Org Mobile Site
Thread: IMMIGRATION thread
Originally Posted by Viking:
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.Note that what you quote says more.
Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
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.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.
Originally Posted by :
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. 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?
Originally Posted by :
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. 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.
And, more importantly, not everybody is moving to Europe. There's three times more refugees in Turkey than in all of Europe combined.
Originally Posted by :
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?Not anymore that it would with a million of other people.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
...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. ...seriously? After all we've seen happen in Paris and Cologne you still believe that?
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.
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.
Usually not that poor and uneducated, you are underestimating them if you think so
@Sarmatarian
@Sarmatarian
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
Except you wont be getting any terrorists from non muslim/middle east immigrants. Nor would they be succeptable to brainwashing.
?Except you wont be getting any terrorists from non muslim/middle east immigrants. Nor would they be succeptable to brainwashing.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
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.Usually not that poor and uneducated, you are underestimating them if you think so
@Sarmatarian
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
Not those who plan and finance, those who execute. Almost all of them have little prospects in life.
They usually do, almost all terrorists who did a lot of harm were students and lead a western life. There is no basis for the assumption that they were just dissapointed.Not those who plan and finance, those who execute. Almost all of them have little prospects in life.
I also think we should see incidents like in Germany seperatily.
Originally Posted by 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.
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.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.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
?
Lets go step by step.?
Gilrandir said: "their country is becomoing more unsafe with the advent of immigrants"
You said: "Not anymore that it would with a million of other people."
Finally I said: a million other people would indeed be safer for a nation to recieve than muslims/middle easterners as they would not bring with them terrorists and sympathisers.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
Lets go step by step.
Gilrandir said: "their country is becomoing more unsafe with the advent of immigrants"
You said: "Not anymore that it would with a million of other people."
Finally I said: a million other people would indeed be safer for a nation to recieve than muslims/middle easterners as they would not bring with them terrorists and sympathisers.
Yes, I did understand it after re-reading it, but thanks.Lets go step by step.
Gilrandir said: "their country is becomoing more unsafe with the advent of immigrants"
You said: "Not anymore that it would with a million of other people."
Finally I said: a million other people would indeed be safer for a nation to recieve than muslims/middle easterners as they would not bring with them terrorists and sympathisers.
Most probably true, but sending them back isn't necessarily the better option for safety. They may be recruited by terrorists, join ISIS/some other militant group, prolong the conflict. It would reinforce the animosity toward the west, provide that injustice/indignation/easily definable target that are also very important aspects of terrorism.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
Yes, I did understand it after re-reading it, but thanks.
Most probably true, but sending them back isn't necessarily the better option for safety. They may be recruited by terrorists, join ISIS/some other militant group, prolong the conflict. It would reinforce the animosity toward the west, provide that injustice/indignation/easily definable target that are also very important aspects of terrorism.
Why would we be an easily definable target when they don't get the chance to experience special attention from us? The most focused current threat, apart from the social problems which are another discussion altogether, are homegrowns who have been radicalised in Syria, who are smuggled back into the EU, undetected within a mass of unprocessed refugees. That's the known modus operandi. Why are you arguing that letting yet more unprocessed refugees into the EU would help solve the problem of Islamist terrorism? If any of the traitorous scumbags who made their way to Syria want to slip back into the UK, I want them easily identifiable before they do anything, not hidden within thousands of "Syrians".Yes, I did understand it after re-reading it, but thanks.
Most probably true, but sending them back isn't necessarily the better option for safety. They may be recruited by terrorists, join ISIS/some other militant group, prolong the conflict. It would reinforce the animosity toward the west, provide that injustice/indignation/easily definable target that are also very important aspects of terrorism.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
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.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.
"It's they're fault so I don't have to do anything about it."
We are doing something about it: we're not letting them in.
Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan:
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.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."
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
We are doing something about it: we're not letting them in.
http://www.thenation.com/article/eur...ve-punishment/We are doing something about it: we're not letting them in.
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.
Empire buidling? Slave trade? I cant wait to hear how you explain how either of those are applicable. I'm sure it'll be as convincing as your assertaition of collective punishment, something that, as far as I know, has happened on your side of the channel not mine.
The one who caused this mess, by opening the borders and inviting them in, was Germany not Britain. Any responsibility laid at our feet for this would be better laid at your own.
The one who caused this mess, by opening the borders and inviting them in, was Germany not Britain. Any responsibility laid at our feet for this would be better laid at your own.
