Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mikes on January 05, 2016, 02:49:09 pm
-
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/05/germany-crisis-cologne-new-years-eve-sex-attacks
As someone living in the country this is rather worrying. Supposedly there were incidents in Hamburg and Stuttgart as well.
This comes after the relief that the terror warning in Munich was only a warning thankfully, and "nothing happened". Then this. Not a "terror attack", yeah, but still, jeez.
There is Carneval in Cologne in a couple of weeks where you can pretty much expect the same thing to happen again. Worse probably, if there are no effective consequences now.
-
If this is true... then I have no questions. And only one thing to say. Some EU countries don't want to take "refugees". And this is a brilliant example why we don't want these people. if someone is seeking an asylum from the horrors of war then I think he won't be interested in attacking and raping European women like a savage. For such kind of "cultural enrichment" I say GTFO. Quickly.
-
Except .... the perpetrators, as far as can be determined at this time, are part of a group that has been under police surveillance for some time now. Immigrant background? Yes. Refugees? Nope.
So. Do NOT blame this on refugees or claim that this is a signal that accepting refugees is a bad thing just yet. Doing so would be kinda stupid.
Also, and this is kinda important: There is no indication right now that this was something coordinated. At this time, it looks to me like it was a situation that can easily arise if you add a couple stupid monkeys, lots of alcohol, and opportunity. The same could have happened with a group of purebred germans.
-
If they were under police observation, the worse for them. I hope that they will be punished. If you let this go it will only encourage others to do such things in the future. Maybe deportation or permanent refusal to be granted a citizenship would be an example for the others.
-
At this time, it looks to me like it was a situation that can easily arise if you add a couple stupid monkeys, lots of alcohol, and opportunity. The same could have happened with a group of purebred germans.
Well, to me it doesn't sound easy at all. Not that I know what most germans are like, but I have a hard time imagining that if you get hundreds of random german drunk young males together, you're at all likely to see that kind of systemic harassment as a group. Surely that's the kind of thing that you usually can't get away with in a big crowd because of the huge social stigma among men against physically attacking women.
Of course it's not causally a matter of ethnicity, because sure you could have groups of purebred germans do similar things, let's say soccer hooligans or neo-nazis or whatever, but what this particular case does seem to require is a somewhat homogenous group of people who are screwed up in the head in the same way. While there obviously are for example purebred germans who grope and assault, they're a more heterogenous and disconnected group which doesn't congregate, and the problem here seems to me is that you have people who grope and assault but also congregate as a group.
Can you find another group where 1) enough of their members hold such attitudes that this sort of sexual violence as a group can arise (whether spontaneously or coordinately) and 2) they have something else in common which makes it realistic for them to get together in the first place? I don't know, maybe.
-
If they were under police observation, the worse for them. I hope that they will be punished. If you let this go it will only encourage others to do such things in the future. Maybe deportation or permanent refusal to be granted a citizenship would be an example for the others.
Laws exist for a reason. When these people are caught, they'll be punished under the extent of German law.
Treating people differently and outside the established legal framework is counter to very idea of what a constitutional democracy is.
-
At this time, it looks to me like it was a situation that can easily arise if you add a couple stupid monkeys, lots of alcohol, and opportunity. The same could have happened with a group of purebred germans.
Well, to me it doesn't sound easy at all. Not that I know what most germans are like, but I have a hard time imagining that if you get hundreds of random german drunk young males together, you're at all likely to see that kind of systemic harassment as a group. Surely that's the kind of thing that you usually can't get away with in a big crowd because of the huge social stigma among men against physically attacking women.
Of course it's not causally a matter of ethnicity, because sure you could have groups of purebred germans do similar things, let's say soccer hooligans or neo-nazis or whatever, but what this particular case does seem to require is a somewhat homogenous group of people who are screwed up in the head in the same way. While there obviously are for example purebred germans who grope and assault, they're a more heterogenous and disconnected group which doesn't congregate, and the problem here seems to me is that you have people who grope and assault but also congregate as a group.
Can you find another group where 1) enough of their members hold such attitudes that this sort of sexual violence as a group can arise (whether spontaneously or coordinately) and 2) they have something else in common which makes it realistic for them to get together in the first place? I don't know, maybe.
No, it's not something you'd usually get. But it's also not something that can be easily tied to ethnicity or background.
The thing that gets me about this is that whatever happened there is now being used by racists, bigots and other assholes to say that immigration is bad, refugees are evil, multiculturalism has failed yadda yadda yadda. Because of course that's the only reason crimes like this could ever happen, obviously. Because of course everyone would be better off if they just stayed in their own goddamn countries.
And all before we actually know anything substantial about this. We don't know if the 90 reported assaults actually happened. We don't know how many perpetrators were responsible. We don't know the ethnicity or motivation of the perpetrators. We know nothing, and yet, it's ****ing obvious that people need to be deported!
Can you people not see that knee-jerk reactions like this are one of the major reasons why the last 15 ****ing years have gone from bad to worse?
If they were under police observation, the worse for them. I hope that they will be punished. If you let this go it will only encourage others to do such things in the future. Maybe deportation or permanent refusal to be granted a citizenship would be an example for the others.
Laws exist for a reason. When these people are caught, they'll be punished under the extent of German law.
Treating people differently and outside the established legal framework is counter to very idea of what a constitutional democracy is.
Exactly. Policework has to be reactive. If it gets proactive, bad things happen.
-
And all before we actually know anything substantial about this. We don't know if the 90 reported assaults actually happened. We don't know how many perpetrators were responsible. We don't know the ethnicity or motivation of the perpetrators. We know
Oh it happened ... the surprising thing is that it took so long to hit the news, but by now even the Chancellor recognized and addressed it.
I've also seen reports of a policewomen being groped inside her pants and other police attempting to rescue some of the girls. (Some as in: They rescued one, but the two friends of the girl couldn't be retrieved from the crowd)
Also worth noting is that the first reports speak of 30 reported assaults, then 60 and now the later come up at 90, but it also is mentioned again and again that the actual number of assaults (i.e. reported + unreported) is likely even higher as usual with such attacks (due to shame etc.)
Watching this clusterf*** still unfold as more news keep hitting the net. (Again, amazing that it took that long)
Interestingly even one of our former "family ministers" (Kristina Schröder) is exploring territory that may be deemed not quite 100% politically correct by tweeting: "„Sie wurden lange tabuisiert, aber wir müssen uns mit gewaltlegitimierenden Männlichkeitsnormen in muslimischer Kultur auseinandersetzen." (Found here: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/nach-silvester-in-koeln-muss-es-um-die-taeter-gehen-13999062-p2.html)
Rough translation: "It was long taboo, but we have to discuss violence legitimating masculine norms within muslim culture."
According to the same article similar scenes are known to have happened before on Tahrir place as well.
Also worth noting, such scenes never happened in the German Federal Republic before, ever since it was founded.
Make of that what you will.
-
Something obviously happened. That much is clear. But we don't have any good idea what actually happened.
-
Oh it happened ... the surprising thing is that it took so long to hit the news, but by now even the Chancellor recognized and addressed it.[citation needed]
I've also seen reports of a policewomen being groped inside her pants[citation needed] and other police attempting to rescue some of the girls. (Some as in: They rescued one, but the two friends of the girl couldn't be retrieved from the crowd)[citation needed]
Also worth noting is that the first reports speak of 30 reported assaults, then 60 and now the later come up at 90, but it also is mentioned again and again that the actual number of assaults (i.e. reported + unreported) is likely even higher as usual with such attacks (due to shame etc.)
Watching this cluster**** still unfold as more news keep hitting the net. (Again, amazing that it took that long)
I'm trying to help you.
-
Oh it happened ... the surprising thing is that it took so long to hit the news, but by now even the Chancellor recognized and addressed it.[citation needed]
I've also seen reports of a policewomen being groped inside her pants[citation needed] and other police attempting to rescue some of the girls. (Some as in: They rescued one, but the two friends of the girl couldn't be retrieved from the crowd)[citation needed]
Also worth noting is that the first reports speak of 30 reported assaults, then 60 and now the later come up at 90, but it also is mentioned again and again that the actual number of assaults (i.e. reported + unreported) is likely even higher as usual with such attacks (due to shame etc.)
Watching this cluster**** still unfold as more news keep hitting the net. (Again, amazing that it took that long)
I'm trying to help you.
English reporting is lagging behind obviously, but i ll give you the german sources. Also: If you google: "Silvester Köln sexuelle Übergriffe" the net is truly full of it and by now pretty much All the major newspapers have articles on it.
First: Chancellor Merkels statement: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/koeln-angela-merkel-verlangt-harte-antwort-des-rechtsstaats-a-1070609.html "Merkel verlangt harte Antwort des Rechtsstaats"
Second: policewoman being groped (although admittedly she was not in uniform): http://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article150593304/Ploetzlich-spuerte-ich-eine-Hand-an-meinem-Po.html "Nach aktuellen Angaben der Polizei wurde sogar einer Zivilpolizistin in die Hose gefasst. "Es ist ein unerträglicher Zustand, dass mitten in der Stadt solche Straftaten begangen werden", sagte Kölns Polizeipräsident Wolfgang Albers am Montag. Die Polizei will jetzt ihre Präsenz verstärken.""
Third: Police reporting they were able to save one girl, but not her friends: http://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article150619851/Man-hatte-ihr-den-Slip-vom-Koerper-gerissen.html "Sie sei am Unterkörper auch unsittlich berührt worden. "Ihre drei Freundinnen konnten wir nicht aus dem Pulk retten, denn wir selbst wurden mit Böllern beworfen."
Eyewitness report included in the video.
Similar articles can easily be found by several other major newspapers by now. Spiegel and Welt are also rather major newspapers over here so i picked those.
Oh and ... go ahead and google "Tahrir place sexual assault" and you will find multiple instances of especially journalists being sexually assaulted in the middle of the day in the middle of a crowd in Bagdad. So stuff like that does indeed happen regularly... but it NEVER happened in the Federal Republic of Germany yet at all up to this point. Just to emphasize. (Example: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/21/sonia-dridi-attacked-tahrir-square: "What was depressing is that the employees inside Hardee's knew exactly what to do because this seems to happen all the time," Khalil said. "Some terrified woman running in one step ahead of a mob." Feel free to google more yourself, there appears to be quite a couple of incidents.)
I'll refrain from jumping to conclusions as more information may still become available. However from what we do know and from my perspective the stance of "this has nothing to do with different cultues" is just as problematic and shortsighted as the stance of "blaming all immigrants due to the actions of a few" is.
-
Something obviously happened. That much is clear. But we don't have any good idea what actually happened.
What in this case warrants suspicion about what's been reported? Like, sure we don't know what the exact demographics of that group were and what the assailants' motivations were, but those kinds of details seem very unimportant compared to "a group of hundreds of guys of mostly immigrant background assaults women" which is kind of the main point which no one seems to have much doubts about, based on how you got everyone from the mayor and police chief to Merkel make statements about it seemingly acknowledging that yeah that actually happened.
Of course anything reported so far can always turn out to be wrong, but assuming the basics are correct, then it's not like anyone's opinion is going to hinge much on the details of whether it turns out there were 50 or 100 assaults or what the perpetrators' precise ethnicity composition was?
-
Look, all I'm saying is that this incident, whatever it was, has far too many unknowns in it at the moment, and that using this to once more play the "blame immigration for all ills" song is something I am not prepared to tolerate.
-
Look, all I'm saying is that this incident, whatever it was, has far too many unknowns in it at the moment, and that using this to once more play the "blame immigration for all ills" song is something I am not prepared to tolerate.
As said above ... the most frustrating aspect of this discussion to me is that it mostly revolves around the extremes of "its the fault of all the immigrants" and "immigration/culture has nothing to do with it at all".
(And if it doesn't at the start then it surely pretty much always does after a while.)
In my eyes both positions are equally nonsensical when looking at what happened here and both positions are equally nonproductive when attempting to find solutions.
-
This can't have anything to do with the treatment of women in Islam. No sir.
Honestly, I find political correctness every bit as irritating as xenophobia.
-
This can't have anything to do with the treatment of women in Islam. No sir.
Yeah, when we had that incident in the early '90s in New York where during a Latin American pride event several dozen women were assaulted it was totally because the Puerto Ricans accused had no respect for women.
Not because they were drunken assholes. That had nothing to do with it at all! Nor mob mentality! Nor a general condition of lawlessness resulting from a collection of drunk assholes! It's totally about a cultural disrespect for women, and only that.
The truth is, a cultural respect or disrespect for women probably doesn't even rate as a contributory cause to this. A massive celebration, a lot of people doing minor acts of lawlessness with fireworks and vandalism and ****ing about, some alcohol (it's not as though these people proved to be sincere followers of the Prophet by their actions), a mob mentality reinforced by an apparent shared identity. Away we go.
-
Exactly. Policework has to be reactive. If it gets proactive, bad things happen.
Police work has to be reactive, but immigration policy has to be proactive. And if there is more than 1% of so-called refugees among the attackers (meaning a statistical overrepresentation compared to German population), then making the immigration policy more strict may be warranted. Or, if people with immigrant background are similarly overrepresented among the attackers, the same thing applies. If immigrants are overrepresented in crime statistics, then there is a connection and there is something deeply wrong with immigration policy.
-
The truth is, a cultural respect or disrespect for women probably doesn't even rate as a contributory cause to this. A massive celebration, a lot of people doing minor acts of lawlessness with fireworks and vandalism and ****ing about, some alcohol (it's not as though these people proved to be sincere followers of the Prophet by their actions), a mob mentality reinforced by an apparent shared identity. Away we go.
I dont think so, minor acts of lawlessness happen during such celebrations but it takes a culture of misogyny for mass sexual assaults to happen. It is a major factor. It is probably not a coincidence that Germany admitted million people from exactly such cultures recently..
-
Exactly. Policework has to be reactive. If it gets proactive, bad things happen.
Police work has to be reactive, but immigration policy has to be proactive. And if there is more than 1% of so-called refugees among the attackers (meaning a statistical overrepresentation compared to German population), then making the immigration policy more strict may be warranted. Or, if people with immigrant background are similarly overrepresented among the attackers, the same thing applies. If immigrants are overrepresented in crime statistics, then there is a connection and there is something deeply wrong with immigration policy.
Are you still advocating the punishment of hundreds of thousands because a few dozen misbehave?
-
Are you still advocating the punishment of hundreds of thousands because a few dozen misbehave?
Its not a punishment, as there is absolutely no right to immigrate in the first place. It is just an adjustment in policy. Being allowed to immigrate is a privilege, not a right.
And no, it is not because a few dozen misbehave. It is because there is a statistical pattern of such misbehavior.
-
We have around 1 Million Refugees now in our Country and I think a Minimum of 3-4% of them are ISIS terrorists. 30-40% others are from Nigeria and other african Staates and there woman have no rights. And thats the People in Hamburg, Stuttgart and Köln (Cologne)
Overall in others Citys that happend to but not with so many People. But Merkel says - everything is allright :/ I don't like her! But all our politicans are weak! I would not give one of them my voice atm.
-
You seriously believe that we have a small town of terrorists living with us right now?
Do you have any data to back that up, or are you just parroting what Bild, Pegida, AfD and other neonazis are telling you?
-
It is not about collective responsibility, it is about Europe's security and stability. I agree crimes committed by the few cannot be an excuse to persecute the rest. But they are a reason to change EU immigration policy which has obviously failed.
For the past few months EU has been letting in hundred thousands of illegal immigrants who were totally out of control. According to UN, (as far as I remember) about 19% are Syrians and 75% are young men who left their families in their countries or refugee camps. They came here because Chancellor Merkel announced she will accept all or almost all. Lots of them understood that they get to Europe now or never. And so a crowd of migrants began to flood our continent.
The whole problem is not immigration itself, it is European welfare state with all its consequences for human mentality. The USA were built by immigrants who abandoned their countries, started a new live in a new world and who created American prosperity. And they were mostly peacefully coexisting, as they had to work in order to survive. European Muslim immigrants are much more difficult to assimilate as lots of them live in Muslim districts, receive social benefits and drain EU's welfare state.
What EU should do is:
- Provide better control of the borders, send a military if necessary. Put a pressure on Greece and Italy to do so. I don't want the borders to be utterly closed, but migrants must be verified via a standard asylum procedure. Now whole groups are let in and border agencies are almost defenceless as they are facing a real invasion. The only European leader who fulfilled his duties to control the border was Hungarian PM Victor Orban and EU elites called his a fascist.
- Cut off social benefits for migrants, apart from food and basic medical help.
- Punish migrants breaking the law with deportation to their home countries.
- Take actions to put an end to Syrian conflict and the Islamic State. That means an end of efforts to overthrow President Assad, working out a pact between Syrian govt and Syrian opposition and cooperation with Russia against Islamic State.
- Put pressure on Turkey to control its borders and hold its aggression against Kurdish forces fighting the Islamic State. Support Kurds and Iraqi military with all means necessary.
-
You seriously believe that we have a small town of terrorists living with us right now?
Do you have any data to back that up, or are you just parroting what Bild, Pegida, AfD and other neonazis are telling you?
With how the recent events went down, I think it's a bit irrelevant whether this is true. What is relevant that more and more people believe that stuff. No matter what the actual facts are, something must be done to make the people feel safe. If not, they will either start taking matters into their own hands (violently), or even worse, elect a government that makes a big point about "solving the immigration problem" (toothbrush mustache optional). I think it should be a concern of the current government to not only keep the situation with immigrants manageable, but also to prevent its own citizens from radicalizing and to prevent a situation in which they're replacement by a government that causes more problems than strict immigration ever could. Just look at the US, which, despite a much less prominent Muslim minority, is seriously considering electing Donald Trump.
If the EU doesn't act now, the people will eventually force it to. We're a democracy, remember? The one with the most votes wins, and the immigrants (those with voting rights, anyway) and reasonable people combined soon might not be able to outvote anti-immigrants when really needed. Everything can be done with a big enough majority, and the current situation does everything to give those neonazis such a majority. Something reasonable needs to be done, otherwise we'll find ourselves led by those willing to do something unreasonable.
-
I'm afraid the situation will be used as an excuse for the government to take away civic liberties. Same story that happened in US after 9.11 is now going to happen in Europe. The longer EU will ignore the migrant crisis, the more eager people will be to elect radicals who will promise them a bit of security. A solution bad for both Europeans and migrants.
-
It will, but ultimately, this has to happen, at least if the government doesn't start to discriminate (which would be even worse). The question is, does the current government have the balls to do it, or will it be done by some "von Trump" elected after the current government is seen (key word. It doesn't matter if it's actually working hard behind the scenes on a proper solution) as doing nothing for too long.
-
You seriously believe that we have a small town of terrorists living with us right now?
Do you have any data to back that up, or are you just parroting what Bild, Pegida, AfD and other neonazis are telling you?
http://english.dohainstitute.org/file/Get/40ebdf12-8960-4d18-8088-7c8a077e522e
According to this survey, 4% of Syrian refugees have a positive view about IS. Further 9% have positive view to some extent. Multiply that with the numbers that have already arrived and yeah, you get a town (not even a small one). This of course provides us with the numbers of IS sympathizers, not actual terrorists, but I think its still troubling enough.
Keep in mind that this provides us with a lower bound on the number of extremists, not an upper bound (every IS sympathizer is an extremist, but not every extremist is an IS sympathizer). It would be nice to have a survey of other more common extremisms among Syrian refugees, such as supporting stoning for adultery or killing for apostasy, or survey of misogynist opinions, but so far I have not found such a work. Something like the survey of British muslims I linked before, or this Pew poll:
https://i.imgur.com/CYX54f8.png
http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/
The prudent thing would be to do the surveys before we let high numbers of the people in question in, not after. If we find out only after the fact that extremist opinions are as widespread as in the countries above, then we are already in trouble.
-
You're cute.
Tell me, why would someone sympathetic to ISIS flee from them?
And again, why are you in favour of refusing charity to a large number of people based on the behaviour of a few dozen people?
-
http://de.sputniknews.com/panorama/20150907/304178603.html
-
Okay. So an unconfirmed source based on an article in a british tabloid with a known bias for alarmistic reporting on immigrants is something to take serious now?
-
You're cute.
Tell me, why would someone sympathetic to ISIS flee from them?
Because an important part of their sick agenda is to spread further? And if some people say "refugees welcome" then hell yes that IS and its operatives/ sympathisers will exploit it. Especially if EU wants to grant them decent living conditions. Isn't that obvious?
-
Honestly, I find political correctness every bit as irritating as xenophobia.
Frankly I find using a case like this to push a political agenda which is at best tangential to the case more disgusting than either.
-
I trust any sources outside Germany atm more then the lokal ones!
No they say the german woman gets on armlenght away from others
So here we go
(https://scontent-frt3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/1233_795919923847958_3931783638487281527_n.jpg?oh=7a5407d33fd7eb8fde695a6b328ffefc&oe=57033B07)
two armlength?
(https://scontent-frt3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/t31.0-8/12339242_795920067181277_1984933524626998996_o.jpg)
sometimes even it don't work :D
(https://scontent-frt3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlf1/v/t1.0-9/1919383_795920200514597_7715275348856879201_n.jpg?oh=f39dcf4693c879b6dac1ece1a7220925&oe=570B2182)
Sorry I cannot get our Country serious :D
-
You're cute.
Tell me, why would someone sympathetic to ISIS flee from them?
Just because a person flees from the carnage of war does not mean he/she supports any specific side in that war. The whole IS territory is now a danger zone, even supporters which are not fanatic enough to die for IS would flee.
It is a very popular meme that refugees cannot be muslim extremists because they are all fleeing from IS, but the argument fails, if not for other reasons then because the premise of them all fleeing from IS is not actually true. In fact, majority of Syrian refugees in Europe say they are running from the Assad regime, not IS:
https://www.adoptrevolution.org/en/pr-survey/
-
I trust any sources outside Germany atm more then the lokal ones!
No they say the german woman gets on armlenght away from others
So here we go
You're cute.
-
You're cute.
Tell me, why would someone sympathetic to ISIS flee from them?
Just because a person flees from the carnage of war does not mean he/she supports any specific side in that war. The whole IS territory is now a danger zone, even supporters which are not fanatic enough to die for IS would flee.
It is a very popular meme that refugees cannot be muslim extremists because they are all fleeing from IS, but the argument fails, because the premise of them all fleeing from IS is not actually true. In fact, majority of Syrian refugees in Europe say they are running from the Assad regime, not IS:
https://www.adoptrevolution.org/en/pr-survey/
It's interesting how you keep posting statistics that undercut your various talking points.
-
You're cute.
Tell me, why would someone sympathetic to ISIS flee from them?
Just because a person flees from the carnage of war does not mean he/she supports any specific side in that war. The whole IS territory is now a danger zone, even supporters which are not fanatic enough to die for IS would flee.
It is a very popular meme that refugees cannot be muslim extremists because they are all fleeing from IS, but the argument fails, because the premise of them all fleeing from IS is not actually true. In fact, majority of Syrian refugees in Europe say they are running from the Assad regime, not IS:
https://www.adoptrevolution.org/en/pr-survey/
It's interesting how you keep posting statistics that undercut your various talking points.
How exactly do those stats undercut my talking points?
-
Because an important part of their sick agenda is to spread further?
Actually ISIS is very much focused on the Middle East because they're working the checklist to their End Times theology. (Kind of like certain American Protestant sects who are very focused on rebuilding the Temple or breeding a cow that's exactly the right color because End Times Checklist.)
They only really started to plan and execute operations outside that area in response to those countries significantly impeding their progress on the End Times Checklist they're working off of. And even then they chose to get at the Russians by blowing up a Russian plane in the Middle East because it might fit into the checklist.
They are creatures of very limited interest, honestly. Spreading their philosophy and theology is not a goal, but a means to an end. Indeed, given their theology they in real sense don't believe in spreading their theology having inherent value. The saved shall be saved regardless. The unsaved are ****ed, and properly so. There's a deep undercurrent of triumphalist we were right and you will burn forever they share with the least-pleasant strains of predestination in Christanity, and profound disinterest in conversion over the defense of the faithful from new ideas and new influences that converts might carry with them.
tl;dr: You know nothing about ISIS's agenda.
-
Because an important part of their sick agenda is to spread further?
Actually ISIS is very much focused on the Middle East because they're working the checklist to their End Times theology. (Kind of like certain American Protestant sects who are very focused on rebuilding the Temple or breeding a cow that's exactly the right color because End Times Checklist.)
Oh, really? And I thought that they can't shift their focus outside Syria/Iraq/Libya because they lack resources and power to do so, lel.
Current situation on the frontlines also doesn't make it easier. But conquest doesn't have to be done by the force of arms.
And all that End Times- related stuff seems to me more like an excuse to be planted into fanatics heads by their leaders. To prepare them for a military failure. Just in case. As I remember Islamic theology says something about the final battle between followers and the infidels which would take place somewhere in the middle east (can't remember where precisely).
-
I'd like to point out for the rest of the people that the current German law has quite strict penalties if you are found guilty of racism. Also note that most of the Germans discussing it here were born in the time that law was in place. So that is something you need to consider.
There were a couple of interesting snippets here:
The only European leader who fulfilled his duties to control the border was Hungarian PM Victor Orban and EU elites called his a fascist.
And when you discuss this with Hungarians, it becomes clear that Orban was actually reacting to the situation and not being proactive, which is how it was reported in Finland. What happened in southern Hungary was threatening, and Orbans response was (based on the information that I have) very much justified and probably stopped a bigger uncontrolled response. Job well done, Orban!
Tell me, why would someone sympathetic to ISIS flee from them?
Not everybody is fleeing from ISIS, we are getting a bunch of people running away from their own least favorite faction in the war. However, it is a bit curious most of the refugees we get here are NOT Syrians to begin with (they make like 5 % of the 30 000), but Iraqi and Somalians.
What it comes to powers in Syria, ISIS is only part of the game and is rapidly becoming a puppet itself. The situation is likely far more complex.
- Russia wants a puppet state to project power over the region. The motivation? The ability to effect oil pricing comes to mind.
- USA and EU didn't have a plan regarding Syria and I suppose several Whoopses have been heard around the Pentagon region.
- Assad's government is running out of soldiers. There's only a limited number of times you can be ordered to bomb your own as described by defected Syrian Air Force pilots
- ISIS wants to spread the belief around the world.
- The Syrian rebels (several factions) want Assad out
In a rather realpolitik fashion (my enemy's enemy is my friend), it appears Assad is dealing with ISIS (oil trade) so that effectively ISIS are his front troops, and since Russia wants Assad to remain power, Russia bombs the rebels, which is evident from the air strike locations in the region. The reason that the Russian airliner was bombed is more likely a mistake from Egyptian ISIS cell who haven't been told how things are actually run in Syria.
The above description of Syria is actually not mine, but it is by Tom Cooper, a Vienna based strategy analyst. However, this is also a sidetrack of the discussion.
Ah, luckily it is that time of the year when Finland is cold again, -30C and hopefully it effing remains like that for the rest of the month. Cold kills the cockroaches and disinfects a lot of other things, and probably will make a sizable fraction of the refugees question their own sanity of applying an asylum if they were born in +30C region. Anyways, roughly 33 % are going to get an asylum anyways.
-
And when you discuss this with Hungarians, it becomes clear that Orban was actually reacting to the situation and not being proactive, which is how it was reported in Finland. What happened in southern Hungary was threatening, and Orbans response was (based on the information that I have) very much justified and probably stopped a bigger uncontrolled response. Job well done, Orban!
I agree. It was reactive. But that was a natural reaction expected of him as per Schengen Treaty. Greece on the other hand let hundred thousands illegal immigrants further into Europe and there was no pressure on it to control their borders or no support to help them do so. Instead Germany and EU kept saying "Let them in, they need help, we'll accept all of them".
USA and EU didn't have a plan regarding Syria and I suppose several Whoopses have been heard around the Pentagon region.
USA's plan was to support Syrian opposition in order to overthrow pro-Russian Assad and replace him with pro-American leader. The problem is that Assad and his Russian supporters turned out to be stronger then anticipated and a little conflict like in Libya turned into a bloody civil war. What's more, Americans were interested mainly in fighting Assad, at the same time they withdrawn from Iraq and allowed (or perhaps even supported? Lots of scenarios are possible) Islamic State's growth. American bombardments of ISIS are ineffective and lots of its weaponry sent to pro-west Syrian rebels are taken over by ISIS. Turkey, a member state of NATO, is bombing Kurdish forces who are actively struggling to stop ISIS advance.
Russia is also not interested in completely defeating ISIS either as Middle-Eastern instability will in long term make oil prices go up, but Syrian war is a good chance not only to rescue Putin's pupped Assad, but also to turn world's attention from Ukraine war and uphold Putin's popularity inside Russia.
-
we really should threaten to kick turkey out of NATO if they don't stop bombing the Kurds.
...we can do that right?
-
This can't have anything to do with the treatment of women in Islam. No sir.
You know that Islam also prohibits alcohol?
-
Getting back on track ... the mayor of Cologne majorly embarassed herself by recommending women in the future "keep one armslenght distance" to prevent such attacks ...
just wow.
The twitter hashtag #eineArmlänge is half outrage half ridicule as commented on here: http://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/twitter-spott-fuer-koelner-ob-henriette-reker-einearmlaenge-gegen-sexuelle-uebergriffe/12795260.html
-
(https://scontent-frt3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/12509166_1001818833224492_589800785764761416_n.jpg?oh=ab2a256ee88fad0e82fb69f4775d488a&oe=56FDD5B0)
We Need Obelix next time to deal with them ;) Hit them hard!!! :D
-
Honestly, I find political correctness every bit as irritating as xenophobia.
Frankly I find using a case like this to push a political agenda which is at best tangential to the case more disgusting than either.
I'd lump political correctness and xenophobia under "pushing an agenda".
This can't have anything to do with the treatment of women in Islam. No sir.
Yeah, when we had that incident in the early '90s in New York where during a Latin American pride event several dozen women were assaulted it was totally because the Puerto Ricans accused had no respect for women.
My sarcasm was aimed at political correctness, of which the laughable "keep one arm's length distance" remark and tardy/sparse media coverage are prime examples. There's a blatant refusal to touch even the possibility of cultural factors, which is suspicious in itself.
You know that Islam also prohibits alcohol?
Fair point, though it only rules out scenarios in which an offender was
a) drunk,
b) Muslim, and
c) devout (enough to abstain from alcohol completely).
-
Well of course it's a cultural issue. The problem is just that for some reason, you rarely have people able to talk about cultural issues in a sane manner. You got people who over-generalize and pin the problem culture on the larger culture they're a part of, and then you got people who don't want to blame any culture because they're afraid that that leads to or condones the aforementioned kinds of over-generalizations.
I see no reason why the stupid beliefs and customs which make these guys think that it was all jolly good fun and kinda ok shouldn't be called "culture". It's just much more specific than simply "islam" or "middle-eastern culture" or whatever else broad label like that, just like the beliefs and customs of a thousand anarchists throwing rocks is much more specific than "western culture".
So, what is the word to use for referring to the culture which these attackers most likely share? The kind where women are supposed to be subordinate to men, the racial/religious out-group is seen as inherently worth less and ultra-conservative attitudes regarding family and sexuality are mostly dictated by religious tradition, but which isn't limited to any given region or religion? Everyone has a clear picture in their minds of that, but I don't think we have a good word for it. Which I think is a problem because that is really the crux of the issue a lot of the time.
-
we really should threaten to kick turkey out of NATO if they don't stop bombing the Kurds.
...we can do that right?
Dear Bobboau,
About Turkey, President Erdogan has been declared the Caliph. Although, Baghdadi is also a Caliph. Hmmmmm... I wonder who will prevail?
As for the Battle in Syria, here is a recent update video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NEhGaT1rOY
-
So, what is the word to use for referring to the culture which these attackers most likely share? The kind where women are supposed to be subordinate to men, the racial/religious out-group is seen as inherently worth less and ultra-conservative attitudes regarding family and sexuality are mostly dictated by religious tradition, but which isn't limited to any given region or religion? Everyone has a clear picture in their minds of that, but I don't think we have a good word for it. Which I think is a problem because that is really the crux of the issue a lot of the time.
Backwards
As in, counter-progressive, backward-thinking or educated people who hail from a social mindset which is not foreign to "western" civilization, but which has by and large been overcome or marginalized by social progress in western countries.
-
Frankly I find using a case like this to push a political agenda which is at best tangential to the case more disgusting than either.
I'd lump political correctness and xenophobia under "pushing an agenda".
Sometimes, but in this case using the actions of people who have been in the country for a while to judge the actions of those who just arrived is a pretty disgraceful attempt to push an agenda nothing to do with what is actually going on. And to use sexual assault in this way is particularly disgusting.
My sarcasm was aimed at political correctness, of which the laughable "keep one arm's length distance" remark and tardy/sparse media coverage are prime examples. There's a blatant refusal to touch even the possibility of cultural factors, which is suspicious in itself.
If you think the one arm's length comment is political correctness, you have no idea what political correctness is. Victim blaming is the exact opposite of political correctness.
-
Please watch this History lesson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ilFbbk9jw4
And then his response to what happened in Cologne:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDxNg7rdT4U
-
1. Speculation at this point, as many people have pointed out, is foolhardy. Wait for the conclusion of the police investigation before leaping to conclusions.
2. Notwithstanding the above, it is neither racist nor inappropriate to recognize that a large portion of men hailing directly from cultures in the Middle East and Africa in particular have very different cultural norms concerning what they believe they can do and have a right to do with women, without their consent. But was that what caused this? Refer back to (1.).
Conflicting cultural norms among immigrant cultures are not in-and-of-themselves reasons to halt immigration; they just require very specific policies to handle integration. Europe as a whole has not historically nor currently been good at integrating immigrant cultures; the production of immigrant enclaves has been a direct contributing factor to radicalization of European-born members of particular minority groups - but that's not a condemnation of immigration, it's a condemnation of how many European countries aren't very good at supporting new immigrants.
-
Sometimes, but in this case using the actions of people who have been in the country for a while to judge the actions of those who just arrived is a pretty disgraceful attempt to push an agenda nothing to do with what is actually going on. And to use sexual assault in this way is particularly disgusting.
That's the xenophobia I was talking about.
If you think the one arm's length comment is political correctness, you have no idea what political correctness is. Victim blaming is the exact opposite of political correctness.
I would usually agree. Unfortunately, from the PC perspective, tolerance of Middle Eastern culture is one of the few things that trumps women's rights.
-
Please watch this History lesson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ilFbbk9jw4
And then his response to what happened in Cologne:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDxNg7rdT4U
Half hour videos? Too long for a history "editorial".
Watch the tail end of both. His claim about no-go zones has been proven false. Sounds like another fear-monger quite frankly with a bit of anti-feminism to boot.
I would usually agree. Unfortunately, from the PC perspective, tolerance of Middle Eastern culture is one of the few things that trumps women's rights.
The middle east isn't a culture. It's a region.
Lumping a society like Syria in with a society like Saudi Arabia is completely bonkers. And ironically Saudi Arabia, the worst country for women's rights in the world is the long-time bed buddy of the United States and the west. If anyone is asking "what the ****" with regards to middle-east relations in should be on that issue quite frankly.
My own country, Canada, under the last right-wing christian government helped ink a 14B dollar arms-deal to Saudi Arabia. The man was condemning Islam while selling them armoured vehicles.
It's all political ****.
-
You're right; I wasn't precise. "Muslim culture" would be more appropriate, but it would ruffle more feathers.
-
You're right; I wasn't precise. "Muslim culture" would be more appropriate, but it would ruffle more feathers.
As with my edited message.
I think the problem isn't tolerance of islam trumps women's rights.
The problem is the western relationship with Saudi Arabia trumps morality on all fronts.
-
(http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1ihuaqBIu1qadru1.png)
-
You're right; I wasn't precise. "Muslim culture" would be more appropriate, but it would ruffle more feathers.
That's at least as stupid as saying Middle-Eastern culture if not more so. The Muslims of say, Morocco and Saudi Arabia have very different cultures let alone Muslims from any Western country. It ruffles feathers because it's stupid and incredibly imprecise.
-
Depends upon what political climate/country you live in.
In the United States I don't think it's Politically incorrect to slander muslims or arabs. But you will noticed that the United States did not condemn the mass executions in Saudi Arabia.
In Germany or Canada, they condemned those executions and are generally more sympathetic to refugees/immigrants at least currently.
-
just told a friend, that this would be the time to leave this country, if i had the money.
i dont want to downplay what those women had to endure, but what happened and (even worse) IF it happened at all doesnt really matter now/anymore (no, i dont want to say "all lies! nothing happend!". as much as i dont want to say "cultural background has absolutely nothing to do with what happened!").
the damage has been done, wether it was 1 woman assaulted by 100 guys or 100 women assaulted by 1 guy or whatever numbers you wanna throw into the game... it made the news, everybody made up their opinion and (gotta be honest, its the way most people work:) those wont probably change, even if investigations result in "it was only 1 isolated incident".
nazis are already shouting "they are raping our women! we gotta protect them! also: WE TOLD YOU SO!" and all the stupid "worried citizens" that cant see nazi propaganda/indoctrination even if its poking them in the eye, got another reason to say "ive got no problem with immigrants, BUUUUUUT ... the women!"
karneval will be a fun time, i guess. even if there will be no attacks against women, i bet there will be more than one incident where someone overreacts because one tanned guy says "hi" to a german girl. "its just some weeks till karneval, think about what will happen THEN!" the media says. yeah, great way to heat up the tension and paranoia way in advance.
the "stay one arm length away from any bad person"-statement is as laughable as it is stupid as it is an insult to those, who had to go through this and as much as everybody is laughing about it: it just adds more to the paranoia.
looks like this will be a big clash of cultures, religions, political systems, worldviews, customs...
germany seems to be the "idiots! gather here and start to fling the ****!"-hotspot of the world. as much as im happy to live in this country with all its benefits... right now i wanna get out before all that **** really starts to combust.
TheE, you are right, everybody SHOULD wait until investigations are done, but sadly thats not the way reality works...
-
and due to the fact that you are not allowed to talk freely about it there everyone 'knows' there is far more not being said happening. Or at least that is a very easy argument to make.
-
That's at least as stupid as saying Middle-Eastern culture if not more so. The Muslims of say, Morocco and Saudi Arabia have very different cultures let alone Muslims from any Western country. It ruffles feathers because it's stupid and incredibly imprecise.
But women have inferior status in all of those cultures (to varying degrees), which is what we've been talking about.
-
This can't have anything to do with the treatment of women in Islam. No sir.
You know that Islam also prohibits alcohol?
It also prohibits adultery.
That's at least as stupid as saying Middle-Eastern culture if not more so. The Muslims of say, Morocco and Saudi Arabia have very different cultures let alone Muslims from any Western country. It ruffles feathers because it's stupid and incredibly imprecise.
But women have inferior status in all of those cultures (to varying degrees), which is what we've been talking about.
And many feminists would argue that women have inferior status in quite a lot of cultures including our own. The problem is not the culture of a region ranging from Morocco to Pakistan, the problem is rape culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture), and it's universal. This whole discussion focusing on immigrants is bull****. This is a feminism issue, anything else is an intentional distraction born from cowardice.
-
And many feminists are ****ing insane. In western civilisation sexual crimes are considered the most abhorent, it's second only to murder if even that, this is the opposite of a rape culture you nit. We wouldn't be outraged by this if we thought rape was normal and acceptable.
-
Remember kids, blaming specific cultures/ethnic groups is not OK, instead let's blame all men!
-
And many feminists are ****ing insane. In western civilisation sexual crimes are considered the most abhorent, it's second only to murder if even that, this is the opposite of a rape culture you nit. We wouldn't be outraged by this if we thought rape was normal and acceptable.
It's considered pretty abhorrent in other cultures too. Hell, even India, a country famous for how bad the situation is, most people still think it's a bad thing.
I don't think with a 12% rape attrition rate in the UK or whatever (no doubt similar) rate it is in the US, we are in much of a position to complain about other cultures. Yeah, we might be doing better, but we're not exactly doing very well.
-
Comparitivity is a separate issue.
-
This entire topic is about people claiming that certain cultures are worse cause of they are rapey. I don't see how you can suddenly claim that comparisons aren't the issue at hand.
-
Remember kids, blaming specific cultures/ethnic groups is not OK, instead let's blame all men!
Rape culture is not blaming all men. Saying that something is due to rape culture is blaming... rape culture. It's a certain set of attitudes rather than an entire nation's or entire gender's collective psyche. Combat against these attitudes should be unilateral.
-
This entire topic is about people claiming that certain cultures are worse cause of they are rapey. I don't see how you can suddenly claim that comparisons aren't the issue at hand.
I was responding to a specific comment someone made. Sorry for the derail.
-
Remember kids, blaming specific cultures/ethnic groups is not OK, instead let's blame all men!
Rape culture is not blaming all men. Saying that something is due to rape culture is blaming... rape culture. It's a certain set of attitudes rather then an entire nation's or entire gender's collective psyche. Combat against these attitudes should be unilateral.
Thanks for proving my point.
-
Thanks for proving my point.
You missed the "rather than" part (typoed as "rather then").
-
Thanks for proving my point.
I... don't think he said what i think you think he said...
-
Thanks for proving my point.
You...appear to be proving his?
-
how dare I post something related to the topic:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/germany-minister-deportations-cologne-case-36137126
-
I misread "rather then an" as "rather an". :blah:
That said, the definition I see most often used is something along the lines of this:
Taken from here (http://www.wavaw.ca/what-is-rape-culture)
A complex set of beliefs that encourage male sexual aggression and supports violence against women. It is a society where violence is seen as sexy and sexuality as violent. In a rape culture, women perceive a continuum of threatened violence that ranges from sexual remarks to sexual touching to rape itself. A rape culture condones physical and emotional terrorism against women as the norm . . . In a rape culture both men and women assume that sexual violence is a fact of life, inevitable . . . However . . . much of what we accept as inevitable is in fact the expression of values and attitudes that can change.
Which moves the line ever further towards blaming men. Which in turn leads to such things as comparing men to poisoned M&Ms (http://thefrogman.me/post/86871780653/the-mras-are-outraged-not-because-a-violent), teach men not to rape (http://www.salon.com/2013/03/08/can_men_be_taught_not_to_rape/), the idea that men can't be raped and that concent is the sole responsibility of the male participant (http://i.imgur.com/cIiJ1Sy.jpg), and on and on and on...
I wouldn't be so annoying about this if this retoric didn't have real world consequences, such as the erosion of due process in universities where the simple accusation is enough to brand you for life, regardless if you can 100% prove you are innocent. Hell, things have gone so bonkers that simply resembling the rapist is enough to expel you from campus (https://reason.com/blog/2015/02/19/male-student-banned-from-campus-because).
Outside universities, the accusation is enough to leave you unemployed and a social pariah, no matter how the case goes. Making a statement denying the charges is seen by some (admittedly more hard-line elements) to be almost a crime (https://medium.com/@projectid/max-temkin-and-rape-culture-9fc2599196e8#.nizfk464h) in of itself (http://kotaku.com/a-different-way-to-respond-to-a-rape-accusation-update-1605542083).
So my mistake aside, sorry for not having doubts regarding how rape culture is widely used for demonizing and implying that men and only men are either rapists or accessories to rape. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2ZSZrGc-O8)
The saddest thing here is, if in every one of the examples I gave, it was the fictional movement Ghostavism and instead of men it was jews or black people, I doubt we would be having this discussion. We would see it for the bigotry that it is, even if it is for a good cause at its core (to stop rape).
P.S.
While not directly related, I don't think I can be very impartial to this subject, when I keep hearing stuff about opposition by you know who to laws remedying stuff like this (http://www.purplemotes.net/2012/08/05/forcing-men-to-make-monthly-payments-to-their-rapists).
-
I am not sure how the provided link disproves my point, or justifies your slippery slope Men's Rights rant.
-
Can you specify which link?
-
Guys. This video makes me laugh. I assume this is a German doctor telling this poor fellow what to do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZffn9Scs3s
-
Can you specify which link?
The one you quote from. The rest is part of that whole slippery slope thing.
-
Your definition is either incomplete, or almost no one in the feminist movement uses it. The definitions used almost always involve "male aggression" and when used follow it up with the implication that this is latent in all men (e.g. teach men not to rape).
The rest of the post is my reasons for disagreeing with rape culture existing as it is presented, at least in western societies, and what negative effects it's portrayal by the feminist movement has in public policy.
But hey, I guess you can't criticize anything involving feminism nowadays without the implication of being an MRA or a misogynist or something. Totally not the sign of a cult.
-
And many feminists would argue that women have inferior status in quite a lot of cultures including our own. The problem is not the culture of a region ranging from Morocco to Pakistan, the problem is rape culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture), and it's universal. This whole discussion focusing on immigrants is bull****. This is a feminism issue, anything else is an intentional distraction born from cowardice.
Focusing on immigrants would be bull**** only if prevalence and seriousness of rape culture was the same among immigrants vs. natives. If its significantly higher, then focusing on immigrants is the rational thing to do.
Just like its rational to focus more attention on male rapists instead of female rapists, since males have far higher likelyhood to be rapists than females. I definitely dont think it justifies things like erosion of due process in universities or elsewhere, people should have certain rights (especially when we are talking about citizens in their own country). But "teach men not to rape" campaigns can be justified. To pretend that strong gender asymmetry in raping does not exist is ignoring reality. And the same applies to immigrant asymmetry in raping, or any other strong correlation of certain groups with unwanted phenomena.
-
Your definition is either incomplete, or almost no one in the feminist movement uses it. The definitions used almost always involve "male aggression" and when used follow it up with the implication that this is latent in all men (e.g. teach men not to rape).
Again: The latter is not present in the link you used for the definition of rape culture and is entirely conjecture on your part.
And yes, part of what you are arguing is also argued by Men's rights movements, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement#Rape) also like the stuff you linked in your P.S. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement#Paternity_fraud\) It's the literal shorthand for the stuff you are arguing for, that does not make you an misogynist - this again is entirely conjecture on your part. Grow a thicker skin!
-
Everybody who is saying to wait for police investigation should also consider that the European media has actually been downplaying the immigration related issues for quite some time. What makes you think you'll ever hear anything but the politically filtered truth from the investigation? Now, I'm not suggesting any kind of actions here, but this is more questioning the belief that you'll actually hear any kind of truth later.
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.
-
Your definition is either incomplete, or almost no one in the feminist movement uses it. The definitions used almost always involve "male aggression" and when used follow it up with the implication that this is latent in all men (e.g. teach men not to rape).
Again: The latter is not present in the link you used for the definition of rape culture and is entirely conjecture on your part.
I stand corrected, although I sourced arguments towards male guilt that might disagree with you.
And yes, part of what you are arguing is also argued by Men's rights movements, like the stuff you linked in your P.S. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement#Paternity_fraud\)It's the literal shorthand for the stuff you are arguing for, that does not make you an misogynist - this again is entirely conjecture on your part. Grow a thicker skin!
Two parts to this, first, you support paid holidays for workers, animal rights, 8 hour workdays, etc.? Can I imply you are a Nazi then?
Second
To paraphrase Stewart Lee, if there's anything political correctness has done it's that the MRAs hide their inherent sexism beneath more creative language :p
Can I repeatedly during these discussions call you a Nazi?
EDIT:
The thing I posted in the PS is not related to paternity fraud, it's the fact that male victims of rape are expected by law to pay for child support to their rapist.
-
oh, he is just suffering from internalized misandry.
-
I stand corrected, although I sourced arguments towards male guilt that might disagree with you.
The trouble with that is that you are arguing against the notion that men are all latent rapists, which is exactly what the Women Against Violence Against Women organization is also arguing against: Part of some aspects of these attitudes I talked about earlier is that people use the excuse that "Men just want to **** as many women as possible" (or variants thereoff) as an excuse for their sexual misbehaviour. But, well they have an article on it (http://www.wavaw.ca/rape-culture-is-real-and-yes-weve-had-enough/). Again, this is all from that first link you provided. It's why people find that whole "Arm's length" thing to be rather silly: It puts the onus on women to protect themselves from rapists whilst the onus should be on the sexual assaulters to, ya know, stop doing that.
But you aren't going to solve that problem by simply kicking out all the immigrants. If only that because if we buy that it's immigrants and immigrants exclusively that cause this problem (which they damn well aren't), this would just move the problem elsewhere. Sexual assault is a worldwide phenonom, and these cases in cologne are simply the symptom of a much bigger problem.
Two parts to this, first, you support paid holidays for workers, animal rights, 8 hour workdays, etc.? Can I imply you are a Nazi then?
Actually, I'd be fine with you calling me a socialist, which seems a much more accurate description of the whole thing rather then a Nazi (esp. since the Nazis, for all their talk about paid holidays for workers, used slave labour to fuel their war machine in the latter days of the war). Nazi's are an example of taking an ideology to it's absolute extremes and it's responsible for the deaths of millions of people. The men's rights movement does not have those same connotations. It's a set of ideas, like feminism, socialism or objectivism is.
oh, he is just suffering from internalized misandry.
You are making me suffer with externalized misandry if you keep strawmen like that up :blah:
-
I stand corrected, although I sourced arguments towards male guilt that might disagree with you.
The trouble with that is that you are arguing against the notion that men are all latent rapists, which is exactly what the Women Against Violence Against Women organization is also arguing against: Part of some aspects of these attitudes I talked about earlier is that people use the excuse that "Men just want to **** as many women as possible" (or variants thereoff) as an excuse for their sexual misbehaviour. But, well they have an article on it (http://www.wavaw.ca/rape-culture-is-real-and-yes-weve-had-enough/). Again, this is all from that first link you provided. It's why people find that whole "Arm's length" thing to be rather silly: It puts the onus on women to protect themselves from rapists whilst the onus should be on the sexual assaulters to, ya know, stop doing that.
I'm not sure how to respond to this so I'll just say this. I realize the feminist movement is a vast movement with often contradictory views and often at each other's throat. If the vocal group I'm refering is just trying to avoid victim blaming is one thing, but often what is presented is all men need to be told not to rape (https://twitter.com/SarahKSilverman/status/579172363222282240/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc) which again, implies that unless told so, they will rape. But this is the thing, this group is influencing public policy, just check the examples I gave. If this was just a fringe vocal group with no power I wouldn't even bat an eye.
But you aren't going to solve that problem by simply kicking out all the immigrants. If only that because if we buy that it's immigrants and immigrants exclusively that cause this problem (which they damn well aren't), this would just move the problem elsewhere. Sexual assault is a worldwide phenonom, and these cases in cologne are simply the symptom of a much bigger problem.
