Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on January 26, 2016, 03:42:14 pm
-
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/what-is-lost-when-governments-seize-valuables-from-refugees/article28399833/
This should be criminal. I don't have the words to express how wrong and outrageous the action of seizing the belongings of refugees is.
-
On the other hand, that's not very different from what natives have to do; can't get welfare benefits if you have enough cash or notable non-essential assets you can sell to support yourself for the time being. Of course the major difference in this case is that the people don't get to choose which way they prefer it.
How many refugees even have that sort of money or pricey valuables left at that point? It's arguably a rather jerk thing to do, but also presumably applies only to a tiny minority.
-
...
How many refugees even have that sort of money or pricey valuables left at that point? It's arguably a rather jerk thing to do, but also presumably applies only to a tiny minority.
That's why this idea is a missed shot. Potential "profit" would be very small and Danish officials will gain a lot of hate towards them. Bad deal and definitely not a solution .
-
That's why this idea is a missed shot. Potential "profit" would be very small and Danish officials will gain a lot of hate towards them. Bad deal and definitely not a solution .
Sure, no disagreement there.
-
Refugee claimants will be allowed to keep their wedding rings and family portraits, but the portrait frames may be taken away.
what the bloody ****
-
What kind of refugee has a portrait frame that's worth over 540$ anyway? Is there a "most idiotic immigration policy in the world" contest going on among the government heads? I don't know what they were expecting when they passed that law. Even if some of them had that kind of stuff by the time they left their homes, I don't think that they'd be able to hang on to it the entire way to Denmark. The article even quotes a statistic, some 140 people out of thousands were subject to a similar policy in Switzerland (granted, their quota is around 2000$, but most refugees hardly have anything but clothes on their backs anyway).
Ultimately, I see this as a pointless, unpopular and downright moronic law. The number of people actually affected by this will be minimal, but the number of people pissed off by this will be many times greater. Sure, it's a very clear "Sod off, we don't want you here!" message for the refugees (a sentiment I kind of agree with), but at this point, I can see a number of better ways of getting that across.
-
I hate to be That Guy, but holy **** this is literally the sort of thing that the Nazis did.
-
Well, it's becoming hard to talk about the current situation without referencing Hitler... Stalin had also done things of that sort, too, but he didn't target a particular ethnic group. I'm afraid that it might be necessary to suspend Godwin's Law for the time being, seeing as pre-WWII was last time when we had that sort of situation.
-
Atleast they aren't playing human smugglers to deport refugees from the country yet...
-
It might be "something that the nazis did", but I'd like to point out a simple key difference. This time, people are running into Europe, not from Europe.
I think we should keep in mind that distinction.
-
Reminds me of normal old civil forfeiture that any police officer is capable of over here. You have cash of any value? Well, obviously it's only for none other than crime x. You should have used a bank. Oh, you were on your way to a bank...sure you were. Let me take this off your hands and you can go on your way.
Put shortly; in america civil forfeiture is a controversial legal process in which law enforcement officers take assets from persons suspected of involvement with crime or illegal activity without necessarily charging the owners with wrongdoing. It is highly corrupt and is only meant for robbing people of their goods. A lot of the time it is as simple as being pulled over that you get forfeited your belongings and sent on your way. You could be sitting on a bus between crossing over to another state in the union and have stuff be taken as well. Whatever the hell being of their interest, usually cash of any amount.
-
I think some of you might be overreacting to this a bit with the whole nazi thing. the Nazis took the property of the people they murdered, this is taking excess wealth from people seeking aid because they are supposed to be unable to survive any other way. as mentioned there are similar regulations in a number of places for receiving government benefits.
The Nazis built highways... OMGWERNAZISCAUSE WEPAVEROAD!!!1!!!
-
this is taking excess wealth from people seeking aid because they are supposed to be unable to survive any other way.
If you seriously thought this was going to sound better you might have tried saying it aloud first, because it's still ****ing awful.
-
Well, Germany does that, too, though not many are aware of that. The reasoning behind it is that refugees should be treated the same as public welfare receivers. Though, I have to ask why the refugees then don't get the german citizenship straight away, enjoy freedom of
movement and permission to work... :wtf:
-
taking excess wealth from people seeking aid
"Excess wealth?" Wealth should be significant, not the sum total of a few personal belongings and family heirlooms people managed to cart with them across a continent.
I *might* be willing to support means-tested welfare support eligibility for refugees if set at a reasonable level - if a family manages to flee with several months worth of living expenses in cash, fine, make them pay their own way first, but outright seizure of belongings beyond a particular financial threshold is ****ing evil.
-
If you seriously thought this was going to sound better you might have tried saying it aloud first, because it's still ****ing awful.
I don't agree with it but yeah, taking the vast fortunes of people who are claiming to be poor in order for them to qualify for aid does sound a little different from murdering someone ans taking their stuff. and as others have mentioned in this thread there probably are not a lot of people with those vast fortunes.
seizure of belongings beyond a particular financial threshold is ****ing evil.
it's a dick move, I'm not a fan of it, but it's not kicking them out naked into the Siberian winter to watch them freeze to death.
BTW how does everyone feel about that law requiring pork on all menus I heard about, same country IIRC.
-
Well, Germany does that, too, though not many are aware of that. The reasoning behind it is that refugees should be treated the same as public welfare receivers.
This. Seizing excess wealth from refugees makes sense since the same policy applies to welfare recipients, too. Where is your outrage about that? Do you think that refugees, who arent even citizens, should just get free money and stuff, no questions asked, when even the natives dont get to enjoy that privilege? I dont think so.
There may be issues with correct enforcement of this policy, for example it is not actually legal to seize things of sentimental value, so if it happens it should be corrected. And maybe those exact wealth limits should be tweaked. This kind of criticism may be very much legitimate.
But in principle, the action of seizing some excess wealth from refugees is reasonable and those comparisons to nazis are just way over the top...
-
No. Seizing "excess" wealth from anyone, let alone those fleeing for their lives/livelihoods is never acceptable except as punishment for criminal wrongdoing.
Deny benefits on the basis of a financial means test or assets, fine. Actively seizing personal property from people who are already victims? That's wrong, no matter how you try to parse it.
-
Ja, ja maslo. We shall pick the gold teeth from their mouths!
I mean, holy ****, are you serious? What they have on them is literally all they own now; all they have with which to support themselves, to eat off of, to house themselves with. They are going to need literally every bit of money they have on themselves to survive and start a new life unless they're literally wearing spun gold clothing. This is beyond any intangible values it might have as family heirloom or religious artifact.
Do you think that refugees, who arent even citizens, should just get free money and stuff, no questions asked, when even the natives dont get to enjoy that privilege?
I mean, this right here basically encapsulates how utterly insane you are. You're equating "getting free stuff" with taking away things they already own, that are already their property. The only possible way to read this is as stateist thuggery of the worse sort, that no one has any personal property, they are merely allowed to by the state. This idea is inimical with basically every political system that acknowledges the concept of a salary, so aside from Sub-Saharan Africans, people of the Amazon Basin, that one island off Sri Lanka, and absolutist dictatorships not many people are going to back you on that one.
Or that you can't form an argument to save your life.
-
Every time I heard stuff about "excess wealth" and "wealth redistribution", I recall Communists and their approach to the matter. That is, robbing many people (including my ancestors, we still haven't got any of it back) from their land, their factories, their tenement houses, and then giving it all to the "state", which usually proceeded to drive it all into the ground, evict the inhabitants and fire the workers. There's no such thing as "excess wealth", private property should be sacred, like in the US. If someone is trying to apply for social benefits while carrying wads of cash on his back, the proper course of action is to tell him to scram and come back after he is in a real need. Such "refugees" should try to make a living in a regular way, like every other person. If they run out of valuables while trying to do so, they may then apply for welfare.
IMO, the whole welfare system in most European countries needs to be redesigned to be less prone to exploits. It should only give you enough to sustain you while you're looking for a job. If you stop looking, you stop getting money (IIRC, Poland does just that). It shouldn't be enough to live too comfortably, or more than one could earn in the crappiest jobs available. Also, criteria for applying for support should be tightened. This apply to regular citizens, not only to refugees.
-
(including my ancestors, we still haven't got any of it back)
not all bad these communists, imho the revolution must march on
-
Says a guy from Scotland. The worst thing to happen to you was the English forbidding you from wearing kilts for some time. And even that didn't last. The commies did more damage to Poland in 50 years than the English to Scotland in two centuries.
Even Robin Hood was much better than the reds. He stole from the rich and gave to the poor. He never stole from the poor, nor did he take so much from those rich to make them poor themselves. Now, the commies stole everything from everyone, then declared everything "public property", which affected it similarly as making a toilet public affects it. Now half the country is in ruins and the other half has been sold to foreign companies. This is how wealth redistribution actually works. Before, there were rich and poor. After, there were only the poor (and no, not any richer than before, either. Poorer, actually).
-
I'm personally from Scotland but every previous generation of my family was Irish and Catholic, so forgive me for being unmoved by your ancestors' hardship upon having their castle confiscated.
-
And of course if you actually knew anything about Scotland you'd know about something called the Highland Clearances that happened when some ****ers who inherited a piece of paper from their dad saying "I own this village" weighed up your ideal of sustainable feudal land management on one hand, and making a ****load of money with sheep on the other
-
No. Seizing "excess" wealth from anyone, let alone those fleeing for their lives/livelihoods is never acceptable except as punishment for criminal wrongdoing.
Deny benefits on the basis of a financial means test or assets, fine. Actively seizing personal property from people who are already victims? That's wrong, no matter how you try to parse it.
Devil's advocate: it has become impossible to distinguish between those fleeing for their lives and those seeking to profit from the response. A mass migration of 80% fighting-age males does not fit the profile of a humanitarian crisis.
-
IMO, the whole welfare system in most European countries needs to be redesigned to be less prone to exploits. It should only give you enough to sustain you while you're looking for a job. If you stop looking, you stop getting money (IIRC, Poland does just that). It shouldn't be enough to live too comfortably, or more than one could earn in the crappiest jobs available. Also, criteria for applying for support should be tightened. This apply to regular citizens, not only to refugees.
Honestly, I get some of the motivations behind it, but I think this mentality is a bit dated. We have to sit back and take a deep breath and realize that for the first time in history we really don't even need to have 100% of the eligible population working anymore. And overall, in cases where someone really is either handicapped by something (physical or mental), or just really against working a day to day job, making them do so usually costs society more than it gains in the long run. The people like that don't cause problems directly on the job (laziness/negligence can get really expensive) still grow up to be bitter unhappy people who raise children poorly and/or generally spread their unhappiness onto other functioning areas of society. It's why, I'm not just for unconditional basic income as a support structure so people never have to be worried about emergency costs ending them, I think a vital part of it could be finally keeping people not suited for work away from grinding against other parts of society.
That said, I think it should be still a lower end amount. But without the negative connotations.
-
Probably should have worded my argument better. By seizing excess wealth I meant taking compensation from richer refugees (not the average ones who dont have much) in exchange for services provided.
If refugees do not want to give up their wealth, they should be free to refuse government assistance and live off their wealth instead. Just like with welfare.
Dragon, my ancestors were robbed by the communists, too. Twice they lost almost everything. I have a lot of respect for private property. Which is one reason why I do not believe government assistance funded by taxes should go to wealthier people, no matter if they are welfare recipients or refugees or whatever.
As I said, we may talk about the details of this policy, but the core concept of it is sound and just. Comparisons with both nazis and communists are just wrong and fearmongering.
-
No. Seizing "excess" wealth from anyone, let alone those fleeing for their lives/livelihoods is never acceptable except as punishment for criminal wrongdoing.
Deny benefits on the basis of a financial means test or assets, fine. Actively seizing personal property from people who are already victims? That's wrong, no matter how you try to parse it.
Devil's advocate: it has become impossible to distinguish between those fleeing for their lives and those seeking to profit from the response. A mass migration of 80% fighting-age males does not fit the profile of a humanitarian crisis.
Whatever it may be, it's not an excuse for eradicating the innocent-until-proven-guilty concept that our laws are build upon. Jordan, a country where 1 out of every 3 people is a syrian refugee, does not do anything compared to this. Meanwhile, europe faces a situation where 1 out of every 2000 people is a syrian refugee. We're better then this. We should do better then this.
The higher proportion of fighting age males (not sure if it's that high, but okay, I'll roll with it) has more to do with migration systems in many european countries, that make it much easier for asylum-seekers to bring over their relatives once they already have been processed. In part because the system has no reason to deny entry to people who literally lived in the same place as someone they already approved, and in part because someone who has had their asylum approved already is allowed to work and thus make the money they need to support the parts of the family that still has to come over.
-
And some European countries wonder why they have integration issues...
Yes clearly MP-Ryan ... you recognized a bad thing and this bad thing and little else is THE Reason (TM) why we have integration issues in Europe, you nailed it. Congratulations. If only everyone else would have your insight the whole integration issue would be solved overnight.
-
And some European countries wonder why they have integration issues...
Yes clearly MP-Ryan ... you recognized a bad thing and this bad thing and little else is THE Reason (TM) why we have integration issues in Europe, you nailed it. Congratulations. If only everyone else would have your insight the whole integration issue would be solved overnight.
The attitudes that have led to this being a thing were in place and were affecting immigration policy since this millenium.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/sweden-to-deport-up-to-80000-asylum-seekers/2016/01/28/1707fbb2-c59f-11e5-b933-31c93021392a_story.html
that's happening.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/sweden-to-deport-up-to-80000-asylum-seekers/2016/01/28/1707fbb2-c59f-11e5-b933-31c93021392a_story.html
that's happening.
And you don't know why? Google Sweden, Immigration, Rape, Muslim.
Sweden has literally been overrun the last years, going by immigration per capita, and they simply can not handle it.
Also ... before someone mentions "Hitler" again, this is happening as well: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/rising-anti-semitism-challenges-swedens-proud-and-tolerant-self-image/2015/03/04/79ac1e4e-c2b0-11e4-a188-8e4971d37a8d_story.html
But of course MP-Ryan just told us "why" (yeah LOL haha, very funny, thanks so much) we have immigration problems.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/sweden-to-deport-up-to-80000-asylum-seekers/2016/01/28/1707fbb2-c59f-11e5-b933-31c93021392a_story.html
that's happening.
