IMMIGRATION thread

[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?

[Gilrandir]

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...

You asked the direct question and I came up with an explicit answer.

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

?

Again: the question was about bombing only.

I can assure you that I am not Kadagar,

I agree. Kadagar was not so quick to insult people.

Unless it is Kdagar who grew embittered with his experience.

[Snowhobbit]

You asked the direct question and I came up with an explicit answer.



Again: the question was about bombing only.


I agree. Kadagar was not so quick to insult people.

Unless it is Kdagar who grew embittered with his experience.

Yes, I asked a question with the intention of making a point. Once an answer has been received a further question needs to be posed to illustrate that point. My apologies if this was too complex for you, do try to answer the question. And I am reasonably sure that the military intervention included some amount of bombs.

Yes, the only thing separating me from a racist is that I am faster to insult. Good job Gil.

[Husar]

And how did those bombs in Libya reach the horn of Africa again?

And how is that question related to what I said? I said sub-saharan African young men often try to get to Europe and claim that they want to become rich and famous here. And I said we have the right to send them back... Where do the bombs come in?
If you do want me to make a connection, since we bombed Gaddhafi it became a lot easier for them to board a boat and head off to Europe.

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.

See, this is the problem, you talk about push factors for these people and ignore that even unintentional bombing of civilians can be an enormous push factor...
And then there was the western bombing and occupation of Iraq that was such a failure that ISIS spawned and became a huge push factor in the first place. You can say it was well-intentioned and this and that, but that does not change that it pretty much directly lead to these developments. And people need to take responsibility for their actions, or so I've heard. In that way it's funny of course that Iraq was mostly Britain and the US and now they hardly want anyone fleeing from ISIS. They will probably blame the Iraqi army but maybe they just weren't trained well enough...

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?

Yes, as I said, I can understand why people want a better life, but we still can't take all of them. We could however stop screwing them over economically for our own gain given that we are doing really fine already anyway. Not going to happen, I know.
But consider that companies like De Beers and so on extract a lot of wealth from African soil and are mostly remnants of the colonial days. However, the wealth they collect mostly goes to Europe instead of benefitting the supposedly sovereign nations... If rebels try to fight it, we send advisors to the governments loyal to us to fight them. Not that the rebels were always a better choice but we do make sure usually that the governments keep our corporations operating and so on. Lately it seems that China and other Asian nations start to invest heavily in Africa, we will see how that goes (I assume not very well for the Africans either), but just because they also exploit others that does not make us any better.
If you want more examples:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34707266
http://www.siliconafrica.com/france-colonial-tax/
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles...cism-of-france
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...od-478419.html
http://fm4.orf.at/stories/1682425/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-25660385
http://www.theecologist.org/News/new...in_africa.html

We can debate for a long time about some of it being technically illegal but the fact remains that greedy Europeans who may in some cases have almost more financials than entire african states (i.e. can afford better equipment, bribes, etc.) are taking advantage of their weakness. Again, doesn't mean we have to take them all, but we could at least treat them like humans and not like cattle. And let in the ones who are actually fleeing from terrible circumstances such as war and persecution.

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?

I'm not sure about Afghanistan, but we pay Morocco, Algeria etc. to keep all the Africans at bay. They also refuse to take some people back, partially, I assume, because they do not have Moroccan passports (anymore) or came to Morocco from elsewhere and so on. Now if we stop paying them, they will just let everyone enter a boat or let thousands of people climb into Spanish territory. At the moment they do already beat them up severely if they catch them because we (the Spanish) pay them to do that. The following report covers that:

[Snowhobbit]

And how is that question related to what I said? I said sub-saharan African young men often try to get to Europe and claim that they want to become rich and famous here. And I said we have the right to send them back... Where do the bombs come in?
If you do want me to make a connection, since we bombed Gaddhafi it became a lot easier for them to board a boat and head off to Europe.



See, this is the problem, you talk about push factors for these people and ignore that even unintentional bombing of civilians can be an enormous push factor...
And then there was the western bombing and occupation of Iraq that was such a failure that ISIS spawned and became a huge push factor in the first place. You can say it was well-intentioned and this and that, but that does not change that it pretty much directly lead to these developments. And people need to take responsibility for their actions, or so I've heard. In that way it's funny of course that Iraq was mostly Britain and the US and now they hardly want anyone fleeing from ISIS. They will probably blame the Iraqi army but maybe they just weren't trained well enough...



