Europe's migrant problem

[Gargamel]

Missed most of this thread, but I chuckled at this...

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by CCIP

You know, everybody talks about protecting Western democratic, humanitarian or even Christian values and being better than Islamist theocracy or rampant socialism or whatever, but I gotta ask, what part of democratic Western or Chistian values are you protecting, anyway?

Freedom of choice. Plain and simple. How much freedom do you have in Islam? I would say not much it regulates a lot of every day's life like how often you have to pray, what clothes are acceptable, what you can and can't eat etc. I fear a slow islamization of Europe. Once they'll have sufficient numbers it could get really ugly. It will take decades or even centuries but the train seems to be on it's tracks and I fear for my children and grandchildren.
Today I can say out loud that I'm an atheist. Will my grandchildren be able to do that too or will that condemn them under sharia law? Islam isn't tolerant of people who don't follow it's rules. That's why I don't like it one bit to get another million or so of them here.

[mapuc]

About Gargamel picture-Even Sweden didn't register them, that is those who went to Norway and Finland.

Markus

[August]

I think multiculturalism can work in a big country like the US that can absorb large numbers of immigrants but i'm not so sure how well it works in smaller ones like the size of most European nations without them loosing their individual identities.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Kongo Otto

I don't want them in my country and to be honest i do not give a rats fart if they drown in the med or starve to death in one of their islam infested third world shyteholes which oozed them out. End of story.

Well said.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by CCIP

You know, everybody talks about protecting Western democratic, humanitarian or even Christian values and being better than Islamist theocracy or rampant socialism or whatever, but I gotta ask, what part of democratic Western or Chistian values are you protecting, anyway? The WWJD ("What would Jesus do?") question immediately pops into my head. Likewise, the question of what anyone actually important to Western values, from Aristotle to Ben Franklin say to all this? What are these values that you're afraid are being taken away? Who is taking them away? Is it that hoard of people displaced by war, or is it those who get elected on a platform of denying humanity, putting a price on suffering, and dividing people into categories? What are all these great values you speak of?

I'm sorry, but all I can come to the conclusion is that the grounding to all this is alien to Western or Christian values, except in terms of being grounded in the worst and least humanitarian of it all - either (neo)conservative fundamentalism, no less reality-warping, religion-warping and terror-based than ISIS ideology; or a sort of objectivist pseudo-intellectual fascism. I'm sorry, but if that's what you're standing up for, then your idea of the Western society is utter trash, and everything you fear those evil bogeymen of the Orient will do to you is precisely what you deserve. Nobody should have any patience for fascists. Otherwise, if you profess defense of Western or Christian values, maybe it's time to check your sources and see what they say about helping those in need or human equality.

As those values are not universal or even common in the world at this time it may be prudent to make sacrifices today for those values to triumph tommorow. However that said, one has to determine if the current flow of refugees does create an existential threat to western comunities, culture and values. In my opinion it does not at the moment, nor is it likely to in the medium term, provided EU conduct a reasonable policy of enforcing local laws and customs.

Or does this also fall into "Fascism" category?

[CCIP]

I would suggest that any sacrifice of human rights or guiding principles that make your society allegedly different from those other "awful" ones is not acceptable. A good reminder, again, of why I don't live in Russia today because the regime and populace alike there seem to have no difficulty sacrificing these rights under rather dubious justifications. "Existential threats" are awfully easy to manufacture in a popular consciousness. Awfully. Remember the examples of actual fascist propaganda I'd posted just a few pages ago.

As to the freedom of choice, sure, that's an issue - but I would also suggest that it's a logical fallacy to think that even for most Muslims the codes of behaviour are somehow not a choice or enforced by necessary violence or incompatible with liberal thought. Or that they're suddenly going to destroy everything for your children. More fundamentally, their predicament is not a choice, and their values - whether voluntary or enforced - do not dehumanize them or remove our core value of treating others as equals. People are people. They're not fundamentally different regardless of culture or beliefs. Unless your opinion of them is informed by media sensationalism or certain avian members of this board

That's not to trivialize problems - which there are with religion and culture, whatever it may be, but I also encourage people to not become spokesmen on behalf of groups that they do not represent or particularly know. Leave Muslims and their ideology alone for the moment - what are we supposed to stand for here?

[Betonov]

We just need a set boundry between rights and privilige.
Having a no pork option in a mess hall is a right.
Demanding every meal be halal even for non muslims is a privilige and should be refused and if they make a stink about it burn their visas. you're a guest here, act like it.
Restaurants can serve what they want and they should vote with their wallets.

I used food as an example but it can be translated to anything else.

[ikalugin]

This dilema is older than Islam. Does one sacrifice his rights or rights of a minority to defend the majority from some sort of threat, or does one allow that threat do destroy him and that majority?
My answer is yes, however such sacrifice must be based on the real and present threat, which the current crisis does not present us with, atleast not yet. Example of such (clear and present) threat would be a threat of existintial event, such as meterite crash. Or would you be against sacrifice of freedoms and liberties even under such threat?

