IMMIGRATION thread

[Sarmatian]

If I am a bigot than so are the childles mutti's own party-members, who to put it mildly, don't exactly agree with her immigration policy.

It is possible to disagree with immigration and not be a bigot.

I have always been a bigot youknow,

No you weren't. You had a very tough stance on immigration, but you weren't always a bigot.

Yeah? Families, fleeing, the same old sob story:

"In Europe, over 800,000 migrants have traveled to Europe by sea in 2015, according to the United Nations refugee agency, and a little over half have come from Syria. About 62% of all migrants that have traveled to Europe this year, however, are men. A little under a quarter, 22%, are children and only 16% are women."

So? It is quite normal for men to travel ahead of the their families, especially if the road is hard and dangerous. Once they get set up, they arrange a safe transport of their families.

And what has that got to do with anything? If it were 40% men, you would've been ok with it?

Removing the syrians from the equasion (where there is an actual legitimate reason for people to flee), you are left with Algerians, Morrocans, tunisians, Afghans and the like. And most of those are men.

Really? You think Afghanistan is safe?
What about Iraq?

Are they peaceful, humble men who keep a low profile and are grateful for the asylum they've been given? No. They organize themselves in barbaric throngs and harrass and rape western women. The more vocal ones who speak english go and protest, demanding sharia law, halal meat in the cafeterias and burqas for the women so they don't disrupt their delicate self control.

Really? Cologne again? First hand knowledge from Facebook? So far two perpetrators have been identified, and neither is a refugee. And they're being charged with stealing cameras from the store. Let's wait a bit before we assign blame.

If you remove the rapes and murders commited by ethnic minorities and immigrants in Sweden, you would get a drastiaclly different picture. Heck, just remove Malmo and the equasion is different.

Really? Then how come Scotland has higher rates of violent crimes than England, and much less immigrants?

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.

Who were the gropers and assaulters on NYE in Cologne? Were they nazis? Skinheads? Proud aryan men preying on their own women? No. They were "migrants" and second and third generation "migrants" who have not integrated into their host society but instead cause trouble without providing anything meaningful in return.

Let's wait on that. So far, we have social network hysteria and little else to go on.

It's about time liberals stopped tip toeing around race and religon issues and start calling things as they are.

I don't think I've been tip toeing at all.

[Fragony]

How am I a bigot then, you never say why. Not that I really care or am offended but the forum-rules are pretty clear on personal attacks. It's silly because you know nothing about me

[Sarmatian]

How am I a bigot then, you never say why.

Because you compare Muslims with hyenas. Do I need anything more?

Not that I really care or am offended but the forum-rules are pretty clear on personal attacks.

They are also pretty clear on insulting nations and religious groups.

It's silly because you know nothing about me

Yes, you have Muslim friends, I know.

[Fragony]

Because you compare Muslims with hyenas. Do I need anything more?


They are also pretty clear on insulting nations and religious groups.



Yes, you have Muslim friends, I know.

I compare the behaviour of those assholes in Collogne with hyena's yes. But you called me a bigot before Collogne

[Sarmatian]

The UK didn't expect its own citizens, if they weren't mothers and children, to be safeguarded from danger. Why should men be expected to lead the way to safety now? If the EU can only absorb so many refugees at a time, and the issue really is about protecting helpless families, one would have thought the menfolk would be willing to let the women and children fill the quota, rather than make up over half the numbers as they currently do.

As I said -

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?

2) 2) It was state sponsored/organized - the transportation was SAFE and where they were going was SAFE(r). During transportation and upon arrival, all basic necessities were provided. There was no danger that a particular village would close its borders and leave everyone stranded. It was the same country, same rules, same language.

3) It wasn't a civil war - there was an organized national effort with a very clear goal and state could provide protection for those who left.

I compare the behaviour of those assholes in Collogne with hyena's yes. But you called me a bigot before Collogne

Well, you were a bigot before that. That was just the latest example the illustrated it perfectly

[Pannonian]

As I said -

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?

