Paul23 wrote:
a) Those people aksing for all your food are mostly into gangs themselves.
b)Well, facts are facts, and when the fact is that Islam is not as highly developed as christianity, which leads to those people living in a "shithole", then it isn't really racist. You can't be labeled racist, for looking at the facts.
Also, I was labeled racist and a nazi for saying that we should throw the criminal immigrants out of the country.
Well, "facts are facts" is a very debatable statement, but let's not dive into that.
My problem is this: There's an obvious difference between cultures here and where most of the refugees coming from. If I could chose, and luckily I can, I would prefer living here. Clashing values and different upbringings will cause problems, no doubt. You've given the examples yourself, and I don't deny that.
But then many people, including in this thread, go on and say that Islam as a whole is less civilized, more violent etc., completely ignoring the vast majority of peaceful, educated and hard-working Muslims all around the world. And that's racist (or again the religious equivalent).
Or they say they don't want to have anything to do with these problems. They want to keep their world intact as it is, disregarding the impossibility of that and the suffering they could prevent. That's of course not racist. That's egoism and lack of empathy, at least in my opinion.
ringo182 wrote:
But your policy is to let the whole gang in no questions asked, including the ones causing all the trouble, thereby bringing the trouble into your house. My policy is to find out who they are and why they want to come in before opening the door. That's the difference.
And yes, the shithole comment was slightly harsh but it was a response to someone saying the problems were geographical. I was simply pointing out the fact that the problem was the people living there, largely driven by religious beliefs.
No, that's not my policy. I don't think I've ever given my policy, I've largely just argued on principle, which may not have been entirely helpful. Of course I agree with everyone here, the refugees should be registered, and if anyway possible the "bad" ones need to stay out. Or they need to be thrown out if they are found to be criminals. That's a given.
Only if I have the choice between the extremes - completely open or completely shut frontiers - I would chose the open ones. Only then. Maybe I should've made that more clear.
Regarding the problems being driven by religious beliefs, I wrote something about that here.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Also my mate cunego, you cant force people to give someone a chance to live in are where he lives. They have same right to have their opinion like you have right to have yours. Yours is not better, just different. If you think that your way is the only way to go and despise people who think otherwise, you are not much better.
Btw. i hate real racist fucks and spent majority of teenage years figting these ideas, being beaten by neonazis countless times...
I know I maybe come across aggressive at times, righteous even. That's because I stand by my opinions very firmly. But I'm still aware that it's just an opinion, not the truth. And I know it's completely possible that I'm in the wrong here. And I hope that everyone else knows that, too.
Still, I do need to hear that sometimes, thanks for that
Paul23 wrote:
a) Those people aksing for all your food are mostly into gangs themselves.
b)Well, facts are facts, and when the fact is that Islam is not as highly developed as christianity, which leads to those people living in a "shithole", then it isn't really racist. You can't be labeled racist, for looking at the facts.
Also, I was labeled racist and a nazi for saying that we should throw the criminal im vimigrants out of the country.
Well, "facts are facts" is a very debatable statement, but let's not dive into that.
My problem is this: There's an obvious difference between cultures here and where most of the refugees coming from. If I could chose, and luckily I can, I would prefer living here. Clashing values and different upbringings will cause problems, no doubt. You've given the examples yourself, and I don't deny that.
But then many people, including in this thread, go on and say that Islam as a whole is less civilized, more violent etc., completely ignoring the vast majority of peaceful, educated and hard-working Muslims all around the world. And that's racist (or again the religious equivalent).
Or they say they don't want to have anything to do with these problems. They want to keep their world intact as it is, disregarding the impossibility of that and the suffering they could prevent. That's of course not racist. That's egoism and lack of empathy, at least in my opinion.
ringo182 wrote:
But your policy is to let the whole gang in no questions asked, including the ones causing all the trouble, thereby bringing the trouble into your house. My policy is to find out who they are and why they want to come in before opening the door. That's the difference.
And yes, the shithole comment was slightly harsh but it was a response to someone saying the problems were geographical. I was simply pointing out the fact that the problem was the people living there, largely driven by religious beliefs.
No, that's not my policy. I don't think I've ever given my policy, I've largely just argued on principle, which may not have been entirely helpful. Of course I agree with everyone here, the refugees should be registered, and if anyway possible the "bad" ones need to stay out. Or they need to be thrown out if they are found to be criminals. That's a given.
