IMMIGRATION thread

[Sarmatian]

So if a woman calls you a pig when your table-manners failed she's dehumanising you? Try again, you already decided on the outcome, equation please. I called them hyena's because they isolated a victin, encircled the victims (1000 or so) and started groping and ripping underwear. A second circle kept others out of the way.

edit, don't sweat it Hussie I know you don't dislike me

Actually, that's how most of pack predators hunt. You could have called them lions just as well, but you choose hyena. You've already decided on the outcome, so you've picked hyenas.

You're continuously refuse to acknowledge actual police reports from Cologne which differ greatly from what you've been parroting. Then again, you've already decided on the outcome, so who needs fact.

Thirdly, context Frags, if a woman sees a man's penis and calls him a horse, or a stud after sex, she is not insulting him. It's a metaphor. Calling someone a pig is a metaphor for one's lack of table manners, or any manners for that matter, and can be done as a good natured jest, especially in male-female relationships or among friends. Comparing someone with hyenas is way worse than that, as hyenas are most commonly associated with something ugly, dirty, smelly, feeding on carcasses etc... None of the is true, actually, but we project that onto them. So, comparing someone with a hyena is very insulting. You already knew that, but you've already decided on the outcome, blah, blah, blah....

I like you Frags. People who cling to their views and ignore overwhelming number of facts which say otherwise are usually happiest. If something goes wrong, you don't have to waste time to find out why, you just blame Muslims.

[Fragony]

Why shouldn't I say that all were muslims if all were muslims. Doesn't mean I blame all muslims. What facts are you referring to as facts won't be kind for you

[Husar]

I don't have much time, but here are some sources for now:
http://www.thelocal.se/20140520/swed...e-exports-soar
http://www.politico.eu/article/neutr...xtraordinaire/
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/2...sweden_a_major
http://www.sipri.org/research/armame...r%20Sweden.pdf
(page 15)

https://krautreporter.de/1161--warum...zeuge-lieferte

The last one is in German and explains how the Swedish government managed to circumvent the restrictions (partly because the office responsible to enforce them is not very powerful) in order to sell airplanes to the military dictatorship in Thailand. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Pakistan are probably not the safest spots to send weapons to in order to end war and refugee streams from their region. Or just look at the list of users of the 40mm Bofors guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_40_mm_gun#Users
Maybe they didn't all buy them directly from Sweden, but it's an impressive list.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Right, you use the word refugees, another person uses the word immigrants. A person who knows how to read would at this point realize that immigrants being a different word from refugees denotes a different meaning. That is why they are different words.
But do please go ahead and paint me as a racist, clearly reading what I write is more work than building strawmen. Most impressive.

Perhaps you have a problem with comprehension...certainly, it seems, with context.

Let me repeat my previous explanation with the addition of some explanatory notes.

I pointed out that

"Just like the idea that refugees are responsible for the New Year attacks on women...you might want to update yourselves on that information as well...."

To which the response was made;

"Yup, everyone knows those women have sexually molested themselves and then they threw the blame on the immigrants."

You'll note that this response is not an acceptance of my point, that it was not refugees. This argument is NOT...'you are correct, they were not refugees they were other immigrants, but was a clear conflation of the two terms. The term 'immigrants' has simply been transplanted for 'refugees' but has been used synonymously.(synonymously means used to mean the same thing. You see the response to my point that it was not refugees was a sarcastic comment that the women had made it all up (of course) and imagined the immigrants were involved. Do you see how the word is (let me repeat) simply transplanted and used synonymously - ie to mean the same thing)

So...it's not me that doesn't understand that there is (or should be) a distinction made between the two termst is the individual who conflated the term (and my point was exactly that it was not refugees but other (illegal) immigrants). Still not get it? Frankly an average eight year old would be able to comprehend this.