2) 2) It was state sponsored/organized - the transportation was SAFE and where they were going was SAFE(r). During transportation and upon arrival, all basic necessities were provided. There was no danger that a particular village would close its borders and leave everyone stranded. It was the same country, same rules, same language.

3) It wasn't a civil war - there was an organized national effort with a very clear goal and state could provide protection for those who left.

If they're that fiddly about evacuation from a dangerous location, perhaps they should find somewhere else more welcoming.

[Sarmatian]

If they're that fiddly about evacuation from a dangerous location, perhaps they should find somewhere else more welcoming.

They're looking for long term stability and potential to give their families both life and survival. That's not too much to ask for after what they've been through, I'd reckon.

[Greyblades]

Where is Greyblades when you need him? Are men not deserving of help? Why?

Careful with that strawman; you'll put your eye out.

Not a bigot, a petty little bigot.

A glorified spoiled brat, with some malicious thoughts and delusions of grandeur. Fragony is a bigot. You'd have to improve to become one.

I see.

You are incapable of defending your point and thus you resort to accusations of intolerance in an attempt to stigmatize your opponent.

Sadly at this point I have come to expect this of you.

[Fragony]

Well, you were a bigot before that. That was just the latest example the illustrated it perfectly

Ah well, one can't get along with everybody I suppose, I will just have to accept that I am a bigot because, ehhhhh I'm a bigot

[drone]

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?

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

[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]

So? It is quite normal for men to travel ahead of the their families, especially if the road is hard and dangerous. Once they get set up, they arrange a safe transport of their families.

And what has that got to do with anything? If it were 40% men, you would've been ok with it?

In England during WWII, 100% (or near enough) of evacuees were women and children.

[Sarmatian]

In England during WWII, 100% (or near enough) of evacuees were women and children.

Evacuees to where? Countryside?

[Pannonian]

Evacuees to where? Countryside?

Yeah. The UK has a tradition of looking after mothers and children, but men and children-less women are expected to get on with it.

[Sarmatian]

Yeah. The UK has a tradition of looking after mothers and children, but men and children-less women are expected to get on with it.

There are a few key differences

1) It was safe
2) It was state sponsored/organized
3) It wasn't a civil war

[Pannonian]

There are a few key differences

1) It was safe
2) It was state sponsored/organized
3) It wasn't a civil war

The UK didn't expect its own citizens, if they weren't mothers and children, to be safeguarded from danger. Why should men be expected to lead the way to safety now? If the EU can only absorb so many refugees at a time, and the issue really is about protecting helpless families, one would have thought the menfolk would be willing to let the women and children fill the quota, rather than make up over half the numbers as they currently do.

[Husar]

The UK didn't expect its own citizens, if they weren't mothers and children, to be safeguarded from danger. Why should men be expected to lead the way to safety now? If the EU can only absorb so many refugees at a time, and the issue really is about protecting helpless families, one would have thought the menfolk would be willing to let the women and children fill the quota, rather than make up over half the numbers as they currently do.

Where is Greyblades when you need him? Are men not deserving of help? Why?

[Husar]

In England during WWII, 100% (or near enough) of evacuees were women and children.

Are you sure about that? Where are the numbers from?
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/migrant-cri...report-1517648

http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-...eeing-syrians/

“Without the intervention and determination of many people who are of many faiths, I – along with some 10,000 others – would have perished,” he wrote. “I strongly believe that we must not stand by, while the oppressed need our help. We cannot ignore the sight of desperate people and in such a crisis we must act to save the most vulnerable refugees: the children, and provide them with the same sanctuary I, along with others, was fortunate to receive.”

Not sure how closing all the borders would save anyone. Pictures in the first link seem to show quite a few men though.

As for the young men, if they didn't flee many of them would be forced to fight, and as all Americans know, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Remove the people and the war there will end sooner while we can still sell a lot of guns to everyone. Problem solved.