And you don't know why? Google Sweden, Immigration, Rape, Muslim.
Sweden has literally been overrun the last years, going by immigration per capita, and they simply can not handle it.
Which is pretty funny as I heared some voices on this forum that Europe CAN handle so many migrants, lol.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/sweden-to-deport-up-to-80000-asylum-seekers/2016/01/28/1707fbb2-c59f-11e5-b933-31c93021392a_story.html
that's happening.
And you don't know why? Google Sweden, Immigration, Rape, Muslim.
Sweden has literally been overrun the last years, going by immigration per capita, and they simply can not handle it.
Which is pretty funny as I heared some voices on this forum that Europe CAN handle so many migrants, lol.
Whatever the case may be, Sweden at least can not handle the amount of immigrants they already have right now at all. That's a fact if there ever was one.
I mean what do you do if you notice that instead of immigrant integration you get persistent society disruption?
So yeah, I guess that means Realpolitics will be ugly this year. Or rather the choice is between ugly and even more ugly.
And don't take me wrong ... I don't want to use any of those facts to legitimize what is done in the original post. But i find it just as iditotic to use the issue in the OP to point out "why there are immigration issues".
Immigration is a complex problem and simplifying it down to a single issue like the OP title appears to attempt is downright insulting.
-
Which is pretty funny as I heared some voices on this forum that Europe CAN handle so many migrants, lol.
You do know that Europe is not just Sweden, right
-
One of the advantages that europe has over the US on this issue, is the fact that despite the EU it is still a very loose confederation and countries can do more or less whatever they want. This means we get a diversity of responses to an issue like this and we get to see the effect those decisions have. So one upside to this whole nasty situation is it is generating a lot of data that we might be able to use to make better decisions in the future and while there are sure to be some courses of action that turn out to be worse than others some will be better too.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/sweden-to-deport-up-to-80000-asylum-seekers/2016/01/28/1707fbb2-c59f-11e5-b933-31c93021392a_story.html
that's happening.
And you don't know why? Google Sweden, Immigration, Rape, Muslim.
Sweden has literally been overrun the last years, going by immigration per capita, and they simply can not handle it.
Which is pretty funny as I heared some voices on this forum that Europe CAN handle so many migrants, lol.
We can. (https://www.ted.com/talks/antonio_guterres_refugees_have_the_right_to_be_protected/transcript) We totally can. The problem is not one of financial resources, as we have plenty. The problem is not one of culture: In the Netherlands, Iraqi refugees commit less crimes then the native dutch do (when accounting for economic status). The problem is not the sheer number of refugees: Many countries surrounding syria are actually overrun with migrants, and they made do untill the donations to the various UN funds and countries that managed the population declined. Lybia managed to do their job, and they have 1 refugee for every 3 nationals. We face 1 for every 2000.
The problem is that we rubbish it. The various EU countries could have seen the problem from miles away:
There has been an increased movement into Europe from Africa, from Asia, but slowly growing, and all of a sudden we had this massive increase in the first months of this year. Why? I think there are three reasons, two long-term ones and the trigger. The long-term ones, in relation to Syrians, is that hope is less and less clear for people. I mean, they look at their own country and they don't see much hope to go back home, because there is no political solution, so there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Second, the living conditions of the Syrians in the neighboring countries have been deteriorating. We just had research with the World Bank, and 87 percent of the Syrians in Jordan and 93 percent of the Syrians in Lebanon live below the national poverty lines. Only half of the children go to school, which means that people are living very badly. Not only are they refugees, out of home, not only have they suffered what they have suffered, but they are living in very, very dramatic conditions.
And then the trigger was when all of a sudden, international aid decreased. The World Food Programme was forced, for lack of resources, to cut by 30 percent food support to the Syrian refugees. They're not allowed to work, so they are totally dependent on international support, and they felt, "The world is abandoning us." And that, in my opinion, was the trigger. All of a sudden, there was a rush, and people started to move in large numbers and, to be absolutely honest, if I had been in the same situation and I would have been brave enough to do it, I think I would have done the same.
(You should really watch or read that entire talk linked above, it's good).
But the problem got worse because it was not properly managed. Because the various divided nations of the EU would rather run away from their responsibilities rather then face them, and now the responsibilities are catching up to them. I'm not asking that EU should suck it up and take it: I'm asking that the EU would do it's job properly, and organize itself just like all the other countries which never asked for this were just as capable of doing.
-
when you say 'responsibilities' are you referring to EU law (like the Schengen stuff), or more of general moral issues?
-
I assume he's being general, and rightly so. You can't be legalistic in crisis like these, you have to stand up to the challenges and work hard to find solutions. Legally, the EU can probably just murder everyone trying to cross its borders. Perhaps that's what PEGIDA would find as being the "responsible thing to do", I mean, borders still mean something right? Countries do have territories. But the problem is just too obvious to overcome: we are all humans and cannot deal with this stuff in psychopathic terms.
So, if we cannot do that, we might as well start, as one of my teachers once said, "hold the bull in the horns and deal with it". Do the best you can. Have a sense of proportion, always.
Crisis are always moments of opportunities. I hope Europe can mostly take advantage of them and strenghten itself out with it. They failed their test in the Grexit crisis with a F ****ing minus, let's see how they fare now.
-
The problem is not one of financial resources, as we have plenty.
Speak for your own behalf, that's not the case here. Facing 8 % unemployment rates with around 500 000 people unemployed - and yes, I'm aware the official number is lower, that's because they don't count those "practising for work" to be officially unemployed, those 30 000 "refugee" dudes are going to cost us quite a lot. Starting from building their apartments that cost around 200 k€ / apartment around the Helsinki region. Not to mention the government has finally started to cut the spending, albeit the cuts are not directed to right places if you ask me. These factors really put some pressure on the immigration policy and really do pit the "refugees" against unemployed. It is no wonder to see rising tensions, especially as it appears that the only way to get the norms of the Finnish society through the "refugees" skulls is apparently by beating the crap out of them.
Now that Russian economy is crashing down and their immigrant workers are looking for better places and jobs (and ooh yes, there's hundreds of thousands of them), it makes me wonder whether Finland should pull the Greeks, ignore the Schengen and Dublin treaties and start selling trips to Central Europe. You can say what you will about that but hey, there's no denying that we are learning the EU way fast.
-
Europe has seen massive, vicious cuts to government services and welfare programs because it supposedly does not have the financial resources to provide them.
-
The problem is not one of financial resources, as we have plenty.
Speak for your own behalf, that's not the case here. Facing 8 % unemployment rates with around 500 000 people unemployed - and yes, I'm aware the official number is lower, that's because they don't count those "practising for work" to be officially unemployed, those 30 000 "refugee" dudes are going to cost us quite a lot. Starting from building their apartments that cost around 200 k€ / apartment around the Helsinki region. Not to mention the government has finally started to cut the spending, albeit the cuts are not directed to right places if you ask me. These factors really put some pressure on the immigration policy and really do pit the "refugees" against unemployed. It is no wonder to see rising tensions, especially as it appears that the only way to get the norms of the Finnish society through the "refugees" skulls is apparently by beating the crap out of them.
Now that Russian economy is crashing down and their immigrant workers are looking for better places and jobs (and ooh yes, there's hundreds of thousands of them), it makes me wonder whether Finland should pull the Greeks, ignore the Schengen and Dublin treaties and start selling trips to Central Europe. You can say what you will about that but hey, there's no denying that we are learning the EU way fast.
Same thing applies for my country, but instead of Russians we have a lot of Ukrainian migrants/refugees here right now. Our state cannot afford a proper help for our own people, so unless EU won't pay extra money to provide a proper living conditions and language lessons this will end badly. Tell the poor Poles that their officials will help foreigners first with houses and money... I guarantee you guys. There will be no better way to piss them off and create hostilities.
Example from my own uni. In last year authorities decided to cut the scholarship for all students by 10% because of "financial issues". And rising them by 10% for all students from Ukraine at the same time <"becuz war". however, I know that only 3 of these guys were from Donbas.>. When they announced this officially I heard people whispering curses all across the room.
-
when you say 'responsibilities' are you referring to EU law (like the Schengen stuff), or more of general moral issues?
Sweden, as well as all other countries in europe, signed into the Refugee Convention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees) which obligates them to care for refugees.
Europe has seen massive, vicious cuts to government services and welfare programs because it supposedly does not have the financial resources to provide them.
But it did have the financial resources to provide them. It had the financial resources to give our collective group of ****ups which we call the banking world a get out of jail for free card. It currently manages to deal with 8% unemployment rates. It can handle a 8.05% unemployment rate. To suggest that the various countries of the EU do not have the financial resources to handle a 0.05% increase of the population whilst Libya and Jordan are forced into a situation with far less financial resources in order to deal with a 33% is not very well thought out. I am not saying that Libya and Jordan are doing a stellar job: We wouldn't have a refugee crisis if they had not seen a sudden cut in the financial aid for refugees. The issue is more that a very succesfull political narrative is that our various societies are extremely precious and extremely brittle. But the truth is that, if they truly are this brittle that a bunch of refugees can tear it all down, it was never worth preserving and it sure as hell was not precious.
Our societies are a lot stronger then this. There is 1 refugee for every 2000 EU citizens, this should really be nothing more then a minor nuisance to handle. It all comes down to management. That management simply hasn't happened so far because of ostrich politics.
-
Sweden, as well as all other countries in europe, signed into the Refugee Convention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees) which obligates them to care for refugees.
Refugee Convention provides only basic protections for refugees. You can have wide range of refugee policies while still being compatible with that convention. Both the approach of countries like Sweden and Germany, but also countries like Hungary and Australia, are compatible with it. So you cannot just point to a refugee convention to show Europe what we have to do.
-
The higher proportion of fighting age males (not sure if it's that high, but okay, I'll roll with it) has more to do with migration systems in many european countries, that make it much easier for asylum-seekers to bring over their relatives once they already have been processed.
This explains the issue but it does not explain it away. The fact that they left their families outside Europe points towards the fact that they were reasonably safe already, because you dont leave your family in a dangerous area. Which casts doubt on the claim that they are genuine refugees and strenghtens the case for economic migration as the motive.
Geunine refugees fleeing from armed conflict are simply not young male dominated, they should equally reflect all of society, or fighting age males may even be underrepresented, if anything.
-
Geunine refugees fleeing from armed conflict are simply not young male dominated, they should equally reflect all of society, or fighting age males may even be underrepresented, if anything.
And you know this because....? No seriously. Use the power of statistics.
-
But the truth is that, if they truly are this brittle that a bunch of refugees can tear it all down, it was never worth preserving and it sure as hell was not precious.
Yeah, let's just destroy society if it turns out that the real world isn't in alignment with your politics. Anything to avoid that awful fate of the right-wing being right about anything.
Personally I support progressive policies because I think they're actually a good idea, not because I think they're ontologically mandatory, but I guess I'm out of alignment with some other progressives on this forum because of that.
(I mean it was bad enough when The E was saying after the Paris attacks that terrorists gunning down hundreds of people in our cities is just the inevitable cost of democracy and there was no point trying to analyse or prevent it.)
-
Sweden, as well as all other countries in europe, signed into the Refugee Convention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees) which obligates them to care for refugees.
Interesting, did not know about that. thanks for clarifying.
-
Sweden, as well as all other countries in europe, signed into the Refugee Convention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees) which obligates them to care for refugees.
Interesting, did not know about that. thanks for clarifying.
There was a discussion about that on the news recently. And when you get down to it... supposedly nothing in current EU law says you have to "give aid" to refugees "within your borders". Lending aid to refugees outside your borders appears a perfectly acceptable substitute. (I.e. like giving money to countries bordering Syria, Turkey, etc.) Not sure how it would actually hold up when challenged, just something that was on the news.
After all... if the refugee convention would mean you have to take in all refugees of the world it would be absurd. And if it did mean that, then wouldn't we actually have to bring them inside the country savely? I mean how cynic would it be to only take the ones that "survive" the horrible trip on their own?
Going down that line of thought only makes you notice that current refugee law is not really thought out and that the implementation often is anything but ethical either.
-
But it did have the financial resources to provide them. It had the financial resources to give our collective group of ****ups which we call the banking world a get out of jail for free card. It currently manages to deal with 8% unemployment rates. It can handle a 8.05% unemployment rate. To suggest that the various countries of the EU do not have the financial resources to handle a 0.05% increase of the population whilst Libya and Jordan are forced into a situation with far less financial resources in order to deal with a 33% is not very well thought out. I am not saying that Libya and Jordan are doing a stellar job: We wouldn't have a refugee crisis if they had not seen a sudden cut in the financial aid for refugees. The issue is more that a very succesfull political narrative is that our various societies are extremely precious and extremely brittle. But the truth is that, if they truly are this brittle that a bunch of refugees can tear it all down, it was never worth preserving and it sure as hell was not precious.
Our societies are a lot stronger then this. There is 1 refugee for every 2000 EU citizens, this should really be nothing more then a minor nuisance to handle. It all comes down to management. That management simply hasn't happened so far because of ostrich politics.
Veni, vidi and what the hell are my eyes seeing?
It had the financial resources to give our collective group of ****ups which we call the banking world a get out of jail for free card. It currently manages to deal with 8% unemployment rates. It can handle a 8.05% unemployment rate.
Hate to point it out, but this is a logical contradiction. Now that the money has been spent (yes I was very vocal against the bail-outs, where were you?), the money is already spent. I see this stupidity coming from left wing politicians all the time, and I do call them for this.
And what it comes to number games, feast your eyes on this:
The yearly Finnish budget is around 54B €. Now, those 30 000 dudes in the end - if we can't get rid of them - will all need an apartment (Why? Because people freezing to death around here is a big no no). That makes roughly 6B €, and that goes alone in the apartments. Note that measly 0.05 % increase caused a 10 % increase in the yearly budget! What do you think happens when around 100 000 more bunch up, as predicted for the next Spring?
And no, those 30000 apartments do not exist in the wild!
I really hope the EU gets its head off its ass before the spring time. Other than that, it's gonna be good bye to Schengen and good bye Dublin treaties!
-
And no, those 30000 apartments do not exist in the wild!
