Europe submits voluntarily

[whichphilosophy]

It's funny to me that people think that nation states should have absolute control over who enters their territory, with every person who crosses the border required to identify themselves and their nationality.

This idea is only about a century old. Before the Great War, a passport was a rarity, and was used to invoke the protection of local authorities as a favour to the bearer's government. It wasn't a requirement to cross a border; it was just a way to speed things up, by declaring that any delay would be frowned upon by a Great Power.

For about a century, the previously free movement of people across borders has been frozen. This completely artificial situation has become accepted as the norm; it has even become a fundamental moral imperative in some people's minds that foreigners should be kept out. But it is in fact a novel situation; and the pent-up demand for freedom of movement is now causing big problems.

Rather like price controls in centrally planned economies leading to black marketeering and supply problems, centrally planned immigration leads to people smuggling and to immigration problems.

Perhaps it's time to stop telling people where they can and can't live, and let the market sort it out.

Then the people smugglers will become legal transporters in leaky boats.
Borders are good for stopping fugitives drug smugglers terrorists and arms dealers. In rare cases they can monitor movements during an epidemic
If there were no borders could we house 200 million from India 50 million from Pakistan, 50 million from Africa Then a few million would also pour in from the poorer European countries.

 

[bilby]

It's funny to me that people think that nation states should have absolute control over who enters their territory, with every person who crosses the border required to identify themselves and their nationality.

This idea is only about a century old. Before the Great War, a passport was a rarity, and was used to invoke the protection of local authorities as a favour to the bearer's government. It wasn't a requirement to cross a border; it was just a way to speed things up, by declaring that any delay would be frowned upon by a Great Power.

For about a century, the previously free movement of people across borders has been frozen. This completely artificial situation has become accepted as the norm; it has even become a fundamental moral imperative in some people's minds that foreigners should be kept out. But it is in fact a novel situation; and the pent-up demand for freedom of movement is now causing big problems.

Rather like price controls in centrally planned economies leading to black marketeering and supply problems, centrally planned immigration leads to people smuggling and to immigration problems.

Perhaps it's time to stop telling people where they can and can't live, and let the market sort it out.

Then the people smugglers will become legal transporters in leaky boats.

With no customers.

Borders are good for stopping fugitives

Not particularly; fugitives escape regularly despite the current border restrictions.

drug smugglers

Not particularly; plenty of drugs are available on the streets. Anyway, I am not suggesting allowing goods to enter the country uninspected; just people.

terrorists

Not particularly; Terrorsits don't seem to ahve any real problem getting into the country, particularly as many are already citizens.

and arms dealers.

Not particularly; most of the arms trade is legal, and it is their goods, not their persons that need regulation.

In rare cases they can monitor movements during an epidemic

So why have them when there is no epidemic?

If there were no borders could we house 200 million from India 50 million from Pakistan, 50 million from Africa Then a few million would also pour in from the poorer European countries.

Yes.

So what?

 

[Trausti]

It's funny to me that people think that nation states should have absolute control over who enters their territory, with every person who crosses the border required to identify themselves and their nationality.

This idea is only about a century old. Before the Great War, a passport was a rarity, and was used to invoke the protection of local authorities as a favour to the bearer's government. It wasn't a requirement to cross a border; it was just a way to speed things up, by declaring that any delay would be frowned upon by a Great Power.

For about a century, the previously free movement of people across borders has been frozen. This completely artificial situation has become accepted as the norm; it has even become a fundamental moral imperative in some people's minds that foreigners should be kept out. But it is in fact a novel situation; and the pent-up demand for freedom of movement is now causing big problems.

Rather like price controls in centrally planned economies leading to black marketeering and supply problems, centrally planned immigration leads to people smuggling and to immigration problems.

Perhaps it's time to stop telling people where they can and can't live, and let the market sort it out.

Then the people smugglers will become legal transporters in leaky boats.
Borders are good for stopping fugitives drug smugglers terrorists and arms dealers. In rare cases they can monitor movements during an epidemic
If there were no borders could we house 200 million from India 50 million from Pakistan, 50 million from Africa Then a few million would also pour in from the poorer European countries.

You can have open borders or a welfare state. You can't have both.

