French Presidential Election

[Viking]

https://openborders.info/blog/how-ca...three-answers/

Seems to focus heavily on migration from China to the US, and it also seems to rely heavily on individual cases rather than statistics. A more accurate answer would require surveying a large number actual boat migrants from Africa to Europe (whether before, during or after the journey). Relevant, but not a definite answer.

Indeed, and that is not likely to change as long as we mostly protect our wealth from everyone else.

Or while their governments continue to squander as much money and the militias wage as much war.

But the application of national socialist methods of extradition is going to keep the national socialism at bay?
Did you ever even consider alternative approaches such as letting them work to earn their asylum stay (community work), giving them mandatory classes about our culture, laws, etc. or is some kind of soft ethical cleansing your first go-to-method?

This is about not handing out new citizenships and returning the relevant people that do not have citizenship.

When you let your fears guide your politics more than a rational look at problems?

And what's rational? Say you live in a big house with 99 other people, and 10 people are outside in the cold, wanting to get in. You know that if you let them in, one of the 100 people will likely be killed during the night by one of the 10, and that if you do not let them in, they will freeze and get little or no sleep, but it is not very likely that any of them will die; and when the day comes, the electricity returns to their home, so they can go back there.

In this scenario, I would say that the rational choice is to let those 10 freeze a night and most likely save a life.

So basically just treat the symptoms and not the causes.

Which is precisely what letting them in is. It doesn't fix the underlying issue while destabilising Europe.

You also seem to ignore all historical context just because you don't like the treaties right now. I think that is what people mean when they say we don't learn from history and history tends to repeat itself.

Rather, it's a straw man; it has not been suggested that the migrants should be forced to stay in potentially lethal conditions, like in a country where the government is executing a genocide of their group.

The argument is that we don't need immigrants for that kind of crime

That's trivial, and not relevant to the point. The point is that Malmö, as an example, almost certainly would not have anywhere near as much crime if it weren't for the immigration it has seen.

your second point is disproven by the USA, where motorcycle clubs are just as violent, where some of them even originated. And the USA did not accept hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees.

You don't think it's better for organised criminals that general crime rates in a society goes up?

Yes, now your argument seems completely irrelevant because noone argued that we should let criminal immigrants do what they want.

I have no idea what you are referring to here.

Like the ones that say people who throw rocks at the police need to go to prison.

I don't know how that is treated in Sweden, but I doubt it would fix the underlying issues. The youths get out of jail and keep throwing while the prisons would have less room for the Italian mafia, German bikers and American bankers.

The money required to get such high levels of crime under control is probably quite significant, and where would you get that money from? Not the hospital disinfection budget, I hope. And didn't you say that we were supposed to 'share our wealth', anyway; and now it seems like we have to spend much of it on police with expensive Western-level wages?

Taking away citizenships and/or homes, jobs, potentially spouses etc. does not constitute punishment for you or were you not talking about throwing all middle easterners or at least everyone who arrived since 2015 out of here?

No one will loose their citizenship (unless they are criminal and it is possible to return them). A lot of the people in question are going to get returned, anyway. My main focus is on asylums that have not yet been granted; primarily on the people that have not arrived yet, and maybe not even left their home country yet.

Returning people once peace has arrived is a separate and more complex issue.

[Husar]

Or while their governments continue to squander as much money and the militias wage as much war.

And it's a pure coincidence that they all ended up with corrupt governments and rebels after colonialization "ended"?
Or that their corrupt governments defend their power with weapons bought from us?

And what's rational? Say you live in a big house with 99 other people, and 10 people are outside in the cold, wanting to get in. You know that if you let them in, one of the 100 people will likely be killed during the night by one of the 10, and that if you do not let them in, they will freeze and get little or no sleep, but it is not very likely that any of them will die; and when the day comes, the electricity returns to their home, so they can go back there.

In this scenario, I would say that the rational choice is to let those 10 freeze a night and most likely save a life.

This is not a terrible argument, but it lacks a bit in the details. For one, it's not that electricity went out in Syria, you can probably find pictures of what used to be their homes aplenty.
And then the two options you present fail to represent the real options with the refugee crisis. First of all, you could lock the ten from outside in a separate room if they just want to stay for one night...
Secondly, they were not really outside anymore, but they already entered your neighbor's home already and you're afraid they might murder two people and starve due to your neighbor not being as rich as you, if they all stay there...

Which is precisely what letting them in is. It doesn't fix the underlying issue while destabilising Europe.

And because it is not a viable long-term strategy, it has already been stopped. But people still arrive on the shores of Greece and Italy anyway. Blaming the problems only on them and their governments as you did above is not going to tackle the causes at all.

Rather, it's a straw man; it has not been suggested that the migrants should be forced to stay in potentially lethal conditions, like in a country where the government is executing a genocide of their group.

Eh, they weren't back then either, the US just refused them, they could have tried any other country that would not have required them to cross the Atlantic, such as Sweden or Switzerland, pretty much what you say about them now.
http://history-switzerland.geschicht...itzerland.html

The treaty came to be because back then it was seen as wrong for the USA to have rejected them and apparently noone said the US could have paid Switzerland to take even more because it was so much closer. How are you not ignoring the historic context and changing definitions of refugees etc. around to suit your agenda of ethnic purity?

