IMMIGRATION thread

[Montmorency]

60 years? A modern state shouldn't need more than a couple of decades to get going. Look to the most successful ex-Soviet states.

No.

There are Shias living in Syria, too. And no, the refugees will not be as alien as for Europeans in the long term.

But in the longer term according to you, there wouldn't be a difference anyway.

[Viking]

No.

Yes, do look to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Georgia.

But in the longer term according to you, there wouldn't be a difference anyway.

What difference?

Why do you hate job creators? Clearly you just want to see the German economy fail.

Then snag all the migrants for yourself and don't ask others to take them.

[Montmorency]

Yes, do look to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Georgia.

Baltics: No. Estonia's the only one that isn't a basket case.

Poland: Don't equivocate.

Georgia:

What difference?

No alienness, hence no difference in alienness.

[AE Bravo]

A track that leads to what exactly? What happens when the oil runs out?

Enables economic diversification. Do you really think they're that stupid they haven't thought of that...?

Very unfortunate whats happening in sweden.

NATO helped rebels remove the Gaddafi state and left it to the Libyans, with some assistance, to build a new one. Unfortunately, infighting has put that project on hold. Hopefully, they will figure out that they got better things to do than killing each other and continue to build a democratic state. It's on the Libyans now.

NATO helped Islamists remove the Qaddafi state and left it to the islamists. Libyans in the cities were fine. It also armed a population and caused a national security crisis in a stable country. Who are they to arm people against a dictator? What business is it of theirs? Is Saudi Arabian lobbying for such things that much of a priority to the west? Or is Qaddafi’s middle finger to the US dollar worth the disintegration of an entire nation?

The same state that had problems adequately housing their own citizens would house refugees? I wouldn't bet on it.

I guess Libyans should just have to live in a dictatorship so that we can stuff their country with refugees

Qaddafi was no angel but most of my Libyan friends can tell you that life was 10x better back when he was around. they can tell you that stones weren’t hurled when they leave the house without a headscarf. Libya was happier, and especially women.

60 years? A modern state shouldn't need more than a couple of decades to get going. Look to the most successful ex-Soviet states.

A modern state with a seemingly grim future of water scarcity, oil, no native blue-collar working force, no real military. All you have to do is give it a slight push and it will fall over into the Persian Gulf towards their potential future overlords.

Did they, really?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/09/world/...ees-countries/
http://america.aljazeera.com/article...-refugees.html

[Viking]

Baltics: No. Estonia's the only one that isn't a basket case.

Poland: Don't equivocate.

Georgia:

Funny that you gave Georgia the laugh. According to this, Georgia has 262 704 internally displaced people. Despite this and despite the (related) breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Georgia has a functioning democracy; and is certainly in no state of disintegration. So there is empirical evidence that Georgia meets the bar I set for these countries.

No alienness, hence no difference in alienness.

Not sure what you are saying here. Syrians are, for example, not Kazakhs. If they migrate to Kazakhstan, they'll stand out. But they will find fellow Muslims there, which means intermarriage between Syrians and Kazakhs should be considerably more likely than intermarriage between Syrians and native Europeans. Hence, it is considerably more likely that Syrian migrants will assimilate in Kazakhstan than in Europe. But there is no guarantee that they will.

Enables economic diversification. Do you really think they're that stupid they haven't thought of that...?

You present these countries as fragile, and their economy relies heavily on state-owned oil production. Once that oil runs out, they should become even more fragile, regardless of economic diversification (oil comes relatively effort-free). So when will they become robust states, and how?

and left it to the islamists

Nope, that was a much later development. Unless you would call the NTC for islamists; a group that stepped down peacefully after the first elections, anyway.

It also armed a population and caused a national security crisis in a stable country.

The only arming of Libyans that I am aware of, was in the Nafusa mountains by the French; and does not seem to be a huge amount. The war did not start there, anyway.

