[NGTM-1R]

That still doesn't change the fact that the public has been outright lied to.

You're lied to all the time. Every news organization and every government lies to you. You pay them to lie to you, because you don't want to know. Or you don't want other people to know and accept your being lied to as necessary to that goal. Or because you like what you hear better than what the truth is. Or because your knowing makes the problem worse, or creates a greater problem.

Lying is a tool. It has its place, as any other. If your argument is that, here, it has been deployed inappropriately, that seems sustainable. If your argument is that it is never ever ever acceptable...grow up, I guess?

Did he make any serious mistakes or is he a scapegoat?

Depending on which versions of the scale of the incident you believe, it'd be hard to argue there was not a serious failure of policing here; by the time we break 30 assaults and the area is not coated in a fine layer of police and their vehicles, something has gone very wrong.

[Bobboau]

wait... so you are saying that people who think that it is unacceptable to be lied to are children?
so, there are some WMDs in Iraq I'd like to sell you.

Word that better or I'm going to have to use this to discount everything you say from this point on for every subject.

[Scotty]

Word that better or I'm going to have to use this to discount everything you say from this point on for every subject.

He said that lies are necessary in a cold and cruel world, and it's infantile to think otherwise.  Think through your posts better of I'm going to have to use this to discount everything you say from this point on for every subject.

[Bobboau]

ok, feel free to. I accept it's going to happen, I think accepting it when it's found to happen is infantile.

[666maslo666]

As someone who did work for a border security organization (and frankly, good riddance to that job), it BOGGLES MY MIND that Europe has open migration and virtually no border checks within it while having virtually no checks on migration and border security externally either.

This boggles my mind, too. Schengen was originally about relaxing internal border control but at the same time about strenghtening external border protection. I remember that we had to overhaul Slovakia-Ukraine border security considerably as a condition of being admitted into it.

Now that external Schengen security has completely collapsed (with the possible exception of Hungary), Schengen will not last. It should not last. A crowning achievement of the EU, destroyed by lax immigration policy..

[Akalabeth Angel]

More information is coming to light.

According to leaked information from Police officers (not official statements), a large number of those stopped and controlled during this incident were people of syrian descent, with a vast majority of them being asylum seekers who have been in Germany less than a year. Furthermore, the official incident report states that during the night, Police registered 71 people, took 11 into custody and made 7 arrests.

Define a large number?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35261359

This article states that of 31 suspects known, only four are Syrian.

[666maslo666]

Define a large number?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35261359

This article states that of 31 suspects known, only four are Syrian.

Considering that Syrians are around 0.5% of German population, even that is 20 times statistical overrepresentation. Large enough?

[Akalabeth Angel]

Define a large number?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35261359

This article states that of 31 suspects known, only four are Syrian.

Considering that Syrians are around 0.5% of German population, even that is 20 times statistical overrepresentation. Large enough?

Are you trying to bring statistics into a look at a single incident?

[Akalabeth Angel]

Speaking of Germany and violence,

What about people burning refugee centres while refugees are inside them?
https://www.rt.com/news/325053-arson-attack-germany-migrants/

Or burning centres before people are about to move into them:
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/10/16/german-refugee-center-attacked.html

Want to talk statistics?

222+ attacks against Migrants in Germany
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/12/7/germany-sees-rise-in-crimes-against-refugees.html


One article says they've taken down a map of these centres due to concerns of protestors and arsonists and whatever else.
200 attacks on refugee centres. 4 convictions. Where's the justice there?

[The E]

Yep. As bad as criminality by asylum seekers may seem, violence against them is a much bigger problem.

[Bobboau]

the two problems are not unlinked

[Macielos]

Speaking of Germany and violence,

What about people burning refugee centres while refugees are inside them?
https://www.rt.com/news/325053-arson-attack-germany-migrants/

Or burning centres before people are about to move into them:
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/10/16/german-refugee-center-attacked.html

Want to talk statistics?

