Europe submits voluntarily

[DrZoidberg]

ha ha ha ha. Good luck with that approach. Don't let the fact that it hasn't worked for anyone stop you.

The Australian government started turning boats around back to wherever they came from, [in this case, Indonesia] a couple of years ago. From thousands of arrivals the year before, the policy resulted in less than 100 arriving last year, and even less this year. Now we are in the position to accept 12.000 genuine refugees. This Wouldn't have been possible under the previous governments fractured border policies.

The policy was also successful as the potential arrivals also learned that if they came illegally by boat they would not be processed in Australia. The UKIP proposes to follow this same policy despite the fact we are in fact controlled by the EU. Then we can look at genuine refugees. Perhaps if we cease instigating wars in the region, even less will come.

Just ideology trying to trump reality. Impoverished refugees have very little to lose. This policy only acts to filter out those who are educated and have options, ie just the refugees that would benefit our economies the most. So it's counter productive. This might be realistic for Australia... being at the ass end of the planet. But stupid for the UK to try to implement. It's simply just too easy to enter the UK from across the channel. The fact that a measure like this works for Australia doesn't mean it'll work for anybody else. Possibly Svalbard or Greenland.

 

[Bomb#20]

(I looked it up, by the way. After the U.S. legalized abortion, the number per year roughly doubled.)

I think that's bad data--a failure to count all the abortions. The thing is a jump like that should have been reflected in a decline in the birth rate--and I see no jump in that data.

The rise in abortion rate wouldn't have been instantaneous, and the birth rate already fluctuates by more than that amount for other reasons. But it's certainly true that there can be no count of illegal abortions, only scholarly estimates, so it might not have doubled. If the high-end estimates are right the abortion rate still went up about 25%.

To suppose the rate didn't change at all is to suppose that everybody who would have gotten a safe legal abortion if they were available was able to find a doctor willing to perform one secretly, or else went the coat hangar route, and none of them carried to term. It's absurd.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So what kind of action do you propose against people without an ID?
If someone arrives without one, there are several distinct possibilities:
- they threw it away
- they had it stolen
- they were never issued one (because they never thought they'd need one until it was to late, or because they come from a country with a corrupt government where you need to be buddies with the ruling party in order to get one)

Exactly what kind of action do you propose against people arriving without an ID that wouldn't blatantly violate in dubio pro reo?

It wouldn't invalidate that doctrine (in dubio pro reo) as this doctrine implies a a court can't convict a defendant when doubts about his or her guilt remain. In the absence of ID he or she needs to provide a birth date and proper name for records to be tracked but many are refusing to do this so as to play the system. How many Syrians do you know speak Bangladeshi dialects. If they refuse there is no place for them.

Sweden is borrowing money to pay for its influxes
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...ast-idUSKCN0SG0I220151022#G42BGogsSCt2sdSW.97
Soaring asylum numbers force Sweden to cut costs, borrow more
Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/22/us-europe-migrants-sweden-forecast-idUSKCN0SG0I220151022#ZOaVgY8S6wIdOgBa.99
Perviously in the days Britain had a border anyone entering without an ID or reasonable case got the bum's rush if they refused to leave. If they are genuine asylum seekers they can give their names addresses and will try to keep some ID. Now anyone can come without any checks by playing the system. ISIS of course will never send anyone to Europe because that would be not good cricket.

Like I said before. Sweden just needs to reform it's immigration system. Before this latest situation new immigrants spent about two years in a refugee camp (in Sweden) while their papers are being processed. During this time they're forbidden from getting a job. They're forbidden from doing anything during this time. They're in effect isolated from Swedish society. Now with the jump in refugees coming in this system has broken. Waiting times will of course sky-rocket as well as costs. It's an idiotic system. In contrast, refugees to USA are allowed to start working immediately. There's no practical reason they're not allowed to get jobs in Sweden. It really makes no sense forbidding them. It's a huge cost to society for no reason. This waiting around befits nobody. That's the system that is in crisis and is why Sweden is forced to borrow. All they need to do is reform the system and this problem is solved. Then all the refugees will instantly start generating money for Swede and be no cost at all.

 

[Bomb#20]

There's a problem collecting statistics on things that are illegal. I only know the research on illegal abortion in Sweden. In Sweden, before abortion was legalised there were zero practical obstacles to getting abortions. Everybody knew somebody who knows somebody. Anybody who wanted to could do it. In Sweden at least, the idea that number of actual abortions went up when it was legal is just silly. Having an abortion is not a light choice a woman takes. Women who want to get abortions are highly motivated.

