The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: TheOldestYoungMan on November 20, 2015, 12:06:21 PM
-
I just finished writing this letter to my congressman:
------------------------------------
I have never been ashamed of my country before. The next elections will be the first time I ever cast a vote for a Democrat.
There is a place in the world where the basic fabric of society has broken down. The people there have lost everything and have no hope of any kind of a life or future. The ones most like us, the ones that care about their families, are fleeing, seeking refuge anywhere that will take them.
To stand up and deny them access because some among them may seek to do us harm is morally wrong. You have made a decision to allow fear to steer your actions. Leadership is standing up and doing the right thing.
If every single refugee turned out to be a terrorist, and millions of them succeeded in tearing down this country, that would be tragic. A great nation would be lost. By denying them entry we do not protect our great nation, we prove that it was never great at all.
What have we to fear from these refugees? Nothing. Should some among them prove violent and dangerous, the United States will weather that storm as we have every other, with compassion and strength.
You should be ashamed of your vote. Your constituents certainly are.
-------------------------
Feel free to send something similar to your own. I'm going to take some time this weekend and write something similar to my governor and Senator as well.
I looked into volunteering to take in a refugee family in my own home, but the local infrastructure apparently can't support someone so far from the city center, but if you live close to a refugee center/resettlement coordinator you can probably help.
To find someone to talk to about what I could do, I ended up on the White House website here:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/campaign/aidrefugees
There's a place to put in your zip code, and it has the phone number of nearby agencies. The closest to me was the YMCA in Houston, which got back to me right away but couldn't really make use of what I have to offer, as the distance would be too great. The people there were super excited by the inquiry though, so I think the media coverage may be getting to them, warping how they view their fellow citizens.
Refugees are required to attend English language classes (depending on their current capacity) regularly as well as some job training/cultural integration type stuff. Particularly if you speak any European or Middle Eastern languages and live near a center there's a great opportunity to help out.
-
Bravo. I had to flee my country 53 years ago as a child, after a bloody civil war. Some of my family members died during the conflict but those who made it without apparent harm are still, to this day and despite the passing of time, in pain from the mental wounds. So I know first-hand what these people, and especially the children, are going through. These people could be us, and we could be them. We must not fear them and whatever we think they represent, but embrace them, and give them the opportunity to start a new life within our communities. Their wounds will never heal, but most will without a doubt become upstanding citizens of the countries who welcome them, if we give them the chance.
-
Good for you. Fear-mongering is part of our history, but its not a part we look back on with pride. Whether its turning back Jewish refugees for fear a Nazi might be hiding among them (MS St. Louis in 1939) or anger at Irish immigrants fleeing famine (the Know-Nothings) the long arc of history is such that we look back on these points with shame.
Saying we are a nation of immigrants misses the mark. Many of us are also descended from refugees. Our grandparents, great grandparents and even further back fled religious persecution, endless war and political repression. If we had been there when they came would we have been the ones who welcomed them as brothers and sisters or the ones screaming for them to go home.
Parts of the poem on the Statue of Liberty are getting a lot of attention lately, the full reading is below.
The New Colossus - Emma Lazarus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
-
Well done.
My congresspeople, thankfully, are not immoral asshats. But I will still write them and thank them for taking the right stance on this.
-
I am an immigrant. The US is my 3rd country. I have never been a refugee or an illegal immigrant.
I am against accepting people without screening for potential contribution to the country (be it the US or any desirable country for immigrants).
If it were up to me, I would only accept:
-Top 1% of people by IQ.
-Those who are sponsored by businesses and offered jobs paying more than $200K/year in today's dollars.
-Those who are willing to invest several million dollars (given that they didn't steal it elsewhere).
-On top of that, everybody would have to go through medical screening and criminal history/background checks.
However, if you want the US to turn into a 3rd world country, go ahead and accept everybody.
-
I am happy and grateful to be living in a state that is accepting refugees from Syria. I'm horrified that states are being allowed to choose, and displeased with the low US quota.
-
I am an immigrant. The US is my 3rd country. I have never been a refugee or an illegal immigrant.
I am against accepting people without screening for potential contribution to the country (be it the US or any desirable country for immigrants).
If it were up to me, I would only accept:
-Top 1% of people by IQ.
-Those who are sponsored by businesses and offered jobs paying more than $200K/year in today's dollars.
-Those who are willing to invest several million dollars (given that they didn't steal it elsewhere).
-On top of that, everybody would have to go through medical screening and criminal history/background checks.
Sooo…. I am assuming that you have fulfilled these criteria in every country that you've emigrated to?
Because if not, then I am pretty sure you are just calling yourself a raging hypocrite.
-
I am an immigrant. The US is my 3rd country. I have never been a refugee or an illegal immigrant.
I am against accepting people without screening for potential contribution to the country (be it the US or any desirable country for immigrants).
If it were up to me, I would only accept:
-Top 1% of people by IQ.
-Those who are sponsored by businesses and offered jobs paying more than $200K/year in today's dollars.
-Those who are willing to invest several million dollars (given that they didn't steal it elsewhere).
-On top of that, everybody would have to go through medical screening and criminal history/background checks.
However, if you want the US to turn into a 3rd world country, go ahead and accept everybody.
I am curious to know what you propose to do with those who do not meet your very generous criteria. Internment or work camps, maybe Guantanamo? Or better, send them back "home", à la Trump? Or best, just put them on boats and let them float their way back?
-
I am an immigrant. The US is my 3rd country. I have never been a refugee or an illegal immigrant.
I am against accepting people without screening for potential contribution to the country (be it the US or any desirable country for immigrants).
If it were up to me, I would only accept:
-Top 1% of people by IQ.
-Those who are sponsored by businesses and offered jobs paying more than $200K/year in today's dollars.
-Those who are willing to invest several million dollars (given that they didn't steal it elsewhere).
-On top of that, everybody would have to go through medical screening and criminal history/background checks.
However, if you want the US to turn into a 3rd world country, go ahead and accept everybody.
I am curious to know what you propose to do with those who do not meet your very generous criteria. Internment or work camps, maybe Guantanamo? Or better, send them back "home", à la Trump? Or best, just put them on boats and let them float their way back?
I guess political refugees fleeing wars don't deserve human rights unless they are smart and wealthy.
-
I am an immigrant. The US is my 3rd country. I have never been a refugee or an illegal immigrant.
I am against accepting people without screening for potential contribution to the country (be it the US or any desirable country for immigrants).
If it were up to me, I would only accept:
-Top 1% of people by IQ.
-Those who are sponsored by businesses and offered jobs paying more than $200K/year in today's dollars.
-Those who are willing to invest several million dollars (given that they didn't steal it elsewhere).
-On top of that, everybody would have to go through medical screening and criminal history/background checks.
However, if you want the US to turn into a 3rd world country, go ahead and accept everybody.
I am curious to know what you propose to do with those who do not meet your very generous criteria. Internment or work camps, maybe Guantanamo? Or better, send them back "home", à la Trump? Or best, just put them on boats and let them float their way back?
I was referring to accepting new people. It's understood that there are millions who are already here and don't meet these criteria. What to do with them is a much more difficult question, but of course I wouldn't just send everybody home.
-
ISIS is a jv team and contained. Why do they need to leave?
-
I guess political refugees fleeing wars don't deserve human rights unless they are smart and wealthy.
I have met genuine refugees in my home country. They crossed the border to the first safe country. The refugees who want to come to the US (or, say, Germany), will cross the borders of several safe countries on the way. To me, they are not genuine refugees, they are economic migrants and should be evaluated and admitted (or refused) as such.
-
Sooo…. I am assuming that you have fulfilled these criteria in every country that you've emigrated to?
Because if not, then I am pretty sure you are just calling yourself a raging hypocrite.
I act in my own self interest. If opportunities present themselves, I take them. This has nothing to do with my political opinions.
To answer your question, I don't have millions or earn 200K+, so unless I manage to score in the top 1% on an IQ test, I won't qualify. I have never taken a formal IQ test in my life.
-
What is the stated us quota? For refugees?
We are at 25000 in the short term for canada, government sponsored, plus privately sponsored ones.
This will be harder than in the 80's because canada now prioritized those who are less likely to be successful as economic migrants. A lot of single moms are coming, in other words.
I just signed up for our regions volunteer committee. Will learn more next week.
-
I guess political refugees fleeing wars don't deserve human rights unless they are smart and wealthy.
I have met genuine refugees in my home country. They crossed the border to the first safe country. The refugees who want to come to the US (or, say, Germany), will cross the borders of several safe countries on the way. To me, they are not genuine refugees, they are economic migrants and should be evaluated and admitted (or refused) as such.
I don't know if I buy this... seems like to minimize the strain on any one country, the refugees ought to be dispersed among them.
As for these particular refugees, I can't say I'm comfortable with them coming to the US, but that's my problem, and as long as they're subject to screening, are made to assimilate to US culture (we have failed on this for other immigrant populations), then I suppose I can deal with it. They also ought to be subject to a plan to have them return home or elsewhere after a period of time.
It also seems like, to disrupt any efforts of organized terrorists to infiltrate a particular country, we ought not tell the refugees where they're going. They want out of their war torn country? OK... but you'll be relocated where there's room, not to wherever they 'want' to go.
-
What is the stated us quota? For refugees?
We are at 25000 in the short term for canada, government sponsored, plus privately sponsored ones.
This will be harder than in the 80's because canada now prioritized those who are less likely to be successful as economic migrants. A lot of single moms are coming, in other words.
I just signed up for our regions volunteer committee. Will learn more next week.
For fiscal year 2015 (Oct-Sept), the US quota for refugees was 70,000, with no minimums for refugees from Syria. The year starting 1-Oct the refugee quota is 85,000, with a minimum of 10,000 refugees from Syria. Between Sept-2011 and Sept-2015, the United States has issued 1,500 refugee visas to Syrians.
-
I just finished writing this letter to my congressman:
------------------------------------
I have never been ashamed of my country before. The next elections will be the first time I ever cast a vote for a Democrat.
There is a place in the world where the basic fabric of society has broken down. The people there have lost everything and have no hope of any kind of a life or future. The ones most like us, the ones that care about their families, are fleeing, seeking refuge anywhere that will take them.
To stand up and deny them access because some among them may seek to do us harm is morally wrong. You have made a decision to allow fear to steer your actions. Leadership is standing up and doing the right thing.
If every single refugee turned out to be a terrorist, and millions of them succeeded in tearing down this country, that would be tragic. A great nation would be lost. By denying them entry we do not protect our great nation, we prove that it was never great at all.
What have we to fear from these refugees? Nothing. Should some among them prove violent and dangerous, the United States will weather that storm as we have every other, with compassion and strength.
You should be ashamed of your vote. Your constituents certainly are.
-------------------------
I love it. I tip my hat to you, sir.
-
1,854 Syrian refugees admitted to the U.S. 2012 to Sept. 2015
-
> We come from a life of freedom and to see more burquas walking around in our country makes me sick.
> Weather they call it equality or not, I don't want it.
I live in Germany. Which, as you might have heard, has taken up a few hundred thousand refugees.
I don't even remember when I last saw a woman in burqua on the street, it's been that long. The female Syrians don't walk around veiled, except in and around Rakka.
-
I am an immigrant. The US is my 3rd country. I have never been a refugee or an illegal immigrant.
I am against accepting people without screening for potential contribution to the country (be it the US or any desirable country for immigrants).
If it were up to me, I would only accept:
-Top 1% of people by IQ.
-Those who are sponsored by businesses and offered jobs paying more than $200K/year in today's dollars.
-Those who are willing to invest several million dollars (given that they didn't steal it elsewhere).
-On top of that, everybody would have to go through medical screening and criminal history/background checks.
However, if you want the US to turn into a 3rd world country, go ahead and accept everybody.
I am curious to know what you propose to do with those who do not meet your very generous criteria. Internment or work camps, maybe Guantanamo? Or better, send them back "home", à la Trump? Or best, just put them on boats and let them float their way back?
I was referring to accepting new people. It's understood that there are millions who are already here and don't meet these criteria. What to do with them is a much more difficult question, but of course I wouldn't just send everybody home.
Uh-huh. So, now you are doubly a hypocrite. "I'm here now because of less lenient policies, but NOW that I'm here, other people should not be able to get in under the same circumstances."
Your arguments are not worth paying attention to.
-
Great letter, OP. Refugees already are the most screened immigrants. The process is done in collaboration with the UN, takes months or years spent in refugee camps, and they must demonstrate real hardship/persecution to be granted refugee status. You don't get granted because you feel uncertain of your country's future.
All of these facts are publicly available to anyone with a computer. Representatives with research staff who chose to ignore them, and instead pandered to the racist and hot-headed wing of the GOP, have no excuse.
Shame, shame, shame.
-
What is the stated us quota? For refugees?
We are at 25000 in the short term for canada, government sponsored, plus privately sponsored ones.
This will be harder than in the 80's because canada now prioritized those who are less likely to be successful as economic migrants. A lot of single moms are coming, in other words.
I just signed up for our regions volunteer committee. Will learn more next week.
Ooohh. Thanks for the nudge. I need to figure out how to volunteer too.
-
I'm not trying to sound like a jerk here. I'm very grateful to have been born into this life of freedom. I wish we all were. The issue that concerns me with allowing refugees in has to do with their lifestyle. We come from a life of freedom and to see more burquas walking around in our country makes me sick. Weather they call it equality or not, I don't want it.
If we really come from a life of freedom, then what other people choose to wear is their own business.
-
I am an immigrant. The US is my 3rd country. I have never been a refugee or an illegal immigrant.
I am against accepting people without screening for potential contribution to the country (be it the US or any desirable country for immigrants).
If it were up to me, I would only accept:
-Top 1% of people by IQ.
-Those who are sponsored by businesses and offered jobs paying more than $200K/year in today's dollars.
-Those who are willing to invest several million dollars (given that they didn't steal it elsewhere).
-On top of that, everybody would have to go through medical screening and criminal history/background checks.
However, if you want the US to turn into a 3rd world country, go ahead and accept everybody.
I am curious to know what you propose to do with those who do not meet your very generous criteria. Internment or work camps, maybe Guantanamo? Or better, send them back "home", à la Trump? Or best, just put them on boats and let them float their way back?
I was referring to accepting new people. It's understood that there are millions who are already here and don't meet these criteria. What to do with them is a much more difficult question, but of course I wouldn't just send everybody home.
Uh-huh. So, now you are doubly a hypocrite. "I'm here now because of less lenient policies, but NOW that I'm here, other people should not be able to get in under the same circumstances."
Your arguments are not worth paying attention to.
Ok. Keep in mind, though, that I lived in 3 countries and traveled to dozens. Also, most of my friends, colleagues and acquaintances are migrants/expats.
Perhaps I know a little more about immigration than the average person does.
-
TOYM, You are my new hero! Your post just made my day. Thank you.
-
On burqas...
I lived for a time in Minnesota which hosted a large number Somali refugees, most of whom were Muslim. Burqas were a rare site and were usually worn by those who were first generation immigrants. Their daughters and granddaughters were more westernized and at most wore a hijab or no head covering at all.
And if the concern is that it will allow some fundamentalists in, I'll also note that it wouldn't be the first time a group of folks in very conservative dress with very specific religious beliefs who were not welcome in their home country made their way here.
Happy Thanksgiving
-
Ok. Keep in mind, though, that I lived in 3 countries and traveled to dozens. Also, most of my friends, colleagues and acquaintances are migrants/expats.
Perhaps I know a little more about immigration than the average person does.
I have lived in 5, does my opinion trump yours?
-
I am an immigrant. The US is my 3rd country. I have never been a refugee or an illegal immigrant.
I am against accepting people without screening for potential contribution to the country (be it the US or any desirable country for immigrants).
If it were up to me, I would only accept:
-Top 1% of people by IQ.
-Those who are sponsored by businesses and offered jobs paying more than $200K/year in today's dollars.
-Those who are willing to invest several million dollars (given that they didn't steal it elsewhere).
-On top of that, everybody would have to go through medical screening and criminal history/background checks.
However, if you want the US to turn into a 3rd world country, go ahead and accept everybody.
I am curious to know what you propose to do with those who do not meet your very generous criteria. Internment or work camps, maybe Guantanamo? Or better, send them back "home", à la Trump? Or best, just put them on boats and let them float their way back?
I was referring to accepting new people. It's understood that there are millions who are already here and don't meet these criteria. What to do with them is a much more difficult question, but of course I wouldn't just send everybody home.
Uh-huh. So, now you are doubly a hypocrite. "I'm here now because of less lenient policies, but NOW that I'm here, other people should not be able to get in under the same circumstances."
Your arguments are not worth paying attention to.
Ok. Keep in mind, though, that I lived in 3 countries and traveled to dozens. Also, most of my friends, colleagues and acquaintances are migrants/expats.
Perhaps I know a little more about immigration than the average person does.
Having experience as an immigrant has nothing to do with it if you cannot think logically and non-hypocritically enough to espouse a rational plan for immigration. Which you seem not to be able to do. Fortunately, as you are an immigrant, you are not responsible for creating the immigration policy of the country whose generosity you are taking advantage of.
-
Great post OP! My husband and I have been talking about this too. He speaks some rudimentary Arabic and we just really feel for their plight. I am truly appalled by the people who feel otherwise, especially the ones who call themselves Christians.
-
And if the concern is that it will allow some fundamentalists in, I'll also note that it wouldn't be the first time a group of folks in very conservative dress with very specific religious beliefs who were not welcome in their home country made their way here.
Happy Thanksgiving
Hear hear, and well stated.
-
I'm not trying to sound like a jerk here. I'm very grateful to have been born into this life of freedom. I wish we all were. The issue that concerns me with allowing refugees in has to do with their lifestyle. We come from a life of freedom and to see more burquas walking around in our country makes me sick. Weather they call it equality or not, I don't want it.
So...how do you feel about religious freedom? Should people be allowed to wear crosses to profess their Christian faith? What about kippahs for Jewish men? What about head coverings of all sorts (Orthodox Jewish women wear them; Orthodox Christianity mandates head coverings in church...) Should we persecute those who insist on covering up from ankle to neck to wrist due to their beliefs on modesty, for cultural or religious reasons?
Just because they continue wearing clothing that meets their ideals of modesty, does not mean they don't appreciate the freedom of this country as much as you do. There are full-fledged, many-generation Americans who follow similar tenets e.g. the Quiverfull/evangelical Christian movement, the Amish and some Mennonites.
The problem with freedom is that not everyone will take advantage of it the same way you will. You have to exist side-by-side with people you completely disagree with.
-
I am an immigrant. The US is my 3rd country. I have never been a refugee or an illegal immigrant.
I am against accepting people without screening for potential contribution to the country (be it the US or any desirable country for immigrants).
If it were up to me, I would only accept:
-Top 1% of people by IQ.
-Those who are sponsored by businesses and offered jobs paying more than $200K/year in today's dollars.
-Those who are willing to invest several million dollars (given that they didn't steal it elsewhere).
-On top of that, everybody would have to go through medical screening and criminal history/background checks.
However, if you want the US to turn into a 3rd world country, go ahead and accept everybody.
Hmm...I wonder where the US would get farm workers in this scenario.
My argument in a nutshell? A country needs more than "alphas" (see Aldous Huxley's "Brand New World" for the reference). And historically, immigrants have come in from the bottom (think waves of: Irish, German, Italian, Eastern European, Chinese, etc immigrants throughout the 1850s-1950s) and they've built this country up, not dragged it down. It's not a zero-sum game.
-
NRA-Backed Legislator: We Can’t Take Syrian Refugees Because It’s Too Easy For Them To Buy Guns
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/11/17/3722968/nra-texas-rep-no-syrians-gun-access/
(He and his colleagues in the state legislature have blocked mandatory background checks for all gun purchases.
While those applying for refugee status must complete “the most stringent security process for anyone entering the United States,” those attempting to purchase guns through private sales at gun shows in Texas and many other states are not required to undergo any background checks whatsoever.)
-
Good for you. Fear-mongering is part of our history, but its not a part we look back on with pride. Whether its turning back Jewish refugees for fear a Nazi might be hiding among them (MS St. Louis in 1939) or anger at Irish immigrants fleeing famine (the Know-Nothings) the long arc of history is such that we look back on these points with shame.
Saying we are a nation of immigrants misses the mark. Many of us are also descended from refugees. Our grandparents, great grandparents and even further back fled religious persecution, endless war and political repression. If we had been there when they came would we have been the ones who welcomed them as brothers and sisters or the ones screaming for them to go home.
Parts of the poem on the Statue of Liberty are getting a lot of attention lately, the full reading is below.
The New Colossus - Emma Lazarus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
nice. thank you.
-
I don't have a problem with them coming here, going through whichever screening process, whatever. Generally speaking I'd like it if we could stop being the default country to lead every effort on every corner of the globe. Maybe countries with more directly related interests can step up to the plate too.
-
My great-grand parents fled the Russian revolution and took refuge in the US. They lived in a small neighborhood and never learned English. On my father's side, I have ancestors who fled religious persecution in England and came to the US around 1630 (and by all accounts wore funny clothes). And then there's my Cherokee ancestor, who was forced from his home by invading religious zealots. I'm pretty sure there's some Irish potato famine scum mixed in there too.
Yet here I am, speaking English, well educated, self-sufficient, contributing to society, and my kids are proud of their mixed heritage and excited to share in the 2nd grade "where do you come from" project.
Other than great-grand Poppy, everyone else in my bloodline came to the US as a refugee, migrant, or immigrant... Like the other 98% of the (non-Native American) population of the US. I don't see where they have the right to object to others getting the same benefits their ancestors did...
-
Maybe countries with more directly related interests can step up to the plate too.
You mean some countries have more direct interests in the Middle East than the USA? ;)
-
gillstone beat me to it
-
Thought you might enjoy this...
-
I don't have a problem with them coming here, going through whichever screening process, whatever. Generally speaking I'd like it if we could stop being the default country to lead every effort on every corner of the globe. Maybe countries with more directly related interests can step up to the plate too.