222+ attacks against Migrants in Germany
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/12/7/germany-sees-rise-in-crimes-against-refugees.html


One article says they've taken down a map of these centres due to concerns of protestors and arsonists and whatever else.
200 attacks on refugee centres. 4 convictions. Where's the justice there?

Attacks on migrant camps and migrants themselves are a result of state's being defenceless against migrant crisis.

People are required to accept the immigrants with all consequences of their arrival, to pay for their social benefits, in some German cities even to leave their own houses to make room for them. They see social services ignoring immigrants' inability to assimilate, police's weakness to maintain order, government and media trying to hide crimes committed by migrants.

Perhaps some of the officials hide all these cases with good will, wanting to avoid revenge on other migrants and prevent escalation of violence. But they are only making things worse. And this whole situation must lead to a response. A very primitive and ethically questionable response. I'm not trying to defend radicals responsible for attacks on migrant camps. What I'm saying is that if EU does not resolve the crisis by reducing immigration, better border control and quicker responses for problems caused by migrants, the situation will drive more and more support to extremist forces. And that will be the end of liberal democracy as we know it.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Attacks on migrant camps and migrants themselves are a result of state's being defenceless against migrant crisis.

No they're the result of hooligans and attempted murderers.

People are required to accept the immigrants with all consequences of their arrival, to pay for their social benefits, in some German cities even to leave their own houses to make room for them.

How many people needed to leave their house? So far I've heard of TWO people.

They see social services ignoring immigrants' inability to assimilate, police's weakness to maintain order, government and media trying to hide crimes committed by migrants.

Who says that refugees are unable to join their communities?

Perhaps some of the officials hide all these cases with good will, wanting to avoid revenge on other migrants and prevent escalation of violence. But they are only making things worse. And this whole situation must lead to a response. A very primitive and ethically questionable response. I'm not trying to defend radicals responsible for attacks on migrant camps.

That's exactly what you're doing as a matter of fact.  Nay, not defending, justifying . . which is arguably worse.
Germany chose to help people, some germans have decided to attack those same people that the country is trying to help. Not only is it unpatriotic, it's inhuman and cowardly.

[Mika]

Europe as a whole has not historically nor currently been good at integrating immigrant cultures

Compared to what actually? From my perspective, the Eastern European countries (Baltics, Poland, Hungary, Romania) have done quite well. Baltics recently, Hungary and Romania historically. Not to discount Spain and Italy either. Cannot comment about Greeks since I've not been there for some years to talk about this. Finland never had problems to integrate refugees coming from Eastern cultures.

This may be a mistake to say out loud, but it is Canada and USA that are cherry-picking the immigrants. Europe simply doesn't get that luxury. Germany did a bit better in the integration but their immigrants were mostly moderates to begin with - the current flux is not. France and Sweden have already failed. But I do believe that the reason why Sweden failed is different from France. I haven't been in UK for something like 6 years and can't say much about how it looks to me right now.

Compared to North America.  North America countries have been historically very successful at integrating immigrants (compared to Europe) precisely because they exercise some semblance of border control. For every success story in the Scandinavian or Baltic countries, there's a France, a Denmark, a Netherlands, an England, etc.  Europe would have this "luxury" if it got off its collective ass and created a harmonized, federated standard of continental border security.  This latest refugee crisis has been a great example of what NOT to do; instead of letting the Greeks shoulder the brunt of the waves, who in turn abdicated their responsibilities and instead resulted in migrants flooding on foot across Europe, the EU as an organization should have taken charge of intake, assessment, and relocation from the very beginning.  This means turning the EU into a near-federal government that actually matters, instead of whatever the hell it is now.

As someone who did work for a border security organization (and frankly, good riddance to that job), it BOGGLES MY MIND that Europe has open migration and virtually no border checks within it while having virtually no checks on migration and border security externally either.