"The French prosecutor's office said the fingerprints of the dead man matched a print of a person registered under the same name in Greece in October 2015. " But of course just because a passport with matching fingerprints entered the EU with the stream does not in any way mean that the person entered with that stream.
The testimonials of refugees living in asylum centers about ISIS fighters is of course all just made up, we know for sure that 100% of all people who have come to Europe illegally are well intentioned people who wouldn't harm a fly.
I have yet to see you explain btw why it is that the "brains" behind the operation was believed to be in Syria when he was found and killed in Paris?

Did you miss the whole rest of the article (about 90% of it) that follows that sentence you picked out, which starts "however..."?

Of course you did. You missed it all in order that you might maintain the evidence-free concept that there is a possibility that Jihadists may be coming in with the refugees as if it is anything other than a closet-racist's get-out-of-jail free card.

[wooly_mammoth]

Man, if I knew you'd be making such a fuss over me interchanging "refugees" and "immigrants", I would have simply called them "sand-peeps".

[Fragony]

I don't have much time, but here are some sources for now:
http://www.thelocal.se/20140520/swed...e-exports-soar
http://www.politico.eu/article/neutr...xtraordinaire/
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/2...sweden_a_major
http://www.sipri.org/research/armame...r%20Sweden.pdf
(page 15)

https://krautreporter.de/1161--warum...zeuge-lieferte

The last one is in German and explains how the Swedish government managed to circumvent the restrictions (partly because the office responsible to enforce them is not very powerful) in order to sell airplanes to the military dictatorship in Thailand. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Pakistan are probably not the safest spots to send weapons to in order to end war and refugee streams from their region. Or just look at the list of users of the 40mm Bofors guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_40_mm_gun#Users
Maybe they didn't all buy them directly from Sweden, but it's an impressive list.

Sweden makes quality stuff. But tell me, even if they have a good reason to want to move to Sweden, what reason do they have to not behave themselves in Sweden? Only South-Africa has worse rape-statistics. Guess whos doing it.

[Snowhobbit]

I don't have much time, but here are some sources for now:
http://www.thelocal.se/20140520/swed...e-exports-soar
http://www.politico.eu/article/neutr...xtraordinaire/
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/2...sweden_a_major
http://www.sipri.org/research/armame...r%20Sweden.pdf
(page 15)

https://krautreporter.de/1161--warum...zeuge-lieferte

The last one is in German and explains how the Swedish government managed to circumvent the restrictions (partly because the office responsible to enforce them is not very powerful) in order to sell airplanes to the military dictatorship in Thailand. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Pakistan are probably not the safest spots to send weapons to in order to end war and refugee streams from their region. Or just look at the list of users of the 40mm Bofors guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_40_mm_gun#Users
Maybe they didn't all buy them directly from Sweden, but it's an impressive list.

Thanks for the links.
The plans to build an arms factory in Saudi Arabia is of course far from acceptable. But I cannot see any trace in your sources (good that they are for the matter they discuss), for Sweden supplying offensive military equipment to states which are party to the conflict in Syria. There is no flood of refugees from Pakistan, Egypt or Thailand, though I will agree that we should not sell them weapons either. One of your articles writes about technology transfers and sales to India, which I would consider a good thing if anything. As for the Bofors guns, it is simply so that once a weapon has been sold there is very little that the Swedish state can do to control where they go next.

As a fun tidbit, are you aware that Bofors was founded as a way to circumvent restrictions on Nazi German weapons production and export?

[Beskar]

tl;dr answer to the thread title: Altruism.

(Someone has to say it.)

[Snowhobbit]

Perhaps you have a problem with comprehension...certainly, it seems, with context.

Let me repeat my previous explanation with the addition of some explanatory notes.

I pointed out that

"Just like the idea that refugees are responsible for the New Year attacks on women...you might want to update yourselves on that information as well...."

To which the response was made;

"Yup, everyone knows those women have sexually molested themselves and then they threw the blame on the immigrants."