Are you kidding? We're talking about 10,000 syrian refugees for a country of 300 million. Germany alone is taking hundreds of thousands, and they have a population of 80 million. France is taking 30,000, and the country has a population of 65 million, and their economy is a lot weaker.
-
Thank you, OP. This refugee backlash has been so troubling, and I am not sure how any can stand behind politicians who are acting so xenophobic and cowardly. My governor is one who has requested no refugees, and I am ashamed. (Of course, I didn't vote for him, never stood behind him, and do not understand how he was elected in the first place.)
-
Our governor spoke up a few days ago to say something sensible like, "Yeah, of course we'll be willing to accept Syrian refugees in our state. We'll do whatever we can to help out these people in need."
People have come out of the woodwork with hate filled letters to the editor against the governor's statement. Apparently, the governor has received death threats as well based on his simply saying that we would accept refugees.
It's really sad.
-
> It's really sad.
Yes. Especially when one considers the historic background, where this extreme kind of Islamism originated, how it spread across many nations and what other nations used it for geostrategic reasons, and finally, where, by whom and under what circumstances ISIS was founded, who directly and indirectly supports them...
-
When I was a kid Catholic extremists used to regularly blow people up in Northern Ireland. Just because there were some Catholic terrorists in Ireland fighting against what they believed was an illegal occupation by Great Britain, didn't mean that Catholics everywhere were terrorists.
-
When I was a kid Catholic extremists used to regularly blow people up in Northern Ireland. Just because there were some Catholic terrorists in Ireland fighting against what they believed was an illegal occupation by Great Britain, didn't mean that Catholics everywhere were terrorists.
Similarly, just because Protestant extremists / terrorists carried out sick atrocities against catholic communities in Northern Ireland doesn't mean all Protestants are terrorists!
I get your point and don't agree with the atrocities carried out by the IRA but wanted to add that it took two to tango in Northern Ireland....the Protestant terrorist members of the UVF/UDA/LVF groups are not without blood on their hands.
-
I don't have a problem with them coming here, going through whichever screening process, whatever. Generally speaking I'd like it if we could stop being the default country to lead every effort on every corner of the globe. Maybe countries with more directly related interests can step up to the plate too.
Lots of european countries are taking hundreds of thousands of refugees. Germany, for example is welcoming many.
And as far as our role in the world, the US chose to project its power around the world with more military might than the rest of the countries combined. It's the price we pay to be the only superpower. You get cheap oil prices and you have to be responsible for the effects you have around the world.
-
My family were also immigrants/refugees fleeing a war-torn country, and luckily I meet at least one of Matumba's criteria. My opinion is that people smart enough and hard-working enough to manage to get through our strict refugee screening process, regardless of their score on a discredited "IQ" test, probably have something worthwhile to contribute. That being said, the ultimate goal of most refugees is to return home, and the international community's efforts to resolve the conflict in Syria will be of all peoples' overall best interests. Likelihood of us following our best interests is approximately 0%, based on history.
-
If every single refugee turned out to be a terrorist, and millions of them succeeded in tearing down this country, that would be tragic. A great nation would be lost. By denying them entry we do not protect our great nation, we prove that it was never great at all.
In the thousands of refugees they admit there may be some who are a threat to security. Hower, there are probably more who are a threat born on american soil. After all, in the mass shootings it has been Americans shooting Americans, not a refugee shooting Americans.
-
I guess political refugees fleeing wars don't deserve human rights unless they are smart and wealthy.
I have met genuine refugees in my home country. They crossed the border to the first safe country. The refugees who want to come to the US (or, say, Germany), will cross the borders of several safe countries on the way. To me, they are not genuine refugees, they are economic migrants and should be evaluated and admitted (or refused) as such.
That's not how it works. The UNHCR (http://www.unhcr.org/pages/4a16b1676.html) assigns refugees to countries that participate, after a lengthy (18-24 month) screening process.
-
One more bit of context. The current panic is about the US accepting 0.2% of the refugee population of Syria. Over 96% of the 4.2 million people displaced by the conflict are currently in the neighboring countries.
(https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/5UVSYHvulcrnflomY-PTpgevs_A=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4279679/Syrian-Resettlement1.0.jpg)
-
I have no problem with the US doing their part to fix the situation. I am really upset with the Rich Muslim countries and their refusal to accept Syrian Refugees. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE have all accepted 0 Syrian's, and the reason they give is the risk of terrorism.
-
The more accurate answer is that they are also countries dominated by families that have done their own fair share of supporting Sunni extremist groups whether it be Al Qaeda or what is now ISIS.
-
The more accurate answer is that they are also countries dominated by families that have done their own fair share of supporting Sunni extremist groups whether it be Al Qaeda or what is now ISIS.
Ah, well. If they will take more Somalians, will take more Syrians!
-
I have zero concerns accepting refugees. It is the right thing to do, especially for our country. The concern I have is that after immigration, subsequent generations are still becoming radicalized. We saw it in the Paris attacks, these weren't refugees, they were citizens born and raised in France and Belgium.
We see the same thing with born and raised Americans with backgrounds in the Middle-East and Africa becoming radicalized and leaving to join ISIS/Al Shabab etc.
We've got to figure out why this is happening and work to change it.
-
I have zero concerns accepting refugees. It is the right thing to do, especially for our country. The concern I have is that after immigration, subsequent generations are still becoming radicalized. We saw it in the Paris attacks, these weren't refugees, they were citizens born and raised in France and Belgium.
We see the same thing with born and raised Americans with backgrounds in the Middle-East and Africa becoming radicalized and leaving to join ISIS/Al Shabab etc.
We've got to figure out why this is happening and work to change it.
In France and other parts of Europe it sounds like long-term prospects for refugees and their families are worse than in the U.S. France already has many foreign born refugees and their families living there, and apparently their lives aren't too rosy. Unemployment is high. Prospects for integrating into French society sound like they're low compared to the U.S.
I totally agree with you that we need to figure out why children of refugees and other immigrants to Western countries are becoming radicalized and what we can do to stop it. It may not be the whole story, but I'll bet improving job prospects for children of refugees would be a step in the right direction...
-
I am happy and grateful to be living in a state that is accepting refugees from Syria. I'm horrified that states are being allowed to choose, and displeased with the low US quota.
How many will you be inviting into your home?
-
I am happy and grateful to be living in a state that is accepting refugees from Syria. I'm horrified that states are being allowed to choose, and displeased with the low US quota.
How many will you be inviting into your home?
I would invite any and all of them, and gladly pay my taxes to support wherever they're staying.
And if I were in that situation, fleeing a country, I'd be very grateful for anyone willing to take me in, and recognizing me as a human being.
-
I am happy and grateful to be living in a state that is accepting refugees from Syria. I'm horrified that states are being allowed to choose, and displeased with the low US quota.
How many will you be inviting into your home?
My husband and I have discussed it and would be willing to house as many people as we could. We don't have much space but it's probably still better than wherever they're living now.
-
I am happy and grateful to be living in a state that is accepting refugees from Syria. I'm horrified that states are being allowed to choose, and displeased with the low US quota.
How many will you be inviting into your home?
I would invite any and all of them, and gladly pay my taxes to support wherever they're staying.
And if I were in that situation, fleeing a country, I'd be very grateful for anyone willing to take me in, and recognizing me as a human being.
+1
-
I was in Turkey in April/May/June. There are Syrian refugees everywhere there. I saw several Syrian refugee camps. I saw Syrian families and Syrian children sleeping in the streets. Turkey has 2 million of them, in a country of 43 million. Turkey is a third world country, yet they are giving Syrian refugees free schooling and free health care. Like the Canadian who responded, I live in a country which is taking more Syrian refugees than the US, and has less than a fifth of the US population.
-
I'd accept some refugees.
But I wouldn't accept all such as radicals, inflammatory, not because they're "bad" but they won't integrate and are likely to harm others and themselves.
Some comments in the NYT interview of women who worked for ISIS really disturb me. No one in their right mind would want them as neighbors. Pity for the Muslims but not others killed by their husbands was their biggest concern? I'd be concerned for our safety.
But most refugees I think are probably okay.
Regards to domestic terrorist, they are usually descendants of refugees or immigrants (Boston bombing, Somalians...etc).
To me it's identity and integration that is a big problem. Accepting is one thing, integrating is another. Like organ transplant. Sure I can transplant many organs, but the body won't always accept. It's easier to accept what is most similar, familiar and for some, that's Syrian Christians or Yazidis. You can't just accept without having a plan to integrate.
-
I have zero concerns accepting refugees. It is the right thing to do, especially for our country. The concern I have is that after immigration, subsequent generations are still becoming radicalized. We saw it in the Paris attacks, these weren't refugees, they were citizens born and raised in France and Belgium.
We see the same thing with born and raised Americans with backgrounds in the Middle-East and Africa becoming radicalized and leaving to join ISIS/Al Shabab etc.
We've got to figure out why this is happening and work to change it.
I read a really good piece about this and the theory was:
Refuges being accepted where moderates, so not overtly religious. But they were living in communities of other refuges/like minded people so did not really become part of the the greater community ie continued to speak their own language, kept up their customs.
Their children on the orher hand, felt like they hadn't really become part of this country, and their religion became important to them due to lacking a feeling of community, this makes them vulnerable to radicalisation.
I'll see if I can dig up the post.
-
> Turkey has 2 million of them, in a country of 43 million.
Lebanon: 1.2 million, population 5.8 millions, including half a million Palestinians
Jordan: 1.4 million plus another two million Palestinians, population about 8 million (including refugees!)
-
> Regards to domestic terrorist, they are usually descendants of refugees or immigrants
In the US, a nation based on immigration, that's certainly true. The number of native American Indian terrorists seem to be rather small from the outside.
-
European integration of refugees has always been a problem for several reasons:
1) They are considered "other" to a certain degree and are not an accepted part of French society. This encourages communities to be insular rather than integrated.
2) Unemployment is high and they have to compete with labor moving freely in from eastern Eurozone countries.
3) Youth unemployment is incredibly high and even worse for non-citizens
4) A strong safety net makes sure they won't starve, but it also feeds resentment over their situation and frees up lots of time.
The above is a recipe for youth radicalization no matter what country. The US does a better job in integrating immigrants than most European countries. In part because we've been doing it as a matter of course since our inception. We have very little issue with multi-generational insularism.
Now as for that whole "I don't my neighbor to be ISIS" shtick....
Your neighbor won't be ISIS. Your neighbor had to go through multiple interviews from multiple agencies including the UN and the State Department. Your neighbor had to get fingerprinted and have those fingerprints run against domestic and foreign criminal databases. Your neighbor had to supply references, background, contacts and their history for the last ten years. Your neighbor went through a 2-3 year vetting process before coming here. Your neighbor isn't ISIS.
Now that angry white guy across the street who screams about how the country is being ruined by [insert weekly outrage target here]. He's the one to keep an eye on
-
When I was a kid Catholic extremists used to regularly blow people up in Northern Ireland. Just because there were some Catholic terrorists in Ireland fighting against what they believed was an illegal occupation by Great Britain, didn't mean that Catholics everywhere were terrorists.
Similarly, just because Protestant extremists / terrorists carried out sick atrocities against catholic communities in Northern Ireland doesn't mean all Protestants are terrorists!
I get your point and don't agree with the atrocities carried out by the IRA but wanted to add that it took two to tango in Northern Ireland....the Protestant terrorist members of the UVF/UDA/LVF groups are not without blood on their hands.
One half my family has roots as catholics in NI. The other half has roots as Prods in Dublins.
There are still some on each side who can't/won't understand why we abhor the violence of both sides. They still think only one side is right.
-
I'd accept some refugees.
But I wouldn't accept all such as radicals, inflammatory, not because they're "bad" but they won't integrate and are likely to harm others and themselves.
Some comments in the NYT interview of women who worked for ISIS really disturb me. No one in their right mind would want them as neighbors. Pity for the Muslims but not others killed by their husbands was their biggest concern? I'd be concerned for our safety.
But most refugees I think are probably okay.
Regards to domestic terrorist, they are usually descendants of refugees or immigrants (Boston bombing, Somalians...etc).
To me it's identity and integration that is a big problem. Accepting is one thing, integrating is another. Like organ transplant. Sure I can transplant many organs, but the body won't always accept. It's easier to accept what is most similar, familiar and for some, that's Syrian Christians or Yazidis. You can't just accept without having a plan to integrate.
Really? Timothy Mcveigh, Adam Lanza, Elliot Rodger, Dylann Roof, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Really now?
-
I'd accept some refugees.
But I wouldn't accept all such as radicals, inflammatory, not because they're "bad" but they won't integrate and are likely to harm others and themselves.
Some comments in the NYT interview of women who worked for ISIS really disturb me. No one in their right mind would want them as neighbors. Pity for the Muslims but not others killed by their husbands was their biggest concern? I'd be concerned for our safety.
But most refugees I think are probably okay.
Regards to domestic terrorist, they are usually descendants of refugees or immigrants (Boston bombing, Somalians...etc).
To me it's identity and integration that is a big problem. Accepting is one thing, integrating is another. Like organ transplant. Sure I can transplant many organs, but the body won't always accept. It's easier to accept what is most similar, familiar and for some, that's Syrian Christians or Yazidis. You can't just accept without having a plan to integrate.
Really? Timothy Mcveigh, Adam Lanza, Elliot Rodger, Dylann Roof, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Really now?
Gin, you know this isn't about what's actually true. It's about what feels good to think.
-
The idea that a terrorist would wait 18-24 months and subject themselves to 9 kinds of scrutiny plus tracking once they enter the country to enter the U.S. instead of flying to a neighboring country and walking in is...uninformed.
Rules keep only the rule followers out. I shop in the back of the store instead of the front, turns out the only thing keeping you out of the back is that sign that says you can't go back there.
-
I'd accept some refugees.
But I wouldn't accept all such as radicals, inflammatory, not because they're "bad" but they won't integrate and are likely to harm others and themselves.
Some comments in the NYT interview of women who worked for ISIS really disturb me. No one in their right mind would want them as neighbors. Pity for the Muslims but not others killed by their husbands was their biggest concern? I'd be concerned for our safety.
But most refugees I think are probably okay.
Regards to domestic terrorist, they are usually descendants of refugees or immigrants (Boston bombing, Somalians...etc).
To me it's identity and integration that is a big problem. Accepting is one thing, integrating is another. Like organ transplant. Sure I can transplant many organs, but the body won't always accept. It's easier to accept what is most similar, familiar and for some, that's Syrian Christians or Yazidis. You can't just accept without having a plan to integrate.
Really? Timothy Mcveigh, Adam Lanza, Elliot Rodger, Dylann Roof, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Really now?
Gin, you know this isn't about what's actually true. It's about what feels good to think.
To be fair, those are all descendants of immigrants. None of them are Native American.
-
I'd accept some refugees.
But I wouldn't accept all such as radicals, inflammatory, not because they're "bad" but they won't integrate and are likely to harm others and themselves.
Some comments in the NYT interview of women who worked for ISIS really disturb me. No one in their right mind would want them as neighbors. Pity for the Muslims but not others killed by their husbands was their biggest concern? I'd be concerned for our safety.
But most refugees I think are probably okay.
Regards to domestic terrorist, they are usually descendants of refugees or immigrants (Boston bombing, Somalians...etc).
To me it's identity and integration that is a big problem. Accepting is one thing, integrating is another. Like organ transplant. Sure I can transplant many organs, but the body won't always accept. It's easier to accept what is most similar, familiar and for some, that's Syrian Christians or Yazidis. You can't just accept without having a plan to integrate.
Really? Timothy Mcveigh, Adam Lanza, Elliot Rodger, Dylann Roof, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Really now?
Gin, you know this isn't about what's actually true. It's about what feels good to think.
To be fair, those are all descendants of immigrants. None of them are Native American.
True, but we all know he did not mean white American men when he said descendants of refugees or immigrants.
-
I'd accept some refugees.
But I wouldn't accept all such as radicals, inflammatory, not because they're "bad" but they won't integrate and are likely to harm others and themselves.
Some comments in the NYT interview of women who worked for ISIS really disturb me. No one in their right mind would want them as neighbors. Pity for the Muslims but not others killed by their husbands was their biggest concern? I'd be concerned for our safety.
But most refugees I think are probably okay.
Regards to domestic terrorist, they are usually descendants of refugees or immigrants (Boston bombing, Somalians...etc).
To me it's identity and integration that is a big problem. Accepting is one thing, integrating is another. Like organ transplant. Sure I can transplant many organs, but the body won't always accept. It's easier to accept what is most similar, familiar and for some, that's Syrian Christians or Yazidis. You can't just accept without having a plan to integrate.
Really? Timothy Mcveigh, Adam Lanza, Elliot Rodger, Dylann Roof, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Really now?
Gin, you know this isn't about what's actually true. It's about what feels good to think.
To be fair, those are all descendants of immigrants. None of them are Native American.
True, but we all know he did not mean white American men when he said descendants of refugees or immigrants.
Of course not. We all know white people aren't immigrants.
-
I'd accept some refugees.
But I wouldn't accept all such as radicals, inflammatory, not because they're "bad" but they won't integrate and are likely to harm others and themselves.
Some comments in the NYT interview of women who worked for ISIS really disturb me. No one in their right mind would want them as neighbors. Pity for the Muslims but not others killed by their husbands was their biggest concern? I'd be concerned for our safety.
But most refugees I think are probably okay.
Regards to domestic terrorist, they are usually descendants of refugees or immigrants (Boston bombing, Somalians...etc).
To me it's identity and integration that is a big problem. Accepting is one thing, integrating is another. Like organ transplant. Sure I can transplant many organs, but the body won't always accept. It's easier to accept what is most similar, familiar and for some, that's Syrian Christians or Yazidis. You can't just accept without having a plan to integrate.
Really? Timothy Mcveigh, Adam Lanza, Elliot Rodger, Dylann Roof, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Really now?
Gin, you know this isn't about what's actually true. It's about what feels good to think.
To be fair, those are all descendants of immigrants. None of them are Native American.
True, but we all know he did not mean white American men when he said descendants of refugees or immigrants.
Of course not. We all know white people aren't immigrants.
This thread is rife with mental illness. A guy makes a point about not wanting to import more terrorists and it causes our resident leftists to go incoherent. I hope your ivory towers hold up.
Again, Timothy Mcveigh, Adam Lanza, Elliot Rodger, Dylann Roof, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. You think we need to import our terrorists? They are born and bred here. His statement was inaccurate, which is what we were saying. I deal in reality, how about you start?
http://www.vice.com/read/why-are-so-many-mass-shootings-committed-by-young-white-men-623
-
But since white people were all immigrants to North America, his point is accidentally valid. :P
-
The female shooter was from Pakistan. She was not a native North American.
-
This is WW3. Can't you guys just round up all those crazy muslamists and detain them like the Japanese in WW2? Resettle them all into one of those thinly populated desert states like Nevada or Arizona where they can't cause much harm (except to each other) and where they can be controlled by armed Predator drones? Seems to work well in other desert areas.
Or kick them out of the country and deport them to Canada and Mexico. Problem solved.
-
This is WW3. Can't you guys just round up all those crazy muslamists and detain them like the Japanese in WW2? Resettle them all into one of those thinly populated desert states like Nevada or Arizona where they can't cause much harm (except to each other) and where they can be controlled by armed Predator drones? Seems to work well in other desert areas.
Or kick them out of the country and deport them to Canada and Mexico. Problem solved.
The poor spelling and spotty punctuation make me think this is satire. But I'll assume the person is being serious since it opens a good lesson on Japanese internment. We rounded up a bunch of people, stripped them of their property, shut down their businesses, and shoved them in camps because they all happened to be Japanese. These were American citizens, many were born here and spoke English as a first language. Many had never even been to Japan, but their nationality made us afraid, and in our fear we did something terrible.
That was WWII and even then it wasn't acceptable, ethical, legal or right. Stripping an entire group of liberty increases the odds of them joining a violent resistance. Welcoming them as neighbors and treating them with respect and dignity reduces it.
What it boils down to is if you genuinely believe that this nation can be a City on a Hill like Reagan discussed in his Farewell Address:
I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.
If you believe that, then welcoming a paltry 10,000 refugees to a nation of 350,000,000 is nothing to lose sleep over.
-
The poor spelling and spotty punctuation make me think this is satire. But I'll assume the person is being serious since it opens a good lesson on Japanese internment. We rounded up a bunch of people, stripped them of their property, shut down their businesses, and shoved them in camps because they all happened to be Japanese. These were American citizens, many were born here and spoke English as a first language. Many had never even been to Japan, but their nationality made us afraid, and in our fear we did something terrible.
That was WWII and even then it wasn't acceptable, ethical, legal or right. Stripping an entire group of liberty increases the odds of them joining a violent resistance. Welcoming them as neighbors and treating them with respect and dignity reduces it.
If you believe that, then welcoming a paltry 10,000 refugees to a nation of 350,000,000 is nothing to lose sleep over.
I agree stripping liberty isn't going to help. But it irks me whenever people compare today to Japanese internment.
To my knowledge, there were no Japanese-Americans committing atrocities against Americans. If anything, their fierce loyalty despite discrimination earned them respect and admiration in the US.
But that's 1940s, life was different then. As you yourself said, many didn't travel BACK to Japan. Today, travel is much easier and the shooters did go back to Pakistan/Saudi Arabia. They probably compared the lives of US and Middle East and felt like Middle East/Arab world was under attack (which technically it is).
There is also the Internet. It doesn't surprise me the spike in these attacks are only recent in these last few years as opposed to Bush's/Clinton's presidency. Ideas, stereotypes (as evidenced in other Mustachian threads) stemming from Internet content, misunderstandings, are much easier to obtain now. It's easier to be inspired by a call to the homeland now than before. A Japanese-American in WWII was only exposed to Japan by their parents. They never saw propaganda from Japan, or received any communication since it was just radio at the time. It wouldn't surprise me if Internet was around during WWII, there would be some radicalized Japanese as well. The influences you expose yourself shape one's views. Back then, there just wasn't that much connectivity or spread of ideas. Nor did they have such a heinous, profit-grabbing, biased, exploiting news machine we have today.
-
The poor spelling and spotty punctuation make me think this is satire. But I'll assume the person is being serious since it opens a good lesson on Japanese internment. We rounded up a bunch of people, stripped them of their property, shut down their businesses, and shoved them in camps because they all happened to be Japanese. These were American citizens, many were born here and spoke English as a first language. Many had never even been to Japan, but their nationality made us afraid, and in our fear we did something terrible.
That was WWII and even then it wasn't acceptable, ethical, legal or right. Stripping an entire group of liberty increases the odds of them joining a violent resistance. Welcoming them as neighbors and treating them with respect and dignity reduces it.
If you believe that, then welcoming a paltry 10,000 refugees to a nation of 350,000,000 is nothing to lose sleep over.
I agree stripping liberty isn't going to help. But it irks me whenever people compare today to Japanese internment.
To my knowledge, there were no Japanese-Americans committing atrocities against Americans. If anything, their fierce loyalty despite discrimination earned them respect and admiration in the US.
But that's 1940s, life was different then. As you yourself said, many didn't travel BACK to Japan. Today, travel is much easier and the shooters did go back to Pakistan/Saudi Arabia. They probably compared the lives of US and Middle East and felt like Middle East/Arab world was under attack (which technically it is).
There is also the Internet. It doesn't surprise me the spike in these attacks are only recent in these last few years as opposed to Bush's/Clinton's presidency. Ideas, stereotypes (as evidenced in other Mustachian threads) stemming from Internet content, misunderstandings, are much easier to obtain now. It's easier to be inspired by a call to the homeland now than before. A Japanese-American in WWII was only exposed to Japan by their parents. They never saw propaganda from Japan, or received any communication since it was just radio at the time. It wouldn't surprise me if Internet was around during WWII, there would be some radicalized Japanese as well. The influences you expose yourself shape one's views. Back then, there just wasn't that much connectivity or spread of ideas. Nor did they have such a heinous, profit-grabbing, biased, exploiting news machine we have today.
I was under the impression mass shootings have gone up since 2005/2006, not so recent and definitely within Bush's presidency. And I am also pretty sure they have looked the races of the majority of mass shooting and middle eastern was not the majority.
-
There is also the Internet. It doesn't surprise me the spike in these attacks are only recent in these last few years as opposed to Bush's/Clinton's presidency.
NO. This is WRONG. This is exactly the type of uninformed opinion that leads to terrible policy.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTIrDO-Vo5beOClwjdlVhnUce-FMz8hO26fQUZ8DeirPolpUYCxzw)
(https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/image/Terrorism8.jpg)
-
And to put this into perspective:
(http://www.americanthinker.com/legacy_assets/articles/assets/Murders%201.bmp)
-
1. I love the graphs, can I get a source for future use?
2. It should be noted that the Internment was brought up by an advocate for doing the same to "muslamists". However, the lesson does apply that when we act out of fear we tend to do things to we later regret.
3. Mass shootings have been rising and are more common. I don't have the information at my fingertips but I'm willing to bet there is a strong correlation with the rise in incidents and related deaths and the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban during the Obama Administration.
-
Nor did they have such a heinous, profit-grabbing, biased, exploiting news machine we have today.
While I don't fully agree with this characterization of the media, I agree that the media is why people often misperceive the actual risk of different events.
-
1. I love the graphs, can I get a source for future use?
2. It should be noted that the Internment was brought up by an advocate for doing the same to "muslamists". However, the lesson does apply that when we act out of fear we tend to do things to we later regret.
3. Mass shootings have been rising and are more common. I don't have the information at my fingertips but I'm willing to bet there is a strong correlation with the rise in incidents and related deaths and the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban during the Obama Administration.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004.
-
The poor spelling and spotty punctuation make me think this is satire. But I'll assume the person is being serious since it opens a good lesson on Japanese internment. We rounded up a bunch of people, stripped them of their property, shut down their businesses, and shoved them in camps because they all happened to be Japanese. These were American citizens, many were born here and spoke English as a first language. Many had never even been to Japan, but their nationality made us afraid, and in our fear we did something terrible.
That was WWII and even then it wasn't acceptable, ethical, legal or right. Stripping an entire group of liberty increases the odds of them joining a violent resistance. Welcoming them as neighbors and treating them with respect and dignity reduces it.
If you believe that, then welcoming a paltry 10,000 refugees to a nation of 350,000,000 is nothing to lose sleep over.
I agree stripping liberty isn't going to help. But it irks me whenever people compare today to Japanese internment.
To my knowledge, there were no Japanese-Americans committing atrocities against Americans. If anything, their fierce loyalty despite discrimination earned them respect and admiration in the US.
But that's 1940s, life was different then. As you yourself said, many didn't travel BACK to Japan. Today, travel is much easier and the shooters did go back to Pakistan/Saudi Arabia. They probably compared the lives of US and Middle East and felt like Middle East/Arab world was under attack (which technically it is).
There is also the Internet. It doesn't surprise me the spike in these attacks are only recent in these last few years as opposed to Bush's/Clinton's presidency. Ideas, stereotypes (as evidenced in other Mustachian threads) stemming from Internet content, misunderstandings, are much easier to obtain now. It's easier to be inspired by a call to the homeland now than before. A Japanese-American in WWII was only exposed to Japan by their parents. They never saw propaganda from Japan, or received any communication since it was just radio at the time. It wouldn't surprise me if Internet was around during WWII, there would be some radicalized Japanese as well. The influences you expose yourself shape one's views. Back then, there just wasn't that much connectivity or spread of ideas. Nor did they have such a heinous, profit-grabbing, biased, exploiting news machine we have today.
I was under the impression mass shootings have gone up since 2005/2006, not so recent and definitely within Bush's presidency. And I am also pretty sure they have looked the races of the majority of mass shooting and middle eastern was not the majority.
I meant in terms of Internet and big picture. I'm young, maybe you are too lol but I mean like since WWII. There's overlap yeah but I'm talking that a lot of shootings committed by Muslims have a pretty similar motive, jihad, for Islam, or oppression of Muslims. Fort Hood, Times Square, Boston Marathon, 9/11, now San Bernardinho (terror or not, relevant b/c of motive or lives lost). This thread is on Syrian/Muslim refugees so I stuck w/that demographic. A separate thread on gun violence would have to be made for your other perps (white, blacks, latinos, asians)
Could also be news coverage too. Some incidents make better shock headlines than others. Generally more blood, more dead is better news than less dead. Some "jihadists" didn't end up getting to do much so are looked over.
Indeed, double checking I have a point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihadist_extremism_in_the_United_States
Internet is an accelerant for radicalization; US mass media too plays a role in trying to enhance Islamic jihad, strike fear into Americans, inspire new radicals, educate them on details of how to plan and avoid mistakes like previous attackers because it's always been in the mass news interest to fan flames, not put them out. That's why I like PBS better, more analytical vs sensational. Also easier to learn how to build a weapon today than before. And weapons technology also maybe a factor.
My main point is that Japanese internment vs today's discussion on what do w/Syrian/Muslim refugees cannot be compared. The eras in those times are too different and the fuel for radicalization wasn't there in WWII like today. Principally because of technology. It's not a valid analogy that some use. A scientist would say it's not a valid comparison because there aren't enough controls or too many variables and differences that you cannot equate Japanese-Americans to today's Muslim refugees. No scientist would say that's a valid comparison and hence that analogy is grossly incorrect.
-
Nor did they have such a heinous, profit-grabbing, biased, exploiting news machine we have today.
While I don't fully agree with this characterization of the media, I agree that the media is why people often misperceive the actual risk of different events.
My view on the media comes from my closely following Tyler Clementi's suicide. There was so much misinformation, falsification, fiction being spread about the details of that incident, and the comments and misinformation and outrage being spread, I realized that the media was all about blowing up events to make money, to scare and provide misinformation to make money. I guess Treyvon Martin was another one. Why Walter Scott didn't get more outrage or publicity than other incidents...idk. I guess the black community there did a good job of cooling heads down (I'm guessing the media wasn't all too happy, they'd much rather have Ferguson or Baltimore)
Other examples include Fox News after Charlie Hebdo about those fictional no-go zones and the subsequent apology.
Or the Yahoo News article on that 26 yr old millionaire and the later retraction.
Or Mohammed Islam making millions off trading. Even when we doubted and knew it was hoax, the media tried to continue spinning it.
Another Mustachian commented on media's power and it is very powerful. Fiction overwrites fact, emotionally charged articles and delivery of news trumps accuracy and level-headed thinking.
UVA Rolling Stone and rape.
So yeah, I feel pretty pissed about my choices for news. PBS, maybe ProPublica. Not much else. There's no ethics in journalism these days cause it's too time consuming and if followed is less clickbait and less $$.
-
1. I love the graphs, can I get a source for future use?
2. It should be noted that the Internment was brought up by an advocate for doing the same to "muslamists". However, the lesson does apply that when we act out of fear we tend to do things to we later regret.
3. Mass shootings have been rising and are more common. I don't have the information at my fingertips but I'm willing to bet there is a strong correlation with the rise in incidents and related deaths and the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban during the Obama Administration.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004.
My mistake, thank you for the correction.
-
There is also the Internet. It doesn't surprise me the spike in these attacks are only recent in these last few years as opposed to Bush's/Clinton's presidency.
NO. This is WRONG. This is exactly the type of uninformed opinion that leads to terrible policy.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTIrDO-Vo5beOClwjdlVhnUce-FMz8hO26fQUZ8DeirPolpUYCxzw)
(https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/image/Terrorism8.jpg)
Sorry beltim. I have huge respect for your other posts and contributions on the forum truly. But I have to draw inaccuracies here.
In one image, 9/11 isn't accounted for. There's also no legend explaining the data in the graphs, nor are there citations.
Media could be misperceiving.
Your 2nd post is about murders in general. I'm trying to stay focused on just the Muslim refugee situation in the US, not so much Europe though heck I'll include them too. And in the last year for Europa, there's quite a big spike. Coincidence or the new future? What about London, Madrid, Paris train & Spencer? Charlie Hebdo? Russian airline? Beirut? Saudi mosque bombing? Mali Hotel attack? British tourists in Tunisia? Nairobi Mall attack? Kenya school attack? Pakistan school massacre attack? Bali nightclub bombing? (of course not all deaths are equal, we don't honestly care about them so we don't include them), Perhaps the rise of ISIS is inspiring more of these attacks. And the Internet/mass media is increasing these events and making it feel like it's increasing. Again I'm talking specifically terrorist attacks and there's so many different definitions on what is terrorist, what events are counted for, there's no good data set.
And incidents decrease maybe in the US, but magnitude of incidents maybe increase? W/9/11 being the outlier?
Also those graphs don't discriminate between Muslim or non-Muslim terrorism. The thread is on Syrians and Muslims so that's why I focused on that more. Other forms of terrorism decrease probably (white perps maybe as implied by graphs) but Islamic attacks are surely on the rise from the 80s.
Also what defines terrorism I don't know. Did more people die from terrorism in the 80s than in 2001? There's no proper data analysis being done here and it's this type of behavior I'm accused of thinking you're also using to fool some others. Numbers, graphs, statistics can be manipulated in many ways to drive a point. Look at the Y-axis, in terms of scales, 50 vs 20 incidents to most people wouldn't care about. Size of attack, intended scope, also matter. We also probably have some better surveillance today than back then as well, foiling. Did you include data on attacks foiled? What about effects of gun control? Has that been a positive? Maybe...
There needs to be more impartial data analysis but so many industries, interests have a foot and leg in this that there's bound to be manipulation of data to push some agenda.
I'm not claiming to have good data or anything. I'm just saying the analogy and arguments to Japanese internment being wrong can't be applied to today because of different conditions. I'm not saying that internment of Muslims is the answer either, personally I think the opposite but you can't use the argument against Japanese internment here either b/c the analogy doesn't work. That's all I really wanted to comment on originally lol.
-
There is also the Internet. It doesn't surprise me the spike in these attacks are only recent in these last few years as opposed to Bush's/Clinton's presidency.
NO. This is WRONG. This is exactly the type of uninformed opinion that leads to terrible policy.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTIrDO-Vo5beOClwjdlVhnUce-FMz8hO26fQUZ8DeirPolpUYCxzw)
(https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/image/Terrorism8.jpg)
Sorry beltim. I have huge respect for your other posts and contributions on the forum truly. But I have to draw inaccuracies here.
In one image, 9/11 isn't accounted for. There's also no legend explaining the data in the graphs, nor are there citations.
Media could be misperceiving.
Your 2nd post is about murders in general. I'm trying to stay focused on just the Muslim refugee situation in the US, not so much Europe though heck I'll include them too. And in the last year for Europa, there's quite a big spike. Coincidence or the new future? What about London, Madrid, Paris train & Spencer? Charlie Hebdo? Russian airline? Beirut? Saudi mosque bombing? Mali Hotel attack? British tourists in Tunisia? Nairobi Mall attack? Kenya school attack? Pakistan school massacre attack? Bali nightclub bombing? (of course not all deaths are equal, we don't honestly care about them so we don't include them), Perhaps the rise of ISIS is inspiring more of these attacks. And the Internet/mass media is increasing these events and making it feel like it's increasing. Again I'm talking specifically terrorist attacks and there's so many different definitions on what is terrorist, what events are counted for, there's no good data set.
And incidents decrease maybe in the US, but magnitude of incidents maybe increase? W/9/11 being the outlier?
Also those graphs don't discriminate between Muslim or non-Muslim terrorism. The thread is on Syrians and Muslims so that's why I focused on that more. Other forms of terrorism decrease probably (as implied by graphs) but Islamic attacks are surely on the rise from the 80s.
Also what defines terrorism I don't know. Did more people die from terrorism in the 80s than in 2001? There's no proper data analysis being done here and it's this type of behavior I'm accused of thinking you're also fooling some others. Numbers, graphs, statistics can be manipulated in many ways to drive a point. Look at the Y-axis, in terms of scales, 50 vs 20 incidents to most people wouldn't care about. Size of attack, intended scope, also matter. We also probably have some better surveillance today than back then as well, foiling. Did you include data on attacks foiled?
I'm not claiming to have good data or anything. I'm just saying the analogy and arguments to Japanese internment being wrong can't be applied to today because of different conditions. I'm not saying that internment of Muslims is the answer either, personally I think the opposite but you can't use the argument against Japanese internment here either b/c the analogy doesn't work. That's all I really wanted to comment on originally lol.
That is because you are more likely to be shot from a white extremists not a Muslim. So no, your statement "ther forms of terrorism decrease probably (as implied by graphs) but Islamic attacks are surely on the rise from the 80s" is not true.
http://time.com/3934980/right-wing-extremists-white-terrorism-islamist-jihadi-dangerous/
-
There is also the Internet. It doesn't surprise me the spike in these attacks are only recent in these last few years as opposed to Bush's/Clinton's presidency.
NO. This is WRONG. This is exactly the type of uninformed opinion that leads to terrible policy.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTIrDO-Vo5beOClwjdlVhnUce-FMz8hO26fQUZ8DeirPolpUYCxzw)
(https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/image/Terrorism8.jpg)
Sorry beltim. I have huge respect for your other posts and contributions on the forum truly. But I have to draw inaccuracies here.
In one image, 9/11 isn't accounted for. There's also no legend explaining the data in the graphs, nor are there citations.
Media could be misperceiving.
Your 2nd post is about murders in general. I'm trying to stay focused on just the Muslim refugee situation in the US, not so much Europe though heck I'll include them too. And in the last year for Europa, there's quite a big spike. Coincidence or the new future? What about London, Madrid, Paris train & Spencer? Charlie Hebdo? Russian airline? Beirut? Saudi mosque bombing? Mali Hotel attack? British tourists in Tunisia? Nairobi Mall attack? Kenya school attack? Pakistan school massacre attack? Bali nightclub bombing? (of course not all deaths are equal, we don't honestly care about them so we don't include them), Perhaps the rise of ISIS is inspiring more of these attacks. And the Internet/mass media is increasing these events and making it feel like it's increasing. Again I'm talking specifically terrorist attacks and there's so many different definitions on what is terrorist, what events are counted for, there's no good data set.
And incidents decrease maybe in the US, but magnitude of incidents maybe increase? W/9/11 being the outlier?
Also those graphs don't discriminate between Muslim or non-Muslim terrorism. The thread is on Syrians and Muslims so that's why I focused on that more. Other forms of terrorism decrease probably (as implied by graphs) but Islamic attacks are surely on the rise from the 80s.
Also what defines terrorism I don't know. Did more people die from terrorism in the 80s than in 2001? There's no proper data analysis being done here and it's this type of behavior I'm accused of thinking you're also fooling some others. Numbers, graphs, statistics can be manipulated in many ways to drive a point. Look at the Y-axis, in terms of scales, 50 vs 20 incidents to most people wouldn't care about. Size of attack, intended scope, also matter. We also probably have some better surveillance today than back then as well, foiling. Did you include data on attacks foiled?
I'm not claiming to have good data or anything. I'm just saying the analogy and arguments to Japanese internment being wrong can't be applied to today because of different conditions. I'm not saying that internment of Muslims is the answer either, personally I think the opposite but you can't use the argument against Japanese internment here either b/c the analogy doesn't work. That's all I really wanted to comment on originally lol.
That is because you are more likely to be shot from a white extremists not a Muslim. So no, your statement "ther forms of terrorism decrease probably (as implied by graphs) but Islamic attacks are surely on the rise from the 80s" is not true.
http://time.com/3934980/right-wing-extremists-white-terrorism-islamist-jihadi-dangerous/
Thank you for conveniently ignoring my other points. There have been a lot more foiling and FBI investigations on muslim terrorists (spying/wiretapping mosques, monitoring Muslims) and I remember reading NYT reports on undercover agents catching Muslim extremists. Is that a possible reason for whites committing more terroristic acts? We should start monitoring and profiling all white people now too yeah? (being sarcastic here...but maybe monitoring/surveillance can work?) Although I'm pro-Snowden so I'm trying to marry the 2.
Plus that's only the US! What about the rest of the world? Like France? Or Africa or Asia? (honestly no one here could give 1 cent about them). Or the Middle East (yes there are many bombings and Muslims killing each other there too!) But we don't care about them. Terrorism isn't just limited to the US, world ain't just us. Last I checked, a lot of countries were targeted by Muslim terrorists. And several cases had Westerners in those countries (Mali, Kenya, US Embassy, Bali, Russia, Mumbai hotel, Pakistan hotel, Saudi hotel, (i'm playing off Zero Dark Thirty, double check me on that etc)
This only strengthens my argument that the media is hell bent on trying to start a war over people who aren't as much a threat. By downplaying the atrocities by whites and exploding the atrocities by Muslims. By downplaying the atrocities by blacks and exploding the atrocities by white officers. The media is in it for $$ and if it fits the agenda/narrative of special interests who have a stake in wanting war, violence, or fear, then why blindly trust the media? Of course the piece you cite brings some degree of calm, but that's not the tenor being struck in the Presidential debates. We're being seriously misled and we need more objective, level headed, investigative journalism and people need to pay attention to that more.
-
This is WW3. Can't you guys just round up all those crazy muslamists and detain them like the Japanese in WW2? Resettle them all into one of those thinly populated desert states like Nevada or Arizona where they can't cause much harm (except to each other) and where they can be controlled by armed Predator drones? Seems to work well in other desert areas.
Or kick them out of the country and deport them to Canada and Mexico. Problem solved.
The poor spelling and spotty punctuation make me think this is satire. But I'll assume the person is being serious
The poor spelling and punctuation are caused by being a non-native English speaker.
OF COURSE that was satire. What a sad world we're in if that isn't obvious.
-
I generally agree with the point about media sensationalism.
However, I think the analogy about Japanese internment and possible Muslim internment today is completely valid.
It was wrong then and it would be wrong now. All the rest doesn't matter. Locking up innocent people because they might be radicalised by the internet or for any other dumb ass reason is just plain wrong.
Anyone arguing there could be any justification whatsoever is just plain wrong.
-
I generally agree with the point about media sensationalism.
However, I think the analogy about Japanese internment and possible Muslim internment today is completely valid.
It was wrong then and it would be wrong now. All the rest doesn't matter. Locking up innocent people because they might be radicalised by the internet or for any other dumb ass reason is just plain wrong.
Anyone arguing there could be any justification whatsoever is just plain wrong.
+1
-
There is also the Internet. It doesn't surprise me the spike in these attacks are only recent in these last few years as opposed to Bush's/Clinton's presidency.
NO. This is WRONG. This is exactly the type of uninformed opinion that leads to terrible policy.
Sorry beltim. I have huge respect for your other posts and contributions on the forum truly.
Thanks! I try to always have data-supported posts. With that in mind, let's look at the rest of your comments:
But I have to draw inaccuracies here.
In one image, 9/11 isn't accounted for. There's also no legend explaining the data in the graphs, nor are there citations.
The graphs do include 9/11. I mean, it's not included in the first because the first shows deaths in Western Europe. It's included in the second as an event, but that chart doesn't show number of deaths. There aren't citations because this sort of data is everywhere - I just picked a few relevant ones from Google searches.
Your 2nd post is about murders in general. I'm trying to stay focused on just the Muslim refugee situation in the US, not so much Europe though heck I'll include them too.
My point is that the actual dangers of terrorism are orders of magnitude lower than other types of risks. I didn't do a good job explaining this, but my thinking is that:
1) Violent crime is rare
2) Violent crime due to terrorism is a tiny fraction of overall violent crime
3) Any trends in terrorism seems to be down over the last few decades
4) Because of 2, any trend in terrorism doesn't really change the likelihood of being a victim of violent crime
And in the last year for Europa, there's quite a big spike. Coincidence or the new future? What about London, Madrid, Paris train & Spencer? Charlie Hebdo? Russian airline? Beirut? Saudi mosque bombing? Mali Hotel attack? British tourists in Tunisia? Nairobi Mall attack? Kenya school attack? Pakistan school massacre attack? Bali nightclub bombing? (of course not all deaths are equal, we don't honestly care about them so we don't include them), Perhaps the rise of ISIS is inspiring more of these attacks.