I never even considered kicking out all immigrants, quite the contrary. Apart from a basic security check and the assumption that the country can handle more people that are for the time being are (temporarily I mean and hope) unemployed and homeless. Social cohesion/integration is another issue, which to be fair I haven't fully grasped so I won't even bother attempt to argue.
Two parts to this, first, you support paid holidays for workers, animal rights, 8 hour workdays, etc.? Can I imply you are a Nazi then?
Actually, I'd be fine with you calling me a socialist, which seems a much more accurate description of the whole thing rather then a Nazi (esp. since the Nazis, for all their talk about paid holidays for workers, used slave labour to fuel their war machine in the latter days of the war). Nazi's are an example of taking an ideology to it's absolute extremes and it's responsible for the deaths of millions of people. The men's rights movement does not have those same connotations. It's a set of ideas, like feminism, socialism or objectivism is.
My point was that having a set of goals doesn't mean you are part of a movement that has those same set of goals, so I used a rather extreme example. I share some goals with MRA and some with feminism. That said you in an earlier discussion say that MRA's are inherently sexist, so what am I to take you are implying when you associate me with them?
-
More information from eyewitnesses in Cologne Germany.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udEYgp1jwAQ
-
Good thing that eyewitness reports are so reliable, isn't it, especially when the witness not only reports what he sees, but mixes it with his interpretation of what happened.
Oh wait. They aren't. They're the least reliable form of evidence available (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/).
Also, the video description is a thing of beauty.
What the eyewitness Ivan Jurcevic is depicting here, is not just an incident the way the modern Pravda Media want us to believe in. This is an ACT OF WAR. The start of the JIHAD WAR in Germany …Jihad has many forms, so also terror attacks. This TERROR ATTACK is aimed toward women. A mass rape and assault to show the indigenous Germans who is the boss!!!. The political correct multicultural and EU addicted Guttersnipes will undersize it to a trivial incidents of New Year Eve. Nothing special. Their behaviour is the same as it was in the beginning of the Chernobyl catastrophe in april 1986. The Soviet media had undersized and falsely informed the public.
Also, look for a bunch of people who are totally not racists in the comments!
-
Yet I still prefer to listen to somedy who witnessed the event in person in addition to other sources to expand my field of view. Description and comments say nothing what could have surprised me. They are always the same.
Simple example. March of Independence in Warsaw. There were riots waged by a some idiots (football hooligans beating antifa trash as I remember...) in recent years during the event. All mainstream media's attention and cameras were pointed into one spot where the "action" took place. And that tone.... "huurrrrr durrr bad nationalists and xenophobes demolished this and that.... hurrr durrr... rise of neonazis" and other bull****" And, what was no surprise only few sources mentioned that tens of thousands of people walked peacefully having a great time. Had friends who were there, I watched a stream on YT, read the articles. Various sources to forge my own impression.
Best solution.
-
@The E: I have seen several news stories now quoting apparently official sources claiming that migrants played a significant role in these attacks. Do you have an issue with this?
-
Nope. That seems pretty clear.
-
I stand corrected, although I sourced arguments towards male guilt that might disagree with you.
The trouble with that is that you are arguing against the notion that men are all latent rapists, which is exactly what the Women Against Violence Against Women organization is also arguing against: Part of some aspects of these attitudes I talked about earlier is that people use the excuse that "Men just want to **** as many women as possible" (or variants thereoff) as an excuse for their sexual misbehaviour. But, well they have an article on it (http://www.wavaw.ca/rape-culture-is-real-and-yes-weve-had-enough/). Again, this is all from that first link you provided. It's why people find that whole "Arm's length" thing to be rather silly: It puts the onus on women to protect themselves from rapists whilst the onus should be on the sexual assaulters to, ya know, stop doing that.
I'm not sure how to respond to this so I'll just say this. I realize the feminist movement is a vast movement with often contradictory views and often at each other's throat. If the vocal group I'm refering is just trying to avoid victim blaming is one thing, but often what is presented is all men need to be told not to rape (https://twitter.com/SarahKSilverman/status/579172363222282240/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc) which again, implies that unless told so, they will rape. But this is the thing, this group is influencing public policy, just check the examples I gave. If this was just a fringe vocal group with no power I wouldn't even bat an eye.
I think you fundemantally misunderstand that tweet: It's sarcasm. It shows how ridiculous those rape tips lots of women get are by changing the subject. The point is not to say "All men need to be told not to rape", but rather that "Telling all women how not to get raped is as stupid as telling all men how not to rape".
My point was that having a set of goals doesn't mean you are part of a movement that has those same set of goals, so I used a rather extreme example. I share some goals with MRA and some with feminism. That said you in an earlier discussion say that MRA's are inherently sexist, so what am I to take you are implying when you associate me with them?
I put a :p into that line purposefully to tell that I was joking.
-
More information is coming to light (http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article150735341/Die-meisten-waren-frisch-eingereiste-Asylbewerber.html?wtrid=socialmedia.socialflow....socialflow_twitter).
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.
Most damning, however, is that these leaks contradict the official version of events in one important aspect: Official press releases and statements have so far claimed that the instances of sexual violence were secondary to instances of petty theft; According to this report, it was the other way around. Apparently, the perpetrators were primarily interested in "sexual amusement", with theft being more or less incidental.
Now, does that mean that I am now jumping on board the maslo train to call for a stop to immigration? Hell no. The people who actively committed these crimes have forfeit their rights to asylum, but that does not mean that everyone of that culture is suddenly incapable of integrating into our society (or incapable of living here until such time as they return to their homes; there are statistics that show that only about 8% of all refugees want to make Germany their new home). We took in a million refugees. Even if we assume that every single one of that group of 1000 in Cologne is a perpetrator, that's just 0.1% of all refugees. I refuse to put all of them under suspicion just because there are idiots among them.
-
Thank goodness this wasn't covered up.
-
Thank goodness this wasn't covered up.
I don't get this. Is there some secret SJW cabal censoring the media across Europe?
-
Now, does that mean that I am now jumping on board the maslo train to call for a stop to immigration? Hell no. The people who actively committed these crimes have forfeit their rights to asylum, but that does not mean that everyone of that culture is suddenly incapable of integrating into our society (or incapable of living here until such time as they return to their homes; there are statistics that show that only about 8% of all refugees want to make Germany their new home). We took in a million refugees. Even if we assume that every single one of that group of 1000 in Cologne is a perpetrator, that's just 0.1% of all refugees. I refuse to put all of them under suspicion just because there are idiots among them.
Not to mention that deporting them back to Syria is going to be a seriously strong inducement to anyone else to behave themselves.
-
I don't get this. Is there some secret SJW cabal censoring the media across Europe?
Hardly secret, especially now that it's blown up in their faces.
-
Conspiracy theories sure are fun, aren't they.
-
Conspiracy theories sure are fun, aren't they.
The inaccurate and remarkably delayed media coverage speaks for itself. I wouldn't call it a cabal, though; just run-of-the-mill cultural sensitivity.
Ironically, the handling of the event is now getting a lot of attention. ZDF made a public apology, which is a good start.
-
Conspiracy theories sure are fun, aren't they.
It's not a conspiracy theory, the authorities were clearly very reluctant to say that these attacks were the work of refugees out to harass women. This is an actual, legitimate instance of political correctness gone mad.
-
It's not a conspiracy theory, the authorities were clearly very reluctant to say that these attacks were the work of refugees out to harass women. This is an actual, legitimate instance of political correctness gone mad.
Or a simple acknowledgement the retaliation is going to be a bigger public order problem than the original attacks.
-
ZDF is a **** storm TV - station,the ARD and third channels of state owned TV - stations. Simply they are lairs without any end. The political elite says "save money at all coasts" on the back of the police officers. And these stations order us peoples to be political correct and want to take our freedom at Merkel´s will. She is a marionette of US?? not really,really of the clan of the Rotschilds.
-
Or a simple acknowledgement the retaliation is going to be a bigger public order problem than the original attacks.
That still doesn't change the fact that the public has been outright lied to. I don't think this is how it's supposed to work in a democracy. This is wrong on principle, no matter what they say to justify it. I think it'll actually make the situation worse for the immigrants. Not only will the retaliation still happen (if the guilty have already been kicked out, it'll simply target innocent people) and it damaged the credibility of any source claiming the immigrants are not a threat. As far as I'm concerned, this incident and the subsequent handling of it is going to be the new centerpiece of anti-refugee rhetoric. And I have to say, it's a pretty darn good centerpiece.
The next elections in Germany are next year and I'm not looking forward to them. I'm not too fond of immigrants, but with how this is going, the prospect of extremists ending up in power seems very likely.
-
Conspiracy theories sure are fun, aren't they.
It's not a conspiracy theory, the authorities were clearly very reluctant to say that these attacks were the work of refugees out to harass women. This is an actual, legitimate instance of political correctness gone mad.
Sure, the authorities may have been reluctant, but I was referring to the media across europe when I uttered the line that started this tangent. There have been several references to the media (eg the newspapers and stuff like that) censoring the true impact of the refugees which does not match my perceptions of reading the newspapers (yes, all of them, I have a side job delivering them atm), right now.
-
Conspiracy theories sure are fun, aren't they.
It's not a conspiracy theory, the authorities were clearly very reluctant to say that these attacks were the work of refugees out to harass women. This is an actual, legitimate instance of political correctness gone mad.
Sure, the authorities may have been reluctant, but I was referring to the media across europe when I uttered the line that started this tangent. There have been several references to the media (eg the newspapers and stuff like that) censoring the true impact of the refugees which does not match my perceptions of reading the newspapers (yes, all of them, I have a side job delivering them atm), right now.
Yeah sure, there are massive overreactions here, much of that cultivated by right-wing populists. But the left (and/or 'the establishment'; the mainstream right are on the same side of the fence here) has completely ****ed up in its reaction to this, as demonstrated by you and The E and NGTM. There's a concerted effort to deny that any social problems emerge from immigration and multiculturalism, that anyone who feels uncomfortable with having enclaves in their society that provide fertile recruiting grounds for militant fundamentalists and often concerted opposition to hard-fought social progress is just a crazy xenophobic loon.
These are problems. People have a right to be frightened and worried about them. You must believe, as I do, that inclusivity and tolerance is the way to solve them; then actually talk about why that is rather than ramping up the public shame on anyone who questions that. Otherwise you let that fear and discomfort fester and it eventually breaks out as Trump, Le Pen and Farage.
MP-Ryan has made excellent posts in this thread. Battuta made excellent posts in the wake of the Paris attacks. Please look at those posts and emulate them, because right now you're just making the conversation even more toxic.
-
These are problems. People have a right to be frightened and worried about them. You must believe, as I do, that inclusivity and tolerance is the way to solve them; then actually talk about why that is rather than ramping up the public shame on anyone who questions that. Otherwise you let that fear and discomfort fester and it eventually breaks out as Trump, Le Pen and Farage.
I genuinely do not understand why people are saying that the media is downplaying the effects that the refugees are having, whilst the media in the papers that I deliver has the syrian refugees on the frontpage atleast once a week (and with that whole camerawoman kicking refugees story I am surprised I am not seeing accusations flying the other way). Granted, it was a rhetorical question, but it seems par of the course in GenDisc's generally unmoderated attitude and it's not at all different from the way you phrase your posts.
I do not believe there are no problems with the integration of immigrants, but I also believe that in this case (and a few previous cases discussed in GD) these are either not relevant or secondary to the trends that cause the anecdotes that we discuss here. When I look at immigration issues one should (I believe) look at things that fester more over time, like why France and Belgium are mentioned a lot in terrorism news lately and the Netherlands and Germany are mentioned a lot thanks to rioting. Compare differences and move from there. This seems beyond the scope of this thread, however, as it's entirely anecdotal.
-
I agree with you that a large segment of the media is onboard with and encouraging the current trend of populist xenophobia. Claims that there's any kind of suppression there are overreaching a long way. But the German government and authorities definitely tried to downplay the nature of these attacks in the interest of political convenience; in that sense, there was an attempted cover up, and you and The E were completely out of order in jumping on Ghyl for suggesting that.
I do not believe there are no problems with the integration of immigrants, but I also believe that in this case (and a few previous cases discussed in GD) these are either not relevant or secondary to the trends that cause the anecdotes that we discuss here. When I look at immigration issues one should (I believe) look at things that fester more over time, like why France and Belgium are mentioned a lot in terrorism news lately and the Netherlands and Germany are mentioned a lot thanks to rioting. Compare differences and move from there. This seems beyond the scope of this thread, however, as it's entirely anecdotal.
I don't see how you can claim with a straight face that there are no problems with the integration of immigrants in Europe after the Paris attacks, after the Charlie Hebdo attack, after the levels of recruitment to Daesh from European Muslims. Frankly it seems like you're unwilling to recognise social problems unless they emanate from the right wing. (http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/)
-
anyone else mention this (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/09/world/europe/mein-kampf-hitler-germany.html?_r=0) is also happening?
-
I don't see how you can claim with a straight face that there are no problems with the integration of immigrants in Europe
I do not believe there are no problems with the integration of immigrants,
anyone else mention this (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/09/world/europe/mein-kampf-hitler-germany.html?_r=0) is also happening?
I think that warrants a separate thread.
-
I agree with you that a large segment of the media is onboard with and encouraging the current trend of populist xenophobia. Claims that there's any kind of suppression there are overreaching a long way. But the German government and authorities definitely tried to downplay the nature of these attacks in the interest of political convenience; in that sense, there was an attempted cover up, and you and The E were completely out of order in jumping on Ghyl for suggesting that.
A good point, and I apologize for my behaviour.
-
I don't see how you can claim with a straight face that there are no problems with the integration of immigrants in Europe
I do not believe there are no problems with the integration of immigrants,
**** oops. I have a terrible time parsing that paragraph for some reason. If you're saying that the wider problem of integration is not best represented by this one incident then I agree, though it doesn't exactly bode well for the social development of Europe's existing Muslim enclaves.
-
open question on integration of immigrants, what represents integration? does integration mean should they adopt the local language, values, religion, eating habits, style of dress, music? what is and is not appropriate to expect someone to change about themselves when moving into a new part of the world? or should the host culture should adapt to service the immigrant?
(Note: I included things in that list I don't agree with.)
-
In further on-topic news, Wolfgang Albers, President of Cologne's police force, has been forced to retire.
-
Did he make any serious mistakes or is he a scapegoat?
-
my understanding is that there were some comments made early on by some police that "everything was calm and peaceful" or something like that. no idea who said that or if it's at all accurate, but maybe it was related to that?
-
He certainly was guilty of miscommunicating the state of things to the public; He was responsible for the early claims that the new year began peacefully. It should be noted that this isn't the first time Albers has been criticized for his communications and leadership skills -- in the past 18 months, Police forces under his command were unable to prevent an anti-salafist demo from escalating into violence (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooligans_gegen_Salafisten#K.C3.B6ln_.2826._Oktober_2014.29), and we recently had a bit of a scandal where a SEK (Spezialeinsatzkommando, think SWAT) under his command had to be disbanded for various acts of disciplinary violations.
So he could very well be a scapegoat, but personally I believe him to be at least partially responsible for this thing.
-
open question on integration of immigrants, what represents integration? does integration mean should they adopt the local language, values, religion, eating habits, style of dress, music? what is and is not appropriate to expect someone to change about themselves when moving into a new part of the world? or should the host culture should adapt to service the immigrant?
(Note: I included things in that list I don't agree with.)
If you come to somebody's house as a guest <immigrants are guests of some kind. Newcomers especially. This is a process that can take years> then you play by the rules dictated by your host. In exchange the host is obligated to treat the guest kindly. But if a country is giving people from another nation a helping hand, shelter, a chance start a new, normal life, then the refugee shall show 100% respect to the local culture and customs. No exception. Of course the same thing should be done by the locals but a situation where natives have to give up their casual code of behaviour is unacceptable.
Let's say there is a school. There is a list of rules, including the dress code for example. It may say that wearing any kind of head coverage inside the building is forbidden. Both for boys and girls. No hats, caps etc. And let's say that a family from Afghanistan wants to sign up their kids there. If their daughters are wearing hijabs, they take them off once they cross the doors of school. Without complaining or any kind of crying about "lack of cultural understanding", "put-a-proper-verb-phobia", etc.
My home, my rules. If I'll ever plan to move to another country I will do my best to adapt to the new society. Respect the customs, culture, everything.
So if my country accepts any amount of refugees they will have to adapt to us. Not vice versa. No way around that. As I heared today, new Polish government says that we will give priority to the children and women. Then men. The last thing I want to watch in my neighbourhood are the groups of young, lone males waiting only to get welfare money and causing trouble.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
ok, feel free to. I accept it's going to happen, I think accepting it when it's found to happen is infantile.
-
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..
-
More information is coming to light (http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article150735341/Die-meisten-waren-frisch-eingereiste-Asylbewerber.html?wtrid=socialmedia.socialflow....socialflow_twitter).
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 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35261359)
This article states that of 31 suspects known, only four are Syrian.
-
Define a large number?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35261359 (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?
-
Define a large number?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35261359 (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?
-
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/ (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 (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 (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?
-
Yep. As bad as criminality by asylum seekers may seem, violence against them is a much bigger problem.
-
the two problems are not unlinked
-
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/ (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 (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 (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.
-
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.
-
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. :D 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/ (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 (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 (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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
Word that better or I'm going to have to use this to discount everything you say from this point on for every subject.
If you approach every argument this simplistically, you're worth no one's time anyways, so this is acceptable.
There is a time and a place for every tool, a right and a wrong use. I said as much explicitly. If you can't grasp that, the fault is upon you.
-
Define a large number?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35261359 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35261359)
This article states that of 31 suspects known, only four are Syrian.
One thing I forgot to mention, while 4 are Syrian, whopping 18 are asylum seekers. That is considerably larger overrepresentation than the already big one I mentioned before. And somehow I dont think that many of those "asylum seekers" that fail to get asylum will ever leave Germany, not unless you plan to forcibly deport more than half a million people, with German immigration policy being so soft as it is..
-
If I apply your rule that the actions of a few people are representative for the attitudes of their entire culture, I am forced to conclude that everyone in your country is rather unpleasantly racist, maslo.
18 people. Out of around a million total. 0.000018%. That's far less than the normal number of criminals in the population....
Meanwhile, Pegida ("Patriotic Europeans Against The Islamization of the Occident"), who are very keen to tell everyone that they're not racists, just concerned citizens, just held a demonstration in Cologne.
Where they attacked Policemen and press representatives with fireworks and bottles, showed the Hitler salute, and used the motto "Pegida Protects!". 1700 people, around half of which could be considered to be ready to inflict violence.
After which police stopped the whole thing.
As much as there are legitimate fears being expressed here, I cannot trust these people to do a good job expressing them.
-
I'm also rather unimpressed by the statistics of violence. The suppression of the news backfired, if anything, and the reaction made things worse than the actual thing in itself (which is a very common thread on either true problems or false ones...).
Matters little. We are riding an irrational train of infotainment plus reality tv, something that is rather scary in itself. Donald Trump is a purebred product of those two things and, like Mussolini was the product of newborn radio, so are all these polarized shenanigans and populists a product of the new social medias and general hatred towards the liberal political elite that "brought us here".
If we can survive these new surges and waves of manias and mob mentalities during the next decade I'll make a huge sigh of relief.
-
...
Meanwhile, Pegida ("Patriotic Europeans Against The Islamization of the Occident"), who are very keen to tell everyone that they're not racists, just concerned citizens, just held a demonstration in Cologne.
Where they attacked Policemen and press representatives with fireworks and bottles, showed the Hitler salute, and used the motto "Pegida Protects!". 1700 people, around half of which could be considered to be ready to inflict violence.
After which police stopped the whole thing.
As much as there are legitimate fears being expressed here, I cannot trust these people to do a good job expressing them.
If that's true then police did the good job. But that was only a matter of time once immigants attacked women. Action=reaction.
Which is not surprising to me. As I noiced any organization that has an "anti" part in it's name usually drags dumb, agressive element which only looks for an occasion and excuse to demolish something or beat someone. It applies everywhere, no matter the side/ beliefs. Example from my own neighbourhood. Some idiots wanted to "fight islamization", so they demolished a kebab restaurant (which ironically turned out to be runned by Lebaneese christian xD). Some jerks from antifa wanted to "fight the nazis", so they attacked few flag-wielding patriots during the independence day celebration. Even if there are no real "enemies" to fight, they will create such. Because they can't exist without them.
So if that million newcomers will indeed integrate (sooner or later) the pegida issue will solve itself. Of course the racist element will stay, but normal people won't feel any need to participate in that. But in my opinion this will not happen anytime soon and I predict that more and more incidents will take place.
And I'm really curious how will that shape the public opinion when it comes to elections in Germany. Time will tell.
-
If I apply your rule that the actions of a few people are representative for the attitudes of their entire culture, I am forced to conclude that everyone in your country is rather unpleasantly racist, maslo.
18 people. Out of around a million total. 0.000018%. That's far less than the normal number of criminals in the population....
It is not racism at all because I dont think those immigrants are genetically inferior. It is more like "culturalism" (their culture, or important parts of it, is inferior), coupled with a healthy aversion towards fundamentalist religion. That is an entirely legitimate opinion to have, IMHO. And yes, you can safely conclude that majority of people in my country have similar views on this, maybe 85% Id say.
As for PEGIDA, thats what happens when large part of population is intentionally ignored. You have to understand that those 1.1 million migrants that entered Germany this year were let inside by a right wing, conservative government. Which is quite astonishing. This is the part of political spectrum that under usual circumstances is supposed to be opposed to unregulated mass immigration. Germans who are against this therefore have no mainstream party to support, and turn towards more extreme parts of the spectrum. Cant say I blame them. As I said before, all things considered, the response of native Germans is abnormally peaceful and non-violent, IMHO, and especially when you account for their dominant share of population.
-
I think Merkel saw this as an opportunity to show the world how Germany has trasncended its past inhuman ghosts.
And I'd say that apart from some extremist ghastly spectacles from brain wrecks, they have been doing pretty well. The final proof will only come in years, but given how the far right predicted astonishing nightmares would come with immigration, and then when a million of them arrived, all they can shriek about is 18 rape cases in the middle of a country wide drunk party, I mean, it's ****ing ridiculous.
-
I think Merkel saw this as an opportunity to show the world how Germany has trasncended its past inhuman ghosts.
Possibly. My own definition of Germany transcending is the point in time when the earlier mentioned laws (well not the law itself but how it is enforced) can be abolished. The current result of them limits German thinking and expression, which makes it different in my books.
However, today is probably not the day for that.
-
I do not wish to alarm anyone, but I found myself agreeing with Luis. Could the end times be near :p?
-
Mika, Interesting you should word it like that as mein kampf just went on sale in Germany again for the first time since WW2 the other day.
-
The final proof will only come in years, but given how the far right predicted astonishing nightmares would come with immigration, and then when a million of them arrived, all they can shriek about is 18 rape cases in the middle of a country wide drunk party, I mean, it's ****ing ridiculous.
There are 379 cases of violence reported in Cologne alone, with people from North African countries overrepresented.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/754237/cologne-violence-cases-up-to-379-most-suspects-migrants-police
This may the be considered no big deal, a new normal in Germany, but it is not normal at all in my book.
It is true that the final proof will only come in years (it took years to prove that past muslim immigrant waves are 2-3 times as criminal as Germans, too), but so far the predictions of the right seem to be more likely to come true than not. This wasnt an isolated incident, it is part of a pattern.
-
Mika, Interesting you should word it like that as mein kampf just went on sale in Germany again for the first time since WW2 the other day.
Well ... maybe it would have been a good idea to add that this is a heavily commented version. I.e. a version that would hardly "please" rightwing elements symphathisizing with the original author - quite the contrary.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/25/mein-kampf-released-notes-hitler
(Notice the part where it says "re-released with notes countering Hitlers arguments? Guess you missed that huh? lol Guess you also missed the part where bringing out an annotated version is rather important before the copyright of the original expires and the unannotated original would become more readily available anyways lol.)
So maybe we could refrain from the "nazi knee jerk reactions" borne out of ignorance that the title alone may entice, as they are completely off the mark when considering the heavily commented nature of the new release.
In any case, aside from complete ignorance of above facts, I don't see how you could construct any connection with current events out of this book release lol.
-
I'd like to see statistics that matched low-income low-education germans to the refugees. I'm pretty sure that having rich germans, higher middle class within the "german averages" and so on will bias your conclusions against refugees that, by fiat, have nothing at all as a starting point. IOW, I'm still unimpressed by apples vs oranges comparisons.
And again, given the million plus people that crossed the border, all you have is crimes committed by <0.02%...
I mean, take Joshua's surprise at agreeing with me. But rather, I do think I am being consistent. It's a matter of proportion and taking miniscule percentages or risks completely off the rails and scopes. It rather seems to me that both the left and the right love to scare the **** out of the people with crazy number stories on how there's this huge monstruous trend or pandemic or danger coming your way. It's just that the stories change according to ideologies.
Rational, proportional, sensible analysis is just something humans are still unable to do.
-
I'd like to see statistics that matched low-income low-education germans to the refugees. I'm pretty sure that having rich germans, higher middle class within the "german averages" and so on will bias your conclusions against refugees that, by fiat, have nothing at all as a starting point. IOW, I'm still unimpressed by apples vs oranges comparisons.
