IMMIGRATION thread

[Husar]

WHY DO YOU KEEP LIVING IN SUCH A HORRIBLE PLACE????

THE BRITISH AND UKRAINIANS CALL IT A SAFE COUNTRY AND SAY I MUST STAY!!!

[Gilrandir]

THE BRITISH AND UKRAINIANS CALL IT A SAFE COUNTRY AND SAY I MUST STAY!!!

Do you always do what wicked foreigners say?

[Gilrandir]

Merkel says refugees aren't to stay:
http://www.trtworld.com/europe/germa...war-ends-37733

[Husar]

We are not punishing anyone by not letting them in; it would be a security measure. When stores are locked for the night, it's not to punish the population collectively for theft because some people are likely to take goods with them without leaving money behind; it is a security measure.

Ugh, that's so wrong. There are a number of reasons shops are closed at night, one is the law, which is there to protect workers so they can't be forced to work all night. Another reason many shops close early is simply that they don't get a lot of customers at night and the costs would outweigh the income.

As for security being the reason, that's such a lame excuse. If a chance of maybe ten in a million warrants heavy restrictions for everyone, then we will have to change a whole lot of other things for our security. Besides, we already have surveillance of especially all our electronic communication, why is it so hard to find the 5 terrorists among all these cellphone-using refugees?
Now we do not only need full surveillance, we also need a new Berlin wall. Nothing could possibly go wrong...
Be afraid, don't let the terrorists terrorize you, just be afraid all the time.

Do you always do what wicked foreigners say?

Lol, and how then can one expect all the Syrian refugees to stay out of our countries and not try to get in by all means?

[Viking]

Ugh, that's so wrong. There are a number of reasons shops are closed at night, one is the law, which is there to protect workers so they can't be forced to work all night. Another reason many shops close early is simply that they don't get a lot of customers at night and the costs would outweigh the income.

I didn't say that they where closed, but locked (i.e. the employees have all left). If I suddenly felt a strong urge to look at a real ananas right now and the stores are closed, and I don't have any ananasses here; I would have a problem. But the store is not locked as it is closed as a punishment for any potential ananas thieves; it's just a security measure.

As for security being the reason, that's such a lame excuse. If a chance of maybe ten in a million warrants heavy restrictions for everyone, then we will have to change a whole lot of other things for our security. Besides, we already have surveillance of especially all our electronic communication, why is it so hard to find the 5 terrorists among all these cellphone-using refugees?
Now we do not only need full surveillance, we also need a new Berlin wall. Nothing could possibly go wrong...

Except this reasoning is fallacious. You can take the initiative to solve one security issue without simultaneously committing yourself to solve any security issue you can possibly think of ASAP.

"There is no point in not smoking if I don't have at least five different types of vegetables for dinner tomorrow."

Be afraid, don't let the terrorists terrorize you, just be afraid all the time.

There's no need to invoke emotions; these kinds of analyses can be done entirely without them.

[Husar]

I expect you will now attempt to explain how the smugglers are devoid of agency and thus thier actions are entirely our responsibility, not thier own.

If they are "our" smugglers, they are as much our responsibility as the terrorists are the refugees' responsibility.

Actually I support to close the borders and send everyone back because accepting more people into our welfare state than we usually do when we are experiencing an economic downturn, with shortages in housing and jobs, would be tantamount to economic suicide. The culture clash and the terrorist infiltration is just an extra layer of nope but the only point that anyone here are willing to fail at attempting to discredit.

You also have an economic downturn if your demographics go bottom up, Sarmatian already covered that.

It's your people beating up and bombing the immigrants not mine, or is the collective punisment you speak of not the retaliation for paris and cologne, as your article defines it, but reffering to the idea that we were going to let all of them in if not for the pesky terrorists?

Indeed, your country only messed up the creation of their nation states and caused a large chunk of the current mess in the first place. Who invaded Iraq again? Not us.
And Pannonian did argue not to let them in because of terrorist attacks, no? Is he French now? Didn't you basically say the same thing? Oh wait, you just did.
What the governments do was not part of my argument, I was commenting on your arguments.

Yes and we all know how eager the germans were to render aid, out of the goodness of thier hearts and no strings attatched.

We let them in, didn't we?