You're able to list these because they're recent and because:
And the Internet/mass media is increasing these events and making it feel like it's increasing.
It would be just as easy to list terrorist attacks that occurred in the 80s.
And incidents decrease maybe in the US, but magnitude of incidents maybe increase? W/9/11 being the outlier?
Possibly. But the overall death rate is also lower (with 9/11 again being the outlier).
Also those graphs don't discriminate between Muslim or non-Muslim terrorism. The thread is on Syrians and Muslims so that's why I focused on that more. Other forms of terrorism decrease probably (white perps maybe as implied by graphs) but Islamic attacks are surely on the rise from the 80s.
I don't really care the religion of who commits crime. Knowing someone's religion isn't predictive of whether or not they'll commit a violent crime, so why should I care?
Focusing on terrorism committed by Muslims just ignores that people of other religions have also committed terrorism.
I'm not claiming to have good data or anything. I'm just saying the analogy and arguments to Japanese internment being wrong can't be applied to today because of different conditions. I'm not saying that internment of Muslims is the answer either, personally I think the opposite but you can't use the argument against Japanese internment here either b/c the analogy doesn't work. That's all I really wanted to comment on originally lol.
PKFFW perfectly addressed this: "Locking up innocent people because they might be radicalised by the internet or for any other dumb ass reason is just plain wrong."
-
Thanks! I try to always have data-supported posts. With that in mind, let's look at the rest of your comments:
No probs, always enjoyed your posts on other topics. So allow me to try and question some of your points :)
The graphs do include 9/11. I mean, it's not included in the first because the first shows deaths in Western Europe. It's included in the second as an event, but that chart doesn't show number of deaths. There aren't citations because this sort of data is everywhere - I just picked a few relevant ones from Google searches.
I have to be honest, and I think you can also admit, that pulling a few graphs from a Google Search wouldn't really be considered scholarly work worthy of publication nor a good investigation or report. Although I'm not expecting any of us to do a lot of data digging when even authorities don't have much data in the field.. And the graphs can still be debated. I think in terms of data analysis, best to leave to authorities in this field explain than have amateurs try and analyze.
My point is that the actual dangers of terrorism are orders of magnitude lower than other types of risks. I didn't do a good job explaining this, but my thinking is that:
1) Violent crime is rare
2) Violent crime due to terrorism is a tiny fraction of overall violent crime
3) Any trends in terrorism seems to be down over the last few decades
4) Because of 2, any trend in terrorism doesn't really change the likelihood of being a victim of violent crime
100% agree except 3 can be explained by multiple reasons as I'll mention. I'm not trying to overblow terrorism and the times article you linked briefly alludes to the point that lesser known, smaller scale incidents have occurred that don't garner attention. And the choice of what makes good sensationalism isn't your typical crime of passion, murder, robbery, etc. But people who live in communities that are safe, and who can only experience violence through what the media says, will feel what the media says is dangerous, IS dangerous. But there are those who say they are more fearful of bad neighborhoods, accidents, drinking & driving, drugs, etc and which they should.
Violent crime is rare depending on who you ask. Those in violent neighborhoods say they are more afraid of neighborhoods than jihadists, and that's sensible. Mustachians are likely to have enough $$ and education that we can avoid that.
You're able to list these because they're recent and because:
Forgive me but I can only remember events that I have been alive for. But I'm not sure how much citing the past does about future trends. Past doesn't predict future right? ISIS and its structure is a new phenomenon to us. The world is different than what it was before. Comparisons can't be made because tactics change and evolve. What worked before doesn't always work later. I only know Waco and Kent State. But otherwise in my history books, I don't know of any noteworthy shootings/mass murders/terrorism that occurred. When I ask older people they don't think its the same, they think it's more violent today.
If there are any Mustachians here who are 60-70 years old w/sharp memory and able to compare/contrast and provide insight that'd be great...I just don't think you'll find many
And the Internet/mass media is increasing these events and making it feel like it's increasing.
It would be just as easy to list terrorist attacks that occurred in the 80s.
There was no CNN back in the 70s/80s. Older people tell me there were no copycat crimes like today where people are "inspired" by Columbine or V Tech or 9/11. Media inspires future attackers by showing the fear they could instill in people through clamoring for people like Trump. And if there are attacks in the 80s, please list them, their scope, motivations, and have a clear definition between what terrorism is versus maybe riots, gang shootings, and so on. The media is designed to make the world be more chaotic. This was discussed in the other threads in MMM forums. "Fear Fear Fear!" "Ad Ad Ad!" repeat. It doesn't matter to people if there was an increase or not, it matters if it feels like they're in danger and that there is fear all around. To breed distrust, racism, etc.
Possibly. But the overall death rate is also lower (with 9/11 again being the outlier).
Terrorism isn't about just death but fear and intimidation. Would you say people are more afraid today than before? What role does media and technology have in enhancing the fear of terrorists? I can and have seen HD high quality pictures of real sick brutality by ISIS (immolations, beheadings) and that Asian woman getting beheaded in Saudi Arabia for sticking a broomstick up a kid's butt or something...(I wouldn't recommend viewing to others)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist_plots_in_the_United_States_post-9/11
If you look, and this is probably incomplete but tell me, what is the major group involved? What's a common thread?
Plus there's nothing saying that better medicine is saving lives that would've been lost cases decades ago. Or if this is an issue of gun control and easy access to info on how to wreck carnage compared to 80s when it was harder w/less information to enable those ideas to become reality. You have to think of ways to poke holes in this argument and saying "Oh decrease in deaths/incidents" isn't a reason to not worry about terrorism. It's what terrorism can do for our politics, actions, and potential war that's the problem. Plus the media tells us what to worry because people are sheep.
And how do you know that less terrorism isn't because of better law enforcement and surveillance w/a lot of focus on Muslims? Like the wiretapping of Mosques w/Fed and NYPD? Or better investigations (your link provided)? Maybe they focused more on Muslims so it lessened what impact they could've had. Less terrorism isn't necessarily less people committing acts, could be better prevention. I've read a number of articles over the years about enforcement and undercover agents trapping wannabe terrorists in the name of Islam. I don't see that type of enforcement on white extremists or at least any publicity, if there is data on the number of terrorist incidents foiled or prevented similar to the wiki link I provide, that would be interesting to have (You gotta think, not be drone to media, too bad I aint smart tho so I'm pretty limited, is why I'm here, learn from you guys)
I don't really care the religion of who commits crime. Knowing someone's religion isn't predictive of whether or not they'll commit a violent crime, so why should I care?
Focusing on terrorism committed by Muslims just ignores that people of other religions have also committed terrorism.
This point could be disproven. It actually is in the very source you cited so I'm not sure you even looked at the full numbers. If Muslims commit or (attempt) terrorism that is above the normal % for a particular group, then you could infer that Islam can be a factor that influences future terroristic acts. Muslims as a whole in the US are a very small segment. But they maybe (I don't have hard data but your graphs don't show which is a point of debate) have also attempted more acts of terrorism as a % for their group.
http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html
Any statistician will immediately say the news article you cited that based its conclusion on the link above as completely erroneous (this is one of my chief complaints about yellow journalism).
First, 45 by jihadists, 48 by white extremists. If the sample size or size of population from which those groups come from was the same then it's NOT statistically significant!
Now you know where I'm going next...there are 2.7 million Muslim Americans and 240ish million Whites (different years so I couldn't pick but you get the point). As a sheer %, I'm gonna go and guess Muslims are more likely as a % to become jihadists and commit acts of terrorism and this is supported by the data you (not me) provided. If you can find data on the population of Jihadists versus White extremists even being the same...still not significant. If there were more jihadists than white extremists by a factor of 100, then you'd be right. I'm gonna guess the chance of that is low but I don't have that data.
Example: if I compared a drug A to a control treatment's mortality rate and drug A killed 148 people and placebo killed 151, hey not much difference, placebo is worse right?! But if my sample size for those tested in drug A was 1000 and those in placebo 100,000, now it's a totally different story right?! Sample size is important, in clinical trials, %'s, not absolute whole numbers and counting, is what matters. This is Statistics 000. Not meaning to insult you, I'm pretty sure you know what I mean lol. This is a principle reason why I don't trust journalists. They aren't qualified experts to speak on important issues. They will twist and only glance and be reckless in analysis to support the interests of themselves and their readers for sake of sensationalism to get more revenue. There's Yellow Journalism everywhere in varying degrees and mixes of fact, exaggeration, and fiction. So there's a big potential flaw in your source that undermines your argument.
Technically then, religion does matter in terms of terrorism.
PKFFW perfectly addressed this: "Locking up innocent people because they might be radicalised by the internet or for any other dumb ass reason is just plain wrong."
I'd agree w/this 99% of the time. Again posters like to put words in my mouth. I don't support internment but any analogy to Japanese Americans is wholly, grossly incorrect because of the different cultures of the 2 groups, the history, and eras we are comparing to.
First, before Japanese were interned, there wasn't any real incident of Japanese Americans attacking American civilians prior to entrance to WWII. If there was, it must've been so irrelevant to the nations' psyche that it literally meant nothing that it doesn't show up in any history textbook. Japan wasn't at war w/America prior to America's entrance. They were at war in Asia (not USA). There was no track record of nationalistic Japanese Americans screaming "Banzai" and murdering American civilians, was there? And bombs were pretty big back then. And weapons not as powerful. And no internet to train anyone on how to destroy. And no internet to inspire Japanese to take arms against America.
(interestingly, Japanese-Americans took internment as a way to prove their loyalty and go above and beyond, almost a perverse, opposite, beneficial effect in America's war effort that endures today as an inspiration, just an observation, not saying it's good)
Muslims, OTOH, have a pretty decent (and exaggerated to an extent) track record of hating, killing Westerners and us Americans. They've made that clear 14 years ago. So it's completely natural and evolutionary to be wary of previous threats and draw connections. If we didn't have that instinct, we'd be extinct. It would be even scarier in a way if we weren't. Then there's social media recruiting that is available now that wasn't around during WWII. That means anyone can be a threat. Even whites or blacks that convert to Islam and join ISIS (which has happened). And it doesn't have to be on American soil like it wasn't in Kenya, Mali, Tunisia, Indonesia, Phillippines, Middle East, France, UK, Spain, Australia.
You cannot use the analogy of Japanese-Americans to support or oppose rounding up Muslims, it just doesn't work. Interning is wrong, but not because it was wrong to do that to Japanese, it's just not the smart path. It's also the hardest path sadly.
The big concern about Syrian refugees is the mix of religion, potential lack of integration (as shown in Europe) and welfare (not knowing language, unskilled, inability to read/write, mostly young single men, lack of fingerprinting, tracking, screening which we do in the US).
Violence has a detoxifying effect for any radical. It restores pride in them (how they see it, not us), after being or feeling oppressed. Accept refugees only if you're gonna make serious efforts to try and integrate but know that there will always be a huge potential security risk and is that risk worth it? So screening is important.
I agree w/you that in the grand scheme, we shouldn't worry about Syrian refugees and overall crime/terror they might bring. Overall, it's ridiculously small. Sure as a % they likely are to commit more acts that are defined as terrorism but also they don't drink (positive), do illicit drugs (positive), abort children and lack of family planning perhaps due to religion (idk), hate homosexuals (ask Muslims in Europe and there are some (idk the number) you'll get very conservative opinions) and are more in line w/RP philosophy (not good). So there's a lot of things potentially can't agree on. Is all this potential toxic mix something to worry? W/proper screening I don't think so, what we see in Europe, probably a big worry. Sure 500,000 aint a lot, but 0.1% is still 500 baddies you have to chase and devote resources to hunt and catch. And then they become domestic and then radicalized like French youths (marginalized, degraded, poor self-esteem, wandering, lost). Not a lot, but enough to shut down France, scare people, and forced or compelled to retaliate and get drawn into a conflict. bin Laden made very good notes on dragging the US into conflict (he understood this very well and was pretty smart) though I hate to say it.
Overall numbers, deaths, isn't what we should fear, but it's the fear their acts can potentially bring that is important. This isn't stats where we can throw outliers away; NSA/Uncle Sam know this. Because even one outlier, can completely throw us off course (like 9/11). Honestly, San Bernadinho isn't that big a deal. We're so used to shootings the shock and fear it had is pretty blah now. It would be more shocking, fearful, if terrorists attacked and killed large numbers of Americans in an unforeseen, unconventional method that exposes a weakness in our security measures and spaces that we once took to be completely safe. And it only takes 1. That's the fear of terrorism and why people are so afraid they are acting irrationally. Which distracts us from the more important goals of climate change, space exploration, food security, income/wealth inequality, etc.
-
I'd agree w/this 99% of the time. Again posters like to put words in my mouth. I don't support internment but any analogy to Japanese Americans is wholly, grossly incorrect because of the different cultures of the 2 groups, the history, and eras we are comparing to.
snipped because all the rest is meaningless
The analogy is not to suggest the two examples are exactly the same in all ways.
The analogy is to illustrate that locking up innocent people for dumb ass reasons out of fear of "them" is just plain wrong. No ifs, ands or buts.
It was wrong for innocent Japanese Americans in WW2 and it would be now for Innocent Muslims.
The fact you can't seem to see that is very telling.
-
I guess political refugees fleeing wars don't deserve human rights unless they are smart and wealthy.
I have met genuine refugees in my home country. They crossed the border to the first safe country. The refugees who want to come to the US (or, say, Germany), will cross the borders of several safe countries on the way. To me, they are not genuine refugees, they are economic migrants and should be evaluated and admitted (or refused) as such.
Is that what you would want for yourself? If your country collapsed into mindless and terrifying violence, if your neighborhood was regularly bombed and roaming terrorists were randomly killing your neighbors, and you managed to get at least some of your family out by giving up everything you'd worked for and leaving behind everyone you knew (including no doubt many relatives), and you had risked your own and your kids' lives on some rubber raft across the Aegean, would you be ok with sentencing your kids to grow up in a country where they were technically safe (no bombs, no roaming terrorists) but despised and radically unwelcome?
Like, say, Hungary where the authorities left thousands of families to sleep outside for weeks in a train station with no help at all and ordered trains not to let them on even though they had tickets? Where cops and civilians alike have beaten and/or robbed refugees, and even tripped or kicked refugees who were carrying small children? So you could pretty much be sure that even getting the most menial job and the crappest apartment would be a major trial and not necessarily successful, and that your kids--if they could even get into public schools--would be bullied for most of their childhoods?
Or would you walk another few hundred miles to get to Austria or Germany, where people were literally waiting with welcome signs and bags of food on the train station platforms?
Which would you pick for yourself?
Why would you pick something else for others, then?
-
I'd agree w/this 99% of the time. Again posters like to put words in my mouth. I don't support internment but any analogy to Japanese Americans is wholly, grossly incorrect because of the different cultures of the 2 groups, the history, and eras we are comparing to.
snipped because all the rest is meaningless
The fact you can't seem to see that is very telling.
Snipped because the rest is meaningless.
The fact you don't read and like to troll is very telling. I don't have to listen to someone who doesn't bother reading.
-
Snipped because the rest is meaningless.
The fact you don't read and like to troll is very telling. I don't have to listen to someone who doesn't bother reading.
Of course, because you don't like what is written the only possible explanation is that the other person must be trolling.
I did read what you posted.
In a nut shell and to paraphrase you claimed you thought internment of innocents was wrong but then went on to list all the reasons why this time it would be different and apparently natural for people (other people, not you of course) to want to intern innocent Muslims. You tried to dress it up with evolutionary traits to make connections and see threats and the internet being used to radicalise all and sundry and you even bizarrely claimed that the innocent Japanese who were interned saw it as some sort of badge of honour and way to prove themselves.
As I said, it was all pretty meaningless.
-
I have to be honest, and I think you can also admit, that pulling a few graphs from a Google Search wouldn't really be considered scholarly work worthy of publication nor a good investigation or report. Although I'm not expecting any of us to do a lot of data digging when even authorities don't have much data in the field.. And the graphs can still be debated. I think in terms of data analysis, best to leave to authorities in this field explain than have amateurs try and analyze.
Of course not. But that's not what I was doing. I was countering one specific point:
It doesn't surprise me the spike in these attacks are only recent in these last few years as opposed to Bush's/Clinton's presidency.
And, I'll repeat myself:
NO. This is WRONG. This is exactly the type of uninformed opinion that leads to terrible policy.
There's plenty of data to show that this is wrong - there has been no spike in attacks in the last few years. I don't know why you think this data doesn't exist or is fishy. Here, if you really want to do research, buy this book:
http://berkshirepublishing.com/product.aspx?projid=60
-
I have to be honest, and I think you can also admit, that pulling a few graphs from a Google Search wouldn't really be considered scholarly work worthy of publication nor a good investigation or report. Although I'm not expecting any of us to do a lot of data digging when even authorities don't have much data in the field.. And the graphs can still be debated. I think in terms of data analysis, best to leave to authorities in this field explain than have amateurs try and analyze.
Of course not. But that's not what I was doing. I was countering one specific point:
It doesn't surprise me the spike in these attacks are only recent in these last few years as opposed to Bush's/Clinton's presidency.
My point on the presidencies have nothing to do w/the actual presidents. As I've mentioned multiple times, my point was that technology and Internet make the spread of dangerous information and ideas more accessible and foster more dangerous people who want to wreck harm at moments of weakness. I only used presidency because I can't think of a focal, pivotal point in technology advances in social media that allowed big influence from ISIS (since ISIS is not that old a group). You couldn't send much info over AOL in the 90s now right?
I know that you know that social media and internet are potent tools of ISIS (we have been bombarded w/this info) for recruiting, brainwashing, people here. ISIS doesn't need to send people here. They can brainwash people and convince people who are weak to do the work for them. Social media is what makes ISIS unique. It turns everyone (but more likely Muslims who know the religion already) into potential terrorists. And there's no precedent for social media in all of human history, all that is happening is new. These tools were available or used extensively before like today's terrorists.
NYT even did coverage on ISIS tactics and they actually did a decent explanation.
And, I'll repeat myself:
NO. This is WRONG. This is exactly the type of uninformed opinion that leads to terrible policy.
There's plenty of data to show that this is wrong - there has been no spike in attacks in the last few years. I don't know why you think this data doesn't exist or is fishy. Here, if you really want to do research, buy this book:
http://berkshirepublishing.com/product.aspx?projid=60
Okay first off you already know the book goes up to 2005. And a lot of has changed then. Back then, Motorola RAZRs, Ipods, LG Chocolates were the thing. Now we have smartphones, tablets, drones, and so on. More ammunition, more connectivity for vulnerable people to be implanted w/dangerous ideas. (Adam Lanza was a shut in who spent too much time on PC right? Columbine were gamers). The traditional 9/11 terrorists who had intent before coming to the US isn't the only problem now. We're experiencing a new phenomena that can't be compared because of changing times. Any researcher knows you cite recent evidence because previous evidence you already know and have but the newer the data, the better.
And second, that book is $325, I don't know if you were trying to make a joke about that. No mustachian would buy it. Plus it's outdated. 10 years is a long time in today's terms, the pace of change is really fast now.
I think FB, Twitter, Instagram, and their counterparts play a big role in spreading the word of ISIS that reaches a few people who don't use their heads and blindly resort to violence. (Tools, sites that weren't around in Bush's early time, or Clinton's, I used them as a timestamp, not a critique on their Presidencies) It's a new reality, that your neighbor or friend can easily commit acts of terror or mass murder (idk why V Tech isn't terrorism but Bernadhino is that's been debated elsewhere). Now is it also a gun control issue? Religion? Poor economy?
I'm still wondering your rebut to
Better medicine saving lives that previously in the 80s could've been lost causes
The % of terrorists controlled for population size (and just perhaps that religion in Islam more so than Christianity has a significant difference)
FBI/law enforcement better tactics (through better surveillance b/c of advances in technology since 70s/80s) in preventing terrorism and how that perhaps lowers the number. (this is one possible explanation for the graph)
What are the types of terrorism, how are they subdivided? Has terrorism by Muslims been increasing since the 50s? Maybe overall going down, but there are too many explanations, again you can't make a well-designed experiment for this.
There are holes one can poke through. (I've been trying to be devil's advocate)
I agree overall it's nothing to worry about. I'm okay w/accepting refugees provided they were screened, and treated like any other refugee. The risk they bring is negligible compared to other risks of death. But in this new environment w/the Internet, we should accept that these type of attacks Muslim or not, are just the new reality we have to live w/. And I'm okay w/those risks. Maybe we do more law enforcement, monitoring and prevention, that doesn't mean we close our doors to those needing our help. I'm against internment because it only further marginalizes them like it did in Europe and exacerbate the situation. I've personally worked with Iraqi immigrants from the war and they are very nice, hardworking people.
And any death, murder, violence, no matter the method is unacceptable. But the media, politicians, lobby groups, and businesses aren't really interested in that. They like sensationalism, yellow journalism, and distortion so they can make money. So networks like ABC, NBC, and FOX have material they can cover, have "experts" and "analysts" sit in. If the world was fine and dandy, where would they be w/out conflict?
-
I have to be honest, and I think you can also admit, that pulling a few graphs from a Google Search wouldn't really be considered scholarly work worthy of publication nor a good investigation or report. Although I'm not expecting any of us to do a lot of data digging when even authorities don't have much data in the field.. And the graphs can still be debated. I think in terms of data analysis, best to leave to authorities in this field explain than have amateurs try and analyze.
Of course not. But that's not what I was doing. I was countering one specific point:
It doesn't surprise me the spike in these attacks are only recent in these last few years as opposed to Bush's/Clinton's presidency.