And again, given the million plus people that crossed the border, all you have is crimes committed by <0.02%...
I mean, take Joshua's surprise at agreeing with me. But rather, I do think I am being consistent. It's a matter of proportion and taking miniscule percentages or risks completely off the rails and scopes. It rather seems to me that both the left and the right love to scare the **** out of the people with crazy number stories on how there's this huge monstruous trend or pandemic or danger coming your way. It's just that the stories change according to ideologies.
Rational, proportional, sensible analysis is just something humans are still unable to do.
Well I would say it will take some time to get the whole picture, but also keep in mind that we now have reported sexual assaults from Hamburg, Stuttgart, Nuremburg, Augsburg, etc. with more coming in. So, just talking about Cologne, to get an accurate percentage you would have to compare incidents in Cologne to the population in Cologne, not to everyone in Germany.
-
Of course you have sexual assault reports from all of those places. You always had and always will. The important questions are, are these statistics in different orders of magnitude from expected? If so, what kind of people did this, if so what is to do to solve those problems, etc.
Instead, we get PEGIDA screaming at the streets and vandalizing **** everywhere, showing how superior their genes are or something.
-
Of course you have sexual assault reports from all of those places. You always had and always will. The important questions are, are these statistics in different orders of magnitude from expected? If so, what kind of people did this, if so what is to do to solve those problems, etc.
Instead, we get PEGIDA screaming at the streets and vandalizing **** everywhere, showing how superior their genes are or something.
Lol ... seriously... when you have groups of 15-20 people chasing women in multiple cities, something that simply has not happened in the entire history of the federal republic ... all you can say is "that s just like it always was"? Frankly... it's just beyond me of how anyone can deny that the entire nature of the crime is something that is completely new to Germany - but maybe that is because I am living over here /shrugs.
See ... I understand where you coming from, ... but as stated earlier ... I am just as sick and tired of right wing extremists and their sick views as I am sick and tired of ultraapologists that preach "everything is fine, there are no problems, also, no tanks in Bagdad, no sir!".
Furthermore, the latest news talks about strict orders of the police not to report crimes committed by refugees: http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/schweigekartell-bei-der-polizei-polizist-strikte-anweisung-ueber-vergehen-von-fluechtlingen-nicht-zu-berichten_id_5199256.html
That is what ultraapologetism ultimately leads to I guess ... just denying what isn't supposed to happen?
... and now guess who is profiting from it now that it came to light? Yeah exactly, right wing assclowns, Pegida, etc.
Also... kindly give a quite where people are screaming about their "superior genes" etc. that sounds just as exaggerated as "vandalising *** everywhere" (hardly lol) ... afaik, leaving ultra fringe opinions aside, the main controversy over here revolves around whether this has to do with differences in culture.
Furthermore ... there are several kinds of protests from normal people, women activists and even artists, with Pegida hardly leading anything in that regard.
-
Yesterday a Demonstration of Pegida stopps because some fireworks fire at Police. But they came from Reporter! They are not neutral.
https://youtu.be/-hB5cJf9c2U
And here a Criminal Expert from Police was at a Interview and they sayd "if you talk about refugees the interview is over!"
https://youtu.be/SzsDzW1Js0Y
WTF!!?? Germany is soon finish if we stay this way!
-
Ah yes. The usual Pegida "The press really has it out for us" song and dance. Every single time someone writes something about Pegida that shows them being something other than a front for neonazis, it's always the press lying about them. Never mind the Hitler salutes or the NPD people accumulating around them, it's definitely just the press spreading lies.
-
Looks like the topic is pretty hot.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYQBL6CWEAATbPM.jpg)
Spotted this while watching the volleyball match transmission from Berlin yesterday. :lol:.
And gosh, today's POL vs. GER was the most exciting one I've seen in a long time. Good fight :)
#Edit. It looks like the banner was made by football fans (Pogoń Szczecin <ger, Stettin>) from my hometown.
-
In other news Milo Moire (swiss performer/artist) protested in the nude in front of the Cathedral of Cologne:
http://www.focus.de/panorama/videos/nach-skandalnacht-von-koeln-nackt-vor-dem-dom-so-demonstriert-eine-frau-gegen-die-uebergriffe-an-silvester_id_5198517.html
Also, the number of reported incidents in Cologne alone is at 516 now as mentioned here:
(And frankly ... if someone says still "business as usual" to that even after this number, I would have to wonder if they can really be that ignorant or want to be deliberately insulting to Germans in general.)
http://www.heute.de/de-maiziere-weist-vorwurf-der-vertuschung-in-zusammenhang-mit-fluechtlingen-zurueck-41756336.html
-
More News in Sweden!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2dn17cDlHs
-
Is that in reference to the 'youth festival' thing where the cops didn't want to let anyone know there was a rape mob because it might help the Swedish Democrats?
-
Ah yes. The usual Pegida "The press really has it out for us" song and dance. Every single time someone writes something about Pegida that shows them being something other than a front for neonazis, it's always the press lying about them. Never mind the Hitler salutes or the NPD people accumulating around them, it's definitely just the press spreading lies.
The press does have it out for Pegida. For some reason, leftists tend to gravitate towards working in media, and thus the media is kinda biased against the right. That is my observation so far.
At the same time, various extremists do gravitate towards Pegida for the same reason why leftist extremists gravitate towards die Linke. It is the largest political group at that part of political spectrum. Is die Linke just a front for Stalinists, too? I wouldnt call any of them extremist unless their official party line is extremist, too. Basically, when Pegida begins to support concentration camps, then it will be warranted to call them Nazis. When they only want tight immigration control, then they are not extremists, IMHO.
-
At the same time, various extremists do gravitate towards Pegida for the same reason why leftist extremists gravitate towards die Linke. It is the largest political group at that part of political spectrum. Is die Linke just a front for Stalinists, too? I wouldnt call any of them extremist unless their official party line is extremist, too. Basically, when Pegida begins to support concentration camps, then it will be warranted to call them Nazis. When they only want tight immigration control, then they are not extremists, IMHO.
However, the radical left in Germany is not as inclined towards violence as the radical right is, and Pegida is certainly more extremist than even the CSU of old.
-
However, the radical left in Germany is not as inclined towards violence as the radical right is, and Pegida is certainly more extremist than even the CSU of old.
Do you have any evidence to back that up? Various anarchists can get quite violent..
The German Interior Ministry reported recently that the far-right accounted for most politically motivated crimes with 17,042 acts in 2013, down 3.3% from 2012. The vast majority of those crimes were not of violence but of "propaganda," such as displaying the swastika or other banned symbols. Violent crimes by these groups dropped less than 1% to 837.
Yet, leftist crimes rose 40% to 8,673 acts in 2013, nearly half of which were property damage. Violent crimes by leftists rose 28% to 1,659 – largely altercations with police and right-wing groups during demonstrations.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/05/07/leftist-violence-rise-germany/8662871/
Being more on the right than CSU still only means you are center-right, IMHO. I wouldnt call that extremism at all. Maybe in Germany it is because all the parties are so far on the left when it comes to migration that even a center-right stance is considered extremism, but that is an artifact of German politics, not an objective judgement.
Objectively speaking, far right is characterised by a total ban on immigration, while far left is characterised by open borders, or abolition of borders. Objectively speaking, there is no politically active far right in Germany, while far left is in power. When it comes to migration, that is. So forgive me when I consider this rhetoric about Pegida being like the Nazis and bigger threat than the left extremists a load of BS.
-
More and more so called vigilantes are forming. The violence will rise up.
So forgive me when I consider this rhetoric about Pegida being like the Nazis and bigger threat than the left extremists a load of BS.
The justice must work more effective or we will read more about self justice.
Peter
-
Look at the target selection here: When the radical left gets violent, it's directed at the radical right. When the radical right gets violent, it's directed at immigrants and other bystanders. Tell me, which one of these is more dangerous to J. Random Citizen?
Also, objectively speaking, you have no idea of german politics. Merkel has been criticized for her policies by members of her own party in public, which would strike you as uncharacteristically aggressive if you knew anything about CDU/CSU internal politics. The only reason she's not getting removed from office right now is because she spent the last decade removing anyone who could replace her from the inner circle of her party. The CDU has noone in their ranks with enough political capital and broad appeal to actually succeed her.
As for Pegida being the biggest threat in german politics: They most definitely are. Nativist political movements are on the rise this decade (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/01/long-range-forecast.html), Pegida and AfD are Germany's expression of this idea. In the long term, closing borders will not work: If current climate trends continue, the middle east and northern Africa (and parts of southern Europe) will become inhospitable; If you think the current refugee crisis is a big problem, wait a decade for water wars to break out in earnest in the middle east. Way I see it, either we learn how to deal with these situations now, or we get into situations where we will literally have to shoot people at the border, a situation I personally find unpalatable.
Pegida is an expression of uninformed rage and fear driven by a media environment that values shock over information and by demagogues who get off on being in front of cameras while at the same time condemning those who hold them. The goals they have are reactionary in the base sense of the world: They are lashing out against a world noone taught them about, one in which history has not ended yet and where scary unaccountable forces are working against them. They seek to slay the Dragon of immigration so that they may rest easy at night again, unaware that said Dragon is not now and has never been quite as scary or dangerous or destructive as they are being told.
Above all, the question I have to ask myself is whether or not I want to live in a world where my freedom of movement is curtailed by the workings of some xenophobic asshole who believes me and my kin to be unable to integrate into his society. The answer is no, of course.
-
Look at the target selection here: When the radical left gets violent, it's directed at the radical right. When the radical right gets violent, it's directed at immigrants and other bystanders. Tell me, which one of these is more dangerous to J. Random Citizen?
Also, objectively speaking, you have no idea of german politics. Merkel has been criticized for her policies by members of her own party in public, which would strike you as uncharacteristically aggressive if you knew anything about CDU/CSU internal politics. The only reason she's not getting removed from office right now is because she spent the last decade removing anyone who could replace her from the inner circle of her party. The CDU has noone in their ranks with enough political capital and broad appeal to actually succeed her.
As for Pegida being the biggest threat in german politics: They most definitely are. Nativist political movements are on the rise this decade (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/01/long-range-forecast.html), Pegida and AfD are Germany's expression of this idea. In the long term, closing borders will not work: If current climate trends continue, the middle east and northern Africa (and parts of southern Europe) will become inhospitable; If you think the current refugee crisis is a big problem, wait a decade for water wars to break out in earnest in the middle east. Way I see it, either we learn how to deal with these situations now, or we get into situations where we will literally have to shoot people at the border, a situation I personally find unpalatable.
Pegida is an expression of uninformed rage and fear driven by a media environment that values shock over information and by demagogues who get off on being in front of cameras while at the same time condemning those who hold them. The goals they have are reactionary in the base sense of the world: They are lashing out against a world noone taught them about, one in which history has not ended yet and where scary unaccountable forces are working against them. They seek to slay the Dragon of immigration so that they may rest easy at night again, unaware that said Dragon is not now and has never been quite as scary or dangerous or destructive as they are being told.
And when immigrants get violent, it is directed at random bystanders, too. And statistics show they do like to get violent. That makes them a danger to J. Random Citizen and as legitimate target in the eyes of the radical just as radicals fighting among themselves.
Current climate trends are only another argument to increase border control, not decrease it. Because if your pessimistic predictions come true (thats a big if), we will need it in the future. Europe cannot accept so many people, because then it will turn into Africa itself..
Above all, the question I have to ask myself is whether or not I want to live in a world where my freedom of movement is curtailed by the workings of some xenophobic asshole who believes me and my kin to be unable to integrate into his society. The answer is no, of course.
But your and mine freedom of movement obviously should be curtailed by whether we can integrate into host society or not. The wellbeing of a host society is more important than my freedom of movement. To state otherwise seems extremely self-centered and rude to me. When I migrate, I am just a guest, and must act like it. Or get the boot. The answer is yes, of course.
-
I'd like to see statistics that matched low-income low-education germans to the refugees. I'm pretty sure that having rich germans, higher middle class within the "german averages" and so on will bias your conclusions against refugees that, by fiat, have nothing at all as a starting point. IOW, I'm still unimpressed by apples vs oranges comparisons.
Importing poverty is bad in itself, so I am not really interested in this distinction. The only factor I can think of that should be accounted for is age distribution, and that is already accounted for in some of those figures I posted before. But whether some migrants are more criminal due to poverty, or culture, or a combination of the two (most likely), the answer is similar - make the immigration criteria more strict to filter them out.
-
Current climate trends are only another argument to increase border control, not decrease it. Because if your pessimistic predictions come true (thats a big if), we will need it in the future. Europe cannot accept so many people, because then it will turn into Africa itself..
I expect you to be at the border, rifle in hand and ready to shoot, if and when your country decides to close its borders completely. Personally, I do not want this blood on my hands.
But your and mine freedom of movement obviously should be curtailed by whether we can integrate into host society or not. The wellbeing of a host society is more important than my freedom of movement. To state otherwise seems extremely self-centered and rude to me. When I migrate, I am just a guest, and must act like it. Or get the boot. The answer is yes, of course.
And why should I accept it when someone tells me that I cannot enter the country, let alone stay in it, because a few people from the same geographical region with similar cultural background were unable to integrate? That's the world you want to create: One in which you are not judged on your own merits, but by who your parents were, what skin color you have, what language you spoke your first words in and in what manner you pray to your god. I refuse to accept that as a good thing.
-
And why should I accept it when someone tells me that I cannot enter the country, let alone stay in it, because a few people from the same geographical region with similar cultural background were unable to integrate? That's the world you want to create: One in which you are not judged on your own merits, but by who your parents were, what skin color you have, what language you spoke your first words in and in what manner you pray to your god. I refuse to accept that as a good thing.
That is simply the reality of the world we live in. My cultural background, my god (or lack of it, lol), my region, that is a big part of what made me into what I am. You cannot ignore that or you are denying reality. These factors are real and significant.
One thing I want to mention: a country can do a lot merely by discriminating based on income, education, employment, criminal past or country of origin, all factors routinely considered in various immigration point systems around the world. You hardly ever need to discriminate based on things like religion or ethnicity, even tough the option should theoretically be there IMHO. For example, look at Hungary, they succesfully stopped the mass migrant wave without violating any human rights, and yet if I decide to go live there and fullfill all the criteria legally, I could do so and nobody would judge me unfairly at all. The problem with current immigration policies in (western) Europe is not really the policies themselves, (although they should be hardened somewhat and some things concerning refugees should be reinterpreted), the problem is lack of enforcement and teeth behind the laws themselves. You dont need to "ban all muslims" to remedy that.
-
What is worrying is ... that after you start looking in earnest, the whole picture more and more starts to look like a systemic issue of looking away and underreporting crime committed by certain ethnic groups that reaches back several years.
"Deutschland im Blaulicht: Notruf einer Polizistin" (http://www.amazon.de/Deutschland-Blaulicht-Notruf-einer-Polizistin/dp/3492060242/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1452613422&sr=8-1&keywords=deutschland+im+blaulicht)
and "Das Ende der Geduld" (http://www.amazon.de/Geduld-Konsequent-gegen-jugendliche-Gewaltt%C3%A4ter/dp/3451302047/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1452613490&sr=8-1&keywords=Das+Ende+der+Geduld) for instance have been rather shocking eye openers.
Frankly... i was not aware of city parts in major cities that are in the hand of huge family/clan structures (including their own "justices of peace" that pass sentences in circumvention of the official German legal system) where the police avoids going unless in overwhelming force before i started digging. (Although not surprising as I don t even live in the same federal states and not in a major city either.) And those above publications aren't right wing lunatic, rather the contrary, Tania Kambouri. a German policewoman who is a former greek immigrant and Kirsten Heisig, a quite hard working judge for juvenile crimes (dead by now, supposedly suicide, ... coincidentially whether it was suicide is still controversial - and that was about 5 years ago where she laid a finger on pretty much exactly the issues we see exploding now - mad lol).
Add to that rather catastrophic working and manpower conditions for the police in major cities like even Berlin as reported here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2_xWOjIzYU and it starts to paint a pretty grim picture.
So what gives: Underreporting, looking away and a weak police force, allowing a kind of muslimic background "mafia/clan/family" structure to thrive and entrench in several major cities, up to a point where they can locally challenge police forces and win, unless a concerted effort with several dozen policemen is organized, which is not always possible, which means many crimes (and pretty much all minor crimes) go unreported and unpoliced, which allows a parallel "justices of peace" system to be established, further cutting off the groups living in those city areas from mainstream society. And you pretty much have the whole deal right there, in the middle of Germany, within those communities: From forced marriage to occasional honor killings (selection of known cases: http://www.ehrenmord.de/doku/fuenfzehn/doku_2015.php), the whole deal. Entirely unpoliced and seperate from the actual state justice system. Oh yeah, up to open Muslim racism against Germans, on German schools, where German children are suddenly an endagered, bullied minority, after every family who could afford it (that includes moderate people with turkish background as well) fled the area after it went to sh**: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/integration/rassismus-das-schweigen-der-schulen-ueber-deutschenfeindlichkeit-11056390.html
Heck... I'll deliberately stop looking now because it just gets too depressing the longer you do search for this stuff.
Had a (female) colleague mention today that if things keep going this way (i.e.: in other areas as well), she plans to migrate somewhere safer than Germany when the opportunity arises - not sure if in jest lol.
But I tell you what ... the mood is definitely tipping over here. I don't mean towards violence and I don't mean the fringe. No, i mean the pessimism and resignation displayed by average Joe and Jane (or I guess "Klaus and Tina" as the case may be) over the entire issue. Also worth mentioning... according to recent surveys there were already 38% in favor of Merkel resigning (46,5% against, rest undecided) even before this new Year desaster. (http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/wegen-fluechtlingspolitik-38-prozent-fuer-ruecktritt-merkel-verliert-an-rueckhalt-in-der-bevoelkerung_id_5091850.html) Kinda curious what the next survey will say now.
I.e. You can probably pretty much sum up what most people think nowadays with something along the lines of: "Wir schaffen das, my a**" :/
-
Suddenly I'm glad that my country is so crappy that it's not the primary target for refugees and immigrants... :) That said, we've got our own problems. Poland currently has a bunch of mostly harmless fools for the government, which so far wasn't terrible (despite our minister of defense being mad as a hatter). If your colleague can't afford someplace nice and remote like New Zealand, Poland hasn't quite gone to hell yet. :)
Anyway, right now, I don't think Merkel has any chance of staying in the office. The question is, who will replace her? The situation in the US isn't nearly as bad, and yet they have Donald Trump, who is not only a serious candidate, but in all likelihood going to win. You speak of pessimism and resignation, but isn't that just what an extremist party needs?
Mind you, I'm not all that concerned with the immigrants themselves, but once an oppressive regime gets in power, they tend to move their goalposts until their atrocities may extend to pretty much everyone. Historically, this included their original supporters in a few cases. They also don't tend to have much of an idea on how to actually run a country. So while I am not fond of Wahhabis coming here and setting up tribal structures just like in their home countries, electing someone who will sic the military on them is a bad idea no matter what, in spite of popular applause such a move might bring them.
-
Suddenly I'm glad that my country is so crappy that it's not the primary target for refugees and immigrants... :) That said, we've got our own problems. Poland currently has a bunch of mostly harmless fools for the government, which so far wasn't terrible (despite our minister of defense being mad as a hatter). If your colleague can't afford someplace nice and remote like New Zealand, Poland hasn't quite gone to hell yet. :)
True enough. Our welfare system sucks that much that even some of our own people can't achieve a proper support from the state structures. So the lazybones who count on easy welfare money and benefits and that everyone will bow to their wishes will get a cold shower and likely leave faster then they came here. Try to cause trouble and the police or football hooligans will roll over them <I don't know which option would be worse for them>
But those who are really interested in starting a new life, work and assimilation shouldn't have more problems then an ordinary Pole has <Ok, except the language. That one is pretty hard>. I already have one Syrian family in my neighbourhood. They came here in 2013 and started a business nearby. A restaurant which serves the most delicious lamb I've ever eaten :P.
So for now we have a natural barrier that protects us from being flooded by people who won't integrate. I've already posted many times that I'm against massive, uncontrolled migration to Europe. But it was never actually based on some dumb xenophobia. It's not the skin colour that concerns me. It's about standards. Some behavioural patterns and customs which are practised in their Middle-Eastern and African homelands, here will be unforgivable. But allow a large group of people who can follow such code, let them settle together in densely populated areas, create enclaves and the situation can get ugly, as we've just seen. I would never tolerate a guy who thinks that women should be stoned for adultery or thinks that you should get killed for blasphemy. Or arrogant as***le who thinks that I will change my behaviour in my own home to suit his views.There is no place for such thinking here. Maybe Europeans were doing some nasty things in the past <like burning heretics and "witches"> but we got rid of that crap hundreds of years ago.
TL:DR
People who are indeed interested in integrating and working should have no problems with us but lazy idlers who came to drain welfare will starve here. And we will not tolerate any kind of aggression against us, women especially.
-
I expect you to be at the border, rifle in hand and ready to shoot, if and when your country decides to close its borders completely. Personally, I do not want this blood on my hands.
I just read this one. You know, that is what I'll actually be doing if push comes to shove. The same applies for Baltic countries, don't know whether military service is mandatory in Poland any more?
Curiously, the reason Finns go through this has nothing to do with immigration, and all with the big old neighboring R. However, I suppose those who served as military police may get some extra service if police requests assistance and you happen to live close by. The police has been complaining lately about the lack of resources and about their personal safety when entering the reception centers when there's a bunch of dudes wrestling and only two of you. So far there have been no casualties (meaning broken bones, knife cuts or something similar) on either side.
Then again, Finnish culture is considerably more physical than Central European, and the amount of martial artists (and firearms) among the general population tends to become as a surprise. Not to mention 90 % of men have served in the Defence Forces.
-
I dont believe you need to shoot live ammo to protect the border, rubber bullets, tasers and tear gas works very well. Especially in conjuction with a good fence. You can also let them breach and then simply catch and deport them back. Hungary managed to successfully defend its fence using these measures only.
But yes, if the above is not enough, live ammo is an option - because if such measures really become necessary, then the scale is on the level of regular invasion. And you can certainly respond to invasion with deadly force.
-
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b1b_1452579086#MAKhVP9YE6MMCe0m.99
Also. An interesting discussion from our TV.
-
Frankly... i was not aware of city parts in major cities that are in the hand of huge family/clan structures (including their own "justices of peace" that pass sentences in circumvention of the official German legal system) where the police avoids going unless in overwhelming force before i started digging. (Although not surprising as I don t even live in the same federal states and not in a major city either.) And those above publications aren't right wing lunatic, rather the contrary, Tania Kambouri. a German policewoman who is a former greek immigrant and Kirsten Heisig, a quite hard working judge for juvenile crimes (dead by now, supposedly suicide, ... coincidentially whether it was suicide is still controversial - and that was about 5 years ago where she laid a finger on pretty much exactly the issues we see exploding now - mad lol).
You do know that the only way to get rid of these lawless zones is to switch to an actual police state, with police at every corner and informants in every house, yes? Good.
State authority has its limits, deliberately so. As a consequence, things like these will be unavoidable.
Anyway, right now, I don't think Merkel has any chance of staying in the office. The question is, who will replace her? The situation in the US isn't nearly as bad, and yet they have Donald Trump, who is not only a serious candidate, but in all likelihood going to win. You speak of pessimism and resignation, but isn't that just what an extremist party needs?
A majority of the german public (a slim one, but a majority nonetheless) is in favour of letting her stay in office until the next elections. When those elections come, it is almost guaranteed that CDU/CSU will remain the strongest faction (according to statistics published today); there's a fascinating thing in play where the people who disagree with Merkel's politics the strongest don't actually vote, making their displeasure rather irrelevant when it comes to shaping politics in Germany. No, barring some yet unforeseen shakeup, Merkel is pretty much guaranteed to remain Chancellor after the 2017 elections.
So for now we have a natural barrier that protects us from being flooded by people who won't integrate. I've already posted many times that I'm against massive, uncontrolled migration to Europe. But it was never actually based on some dumb xenophobia. It's not the skin colour that concerns me. It's about standards. Some behavioural patterns and customs which are practised in their Middle-Eastern and African homelands, here will be unforgivable. But allow a large group of people who can follow such code, let them settle together in densely populated areas, create enclaves and the situation can get ugly, as we've just seen. I would never tolerate a guy who thinks that women should be stoned for adultery or thinks that you should get killed for blasphemy. Or arrogant as***le who thinks that I will change my behaviour in my own home to suit his views.There is no place for such thinking here. Maybe Europeans were doing some nasty things in the past <like burning heretics and "witches"> but we got rid of that crap hundreds of years ago.
I did not realize the 1980s were hundreds of years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape#20th_and_21st_century_criminalization), how time flies (TL;DR on that link: A history of the criminalization of marital rape, which in most of Europe happened only from the 1970s onward).
Still though: every single time you think that people from certain cultures cannot be trusted to integrate themselves purely based on their cultural background, you are acting in a xenophobic manner. Accept it, and move on.
I dont believe you need to shoot live ammo to protect the border, rubber bullets, tasers and tear gas works very well. Especially in conjuction with a good fence. You can also let them breach and then simply catch and deport them back. Hungary managed to successfully defend its fence using these measures only.
But yes, if the above is not enough, live ammo is an option - because if such measures really become necessary, then the scale is on the level of regular invasion. And you can certainly respond to invasion with deadly force.