 

[bilby]

Then the people smugglers will become legal transporters in leaky boats.
Borders are good for stopping fugitives drug smugglers terrorists and arms dealers. In rare cases they can monitor movements during an epidemic
If there were no borders could we house 200 million from India 50 million from Pakistan, 50 million from Africa Then a few million would also pour in from the poorer European countries.

You can have open borders or a welfare state. You can't have both.

Not true. Welfare can be limited to 'citizens only' without having to close the borders; many citizens are currently ineligible for many of the benefits of a welfare state, and they don't illegally claim those benefits in sufficient numbers to render the system unworkable.

Welfare can also be set up in such a way as to be available only to people who have contributed taxes to the state for a given period, or up to a given amount, for example. There are lots of ways to have both open borders and a welfare state.

 

[Ford]

25 pages later, I'm still at a loss to see how Europe has "submitted" to anything beyond letting in some refugees.

Nobody has effectively made the case that this influx of people - or Muslims if you don't want to consider them people - will make much of a difference, let alone lead to Europe becoming a smoking ruin languishing under cruel dictatorship.


Last time that happened, Muslims were decidedly not involved.

 

[barbos]

Not most enough.

There's always better. But they're way more secular oriented than Christian in the US South.

You have some data on that?

For all the horror stories you're being fed by your right-wing news networks or blogs, it's a matter of fact that a population like European Muslims would actually help the US become a more secular country, and that's a fact.

You have been fed PC crap by your lef-wing news networks or blogs. And no, I m not right-wing, I am center.

Maybe time to wean off those blogs? Only if you're interested in factual information, of course.

Are you suggesting I stop watching the Daily Show and Oliver?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, right. A conservative politician stating that her strawman version of a leftist project has failed. This is undeniable proof of ... something. Must be proof of something.

It must be easy to argue by discounting what you don't like as insignificant.
Europian version of multiculturalism has failed, deal with it.

I've provided facts and figures.

No, you did not, You just labeled Merkel and me as right wing.

 

[Jokodo]

It's funny to me that people think that nation states should have absolute control over who enters their territory, with every person who crosses the border required to identify themselves and their nationality.

This idea is only about a century old. Before the Great War, a passport was a rarity, and was used to invoke the protection of local authorities as a favour to the bearer's government. It wasn't a requirement to cross a border; it was just a way to speed things up, by declaring that any delay would be frowned upon by a Great Power.

For about a century, the previously free movement of people across borders has been frozen. This completely artificial situation has become accepted as the norm; it has even become a fundamental moral imperative in some people's minds that foreigners should be kept out. But it is in fact a novel situation; and the pent-up demand for freedom of movement is now causing big problems.

Rather like price controls in centrally planned economies leading to black marketeering and supply problems, centrally planned immigration leads to people smuggling and to immigration problems.

Perhaps it's time to stop telling people where they can and can't live, and let the market sort it out.

Then the people smugglers will become legal transporters in leaky boats.<snip>

There are regular ferries from Ceşme in Turkey to Chios (Greece) for about € 25,- for a foot passenger, including (if I read the homepage correctly) bus transfer from Izmir to the ferry port. If you think that anyone would prefer to take a leaky boat for more than ten times the price if they could board the ferry instead, you have to think again.

There's even direct flights from Istanbul to Frankfurt starting at 37,- one way if can plan ahead and book now for November.

 

[barbos]

In my job I work with a variety of people from all over the world. Understanding how different cultures work is part of my job. I'm even an expert. I've held talks about it and shit. USA and England are much better than everybody else at integrating immigrants. And not just by a little bit. They're way above the rest. But they're no less racist. It's not racism that's the thing. It's something else. It's a cultural quality of anglo-american society that allows for this. I don't know what the secret sauce is. I suspect it's a variety of factors. But the fact remains is that they make everybody else look bad. Singapore is another of those places that are very good at integrating immigrants.

Sweden for example is terrible at integrating immigrants. And it's not racism. Sweden scores real low in racism. So that's not it. We just suck at it anyway. With integrating immigrants I mean giving them work, or allowing them to get loans so they can start businesses.

England and USA has the bonus of having a language that most people speak. Maybe it's as simple as that?

Or maybe the secret sauce is more stringent controls of who gets in, and skimming the cream off the top?

