IMMIGRATION thread

[Sarmatian]

Fine, yeah I absolutely adore nazi's. Let's just forget that intorance of gays jews and women-rights is rampant in what was hauled in.

Again implying they're not really humans?

[Fragony]

Again implying they're not really humans?

Where is the first time I did? And no I don't do that, your mind is playing tricks on you. Well known defence-meganism called cognitive-dissonance. What you think you see isn't there. The brain starts connecting dots if something is too confusing when it has already has made up it's mind. The equation no longer counts, just the outcome

[AE Bravo]

Why don't you all accept that it comes with the territory? You have a bunch of people escaping a carnival of atrocities coming to your country, naturally there are going to be bad apples and it's your job to root them out now that you let them in.

It sort of seems there is some chauvinism in play here, first it was about losing your homogeneity and now it's about women not being protected, which since you're painting an entire people with the same brush shows that you couldn't care less about those women and it's just your pride really politicizing rape if we're cutting the bull and getting down to brass tacks. As much as you accuse the left of shame tactics, there are few other ways to deal with someone who indulges in calling out others on their "savage" culture.

At least that's what I got from the psychology of statements like this:

Good luck for the gorgius women in Germany with men like you. It's you who was being humiliated, you just let it happen

[Fragony]

A lot who where caught are third generation immigrants, they were born and raised on German soil. I don't expect of them to climb up a mountain to pick an edelweis and perform a schlager

It wasn't me by the way who said shame tactics, that was Strikie. But I fully agree. Hell has no fury like a guttmensch proven wrong, proven wrong again and again and again. hissssss

[HopAlongBunny]

[Husar]

Can I have some of what you are smoking? Which bombing campaign has been instigated by "Native Europeans" (by which I presume you mean western countries) in Syria against the local population? And when did we start dropping bombs on Eritrea and Ethiopia?

The Russians, the Americans, the French...
The African countries were only ruined by European colonialism, resource extraction, slavery, willful drawing of borders, installation of corrupt regimes and exploitative contracts, basically leaving a large population behind that has no perspective in life whatsoever.
Not true for Ethiopia of course, but it was in the middle of all this. Why do you mention it anyway? I was not aware it spawned a large number of migrants although it did habe a war with Eritrea, didn't it?

Where is the first time I did? And no I don't do that, your mind is playing tricks on you. Well known defence-meganism called cognitive-dissonance. What you think you see isn't there. The brain starts connecting dots if something is too confusing when it has already has made up it's mind. The equation no longer counts, just the outcome

You said "what was hauled in", not "who was hauled in". That implies things, not people, were hauled in. We could go on about the use of "hauled in"...
Again, language, communication, might want to work on it.

[Snowhobbit]

The Russians, the Americans, the French...
The African countries were only ruined by European colonialism, resource extraction, slavery, willful drawing of borders, installation of corrupt regimes and exploitative contracts, basically leaving a large population behind that has no perspective in life whatsoever.
Not true for Ethiopia of course, but it was in the middle of all this. Why do you mention it anyway? I was not aware it spawned a large number of migrants although it did habe a war with Eritrea, didn't it?

So when we did last drop bombs over Africa? WW2? And the bomb campaign by NATO forces is targeted towards ISIS, not the civilian population. Not sure why you are having a hard time making that distinction. And I don't know what maps you read but you might want to get a new one if you want to put Russia as a western country?

Ethiopia and Eritrea produce a lot of refugees, along with Somalia these are some of the major countries which "produces" (pardon the language) refugees. Break down of law and order, military dictatorship, mismanagement and starvation, political persecution. Take your pick, all of those things are of course horrible and can be a reasonable cause to flee the country. I'm just having a hard time tracing that to any western bombing campaigns. The notion that all of the people who came last year were from Syria is false, they might be the biggest group (maybe?) but they are certainly not a minority. It is a very heterogeneous "group" of people.

[Gilrandir]

So when we did last drop bombs over Africa? WW2?

Not that long ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_U...mbing_of_Libya

[Snowhobbit]

Not that long ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_U...mbing_of_Libya

And how many Libyans fled last year? Or are you saying the bombs were so big that the explosion reached all the way to the horn of Africa? And I'm pretty sure that if you think real hard you can find a more recent bombing of Libya...

[Husar]

So when we did last drop bombs over Africa? WW2?

See reply to Gilrandir at the end.

And the bomb campaign by NATO forces is targeted towards ISIS, not the civilian population. Not sure why you are having a hard time making that distinction.

Thanks for the insult, you never fail to deliver. Almost makes me think you are a Kadagar-alt-account...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...vilians-report

And I don't know what maps you read but you might want to get a new one if you want to put Russia as a western country?

"Native-European"
Western is technically a relative term anyway.

Ethiopia and Eritrea produce a lot of refugees, along with Somalia these are some of the major countries which "produces" (pardon the language) refugees. Break down of law and order, military dictatorship, mismanagement and starvation, political persecution. Take your pick, all of those things are of course horrible and can be a reasonable cause to flee the country. I'm just having a hard time tracing that to any western bombing campaigns. The notion that all of the people who came last year were from Syria is false, they might be the biggest group (maybe?) but they are certainly not a minority. It is a very heterogeneous "group" of people.

I'm not sure where you got the ideas that:
a) Everything needs to be traced back to a western bombing campaign.
b) That there is a notion that all the refugees come from Syria.