They don't? :)
(http://cdn.instructables.com/FXP/YEY9/GY4RAA5R/FXPYEY9GY4RAA5R.MEDIUM.jpg)
I don't think snow is all that expensive in Finland. Eskimos can like in 'em, why can't the refugees? :) Just ship them a truckload of snow and a user's manual, they'll figure it out.
Geunine refugees fleeing from armed conflict are simply not young male dominated, they should equally reflect all of society, or fighting age males may even be underrepresented, if anything.
And you know this because....? No seriously. Use the power of statistics.
He's probably right on that count. Where he is wrong is that refugees are "young male dominated". Trump said the same thing, which was promptly debunked:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/14/donald-trump/donald-trumps-false-claim-refugees-migrants-are-mo/
Fighting age males are underrepresented among refugees.
-
Hate to point it out, but this is a logical contradiction. Now that the money has been spent (yes I was very vocal against the bail-outs, where were you?), the money is already spent. I see this stupidity coming from left wing politicians all the time, and I do call them for this.
It turns out money is a useful social fiction; the bank bailouts were not conducted by scraping clean the last seams in the money mines. Compare economic recovery rates in the US and Canada to those in the austere EU and it is clear that an extra few percent on the national debt is a much smaller problem than the entire financial system collapsing and leaving the economy moribund. Or, you know, listen to any of the overwhelming, nonpartisan majority of economists who will tell you the same thing.
-
He's probably right on that count. Where he is wrong is that refugees are "young male dominated". Trump said the same thing, which was promptly debunked:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/14/donald-trump/donald-trumps-false-claim-refugees-migrants-are-mo/
Fighting age males are underrepresented among refugees.
Sorry, Dragon, but I think you are wrong here. The refugees ARE young male dominated. This data showing half of refugees are women and half are under 17 come from refugee camps in the middle east. That's right, women and children are still there as they cannot afford or don't want such a risky journey.
How about the ones coming to Europe? Well, I looked around and UN reports seem to confirm young male dominance among the refuges:
http://time.com/4122186/syrian-refugees-donald-trump-young-men/
About 62% of all migrants that have traveled to Europe this year, however, are men. A little under a quarter, 22%, are children and only 16% are women.
And a different source:
http://therightscoop.com/united-nations-says-72-of-syrian-refugees-are-men-only-13-are-children/
-
Seems I struck a Scandinavian nerve.
Many European nations - including a number of those with significant levels of radicalization now - have an integration problem because they have been passing laws in this spirit for years if not decades. You (generally; no one here specifically) have an integration problem precisely because you have allowed mass immigration precisely while doing everything possible to ensure immigrants, particularly those of different ethnic and religious backgrounds, are stuck in immigrant enclaves, denied the same residency and ultimate citizenship rights as those born in those European nations, and actively suppressed in terms of their religion.
Some countries are overwhelmed and the flood hasn't been handled well? Gee, you don't say. It's too bad Europe doesn't have some sort of organizing body, or "Union" that could have centrally coordinated the intercept, documentation, and relocation of refugees within the continent. Oh wait. :wtf:
European nations - and not all, but many - have historically opened the floodgates, instead of maintaining cohesive border policy, and then done everything in their power to ensure those immigrant cultures are held apart and unable to integrate. Know why you have integration and radicalization problems? Policies like this most recent one. Feel free to contrast to the United States or Canada. The US has 300 million people; Canada has 30 million. Despite generous immigration and refugee programs, neither faces anywhere near the integration or radicalization problems of the troubled European nations because both embrace immigration and provide opportunities for immigrants to become full, participating economic and democratic citizens in short order, while allowing them to practice their cultures and beliefs inside the multicultural communities of the larger nation.
There remains a strong current of suspicion of different cultures and religions in Europe generally, and laws like this example simply put it on display. It's disgusting. Instead of writing laws to punish people who are already victims, why don't you try getting your collective **** together on how to coordinate the influx in an orderly, fair fashion instead of letting every country, no matter how well or little equipped, handle it alone.
-
You might be right, but I do wonder how much of it is simply that Mexicans don't radicalise. If they did, I suspect the US especially would have a much larger problem.
-
You might be right, but I do wonder how much of it is simply that Mexicans don't radicalise. If they did, I suspect the US especially would have a much larger problem.
Both the US and Canada have substantial Muslim populations, both historic and due to recent immigration; radicalization rates remain much lower than across Europe, generally, and much of this is because of the way the countries of North America select and treat their immigrant populations. In short: we have functioning borders and federalized governments to manage them. That's not to say we don't accept refugees, just that there is a screening process instead a Greek on the beach saying "Germany is that way, watch out for the Hungarians."
-
I'm not saying the US and Canada doesn't have better policies (in many ways they do) but as has been pointed out in the past, you also do get the Muslim immigrants capable of taking a plane to America. You don't get any of the kind who float over in a boat and risk drowning all the way over.
If for instance, a movement started in Mexico to take back Texas by force if necessary and even if only 0.1% of Mexicans subscribed to it, I suspect you'd have a big problem in the Southern states very quickly.
-
If for instance, a movement started in Mexico to take back Texas by force if necessary and even if only 0.1% of Mexicans subscribed to it, I suspect you'd have a big problem in the Southern states very quickly.
This sort of thing has actually happened, you realize? Not with such strictly ethnic lines but the Texas or Alaskan seccessionists have made up more than 0.1% of those states in recent history. The result has been basically nothing. More than 0.1% of the South is probably still in favor of Jim Crow and racial segregation. That's not resulting in anything either.
-
But the truth is that, if they truly are this brittle that a bunch of refugees can tear it all down, it was never worth preserving and it sure as hell was not precious.
Yeah, let's just destroy society if it turns out that the real world isn't in alignment with your politics. Anything to avoid that awful fate of the right-wing being right about anything.
But I am not proposing that we destroy it: I am saying that if it's actually this weak that it can't handle a sudden refugee flow, then it has serious underlying issues. It's not like this is a new phenonom.
Hate to point it out, but this is a logical contradiction. Now that the money has been spent (yes I was very vocal against the bail-outs, where were you?), the money is already spent. I see this stupidity coming from left wing politicians all the time, and I do call them for this.
The money has not been spent: It has been given to the banks so that they could recover. Now that they are recovered, they are giving it back (or atleast, they should be giving it back).
Sweden, as well as all other countries in europe, signed into the Refugee Convention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees) which obligates them to care for refugees.
Interesting, did not know about that. thanks for clarifying.
There was a discussion about that on the news recently. And when you get down to it... supposedly nothing in current EU law says you have to "give aid" to refugees "within your borders". Lending aid to refugees outside your borders appears a perfectly acceptable substitute. (I.e. like giving money to countries bordering Syria, Turkey, etc.) Not sure how it would actually hold up when challenged, just something that was on the news.
After all... if the refugee convention would mean you have to take in all refugees of the world it would be absurd. And if it did mean that, then wouldn't we actually have to bring them inside the country savely? I mean how cynic would it be to only take the ones that "survive" the horrible trip on their own?
Going down that line of thought only makes you notice that current refugee law is not really thought out and that the implementation often is anything but ethical either.
But currently, Sweden is not doing anything about refugees outside their borders either. As stated before by the UN High Commissioner, the entire reason we have this mess in the first place is because we are not doing anything about refugees outside our borders. We're, quite frankly, not doing anything about the refugee problem at all, untill they reach our countries at which point we choose both the most expensive and the least morally sound solutions.
-
He's probably right on that count. Where he is wrong is that refugees are "young male dominated". Trump said the same thing, which was promptly debunked:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/14/donald-trump/donald-trumps-false-claim-refugees-migrants-are-mo/
Fighting age males are underrepresented among refugees.
Hey, your own link actually proves me right:
The U.N. also tracks so-called "sea arrivals," refugees and migrants who cross the Mediterranean Sea to continental Europe. The counts a little more than 1 million people who have crossed into Europe since the start of 2015, with almost 3,800 dying during the journey.
The U.N. breaks those migrants into three categories: Adult men, 49 percent; Adult women, 19 percent; and children, 31 percent.
Yes, refugees in middle eastern refugee camps are not male dominated, because they are genuine refugees. But people coming into Europe are male dominated, which means there is a significant part of economic migrants among them.
-
European nations - and not all, but many - have historically opened the floodgates, instead of maintaining cohesive border policy, and then done everything in their power to ensure those immigrant cultures are held apart and unable to integrate. Know why you have integration and radicalization problems? Policies like this most recent one. Feel free to contrast to the United States or Canada. The US has 300 million people; Canada has 30 million. Despite generous immigration and refugee programs, neither faces anywhere near the integration or radicalization problems of the troubled European nations because both embrace immigration and provide opportunities for immigrants to become full, participating economic and democratic citizens in short order, while allowing them to practice their cultures and beliefs inside the multicultural communities of the larger nation.
I dont agree with this reasoning. The reason why US or Canada does not have so much integration problems is twofold.
1. Lower immigrant influx from MENA countries when compared to the size of their population. Small immigrant influx integrates bette than a large one.
2. Geographic distance and Atlantic ocean acting as a great filter. Only elites from MENA countries have the means to immigrate into the US, while everyone and their dog can get into Europe. ALso, they are screened and selected before letting them immigrate, contrary to (western) Europe.
If MENA countries were located next to the US instead of Europe, the situation would be reversed. Just like the US has plenty of poor Mexican immigrants, but the EU has almost none - it is far easier to emigrate from Mexico to the US than to EU.
-
No. Seizing "excess" wealth from anyone, let alone those fleeing for their lives/livelihoods is never acceptable except as punishment for criminal wrongdoing.
Wait, what? I feel obligated to point out that you are opposing any taxes for wealth redistribution (welfare).
-
Taxes generally don't sieze wealth, they sieze part of a transaction.
-
If for instance, a movement started in Mexico to take back Texas by force if necessary and even if only 0.1% of Mexicans subscribed to it, I suspect you'd have a big problem in the Southern states very quickly.
This sort of thing has actually happened, you realize? Not with such strictly ethnic lines but the Texas or Alaskan seccessionists have made up more than 0.1% of those states in recent history. The result has been basically nothing. More than 0.1% of the South is probably still in favor of Jim Crow and racial segregation. That's not resulting in anything either.
Were either of those two movements radicalised? Cause if not, I don't see what point you were trying to make here.
-
European nations - and not all, but many - have historically opened the floodgates, instead of maintaining cohesive border policy, and then done everything in their power to ensure those immigrant cultures are held apart and unable to integrate. Know why you have integration and radicalization problems? Policies like this most recent one. Feel free to contrast to the United States or Canada. The US has 300 million people; Canada has 30 million. Despite generous immigration and refugee programs, neither faces anywhere near the integration or radicalization problems of the troubled European nations because both embrace immigration and provide opportunities for immigrants to become full, participating economic and democratic citizens in short order, while allowing them to practice their cultures and beliefs inside the multicultural communities of the larger nation.
I dont agree with this reasoning. The reason why US or Canada does not have so much integration problems is twofold.
1. Lower immigrant influx from MENA countries when compared to the size of their population. Small immigrant influx integrates bette than a large one.
2. Geographic distance and Atlantic ocean acting as a great filter. Only elites from MENA countries have the means to immigrate into the US, while everyone and their dog can get into Europe. ALso, they are screened and selected before letting them immigrate, contrary to (western) Europe.
If MENA countries were located next to the US instead of Europe, the situation would be reversed. Just like the US has plenty of poor Mexican immigrants, but the EU has almost none - it is far easier to emigrate from Mexico to the US than to EU.
And let's not forget about another thing <on of the most important ones IMO>. How can USA or Canada have immigrant integration problems when their populations were created by immigrants in the past centuries. They were a mix of different nationalities from the very beginning. Hell yes it would be easier to integrate in a society where anybody can have ancestors coming from different places then in ethnic monolith.
-
Were either of those two movements radicalised?
Dylan Roof, I suppose, never happened. It makes sense then that you'd ask this question.
Realistically speaking today is the heyday of the neo-Confederates and the neo-seccesionists. The most they manage to put into action is the occasional shooting and crashing kid's birthday parties, but then if you actually listen to what people say when they talk about "radicalization" it's obvious it's not a statement about action anyways, but a mode of thought. The mode is definitely there.
-
Yeah, I think it depends on what the word "radicalized" means to you.
-
I think at this point NGTM-1R is trying to destroy a valid argument with nitpicks rather than actually addressing the root issue. I don't think anyone would claim that Texas or Alaskan secessionists are even remotely comparable to ISIS or Al-Qaeda in either the level of radicalisation they have achieved amongst their members or in their reach. So I don't see where this argument is going. And even if they had, I fail to see how it is relevant to my claim that if Mexico had a similar movement to ISIS that the US would be facing problems with illegal immigration and terrorism similar (but not necessarily at the same level) as Europe is facing.
-
(http://ntdsc.org/gallery/okcmuseum/images/bombing1.jpg)
one could argue there is not that huge a gulf.
-
One would be wrong.
I don't think a single large attack in 20 years which wasn't even by the group NGTM-1R was talking about is comparable. And even if it was, that still doesn't answer what the **** this has to do with Mexican terrorism.
-
I just disagreed with your characterization of neo-confederates and secessionists as not radical.
but looking back at where where the conversation came from, you are familiar with the Mexican Reconquista movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista_(Mexico)), no? wouldn't be surprised if more than 1 in 1000 Mexicans agreed with it. in fact it looks like nearly 60% of them already thing mexico owns the US Southwest (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/710508/posts)
-
And if you seriously believe them to be a movement comparable with ISIS (or for instance Hezbollah), I don't think there is much more to say here.
-
Who? The various domestic anti-government forces or the the Mexican Reconquista people? In either case I think the only thing stopping them is lack of a power vacuum. In Mexico's case though there already are the drug cartels that while certainly not there yet can be compared with ISIS.
-
I've said that part of the reason that the US doesn't have the immigration issues that Europe has (in addition to the issue MP-Ryan mentions) is because of the lack of an ISIS like organisation close to its borders. And the drug cartels are a problem for the southern states, right?
-
1. Lower immigrant influx from MENA countries when compared to the size of their population. Small immigrant influx integrates bette than a large one.
2. Geographic distance and Atlantic ocean acting as a great filter. Only elites from MENA countries have the means to immigrate into the US, while everyone and their dog can get into Europe. ALso, they are screened and selected before letting them immigrate, contrary to (western) Europe.
Thank you for reinforcing my point. You know, that one I've been repeating constantly that the EU has abdicated all responsibility for border and immigration control and as a result has ensnared itself in a huge problem of its member states' own making.
-
Thank you for reinforcing my point. You know, that one I've been repeating constantly that the EU has abdicated all responsibility for border and immigration control and as a result has ensnared itself in a huge problem of its member states' own making.
Yeah, I totaly agree with that point. What I dont agree with is this part of your post:
Know why you have integration and radicalization problems? Policies like this most recent one. Feel free to contrast to the United States or Canada. The US has 300 million people; Canada has 30 million. Despite generous immigration and refugee programs, neither faces anywhere near the integration or radicalization problems of the troubled European nations because both embrace immigration and provide opportunities for immigrants to become full, participating economic and democratic citizens in short order, while allowing them to practice their cultures and beliefs inside the multicultural communities of the larger nation.
Wrong reasons why US and Canada supposedly fare better in the integration of muslims:
- because they "embrace immigration"
- because they do not have policies like this recent one
- because of multiculturalism (lol)
- because of better immigration control (US borders are porous as hell and migration control very weak)
Correct reason why US and Canada supposedly fare better in the integration of muslims:
- geographic position which acts as a great filter to easy muslim immigration
-
Wrong reasons why US and Canada supposedly fare better in the integration of muslims:
- because they "embrace immigration"
- because they do not have policies like this recent one
- because of multiculturalism (lol)
- because of better immigration control (US borders are porous as hell and migration control very weak)
Correct reason why US and Canada supposedly fare better in the integration of muslims:
- geographic position which acts as a great filter to easy muslim immigration
All of the above are factors. The US/Canada are selective in who they accept as immigrants (because we bother to control our borders at the federal and now even continental level), which in turn enables both to be far more accommodating in our treatment of them. The two go hand-in-hand. The European Union has abdicated all responsibility as far as immigration controls go, which has been the direct precursor to a ****load of anti-immigrant - and particularly anti-Muslim - policies and political parties in multiple European nations. Not only are they letting essentially everyone in, they're then treating them like **** (in many cases). Wonder why you have a problem?
-
The money has not been spent: It has been given to the banks so that they could recover. Now that they are recovered, they are giving it back (or atleast, they should be giving it back).
Remember that the money was used to cover the investment losses of the banks. Hence, it is lost. What boggles the mind is that the EU nations did not get shares of the said banks in return.
On the topic, I'm with MP-Ryan here. The EU border policy has been downright awful, and given that we have carried our part here in the North, it is really annoying to see the borders leaking like sieves in the South while Central Europe manages to encourage the thing. Well done, clap clap.
Luckily, some common sense has returned in light of the New Year stuff.
However, I draw the line in the confiscation of personal property. I don't know the background of why Danes would do that (it's quite easy to say that is to get revenge on Muslims, but I'll have to assume there's something more behind), and some people are proposing this to be implemented here. No, this is where I draw the line. It's one of the core functions of the government to guarantee the right to own property.
Apparently, sufficient number of Swedes were pissed off and they beat the crap out of "children" (media term) in the tube. Remember it were those children who also knifed one aid worker to death, so I'm suspecting a slight bias in the article. This reaction has been predictable from the start, and the more media tries to shush the refugee related issues, the more this is going to happen. The more slaps on the wrist the court delivers, the more beating the crap out of the refugees is gonna happen. However, I think the refugees also learned something. We'll have to see whether tensions increase or decrease because of this. I hope mainly nobody was seriously injured, if it's only slight bruises and nothing else, I'll have to commend the Swedes on the proper utilization of force.
-
Remember that the money was used to cover the investment losses of the banks. Hence, it is lost. What boggles the mind is that the EU nations did not get shares of the said banks in return.
It doesn't even matter if that money was lost, letting the banks fail would have amounted to a far bigger loss. The economics of a country do not work the same way as the economics of your current account.
-
Remember that the money was used to cover the investment losses of the banks. Hence, it is lost. What boggles the mind is that the EU nations did not get shares of the said banks in return.
It doesn't even matter if that money was lost, letting the banks fail would have amounted to a far bigger loss. The economics of a country do not work the same way as the economics of your current account.
It's still a huge moral hazard issue the way it was handled though.
-
Not only are they letting essentially everyone in, they're then treating them like **** (in many cases). Wonder why you have a problem?
It is not true that we treat them like ****. Europe is probably the most immigrant welcoming region right after the US. And contrary to US, they get more welfare here.
Integration is 90% immigrant doing, 10% natives doing. Even if we treated the migrants like little princesses, we would still be changing only that 10%. 90% of differences in integration are simply due to composition of immigrants, primarily affected by geography. That is by far the most important factor.
And since Europe has no Atlantic ocean between us and the MENA region, we must use other means (such as strict immigration policy and border controls) to achieve the same effect.
-
These are meaningless numbers 10% and 90%. If you put all of your refugees in crowded camps with armed guards, would that still be just the natives 10%? If they set their minds to it, could the refugees then integrate, seeing as how they're still in control of 90% of their integration?
-
According to dutch (https://www.piresearch.nl/files/1683/driessen+e.a.+%282014%29+de+ontwikkeling+van+de+criminaliteit+van.pdf) research (http://www.wrr.nl/publicaties/publicatie/article/geen-tijd-verliezen-van-opvang-naar-integratie-van-asielmigranten-4/), Iraqese and Afghani immigrants in the Netherlands commit less crimes then their dutch peers in similar socio-economic positions - In dutch crime stats, asylum seekers are under-represented. You may be correct in saying that if people do not want to change, they will not change, but you may vastly underestimate people's willingness to excell.
EU studies have concluded that interethnicity has no effect on social cohesion (http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043309). The truth is that people will adapt to countries which offer them a roof. We are talking about people who went to great lenghts to travel to Europe, they are not stupid. The Afghani and Iraqi immigrants in the Netherlands were able to adapt because we gave them that oppertunity.
This is why I support MP-Ryan's point: We need an EU thing. Mabye Finland doesn't have the space. Alright, mabye. Then let them come to the Netherlands! We have literally a million square meters of unused buildings due to some sort of banking practice, and we used to have laws that allowed anyone to seize those properties if they lay unused for a year. Re-enact those! We spend 1 billion euros on the care of the refugees, which is exactly 0,17% of the GDP. We can take on a few more!
And we really should, and not because those immigrants are doing a better job at being model citizens then our own dutch natives in similar socio economic positions are. We should work towards an EU border control and immigration policy as we are going to need those systems when Russia starts getting nostalgic about the whole soviet union thing and decides to forcibly re-enact the Warschau pact. We should enact those systems because Denmark is not only enacting symbolic policies in order to make them look like dicks, they're also buying adverts in Libyan newspapers that openly advertise: "Look, we're dicks, don't come to us!", which is perfect propaganda for our ideological enemies which want to sell the story that we're dicks. Heck, we should not be dicks because if there's anything that history is taught us it's that in times of trouble there are less dicks: History has shown that being a dick is a luxury. The purpose of the EU was to build an economic powerhouse that could challenge Russia, China and the US on an economic level: Right now we say we can't even handle a few extra mouths to feed. And we really should be able to feed those extra mouths as people will keep coming! Civil wars will break out, both within the EU and without. There will be a time that one of the people reading this thread will be a refugee, and we should be ready to recieve them when this happens because in the end that is what everyone wants: For when a time of trouble comes that the people they need to rely upon are not dicks. Heck, a lot of countries within the EU recieve economic aid from the richer countries in the EU. We have a system that helps other countries build up their economic strength. There is no reason why the recieving countries should refuse to utilize this system for the betterment of the handling of refugees.
-
It is not true that we treat them like ****
Exhibit A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering
Exhibit B: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/12/17/denmark-wants-to-seize-jewelry-from-refugees/
Exhibit C: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_minaret_referendum,_2009
Etc.
And this doesn't address the rise of UKIP (UK), PVV (Netherlands), AfD (Germany), National Front (France), DPP (Denmark), Jobbik (Hungary), etc in the political realms.
Europe has failed to properly exert control over its borders for decades, has taken on vast swaths of often-poorly screened immigrants, has experienced a relatively small social impact from a tiny minority of those immigrants, has in many places enacted laws and policies that are outright anti-immigrant, and now is looking at immigration generally as the source its woes instead of seeing that European nations are the authors of their own misfortune on this issue. The problem isn't refugees, the problem isn't immigrants, the problem lies with a European Union that has failed to take any responsibility for management on both of these issues.
Even intra-European migration encounters this issue, though; one need only look at working-class opinion in the northerneastern UK toward Polish migrants, or continental European attitudes toward Roma to see that particular ugliness at work. It's not that other countries don't experience problems and policy challenges (see: 2015 Canadian election, CPC "barbaic practices" tipline; see also 2016 US election GOP primary), but there has been a particularly virulent form of ugliness brewing in Europe generally for the last couple decades that no one appears to be meaningfully addressing.
Europe has created in the EU a central government that should be responsible for continent-wide immigration policy - seeing as there are virtually no immigrant controls between EU members - yet has spectacularly failed to agree to give it any authority over its members on this issue. Again, the tide of refugees shouldn't have been met on Greek beaches with a sign saying "Hey, Germany is that way, mind the Hungarians, they're sticking numbers on people again" but by a coordinated effort from the EU itself to receive, organize, aid, and ultimately designate where refugees were to be initially sent after arrival. It should never have been on Greece, or Turkey, or any other individual member state to receive the flood, and yet it was, because nobody stepped up.
-
The EU is essentially acting in this regard as the United States did under its original governing document, the Articles of Confederation: as a nominal grouping of independent actors all pulling in disparate ways without any thought to central organization. You'll notice that the US realized within a decade that said confederation was ****awful and convened a convention to draft a legitimate federal system of government.
-
The US ended up that way because a very primitive state was deliberately split up and decentralised, as opposed to the EU forming from very old states which have increasingly grouped together.
-
Side note: Turkey is not an EU member. It is part of NATO, though.
-
The truth is that people will adapt to countries which offer them a roof.
Countries are an abstract concept. People do not adapt to their country, but to their peers. Integration occurs because an immigrant is forced to take on peers of the host culture; it fails if you abruptly transplant a large population, as they will follow the path of least resistance and primarily take peers of their own culture.
You can't take a million people, tell them to change their ways, and not expect them to simply form an echo chamber to drown you out instead.
-
According to dutch (https://www.piresearch.nl/files/1683/driessen+e.a.+%282014%29+de+ontwikkeling+van+de+criminaliteit+van.pdf) research (http://www.wrr.nl/publicaties/publicatie/article/geen-tijd-verliezen-van-opvang-naar-integratie-van-asielmigranten-4/), Iraqese and Afghani immigrants in the Netherlands commit less crimes then their dutch peers in similar socio-economic positions - In dutch crime stats, asylum seekers are under-represented. You may be correct in saying that if people do not want to change, they will not change, but you may vastly underestimate people's willingness to excell.
Non-native Dutch youths, especially young Antillean and Surinamese Rotterdammers, commit more crimes than the average. More than half of Moroccan-Dutch male youths aged 18 to 24 years in Rotterdam have ever been investigated by the police, as compared to close to a quarter of native male youths. Eighteen percent of foreign-born young people aged from 18 to 24 have been investigated for crimes.[58][59]
According to a 2009 report commissioned by Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin, 63% of the 447 teenagers convicted of serious crime are children of parents born outside the Netherlands. All these cases concern crime for which the maximum jail sentence is longer than eight years, such as robbery with violence, extortion, arson, public acts of violence, sexual assault, manslaughter and murder. The ethnic composition of the perpetrators was: native Dutch - 37%; Moroccans - 14%; Unknown origin - 14%; "other non-Westerners" - 9%; Turkish - 8%; Surinamese - 7%; Antillean - 7%; and "other Westerners" - 4%.[60] In the majority of cases, the judges did not consider the serious offences to be grave enough to necessitate an unconditional jail sentence.[60]
Analysis of police data for 2002 by ethnicity showed that 37.5 percent of all crime suspects living in the Netherlands were of foreign origin (including those of the second generation), almost twice as high as the share of immigrants in the Dutch population. The highest rates per capita were found among first and second generation male migrants of a non‐Western background. Of native male youths between the ages of 18 and 24, in 2002 2.2% were arrested, of all immigrant males of the same age 4.4%, of second generation non-Western males 6.4%. The crime rates for so‐called ‘Western migrants’ were very close to those of the native Dutch. In all groups, the rates for women were considerably lower than for men, lower than one percent, with the highest found among second generation non‐western migrants, 0.9% (Blom et al. 2005: 31).[61]
For Moroccan immigrants, whether they originate from the underdeveloped parts of Morocco has a modest impact on their crime rate. One study finds that "crime rates in the Netherlands are higher among Moroccans who come from the countryside and the Rif, or whose parents do, than among those who come from the urban provinces in Morocco and from outside the Rif, or whose parents do."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime#Netherlands
Immigrant populations from MENA region are overrepresented in crime and poverty all over Europe, including Netherlands. Your source is at best just an exception to the statistical pattern, at worst a faulty study. And we should not base our policies on exceptions.
Ethnicity alone may have no effect on social cohesion, but economical and cultural differences definitely have a negative effect. And it is those that strongly increase with unregulated immigration. As opposed to strictly regulated one, where you may end up with different skin colors, all have the same culture, a melting pot.
You are continuing to talk about the need for a common EU policy. And I agree, having common EU immigration and asylum policy would be ideal. The core of the issue is, I imagine a different policy than you. A policy based on an idea of a fortress Europe, one where European countries work together to protect the borders and track the migrants. To further the interests of each other, not those outside of EU. Humanitarian side of this common policy should consist of generous foreign aid, not open borders.
So how can Europe have common policy on immigration matters when there is little consensus on what to do?
-
It is not true that we treat them like ****
Exhibit A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering
Exhibit B: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/12/17/denmark-wants-to-seize-jewelry-from-refugees/
Exhibit C: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_minaret_referendum,_2009
Etc.
And this doesn't address the rise of UKIP (UK), PVV (Netherlands), AfD (Germany), National Front (France), DPP (Denmark), Jobbik (Hungary), etc in the political realms.
These are all trivial issues that certainly cannot explain rise of radicalization or lack of integration. Heck, that ban on face covering, as much as I disagree with it for reasons of personal liberty, may actually increase integration.
People do not integrate to society based on whether they can build minarets or or how many % of votes an anti-immigrant party gets. Thats not how human mind works.
People integrate based on whether they want to integrate, and based on how much they interact with native society. Those are the deciding factors. And the reality is, muslim culture is quite conservative, they want to conserve their way of life as it is practiced in their home lands instead of assimilating, and so often they do not even want to fully integrate and assimilate. To do so would mean a betrayal of their morals and views. This is a major barrier to integration. Second, with mass immigration they can get away with interacting mostly among themselves because there are so many of them and so they form ghettos and enclaves. That is another huge barrier to successful integration.
These are the dominant factors, and not how we treat the migrants.
-
Even intra-European migration encounters this issue, though; one need only look at working-class opinion in the northerneastern UK toward Polish migrants, or continental European attitudes toward Roma to see that particular ugliness at work.
As for Roma, now that is an example where "xenophobes" of the past were proven correct by passage of time. Even hundreds of years were not enough for them to integrate into society. In hidnsight, the correct choice was to not allow them to settle in our land. As I said before, it is historically the most homogenous countries that tend to support mass immigration. Western Europe had almost no minorities just a few decades ago, so they are naive to the dangers of multiculturalism. To even see a brown person was a rarity. Contrary to that, eastern Europe was interacting with muslims and with Romas for almost a millenium. Maybe thats why our stance on the issue is much more cautious and rational, stemming from practical experience instead of naive idealism.
-
As I said before, it is historically the most homogenous countries that tend to support mass immigration. Western Europe had almost no minorities just a few decades ago, so they are naive to the dangers of multiculturalism. To even see a brown person was a rarity. Contrary to that, eastern Europe was interacting with muslims and with Romas for almost a millenium. Maybe thats why our stance on the issue is much more cautious and rational, stemming from practical experience instead of naive idealism.
And maybe your stance is born out of prejudice so deeply entrenched that it seems rational to you.
-
And maybe your stance is born out of prejudice so deeply entrenched that it seems rational to you.
Maybe. But the burden of proof should not be on me. Because if I am wrong and yet we enact fortress Europe policy, nothing bad will happen. But if I am right and yet (western) Europe continues with this open borders madness, it will lead to a persistent social problem much like the Roma, and worse. Immigration policy is not something that should be weakened based only on maybes, Europe should play it safe.
-
Maybe. But the burden of proof should not be on me. Because if I am wrong and yet we enact fortress Europe policy, nothing bad will happen.
Visit China. And then talk to me about nothing bad happening if you force a country to be a monoculture.
-
People do not integrate to society based on whether they can build minarets or or how many % of votes an anti-immigrant party gets. Thats not how human mind works.
As for Roma, now that is an example where "xenophobes" of the past were proven correct
But if I am right and yet (western) Europe continues with this open borders madness, it will lead to a persistent social problem much like the Roma, and worse.
I have not the time, patience, or desire to teach psychology, sociology, and immigration policy to a brick wall on the Internet.
-
Maybe. But the burden of proof should not be on me. Because if I am wrong and yet we enact fortress Europe policy, nothing bad will happen.
Visit China. And then talk to me about nothing bad happening if you force a country to be a monoculture.
Don't we have enough of "our" cultures, though? Germany, for example, is anything but a monoculture without need for immigrants. Every "land" has its own traditions and culture. Same with France, Poland, the UK (why do you think its called the United Kingdom?). Blocking immigration =/= monoculturalism. China made a quite deliberate attempt to be completely homogeneous.
-
Why is it that you fear cultural change so much?
-
The truth is that people will adapt to countries which offer them a roof.
Countries are an abstract concept. People do not adapt to their country, but to their peers. Integration occurs because an immigrant is forced to take on peers of the host culture; it fails if you abruptly transplant a large population, as they will follow the path of least resistance and primarily take peers of their own culture.
You can't take a million people, tell them to change their ways, and not expect them to simply form an echo chamber to drown you out instead.
You can. A million people sounds like a lot, but the EU has 550 million citizens. It's a matter of redistribution. The Netherlands currently has 1,8 million people that have non-western origins. The largest problem we have is Geert Wilders.
-
You can. A million people sounds like a lot, but the EU has 550 million citizens. It's a matter of redistribution.
I would even be fine with some redistribution but only after the flow of migrants is stopped and borders secured. Otherwise it would only serve to hide the problem and spread it around. Redistribution is just a band-aid, secure borders are the cure.
Also, it is a million but per year. It can add up over time.
-
Maybe. But the burden of proof should not be on me. Because if I am wrong and yet we enact fortress Europe policy, nothing bad will happen.
Visit China. And then talk to me about nothing bad happening if you force a country to be a monoculture.
I dont need to visit China to see a monoculture, I live in one (at least relatively to the multiculturalist ideal). And its really not that bad.
-
You can. A million people sounds like a lot, but the EU has 550 million citizens. It's a matter of redistribution. The Netherlands currently has 1,8 million people that have non-western origins. The largest problem we have is Geert Wilders.
How we distribute them throughout Europe is one thing. The problem is that the immigrants are not eager to be "redistributed". They focus on the most generous welfare states like Germany and Sweden. If you force a group of them to settle e.g. in Poland, most of them would soon depart to Germany.
Second thing is how we treat them. They are mostly placed in camps where they live among their brethren and therefore feel no need to assimilate. As they receive social benefits, they don't need to work either. They're just sitting there, in the camps, feeling bored. It's not surprising some of them became thieves and assaulters. Europe has completely no idea what to do with such masses of people.
What is more, police and authorities are given instructions to tolerate visitors' assaults on women and other violations of law. If you send them a signal "we won't punish you", then how could you expect them to change?
I wouldn't so eagerly claim Europe's greatest problem are far-right anti-migrant parties. They are a symptom of a problem. They show something's wrong with Europe and people see it, even if they do not choose best ways to handle the problem.
-
You can. A million people sounds like a lot, but the EU has 550 million citizens. It's a matter of redistribution. The Netherlands currently has 1,8 million people that have non-western origins. The largest problem we have is Geert Wilders.
How we distribute them throughout Europe is one thing. The problem is that the immigrants are not eager to be "redistributed". They focus on the most generous welfare states like Germany and Sweden. If you force a group of them to settle e.g. in Poland, most of them would soon depart to Germany.
Which is why, as MP-Ryan already mentioned, we need to handle this at a federal level.
Second thing is how we treat them. They are mostly placed in camps where they live among their brethren and therefore feel no need to assimilate. As they receive social benefits, they don't need to work either.
I am not sure how it is over at you, but refugees that are placed in dutch detention camps do not recieve benefits. To recieve social benefits you have to be a dutch citizen, and the refugees that are placed are not: They are waiting for the completion of the process that will indicate if they get a shot at becoming a dutch citizen or not. That this is a process that can take years is a problem. A similar and related problem is the process that refugees in The Netherlands have to go once their refugee status has been denied, which takes so long that people have been driven to suicide over it.
What is more, police and authorities are given instructions to tolerate visitors' assaults on women and other violations of law. If you send them a signal "we won't punish you", then how could you expect them to change?
Where did this happen?
-
Where did this happen?
The most oft-cited source is an investigation by Bild (which, being a tabloid, should be taken with a grain of salt). But given Germany's aggressive crackdown on opposition viewpoints, such as pressuring Facebook and Twitter to delete anti-immigration sentiment as "hate speech" and politicians threatening to boycott election debates that included AfD, it wouldn't be a surprise. Something like the Sharia Police incident would at least see a slap on the wrist for harassment in most first-world countries. I even had an article about new state TV guidelines on what words could and could not be used for migrants, migrants being in the latter category.
-
Looks like Germany, in its quest for political correctness, crossed the line into outright oppressiveness. Though it's not like they weren't close already, what with their obsession with suppressing anything remotely related to Nazis (at times even in actual, historical portrayals of them!). Ironically, I think this is in a large part responsible for the current rise of radicalism. Radicals who have guts to shout "Down with political correctness!" get a positive response simply because they stand up to something that's been irritating everyone, but was previously socially unacceptable to challenge (this was also quoted as the reason why Trump gets so much applause).
IMO, political correctness is essentially sweeping the underlying problems under the rug. Racism, for example, isn't gone when people don't use racial slurs. It's gone when they use them in jokes and they're understood as being just a joke. Until it's actually become nothing but a joke, you can't really say the serious version is dealt with. Same with every other issue people have been sweeping under the rug. "Hate speech" needs to be countered much like creationism or other absurd beliefs are fought. Rational arguments, satire or simply ignoring the speaker as an idiot not worthy of attention (the latter only works if the speaker is in a tiny minority). If you stop people from saying something in public, they'll simply say it in private. Germany seems to be having precisely this problem.
Though even given all that, I wouldn't put much stock in Bild. It might have very well just made the aforementioned incident up. Anti-immigrant stuff is known to sell well these days.
-
Looks like Germany, in its quest for political correctness, crossed the line into outright oppressiveness. Though it's not like they weren't close already, what with their obsession with suppressing anything remotely related to Nazis (at times even in actual, historical portrayals of them!). Ironically, I think this is in a large part responsible for the current rise of radicalism. Radicals who have guts to shout "Down with political correctness!" get a positive response simply because they stand up to something that's been irritating everyone, but was previously socially unacceptable to challenge (this was also quoted as the reason why Trump gets so much applause).
You.... really have no idea about german politics. If you think we were suppressing "anything remotely related to Nazis", I invite you to check out the curriculum for history lessons starting in grade 7, I think?
(It's a historical fact that the treatment of WW2 in GDR schools is part of the reason why neonazis are much more common in former GDR states than they are in the west)
IMO, political correctness is essentially sweeping the underlying problems under the rug. Racism, for example, isn't gone when people don't use racial slurs. It's gone when they use them in jokes and they're understood as being just a joke.
Oh, I get it! Just like sexism is no longer a problem because we joke about women drivers all the time! (You are very wrong)
Until it's actually become nothing but a joke, you can't really say the serious version is dealt with.
One of the highest grossing comedies in german cinema last year, with over 2.4 million viewers (which is about the same as the first Avengers movie, to put it in perspective) was "Er ist wieder da", a film in which Adolf Hitler suddenly appears in modern-day Germany.
The fact that jokes about Nazis have become mainstream should tell you something.
Same with every other issue people have been sweeping under the rug. "Hate speech" needs to be countered much like creationism or other absurd beliefs are fought. Rational arguments, satire or simply ignoring the speaker as an idiot not worthy of attention (the latter only works if the speaker is in a tiny minority). If you stop people from saying something in public, they'll simply say it in private. Germany seems to be having precisely this problem.
I am not going to say I'm in favour of what the government is trying to do regarding facebook and net censorship, but I will point out that as long as these laws are on the books, the government is bound to enforce them.
Though even given all that, I wouldn't put much stock in Bild. It might have very well just made the aforementioned incident up. Anti-immigrant stuff is known to sell well these days.
Bild lies. Always.
-
I've split the feminism discussion into a topic a bit more clearly titled. Feel free to continue discussing immigration and integration here.
-
:necro:
The UK's policy of sending people who earn less then 35,000 pounds home is hitting soon, the Guardian has a piece on it (http://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/mar/12/eu-workers-deported-earning-less-35000-employees-americans-australians?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other)
So, fully knowing that there are some people in this thread who are in favour of laws like these, I do have to ask: Is this really what you want?
-
:necro:
The UK's policy of sending people who earn less then 35,000 pounds home is hitting soon, the Guardian has a piece on it (http://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/mar/12/eu-workers-deported-earning-less-35000-employees-americans-australians?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other)
So, fully knowing that there are some people in this thread who are in favour of laws like these, I do have to ask: Is this really what you want?
As I said before, I believe 35,000 is too high a limit, considering that average wage in the UK is only around 26,000. If skilled people such as junior engineers have problems reaching the threshold, then it is time to lower it, IMHO.
But other than that, it is a good policy in principle. UK must not become a dumping ground open for unproductive people to settle in at will, permanently. Some kind of a salary limit for immigrants certainly makes a lot of sense to keep GDP per capita high and poverty among immigrant populations low. So I am in favor of laws like these, just not this particular number.
-
If you're drawing a salary, then by definition you are not "unproductive".
-
If you're drawing a salary, then by definition you are not "unproductive".
Indeed: The policy only applies to people who have a tier 2 visa who want to stay in the UK longer: Those people have already been working in the UK for several years.
To get a tier 2 visa, you must have been offered a job that pays £20,800. After 5 years of working in the UK, you can then request a "Live in the UK indefinitely" license (otherwise you only have another year left). This new rule, which only applies to the tier 2 visa, ensures that you can only get a 'live in the UK indefinitely' license if your current job pays atleast £35,000.
This ruling only affects productive workers. It's explained at the bottom of the article. Heck it's explained by the entire article.
-
If you're drawing a salary, then by definition you are not "unproductive".
Relatively unproductive compared to people with higher salary. It is important to ensure that immigrants arent poorer than the natives, both from economic standpoint, but also for their easier integration. The only question is where exactly to put the cut-off. 35,000 seems too high to me..
-
You can. A million people sounds like a lot, but the EU has 550 million citizens. It's a matter of redistribution. The Netherlands currently has 1,8 million people that have non-western origins. The largest problem we have is Geert Wilders.
How we distribute them throughout Europe is one thing. The problem is that the immigrants are not eager to be "redistributed". They focus on the most generous welfare states like Germany and Sweden. If you force a group of them to settle e.g. in Poland, most of them would soon depart to Germany.
Which is why, as MP-Ryan already mentioned, we need to handle this at a federal level.
Second thing is how we treat them. They are mostly placed in camps where they live among their brethren and therefore feel no need to assimilate. As they receive social benefits, they don't need to work either.
I am not sure how it is over at you, but refugees that are placed in dutch detention camps do not recieve benefits. To recieve social benefits you have to be a dutch citizen, and the refugees that are placed are not: They are waiting for the completion of the process that will indicate if they get a shot at becoming a dutch citizen or not. That this is a process that can take years is a problem. A similar and related problem is the process that refugees in The Netherlands have to go once their refugee status has been denied, which takes so long that people have been driven to suicide over it.