Yes, that's what I said. But US had been in similar situation Europe is in. During Central America civil wars they allowed large number of refugees from there, the result is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-13 thing.
They utterly failed to integrate these people, but they had no way to select who enters.

 

[bilby]

Or maybe the secret sauce is more stringent controls of who gets in, and skimming the cream off the top?

Yes, that's what I said. But US had been in similar situation Europe is in. During Central America civil wars they allowed large number of refugees from there, the result is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-13 thing.
They utterly failed to integrate these people, but they had no way to select who enters.

The causes of violent criminal gangs in the US has a lot more to do with the insane 'War on Drugs' than it has to do with immigration.

To suggest that accepting refugees from Central America is the major cause of the existence of MS-13 is a huge stretch. But one that appeals to those who start from the assumption that migrants and refugees must be dangerous.

 

[Jokodo]

There's always better. But they're way more secular oriented than Christian in the US South.

You have some data on that?

Yes, if you can read German.

For all the horror stories you're being fed by your right-wing news networks or blogs, it's a matter of fact that a population like European Muslims would actually help the US become a more secular country, and that's a fact.

You have been fed PC crap by your lef-wing news networks or blogs. And no, I m not right-wing, I am center.

I don't have to rely on news networks and blogs to know that I have had no reason not to feel safe and at home during five years of living in the district with highest proportion of Muslims of the major city with the highest proportion of Muslims of a country that has an overall higher proportion of Muslim than many other Western countries.

I don't need news networks and blogs to find studies either. I can google, thank you very much.

Maybe time to wean off those blogs? Only if you're interested in factual information, of course.

Are you suggesting I stop watching the Daily Show and Oliver?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, right. A conservative politician stating that her strawman version of a leftist project has failed. This is undeniable proof of ... something. Must be proof of something.

It must be easy to argue by discounting what you don't like as insignificant.
Europian version of multiculturalism has failed, deal with it.

I've provided facts and figures.

No, you did not, You just labeled Merkel and me as right wing.

The CDU/CSU's official position has been that there must not be a party to their right in Germany. In order to maintain this, they systematically pander to the right-wing part of the electoral base. Yes, I take the freedom to label Merkel as right wing.

If you don't want me to label you as right wing, you might try stopping to spread right wing propaganda and engage in a rational discussion instead.

 

[barbos]

Yes, that's what I said. But US had been in similar situation Europe is in. During Central America civil wars they allowed large number of refugees from there, the result is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-13 thing.
They utterly failed to integrate these people, but they had no way to select who enters.

The causes of violent criminal gangs in the US has a lot more to do with the insane 'War on Drugs' than it has to do with immigration.

To suggest that accepting refugees from Central America is the major cause of the existence of MS-13 is a huge stretch. But one that appeals to those who start from the assumption that migrants and refugees must be dangerous.

wikipedia disagrees with you.
And I did not say accepting them was the cause (even though it may have been) I said failure to integrate them was the cause.

 

[barbos]

You have some data on that?

Yes, if you can read German.

For all the horror stories you're being fed by your right-wing news networks or blogs, it's a matter of fact that a population like European Muslims would actually help the US become a more secular country, and that's a fact.

You have been fed PC crap by your lef-wing news networks or blogs. And no, I m not right-wing, I am center.

I don't have to rely on news networks and blogs to know that I have had no reason not to feel safe and at home during five years of living in the district with highest proportion of Muslims of the major city with the highest proportion of Muslims of a country that has an overall higher proportion of Muslim than many other Western countries.

I don't need news networks and blogs to find studies either. I can google, thank you very much.

LOL, that's a funniest thing today. Google is the source of news now, I did not know that.

Maybe time to wean off those blogs? Only if you're interested in factual information, of course.

Are you suggesting I stop watching the Daily Show and Oliver?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, right. A conservative politician stating that her strawman version of a leftist project has failed. This is undeniable proof of ... something. Must be proof of something.

It must be easy to argue by discounting what you don't like as insignificant.
Europian version of multiculturalism has failed, deal with it.

I've provided facts and figures.

No, you did not, You just labeled Merkel and me as right wing.

