrants from Muslim countries rather than letting them stay there.

This claim appears to be directly odds with the ratio of Islamist terrorists with European citizenship to those without. The attacks are coming from within, not outside countries.

It is nonsensical, because it doesn't give us an estimate of how dangerous Muslims are, which is the whole point of this particular argument. If there is a 100 million Muslims in Europe and ten terrorist attacks committed by Muslims, the percentage is 100%. If there's 10 Muslims in Europe and 10 terrorist attacks, the percentage is again a 100%.

This is rational thinking 101.

Stay classy.

You assume I care how I'm being perceived.

[Beskar]

It's almost unique in that quality, it's a Rorschach's test, basically. Everyone will see what they want to see.

Indeed it is.

[Montmorency]

One thing to note, Pan, is that there are indeed interventions in which the local populations have an improved disposition toward the intervening country, or at least are grateful. France's contemporary missions to its former African colonies are an example, and these are low-intensity missions involving personnel on the order of only thousands. Maybe that's why they are comparatively well-received: inserting a sharp tool into a bad situation to improve it without becoming omnipresent,avoiding explicitly taking on massive burdens and responsibilities, and not visibly causing much general devastation (or at least being around to be associated with it). Intra-national examples (though of disaster response) are also good food for thought: compare the bungled federal response to Hurricane Katrina in the US compared to the rapid Japanese mobilization after the Fukushima quake. In both instances the government was rightly excoriated for prior negligence leading to exacerbated harm in the event, but it's widely agreed that Japan did a much better job with evacuation, shelter, and reconstruction under similar environmental conditions and with a comparable number of displaced persons.

To make it more obviously pertinent, recall the UN intervention in Haiti after the 2010 quake nearly obliterated the country. In fact, much of the damage occurred due to the UN's administrative and logistical failure, such that it sent soldiers to provide stability, but the soldiers were from South Asia or South America with few interpreters, hindered reconstruction, abused the local population under their UN immunity, and even caused a cholera epidemic due to bad sanitation and waste disposal practices. Does this mean the UN should not have bothered to send agents to Haiti? And keep in mind that humanitarian intervention is one of the few areas in which we actually give the UN much scope and funding to act.

the premise that we're wrong and the question is merely how

This is true of a subset of academics, but it's important to differentiate between academics on the one hand, and foreign governments or nations on the other. If intervention is on the table, then leaving aside all the other potential factors I think the former should count for much less than the latter. Don't let armchair criticism drive you into categorical rejection of a policy tool. If you actually screw up, that's on you. If you make that investment and achieve good results both for the people of the country and state-level (e.g. economic) interests, then academic whining is just background noise - at best it might clarify areas for improvement.

[Snowhobbit]

Considering I didn't at any point make any comments referring to the topic, it would be a very long stretch to suggest that I was suggesting anything of the sort.


It is not me who has the issue.

Indeed, and neither did Sarmatian claim anything, simply posting about the facts at hand. But it is nice to put words in other people's mouths isn't it?

Who has an issue? The usual cases of "alternative media" here describe her as 2nd generation immigrant. The usual cases (8 gang rapists on a ferry with Iraqi citizenship suddenly become Swedish) will accurately describe her as Swedish. Both descriptions are correct, unless you subscribe to the notion that one can only ever belong to at most one group.

[Snowhobbit]

So we're just saying that all of them will be criminals if we do not indoctrinate them and let everyone from an unstable nation fight against ISIS even if they're not from that area? Or will there be an army for each country that is unstable and has refugees arriving here?

I think that particular argument hinges on the fallacy that most of the "refugees" are from Syria. Quite a few from Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia arrived in Germany last year :D