[Dragon]

The thing is, the people are ultimately selfish creatures. Social structures ultimately exist to benefit their members. When a social structure (such as the EU) stops to benefit its members (or is perceived by a majority of them as having done so), it falls apart into entities that fulfill that condition, or at least seem to. As far as most people are concerned, the refugees are not "us". If the government starts prioritizing "them" (or itself) over "us", then there is no point in tolerating the government any more. Ultimately, this boils down to the old paradigm: Knights defend peasants, peasants feed knights. And if a knight spends his whole day rescuing princesses instead of chasing bandits off his village, he'll soon find himself doing that on an empty stomach. Both sides attempted, over the ages, to find a "better" (for them) system, but all that knights have achieved was to intimidate peasants into feeding them instead of doing them favors (later they found it wasn't such a good idea), while peasants figured (a bit later) they could pick knights from among themselves (they are yet to find it wasn't such a good idea, but we're slowly starting to see just that happen...). Ultimately, every government in history boiled down to that, "human rights" and "humane behavior" are recent inventions by no means inherent in how the society works. It is rather logical they're one of the first things to go down the drain when a crisis strikes.

Ultimately, when faced with choice between acting humane and acting selfish, most people will choose the latter. They only chose the former if it benefits them (say, due to social pressure enforcing humane behavior). It is up to the government to protect their people without needless cruelty to those that they protect them from. Nationalism will exist as long as nations themselves do, it's up to national leaders to prevent it from turning ugly.

sure, forcefully deport all illegal migrant farm workers, and then see how well you do when millions of tons' worth of crops rot on the vine, and food prices skyrocket.  And yep, the fact that Japan's barely having any kids is no problem whatsoever, right?

The thing is, US produced food prices are too low and they actually should increase. Cost of any domestically produced product should be high enough to cover legal labour requirements to create that product, including respecting minimum wage laws and the cost of having legal workforce. So let the crops rot, and maybe next year US food producers will adapt to pay enough money to employees to produce the food without the need to import a new semi-permanent underclass into the economy and thus ****ing the country over for profits.

The thing is, there's a good chance that in this case, US food would be so expensive that people wouldn't be able to afford it. Food is sold at the price that people can buy it at. This is a basic law of the market. In an unregulated capitalism, wages of the workers would drop until food is affordable. If a minimum wage is enforced, this would artificially dictate a minimum food price, which could be too high for it to be profitable (because people working at this minimum wage couldn't afford it). That probably wouldn't lead to a famine, but to increased import of foreign food (since it's not something people can go without), probably from a country that does not have such high standards as the US. Ultimately, the only difference is where the slaves are. Which is better, having people toiling in sweatshops for a few table scraps per day in the US, or having people toiling in sweatshops for a few table scraps per day in China? The only difference would be that foreign food would have added import costs, so it'd have to be made even cheaper than if it was made locally.

Also, it's not a "new" semi-permanent underclass, at least in the US. This underclass has a long tradition in the US. It being semi-permanent is a good thing, since it means people have a chance of getting out of it. In the US economic situation, this is something that works. Not only that, it's deeply entrenched in the US economic ecosystem. Breaking it would be a disaster, as Alabama example has shown.

[Col.Hornet]

But the fact that absolutely everyone  flat out refuses to acknowledge that we are a european UNION at the moment...    I am shocked and strongly believe that we are currently seeing the cracks in the united Europe. It is falling apart all around us, with natonalistic thinking being on the rise.

Yeah.. solidarity, unity, etc. Beautiful words but it all gets ripped to shreds when it comes to the most important type of relations between the countries. That is business <which was the very basic reason to create EU by the way>. So, some German politicians talk about solidarity to reduce the refugee problem laying on their shoulders, using many beautiful, powerfull words while making deals with Russians about Nord Stream II pipeline at the same time <sanctions, lel>, which violates many national interests of my country (pipe on the bottom can make big difficulties for the Świnoujście LNG Terminal because the biggest vessels may not be able to get through. And many other problems).  That's solidarity? No, it's business. Countries don't have friends. There's interests and business.

And not everybody is sharing the same opinion about accepting the German views on mass, uncontrolled immigration. And if you try to make them accept it by force <political, diplomatic, whatever>, you will achieve exactly the opposite thing.

