1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Denmark and refugees

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by civvver, Apr 12, 2016.

  1. Ryika

    Ryika Lazy Wannabe Artista

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2013
    Messages:
    9,395
    "We won't do anything, this part of the world is not our problem." "Whaaaat? But there's a dictator and he's killing people in sadistic ways." "And that's terrible, but there's nothing we can do against it." "But... but the poor rebels!"

    Doomed if you do. Doomed if you don't.
     
  2. Algeroth

    Algeroth 8 and 1/2

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,466
    Location:
    Прага
    So, what great plan for refugees Sweden has? Last time I checked, it stopped any refugees arriving over land. Which puts it in the same category as Albania, I am afraid.

    A) Czech Republic did nothing, it was an action undertaken solely by a charity.
    B) In which way was their move illegal, could you specify?

    One family asked to return back home, some people moved to Germany (And were/will be returned back), some were stopped before they moved over. From the pieces of information in the media it seems that the charity behind this couldn't be bothered properly explain what could people transferred here expect.

    And yeah, YPG opened some representation office for Europe here few weeks ago.
     
  3. REDY

    REDY Duty Caller

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    4,668
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Praha
    A)I understand your point but its not correct either. In such projects NGOs need state. its just question how much was state involved.
    B)They were obliged to not move to another Schengen country but they did. What they should did is well described here
     
  4. NovaKart

    NovaKart شێری گەورە

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    5,891
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Kurdistan
    It's not just the YPG office in Prague. The Czech Republic has a lot of projects going on with Iraqi Kurdistan and has developed relations and the president even spoke in favor of Kurdish independence. The last one I'm not sure about the accuracy of the source and it quoted him as saying the Kurds are the only ones on the ground fighting ISIS which is untrue.

    http://www.kurdistan24.net/en/news/...f-independent-Kurdistan-just-a-matter-of-time
     
  5. Hehehe

    Hehehe Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,391
    Location:
    Finland
    I think you and I have a rift in our thinking. First of all, most of the violence in the Middle-East is committed by muslims, against muslims and other minorities. Now maybe you could argue that the west is responsible for destabilizing the region. But the thing is, I can tell you for a fact that Finland never participated in any of that (aside from UN peacekeeping missions). The swedes and the Danish are responsible for their own immigration policy, and I am not going to tell them what to do. But what I do know is, Finland has no colonial history, no bombings or anything like that which would make us morally responsible.

    Secondly, and more importantly, even if all the violence was directly, undeniably our fault, I still would say no to refugees. For you see, I am a nationalist, first and foremost. I am not looking to solve all the world's problems, only our own. And in the case of Finland, this would mean not taking in immigrants or refugees. I don't know if we can integrate all these people that we already have, but what I do know is that I won't even consider any further immigration before we have integrated all the people we already have.


    We all want to avoid having large alienated and segregated populations, it is just the means of doing so that differ. I would halt any further immigration until the already existing populations have been integrated.

    There are already several disenfranchised, angry populations all over Europe, which creates problems such as the Paris attacks. And now you want to bring in more such people, without solving the issue of integration first? Europe absolutely should close borders. No, it would not solve problems, it would just move them to other countries, and for me that is good enough.

    Furthermore, what really bothers me is this false dichotomy leftists keep imposing on us. As if the only way to help the refugees is to take them all into Europe. This is not only wrong, but it is insane. Any help we send would be much better spent improving the conditions on the refugee camps. This would be the most help for those who are the most in need, and if we did this instead of taking in all the refugees, it would also decrease problems in Europe itself.

    When communism failed, it was a tough time for hard-line communists. Rather than admit that their ideology was faulty, communists started making excuses. They started saying that communism failed not because they were communist, but because they weren't communist enough. I bet the European left is going to do the same with multiculturalism and mass immigration.
     
  6. Angst

    Angst Rambling and inconsistent

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,386
    Location:
    A Silver Mt. Zion
    I'm not going to address all of that but this thing

    -- it doesn't matter what I want. You can be productive about it or hole up what you seem to want to. It's ridiculous how you just arbitrarily jump off a tangent about communism and frame my argument as a moral one. Even if I don't want to help the refugees, these people are coming whether you want it or not. My argument isn't bleeding heart leftism. It's nothing but rational to attemp integrating them properly. Your notions about this thinking as "insane leftism" is nothing but a showcasing of how improperly you understand the reality of the problem yourself.
     
