Europe submits voluntarily

[whichphilosophy]

What about ethics? It's not ethical to refuse entry to refugees. That pretty much over-rides any other concern IMHO

Still pretending these are all "refugees" I see.

In reality there is no distinction now between refugees or migrants, and there is no distinction between legal and illegal migrants.

 

[KeepTalking]

How does that Daily Mirror cover provide us with any information as to German police impinging upon the rights of others and subsequently covering it up?

- - - Updated - - -

It is very easy not to impinge upon the human rights of others, and I am not sure why the police would try to cover it up, unless they are the ones doing it.

I believe as in Sweden, the local government officials (who promoted uncontrolled immigration) conspired with police to suppress the media and avoid press releases. It also raises the question whether European countries really have a free press.

But it says nothing about German police impinging upon the rights of others and subsequently covering it up.

You very obviously don't see the trend!

Quite to the contrary, I see two extremely obvious trends from the right wing posters in this thread, fear and ignorance.

While there is fear and ignorance such as racism, the issues you are responding to are related to press cover ups

I'm sorry, but you don't get to define, or limit, my participation in this thread, especially when you have shown an inability to correctly determine what the fuck I am posting about.

Regardless of those on the fight the facts speak for themselves and mass migration is not beneficial to Europe.

That is not a fact, that is an opinion. The net benefit or harm done to Europe by the current immigration will not be known for decades to come, but on the whole, immigration has been beneficial to the country receiving the immigrants, in the long term, throughout history.

 

[DrZoidberg]

She's been a member of the CDU since the fall of the Berlin fucking Wall--what the hell are you talking about?

If you mention her membership in the Free German Youth, I will laugh at you (more than usual). The kids in the Free German Youth were about as socialists as the Hitler Youth were fascists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel#Early_life_and_education

Like most young people in the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), Merkel was a member of the Free German Youth (FDJ), the official youth movement sponsored by the ruling Socialist Unity Party. Membership was nominally voluntary, but those who did not join found it all but impossible to gain admission to higher education.

At least I know how 'quick' your 'quick look into her past' was.

And even if true, the fact that somebody at some point held an opinion which they later reject is a sign of intelligence and growth. It's a person willing and able to question themselves. Ie, just the type of people I'd like to see in power.

Yes, the perfect person to destroy Western culture in favour of a backward, barbaric one! The present regime in Germany is like the serpent eating itself from the tail.

So everybody who at some point in their lives question themselves is hellbent on destroying their own country? Is that your belief? We should only elect leaders who never admit mistakes?

Merkel didn't follow he German constitution and refuse immigrants who had entered into other European countries. She was warned enough times about the consequences of driving in over one million immigrants.

What about ethics? It's not ethical to refuse entry to refugees. That pretty much over-rides any other concern IMHO

Sovereign states have a right to check people and refuse those who could be a security risk or have criminal backgrounds. If they are a potential risk then the state has a right to refuse them. What happened in Germany was predictable and infact was predicted, in part based on the Swedish experiences.

ha ha "Swedish experiences" that were lies made up by right wing nuts. Contradicted by all research, and in fact never had any facts to back it up. These lies are spread by just a few racist blogs. There are even more anti-racist blogs who go through their posts and claims and post links to the material they base it on. Here's one: http://www.metro.se/nyheter/viralgranskaren/

That one got the most prestigious journalism prize last year for their very thorough research. But sure... carry on.

You're making pretty bizarre leaps of logic here equivocating. First you're citing security risks and criminal background. Ok, sounds legit. But what makes a person a security risk? Syria is/was a totalitarian dicatorship. ISIS is more of the same. Dicatorships are notorious for abusing their civil service in order to punish those they deem dangerous, as well as their families. A criminal record in a country like that says nothing. Their records cannot be trusted. "Security risk". What does that even mean? And your example from Sweden suggests that their religion or ethnicity is a factor here? Is that what you are claiming? Are you claiming that people from the Middle-East are inherently a security risk and should be barred because of that reason alone? That is racism. I hope you agree?

 

[whichphilosophy]

She's been a member of the CDU since the fall of the Berlin fucking Wall--what the hell are you talking about?

If you mention her membership in the Free German Youth, I will laugh at you (more than usual). The kids in the Free German Youth were about as socialists as the Hitler Youth were fascists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel#Early_life_and_education

Like most young people in the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), Merkel was a member of the Free German Youth (FDJ), the official youth movement sponsored by the ruling Socialist Unity Party. Membership was nominally voluntary, but those who did not join found it all but impossible to gain admission to higher education.