I've recently had a discussion with Fragony about the troublemakers being largely of north-african descent. I'm also aware that a lot of people from sub-saharan Africa journey to northern Africa to get to Europe and, according to their own accounts, want to do such things as "become rich football stars". I have never said we should allow these people to stay, although I can understand their strife for a better life to a certain extent. What I argue against are mostly comments that say because these people are among the refugees, we shouldn't let any of them in. Or that they're all inherently incompatible and will only disrupt our fairytale lives. Plenty of people sound like they assume that all refugees are criminals or otherwise undesirable "disruptors", which is just as wrong as the opposite assumption that I never intended to make. In fact I have said numerous times that we should keep those deserving of help, who also appreciate our help and throw out everyone who becomes criminal or otherwise refuses the help she or he gets.
Regardless of this, there is however the issue of how and where to send people you want to throw out as several countries do not want to take anyone back. Do we bomb them until they take them back or let them blackmail us and pay? Or do we place people in no-man's-land until they starve to death?

Seems perfectly clear to me, what was hauled in is islamist ulture.

You (should) know that I kinda like you as a person and often try to interprete your comments somewhat favourably, but even I had no idea that this is what you meant. Keep in mind there are two people involved in communication and just because something makes sense to you, it does not mean others will understand it exactly as you intended. I will admit that this can be a problem for me too (sometimes intentionally, sometimes not) and probably everyone else here, but it also seems obvious that you have a huge problem with this...

Not that long ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_U...mbing_of_Libya

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_m...ntion_in_Libya

?

[Snowhobbit]

See reply to Gilrandir at the end.



Thanks for the insult, you never fail to deliver. Almost makes me think you are a Kadagar-alt-account...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...vilians-report



"Native-European"
Western is technically a relative term anyway.



I'm not sure where you got the ideas that:
a) Everything needs to be traced back to a western bombing campaign.
b) That there is a notion that all the refugees come from Syria.

I've recently had a discussion with Fragony about the troublemakers being largely of north-african descent. I'm also aware that a lot of people from sub-saharan Africa journey to northern Africa to get to Europe and, according to their own accounts, want to do such things as "become rich football stars". I have never said we should allow these people to stay, although I can understand their strife for a better life to a certain extent. What I argue against are mostly comments that say because these people are among the refugees, we shouldn't let any of them in. Or that they're all inherently incompatible and will only disrupt our fairytale lives. Plenty of people sound like they assume that all refugees are criminals or otherwise undesirable "disruptors", which is just as wrong as the opposite assumption that I never intended to make. In fact I have said numerous times that we should keep those deserving of help, who also appreciate our help and throw out everyone who becomes criminal or otherwise refuses the help she or he gets.
Regardless of this, there is however the issue of how and where to send people you want to throw out as several countries do not want to take anyone back. Do we bomb them until they take them back or let them blackmail us and pay? Or do we place people in no-man's-land until they starve to death?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_m...ntion_in_Libya

?

And how did those bombs in Libya reach the horn of Africa again?
Yes, when bombs are dropped sometimes (often? depends on where you drop them) you will hit unintentional targets and kill people who are not the target of the operation/campaign. I can assure you that I am not Kadagar, for one I do not share his belief in the genetic impact on intelligence and ability. I'm not sure how reliable the source quoted is, that organisation is omitting the biggest player in bombings in Syria (or well, the two biggest players), but that is really besides the point. It is indisputable that civilians have died due to coalition bombings. My contention was whether this was a target of the campaign or not, which you appear to not have addressed?

I am simply disputing the notion that Europe is responsible for the push factors of why these people flee. If we had been dropping bombs all over Africa over the past decade then that argument would have a point, however it does not.

Certainly people attempting to get a better life for themselves is something which is understandable. These are people just as we are, they are not vermin or barbarians. That does not mean that we must open our arms and borders for them however, something which you agree on? Personally as far as I can assess the situation, the majority of the influx of people are not as a whole incompatible with society and will not disrupt our lives to any great extent. Under international law, countries have an obligation to receive their citizens. The "clever" thing to do for these countries would then be to torture the people who return, which would result in us being unable to send them back. Of course bombing those countries will not solve anything and create more misery. Instead we should freeze foreign aid and start embargoing such countries unless they agree to play by the rules. Such as Afghanistan refusing to accept the "horde" of "children" which have arrived in Sweden recently. Why on earth should we be giving their government a single cent while they refuse to accept their own citizens?

[Fragony]

Seems perfectly clear to me, what was hauled in is islamist ulture. Real refugees leaves their problems behind, they don't bring it with them

There are of course human-rights being violated. The wifi for their iphones is slow, the tv's aren't even hd-ready let alone hd, the three meals a day aren't very tasty, and to make it even worse they don't get free phone-cards and pocket money. War must be heaven. To make it even worse, the showers and toilets are dirty, do they have to keep them clean themselve wtf? They only get cleaned twice a day!

I payed for much less. And it's much more than our elders get, they are lucky if they are looked after at all.

[Sarmatian]

Where is the first time I did?

Hyenas comparison.

And no I don't do that, your mind is playing tricks on you. Well known defence-meganism called cognitive-dissonance. What you think you see isn't there. The brain starts connecting dots if something is too confusing when it has already has made up it's mind. The equation no longer counts, just the outcome

So you made a mistake. You meant to say "who" but said "what" instead, is that right?

[Fragony]

Hyenas comparison.



So you made a mistake. You meant to say "who" but said "what" instead, is that right?

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

[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

[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...

[Snowhobbit]

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)

But Gaius is not stressing the distinction, he is claiming that they are two words meaning the same thing.