How long before Europeans resent refugees?

[Loren Pechtel]

And if you know a little about gypsy history you wouldn't judge. They've been treated very badly for centuries. Too bad it now became Sweden's problem. But such is life.

When your culture is criminal expect to be treated badly.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

Like I said, the experts are baffled to exactly what the problem is. They can't see any practical problems with taking in more refugees.

One of the main problems is the diluting of the Swedish genes, you know, good quality Euro stock abominated by lesser breeds, that kind of thing - give it a few decades and Sweden will no longer be famous for it's blonde, blue eyed women - no, it will just be known as the rape capital of Europe populated by mixed races, great huh

 

[laughing dog]

I don't know how long it will be before Europeans start to resent immigrants, but I know it didn't take long for this thread to have resentful Europeans posting their resent of immigrants.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

Too right, we don't want these fuckers coming over en masse! Let the good ol U S of A take em, sure you want them so bad...

 

[laughing dog]

Too right, we don't want these fuckers coming over en masse! Let the good ol U S of A take em, sure you want them so bad...

The USA is a nation of immigrants. I have no problem with us accepting more immigrants.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

ok fine, boatload of 1 million jihadis on its way!

 

[Jayjay]

USA is much better at handlign immigrants than Europe, so I don't see why not. But part of the reason is that US is very selective which of course is sensible.

I think Europe shoudl start scoring the immigrants not only based on how much they need asylum, but also by their usefulness. For example, a refugee from a war zone might qualify automatically for an asylum, but a person coming from slightly-inconvenient-zone could help his case if they can get emloyed and start paying taxes. It's not very humanitarian, but Europe shoudl skim the cream off the top and prioritize the immigrants rather than blindly take in everyone.

 

[hinduwoman]

Geography is not Islamophobic. It is is just that Sweden is a small country. It really cannot accommodate everyone who wants to go there.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

soon the immiggs there will outnumber the locals,then the fun will begin!

 

[Jayjay]

Geography is not Islamophobic. It is is just that Sweden is a small country. It really cannot accommodate everyone who wants to go there.

Sweden is bigger than Germany (but smaller than France), with only fraction of the population.

 

[hinduwoman]

But how much of the land is actually habitable? Not to mention it is so cold.
Also if you are going to settle a really huge number you might have to cut down forests and blast mountains which would lead to another environmental problem.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The Romanians are EU citizens and gypsies. They are neither refugees nor migrants. They're home. They are here because Romania sucks. Yes, they are a problem and I wish they'd leave. But they have a right to stay here and a right to beg.

And if you know a little about gypsy history you wouldn't judge. They've been treated very badly for centuries. Too bad it now became Sweden's problem. But such is life.

So have the Jews and Africans. However the issue is that the unelected leaders of the EU threw open our borders and lets anyone in. The majority of British people for instance do not agree with uncontrolled immigration as dictated by Brussels.

 

[whichphilosophy]

USA is much better at handlign immigrants than Europe, so I don't see why not. But part of the reason is that US is very selective which of course is sensible.

I think Europe shoudl start scoring the immigrants not only based on how much they need asylum, but also by their usefulness. For example, a refugee from a war zone might qualify automatically for an asylum, but a person coming from slightly-inconvenient-zone could help his case if they can get emloyed and start paying taxes. It's not very humanitarian, but Europe shoudl skim the cream off the top and prioritize the immigrants rather than blindly take in everyone.

There are quite a few things that Europe should be doing but per the Eu policy but the common sense you suggest is not going to happen.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

best policy now is prob to encourage as many as poss to go to Germany to totally screw the economy up there, in that way this will lead to the end of the EU and we can get rid of the immigrant issue once and for all

 

[DrZoidberg]

And if you know a little about gypsy history you wouldn't judge. They've been treated very badly for centuries. Too bad it now became Sweden's problem. But such is life.

When your culture is criminal expect to be treated badly.

Maybe the culture you belong to develops the way it does because of how you and your brethren has been treated historically?

We're talking Romanian gypsies here, because that's the gypsies begging in Sweden. We have quite a collection of various Gypsy clans in Sweden. But only the Romanians beg. And it was the begging Gypsys that were the topic.

1. They are all descendent from Gypsy slaves. All Gypsies in Romania were slaves and they were set free ca 1850 because of a royal decree.
2. They most often look differently than other Romanians. So just like in USA, after the slaves were set free racist laws were put in place to make sure they didn't have a chance to succeed in life. Segregation was a fact. They were in practice completely locked out from any public service, and had to rely on themselves. This is when "Gypsy culture" started to evolve, the clans and Romanipen.
3. Nazism happened and the Nazis together with Romanian enthusiastic cooperation they tried to exterminate all the Gypsys through concentration camps or just shooting them. Millions die.
4. Communism happened. Romanian Communism was nationalistic. This means that non-Romanians were going to be forcefully integrated into Romanian society. Any expressing of Gypsy culture was forbidden and suppressed. And just like before they were in practice locked out from public services. So this was in practice nothing but a continuation of Nazi extermination, just more low key and slower.
5. The open anti-Gypsy racism ends in '93 when Romania wants to become part of EU. At this point Gypsies live in isolated communities cut off from public aid. Officially they're now on equal footing with other Romanians but in practice they're still locked out from public services, schools and such.
6. Same shit going on now. Due to pressures from other EU countries they now have government functions who only work with lifting Gypsy's out of poverty. But cooperation from the rest of society is almost zero.

That's Romanian Gypsy history. The other Gypsy histories are similar. But not as bad as the Romanian Gypsies. They had it rough. Of course not as bad as the German Gypsys. They all got exterminated by the Nazis.