The CDU/CSU's official position has been that there must not be a party to their right in Germany. In order to maintain this, they systematically pander to the right-wing part of the electoral base. Yes, I take the freedom to label Merkel as right wing.

If you don't want me to label you as right wing, you might try stopping to spread right wing propaganda and engage in a rational discussion instead.

Just because right-wing says or agrees with something does not make it automatically wrong.

 

[Jokodo]

You have some data on that?

Yes, if you can read German.

For all the horror stories you're being fed by your right-wing news networks or blogs, it's a matter of fact that a population like European Muslims would actually help the US become a more secular country, and that's a fact.

You have been fed PC crap by your lef-wing news networks or blogs. And no, I m not right-wing, I am center.

I don't have to rely on news networks and blogs to know that I have had no reason not to feel safe and at home during five years of living in the district with highest proportion of Muslims of the major city with the highest proportion of Muslims of a country that has an overall higher proportion of Muslim than many other Western countries.

I don't need news networks and blogs to find studies either. I can google, thank you very much.

LOL, that's a funniest thing today. Google is the source of news now, I did not know that.

Maybe time to wean off those blogs? Only if you're interested in factual information, of course.

Are you suggesting I stop watching the Daily Show and Oliver?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, right. A conservative politician stating that her strawman version of a leftist project has failed. This is undeniable proof of ... something. Must be proof of something.

It must be easy to argue by discounting what you don't like as insignificant.
Europian version of multiculturalism has failed, deal with it.

I've provided facts and figures.

No, you did not, You just labeled Merkel and me as right wing.

The CDU/CSU's official position has been that there must not be a party to their right in Germany. In order to maintain this, they systematically pander to the right-wing part of the electoral base. Yes, I take the freedom to label Merkel as right wing.

If you don't want me to label you as right wing, you might try stopping to spread right wing propaganda and engage in a rational discussion instead.

Just because right-wing says or agrees with something does not make it automatically wrong.

It doesn't.

But it does take more than repeating unexamined what right-wingers said to convince me that you're right.

 

[barbos]

If you point to a random immigrant in US there is good chance it is a CEO of some startup or Google/Microsoft.
Unless you are a mexican or from few countries like GB, Ireland, It is pretty much impossible to immigrate to US without university degree and job offer.
Now compare to current "immigration" requirements to EU - you need to have NO documents, don't speak any EU languages, young unmarried male without any education, know how to be loud and throw rocks.

 

[Jokodo]

If you point to a random immigrant in US there is good chance it is a CEO of some startup or Google/Microsoft.
Unless you are a mexican or from few countries like GB, Ireland, It is pretty much impossible to immigrate to US without university degree and job offer.
Now compare to current "immigration" requirements to EU - you need to have NO documents, don't speak any EU languages, young unmarried male without any education, know how to be loud and throw rocks.

Yes, there are a lot of young males. Some of them unmarried, but many do have family still in a refugee camp in Turkey or Lebanon. There are also many famlies. In fact, the proportion of families is much higher than it was a year, or even just a few months ago.

If you'd actually been on the scene, instead of commenting from the other end of the Milky Way galaxy, you'd have observed young men positioning themselves in the second row to allow families to board the trains first; young men covering their face because they're ashamed to let their tears of joy show; young men who are just incredibly tired. Young men are people too.

You'd also have seen very impatient young men who would, yes, sometimes get loud. If you'd finally reached Austria having experienced their treatment by the Hungarian authorities, but heard rumors that Austria is going to start summarily deporting people back to Hungary any day now (rumors well-founded on official statements by government spokespeople, no less), I bet you'd be impatient to get on a train to Germany too.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In my job I work with a variety of people from all over the world. Understanding how different cultures work is part of my job. I'm even an expert. I've held talks about it and shit. USA and England are much better than everybody else at integrating immigrants. And not just by a little bit. They're way above the rest. But they're no less racist. It's not racism that's the thing. It's something else. It's a cultural quality of anglo-american society that allows for this. I don't know what the secret sauce is. I suspect it's a variety of factors. But the fact remains is that they make everybody else look bad. Singapore is another of those places that are very good at integrating immigrants.

Sweden for example is terrible at integrating immigrants. And it's not racism. Sweden scores real low in racism. So that's not it. We just suck at it anyway. With integrating immigrants I mean giving them work, or allowing them to get loans so they can start businesses.