EDIT:  As for what constitutes integration:  integration is the adoption by immigrants of legal and basic cultural norms of their new host country.  This does not mean abandoning their culture, language, and traditions, but it does mean adopting them into the framework of the legal and cultural norms of the host society.  In the context of the current discussion, this does mean abandoning the idea of women-and-children-as-property, physical punishment for minor crimes, and criminal punishment for offences against religious beliefs, etc.  It also means that the host country embraces new immigrants as new citizens with complete rights the same as their resident populations and respect for their cultures as well.

I disagree on the level of integration in North America (seems to be quite regional to me), but what it comes to EU and border control, I agree whole-heartedly. Incidentally, it's also something what Eastern members of the European Union have been trying to say for the better part of 2015. Unfortunately, the message is apparently only now getting through. I don't actually believe that the EU was not aware of the problem forming in Syria.

Note that there's immigration and asylum seekers. Immigration itself is typically well-defined and bound within the EU. The current problem is actually caused by refugees and asylum seekers (and not immigrants) by the sheer number of them - they are also arriving via land connection, so it's not only about Greece. Some other European members have done well with respect to the refugees compared to Greece, so I suppose part of the profitable human trafficking is actually done by the Greeks.

Baltic countries are more modern example of coping with the results of forced immigration, with roughly 25 % of the population being Russians. That is quite an achievement if you ask me! Romania and Hungary are themselves a cooking pot of cultures coming from East, West, South and North.

Historically, Finns have never had a problem with immigration as long as the normal immigration checks are completed. The earlier refugees from Vietnam, China or Burma never caused much issues. However, the motives of the current "refugees" became questionable when they are explaining about fleeing the country due to feeling and being threatened by whatever party. Apparently, they had no problems leaving their families to those areas, which is incomprehensible for us. Yes, roughly 90 % of the refugees coming here are men around their 30s, and it doesn't help media is trying to photograph the refuge groups with some women included.

This has gotten so absurd that a new concept of "man-baby" has been created in the Finnish language, referring to refugees that look like they are on their 40s, but when asked, respond that they are actually underage. Cue the refugees complaining in front of a bar that they are not allowed in as their current ID states they are not over 18 despite their looks. Yes, it got so bad the officials had to "carbon date" the most outrageous cases by their DNA, but that process is long and expensive. Nobody apparently told them either that they must also have a designated caretaker until they turn 18 who is responsible of them up until that point.

And what it comes to media reporting the burning attacks of reception centers, well, there's part truth to that, but when some of those fires were investigated here, it turned out that the refugees themselves had accidentally started them by smoking inside the building and leaving tobacco to places where they shouldn't be. Don't wait big headlines of those stories, though. They are reported somewhere around page 15, if at all.

[Dragon]

I disagree on the level of integration in North America (seems to be quite regional to me), but what it comes to EU and border control, I agree whole-heartedly. Incidentally, it's also something what Eastern members of the European Union have been trying to say for the better part of 2015. Unfortunately, the message is apparently only now getting through. I don't actually believe that the EU was not aware of the problem forming in Syria.

Yeah, in places like Poland it's not exactly anything new that EU border control sucks. In Shengen zone you can pretty much bring an assault rifle to any country once you get through the checkpoint, as the customs people mostly check trucks and vans, not even smaller passenger cars (and forget about them taking interest in an individual). From some news here in Poland

That still doesn't change the fact that the public has been outright lied to.

You're lied to all the time. Every news organization and every government lies to you. You pay them to lie to you, because you don't want to know. Or you don't want other people to know and accept your being lied to as necessary to that goal. Or because you like what you hear better than what the truth is. Or because your knowing makes the problem worse, or creates a greater problem.

Lying is a tool. It has its place, as any other. If your argument is that, here, it has been deployed inappropriately, that seems sustainable. If your argument is that it is never ever ever acceptable...grow up, I guess?