Originally Posted by :
The one who caused this mess, by opening the borders and inviting them in, was Germany not Britain. Any responsibility laid at our feet for this would be better laid at your own.
This is one of the most pernicious misconceptions in the situation. The problem reached its current level long before any public "invitations" were made, and the borders were opened decades ago; it is only over the past half-year that they have been growing more closed.The one who caused this mess, by opening the borders and inviting them in, was Germany not Britain. Any responsibility laid at our feet for this would be better laid at your own.
Actually I was not referring to any official invitation, the schengen agreement itself is an open invitation to any who seeks anywhere between a place to build a better life to a chance at a free lunch.
Internal open borders with some of the worlds greatest welfare states and an external border more porous than swiss cheese (hyperbole), it is a wonder this level of abuse took so long to occur.
Internal open borders with some of the worlds greatest welfare states and an external border more porous than swiss cheese (hyperbole), it is a wonder this level of abuse took so long to occur.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
This is one of the most pernicious misconceptions in the situation. The problem reached its current level long before any public "invitations" were made, and the borders were opened decades ago; it is only over the past half-year that they have been growing more closed.
That is simply not true, immigrants from north africa yes, but from the middle-east no. It's because Merkel decided to pubicly ignore the Dublin-treaty.This is one of the most pernicious misconceptions in the situation. The problem reached its current level long before any public "invitations" were made, and the borders were opened decades ago; it is only over the past half-year that they have been growing more closed.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Why would we be an easily definable target when they don't get the chance to experience special attention from us?
"You see now what's happening. They bomb us, they start wars. They tell us it is because of our leaders, not us. They love us. Now you've seen what they think of us. They've treated you like an animal, and sent you back. They don't want you there, they hate you. They hate all of us, they want to kill us. They are the devil. Do you want to strike back at them? Do you want to hurt them?"Why would we be an easily definable target when they don't get the chance to experience special attention from us?
Sending males in their prime back to a war zone where there is precious little to do is a bad idea. ISIS and its like provide just about the only opportunity of employment. Food, shelter, even a small salary and your family gets protection.
Originally Posted by :
The most focused current threat, apart from the social problems which are another discussion altogether, are homegrowns who have been radicalised in Syria, who are smuggled back into the EU, undetected within a mass of unprocessed refugees. If any of the traitorous scumbags who made their way to Syria want to slip back into the UK, I want them easily identifiable before they do anything, not hidden within thousands of "Syrians".
Homegrowns already have an EU passport and little need to mix with the refugees.The most focused current threat, apart from the social problems which are another discussion altogether, are homegrowns who have been radicalised in Syria, who are smuggled back into the EU, undetected within a mass of unprocessed refugees. If any of the traitorous scumbags who made their way to Syria want to slip back into the UK, I want them easily identifiable before they do anything, not hidden within thousands of "Syrians".
Originally Posted by :
That's the known modus operandi. Why are you arguing that letting yet more unprocessed refugees into the EU would help solve the problem of Islamist terrorism?
I didn't say it would solve it, I said it wouldn't make it worse, and it could even help in the long run.That's the known modus operandi. Why are you arguing that letting yet more unprocessed refugees into the EU would help solve the problem of Islamist terrorism?
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
"You see now what's happening. They bomb us, they start wars. They tell us it is because of our leaders, not us. They love us. Now you've seen what they think of us. They've treated you like an animal, and sent you back. They don't want you there, they hate you. They hate all of us, they want to kill us. They are the devil. Do you want to strike back at them? Do you want to hurt them?"
Sending males in their prime back to a war zone where there is precious little to do is a bad idea. ISIS and its like provide just about the only opportunity of employment. Food, shelter, even a small salary and your family gets protection.
Homegrowns already have an EU passport and little need to mix with the refugees.
I didn't say it would solve it, I said it wouldn't make it worse, and it could even help in the long run.
And yet that was the modus operandi of the Paris attackers, who were French-born. Presumably they thought the police would be onto them instantly should they return openly."You see now what's happening. They bomb us, they start wars. They tell us it is because of our leaders, not us. They love us. Now you've seen what they think of us. They've treated you like an animal, and sent you back. They don't want you there, they hate you. They hate all of us, they want to kill us. They are the devil. Do you want to strike back at them? Do you want to hurt them?"
Sending males in their prime back to a war zone where there is precious little to do is a bad idea. ISIS and its like provide just about the only opportunity of employment. Food, shelter, even a small salary and your family gets protection.
Homegrowns already have an EU passport and little need to mix with the refugees.