And no, the cracks are not created by "nationalist thinking" or mythical Nazis pulling the strings. These things are just a result of the basic problem. They're caused by interests differences of many nations and groups. The migrant crisis just enhanced that fact. I'm even more confident about that when I hear that stupid accusations about "endangered Polish democracy" coming from EU officials .

[Macielos]

Sanctuary / political asylum is a basic human right, and is part of the German constitution as it should be. This whole natonalistic, borderline racist discussion is terrible. You CANNOT close the ****ing borders unless you want to kick said basic human rights and shoot the people yourself. This whole all-inclusive conviction of foreigners, while all too human, is not humane (great sentence). Accepting others does obviously not mean that we do not apply our laws, for instance the punishment for sexual harassment, endangering others or contempt of court and police. We apply them to the people responsible like a good constitutional state should. And we can also take steps to protect our populace from such things as long as it does not end up in the above mentioned general conviction.

It is not accepting immigrants itself that causes the problem, it is HOW we do it. Pope Francis called each parish to give shelter to one refugee family - and that's great! Because this family settles in Europe, works in Europe (as churches often help such people find a job), live among Europeans and adapts to European style of living and morality, with its work ethics, respect for personal freedom, for women, homosexuals, etc. Helping those in need should be done by churches and NGOs SELECTING those most in need and helping them. Europe does the opposite. Europe lets in huge masses of people and puts them in refugee camps where they live by rules they brought from Asia and Africa. Europe (some countries at least) gives them social benefits even if they are young healthy men capable of working. We are helping in a way that does more harm than good and what's more we are not helping the ones that are truly in need. Know why? Because they are mostly still in Syria or in refugee camps in Turkey and Liban. Because they can't afford paying smugglers to bring them to Europe. As long as Europe is focused on accepting immigrants and providing them shelter here, it cannot draw efforts to helping people out there, in the war zone in the Middle-East.

A) the degree of organization involved...    The offenders had sheets of paper with obscene and agressive statements with them, translating Arabic into German. I am not one for conspiracy theories but this is really weird to me. Plus Cologne was not the only city, although that one is most prominently featured in the media. Someone is behind this, a party who wants to make things worse for refugees and create an acceptance for more inhumane politics. Could be anyone from Salafi extremists trying to make recruitment easier (we had stuff like this in Germany before) to actual ****ing Nazis trying to gain points with the populace ("we were always right, you see?")

I'm not in favour of such conspiracy theories, but I agree extremist parties will try to use each crime commited by a migrant to escalate violence and hatred towards migrants in general. And Germany's policy of silencing media and police from informing about migrants' crimes is leading exactly to drawing more and more people to the extremists - because it finally goes to daylight, and when it does, it makes the state and the police totally untrustworthy.

B) the scary degree of hidden racism that now once again surfaces in our socity. Now before you misquote me on that, I do not believe this is a German thing. But when your parents-in-law start to parrot made up facts by idiotic people out of a sudden, I wonder in which county I live in. Thought about going to Finland or Sweden or something as they seem to be the last remaining bastion of humane politics. And then I read an article about paramilitaric criminal Nazis in Finland patrolling the streets now to "protect the people" and actually getting praised by the ****ing police for it...            world's gone to **** :-(

Humans often tend to categorize people according to race, language or religion. They seek a way to simplify the world around. If they see wave of migrants flooding Europe, some of them committing crimes and the state being totally defenceless - the simple reaction is "we need to fight them, if the govt leaves us on our own, maybe someone else could help?" and that drives them to extremist forces. I'm terrified looking at radicals gaining support throughout Europe and that's why I oppose EU's policy so strong. Either we resolve the crysis by stopping the migration wave, or in several years someone much worse than Pegida will.

C) Germany has a pretty strong position in Europe and has used that position to do some stupid things foreign-politics-wise that do not really express solidarity. So did the other wealthy northern countries, not to mention the absolutely crazy special treatment that Britian has pretty much blackmailed the others to grant. Central Europe has dumped the refugees on Greek and Italy in the past, stupid mistake.
But the fact that absolutely everyone  flat out refuses to acknowledge that we are a european UNION at the moment...    I am shocked and strongly believe that we are currently seeing the cracks in the united Europe. It is falling apart all around us, with natonalistic thinking being on the rise.

