Europe submits voluntarily

[Jayjay]

Have you seen the list of shit refugees have to go through to get refugee status? They read like they were written by a conspiracy nut. Yes, they're already overly rigorous. Why, you may ask. It's because this is politicians trying to come across as tough on terrorism. So they throw this bone to the voters, as if they've done something. But in reality the security checks are quadruple redundant. They're already bizarrely rigorous. If tourists were screened as much as refugees, it would take two years minimum to clear customs. If you think it's annoying to wait for your luggage now...

Here's the basic rules by UNHCR. On top of these rules each country puts a couple of more layers on there.

http://www.unhcr.org/3b389254a.html

The reason why I put "refugees" in quotes was that the large majority of people coming to Europe are not strictly speaking refugees in the way UNHCR defines it, but simply migrants who are seeking asylum. Now that border controls have been tightened it's not quite as easy to come in, but there are still lots of people getting through that way. At least an order of magnitude or two more than actual refugees.

You can't come as a tourist unless you have a passport and a visa. Many of the "refugees" that end up on Europe's borders have no identification whatsoever.

If you've got money, fake passports are easy to buy. A lot of countries are corrupt as a mother fucker. You can get passports for your dog and a random horse if you want. The Paris attackers all had fake passports and where in France on tourist visas.

Two of the Paris attack perpetrators had been to Syria and slipped back to Europe among the so called refugees, for example.

Now you're mixing things. Yes, two of them took the same route as some refugees, some of the way. Namely boat from Turkey to Greece. When they bought the tickets for he boat they posed as refugees. But at no point did they apply for refugee status. The owners of those boats don't give a shit. They just want to get paid. There's no way in hell that type of transport can be regulated. From Greece the terrorists went their merry way to Paris overland. The rest of them flew, just like any tourist would.

Increasing security checks on refugees won't make it any harder for terrorists to travel with refugees BEFORE they've applied for refugee status. That's a wholly unregulated domain. Also, impossible to regulate due to the nature of... well.. war-zones.

The number of those refugees makes it easier to hide among them, though. Greece was overwhelmed and couldn't process everyone due to sheer mass, as well as because due to EU rules the people didn't want to apply for asylum in Greece. What is going to happen is that internal border checks are coming back to Europe, sadly. "Papers please!"

 

[bilby]

You can't commit a terrorist attack if you only have a tourist visa, because that would fall under the definition of 'work'; at minimum you would need a business visa that allows work related meetings, but not full time employment or residency.

Trying to use a tourist visa to enter the country as a terrorist would be as impossible as getting a visa to enter the US if you are now, or have ever been, a member of the communist party.

Unless you're going to lie.

If we can't trust a devoutly religious person, who can we trust?

 

[Jayjay]

You can't commit a terrorist attack if you only have a tourist visa, because that would fall under the definition of 'work'; at minimum you would need a business visa that allows work related meetings, but not full time employment or residency.

Trying to use a tourist visa to enter the country as a terrorist would be as impossible as getting a visa to enter the US if you are now, or have ever been, a member of the communist party.

Unless you're going to lie.

My understanding is that US visa waiver requirements are for this precise point. You have to sign a paper that says you are not a World War II era war criminal, nor a convicted felon, nor have any intent to build nuclear or biological weapons among other things. If the "tourist" gets caught lying in his visa waiver it is grounds for automatic deportation.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I am looking at 2110. The growth rate from 1910 to 2010 shows a high rate of expansion, even if this more to do with higher birthrates than conversions verses departures as suggested by Pew
There are lots of polls but the overall figure is moving up. Expansion in Europe is related more to migration. See the Chart. Also the voting power will be enormous. In the UK where the biggest party is around 39 percent, a voting block of 15 percent will be a major decider. There is nothing wrong with Muslim citizens exercising their rights to do this but I believe some of the political demographics could change.

In other words, Europe is committing slow-motion suicide by letting all these millions of Muslim migrants in. And the "open the borders" firth columnists want it to go even faster.

Just a question: What do you think are the most common motivation or motivations for those Muslims to migrate to Europe?

 

[bilby]

You can't commit a terrorist attack if you only have a tourist visa, because that would fall under the definition of 'work'; at minimum you would need a business visa that allows work related meetings, but not full time employment or residency.