At least I know how 'quick' your 'quick look into her past' was.

And even if true, the fact that somebody at some point held an opinion which they later reject is a sign of intelligence and growth. It's a person willing and able to question themselves. Ie, just the type of people I'd like to see in power.

Yes, the perfect person to destroy Western culture in favour of a backward, barbaric one! The present regime in Germany is like the serpent eating itself from the tail.

So everybody who at some point in their lives question themselves is hellbent on destroying their own country? Is that your belief? We should only elect leaders who never admit mistakes?

Merkel didn't follow he German constitution and refuse immigrants who had entered into other European countries. She was warned enough times about the consequences of driving in over one million immigrants.

What about ethics? It's not ethical to refuse entry to refugees. That pretty much over-rides any other concern IMHO

Sovereign states have a right to check people and refuse those who could be a security risk or have criminal backgrounds. If they are a potential risk then the state has a right to refuse them. What happened in Germany was predictable and infact was predicted, in part based on the Swedish experiences.

ha ha "Swedish experiences" that were lies made up by right wing nuts. Contradicted by all research, and in fact never had any facts to back it up. These lies are spread by just a few racist blogs. There are even more anti-racist blogs who go through their posts and claims and post links to the material they base it on. Here's one: http://www.metro.se/nyheter/viralgranskaren/

That one got the most prestigious journalism prize last year for their very thorough research. But sure... carry on.

You're making pretty bizarre leaps of logic here equivocating. First you're citing security risks and criminal background. Ok, sounds legit. But what makes a person a security risk? Syria is/was a totalitarian dicatorship. ISIS is more of the same. Dicatorships are notorious for abusing their civil service in order to punish those they deem dangerous, as well as their families. A criminal record in a country like that says nothing. Their records cannot be trusted. "Security risk". What does that even mean? And your example from Sweden suggests that their religion or ethnicity is a factor here? Is that what you are claiming? Are you claiming that people from the Middle-East are inherently a security risk and should be barred because of that reason alone? That is racism. I hope you agree?

A small percentage is a security risk Send in a few million and statistically that risk increases. Further the majority coming are not from war zones or facing persecution. Illegals care coming in from as far as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Algeria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria and many have not even applied for Asylum. The identities are known to exist in part from discarded documents. Few families are coming along. Location alone is not a security risk; lack of security is the risk.

Despite its faults Syria was a secular society which tolerated all types of religion. After allied intervention and support of rebel factions ISIS has tried to remove all 'non'believers' from the Syrian society. The same happened in Iraq.

There are some among the Arab and North Africans especially among the uneducated and illiterate who think they can misbehave in a foreign country. Whether this is a small percentile or not does not detract from the need to operate strict entry procedures to protect our own populations (from all backgrounds).

 

[DrZoidberg]

A small percentage is a security risk Send in a few million and statistically that risk increases.

Obviously. But that doesn't help your arguments one bit IMHO.

Further the majority coming are not from war zones or facing persecution. Illegals care coming in from as far as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Algeria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria and many have not even applied for Asylum. The identities are known to exist in part from discarded documents. Few families are coming along. Location alone is not a security risk; lack of security is the risk.

Still not an argument to deny refugees entry.

Despite its faults Syria was a secular society which tolerated all types of religion. After allied intervention and support of rebel factions ISIS has tried to remove all 'non'believers' from the Syrian society. The same happened in Iraq.

How is this relevant for your arguments?

There are some among the Arab and North Africans especially among the uneducated and illiterate who think they can misbehave in a foreign country. Whether this is a small percentile or not does not detract from the need to operate strict entry procedures to protect our own populations (from all backgrounds).

There's a small percentage among any group who think they can misbehave. That's just a fact of life. I'm still not sure how this helps your arguments? Are you somehow arguing that Europeans don't commit crime?

The general theme of racists arguments is that people from the Middle-East are more criminally inclined than Europeans. They conflate all manner of statistics and ignore common human characteristics we all share. When there's a cultural shift or people are removed from their cultural context and put in another this leads to all manner of unwanted transgressive behaviour. In sociology this is called "anomie" and there's tonnes of studies on it. But whenever they feel secure again and they exist in a cultural context they recognise this effect disappears. Just one example of how racists are just fucking dumb-ass and above all apply double standards. Most importantly this is a universal characteristic of all humans.

Just one example. There's loads more.

If we allow in refugees there will be problems. Lots of problems. It'll be messy. I'm not questioning that. But they are refugees. And I think that over-rides any other concerns. That's just my firm belief. Once the war is over and Syria is at peace again they will remember how they were treated during the war. That isn't a threat btw. This is an opportunity to make friends.