EU is falling apart as it fails to solve European problems - from eurozone crysis to migrant flood. I am euro-sceptic and I agree with Hornet that EU is mainly about national interests. But thanks to EU Germany has a dominant position on the continent. They should be interested in EU being strong and stable. So why support a policy that dismantles EU, makes Europe torn apart by ethnic conflicts and makes countries close borders?

[Mongoose]

The thing is, US produced food prices are too low and they actually should increase. Cost of any domestically produced product should be high enough to cover legal labour requirements to create that product, including respecting minimum wage laws and the cost of having legal workforce. So let the crops rot, and maybe next year US food producers will adapt to pay enough money to employees to produce the food without the need to import a new semi-permanent underclass into the economy and thus ****ing the country over for profits.

Yes, US food prices are too low.  That's exactly why the US government subsidizes farmers to (among other things) not grow certain crops, so as to avoid flooding the market and guarantee a set price floor.  This is what I meant by you not having a particularly good grasp on the reality of US society and policies.

Also, I did not say Japan "Japan's barely having any kids is no problem whatsoever", I said it is a lesser problem than unregulated mass immigration would be. Using unregulated mass immigration to solve demographic issues is like curing the disease by killing the patient. But its nice to see that my argumentation is so refined that you have to construct an obvious strawman to even begin to address it.. 

All you said about demographics is that mass immigration would be worse, yet you gave no actual concrete evidence as to why.  And why did you assume we were talking about "unregulated" immigration?

[Grizzly]

Ultimately, when faced with choice between acting humane and acting selfish, most people will choose the latter. They only chose the former if it benefits them (say, due to social pressure enforcing humane behavior). It is up to the government to protect their people without needless cruelty to those that they protect them from. Nationalism will exist as long as nations themselves do, it's up to national leaders to prevent it from turning ugly.

I'll use this tangent to jump off here; When you look at the migrant crises and the causes of it, the whole reason why it is currently occuring is because people do not realize that the most selfish option is also the most humane one. Consider the TED talk I posted up there earlier: Jordan is doing better at handling the refugee crisis then the EU is, whilst the EU is having to handle 1 refugee for every 2000 people and Jordan has to handle 1 refugee for every 3 Jordans. The difference being that Jordan grabbed the bull by it's horns whilst the EU cowardly scampered off citing something about dangerous immigrants.

But immigrants are not dangerous at all. There is no reason that the EU can not handle 1 refugee for every 2000 of it's citizens. It's not like it has picked up refugees before and integrated them succesfully: In the Netherlands, Iraqi refugees commit less crimes then the home-grown dutch people who are in similar social positions. The biggest problem the Iraqis in holland currently face is not that they have not integrated succesfully (Because they have!): It's that the dutch government is obstructing the return to their home country with a lot of red tape.
Let that sink in for a bit: The biggest problem that Iraqis in the Netherlands face is bureaucracy.

But alright, say that we can't handle a bunch of refugees. Let's say that we should let Jordan (and other countries neighbouring Syria) handle them all: They seem to be willing, there's less of a cultural divide, there's no nazis there. Okay. It's alright - So why have we stopped giving them money? We already have this UN thing that has been created to prevent innocents from suffering from regional and geopolitical nonsense. A significant part of the UN is handling refugees. The UN is currently helping out handling refugees in Jordan. This is a selfish solution: We pay someone else to ensure that we won't have problems. But many EU countries stopped doing that at the start of their 2015 budgets. By doing so, the countries that were already struggling to help their fellows suddenly found themselves in a situation so dire that people were fleeing their refugee camps. The EU has decided to walk a path that is neither selfish nor humane, but simply foolish: In this situation, everyone has it worse.

[666maslo666]

Sanctuary / political asylum is a basic human right, and is part of the German constitution as it should be.

Sure. But there is a huge difference between right to asylum and what is happening now in Europe. Asylum is for those who are in danger. This obviously does not apply to vast majority of that 1.1 million people who arrived into Germany this year. They are economic migrants, and as such should not be let inside.

[666maslo666]

Which is better, having people toiling in sweatshops for a few table scraps per day in the US, or having people toiling in sweatshops for a few table scraps per day in China?

The second one, obviously? Those "few scraps" go a longer way in a poorer country than in a wealthier one. What you call "few scraps" may very well be around average wage in China.

And no less importantly , the second case also keeps inequality under control.

