IMMIGRATION thread

[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.

[Papewaio]

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.

Policing is part of the preventative measures. As are IDs, communication improvement, vetting and allocation of the correct resources is social services and medical resourcing.

One part is making sure the immigrants aren't part of the cause of the issues that they are fleeing.
Another is to help the new arrivals steer clear of groups that will take advantage of them from low level criminals to bosses exploiting labour.

If all the new associates are the current societies pariahs rather then upstanding law and order types like good police then who do you think the noobs are going to pattern themselves on?

Society cannot expect people to passively integrate in the most positive manner. They will naturally conform to a range unless prompted otherwise. Even with good measures their are undesirable outcomes in every society.

[Fragony]

Being a good guest would be a good start before musing about what we could do better as a host.

[Pannonian]

Policing is part of the preventative measures. As are IDs, communication improvement, vetting and allocation of the correct resources is social services and medical resourcing.

One part is making sure the immigrants aren't part of the cause of the issues that they are fleeing.
Another is to help the new arrivals steer clear of groups that will take advantage of them from low level criminals to bosses exploiting labour.

If all the new associates are the current societies pariahs rather then upstanding law and order types like good police then who do you think the noobs are going to pattern themselves on?

Society cannot expect people to passively integrate in the most positive manner. They will naturally conform to a range unless prompted otherwise. Even with good measures their are undesirable outcomes in every society.

It makes you wonder why so many second generation Muslims are religious fundies though, after their parents did all they could to give their children a normative western life. After our experience with homegrown Islamist loons, I have little confidence that the newcomers will produce better results. Especially as the newcomers seem to be worse behaved than the previous intake of first generation Muslims, who at least tried to do their best before their idiot kids turned against their country of birth.

If we are to receive them, they should be loyal to the UK above any other identity. If this seems unfairly exceptional when other cultures aren't told to do the same, that's because other cultures accept it a a matter of course, and adapt themselves to fit into the host society.

[Myth]

It's because the muslims want to be horse archers, yet you force them into being longbowmen.

[Sarmatian]

And why are we expected to facilitate this?

Because helping out fellow humans is a sign of a civilized society.

Nothing can force you, though. It is a choice, except a certain number of workers that have to be imported because of an aging population in most western countries.

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.

Yes, but two points.

1) They are not guests. Guests are expected to show extra courtesy, but they aren't expected to do anything and they are taken care of by their host. These refugees will have the same rights and obligations towards the state and society as you have, after the initial period for settling in. New tenants in the building would be a better comparison.

2) Why are you considering them bad guests? Even if we accept that social network hysteria is accurate, in facts and scale (which is highly unlikely), it is still a minute number compared to the number of refugees overall. There will be rotten apples in every basket.

[Shaka_Khan]

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.

The fact is that the crimes are happening. You don't sit still just because you expect everyone to behave.
"It's they're fault so I don't have to do anything about it."

[Greyblades]

We are doing something about it: we're not letting them in.

[Husar]

We are doing something about it: we're not letting them in.

http://www.thenation.com/article/eur...ve-punishment/

Aspiring to the old days of empire building, slave trade and collective punishment again. And this from the people who claim their bill of rights and stuff were groundbreaking in enlightenment and human rights matters.

[Greyblades]

Empire buidling? Slave trade? I cant wait to hear how you explain how either of those are applicable. I'm sure it'll be as convincing as your assertaition of collective punishment, something that, as far as I know, has happened on your side of the channel not mine.


The one who caused this mess, by opening the borders and inviting them in, was Germany not Britain. Any responsibility laid at our feet for this would be better laid at your own.

[Pannonian]

The fact is that the crimes are happening. You don't sit still just because you expect everyone to behave.
"It's they're fault so I don't have to do anything about it."

Is that supposed to be an argument for actively bringing in a demographic that has a recent and active history of troublemaking? Syrians are Syrians because they're from Syria. That means they have no special claim on us. We have no particular obligation towards them. If we do anything for them, it's a favour. If they want more than that, then they can ask for it from someone else as we wash our hands of them. If they want aid, then we can make an offer, and they can make a reciprocal accommodation. If they don't like it because it's not ideal, then they can hold out for a better offer from someone else.