Qaddafi was no angel but most of my Libyan friends can tell you that life was 10x better back when he was around. they can tell you that stones weren’t hurled when they leave the house without a headscarf. Libya was happier, and especially women.

Yet Libyans under Gaddafi rose up. If NATO hadn't gotten rid of Gaddafi, we could have had another Syria and another country where IS was really strong. That would have been inconvenient - imagine two big fronts against IS rather than one.

A modern state with a seemingly grim future of water scarcity, oil, no native blue-collar working force, no real military. All you have to do is give it a slight push and it will fall over into the Persian Gulf towards their potential future overlords.

A miracle that anyone there sleeps well during the night given how precarious the situation there apparently is.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/09/world/...ees-countries/
http://america.aljazeera.com/article...-refugees.html

I don't see anything there contradicting what I wrote, namely that they don't get permanent residence.

[Fragony]

What was bound to happen, not yet but will, renters go first. Germany can't handle Merkel's open invitation, so confiscation of private property is considered an option. http://www.welt.de/regionales/hambur...-moeglich.html

Other member states are not going to salute the next Messias, it's on you dear neighbours, and your lovely madchen, kinda getting out of hand for them allready ain't it

lol nice, ALL christian refugees in German refugee-centres are being bullied by muslim 'refugees', a solid 100%.. Don't ask for a link they never work.

[Gilrandir]

60 years? A modern state shouldn't need more than a couple of decades to get going. Look to the most successful ex-Soviet states.

Yes, do look to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Georgia.

Poland is not ex-Soviet. Ex-Communist - perhaps. But it doesn't really matter. All of those have a far more ancient history than, say, the USA and their previous spell of independece was not that long ago. So their traditions of statehood (especially the Baltic ones) had just to be restored.

Not sure what you are saying here. Syrians are, for example, not Kazakhs. If they migrate to Kazakhstan, they'll stand out. But they will find fellow Muslims there, which means intermarriage between Syrians and Kazakhs should be considerably more likely than intermarriage between Syrians and native Europeans. Hence, it is considerably more likely that Syrian migrants will assimilate in Kazakhstan than in Europe. But there is no guarantee that they will.

Although your and my suppositions will stay what they are - i.e. suppositions - I don't agree. Islam (as well as any religion in any post-Soviet state) isn't really that important in secular Middle-Asian countries. And except for it Arabs won't have anything in common with the Turkic (in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaidjan, Turkmenistan) or Iranean (in Tadjikistan) population with their own unrelated languages and different cultures. Besides, there is a sizable Slavic population (especially in Khazakhstan) who will have still less in common (and will consequently display less welcoming attitude) with the would-be immigrants than the locals of other ethnicities.

[Fragony]

Hear Hear Pat Condell http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven....html#comments

only movie topside counts

[Montmorency]

no state of disintegration.

That's a rather low bar, isn't it?

Not sure what you are saying here. Syrians are, for example, not Kazakhs. If they migrate to Kazakhstan, they'll stand out. But they will find fellow Muslims there, which means intermarriage between Syrians and Kazakhs should be considerably more likely than intermarriage between Syrians and native Europeans. Hence, it is considerably more likely that Syrian migrants will assimilate in Kazakhstan than in Europe. But there is no guarantee that they will.

Religion is not the key here. Inasmuch as they would be quicker or more likely to integrate, it would be because of, for instance, similar institutional culture and economic development. Indonesia is Muslim but it is demonstrably easier for Europeans to assimilate in Indonesia than it is for most continental Muslims.

Yet Libyans under Gaddafi rose up. If NATO hadn't gotten rid of Gaddafi, we could have had another Syria and another country where IS was really strong. That would have been inconvenient - imagine two big fronts against IS rather than one.

IS succeeded in Syria because they had a Baathist Iraqi command mixed with peninsular Al-Qaeda types, recruited foreigners from outside the Fertile Crescent area, and infiltrated communities which they understood on a personal level. They could not have accomplished in Libya what they did in Syria.

[Husar]

We all knew it would come some day and here it is: