Syrian fakefugee injures 31 in Essen

[bilby]

I wonder which part of the USA Derec was born in?

Derec wasn't born in the US. He's an immigrant.

I know.

 

[laughing dog]

I see, is “fakefugee” another allegedly clever neologism of right-wing loons, like “lawfare?”

Its what the omniscient use when passes moral judgment even when they are not even on the same continent.

That does not stop you passing judgement, particularly upon Israelis, even though you are not on the same continent.

A “whataboutism” that misses the point. There is passing judgment with facts and without insulting terminology and there is passing judgment without the facts with insulting terminology. I hope that explains it for you.

 

[ZiprHead]

I wonder which part of the USA Derec was born in?

Derec wasn't born in the US. He's an immigrant.

I know.

DOH!

 

[Rhea]

I see, is “fakefugee” another allegedly clever neologism of right-wing loons, like “lawfare?”

It's expressing the fact that many of the "refugees" that flooded into Europe (and that are flooding into US from Latin America) are economic migrants, not legitimate refugees.

Do you have an opinion on this attack though?

This post isn’t about an attack. You made it about the refugee status. It’s right there in the title.
You derailed yourself.
Again.

Funny how often that happens.
If only you could keep from adding a derailing slur or insult. But… you can’t. You gotta point out your actual topic.
And then you complain when people follow it.
LOL.

 

[Bomb#20]

It's expressing the fact that many of the "refugees" that flooded into Europe (and that are flooding into US from Latin America) are economic migrants, not legitimate refugees.

Even if that were true, and you have offered no supporting evidence, so what? What does that have to do with your opening post?

A "legitimate refugee" is a person who needs our help, because the government in his own country is directly threatening him (or his family) with death or imprisonment by the use of force.

More or less. ("Legitimate refugee" implies the government isn't threatening him with death or imprisonment because it has good reason to think he did something civilized countries consider a serious crime.)

This is, obviously, completely different from an "economic migrant", which is a person who needs our help, because the government in his own country has policies that threaten him (or his family) with death or misery by the absence of basic needs.

More or less. ("Economic migrant" implies the government isn't personally targeting him, but is inflicting the absence of basic needs on the public at large.)

Apparently, if someone might shoot or jail you, you deserve help, but if someone plans to starve you or drive you into grinding poverty, tough luck.

Apparently, if you're a German taxpayer, you deserve to be considered a mere-means-to-an-end: a beast of burden put on this planet for the purpose of seeing to it that all the people of the world who are ends-in-themselves (i.e., not German taxpayers) get what they deserve. Who the bejesus told you that how Germany treats foreigners ought to be determined by what they deserve?!?

Governments do not distinguish between legitimate refugees and economic migrants because the former are more deserving. They distinguish between them because they signed international treaties requiring them to come to the aid of legitimate refugees, and didn't sign international treaties requiring them to come to the aid of economic migrants.

 

[laughing dog]

It's expressing the fact that many of the "refugees" that flooded into Europe (and that are flooding into US from Latin America) are economic migrants, not legitimate refugees.

Even if that were true, and you have offered no supporting evidence, so what? What does that have to do with your opening post?

A "legitimate refugee" is a person who needs our help, because the government in his own country is directly threatening him (or his family) with death or imprisonment by the use of force.

More or less. ("Legitimate refugee" implies the government isn't threatening him with death or imprisonment because it has good reason to think he did something civilized countries consider a serious crime.)

This is, obviously, completely different from an "economic migrant", which is a person who needs our help, because the government in his own country has policies that threaten him (or his family) with death or misery by the absence of basic needs.

More or less. ("Economic migrant" implies the government isn't personally targeting him, but is inflicting the absence of basic needs on the public at large.)

Apparently, if someone might shoot or jail you, you deserve help, but if someone plans to starve you or drive you into grinding poverty, tough luck.

Apparently, if you're a German taxpayer, you deserve to be considered a mere-means-to-an-end: a beast of burden put on this planet for the purpose of seeing to it that all the people of the world who are ends-in-themselves (i.e., not German taxpayers) get what they deserve. Who the bejesus told you that how Germany treats foreigners ought to be determined by what they deserve?!?

Governments do not distinguish between legitimate refugees and economic migrants because the former are more deserving. They distinguish between them because they signed international treaties requiring them to come to the aid of legitimate refugees, and didn't sign international treaties requiring them to come to the aid of economic migrants.

Once you understand that bilby's observations were morality-based not legalese, you see your response is moot.

 

[laughing dog]

Machete-armed man with Palestinian flag wounds 31 in Germany with arson, ramming attacks

A 41-year-old Syrian national wounded 31 people, including two children who were left in critical condition, in arson attacks on Saturday in the German city of Essen, according to police and media reports from Sunday morning.
At around 5:10 p.m. on Saturday, the man set fire to a residential building on Altenessener Strasse, at the corner of Pielsticker Strasse, according to Bild. He later drove a few streets over, where he set fire to a second residence.
[...]
Sources told Bild that they arrested the man, who had burns on his hands, a few meters from the store. Tagesschau reported that he was known to the police before the incident.

A lot of these people are "known to the police" but don't get deported.

In what way are "these people know to the police" that indicates they should be deported?

 

[bilby]

Who the bejesus told you that how Germany treats foreigners ought to be determined by what they deserve?!?

Nobody told me this. It's a direct inference from the principle that you ought to be nice to other people, a principle which I hold to be axiomatic.

Of course, Germany doesn't have to be nice. But she ought to be. We have all seen what the workd looks like when she isn't, and few of us want to see that again.

And this is a fairly limited amount of nice. Germany can easily afford it.

 

[Bomb#20]

...
Apparently, if someone might shoot or jail you, you deserve help, but if someone plans to starve you or drive you into grinding poverty, tough luck.

Apparently, if you're a German taxpayer, you deserve to be considered a mere-means-to-an-end: a beast of burden put on this planet for the purpose of seeing to it that all the people of the world who are ends-in-themselves (i.e., not German taxpayers) get what they deserve. Who the bejesus told you that how Germany treats foreigners ought to be determined by what they deserve?!?

Governments do not distinguish between legitimate refugees and economic migrants because the former are more deserving. They distinguish between them because they signed international treaties requiring them to come to the aid of legitimate refugees, and didn't sign international treaties requiring them to come to the aid of economic migrants.

Once you understand that bilby's observations were morality-based not legalese, you see your response is moot.

My response was morality-based; I take it you didn't recognize the reference to Kantian ethics. If you're interested, see Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.

 

[laughing dog]

...
Apparently, if someone might shoot or jail you, you deserve help, but if someone plans to starve you or drive you into grinding poverty, tough luck.

Apparently, if you're a German taxpayer, you deserve to be considered a mere-means-to-an-end: a beast of burden put on this planet for the purpose of seeing to it that all the people of the world who are ends-in-themselves (i.e., not German taxpayers) get what they deserve. Who the bejesus told you that how Germany treats foreigners ought to be determined by what they deserve?!?

Governments do not distinguish between legitimate refugees and economic migrants because the former are more deserving. They distinguish between them because they signed international treaties requiring them to come to the aid of legitimate refugees, and didn't sign international treaties requiring them to come to the aid of economic migrants.

Once you understand that bilby's observations were morality-based not legalese, you see your response is moot.

My response was morality-based; I take it you didn't recognize the reference to Kantian ethics. If you're interested, see Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.

I guess the reliance on treaties obscured the moral basis.

 

[Bomb#20]

...
Apparently, if someone might shoot or jail you, you deserve help, but if someone plans to starve you or drive you into grinding poverty, tough luck.

Apparently, if you're a German taxpayer, you deserve to be considered a mere-means-to-an-end: a beast of burden put on this planet for the purpose of seeing to it that all the people of the world who are ends-in-themselves (i.e., not German taxpayers) get what they deserve. Who the bejesus told you that how Germany treats foreigners ought to be determined by what they deserve?!?

Governments do not distinguish between legitimate refugees and economic migrants because the former are more deserving. They distinguish between them because they signed international treaties requiring them to come to the aid of legitimate refugees, and didn't sign international treaties requiring them to come to the aid of economic migrants.

Once you understand that bilby's observations were morality-based not legalese, you see your response is moot.

My response was morality-based; I take it you didn't recognize the reference to Kantian ethics. If you're interested, see Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.

I guess the reliance on treaties obscured the moral basis.

I guess it did. Maybe it will be less obscure if I rephrase. Through the democratic process, the German people collectively volunteered to charitably come to the aid of legitimate refugees; they did not collectively volunteer to charitably come to the aid of economic migrants. Bilby's comment appears to be derived from the moral premise that the German people's collective charitable giving ought to be determined by his judgments of deservingness rather than by their charitable sentiments. Is that sufficiently unlegalese for your taste?

 

[laughing dog]

No, your application of Kantian ethics to Germany appears to conflict with bilby’s application of the categorical imperative, along with the democratic volunteering paradigm make muddle your claims in what’s left of my mind. But, in the end, it doesn’t really matter.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I see, is “fakefugee” another allegedly clever neologism of right-wing loons, like “lawfare?”

Its what the omniscient use when passes moral judgment even when they are not even on the same continent.

That does not stop you passing judgement, particularly upon Israelis, even though you are not on the same continent.

Israelis or the Israeli military / Israeli Government policies?

Has laughing dog used such loose language regarding things in Israel that he was painting Israelis with a broad brush?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Awful person does an awful thing. Clearly, the next logical step is to do something awful like go after everyone else who shares a trait with them.

An immigrant joining in on the wave of anti-immigrant bigotry. Commit a crime in Europe and you are an anonymous criminal, but if you were born in the Middle East, you become a "fakeugee".

Commit a crime in the US and you are generally an anonymous criminal, unless you speak Spanish (or in Springfield, Ohio... French), then you are a political target.