I.e., enforcement of Sweden's abortion laws was negligible. In contrast, in the U.S. where abortion opponents are also highly motivated legalization made quite a difference. So your theory is what, that the people you're arguing with want restrictive immigration laws but with no enforcement, and that's why you thought a comparison with a "dead letter" abortion law was relevant? You're still making a retarded argument.

Immigration is the same. These people will come. The question is, do we want them to be able to get legal jobs that we then can tax. Or do we want to force them to get unregulated off-the-grid-jobs that we can't tax. The number of immigrants will be the same.

If you have restrictive policies the number will be lower, just like with abortion. Duh! That said, of course you should do whatever it takes to get legal jobs for the ones who get in whom you decide not to deport.

If the abortion argument doesn't work on you. Try drugs. The exact same situation. Making it illegal has zero impact on actual drug use.

So your theory is what, that people build up a tolerance to the high that comes from living in Europe, and, due to the enormous sums to be made from people-smuggling, human traffickers exploit this physiological phenomenon by sneaking refugees into Europe for free on a trial basis, then take them back to the Middle East, and then when the high wears off the refugees develop post-acute-withdrawal syndrome and become willing to pay arbitrarily large amounts of money for another hit?

What the devil makes you think the demand curve for getting into Europe is perfectly inelastic?

And just like with drugs making it illegal just removes whatever taxes having it legal would have generated. Funny how you think reality is "pathologically irrational".

Funny how you have a reading comprehension problem. What I called pathologically irrational was stopping the migrants you take in from working.

Policies that encourage them to stay in your country on welfare or in illegal jobs are pathologically irrational.

Why would that follow? Just letting them stay legally and giving them money are two completely different things. Giving them money is something we can actually control.

Obviously. What on earth is giving you the impression that I disagree with you on that point? If you're going to take them in, for gods' sake don't give them money; give them jobs. Taking them in is stupid and not in your common people's best interests. Taking them in and setting them up as a ghettoized unemployed underclass is suicidal.

You need to stop pretending that the question is binary -- zero or everyone who wants in. The discussion needs to be about how many your country can handle and what needs to be done to limit the number to that level.

ha ha ha ha. Good luck with that approach. Don't let the fact that it hasn't worked for anyone stop you.

It's worked for the U.S. If we had no ICE and no border patrol we'd have a ton more immigrants than we have.

 

[JonA]

Many non-experts worry about the huge cost of immigration, and when experts don't confirm their erroneous biases it's evidence of a pro-immigration multi-cultural-liberal-gay conspiracy.

Please, just stop.

Multiculturalism is completely against the interests of gays and liberals (note the difference between liberal and Liberal).

In fact, some of the most vocal opponents to run-amok Multiculturalism have been and are liberal homosexuals and the people interested in defending their rights and the rights of others to enjoy the individual freedoms that make liberal democracies such stunningly great and successful places to live.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think that's bad data--a failure to count all the abortions. The thing is a jump like that should have been reflected in a decline in the birth rate--and I see no jump in that data.

The rise in abortion rate wouldn't have been instantaneous, and the birth rate already fluctuates by more than that amount for other reasons. But it's certainly true that there can be no count of illegal abortions, only scholarly estimates, so it might not have doubled. If the high-end estimates are right the abortion rate still went up about 25%.

To suppose the rate didn't change at all is to suppose that everybody who would have gotten a safe legal abortion if they were available was able to find a doctor willing to perform one secretly, or else went the coat hangar route, and none of them carried to term. It's absurd.

If you didn't know somebody you could travel to where it was legal. The number of abortions prevented amongst those with the ability to travel to other countries was basically zero--and foreign travel wasn't that hard.

The only abortions it could have prevented were amongst the poor and women still living at home. I expect it had a substantial effect in these groups but they weren't anything like half the cases.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This just in, today's most bizarre news. The Swedish king has asked the government for permission to turn buildings of the royal palace in Stockholm into refugee asylums. I'm not sure what to think of this. Not that he has any power, as this proves. Having to ask permission to use his own houses for what he wants.