You'll note that this response is not an acceptance of my point, that it was not refugees. This argument is NOT...'you are correct, they were not refugees they were other immigrants, but was a clear conflation of the two terms. The term 'immigrants' has simply been transplanted for 'refugees' but has been used synonymously.(synonymously means used to mean the same thing. You see the response to my point that it was not refugees was a sarcastic comment that the women had made it all up (of course) and imagined the immigrants were involved. Do you see how the word is (let me repeat) simply transplanted and used synonymously - ie to mean the same thing)

So...it's not me that doesn't understand that there is (or should be) a distinction made between the two termst is the individual who conflated the term (and my point was exactly that it was not refugees but other (illegal) immigrants). Still not get it? Frankly an average eight year old would be able to comprehend this.




Did you miss the whole rest of the article (about 90% of it) that follows that sentence you picked out, which starts "however..."?

Of course you did. You missed it all in order that you might maintain the evidence-free concept that there is a possibility that Jihadists may be coming in with the refugees as if it is anything other than a closet-racist's get-out-of-jail free card.

No, immigrant is still a very much separate word from refugees. Laying the blame on immigrants when you strawman that people claim refugees (3 of which were actually newly arrived refugees btw) is correctly identifying the majority of the perpetrators in the Cologne incident. The term immigrant and refugee is not synonymous, I would urge you to ask your parents to invest in a dictionary for you to avoid these issues in the future.

No, I did not miss that. If you actually read my posts you would note that I have mentioned Sweden being a prime exporter per capita of terrorists to Syria. But I guess it is more fun to paint strawmen than to actually think and engage in a debate?
Have you stopped beating your wife?

[Snowhobbit]

tl;dr answer to the thread title: Altruism.

(Someone has to say it.)

Altruism is a voluntary action, not one forced upon a person by strangers. In fact when strangers force you to give them your things we have a entirely different word for that...

[Beskar]

Altruism is a voluntary action, not one forced upon a person by strangers. In fact when strangers force you to give them your things we have a entirely different word for that...

Are there currently strangers on your doorstep forcing you to give them your property? If so, I would recommend contacting the police, not posting about it.

Otherwise, no one is forcing you to give them anything. If you are discussing your nation state volunteering resources to help people who have migrated, then this is an action done voluntary by it to bring about an outcome.

[Snowhobbit]

Are there currently strangers on your doorstep forcing you to give them your property? If so, I would recommend contacting the police, not posting about it.

Otherwise, no one is forcing you to give them anything.

Are you aware of the concept of taxes? It is this fun notion where we collectively decide to give the government money in order for services to be rendered. Not to be squandered to the tune that we spend more on newly arrived immigrants this year than the entire Afghan state budget including aid.

[Snowhobbit]

In related news, apparently since Austria takes near 3 million tourists per year, their refusal to take more than 80 refugees per day is somehow obscene and outrageous. Personally I'm not sure how they are at all related, perhaps someone could explain?

[Johanes Alvane vonTremirenes]

As your discussion is quite amusing with all those morality issues and ad-personam arguments, i will just leave here this: playing Antigones and thinking what is right and what isn't in terms of politics is quite pointless. The politics is seldom about morality, it is always about profit.

[Sarmatian]

Sweden makes quality stuff. But tell me, even if they have a good reason to want to move to Sweden, what reason do they have to not behave themselves in Sweden? Only South-Africa has worse rape-statistics. Guess whos doing it.

Who?

Are you aware of the concept of taxes? It is this fun notion where we collectively decide to give the government money in order for services to be rendered. Not to be squandered to the tune that we spend more on newly arrived immigrants this year than the entire Afghan state budget including aid.

Decide? That's a nice word for it.

[AE Bravo]

The last one is in German and explains how the Swedish government managed to circumvent the restrictions (partly because the office responsible to enforce them is not very powerful) in order to sell airplanes to the military dictatorship in Thailand. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Pakistan are probably not the safest spots to send weapons to in order to end war and refugee streams from their region

I don't see how sending weapons to these countries has anything to do with high refugee streams. They are in fact the only safe spots close to Syria and are part of a pending regional framework to stabilize Syria in the future as an anti-Islamist front. Egypt, Turkey, Saudi, UAE, and even Sudan are going to play an important role in Syria and managing the refugee crisis.