That's trivial, and not relevant to the point. The point is that Malmö, as an example, almost certainly would not have anywhere near as much crime if it weren't for the immigration it has seen.

You don't think it's better for organised criminals that general crime rates in a society goes up?

You have yet to prove any of those claims.
I've quoted the German police before as saying the correlation is minimal and here you have another report from the USA:
https://insight.kellogg.northwestern...increase_crime

The results of his analysis are clear: “There’s essentially no correlation between immigrants and violent crime,” he asserts. Given some media depictions of immigrants as violent, or associated with human trafficking and the drug trade, this finding may come as a surprise to many, says Spenkuch. “There’s a long perception that immigration increases crime, and when you look at neighborhoods where lots of immigrants live, these are typically not the best neighborhoods. These are violent places. So there’s this anecdotal association [between immigrants and violent crime] that just doesn’t turn out to be true in the data.”

If Malmö is somehow special and different, then it cannot be used to make a general point about immigration anyway...
Perhaps Sweden managed to increase ratios and "tolerance" to a point where it does get problematic, but that does not prove anything about spreading 2 million people over the European mainland. At least according to German law, many of the 2 million are not allowed to stay anyway, that the whole extradition is sometimes handled in a rather sub-optimal way is a different problem and not the fault of the refugees.

I don't know how that is treated in Sweden, but I doubt it would fix the underlying issues. The youths get out of jail and keep throwing while the prisons would have less room for the Italian mafia, German bikers and American bankers.

The money required to get such high levels of crime under control is probably quite significant, and where would you get that money from? Not the hospital disinfection budget, I hope. And didn't you say that we were supposed to 'share our wealth', anyway; and now it seems like we have to spend much of it on police with expensive Western-level wages?

That is a lot of assumption again with nothing to actually back it up, might as well close all prisons if you're right because the criminals will just criminal on once they get out anyway, better to throw them all out of the country into Norway (and pay Norway to take them) or so.

No one will loose their citizenship (unless they are criminal and it is possible to return them). A lot of the people in question are going to get returned, anyway. My main focus is on asylums that have not yet been granted; primarily on the people that have not arrived yet, and maybe not even left their home country yet.

So now anyone can lose their citizenship if they are criminals? Or make a special law that allows only "former middle eastewrners" or so to lose their citizenship? People who have not left their home country yet will not arrive here anymore in any legal or official way, NATO is patrolling the sea near Greece and we pay Turkey to take them all in, much as you wanted. I'm not perfectly happy but also not fiercely opposed to this "solution" as long as it remains a stopgap measure. Sending the newcomers back without even checking the validity of their claims is just wrong. The whole checking might have gone much faster if Germany didn't have to do it almost alone, so if time is the problem, ask Poland etc. why they don't help and check some themselves, it would also greatly increase the density per country. And no, I have little sympathy for their demands regarding which EU country should take them either.

Leaving them all in Greece especially is just a (sorry) dick move, given that Greece already has enough troubles itself and can't/shouldn't just kill them on the shore either...

[Viking]

And it's a pure coincidence that they all ended up with corrupt governments and rebels after colonialization "ended"?

Or that their corrupt governments defend their power with weapons bought from us?

Fine, we'll send down assassins to take out the corrupt leaders and take all the weapons back from relevant rebels and militaries. What happens then, and how likely would it be that this scenario would be very different from one where we didn't do the bad things (which you accuse us of doing) after their independence?

For one, it's not that electricity went out in Syria, you can probably find pictures of what used to be their homes aplenty.

Can be rebuilt.

First of all, you could lock the ten from outside in a separate room if they just want to stay for one night...

Well, you said locking up people was bad; plus it might be cheaper to keep them outside, and then you get more money for disinfecting gel.

Secondly, they were not really outside anymore, but they already entered your neighbor's home already and you're afraid they might murder two people and starve due to your neighbor not being as rich as you, if they all stay there...

Whatever is the case, another option is to send them to yet other neighbours, where the 10 are less likely to murder inhabitants.

Blaming the problems only on them and their governments as you did above is not going to tackle the causes at all.

Blaming only whom?

Eh, they weren't back then either, the US just refused them, they could have tried any other country that would not have required them to cross the Atlantic, such as Sweden or Switzerland, pretty much what you say about them now.
http://history-switzerland.geschicht...itzerland.html

The treaty came to be because back then it was seen as wrong for the USA to have rejected them and apparently noone said the US could have paid Switzerland to take even more because it was so much closer. How are you not ignoring the historic context and changing definitions of refugees etc. around to suit your agenda of ethnic purity?

What we have learnt from contemporary history is that taking massive amounts of immigrants from radically different cultures is not a great idea, either.

You have yet to prove any of those claims.