I didn't say it would solve it, I said it wouldn't make it worse, and it could even help in the long run.
Things don't have be complicated, they can go but can't come back. Soon the high-court of Germany is going to decide that Merkel's immigration-policy is against the German consitution, the lawsuit is already in the works, and Merkel will be nuttering 'wir schaffen das wir schaffen das' with a wet cloth on her forehead. Damage is done sadly.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
And yet that was the modus operandi of the Paris attackers, who were French-born. Presumably they thought the police would be onto them instantly should they return openly.
For some, yes. Although it appears the two ringleaders were never in Syria.And yet that was the modus operandi of the Paris attackers, who were French-born. Presumably they thought the police would be onto them instantly should they return openly.
But, it contradicts what you said earlier.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
homegrowns who have been radicalised in Syria,
If they were on the police radar, it means they were radicalized before they went to Syria, not in Syria. homegrowns who have been radicalised in Syria,
Even if we assume that their time in Syria was instrumental in the planning and pulling off the Paris attacks, is it really safer to send back to Syria a few hundred thousand males?
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
For some, yes. Although it appears the two ringleaders were never in Syria.
But, it contradicts what you said earlier.
If they were on the police radar, it means they were radicalized before they went to Syria, not in Syria.
Even if we assume that their time in Syria was instrumental in the planning and pulling off the Paris attacks, is it really safer to send back to Syria a few hundred thousand males?
They're not here yet. The onus isn't on us to send them back. The onus is on them to get here. I've seen no good argument for admitting them, beyond vague guilt arguments. In any case, I wouldn't mind sending back those few hundred thousand Syrian men. It would result in greater security for Europe than admitting them without knowing what to do with them. Especially as those using the guilting arguments equally absolve blame from these incomers for all they do, putting the blame on the host state instead. If there are going to be further guilt arguments about why EU states aren't doing all they can for the migrants they host, let's forestall all this by stopping the migrants in the first place. Let them complain about inadequate state aid elsewhere.For some, yes. Although it appears the two ringleaders were never in Syria.
But, it contradicts what you said earlier.
If they were on the police radar, it means they were radicalized before they went to Syria, not in Syria.
Even if we assume that their time in Syria was instrumental in the planning and pulling off the Paris attacks, is it really safer to send back to Syria a few hundred thousand males?
BTW, AFAICS Syrians are refugees while they're in their first country of transit. Once they go beyond that, they become migrants.
Your AFAIK is correct. According to the Dublin treaty refugees must register in the first save country of entry in the Schengen-zone. Merkel isn't just ignoring Germany's constitution but also the EU (fuck you) law. Older childless women can do weird things. Germoney schafft sich af (pun intended)
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
They're not here yet. The onus isn't on us to send them back. The onus is on them to get here. I've seen no good argument for admitting them, beyond vague guilt arguments.
- Europe has an aging, dwindling population. If it weren't for immigration, that would've been a very, very serious problem by now.They're not here yet. The onus isn't on us to send them back. The onus is on them to get here. I've seen no good argument for admitting them, beyond vague guilt arguments.
- Immigration is a necessity for economies in Europe to be stable.
- A million refugees isn't overwhelming number for Europe and won't disrupt the overall balance of religions while it would impact positively the demographics of almost all European countries
- If they are processed and distributed around Europe, it can be used to "plug holes" where needed, and assure they aren't concentrated but distributed evenly.
- Besides a few profiles (chemical and electrical engineers, doctors), EU doesn't have much need for highly educated workers ATM. There is a demand for skilled workers, like craftsmen and cooks, which refugees could fill, with little investment in their training.
- It deprives terrorist organizations and militant, radical groups from a large number of able bodied males, and impacts their manpower negatively. Makes it easier to defeat them eventually, and lowers the possibility of conflict expanding to other areas of the middle east, thus improving long term safety of Europe as a whole.
- It is a humane thing to do.
Originally Posted by :
In any case, I wouldn't mind sending back those few hundred thousand Syrian men. It would result in greater security for Europe than admitting them without knowing what to do with them.
Maybe in the short term.In any case, I wouldn't mind sending back those few hundred thousand Syrian men. It would result in greater security for Europe than admitting them without knowing what to do with them.
Originally Posted by :
Especially as those using the guilting arguments equally absolve blame from these incomers for all they do, putting the blame on the host state instead.
I never said they should be absolved from blame. By all means, those who break the rules should be dealt with accordingly. I had issue with blaming a million people for the actions of 5, 50 or 500.Especially as those using the guilting arguments equally absolve blame from these incomers for all they do, putting the blame on the host state instead.