Punishment requires inflicting penalties or taking away something from someone for thier actions, whereas we werent going to give them access in the first place.

You're taking away their right to flee to a safer place, their freedom of movement. You know, the one they had before you told them to stay and wait until ISIS come to behead them. If you are not going to help anyone in need because you are afraid that they may destroy your good christian values, I'd advise you to check your christians values again.

I didn't say that they where closed, but locked (i.e. the employees have all left). If I suddenly felt a strong urge to look at a real ananas right now and the stores are closed, and I don't have any ananasses here; I would have a problem. But the store is not locked as it is closed as a punishment for any potential ananas thieves; it's just a security measure.

Even if the store is not locked yet closed, you still aren't allowed to buy an ananas (i.e. you'd still be "punished"), your argument makes no sense.

Except this reasoning is fallacious. You can take the initiative to solve one security issue without simultaneously committing yourself to solve any security issue you can possibly think of ASAP.

Then why not start with the most urgent ones?
And why solve it in the most hamfisted, xenophobic way instead of using far better methods to weed out the undesirables?

[Greyblades]

If they are "our" smugglers, they are as much our responsibility as the terrorists are the refugees' responsibility.

At best it is our responsibility to stop them, and that is it, it doesnt mean we are responsible for thier appearance.

You also have an economic downturn if your demographics go bottom up, Sarmatian already covered that.

A predicted issue that is not affecting us now but which we were happily solving by having a controlled influx of various eastern europeans.

Letting in the muslim horde right now would lead to problems much more immediate and severe than an aging population.

Indeed, your country only messed up the creation of their nation states

I dare say the people who did that are all dead by now.

and caused a large chunk of the current mess in the first place. Who invaded Iraq again? Not us.

Who let thier country turn into an islamic extremist hellhole despite us giving them ample resources and training to prevent it? Not us.

And Pannonian did argue not to let them in because of terrorist attacks, no? Is he French now? Didn't you basically say the same thing? Oh wait, you just did.

Did I deny agreeing with him? Did you prove him wrong? Am I Pannonian now?

What the governments do was not part of my argument, I was commenting on your arguments.

If we arent talking about governments then this whole thing falls apart. I can only be considered responsible for the last year and a half of british foreign policy, and extremely tangentally at that.

We let them in, didn't we?

I was reffering to the greeks not the immigrants.

You're taking away their right to flee to a safer place, their freedom of movement. You know, the one they had before you told them to stay and wait until ISIS come to behead them. If you are not going to help anyone in need because you are afraid that they may destroy your good christian values, I'd advise you to check your christians values again.

They were safe in turkey, moving on from there was their decision and freedom of transit is not a human right.

[Fragony]

THE BRITISH AND UKRAINIANS CALL IT A SAFE COUNTRY AND SAY I MUST STAY!!!

Nobody is screaming. So normal.

[Fragony]

THE BRITISH AND UKRAINIANS CALL IT A SAFE COUNTRY AND SAY I MUST STAY!!!

Of nu use to be reasobable, exhibit number a ^

Nobody is shouting. Redicule, the last bastion of someone without real arguments.

poke poke lmao....wtf it doesn't work

Rare video of Merkel in her younger days http://bestofvine.org/v/83080/disney...-zero-patience

[Husar]

Nobody is screaming. So normal.

Of nu use to be reasobable, exhibit number a ^

Nobody is shouting. Redicule, the last bastion of someone without real arguments.

poke poke lmao....wtf it doesn't work

First of all, why two replies to the same post?

I assume you desperately want an answer, so here it is:

I replied in the same way the question was asked, if that means I was shouting/screaming, than the other guy was shouting/screaming, too. So yes, somebody else was shouting, you're wrong.

[Fragony]

First of all, why two replies to the same post?

I assume you desperately want an answer, so here it is:

I replied in the same way the question was asked, if that means I was shouting/screaming, than the other guy was shouting/screaming, too. So yes, somebody else was shouting, you're wrong.

Ah foggetabouit, see it all the time. You have no arguments so you try to make those who disagree look hysterical. But those who do aren't shouting but being reasonable, a courtisy that's never rewarded with any courtisy, only hyperbole. It doesn't make me angry but it does dissapoint because no cliché is left behind.