I can't believe I have to elaborate on that. I am grown up and this is exactly why I don't appreciate being lied to. How do you know what I want or not want to know? How do you know who am I paying for that? (nobody, for the record. I don't even buy newspapers anymore. I'm careful about internet sources as well). If we're just going to let democratic governments lie all they please to their own citizens, we might as well go back to monarchy right now, if only because they have far better record than dictatorships. I, for one, don't need lies to feel comfortable. I want the ugly truth, however ugly. That the people know the actual truth is necessary for a democracy to work. Not to mention lying about the problems doesn't solve them, it only sweeps them under the rug, which might interfere with actually solving them. Telling the truth puts the pressure on government to actually fix things.

A democracy where the government in power can just tell people whatever it wants them to believe and have them go along with it (for example because they have no other things to believe in) is nothing more than a dictatorship. It can also make people believe the opposite of what is being said (often in an exaggerated fashion), which might have disastrous consequences in itself. If you're a government official, lying to your own people is a bad idea. Even a monarch shouldn't do this, but this is more related to the fact no decent person should resort to outright lies (and being seen as a decent person is a good thing when you're in charge of a country).

Of course, politicians lie all the time when trying to get (re-)elected, but I don't think anyone takes them seriously these days. People just trust their own "gut feeling", past experience with performance of the politician in question or, in many cases, skillful rhetoric. This, I think, demonstrates the danger that lack of credibility poses. If people in general believed their own feelings instead of official statements in every case, the government would be either powerless or have to use other means (like batons and water cannons) to get the people to comply.

Even in international matters, lies need to be kept to a minimum. Classified information is fine (you know there's something secret going on, but you don't know any specifics). Being found lying is very damaging to one's credibility, which can cast a shadow on every government statement afterwards. This is a very bad thing, as it can result in, for example, being unable to enter beneficial negotiations with neighbors due to them fearing deception or a downright stab in the back. Lies in general have a tendency of being discovered, which leads to all sorts of scandals. It's a bad idea even in context of realpolitik.

All that said, the original argument was about that particular case. Still, outright lies are rarely acceptable, I even take a dim view of so called "white lies" (mostly because I value honest criticism much more than most other people, but that's just me), I prefer to either tell the truth or just keep my mouth shut (not always a viable strategy, but sadly underused even when it is...). Lies are for children, the ill (either to exploit the placebo effect or make them happier in their final days) and the insane.

[Macielos]

No they're the result of hooligans and attempted murderers.

Yes, but we cannot analyze these attacks not referring to attackers' motives. Of course they should be punished as they broke the law. But their actions are a manifestation of a greater problem.

How many people needed to leave their house? So far I've heard of TWO people.

Well, it could've been few cases so far indeed. But it is now legal in some German cities and this fact alone should be major concern. Law that allows to do so passed in local parliament in Hamburg in October and it is already in motion. Similar laws are being prepared in Dortmund and Gelsenkirchen. I'm afraid it's a rule of precedence here. If the authorities are allowed to violate private property now, why can't they do it elsewhere?

Who says that refugees are unable to join their communities?

Migrants arriving at Germany and other European countries are being placed in camps, hotels, supermarkets. They are not spread throughout the country as there are simply too many of them. They live among their own brethren, and therefore feel no need to assimilate.

But here's a second and, I think, more important reason. What would be the best motivation to accept host country's rules? Money, of course. Immigration is good, it binds together people from different cultures and makes them work together for mutual benefit. It built American prosperity in the last 200 years and the reason is that people were moving to the USA to work. When you begin work in a different country, you must accept host's rules because you want to get paid. You work, you get paid, you learn work ethics. That's because most American muslims are assimilated and feel to be Americans not less than white Americans do.

Current migration to Europe is a completely different story.

And once again, they are NOT refugees. They are migrants. UN indicates only 19% are Syrian, rest is from Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan etc., lots of them have fake Syrian passports, and 75% are young males.

That's exactly what you're doing as a matter of fact.  Nay, not defending, justifying . . which is arguably worse.
Germany chose to help people, some germans have decided to attack those same people that the country is trying to help. Not only is it unpatriotic, it's inhuman and cowardly.