Even though two of those countries support opposition they are the only hope in a long-term solution in Syria. Or is it just that they're circumventing the restrictions that doesn't sit well with you?

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

I don't see how sending weapons to these countries has anything to do with high refugee streams. They are in fact the only safe spots close to Syria and are part of a pending regional framework to stabilize Syria in the future as an anti-Islamist front. Egypt, Turkey, Saudi, UAE, and even Sudan are going to play an important role in Syria and managing the refugee crisis.

Even though two of those countries support opposition they are the only hope in a long-term solution in Syria. Or is it just that they're circumventing the restrictions that doesn't sit well with you?

Oh my.... Saudi Arabia as part of anti-Islamist front? Truly?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alasta...b_5717157.html

In case you didn't know

https://medium.com/insurge-intellige...092#.p729u4q01

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...sis-syria-iraq

...there was no civil war (note the term "insurgents" used to describe those fighting Assad), this is a war brought down upon Assad by his enemies, for various geo-political, economic and ethnic/religious reasons. Selling arms to the likes of Saudi-Arabia (or any of the so-called "moderate" rebels) is pretty much the only reason there is war in Syria.

[rajpoot]

As always I'm rather late to the party (hey hey!) but I'll leave my two cents here.
IMO EU isn't responsible. And they shouldn't be allowing the hundreds of thousands inside their borders.
More than a hundred years ago there was this thing about the 'White Man's Burden' which made a lot of European nations do stuff that today would be considered really really bad. What they're doing today is perhaps equally bad.
You lot don't have any burden or moral obligation. Whatever has happened has happened. Doing stupider stuff to fix that isn't going to help anyone. Two wrongs don't make a right and two stupid actions don't make an intelligent action.

[Fragony]

You know who

[Husar]

Sweden makes quality stuff. But tell me, even if they have a good reason to want to move to Sweden, what reason do they have to not behave themselves in Sweden? Only South-Africa has worse rape-statistics. Guess whos doing it.

None, did I ever say otherwise? The only issue I have with what you say is that when you talk about the people who move there and the ones who do not behave, you say "they" in both cases, which can easily look like you mean exactly the same group of people (i.e. all of them). It's not so hard to say "some of them" in the second instances to make it clear that you mean a sub-group, is it? Or are you actually saying that none of the immigrants in Sweden can behave themselves?
And please don't talk about common sense or whatever, you do this all the time and it confuses people all the time.

Thanks for the links.
The plans to build an arms factory in Saudi Arabia is of course far from acceptable. But I cannot see any trace in your sources (good that they are for the matter they discuss), for Sweden supplying offensive military equipment to states which are party to the conflict in Syria. There is no flood of refugees from Pakistan, Egypt or Thailand, though I will agree that we should not sell them weapons either. One of your articles writes about technology transfers and sales to India, which I would consider a good thing if anything. As for the Bofors guns, it is simply so that once a weapon has been sold there is very little that the Swedish state can do to control where they go next.

I'm not against arms deals in general, but some governments just can't be trusted with them. Including the US government apparently. While I like Colombia in general, it is currently not a country to which german arms exports are legal. The rules state that arms cannot be sold to any country if that country wants to resell them. Heckler & Koch sold guns to the US Army and they then sold or gave them on to Colombia. The german police raided the Heckler & Koch offices as a result due to the suspicion that Heckler & Koch was aware the guns would not stay in the USA. So yes, it is not always completely controllable, but I'd say it's pretty clear like you say, that countries like Saudi Arabia are not reliable customers for our weapons. We can't even exclude that they don't hand some of them to their allies in Syria or elsewhere. In addition Saudi Arabia and the UAE are currently involved in a war in the region to support their own interests and are definitely using European weapons such as the Leclerc tanks of the UAE. I'm not entirely up-to-date on who the bad guys are down there but it certainly produces a lot of refugees and Saudi Arabia is not exactly known to have our best interests in mind anyway. If even the US ignore our weapon sales restrictions in the most blatant way, how can we trust SA or other unreliable countries to abide by them?