And, I'll repeat myself:
NO. This is WRONG. This is exactly the type of uninformed opinion that leads to terrible policy.
There's plenty of data to show that this is wrong - there has been no spike in attacks in the last few years. I don't know why you think this data doesn't exist or is fishy. Here, if you really want to do research, buy this book:
http://berkshirepublishing.com/product.aspx?projid=60
Okay first off you already know the book goes up to 2005.
…
And second, that book is $325, I don't know if you were trying to make a joke about that. No mustachian would buy it. Plus it's outdated. 10 years is a long time in today's terms, the pace of change is really fast now.
…
ramble
…
You keep taking the conversation other places. Some of those are good points for some other discussion. They're not, however, responsive to my point.
The data exists to show that you're wrong. There is no spike in attacks.
I suspect that you'll poke some hole in any source I give you though, so I think I'm done trying (aside: the book costs too much so the data doesn't exist – seriously?). Next time, maybe you can provide a shred of evidence that your initial statement was right.
-
I have zero concerns accepting refugees. It is the right thing to do, especially for our country. The concern I have is that after immigration, subsequent generations are still becoming radicalized. We saw it in the Paris attacks, these weren't refugees, they were citizens born and raised in France and Belgium.
We see the same thing with born and raised Americans with backgrounds in the Middle-East and Africa becoming radicalized and leaving to join ISIS/Al Shabab etc.
We've got to figure out why this is happening and work to change it.
I read a really good piece about this and the theory was:
Refuges being accepted where moderates, so not overtly religious. But they were living in communities of other refuges/like minded people so did not really become part of the the greater community ie continued to speak their own language, kept up their customs.
Their children on the orher hand, felt like they hadn't really become part of this country, and their religion became important to them due to lacking a feeling of community, this makes them vulnerable to radicalisation.
I'll see if I can dig up the post.
This is not a theory at all but precisely what has happened regarding almost all groups of Muslim immigrants in Europe. One exeption that I am aware of are very well educated Iranians who fled Iran because of the Islamic revolution. What you described happened to Turks and Arabs in Germany, to North Africans in France, to Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in GB.
There is NO reason to believe that the current wave is going to yield better results. Especially since the sheer numbers force e.g. Germany to build new homes at high speed and in close proximity. We could really just name those places "New Banlieue".
Resettlement into the West can only work for small numbers and with a profile comparable to e.g. the Iranian refugees.
Middle Europe has not enough work for its own unskilled labourers. And even the lefty secretary of work and social affairs (Andrea Nahles) has estimated that about 90% (!) of the refugees/migrants currently entering Germany are not employable in Germany. Almost everybody who entered Germany to better his fate, build a home, make a living is going to be very disappointed in about a year or two. And then is going to become either very depressed or very angry. And a lot of those are going to seek consolation in tradition and religion. A few are going to radicalize.
And some don't need any radicalization. The chance for a Christian refugee to be harresed, threatened and bullied in German refugee camps is 100%. You've read that correctly. Each and every Christian refugee is persecuted by some of his fellow Muslim refugees. Of course this does not mean that all Muslim refugees take part in such behaviour or condone it. But they are not shutting it down either (why should they? This is what has been going on in the Middle East for quite some time and the reason why the already small numbers of Oriental Christians has plummeted during the last decades).
I consider the German "open door policy" insane. And I know almost nobody who agrees with it.
Any country should exercise a concious choice whom to welcome as an immigrant or refugee. "Whomever manages to set foot into our country" is suicidal and also downright perverse considering that it priviledges the young, healthy, male, equipped with enough money for traffickers and bribes over the ones more in need of protection. And indeed, young men is who are arriving at the moment. Entire families or women are a very minor minority. And also subjected to violence and harrassment in refugee camps.
-
And indeed, young men is who are arriving at the moment. Entire families or women are a very minor minority.
So, I know this is often reported, but I see all these facts out there that seem to imply the opposite. Do you have a source?
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees — which refers refugees for resettlement in other countries — says there are more than 4 million registered Syrian refugees. Its figures on the demographic makeup of refugees is based on available data on the 2.1 million who were registered by the UNHCR in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon. (Another 1.9 million Syrian refugees were registered by the Government of Turkey, and more than 24,000 were registered in North Africa.)
UNHCR’s data show that 50.5 percent of refugees are women. Females age 18 to 59 make up 23.9 percent of the refugees, while males in that age group make up 21.8 percent.
Even younger males — age 12 to 17 — represent 6.5 percent of refugees, while females that age are 6.1 percent. The majority of refugees — 51.1 percent — are under age 17, including 38.5 percent who are younger than 12 years old. These numbers were as of Sept. 6.
-http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/stretching-facts-on-syrian-refugees/
I searched "Demographic makeup of Syrian Refugees"
Maybe it's a Germany specific problem?
There are few times in life when the right course of action is crystal clear. All other considerations aside, when your neighbor's house burns down, you offer shelter for the night. Tomorrow there may be a better thing to do, but right now we know what to do and aren't, and there is no acceptable reason for it.
Put it another way, if 100% of the refugees were single men age 22-35, the right thing to do is take them in. If they were all radicalized muslims, the right thing to do is take them in.
There exists no reality where it is OK to stand by and not help when you have the means to do so. What they might do after you help has no bearing on what the right thing for you to do is.
Be not afraid.
-
Who do you think crosses the mediterranean in open boats and then walks a few thousand kilometers through Eastern Europe to Germany? Predominantly young males.
-
Who do you think crosses the mediterranean in open boats and then walks a few thousand kilometers through Eastern Europe to Germany? Predominantly young males.
And again--statistics? What percent are they compared to the whole?
-
For a pretty comprehensive (and concise) analysis of forty year (through 2009) of terrorism incidents:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/05/terror-trends-40-years-data-on-international-and-domestic-terrorism
Summary of International Terrorist Incidents against U.S.: 1987 - 1991 - 635 incidents 2004 - 2008 - 221 incidents
-
For a pretty comprehensive (and concise) analysis of forty year (through 2009) of terrorism incidents:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/05/terror-trends-40-years-data-on-international-and-domestic-terrorism
Summary of International Terrorist Incidents against U.S.: 1987 - 1991 - 635 incidents 2004 - 2008 - 221 incidents
But that does not include our domestic terrorists, of which are the majority of the USA terrorist activities.
-
Who do you think crosses the mediterranean in open boats and then walks a few thousand kilometers through Eastern Europe to Germany? Predominantly young males.
And again--statistics? What percent are they compared to the whole?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/world/europe/migration-of-young-men-poses-risks-for-both-syria-and-europe.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/world/europe/in-waves-of-migrants-children-arrive-alone-and-settle-in-uneasily.html
A lot of other NYT readers commented on photographs or local witnesses to say that it's predominantly male. What does that mean, 90-10, 60-40? I don't know. There was a lot of accusation of media bias and than a later not retraction but maybe admission by NYT that maybe accepting 500,000 people w/no care in the world, from an area of the world where people are likely to look down on Western culture, hate, yada yada.
Because they didn't track or fingerprint everyone since they're all illegal, I don't think there are accurate stats, just like there aren't accurate stats on illegals in the US. So people are relying on photos, observations, and anecdotes. I'd like to see data but it ain't available.
-
http://www.stuttgarter-nachrichten.de/inhalt.fluechtlinge-vor-allem-junge-maenner-suchen-in-deutschland-asyl.a8f7d2d1-689a-4c32-98fd-a958c7818200.html
303443 registered refugees between january and september, 206037 male and 97406 female.
67.9 % male.
77.35% of the refugees between 16 and 30 are male.
-
Latest official statistics:
http://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Downloads/Infothek/Statistik/Asyl/statistik-anlage-teil-4-aktuelle-zahlen-zu-asyl.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
Page 7
-
http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/migration-prognose-uebertroffen-fast-965-000-fluechtlinge-registriert_id_5137616.html
Latest news: 965,000 registered, unknown number unregistered.
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/fluechtlinge-in-europa-warum-vor-allem-maenner-asyl-suchen-1.2584201
Worldwide there are about 50% male and 50% female refugees. Of those arriving in Europe the breakdown is 70/30%. And if I may add from my own observation: a large number of the females comes from the Balkans, not from Syria.
http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article146919471/Islamisten-bedrohen-Christen-in-Fluechtlingsheimen.html
Christian refugees being threatened and haressed (one family described in the article decided to go back to Iraq because they felt safer there...)
http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article147725757/Ausserhalb-des-Heims-fuehle-ich-mich-sicherer.html
Sexual violence against female refugees in refugee centers.
-
And indeed, young men is who are arriving at the moment. Entire families or women are a very minor minority.
So, I know this is often reported, but I see all these facts out there that seem to imply the opposite. Do you have a source?
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees — which refers refugees for resettlement in other countries — says there are more than 4 million registered Syrian refugees. Its figures on the demographic makeup of refugees is based on available data on the 2.1 million who were registered by the UNHCR in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon. (Another 1.9 million Syrian refugees were registered by the Government of Turkey, and more than 24,000 were registered in North Africa.)
UNHCR’s data show that 50.5 percent of refugees are women. Females age 18 to 59 make up 23.9 percent of the refugees, while males in that age group make up 21.8 percent.
Even younger males — age 12 to 17 — represent 6.5 percent of refugees, while females that age are 6.1 percent. The majority of refugees — 51.1 percent — are under age 17, including 38.5 percent who are younger than 12 years old. These numbers were as of Sept. 6.
-http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/stretching-facts-on-syrian-refugees/
I searched "Demographic makeup of Syrian Refugees"
Maybe it's a Germany specific problem?
There are few times in life when the right course of action is crystal clear. All other considerations aside, when your neighbor's house burns down, you offer shelter for the night. Tomorrow there may be a better thing to do, but right now we know what to do and aren't, and there is no acceptable reason for it.
Put it another way, if 100% of the refugees were single men age 22-35, the right thing to do is take them in. If they were all radicalized muslims, the right thing to do is take them in.
There exists no reality where it is OK to stand by and not help when you have the means to do so. What they might do after you help has no bearing on what the right thing for you to do is.
Be not afraid.
Why the hell would it ever be the right thing to take radicals in? There are millions and millions of people suffering and without any perspective that could give them hope. Many, many more than even the most generous country could ever take in (as Sweden has already realized and Germany is in the process of realizing. All others knew that before...). I think it is not only our right but our obligation to screen whom to take in. For our own sake and for the sake of the victims of the radicals.
As evidenced by the dire situation of Christian refugees in German refugee homes.
This is all the more true because it is not at all about saving lifes (this can be and is done by UNHCR shelter) but about providing opportunities for the future. That's why people come to Europe/Germany. That's why they are walking through several safe countries.
For sources, please see my last post.
-
That's what happens when your big buddy sets the neighbor's house on fire and you help him carrying the jerrycans.
The refugee crisis didn't come as a surprise. It would have been much cheaper and effective to adequately care for the refugees in Turkey, Jordan etc.
The effectivity of this mess makes you wonder if this wasn't kind of planned in advance. Think economic warfare. But then again it's actually working too good to be planned in advance, judging by the track records of all the parties involved.
-
Some of you may find Juan Cole's recent piece called, "Trump vs. the Founding Fathers on Muslims Coming to the U.S." (http://www.juancole.com/2015/12/founding-fathers-muslims.html)
-
Why the hell would it ever be the right thing to take radicals in? There are millions and millions of people suffering and without any perspective that could give them hope. Many, many more than even the most generous country could ever take in (as Sweden has already realized and Germany is in the process of realizing. All others knew that before...). I think it is not only our right but our obligation to screen whom to take in. For our own sake and for the sake of the victims of the radicals.
My point with the demographics is that it doesn't matter either way. The majority being young men doesn't make them any more or less dangerous. It'd be like if Donald Trump said the majority of them being women meant they were more stupid. It's nonsense, with no basis in fact, and trotted out there to play on fears. Regardless of the demographic makeup, the right course of action is to take them in. Screen them for terrorists to the extent that is possible, but don't think a society that keeps them out was worth protecting.
I was using a broader definition of radical, the one that goes something like:
When asked about the practice of [sharia law, honor killing, religious persecution in general, women as full citizens] they say something that makes all of us go "wtf?".
Not, "do you plan to blow something up/shoot tons of people" they say "yes".
Just because someone has radical ideas doesn't mean they have actually or will hurt someone.
It's a spectrum like this:
Normal person -> Star Wars Enthusiast -> Star Wars Re-enacter -> Thinks he's a Jedi -> Kills people with his lightsaber.
Christian -> Missionary Christian -> Religious Protestor at a military funeral -> KKK member -> KKK member that kills Jewish people.
Muslim -> Prays many times a day/won't shave/beer/pork -> Unhappy his wife drives Muslim -> Thinks it's OK to wage religious war but personally it's not for him -> asshole who blows himself up to kill others.
Probably everyone to the right of "Enthusiast" meets my definition of radical, but everyone left of "kills people with his lightsaber" is deserving of my compassion. As I understand it, the "radicals" by my definition account for like 70% of worldwide Muslims, but the "radicals" that will actually go blow stuff up accounts for like, way way less (still a scary high number though).
Until they do violence, they haven't done violence. Everything else is future-crimes land and that's not someplace you want to live. That isn't about safety, security, or crime prevention. It's about fear and hate.
Understand, I'm not saying there is no risk here, or that none of them will be dangerous. I'm saying you do it anyway. I'm saying that it is what the right thing to do is.
Legally, I don't think it's wise, in a time of crisis, to overrule what those that came before set up as the rule of law when they had time to consider it in their right minds when they were not afraid. Trust them and follow the law.
As a Christian, you let them in. As I understand it, the Jewish faith says something similar.
I know of no creed or ethos that advocates barring your door, taking shelter from the cold, and plugging your ears until the screams and the pounding gradually subside.
And it is about saving lives. A body saved from death is not a life without opportunity.
I think Germany for one has taken on too many, but you do what you have to when others won't do their part. The U.S. needs to step up and agree to take in millions instead of arguing over how few thousands.
My own Senator was vowing today to try and stop the few dozen who made it to Texas, and I'm just shaking my head at the insanity of it all. So far (to date) Texas, a state larger than Germany (1.95x baby!) with millions upon millions of people, a vast immigrant population, and loads of opportunity for someone to feed me good shish, has taken in 250 Syrians. That's shameful just because I could have almost funded that out of my own pocket.
It's all bullshit *waves hands in the air*
-
When you're climbing Everest, and you're almost to the top, and they guy next to you runs out of oxygen, it's OK to leave him to die.
You can't save him.
It's a survival situation, and you gotta take care of you. It wouldn't be wrong to give your oxygen to him and choose to not make it yourself, but it wouldn't be right either. Sharing the oxygen such that you both die would be wrong.
The "majority of them are men" and they "might be terrorists" is trying to turn this into the above situation.
But it clearly is not.
There is a right thing to do, and the U.S. is not doing it.
-
OP-thanks for posting, i looked a good while and could never find anything like this. Unfortunately, there are 0 centers within 50 miles of me.
As for the rest of the conversation, I am pretty sure it would be a lot cheaper and they would be a lot happier if they could just go home. Not sure how that could happen at this point, though.
-
@ the oldest young man:
I guess at least we can agree that there should be some kind of limit and that Germany is already above such limit... Yes, the US can and should do more.
However, I absolutely disagree with the rest of your post.
Firstly, there is no German law and no international treaty requiring us to take everybody in. None. If somebody is fleeing an already safe country (physically safe, not nice to live in) he is neither a 'refugee' according to international law nor to be recognized as an asylum seeker in Germany. It was the unilateral decision of our chancellor to forget all that and overnight turn 'no boarder - no nation' into our official policy. You mentioned Christianity as a motivating factor and so has she. What as an atheist kind of makes me question whether one can ultimately trust religious folks since in the end even apparently sane and sober people can do very unreasonable things when they are convinced that their religion asks them to...
Secondly, the ratio of young men or 'sons per family' is so far the best indicator we have for the likelihood of war. Too many young men for too few inheritances fueled both world wars. In Rwanda it has been demonstrated province by province that the youth bulge correlated perfectly with the intensity the genocide was carried out with. We already see what effect an out of balance gender ratio currently has in India and China. All those facts are not pretty but refusing to take them into account won't make it any prettier. Very much the opposite. They are showing the only real way out: empowerment of women and small families. Nothing else is going to cure any of the major problems in the Middle East.
Which brings me to your other point:
I'm not really worried about terrorists. They are a special kind of criminals and should be dealt with as such. Their attacks are probably going to strengthen European societies more than weakening them. My fear of riding the subway with Muslim refugees is zero.
What I am worried about is your perfectly harmless radicals with wacko ideas. Those have already appropriated entire quarters in European cities. They establish inofficial sharia courts, kill their daughters for having sex outside of marriage and all the other not so pretty things that we in Germany came to call 'parallel societies'.
Since we already agreed that our capacities are limited we should focus them on those we actually could live with and not 'in parallel' to. The Raif Badawis of this world. The atheist and feminist bloggers currently being slaughtered in the streets of Bangladesh and Pakistan. We should offer visas to those people right fucking now. And not wait till they arrive per life threatening means along with those who call them traitors and make their life a living hell in the middle of Europe.
-
Religion doesn't lead me to the conclusion, logic does. I bring it up only because there are a ton of openly christian folks out there in the U.S. advocating no admittance at all, and that's inconsistent with their faith.
Not being required by law to take people in does not make it acceptable to not take them in. And just because there was no direct path to a country doesn't mean you aren't still a refugee by the time you make it there, even if some idiot wrote a law defining refugee that way.
Can I help? Then you help. Until the emergency is over. Until everyone knows where they are sleeping tonight. Until there is more to everyone's day then waiting for the next food hand out from an aid worker.
But Germany has taken in plenty. No doubt that there will be consequences of doing that, societal, economic, cultural consequences.
As for the rest, correlation is not causation. All of your arguments are, perhaps, excellent reasons to treat the incoming population seriously. To take deliberate and decisive action to integrate and embrace, but not to bar entry.
As to the wacko idea folks breaking laws in your country, they should be arrested, tried, and punished according to the laws of your country. No doubt about that.
Germany may very well be at capacity. The U.S. isn't though. Speaking with the co-ordinators here in Houston (yes it's a large city but a small fraction of the U.S.) they have the resources and infrastructure in place to take on a thousand times as many refugees as they currently have, from all over the world. This is money-in-the-bank stuff is already built-let them come type thing. And our leaders are just being dicks.
Literally empty classrooms with instructors lined up to teach language and cultural integration. Sponsors and mentors standing by. I'm betting something similar exists in almost every major city, as there is a constant influx of refugees all the time from all over the world. If we weren't going to use it, why bother to build it at all?
-
kinda relevant
https://reason.com/archives/2015/12/07/a-states-rights-approach-to-immigration#comment_5762284
allows more people in need without creating a burden and if they are working then less time for planning atrocities.
-
Lyssa: I understand your prospective because my DIL is from Poland and frequently goes back & she talks about all the problems the refugees have brought to Europe. I am usually a bleeding heart liberal but I have very mixed feelings about this issue. I really can see both sides & feel so bad for people however, as we have found out with all the wars we can not solve the world's problems. If we could it would be done by now. I am also bothered by all of the USA's homeless people that are not being taken care of yet we want to care for others. People blame the homeless for their own problems but having worked in human services for years it is estimated that about 75% are too mentally ill to work. They do not have the basic necessities & needs met that everyone in a country as rich as ours should have. No good easy answer to this problem.
-
Lyssa: I understand your prospective because my DIL is from Poland and frequently goes back & she talks about all the problems the refugees have brought to Europe. I am usually a bleeding heart liberal but I have very mixed feelings about this issue. I really can see both sides & feel so bad for people however, as we have found out with all the wars we can not solve the world's problems.
The Eastern European perspective is worth listening to. Usually those countries are just painted as 'the new nationalists', having not yet caught up to the humanitarian spirit of Europe (consisting of Germany and Sweden, apparently...). What's frequently overlooked is that they have taken in Ukranians and that a lot of them tell you: I've worked in Germany/England/another European country (or a relative is doing so), have lived in the cheap part of the city with many Muslim immigrants (where journalist and politicians usually do not live...) and have observed the problems many of them have integrating into a European society up close. I don't want the same things to happen here.
Yes, that's somewhat unfair to liberal Muslims. But it is well within the rights of any country to decide whom to consider as an immigrant.
As described above, I would not exclude any nationality or religion per se but would screen strictly and radically subjective. Whom can we expect to contribute in a positive manner to our society? Can I picture our kids playing together? Can I picture our kids having a family together?
Because that's the ultimate goal of immigration isn't it? The arrivals blending in and enriching the fabric of the host society by adding new and interesting features. People intermarrying until there is no 'us' and 'them' left.
Unfortunately it's two equally radical and unreasonable positions making almost all headlines today. Either 'We need to keep those criminals out!' or 'We should take everybody in, it will work somehow... and if it doesn't it will be our fault alone!'.
-
The goal is to integrate and if people refuse to do that then it is better for all if they don't come. Also my DIL has relatives working all over Europe-especially Germany because of a lack of jobs in Poland so where will all these people find jobs? Even if they are skilled they may not be able to practice in another country. My DIL is a high school french teacher that speaks 5 languages yet she must work unskilled jobs in the US because we don't recognize her degree. I know someone with a master's degree locally that is working as a seamstress for the very same reason.
-
As described above, I would not exclude any nationality or religion per se but would screen strictly and radically subjective. Whom can we expect to contribute in a positive manner to our society? Can I picture our kids playing together? Can I picture our kids having a family together?
Because that's the ultimate goal of immigration isn't it? The arrivals blending in and enriching the fabric of the host society by adding new and interesting features. People intermarrying until there is no 'us' and 'them' left.
Unfortunately it's two equally radical and unreasonable positions making almost all headlines today. Either 'We need to keep those criminals out!' or 'We should take everybody in, it will work somehow... and if it doesn't it will be our fault alone!'.