He doesn't actually live in the royal palace. It's just for representation. He lives in another palace. But I think this gesture is sweet. It's certainly big enough. It won't be the actual core palace building (the one that tourists gawk at). It'll be in other buildings in the vicinity, but equally old and impressive. As a symbol it's incredibly powerful. Symbolically this is the heart of Sweden opening up to refugees. As symbols go for our openness to refugees, can't beat that. I think this may very well be the first time he's done something actually useful in his life. So I guess our king isn't completely worthless. Who would have thunk? I applaud the move anyway.

Here it is in Sweden's main tabloid. Google translate it if you're interested.
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article21742058.ab

 

[TSwizzle]

This just in, today's most bizarre news. The Swedish king has asked the government for permission to turn buildings of the royal palace in Stockholm into refugee asylums.

Makes perfect sense. A bloodless coup.

 

[bilby]

This just in, today's most bizarre news. The Swedish king has asked the government for permission to turn buildings of the royal palace in Stockholm into refugee asylums.

Makes perfect sense. A bloodless coup.

Yup. The refugees will take over the Royal Palace, and thereby acquire all the powers of the King - the power to ask the Swedish government for permission before doing anything. The benefit for ordinary Swedes is that as there was previously only one royal family, but are now loads of them, they can have new shopping centres and bridges opened by residents of the Royal palace without so many scheduling difficulties as before.

 

[angelo]

What a great idea. Make the freeloaders feel more welcome by getting some strapping young moslem to open a new xtian church, a new shopping complex, a new welfare office, etc, ect!

 

[TSwizzle]

For some, surrender cannot come quick enough;

A Scottish cinema has become embroiled in a freedom of speech row after it pulled the screening of a film about the life of the Prophet Mohamed after fewer than 100 complaints.

Independent

Whose prophet ?

 

[bilby]

For some, surrender cannot come quick enough;

A Scottish cinema has become embroiled in a freedom of speech row after it pulled the screening of a film about the life of the Prophet Mohamed after fewer than 100 complaints.

Independent

Whose prophet ?

British cinema, TV and even radio has a long an inglorious history of pulling shows on the basis of tiny numbers of complaints; Mostly from Christians, such as the despicable Mary Whitehouse and her National Viewers and Listeners Association (now known as 'Mediawatch-UK'). There is no explicit right to free speech in the UK, and much desire to be seen not to offend.

This is not some new phenomenon unique to complains from Muslims, despite the neo-fascists desire for it to be seen as such; Indeed this is a simple extension of the Christian Conservative movement that has been around in the UK for a couple of centuries.

While I agree with you that the UK should not submit to this right-wing stupidity, I would like to point out that it has little to do with Islam per se.

 

[angelo]

 

[angelo]

 

[TSwizzle]

Probably wise to err on the side of caution;

On March 9–11, 1977, three buildings in Washington, D.C. were seized by 12 Muslim gunmen, led by Hamaas Abdul Khaalis, who had broken from the Nation of Islam because he blamed them for murder. They took 149 hostages and killed a radio journalist. After a 39-hour standoff, the gunmen surrendered and all remaining hostages were released from the District Building (the city hall; now called the John A. Wilson Building), B'nai B'rith headquarters, and the Islamic Center of Washington.
The gunmen had several demands. They "wanted the government to hand over a group of men who had been convicted of killing seven relatives – mostly children – of takeover leader Hamaas Khaalis. They also demanded that the movie Mohammad, Messenger of God be destroyed because they considered it sacrilegious."

Wiki

 

[Bomb#20]

This just in, today's most bizarre news. The Swedish king has asked the government for permission to turn buildings of the royal palace in Stockholm into refugee asylums. I'm not sure what to think of this. Not that he has any power, as this proves. Having to ask permission to use his own houses for what he wants.

He doesn't actually live in the royal palace. It's just for representation. He lives in another palace. But I think this gesture is sweet. It's certainly big enough. It won't be the actual core palace building (the one that tourists gawk at). It'll be in other buildings in the vicinity, but equally old and impressive. As a symbol it's incredibly powerful. Symbolically this is the heart of Sweden opening up to refugees. As symbols go for our openness to refugees, can't beat that. I think this may very well be the first time he's done something actually useful in his life. So I guess our king isn't completely worthless. Who would have thunk? I applaud the move anyway.

Here it is in Sweden's main tabloid. Google translate it if you're interested.
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article21742058.ab

Yes, that's sweet. A few considerations that may not be obvious, particularly to Americans...