Trying to use a tourist visa to enter the country as a terrorist would be as impossible as getting a visa to enter the US if you are now, or have ever been, a member of the communist party.

Unless you're going to lie.

My understanding is that US visa waiver requirements are for this precise point. You have to sign a paper that says you are not a World War II era war criminal, nor a convicted felon, nor have any intent to build nuclear or biological weapons among other things. If the "tourist" gets caught lying in his visa waiver it is grounds for automatic deportation.

Yeah. because if someone is thinking of carrying out a nuclear attack against a US city, it's important for him to realise that he could risk deportation. And as I understand it, if someone is deported, the airlines don't have to give him free peanuts on the flight home

 

[Jayjay]

My understanding is that US visa waiver requirements are for this precise point. You have to sign a paper that says you are not a World War II era war criminal, nor a convicted felon, nor have any intent to build nuclear or biological weapons among other things. If the "tourist" gets caught lying in his visa waiver it is grounds for automatic deportation.

Yeah. because if someone is thinking of carrying out a nuclear attack against a US city, it's important for him to realise that he could risk deportation. And as I understand it, if someone is deported, the airlines don't have to give him free peanuts on the flight home

Not the peanuts!

Anyway now that I checked, that's not actually a requirement for entering the country. But I suspect, if t turns out that a person has been convicted of, say, terrorism or war crimes in a country that US does not have extradition to, then they can still hold him in US for lying in the entry forms. Same for drug and custody related items.

 

[bilby]

Yeah. because if someone is thinking of carrying out a nuclear attack against a US city, it's important for him to realise that he could risk deportation. And as I understand it, if someone is deported, the airlines don't have to give him free peanuts on the flight home

Not the peanuts!

Anyway now that I checked, that's not actually a requirement for entering the country. But I suspect, if t turns out that a person has been convicted of, say, terrorism or war crimes in a country that US does not have extradition to, then they can still hold him in US for lying in the entry forms. Same for drug and custody related items.

"You are under arrest, on suspicion of twelve million counts of murder in the first degree; the unauthorised use of a nuclear weapon; eight million counts of arson and destruction of property; and telling a fib on your visa application."
"Hey, I may have nuked a couple of cities, but I never lied on the form!"
"Tell it to the judge."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You can't commit a terrorist attack if you only have a tourist visa, because that would fall under the definition of 'work'; at minimum you would need a business visa that allows work related meetings, but not full time employment or residency.

Trying to use a tourist visa to enter the country as a terrorist would be as impossible as getting a visa to enter the US if you are now, or have ever been, a member of the communist party.

Unless you're going to lie.

My understanding is that US visa waiver requirements are for this precise point. You have to sign a paper that says you are not a World War II era war criminal, nor a convicted felon, nor have any intent to build nuclear or biological weapons among other things. If the "tourist" gets caught lying in his visa waiver it is grounds for automatic deportation.

I didn't realize those questions were also on the visa waiver form, I have only seen them on the immigrant visa paperwork.

You're right about the reason--it makes it so there is no quibbling about relevance when a scumbag is identified. You lied on your app, you're out of here. It seems stupid but it's actually sensible.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah. because if someone is thinking of carrying out a nuclear attack against a US city, it's important for him to realise that he could risk deportation. And as I understand it, if someone is deported, the airlines don't have to give him free peanuts on the flight home

In that case it's obviously useless. It does make it easy to throw out lesser scumbags, though. And, other than looking stupid to people who don't get it, what's the issue?

 

[bilby]

My understanding is that US visa waiver requirements are for this precise point. You have to sign a paper that says you are not a World War II era war criminal, nor a convicted felon, nor have any intent to build nuclear or biological weapons among other things. If the "tourist" gets caught lying in his visa waiver it is grounds for automatic deportation.

I didn't realize those questions were also on the visa waiver form, I have only seen them on the immigrant visa paperwork.

You're right about the reason--it makes it so there is no quibbling about relevance when a scumbag is identified. You lied on your app, you're out of here. It seems stupid but it's actually sensible.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah. because if someone is thinking of carrying out a nuclear attack against a US city, it's important for him to realise that he could risk deportation. And as I understand it, if someone is deported, the airlines don't have to give him free peanuts on the flight home

In that case it's obviously useless. It does make it easy to throw out lesser scumbags, though. And, other than looking stupid to people who don't get it, what's the issue?

