IMMIGRATION thread

[Pannonian]

Yes, I did understand it after re-reading it, but thanks.

Most probably true, but sending them back isn't necessarily the better option for safety. They may be recruited by terrorists, join ISIS/some other militant group, prolong the conflict. It would reinforce the animosity toward the west, provide that injustice/indignation/easily definable target that are also very important aspects of terrorism.

Why would we be an easily definable target when they don't get the chance to experience special attention from us? The most focused current threat, apart from the social problems which are another discussion altogether, are homegrowns who have been radicalised in Syria, who are smuggled back into the EU, undetected within a mass of unprocessed refugees. That's the known modus operandi. Why are you arguing that letting yet more unprocessed refugees into the EU would help solve the problem of Islamist terrorism? If any of the traitorous scumbags who made their way to Syria want to slip back into the UK, I want them easily identifiable before they do anything, not hidden within thousands of "Syrians".

[Sarmatian]

Why would we be an easily definable target when they don't get the chance to experience special attention from us?

"You see now what's happening. They bomb us, they start wars. They tell us it is because of our leaders, not us. They love us. Now you've seen what they think of us. They've treated you like an animal, and sent you back. They don't want you there, they hate you. They hate all of us, they want to kill us. They are the devil. Do you want to strike back at them? Do you want to hurt them?"

Sending males in their prime back to a war zone where there is precious little to do is a bad idea. ISIS and its like provide just about the only opportunity of employment. Food, shelter, even a small salary and your family gets protection.

The most focused current threat, apart from the social problems which are another discussion altogether, are homegrowns who have been radicalised in Syria, who are smuggled back into the EU, undetected within a mass of unprocessed refugees. If any of the traitorous scumbags who made their way to Syria want to slip back into the UK, I want them easily identifiable before they do anything, not hidden within thousands of "Syrians".

Homegrowns already have an EU passport and little need to mix with the refugees.

That's the known modus operandi. Why are you arguing that letting yet more unprocessed refugees into the EU would help solve the problem of Islamist terrorism?

I didn't say it would solve it, I said it wouldn't make it worse, and it could even help in the long run.

[Pannonian]

"You see now what's happening. They bomb us, they start wars. They tell us it is because of our leaders, not us. They love us. Now you've seen what they think of us. They've treated you like an animal, and sent you back. They don't want you there, they hate you. They hate all of us, they want to kill us. They are the devil. Do you want to strike back at them? Do you want to hurt them?"

Sending males in their prime back to a war zone where there is precious little to do is a bad idea. ISIS and its like provide just about the only opportunity of employment. Food, shelter, even a small salary and your family gets protection.

Homegrowns already have an EU passport and little need to mix with the refugees.

I didn't say it would solve it, I said it wouldn't make it worse, and it could even help in the long run.

And yet that was the modus operandi of the Paris attackers, who were French-born. Presumably they thought the police would be onto them instantly should they return openly.

[Sarmatian]

And yet that was the modus operandi of the Paris attackers, who were French-born. Presumably they thought the police would be onto them instantly should they return openly.

For some, yes. Although it appears the two ringleaders were never in Syria.

But, it contradicts what you said earlier.

homegrowns who have been radicalised in Syria,

If they were on the police radar, it means they were radicalized before they went to Syria, not in Syria.

Even if we assume that their time in Syria was instrumental in the planning and pulling off the Paris attacks, is it really safer to send back to Syria a few hundred thousand males?

[Pannonian]

For some, yes. Although it appears the two ringleaders were never in Syria.

But, it contradicts what you said earlier.



If they were on the police radar, it means they were radicalized before they went to Syria, not in Syria.

Even if we assume that their time in Syria was instrumental in the planning and pulling off the Paris attacks, is it really safer to send back to Syria a few hundred thousand males?

They're not here yet. The onus isn't on us to send them back. The onus is on them to get here. I've seen no good argument for admitting them, beyond vague guilt arguments. In any case, I wouldn't mind sending back those few hundred thousand Syrian men. It would result in greater security for Europe than admitting them without knowing what to do with them. Especially as those using the guilting arguments equally absolve blame from these incomers for all they do, putting the blame on the host state instead. If there are going to be further guilt arguments about why EU states aren't doing all they can for the migrants they host, let's forestall all this by stopping the migrants in the first place. Let them complain about inadequate state aid elsewhere.