I'd say the Gypsy's deserve a break here. My ex wife is Hungarian Jewish. Her family is still traumatised from the holocaust. So much is obvious. If Jews manage to be traumatised 50+ years after the end of the racist laws. Imagine Gypsies 20+ years on? How about giving them a break?

Maybe they're taught to steal because they're taught that everybody steals from them? Which historically is true. What about the rest of us stop stealing from them for a while their culture might change?

- - - Updated - - -

The Romanians are EU citizens and gypsies. They are neither refugees nor migrants. They're home. They are here because Romania sucks. Yes, they are a problem and I wish they'd leave. But they have a right to stay here and a right to beg.

And if you know a little about gypsy history you wouldn't judge. They've been treated very badly for centuries. Too bad it now became Sweden's problem. But such is life.

So have the Jews and Africans. However the issue is that the unelected leaders of the EU threw open our borders and lets anyone in. The majority of British people for instance do not agree with uncontrolled immigration as dictated by Brussels.

Compared to Gypsies everybody else has had it good. That includes European Jews. The Gypsies certainly take the prize for shittest history.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But how much of the land is actually habitable? Not to mention it is so cold.
Also if you are going to settle a really huge number you might have to cut down forests and blast mountains which would lead to another environmental problem.

To be fair, no part of Sweden is habitable... not really. But people still live here. Less than 3% of Swedes work in farming, and all of them are concentrated in the south. There's plenty of other things you can work with, and if you do you can live anywhere. As for the cold, all of Sweden is about as bad. The south is a little bit better. But it's cold as fuck all over. No you don't need to blast mountains or cut trees. We've plenty of open land just waiting to be settled.

 

[Turambar]

Compared to Gypsies everybody else has had it good. That includes European Jews. The Gypsies certainly take the prize for shittest history.

Is this a contest called "Who's been treated worst?" and you are the judging panel? I think there are several groups out there in this wide world that have historically suffered great injustices just like the Roma have, yet interestingly, not all turn to a criminal culture as a coping mechanism. As an example, there are Mayan villages up in the Guatemalan highlands inhabited by peasants working on shitty agricultural lands because the good lands below were stolen by the Spanish and its descendants centuries ago. As recent as the 1980s the military governments routinely exterminated entire Mayan villages using methods that make the nazis look like peace corps. Yet, if you ever visit those villages, usually you are treated with kindness and they share with you the few resources they have.

Also I am told, Mayan-Guatemalan immigrants to the US have a reputation of being hard working and honest people, much so that farmers prefer to hire them as labourers over other Central American groups.

There, two groups routinely abused for centuries, two different outcomes. Please do not justify criminal activity just because a particular culture or ethnic group has been abused in the past.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Compared to Gypsies everybody else has had it good. That includes European Jews. The Gypsies certainly take the prize for shittest history.

Is this a contest called "Who's been treated worst?" and you are the judging panel? I think there are several groups out there in this wide world that have historically suffered great injustices just like the Roma have, yet interestingly, not all turn to a criminal culture as a coping mechanism. As an example, there are Mayan villages up in the Guatemalan highlands inhabited by peasants working on shitty agricultural lands because the good lands below were stolen by the Spanish and its descendants centuries ago. As recent as the 1980s the military governments routinely exterminated entire Mayan villages using methods that make the nazis look like peace corps. Yet, if you ever visit those villages, usually you are treated with kindness and they share with you the few resources they have.

Also I am told, Mayan-Guatemalan immigrants to the US have a reputation of being hard working and honest people, much so that farmers prefer to hire them as labourers over other Central American groups.

There, two groups routinely abused for centuries, two different outcomes. Please do not justify criminal activity just because a particular culture or ethnic group has been abused in the past.

I didn't say that. Not even close.

 

[Bomb#20]

Maybe they're taught to steal because they're taught that everybody steals from them? Which historically is true. What about the rest of us stop stealing from them for a while their culture might change?

What did you steal from them? And whatever it is you stole, how about you send it back to them with a letter of apology, a calculation of the interest on it, and a check? Incidentally, why have you been robbing gypsies? Do you steal from non-Gypsies too, or are Gypsies just a target of opportunity for you?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Maybe they're taught to steal because they're taught that everybody steals from them? Which historically is true. What about the rest of us stop stealing from them for a while their culture might change?

What did you steal from them? And whatever it is you stole, how about you send it back to them with a letter of apology, a calculation of the interest on it, and a check? Incidentally, why have you been robbing gypsies? Do you steal from non-Gypsies too, or are Gypsies just a target of opportunity for you?

Just like Jews Gypsies divide the world into in-group and out-group. Out group is a fair target. It's of course more complicated than this. But as far as Gypsies are concerned I am out-group and am therefore guilty of stealing from them. Yes, this is something that needs to change. But it won't until Gypsies start being treated fairly from non-gypsies. We can either chose to be part of the solution or part of the problem. If we continue to treat Gypsies as nothing but thieves I think we should be honest with ourselves that the main driver for it is that we want them to remain thieves.

Edit: I have a close friend of mine who heads a cross-national European agency whose job it is to integrate Gypsies. It was realized pretty recently that each country tackling their Roma problems of integration individually was a non-starter. Simply because Gypsies are so mobile.

So it's not until recently we'be got the tools to do anything about it. But it will happen. It might look like it but anti-Roma racism hasn't gone up. It's steadily falling. So we do have a chance to integrate them now. When that happens their anti-establishment culture is gone. I'm sure of it. People respond to incentives. Gypsies more than other groups have every reason not to trust governments at all. So they don't. So they've built a culture where they're not registered anywhere.