IMMIGRATION thread

[Fragony]

Because you compare Muslims with hyenas. Do I need anything more?


They are also pretty clear on insulting nations and religious groups.



Yes, you have Muslim friends, I know.

I compare the behaviour of those assholes in Collogne with hyena's yes. But you called me a bigot before Collogne

[Sarmatian]

The UK didn't expect its own citizens, if they weren't mothers and children, to be safeguarded from danger. Why should men be expected to lead the way to safety now? If the EU can only absorb so many refugees at a time, and the issue really is about protecting helpless families, one would have thought the menfolk would be willing to let the women and children fill the quota, rather than make up over half the numbers as they currently do.

As I said -

1) It was safe - Are expecting adult Syrian males to let their their wives and children deal with smugglers, officials, harsh conditions, camps, carry money for smugglers, transportation and corrupt officials, potentially wait months in winter, track back and do it all over again if a border is closed etc, etc... ALONE? Would you let your wife and child do that?

2) 2) It was state sponsored/organized - the transportation was SAFE and where they were going was SAFE(r). During transportation and upon arrival, all basic necessities were provided. There was no danger that a particular village would close its borders and leave everyone stranded. It was the same country, same rules, same language.

3) It wasn't a civil war - there was an organized national effort with a very clear goal and state could provide protection for those who left.

I compare the behaviour of those assholes in Collogne with hyena's yes. But you called me a bigot before Collogne

Well, you were a bigot before that. That was just the latest example the illustrated it perfectly

[Pannonian]

As I said -

1) It was safe - Are expecting adult Syrian males to let their their wives and children deal with smugglers, officials, harsh conditions, camps, carry money for smugglers, transportation and corrupt officials, potentially wait months in winter, track back and do it all over again if a border is closed etc, etc... ALONE? Would you let your wife and child do that?

2) 2) It was state sponsored/organized - the transportation was SAFE and where they were going was SAFE(r). During transportation and upon arrival, all basic necessities were provided. There was no danger that a particular village would close its borders and leave everyone stranded. It was the same country, same rules, same language.

3) It wasn't a civil war - there was an organized national effort with a very clear goal and state could provide protection for those who left.

If they're that fiddly about evacuation from a dangerous location, perhaps they should find somewhere else more welcoming.

[Sarmatian]

If they're that fiddly about evacuation from a dangerous location, perhaps they should find somewhere else more welcoming.

They're looking for long term stability and potential to give their families both life and survival. That's not too much to ask for after what they've been through, I'd reckon.

[Greyblades]

Where is Greyblades when you need him? Are men not deserving of help? Why?

Careful with that strawman; you'll put your eye out.

Not a bigot, a petty little bigot.

A glorified spoiled brat, with some malicious thoughts and delusions of grandeur. Fragony is a bigot. You'd have to improve to become one.

I see.

You are incapable of defending your point and thus you resort to accusations of intolerance in an attempt to stigmatize your opponent.

Sadly at this point I have come to expect this of you.

[Sarmatian]

I see.

You are incapable of defending your point and thus you resort to accusations of intolerance in an attempt to stigmatize your opponent.

Sadly at this point I have come to expect this of you.

You nailed it.

Except that I wasn't making a point but expressing hope for a particular "taste of your own medicine" kind of scenario. And I didn't stigmatize you, you did that yourself. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... You know the ending.

So, besides everything you've said, you're correct.

[Fragony]

Well, you were a bigot before that. That was just the latest example the illustrated it perfectly

Ah well, one can't get along with everybody I suppose, I will just have to accept that I am a bigot because, ehhhhh I'm a bigot

[drone]

1) It was safe - Are expecting adult Syrian males to let their their wives and children deal with smugglers, officials, harsh conditions, camps, carry money for smugglers, transportation and corrupt officials, potentially wait months in winter, track back and do it all over again if a border is closed etc, etc... ALONE? Would you let your wife and child do that?

A counter-argument would be: So adult Syrian males are leaving their wives and children unprotected for months in a warzone?