These measures may work now. They will stop working as soon as everyone follows your lead. As mentioned, give climate change and the Sunni/Shia split another decade to simmer along, let's see how effective they are then. There are some big changes on the horizon; it's probably better to work with them now than to try to keep them away for as long as possible.
-
Anyway, right now, I don't think Merkel has any chance of staying in the office. The question is, who will replace her? The situation in the US isn't nearly as bad, and yet they have Donald Trump, who is not only a serious candidate, but in all likelihood going to win. You speak of pessimism and resignation, but isn't that just what an extremist party needs?
A majority of the german public (a slim one, but a majority nonetheless) is in favour of letting her stay in office until the next elections. When those elections come, it is almost guaranteed that CDU/CSU will remain the strongest faction (according to statistics published today); there's a fascinating thing in play where the people who disagree with Merkel's politics the strongest don't actually vote, making their displeasure rather irrelevant when it comes to shaping politics in Germany. No, barring some yet unforeseen shakeup, Merkel is pretty much guaranteed to remain Chancellor after the 2017 elections.
Let me repeat this, it's important: The people who are disagreeing with current politics the most are also refusing to actually work within the system to make their voices heard. It's all well and good to disagree with the way the country is run, but if you're refusing to use the easiest method available to get things changed, what exactly are you doing?
-
Frankly... i was not aware of city parts in major cities that are in the hand of huge family/clan structures (including their own "justices of peace" that pass sentences in circumvention of the official German legal system) where the police avoids going unless in overwhelming force before i started digging. (Although not surprising as I don t even live in the same federal states and not in a major city either.) And those above publications aren't right wing lunatic, rather the contrary, Tania Kambouri. a German policewoman who is a former greek immigrant and Kirsten Heisig, a quite hard working judge for juvenile crimes (dead by now, supposedly suicide, ... coincidentially whether it was suicide is still controversial - and that was about 5 years ago where she laid a finger on pretty much exactly the issues we see exploding now - mad lol).
You do know that the only way to get rid of these lawless zones is to switch to an actual police state, with police at every corner and informants in every house, yes? Good.
State authority has its limits, deliberately so. As a consequence, things like these will be unavoidable.
Interesting discussion tactic ...
So your answer to the very real issue of basically looking the other way and allowing certain crimes by certain ethnic groups go pretty much unchallenged/unopposed, effectively leading to large criminal structures over the years that become the de facto unchallenged law in certain city areas, is to say "uh that's just how it is unless you want a police state?"
What nonsense. The police is actually doing a pretty good job fighting crime in general as it is, EXCEPT in this area/ethnic group - and for no other reason than because it is POLITICALLY difficult to fight it the same way as all other crime is being fought. If you try, you run the immediate risk of being publically shamed as "nazi" and/or "islamophobe" (Why do you think it took so long until anyone spoke up even about the whole thing in Cologne? It didn't even make the news for 5 days until it was crystal clear it was too big to simply let it slide and you could mention it without getting batted by the instant "nazi club" in reply) on the one hand and on the other run the real risk of getting very real and very personal death threats to yourself and your family, by the group you are trying to police.
Seriously ... I'm not new to these forums and it's not the first time I see you in a discussion and I know you can argue this point better than with a simple exaggeration that happens to miss the entire point of the issue so badly.
I guess you don't speak German and hence did not follow up on those links/vids I posted earlier.
-
If you have been seeing me in discussions on this forum, you would know better than to question my german language skills, just saying :P
So your answer to the very real issue of basically looking the other way and allowing certain crimes by certain ethnic groups go pretty much unchallenged/unopposed is to say "uh that's just how it is unless you want a police state?"
What nonsense. The police is actually doing a pretty good job fighting crime in all other areas as it is, EXCEPT in this area, because it is politically difficult to fight it the same way as all other crime is being fought. If you try, you run the immediate risk of being publically shamed as "nazi" and/or "islamophobe" on the one hand and on the other run the real risk of getting very real and very personal death threats to yourself and your family, by the group you are trying to police.
I am not saying that the experiences the authors describe didn't happen. What I am questioning however is whether or not these things are actually representative. Kambouri tells of her experiences as a beat cop, of incidents where immigrants, or people with an immigrant background, do not respect her or the uniform she wears. But she also (in an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine) says this:
„Meine Freundin und ich stehen für die große Mehrheit der Migranten und ihrer Kinder, die bestens integriert sind.“ Genau deshalb dürfe man nicht die Augen vor der Minderheit verschließen, die ganze Stadtteile terrorisiere. „Ich will ja genau das nicht: dass die Bevölkerung immer ausländerfeindlicher, rassistischer wird. Wir dürfen einfach nicht verschweigen, was die Realität ist, wir müssen klar und deutlich thematisieren, was die Probleme sind.“
Translation:
"My friend and I are representative of the vast majority of migrants and their children, who are fully integrated." That's why it would be wrong to turn a blind eye towards the minority terrorizing entire city districts. "This is exactly what I do not want: A populace that's getting ever more xenophobic, racist. We mustn't keep silent about what the realities are, we have to be clear in our discussions about what the problems are."
But then, if you look at the amazon reviews for her book, you will find several people saying that her account proves that integration has broadly failed, when that just isn't true. I am 100% with you that people who break our laws should be punished as appropriate. I disagree, however, with the notion that the behaviour of a tiny minority should be taken as any indication that everyone who shares that ethnicity is as incapable of living within this society.
That being said, you cannot stop the formation of small pockets of lawlessness in a country, unless you are willing to create a true panopticon society. Being shocked that they exist is a sign of naivete, in my opinion.
This is my main objection to maslo and Hornet and all the others who believe that closing our borders is the right thing to do. It's a blanket punishment for being born in a wrong place at a wrong time (and yes, I consider not being able to live where I choose a punishment, see Article 13 of the universal declaration of human rights), without any sort of consideration for the individual. Also note that freedom of movement is something the alien invaders currently running the show (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/12/invaders-from-mars.html) do not want us to have; it's one thing if capital is free to move, but granting laborers the same right means that there are fewer people around to do the cheap gruntwork.
There are lessons to be drawn from Paris and Cologne. But those lessons should not be "Immigrants are evil!", because that sort of sentiment never leads to anything good.
Furthermore, while I agree that it is on the immigrant to adapt to his or her new home and not the other way around, expecting or demanding that they'll immediately forsake every little bit of their culture is stupid. Cultures are always changing and that means that sometimes they're changing in ways we won't like, but you cannot demand that no change be allowed.
-
Let me repeat this, it's important: The people who are disagreeing with current politics the most are also refusing to actually work within the system to make their voices heard. It's all well and good to disagree with the way the country is run, but if you're refusing to use the easiest method available to get things changed, what exactly are you doing?
Let me quote this.
But I tell you what ... the mood is definitely tipping over here. I don't mean towards violence and I don't mean the fringe. No, i mean the pessimism and resignation displayed by average Joe and Jane (or I guess "Klaus and Tina" as the case may be) over the entire issue. Also worth mentioning... according to recent surveys there were already 38% in favor of Merkel resigning (46,5% against, rest undecided) even before this new Year desaster. (http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/wegen-fluechtlingspolitik-38-prozent-fuer-ruecktritt-merkel-verliert-an-rueckhalt-in-der-bevoelkerung_id_5091850.html) Kinda curious what the next survey will say now.
Merkel's opponents don't vote? Well, they do seem to respond to pools, anyway. That was before the incident, when things weren't quite as bad yet. I think that they will vote when they get the chance. Unless you can provide a more recent pool that would support your statement, that is.
That being said, you cannot stop the formation of small pockets of lawlessness in a country, unless you are willing to create a true panopticon society. Being shocked that they exist is a sign of naivete, in my opinion.
You cannot stop their formation, but you can stop them from existing once you become aware of them. It's not the problem that they appear. The problem is that they last. We're not asking police to stamp out thoughtcrime, but actual crime happening right under their noses should provoke a response (that response being a crackdown and arresting those responsible, not "let's stay out of it and protect our own families"). If an area is known for causing trouble, for any reason, then it makes sense to post more surveillance, monitoring and patrols to that very area until it stops.
Continued existence of such areas is, in other countries, usually caused by organized crime, who tend to put effort into bribing the police to stay out of their way. They're also organized, which can make it difficult to actually pin anything specific on them. And even then, big crackdowns happen from time to time. The immigrants are organized in a very loose way, being more like tribal communities from wherever they come from. Dealing with them should be possible given enough manpower and political will to do so.
This is my main objection to maslo and Hornet and all the others who believe that closing our borders is the right thing to do. It's a blanket punishment for being born in a wrong place at a wrong time (and yes, I consider not being able to live where I choose a punishment, see Article 13 of the universal declaration of human rights), without any sort of consideration for the individual. Also note that freedom of movement is something the alien invaders currently running the show (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/12/invaders-from-mars.html) do not want us to have; it's one thing if capital is free to move, but granting laborers the same right means that there are fewer people around to do the cheap gruntwork.
I do not advocate a complete closing of the border, but instituting standards that a person needs to fulfill before being granted a visa. If you're from Poland and can't travel to US, it's usually your own fault that you don't rate a visa (at least in theory. In practice, this system is implemented in such a lousy way that it's almost random in who the visas go to). Conceptually, I'd go for something similar to the US visa system, except competently implemented, of course.
-
You do know that the only way to get rid of these lawless zones is to switch to an actual police state, with police at every corner and informants in every house, yes? Good.
State authority has its limits, deliberately so. As a consequence, things like these will be unavoidable.
You said this kind of stuff a lot in the Paris thread as well. Do you not believe in fighting organised crime?
-
Merkel's opponents don't vote? Well, they do seem to respond to pools, anyway. That was before the incident, when things weren't quite as bad yet. I think that they will vote when they get the chance. Unless you can provide a more recent pool that would support your statement, that is.
Here's the most recent polling data, published today: http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
It shows that overall support for the CDU/CSU hasn't dropped by much; if we were to hold a Bundestag election right now, Merkel would still be Chancellor (The Chancellor is not elected directly, but rather chosen by the party or coalition that holds the majority of votes in the Bundestag).
And yeah. Pegida's supporters do not, generally speaking, vote.
-
You do know that the only way to get rid of these lawless zones is to switch to an actual police state, with police at every corner and informants in every house, yes? Good.
State authority has its limits, deliberately so. As a consequence, things like these will be unavoidable.
You said this kind of stuff a lot in the Paris thread as well. Do you not believe in fighting organised crime?
I am not sure what this question has to do with the points I was trying to make.
-
If you have been seeing me in discussions on this forum, you would know better than to question my german language skills, just saying :P
So your answer to the very real issue of basically looking the other way and allowing certain crimes by certain ethnic groups go pretty much unchallenged/unopposed is to say "uh that's just how it is unless you want a police state?"
What nonsense. The police is actually doing a pretty good job fighting crime in all other areas as it is, EXCEPT in this area, because it is politically difficult to fight it the same way as all other crime is being fought. If you try, you run the immediate risk of being publically shamed as "nazi" and/or "islamophobe" on the one hand and on the other run the real risk of getting very real and very personal death threats to yourself and your family, by the group you are trying to police.
I am not saying that the experiences the authors describe didn't happen. What I am questioning however is whether or not these things are actually representative. Kambouri tells of her experiences as a beat cop, of incidents where immigrants, or people with an immigrant background, do not respect her or the uniform she wears. But she also (in an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine) says this:
„Meine Freundin und ich stehen für die große Mehrheit der Migranten und ihrer Kinder, die bestens integriert sind.“ Genau deshalb dürfe man nicht die Augen vor der Minderheit verschließen, die ganze Stadtteile terrorisiere. „Ich will ja genau das nicht: dass die Bevölkerung immer ausländerfeindlicher, rassistischer wird. Wir dürfen einfach nicht verschweigen, was die Realität ist, wir müssen klar und deutlich thematisieren, was die Probleme sind.“
Translation:
"My friend and I are representative of the vast majority of migrants and their children, who are fully integrated." That's why it would be wrong to turn a blind eye towards the minority terrorizing entire city districts. "This is exactly what I do not want: A populace that's getting ever more xenophobic, racist. We mustn't keep silent about what the realities are, we have to be clear in our discussions about what the problems are."
But then, if you look at the amazon reviews for her book, you will find several people saying that her account proves that integration has broadly failed, when that just isn't true. I am 100% with you that people who break our laws should be punished as appropriate. I disagree, however, with the notion that the behaviour of a tiny minority should be taken as any indication that everyone who shares that ethnicity is as incapable of living within this society.
That being said, you cannot stop the formation of small pockets of lawlessness in a country, unless you are willing to create a true panopticon society. Being shocked that they exist is a sign of naivete, in my opinion.
This is my main objection to maslo and Hornet and all the others who believe that closing our borders is the right thing to do. It's a blanket punishment for being born in a wrong place at a wrong time (and yes, I consider not being able to live where I choose a punishment, see Article 13 of the universal declaration of human rights), without any sort of consideration for the individual. Also note that freedom of movement is something the alien invaders currently running the show (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/12/invaders-from-mars.html) do not want us to have; it's one thing if capital is free to move, but granting laborers the same right means that there are fewer people around to do the cheap gruntwork.
There are lessons to be drawn from Paris and Cologne. But those lessons should not be "Immigrants are evil!", because that sort of sentiment never leads to anything good.
Furthermore, while I agree that it is on the immigrant to adapt to his or her new home and not the other way around, expecting or demanding that they'll immediately forsake every little bit of their culture is stupid. Cultures are always changing and that means that sometimes they're changing in ways we won't like, but you cannot demand that no change be allowed.
If you do speak German I dearly suggest you do read Kirsten Heisigs "Das Ende der Geduld". Kambouri is a more personal observation, but Heisig really lays down the facts and backs them up with statistics. Furthermore, Heisig gives a much more balanced overview of all kinds of crime including German youth crimes. Crimes committed by perpetrators of arab and turkish background are not really focused on specifically, yet are especially shocking because a) there is so much of it and b) due to the nature of the crimes.
The main problem is: Culture, in the case of criminal clan/families of mostly arab background directly conflicts with the law and the constitution, which is pretty much the basis of our society that allows us to live together peacefully.
So speak frankly please The E, what do you really want to do:
If you have to choose between the constitution, most specifically, between human dignity, freedom of speech and equality between men and women, heck even the right of physical integrity on the one hand ... and criminal clan structures that deny all those rights to their members and all citizens they come in contact with on the other, up to and including dropping rape charges because the victim would "lose her honor" if the "perpetrator" (her own father) would be accused and punished and hence the crime would become known to the whole family. And yes, this is a specific case, as quoted in Heisigs book, and that was not a justice of peace who spoke the verdict, but a german court, and you know why? Out of respect of the "culture" of the family in question. Because "culture" in this case would mean that if the crime got known, the victim (yes the victim) would be as good as dead. (Loss of honor usually leads to a honor killing, imagine that) and the German state taking away a child for her own protection ... from an arab family ... well imagine the press, can't do that, political correctness remember? So you are stuck with this mess.
If the same crime happened within any other ethnic community within Germany all hell would have broken lose and the child would have been protected by the youth wellfare office with the father facing a huge prison sentence and the media being all over it.
And that ... is a double standard that has now been established in the legal system out of pure political correctness and not wanting to "offend" their culture. If you haven't, please do read the book. The above was just one example out of a huge putrid mess of disgusting crimes that pretty much can only be committed in the way they are, because police and the legal system are deliberately looking the other way out of political correctness.
Don't take me wrong. I totally agree with you on this: Definitely not all refugees are like this. Quite the contrary, a lot of them are outraged about this just the same as any German is and what they do not understand is, why the German state does not do something about it. Yes, moderate muslims, turks, and refugees are all shaking their head in disbelief. Mind you ... Heisigs book and the case above is over 5 years old and concerns immigrants that live here in the 2nd and 3rd generation already (and yes, three generations, without integrating one inch at all - that alone a fead not one other ethnic group has managed.). Things have not improved. And decent refugees arriving now and see this mess can't understand it anymore than anyone of us can.
So if you defend "culture" just because of "culture" unilaterally ... what you effectively do is legitimize rape, murder and organized crime. That's how it is, so no sir, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you try to paint this black and white you simply do not understand the issue. It's NOT black and white. Culture is NOT always good. And you know when it isn't? When it is dehumanizing. When it is a culture of hate. A Culture of racism. A culture of bigotry. A culture of misogyny. A culture in outright disrespect to civilization itself. A culture unchanged from the dark ages up to today. ... And yes ... you have all of that, organized and strong, in the middle of Germany, within the borders of major cities right now, not because you can't do something about it, but specifically because everyone including the police and legal system are worried about it not being "politically correct" to do something about it.
Be careful what are unsuspectingly defending here.
-
You do know that the only way to get rid of these lawless zones is to switch to an actual police state, with police at every corner and informants in every house, yes? Good.
State authority has its limits, deliberately so. As a consequence, things like these will be unavoidable.
You said this kind of stuff a lot in the Paris thread as well. Do you not believe in fighting organised crime?
I am not sure what this question has to do with the points I was trying to make.
You're setting up a false dichotomy between allowing gangs to take over parts of cities and having a totalitarian police state, just as you set up a false dichotomy between having hundreds of people killed terrorist attacks and having a totalitarian police state.
-
Alternately, he's conflating "not allowing gangs from taking over parts of cities" and "not allowing gangs to even try to take over something". You don't need a police state to do the former, but you do need a police force which is not hampered by "political correctness" and taboos on taking actions against certain ethnicities. Generally it's pretty obvious when criminals become a dominant authority in a region, you don't need a web of informants or constant surveillance to find that out. It's just a matter of the police being able to set such places straight.
"Positive" discrimination can be just as harmful as "negative" one, for the very simple reason that in reality, there are always both of them involved, it's just a matter of which side gets which. Cultural sensitivity does not mean putting anyone above the law.
Here's the most recent polling data, published today: http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
It shows that overall support for the CDU/CSU hasn't dropped by much; if we were to hold a Bundestag election right now, Merkel would still be Chancellor (The Chancellor is not elected directly, but rather chosen by the party or coalition that holds the majority of votes in the Bundestag).
And yeah. Pegida's supporters do not, generally speaking, vote.
That's odd, though I suppose this makes sense. Despite some extremist organizations popping up, Germany has gone a long way to make sure there isn't even the tiniest chance of anyone remotely resembling the Nazis to end up in power again. I suppose that things that would appease Pegida are simply not allowed in German politics. Here's to hope those measures hold up, so that extremists don't actually get a say in the government, even if they do manage to gain ground in public opinion.
-
If you do speak German I dearly suggest you do read Kirsten Heisigs "Das Ende der Geduld".
It amuses me greatly that you still haven't figured out that The E is from Germany.
-
If you do speak German I dearly suggest you do read Kirsten Heisigs "Das Ende der Geduld".
It amuses me greatly that you still haven't figured out that The E is from Germany.
Heh stranger things happened ;) But yeah I probably coulda picked that up earlier (and I don t mean this discussion;-)) Point taken, and apologies to you The E as well.
I also realize I am probably more venting than discussing, my apologies about that too. Just a tad bit frustrated with the whole issue, as you can probably tell.
-
And here I thought you were taking jabs at him not knowing what is happening in his own country... :) TBH, most of the things you say have been very useful for non-Germans out there. I did not realize the situation with the integration was quite as bad as it is. I do know of gangs occasionally being able to "take over" parts of the cities in the US (but there, the stakes are a lot higher, due to firearms being commonplace) and in Poland (corruption is supposedly on decline, but it's far from gone), but finding the same situation in the famously orderly Germany (and with ethnic communities, not gangs, to boot) was a bit concerning, to say the least.
-
You do know that the only way to get rid of these lawless zones is to switch to an actual police state, with police at every corner and informants in every house, yes? Good.
State authority has its limits, deliberately so. As a consequence, things like these will be unavoidable.
Getting rid of such ethnic lawless zones is hard. But preventing their creation is easy. Strict immigration policy is a very effective solution. There will be no ethnic lawless zones if immigrants are wealthy, educated, background checked and come in limited, well regulated numbers. And you dont even need any police state to have this.
Prevention is the best cure. When you begin to have problematic ethnic areas due to immigration, your policy is a failure already. Trying to solve such ghettos without significant changes to immigration policy is like trying to remove water from a sinking boat without plugging the holes first.
-
You do know that the only way to get rid of these lawless zones is to switch to an actual police state, with police at every corner and informants in every house, yes? Good.
State authority has its limits, deliberately so. As a consequence, things like these will be unavoidable.
Getting rid of such ethnic lawless zones is hard. But preventing their creation is easy. Strict immigration policy is a very effective solution. There will be no ethnic lawless zones if immigrants are wealthy, educated, background checked and come in limited, well regulated numbers. And you dont even need any police state to have this.
Prevention is the best cure. When you begin to have problematic ethnic areas due to immigration, your policy is a failure already. Trying to solve such ghettos without significant changes to immigration policy is like trying to remove water from a sinking boat without plugging the holes first.
Yeah we all been thinking that. On the other hand, ... what do you do when you have such a wave of refugees on the way already, who want to be let in? If you ask the question of how to prevent them from entering your country, especially considering how many people are on the move ... you must realize that the only answers would be unspeakably ugly.
That's kinda the crux of the issue right now I guess. Everyone knows you kinda can't continue like this, but on the other hand, how do you stop it? I mean really?
So yeah, that's why we lately keep thinking in circles a bit over here i guess.
-
Oh come on, it's fairly easy. The same people you don't want to let into the country because you fear they might be violent will obviously all just turn around and go home quietly if you ask them nicely enough.
-
It is fairly easy. Any modern country can easily choose to secure the borders, similarly to what Hungary does, and only spend a miniscule fraction of its GDP on it. A bunch of migrants have no chance against organized police or army. The only thing lacking is political will to do so. Claiming otherwise is just defeatism speaking, IMHO. Border security is one of the most basic functions of any sovereign state.
-
Cool, call America and tell them they've solved their illegal immigration problems.
-
Yet it's faaaaarrr more difficult to get illegally to USA then EU. And if they catch you it's much bigger chance that you will get kicked out ASAP. EU did not care enough about securing external borders and now it's reaping the consequences. Which will be even more severe if we don't fix it as next millions of people are waiting for the weather get better to cross the sea. So what we shall do then? Sit and wait for half of Africa and ME to settle here?
-
The US only has one (albeit very long) border it has to patrol in order to keep the sort of low-income people you wouldn't want out though (and it doesn't do a very good job of it, given how large an economic factor illegal workers from Mexico are). Most european countries do not have such a luxury.
-
MP-Ryan would seem to disagree with you there.
-
So what we shall do then? Sit and wait for half of Africa and ME to settle here?
Well, we could use the manpower.
-
Cool, call America and tell them they've solved their illegal immigration problems.
Indeed, America is a concrete example of what I said. By far the most important reason why America hasnt solved its illegal immigration problem is because a huge part of US politicians do not really want to solve it. There are Democrats that see strict border security as a sign of racism and like to import future voters in mass numbers. Then there are Republicans that like cheap labor for big business or have an anti-government attitude in general. If the US at least tried to solve their illegal immigration problems, it could easily do so. But it does not even try.
-
It is fairly easy. Any modern country can easily choose to secure the borders, similarly to what Hungary does, and only spend a miniscule fraction of its GDP on it. A bunch of migrants have no chance against organized police or army. The only thing lacking is political will to do so. Claiming otherwise is just defeatism speaking, IMHO. Border security is one of the most basic functions of any sovereign state.
How long do you think a the German government would last if there were starving/dying people in front of their borders in masse and all those pictures went through the press? So yes.... in theory you could close the borders and prevent anyone from coming in. In practive it's not only a matter of the "political will" lacking... it's rather a matter of it being politically rather impossible/suicide to do so. Aside from the double issue of "Germany" of all countries "erecting a wall" (again!?!?) or something similar to secure borders. I.e. it was never a "viable" option politically. Not for any party that would like to remain in power anyways. Possibly that will change at some point if conditions within the country get worse.
-
Indeed, America is a concrete example of what I said. By far the most important reason why America hasnt solved its illegal immigration problem is because a huge part of US politicians do not really want to solve it. There are Democrats that see strict border security as a sign of racism and like to import future voters in mass numbers. Then there are Republicans that like cheap labor for big business or have an anti-government attitude in general. If the US at least tried to solve their illegal immigration problems, it could easily do so. But it does not even try.
From what I've seen, illegal immigration is not seen as a "problem" in itself by most. It's a peculiar situation, really, which took me a while to understand. It looks like in the US, that those people are there illegally doesn't necessarily mean they're not wanted. Indeed, they are quite important for the economy and politics. Strangely enough, nobody seems to think about legalizing their status, either. It looks like the niche they occupy is rather unique and, at this point, calculated into how the country runs.
I'm not sure whether the US could cut off their flow completely, but it'd likely be possible if the negatives of illegal immigration actually outweighed positives. It seems that it isn't so, however. Apparently, having a cheap labor force that has few rights, is big on keeping itself "off the record" and is willing to accept much worse conditions than full citizens is something that is, on balance, benefits the US.
Well, we could use the manpower.
