Europe submits voluntarily

[Jayjay]

This is what you get in a non-meritocratic system of government. There's a hilarious story about when the crown prince got the question of who was Sweden's head of state in school. He didn't know the answer. The answer was, his dad. So obviously it's not a topic that comes up around their dinner table.

As opposed to a theoretically meritocratic system? There's a hilarious story about a conversation between Olof Palme and Yitzhak Rabin in which they were debating some obscure point of Old Testament interpretation, and Palme allegedly accused Rabin of relying on an inaccurate translation.

I guess that explains why mossad had him shot.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This is what you get in a non-meritocratic system of government. There's a hilarious story about when the crown prince got the question of who was Sweden's head of state in school. He didn't know the answer. The answer was, his dad. So obviously it's not a topic that comes up around their dinner table.

As opposed to a theoretically meritocratic system? There's a hilarious story about a conversation between Olof Palme and Yitzhak Rabin in which they were debating some obscure point of Old Testament interpretation, and Palme allegedly accused Rabin of relying on an inaccurate translation.

I think a filter (even if it is flimsy) is better than no filter.

I wonder if that's accurate. Sounds like he was making a joke. Olof Palme was sharp as fuck. A populist. But still sharp. And funny as hell. He was much better at getting elected than balancing the budget.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

A country is not like a private home and car. Although it may make me an asshole, I'm perfectly entitled to kick out guests at my home I don't like the color of their socks. An individual is not bound by the prohibition of arbitrariness, the state is. No-one has a right to be enter my house unless I explicitly grant them that right, which I'm entitled to do on an entirely arbitrary basis. Whether or not an individual is allowed to enter a state, or is to be granted any other right, is a decision that must be based on facts.

Indeed, and that's waht we are saying: If a person wants to enter a country, the due process is for the applicant to make his case that he should be allowed to enter based on facts.

Indeed, you say? After I just demolished your analogy by pointing out the rather obvious fact that entry to a private home is in no way parallel to entry into a country?

Once again, you seem to have lost track of the discussion. I and Jayjay where debating his proposal that, since some asylum seekers are known to have thrown away there papers, we should summarily bar all who are found without papers, thereby presuming that they are among those who threw away their papers without evidence and thereby denying them the chance to make the case for why they should be granted asylum. That is giving up due process.

I thought due process was a core Western value? I thought you guys were about protecting Western values? Do you see the contradiction?

I for one don't want to live in a Europe where the principle of due process is exchanged for a principle of "due process - for Aryans".

Entry to a private home is parallel to entry to a foreign country.

It is not. I can kick you out of my private home because I don't like the color of your socks. A country is bound by the non-arbitrariness principle, i.e. it must rationally justify its decisions.

Wes should have the right to check out who is coming in. The only difference is a country is simply larger with more families.Your statement for "due process for Aryans doesn't hold water because those want asylum can apply for this. Clearly those who throw away their passports refuse to give their birthdates and give false names to avoid tracking are not likely to be confident they can qualify for Asylum are they now.

But by assuming that everyone who arrives without a passport has thrown it away and barring them at the borders, you're depriving an awful lot of people of their opportunity to apply for asylum.

This would apply to a Syrian "refugee" who only speaks Urdu.

Many come from countries where due process doesn't exist.

So what you propose isn't "due process - for Aryans" but "due process - for people born in countries that have due process"? Or how is that last remark supposed to make sense?

This is a no brainer really You will find genuine asylum seekers (or those with a plausible case) will have no problem giving their date of birth, proper names etc so the data bases can be checked out to enable the application to progress.

What specifically do you mean by due process in this instance. If we use the context that it is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person then this is being exceeded.
Due process also often relates to the court proceedings where judges instead of legislators determine the fairness of individual cases (each according to their own circumstances).I am not aware this is an issue. So without further guessing it is not easy to understand what you are referring to.

 

[TSwizzle]

Possible suicide bomber in Stade de France.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

A country is not like a private home and car. Although it may make me an asshole, I'm perfectly entitled to kick out guests at my home I don't like the color of their socks. An individual is not bound by the prohibition of arbitrariness, the state is. No-one has a right to be enter my house unless I explicitly grant them that right, which I'm entitled to do on an entirely arbitrary basis. Whether or not an individual is allowed to enter a state, or is to be granted any other right, is a decision that must be based on facts.