Obviously, making reasonable efforts to screen refugees coming into our countries is an important first step. However, no matter how thoroughly we screen potential immigrants, it will never be 100% effective. How can we possibly expect to screen a 5 year old boy coming into the country with his mother and grandmother in order to determine whether he will become radicalized 20 years in the future? It's not possible to know that ahead of time, no matter how thorough our screening procedures are. So, IMO, it's not worthwhile to spend an inordinate amount of time and resources on the screening part of the equation.
Putting most of our efforts into helping immigrants assimilate and have hope that their lives can improve in the future if they work hard, learn the language, stay out of trouble, etc., will bring a much higher ROI than any amount of screening. After the immigrants come into our countries is the most important time. If, as a society, we can make these people feel welcome and part of something greater than themselves and their little immigrant enclaves, then they will be no more likely to commit violent acts against their hosts than native born citizens.
-
We need to take care of our own people first before taking more on. I don't want to see more homeless people. Let's figure that out as a society and then go from there.
-
We need to take care of our own people first before taking more on. I don't want to see more homeless people. Let's figure that out as a society and then go from there.
Many people on the street don't want help off of it (or the requirements that come with that help).
If I was a refugee, fleeing from ISIS, and whole countries said "You aren't allowed, because we have some homeless people already," I'd think them pretty heartless.
-
We need to take care of our own people first before taking more on. I don't want to see more homeless people. Let's figure that out as a society and then go from there.
That's an argument we hear a lot in Canada nowadays, mostly from big C conservatives who miraculously become very concerned about the plight of the homeless and the poor, Aboriginal People on reserves who lack running water and sanitation, etc. Allelujah!
-
If all you bigots and racists think internment is okay, then how about we just put you in the camps? You assholes are demonstrably more dangerous than the Muslims!
-
Well said.
-
We need to take care of our own people first before taking more on. I don't want to see more homeless people. Let's figure that out as a society and then go from there.
They are completely, 100% separate problems. If your government was really committed to homelessness, it could be taken care of.
Here is a real-world example of how it can happen. If you want it to, then work for change at your local level.
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic-homelessness-by-91-percent-heres-how
-
A lot of the disagreements I see on this thread and this forum and life in general for that matter goes back to the same problem. For the US government to take in thousands of refugees begins to treat the situation by the government as a humanitarian crises and humane obligation to be solved; similar to any other entitlement. So the question is very similar to "does a 5yo deserve to go to kindergarten or do people deserve health care of the right to food or whatever, and only an asshole would say no. But that really is not the problem, the problem is 'who is going to pay the teacher, doctor, farmer, or landlord(refugees) to serve those entitlements. We all want to retire early here and some of us may continue to wrk part time but at the end of the day we want to work less. In order to provide for those services people need to be productive otherwise they don't happen. I guess the point I am trying to make is we seem to all have big disconnect between something we believe people should be given and where it actually comes from.
-
A lot of the disagreements I see on this thread and this forum and life in general for that matter goes back to the same problem. For the US government to take in thousands of refugees begins to treat the situation by the government as a humanitarian crises and humane obligation to be solved; similar to any other entitlement. So the question is very similar to "does a 5yo deserve to go to kindergarten or do people deserve health care of the right to food or whatever, and only an asshole would say no. But that really is not the problem, the problem is 'who is going to pay the teacher, doctor, farmer, or landlord(refugees) to serve those entitlements. We all want to retire early here and some of us may continue to wrk part time but at the end of the day we want to work less. In order to provide for those services people need to be productive otherwise they don't happen. I guess the point I am trying to make is we seem to all have big disconnect between something we believe people should be given and where it actually comes from.
I would pay more taxes to have more social services, and support the poor and refugees. Even if that meant going back to work for awhile.
Donation to charity is in my FIRE budget, and if the government had me do more (even through their inefficiencies), I gladly would. As long as everyone else was as well (I.e. I'm not just the only one writing a check to the government, otherwise there are better charities to write the check to--but if I'm one of everyone, great).
I think most people who support more services understand they'll be the ones paying for it, and there's no disconnect.
It's only the ones who don't want it, and say "I don't want to pay for that," who think that. So again, no disconnect.
-
First of all I have done more then most people to help others. I have spent my entire life both professionally & personally in human services. The homeless don't want to go to a shelter where they will be robbed, assaulted, etc but contrary to popular belief they do not want to be on the streets. They want a warm place to live, decent food, access to health care, etc. It is great to donate $ but get in the trenches and work with these people to understand what they want & what is needed. I walk my talk every day of my life. Generally I am a bleeding heart liberal but I am listening to people in Europe to what is happening and we need to find a way to help these people stay in their own countries-we can't rescue the entire world. Europe & the US do not have enough $ and resources to solve this problem. The Arab countries are not helping at all. Maybe some pressure on them to do their part. Look in the mirror and ask yourself who have you personally helped not by giving $ but by rolling up your sleeves & working to help.
-
I feel no need to get into a discussion of who's helped whom more, but suffice it to say, my helping people hasn't caused me to want to help any others less, especially people fleeing from a terrible situation with nowhere to go.
-
Take the easy way out. By the way I am not against helping others I am saying it is a complicated issue with no easy solution. What makes you think we can help the refugees when we can't even help our own people? Don't say that they don't want help because I know first hand that is not true.
-
> Europe & the US do not have enough $ and resources to solve this problem.
Sure they do.
They definitely had enough resources to start a lot of that shit in the past.
-
Take the easy way out. By the way I am not against helping others I am saying it is a complicated issue with no easy solution. What makes you think we can help the refugees when we can't even help our own people? Don't say that they don't want help because I know first hand that is not true.
Have you read the article Kris posted a link to above? (http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic-homelessness-by-91-percent-heres-how) In Utah they solved their homeless problem. We could do the same thing in our entire country if we wanted to, but instead politicians, policemen, and the public are busy trying to find ways to prosecute the homeless as criminals.
As someone mentioned above, our domestic homeless problems and the issue of how many Syrian refugees the U.S. can afford to take in, are completely unrelated. Most chronic homeless people are mentally ill. They're on the streets because 40-50 years ago the U.S. government began releasing them from our state mental hospitals where we used to keep them. Now crazy people who aren't currently in jail live on the streets in our big cities.
Syrians we let into our country won't be living on the streets. We will give them housing assistance, language and job training, assign them counselors and advisers to help them get settled into their new country and make sure they have everything they need to become successful, contributing members of our society.
You're right, we should do the same things for all of the existing homeless people as well. We should also provide healthcare for every single person living within the borders of our country, regardless of where he was born.
-
> Europe & the US do not have enough $ and resources to solve this problem.
Sure they do.
They definitely had enough resources to start a lot of that shit in the past.
We are north of one million refugees from only a few of the world's 'hot spots' after only a few months of open door policy. It is estimated that any one of those getting a positive asylum decision under current law would have the right to be joined by four immediate family members. Anybody familiar with the common family structure in the Middle East knows that such estimate is on the low side. So we're talking five million per year. And the inflow from Afghanistan and Pakistan has just started and is going to pick up speed after winter if things don't change. How is this sustainable? We don't have enough housing, jobs, school teachers and language teachers for the people already here. It's pretty easy to say 'the first world is rich, they can take care of it.' It's a little different if you would need to build a new midsized town each month. And then school such town and integrate it in an already tight job market and a society with totally different values than most of the newcomers have learned and practiced.
If we had put only a fraction of the money we need to and are throwing on the domestic refugees now into the UNHCR we would have helped a hundredfold more people. But no, we cut the UNHCR funding and then opened the borders. Insanity. Plain and simple.
-
It's a little different if you would need to build a new midsized town each month. And then school such town and integrate it in an already tight job market and a society with totally different values than most of the newcomers have learned and practiced.
You know some of those refugees are builders and teachers too, right? And that others are entrepreneurs who would employ the rest if they had the means? All they really need is some empty land and some money.
Besides, "integration" comes mostly with the second generation, unless there are too few immigrants from any one place to support an ethnic community. The same concerns you have now about Arab integration into German society are the ones we Americans had about German integration into our society a couple of generations ago!
-
If we had put only a fraction of the money we need to and are throwing on the domestic refugees now into the UNHCR we would have helped a hundredfold more people. But no, we cut the UNHCR funding and then opened the borders. Insanity. Plain and simple.
I absolutely agree. It's not like this was totally unforseeable, btw.
But then again as long as we donate, umm no, I meant "export" submarines to a certain country in the middle east worth 9 or 10 figure sums which they will never ever pay for (you know, the ones with the huge oversized "torpedo tubes" that no existing torpedo on this planet will ever fit inside) we can afford to spend a little money on humanitarian projects. We even export tanks to Saudi Arabia, which is currently engaged in some little neighbor bashing and minor human rights abuses if I remember correctly. A few years ago all the leftover NVA crap was being given to Turkey for free, which used it to Kill some Kurds, and then suddenly everyone was surprised that they had enough of it and turned refugees and showed up on our doorsteps. Now everyone is deep up in Erdogan's ass so he will stop the refugees while he continues to deliver weapons into Syria and imprisons journalists who dare to publish evidence.
We let a certain superpower use Ramstein for their drone business, which is illegal in so many ways I forgot the exact number. In the past we have supported pretty much every harebrained scheme of our big ally that resulted in this mess. Unfortunately all these effects are pretty long term, so it's about fucking time to change "something" so we might see some positive results in a few decades. Blowback is a bitch.
Regarding the 4 family members comment, I seem to remember that this was already cancelled, and the five million per year is the typical right wing AfD crowd fearmongering bullshit.
-
If we had put only a fraction of the money we need to and are throwing on the domestic refugees now into the UNHCR we would have helped a hundredfold more people. But no, we cut the UNHCR funding and then opened the borders. Insanity. Plain and simple.
I absolutely agree. It's not like this was totally unforseeable, btw.
But then again as long as we donate, umm no, I meant "export" submarines to a certain country in the middle east worth 9 or 10 figure sums which they will never ever pay for (you know, the ones with the huge oversized "torpedo tubes" that no existing torpedo on this planet will ever fit inside) we can afford to spend a little money on humanitarian projects. We even export tanks to Saudi Arabia, which is currently engaged in some little neighbor bashing and minor human rights abuses if I remember correctly. A few years ago all the leftover NVA crap was being given to Turkey for free, which used it to Kill some Kurds, and then suddenly everyone was surprised that they had enough of it and turned refugees and showed up on our doorsteps. Now everyon
e is deep up in Erdogan's ass so he will stop the refugees while he continues to deliver weapons into Syria and imprisons journalists who dare to publish evidence.
We let a certain superpower use Ramstein for their drone business, which is illegal in so many ways I forgot the exact number. In the past we have supported pretty much every harebrained scheme of our big ally that resulted in this mess. Unfortunately all these effects are pretty long term, so it's
about fucking time to change "something" so we might see some positive results in a few decades. Blowback is a bitch.
Regarding the 4 family members comment, I seem to remember that this was already cancelled, and the five million per year is the typical right wing AfD crowd fearmongering bullshit.
No, it has not been changed. De Maiziere talked about intending to change it. High ranking officials dared to reassure us by saying 'don't worry about the Familiennachzug. The time slots for applying for it are booked two years in advance, so it won't matter until then.'
So because we don't want to say 'this is to much. We need to reverse a few decisions and take a totally different approach' we're basing vital decisions on the availability of timeslots!
That's like somebody taking out loan after loan and saying to all 'fearmongers': don't wory, it's just interest payments. Downpayment of principal is y-e-a-r-s from now.
Here's a really radical thought: how about adopting a system by which a sustainable number of the right kind of people, along with their families is taken in and getting final decisions in a reasonable short time?
And btw: the AfD would be below 5 per cent (maybe except Saxony...) after Lucke and Co left without Merkel behaving like she did.
-
To the person that said some of these people will be educated etc-that is correct but they won't be allowed to practice once they leave their country. MY DIL has a BA from Poland but can't teach HS french here -we don't recognize the degree. I also know someone with a MA from europe-same story. Many other countries such as parts of Africa etc people are being slain in ethic cleansing, young school girls kidnapped etc so they are also refugees. Should we take them to and where does it stop? When I was young I thought we could solve the worlds problems but at 61 I know we can't. Just like when I first got into dog rescue I kept taking dogs. Finally I reached a limit of resources so then I had to realize I couldn't save them all. The answer is change in their own countries-not coming to other countries. Europe is struggling with jobs right now. Many Poles live in Germany because their is no work in their own country.
-
We are north of one million refugees from only a few of the world's 'hot spots' after only a few months of open door policy. It is estimated that any one of those getting a positive asylum decision under current law would have the right to be joined by four immediate family members. Anybody familiar with the common family structure in the Middle East knows that such estimate is on the low side. So we're talking five million per year. And the inflow from Afghanistan and Pakistan has just started and is going to pick up speed after winter if things don't change. How is this sustainable? We don't have enough housing, jobs, school teachers and language teachers for the people already here. It's pretty easy to say 'the first world is rich, they can take care of it.' It's a little different if you would need to build a new midsized town each month. And then school such town and integrate it in an already tight job market and a society with totally different values than most of the newcomers have learned and practiced.
If we had put only a fraction of the money we need to and are throwing on the domestic refugees now into the UNHCR we would have helped a hundredfold more people. But no, we cut the UNHCR funding and then opened the borders. Insanity. Plain and simple.
It's interesting that Europe and the USA found the means to take a huge chunk of land from other people, build enough houses, schools etc and settle millions of refugees once before in the past but can't seem to do so now.
If it could be done after WW2 why can't it be done now?
-
It's interesting that Europe and the USA found the means to take a huge chunk of land from other people, build enough houses, schools etc and settle millions of refugees once before in the past but can't seem to do so now.
If it could be done after WW2 why can't it be done now?
Instead of taking land from other people to settle those millions of refugees after WWII, if the U.S. and Great Britain had given them some of our own land, for example somewhere in the southwestern U.S. where there were lots of empty spaces, there probably would be far fewer problems in the M.E. today.
That we made a mistake 67 years ago when we stole other people's land to resettle refugees after WWII isn't as bad as the fact that we continue, to this very day, to allow our country to be controlled and bullied into unconditional support for Israel, when it is in neither of our best interests to do so.
-
It's interesting that Europe and the USA found the means to take a huge chunk of land from other people, build enough houses, schools etc and settle millions of refugees once before in the past but can't seem to do so now.
If it could be done after WW2 why can't it be done now?
Instead of taking land from other people to settle those millions of refugees after WWII, if the U.S. and Great Britain had given them some of our own land, for example somewhere in the southwestern U.S. where there were lots of empty spaces, there probably would be far fewer problems in the M.E. today.
That we made a mistake 67 years ago when we stole other people's land to resettle refugees after WWII isn't as bad as the fact that we continue, to this very day, to allow our country to be controlled and bullied into unconditional support for Israel, when it is in neither of our best interests to do so.
I totally agree.
I see how my comment could be read as a suggestion to steal some other countries land once again to solve this problem just as the problem of Jewish refugees was solved after WW2.
I really meant that if all the money and effort to steal land from the Arabs to give to the Jewish people was doable after WW2 then perhaps the money and effort to help Arab refugees now to settle in Europe and the USA could be found.
-
It's interesting that Europe and the USA found the means to take a huge chunk of land from other people, build enough houses, schools etc and settle millions of refugees once before in the past but can't seem to do so now.
If it could be done after WW2 why can't it be done now?
Instead of taking land from other people to settle those millions of refugees after WWII, if the U.S. and Great Britain had given them some of our own land, for example somewhere in the southwestern U.S. where there were lots of empty spaces, there probably would be far fewer problems in the M.E. today.
That we made a mistake 67 years ago when we stole other people's land to resettle refugees after WWII isn't as bad as the fact that we continue, to this very day, to allow our country to be controlled and bullied into unconditional support for Israel, when it is in neither of our best interests to do so.
I totally agree.
I see how my comment could be read as a suggestion to steal some other countries land once again to solve this problem just as the problem of Jewish refugees was solved after WW2.
I really meant that if all the money and effort to steal land from the Arabs to give to the Jewish people was doable after WW2 then perhaps the money and effort to help Arab refugees now to settle in Europe and the USA could be found.
I'm not even going to answer to "stole thier land for Jewish" people in order to not completely derail the thread...
Answering the original idea/point in a seperate post.
-
It's a little different if you would need to build a new midsized town each month. And then school such town and integrate it in an already tight job market and a society with totally different values than most of the newcomers have learned and practiced.
You know some of those refugees are builders and teachers too, right? And that others are entrepreneurs who would employ the rest if they had the means? All they really need is some empty land and some money.
Besides, "integration" comes mostly with the second generation, unless there are too few immigrants from any one place to support an ethnic community. The same concerns you have now about Arab integration into German society are the ones we Americans had about German integration into our society a couple of generations ago!
Even according to our 'we're all wearing rose tinted glasses because we are the very best humanitarians of the whole world' government 9 out of 10 refugees are unemployable in Germany. Pet projects of major corporations with refugees as interns or apprentices have up to now not gone to well. About 20 per cent are illiterate even in their own language.
Our experiece with the previous waves of immigration from Muslim countries (maybe the better comparison than Germans in the US...) can be summarized as follows: - Turkish manual laborers (too often unemployed after further automatisation): very mixed; - Arabian refugees: rather bad.; - Well educated, not very religious Iranians fleeing the Ajatollah's revolution: very good.
This matches the experience of other European countries.
And when it goes bad, it goes worse in the second and third generation. That's why thousands of European Muslims have joined the IS. And hundreds have already returned to Europe, forming our biggest risk factor for terrorism right now.
Jews are emigrating France at a rate of tens of thousands per year because the violent antisemitism of Muslim immigrants. This does not seem to bother anybody. Least of all the European left.
Last but not least: In comparison to the US, Germany and even the UK are strong welfare states. While the US can give and has given its immigrants the 'sink or swim' lesson, we can't and won't do that. As Milton Friedman (?) said: You can have a welfare state or open borders. You can't have both.
-
To the person that said some of these people will be educated etc-that is correct but they won't be allowed to practice once they leave their country. MY DIL has a BA from Poland but can't teach HS french here -we don't recognize the degree. I also know someone with a MA from europe-same story. Many other countries such as parts of Africa etc people are being slain in ethic cleansing, young school girls kidnapped etc so they are also refugees. Should we take them to and where does it stop? When I was young I thought we could solve the worlds problems but at 61 I know we can't. Just like when I first got into dog rescue I kept taking dogs. Finally I reached a limit of resources so then I had to realize I couldn't save them all. The answer is change in their own countries-not coming to other countries. Europe is struggling with jobs right now. Many Poles live in Germany because their is no work in their own country.
Considering that we spend far, far more in the U.S. on corporate subsidies than we do on social welfare programs, I don't think it's very honest to say that we "can't" help more people. I do not have the answer of how many we should take in, but I think we have far, far more capacity than we are currently taking.
-
Steve Jobs father was a Syrian from Homs, and Steve was "made" in Syria.
-
I'm not even going to answer to "stole thier land for Jewish" people in order to not completely derail the thread...
Answering the original idea/point in a seperate post.
Yes it would likely derail the thread. Also, whether the land was stolen or not is beside the point anyway.
Really my point is that if the effort and money could be found to help refugees start and settle an entirely new country and then support those refugees economically and militarily for many subsequent decades after WW2 then why could not the much less sum of effort and money be found now to help these refugees?
I look forward to your response.
-
I'm not even going to answer to "stole thier land for Jewish" people in order to not completely derail the thread...
Answering the original idea/point in a seperate post.
Yes it would likely derail the thread. Also, whether the land was stolen or not is beside the point anyway.
Really my point is that if the effort and money could be found to help refugees start and settle an entirely new country and then support those refugees economically and militarily for many subsequent decades after WW2 then why could not the much less sum of effort and money be found now to help these refugees?
I look forward to your response.
I already answered that. Refugees can and should be helped via the UNHCR and settled in neighboring countries with a similar culture. Because of the different COL, money spend in e.g. Libanon or Jordan helps many more people than that spend right now in Germany. A bunk bed in a tent here is permanent accommodation in a regular building there. This, btw is exactly the model that is in accordance with international treaties. Of course wealthy countries should provide the funds to the UNHCR and not cut them. Wealthy countries includes not only the West but also the Gulf States.
Additionally, first world countries can and should volunteer to take in certain numbers directly. The picking and choosing should be done via the embassies in the Middle East or other troubled regions, no one should have to wait two years for the opportunity to file an application. Illegal immigrants should be returned to either their home country -IF- it is safe (yes, there are immigrants from safe countries, e.g. Albania or Serbia) or to the UNHCR.
If this is done for a few months and people realize that the only way to live in Europe is through the embassies and visas the people smugglers business will dry up. Middle Eastern families will no longer lose their life savings by sending a son to Europe (as dangerous and miserable the trip to Europe is, don't think for a minute that it is cheap. Any single refugee has spent thousands of euros on this endeavor.) And, last but not least: no more people would drown in the Mediterranean Sea.
Any further questions to a raging xenophobe? You know, the kind who wants Germans and immigrants to marry?
-
I already answered that. Refugees can and should be helped via the UNHCR and settled in neighboring countries with a similar culture. Because of the different COL, money spend in e.g. Libanon or Jordan helps many more people than that spend right now in Germany. A bunk bed in a tent here is permanent accommodation in a regular building there. This, btw is exactly the model that is in accordance with international treaties. Of course wealthy countries should provide the funds to the UNHCR and not cut them. Wealthy countries includes not only the West but also the Gulf States.
Additionally, first world countries can and should volunteer to take in certain numbers directly. The picking and choosing should be done via the embassies in the Middle East or other troubled regions, no one should have to wait two years for the opportunity to file an application. Illegal immigrants should be returned to either their home country -IF- it is safe (yes, there are immigrants from safe countries, e.g. Albania or Serbia) or to the UNHCR.