If only they contributed to the "manpower" instead of weighing down the welfare system... The reason for the above situation is that the US, unlike the EU, lacks much of the social welfare system that the immigrants in Europe are counting on. In the Land of the Free you're free to, among other things, to lie down and starve to death if you don't feel like working. Most EU countries will not allow you to do that (or, as is the case with Poland, make a token effort to appear that they won't :) ). In the US, you pay for everything, including most things that are "free" (that is, paid for with taxes) around here. That means you can't survive for long without some kind of work. Loans are also much more of a factor in the US economy than in the EU countries (my parents, for example, managed to survive for their entire lives almost without taking any loans outside the family at all. It'd have to be a much larger and richer family for it to work in the US, and that's saying something in my case). In that case, the immigrants are forced to find jobs, contributing to workforce. EU countries have no such pressure, or at least it's much less than in the US. On the other hand, this means being poor and jobless sucks much less in the EU than in the US.
At least, that's my impression of how it works. Any actual denizens of the Land of the Free are free to correct me. :)
-
If only they contributed to the "manpower" instead of weighing down the welfare system...
They do! (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/opinion/europe-should-see-refugees-as-a-boon-not-a-burden.html?_r=1)
-
They do! (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/opinion/europe-should-see-refugees-as-a-boon-not-a-burden.html?_r=1)
That piece didn't make any sense. Anyone with a brain who's ever followed debates or discussions about refugees and immigration knows that simply conflating the two is stupid, so it's especially eyeroll-worthy when an editorial board of 19 professionals does so. Refugees are a boon because statistics say that immigration is a boon? :rolleyes: I don't claim to know whether they can be a boon or not, but that's not how you conclude it one way or another.
Seriously, I thought everyone must have learned the difference between immigrants, refugees and asylum-seekers like 10 years ago already, but I guess not.
-
Yeah, that article makes one claim in the title, then discusses a completely different issue in the body (notice how the word "refugees" appears only in the title). Either a textbook case of non sequitur or a deliberate attempt at misdirection. The problem is with refugees, not with immigrants. My tangent about the US and immigration could probably be summarized as "Illegal immigrants in the US are actual immigrants, not refugees". That said, had I stated it that way, nobody would've understood the point. :)
-
They do! (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/opinion/europe-should-see-refugees-as-a-boon-not-a-burden.html?_r=1)
That piece didn't make any sense. Anyone with a brain who's ever followed debates or discussions about refugees and immigration knows that simply conflating the two is stupid, so it's especially eyeroll-worthy when an editorial board of 19 professionals does so. Refugees are a boon because statistics say that immigration is a boon? :rolleyes: I don't claim to know whether they can be a boon or not, but that's not how you conclude it one way or another.
Seriously, I thought everyone must have learned the difference between immigrants, refugees and asylum-seekers like 10 years ago already, but I guess not.
It's more complicated then that (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34061097).
-
It's more complicated then that (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34061097).
Exactly. :yes:
-
Good article. Here's a somewhat more condensed take on that :):
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFcP77gWMAAavcU.jpg)
Also, it's one of the few places in which I agree with a more "politically correct" term of "irregular immigrants" instead of the more common "illegal immigrants". The latter is, in all likelihood, an import from the US, where it is appropriate due to much stricter immigration policy. In EU, the people usually described with that term not really "illegal" (though many people with they'd be), nor does that group have much in common with the US brand of illegal immigrants.
BTW, I found it a bit funny that the US still officially sticks to the term "alien", despite the term almost universally bringing the "little green men from Mars" image to mind these days (or a hideous monster bursting out of someone's chest, take your pick) :).
-
(or a hideous monster bursting out of someone's chest, take your pick) :).
Which it is of course doing without the hosts consent, causing severe bodily harm without being a licensed doctor, hence making this famous alien also an illegal alien :P
Guess we're lucky Merkel didn't invite those into Germany ... lol.
-
that's a suspiciously happy asylum seeker there dragon
-
that's a suspiciously happy asylum seeker there dragon
She hasn't been turned down yet.
-
How long do you think a the German government would last if there were starving/dying people in front of their borders in masse and all those pictures went through the press? So yes.... in theory you could close the borders and prevent anyone from coming in. In practive it's not only a matter of the "political will" lacking... it's rather a matter of it being politically rather impossible/suicide to do so. Aside from the double issue of "Germany" of all countries "erecting a wall" (again!?!?) or something similar to secure borders. I.e. it was never a "viable" option politically. Not for any party that would like to remain in power anyways. Possibly that will change at some point if conditions within the country get worse.
Then on the other hand, here in the North, it is pretty darn frustrating that we are doing our job of keeping the Schengen security checks on and have a long history of doing so with Russians - make no mistake, there would be a lot more Russians here had we not taken good care of the immigration permissions. But suddenly, for the first time in like three hundred years, it is the Western border that sucks, and it sucks because Sweden doesn't uphold the Schengen treaty. And Sweden didn't uphold it because Denmark didn't. Who didn't uphold it because Germany didn't and so on and so on (European politics 101)...
Not to mention that it is very important that those EU countries that are next to Russia remain internally stable. Otherwise, you are open for all sorts of shenanigans from the Bear. And trust me on this one, they will take those opportunities. The "refugees" in current quantities are really becoming an internal stability issue, which is very dangerous around these parts of the world. The current bunch we have we can deal with (especially if 30 % remain), but more of them will not work and will trigger massive protests.
-
They do! (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/opinion/europe-should-see-refugees-as-a-boon-not-a-burden.html?_r=1)
Id like to see studies concerning immigrants specifically from MENA countries before I believe any of that. And stratified by education. Sure, some immigration does contribute positively to the economy, but I dont think migrants coming to Europe currently in mass numbers will be one of those. Not all immigrants are the same or interchangeable.
There is also a question of what is it that we want from immigrants, economically speaking. Merely not burdening the welfare system is a very low standard to use, IMHO. What we should really seek is for immigrants to produce similar economic output than the average citizen, in order to not depress GDP per capita. That is a higher standard to meet.
-
Oh hey, maslo, look: The UK is listening to you! (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-urged-to-rethink-new-35000-earnings-threshold-for-non-eu-migrants-as-teachers-face-a6814841.html)
TL;DR: Any non-EU immigrant in the UK earning less than 35000 GBP will be denied settlement and deported.
Never mind that a good portion of the nursing staff in the UK falls under that category. Never mind that the median income in the UK is just 25k GBP. Never mind that most of the people affected by this rule aren't welfare tourists, but rather people who came to the UK with the explicit intent of working there. This will surely improve matters in the UK drastically.
-
Look, the UK is a country that somehow allows housing developers to build houses on floodplains without anyone in the whole process questioning them. I don't think we can look to their government for standards of human decency, kindness, intelligence or common sense. Removing the very people that social security relies upon to function lies within that.
-
Look, the UK is a country that somehow allows housing developers to build houses on floodplains without anyone in the whole process questioning them.
Quoth the Dutchman!
-
I see this more a brinksmanship tactic from the Tories. They propose something fundamentally bad for the country but which appeals to the apes capable of being trained to put a cross in the correct place demographic. Everyone else is horrified by the sheer level of stupidity involved and complains about it. The Tories then backtrack but act like it's not their fault that Johnny Racist has to live next door to a family who earn more then them but happen to be the wrong skin colour.
Notice Cameron is basically doing the exact same thing for the exact same reasons with Brexit.
-
Oh hey, maslo, look: The UK is listening to you! (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-urged-to-rethink-new-35000-earnings-threshold-for-non-eu-migrants-as-teachers-face-a6814841.html)
TL;DR: Any non-EU immigrant in the UK earning less than 35000 GBP will be denied settlement and deported.
Never mind that a good portion of the nursing staff in the UK falls under that category. Never mind that the median income in the UK is just 25k GBP. Never mind that most of the people affected by this rule aren't welfare tourists, but rather people who came to the UK with the explicit intent of working there. This will surely improve matters in the UK drastically.
Now this is an excellent idea indeed! However the limit is higher than I would like, any earnings higher than average income should be acceptable, IMHO. But other than that I think this will help UK to continue to reap economic benefits from skilled immigration while at the same time protect UK citizens against negative effects of unregulated immigration, one of which is importing poverty in mass numbers. Best of both worlds.
-
And with that you've basically proven how clueless you actually are about immigration. This move would actually cripple the NHS almost immediately. Not to mention the absolute idiocy of losing almost every single nursing home worker (seriously, almost all of them are immigrants) in a country that already has a problem with an ageing population.
-
To use a similar example, look at what happened when the state of Alabama enacted incredibly harsh immigration laws (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/undocumented-workers-immigration-alabama). Beyond the now-required enforcement creating a massive compound cluster****, the best part of it is that the state's copious migrant farm workers left the state en masse (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/14/alabama-immigration-law-workers), leaving the agricultural industry with massive issues as it was unable to replace the lost labor. Turns out native Alabamans weren't showing up in droves to perform hard manual labor for hours on-end. Most of the laws' key provisions were either voluntarily overturned or brought down via legal challenges, and the whole experiment was widely considered to be a massive disaster.
What you seem to be willfully ignorant to acknowledge, maslo, is that the economies of many countries implicitly depend on widespread immigration (and yes that includes illegal immigration). If you arbitrarily cut off that immigration, the effects on any number of domestic industries will be catastrophic. That's not even touching on the fact that, without adequate numbers of immigrants, most first-world countries would experience burgeoning demographics crises (as already seen vividly in Japan), because their own citizens are quite frankly not popping out enough babies to meet population replacement rates.
-
Oh hey, maslo, look: The UK is listening to you! (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-urged-to-rethink-new-35000-earnings-threshold-for-non-eu-migrants-as-teachers-face-a6814841.html)
TL;DR: Any non-EU immigrant in the UK earning less than 35000 GBP will be denied settlement and deported.
Never mind that a good portion of the nursing staff in the UK falls under that category. Never mind that the median income in the UK is just 25k GBP. Never mind that most of the people affected by this rule aren't welfare tourists, but rather people who came to the UK with the explicit intent of working there. This will surely improve matters in the UK drastically.
Now this is an excellent idea indeed! However the limit is higher than I would like, any earnings higher than average income should be acceptable, IMHO. But other than that I think this will help UK to continue to reap economic benefits from skilled immigration while at the same time protect UK citizens against negative effects of unregulated immigration, one of which is importing poverty in mass numbers. Best of both worlds.
Something I forgot to mention: This rule isn't new. It was actually in effect for years, except the income threshold was set at a more reasonable 20800 GBP. This rule change very definitely only hits people who are already, by every criteria imaginable, productive workers.
-
Oh hey, maslo, look: The UK is listening to you! (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-urged-to-rethink-new-35000-earnings-threshold-for-non-eu-migrants-as-teachers-face-a6814841.html)
TL;DR: Any non-EU immigrant in the UK earning less than 35000 GBP will be denied settlement and deported.
Never mind that a good portion of the nursing staff in the UK falls under that category. Never mind that the median income in the UK is just 25k GBP. Never mind that most of the people affected by this rule aren't welfare tourists, but rather people who came to the UK with the explicit intent of working there. This will surely improve matters in the UK drastically.
Now this is an excellent idea indeed! However the limit is higher than I would like, any earnings higher than average income should be acceptable, IMHO. But other than that I think this will help UK to continue to reap economic benefits from skilled immigration while at the same time protect UK citizens against negative effects of unregulated immigration, one of which is importing poverty in mass numbers. Best of both worlds.
Maslo, as I usually agree with you, this time I will admit that E and Karajorma are right. UK's <and other western European coutries) economies are too much depend from cheap immigrant labour force to reverse it this way. Too late for this. In current situation such move would be.... reckless, to not use stronger words.
Better question would be what should we do too give a boost to our own economies without importing hundreds of thousands of people <and stop the escape of thousands of our own>. Ironically I may be forced to move somewhere else myself, as the salaries on geodesy market in Poland suck and the work market in hydrography <in which I specialize right now. Faaarrr better money then land surveys> is pretty small. Dream job... AUV (Autonomous Underwater Vehicle) operator. But that we shall see next year, when I graduate.
-
Yeah, the increased earning limit is possibly the dumbest measure they could have enacted. It's as if they tailored it to hurt a rather productive chunk of foreign workers rather than those who are actually troublesome. I don't think that's going to end well.
What they should do is to rework the social benefit system to be less prone to exploits. At least in the UK, I believe that this would do enough to solve their problems. Simply make sure that if they don't work, their standard of living becomes unacceptable. A bit like it works in Poland, TBH, though in our case it's almost certainly accidental. :)
Look, the UK is a country that somehow allows housing developers to build houses on floodplains without anyone in the whole process questioning them. I don't think we can look to their government for standards of human decency, kindness, intelligence or common sense. Removing the very people that social security relies upon to function lies within that.
Eh, houses on floodplains are nothing new. That mostly happens due to people thinking about money first and safety later. TBH, it's not even as idiotic as it sounds if you, for example, give your building garages on the first few floors (and let the tenants know what they're buying so they can get good car insurance). These things were done in Poland for years and the worst that happened was that a few cars and storage rooms got drenched. If you have a lot of floodplains this can make sense.
Now, the true idiocy is building things not designed for it on floodplains, like anything with just one floor or buildings that have sensitive equipment and living spaces near the ground. That's what they're currently doing in Poland. Right next to the aforementioned "flood-resistant", buildings, in fact... I don't know if UK is any smarter in that regard, but in either case, it seems like a more common problem than just in UK. But then, I think it's less about government and more about the corporations who design and build those.
-
I mean the biggest factor is that flood plains are, uh, plains, so they're very convenient to build on.
-
And with that you've basically proven how clueless you actually are about immigration. This move would actually cripple the NHS almost immediately. Not to mention the absolute idiocy of losing almost every single nursing home worker (seriously, almost all of them are immigrants) in a country that already has a problem with an ageing population.
As I said, I do think the proposed limit is too high. Average wage (25000 GBP) would be more reasonable. That would not cripple the NHS at all. It is the idea behind the law that I find very good.
-
Starting salary for an NHS nurse is around 21k GBP, rising to 28k GBP. The previous limit of 20800 GBP was pretty much exactly low enough for the NHS to work. This change is basically using anti-immigrant sentiment to further the Tories' agenda of crippling the NHS.
-
To use a similar example, look at what happened when the state of Alabama enacted incredibly harsh immigration laws (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/undocumented-workers-immigration-alabama). Beyond the now-required enforcement creating a massive compound cluster****, the best part of it is that the state's copious migrant farm workers left the state en masse (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/14/alabama-immigration-law-workers), leaving the agricultural industry with massive issues as it was unable to replace the lost labor. Turns out native Alabamans weren't showing up in droves to perform hard manual labor for hours on-end. Most of the laws' key provisions were either voluntarily overturned or brought down via legal challenges, and the whole experiment was widely considered to be a massive disaster.
That article you posted nicely illustrated my previous point. It is not the Alabama immigration law that failed. It is the enforcement of this law that has issues, and the reason why it has issues is because corrupt politicians were unwilling or too incompetent to enforce it properly.
As it turned out, the driver was an executive at Mercedes-Benz. The European car giant was one of several foreign auto companies in the state whose plants provide thousands of much-needed jobs. The incident was soon followed by another traffic arrest involving a Japanese Honda worker. Together, the auto blow-ups sparked an outcry from the business community, who feared companies would pull out of the state.
An important executive violates the law and the state is just supposed to ignore it? I dont think so. Any politician that capitulates to such pressure is a corrupt one in my book.
At courthouses, simple tasks like renewing one’s vehicle tags now required proof of legal status, which generated long lines for citizens and non-citizens alike. Utilities were unsure whether they needed to cut off service to residents who couldn’t prove citizenship.
Proof of legal status is simple and easy. How hard is it to show some kind of ID? Maybe the US should establish universal IDs like in mainland Europe, where you have to show such ID all the time, for almost all tasks, and yet it works great. Again, the problem is not with the law, the problem is with being too incompetent to enforce it, or worse, knowingly sabotaging it.
“People couldn’t get power or water, it was crazy,” Jeremy Love, an immigration attorney in Birmingham, recalled
Quite the opposite, getting water or power while being in the country illegaly is crazy.
While the restrictions eased over time, the initial passage of the law caused enough hardship to scar the immigrant community.
lol, the fact that there even is an illegal immigrant "community" shows how utterly weird US immigration policy is.
Almost all of those issues the article complains about could be solved by some kind of universal ID that covers immigration status. It is easy to do, we know that for a fact because it is done in mainland Europe, the only thing lacking is political will to do so.
the best part of it is that the state's copious migrant farm workers left the state en masse, leaving the agricultural industry with massive issues as it was unable to replace the lost labor.
Good. Any business that has to resort to hiring illegal aliens deserves to burn. Besides, you can have some cheap labor using legal guest workers. So I believe the reality was much different that those biased articles try to paint it. The labor exists, but hiring legal labor would cut into profits, which does not sit well with some powerful people..
That's not even touching on the fact that, without adequate numbers of immigrants, most first-world countries would experience burgeoning demographics crises (as already seen vividly in Japan), because their own citizens are quite frankly not popping out enough babies to meet population replacement rates.
Demographic crisis is not such a big issue as long as GDP per capita remains high and you allow qualified immigrants to come. Id rather take my chances with demographic crisis than unregulated mass immigration. Both are a problem, but the second one is worse.
-
Starting salary for an NHS nurse is around 21k GBP, rising to 28k GBP. The previous limit of 20800 GBP was pretty much exactly low enough for the NHS to work. This change is basically using anti-immigrant sentiment to further the Tories' agenda of crippling the NHS.
Then maybe you should raise it a bit? I think a nurse deserves at least average wage. Also, the limit only applies after 5 years of being in the country. That is enough time for the wage to rise above starting wage.
-
Maslo, correct me if I'm wrong, but your country isn't actually an immigration target, is it?
-
To use a similar example, look at what happened when the state of Alabama enacted incredibly harsh immigration laws (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/undocumented-workers-immigration-alabama).
Just to return to this article, because it is so weird. First, MSNBC seems to be a leftist source with strong pro-immigrant agenda, so of course they are going to paint the Alabama policy as failure. The article is making a big deal out of the need to show immigration status during various common tasks. But these complaints are incomprehensible to me, because over here you have to show ID, which includes nationality and immigration status, for these tasks, and it works great. You have to show ID during every car stop by the police, you have to show ID during visits to banks or every government office, you have to show ID to get water, electricity or any other utility, you have to show ID during interaction with schools or colleges, during interaction with many private businesses, and so on. This is not a problem at all. So why the hell would someone complain about it in Alabama? Makes me wonder if there is an ulterior motive behind it..
also, lo @ "incredibly harsh" immigration laws :D that are not harsh at all..
-
Maslo, correct me if I'm wrong, but your country isn't actually an immigration target, is it?
No, we are a transit country.
-
Maslo, correct me if I'm wrong, but your country isn't actually an immigration target, is it?
No, we are a transit country.
Figured as much.
To use a similar example, look at what happened when the state of Alabama enacted incredibly harsh immigration laws (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/undocumented-workers-immigration-alabama).
Just to return to this article, because it is so weird. First, MSNBC seems to be a leftist source with strong pro-immigrant agenda, so of course they are going to paint the Alabama policy as failure. The article is making a big deal out of the need to show immigration status during various common tasks. But these complaints are incomprehensible to me, because over here you have to show ID, which includes nationality and immigration status, for these tasks, and it works great. You have to show ID during every car stop by the police, you have to show ID during visits to banks or every government office, you have to show ID to get water, electricity or any other utility, you have to show ID during interaction with schools or colleges, during interaction with many private businesses, and so on. This is not a problem at all. So why the hell would someone complain about it in Alabama? Makes me wonder if there is an ulterior motive behind it..
National IDs are generally seen as a thing only totalitarian regimes do. Rejection of proposals to introduce them crosses party lines, neither liberals nor conservatives want them.
-
National IDs are generally seen as a thing only totalitarian regimes do. Rejection of proposals to introduce them crosses party lines, neither liberals nor conservatives want them.
Yeah, and that is one important reason why illegal immigration is such a problem in the US. Not because it cannot be prevented, but because they do not want to solve it for various ideological reasons. Similar sentiment about national IDs does not exist in mainland Europe, and this makes immigration control much tighter.
This is also why I am watching German immigration drama with interest right now. Because it is hard to actually live long term as an illegal in Europe, contrary to the US. Soon Germany will have more than half a million illegal aliens inside the country, that is those whose asylum claims got rejected. And they will not be able to function in society without valid IDs. So what will Germany do? Enact mass deportations as the law (and common sense) says? Or compromise already pretty weak immigration policy to be even less strict (similar to the one in Alabama, for example) to let them stay and live in Germany somehow? We will see..
-
I mean the biggest factor is that flood plains are, uh, plains, so they're very convenient to build on.
And they're plains because they flood regurarely: Their purpose* is to store excess water in case of flooding, and the erosion and sedimentary processes that occur during those floods ensure that the area around a river is flattened. You can totally use a floodplain for development purposes as long as you also take this flooding into account by either building your house like Dragon described (Which was actually a building method used quite often in The Netherlands too, untill we reinforced our levies. However, the british developments in floodplains lately have done neither, which is weird.
* Yes I understand that purpose is the wrong word for describing naturally occuring phenonoma.
-
So is Germany going to build a wall with a Petrol Tax?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nL_hWxOML0
-
National IDs are generally seen as a thing only totalitarian regimes do. Rejection of proposals to introduce them crosses party lines, neither liberals nor conservatives want them.
Yeah, and that is one important reason why illegal immigration is such a problem in the US. Not because it cannot be prevented, but because they do not want to solve it for various ideological reasons. Similar sentiment about national IDs does not exist in mainland Europe, and this makes immigration control much tighter.
When taking about US politics one important thing must be realized: Americans are fundamentally different from us. Some things that are normal for them would be outrageous here, and vice versa. Thus, concerns about well being of "the immigrant community" are normal. Being an "illegal immigrant" isn't really anything bad, those people work there and are pretty much a regular category of people. Most of them could probably easily get citizenship (and quite a few of them eventually do). It only seems weird from this side of the ocean, so to speak. Likewise, people in the US consider stopping someone's car without a very good reason a fundamental violation of one's rights, while it's done on a regular basis all over Europe, with little opposition. And it's a good thing, too. If it wasn't for that, roads in countries like Poland would be so full of drunks and smugglers that nobody else would dare to use them. :)
Some things are simpler in Europe, some in the US (Russia has yet another, different way of thinking). Democratic governments operate under certain constraints of what is ideologically acceptable to the masses. Attempting to consider an otherwise valid solution that violates this constraints is all but impossible in a democratic system. The only system that can ignore those is an outright dictatorship (it wouldn't even go over too well for a monarchy that wants to have the people on their side). What they tried doing in Alabama was executed very badly, partially because measures needed for it to succeed were among those "impossible" things. It probably wouldn't have helped their economy anyway, but that's a bit beside the point.
-
An important executive violates the law and the state is just supposed to ignore it? I dont think so. Any politician that capitulates to such pressure is a corrupt one in my book.
You're making a strawman argument because the point of that part of the article was not that powerful people should be above the law.
You obviously didn't read the article carefully because it's not the executive who violated the law. He was innocent, the problem was with the tag was on a rental car!. It's the responsibility of the car rental company to ensure that they correctly licence their vehicles. It's certainly not the responsibility of their customers to check that they have! The only crime that executive committed was to not have a driving licence on him (He did have an ID mind you!). Because of that he was arrested and detained until federal immigration authorities determined his fate. Do you honestly think that is a good idea?
The point of the article is that if you harass innocent people who are visiting your state then people are going to stop visiting your state. In this case the harassment occurred not to some unimportant illegal immigrant but to an executive who is responsible for the state having thousands of much needed jobs. Now I doubt that Mercedes-Benz were going to pull out of the state over the treatment of one executive but if they decide they should close one plant in America, it's not hard to imagine that the Alabama one is going to be the one that goes.
Your entire argument basically consists of massive amounts of "not thinking it through". That much was obvious in your simplistic arguments in favour of the latest idiocy from the Conservatives in the UK but it's even more obvious here. America makes a lot of money from tourism. Can you imagine how quickly that would dry up if every state had passed this law? Can't you see that the second we start hearing stories of tourists visiting the Statue of Liberty and then getting stopped and arrested for some minor infraction, no one would book their holiday in New York? People in general don't like to carry their ID with them at all times. On holiday where losing your passport can ruin the entire trip that is especially true. Even countries which have such a law on their books don't enforce it usually because it's such a pointless inconvenience for everyone concerned.
-
You're making a strawman argument because the point of that part of the article was not that powerful people should be above the law.
You obviously didn't read the article carefully because it's not the executive who violated the law. He was innocent, the problem was with the tag was on a rental car!. It's the responsibility of the car rental company to ensure that they correctly licence their vehicles. It's certainly not the responsibility of their customers to check that they have! The only crime that executive committed was to not have a driving licence on him (He did have an ID mind you!). Because of that he was arrested and detained until federal immigration authorities determined his fate. Do you honestly think that is a good idea?
Of course. It is an extremely good idea! You have a person that violated the law (no driving license while driving a car, thats more serious than just jaywalking) and so you must identify that person and also check their immigration status in the process. A totally legitimate reason to detain someone temporarily. Otherwise you would have anarchy.
As Dragon said, the mentality about immigration seems to be very different in the US than in Europe. That is the only way I can rationalize anyone having a problem with this process.