What is more, police and authorities are given instructions to tolerate visitors' assaults on women and other violations of law. If you send them a signal "we won't punish you", then how could you expect them to change?
Where did this happen?
Oh just about pretty much in all the larger cities that have districts in the hand of large arabic families, Berlin Neu-Köln probably being the most prominent example. To be fair, catching people giving actual instructions may be rather diffcult, but there is definitely a huge willingness to self censor and give people with immigrant backgrounds huge leeway in order to avoid being called a Nazi. If this willingness is a case of common sense and self protection or if it's an actual order from a superior is a rather moot point however imho. The effect is pretty much the same ...
In addition to molesting of women and aggressive pickpocketing of anybody else in certain districts of larger cities ...
You have cases like a father raping his daughter and being set free by the German justice system because persecuting the case would mean the victim would be revealed as "dishonored" to her entire family and hence become the victim of a "honor killing" before long.
You have countless cases of socalled "justices of the peace" applying Scharia Law in cases where both parties are Muslim and once and agreement is reached all the people involved suddenly forgot what happened in front of the German judge.
You have reported cases of the larger families with criminal inclintion deliberately "importing" 12-13 year old children from abroad in order to use them for criminal activities before they turn 14 and can effectively persecuted by adult law.
If you want to catch up on those issues then "Das Ende der Gedult" by the Neu-Köln judge "Kirsten Heisig" would be a good start .... and keep in mind those cases i named above are all already 5 year old ... but every single one of them a testament of utterly failed integration of people adhering to hardline Muslimic culture.
Heck ... if you check out Tanja Kambouri's "Deutschland im Blaulicht" it paints a pretty grim picture of the treatment of female police officers on duty. Starting with utter disrespect and gratuitous power games going up to actual assault.
Then you have the whole mess with Cologne this year that made it so obvious how police and media tip toed around the issue of immigrant crime, everyone being oh so afraid that no one call them Nazi for suggesting not everything is "just great" with all those people coming in. Well, that mess at least was too big to not keep talking about it. But the local media is still full of smaller cases of sexual assault and petty theft that isn't even persecuted anymore simply because there is so much of it and there are no consequences that would deter the perpetrators.
Now don't take me wrong ... right extrimism and the violence it causes is a huge problem. But it is only one problem of two. Failed integration, unwillingness to integrate and crime rate amongst immigrants and refugees, especially amongst those with arabic muslimic/patriarchalic back ground is the just as big of a problem if not bigger and if that wasn't bad enough.... the failure to deal with the later problem, no wait ... the absolute unwillingness to even properly address it to the point of aggressively defaming anyone who even mentions immigrant crime over the last year(s), is naturally making the former problem of right extremism even worse as well.
Or in other words: The politic landscape in Germany isn't really a total clusterf*** right now because of the "immigration crisis" ... rather it is a total clusterf*** because of years of failed integration policy of pretty much all the major parties (Reds, Blacks and Greens just alike, if in different ways) and an exaggerated sense of political correctness resulted in attacks on anyone who suggested there even is a problem. (and again, that goes for the last years, not just the immediate crisis.)
What the current influx of refugees did however, was pretty much make it obvious just how badly integration policy is working. Or rather, and yes as sad as it is that kinda is the whole issue: How bad integration is working with people with arabic/muslimic backgrounds. There are no integration problems with Italians, Greeks, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese or whoever else. There is however a huge issue with people of the Muslimic inclination, or rather, to be more precise, with people of a conservative/literal Muslimic inclination, up the point where several of the Muslims who live in Germany for years already and are well integrated are shaking their head in disbelief at how politicians and the justice system are dragging their feet.
(And yes ... there are also cases of critical/moderate and well integrated Muslims being attacked by German Media as "Muslim haters" or "Islamophobes" just because they actually addressed the violent and mysogynistic tendencies of Muslims who follow a more conservative/archaic interpretation of Islam and wanted to discuss solutions - at the same time the same critical Muslims receive death threaths from said Muslims of a more archaic inclination - would be hilarious if it wouldn't be so serious and also showcase how FUBARED the entire public discussion of the matter is.)
As mentioned above, Kirsten Heisig's book would be a good starting point if you want to read up on what I addressed in this post.
-
You have cases like a father raping his daughter and being set free by the German justice system because persecuting the case would mean the victim would be revealed as "dishonored" to her entire family and hence become the victim of a "honor killing" before long.
Citation needed.
You have countless cases of socalled "justices of the peace" applying Scharia Law in cases where both parties are Muslim and once and agreement is reached all the people involved suddenly forgot what happened in front of the German judge.
Citation needed again (especially about the "countless" part).
You have reported cases of the larger families with criminal inclintion deliberately "importing" 12-13 year old children from abroad in order to use them for criminal activities before they turn 14 and can effectively persecuted by adult law.
Citation ****ing needed (As in, please produce statistics that show this to be a common issue; Just because it's being reported doesn't mean it's actually a thing)
If you want to catch up on those issues then "Das Ende der Gedult" by the Neu-Köln judge "Kirsten Heisig" would be a good start .... and keep in mind those cases i named above are all already 5 year old ... but every single one of them a testament of utterly failed integration of people adhering to hardline Muslimic culture.
A book which has been criticized as making islam a much greater issue than economic circumstances. It's not a cut-and-dried issue, and Heisig is one voice among many on this issue.
Heck ... if you check out Tanja Kambouri's "Deutschland im Blaulicht" it paints a pretty grim picture of the treatment of female police officers on duty. Starting with utter disrespect and gratuitous power games going up to actual assault.
Members of patriarchal cultures have difficulty dealing with women in positions of authority, news at eleven. Look, I am not going to say that this is acceptable or anything, but it's also not just a problem with the muslim community.
Then you have the whole mess with Cologne this year that made it so obvious how police and media tip toed around the issue of immigrant crime, everyone being oh so afraid that no one call them Nazi for suggesting not everything is "just great" with all those people coming in. Well, that mess at least was too big to not keep talking about it. But the local media is still full of smaller cases of sexual assault and petty theft that isn't even persecuted anymore simply because there is so much of it and there are no consequences that would deter the perpetrators.
And we all know that media reporting paints an accurate picture of how dire the crime situation in Germany is.
(In case you do not know: It doesn't.)
Now don't take me wrong ... right extrimism and the violence it causes is a huge problem. But it is only one problem of two. Failed integration, unwillingness to integrate and crime rate amongst immigrants and refugees, especially amongst those with arabic muslimic/patriarchalic back ground is the just as big of a problem if not bigger and if that wasn't bad enough.... the failure to deal with the later problem, no wait ... the absolute unwillingness to even properly address it to the point of aggressively defaming anyone who even mentions immigrant crime over the last year(s), is naturally making the former problem of right extremism even worse as well.
Because it's not as big a problem as Bild, Pegida and AfD would want you to believe. Not saying that there aren't any issues, but they're not as common as you seem to believe.
Or in other words: The politic landscape in Germany isn't really a total clusterf*** right now because of the "immigration crisis" ... rather it is a total clusterf*** because of years of failed integration policy of pretty much all the major parties (Reds, Blacks and Greens just alike, if in different ways) and an exaggerated sense of political correctness resulted in attacks on anyone who suggested there even is a problem. (and again, that goes for the last years, not just the immediate crisis.)
What the current influx of refugees did however, was pretty much make it obvious just how badly integration policy is working. Or rather, and yes as sad as it is that kinda is the whole issue: How bad integration is working with people with arabic/muslimic backgrounds. There are no integration problems with Italians, Greeks, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese or whoever else.
Strange how different economic circumstances can influence behaviour, isn't it.
There is however a huge issue with people of the Muslimic inclination, or rather, to be more precise, with people of a conservative/literal Muslimic inclination, up the point where several of the Muslims who live in Germany for years already and are well integrated are shaking their head in disbelief at how politicians and the justice system are dragging their feet.
You make it sound as if the majority of muslims are "problematic", something you damn well know is not the ****ing case.
-
You have countless cases of socalled "justices of the peace" applying Scharia Law in cases where both parties are Muslim and once and agreement is reached all the people involved suddenly forgot what happened in front of the German judge.
Citation needed again (especially about the "countless" part).
I know what you are referring to here: There were a couple of publicized cases where civil lawsuits were decided based on the judges' interpretation of islamic law. In particular, cases where marriages between muslims fell apart; in these cases, islamic law was considered to be the basis of the marriage agreements.
While unusual for germans, this is not the dreaded "Sharia Law" you're afraid of, and all the decisions handed out this way are legal under the BGB (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, civil law).
-
You have countless cases of socalled "justices of the peace" applying Scharia Law in cases where both parties are Muslim and once and agreement is reached all the people involved suddenly forgot what happened in front of the German judge.
Citation needed again (especially about the "countless" part).
I know what you are referring to here: There were a couple of publicized cases where civil lawsuits were decided based on the judges' interpretation of islamic law. In particular, cases where marriages between muslims fell apart; in these cases, islamic law was considered to be the basis of the marriage agreements.
While unusual for germans, this is not the dreaded "Sharia Law" you're afraid of, and all the decisions handed out this way are legal under the BGB (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, civil law).
Actually you don't.
Also, i gave you my source: http://www.amazon.de/Geduld-Konsequent-gegen-jugendliche-Gewaltt%C3%A4ter/dp/3451302047/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1457831459&sr=8-1&keywords=das+ende+der+gedult
Shall I make it bold or something? Cases mentioned were directly out of the book.
And yes of course it was critizised, ... as EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE was critizised who mentioned the issue before Cologne.
The funny part is ... she hardly singles out Muslims, but rather lays the finger at several sore spots with youth criminality where politics have absolutely failed.
Crime committed by youths with Muslim background were only remarkable in that there was so much more of it, especially where violence is concerned, than all of the other ethnicies combined.
... it was kinda hard to argue away what she wrote even 5 years ago. The crime statistics she does quote in her book kinda tell the story all on their own.
However, maybe go ahead and read it and make up your own mind. /shrugs.
http://www.amazon.de/Richter-ohne-Gesetz-Paralleljustiz-Rechtsstaat/dp/3548374808/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1457831765&sr=8-2&keywords=scharia+deutschland kinda tells a similar story, but with the focus on applied Scharia law in Germany.
Written by a jurist and former anchor of the Panorama Magazine on ARD: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Wagner_%28Journalist%29 And to answer you question ... Wagner critizises specifically how Scharia law plays a greater and greater role in cases where violence amongst Muslims, domestic violence, sexual assault & rape and even honor killings are concerned. You see ... once a justice of peace dealt with an issue the issue is considered dealt with by the "community in question" ... witnesses will suddenly have a case of Amnesia in front of the German judge ... and if they don't the community will regularly excert pressure and threaths, even death threaths until they do.
Effectively you have murder cases where instead of a trial and a jail sentence you have one family paying blood money to the other, case closed due to lack of evidence / witness amnesia. And in case you didn't get it ... the source for that is: http://www.amazon.de/Richter-ohne-Gesetz-Paralleljustiz-Rechtsstaat/dp/3548374808/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1457831765&sr=8-2&keywords=scharia+deutschland as well. You can probably guess who is literally SOL in those proceedings ... yes, women and generally anyone belonging to a weaker family who has to deal with a stronger family, making this a thinly veiled version of "Recht des Stärkeren"/law of the jungle on German streets within those communities.
Mind you ... those aren't loonies or anything, Heisig neither ... those are people with insight into the legal system absolutely horrified and frustrated at how helpless the "Rechtsstaat" is in the face of those issues. Especially since they are all but left alone if not outright opposed or even defamed by the politicians in charge when trying to address the issue.
And yeah ... if anything I was kinda surprised as well as disgusted how much literature exists on the subject or rather already existed well before the issue was dragged into the public eye with Cologne. The impression I get from this is that the issue of ... let's call it failed "archaic Muslim" integration or rather the resulting entrenched paralell society is a longstanding problem long in the making ... which would have exploded sooner or later anyways .... now enter the refugees probably rather sooner than later.
-
But other than that, it is a good policy in principle. UK must not become a dumping ground open for unproductive people to settle in at will, permanently. Some kind of a salary limit for immigrants certainly makes a lot of sense to keep GDP per capita high and poverty among immigrant populations low. So I am in favor of laws like these, just not this particular number.
Did you not read the bit where it explained how this would cost the UK money?
-
But other than that, it is a good policy in principle. UK must not become a dumping ground open for unproductive people to settle in at will, permanently. Some kind of a salary limit for immigrants certainly makes a lot of sense to keep GDP per capita high and poverty among immigrant populations low. So I am in favor of laws like these, just not this particular number.
Did you not read the bit where it explained how this would cost the UK money?
Yes, this specific proposal with the limit set at 35,000 would cost the UK small amount of money, even in GDP per capita:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/117957/impact-assessment-tier2.pdf (page 18)
But the impact of similar law with the limit set lower (at average wage) would not necessarily be negative in GDP per capita.
-
If you're drawing a salary, then by definition you are not "unproductive".
Relatively unproductive compared to people with higher salary. It is important to ensure that immigrants arent poorer than the natives, both from economic standpoint, but also for their easier integration. The only question is where exactly to put the cut-off. 35,000 seems too high to me..
The problem is that Tier 2 immigrants are already earning more money then quite a few of the natives - Otherwise they'd not be able to get a tier 2 license to begin with: It's a requirement.
(Also, it should perhaps be noted that salary != productivity)
-
It's an interesting week in Central Europe (well, in my perspective).
A car bomb blows up in Berlin, and four police are wounded in an anti-terrorism operation in Bruxelles. And Europol is warning about increased threat of terrorism in Northern Europe. Although, it's unclear to me what is meant by "North" in this case.
I suppose there's only a couple of possible target cities north to Gulf of Finland where blowing stuff up could cause some kind of damage and maybe net some dozens of dead people. But that would immediately reverse acceptance of refugees to a good old village level smack down. With sufficient number of rounds to make the point. And then proper kicking the dudes back where they came from.
So let's see how long it takes till we get a first Defence Forces internal peacekeeping operation here. I'll be volunteering if push comes to shove.
Then again, things have been a bit more quiet around here, I wonder if it's the winter or if it's just the Finns attitude?