If this is done for a few months and people realize that the only way to live in Europe is through the embassies and visas the people smugglers business will dry up. Middle Eastern families will no longer lose their life savings by sending a son to Europe (as dangerous and miserable the trip to Europe is, don't think for a minute that it is cheap. Any single refugee has spent thousands of euros on this endeavor.) And, last but not least: no more people would drown in the Mediterranean Sea.
None of which really answers the question.
Money provided to the UNHCR is being cut. People, in USA predominantly but also in Europe, are suggesting less should effort and money should be spent on refugees and less taken in. The amount of effort and money actually being spent is, seemingly, much less than that spent on helping certain refugees after WW2.
My question, is specifically not "should" the money and effort be found. I think most people, on here anyway, agree that it "should" be found.
Rather, I'm asking specifically why it is that the money and effort, at least from the USA, is not being found? Secondary to that, and specifically for those few arguing it that it should not be found by Europe or the USA, why it should be found elsewhere and by other countries?
Any further questions to a raging xenophobe? You know, the kind who wants Germans and immigrants to marry?
I never accused you of being a xenophobe. I never even suggested such a thing. I never made any comment at all regarding you personally.
-
I already answered that. Refugees can and should be helped via the UNHCR and settled in neighboring countries with a similar culture. Because of the different COL, money spend in e.g. Libanon or Jordan helps many more people than that spend right now in Germany. A bunk bed in a tent here is permanent accommodation in a regular building there. This, btw is exactly the model that is in accordance with international treaties. Of course wealthy countries should provide the funds to the UNHCR and not cut them. Wealthy countries includes not only the West but also the Gulf States.
Additionally, first world countries can and should volunteer to take in certain numbers directly. The picking and choosing should be done via the embassies in the Middle East or other troubled regions, no one should have to wait two years for the opportunity to file an application. Illegal immigrants should be returned to either their home country -IF- it is safe (yes, there are immigrants from safe countries, e.g. Albania or Serbia) or to the UNHCR.
If this is done for a few months and people realize that the only way to live in Europe is through the embassies and visas the people smugglers business will dry up. Middle Eastern families will no longer lose their life savings by sending a son to Europe (as dangerous and miserable the trip to Europe is, don't think for a minute that it is cheap. Any single refugee has spent thousands of euros on this endeavor.) And, last but not least: no more people would drown in the Mediterranean Sea.
None of which really answers the question.
Money provided to the UNHCR is being cut. People, in USA predominantly but also in Europe, are suggesting less should effort and money should be spent on refugees and less taken in. The amount of effort and money actually being spent is, seemingly, much less than that spent on helping certain refugees after WW2.
My question, is specifically not "should" the money and effort be found. I think most people, on here anyway, agree that it "should" be found.
Rather, I'm asking specifically why it is that the money and effort, at least from the USA, is not being found? Secondary to that, and specifically for those few arguing it that it should not be found by Europe or the USA, why it should be found elsewhere and by other countries?
Any further questions to a raging xenophobe? You know, the kind who wants Germans and immigrants to marry?
I never accused you of being a xenophobe. I never even suggested such a thing. I never made any comment at all regarding you personally.
True, you did not. Apologies for directing frustration at you which was not caused by you but the debate in general.
Generally, the UNHCR is and has always been underfunded and that's a crying shame.
Not with the intention to derail but: the UNRWA has received the equivalent of a few Marshall plans and has not built anything sustainable with it.
Why the US is not providing more I leave for the US Americans to answer.
Why we have cut funding and then spent much, much more on our unsustainable open door policy? Because we are governed by politicians happy to accept 'ugly pictures' in refugee camps far away from us but are too weak to accept only a fraction of such ugliness close to them (like German police telling people: sorry, if you don't have a visa and are not fleeing from any war in Austria and all the other countries you crossed we can't let you in and if you're entering anyway we'll have to return you.). We're governed by that kind of people because we elected them. Because the majority around here likes that kind of denialists and hypocrites.
-
I think we are not taking more because it is very unpopular in the states. Also it will be an election year and of course the politicians are looking out for their votes. Trump says the most ridiculous things like throwing out all the Muslims that live here and his ratings go up which I do not understand. I am all for taking away the subsidies to big companies and using the $ for humanitarian aid.
-
I think we are not taking more because it is very unpopular in the states. Also it will be an election year and of course the politicians are looking out for their votes. Trump says the most ridiculous things like throwing out all the Muslims that live here and his ratings go up which I do not understand. I am all for taking away the subsidies to big companies and using the $ for humanitarian aid.
The US has a long and storied history of denigrating and persecuting immigrants and minorities. Interactions with the Native Americans, slave trade, exploration of Chinese railroad workers, employment and education discrimination against Irish immigrants, to name a few examples.
-
The frustrating part of this whole debate for me, is defining who is actually an asylum seeker. This mass movement of people into Europe has been hijacked to a sizeable degree by economic migrants and opportunists.
It has become harder and harder for unskilled workers (or those who would not qualify under skills/educational requirements) to legally migrate to developed countries. So we have this situation whereby people are posing as asylum seekers, when they are really migrants, as this is their only route in.
Some of the Syrians and other nationalities (Afghans, Iraqis) have been working/living in or have passed through safe countries to get to Germany or Sweden. In other cases, their home countries may not be the greatest (Balkans, South Asia, West Africa) but they are not in active danger. Poverty and lack of economic opportunity is not a reason for refugee status and goodness knows, there is no end to the tide of human misery in this world. I live in the Philippines and see it every day.
The EU cannot take all of them...but how does it decide between them? The traditional view of a asylum seeker as someone fleeing a warzone to the nearest safe place, no longer holds true. But if the West is to continue to shelter asylum seekers and grant refugee status, it must make a firm distinction about who qualifies now.
-
The frustrating part of this whole debate for me, is defining who is actually an asylum seeker. This mass movement of people into Europe has been hijacked to a sizeable degree by economic migrants and opportunists.
It has become harder and harder for unskilled workers (or those who would not qualify under skills/educational requirements) to legally migrate to developed countries. So we have this situation whereby people are posing as asylum seekers, when they are really migrants, as this is their only route in.
Some of the Syrians and other nationalities (Afghans, Iraqis) have been working/living in or have passed through safe countries to get to Germany or Sweden. In other cases, their home countries may not be the greatest (Balkans, South Asia, West Africa) but they are not in active danger. Poverty and lack of economic opportunity is not a reason for refugee status and goodness knows, there is no end to the tide of human misery in this world. I live in the Philippines and see it every day.
The EU cannot take all of them...but how does it decide between them? The traditional view of a asylum seeker as someone fleeing a warzone to the nearest safe place, no longer holds true. But if the West is to continue to shelter asylum seekers and grant refugee status, it must make a firm distinction about who qualifies now.
It is probably very hard to distinguish between an economic migrant and a true asylum seeker. However, does it matter? We already have the H1B skilled worker programs that admin 85000 "skilled" workers every year, a large number of which are hardly skilled and are used by companies to cut wages. I'd argue that we can make a better case for a Syrian economic migrant than the skilled workers who come from middle to upper class families in India and China for the most part. I'm NOT advocating suspending the tech worker visa program, just making a point.
-
It's one of those situations without a really good answer. From one side it's undeniably true that Germany (or Sweden) can't accept unlimited number of these people, but from the other hand sending people back to Syria or Iraq is not feasible either. Neighbouring countries are already overwhelmed with Syrian refugees (ca 2 million in Turkey, up to 20% of population in Lebanon). Culture there is more similar but hardly identical. How long would you keep people in some tent cities anyway?
The only thing I'm completely convinced about is that if we do take some people here in Western Europe then we also ought to give them work permits immediately with the same rights to work as locals. Also we would need to help with the language to turn max percentage of these people into economically productive citizens. Such an arrangement is in everybody's interest!
-
Neighbouring countries are [NOT] already overwhelmed with Syrian refugees (ca 2 million in Turkey, up to 20% of population in Lebanon) (0 in Saudi Arabia and UAE).
FTFY.
(I agree that Western Europe and especially the USA should accept more, and I agree with that despite the fact that the Saudis et. al. aren't accepting their fair share, which supports the other side of the debate. Their moral failing does not excuse ours.)
-
There is no way we can force UAE and Saudi Arabia to take any refugees plus they are not direct neighbours of Syria. Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan (600,000 Syrians refugees there) are... The last two are poor and definitely could claim to be already overwhelmed.
-
There is no way we can force UAE and Saudi Arabia to take any refugees plus they are not direct neighbours of Syria. Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan (600,000 Syrians refugees there) are... The last two are poor and definitely could claim to be already overwhelmed.
Saudi Arabia is a direct neighbor of Iraq, and if I'm not mistaken, there are a bunch of refugees from there too. Besides, Western Europe isn't a direct neighbor of Syria either!
Also, I'm pretty sure the US could force Saudi Arabia to do just about anything, if it wanted to badly enough (i.e., in the same way it forced Iraq to depose Saddam). But it won't, because Saudi Arabia is (inexplicably) its ally.
-
Maybe US could albeit in my opinion not under realistic scenarios. Germany or Sweden have no chance of even that much.
-
There's a small uproar in Ottawa. The new Liberal government promised to welcome 25,000 refugees to Canada by year end and they aren't making their numbers. I don't completely understand why this is upsetting or surprising though. You can make a graph and show how many refugees we're going to be able to bring over every month. Linky: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-to-miss-reduced-target-of-10000-refugees-by-years-end/article27920815/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-to-miss-reduced-target-of-10000-refugees-by-years-end/article27920815/)
-
Cologne.
Discuss.
-
People wear too much of it.
-
Cologne.
Was there a month and 1/2 ago (been there before) for a quick one day layover. Nice city.
People can do terrible things.
But the world, as a whole, is beautiful.
-
The German and local government response in suppressing what happened is disgusting. The mayor of Cologne blamed the women for the bad behavior of these men.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/08/why-we-can-t-stay-silent-on-germany-s-mass-sex-assaults.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/08/why-we-can-t-stay-silent-on-germany-s-mass-sex-assaults.html)
-
Wow, this has been an interesting read.
For perspective
38,000,000 people are security checked and pass through Pearson airport (Toronto) annually (domestic and international)
25,000 people are expected to arrive in Canada as refugees from Syria in total.
I ASSUME the ratio of terrorists to non-terrorists coming from Syria is actually less than the number of people screened by the airport in an hour. This is because the Syrians have been background checked and investigated for a year before coming to the country as opposed to the rest of the passenger load who go through a 5 minute security check at the gate.
Lets go worst case scenario. If every one of those 25,000 Syrians coming here turned out to be terrorists, the most successful terrorist attack I am aware of is 9-11. Actually Pearl Harbour may have been worse, but I'm too lazy to look up the numbers. 9-11 killed 19 terrorists and about 3,000 Americans, or each terrorist killed 158 people. Assuming a similar death rate on every attack (extremely unlikely) it would take 221,519 refugees to wipe out the entire Canadian population if no one ever fought back. So by an order of magnitude of 9.XXXX, we should be mostly OK.
-
the most successful terrorist attack I am aware of is 9-11. Actually Pearl Harbour may have been worse, but I'm too lazy to look up the numbers.
Pearl Harbor wasn't a terrorist attack. It was an attack by regular military units on a legitimate military target, for the purpose of destroying the target's ability to retaliate (not to sow fear, which is required by the definition of terrorism).
-
I stand corrected on Pearl Harbour.
As an aside, I wonder what the per person cost is of chartering the Mediterranean cruise sheep fleet when they go to do their relocation cruises in the fall. You could offer the refugees a portion of the staff positions (housekeeping, cooking) as training and use the entertainment theaters for classes (language, culture, geography) and do a 2-3 week working cruise to bring them across to north american ports. Somewhat similar to the Quenn Mary/Queen Elizabeth carrying troops eastward and British war children westward.
Although it would be slow travel, the time might be useful and the costs might be comparable.
-
It's quite expensive to charter Mediterranean cruise sheep. Very few of them survive the harshness of the salt water for long enough to become long term cruisers. The sodden wool slows them down so much in the water that it's hard to escape predators.
-
It's quite expensive to charter Mediterranean cruise sheep. Very few of them survive the harshness of the salt water for long enough to become long term cruisers. The sodden wool slows them down so much in the water that it's hard to escape predators.
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4yqb8ZsnW1qih9gi.gif)
-
It's quite expensive to charter Mediterranean cruise sheep. Very few of them survive the harshness of the salt water for long enough to become long term cruisers. The sodden wool slows them down so much in the water that it's hard to escape predators.
I owe you a beer for "WTF - Ohhh, shit" moment of the day.
-
It's quite expensive to charter Mediterranean cruise sheep. Very few of them survive the harshness of the salt water for long enough to become long term cruisers. The sodden wool slows them down so much in the water that it's hard to escape predators.
Coincidentally, only four posts ago you yourself became a mammal much better suited to the task.
-
It's quite expensive to charter Mediterranean cruise sheep. Very few of them survive the harshness of the salt water for long enough to become long term cruisers. The sodden wool slows them down so much in the water that it's hard to escape predators.
Coincidentally, only four posts ago you yourself became a mammal much better suited to the task.
I cannot lie. I like big butts.
-
From the link above:
"Having said that, what is infuriating and totally counterproductive is to deny that a specifically cultural problem around immigration patterns and European sexual norms has been steadily rising across the continent. To pretend this is not the case only further stigmatizes us brown Muslim men. That the problem requires attention is clear.
German police unions and women’s right groups have recently accused authorities of underplaying cases of rape at refugee shelters. “There is a lot of glossing over going on. But this doesn’t represent reality,” police union chief Rainer Wendt told Reuters. Henry Ove Berg, who was a police chief during Norway’s recent spike in rape cases, said, “people from some parts of the world have never seen a girl in a miniskirt, only in a burqa… when they get to Norway, something happens in their heads.” He added that “there was a link but not a very clear link” between the rape cases in Norway and immigrants. Hanne Kristin Rohde, former head of the violent crime section of the Oslo Police Department, was criticized in 2011 when she went public with data suggesting that immigrants committed a hugely disproportionate number of rapes. “This was a big problem… but it was difficult to talk about,” she remarked. There was “a clear statistical connection between sexual violence and male migrants.”
This is all controversial, but it must be said. Anecdotal attitudes point to the same conclusion. Abdu Osman Kelifa, an Eritrean asylum seeker to Norway, recently told The New York Times that in his home country, “if someone wants a lady, he can just take her and he will not be punished.” He confessed that it was still hard for him to accept that a woman could accuse her husband of rape.
Between denying the problem and using it to fuel bigoted far-right rhetoric, an approach grounded in data and a level head is vital"
This. A hundred times this.
I'm sick of what happened. I'm more sick of the repeated attempts to cover up the whole thing or vital facts. And I'm beyond sick with "whataboutisms" and "people do bad things to people - no use in getting more specific than that" narratives.
This is what happens if you value ideology over facts. This is what happens if a government acts like a bunch of goodwilled but terribly naive 5 year olds. And this is what happens if a state makes it known to the world that it no longer cares about enforcing its rules. That a warm welcome trumps every law, both national and international (mind you, the parliament never decided to open the doors or adopted a statute to that effect. Merkel just decreed as much on television).
-
From the article linked above:
Martin Thalhammer, the headmaster at Wilhelm-Diess-Gymnasium, a school in Pocking, Bavaria, sent a letter home to parents advising them that “Syrian citizens are mainly Muslims and speak Arabic. The refugees are marked by their own culture. Because our school is directly next to where they are staying, modest clothing should be adhered to, in order to avoid discrepancies. Revealing tops or blouses, short shorts or miniskirts could lead to misunderstandings.” With men accounting for about 70 percent of asylum seekers, some groups across Germany have demanded gender-segregated accommodation and safe zones for women.
No. European progressive and feminist groups have toiled over centuries to educate us all that rape victims are not responsible for the actions of the rapist. Victim-blaming and demanding that women change their behavior are the worst ways to respond to rape culture. They only sexualize the victim more.
Women in Europe shouldn't have to change their behavior to accommodate recent Muslim immigrants. Immigrants should be educated on the cultural norms in their host countries, and if they have any trouble following them, they should be sent back to wherever they came from.
A long time ago my wife and I spent some months trekking in northwest China and Northern Pakistan. The day after we crossed over into Pakistan two young men who spoke English confronted me on the trail and told me that I was not allowed to wear shorts in their country, because, they said, it was offensive to their culture. My wife, of course, was not wearing shorts, and my "shorts" were almost down to my knees, so I didn't think it'd be a problem, but the two men were insistent that I put on pants, right then. They, literally, stood there and waited while I took off my hiking boots and pulled a pair of sweatpants over my shorts. They weren't making a request. It was an order that I put on long pants.
This is how I was treated as a guest in a Muslim country, so I have no qualms about requiring that Muslim immigrants to Western countries adapt to our cultural norms. Whenever I hear about Muslim immigrants who are complaining that they want their daughters to wear hijab in public schools or their wives to be able to have their drivers license photos taken while wearing a burqa or need to have breaks at work 5 times a day so that they can roll out their mats and pray towards Mecca, my reaction is FUCK THEM! They chose to come here to our countries. If they don't like it, they can go back to wherever they came from.
Having said that, I think a lot of the responsibility for immigrants' lack of assimilation into their host cultures can be blamed on the host governments themselves. They make a big show of letting immigrants into the country as some great, magnanimous gesture, but then the political will to follow up and make sure that the immigrants learn the language, culture, etc., gets lost somewhere along the way. If we're not going to MAKE SURE that all immigrants to our countries feel welcome, learn the local languages and cultures, and get jobs, then we shouldn't let them into our countries in the first place.
-
From the article linked above:
Martin Thalhammer, the headmaster at Wilhelm-Diess-Gymnasium, a school in Pocking, Bavaria, sent a letter home to parents advising them that “Syrian citizens are mainly Muslims and speak Arabic. The refugees are marked by their own culture. Because our school is directly next to where they are staying, modest clothing should be adhered to, in order to avoid discrepancies. Revealing tops or blouses, short shorts or miniskirts could lead to misunderstandings.” With men accounting for about 70 percent of asylum seekers, some groups across Germany have demanded gender-segregated accommodation and safe zones for women.
No. European progressive and feminist groups have toiled over centuries to educate us all that rape victims are not responsible for the actions of the rapist. Victim-blaming and demanding that women change their behavior are the worst ways to respond to rape culture. They only sexualize the victim more.
Women in Europe shouldn't have to change their behavior to accommodate recent Muslim immigrants. Immigrants should be educated on the cultural norms in their host countries, and if they have any trouble following them, they should be sent back to wherever they came from.
A long time ago my wife and I spent some months trekking in northwest China and Northern Pakistan. The day after we crossed over into Pakistan two young men who spoke English confronted me on the trail and told me that I was not allowed to wear shorts in their country, because, they said, it was offensive to their culture. My wife, of course, was not wearing shorts, and my "shorts" were almost down to my knees, so I didn't think it'd be a problem, but the two men were insistent that I put on pants, right then. They, literally, stood there and waited while I took off my hiking boots and pulled a pair of sweatpants over my shorts. They weren't making a request. It was an order that I put on long pants.
This is how I was treated as a guest in a Muslim country, so I have no qualms about requiring that Muslim immigrants to Western countries adapt to our cultural norms. Whenever I hear about Muslim immigrants who are complaining that they want their daughters to wear hijab in public schools or their wives to be able to have their drivers license photos taken while wearing a burqa or need to have breaks at work 5 times a day so that they can roll out their mats and pray towards Mecca, my reaction is FUCK THEM! They chose to come here to our countries. If they don't like it, they can go back to wherever they came from.
Having said that, I think a lot of the responsibility for immigrants' lack of assimilation into their host cultures can be blamed on the host governments themselves. They make a big show of letting immigrants into the country as some great, magnanimous gesture, but then the political will to follow up and make sure that the immigrants learn the language, culture, etc., gets lost somewhere along the way. If we're not going to MAKE SURE that all immigrants to our countries feel welcome, learn the local languages and cultures, and get jobs, then we shouldn't let them into our countries in the first place.
What about Muslims in our country who are not immigrants?
-
I don't have anything in particular against Muslims. I'm just sick and tired of being held hostage to everybody's bullshit religions. American citizens who are Muslims should be treated just like everyone else.
Recently I worked with a guy who was a Catholic. He was a great guy. I liked him. But he kept complaining that he didn't like that the work cafeteria served meat on Fridays. We all asked him, "Why don't you just eat from the salad bar if you don't want meat?" But apparently the salad bar wasn't enough for him. He wanted everybody else to not eat meat as well.
My daughter's elementary school used to do a Halloween parade every year, where the little kids would dress up in their costumes and parade around the campus. This year they cancelled the parade. I asked why and was told it was because some families who are Jehovah's Witnesses complained. They don't celebrate Halloween or any other holidays, so they don't want anyone else to have fun either. Apparently some parents threatened to keep their kids home from school for the entire week of Halloween if there were going to be any Halloween-related activities going on, so the school cancelled everything.
Everyone should be able to practice his religion privately, but when people start demanding accommodations in the workplace and in public schools, I think they should be told no. Secularism in public places should be non-negotiable.
Anti-theists unite!
-
If someone refuses to integrate, they can get fucked. Celebrate your cultural and religious shit all you want, but when you start wanting to change things because of your culture or religion, get the fuck out.
Oh, and maybe don't rape people, that'd be good too.
-
I have spent a lot of time living in developing countries. There are a lot of VERY good reasons why people want to live in the West/developed countries. Developed countries are like a relative Paradise in many ways, when you consider things like personal safety, a functioning civil service and just plain organisation and ease of getting things done. Not having to deal with constant graft and general chaos...ahhhh so nice to think about...
(Please note the use of the word relative, before you tell me that these countries are not Paradise. In comparison to places like where I live/have lived/have travelled in...they are)
I think the West in particular needs to stop downplaying the truly great aspects of their culture and society. We do not have to accept the negative aspects of other cultures, under the guise of being non-racist or whatever.
I think more and more, that newcomers should respect our ways. As I do when living in other countries. Planes go both ways. If our way of life does not suit, there are options.