 

[faded_Glory]

A small percentage is a security risk Send in a few million and statistically that risk increases. Further the majority coming are not from war zones or facing persecution. Illegals care coming in from as far as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Algeria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria and many have not even applied for Asylum. The identities are known to exist in part from discarded documents. Few families are coming along. Location alone is not a security risk; lack of security is the risk.

The argument that immigration brings in a percentage of criminals is not an argument for stopping immigration altogether. It can't be, unless you would apply the same argument to stop people from having babies, because a percentage of babies will grow up to become criminals.

I am sure we agree that this would be an inane argument. So why use exactly the same argument when it comes to immigration?

I believe that the real argument is a different one, and remains largely unspoken.

fG

 

[whichphilosophy]

Obviously. But that doesn't help your arguments one bit IMHO.

Further the majority coming are not from war zones or facing persecution. Illegals care coming in from as far as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Algeria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria and many have not even applied for Asylum. The identities are known to exist in part from discarded documents. Few families are coming along. Location alone is not a security risk; lack of security is the risk.

Still not an argument to deny refugees entry.

Despite its faults Syria was a secular society which tolerated all types of religion. After allied intervention and support of rebel factions ISIS has tried to remove all 'non'believers' from the Syrian society. The same happened in Iraq.

How is this relevant for your arguments?

There are some among the Arab and North Africans especially among the uneducated and illiterate who think they can misbehave in a foreign country. Whether this is a small percentile or not does not detract from the need to operate strict entry procedures to protect our own populations (from all backgrounds).

There's a small percentage among any group who think they can misbehave. That's just a fact of life. I'm still not sure how this helps your arguments? Are you somehow arguing that Europeans don't commit crime?

The general theme of racists arguments is that people from the Middle-East are more criminally inclined than Europeans. They conflate all manner of statistics and ignore common human characteristics we all share. When there's a cultural shift or people are removed from their cultural context and put in another this leads to all manner of unwanted transgressive behaviour. In sociology this is called "anomie" and there's tonnes of studies on it. But whenever they feel secure again and they exist in a cultural context they recognise this effect disappears. Just one example of how racists are just fucking dumb-ass and above all apply double standards. Most importantly this is a universal characteristic of all humans.

Just one example. There's loads more.

If we allow in refugees there will be problems. Lots of problems. It'll be messy. I'm not questioning that. But they are refugees. And I think that over-rides any other concerns. That's just my firm belief. Once the war is over and Syria is at peace again they will remember how they were treated during the war. That isn't a threat btw. This is an opportunity to make friends.

Referring to your example, this is correct. The problem is if one million instead of 100,000 arrive the amount of criminals is very likely to increase. The other thing to remember is that when people pay snake heads t move them to Europe, the well to do and the criminals will have the money for this. Since Europe seems to have abandoned security checks, it is logically easy for people come across.

Having worked in Middle Eastern countries and worked four times for Arabic corporations, the Arabs treat women with respect.
There are many who oppose unprecedented forms of immigration, apart from asylum seekers or skilled operatives to fill genuine shortages but the 'race card' is used to try to shut down the debates. There are racists who are against immigration altogether and in favour of deportation or worse. However this does not mean all those against it are racist.

The point about Iraq, Syria (and also Libya) is we made things much worse where extremists simply filled the power vacuum where the government armies were no longer in existence.

 

[angelo]

Women, the elderly, and children should be accepted, but not the mass of single young men which comprise more than 60% of so called refugees entering Europe and elsewhere.

 

[whichphilosophy]

How does that Daily Mirror cover provide us with any information as to German police impinging upon the rights of others and subsequently covering it up?

- - - Updated - - -

It is very easy not to impinge upon the human rights of others, and I am not sure why the police would try to cover it up, unless they are the ones doing it.

I believe as in Sweden, the local government officials (who promoted uncontrolled immigration) conspired with police to suppress the media and avoid press releases. It also raises the question whether European countries really have a free press.

But it says nothing about German police impinging upon the rights of others and subsequently covering it up.

You very obviously don't see the trend!

Quite to the contrary, I see two extremely obvious trends from the right wing posters in this thread, fear and ignorance.

While there is fear and ignorance such as racism, the issues you are responding to are related to press cover ups

I'm sorry, but you don't get to define, or limit, my participation in this thread, especially when you have shown an inability to correctly determine what the fuck I am posting about.