BTW, AFAICS Syrians are refugees while they're in their first country of transit. Once they go beyond that, they become migrants.

[Fragony]

Your AFAIK is correct. According to the Dublin treaty refugees must register in the first save country of entry in the Schengen-zone. Merkel isn't just ignoring Germany's constitution but also the EU (fuck you) law. Older childless women can do weird things. Germoney schafft sich af (pun intended)

[Sarmatian]

They're not here yet. The onus isn't on us to send them back. The onus is on them to get here. I've seen no good argument for admitting them, beyond vague guilt arguments.

- Europe has an aging, dwindling population. If it weren't for immigration, that would've been a very, very serious problem by now.

- Immigration is a necessity for economies in Europe to be stable.

- A million refugees isn't overwhelming number for Europe and won't disrupt the overall balance of religions while it would impact positively the demographics of almost all European countries

- If they are processed and distributed around Europe, it can be used to "plug holes" where needed, and assure they aren't concentrated but distributed evenly.

- Besides a few profiles (chemical and electrical engineers, doctors), EU doesn't have much need for highly educated workers ATM. There is a demand for skilled workers, like craftsmen and cooks, which refugees could fill, with little investment in their training.

- It deprives terrorist organizations and militant, radical groups from a large number of able bodied males, and impacts their manpower negatively. Makes it easier to defeat them eventually, and lowers the possibility of conflict expanding to other areas of the middle east, thus improving long term safety of Europe as a whole.

- It is a humane thing to do.

In any case, I wouldn't mind sending back those few hundred thousand Syrian men. It would result in greater security for Europe than admitting them without knowing what to do with them.

Maybe in the short term.

Especially as those using the guilting arguments equally absolve blame from these incomers for all they do, putting the blame on the host state instead.

I never said they should be absolved from blame. By all means, those who break the rules should be dealt with accordingly. I had issue with blaming a million people for the actions of 5, 50 or 500.

BTW, AFAICS Syrians are refugees while they're in their first country of transit. Once they go beyond that, they become migrants.

Following the rules to the letter would be counterproductive in this case. Secondly, EU countries have been letting them through, which they shouldn't have.
Thirdly, even if it were possible to keep a million people in Greece, it would collapse the country and bring much greater damage to EU and Europe as a whole than refugees.

[Fragony]

There is so much wrong with that that I don't even know where to begin. Give me one argument at a time instead of a barrage of fallacies and I will destroy them one by one.

[Viking]

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.

It's not collective punishment, because no one is being punished in the first place. There is no intent to harm anyone - on the contrary, there is the intent to protect someone; just not the migrants.

- Europe has an aging, dwindling population. If it weren't for immigration, that would've been a very, very serious problem by now.

Population growth is unsustainable in the long run. At some point, it has to stop and stabilise at realistic numbers. Importing people is just pushing the issue further into the future.

It also frees up resources in the countries the migrants left behind, potentially sustaining or even increasing the already high population growth there; in sum pushing the Earth even closer to its global population capacity.

- Immigration is a necessity for economies in Europe to be stable.

For most or all of Western Europe, inter-European migration is more than enough; if we are at all to believe in its "necessity". Many non-Western immigrants are also often poorly qualified for quite a few jobs where workers are needed.

- A million refugees isn't overwhelming number for Europe and won't disrupt the overall balance of religions while it would impact positively the demographics of almost all European countries

There is not much of a reason to assume that the immigration will drop dramatically in the future. It might even rise, if certain countries see a rise in living standards.

- It deprives terrorist organizations and militant, radical groups from a large number of able bodied males, and impacts their manpower negatively. Makes it easier to defeat them eventually, and lowers the possibility of conflict expanding to other areas of the middle east, thus improving long term safety of Europe as a whole.

In return, those who are recruited don't have go much further than outside their own houses to the bidding of the terrorist entities; like in Paris recently.

[Fragony]

Things don't have be complicated, they can go but can't come back. Soon the high-court of Germany is going to decide that Merkel's immigration-policy is against the German consitution, the lawsuit is already in the works, and Merkel will be nuttering 'wir schaffen das wir schaffen das' with a wet cloth on her forehead. Damage is done sadly.