As a fun tidbit, are you aware that Bofors was founded as a way to circumvent restrictions on Nazi German weapons production and export?

Nope, that's pretty interesting though. I only knew that a whole lot of nations used the 40mm design though, apparently some were derivatives or modified ones, but overall quite a widespread gun.

Are you aware of the concept of taxes? It is this fun notion where we collectively decide to give the government money in order for services to be rendered. Not to be squandered to the tune that we spend more on newly arrived immigrants this year than the entire Afghan state budget including aid.

There are so many things to say about that:
1) I wouldn't say it is squandered on all of the immigrants.
2) I like the idea that I pay taxes to help those who are more in need, both Germans and foreigners.
3) If you do not like what the government spends taxes on, you can elect a different government. In some cases it may have other consequences though or require a new party. Democracy isn't always easy.
4) If your other countrymen do not agree with you and do not vote for the government you want, what are you going to do? Flee to somewhere else to save your precious taxes from being squandered?

[Sarmatian]

You know who

Voldemort?

[Greyblades]

More than a hundred years ago there was this thing about the 'White Man's Burden' which made a lot of European nations do stuff that today would be considered really really bad. What they're doing today is perhaps equally bad.

I'm bored and history allways interests me, could you explain what the idea of "white man's burden" caused that was bad?

I ask because of all the ideas of the 19th and early 20th century I was under the impression that one was one of the more harmless ideas. Condescending as hell, of course, but not harmful to my knowledge.

[Pannonian]

tl;dr answer to the thread title: Altruism.

(Someone has to say it.)

I've had all altrusim towards the inhabitants of that region beaten out of me from a years of being told that we're to blame for all that we do and don't do. Starting with the conclusion that we're to blame, then working backwards to define what it was that we did or didn't do that resulted in the mess that we're to blame for. If we're to blame for sticking our heads where it's not wanted, the logical response is to stop sticking our heads anywhere, and let the people of that region take care of themselves, free from our interference.

[Pannonian]

I'm bored and history allways interests me, could you explain what the idea of "white man's burden" caused that was bad?

I ask because of all the ideas of the 19th and early 20th century I was under the impression that one was one of the more harmless ideas. Condescending as hell, of course, but not harmful to my knowledge.

By lengthening our involvement in these countries, and thus making us responsible for everything bad that's been happening since, even decades after they've gained independence (with everything good being the hitherto restrained potential of the natives, of course). I raised the example of Hong Kong some time ago as an example of where Britain has governed a colony responsibly, and the appreciation of the native Chinese was dismissed, whilst everything that wasn't ideal was pinned as the fault of the British, even where the native Hong Kongers point to Beijing as the source. Trying to do good is pointless. We might as well embrace the universally agreed fact that we're evil, and look to our interests only.

[AE Bravo]

...there was no civil war (note the term "insurgents" used to describe those fighting Assad), this is a war brought down upon Assad by his enemies, for various geo-political, economic and ethnic/religious reasons. Selling arms to the likes of Saudi-Arabia (or any of the so-called "moderate" rebels) is pretty much the only reason there is war in Syria.

Of course, that's all common knowledge. I was suggesting that the problem (ksa) is the biggest part of the solution one way or another and arming them doesn't mean arming extremists in Syria because that's a separate issue. Arms sales are for Saudi security and Yemen, not arming Syrian opposition.

I'm not entirely up-to-date on who the bad guys are down there but it certainly produces a lot of refugees

Probably all parties, but cutting them off won't help either.

[Sarmatian]

By lengthening our involvement in these countries, and thus making us responsible for everything bad that's been happening since, even decades after they've gained independence (with everything good being the hitherto restrained potential of the natives, of course). I raised the example of Hong Kong some time ago as an example of where Britain has governed a colony responsibly, and the appreciation of the native Chinese was dismissed, whilst everything that wasn't ideal was pinned as the fault of the British, even where the native Hong Kongers point to Beijing as the source. Trying to do good is pointless. We might as well embrace the universally agreed fact that we're evil, and look to our interests only.