Your entire argument basically consists of massive amounts of "not thinking it through". That much was obvious in your simplistic arguments in favour of the latest idiocy from the Conservatives in the UK but it's even more obvious here. America makes a lot of money from tourism. Can you imagine how quickly that would dry up if every state had passed this law? Can't you see that the second we start hearing stories of tourists visiting the Statue of Liberty and then getting stopped and arrested for some minor infraction, no one would book their holiday in New York? People in general don't like to carry their ID with them at all times. On holiday where losing your passport can ruin the entire trip that is especially true. Even countries which have such a law on their books don't enforce it usually because it's such a pointless inconvenience for everyone concerned.
This is not true at all, and that is my main point. You are the one who isnt thinking things through. People in places where IDs are mandatory tend to carry national IDs almost all the time. The same with passports for tourists. It is not an inconvenience, it is like a credit card or driving license, you just put it in your wallet and there it sits. Police does check the ID during car stops or most other police interactions, too. Also, not having a driving license is not just a minor infraction, I would certainly expect to be temporarily detained for it, taken to a police station, especially if my identity or immigration status is unclear.
To sum up my point: checking ID and immigration status during those common situations we mentioned is easy and totally doable without violating any basic human rights.
A hundred countries in the world with mandatory national IDs routinely do exactly that.
If you dont want to have such system for ideological reasons (muh freedumbs!), fine.
But dont try to pretend that it somehow cannot be easily done, when most of the world can do it just fine. This whole moral panic about routine ID checks is most likely unique to common law based countries, or something. And the rest of the world knows that having your identity and immigration status routinely checked is not a big deal at all. Articles like that MSNBC opinion piece just make us cringe. OMG, I cannot drive without valid ID!? LOL :lol: of course you cannot..
-
Of course. It is an extremely good idea! You have a person that violated the law (no driving license while driving a car) and so you must identify that person and also check their immigration status in the process. A totally legitimate reason to detain someone. Otherwise you would have anarchy.
He had an ID card. You can ID him.
This is not true at all, and that is my main point. You are the one who isnt thinking things through. People in places where IDs are mandatory tend to carry national IDs almost all the time. The same with passports. It is not an inconvenience, it is like a credit card or driving license, you just put it in your wallet and there it sits.
I'm sorry but this is the point where I'm going to have to give up. If you are incapable of seeing why someone who is on holiday might not want to carry their passport around at all times and risk having it lost, stolen or damaged to the point where they have to go through the hassle of getting a new one before even being allowed to leave the country, then there is no point in even speaking to you.
-
He had an ID card. You can ID him.
If you can ID him, you can also check his immigration status. It should be included on the ID itself, or the policeman can use the information on the ID card to check the immigration status. And you certainly can temporarily detain someone who is driving without a driving license.
I'm sorry but this is the point where I'm going to have to give up. If you are incapable of seeing why someone who is on holiday might not want to carry their passport around at all times and risk having it lost, stolen or damaged to the point where they have to go through the hassle of getting a new one before even being allowed to leave the country, then there is no point in even speaking to you.
If you dont want to carry your passport with you all the time, fine. But then be prepared to produce that passport in a timely manner when you violate the law, including driving without a driving license. If you have a problem with this simple concept, then I agree, there is no point speaking about it further, as we probably wont agree.
-
If you can ID him, you can also check his immigration status. It should be included on the ID itself, or the policeman can use the information on the ID card to check the immigration status. And you certainly can temporarily detain someone who is driving without a driving license.
No, you cannot, at least not under the applicable Alabama laws (which define driving without a driver's licence as a non-arresting offence).
-
I'm curious about how it works in Germany, I recall being warned of travelling there without a passport. I think it went so that you have to be able to prove your identity if the police asks, and in this case foreigners would need a passport to do that. However, that's a document I prefer not to carry with me if I have any kind of trust in the hotel and prefer to leave it in my room.
The question comes, what happens if I don't have the passport with me when stopped by the police?
-
As a german national, I am only required to own an ID card, I am not required to have it with me at all times (There are exceptions to this: If I am working in a business that is regularly controlled by the authorities for of-the-book workers, then I am required to have my ID with me) (§1 PAuswG (http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/pauswg/__1.html))
For foreign citizens, similar rules apply: You have to have valid ID documents on entering and exiting Germany, and while in Germany, you are required to own (but not carry) valid ID (§8 FreizügG/EU (http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/freiz_gg_eu_2004/__8.html), §3 AufenthG (http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/aufenthg_2004/__3.html))
(IANAL, obviously)
-
When it comes to the UK there is no requirement whatsoever to carry ID with you at all times either. In fact in the UK you don't even need your driving licence when driving a car. If you are pulled over and the vehicle isn't reported stolen they'll give you a "produce", which means you have a certain number of hours to go to a police station and produce your documents.
Personally I've never understood why other countries insist that you basically have all the documentation required to steal someone's car (or identity) with the vehicle. I can't see how it doesn't encourage crime.
-
As for what happens when you are stopped by the police without ID documents: This strongly depends on context. If you're stopped while riding your bike because of some minor misconduct (not that I'm speaking from experience on that one or anything *ahem*), the plod will usually let you off with a caution (or, if you're able to pay the fine right then and there, let you do that). If you're currently, say, part of a violent mob, I'm guessing different rules apply.
-
I got extremely lucky with cops once, when I was pulled over for driving at night whilst my lights were not fully functioning (I had not noticed this myself, as it turned out one light was half-dimmed), and all I had with me was my... public transport card.
I managed to get away with it by simply saying "Look, I know I forgot something very important and I am sorry for it, but y'all got this big database of drivers licenses already, surely you can just look me up and see that the pictures match?"
As it turned out, they could, so it was okay, but oof.
I'm sorry but this is the point where I'm going to have to give up. If you are incapable of seeing why someone who is on holiday might not want to carry their passport around at all times and risk having it lost, stolen or damaged to the point where they have to go through the hassle of getting a new one before even being allowed to leave the country, then there is no point in even speaking to you.
It should perhaps be noted that Dubai uses this tactic to abuse their migrant population (The UAE is entirely dependent on migrant workers for their economy): The government seizes the employees documents and will only release them at the express permission of the employer, thus preventing them from leaving the country. This practice leaves them entirely at the mercy of the employer and has been compared to slavery.
-
It is rather fun to see maslo's staggering ignorance of not only common-law practices (and if having to do the likes of carrying around a national ID at all times is standard operating procedure in other parts of the world, then thank God for common-law), not to mention the economic realities of big chunks of the first world. Case in point: sure, forcefully deport all illegal migrant farm workers, and then see how well you do when millions of tons' worth of crops rot on the vine, and food prices skyrocket. And yep, the fact that Japan's barely having any kids is no problem whatsoever, right?
-
Personally I've never understood why other countries insist that you basically have all the documentation required to steal someone's car (or identity) with the vehicle. I can't see how it doesn't encourage crime.
In the US license and registration don't prove ownership of the car, just that the car is registered with the state. Title proves you own the car, and isn't carried.
-
In the US license and registration don't prove ownership of the car, just that the car is registered with the state. Title proves you own the car, and isn't carried.
Ah. Fair enough. In the UK we just have the tax disc which you have to display in the window for that instead. But surely someone's drivers licence is very useful if you want to steal their identity. right? And surely the requirement to always have the drivers licence on you if you are pulled over does encourage people to keep it in the glove compartment (even if that is not a smart thing to do).
-
In the US license and registration don't prove ownership of the car, just that the car is registered with the state. Title proves you own the car, and isn't carried.
Ah. Fair enough. In the UK we just have the tax disc which you have to display in the window for that instead. But surely someone's drivers licence is very useful if you want to steal their identity. right? And surely the requirement to always have the drivers licence on you if you are pulled over does encourage people to keep it in the glove compartment (even if that is not a smart thing to do).
These laws come from an era where the best way of letting other police officers know that a person's driving license was revoked was by physically seizing the driving license.
-
But surely someone's drivers licence is very useful if you want to steal their identity. right? And surely the requirement to always have the drivers licence on you if you are pulled over does encourage people to keep it in the glove compartment (even if that is not a smart thing to do).
Speaking from experience, while the first part is true, your license is basically an ID card in itself and lives in your wallet along with credit/debit cards and any other magnetic strip/chip cards, healthcare/car insurance cards if you have them, etc. You might lose it if you lose your wallet, but there are things in there that can hurt you a lot more quickly in that sense.
Since a lot of places require you to show photo ID with the use of a check or a large credit/debit purchase to avoid exactly this sort of ID theft situation, your drivers license pretty much can't live in your car. It has to stay with you.
-
Fair enough. As I said before, I'm from a country where you're not required to even have ID. I think many Americans would be surprised by how much you can get by in the UK without any form of ID.
-
Getting back to criminal immigrants in Germany, 2 days ago, the newspaper "Welt" wrote that the NRW authorities were warned about crimes by people of north-african descent as far back as October 2014, but kept quiet about it in order to keep the peace.
This news was happily regurgitated, is being happily regurgitated in fact, by the usual right wing idiots. Pegida, AfD, GDL, Pro Deutschland, everyone couldn't wait to scream about what a scandal this is and how everyone's been lying again, bla bla bla.
Except for a few small, unimportant details. Yes, there was a session where these things were discussed. Yes, it did happen in October 2014. Publically. As in, the session was held with open doors and full access for anyone who cared to listen in. The protocol of this session, which Welt depicts as breaking news just newly uncovered and long suppressed, was available publically soon after that session.
As for there being a decision to actively suppress these news? Welt says there was one, the protocol disagrees: People were talking about how these news would impact the public perception of the refugees and how it would affect the public sentiment for or against their acceptance; at no point were active measures to suppress news discussed or decided on.
As much as Pegida et al rail about the press lying at every turn, they seem more than ready to blindly believe them when it suits them.
Source: Bildblog (http://www.bildblog.de/75700/die-welt-verheimlicht-dass-nichts-verheimlicht-wurde/),
-
now everything has come full circle (http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/German-Jewish-leaders-We-are-no-longer-safe-here-442078)
-
If you look at the reasons provided it becomes more obvious that this is not so much an immigration problem as it is a problem with Israel's foreign policy not being in line with their raison d'être. This absolutely sucks, but things will not come full circle untill somewhere in what we have decided to call the western world a nation arises that massively detains, deports and dehumanizes entire population groups.
Anyway, as this is the current refugee thread, there was this interesting TED talk:
-
sure, forcefully deport all illegal migrant farm workers, and then see how well you do when millions of tons' worth of crops rot on the vine, and food prices skyrocket. And yep, the fact that Japan's barely having any kids is no problem whatsoever, right?
The thing is, US produced food prices are too low and they actually should increase. Cost of any domestically produced product should be high enough to cover legal labour requirements to create that product, including respecting minimum wage laws and the cost of having legal workforce. So let the crops rot, and maybe next year US food producers will adapt to pay enough money to employees to produce the food without the need to import a new semi-permanent underclass into the economy and thus ****ing the country over for profits.
Also, I did not say Japan "Japan's barely having any kids is no problem whatsoever", I said it is a lesser problem than unregulated mass immigration would be. Using unregulated mass immigration to solve demographic issues is like curing the disease by killing the patient. But its nice to see that my argumentation is so refined that you have to construct an obvious strawman to even begin to address it.. :D
-
@Josh - well, I was mostly posting it due to the inherent irony.
-
Sanctuary / political asylum is a basic human right, and is part of the German constitution as it should be. This whole natonalistic, borderline racist discussion is terrible. You CANNOT close the ****ing borders unless you want to kick said basic human rights and shoot the people yourself. This whole all-inclusive conviction of foreigners, while all too human, is not humane (great sentence). Accepting others does obviously not mean that we do not apply our laws, for instance the punishment for sexual harassment, endangering others or contempt of court and police. We apply them to the people responsible like a good constitutional state should. And we can also take steps to protect our populace from such things as long as it does not end up in the above mentioned general conviction.
From my perspective as a German, there are three really terrible things here:
A) the degree of organization involved... The offenders had sheets of paper with obscene and agressive statements with them, translating Arabic into German. I am not one for conspiracy theories but this is really weird to me. Plus Cologne was not the only city, although that one is most prominently featured in the media. Someone is behind this, a party who wants to make things worse for refugees and create an acceptance for more inhumane politics. Could be anyone from Salafi extremists trying to make recruitment easier (we had stuff like this in Germany before) to actual ****ing Nazis trying to gain points with the populace ("we were always right, you see?")
B) the scary degree of hidden racism that now once again surfaces in our socity. Now before you misquote me on that, I do not believe this is a German thing. But when your parents-in-law start to parrot made up facts by idiotic people out of a sudden, I wonder in which county I live in. Thought about going to Finland or Sweden or something as they seem to be the last remaining bastion of humane politics. And then I read an article about paramilitaric criminal Nazis in Finland patrolling the streets now to "protect the people" and actually getting praised by the ****ing police for it... world's gone to **** :-(
C) Germany has a pretty strong position in Europe and has used that position to do some stupid things foreign-politics-wise that do not really express solidarity. So did the other wealthy northern countries, not to mention the absolutely crazy special treatment that Britian has pretty much blackmailed the others to grant. Central Europe has dumped the refugees on Greek and Italy in the past, stupid mistake.
But the fact that absolutely everyone flat out refuses to acknowledge that we are a european UNION at the moment... I am shocked and strongly believe that we are currently seeing the cracks in the united Europe. It is falling apart all around us, with natonalistic thinking being on the rise.
-
And then I read an article about paramilitaric criminal Nazis in Finland patrolling the streets now to "protect the people" and actually getting praised by the ****ing police for it... world's gone to **** :-(
Well, I don't know where you read that but as far as I know it's quite a hyperbolic misrepresentation. It's been a hot topic here for weeks and it sure looks like 90% moral panic and 10% actual issue.
-
The thing is, the people are ultimately selfish creatures. Social structures ultimately exist to benefit their members. When a social structure (such as the EU) stops to benefit its members (or is perceived by a majority of them as having done so), it falls apart into entities that fulfill that condition, or at least seem to. As far as most people are concerned, the refugees are not "us". If the government starts prioritizing "them" (or itself) over "us", then there is no point in tolerating the government any more. Ultimately, this boils down to the old paradigm: Knights defend peasants, peasants feed knights. And if a knight spends his whole day rescuing princesses instead of chasing bandits off his village, he'll soon find himself doing that on an empty stomach. Both sides attempted, over the ages, to find a "better" (for them) system, but all that knights have achieved was to intimidate peasants into feeding them instead of doing them favors (later they found it wasn't such a good idea), while peasants figured (a bit later) they could pick knights from among themselves (they are yet to find it wasn't such a good idea, but we're slowly starting to see just that happen...). Ultimately, every government in history boiled down to that, "human rights" and "humane behavior" are recent inventions by no means inherent in how the society works. It is rather logical they're one of the first things to go down the drain when a crisis strikes.
Ultimately, when faced with choice between acting humane and acting selfish, most people will choose the latter. They only chose the former if it benefits them (say, due to social pressure enforcing humane behavior). It is up to the government to protect their people without needless cruelty to those that they protect them from. Nationalism will exist as long as nations themselves do, it's up to national leaders to prevent it from turning ugly.
sure, forcefully deport all illegal migrant farm workers, and then see how well you do when millions of tons' worth of crops rot on the vine, and food prices skyrocket. And yep, the fact that Japan's barely having any kids is no problem whatsoever, right?
The thing is, US produced food prices are too low and they actually should increase. Cost of any domestically produced product should be high enough to cover legal labour requirements to create that product, including respecting minimum wage laws and the cost of having legal workforce. So let the crops rot, and maybe next year US food producers will adapt to pay enough money to employees to produce the food without the need to import a new semi-permanent underclass into the economy and thus ****ing the country over for profits.
The thing is, there's a good chance that in this case, US food would be so expensive that people wouldn't be able to afford it. Food is sold at the price that people can buy it at. This is a basic law of the market. In an unregulated capitalism, wages of the workers would drop until food is affordable. If a minimum wage is enforced, this would artificially dictate a minimum food price, which could be too high for it to be profitable (because people working at this minimum wage couldn't afford it). That probably wouldn't lead to a famine, but to increased import of foreign food (since it's not something people can go without), probably from a country that does not have such high standards as the US. Ultimately, the only difference is where the slaves are. Which is better, having people toiling in sweatshops for a few table scraps per day in the US, or having people toiling in sweatshops for a few table scraps per day in China? The only difference would be that foreign food would have added import costs, so it'd have to be made even cheaper than if it was made locally.
Also, it's not a "new" semi-permanent underclass, at least in the US. This underclass has a long tradition in the US. It being semi-permanent is a good thing, since it means people have a chance of getting out of it. In the US economic situation, this is something that works. Not only that, it's deeply entrenched in the US economic ecosystem. Breaking it would be a disaster, as Alabama example has shown.
-
But the fact that absolutely everyone flat out refuses to acknowledge that we are a european UNION at the moment... I am shocked and strongly believe that we are currently seeing the cracks in the united Europe. It is falling apart all around us, with natonalistic thinking being on the rise.
Yeah.. solidarity, unity, etc. Beautiful words but it all gets ripped to shreds when it comes to the most important type of relations between the countries. That is business <which was the very basic reason to create EU by the way>. So, some German politicians talk about solidarity to reduce the refugee problem laying on their shoulders, using many beautiful, powerfull words while making deals with Russians about Nord Stream II pipeline at the same time <sanctions, lel>, which violates many national interests of my country (pipe on the bottom can make big difficulties for the Świnoujście LNG Terminal because the biggest vessels may not be able to get through. And many other problems). That's solidarity? No, it's business. Countries don't have friends. There's interests and business.
And not everybody is sharing the same opinion about accepting the German views on mass, uncontrolled immigration. And if you try to make them accept it by force <political, diplomatic, whatever>, you will achieve exactly the opposite thing.
And no, the cracks are not created by "nationalist thinking" or mythical Nazis pulling the strings. These things are just a result of the basic problem. They're caused by interests differences of many nations and groups. The migrant crisis just enhanced that fact. I'm even more confident about that when I hear that stupid accusations about "endangered Polish democracy" coming from EU officials :lol:.
-
Sanctuary / political asylum is a basic human right, and is part of the German constitution as it should be. This whole natonalistic, borderline racist discussion is terrible. You CANNOT close the ****ing borders unless you want to kick said basic human rights and shoot the people yourself. This whole all-inclusive conviction of foreigners, while all too human, is not humane (great sentence). Accepting others does obviously not mean that we do not apply our laws, for instance the punishment for sexual harassment, endangering others or contempt of court and police. We apply them to the people responsible like a good constitutional state should. And we can also take steps to protect our populace from such things as long as it does not end up in the above mentioned general conviction.
It is not accepting immigrants itself that causes the problem, it is HOW we do it. Pope Francis called each parish to give shelter to one refugee family - and that's great! Because this family settles in Europe, works in Europe (as churches often help such people find a job), live among Europeans and adapts to European style of living and morality, with its work ethics, respect for personal freedom, for women, homosexuals, etc. Helping those in need should be done by churches and NGOs SELECTING those most in need and helping them. Europe does the opposite. Europe lets in huge masses of people and puts them in refugee camps where they live by rules they brought from Asia and Africa. Europe (some countries at least) gives them social benefits even if they are young healthy men capable of working. We are helping in a way that does more harm than good and what's more we are not helping the ones that are truly in need. Know why? Because they are mostly still in Syria or in refugee camps in Turkey and Liban. Because they can't afford paying smugglers to bring them to Europe. As long as Europe is focused on accepting immigrants and providing them shelter here, it cannot draw efforts to helping people out there, in the war zone in the Middle-East.
A) the degree of organization involved... The offenders had sheets of paper with obscene and agressive statements with them, translating Arabic into German. I am not one for conspiracy theories but this is really weird to me. Plus Cologne was not the only city, although that one is most prominently featured in the media. Someone is behind this, a party who wants to make things worse for refugees and create an acceptance for more inhumane politics. Could be anyone from Salafi extremists trying to make recruitment easier (we had stuff like this in Germany before) to actual ****ing Nazis trying to gain points with the populace ("we were always right, you see?")
I'm not in favour of such conspiracy theories, but I agree extremist parties will try to use each crime commited by a migrant to escalate violence and hatred towards migrants in general. And Germany's policy of silencing media and police from informing about migrants' crimes is leading exactly to drawing more and more people to the extremists - because it finally goes to daylight, and when it does, it makes the state and the police totally untrustworthy.
B) the scary degree of hidden racism that now once again surfaces in our socity. Now before you misquote me on that, I do not believe this is a German thing. But when your parents-in-law start to parrot made up facts by idiotic people out of a sudden, I wonder in which county I live in. Thought about going to Finland or Sweden or something as they seem to be the last remaining bastion of humane politics. And then I read an article about paramilitaric criminal Nazis in Finland patrolling the streets now to "protect the people" and actually getting praised by the ****ing police for it... world's gone to **** :-(
Humans often tend to categorize people according to race, language or religion. They seek a way to simplify the world around. If they see wave of migrants flooding Europe, some of them committing crimes and the state being totally defenceless - the simple reaction is "we need to fight them, if the govt leaves us on our own, maybe someone else could help?" and that drives them to extremist forces. I'm terrified looking at radicals gaining support throughout Europe and that's why I oppose EU's policy so strong. Either we resolve the crysis by stopping the migration wave, or in several years someone much worse than Pegida will.
C) Germany has a pretty strong position in Europe and has used that position to do some stupid things foreign-politics-wise that do not really express solidarity. So did the other wealthy northern countries, not to mention the absolutely crazy special treatment that Britian has pretty much blackmailed the others to grant. Central Europe has dumped the refugees on Greek and Italy in the past, stupid mistake.
But the fact that absolutely everyone flat out refuses to acknowledge that we are a european UNION at the moment... I am shocked and strongly believe that we are currently seeing the cracks in the united Europe. It is falling apart all around us, with natonalistic thinking being on the rise.
EU is falling apart as it fails to solve European problems - from eurozone crysis to migrant flood. I am euro-sceptic and I agree with Hornet that EU is mainly about national interests. But thanks to EU Germany has a dominant position on the continent. They should be interested in EU being strong and stable. So why support a policy that dismantles EU, makes Europe torn apart by ethnic conflicts and makes countries close borders?
-
The thing is, US produced food prices are too low and they actually should increase. Cost of any domestically produced product should be high enough to cover legal labour requirements to create that product, including respecting minimum wage laws and the cost of having legal workforce. So let the crops rot, and maybe next year US food producers will adapt to pay enough money to employees to produce the food without the need to import a new semi-permanent underclass into the economy and thus ****ing the country over for profits.
Yes, US food prices are too low. That's exactly why the US government subsidizes farmers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_States) to (among other things) not grow certain crops, so as to avoid flooding the market and guarantee a set price floor. This is what I meant by you not having a particularly good grasp on the reality of US society and policies.
Also, I did not say Japan "Japan's barely having any kids is no problem whatsoever", I said it is a lesser problem than unregulated mass immigration would be. Using unregulated mass immigration to solve demographic issues is like curing the disease by killing the patient. But its nice to see that my argumentation is so refined that you have to construct an obvious strawman to even begin to address it.. :D
All you said about demographics is that mass immigration would be worse, yet you gave no actual concrete evidence as to why. And why did you assume we were talking about "unregulated" immigration?
-
Ultimately, when faced with choice between acting humane and acting selfish, most people will choose the latter. They only chose the former if it benefits them (say, due to social pressure enforcing humane behavior). It is up to the government to protect their people without needless cruelty to those that they protect them from. Nationalism will exist as long as nations themselves do, it's up to national leaders to prevent it from turning ugly.
I'll use this tangent to jump off here; When you look at the migrant crises and the causes of it, the whole reason why it is currently occuring is because people do not realize that the most selfish option is also the most humane one. Consider the TED talk I posted up there earlier: Jordan is doing better at handling the refugee crisis then the EU is, whilst the EU is having to handle 1 refugee for every 2000 people and Jordan has to handle 1 refugee for every 3 Jordans. The difference being that Jordan grabbed the bull by it's horns whilst the EU cowardly scampered off citing something about dangerous immigrants.
But immigrants are not dangerous at all. There is no reason that the EU can not handle 1 refugee for every 2000 of it's citizens. It's not like it has picked up refugees before and integrated them succesfully: In the Netherlands, Iraqi refugees commit less crimes then the home-grown dutch people who are in similar social positions. The biggest problem the Iraqis in holland currently face is not that they have not integrated succesfully (Because they have!): It's that the dutch government is obstructing the return to their home country with a lot of red tape.
Let that sink in for a bit: The biggest problem that Iraqis in the Netherlands face is bureaucracy.
But alright, say that we can't handle a bunch of refugees. Let's say that we should let Jordan (and other countries neighbouring Syria) handle them all: They seem to be willing, there's less of a cultural divide, there's no nazis there. Okay. It's alright - So why have we stopped giving them money? We already have this UN thing that has been created to prevent innocents from suffering from regional and geopolitical nonsense. A significant part of the UN is handling refugees. The UN is currently helping out handling refugees in Jordan. This is a selfish solution: We pay someone else to ensure that we won't have problems. But many EU countries stopped doing that at the start of their 2015 budgets. By doing so, the countries that were already struggling to help their fellows suddenly found themselves in a situation so dire that people were fleeing their refugee camps. The EU has decided to walk a path that is neither selfish nor humane, but simply foolish: In this situation, everyone has it worse.
-
Sanctuary / political asylum is a basic human right, and is part of the German constitution as it should be.