Regardless of those on the fight the facts speak for themselves and mass migration is not beneficial to Europe.

That is not a fact, that is an opinion. The net benefit or harm done to Europe by the current immigration will not be known for decades to come, but on the whole, immigration has been beneficial to the country receiving the immigrants, in the long term, throughout history.

That is when immigration was not anywhere near todays unprecedented levels which are now out of control and rising.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ion-from-outside-Europe-cost-120-billion.html

Immigration from outside Europe 'cost £120 billion'

New report shows immigration from outside Europe over the Labour government years cost the public purse billions of pounds, while recent migration from inside Europe generated a £4 billion surplus

Immigrants who came to live in Britain from outside Europe cost the public purse nearly £120 billion over 17 years, a new report has shown.


The major academic study also found, however, that recent immigration from Europe – driven by the surge in arrivals from eastern European – gave the economy a £4.4 billion boost over the same period.

Experts from University College London also said native Britons made a negative contribution of £591 billion over the 17 years – because of the country’s massive deficit.

The report analysed figures from 1995 to 2011, during most of which the Labour government was pursuing vigorously pro-immigration policies.
It found that migrants from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) made a negative contribution to the public purse of £117.9 billion because they consumed more in public expenditure – including NHS costs, welfare hand-outs and education – than they contributed in taxes. END OF QUOTE

The majority of those entering Britain and Europe are surplus to requirements in most cases.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Referring to your example, this is correct. The problem is if one million instead of 100,000 arrive the amount of criminals is very likely to increase. The other thing to remember is that when people pay snake heads t move them to Europe, the well to do and the criminals will have the money for this. Since Europe seems to have abandoned security checks, it is logically easy for people come across.

"Snake heads"? Who is paying them? This is very confusing.

Having worked in Middle Eastern countries and worked four times for Arabic corporations, the Arabs treat women with respect.
There are many who oppose unprecedented forms of immigration, apart from asylum seekers or skilled operatives to fill genuine shortages but the 'race card' is used to try to shut down the debates. There are racists who are against immigration altogether and in favour of deportation or worse. However this does not mean all those against it are racist.

It's not unprecedented. During WW2 we had a hell of a lot more immigration all over Europe. And a much greater number in proportion to the populations in the countries. Also... during a time of extreme economic hard-ship. Central and Northern Europe has very strong economies. So this argument is just silly.

As far as cultural differences. My ex-wife is Hungarian. The work toward equality in Hungary stopped when they became communist. For all the talk of socialist equality, it was just talk. East block countries stopped evolving toward greater equality. Something we in the west think is the norm today. After the fall of communism gender equality started slowly normalising with the rest of Europe... but it's still way backward. But the change is coming. So why am I saying this? Up until the communist take-over Hungary was on par with the rest of Europe as regards to the evolution of women's rights. People respond to incentives and the culture they are surrounding themselves with.

Yes, the Middle-East are backward when it comes to women's rights. But we have no reason to think that they won't adapt once they get here. It might take a generation, maybe two. But then I promise there'll be no difference between Muslim views of women's rights and other Swedes. More importantly Muslim Arab men are way more progressive than the common Swede was a hundred years ago. This is not a Muslim vs Christian thing. Or Muslim vs Atheists. There's accounts of communist atheist feminists from a hundred years ago who we today would find laughably backward in their views. Who would make Muslims of today look good. People change if they have an incentive to.

The point about Iraq, Syria (and also Libya) is we made things much worse where extremists simply filled the power vacuum where the government armies were no longer in existence.

I'm still not sure why you said it? How does it fit into the argument?

 

[TSwizzle]

Yes, the Middle-East are backward when it comes to women's rights. But we have no reason to think that they won't adapt once they get here.

That's not the impression I get as the wider story becomes known. And it's not just the middle east either.

 

[KeepTalking]

That is not a fact, that is an opinion. The net benefit or harm done to Europe by the current immigration will not be known for decades to come, but on the whole, immigration has been beneficial to the country receiving the immigrants, in the long term, throughout history.

That is when immigration was not anywhere near todays unprecedented levels which are now out of control and rising.

This assumes facts not in evidence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ion-from-outside-Europe-cost-120-billion.html

Immigration from outside Europe 'cost £120 billion'

New report shows immigration from outside Europe over the Labour government years cost the public purse billions of pounds, while recent migration from inside Europe generated a £4 billion surplus

Immigrants who came to live in Britain from outside Europe cost the public purse nearly £120 billion over 17 years, a new report has shown.


The major academic study also found, however, that recent immigration from Europe – driven by the surge in arrivals from eastern European – gave the economy a £4.4 billion boost over the same period.