Actually, the bad part comes from using white man's burden excuse to basically plunder everything that's not Europe and USA.

Hong Kong is indeed an example of colony governed responsibly. Personally, I don't think that had much to do with the well being of Chinese there, but because it suited British interest. Those two coincided in a few cases, but in majority of cases didn't. I don't see a reason why Britain should feel guilty today, but I hate the whitewashing this topic usually gets from British people - we built some schools, we were mostly just trading, we invested some money back.

It's in the past, nothing to do with modern Britain, but it needs to be acknowledged for what it was.

[Pannonian]

Actually, the bad part comes from using white man's burden excuse to basically plunder everything that's not Europe and USA.

Hong Kong is indeed an example of colony governed responsibly. Personally, I don't think that had much to do with the well being of Chinese there, but because it suited British interest. Those two coincided in a few cases, but in majority of cases didn't. I don't see a reason why Britain should feel guilty today, but I hate the whitewashing this topic usually gets from British people - we built some schools, we were mostly just trading, we invested some money back.

It's in the past, nothing to do with modern Britain, but it needs to be acknowledged for what it was.

You should read about the Mui Tsai then, where the British ignored their pledge to rule according to Chinese custom and traditions, and ended a longstanding Chinese custom because of British moral values, against much native Chinese opposition. Today, that tradition is seen as a source of shame for the Chinese, and its banning by the British as an overdue move to bring Hong Kong in line with the modern world and values. Absolutely nothing to do with British interests, and everything to do with Britain's own tradition of opposing slavery and anything that smells of slavery.

[Kralizec]

Thirdly, context Frags, if a woman sees a man's penis and calls him a horse, or a stud after sex, she is not insulting him. It's a metaphor. Calling someone a pig is a metaphor for one's lack of table manners, or any manners for that matter, and can be done as a good natured jest, especially in male-female relationships or among friends. Comparing someone with hyenas is way worse than that, as hyenas are most commonly associated with something ugly, dirty, smelly, feeding on carcasses etc... None of the is true, actually, but we project that onto them. So, comparing someone with a hyena is very insulting. You already knew that, but you've already decided on the outcome, blah, blah, blah....

I don't see a comparison with a hyeana as something entirely different from comparison to a pig. I've heard people make hyena comparisons before in other contexts. When I didn't have my drivers license yet my instructor called bicycle and scooter drivers hyeanas whenever he saw them breaking trafic rules (happens often), like callously ignoring traffic lights when they think they can safely get away with it. Likewise, comparisons with vultures are commonplace when people are perceived to take financial advantage of other people's misery. The idea being that both hyenas and vultures are opportunistic and "cowardly". It's not flattering, but calling it "dehumanising" is a long stretch.

....

Also, Gaius is right to stress the distinction between "migrant" and "refugee". I don't want to point fingers as some people just make an honest mistake in confusing the two, but often it's just sloppiness. Many Dutch people, including journalists, use the terms interchangably and this thread is a good illustration of how this can pollute a discussion.

(an alternative term is asylum seeker; meaning anyone who claims to be a refugee but hasn't been through the procedure yet)

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Oh, and Snowhobbit is entirely justified in making a fuss about the distinction between "migrant" and "refugee"*. I don't want to point fingers as some people just make an honest mistake in confusing the two, but often it's just sloppiness. Many Dutch people, including journalists, use the terms interchangably and this thread is a good illustration of how this can pollute a discussion.

(* an alternative term is asylum seeker; meaning anyone who claims to be a refugee but hasn't been through the procedure yet)

Errmm...that was actually my point.....that the terms were being used interchangably....a point Snowhobbit was oblivious to, actually...

[Kralizec]

You're right, I looked at page 2 again and it seems I confused your post about Keulen with someone else. I'll edit my earlier post.