I've already covered this ground:

[The point is] that law and order is unravelling different places (cities and neighbourhoods) in Europe because of mass-immigration, while mass-immigration continues. Whatever the percentages are for natives and immigrants when it comes to antisocial behaviour, that doesn't particularly matter unless you can use it to both actually restore law and order in these places and prevent lawlessness from spreading

So again, percentages are not so important; although I would expect that you would find that the percentages of antisocial behaviour stemming from migrants (first, second and third generation) is higher than natives in Sweden and France, certainly in specific cities.

here you have another report from the USA:
https://insight.kellogg.northwestern...increase_crime

Parts of it agrees with me, actually:

But Spenkuch did discover a modest positive correlation between immigration and property crime, although this effect is only present with regard to “immigrants with the poorest labor market outcome,” he says, such as those from Mexico. An increase in immigrants with better economic prospects, such as those from Canada, is not associated with any increase in property crime.

The lack of correlation with violence is interesting, but a single study in a single country is not the definite answer.

I've quoted the German police before as saying the correlation is minimal and

[...]

If Malmö is somehow special and different, then it cannot be used to make a general point about immigration anyway...

As with the study above, I'd like to take a look at the way the data was gathered, analysed and how the conclusions were drawn.

When you see similar things happening in both France and Sweden, it would not appear likely that Malmö is a very unusual (i.e. unlikely) scenario given massive amounts of relevant immigrants settling in one city or neighbourhood.

Perhaps Sweden managed to increase ratios and "tolerance" to a point where it does get problematic, but that does not prove anything about spreading 2 million people over the European mainland. At least according to German law, many of the 2 million are not allowed to stay anyway, that the whole extradition is sometimes handled in a rather sub-optimal way is a different problem and not the fault of the refugees

Most of the countries that already have very large immigrant communities (France, UK, Germany) are also the ones who in theory would be the most capable of receiving immigrants, in terms of wealth and population size; and of course it is perfectly understandable that those countries that still are very homogenous want to preserve that; and they can't know how many 'exceptional circumstances' will require them to take in yet more immigrants in the future.

That is a lot of assumption again with nothing to actually back it up, might as well close all prisons if you're right because the criminals will just criminal on once they get out anyway, better to throw them all out of the country into Norway (and pay Norway to take them) or so.

What are the controversial assumptions? Many countries struggle with full prisons. In fact, this country is sending prisoners to the Netherlands (who mysteriously have plenty of room) because the jails here are too full.

That getting high levels of crime under control should cost a lot of extra money in most cases should be pretty obvious; I don't have any indication that the Swedish (or French) police is so ineffective because the police officers are too busy drinking tea.

So now anyone can lose their citizenship if they are criminals?

If they came as adults, why not.

[Brenus]

"Fine, we'll send down assassins to take out the corrupt leaders and take all the weapons back from relevant rebels and militaries." Are you crazy? They were and are OUR corrupted leaders...
And when a potential threat to them appeared/s, we sent/d assassins to take them out... Kind of operation Condor...

[Husar]

The lack of correlation with violence is interesting, but a single study in a single country is not the definite answer.

Given that you used some four or five incidents from Malmö to "prove" that there is supposedly a problem in the first place, I'd place the ball squarely in your court now...

[Viking]

Given that you used some four or five incidents from Malmö to "prove" that there is supposedly a problem in the first place, I'd place the ball squarely in your court now...

That wasn't even the number of links that I posted. I'll requote:

Over 70 car fires have occurred in Malmö since July 1st this year [2016]

Malmö has experienced thirty explosions this year [2015]

To add to the last one, regarding the number of separate incidents:

Since the start of the new year [2015] Malmö has on average been rocked by an explosion a week.

and the previous year:

In 2014 a total of 25 blasts took place in Malmö.

http://www.thelocal.se/20150824/you-...u-live-in-malm

Then there's the murder rate:

Malmö

City population: 318,107 (2014) [1] (32% born abroad + 12% born in Sweden with both parents born abroad = 44% of the population with significant immigrant background [2])

Murders:

2016: at least 11 per a previous post
2015: at least 6 [3]
2011: 8 [3]

Average: 8.33

Oslo

City population: 634 463 (2014) [4]

Murders between 2011-2015: 6, 11, 9, 7, 7, 10; average: 8.33 [5]

While murder statistics for Malmö were difficult to get hold of (and therefore incomplete), you can see that something funny is going on. Not only is Oslo almost twice as large as Malmö, but its metropolitan area should also be significantly larger. The murder ratio for Malmö would seem to be almost twice that of Oslo, even though Malmö is a much smaller city.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Chicago 2016:

2.72M persons; 762 homicides.

Per capita that would be:

Malmo 3.45/100k

Oslo 1.73/100k

Chicago 2.33/100k....

er, sorry, that was the monthly average. 28.02

[Viking]

Quite, and having a majority population of around 45%, it fits a more general pattern.

Being much larger than Malmö, the distance from a troubled neighbourhood to the nearest calm neighbourhood can be much larger, and that probably helps driving crime rates up.

I think when you have significant segregation and a large minority population (in absolute numbers), minority youth will risk feeling disconnected from and lose respect for the system that is dominated (even if proportionally) by the majority population, and be more likely to chose a path that involves crime. Crime often involves competition, and criminal competition often involves murder.