-
media sensationalism again...
it's another story spun by the media to generate views and profit. we've seen this time and time again. stoking fear and then what?
so a question i have is why "all at once"? this happens everyday in regular life as background noise in our societies (robbery, groping, rape, etc) and isn't reported and occurs in low level amounts at a time. then we get one massive event that just seems too coordinated and timed but for what purpose? To get media attention in order to breed anti-refugee/Islam sentiment? To whip up fear, rage, anger to drag westerners down to their level for their desire of some geopolitical boxing match to end all matches? Does the media want this to happen to get more views and profit by getting full coverage? What's the message for reported non-German & non-English speakers assaulting, robbing women during the holidays en masse? Or is this some Arabic New Year's eve tradition we never heard of? (the various nationalities makes this more confusing)
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Turkish integration (i guess ancient history for some) to argue why we should accept all refugees yet. No one watches football? Though you can't compare the 2 just like wwii japan and today. Different experimental conditions will give different results. Changing parameters changes the outcome.
The tone shifted a bit in this thread. Maybe people who thought love and kindness conquers all will have some doubts about accepting hundreds of thousands of unfiltered people coming from a background that let's be honest, many aren't too happy about Western culture, don't play by the same rules, and only moved to Germany for welfare benefits. If anyone watched, they made specific demands about Germany, not Hungary, or Austria, Germany. They didn't like Turkey, but Germany, Sweden etc. Right/wrong, smart/dumb, it's going to be very difficult to integrate all of them and there's going to be a lot of future conflict, tensions and long-term change in German culture/demographics. A lot of supporters are making this issue sound so easy and simple to do, but there's nothing risk-free about this. Refugee supporters overestimated this and ignored the challenges and consequences. If you're not okay w/accepting the real consequences and going through the difficulties of integration, don't accept them. If you are okay and willing to accept the risks, then you can.
I feel sorry for some Germans. Having to deal w/ Americans telling Europeans what to do saying "you're a racist if you don't accept refugees, you should learn to live w/them, adopt their customs, be PC to their culture, and you better accept these people that we Americans forced from their homes (ultimately)" while we sit back and drop bombs and wage war on their homeland. Oh and you're paying for it out of your own wallet, not ours. Pretty easy for Americans to say. Classy.
Recently I worked with a guy who was a Catholic. He was a great guy. I liked him. But he kept complaining that he didn't like that the work cafeteria served meat on Fridays. We all asked him, "Why don't you just eat from the salad bar if you don't want meat?" But apparently the salad bar wasn't enough for him. He wanted everybody else to not eat meat as well.
well technically new dietary guidelines say less meat, and americans imo do eat too much meat in general. just compare to other cultures' cuisines. even outside a religious perspective, less meat is better, cheaper, and more Mustachian. but i agree w/you.
-
media sensationalism again...
Nope. Not in Germany at least.
The media kept this quite for days and only started reporting after people privatly exchanged their experience over social media and the whole net went nuts. ONLY THEN have our tv chanels and newspapers started reporting. For some (including me) that's the even bigger scandal than the incident as such (which btw is by no means ordinary, something of that proportion has never happenend in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany). And it plays right into the hand of our right wing radicals who have accused politicians and the media of covering up such things for a long time.
-
With social media it is impossible to keep something like this hidden for long. The host country should not have to accommodate someone else's religion and immigrants need to fit in. Some immigrants arrived in Poland and people helped them to find a place to live,etc but within days they had left for Germany. I don't think you should get to pick the country you are going to. If you are a true refugee you should be glad to go anywhere safe.
-
The other piece that doesn't get much play is the ratio of male to female refugees. 58% men, 17% women and 25% children. When you've got a worse than 2 to 1 ratio men to women that makes it even more challenging on top of everything else.
http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php
-
The other piece that doesn't get much play is the ratio of male to female refugees. 58% men, 17% women and 25% children. When you've got a worse than 2 to 1 ratio men to women that makes it even more challenging on top of everything else.
http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php
The numbers included in here are probably correct for Germany as well:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/opinion/sunday/germany-on-the-brink.html?_r=0
And unfortunately the dilemma described is correct as well: Should what happened during the last year not be reversed (and I don't see that happening) then we're faced with the choice of accepting scewed gender ratios that spell violence or allow all those young men to bring along brides and family and thereby change the face of Germany forever. Without the people ever being given a choice whether they'd like that transformation to happen and without the parliament ever enacting a law to that effect. "Reckless humanitarianism" and "high-minded folly" indeed.
-
I don't have anything in particular against Muslims. I'm just sick and tired of being held hostage to everybody's bullshit religions. American citizens who are Muslims should be treated just like everyone else.
Recently I worked with a guy who was a Catholic. He was a great guy. I liked him. But he kept complaining that he didn't like that the work cafeteria served meat on Fridays. We all asked him, "Why don't you just eat from the salad bar if you don't want meat?" But apparently the salad bar wasn't enough for him. He wanted everybody else to not eat meat as well.
My daughter's elementary school used to do a Halloween parade every year, where the little kids would dress up in their costumes and parade around the campus. This year they cancelled the parade. I asked why and was told it was because some families who are Jehovah's Witnesses complained. They don't celebrate Halloween or any other holidays, so they don't want anyone else to have fun either. Apparently some parents threatened to keep their kids home from school for the entire week of Halloween if there were going to be any Halloween-related activities going on, so the school cancelled everything.
Everyone should be able to practice his religion privately, but when people start demanding accommodations in the workplace and in public schools, I think they should be told no. Secularism in public places should be non-negotiable.
Anti-theists unite!
I don't mind accommodations but many people think those accommodation mean effecting others. They don't need to. I don't care if you don't eat meat, just don't try to keep me from it. I don't care if you pray, just work your work around it. Do keep in mind that Halloween is/was a religious practice so if you are saying you want secularism in the public, then no parade.
-
Meanwhile, the cluster bombing continues over there.
What exactly are people fighting for over there? I get that at the bottom of the pile must be a group of civilians who want the same freedom we enjoy, but the conflict has drawn in so many disparate groups jockeying for control that even if one side 'wins' there will always be groups agitating to start another war.
I give up. I'm trying to tune out to the news broadcasts but it's hard not to just sit in stunned silence watching the drone footage over some of the Syrian cities.
-
Meanwhile, the cluster bombing continues over there.
What exactly are people fighting for over there? I get that at the bottom of the pile must be a group of civilians who want the same freedom we enjoy, but the conflict has drawn in so many disparate groups jockeying for control that even if one side 'wins' there will always be groups agitating to start another war.
I give up. I'm trying to tune out to the news broadcasts but it's hard not to just sit in stunned silence watching the drone footage over some of the Syrian cities.
The freedom that we enjoy is exactly what they are fighting against.
They are fighting for Sharia law, which from my limited understanding means law according to the Q'ran, based on the teachings of the clerics in charge. The argument is that prophecy in their scripture calls for the re-establishment of God's (Allah's) kingdom on earth in order for the last dispensation to unfold in which the faithful are granted their reward for a life well lived.
In order to usher in that last dispensation, ISIL has tried to establish a Caliphate (http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2679916328) - a nation ruled entirely by the teachings of the Q'ran, down to the very letter of the law. Hence the Syrian dilemma - Syria was a Christian nation, and so nearly its entire population was exiled when ISIL demanded they either convert or die. This is also why so many ancient relics were destroyed - in order to have pure Muslim Nation, it is necessary to destroy anything that pays homage to any other religion. A number of Muslims also do not agree with ISIL's mandate, or methods, and so they are leaving as well. A third group are opportunists - people from all over Africa where war is ongoing, and they are using this conflict as a tool to enter the first world from the third.
Its not so very different from, say, a group of reformed Christians who climbed onto a boat and sailed across an ocean to escape religious persecution, establishing a new community on a new continent. Oh wait, those were the pilgrims establishing America - that must be different.
I am not really well versed in the whole argument from the opposition's side - lets face it, we hear very little of what we are fighting against, and only what we are fighting for, but from my understanding this is the compulsion to war. Google is your friend here - but there is a lot of garbage to sift through before you get to the heart of it all.
-
Its not so very different from, say, a group of reformed Christians who climbed onto a boat and sailed across an ocean to escape religious persecution, establishing a new community on a new continent. Oh wait, those were the pilgrims establishing America - that must be different.
Except that's a myth.
The Christian pilgrims escaped to the new world because they were denied the right to religiously persecute others the way they wanted to. Inability to persecute others is not the same as being persecuted oneself.
-
The other piece that doesn't get much play is the ratio of male to female refugees. 58% men, 17% women and 25% children. When you've got a worse than 2 to 1 ratio men to women that makes it even more challenging on top of everything else.
http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php
The numbers included in here are probably correct for Germany as well:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/opinion/sunday/germany-on-the-brink.html?_r=0
And unfortunately the dilemma described is correct as well: Should what happened during the last year not be reversed (and I don't see that happening) then we're faced with the choice of accepting scewed gender ratios that spell violence or allow all those young men to bring along brides and family and thereby change the face of Germany forever. Without the people ever being given a choice whether they'd like that transformation to happen and without the parliament ever enacting a law to that effect. "Reckless humanitarianism" and "high-minded folly" indeed.
The problem I see is that healthy young men are fleeing a war zone leaving their women and children to fend for themselves. That's cowardly. American and Canadian men would never run and leave their women and children behind if their country was at war...they would stay and fight.
-
I've never been in a true life or death situation like that for an extended time, so I have a hard time judging the actions of those who are.
I'd like to think I know what I'd do, but I can't say for sure, so, like I said, I have a hard time judging others for their actions.
-
> American and Canadian men would never run and leave their women and children behind if their
> country was at war...they would stay and fight.
Oh yes, many would. No doubt about it
So which side would you choose? Do you prefer being drafted into Assad's army which obviously is waging a very dirty war against pretty much everyone in that country? Or would you rather choose one of the countless rebel groups, who fight against Assad, against each other, against NATO, the Russians and Turkey and who are also involved in atrocities against the civil population? Or maybe the Islamic State? And how do you prefer to die? Drone strike, air raid, carpet bombing, artillery attack, being wounded, starvation? I've heard the medical facilities in that country are first class these days. Or maybe you prefer to be executed?
Everyone not completely brain dead would try to get out of that hellhole as fast as possible and then try to get their family out afterwards, too. Because once you're dead you won't be able to help your loved ones anymore, y'know.
-
I think the situation is a lot more complicated than the OP, and many American's, think it is. I'm not claiming to understand it completely either, but I have a relative who has been working with refugees for a couple decades, and the integration process is extremely tough for many of them. Obviously no country can accept an unlimited amount of immigrants, and the "act now, think later" attitude is not the answer. Unfortunately, the best solution isn't always an ideal one.
-
The other piece that doesn't get much play is the ratio of male to female refugees. 58% men, 17% women and 25% children. When you've got a worse than 2 to 1 ratio men to women that makes it even more challenging on top of everything else.
http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php
The numbers included in here are probably correct for Germany as well:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/opinion/sunday/germany-on-the-brink.html?_r=0
And unfortunately the dilemma described is correct as well: Should what happened during the last year not be reversed (and I don't see that happening) then we're faced with the choice of accepting scewed gender ratios that spell violence or allow all those young men to bring along brides and family and thereby change the face of Germany forever. Without the people ever being given a choice whether they'd like that transformation to happen and without the parliament ever enacting a law to that effect. "Reckless humanitarianism" and "high-minded folly" indeed.
The problem I see is that healthy young men are fleeing a war zone leaving their women and children to fend for themselves. That's cowardly. American and Canadian men would never run and leave their women and children behind if their country was at war...they would stay and fight.
I read that it is exactly the opposite. The refugee camps in Turkey and the countries like Jordan nearby are filled with wives and mothers and their children, who escaped to safety, while the husband and father are remaining in Syria to try to protect whatever they have remaining. This is why it is hard to get some of these refugees to leave the UNHCR camps to travel to USA and Canada, they don't want to be too far from Syria for when they get to go home, and want to be reachable in case their husbands and fathers come looking for them.
Those families travelling to Europe are looking for a better situation, and possibly have english, education, training and / or money to get work and get ahead, if given a chance.
The young men fleeing Syria tend to be those that have just graduated -- they will be drafted into one army or another within weeks, so are fleeing ahead of that. (Others from other countries are economic migrants) These young Syrian men typically are not married, just avoiding being drafted to serve in an Army for a war they don't want. And if you don't think Americans avoid being drafted, well, I have an island or two near me that has American ex-draft dodgers living there to this day.
-
> This is why it is hard to get some of these refugees to leave the UNHCR camps to travel to USA and Canada,
Now that's a good one.
Many of them would happily leave for the US or Canada, unfortunately these countries refuse to take up any of them.
-
> This is why it is hard to get some of these refugees to leave the UNHCR camps to travel to USA and Canada,
Now that's a good one.
Many of them would happily leave for the US or Canada, unfortunately these countries refuse to take up any of them.
Your news is different from ours then. I recall seeing much reluctance to leave the area they know as home and come to a country without family, support, language, tradition, religion, food, or celebrations even close to what they were familiar with.
-
> I recall seeing much reluctance to leave the area they know as home and come to a country without family,
> support, language, tradition, religion, food, or celebrations even close to what they were familiar with.
Sure. That's why certain European states like Germany, Sweden and Austria are currently being flooded with refugees from that area. And more are expected to come this year. So much reluctance to leave.
-
The problem I see is that healthy young men are fleeing a war zone leaving their women and children to fend for themselves. That's cowardly. American and Canadian men would never run and leave their women and children behind if their country was at war...they would stay and fight.
You think that country of birth inherently changes the actions a person will take? Really?
-
> This is why it is hard to get some of these refugees to leave the UNHCR camps to travel to USA and Canada,
Now that's a good one.
Many of them would happily leave for the US or Canada, unfortunately these countries refuse to take up any of them.
Where do you get your information? Canada recently announced taking in 25,000 refugees, and the UNHCR / Canada's intial texting to many times that, announcing the program for registered refugees had a huge initial "no thanks, Canada is too far away" response... Many, of those who showed up for the interview turned it down.
Oh yeah and this was with sponsored Refugee resettlement, too.
"Only about 6.3 per cent of refugees contacted indicated they were interested in coming to Canada when the UN got in touch with them between Nov. 18 and 26. This was chiefly in Jordan but also in Lebanon." Globe and Mail article Dec 2015
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/syrian-refugees-not-keen-to-move-to-canada-immediately-ottawa-says/article27561756/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/syrian-refugees-not-keen-to-move-to-canada-immediately-ottawa-says/article27561756/)
It is changing now, but realize that there is a huge difference between economic migrants, and UNHCR refugees. My original comment / post was a rebuttal that men were leaving their women and children to fend for themselves...
-
That's what is bothering me about this whole thing. If you truly were fleeing for your life you would be willing to go to any stable country. But many insisted on gong to Germany even when other European countries offered to take them in. Now the reverse side is that I saw many washed up dead bodies on shore on the national news from people trying to escape so obviously these were true refugees that were willing to risk their lives to get out.
-
That's what is bothering me about this whole thing. If you truly were fleeing for your life you would be willing to go to any stable country. But many insisted on gong to Germany even when other European countries offered to take them in. Now the reverse side is that I saw many washed up dead bodies on shore on the national news from people trying to escape so obviously these were true refugees that were willing to risk their lives to get out.
The risks of unseaworthy boats supplied by criminal people traffickers do not discriminate according to whether the people on board are "refugees" or "economic migrants". The "reward" of life in rich northern Europe with legal residency and a chance to bring extended family across as well is a big enough draw to encourage significant risk-taking whatever the original incentive to leave the home state.
Given that almost every potential migrant into Europe has reached a country where they are safe from war and persecution even before they get on a boat across the mediterranean, there is an argument to be made that most of the people now coming across the Mediterranean to Europe are in some sense "economic migrants". Which is not to say that conditions for refugees in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon are not close to hopeless, but in general they are not "in danger of losing life and limb from war and terrorism" hopeless.
-
Given that almost every potential migrant into Europe has reached a country where they are safe from war and persecution even before they get on a boat across the mediterranean, there is an argument to be made that most of the people now coming across the Mediterranean to Europe are in some sense "economic migrants".
What are you talking about? Unless I'm mistaken, most of the people crossing the Mediterranean are coming from Libya, which is also in the midst of a civil war / terrorist crisis (recall what the "L" in "ISIL" means).
-
Given that almost every potential migrant into Europe has reached a country where they are safe from war and persecution even before they get on a boat across the mediterranean, there is an argument to be made that most of the people now coming across the Mediterranean to Europe are in some sense "economic migrants". Which is not to say that conditions for refugees in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon are not close to hopeless, but in general they are not "in danger of losing life and limb from war and terrorism" hopeless.
Of course they are. They've already left everything they know behind. Why stop at the first "okay" area when they can keep going and get the best life they can achieve for themselves?
It's easy to talk about the rule of law from the comfort of our living rooms. In their shoes, I doubt I would give a toss about Germany's geopolitical concerns either. This would be the opportunity of a lifetime, no way I am getting off that train until someone makes me.
-
Given that almost every potential migrant into Europe has reached a country where they are safe from war and persecution even before they get on a boat across the mediterranean, there is an argument to be made that most of the people now coming across the Mediterranean to Europe are in some sense "economic migrants".
What are you talking about? Unless I'm mistaken, most of the people crossing the Mediterranean are coming from Libya, which is also in the midst of a civil war / terrorist crisis (recall what the "L" in "ISIL" means).
You are mistaken.
1. Frontex statistics for 2015 show more than four times the number of migrants coming across the med from Turkey to Greece as from Libya to Italy.
2. Libyans are not even in the top ten nations of migrants coming across the med to Europe. The migrants setting out from Libya are overwhelmingly people from other countries who have chosen to go through Libya because it is a failed state which doesn't control criminal people trafficking.
3. The "L" in ISIL stands for "Levant", not Libya, and Libya is not usually treated as part of the modern Levant, although historically it was part of the wider Levant. There is a fairly recent and rapidly growing ISIS/ISIL presence in Libya, but that presence in Libya is not (yet) the cause of mass migration to Europe.
-
Given that almost every potential migrant into Europe has reached a country where they are safe from war and persecution even before they get on a boat across the mediterranean, there is an argument to be made that most of the people now coming across the Mediterranean to Europe are in some sense "economic migrants". Which is not to say that conditions for refugees in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon are not close to hopeless, but in general they are not "in danger of losing life and limb from war and terrorism" hopeless.
Of course they are. They've already left everything they know behind. Why stop at the first "okay" area when they can keep going and get the best life they can achieve for themselves?
It's easy to talk about the rule of law from the comfort of our living rooms. In their shoes, I doubt I would give a toss about Germany's geopolitical concerns either. This would be the opportunity of a lifetime, no way I am getting off that train until someone makes me.
Oh absolutely!
In the shoes of a young man or woman in some hopeless country without fulfilling the criteria for legal migration I would do no different.
The point that I do not understand is that the German government is so naive and stupid not to see this rationale and the very obvious consequences which includes denying entry to the country of choice and to send people on the way back to safe countries or UNHCR camps.
I further do realize that me being born in the first world and in this time was pure dumb luck and how easy it is for me to point to national and international law. I just don't see how destabilizing our own country is doing any good in the long run or how it should absolve us of some generalized guilt.
-
You are mistaken.
Well, crap. I stand corrected!
-
The frustrating part of this whole debate for me, is defining who is actually an asylum seeker. This mass movement of people into Europe has been hijacked to a sizeable degree by economic migrants and opportunists.
It has become harder and harder for unskilled workers (or those who would not qualify under skills/educational requirements) to legally migrate to developed countries. So we have this situation whereby people are posing as asylum seekers, when they are really migrants, as this is their only route in.
Some of the Syrians and other nationalities (Afghans, Iraqis) have been working/living in or have passed through safe countries to get to Germany or Sweden. In other cases, their home countries may not be the greatest (Balkans, South Asia, West Africa) but they are not in active danger. Poverty and lack of economic opportunity is not a reason for refugee status and goodness knows, there is no end to the tide of human misery in this world. I live in the Philippines and see it every day.
The EU cannot take all of them...but how does it decide between them? The traditional view of a asylum seeker as someone fleeing a warzone to the nearest safe place, no longer holds true. But if the West is to continue to shelter asylum seekers and grant refugee status, it must make a firm distinction about who qualifies now.
It is probably very hard to distinguish between an economic migrant and a true asylum seeker. However, does it matter? We already have the H1B skilled worker programs that admin 85000 "skilled" workers every year, a large number of which are hardly skilled and are used by companies to cut wages. I'd argue that we can make a better case for a Syrian economic migrant than the skilled workers who come from middle to upper class families in India and China for the most part. I'm NOT advocating suspending the tech worker visa program, just making a point.
I came here on an F1 (student visa), then I got an H1B visa. I can tell you, I am not that skilled.
I can say that out loud now because I got a green card :p
-
That's interesting. What are your skills?
-
That's interesting. What are your skills?
I have no "skills" as such. I have a master's degree in industrial engineering. Whatever the hell that is. When I applied for my F1 visa, I wrote a letter to consulate telling them that I intend to go back after I finished my degree. That was in 2008. I get paid less than a US worker of the same "skill" I am sure, but who cares. lol.
I fill the diversity quota by showing up to work. lol.
-
I went to the OP's link:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/aidrefugees
And it says "page unavailable". That makes me sad. I am currently donating to the International Rescue Committee. I'm not sure what else I can be doing to help people who got the bad luck of being born into a war-torn country.
-
I went to the OP's link:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/aidrefugees
And it says "page unavailable". That makes me sad. I am currently donating to the International Rescue Committee. I'm not sure what else I can be doing to help people who got the bad luck of being born into a war-torn country.
Look for how to help refugees that have already entered the USA, for now.
Once they get on their feet, and start making money, they will pull in relatives, too, in a few years, when things open up again, legally, and help the relatives get on their feet, too.. Pay it forward..
-
Tutoring English at the library is one way.