England and USA has the bonus of having a language that most people speak. Maybe it's as simple as that?

Or maybe the secret sauce is more stringent controls of who gets in, and skimming the cream off the top?

No they don't. Both USA and England prioritise persistence. If it's important enough to you you will get in.

 

[barbos]

Or maybe the secret sauce is more stringent controls of who gets in, and skimming the cream off the top?

No they don't. Both USA and England prioritise persistence. If it's important enough to you you will get in.

Well, if you are persistent enough to find H-1 job then yes. But if you just keep being persistent coming to the embassy and saying "I want to emigrate to US" then you will be doing it for the rest of your life. As for the H-1 then you need to be prepared to be paid less than americans for a number of years until you get a green card. Ironic fact is, legal emigration is harder than illegal one, especially if you are a mexican

 

[barbos]

If you point to a random immigrant in US there is good chance it is a CEO of some startup or Google/Microsoft.
Unless you are a mexican or from few countries like GB, Ireland, It is pretty much impossible to immigrate to US without university degree and job offer.
Now compare to current "immigration" requirements to EU - you need to have NO documents, don't speak any EU languages, young unmarried male without any education, know how to be loud and throw rocks.

Yes, there are a lot of young males. Some of them unmarried, but many do have family still in a refugee camp in Turkey or Lebanon. There are also many famlies. In fact, the proportion of families is much higher than it was a year, or even just a few months ago.

If you'd actually been on the scene, instead of commenting from the other end of the Milky Way galaxy, you'd have observed young men positioning themselves in the second row to allow families to board the trains first; young men covering their face because they're ashamed to let their tears of joy show; young men who are just incredibly tired. Young men are people too.

You'd also have seen very impatient young men who would, yes, sometimes get loud. If you'd finally reached Austria having experienced their treatment by the Hungarian authorities, but heard rumors that Austria is going to start summarily deporting people back to Hungary any day now (rumors well-founded on official statements by government spokespeople, no less), I bet you'd be impatient to get on a train to Germany too.

You have got nice rationalization here, but that's just that - rationalization. 70% of people there are young unmarried and obnoxious males.
All they want is to get to Germany and UK, they don't want to stay in Hungary. The reason is simple, they believe it's better there than in Hungary/France. And their beliefs are correct, refugees get paid more in UK/Germany.

 

[bilby]

Yes, there are a lot of young males. Some of them unmarried, but many do have family still in a refugee camp in Turkey or Lebanon. There are also many famlies. In fact, the proportion of families is much higher than it was a year, or even just a few months ago.

If you'd actually been on the scene, instead of commenting from the other end of the Milky Way galaxy, you'd have observed young men positioning themselves in the second row to allow families to board the trains first; young men covering their face because they're ashamed to let their tears of joy show; young men who are just incredibly tired. Young men are people too.

You'd also have seen very impatient young men who would, yes, sometimes get loud. If you'd finally reached Austria having experienced their treatment by the Hungarian authorities, but heard rumors that Austria is going to start summarily deporting people back to Hungary any day now (rumors well-founded on official statements by government spokespeople, no less), I bet you'd be impatient to get on a train to Germany too.

You have got nice rationalization here, but that's just that - rationalization. 70% of people there are young unmarried and obnoxious males.
All they want is to get to Germany and UK, they don't want to stay in Hungary. The reason is simple, they believe it's better there than in Hungary/France.

And of course everyone needs to be prevented from doing anything that they believe might make their lives better.

 

[barbos]

You have got nice rationalization here, but that's just that - rationalization. 70% of people there are young unmarried and obnoxious males.
All they want is to get to Germany and UK, they don't want to stay in Hungary. The reason is simple, they believe it's better there than in Hungary/France.

And of course everyone needs to be prevented from doing anything that they believe might make their lives better.

Well, if their plan is to get paid for doing nothing then yes, they should be prevented from doing that.
I mean, we all know what's going on here. Yes, there is a civil war in Syria but this is no excuse to use it as pretext to get into rich country and live on social security. EU should make refugees conditions uniform throughout EU and more importantly stop the civil war in Syria by making a deal with Assad and then ending the war.