[Sarmatian]

A counter-argument would be: So adult Syrian males are leaving their wives and children unprotected for months in a warzone?

A valid counter argument.

Consider this example, though. Let's take a hypothetical Syrian male whom we will aptly call Male. Male is 25-30 years old, has a wife and a 5-10 year old child. He lives in a small village in Syria with his family and his parents which isn't directly threatened at the moment. What are his options? He could remain there. War shows no signs of ending so the situation, while stable now, may change and the village may come under threat. The constant warfare is threatening food supplies, also. Even if they manage to survive, the future for his family looks grim. There's very little chance his child will get a chance to have an education and a what we would call "a normal life", house, job, marriage, the lot. Even in the best case scenario. In the worst case scenario they all end up dead. He's been torn for a long time. At first he hoped that it may end soon. Then a year passed, then another year passed, and then 3 more. No end in sight. The country is so devastated that even if the warfare stopped this instant, it would take years to recover. His child would still be deprived of normal life. So, he decides to try to leave. Now, where to? Gulf countries? They're full up. North Africa? The situation there isn't much better than in Syria. Horn of Africa? Not much better than Syria. Iran? Caucasus? Balkans? Unstable. Wars and/or low level warfare now or in the recent past.

So, Male thinks his best option for safety of his family is western Europe. How will he get there? The road is long, he may not have much money. He will probably be hungry, cold and generally in danger during the trip. He may be forced to deal with lowlifes and criminals. He may end up being close to his goal and those countries could close their borders, forcing him back through all that. There's no way he could take his wife and child on such a trip, full of dangers and uncertainties. So, he decides to go alone, and leaves his family in the relative safety of his village. His parents will be there to help if needed, and if the worst truly happens, his presence wouldn't have made a difference. So Male embarks on the trip alone, hoping to reach somewhere safe, and organize transport for his family at the earliest possible opportunity.

Or you could have a Male 2.0, who isn't married and has no children. The situation is the same, so instead of trying to start a family in Syria, he seeks to move to a stable country where he could start a family, raise his children in safety and provide them a normal life.

[Pannonian]

A valid counter argument.

Consider this example, though. Let's take a hypothetical Syrian male whom we will aptly call Male. Male is 25-30 years old, has a wife and a 5-10 year old child. He lives in a small village in Syria with his family and his parents which isn't directly threatened at the moment. What are his options? He could remain there. War shows no signs of ending so the situation, while stable now, may change and the village may come under threat. The constant warfare is threatening food supplies, also. Even if they manage to survive, the future for his family looks grim. There's very little chance his child will get a chance to have an education and a what we would call "a normal life", house, job, marriage, the lot. Even in the best case scenario. In the worst case scenario they all end up dead. He's been torn for a long time. At first he hoped that it may end soon. Then a year passed, then another year passed, and then 3 more. No end in sight. The country is so devastated that even if the warfare stopped this instant, it would take years to recover. His child would still be deprived of normal life. So, he decides to try to leave. Now, where to? Gulf countries? They're full up. North Africa? The situation there isn't much better than in Syria. Horn of Africa? Not much better than Syria. Iran? Caucasus? Balkans? Unstable. Wars and/or low level warfare now or in the recent past.

So, Male thinks his best option for safety of his family is western Europe. How will he get there? The road is long, he may not have much money. He will probably be hungry, cold and generally in danger during the trip. He may be forced to deal with lowlifes and criminals. He may end up being close to his goal and those countries could close their borders, forcing him back through all that. There's no way he could take his wife and child on such a trip, full of dangers and uncertainties. So, he decides to go alone, and leaves his family in the relative safety of his village. His parents will be there to help if needed, and if the worst truly happens, his presence wouldn't have made a difference. So Male embarks on the trip alone, hoping to reach somewhere safe, and organize transport for his family at the earliest possible opportunity.

Or you could have a Male 2.0, who isn't married and has no children. The situation is the same, so instead of trying to start a family in Syria, he seeks to move to a stable country where he could start a family, raise his children in safety and provide them a normal life.

And why are we expected to facilitate this?