[666maslo666]

Yes, US food prices are too low.  That's exactly why the US government subsidizes farmers to (among other things) not grow certain crops, so as to avoid flooding the market and guarantee a set price floor.  This is what I meant by you not having a particularly good grasp on the reality of US society and policies.

All you said about demographics is that mass immigration would be worse, yet you gave no actual concrete evidence as to why.  And why did you assume we were talking about "unregulated" immigration?

Wait, you respond to my claim that US food prices are too low by posting a link that shows that US food prices for certain crops are too low? Thanks for proving my point, I guess..

All you said about demographics is that mass immigration would be worse, yet you gave no actual concrete evidence as to why.  And why did you assume we were talking about "unregulated" immigration?

I assumed unregulated mass immigration because that is what we are talking about. Current immigration wave into western Europe, but also illegal immigration into the US, can both be described as unregulated mass immigration. Everyone and their dog can just walk right in, thats the reality of it.

I have no issue with properly regulated immigration at all.

As for why, I have said why many times over. In short, unregulated mass immigration tends to decrease GDP per capita (so dont expect them to pay for your retirement), increase crime, decrease social cohesion and increase religious extremism (specifically muslims). Thats why immigrants should be handpicked.

[666maslo666]

We already have this UN thing that has been created to prevent innocents from suffering from regional and geopolitical nonsense. A significant part of the UN is handling refugees. The UN is currently helping out handling refugees in Jordan. This is a selfish solution: We pay someone else to ensure that we won't have problems. But many EU countries stopped doing that at the start of their 2015 budgets. By doing so, the countries that were already struggling to help their fellows suddenly found themselves in a situation so dire that people were fleeing their refugee camps.

More foreign aid is what I would support 100%. If there is one thing EU has in abundance when compared to most of the world, it is money. So that is what we should use to help. And every euro we give to fund those refugee camps will be much better utilized over there where prices are lower than housing people inside EU itself. For example, Germany is expected to pay 17 billion euros for their so-called "refugees" this year. Yet EU has problems scraping together 3 billion for Turkey to help genuine refugees located there, living in poverty. Selfish or not, giving those 17 billion to Turkey and Jordan instead would be the most rational and ultimately, the most humanitarian, too.

[Dragon]

Which is better, having people toiling in sweatshops for a few table scraps per day in the US, or having people toiling in sweatshops for a few table scraps per day in China?

The second one, obviously? Those "few scraps" go a longer way in a poorer country than in a wealthier one. What you call "few scraps" may very well be around average wage in China.

And no less importantly , the second case also keeps inequality under control.

No, scraps are scraps. The difference is that in China, they're glad to get even that. How does it "keep inequality under control"? By separating unequal people with a border? A hungry person is hungry, inhumane conditions are inhumane, no matter which country you're in. Since those things are inevitable, given the economic situation, the difference is that the first case contributes to the US economy and the second one doesn't.

The conditions that US illegal immigrants work in are actually rather good compared to some Asian countries. As I said, this makes economic sense, given the conditions. And while US food might be too cheap now, driving out illegal immigrants would almost certainly cause the price to skyrocket.

But alright, say that we can't handle a bunch of refugees. Let's say that we should let Jordan (and other countries neighbouring Syria) handle them all: They seem to be willing, there's less of a cultural divide, there's no nazis there. Okay. It's alright - So why have we stopped giving them money? We already have this UN thing that has been created to prevent innocents from suffering from regional and geopolitical nonsense. A significant part of the UN is handling refugees. The UN is currently helping out handling refugees in Jordan. This is a selfish solution: We pay someone else to ensure that we won't have problems. But many EU countries stopped doing that at the start of their 2015 budgets. By doing so, the countries that were already struggling to help their fellows suddenly found themselves in a situation so dire that people were fleeing their refugee camps. The EU has decided to walk a path that is neither selfish nor humane, but simply foolish: In this situation, everyone has it worse.

I wonder why the subsidies stopped, too. TBH, this issue has been conspicuously absent from the news. We wouldn't be in this fix if the EU didn't grab hold of the idiot ball. Why couldn't we pay Jordan (a modern monarchy perfectly capable of keeping Arabs under control), Turkey, Oman, or any other reasonable country in the Middle East to take those people in instead? I had no idea this option was even on the table, but it seems that it used to work that way until recently.