Only if I have the choice between the extremes - completely open or completely shut frontiers - I would chose the open ones. Only then. Maybe I should've made that more clear.
Regarding the problems being driven by religious beliefs, I wrote something about that here.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Also my mate cunego, you cant force people to give someone a chance to live in are where he lives. They have same right to have their opinion like you have right to have yours. Yours is not better, just different. If you think that your way is the only way to go and despise people who think otherwise, you are not much better.
Btw. i hate real racist fucks and spent majority of teenage years figting these ideas, being beaten by neonazis countless times...
I know I maybe come across aggressive at times, righteous even. That's because I stand by my opinions very firmly. But I'm still aware that it's just an opinion, not the truth. And I know it's completely possible that I'm in the wrong here. And I hope that everyone else knows that, too.
Nk
Still, I do need to hear that sometimes, thanks for that
I think we more or less agree we're just arguing from different sides. Neither extreme is correct and like you I was never saying the borders should be shut completely. I just think that each country should be able to control it themselves. It shouldn't be dictated by the EU.
ringo182 wrote:
I think everyone agrees that some form of help is needed. A lot of refugees/immigrants do have a valid reason for leaving their country. But the fact is many are leaving simply because they think they can get something for free in Europe.
Oh, like running water and electricity to a small apartment that hasn't been blown to shit? Well then, fuck them for not wanting to put up with constant airstrikes and car bombs.
ringo182 wrote:
Here's an example. You have a house party. You invite people to come to your house and are happy to have them there because you invited them.
Some of your friends bring people who you don't know but your friends vouch for them so you are happy for them to come as your friends know them. They have a link to you so you are happy to welcome them.
Then a gang of people who nobody knows turns up and expects to be let in to eat all your food and drink all your drink. Would you let them in no questions asked? No, you wouldn't.
That is more or less what the current open door policy is expecting whole countries to do. Yet people are being labelled as racist for questioning this policy and saying that it isn't right.
That's a pretty bad analogy, a gang of people turning up to a party uninvited wanting to eat and drink the drinks aren't usually feeling war, persecution and poverty
Hells 500 Crew and 6 x Everester
Don Rd Launching Place
Melbourne Hill Rd Warrandyte
Colby Drive Belgrave South
William Rd The Patch
David Hill Rd Monbulk
Lakeside Drive Emerald https://www.everesting.cc/hall-of-fame/
ringo182 wrote:
Britain has had high immigration for decades as a result of the British Commonwealth. Immigrants from India, Pakistan, the Caribbean and elsewhere have settled in Britain and been integrated into the British way of life. We have relatively few terrorist attacks when compared to other countries despite the high number of immigrants because it has been done properly, over time with countries that have a historical link to Britain.
Erm... the UK had the majority of Western European terrorist attacks in the 70s-90s period
ringo182 wrote:
Britain has had high immigration for decades as a result of the British Commonwealth. Immigrants from India, Pakistan, the Caribbean and elsewhere have settled in Britain and been integrated into the British way of life. We have relatively few terrorist attacks when compared to other countries despite the high number of immigrants because it has been done properly, over time with countries that have a historical link to Britain.
Erm... the UK had the majority of Western European terrorist attacks in the 70s-90s period
All these numbers are irrelevant compared to Iraq and Syria though. Even the worst years can happen in one day over there.
ringo182 wrote:
I think everyone agrees that some form of help is needed. A lot of refugees/immigrants do have a valid reason for leaving their country. But the fact is many are leaving simply because they think they can get something for free in Europe.
Oh, like running water and electricity to a small apartment that hasn't been blown to shit? Well then, fuck them for not wanting to put up with constant airstrikes and car bombs.
One of the videos i linked(sadly it was in German, showed it. They heard that they will get their own houses, cars and lots of money. That they will be praised and stuff. They then came to germany and noticed that they would have to find a job first, so they started going back to where they came from. Based on that, I wouldn't say, that they come because they want a save place. Even Greece is a save country, but why do they still continue their journey to come to Germany!? The answer is simple. They simply got promised something. They got promised loads of money, without having to work. Who wouldn't go to a country where you could live in wealth, without doing something for it? And if they start travelling back, just because they would need to work here, that just shows that it can't be that bad in their countries.
ringo182 wrote:
I think everyone agrees that some form of help is needed. A lot of refugees/immigrants do have a valid reason for leaving their country. But the fact is many are leaving simply because they think they can get something for free in Europe.