It's fucking hilarious is the issue.

Of course, if you don't have a sense of humour, that could be lost on you.

 

[whichphilosophy]

In other words, Europe is committing slow-motion suicide by letting all these millions of Muslim migrants in. And the "open the borders" firth columnists want it to go even faster.

Just a question: What do you think are the most common motivation or motivations for those Muslims to migrate to Europe?

To seek a better future for themselves and their families. That is what most want, just like anyone else. A very small minority may have other ideas.

 

[whichphilosophy]

You can't commit a terrorist attack if you only have a tourist visa, because that would fall under the definition of 'work'; at minimum you would need a business visa that allows work related meetings, but not full time employment or residency.

Trying to use a tourist visa to enter the country as a terrorist would be as impossible as getting a visa to enter the US if you are now, or have ever been, a member of the communist party.

Unless you're going to lie.

If we can't trust a devoutly religious person, who can we trust?

It doesn't stop them letting in Chinese tourists. I know many who are active members of the Communist Party of China who take holidays in the US. I am not sure if this law applies to all communist groups or some. Of course anyone planning to plan mass attacks is hardly likely to declare this.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The number of those refugees makes it easier to hide among them, though. Greece was overwhelmed and couldn't process everyone due to sheer mass, as well as because due to EU rules the people didn't want to apply for asylum in Greece. What is going to happen is that internal border checks are coming back to Europe, sadly. "Papers please!"

What internal border checks? Europe's internal borders have been virtually dissolved.

 

[whichphilosophy]

You can't commit a terrorist attack if you only have a tourist visa, because that would fall under the definition of 'work'; at minimum you would need a business visa that allows work related meetings, but not full time employment or residency.

Trying to use a tourist visa to enter the country as a terrorist would be as impossible as getting a visa to enter the US if you are now, or have ever been, a member of the communist party.

Unless you're going to lie.

My understanding is that US visa waiver requirements are for this precise point. You have to sign a paper that says you are not a World War II era war criminal, nor a convicted felon, nor have any intent to build nuclear or biological weapons among other things. If the "tourist" gets caught lying in his visa waiver it is grounds for automatic deportation.

A Buddhist who fills out such a form may think it honest to declare he was a WWII war criminal in a past life.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Just a question: What do you think are the most common motivation or motivations for those Muslims to migrate to Europe?

To seek a better future for themselves and their families. That is what most want, just like anyone else. A very small minority may have other ideas.

That question was meant for Derec, as a result of a debate in another thread.
But it seems Derec isn't talking to me.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The reason why I put "refugees" in quotes was that the large majority of people coming to Europe are not strictly speaking refugees in the way UNHCR defines it, but simply migrants who are seeking asylum. Now that border controls have been tightened it's not quite as easy to come in, but there are still lots of people getting through that way. At least an order of magnitude or two more than actual refugees.

Where does this belief come from? I've seen it repeated enough times. I wonder if it's knowable? Sounds to me like pure conjecture. Sounds to me we can only know in a couple of years when the history of these events is being written.

Last autumn I took a day volunteering at a refugee shelter in Stockholm. The people I talked to (all Syrian) couldn't shut up about how much they wanted peace in Syria so they could go home. I don't believe any of those are economic migrants.

I know we call the Afghans economic migrants because we've decided that Afghanistan is stable and peaceful. But it isn't. Civil war is still full on. That place was never pacified by the Coalition. Regardless what we chose to label them as in practice they are refugees.

As for the Africans that's been a steady stream now for years. There's no surge going on. We haven't suddenly got way more African refugees. I remember it was the same situation in the 90'ies. Nothing has changed. The fact that these keep coming doesn't mean that the Syrian refugees aren't refugees.

The number of those refugees makes it easier to hide among them, though. Greece was overwhelmed and couldn't process everyone due to sheer mass, as well as because due to EU rules the people didn't want to apply for asylum in Greece. What is going to happen is that internal border checks are coming back to Europe, sadly. "Papers please!"