-
thanks mate, there's nothing like some vile xenophobic murderwank to remind me which side i'm really on
-
It's an interesting week in Central Europe (well, in my perspective).
...
Then again, things have been a bit more quiet around here, I wonder if it's the winter or if it's just the Finns attitude?
I guess it could be a combination of both :P
I would really wish that things won't get "interesting" in my country this year. Two big events will take place. World Youth Day <around 2 or 2.5 millions of pilgrims are estimated to come> and a NATO summit in Warsaw. Tough test for all security services.
-
thanks mate, there's nothing like some vile xenophobic murderwank to remind me which side i'm really on
You know what's interesting? There's a bunch of people around here too that say about the same. As a little background information, Finnish law requires demonstrations to have their own security staff included.
There was actually a demonstration planned against the refugees after a certain rape incident (local Northern case), and at the same time there was a counter demonstration for the refugees. None of the security related people volunteered for the demonstration for the refugees - the organizers of the against refugees demonstration suggested using theirs. The offer was not taken, so no counter demonstration ever happened. If you know any of the security related people, that's not any surprise as they are literally dealing with the issue with their bare hands.
Now coming on the point:
That's the difference between the sides participating in this: the other one is quite loud shouting all sorts of stuff about human values and such, but very bad at paying the bills related to those perceived values - or getting actually anything done. You won't see them wrestling people when two Arabic dudes get angry to each other (although, from the Finnish perspective the Arabs are embarrassingly ineffective at even that). That's while the other side pays the bills, doesn't shout and just DOES the stuff.
If the refugees do not want to integrate, they get kicked out, it's that simple. And I'm willing to lock and load to get that thing done if needed. You know, taken the oath to defend the country in the times of trouble and so on.
-
I hope to god for your sake that you never actually have to do the things you fantasise about.
-
Huh?
I've already been in the hospital for separating three Finns and one Russian from fighting against each other which was about to turn ugly. Turned to me vs three. The reason I had to go the hospital to get checked? I was too nice.
Been separating people fighting in the bars occasionally when the security staff ain't there.
Served as an assault squadron leader in the military.
So yeah, been there done that. And I'm not the only one.
It's gonna be interesting to see what's going to happen in the Spring time when the weather gets warmer. Will the bush rapes start to happen again (the odds are yes), or has something changed, courtesy of the domestication programs in the reception centers. I was predicting bodies around May on last September, so let's see how things are going to roll out.
-
Are we seriously comparing the refugee situation to drunken bar fights now? Only inbred simpletons would believe this situation can be resolved with "lock n load" or some good-old ethnic cleansing. It never works and would only make the situation worse.
You can't just start shooting at them, dealing with civilians is the job of the police.
-
Are we seriously comparing the refugee situation to drunken bar fights now? Only inbred simpletons would believe this situation can be resolved with "lock n load" or some good-old ethnic cleansing. It never works and would only make the situation worse.
You can't just start shooting at them, dealing with civilians is the job of the police.
That's just brilliant
I take it that you have no idea of the context of the military command "Lock and Load"? That means load weapons with the ammunition you have. Nothing else. The rules of engagement are in place, but when military assistance is needed in this sort of stuff, soldiers go with loaded weapons. Hence my comment.
And why military? Because the police constantly complains about their personal safety in dealing with the angry Arabs in reception centers, they just don't have enough man power available in any reasonable time frame as the distances are large around here - it may take half an hour for another patrol car to arrive. So two officers go stop a fight of fifteen; and Finnish police hasn't fired a shot yet in those cases nor tazed anyone.
Well they did shoot and kill one Somalian culture enricher last spring as he was attacking the police officer with an axe and struck his helmet (would have been a lethal hit without the helmet) - however, locals at least commended that at least the Somali was using an axe so the domestication to Finland has been at least partially successful. But he was not these recent arrivals.
So if stuff turns worse, the only extra personnel near the reception centers are the reservists living nearby in these latitudes. Luckily so far the Arabs have not got as psychotic as Finns where two to four officers are occasionally needed to stop one person, but the tensions are likely just gonna grow in the reception centers. As I said, we don't have the houses for these dudes, and nobody told them that when they were leaving.
And what it comes to bar fighting, that was in return to somebody hoping I'd never need to do this stuff. Surprise surprise, it turns out I've already done that. Who coulda predicted?
-
I wasn't talking about bar fights, you ****ing idiot.
-
It's still a really ****ty idea. Even if you never intend to fire showing up with armed soldiers to suppress a riot is a short-term solution at best. It almost always just promotes more riots in response, just look at history. Even worse in situations where the rioters are outsiders with their own sense of nationality and view the local government as the enemy.
History has taught us that these kinds of cases either end in the soldiers opening fire or the riots simply getting worse if they don't.
And again, stopping a drunken bar fight doesn't compare to the current refugee situation. Using force to stop a bar fight is alright as the participants will sober up eventually and stop causing trouble. Using force to stop riots just makes the rioters seem like martyrs which leads to more riots.
-
I wasn't talking about bar fights, you ****ing idiot.
:lol:
Ah the tolerant and humanistic. But tell you what, you go on with your life and do what you like and I'll continue mine.
The point of the bar fight was that in that case you are going to separate two drunken idiots from each other, while in a reception center fight you separate two idiots from each other. They are arguing about as equally stupid things, and the techniques are the same, and in both cases the participants will end up in the police cell. So what's the really the difference? Except that in the reception center fight you get more participants, hence you need more force yourself. Which isn't available, so you are suggesting that the police should take greater personal risks, which I find totally unacceptable. So what's your solution then?
Now a riot is another thing, and I think what you are thinking is the historical progression of riots turning the tide and overwhelming the governing forces. In this case I don't think it will work that way. The refugees are a minority, and I don't see how that 30 000 people (maximum) could do something like that as I think they would prefer to leave the country were something like that to happen. Then again I think rubber or rock salt bullets are probably the best way to educate these guys of the norms of the society should they start to cause actual problems. Anything more subtle doesn't seem to be effective so it's back to Pavlovian methods. However, Middle-Eastern women seem to fare better generally. But they make about 10 % of the refugees here, which is something we who have travelled a bit on the globe were already mentioning back then. And nobody listened as usual because of "humanity and values"
Oh and if you were talking about the refugees on a grander scale, then refer to MP-Ryan's posts. Now that Merkel's party suffered a first loss, perhaps EU gets around this stuff. Meanwhile, here in Finland will handle this our way until the EU wide solution is available.
-
Ah the tolerant and humanistic.
The basis of tolerance is not in the passive acceptance of intolerance.
This idea has been bandied around by idiots and answered so much there is literally a proverb about it in Sandwich's signature.
Have you just missed that all these years or is the reason your ideas are escaping your gravitational pull their complete lack of substance?
-
When dealing with problematic migrants, as with anyone else, there is a ladder of force escalation that should be followed. Surely even Mika isnt happy to use armed forces to police civilians (or is he). But if the police cannot manage the situation, then that is indeed what must be done.
That does not mean you have to outright shoot them with live ammo. That is truly the last option. There is plenty of non-lethal means that can be used first.
It may be that we will witness some military personnel actively protecting now sealed borders on Balkan route this year. And it will be surely justified. Without a certain threat of rightful violence to back them up, borders are nothing more than meaningless lines on a map..
-
That does not mean you have to outright shoot them with live ammo. That is truly the last option. There is plenty of non-lethal means that can be used first.
Not when the military is involved. Militaries are not Police, they are neither trained nor equipped for policework. Calling in the military to deal with what is essentially a police matter is a massive escalation that will most likely end up with people being shot.
It may be that we will witness some military personnel actively protecting now sealed borders on Balkan route this year. And it will be surely justified. Without a certain threat of rightful violence to back them up, borders are nothing more than meaningless lines on a map..
Why should they be more?
-
Are you serious, man? Why don't you just go full libertarian while you're at it?
Jesus Christ would it kill you guys to maybe, at some point, think that possibly the migration crisis poses actual problems other than popular Western reactions to it?
-
Jesus Christ would it kill you guys to maybe, at some point, think that possibly the migration crisis poses actual problems other than Western reactions to it?
I am very sorry for being so selfish as to consider the changes in my home country's political culture and discourse resulting from the immigration crisis more immediately important than other problems this crisis is connected to.
-
Not when the military is involved. Militaries are not Police, they are neither trained nor equipped for policework. Calling in the military to deal with what is essentially a police matter is a massive escalation that will most likely end up with people being shot.
As I said, the military should be called in when the police can no longer handle the situation. And your statement is not really true, military is sometimes used to deal with situations when there is a mere lack of personnel, such as disaster relief, too. Calling in the military does not automatically mean a force escalation, it depends on how they are used. Although in case of migrant riots that grow to such as extent that police is unable to deal with them, some amount of escalation is justified, IMHO..
Why should they be more?
Well, what are you some kind of a radical anarchist?
They should be more because border control is one of the most basic functions of a state. And they should be more because open outer EU borders would slowly but surely "thirdworldize" it.
I mean, you can admit refugees or not, but calling for borders to be abolished is quite outside of normal political spectrum..
-
Not when the military is involved. Militaries are not Police, they are neither trained nor equipped for policework. Calling in the military to deal with what is essentially a police matter is a massive escalation that will most likely end up with people being shot.
As I said, the military should be called in when the police can no longer handle the situation. And your statement is not really true, military is sometimes used to deal with situations when there is a mere lack of personnel, such as disaster relief, too. Calling in the military does not automatically mean a force escalation, it depends on how they are used. Although in case of migrant riots that grow to such as extent that police is unable to deal with them, some amount of escalation is justified, IMHO..
Disaster relief doesn't really count in this, because those operations are exercises in large-scale logistics under adverse conditions, something militaries all over the planet excel at. Law enforcement is a very different situation, and one that militaries are not prepared to handle well. To quote BSG: Police serves and protects the people, the Military eliminates enemies of the state. When you use military to fill the role of the police, the people become the enemy.
Well, what are you some kind of a radical anarchist?
I wouldn't go so far as to call myself radical. Or anarchist, for that matter; I am of the opinion that the post-westphalian nation state is a concept in dire need of revision, and that nations as currently constituted are far too large to adequately serve the needs and the desires of their citizens.
They should be more because border control is one of the most basic functions of a state. And they should be more because open outer EU borders would slowly but surely "thirdworldize" it.
I mean, you can admit refugees or not, but calling for borders to be abolished is quite outside of normal political spectrum..
Not in the EU. Or did you forget about the Schengen treaty?
-
Removing borders between EU member states and removing all international borders altogether are incredibly different things.
-
Disaster relief doesn't really count in this, because those operations are exercises in large-scale logistics under adverse conditions, something militaries all over the planet excel at. Law enforcement is a very different situation, and one that militaries are not prepared to handle well. To quote BSG: Police serves and protects the people, the Military eliminates enemies of the state. When you use military to fill the role of the police, the people become the enemy.
Thats nice under normal circumstances, but in case of large scale immigrant riots, I still think calling in the military is the least bad of options. At least I see no better alternative. And really, how do you call someone who arrives into your nation and then causes problems? The people? Or the enemy? In this case, it would be somewhere in between...
I wouldn't go so far as to call myself radical. Or anarchist, for that matter; I am of the opinion that the post-westphalian nation state is a concept in dire need of revision, and that nations as currently constituted are far too large to adequately serve the needs and the desires of their citizens.
But your implication that borders should be only mere lines on a map certainly sounds like something only a radical anarchist would say. So maybe in this particular area, you are an anarchist.
Nations are too large? Do you mean that you would like to see smaller states that are closer to the wishes of their citizens? Cause thats not something I would disagree with.. but I dont see how it has anything to do with borders. If anything, more smaller nations implies even more borders.
Not in the EU. Or did you forget about the Schengen treaty?
This is the case because, and only because, the EU nations have became culturally and economically quite similar to each other and went through the process of integration. It doesnt apply to EU vs. rest of the world. And it is a fragile state, if it was up to me then Schengen would be suspended a year ago. Because of dysfunctional outer borders and complete lack of coherent response from the EU. Schengen is a bad idea under current circumstances.
-
Another brick to build my "wall of skepticism". Sorry for Polish source.
http://www.trojmiasto.pl/wiadomosci/Arabowie-chcieli-kupic-kalasznikowy-w-Gdyni-n99829.html
So. In short. Two Arabs who lived in Netherlands wanted to buy guns in Poland. Wouldn't mind that if idiots hadn't wanted to bribe the gun store owner to sell the weapons without registration <for sport purposes of that I'm sure xD>. Entire incident in the store was secretly filmed and shortly after an AT police squad got them arrested.
-
It's still a really ****ty idea. Even if you never intend to fire showing up with armed soldiers to suppress a riot is a short-term solution at best. It almost always just promotes more riots in response, just look at history. Even worse in situations where the rioters are outsiders with their own sense of nationality and view the local government as the enemy.
OK, then, they should GTFO, go back to their own country and clean it up if they need a place to stay. Instead of abusing a host country's hospitality.
If it was Americans getting roughed up for refusing to wear burkas after emigrating to+ Saudi Arabia, I'm guessing you'd say they should just STFU and either be tolerant of their host culture, or go home, and that they got what they had coming to them.
You can't simultaneously say "help me I need a place to stay" and "this is the way I do things, so now you will do things this way too to avoid offending me, or I'm going to cause problems even though I'm a guest in your country"
-
You can't simultaneously say "help me I need a place to stay" and "this is the way I do things, so now you will do things this way too to avoid offending me, or I'm going to cause problems even though I'm a guest in your country"
This is completely unrelated to what I was talking about. I never said nothing should be done about it, I said that bringing in the military into a police matter is a really ****ty idea that almost never works as intended.
-
forgive me for jumping into a thread having only read your one post, but it begs the question (and maybe you just answered this and I'm a lazy asshole) what do you think should be done?
-
The police should handle it? You know, the police, whose job it is to enforce the law on civilians in peacetime, rather than the military who are trained to kill enemy combatants?
-
I think I was pretty clear on the matter. Or are you expecting me to post exactly what should be done step by step to solve both short and long term problems that come with mass immigration? Anything I posted on that matter would have to be insultingly simplified to even be readable within a single page, if it was that simple we wouldn't have so much trouble with it.
P.S. don't jump into threads having only read 1 post, it's really bad forum manners.
