IMMIGRATION thread

[Sarmatian]

In England during WWII, 100% (or near enough) of evacuees were women and children.

Evacuees to where? Countryside?

[Sarmatian]

How am I a bigot then, you never say why.

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

Not that I really care or am offended but the forum-rules are pretty clear on personal attacks.

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

It's silly because you know nothing about me

Yes, you have Muslim friends, I know.

[Pannonian]

Evacuees to where? Countryside?

Yeah. The UK has a tradition of looking after mothers and children, but men and children-less women are expected to get on with it.

[Husar]

In England during WWII, 100% (or near enough) of evacuees were women and children.

Are you sure about that? Where are the numbers from?
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/migrant-cri...report-1517648

http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-...eeing-syrians/

“Without the intervention and determination of many people who are of many faiths, I – along with some 10,000 others – would have perished,” he wrote. “I strongly believe that we must not stand by, while the oppressed need our help. We cannot ignore the sight of desperate people and in such a crisis we must act to save the most vulnerable refugees: the children, and provide them with the same sanctuary I, along with others, was fortunate to receive.”

Not sure how closing all the borders would save anyone. Pictures in the first link seem to show quite a few men though.

As for the young men, if they didn't flee many of them would be forced to fight, and as all Americans know, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Remove the people and the war there will end sooner while we can still sell a lot of guns to everyone. Problem solved.

[Sarmatian]

Yeah. The UK has a tradition of looking after mothers and children, but men and children-less women are expected to get on with it.

There are a few key differences

1) It was safe
2) It was state sponsored/organized
3) It wasn't a civil war

[Pannonian]

There are a few key differences

1) It was safe
2) It was state sponsored/organized
3) It wasn't a civil war

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.

[Husar]

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.

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

[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.

[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.

[Fragony]

Too many apples, not enough pie. Almost all local rulers try to talk some sense into the childless mutti.

the only answer; wir schaffen das

'But we don't! We lack the capacity!'

wir. schaffen. das. stfu

[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.

[Pannonian]

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.

IIRC all except one of the Paris attackers had been in Syria, and had returned with the refugees via Greece.

[Viking]

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.

Note that what you quote says more.