Indeed, and that's waht we are saying: If a person wants to enter a country, the due process is for the applicant to make his case that he should be allowed to enter based on facts.

Indeed, you say? After I just demolished your analogy by pointing out the rather obvious fact that entry to a private home is in no way parallel to entry into a country?

Once again, you seem to have lost track of the discussion. I and Jayjay where debating his proposal...

That appears to have been intended for me even though it's a response to Jayjay, so I'll cut in.

No, you did not demolish my analogy; you merely pointed out one specific and immaterial way in which the two compared situations are not parallel, and then you made a hasty generalization to the conclusion that they are in no way parallel. The entire point of analogies is to draw attention to similarities between two different situations; hence there is always some respect in which the two are not parallel. If that were sufficient to demolish an analogy then analogies would be useless.

The difference in the permissibility of arbitrariness is immaterial to the points at issue in the discussion because nobody is attempting to rely on the fact that you can throw somebody out of your house because you don't like the color of their socks to conclude that nations should empower border guards to make arbitrary decisions about whom to admit and let them turn people away for wearing green socks. Whatever entry policy the inhabitants of a country decide on, they should of course enact through a legal procedure, and publicize. You know, sort of like one of those "No shoes, no shirt, no service." signs Jayjay referred to.

No, the way in which entry to a private home is parallel to entry into a country is that you extended the concept of in dubio pro reo -- and if you get to extend that concept, I get to as well when I'm constructing an analogy. You extended it from a person accused of wrongdoing to a person who on his own initiative is asking the inhabitants of a country to take him into their territory, to take risks on his behalf, and to provide him with goods and services at their expense. Those inhabitants no more have burden of proof in choosing whether to decline than you have burden of proof if some stranger wants to walk into your house without an invitation. If against all odds he really does have a right to enter your house, you don't know that, so you are perfectly within your rights to tell him to come back with a sheriff's deputy and a court order. Likewise, if he shows up at the border without papers but claims he has a legal right to enter a country, the border guards are still within their rights to tell him to go to the consulate during normal business hours where officials can evaluate his application and issue the proper paperwork, assuming that's the procedure the country's entry law specifies. That's no more a violation of in dubio pro reo than you locking your door and thereby arbitrarily excluding rightful entrants who happen to have no key. The arbitrariness with which a homeowner may exercise his rights isn't the issue; the issue is your attempt to reverse burden of proof.

... that, since some asylum seekers are known to have thrown away there papers, we should summarily bar all who are found without papers, thereby presuming that they are among those who threw away their papers without evidence and thereby denying them the chance to make the case for why they should be granted asylum. That is giving up due process.

I thought due process was a core Western value? I thought you guys were about protecting Western values? Do you see the contradiction?

"Due process" is not a mystical mantra that authorizes you to put burden of proof on whomever you sympathize with less. If a country just opens the gates and lets a hundred thousand people who say their papers were stolen come in and settle while their claims are being adjudicated, and which afterwards will inevitably make only a feeble effort to round up the ones whose claims are denied, then where's the due process for an inhabitant who would prefer not to be beaten up by any of the fifty thousand entrants who want to beat him up for being gay, and who has a legal right to exclude the ones with no legal basis for their asylum claims? When does he get a chance to make his case before getting beaten up?

I for one don't want to live in a Europe where the principle of due process is exchanged for a principle of "due process - for Aryans".

Jayjay did not propose that Europe should decide Aryans lost their papers and non-Aryans threw them away. You are making a groundless insinuation of racism in an attempt to gain a rhetorical advantage. Do you for one want to live in a Europe where policy decisions are made based on ad hominem propaganda instead of on reasoned argument?

 

[arkirk]

Which Philosophy: When a person or a family flees some country fearing for their lives, they already have a major backlog of experience that led to them fleeing. Memories of and cognitive cataloging of those experiences can amount to something like PTSD. Refugees are people who are highly stressed, and often in environs they do not particularly understand and they can be very afraid of interviewers in the destination country. The reason for them being where they are is a case of man's inhumanity to man. People with a history of this kind of experience come to expect it in new situations. Just saying there are a lot of reasons why a refugee might not trust the people or government in the country they flee to.