I'm trying to explain why this is happening, not saying they had a good reason for that. That's the difference. When German historian claims Great Crisis made people vote NSDAP in 1933, he does not claim they did a good thing, he explains the roots of their behaviour. To understand the cause. And to be able to prevent similar events in the future. In this case I see why people are frustrated and that's exactly why the crisis must be resolved before it turns into something worse.

You claim attacking refugees is unpatriotic and cowardly. Agreed on that. But how will you call arriving at a foreign country, rejecting host's rules, overusing his hospitality and harassing his women?

I can't believe I have to elaborate on that. I am grown up and this is exactly why I don't appreciate being lied to. How do you know what I want or not want to know? How do you know who am I paying for that? (nobody, for the record. I don't even buy newspapers anymore. I'm careful about internet sources as well). If we're just going to let democratic governments lie all they please to their own citizens, we might as well go back to monarchy right now, if only because they have far better record than dictatorships. I, for one, don't need lies to feel comfortable. I want the ugly truth, however ugly. That the people know the actual truth is necessary for a democracy to work. Not to mention lying about the problems doesn't solve them, it only sweeps them under the rug, which might interfere with actually solving them. Telling the truth puts the pressure on government to actually fix things.

A democracy where the government in power can just tell people whatever it wants them to believe and have them go along with it (for example because they have no other things to believe in) is nothing more than a dictatorship. It can also make people believe the opposite of what is being said (often in an exaggerated fashion), which might have disastrous consequences in itself. If you're a government official, lying to your own people is a bad idea. Even a monarch shouldn't do this, but this is more related to the fact no decent person should resort to outright lies (and being seen as a decent person is a good thing when you're in charge of a country).

Of course, politicians lie all the time when trying to get (re-)elected, but I don't think anyone takes them seriously these days. People just trust their own "gut feeling", past experience with performance of the politician in question or, in many cases, skillful rhetoric. This, I think, demonstrates the danger that lack of credibility poses. If people in general believed their own feelings instead of official statements in every case, the government would be either powerless or have to use other means (like batons and water cannons) to get the people to comply.

Even in international matters, lies need to be kept to a minimum. Classified information is fine (you know there's something secret going on, but you don't know any specifics). Being found lying is very damaging to one's credibility, which can cast a shadow on every government statement afterwards. This is a very bad thing, as it can result in, for example, being unable to enter beneficial negotiations with neighbors due to them fearing deception or a downright stab in the back. Lies in general have a tendency of being discovered, which leads to all sorts of scandals. It's a bad idea even in context of realpolitik.

All that said, the original argument was about that particular case. Still, outright lies are rarely acceptable, I even take a dim view of so called "white lies" (mostly because I value honest criticism much more than most other people, but that's just me), I prefer to either tell the truth or just keep my mouth shut (not always a viable strategy, but sadly underused even when it is...). Lies are for children, the ill (either to exploit the placebo effect or make them happier in their final days) and the insane.

Unfortunately, we cannot stop the government from lying. They do and they will hide the truth if they see a purpose. Same refers to traditional press and TV. Free media, the internet and independent journalism can be a way to fight such practises, but possibilities for them to reveal government's lies are limited.

What is more, as we both live in Poland, we know too well that most people prefer comforting lies to unpleasant truth as for eight years Poles have been allowing our ruling party to raise taxes and expand bureaucracy as long as it claimed we are economically strong, we have security, we are modern and European. Now new government came to power and its plans are... tax rises, internet surveillance and expanding social care.

Although to some extent I can understand lying not to create a bigger threat, in this particular case (crimes committed by migrants) lying does not solve the problem, it hides it and makes it grow bigger. We can already observe nationalists winning elections in Sweden, almost won in France and neo-nazis being more and more popular in Germany.

[666maslo666]

Are you trying to bring statistics into a look at a single incident?

That is the only way you can define what a "large number" is. It is true that we should wait for more data, tough.