  7. Hehehe

    Hehehe Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,391
    Location:
    Finland
    *cough cough*

    You are framing this as if there is no way to control the flow of refugees. This is simply false, and you are ignoring several precedents (such as Australia) where this has been done successfully
     
  8. Angst

    Angst Rambling and inconsistent

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,386
    Location:
    A Silver Mt. Zion
    Look, a lot of what you wrote was just irrelevant or baffling. It doesn't matter for any argument whether you identify with nationalism or not, identification with idealism isn't legitimization for your ideas, it doesn't make them better or worse so it isn't relevant for anyone else. Whether the violence and displacement is caused by Muslims or not is addressed earlier in the thread and my own posts - ie it really isn't as there is definitely a critical mass performed by NATO. At the very least the major European powers are undeniably entrenched in Middle Eastern affairs, especially the war in Iraq which is the major reason ISIS exists to begin with. Your poising of Finland may have some relevance for your own moral outlook but then there's France and the UK and even Denmark who have been actively involved in these conflicts so yay for you but it doesn't solve Europe's problem, your point is nearly pointless to the rest of us. I'll add beyond the thread's examples that some activities are passive or enforced through indirect threat of violence, here I think about Palestinian migrants that are displaced by a certain country we try to preserve. And your strange tangent about leftism and communism is just, well, strange. You just spew out a few idealist concepts that noone has brought up and uncritically extrapolate that a construct about an affliation noone in the thread has admitted to. Also it follows the strange discourse that I've already demonstrably countered, that this is somehow left-winged heart-bleeding. It's really not suited for the discussion.

    Anyways, controlling immigration. I really don't think controlling the flow of refugees is less costly (or even safer) than integrating them properly. What are you going to do, build a wall? Fly them home, assuming they don't return? - we already do that. Stop granting them economic or social rights when they show up, ensuring estranged impoverished populations across Europe? - we already do that. Shoot them -- would that be an ingredient for a safe demographic situation? I admit that I haven't read about Australia, so I'm expecting you to outline what they did right. It's much more meaningful than your rantings about communism.

    Now, there's one thing of yours that I didn't address, that we already have problem populations in Europe to begin with. I'd argue I touched upon that answering warpus but I'll admit I didn't conclude on it. The thing is, your point is true. But it also isn't. There are statistics that showcase that the migrant populations are a serious problem. There are also statistics that showcase that the problems are mostly fixed after a generation. The problem is also incredibly complicated as individual countries, even counties or nongovernment institutions all have effects of immigration and you can't just extrapolate from a discussion on Swedish immigration policy to the attacks in Paris. It's also amusing that you deny European influence on migration waves in the same post. France in particular has always had a tradition of massively mismanaging ex-colonial populations in their home territories. There also is a high correlation between French colonial and post-colonial violence and the populations present in France. The correlation between France's historical aggression and their migratory problems are easy to prove. Just look at the pre-ISIS 2005 riots for one of the recent examples.

    EDIT: A quick wiki'ing doesn't prove your Australia point at all. In fact it outrights states Australia is favoring multiculturalism. However a) I'm still reading through the entry so I am very surely missing something after this very quick scan and b) it's Wikipedia. I'm all ears for your probably better source/suggestion.
     
  9. Hehehe

    Hehehe Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,391
    Location:
    Finland
    Frame your argument as a moral one? Did you, or did you not argue that European countries have a moral responsibility to take in refugees? You specifically framed this as a moral argument, then you attack me on the accusations that I tried to frame your argument as a moral one? Do you not see any cognitive dissonance here?

    It explains why I support the policies that I support. When explaining such policies, I do consider it relevant to explain the fundamentals behind them.

    What kind of immigration policy the UK, France or Denmark want to pursue is obviously up to them. But, like I said in my previous post, even if I was British, French or Danish, and even if EVERYTHING that has been happening in the Middle-East was our fault, I still would not take in the refugees. And that is assuming they are genuine refugees, instead of economic migrants, which is a highly debatable point.

    I never claimed that you are a communist. It is my prediction of how in the future people will look at this mess. I see that you did not understand the comparison, but do not worry for you need not concern yourself with it, as it is not immediately relevant to the discussion at hand.