[Shaka_Khan]

Cities with better police action will have groups who get along and trust each other. Multiculturalism works pretty well in these places. Expatriates and immigrants are welcome in these places. Unfortunately, there are people who have the opinion that more police presence equals oppression. There are ways to prevent governments from becoming tyrants and keep the cities safe at the same time.

In my opinion, it is the lack of action by the government and the police that (unintentionally) increased the crime rate in the first place. I've been to a few dangerous cities in the US. What striked me was the police living in fear as they patrolled the streets. There were many cases in which the police were unable to prevent crime from happening. When I'm in those cities, I'm not sure that the police would be able to help me if I get into a bad situation. It's very different when I'm in a safe city. Europe wouldn't be having this problem if the governments (particularly Germany and Sweden) weren't so lenient early on when it was easier to handle. Then the troublemakers would've got the message. There are people with extreme deviant behaviors in every ethnicity and race. Most of the problematic people won't act deviant if the governments show that they care about their citizens and show that they'll enforce protection strongly.

[Pannonian]

Cities with better police action will have groups who get along and trust each other. Multiculturalism works pretty well in these places. Expatriates and immigrants are welcome in these places. Unfortunately, there are people who have the opinion that more police presence equals oppression. There are ways to prevent governments from becoming tyrants and keep the cities safe at the same time.

In my opinion, it is the lack of action by the government and the police that (unintentionally) increased the crime rate in the first place. I've been to a few dangerous cities in the US. What striked me was the police living in fear as they patrolled the streets. There were many cases in which the police were unable to prevent crime from happening. When I'm in those cities, I'm not sure that the police would be able to help me if I get into a bad situation. It's very different when I'm in a safe city. Europe wouldn't be having this problem if the governments (particularly Germany and Sweden) weren't so lenient early on when it was easier to handle. Then the troublemakers would've got the message. There are people with extreme deviant behaviors in every ethnicity and race. Most of the problematic people won't act deviant if the governments show that they care about their citizens and show that they'll enforce protection strongly.

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.

[Gilrandir]

In general, if you had bother to look, you would see that it is connected again with poverty. Rich Muslim countries tend to have extremely low rates of violent crimes.

It's about poverty, not race or religion.

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.

1) It was safe - Are expecting adult Syrian males to let their their wives and children deal with smugglers, officials, harsh conditions, camps, carry money for smugglers, transportation and corrupt officials, potentially wait months in winter, track back and do it all over again if a border is closed etc, etc... ALONE? Would you let your wife and child do that?

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?

So, he decides to try to leave. Now, where to? Gulf countries? They're full up. North Africa? The situation there isn't much better than in Syria. Horn of Africa? Not much better than Syria. Iran? Caucasus? Balkans? Unstable. Wars and/or low level warfare now or in the recent past.

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.

[Pannonian]

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.

Especially as

1. ISIS have threatened to smuggle agents among the refugees, to attack soft targets in the west.
2. They've already done it in Paris, resulting in 100+ deaths.

[Husar]

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.

It wasn't safe before either, but noone cared. There were hand grenade attacks between rivalling biker gangs, mass gatherings of said biker gangs with huge police protection, human trafficking at a huge scale, mafia executions in cities, professional eastern european burglar gangs that would rob homes during broad daylight, mafia families from the balkans and levant that owned entire streets, engaged in drug trafficking and had feuds with each other openly on the streets and yet we kept electing Merkel and friends over and over who saved us so much money by reducing police budgets...

But yeah, all these problems are the fault of Syrian men who don't want to get drafted and die for their dictator.

Especially as

1. ISIS have threatened to smuggle agents among the refugees, to attack soft targets in the west.
2. They've already done it in Paris, resulting in 100+ deaths.

1. And we should cower in fear as soon as they say that. This way we win.
2. There was one guy who may have come disguised as a refugee, the only sensible reaction is to let a million people freeze to death in front of a barbed wire.

[Sarmatian]

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.

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.

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.

And, more importantly, not everybody is moving to Europe. There's three times more refugees in Turkey than in all of Europe combined.

[Greyblades]

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?