[666maslo666]

European nations - and not all, but many - have historically opened the floodgates, instead of maintaining cohesive border policy, and then done everything in their power to ensure those immigrant cultures are held apart and unable to integrate.  Know why you have integration and radicalization problems?  Policies like this most recent one.  Feel free to contrast to the United States or Canada.  The US has 300 million people; Canada has 30 million.  Despite generous immigration and refugee programs, neither faces anywhere near the integration or radicalization problems of the troubled European nations because both embrace immigration and provide opportunities for immigrants to become full, participating economic and democratic citizens in short order, while allowing them to practice their cultures and beliefs inside the multicultural communities of the larger nation.

I dont agree with this reasoning. The reason why US or Canada does not have so much integration problems is twofold.

1. Lower immigrant influx from MENA countries when compared to the size of their population. Small immigrant influx integrates bette than a large one.

2. Geographic distance and Atlantic ocean acting as a great filter. Only elites from MENA countries have the means to immigrate into the US, while everyone and their dog can get into Europe. ALso, they are screened and selected before letting them immigrate, contrary to (western) Europe.

If MENA countries were located next to the US instead of Europe, the situation would be reversed. Just like the US has plenty of poor Mexican immigrants, but the EU has almost none - it is far easier to emigrate from Mexico to the US than to EU.

[jr2]

No. Seizing "excess" wealth from anyone, let alone those fleeing for their lives/livelihoods is never acceptable except as punishment for criminal wrongdoing.

Wait, what?  I feel obligated to point out that you are opposing any taxes for wealth redistribution (welfare).

[Phantom Hoover]

Taxes generally don't sieze wealth, they sieze part of a transaction.

[karajorma]

If for instance, a movement started in Mexico to take back Texas by force if necessary and even if only 0.1% of Mexicans subscribed to it, I suspect you'd have a big problem in the Southern states very quickly.

This sort of thing has actually happened, you realize? Not with such strictly ethnic lines but the Texas or Alaskan seccessionists have made up more than 0.1% of those states in recent history. The result has been basically nothing. More than 0.1% of the South is probably still in favor of Jim Crow and racial segregation. That's not resulting in anything either.

Were either of those two movements radicalised? Cause if not, I don't see what point you were trying to make here.

[Col.Hornet]

European nations - and not all, but many - have historically opened the floodgates, instead of maintaining cohesive border policy, and then done everything in their power to ensure those immigrant cultures are held apart and unable to integrate.  Know why you have integration and radicalization problems?  Policies like this most recent one.  Feel free to contrast to the United States or Canada.  The US has 300 million people; Canada has 30 million.  Despite generous immigration and refugee programs, neither faces anywhere near the integration or radicalization problems of the troubled European nations because both embrace immigration and provide opportunities for immigrants to become full, participating economic and democratic citizens in short order, while allowing them to practice their cultures and beliefs inside the multicultural communities of the larger nation.

I dont agree with this reasoning. The reason why US or Canada does not have so much integration problems is twofold.

1. Lower immigrant influx from MENA countries when compared to the size of their population. Small immigrant influx integrates bette than a large one.

2. Geographic distance and Atlantic ocean acting as a great filter. Only elites from MENA countries have the means to immigrate into the US, while everyone and their dog can get into Europe. ALso, they are screened and selected before letting them immigrate, contrary to (western) Europe.

If MENA countries were located next to the US instead of Europe, the situation would be reversed. Just like the US has plenty of poor Mexican immigrants, but the EU has almost none - it is far easier to emigrate from Mexico to the US than to EU.

And let's not forget about another thing <on of the most important ones IMO>. How can USA or Canada have immigrant integration problems when their populations were created by immigrants in the past centuries. They were a mix of different nationalities from the very beginning. Hell yes it would be easier to integrate in a society where anybody can have ancestors coming from different places then in ethnic monolith.

[NGTM-1R]

Were either of those two movements radicalised?

Dylan Roof, I suppose, never happened. It makes sense then that you'd ask this question.

Realistically speaking today is the heyday of the neo-Confederates and the neo-seccesionists. The most they manage to put into action is the occasional shooting and crashing kid's birthday parties, but then if you actually listen to what people say when they talk about "radicalization" it's obvious it's not a statement about action anyways, but a mode of thought. The mode is definitely there.

[Bobboau]

Yeah, I think it depends on what the word "radicalized" means to you.

[karajorma]

I think at this point NGTM-1R is trying to destroy a valid argument with nitpicks rather than actually addressing the root issue. I don't think anyone would claim that Texas or Alaskan secessionists are even remotely comparable to ISIS or Al-Qaeda in either the level of radicalisation they have achieved amongst their members or in their reach. So I don't see where this argument is going. And even if they had, I fail to see how it is relevant to my claim that if Mexico had a similar movement to ISIS that the US would be facing problems with illegal immigration and terrorism similar (but not necessarily at the same level) as Europe is facing.

[Bobboau]

one could argue there is not that huge a gulf.

[karajorma]

One would be wrong.

I don't think a single large attack in 20 years which wasn't even by the group NGTM-1R was talking about is comparable. And even if it was, that still doesn't answer what the **** this has to do with Mexican terrorism.

[Bobboau]

I just disagreed with your characterization of neo-confederates and secessionists as not radical.

but looking back at where where the conversation came from, you are familiar with the Mexican Reconquista movement, no? wouldn't be surprised if more than 1 in 1000 Mexicans agreed with it. in fact it looks like nearly 60% of them already thing mexico owns the US Southwest

[karajorma]

And if you seriously believe them to be a movement comparable with ISIS (or for instance Hezbollah), I don't think there is much more to say here.