    First of all, you espouse the same false ideas as the European leftist. Therefore, I made the crazy extrapolation that you might subscribe to these ideas. Second of all "demonstrably countered"? You haven't countered anything. If anything, you made a wild claim which is real world examples prove to be wrong (see my previous post).

    If people have a zero chance of getting in, they simply will not come. This is why the Balkan route is dying down. As for Australia, Australia's policy is basically detaining them offshore. Illegal newcomers have will be detained and sent offshore, so only those that Australia wants to take in, get in. And as a result of this, the refugee flow has basically stopped.

    I never denied European involvement, I simply refused to manage after effects (this is, assuming that A: the refugees are searching for safety, instead of better standard of living and B: all the crisis are caused by Europeans).

    As for the populations already here, all of this is beside the point. I argued that once they have been successfully integrated, and only then, we take in more people. As for the integration itself, it is not nearly as painless as you make it seem (see, the integration of 3rd generation Turks in Germany)

    (copy-paste: )
    If people have a zero chance of getting in, they simply will not come. This is why the Balkan route is dying down. As for Australia, Australia's policy is basically detaining them offshore. Illegal newcomers have will be detained and sent offshore, so only those that Australia wants to take in, get in. And as a result of this, the refugee flow has basically stopped.
     
  10. innonimatu

    innonimatu Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    12,650
    I kind of noticed early on that most of the rebels actually being killed in Libya and Syria deserved being killed. New tyrants may turn out to be very murderous, genocidal maniacs. Old tyrants (and both regimes were decades old) have managed to keep power by playing ball with the different groups in the country and refrain from using force unless they must.

    I absolutely do not believe that the wars in either side were started by the government, it makes zero sense. What happened was that the governments fought back armed rebellions. And in time, in a few years I guess, we'll see it admitted that elements of those regimes were bribed or induced to stage armed palace coups, but found more opposition than they counted on.

    "Humanitarian interventionism" has been all but humanitarian, in every instance I recall.
     
  11. Borachio

    Borachio Way past lunacy

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    26,698
    I'm really not sure that anyone actually deserves to die.

    What kind of crazy talk is that?
     
  12. Angst

    Angst Rambling and inconsistent

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,386
    Location:
    A Silver Mt. Zion
    Two things are going on here.

    One, you think that I'm not indifferent to whatever idealism you adhere to or that I only consider your point relevant if you provide an idealism. It's the contrary, really, I seriously don't care about you being a nationalist.

    Second, you seem to believe that I am able to isolate my ideals from the real world, that my argument was primarily a moral one. It's really not. I wouldn't argue what I do if I didn't have concrete concerns about the future of Europe per the way things are currently arranged. If you really seriously need to group me with anything in order to understand me I guess I would be a social libertarian hedonist or something. I like that we're wealthy, and that we're safe, and that we have the freedom to express what we want. The reason I talk about the fact that Europe wage war is because this practice has consequences and we can't isolate our issues from the things going on in the Middle East right now. Several more immediate Middle Eastern countries are going to collapse soon just from the sheer weight of migrant populations. And Europe is perfectly able to take in many of these people without having the whole thing implode.

    The recent policies in Denmark are really alarming when it comes to keeping Danish societies safe. But whenever I tell people that, they claim it is a humanitarian argument. I won't pretend there isn't a positive humanitarian aspect of it, but a position can both have that and have concrete, real world empiry to it. I may have phrased it badly earlier, but the point about Europe waging war was mostly a point about waging war - that will have consequences.

    When I parse your posts, declarations about proud nationalism or nonsensical speculations on leftist academic conspiracies do nothing but bloat.

    If you really want to discuss some sorts of "higher" morals, I might want to do that at some point, but it's not my primary concern in this thread, neither am I sure I want to bother with your particular brand of nationalism.

    You can't really isolate Finland from the European situation. I know you're kinda on the outskirts of the Western bloc but everything in Europe is tightly interwoven. The reason for this is because of the potential wealth and peace it has historically given. Finland is in it too.

    Alright.

    I countered that my beliefs were necessarily about the moral imperative and less about the practical conditions in place at the moment.

    While Australia is pretty close to some very nasty states, none of them are really unstable. Australia's position would be very different if they were placed in say Italy. I can't imagine blocking off all of the Mediterranean plus the Black Sea is in any way an economically feasible venue when you can just, you know, take them in and distribute them according to capacity.