Yes, as I said, I can understand why people want a better life, but we still can't take all of them. We could however stop screwing them over economically for our own gain given that we are doing really fine already anyway. Not going to happen, I know.
But consider that companies like De Beers and so on extract a lot of wealth from African soil and are mostly remnants of the colonial days. However, the wealth they collect mostly goes to Europe instead of benefitting the supposedly sovereign nations... If rebels try to fight it, we send advisors to the governments loyal to us to fight them. Not that the rebels were always a better choice but we do make sure usually that the governments keep our corporations operating and so on. Lately it seems that China and other Asian nations start to invest heavily in Africa, we will see how that goes (I assume not very well for the Africans either), but just because they also exploit others that does not make us any better.
If you want more examples:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34707266
http://www.siliconafrica.com/france-colonial-tax/
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles...cism-of-france
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...od-478419.html
http://fm4.orf.at/stories/1682425/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-25660385
http://www.theecologist.org/News/new...in_africa.html

We can debate for a long time about some of it being technically illegal but the fact remains that greedy Europeans who may in some cases have almost more financials than entire african states (i.e. can afford better equipment, bribes, etc.) are taking advantage of their weakness. Again, doesn't mean we have to take them all, but we could at least treat them like humans and not like cattle. And let in the ones who are actually fleeing from terrible circumstances such as war and persecution.



I'm not sure about Afghanistan, but we pay Morocco, Algeria etc. to keep all the Africans at bay. They also refuse to take some people back, partially, I assume, because they do not have Moroccan passports (anymore) or came to Morocco from elsewhere and so on. Now if we stop paying them, they will just let everyone enter a boat or let thousands of people climb into Spanish territory. At the moment they do already beat them up severely if they catch them because we (the Spanish) pay them to do that. The following report covers that:

It is related to the claim that Europe is responsible for the push factors (we are responsible for most of the pull factors mind), something which you might not have stated but which has been stated by other posters. Since last summer most people come through Greece/Turkey though, no? Either way since we don't seem to disagree on this I'll drop the subject.

Well, I would guess that the push factor of coalition strikes occassionally killing civilians pales in insignificance compared to Syrian forces, Russian forces, Al-Nusra, ISIS etc. etc. How many people actually flee from coalition strikes specifically? How many flee from ISIS areas, as opposed to the rest of the country? Europe as a whole was largely not part of the Iraq war, but if you want to send the bill to UK and the US I won't mind. I'm sure we could tally up a fairly large invoice in Sweden, and your German politicians would likely jump at the chance to have someone else pay?

Is Germany doing fine? Sweden is certainly not. If you could send some of that blood diamond money our way it would be a big help. Companies are not countries nor do they represent the citizens living in those countries. You are mixing pears and apples claiming that we are responsible for De Beers and should pay the price. I'm not sure what I have said that makes you think I believe we should treat them like cattle... But to be clear I believe we should treat them as human beings. You know, since that is what they are. Another question, if you are sitting in a safe refugee camp, are you then fleeing from war if you leave that camp?

Generally they refuse to take back minors and we usually cannot send back children unless someone will receive them. Generally because they do not want career criminals who would continue to be career criminals, which is understandable on some level, but if they are citizens then they have to take them anyway. The Spanish problem could largely be solved by giving up those enclaves, perhaps in return for getting Gibraltar back? I dunno, just musing on how to solve the issue in a nicer way. Thanks for the video, I'll look at it later.

[Pannonian]

We can debate for a long time about some of it being technically illegal but the fact remains that greedy Europeans who may in some cases have almost more financials than entire african states (i.e. can afford better equipment, bribes, etc.) are taking advantage of their weakness. Again, doesn't mean we have to take them all, but we could at least treat them like humans and not like cattle.

Treating them like humans also involves treating them as citizens of another country, which by definition means that other country has responsibility for them, not us. One of the arguments against dumping traitorous UK citizens in Syria is that, as UK citizens, they are our responsibility. As much as I don't like this, I accept it, but it also means other countries can't dump their citizens on us, using some kind of blame argument. They're their citizens, not ours.

[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.