[Bobboau]

Who? The various domestic anti-government forces or the the Mexican Reconquista people? In either case I think the only thing stopping them is lack of a power vacuum. In Mexico's case though there already are the drug cartels that while certainly not there yet can be compared with ISIS.

[karajorma]

I've said that part of the reason that the US doesn't have the immigration issues that Europe has (in addition to the issue MP-Ryan mentions) is because of the lack of an ISIS like organisation close to its borders. And the drug cartels are a problem for the southern states, right?

[MP-Ryan]

1. Lower immigrant influx from MENA countries when compared to the size of their population. Small immigrant influx integrates bette than a large one.

2. Geographic distance and Atlantic ocean acting as a great filter. Only elites from MENA countries have the means to immigrate into the US, while everyone and their dog can get into Europe. ALso, they are screened and selected before letting them immigrate, contrary to (western) Europe.

Thank you for reinforcing my point.  You know, that one I've been repeating constantly that the EU has abdicated all responsibility for border and immigration control and as a result has ensnared itself in a huge problem of its member states' own making.

[666maslo666]

Thank you for reinforcing my point.  You know, that one I've been repeating constantly that the EU has abdicated all responsibility for border and immigration control and as a result has ensnared itself in a huge problem of its member states' own making.

Yeah, I totaly agree with that point. What I dont agree with is this part of your post:

Know why you have integration and radicalization problems?  Policies like this most recent one.  Feel free to contrast to the United States or Canada.  The US has 300 million people; Canada has 30 million.  Despite generous immigration and refugee programs, neither faces anywhere near the integration or radicalization problems of the troubled European nations because both embrace immigration and provide opportunities for immigrants to become full, participating economic and democratic citizens in short order, while allowing them to practice their cultures and beliefs inside the multicultural communities of the larger nation.

Wrong reasons why US and Canada supposedly fare better in the integration of muslims:

- because they "embrace immigration"
- because they do not have policies like this recent one
- because of multiculturalism (lol)
- because of better immigration control (US borders are porous as hell and migration control very weak)

Correct reason why US and Canada supposedly fare better in the integration of muslims:

- geographic position which acts as a great filter to easy muslim immigration

[MP-Ryan]

Wrong reasons why US and Canada supposedly fare better in the integration of muslims:

- because they "embrace immigration"
- because they do not have policies like this recent one
- because of multiculturalism (lol)
- because of better immigration control (US borders are porous as hell and migration control very weak)

Correct reason why US and Canada supposedly fare better in the integration of muslims:

- geographic position which acts as a great filter to easy muslim immigration

All of the above are factors.  The US/Canada are selective in who they accept as immigrants (because we bother to control our borders at the federal and now even continental level), which in turn enables both to be far more accommodating in our treatment of them.  The two go hand-in-hand.  The European Union has abdicated all responsibility as far as immigration controls go, which has been the direct precursor to a ****load of anti-immigrant - and particularly anti-Muslim - policies and political parties in multiple European nations.  Not only are they letting essentially everyone in, they're then treating them like **** (in many cases).  Wonder why you have a problem?

[Mika]

The money has not been spent: It has been given to the banks so that they could recover. Now that they are recovered, they are giving it back (or atleast, they should be giving it back).

Remember that the money was used to cover the investment losses of the banks. Hence, it is lost. What boggles the mind is that the EU nations did not get shares of the said banks in return.

On the topic, I'm with MP-Ryan here. The EU border policy has been downright awful, and given that we have carried our part here in the North, it is really annoying to see the borders leaking like sieves in the South while Central Europe manages to encourage the thing. Well done, clap clap.

Luckily, some common sense has returned in light of the New Year stuff.

However, I draw the line in the confiscation of personal property. I don't know the background of why Danes would do that (it's quite easy to say that is to get revenge on Muslims, but I'll have to assume there's something more behind), and some people are proposing this to be implemented here. No, this is where I draw the line. It's one of the core functions of the government to guarantee the right to own property.

Apparently, sufficient number of Swedes were pissed off and they beat the crap out of "children" (media term) in the tube. Remember it were those children who also knifed one aid worker to death, so I'm suspecting a slight bias in the article. This reaction has been predictable from the start, and the more media tries to shush the refugee related issues, the more this is going to happen. The more slaps on the wrist the court delivers, the more beating the crap out of the refugees is gonna happen. However, I think the refugees also learned something. We'll have to see whether tensions increase or decrease because of this. I hope mainly nobody was seriously injured, if it's only slight bruises and nothing else, I'll have to commend the Swedes on the proper utilization of force.

[Phantom Hoover]

Remember that the money was used to cover the investment losses of the banks. Hence, it is lost. What boggles the mind is that the EU nations did not get shares of the said banks in return.

It doesn't even matter if that money was lost, letting the banks fail would have amounted to a far bigger loss. The economics of a country do not work the same way as the economics of your current account.

[Mikes]

Remember that the money was used to cover the investment losses of the banks. Hence, it is lost. What boggles the mind is that the EU nations did not get shares of the said banks in return.

It doesn't even matter if that money was lost, letting the banks fail would have amounted to a far bigger loss. The economics of a country do not work the same way as the economics of your current account.

It's still a huge moral hazard issue the way it was handled though.