The article you quote makes it clear that the reason for this is because the majority of those immigrants were women and children. This is in contrast to the current immigration, which the rightists in this thread assure us is made up mostly of men. Also, in decades to come, as those children mentioned in the article grow older, they will be eligible for employment, and will begin contributing to the tax base.

Experts from University College London also said native Britons made a negative contribution of £591 billion over the 17 years – because of the country’s massive deficit.

This should put the xenophobic argument to rest. Native Britons are costing the country far more than immigrants. Perhaps that problem should be addressed first.

The report analysed figures from 1995 to 2011, during most of which the Labour government was pursuing vigorously pro-immigration policies.
It found that migrants from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) made a negative contribution to the public purse of £117.9 billion because they consumed more in public expenditure – including NHS costs, welfare hand-outs and education – than they contributed in taxes.

The majority of those entering Britain and Europe are surplus to requirements in most cases.

Requirements? Who requires them, and for what reason?

The fact remains that when the immigrants are refugees from war torn regions, it is inhumane to turn them away. Sure, some proportion of them are not refugees, and that may be a problem. You deal with that problem, but don't use that problem as an excuse to turn away everyone.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes, the Middle-East are backward when it comes to women's rights. But we have no reason to think that they won't adapt once they get here.

That's not the impression I get as the wider story becomes known. And it's not just the middle east either.

The women's rights movement and move toward greater gender equality in the West has been extremely rapid the last 50 years. The difference in values between a Western 1900's man and a 1950's man was not all that great. They had values more backward the Middle-East has today. In the west rape within marriages only started to be made illegal in the late 70'ies and was still legal well into the 90'ies in large parts of USA and some countries in Europe. That is not that long ago. My point is, if we can change they can change.

There's also a second part. Women's rights and gender equality perfectly matches what's happening in the economy. Predominantly agrarian economies tend to have backward gender roles. We can measure a countries progressiveness and gender equality simply by looking at what jobs people have. Once an economy tips over so that more than 50% of the work force is in industry, the country experiences a radical cultural shift toward gender equality and women's rights. It'll take 50-20 years but once it happens the cultural shift is rapid. The Middle-East were really backward up until they found oil in the 50'ies. They were still backward in the 70'ies. But now (where there isn't wars going on) the expansion of the industrial economy all over the Middle-East is rapid, and so is feminist consciousness. Did you know that Saudi Women got to vote for the first time in 2015?

And this linked to economy is mirrored in every society and culture all over the planet. Religion seems to be a completely irrelevant factor for this.

 

[TSwizzle]

That's not the impression I get as the wider story becomes known. And it's not just the middle east either.

My point is, if we can change they can change.

Wishful thinking.

 

[Jayjay]

Sure, they can change. The mechanism for that change to speak out loudly about the crimes refuges commit and make it clear that their behaviour is unacceptable.

 

[DrZoidberg]

My point is, if we can change they can change.

Wishful thinking.

Look, if you hold onto paranoia about Islam in spite of all the evidence against it (which I provided), then it's Islamophobia (the correct usage of that term).

 

[TSwizzle]

Wishful thinking.

Look, if you hold onto paranoia about Islam in spite of all the evidence against it (which I provided), then it's Islamophobia (the correct usage of that term).

Evidence ? Behave yourself. Your long winded fantasies are not evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, they can change.

The best hope is that they will obey the law. Their attitudes remain the same.

 

[KeepTalking]

Sure, they can change. The mechanism for that change to speak out loudly about the crimes refuges commit and make it clear that their behaviour is unacceptable.

Do you feel that your capacity to be a good person, and to not be lumped in with criminals, is contingent upon how loudly you decry the crimes committed by other members of your community/ethnicity/creed/religious belief (or lack thereof)?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Look, if you hold onto paranoia about Islam in spite of all the evidence against it (which I provided), then it's Islamophobia (the correct usage of that term).

Evidence ? Behave yourself. Your long winded fantasies are not evidence.

ha ha... so are you challenging any of it? Is that what you're doing?

edit:

And here's to back it up

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=shift+from+agrarian+to+industrial+society+women's+rights

I only checked the first three links. But it's not like any of this is controversial. It's well researched and a solid theory. I would be surprised if any of the studies further down question any of this.

 

[TSwizzle]

Evidence ? Behave yourself. Your long winded fantasies are not evidence.

ha ha... so are you challenging any of it? Is that what you're doing?

Pointing out the obvious to a fantasist is not my thang. Jog on.