Speaking of Germany and violence,

What about people burning refugee centres while refugees are inside them?
https://www.rt.com/news/325053-arson-attack-germany-migrants/

Or burning centres before people are about to move into them:
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/10/16/german-refugee-center-attacked.html

Want to talk statistics?

222+ attacks against Migrants in Germany
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/12/7/germany-sees-rise-in-crimes-against-refugees.html


One article says they've taken down a map of these centres due to concerns of protestors and arsonists and whatever else.
200 attacks on refugee centres. 4 convictions. Where's the justice there?

Want to talk statistics? Divide those numbers by share of the population to get the real results. 222+ attacks seems like a lot until you realize there are what, 75 million native Germans in Germany? It is a testament to the peacefulness of German people that there were only 222+ attacks in such times as these.

As for justice, Id say it is similar to what victims of sexual assault can expect. Vast majority of which will not get justice either.

[666maslo666]

Immigrants from MENA in Europe have significantly higher crime rate than the native population. This holds true all over Europe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime#Europe

[Mika]

And once again, they are NOT refugees. They are migrants. UN indicates only 19% are Syrian, rest is from Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan etc., lots of them have fake Syrian passports, and 75% are young males.

I know that they, in reality, are not - or maybe 10 % of them are actually. However, as long as they are claiming they are looking for an asylum, they will go through the same refugee seeking protection process. The ****ty thing about this is that it will block those actual refugees from entering as the reception quotas are full for some years now.

Immigrants from MENA in Europe have significantly higher crime rate than the native population. This holds true all over Europe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime#Europe

This is acknowledged, and corresponds to Finnish statistics as well - I'm also saying it is also partially to be expected. I'm actually willing to bent the law in some of the immigrant crimes (especially the economical ones as it is well possible they didn't know the law), but that also depends heavily on the type of crime. My relatives living in Germany complained about the absoluteness of the German payment terms when living in Germany; miss the payment by one day for whatever reason and you are sued! Those are the cases that I'd let slip through with a slap on the wrist. But violent crimes from asylum seekers? Throw them out hard enough to bounce twice from the pavement!

Based on the amount I've travelled around the Europe, what I think you are encountering here is also the difference of expression and what is actually meant by that coming from Eastern European cultures and from Western European cultures. I'm also saying that hiding the crimes committed (well, those crimes that matter) by the "refugees" made things worse, and it is quite a blunder from mass media (I'd call it the blunder of the decade). Eastern European cultures do value the actual information in this regard, making this information unavailable or falsifying it will make things worse faster. What it comes to Finns and becoming radicalized by having the actual information, all I can say is HA HA, good luck with that!

My understanding (and here I may be wrong) is that Germany wished for the refugees to contribute to the society and stop the statistical aging of the country. Based on the experiences with Turks, I can see why they believed this will be a good thing. However, what happened in the Spring time 2015, was that the Eastern European countries (Hungary and Romania) were saying that this is a mistake, which was based on the fact they separated the current refugees from more moderate Turks and realized what this would mean in the long term. Unfortunately, Western EU did not listen and now it has to solve the mess, and fast. Otherwise, the mess will be solved anyways by more radical and uncontrolled bunch of people. I don't want to see that, and that's why I'm saying this.

Something what I don't get though is that if you are an "refugee", what makes you think pissing of the general population is a good game plan to begin with?

[SkycladGuardian]

Something what I don't get though is that if you are an "refugee", what makes you think pissing of the general population is a good game plan to begin with?

Well, first of all, there are always assholes. Secondly, put a group of young men (maybe also traumatized by war and their flight) together in close quarters for several weeks or even months and don't give them anything to do, **** is bound to happen.
I agree that Germany is ill-prepared to deal with these numbers of refugees. There's not enough room, not enough personnel to handle registration, not enough teachers to teach german, nearly no projects how to keep these people busy so they don't get wrong ideas.
And with all this stuff happening, our minister of finance is more obsessed with his "black zero" instead of sepnding some money to help these people.