Sure. But there is a huge difference between right to asylum and what is happening now in Europe. Asylum is for those who are in danger. This obviously does not apply to vast majority of that 1.1 million people who arrived into Germany this year. They are economic migrants, and as such should not be let inside.
-
Which is better, having people toiling in sweatshops for a few table scraps per day in the US, or having people toiling in sweatshops for a few table scraps per day in China?
The second one, obviously? Those "few scraps" go a longer way in a poorer country than in a wealthier one. What you call "few scraps" may very well be around average wage in China.
And no less importantly , the second case also keeps inequality under control.
-
Yes, US food prices are too low. That's exactly why the US government subsidizes farmers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_States) to (among other things) not grow certain crops, so as to avoid flooding the market and guarantee a set price floor. This is what I meant by you not having a particularly good grasp on the reality of US society and policies.
All you said about demographics is that mass immigration would be worse, yet you gave no actual concrete evidence as to why. And why did you assume we were talking about "unregulated" immigration?
Wait, you respond to my claim that US food prices are too low by posting a link that shows that US food prices for certain crops are too low? Thanks for proving my point, I guess..
All you said about demographics is that mass immigration would be worse, yet you gave no actual concrete evidence as to why. And why did you assume we were talking about "unregulated" immigration?
I assumed unregulated mass immigration because that is what we are talking about. Current immigration wave into western Europe, but also illegal immigration into the US, can both be described as unregulated mass immigration. Everyone and their dog can just walk right in, thats the reality of it.
I have no issue with properly regulated immigration at all.
As for why, I have said why many times over. In short, unregulated mass immigration tends to decrease GDP per capita (so dont expect them to pay for your retirement), increase crime, decrease social cohesion and increase religious extremism (specifically muslims). Thats why immigrants should be handpicked.
-
We already have this UN thing that has been created to prevent innocents from suffering from regional and geopolitical nonsense. A significant part of the UN is handling refugees. The UN is currently helping out handling refugees in Jordan. This is a selfish solution: We pay someone else to ensure that we won't have problems. But many EU countries stopped doing that at the start of their 2015 budgets. By doing so, the countries that were already struggling to help their fellows suddenly found themselves in a situation so dire that people were fleeing their refugee camps.
More foreign aid is what I would support 100%. If there is one thing EU has in abundance when compared to most of the world, it is money. So that is what we should use to help. And every euro we give to fund those refugee camps will be much better utilized over there where prices are lower than housing people inside EU itself. For example, Germany is expected to pay 17 billion euros for their so-called "refugees" this year. Yet EU has problems scraping together 3 billion for Turkey to help genuine refugees located there, living in poverty. Selfish or not, giving those 17 billion to Turkey and Jordan instead would be the most rational and ultimately, the most humanitarian, too.
-
Which is better, having people toiling in sweatshops for a few table scraps per day in the US, or having people toiling in sweatshops for a few table scraps per day in China?
The second one, obviously? Those "few scraps" go a longer way in a poorer country than in a wealthier one. What you call "few scraps" may very well be around average wage in China.
And no less importantly , the second case also keeps inequality under control.
No, scraps are scraps. The difference is that in China, they're glad to get even that. How does it "keep inequality under control"? By separating unequal people with a border? A hungry person is hungry, inhumane conditions are inhumane, no matter which country you're in. Since those things are inevitable, given the economic situation, the difference is that the first case contributes to the US economy and the second one doesn't.
The conditions that US illegal immigrants work in are actually rather good compared to some Asian countries. As I said, this makes economic sense, given the conditions. And while US food might be too cheap now, driving out illegal immigrants would almost certainly cause the price to skyrocket.
But alright, say that we can't handle a bunch of refugees. Let's say that we should let Jordan (and other countries neighbouring Syria) handle them all: They seem to be willing, there's less of a cultural divide, there's no nazis there. Okay. It's alright - So why have we stopped giving them money? We already have this UN thing that has been created to prevent innocents from suffering from regional and geopolitical nonsense. A significant part of the UN is handling refugees. The UN is currently helping out handling refugees in Jordan. This is a selfish solution: We pay someone else to ensure that we won't have problems. But many EU countries stopped doing that at the start of their 2015 budgets. By doing so, the countries that were already struggling to help their fellows suddenly found themselves in a situation so dire that people were fleeing their refugee camps. The EU has decided to walk a path that is neither selfish nor humane, but simply foolish: In this situation, everyone has it worse.
I wonder why the subsidies stopped, too. TBH, this issue has been conspicuously absent from the news. We wouldn't be in this fix if the EU didn't grab hold of the idiot ball. Why couldn't we pay Jordan (a modern monarchy perfectly capable of keeping Arabs under control), Turkey, Oman, or any other reasonable country in the Middle East to take those people in instead? I had no idea this option was even on the table, but it seems that it used to work that way until recently.
Are the people in charge of EU really that moronic, or was there something I missed?
-
Well, it was reported (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/06/refugee-crisis-un-agencies-broke-failing), but, ya know, politics.
-
Yes, US food prices are too low. That's exactly why the US government subsidizes farmers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_States) to (among other things) not grow certain crops, so as to avoid flooding the market and guarantee a set price floor. This is what I meant by you not having a particularly good grasp on the reality of US society and policies.
All you said about demographics is that mass immigration would be worse, yet you gave no actual concrete evidence as to why. And why did you assume we were talking about "unregulated" immigration?
Wait, you respond to my claim that US food prices are too low by posting a link that shows that US food prices for certain crops are too low? Thanks for proving my point, I guess..
Quite the contrary. You claimed that US food prices are being kept artificially low by cheap labor, when the reality is that they're being kept artificially high by government subsidies. We are literally able to produce more food than we know what to do with.
-
You know those two points are not mutually exclusive, right? As in food prices could be artificially low due to cheap illegal labor and steps have been taken to counteract the prices without addressing the root cause.
-
Using the phrase "illegal labor" is actually pretty amusing in this context. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_farm)
-
not sure I get the joke. I'm guessing you don't like that phrase? What would you call labor that was compensated at below minimum wage levels?
-
I was making a play on the term "illegal labor" as using prisoners for a cheap agricultural labor force (because they did illegal things to be sent to prison). And also demonstrating that it's not just migrant workers who work for little to nothing!
-
Quite the contrary. You claimed that US food prices are being kept artificially low by cheap labor, when the reality is that they're being kept artificially high by government subsidies. We are literally able to produce more food than we know what to do with.
You are proving my point yet again. If you are literally able to produce more food than you know what to do with, then it follows that food prices are too low. Thats basic economics, supply and demand. Those subsidies are a mere reaction to this overproduction of food due to too much cheap labor.
-
No, scraps are scraps. The difference is that in China, they're glad to get even that. How does it "keep inequality under control"? By separating unequal people with a border? A hungry person is hungry, inhumane conditions are inhumane, no matter which country you're in. Since those things are inevitable, given the economic situation, the difference is that the first case contributes to the US economy and the second one doesn't.
The conditions that US illegal immigrants work in are actually rather good compared to some Asian countries. As I said, this makes economic sense, given the conditions. And while US food might be too cheap now, driving out illegal immigrants would almost certainly cause the price to skyrocket.
Yes, separating unequal economies with a border is a great way to keep economic inequality under control. Global economic inequality is very high, and the most important thing that prevents this huge inequality from manifesting on a local, national level with all its destructive consequences is separation, be it natural (distance, geographical barrier) or artificial (borders and tight immigration policies). As for "contributing to the US economy", that is pretty debatable. I believe too much cheap labor is harmful for the economy. It harms native lower classes who have to compete with foreign people willing to work for third world wages. The narrative about immigrants stealing jobs is usually false, but it is probably true when it comes to the most vulnerable of jobs, meaning the low qualified working class ones. And while abundant cheap labor may increase GDP, it does not increase GDP per capita, the real measure of any countrys wealth. It may even decrease it. US economy would be better off with somewhat less cheap labor available, IMHO. Food prices would not skyrocket anymore than they skyrocket in other countries without cheap illegal labor, they would only modestly increase. But employment and wages among native lower class would increase, too. So it is a win in the end.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/does-immigration-harm-working-americans/384060/
-
Except we've seen time and time again that if you try to get natives to do jobs immigrants do, they'll either do a poor job or fail to turn up after realizing that harvest work is really hard. Not to mention that the number of people applying to these jobs out of their own volition is ridiculously small.
How do you plan on addressing this? Say you're a farmer in the US. Every harvest season, you get a bunch of helpers from Mexico to help you clear your fields and get the produce to market. Now President Trump comes into office, and declares the US/Mexican border closed for non-US citizens, and starts to enforce this effectively. What do you do to get stuff off of the fields and into the markets? And, on a broader scale, what happens to the 64 billion USD the US makes from agricultural exports?
-
Well obviously you can get the natives on your fields by paying them enough. If all you got to offer is hard work for little pay, then of course no one will do it except those for whom it's the only choice.
-
Okay, so that means you'll have to raise your prices, which will raise prices across the board. Which will make the same people who are angry about immigrnats stealing their jobs angry at you for increasing the price of bread.
-
boohoo we aren't exploiting poor people. The fact the US has become complacent about an effective servant class I don't think is a good thing. and all the kids complaining about how there are no jobs can now work a field, and yeah, they'll ***** but if they want to eat they'll work. The fact things have degenerated to the degree they have is not an argument in favor of it any more than it was a when the argument was being made for slavery.
-
Now President Trump comes into office, and declares the US/Mexican border closed for non-US citizens, and starts to enforce this effectively. What do you do to get stuff off of the fields and into the markets?
Obviously, I do the only thing I can do - I raise the wages to attract workers. I can also import guest workers from abroad, but it will have to be done legally, with those migrant workers being registered with the state as temporary workforce and their whereabouts tracked, and respecting minimum wage laws and paying taxes.
And if I cannot do it for a fair price, then I am part of the problem of overproduction of food in the US, and it is arguably better for the economy for me to go out of business and change my occupation.
-
Okay, so that means you'll have to raise your prices, which will raise prices across the board. Which will make the same people who are angry about immigrnats stealing their jobs angry at you for increasing the price of bread.
At least they will now have more jobs with better pay available in the food production sector (and other immigrant dominated sectors, too). All things considered, this would be a net improvement for the native lower class, IMHO, as they would have less competition on the job market and so their bargaining force would increase.
-
Now President Trump comes into office, and declares the US/Mexican border closed for non-US citizens, and starts to enforce this effectively. What do you do to get stuff off of the fields and into the markets?
Obviously, I do the only thing I can do - I raise the wages to attract workers. I can also import guest workers from abroad, but it will have to be done legally, with those migrant workers being registered with the state as temporary workforce and their whereabouts tracked, and respecting minimum wage laws and paying taxes.
No. You can't. President Trump, following the advice of noted economics expert 666maslo666, wants all the low quality foreigners out of the country. You cannot get low-qualified workers from abroad when you could get them right here.
And if I cannot do it for a fair price, then I am part of the problem of overproduction of food in the US, and it is arguably better for the economy for me to go out of business and change my occupation.
What's a fair price?
At least they will now have more jobs with better pay available in the food production sector (and other immigrant dominated sectors, too). All things considered, this would be a net improvement for the native lower class, IMHO, as they would have less competition on the job market and so their bargaining force would increase.
Except the better pay these people supposedly have is eaten up by an across-the-board price hike. And bargaining force for the worker class? Please. I tell you where the bargaining force is: 64 billion USD in foreign trade profits this scheme of yours is endangering.
-
No. You can't. President Trump, following the advice of noted economics expert 666maslo666, wants all the low quality foreigners out of the country. You cannot get low-qualified workers from abroad when you could get them right here.
What's a fair price?
Except the better pay these people supposedly have is eaten up by an across-the-board price hike. And bargaining force for the worker class? Please. I tell you where the bargaining force is: 64 billion USD in foreign trade profits this scheme of yours is endangering.
Noted economics expert 666maslo666 is fine with low quality foreigners as long as they come legally, state keeps track of them, they earn at least minimum wage, pay taxes and only stay temporarily as guest workers. You dont need to have an illegal underclass living inside the country to get cheap labor.
Fair price is price with legal and regulated labor included.
Yes, bargaining force for the working class. Native working class should not have to compete with illegal aliens willing to work for less than minimum wages. And if that 64 billion USD in foreign trade profit is being made thanks to illegal labor then you bet it should be endangered. It is dirty money. And with so much profits, dont tell me food producers cannot pay for legal labor..
-
Noted economics expert 666maslo666 is fine with low quality foreigners as long as they come legally, state keeps track of them, they earn at least minimum wage, pay taxes and only stay temporarily as guest workers.
And who the **** is going to pay for that?
-
I see discussion have sidetracked from migrant crisis in Europe to economic migration in general.
Noted economics expert 666maslo666 is fine with low quality foreigners as long as they come legally, state keeps track of them, they earn at least minimum wage, pay taxes and only stay temporarily as guest workers. You dont need to have an illegal underclass living inside the country to get cheap labor.
So, we're now operating on marxist terminology as "working class"?
Fair price is price with legal and regulated labor included.
There is no such thing as fair price. Any product is worth only as much as anyone is willing to pay for it. If native worker A wants to work for 1000$ and migrant worker B is ready to do same job for 500$, it's employer's full and unquestionable right to hire the migrant. Thanks to that, he can produce cheaper and better goods, sell them at lower prices or have more money for investments.
It's often ok to the workers as well. Their alternatives is to work as a cheap labour (but they still earn much more than in their homelands) or not have a job at all.
Yes, bargaining force for the working class. Native working class should not have to compete with illegal aliens willing to work for less than minimum wages. And if that 64 billion USD in foreign trade profit is being made thanks to illegal labor then you bet it should be endangered. It is dirty money. And with so much profits, dont tell me food producers cannot pay for legal labor.
You look only at on side of the issue - how much the worker will earn. But if you force producers to raise wages, they will also have to raise prices of their products. That's simply how it works, you can't force them to have less profits or even loss. That means, prices in shops go up, customers can effectively buy less. What's more, same workers who got a pay rise go to shops and see products are more expensive because workers producing them also got a pay rise! So, pay rise was consumed by price rise. In long term, enforcing pay rises is a simple way to inflation. Nominally you earn more, effectively your money is worth less and less.
The alternative to rising prices is to cut costs. That means, to switch to hiring workers illegally, with absolutely no control over their wage and their working conditions. That will happen if the government enforce too high minimum wage and producers can't afford rising prices.
-
But if you force producers to raise wages, they will also have to raise prices of their products. That's simply how it works, you can't force them to have less profits or even loss.
How does that figure? Yes yes, the basics say that if you raise costs then the price of the product needs to rise accordingly, but similarly when you raise the price, you'll sell less. You can't automatically get bigger profits by simply raising the price, and I don't see any reason to assume that in some/many cases the threshold up to which you can hike up the price without starting to see a great loss in sales isn't close enough to the current prices already that letting the increased costs eat into the profits is the path of greatest profit.
IANAEconomist, of course.
-
Even if you're right, the food industry making less profits is pretty disastrous too.
-
IANAEconomist, of course.
On the other hand, it's food. People gotta eat. You can stop doing a lot of things, or do them less, but food is more resistant to this sort of thing than pretty much any other purchasable item.
-
How does that figure? Yes yes, the basics say that if you raise costs then the price of the product needs to rise accordingly, but similarly when you raise the price, you'll sell less. You can't automatically get bigger profits by simply raising the price, and I don't see any reason to assume that in some/many cases the threshold up to which you can hike up the price without starting to see a great loss in sales isn't close enough to the current prices already that letting the increased costs eat into the profits is the path of greatest profit.
IANAEconomist, of course.
To some extent you are right. Sometimes producers cannot raise their prices because their rivals on the market found a way to pay extra expenditures while keeping prices stable - e.g. by cutting costs, improving efficiency, finding cheaper suppliers, etc. But the harder you press them to spend more for new taxes, enforced pay rises, etc., the more eager they will be to compensate their losses somehow. So either their prices go up, or they cut costs, perhaps by switching to hiring workers illegally.
I've got a fresh example for my country. For a few months Poland has a new right-wing government who won the elections with promises of social benefits - the most costly one is 500 PLN monthly per child. Now, to pay for it, they plan to introduce a financial operations tax, the highest in Europe, which is a bit similar case as the one above - forcing private entrepreneurs to pay extra money for something. As a result several banks have already risen loan interest rates and more are planning to do so in the nearest future.
On the other hand, it's food. People gotta eat. You can stop doing a lot of things, or do them less, but food is more resistant to this sort of thing than pretty much any other purchasable item.
And? What's the problem with that? If everyone has to eat, then it will always be profitable to produce food. On the free market, when there is no war and no politics in place, it's just in nobody's interest to keep people starving when you can produce and sell them food they can afford.
-
And? What's the problem with that? If everyone has to eat, then it will always be profitable to produce food. On the free market, when there is no war and no politics in place, it's just in nobody's interest to keep people starving when you can produce and sell them food they can afford.
There is no problem.
I'm pointing out his analogy is inherently faulty applied to the situation at hand.
-
Noted economics expert 666maslo666 is fine with low quality foreigners as long as they come legally, state keeps track of them, they earn at least minimum wage, pay taxes and only stay temporarily as guest workers.
And who the **** is going to pay for that?
The food producers?
I continue to be amazed that some people consider having legal and regulated workforce as some kind of a radical idea. That is the law and that is how it works in most of the world. No, food prices will not skyrocket and no, economy will not collapse. That is BS fearmongering.
-
There is no such thing as fair price. Any product is worth only as much as anyone is willing to pay for it. If native worker A wants to work for 1000$ and migrant worker B is ready to do same job for 500$, it's employer's full and unquestionable right to hire the migrant. Thanks to that, he can produce cheaper and better goods, sell them at lower prices or have more money for investments.
Hiring below minimum wage is illegal in most of the world. And this law is especially important when you have a big pool of very cheap labor outside the borders. You are trying to imply that the situation is somehow in equilibrium, that any rise in wages due to need to hire legal workforce will be offset by higher product costs. That is a very myopic view. At best, maybe there is some kind of such global symmetry, when you consider both the natives and the foreigners, of all classes, and average it out. But I dont care about global view, I care primarily about the situation of people living inside my country, the local situation, that is who national government should serve. And the fact is, allowing big pool of very cheap unregulated labor onto domestic market forces native lower class to compete with them, and therefore harms their net economic situation, decreases their bargaining force. And any economic improvements of migrant workers due to having a job, and of natives due to having cheaper products, come at least partially at the expense of this domestic lower class. They lose more due to their wages being pushed down and increase in unemployment than they would lose due to slightly more costly food.
In a truly free global market with zero trade, migration and work barriers, local inequality will inevitably reflect global one. You will have significant number of people living in absolute poverty inside your country. And your natives will have to compete with them. That is not acceptable to me, and certain amount of protectionist policies is justified in preventing that.
-
Here is a poll of economic experts that seems to agree with my position:
http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_5vuNnqkBeAMAfHv
Question B: Unless they were compensated by others, many low-skilled American workers would be substantially worse off if a larger number of low-skilled foreign workers were legally allowed to enter the US each year.
Most of them tend to agree with this statement, and only a few disagree.
-
I wonder what she is saying in German?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmzHtTa7FOM
-
A snippet from BBC's article (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35406072) on the stabbing in Sweden:
Sweden's National Police Commissioner, Dan Eliasson, has requested 4,100 additional officers and support staff to help fight against terrorism, carry out migrant deportations and police asylum facilities, Swedish news agency TT reports.
"We are forced to respond to many disturbances in asylum reception centres," he was quoted as saying.
"In some places, this takes significant police resources. This was not the case six months ago and it means that we won't be able to respond as effectively in other areas."
Rightly or wrongly, it seems that the tide of public opinion is turning.
-
Police Whistleblower from Cologne Speaks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvudWVWwzOc
-
Hiring below minimum wage is illegal in most of the world.
'Illegal' doesn't mean 'bad'. Illegal labour is usually a straight-forward consequence of local or state law being unsuitable to market situation. Trying to ban working in certain conditions or for certain wage is like banning alcohol or drugs - you cannot wipe them all out, you just push it to the underground, make it out of control, untaxed and in some cases allow bad guys to earn profits from that.
And this law is especially important when you have a big pool of very cheap labor outside the borders. You are trying to imply that the situation is somehow in equilibrium, that any rise in wages due to need to hire legal workforce will be offset by higher product costs. That is a very myopic view. At best, maybe there is some kind of such global symmetry, when you consider both the natives and the foreigners, of all classes, and average it out.
A lot depends on what the current situation is and how you let the migration happen. If borders of your country are closed, you have a much poorer neighbour country and then suddenly the govt decides to get the borders wide open, a migration taking place as a result is unnaturally big and destroys stability of the local market. I agree migration to the country should be somehow regulated, but it should take place on the borders, not via economical regulations.
It seems you still look at only one aspect of the issue. Minimum wage gives some kind of protection to native workers against the immigrants. But it also harms the weakest, the least-qualified NATIVE people preventing them from taking their first legal job. If you are a poor 18-year-old kid from poor district of Detroit, finished some non-significant state school, have no experience at all, then nobody will hire you legally for a minimum wage as our work is simply not worth it. Either you get a badly-paid job now, but you work, learn, gain experience and after some time your wage may go up, or you are out of the labour market on the start. All those people living from social benefits, homeless on the streets of large cities, youngsters wandering around the blocks of flats with no perspectives - lots of them could find their place on the market if not state policy of regulating and taxing labour, including the a minimum wage.
What's worth saying here is that if you don't let cheap labour to the business in the country, then the business may leave the country and move to places with cheap labour. That's what basically took place in the last decades. Europe and America has been mostly deindustrialized and are based on services and trade now. Most big companies have their factories located in China, India, Vietnam etc. exactly because hiring people in Europe or USA is simply too expensive. So there you have your protection - nobody takes your jobs in the country, it's just the jobs that go elsewhere :).
But I dont care about global view, I care primarily about the situation of people living inside my country, the local situation, that is who national government should serve. And the fact is, allowing big pool of very cheap unregulated labor onto domestic market forces native lower class to compete with them, and therefore harms their net economic situation, decreases their bargaining force. And any economic improvements of migrant workers due to having a job, and of natives due to having cheaper products, come at least partially at the expense of this domestic lower class. They lose more due to their wages being pushed down and increase in unemployment than they would lose due to slightly more costly food.
In a truly free global market with zero trade, migration and work barriers, local inequality will inevitably reflect global one. You will have significant number of people living in absolute poverty inside your country. And your natives will have to compete with them. That is not acceptable to me, and certain amount of protectionist policies is justified in preventing that.
When Poland entered the EU, about 2 milion Poles left the country seeking a better life in western Europe, mostly in Germany, UK and Ireland. Most of them found it, as they are hard-working and reliable, often highly-qualified, taking jobs the native British were unager to take. British employers, leaking enough labour, were eager to hire them. Both sides benefit with such a deal. If I were a Polish migrant in a UK, worked long hours, paid my taxes, my employer was satisfied with me and wanted to hire me further, then what right can the state have to intervene in our voluntary deal?
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3423968/Mobs-hundreds-masked-men-rampage-Stockholm-central-station-beating-refugee-children.html
welp, this might be turning ugly.
-
don't read the daily mail
-
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/30/masked-men-stockholm-threaten-punishment-refugee-children
better?
BTW I like how that was the most objectionable thing you found about what I posted.
-
Well it's important you get revenge. Cause someone who worked at a refugee centre would want people to beat up refugees after their death. :rolleyes:
-
BTW I like how that was the most objectionable thing you found about what I posted.
It's not objectionable, it's just advice: Don't read the daily mail. Seriously.
-
well, I don't as a general rule, hence me not thinking about it when I posted it.
btw
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-refugees-idUSKCN0V80IH?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews
nothing about this situation looks good.
also, is Reuters fine? Anyone have a problem with Reuters?
-
Noted economics expert 666maslo666 is fine with low quality foreigners as long as they come legally, state keeps track of them, they earn at least minimum wage, pay taxes and only stay temporarily as guest workers.
And who the **** is going to pay for that?
Canada actually has a temporary foreign worker program fairly similar to that. It used to be somewhat OK, got heavily screwed up in recent years, was tweaked to "fix" it, and is still somewhat broken. Turns out that workers who are imported to perform low-quality labour into a country they have no real relationship to, often with poor grasp of the local language, have a great deal of difficulty exerting their legal and labour rights and often got screwed over by their employers. Employers, meanwhile, imported workers because they didn't want to abide by the laws of supply and demand and raise wages when there were worker shortages. Canada's temporary foreign worker program is actually a pretty good example of "what not to do."
Contrast with the "foreign nanny" program, which is fairly successful for everyone and has given us quite a few new Canadian's to boot, despite the fact that it appears somewhat exploitative.
-
Canada actually has a temporary foreign worker program fairly similar to that. It used to be somewhat OK, got heavily screwed up in recent years, was tweaked to "fix" it, and is still somewhat broken. Turns out that workers who are imported to perform low-quality labour into a country they have no real relationship to, often with poor grasp of the local language, have a great deal of difficulty exerting their legal and labour rights and often got screwed over by their employers. Employers, meanwhile, imported workers because they didn't want to abide by the laws of supply and demand and raise wages when there were worker shortages. Canada's temporary foreign worker program is actually a pretty good example of "what not to do."
This more or less is the problem the Dutch had in the 60s, which had a few rippling effects. It may happen again with the current trend of eastern european foreign worker (called "Guest workers" here), unfortunately.