 

[jonatha]

Commit a crime in the US and you are generally an anonymous criminal, unless you speak Spanish (or in Springfield, Ohio... French)

No crime needed in Springfield to be condemned...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Commit a crime in the US and you are generally an anonymous criminal, unless you speak Spanish (or in Springfield, Ohio... French)

No crime needed in Springfield to be condemned...

Correct. My bad.

 

[bilby]

Through the democratic process, the German people collectively volunteered to charitably come to the aid of legitimate refugees

Well, kinda.

A tiny number of civil servants long ago were involved in a gabfest with other nations' civil services, and they were all worried about the vast numbers of refugees wandering around at the time who couldn't return home through fear of violence, so they came up with this plan (which didn't adresss economic migration because that wasn't the topic and they already had plenty to worry about), took it back to the elected representatives of the voters, and said "Either ratify this, or be international pariahs". So the elected representatives, without consulting the electorate, signed. Forever comitting the country to the deal.

So yes, but actually, no.

Democracy plays very little part in politics in most countries; And even in those where democracy is strong domestically, it is typically weak internationally - and international agreements, once made, tend to be reviewed rarely or never.

So "volunteered" is rather a strong word. "Failed to violently object to some obscure negotiations far away" is more accurate.

Still, regardless of who made the decision, or how representative they were of the German people, the motivation for deciding to help refugees was that the decision makers prefered to be seen as kind rather than callous; And the motivation for excluding economic migrants from the kind vs callous consideration was that economic migration was not at the time an important nor an urgent issue.

 

[Gospel]

It’s not much different from the U.S. system. We elect leaders based on their campaign promises, but once they’re in office, their actions—especially on matters like international agreements—are largely out of our direct control. Voters choose them based on specific issues, but we don’t have a say in every decision, particularly those made in the international arena. One could argue that the responsibility for decisions beyond the campaign promises rests on the politicians, especially when voters aren’t asked for direct input. After all, we don’t see voters flocking to the booths to approve international treaties. Even if there were mechanisms like impeachment or a vote of no confidence, they rarely happen in time to prevent those decisions from taking effect.

This leads me to the point that, beyond elections, individuality doesn’t play a large role in governance. Once the government acts, responsibility falls on all of us, no matter how we voted or what we might tell ourselves. This makes voting, reasoning, and engaging with your fellow citizens all the more critical. The excuse of 'I didn’t vote for that' doesn’t hold up when you financially support and benefit from your government.

Isn’t this the same reason we see little regard for the citizens of other countries who are now seeking refuge? Governments often make decisions without considering individual citizens—both at home and abroad—leading to the very crises we now face at our borders. When policies are enacted without sufficient regard for the human impact, we all end up sharing responsibility for the consequences, even if we didn’t explicitly vote for them.

 

[Bomb#20]

Through the democratic process, the German people collectively volunteered to charitably come to the aid of legitimate refugees

Well, kinda.

A tiny number of civil servants long ago were involved in a gabfest with other nations' civil services,...so they came up with this plan .... So the elected representatives, without consulting the electorate, signed. Forever comitting the country to the deal.

So yes, but actually, no.

Democracy plays very little part in politics in most countries; ...

So "volunteered" is rather a strong word. "Failed to violently object to some obscure negotiations far away" is more accurate.

I.e., the German people collectively volunteered to delegate that sort of decision to those particular elected representatives. That's what "Through the democratic process" means, in every country that doesn't make social choices by sending slaves through the marketplace carrying wet-paint ropes to herd the citizens into the public assembly amphitheater.

Still, regardless of who made the decision, or how representative they were of the German people, the motivation for deciding to help refugees was that the decision makers prefered to be seen as kind rather than callous; And the motivation for excluding economic migrants from the kind vs callous consideration was that economic migration was not at the time an important nor an urgent issue.

No doubt. And since that decision had jack squat to do with which migrants were how deserving, and since the current German taxpayers are bearing the cost of their long-ago-predecessors' representatives' preference not because they give a damn whether Konrad Adenauer is seen as kind but because that's the deal they woke up to find their country forever committed to, and not some alternative-history deal to take in all deserving migrants, your "Apparently, if someone might shoot or jail you, you deserve help, but if someone plans to starve you or drive you into grinding poverty, tough luck." slur, against the people who distinguish between economic migrants and legitimate refugees, was a misrepresentation of them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No doubt. And since that decision had jack squat to do with which migrants were how deserving, and since the current German taxpayers are bearing the cost of their long-ago-predecessors' representatives' preference not because they give a damn whether Konrad Adenauer is seen as kind but because that's the deal they woke up to find their country forever committed to, and not some alternative-history deal to take in all deserving migrants, your "Apparently, if someone might shoot or jail you, you deserve help, but if someone plans to starve you or drive you into grinding poverty, tough luck." slur, against the people who distinguish between economic migrants and legitimate refugees, was a misrepresentation of them.

I had to read that a couple times...

Am I reading this right? When you put it the other way, it sounds pettier that we appreciate.