Originally Posted by :
BTW, AFAICS Syrians are refugees while they're in their first country of transit. Once they go beyond that, they become migrants.
Following the rules to the letter would be counterproductive in this case. Secondly, EU countries have been letting them through, which they shouldn't have.BTW, AFAICS Syrians are refugees while they're in their first country of transit. Once they go beyond that, they become migrants.
Thirdly, even if it were possible to keep a million people in Greece, it would collapse the country and bring much greater damage to EU and Europe as a whole than refugees.
There is so much wrong with that that I don't even know where to begin. Give me one argument at a time instead of a barrage of fallacies and I will destroy them one by one.
Originally Posted by Husar:
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.
It's not collective punishment, because no one is being punished in the first place. There is no intent to harm anyone - on the contrary, there is the intent to protect someone; just not the migrants.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.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
- Europe has an aging, dwindling population. If it weren't for immigration, that would've been a very, very serious problem by now.
Population growth is unsustainable in the long run. At some point, it has to stop and stabilise at realistic numbers. Importing people is just pushing the issue further into the future.- Europe has an aging, dwindling population. If it weren't for immigration, that would've been a very, very serious problem by now.
It also frees up resources in the countries the migrants left behind, potentially sustaining or even increasing the already high population growth there; in sum pushing the Earth even closer to its global population capacity.
Originally Posted by :
- Immigration is a necessity for economies in Europe to be stable.
For most or all of Western Europe, inter-European migration is more than enough; if we are at all to believe in its "necessity". Many non-Western immigrants are also often poorly qualified for quite a few jobs where workers are needed.- Immigration is a necessity for economies in Europe to be stable.
Originally Posted by :
- A million refugees isn't overwhelming number for Europe and won't disrupt the overall balance of religions while it would impact positively the demographics of almost all European countries
There is not much of a reason to assume that the immigration will drop dramatically in the future. It might even rise, if certain countries see a rise in living standards.- A million refugees isn't overwhelming number for Europe and won't disrupt the overall balance of religions while it would impact positively the demographics of almost all European countries
Originally Posted by :
- It deprives terrorist organizations and militant, radical groups from a large number of able bodied males, and impacts their manpower negatively. Makes it easier to defeat them eventually, and lowers the possibility of conflict expanding to other areas of the middle east, thus improving long term safety of Europe as a whole.
In return, those who are recruited don't have go much further than outside their own houses to the bidding of the terrorist entities; like in Paris recently.- It deprives terrorist organizations and militant, radical groups from a large number of able bodied males, and impacts their manpower negatively. Makes it easier to defeat them eventually, and lowers the possibility of conflict expanding to other areas of the middle east, thus improving long term safety of Europe as a whole.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
Empire buidling? Slave trade? I cant wait to hear how you explain how either of those are applicable. I'm sure it'll be as convincing as your assertaition of collective punishment, something that, as far as I know, has happened on your side of the channel not mine.
That's complete bullhonkey on so many levels:Empire buidling? Slave trade? I cant wait to hear how you explain how either of those are applicable. I'm sure it'll be as convincing as your assertaition of collective punishment, something that, as far as I know, has happened on your side of the channel not mine.
1) "Days of", although PVC does want the days of roman empire building back, or british ones if he can't get the romans I assume. Slave trade is what happens when you close the borders and desperate people go to smugglers.
2) You and Pannonian were arguing to close the borders and send everyone back because some of them might be terrorists or did I misread something? You're still on "your side of the channel" I assume.
3) What is "my side of the channel"? Spain to China? What are you talking about? We both live in "our EU"!
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
The one who caused this mess, by opening the borders and inviting them in, was Germany not Britain. Any responsibility laid at our feet for this would be better laid at your own.
The mess was already in Greece and Italy before Germany invited anyone. These countries were calling for help for quite a while but Britain did and still does not want to help. With friends like these...The one who caused this mess, by opening the borders and inviting them in, was Germany not Britain. Any responsibility laid at our feet for this would be better laid at your own.
Originally Posted by Viking:
It's not collective punishment, because no one is being punished in the first place. There is no intent to harm anyone - on the contrary, there is the intent to protect someone; just not the migrants.
The argument was that noone should be let in because a few of them are/could be dangerous. Yes, it is collective punishment if you take away a real possibility for many because of the sins of a few.It's not collective punishment, because no one is being punished in the first place. There is no intent to harm anyone - on the contrary, there is the intent to protect someone; just not the migrants.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO