French Presidential Election

[Gilrandir]

That is very true and it affects me, too. That does however not make it rational or mean one should have a terrible knee-jerk reaction based on it.

Fear belongs to the realm of emotions which is definitely apart from the realm of rationality.

Are we talking about anyone specific or just making sure everyone understands that migrants are not refugees?

I mean the ones that have been inundating Europe for the last two years.

Hmmm.....


I don't think the death part is optional, so shouldn't I wake up happy to have had one more day and the chance to move forward into the new one, rather than dwelling in fear on that which is unavoidable?

What if moving forward into the new day is moving forward into the last day?

[Viking]

Pay dictators to take them in as well? You would pay countries like Saudi Arabia, who fund terrorism in the first place, to take in the people that were displaced by the terror they funded? Now you're rewarding bad behavior IMO. Not only that, you'd also give them a lot of people who hate us (more) now as recruits for terrorist organizations. You're not fixing a problem, you're just throwing money at a problem once more, hoping it will go away. Where exactly has that worked out fine before in the long term?

You stated that they did not want the refugees, so if we refunded some of the costs they would incur upon taking them in, we would certainly not be rewarding them. If you don't want make agreements with SA, then make them with Kazakhstan, Indonesia or whomever.

That migrants should hate the West more because we didn't allow them in seems rather unlikely, I think they would be more concerned with their daily life.

Are we entitled to it just because we were born here?

No one is entitled to it, we just happen to have it.

Were we entitled to violently conquer some of these countries and extract their resources to gain part of the wealth we currently have? If violently taking something is okay, then their attempts to violently try and get in here cannot be called immoral.

This country has been relatively poor until modernity, I doubt much colonial wealth ended up here; and that aid given to previously colonised countries far outweighs whatever small amounts ended up here.

That colonial plunder is the reason Europe is well-off while former colonial possessions are not, I would like to see some documentation on. Last time I checked, Africa seemed to still be full of natural resources.

Are Western people somehow more worthy of protecting their jobs and peaceful lifestyles just because they had them once? If other people can take a hit to their quality of life, why can't we? Surely immigration does not lower our lifestyle to the level of the poorest slums, so it is overall more acceptable than just increasing the size of the poorest slums by putting more refugees there. We can afford to give more and still be better off than most. Your argument defeats itself.

This does not answer the question of why Syrian migrants should be allowed to settle here while we don't also go to the slums to ask who there would like to move out of poverty and settle in the West. I think many there would accept the offer.

Spanish people who come to Norway to work or do you find they do not disrupt public order?

Do they? If they do, maybe you have some evidence for it.

That makes no sense, the ROI on anti-terror measures may already be enormous if you consider how many attacks we may have had without any police at all. And obviously if you have only 20 deaths to reduce, it's impossible to reduce the deaths in that field by 100.
If 20 scares you so much, then consider that we have some 30000-40000 deaths per year from infections in hospitals and we wouldn't even need enormous investments to reduce them. The disinfectant for example is usually already provided, it's just not used properly by personnel because there is not pressure being applied. All the pressure is seemingly applied to reduce the last 20 terror deaths instead of forcing people to clean their hands and material for little extra cost to prevent maybe 10000 deaths from infections. The ROI on the latter would be a whole lot higher than on the former. Which was my point from the start...
And spending more money on the police would help with more than just fighting terrorism either way.

If all the relevant immigrants hadn't been accepted in the first place, there would have been much fewer terrorist attacks to prevent. As there is currently no end in sight for the immigration, a lot of future terrorist attacks might be avoided by not taking in more migrants from relevant countries; and it might not cost more than the alternative, meaning that we are not taking money that could have been spent on disinfection, or whatever.

To restore law and order implies that there were law and order before, which is a myth that you can't prove.

Maybe the war in Syria is a 'myth that you cannot prove', either; it's just a series of fired bullets and rockets, similar incidents of which happen in the West as well. Particularly in certain immigrant-rich cities, like Malmö.

it involves brown people

Does it, always?

Maybe the crimes of immigrants have a tendency to be more bold and out in the open, but in that case the only thing that unravels is the illusion of law and order that we grew so comfortable with before.

In the same sense that when being in a closed refugee camp, the only thing that unravels is 'the illusion of freedom' the refugees had before.

That lawlessness is not exclusively caused or greatly increased by immigration, it exists already anyway, you just ignore it when it is not caused by immigration. You are free to actually prove otherwise. And by prove I don't mean that you just claim it is so or show single newspaper incidents that prove nothing as you did until now.

Why don't you prove it that I ignore it, instead? This is inane.

[Husar]

Fear belongs to the realm of emotions which is definitely apart from the realm of rationality.

So should we base all our policy decisions on emotions rather than rationality or only the ones affecting immigration?

I mean the ones that have been inundating Europe for the last two years.

So someone who runs away from a war in Syria is not a refugee if they run too far? If they're supposed to stay in the next country that has no war, why don't they just send them to the next city or village in Syria that is currently not affected by the war? Clearly someone who runs away further than the average shell can fly is overdoing it. And obviously being the neighbor of a whacko means you're responsible for what he does and need to clean up after him.

You stated that they did not want the refugees, so if we refunded some of the costs they would incur upon taking them in, we would certainly not be rewarding them. If you don't want make agreements with SA, then make them with Kazakhstan, Indonesia or whomever.

In case of SA you seem to have missed the point. Kazakhstan and whoever have a culture that is way too different to allow mass-immigration of Syrians without a complete meltdown of law and order. They also aren't anywhere near as stable and wealthy to afford the necessary measures to keep public order as Western Europe is. We'd have to pay them billions every months to make up for the cost.

That migrants should hate the West more because we didn't allow them in seems rather unlikely, I think they would be more concerned with their daily life.

You may have missed the angry ones attacking border agents because we didn't let them in. Their daily life is exactly why they want to come here, they want a better daily life than their home countries currently offer them.

No one is entitled to it, we just happen to have it.

Yes, and now we share it with those in need just like we teach our children to share the chocolate they happen to have.
(We happen to have it would also be better argument if the history of the world began 20 years ago)

This country has been relatively poor until modernity, I doubt much colonial wealth ended up here; and that aid given to previously colonised countries far outweighs whatever small amounts ended up here.

Indeed, your forefathers only pillaged the rest of Europe.
And a lot of the wealth today was built based on cultural exchange with the rest of Europe and the fact that the rest of Europe didn't come and pillaged all your oil and fished away all your fish before you even got anywhere. So basically a good example of how people can prosper if you don't treat them as Untermenschen or children and just trade with them in a relatively fair way as the technologically superior and richer side.

That colonial plunder is the reason Europe is well-off while former colonial possessions are not, I would like to see some documentation on. Last time I checked, Africa seemed to still be full of natural resources.

And who extracts them in most cases and gets most of the profits?
http://thisisafrica.me/france-loots-former-colonies/
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ulation.africa

Western legal systems are stacked, thanks to the hired hands of skilled lawyers, to protect the rights of the crooked over the rights of Africa's ordinary citizens.

https://www.globalpolicy.org/compone...162/27791.html

To put this figure in perspective, America's cotton farmers receive:

- more in subsidies than the entire GDP of Burkina Faso – a country in which more than two million people depend on cotton production. Over half of these farmers live below the poverty line. Poverty levels among recipients of cotton subsidies in the US are zero.
- three times more in subsidies than the entire USAID budget for Africa's 500 million people.

In an economic arrangement bizarrely reminiscent of Soviet state planning principles, the value of subsidies provided by American taxpayers to the cotton barons of Texas and elsewhere in 2001 exceeded the market value of output by around 30 per cent. In other words, cotton was produced at a net cost to the United States.

See, we give them a chance, but they just can't compete on the market.

And another one:
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/...649852604.html

Do I really need to explain how the powerful have a much easier time protecting their advantages than the downtrodden ones have trying to get anywhere?

This does not answer the question of why Syrian migrants should be allowed to settle here while we don't also go to the slums to ask who there would like to move out of poverty and settle in the West. I think many there would accept the offer.

Because they happen to have come here and are fleeing war. I hope I don't have to explain that slums are a disgrace either way.

Do they? If they do, maybe you have some evidence for it.

Weren't you on the side that claimed mass migration always causes problems?
Why should I prove your point now?

If all the relevant immigrants hadn't been accepted in the first place, there would have been much fewer terrorist attacks to prevent. As there is currently no end in sight for the immigration, a lot of future terrorist attacks might be avoided by not taking in more migrants from relevant countries; and it might not cost more than the alternative, meaning that we are not taking money that could have been spent on disinfection, or whatever.

Yes, that is true, so how do you weed out the "relevant immigrants" from the others without just sending everyone back?
You know, if you make everyone leave the country, all the problems are gone. The only argument you seem to have is that people born here are more deserving of help based on pure happenstance. Basically the same argument that monarchies use(d) to exist/rule and take money from all the plebs whenever they wanted to. Just in this case the royal family is identified based on having a certain peace of paper as a birthright.

Maybe the war in Syria is a 'myth that you cannot prove', either; it's just a series of fired bullets and rockets, similar incidents of which happen in the West as well. Particularly in certain immigrant-rich cities, like Malmö.
[...]
Does it, always?
[...]
This is inane.

Answered yourself in a way...

In the same sense that when being in a closed refugee camp, the only thing that unravels is 'the illusion of freedom' the refugees had before.

And what can we learn from that?

Why don't you prove it that I ignore it, instead? This is inane.

You insinuate that we had law and order before mass-immigration and I showed that we didn't. I basically already proved it, no need to do it again.

[Viking]

Kazakhstan and whoever have a culture that is way too different to allow mass-immigration of Syrians without a complete meltdown of law and order. They also aren't anywhere near as stable and wealthy to afford the necessary measures to keep public order as Western Europe is. We'd have to pay them billions every months to make up for the cost.

I think you are underestimating the stability of such countries and overestimating the stability of countries in the West.

You may have missed the angry ones attacking border agents because we didn't let them in. Their daily life is exactly why they want to come here, they want a better daily life than their home countries currently offer them.

They attack the border guards because they are now part of their daily life and within reach; if they had been settled in Saudi Arabia, they'd be working at the local bakery instead. The kind of people that attack border guards might not be the type of people we'd want to let in, anyway.

Yes, and now we share it with those in need just like we teach our children to share the chocolate they happen to have.
(We happen to have it would also be better argument if the history of the world began 20 years ago)

There are some significant differences between chocolate and citizenship.

And who extracts them in most cases and gets most of the profits?
http://thisisafrica.me/france-loots-former-colonies/
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ulation.africa

https://www.globalpolicy.org/compone...162/27791.html


See, we give them a chance, but they just can't compete on the market.

And another one:
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/...649852604.html

Do I really need to explain how the powerful have a much easier time protecting their advantages than the downtrodden ones have trying to get anywhere?

At any rate, not a result of colonial plunder in the past. If this is true, then they should ask for those things to be fixed, not migrate here.

Because they happen to have come here and are fleeing war. I hope I don't have to explain that slums are a disgrace either way.

One of the biggest reasons they have come here while people from the slums do not, is because Syrians live closer and are wealthier; they actually have the means to get here unlike people from the worst slums. There are many people on this planet in much greater need of help than Syrians in refugee camps.

Weren't you on the side that claimed mass migration always causes problems?
Why should I prove your point now?

You can start by proving that a mass-migration of Spaniards is actually taking place. Of course, the more similar the cultures are, the less of an issue the migration will be.

Yes, that is true, so how do you weed out the "relevant immigrants" from the others without just sending everyone back?

Except from the obvious of checking against known or suspected criminals, we don't because we can't. Many terrorists are second-generation and not even born yet as their future parents cross the borders.

The only argument you seem to have is that people born here are more deserving of help based on pure happenstance.

I have suggested that they should be helped right from the start; just without the parts where people get mowed down by lorries and cities takes steps towards anarchy. They should not feel entitled to a life in Europe.

You insinuate that we had law and order before mass-immigration and I showed that we didn't. I basically already proved it, no need to do it again.

You didn't show anything, you played with words. Law and order doesn't mean zero criminality any more than not being imprisoned means you can do anything you would feel like.

[Husar]

They attack the border guards because they are now part of their daily life and within reach; if they had been settled in Saudi Arabia, they'd be working at the local bakery instead. The kind of people that attack border guards might not be the type of people we'd want to let in, anyway.

I'm sure there are lots of bakeries longing for workers in Saudi Arabia, on that I concede the point to you. I'm not sure why you say the latter as I said the same myself, perhaps not in this thread...

There are some significant differences between chocolate and citizenship.

No, both are pretty sweet in this case.

At any rate, not a result of colonial plunder in the past. If this is true, then they should ask for those things to be fixed, not migrate here.

I'm sure they haven't thought of asking politely so far, what an oversight on their part.
Maybe beating border guards is the only way they know how to express their dissatisfaction given that we never gave them highschool discussion club technology?

One of the biggest reasons they have come here while people from the slums do not, is because Syrians live closer and are wealthier; they actually have the means to get here unlike people from the worst slums. There are many people on this planet in much greater need of help than Syrians in refugee camps.

As you know, I agree about the latter, the reasons for both are largely the same though IMO.
As for the ability to come here, how do sub-saharan Africans do it? Are they as wealthy as Syrians?

Except from the obvious of checking against known or suspected criminals, we don't because we can't. Many terrorists are second-generation and not even born yet as their future parents cross the borders.

And because we know for certain that some of them will inevitably breed some terrorists, we should send all of them elsewhere?

I have suggested that they should be helped right from the start; just without the parts where people get mowed down by lorries and cities takes steps towards anarchy. They should not feel entitled to a life in Europe.

The thing is that some of them are entitled to a life in Europe. The ones who are not should be sent back more effectively, on that I do not disagree.

You didn't show anything, you played with words. Law and order doesn't mean zero criminality any more than not being imprisoned means you can do anything you would feel like.

"a situation characterized by respect for and obedience to the rules of a society."

Would you call tax evasion respect for and obedience to the rules of a society? I'd rather give you that bar brawls are part of our culture...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...What if moving forward into the new day is moving forward into the last day?

If I knew it were, I'd get shrived, remind my loved ones of my love, and probably toss off a good rendition of "The Parting Glass" (I have a fair baritone). After that, either the questions are answered or dreamless sleep.

Not rushing headlong to get there, but it will be a destination on my trip regardless. And, after all, WALSTIB.

[Viking]

As for the ability to come here, how do sub-saharan Africans do it? Are they as wealthy as Syrians?

One could also ask why the ones that do migrate are the ones doing it and not their neighbour or their uncle. Is it random, is it because they feel more entitled to a better life than the rest, is it because they recently lost a job etc.?

It may indeed be that many of those that migrate are wealthier (and healthier) than many of those that do not.

And because we know for certain that some of them will inevitably breed some terrorists, we should send all of them elsewhere?

Pretty much, plus for other reasons I've brought up here and in other threads.

The thing is that some of them are entitled to a life in Europe.

Here I disagree.

"a situation characterized by respect for and obedience to the rules of a society."

Would you call tax evasion respect for and obedience to the rules of a society? I'd rather give you that bar brawls are part of our culture...

When people are doing drive-by shootings, using bombs and hand grenades, there is probably a lot of other criminality going on as well. For example, as I quoted earlier:

Norra Grängesbergsgatan [is] a Malmö street known for its illegal nightclubs

All kinds of economic criminality probably follow the people that are behind the bombings and other severe antisocial behaviour. You can presumably take tax evasion for granted in such environments.

The most serious thing is not things like shootings, bombings and illegal nightclubs in and of themselves; but the sum of these things, where the monopoly on violence is weakened and the state is less capable of enforcing its laws.

Police themselves are often attacked in Sweden (as well as firefighters) with rocks, and in 2012, a Malmö police station was even attacked with a bomb.

[Husar]

One could also ask why the ones that do migrate are the ones doing it and not their neighbour or their uncle. Is it random, is it because they feel more entitled to a better life than the rest, is it because they recently lost a job etc.?

It may indeed be that many of those that migrate are wealthier (and healthier) than many of those that do not.

One could search the answer in Google, Bing or another search engine of choice, it's not a secret.
The answer to the questions posed is mostly 'no' though.

As for your proposed answer, concerning the entire planet that is probably true to some extent and hardly very surprising.
Most parents would rather see their children in safety than themselves without their children, don't you think?

Pretty much, plus for other reasons I've brought up here and in other threads.

So fear-based politics that return us to pre-20th century morals, discards a lot of social achievements, and ends up in some wicked national socialism model that perpetuates conflict.
Sounds like a terrible idea to me...

Here I disagree.

How very post-factual of you.
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2016/02/11...-refugees-fly/

The 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees — created after the shameful turning away of those fleeing Nazi Germany — obliged its signatories to accept refugees, even if they have no documents, no visa, no passport, and no resettlement authorization. There is no such thing as an “illegal asylum seeker.” People have a right to refuge if they are forced from their homes by persecution and war. The United States and the countries of Europe have signed this convention or its 1967 Protocol. Turkey has not signed. It only offers temporary refuge.

When people are doing drive-by shootings, using bombs and hand grenades, there is probably a lot of other criminality going on as well. For example, as I quoted earlier:

So we also send every suspected mafia and motorcycle club member to Somalia? Or do we pay Norway to take them?
I already quoted some numbers on other criminality these people engage in, no need to tell me.

All kinds of economic criminality probably follow the people that are behind the bombings and other severe antisocial behaviour. You can presumably take tax evasion for granted in such environments.

That is based on nothing but your own assumption and makes no sense.
By your example, Greece would have to be full of violent criminals because their tax evasion rate is so high.
Makes you wonder how people can enjoy their holidays there with all the grenades flying around.

The most serious thing is not things like shootings, bombings and illegal nightclubs in and of themselves; but the sum of these things, where the monopoly on violence is weakened and the state is less capable of enforcing its laws.

Police themselves are often attacked in Sweden (as well as firefighters) with rocks, and in 2012, a Malmö police station was even attacked with a bomb.

While you are right that respect for the police is going down, this is partially because politics missed the opportunity to adapt criminal laws and enforce them. Your suggestion that we just punish everyone who fits a certain stereotype with expulsion from the country is nothing but a huge injustice in itself.

[Gilrandir]

So should we base all our policy decisions on emotions rather than rationality or only the ones affecting immigration?

There is a whole world of difference between what we SHOULD do and what we DO.

So someone who runs away from a war in Syria is not a refugee if they run too far? If they're supposed to stay in the next country that has no war, why don't they just send them to the next city or village in Syria that is currently not affected by the war? Clearly someone who runs away further than the average shell can fly is overdoing it.

Exactly. These ARE refugees:
http://www.interpretermag.com/dont-f...n-the-donbass/

[Viking]

One could search the answer in Google, Bing or another search engine of choice, it's not a secret.
The answer to the questions posed is mostly 'no' though.

Got an example link? Note that the question was not why people migrate, but why not everyone in the same position (e.g. all jobless or poor people) do so.

As for your proposed answer, concerning the entire planet that is probably true to some extent and hardly very surprising.

Yet the ones actually get much publicity in the media are the ones that migrated across seas, while I can only presume people are dying in the droves many places from medical conditions that are usually treatable in the West.

So fear-based politics that return us to pre-20th century morals, discards a lot of social achievements, and ends up in some wicked national socialism model that perpetuates conflict.
Sounds like a terrible idea to me...

The latest rise in nationalism seems to have a lot to do the rise of immigration, so if you wish to national socialism return as a force to be reckoned with; increasing the immigration rates even further might not be a bad idea.

And what is 'fear-based' politics? Is working to prevent of traffic deaths or pandemics also 'fear-based' politics?

How very post-factual of you.
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2016/02/11...-refugees-fly/

Not so much post-factual as having the intent to create new facts through rejection and renegotiation of relevant treaties. At any rate:

It only offers temporary refuge.

So we also send every suspected mafia and motorcycle club member to Somalia? Or do we pay Norway to take them?
I already quoted some numbers on other criminality these people engage in, no need to tell me.

What's the argument, exactly? Is there a quota for crime that criminal immigrants will fill up so that the Italian mafia and German motorcycle clubs can retire, leaving the crime rates constant? I think it's much more likely that they'll get an even freer hand when the general crime rates in society go up.

That is based on nothing but your own assumption and makes no sense.
By your example, Greece would have to be full of violent criminals because their tax evasion rate is so high.
Makes you wonder how people can enjoy their holidays there with all the grenades flying around.

It was not stated that those who evades taxes are likely to be violent, but that it wouldn't seem very likely that those who do drive-by shootings should be very concerned about filling out tax forms honestly. Not the least because they probably participate extensively in the black economy, living in criminal neighbourhoods like they presumably do.

this is partially because politics missed the opportunity to adapt criminal laws and enforce them.

Like which?

Your suggestion that we just punish everyone who fits a certain stereotype with expulsion from the country is nothing but a huge injustice in itself.

Once again you are using the word 'punish(ment)' so liberally that it would appear to become meaningless.

[Husar]

Got an example link? Note that the question was not why people migrate, but why not everyone in the same position (e.g. all jobless or poor people) do so.

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

Yet the ones actually get much publicity in the media are the ones that migrated across seas, while I can only presume people are dying in the droves many places from medical conditions that are usually treatable in the West.

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

The latest rise in nationalism seems to have a lot to do the rise of immigration, so if you wish to national socialism return as a force to be reckoned with; increasing the immigration rates even further might not be a bad idea.

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?

And what is 'fear-based' politics? Is working to prevent of traffic deaths or pandemics also 'fear-based' politics?

When you let your fears guide your politics more than a rational look at problems? Where do pandemics come from?
http://www.dw.com/en/40000-patients-...dog/a-17460622
Does that mean we already have a pandemic?

Not so much post-factual as having the intent to create new facts through rejection and renegotiation of relevant treaties.

So basically just treat the symptoms and not the causes. I'm not in favor of millions of refugees going anywhere, I'd rather have them not become refugees in the first place. 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.

What's the argument, exactly? Is there a quota for crime that criminal immigrants will fill up so that the Italian mafia and German motorcycle clubs can retire, leaving the crime rates constant? I think it's much more likely that they'll get an even freer hand when the general crime rates in society go up.

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

It was not stated that those who evades taxes are likely to be violent, but that it wouldn't seem very likely that those who do drive-by shootings should be very concerned about filling out tax forms honestly. Not the least because they probably participate extensively in the black economy, living in criminal neighbourhoods like they presumably do.

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

Like which?

Like the ones that say people who throw rocks at the police need to go to prison.
Or the ones that say theft is punishable. There was a (AFAIK true, not even from a right-wing source) story about a woman here in Germany who had a lot of wedding gowns stolen from her shop and when she found them herself at some immigrant family's wedding, police came and said they won't do a thing because it would likely end in a shootout. The criminals also proceeded to harass her and spit at her or something like that in front of the police. If that is what we call law enforcement nowadays, then it's hardly surprising that the criminals are thriving because there is no actual enforcement left. I'm not even blaming the police, they're not well-equipped and understaffed after decades of funding cuts.
As for laws, in Italy it is already punishable if the police can prove that someone belongs to a criminal organization, here this is no problem as long as you're not getting caught directly in a criminal act, this means a lot of known mafiosi come here to "work" or retire because life is a lot simpler for them here. Not to forget that human trafficking and sex slavery usually require the victims to speak out, which pretty much never happens so these things just continue while politics do hardly anything about it. I can see how some of it can be hard to solve, but as long as we are busy with terrorism, I'm sure even less will happen on that front.

I assume the situation is similar in Sweden, but Sweden alone is not Europe anyway.

Once again you are using the word 'punish(ment)' so liberally that it would appear to become meaningless.

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?

[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.

[Husar]

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.

And that's why your daydream of segregated nations that compete over limited resources, dominated by a few very wealthy and powerful nations, would inevitably lead to more conflict, murder and possibly world wars, right?

If your argument is that the multicultural ghettoization is a terrible thing, then I'm with you, the goal needs to be to break up cultural barriers and mix people up more and more. But national segregation is not better than neighborhood segregation, it just pits armies against one another instead of criminal gangs. And armies do far more damage...

[Viking]

I think a world composed of homogeneous nation states would be much more peaceful than we world we currently have. A lot of rebellions have been started with the purpose of carving out or reclaiming space for a people that had no independence. Do you think the UK would have been better off if Ireland had not been granted complete independence? If Northern Ireland is anything to go by, it wouldn't.

Furthermore, force has many times been used with the purpose of adjusting borders according to ethnicity; the annexation of Sudetenland and the annexation of Crimea being relevant examples.

In sum, heterogeneity within countries has inspired a lot of violence and bad behaviour.

I don't see how a world of culturally homogeneous countries would make it easier for large and wealthy countries to dominate (if anything, some larger countries would get split up). Smaller countries would have to band together in order to be stronger when facing larger countries, but they do not need to have open borders with one another in order to accomplish this. If the EU had stuck with political and economical cooperation rather than gradually morphing into the USE, it may had been in a much better/more stable state today.

the goal needs to be to break up cultural barriers and mix people up more and more

Yet that's not always realistically achievable in the near to medium term (or even long term), and naturally gets more difficult the more immigrants are settled.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And that's why your daydream of segregated nations that compete over limited resources, dominated by a few very wealthy and powerful nations, would inevitably lead to more conflict, murder and possibly world wars, right?

If your argument is that the multicultural ghettoization is a terrible thing, then I'm with you, the goal needs to be to break up cultural barriers and mix people up more and more. But national segregation is not better than neighborhood segregation, it just pits armies against one another instead of criminal gangs. And armies do far more damage...

The problem with multiculturalism is that it has not been shown to actually, well, work.

Assimilation works. Comes at a price, but it works.

Cultural hybridity works. Doesn't necessarily come without cost, as the cognitive dissonance of being one way with one group and a different culture with another is mentally straining.

True multiculturalism has not worked past the individual level.

Culture is an aspect of identity and identity is a human need.


On the other hand, you are also correct in that truly homogenous nations have had as many and as challenging -- if different -- issues to confront as have more heterogeneous societies.

[Husar]

I think a world composed of homogeneous nation states would be much more peaceful than we world we currently have. A lot of rebellions have been started with the purpose of carving out or reclaiming space for a people that had no independence. Do you think the UK would have been better off if Ireland had not been granted complete independence? If Northern Ireland is anything to go by, it wouldn't.

Furthermore, force has many times been used with the purpose of adjusting borders according to ethnicity; the annexation of Sudetenland and the annexation of Crimea being relevant examples.

In sum, heterogeneity within countries has inspired a lot of violence and bad behaviour.

I don't see how a world of culturally homogeneous countries would make it easier for large and wealthy countries to dominate (if anything, some larger countries would get split up). Smaller countries would have to band together in order to be stronger when facing larger countries, but they do not need to have open borders with one another in order to accomplish this. If the EU had stuck with political and economical cooperation rather than gradually morphing into the USE, it may had been in a much better/more stable state today.

That may be somewhat true about internal conflict. The problem with homogeneous groups of people is that they tend to blame all their problems on some outside group and this leads to more and more conflict. Not to forget that they, especially with capitalism, require growth and can only grow after a certain point by growing into their neighbors. WW1 largely happened because the rather homogeneous nations wanted to preserve their glory, show their superiority or gain either of those. There was territorial conflict over who gets to eat the smaller nation of Serbia and so on. Of course there can also be "homogenous expansion" but then you end up with Hitler where you try to exterminate the people you conquer to replace them with your own.

Yet that's not always realistically achievable in the near to medium term (or even long term), and naturally gets more difficult the more immigrants are settled.

Yes, in today's environment of short term profit over everything else, my position has to be outrageous indeed.

The problem with multiculturalism is that it has not been shown to actually, well, work.

Assimilation works. Comes at a price, but it works.

Cultural hybridity works. Doesn't necessarily come without cost, as the cognitive dissonance of being one way with one group and a different culture with another is mentally straining.

True multiculturalism has not worked past the individual level.

Culture is an aspect of identity and identity is a human need.


On the other hand, you are also correct in that truly homogenous nations have had as many and as challenging -- if different -- issues to confront as have more heterogeneous societies.

I'm advocating some kind of cultural hybridity/assimilation developing towards a global monoculture of sorts. One may bemoan the loss of diversity, but diversity can and does exist in sub-cultures and so on. Multiculturalism does not work as it attempts to keep the cultures seperate and that doesn't work on a national level nor on an international level.

[Viking]

That may be somewhat true about internal conflict. The problem with homogeneous groups of people is that they tend to blame all their problems on some outside group and this leads to more and more conflict.

Like?

Not to forget that they, especially with capitalism, require growth and can only grow after a certain point by growing into their neighbors.

As would, then, any diverse country.

WW1 largely happened because the rather homogeneous nations wanted to preserve their glory, show their superiority or gain either of those. There was territorial conflict over who gets to eat the smaller nation of Serbia and so on.