It's super easy for a terrorist to hide as a tourist. I doubt it could be easier. At airports we only have "security theatre". Those checks only exist to put people at ease. But as for making us safe they're worthless. How many terrorists do you think they've caught in those screenings? The answer is zero, ever. I googled it... none ever. Any chemist can give you a list of ways to blow up an airplane that isn't screened for. Our greatest bulwark protecting us against terrorism is the incompetence of terrorists. In second place comes regular police work. Boys in blue, on the street, paying attention to weird behaviour and following their instincts.

We don't know why two of the Paris attackers chose to travel part of the way with refugees. It certainly wasn't to help them hide. There's just no need.

 

[whichphilosophy]

To seek a better future for themselves and their families. That is what most want, just like anyone else. A very small minority may have other ideas.

That question was meant for Derec, as a result of a debate in another thread.
But it seems Derec isn't talking to me.

I only used to experience such things about 10 minutes into a first (and only) date but not on these threads.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Where does this belief come from? I've seen it repeated enough times. I wonder if it's knowable? Sounds to me like pure conjecture. Sounds to me we can only know in a couple of years when the history of these events is being written.

Last autumn I took a day volunteering at a refugee shelter in Stockholm. The people I talked to (all Syrian) couldn't shut up about how much they wanted peace in Syria so they could go home. I don't believe any of those are economic migrants.

I know we call the Afghans economic migrants because we've decided that Afghanistan is stable and peaceful. But it isn't. Civil war is still full on. That place was never pacified by the Coalition. Regardless what we chose to label them as in practice they are refugees.

As for the Africans that's been a steady stream now for years. There's no surge going on. We haven't suddenly got way more African refugees. I remember it was the same situation in the 90'ies. Nothing has changed. The fact that these keep coming doesn't mean that the Syrian refugees aren't refugees.

The number of those refugees makes it easier to hide among them, though. Greece was overwhelmed and couldn't process everyone due to sheer mass, as well as because due to EU rules the people didn't want to apply for asylum in Greece. What is going to happen is that internal border checks are coming back to Europe, sadly. "Papers please!"

It's super easy for a terrorist to hide as a tourist. I doubt it could be easier. At airports we only have "security theatre". Those checks only exist to put people at ease. But as for making us safe they're worthless. How many terrorists do you think they've caught in those screenings? The answer is zero, ever. I googled it... none ever. Any chemist can give you a list of ways to blow up an airplane that isn't screened for. Our greatest bulwark protecting us against terrorism is the incompetence of terrorists. In second place comes regular police work. Boys in blue, on the street, paying attention to weird behaviour and following their instincts.

We don't know why two of the Paris attackers chose to travel part of the way with refugees. It certainly wasn't to help them hide. There's just no need.

In a terms a refugee is a refugee. This is a creation rooted in Western policy which has cost possibly millions of lives and trillions in devastation. We can do more to help these people but we can exclude economic migrants. In an ideal world we wouldn't need borders but we are far from ideal. Of course more border checks mean more false papers, but no border checks is worse.

 

[Jayjay]

The number of those refugees makes it easier to hide among them, though. Greece was overwhelmed and couldn't process everyone due to sheer mass, as well as because due to EU rules the people didn't want to apply for asylum in Greece. What is going to happen is that internal border checks are coming back to Europe, sadly. "Papers please!"

What internal border checks? Europe's internal borders have been virtually dissolved.

Exactly, they have been dissolved mostly, but are coming back due to the refugee crisis. For example between Denmark and Sweden.

 

[TSwizzle]

Do you recall plotting drive by shootings and spending any time in prison ?




http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...rive-by-shootings-tarik-hassane-suhaib-majeed

Ehe.... well... I'm not young. I remember red terrorism of the 70'ies and 80'ies. I also remember neo-Nazi terrorism of the 90'ies. It's the same shit as far as I'm concerned. We're not importing anything that hasn't been here all along.

Europe is importing huge numbers of muslims that certainly have not "been here all along." The ramifications may not be seen for a few years yet but it's in the post.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ehe.... well... I'm not young. I remember red terrorism of the 70'ies and 80'ies. I also remember neo-Nazi terrorism of the 90'ies. It's the same shit as far as I'm concerned. We're not importing anything that hasn't been here all along.

Europe is importing huge numbers of muslims that certainly have not "been here all along." The ramifications may not be seen for a few years yet but it's in the post.

What I'm saying is that Muslims aren't any more prone to terrorism than any other group. So the fact that we're importing Muslims is a non sequitur.