Oh, like running water and electricity to a small apartment that hasn't been blown to shit? Well then, fuck them for not wanting to put up with constant airstrikes and car bombs.
One of the videos i linked(sadly it was in German, showed it. They heard that they will get their own houses, cars and lots of money. That they will be praised and stuff. They then came to germany and noticed that they would have to find a job first, so they started going back to where they came from. Based on that, I wouldn't say, that they come because they want a save place. Even Greece is a save country, but why do they still continue their journey to come to Germany!? The answer is simple. They simply got promised something. They got promised loads of money, without having to work. Who wouldn't go to a country where you could live in wealth, without doing something for it? And if they start travelling back, just because they would need to work here, that just shows that it can't be that bad in their countries.
That's not their problem then if it's 'someone else telling them', but I get what you mean. Regardless, if where I lived became a warzone and I was forced to flee with Greece and Germany as the two countries most willing to accept my family for asylum i'd choose Germany any day of the week. Getting back on my feet with a country that doesn't have a tanked economy is a no - brainer.
A lot of asylum seekers/refugees will go back to Syria and surrounding areas when this is over. Some will want to stay as you say for their own gain, but many won't have the option to go back because they actually don't have anything to go back to. In X amount of time when the conflict is over/simmers down (which is most likely at least over a year away if not much longer), they'll have the choice of going back home to a shelled city with no home, facilities, money, possessions and possibly no family. Alternatively, they can choose to stay in Germany where over that period of time they've been building a life for themselves and family far away from the tragedy and conflict.
It's appetising to someone in that situation that they can escape such a terrible situation and think that when the arrive they'll be able to make a go of it. I guarantee most hardly think about it; they hear Greece's economy is screwed and that Germany's a nice place to rebuild. They don't sit around for months deliberating which country would be better, if they did that they'd probably already be dead.
ringo182 wrote:
Britain has had high immigration for decades as a result of the British Commonwealth. Immigrants from India, Pakistan, the Caribbean and elsewhere have settled in Britain and been integrated into the British way of life. We have relatively few terrorist attacks when compared to other countries despite the high number of immigrants because it has been done properly, over time with countries that have a historical link to Britain.
Erm... the UK had the majority of Western European terrorist attacks in the 70s-90s period
All these numbers are irrelevant compared to Iraq and Syria though. Even the worst years can happen in one day over there.
That's because of the trouble in Ireland. Nothing to do with immigration.
ringo182 wrote:
That's because of the trouble in Ireland. Nothing to do with immigration.
And all the terrorist atrocities committed in the UK in the 2000s onwards have been committed by British born UK citizens (except the driver in the attempted Glasgow Airport attack, who was from India). So maybe, just maybe, the major issue isn't immigration, but radicalisation (specifically along the Wahabi and Salafi branches of Islam).
ringo182 wrote:
I think everyone agrees that some form of help is needed. A lot of refugees/immigrants do have a valid reason for leaving their country. But the fact is many are leaving simply because they think they can get something for free in Europe.
Oh, like running water and electricity to a small apartment that hasn't been blown to shit? Well then, fuck them for not wanting to put up with constant airstrikes and car bombs.
One of the videos i linked(sadly it was in German, showed it. They heard that they will get their own houses, cars and lots of money. That they will be praised and stuff. They then came to germany and noticed that they would have to find a job first, so they started going back to where they came from. Based on that, I wouldn't say, that they come because they want a save place. Even Greece is a save country, but why do they still continue their journey to come to Germany!? The answer is simple. They simply got promised something. They got promised loads of money, without having to work. Who wouldn't go to a country where you could live in wealth, without doing something for it? And if they start travelling back, just because they would need to work here, that just shows that it can't be that bad in their countries.
That's not their problem then if it's 'someone else telling them', but I get what you mean. Regardless, if where I lived became a warzone and I was forced to flee with Greece and Germany as the two countries most willing to accept my family for asylum i'd choose Germany any day of the week. Getting back on my feet with a country that doesn't have a tanked economy is a no - brainer.