Are the people in charge of EU really that moronic, or was there something I missed?

[Grizzly]

Well, it was reported, but, ya know, politics.

[Mongoose]

Yes, US food prices are too low.  That's exactly why the US government subsidizes farmers to (among other things) not grow certain crops, so as to avoid flooding the market and guarantee a set price floor.  This is what I meant by you not having a particularly good grasp on the reality of US society and policies.

All you said about demographics is that mass immigration would be worse, yet you gave no actual concrete evidence as to why.  And why did you assume we were talking about "unregulated" immigration?

Wait, you respond to my claim that US food prices are too low by posting a link that shows that US food prices for certain crops are too low? Thanks for proving my point, I guess..

Quite the contrary.  You claimed that US food prices are being kept artificially low by cheap labor, when the reality is that they're being kept artificially high by government subsidies.  We are literally able to produce more food than we know what to do with.

[Bobboau]

You know those two points are not mutually exclusive, right? As in food prices could be artificially low due to cheap illegal labor and steps have been taken to counteract the prices without addressing the root cause.

[Scotty]

Using the phrase "illegal labor" is actually pretty amusing in this context.

[Bobboau]

not sure I get the joke. I'm guessing you don't like that phrase? What would you call labor that was compensated at below minimum wage levels?

[Scotty]

I was making a play on the term "illegal labor" as using prisoners for a cheap agricultural labor force (because they did illegal things to be sent to prison).  And also demonstrating that it's not just migrant workers who work for little to nothing!

[666maslo666]

Quite the contrary.  You claimed that US food prices are being kept artificially low by cheap labor, when the reality is that they're being kept artificially high by government subsidies.  We are literally able to produce more food than we know what to do with.

You are proving my point yet again. If you are literally able to produce more food than you know what to do with, then it follows that food prices are too low. Thats basic economics, supply and demand. Those subsidies are a mere reaction to this overproduction of food due to too much cheap labor.

[666maslo666]

No, scraps are scraps. The difference is that in China, they're glad to get even that. How does it "keep inequality under control"? By separating unequal people with a border? A hungry person is hungry, inhumane conditions are inhumane, no matter which country you're in. Since those things are inevitable, given the economic situation, the difference is that the first case contributes to the US economy and the second one doesn't.

The conditions that US illegal immigrants work in are actually rather good compared to some Asian countries. As I said, this makes economic sense, given the conditions. And while US food might be too cheap now, driving out illegal immigrants would almost certainly cause the price to skyrocket.

Yes, separating unequal economies with a border is a great way to keep economic inequality under control. Global economic inequality is very high, and the most important thing that prevents this huge inequality from manifesting on a local, national level with all its destructive consequences is separation, be it natural (distance, geographical barrier) or artificial (borders and tight immigration policies). As for "contributing to the US economy", that is pretty debatable. I believe too much cheap labor is harmful for the economy. It harms native lower classes who have to compete with foreign people willing to work for third world wages. The narrative about immigrants stealing jobs is usually false, but it is probably true when it comes to the most vulnerable of jobs, meaning the low qualified working class ones. And while abundant cheap labor may increase GDP, it does not increase GDP per capita, the real measure of any countrys wealth. It may even decrease it. US economy would be better off with somewhat less cheap labor available, IMHO. Food prices would not skyrocket anymore than they skyrocket in other countries without cheap illegal labor, they would only modestly increase. But employment and wages among native lower class would increase, too. So it is a win in the end.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/does-immigration-harm-working-americans/384060/

[The E]

Except we've seen time and time again that if you try to get natives to do jobs immigrants do, they'll either do a poor job or fail to turn up after realizing that harvest work is really hard. Not to mention that the number of people applying to these jobs out of their own volition is ridiculously small.

How do you plan on addressing this? Say you're a farmer in the US. Every harvest season, you get a bunch of helpers from Mexico to help you clear your fields and get the produce to market. Now President Trump comes into office, and declares the US/Mexican border closed for non-US citizens, and starts to enforce this effectively. What do you do to get stuff off of the fields and into the markets? And, on a broader scale, what happens to the 64 billion USD the US makes from agricultural exports?

[zookeeper]

Well obviously you can get the natives on your fields by paying them enough. If all you got to offer is hard work for little pay, then of course no one will do it except those for whom it's the only choice.