 

[TSwizzle]

Which Philosophy: When a person or a family flees some country fearing for their lives, they already have a major backlog of experience that led to them fleeing. Memories of and cognitive cataloging of those experiences can amount to something like PTSD. Refugees are people who are highly stressed, and often in environs they do not particularly understand and they can be very afraid of interviewers in the destination country. The reason for them being where they are is a case of man's inhumanity to man. People with a history of this kind of experience come to expect it in new situations. Just saying there are a lot of reasons why a refugee might not trust the people or government in the country they flee to.

Most of the "refugees" making their way across Europe are not in fact refugees. Most of them are suffering little more than poor cell phone coverage.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Which Philosophy: When a person or a family flees some country fearing for their lives, they already have a major backlog of experience that led to them fleeing. Memories of and cognitive cataloging of those experiences can amount to something like PTSD. Refugees are people who are highly stressed, and often in environs they do not particularly understand and they can be very afraid of interviewers in the destination country. The reason for them being where they are is a case of man's inhumanity to man. People with a history of this kind of experience come to expect it in new situations. Just saying there are a lot of reasons why a refugee might not trust the people or government in the country they flee to.

Why would a genuine asylum seeker flee to Europe in the first place, because he or she knows they offer safety. They are less likey to flee to Europe if they thought this would endanger them.
International records are shared between the nations such is when checking passports for border checks. Europe however does not do this so often if someone travels from one member nation to another except with respect to the UK.
Why would a plausible asylum seeker flee to Europe. Because even if he or she is rejected the process takes so long so he or she will most likely continue to stay and get citizenship.
Why would economic migrants flock to Europe? A better existence but without evidence of real oppression apart from hardship in some cases, they can hide their ID as coached by their snake heads so they can stay indefinitely and work illegally at sweatshops and restaurants etc.

 

[TSwizzle]

Meanwhile, Paris is under siege following mass shootings, explosions and now a hostage situation.

The canary in the mine is fucked.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Meanwhile, Paris is under siege following mass shootings, explosions and now a hostage situation.

The canary in the mine is fucked.

Are you automatically assuming that refugees are responsible for the attack? We don't know who did it yet or why.

 

[arkirk]

Which Philosophy: When a person or a family flees some country fearing for their lives, they already have a major backlog of experience that led to them fleeing. Memories of and cognitive cataloging of those experiences can amount to something like PTSD. Refugees are people who are highly stressed, and often in environs they do not particularly understand and they can be very afraid of interviewers in the destination country. The reason for them being where they are is a case of man's inhumanity to man. People with a history of this kind of experience come to expect it in new situations. Just saying there are a lot of reasons why a refugee might not trust the people or government in the country they flee to.

Most of the "refugees" making their way across Europe are not in fact refugees. Most of them are suffering little more than poor cell phone coverage.

Writing from West Hollywood, you can't say that with any authority. In case you haven't been following the news, there are wars all over the ME and Africa. It amazes me when I hear people trying to sort out "economic" refugees from other types of "legitimate" refugees. If you are starving, you are dying on not enough food and shelter. There are many millions displaced today on the basis of military conflict in Europe, Africa, and the ME. They are not seeking better phone service. They are seeking survival.

 

[Jayjay]

I think European countries should allow asylum to be applied anywhere, even outside Europe. Right now the problem is that at least in most countries, you can only make an application at the asylum if you physically reach that country. That leads to illegal immigrants taking dangerous journeys through places like Greece, Italy or Hungary to reach Germany or Sweden. It not only puts an undue burden to the border countries, but also creates lucrative business opportunities for people smugglers.

 

[Trausti]

Meanwhile, Paris is under siege following mass shootings, explosions and now a hostage situation.

The canary in the mine is fucked.

No, no, TSwizzle. I'm sure our betters in this forum will educate us on how the French are to blame for this tragedy - for some historical/privileged/bullshit reason - and that the attackers are just misunderstood peace lovers. We should not give in to common sense. The answer is obviously to bring in more non-Europeans to help the French understand why their xenophobic culture is so horrible.