A lot of asylum seekers/refugees will go back to Syria and surrounding areas when this is over. Some will want to stay as you say for their own gain, but many won't have the option to go back because they actually don't have anything to go back to. In X amount of time when the conflict is over/simmers down (which is most likely at least over a year away if not much longer), they'll have the choice of going back home to a shelled city with no home, facilities, money, possessions and possibly no family. Alternatively, they can choose to stay in Germany where over that period of time they've been building a life for themselves and family far away from the tragedy and conflict.
It's appetising to someone in that situation that they can escape such a terrible situation and think that when the arrive they'll be able to make a go of it. I guarantee most hardly think about it; they hear Greece's economy is screwed and that Germany's a nice place to rebuild. They don't sit around for months deliberating which country would be better, if they did that they'd probably already be dead.
The thing is, I have no problem if they come here, for having a better life or for just getting more money, but that doesn't fall under our rules of asylum. Asylum is for people who would die, if they wouldn't come to us. But they're already save in Greece, so when we look at our laws, they shouldn't get asylum here, but be treated like normal immigrants.
ringo182 wrote:
That's because of the trouble in Ireland. Nothing to do with immigration.
And all the terrorist atrocities committed in the UK in the 2000s onwards have been committed by British born UK citizens (except the driver in the attempted Glasgow Airport attack, who was from India). So maybe, just maybe, the major issue isn't immigration, but radicalisation (specifically along the Wahabi and Salafi branches of Islam).
You seem to have completely missed the point of my previous comments.
I never said anything about imigrants commuting terrorist attacks in the UK. I said we have relatively few terrorist attacks considering the amount of immigration we have when compared to other countries like Germany and France.
ringo182 wrote:
That's because of the trouble in Ireland. Nothing to do with immigration.
And all the terrorist atrocities committed in the UK in the 2000s onwards have been committed by British born UK citizens (except the driver in the attempted Glasgow Airport attack, who was from India). So maybe, just maybe, the major issue isn't immigration, but radicalisation (specifically along the Wahabi and Salafi branches of Islam).
Sooo uncontrolled, unaccounted immigration in your view is not a problem?
For one, with high chance of probability, radicalized people already took advantage of this and are hiding away readying for a good moment to take this golden opportunity. So already solid base to start radicalizing others in communities, but I see that as relatively ''minor''
And most important, secondly, many of these migrants people will fail to adopt to Western life, and will start to become disenchanted and become easy scoop for radicals. That's a simple fact I hope. Brussels and many of its ghettos are great example of this and the recent attack showed they are capable of carrying attacks, 4 of them being raised in Belgium.
With uncontrolled migration you are increasing that % chance of these migrants becoming radicalized in the future, it already happens with more selective migration policies, but imagine what will happen in future when you account for the numbers that have entered in past year?
If one is to believe something called statistics, it ain't looking pretty.
P.S. Blaming it solely on ideology seems such an easy way out offering absolutely zero solution to the problems at hand, what can you do against ideas? Nothing at all. Especially ideology that isn't particularly viewed in any negative light in Muslim world.
Edited by Alakagom on 30-07-2016 21:59
Paul23 wrote:
The thing is, I have no problem if they come here, for having a better life or for just getting more money, but that doesn't fall under our rules of asylum. Asylum is for people who would die, if they wouldn't come to us. But they're already save in Greece, so when we look at our laws, they shouldn't get asylum here, but be treated like normal immigrants.
Asylum works quite well for countries like us doesn't it? Little obligation (more applicable to Britain here but still...)
ringo182 wrote:
That's because of the trouble in Ireland. Nothing to do with immigration.
And all the terrorist atrocities committed in the UK in the 2000s onwards have been committed by British born UK citizens (except the driver in the attempted Glasgow Airport attack, who was from India). So maybe, just maybe, the major issue isn't immigration, but radicalisation (specifically along the Wahabi and Salafi branches of Islam).
You seem to have completely missed the point of my previous comments.
I never said anything about imigrants commuting terrorist attacks in the UK. I said we have relatively few terrorist attacks considering the amount of immigration we have when compared to other countries like Germany and France.
Sorry, I did completely misread it.