-
The problem is, the police could handle the issue if immigrants were being rather peaceful. If enough of them are causing trouble (too many for the current level of police forces to handle), hen you need to have military assistance, or find some other (I'd love to hear exactly what) solution to the problem.
It does boggle my mind why you would leave your own country supposedly to escape trouble, and then start trouble in the country you fled to. :nono:
-
The problem is, the police could handle the issue if immigrants were being rather peaceful.
Or if they're not being peaceful. Large-scale civil unrest is still a matter for the police. The French manage to have their major riots every few years without the army. The Germans managed to hold the G-8 conference during the era of the weekend anarchists without the army.
The only reason the army is being advocated is because of Scary Foreigners. They are not, however, Scary Armed Organized Foreigners, which is what you use the army for.
-
well, in times of extraordinary crisis the military is often called upon. for instance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina_disaster_relief#Military). if a situation is beyond the capability of the police to handle it would make sense to fall back on the military. further securing national borders is very much within the purview of the military. that said it doesn't necessitate the military or mean it's appropriate in this instance.
-
Disaster relief has already been mentioned. Just please, read the damn thread before posting something that's already been dealt with. And no, apologising in advance doesn't make it OK, if you're interested enough in the discussion to post then reading at least the last page shouldn't be that hard.
Disaster relief doesn't really count in this, because those operations are exercises in large-scale logistics under adverse conditions, something militaries all over the planet excel at.
-
meh /*shrug*/
and read the very end of my last post.
-
The thing is, if you have to deploy the army to deal with anything less than a large, highly organized group of people, then your society is in serious doo-doo and it's time to restructure. You haven't been spending enough on the cops or you've successfully pissed off a large enough segment of the population that you're going to have to reform some stuff.
-
You haven't been spending enough on the cops or you've successfully pissed off a large enough segment of the population that you're going to have to reform some stuff.
But in this case they are not a segment of the population! If you had large scale riots of your own people, then yes, there may be a possibility that something is legitimately wrong. But if it is the foreigners that are rioting, then they are using violence to try to change a society which doesnt belong to them to their ways. It is not justifiable anymore than going into Saudi Arabia and then rioting about burkas.
The only reason the army is being advocated is because of Scary Foreigners. They are not, however, Scary Armed Organized Foreigners, which is what you use the army for.
At least when it comes to border protection, you can use the army against both, if the police is overwhelmed by the numbers. Otherwise it would mean that a sufficiently numerous bunch of unarmed and unorganized foreigners would be able to cross borders at will. Which to me is a ridiculous conclusion.
-
Another brick to build my "wall of skepticism". Sorry for Polish source.
http://www.trojmiasto.pl/wiadomosci/Arabowie-chcieli-kupic-kalasznikowy-w-Gdyni-n99829.html
So. In short. Two Arabs who lived in Netherlands wanted to buy guns in Poland. Wouldn't mind that if idiots hadn't wanted to bribe the gun store owner to sell the weapons without registration <for sport purposes of that I'm sure xD>. Entire incident in the store was secretly filmed and shortly after an AT police squad got them arrested.
Ok this is going to sound a bit of the wall buuutttttttt - What is it about Poland that makes foreigners want to buy guns there? Anders Breivik went to Prague for that reason.
But in this case they are not a segment of the population! If you had large scale riots of your own people, then yes, there may be a possibility that something is legitimately wrong. But if it is the foreigners that are rioting, then they are using violence to try to change a society which doesnt belong to them to their ways. It is not justifiable anymore than going into Saudi Arabia and then rioting about burkas.
What is this about refugees rioting? So far, the only damage I can see done from my comfy home in the Netherlands is being done by racist germans.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/europe-offers-deal-to-turkey-to-take-back-migrants/2016/03/18/809d80ba-ebab-11e5-bc08-3e03a5b41910_story.html
is this as big a deal as it seems to be?
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/europe-offers-deal-to-turkey-to-take-back-migrants/2016/03/18/809d80ba-ebab-11e5-bc08-3e03a5b41910_story.html
is this as big a deal as it seems to be?
Yes and no ...
Some article put it to the point (http://www.focus.de/finanzen/news/star-oekonom-sinn-hans-werner-sinn-merkels-strategie-ist-gefaehrlich-und-unrealistisch_id_5327049.html): "And if Germany doesn't behave how we want, Turkey will let some immigrants through!"
We'll see how it goes I guess ... but it seems Erdogan is keen on EU membership and - I guess - appreciates some leverage to make people look the other way during the membership process when state troopers occupy government critical newspaper again.
-
This deal is certainly a good progress from current situation, but I do not really trust Turkey to keep their part of the deal. Europe cannot and should not try to outsource its immigration policy to Turkey. First we must ensure that we get to control how many migrants enter and stay on European soil and waters, and then it is time to make deals with Turkey, from a much stronger position.
-
Turkey is a good choice, though. In the current situation, it's a short-term solution, but it can work as long as they're willing to cooperate. Care must be taken, however, that Europe is in a stronger position by the time Turkey might stop liking this arrangement. A largely secular, but predominantly Muslim country is certainly a better choice than where they're ending up now.
Ok this is going to sound a bit of the wall buuutttttttt - What is it about Poland that makes foreigners want to buy guns there? Anders Breivik went to Prague for that reason.
First of all, Prague is in Czech Republic, not in Poland. :) I would suspect that price might play a role here, Polish Zloty is rather worthless, especially now (I don't know how Czech Korona was standing at the time, but it couldn't have been much stronger than Zloty). I certainly didn't notice the gun laws being less stringent than in the rest of Europe (maybe just a little bit). It's also comparably remote, so tracing the gun to Poland or other Central European countries might take some time. Russia would probably be better in that regard, but it happens to have very strict limitations on civilian gun ownership, so it's out unless you have connections with organized crime there. Also, I believe some might count on corruptibility of Polish officials (in vein of Russian ones), but it's gone down lately, as those Arabs found out. :)
-
This deal is certainly a good progress from current situation, but I do not really trust Turkey to keep their part of the deal. Europe cannot and should not try to outsource its immigration policy to Turkey. First we must ensure that we get to control how many migrants enter and stay on European soil and waters, and then it is time to make deals with Turkey, from a much stronger position.
One of the biggest changes made in the current deal compared to the draft is that Turkey will only get their privileges (such as visa-free travel) once they actually keep their part of the deal, which will not happen at the current rate.
-
Jesus Christ would it kill you guys to maybe, at some point, think that possibly the migration crisis poses actual problems other than Western reactions to it?
I am very sorry for being so selfish as to consider the changes in my home country's political culture and discourse resulting from the immigration crisis more immediately important than other problems this crisis is connected to.
The E has a point: The immigration crisis is a crisis, but it is, ultimately, one issue. An issue that is much bigger then it should have been (because it's not like the UN has been warning that this would happen for 5 years now), but... Look at the elections in the 3 Bundesländer that happened a week or so back: The biggest winners were the Nationalists (who are openly anti-Merkel), and the Socialists and the Greens (who openly support Merkel). The Christians (Merkel's party) took a big hit which is mostly related to their figureheads having unclear viewpoints on the whole thing - they distanced themselves from Merkel but were not openly anti immigrant to the level of the nationalists. This has two serious ramifications, the first obviously being that a nationalist party is now part of German politics, and the second that german politics have become more polarized - not just on the issue of immigration - which can not be fixed by the Bundesländer anyway as it's the job of the Bundesrepublik, similar to how the governor of Texas does not have an impact on the White House's foreign policy - but on various other social issues as well as is the obvious consequence of having the centrist christians losing ground to both left wing parties and right wing parties depending on the particular Bundesländer you look at.
In the end, this matters more then the care for refugees as refugees do not wield political power. Ultimately, the biggest impact the refugees in Germany can do to Germany is far less then the impact the Nationalists can have if it's proposal to return to the Mark or giving police officers the right to use lethal force in response to non-compliance are pushed trough.
-
Interesting arguments here.
What I can say is that surely nobody doubts that disaster relief is a common thing for all militaries in the world. But what you don't know is that Finnish Defense Forces conscripts have already been deployed in handling the refugees to the reception centers. Not to mention that the Finnish Peacekeepers are quite well-known for keeping the peace in the conflict areas they are deployed, courtesy of us having a reservist army rather than a career army where the training of the personnel is radically different. The difference is quite well demonstrated in this little incident (http://www.finland.ca/public/default.aspx?contentid=149846&nodeid=41324&contentlan=2&culture=en-US). What is left unmentioned is that the twenty guys defending the position also prevented an air strike against the locals (several times), which would have killed hundreds. So of any armies around here, I'd say we'd have a best shot of not escalating anything if the reservists are deployed. Mind you that it has already happened in a couple of large scale police operations where some resistance was expected.
The basis of tolerance is not in the passive acceptance of intolerance.
This idea has been bandied around by idiots and answered so much there is literally a proverb about it in Sandwich's signature.
Have you just missed that all these years or is the reason your ideas are escaping your gravitational pull their complete lack of substance?
If you didn't realize it, you are also advocating inequality with this. You're basically saying that the dudes coming here are better citizens as they clearly should be governed by different laws. There's also a term for this; it is called "apartheid". And this time, the majority is the oppressed, and it is that same majority that pays the bills. Not to mention that the equivalence is heavily emphasized in Finnish culture. So any guesses what will happen in the long term? With pressing forward, you'd be going towards the societal collapse and removal of all the oh-so-valuable norms and values; there is already tension between the labor and the government doing budget cuts, and Russia being ready to take the advantage on the Eastern border.
So yeah, constructing an idealistic argument is easy. I can do that too.
All this brings to mind one announcement where a pair of female students were looking for a room-mate. In the add they were looking for a person who is tolerant, open-minded and easy going just as they are. In the next sentence, they also said their room-mate should also be vegan, not wear any animal tested make-up, not using clothes made of synthetic materials, only approved bio-shampoo and so on. I never go to the bottom of it to see whether it was a joke or real (or if they ever found a room-mate), but I suppose the point is clear: you can easily become intolerant in your perceived tolerance, which is exactly what happened above.
EDIT
So. In short. Two Arabs who lived in Netherlands wanted to buy guns in Poland. Wouldn't mind that if idiots hadn't wanted to bribe the gun store owner to sell the weapons without registration <for sport purposes of that I'm sure xD>. Entire incident in the store was secretly filmed and shortly after an AT police squad got them arrested.
Thanks for dealing with this stuff in the right way. Shop owner should get a rise for alerting the police and the AT squad a commendation for prompt response. No surprise they are originally from the well-integrating Netherlands. As they have been from well-integrating Sweden, well-integrating Germany, well-integrating France, well-integrating UK... :lol:
-
There's a problem with blanket "tolerance" statements. Namely, they're very non-specific. What does it mean you are "tolerant"? Those girls, for example, would probably be perfectly fine with a black lesbian Muslim being their roommate. However, eating animals is, in their eyes, bad enough that they're not going to stand for it. They're probably the kind of vegan that considers killing animals to be murder. Dunno about you, but I'm very much not tolerant towards murderers, no matter how I feel about their skin color or religion. I also don't have much tolerance towards those who equate humans and animals like that, for that matter. But skin color, ethnicity, culture, even religion? I have no problem with that. Am I a tolerant person, or not?
I don't think that there's a person in the world that would practice "absolute tolerance", nor do I think it's a good idea. Most people could be described as "tolerant, except for the things which are unacceptable". What varies is where the line is drawn.
A lot of things are happening which we definitely should not be "tolerant" about. Being Muslim is not one of them, but Muslim immigrants are the ones who do many (not all) of these things. Humans have a tendency to generalize, so there is a trend towards lumping "being a Muslim immigrant" or even just "being a Muslim" with those things. We can tolerate them having their own religion, ethnicity and culture. We can't tolerate them enforcing their own laws and rules, especially if they're in conflict with our own. If we can't coexist without either side adapting (a debatable statement, but it seems to be the case), they should be the ones to adapt, not us.
-
That's the thing Dragon.
I don't think there will be any more accurate definition for the term, and it indeed is mostly about where the line is drawn (and this depends on the majority of the population). There's just what is usually meant by the term.
By their own terms in their time, Medieval Europe was tolerant, advanced and hard-working. None of these are considered true nowadays, but I suppose they would have weighted the words in an entirely different way.
So there's just what I think is right or wrong, or don't have an opinion about.
"I'm against Fascism!" (pick your favorite ism) type slogans have been meaningless to me for quite some time. Starting from does the sayer know what fascism actually is, and does his own actions look like fascism to me? So I just consider something what hippies want to shout together. The moment they say "I'm against budget cuts", then there's meaning.
Then there's "I'm against oppression of refugees!". What oppression exactly, where, and which refugees? And what are you gonna do about it than shout on the market square? If you think you'd not "oppress" them, by all means take one at home. I'd be supporting that really, and it would solve most of the arguments regarding the refugee housing, integration and then the neo-nazis would lose their ground. It's just that there's usually very few takers on these ones... Not even the "tolerant" ones will do it.
So I'll lift my hat to the people who actually have housed refugees at their home, I honestly don't think I'd be able to do that. But then again, it is not me asking the society to pay the bills of my dream world.
Then there's the funny part where you are advocating different kind of nastiness by allowing a bunch of people to live with relaxed legalization, and the said bunch itself starts to be nasty towards a minority in your country, a.k.a. Sweden. The thing I'm talking about is rise of anti-semitism, which is attributed to the influx of muslims.
-
Thanks for dealing with this stuff in the right way. Shop owner should get a rise for alerting the police and the AT squad a commendation for prompt response. No surprise they are originally from the well-integrating Netherlands. As they have been from well-integrating Sweden, well-integrating Germany, well-integrating France, well-integrating UK... :lol:
Two things: Two arabs from the Netherlands buying a gun in poland is about as much an indication of how "well integrating" the dutch are as Anders Breivik is an indication of the xenophobia of the Swedes.
Secondly: Where did you get the notion that France and the UK are "well integrating?" They really don't have the reputation for that - Especially France. The riots back in 2005 should have been a pretty clear indicator.
-
If you didn't realize it, you are also advocating inequality with this. You're basically saying that the dudes coming here are better citizens as they clearly should be governed by different laws.
I have absolutely no idea how you got this notion from anyone in this thread.