 

[TSwizzle]

Meanwhile, Paris is under siege following mass shootings, explosions and now a hostage situation.

The canary in the mine is fucked.

Are you automatically assuming that refugees are responsible for the attack? We don't know who did it yet or why.

Very unlikely it would be refugees.

 

[TSwizzle]

Most of the "refugees" making their way across Europe are not in fact refugees. Most of them are suffering little more than poor cell phone coverage.

Writing from West Hollywood, you can't say that with any authority. In case you haven't been following the news, there are wars all over the ME and Africa. It amazes me when I hear people trying to sort out "economic" refugees from other types of "legitimate" refugees. If you are starving, you are dying on not enough food and shelter. There are many millions displaced today on the basis of military conflict in Europe, Africa, and the ME. They are not seeking better phone service. They are seeking survival.

Male bovine excrement. By the way, a lot of the Yazidis didn't bother with the refugee option. Looks like they are armed, standing their corner and facing their enemies head on. Not fucking off to welfare and better cell phone coverage.

 

[arkirk]

Which Philosophy: When a person or a family flees some country fearing for their lives, they already have a major backlog of experience that led to them fleeing. Memories of and cognitive cataloging of those experiences can amount to something like PTSD. Refugees are people who are highly stressed, and often in environs they do not particularly understand and they can be very afraid of interviewers in the destination country. The reason for them being where they are is a case of man's inhumanity to man. People with a history of this kind of experience come to expect it in new situations. Just saying there are a lot of reasons why a refugee might not trust the people or government in the country they flee to.

Why would a genuine asylum seeker flee to Europe in the first place, because he or she knows they offer safety. They are less likey to flee to Europe if they thought this would endanger them.
International records are shared between the nations such is when checking passports for border checks. Europe however does not do this so often if someone travels from one member nation to another except with respect to the UK.
Why would a plausible asylum seeker flee to Europe. Because even if he or she is rejected the process takes so long so he or she will most likely continue to stay and get citizenship.
Why would economic migrants flock to Europe? A better existence but without evidence of real oppression apart from hardship in some cases, they can hide their ID as coached by their snake heads so they can stay indefinitely and work illegally at sweatshops and restaurants etc.

Have you ever known a returning veteran with PTSD? Certain experiences that happen on battlefields and militarily contested areas leave such strong impressions on those in those situations, they suffer from recurrent anxiety attacks, delusions, etc. But it really has as its genesis, the condition of being surrounded by war.

 

[Trausti]

Writing from West Hollywood, you can't say that with any authority. In case you haven't been following the news, there are wars all over the ME and Africa. It amazes me when I hear people trying to sort out "economic" refugees from other types of "legitimate" refugees. If you are starving, you are dying on not enough food and shelter. There are many millions displaced today on the basis of military conflict in Europe, Africa, and the ME. They are not seeking better phone service. They are seeking survival.

Male bovine excrement. By the way, a lot of the Yazidis didn't bother with the refugee option. Looks like they are armed, standing their corner and facing their enemies head on. Not fucking off to welfare and better cell phone coverage.

And ya know, even Kurdish women fight. So, really, fuck these slimy wimpy "refugee" men coming into Europe whining about not getting their benefits.

 

[Jokodo]

Are you automatically assuming that refugees are responsible for the attack? We don't know who did it yet or why.

Very unlikely it would be refugees.

You thereby just admitted that it's very unlikely that yours is a relevant contribution to this thread.

 

[TSwizzle]

Very unlikely it would be refugees.

You thereby just admitted that it's very unlikely that yours is a relevant contribution to this thread.

It's relevant in the sense that Europe is not submitting quick enough for some.

 

[arkirk]

Male bovine excrement. By the way, a lot of the Yazidis didn't bother with the refugee option. Looks like they are armed, standing their corner and facing their enemies head on. Not fucking off to welfare and better cell phone coverage.

And ya know, even Kurdish women fight. So, really, fuck these slimy wimpy "refugee" men coming into Europe whining about not getting their benefits.

Refugees did not do this attack. You are really full of hate for brown people aren't you? Try cooling it a bit.