Now I've re-read it, you seem to have next to no idea how the immigration/refugee process works. Germany (and the EU) does not have an open door policy. Applicants are still processed and have no right to refugee status if they cannot show they are eligible for it. So in Germany last year, over 40% of applicants were rejected.
Paul23 wrote:
The thing is, I have no problem if they come here, for having a better life or for just getting more money, but that doesn't fall under our rules of asylum. Asylum is for people who would die, if they wouldn't come to us. But they're already save in Greece, so when we look at our laws, they shouldn't get asylum here, but be treated like normal immigrants.
Asylum works quite well for countries like us doesn't it? Little obligation (more applicable to Britain here but still...)
No it doesn't. Look at the vitnamese people for example. They came here for a better life. Without asylum. They got no help or money from the state. And they have their own shops and are well accepted here.
@Crommy: Those 40% of rejected people got in our country nevertheless. We have no border-patrol. Who should stop them? Also, still people without an ID card are let into our country. People who are known to support ISIS are let into our country. So who do you think gets rejected? I don't believe these numbers anyway.
Paul23 wrote:
The thing is, I have no problem if they come here, for having a better life or for just getting more money, but that doesn't fall under our rules of asylum. Asylum is for people who would die, if they wouldn't come to us. But they're already save in Greece, so when we look at our laws, they shouldn't get asylum here, but be treated like normal immigrants.
Let's dispel this myth that asylum seekers/refugees have to apply for asylum in the first "safe" country they reach. There is absolutely no international law which says this. If a person applies for asylum in a country, they are legally bound to consider and process that application.
What does exist in the EU is something called the Dublin Regulation, which can be optionally suspended by member states. It allows member states to return asylum/refugee applicants to the country where they first entered and were fingerprinted, and for them to be processed in that country.
Paul23 wrote:
The thing is, I have no problem if they come here, for having a better life or for just getting more money, but that doesn't fall under our rules of asylum. Asylum is for people who would die, if they wouldn't come to us. But they're already save in Greece, so when we look at our laws, they shouldn't get asylum here, but be treated like normal immigrants.
Let's dispel this myth that asylum seekers/refugees have to apply for asylum in the first "safe" country they reach. There is absolutely no international law which says this. If a person applies for asylum in a country, they are legally bound to consider and process that application.
What does exist in the EU is something called the Dublin Regulation, which can be optionally suspended by member states. It allows member states to return asylum/refugee applicants to the country where they first entered and were fingerprinted, and for them to be processed in that country.
In our german asylum laws it is stated, that you can only apply for asylum, when you're coming from an non-save country, but when you set foot in greece, you were in a save country before.
Paul23 wrote:
The thing is, I have no problem if they come here, for having a better life or for just getting more money, but that doesn't fall under our rules of asylum. Asylum is for people who would die, if they wouldn't come to us. But they're already save in Greece, so when we look at our laws, they shouldn't get asylum here, but be treated like normal immigrants.
Asylum works quite well for countries like us doesn't it? Little obligation (more applicable to Britain here but still...)
No it doesn't. Look at the vitnamese people for example. They came here for a better life. Without asylum. They got no help or money from the state. And they have their own shops and are well accepted here.
@Crommy: Those 40% of rejected people got in our country nevertheless. We have no border-patrol. Who should stop them? Also, still people without an ID card are let into our country. People who are known to support ISIS are let into our country. So who do you think gets rejected? I don't believe these numbers anyway.
Well, if you've decided to stop believing evidence just because it doesn't fit with your viewpoint, any more effort on my part is going to be wasted.
Paul23 wrote:
The thing is, I have no problem if they come here, for having a better life or for just getting more money, but that doesn't fall under our rules of asylum. Asylum is for people who would die, if they wouldn't come to us. But they're already save in Greece, so when we look at our laws, they shouldn't get asylum here, but be treated like normal immigrants.
Let's dispel this myth that asylum seekers/refugees have to apply for asylum in the first "safe" country they reach. There is absolutely no international law which says this. If a person applies for asylum in a country, they are legally bound to consider and process that application.
What does exist in the EU is something called the Dublin Regulation, which can be optionally suspended by member states. It allows member states to return asylum/refugee applicants to the country where they first entered and were fingerprinted, and for them to be processed in that country.
In our german asylum laws it is stated, that you can only apply for asylum, when you're coming from an non-save country, but when you set foot in greece, you were in a save country before.