1. This sweet gesture sends a powerful political message. But in a normal European "crowned republic" like Sweden, the king or queen is determinedly apolitical. Europe's royalty struck that bargain a century ago in order to not have their jobs abolished. They serve at the pleasure of the elected government and rarely weigh in on public affairs even to make the mildest and most sensible suggestions unless "their" ministers want them to. So it's entirely likely that the reason the king asked the government for this permission is because the government put him up to it.

2. Sweden has a severe housing crisis due to the sudden increase in demand. The government has already bought up buildings, paid elevated rents to landlords, allowed tighter packing of renters, and seized commercial private property.

3. Sweden has had a law on the books for decades allowing the seizure of underutilized private homes in an emergency situation.

4. In Germany, government officials have already advocated seizing private homes for use by refugees.

5. This gesture is sweet. The palace is certainly big enough. As a symbol it's incredibly powerful. Symbolically this is the heart of Sweden opening up to refugees. As symbols go for our openness to refugees, can't beat that.

So I couldn't say if Sweden's government is considering such seizures; but, hypothetically, if they were planning to seize private homes, they'd be bloody idiots if asking the king to ask for permission to turn his palace into a refugee asylum wasn't the first thing they'd do.

 

[fromderinside]

You'r not implying Swedish politicians are arseholes are you Bomb#20?

 

[whichphilosophy]

This just in, today's most bizarre news. The Swedish king has asked the government for permission to turn buildings of the royal palace in Stockholm into refugee asylums. I'm not sure what to think of this. Not that he has any power, as this proves. Having to ask permission to use his own houses for what he wants.

He doesn't actually live in the royal palace. It's just for representation. He lives in another palace. But I think this gesture is sweet. It's certainly big enough. It won't be the actual core palace building (the one that tourists gawk at). It'll be in other buildings in the vicinity, but equally old and impressive. As a symbol it's incredibly powerful. Symbolically this is the heart of Sweden opening up to refugees. As symbols go for our openness to refugees, can't beat that. I think this may very well be the first time he's done something actually useful in his life. So I guess our king isn't completely worthless. Who would have thunk? I applaud the move anyway.

Here it is in Sweden's main tabloid. Google translate it if you're interested.
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article21742058.ab

Yes, that's sweet. A few considerations that may not be obvious, particularly to Americans...

1. This sweet gesture sends a powerful political message. But in a normal European "crowned republic" like Sweden, the king or queen is determinedly apolitical. Europe's royalty struck that bargain a century ago in order to not have their jobs abolished. They serve at the pleasure of the elected government and rarely weigh in on public affairs even to make the mildest and most sensible suggestions unless "their" ministers want them to. So it's entirely likely that the reason the king asked the government for this permission is because the government put him up to it.

2. Sweden has a severe housing crisis due to the sudden increase in demand. The government has already bought up buildings, paid elevated rents to landlords, allowed tighter packing of renters, and seized commercial private property.

3. Sweden has had a law on the books for decades allowing the seizure of underutilized private homes in an emergency situation.

4. In Germany, government officials have already advocated seizing private homes for use by refugees.

5. This gesture is sweet. The palace is certainly big enough. As a symbol it's incredibly powerful. Symbolically this is the heart of Sweden opening up to refugees. As symbols go for our openness to refugees, can't beat that.

So I couldn't say if Sweden's government is considering such seizures; but, hypothetically, if they were planning to seize private homes, they'd be bloody idiots if asking the king to ask for permission to turn his palace into a refugee asylum wasn't the first thing they'd do.

Of course Germany should now start tackling its own homelessness which Die Welt which is quite high in hundreds of thousands.
http://www.dw.com/en/homeless-in-germany-given-the-boot/a-17729421

 

[Bomb#20]

Politely turn them away at the border. "No shirt, no shoes, no service."

So you propose giving up due process?

Can it get any more anti Western values?

Due process for what? Nobody is charging the would-be immigrants with a crime. If they don't have necessary qualifications to enter, they are free to go and pursue opportunities elsewhere. As to what those qualifications might be, it's really up to them to prove that they need asylum, for example.

Keep in mind you're talking to a guy who never locks his car and front door because that denies due process to others, who must be presumed to have the right to enter until proven not to.

 

[fromderinside]

Keep in mind you're talking to a guy who never locks his car and front door because that denies due process to others, who must be presumed to have the right to enter until proven not to.

Just where in California are you located Bomb#20?