Sure Muslims (and their subset - the refugees) are humans. The issue is that (in improbable worst case scenario) the values would be replaced with new ones, by the people who do not share them, as liberal western values (atleast in my opinion) are not universal or common.
However this is dependent on the lack of enforcement of local laws and customs and substantial change in population mix, which would not (in all likelyhood) occur.

As a conclusion - no, the immigrants crisis (atleast as it looks so far) won't destroy Europe, but yes, there is a requirement for an in depth response to it, as the crisis does create various problems, that must be solved, as otherwise the rule of law would be threatened.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by August

I think multiculturalism can work in a big country like the US that can absorb large numbers of immigrants but i'm not so sure how well it works in smaller ones like the size of most European nations without them loosing their individual identities.

The US was lucky in this aspect as it was big and empty enough for all the different enclaves to develop without starting to step on eachothers toes and as generation passed, not to mention 2 victorius world wars, the multicultured map started to melt into one American.

Europe has slowly learned to live with their neighbours and small minorites within borders and for the most part those small minorities respected the law of the land.
But one culture has to be dominant. Because that one writes the secular laws and the rest must follow it. Total assimilation is not really needed for this to work.

[August]

Originally Posted by Betonov

The US was lucky in this aspect as it was big and empty enough for all the different enclaves to develop without starting to step on eachothers toes and as generation passed, not to mention 2 victorius world wars, the multicultured map started to melt into one American.

Europe has slowly learned to live with their neighbours and small minorites within borders and for the most part those small minorities respected the law of the land.
But one culture has to be dominant. Because that one writes the secular laws and the rest must follow it. Total assimilation is not really needed for this to work.

I do agree but it seems like the drive has been to make European nations as homogeneous possible.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by August

I do agree but it seems like the drive has been to make European nations as homogeneous possible.

For the most part, the open borders, death of nationalism with a rise of the tourist and a common outside enemy (USSR), western Europe homogenised by itself. Laws that govern France are not that different from laws in Slovenia. And any law in France wouldn't bother a Slovene a bit.
What is a Slovene different from a Frenchman apart that we have one third of their wages. We know at least 2 foreign languages, drive worse, preffer more activer hollidays and we like saltier food. 100 years ago when nationalism was highest the difference was still the same except we didn't speak no foreign languages.
We were divided politically, not so much culturally. One more reasons why the enclaves in the US were going along together nicely. They were riots but in Europe we call if football aftermatch.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Well said.

No it isn't. Stop being wrong.

[Skybird]

The claimed precedence that Merkel want Germans and Europe to follow:

LINK: Sweden's ugly integration problem

So how are things working out in the most immigration-friendly country on the planet?
Not so well, says Tino Sanandaji. Mr. Sanandaji is himself an immigrant, a Kurdish-Swedish economist who was born in Iran and moved to Sweden when he was 10. He has a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago and specializes in immigration issues. This week I spoke with him by Skype.
“There has been a lack of integration among non-European refugees,” he told me. Forty-eight per cent of immigrants of working age don’t work, he said. Even after 15 years in Sweden, their employment rates reach only about 60 per cent. Sweden has the biggest employment gap in Europe between natives and non-natives.
In Sweden, where equality is revered, inequality is now entrenched. Forty-two per cent of the long-term unemployed are immigrants, Mr. Sanandaji said. Fifty-eight per cent of welfare payments go to immigrants. Forty-five per cent of children with low test scores are immigrants. Immigrants on average earn less than 40 per cent of Swedes. The majority of people charged with murder, rape and robbery are either first- or second-generation immigrants. “Since the 1980s, Sweden has had the largest increase in inequality of any country in the OECD,” Mr. Sanandaji said.
It’s not for lack of trying. Sweden is tops in Europe for its immigration efforts. Nor is it the newcomers’ fault. Sweden’s labour market is highly skills-intensive, and even low-skilled Swedes can’t get work. “So what chance is there for a 40-year-old woman from Africa?” Mr. Sandaji wondered.
Sweden’s fantasy is that if you socialize the children of immigrants and refugees correctly, they’ll grow up to be just like native Swedes. But it hasn’t worked out that way. Much of the second generation lives in nice Swedish welfare ghettos. The social strains – white flight, a general decline in trust – are growing worse. The immigrant-heavy city of Malmo, just across the bridge from Denmark, is an economic and social basket case.

In Germany, the first city has send out letters this week to renters of public housing and tells them that the city is cancelling their tenancy agreement. They must leave and their flats are being given to foreigners instead.

Nice. You live in a flat for 15, 20 years, and then you get kicked and your flat being given to foreign asylum seekers not paying for it.

In the bordering countries to Syria, several million more Syrians now become unrestful and want to head for Germany.

And lets not be mistaken - these are no temporary guests that will leave after some years. Those from Syria - are here to stay, forever.

The supply in wealth and climate migrants wanting to enter into Europe and here: Germany, is practically unlimited.

An Germans and most others are too cowardly to speak out a loud and clear "No".

Mahlzeit.

[Rockstar]

When you say asylum seekers are getting apartments. Do you mean those who have met the criteria for asylum or those still awaiting judgment?

I know here almost all asylum seekers awaiting judgement got to see the inside of Krome Dentention Center or GITMO. There was absolutley no messing around, if they didnt meet the criteria for asylum they were repatriated the next day.