It also heavily involved empires (often a heterogeneous lot) and monarchies with dubious democratic credentials, and was sparked by someone who wanted to join the territories of a people geographically disunited.

Yes, in today's environment of short term profit over everything else, my position has to be outrageous indeed.

Time here is money, lives and stability.

[Brenus]

"I think a world composed of homogeneous nation states would be much more peaceful " Due to the number of civil wars we French had in the past, I am not sure of this.
Now, ban all religions and THIS will drastically cut the number of wars.
We will still have the good all reasons to do wars, mind you, from looting to "I don't like how you look at me"...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"I think a world composed of homogeneous nation states would be much more peaceful " Due to the number of civil wars we French had in the past, I am not sure of this.
Now, ban all religions and THIS will drastically cut the number of wars.
We will still have the good all reasons to do wars, mind you, from looting to "I don't like how you look at me"...

Typical Blinkered French view.

Banning Religions would not reduce the number of wars. For starters you're have to oppress millions of people but even assuming you actually persuade the world to "forget" all religion they'll just start wars over something else - like Football.

Worse, ban all religion and people might just start fighting for conquest again like they did before the Jews invented Holy War. Pretty sure it was them - or if it wasn't them they killed whoever did invent it.

[Husar]

Like?

Russia, Iran, North Korea, you, ....

As would, then, any diverse country.

Not if there only was one country.

It also heavily involved empires (often a heterogeneous lot) and monarchies with dubious democratic credentials, and was sparked by someone who wanted to join the territories of a people geographically disunited.

Who was the latter? Russia? And the Empires were quite homogeneous in terms of the makeup of the people who actually had a say in them.
It was very easy to declare the other people whatever terrible stereotype the rulers could come up with because the population usually had no contacts or friends in the other group. Even worse things happened in WW2 when the NSDAP began to declare an in-group and began to teach all kinds of stereotypes about those outside that group. And it wasn't just the jews, they said similar things about blacks, slavs, etc. The US also wasn't nice to the Japanese with all the mass internment and propaganda. Now they didn't start a war based on it, but they performed injustices based on these ideas. Gangs and many other social interactions work in a similar way.

Time here is money, lives and stability.

Which may just as well just be a short term view once more, using more Co2 is also good for the money in the short term, doesn't mean it's wise to do it.

[Gilrandir]

Now, ban all religions and THIS will drastically cut the number of wars.

There was a time when banning parties and usage of Russian in Ukraine was considered undemocratic. Is banning religions any better?

[Viking]

"I think a world composed of homogeneous nation states would be much more peaceful " Due to the number of civil wars we French had in the past, I am not sure of this.

Diverse countries have a lot of civil wars too (between majority factions, with separatism on top of this), and the odd genocide every now and then. I suspect that recent or current authoritarian rule could be a factor in many civil wars.

Russia

Very diverse; many relatively recent imperial acquisitions still under control.

Iran

Seemingly pretty diverse, also a theocracy.

North Korea

One of the most extreme dictatorships in history.

Not if there only was one country.

Then you could have larger ethnicities dominating smaller ones.

Who was the latter? Russia?

The Serb assassin.

And the Empires were quite homogeneous in terms of the makeup of the people who actually had a say in them.

Those other groups typically went for independence when they saw a chance, either with or without violence, instead of focusing on representation.

the population usually had no contacts or friends in the other group.

In typical democratic countries: a question of technology as much as anything else.

Even worse things happened in WW2 when the NSDAP began to declare an in-group and began to teach all kinds of stereotypes about those outside that group. And it wasn't just the jews, they said similar things about blacks, slavs, etc. The US also wasn't nice to the Japanese with all the mass internment and propaganda. Now they didn't start a war based on it, but they performed injustices based on these ideas. Gangs and many other social interactions work in a similar way.

You'll note that the 'worst' things typically were carried out by dictatorships.

EDIT: Also somewhat ironic to bring up the US, where the majority population consists of mixed immigrant populations. A new nation grew to replace the old ones.

Which may just as well just be a short term view once more, using more Co2 is also good for the money in the short term, doesn't mean it's wise to do it.

A strategy can be better than another both in the short and long term if the other strategy is sufficiently bad.

[Brenus]

"Is banning religions any better?" Much better. Russian is not an ideology. Religions are ideologies and based on very dodgy texts, to say it mildly...