    We are going to experience the after effects whether we like it or not. That's the point. My musings about war was simply that it had practical consequences. Such as how France can't bully Africa and the Middle East and not expect a counterattack at some point.

    In Germany, self-employment rates of Turks have risen by 200% since 1990. 1% of German Muslims can be considered Islamist. Of all Muslim migrants - not just Turks that is - 34% get an Abitur or an equivalent, which kinda undermines the Abitur point of the Spiegel. This quickie is from the laziest of googlings I spontaneously did right now. (EDIT: Should probably have included more stats from the homepage. I dunno.) Admittedly Google displays in accord to what you already look at so I might be misled. The Spiegel also tells us how much Germany loses on immigration, but it doesn't explain how it happens which is a huge problem if we want to figure out how exactly to improve on it. Does it need more funding? Less? Where? How? When? The independent organization that determined the 20 billion dollar deficit has posted this picture on their homepage as a definite standing point, which I not only agree with, but also find that their discourse of thinking could potentially be alarming at the same time:

    Spoiler Wow, that was a big picture. :


    FN released a massive studies in 2009 that explained how benefitable migration is, especially in countries with aging populations. From the way you talk about Australia (who takes in a lot of immigrants, the numbers have been on the rise, overall, for a very long time) makes me think you must be aware about this. Several studies also show when it has failed. The German Turks in question aren't surprising to me. There were little attempts at integration in the beginning of the migratory periods, it's a much later attempt, after the Turks happened to stay. Of course the long time stats are bad then. I've been presented both positive and alarming stats about Danish Muslims too.

    It's not because I don't agree that Europe is pressured. I do. But I also think it isn't black and white and I don't believe we can meaningfully reproduce their results as their neighbours are simply different. I don't think immigration is a massive failure, I don't even think it is a failure, but I think it may very well be if Europe doesn't accept the real world and work with it.

    EDIT: I would refer you to the earlier posts I made in the thread as well. The points about migrant populations having difficulties competing with natives on a social and economic level which reinforces stuff like poverty, unemployment, social immobility. For a long time Germany didn't make serious efforts to counteract these mechanics. A meaningfully similar situation is that in the US where blacks are disproportionately poor, where recent policies, basically amounting to special treatment, is fixing the issues ever so sligthly.
     
  13. Hehehe

    Hehehe Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,391
    Location:
    Finland
    Your point about your argument not being "a moral one", might hold true if, and only if, we accept the premise that there is nothing we can do about this stream of refugees. But as I have told you, this is simply false (for reference, how many people have crossed the Macedonian fence?). If, unlike me, you really don't care about morality, then Europe could even reverse the stream of refugees by taking drastic, highly immoral action.

    Europe is already imploding, and only you cannot see that. Already we are in a situation where the majority of Europeans do not want more refugees, and yet still politicians are letting them in. We have a majority whose wishes are not being respected. At this point taking in more immigrants/refugees just keeps piling up more support for the more extremist factions.

    This is because your argument is a humanitarian argument. Every discussion we have is inextricably linked to morality, whether you want it or not.

    Yes indeed, discussing "higher" morals might be worthwhile. But I agree, this is a matter for another thread.

    With secure border controls and swift deportations, I can.

    Already Europe is reaching the limits of how many refugees they can and want to house. The opposition to redistribution is growing all the time. Europe has a limit, and the majority seems to think we have already reached that limit.

    Yes indeed, France did see a counterattack which came from the Muslim population living in France, and Islamist fighters who entered Europe as refugees. In an alternate reality where France had not taken Muslims in in the first place, such attacks would have been impossible. France cannot go back in history, but they can stop taking in refugees and therefore lessen the chances of ISIS fighters entering the country. Less immigrants/refugees would also mean less immigrants ghettos, which are a breeding ground for radicalism.


    All of this stuff about the integration, whether or not it works, is besides the point. I feel like we're going in circles, but I will reiterate: my point is, first we successfully integrate the immigrants we already have (assuming that is possible) and ONLY after that has been done, only then do we take in more immigrants.

    As for the economic effects of migrants, this probably warrants a discussion of its own. But, as is, Europe is suffering from massive unemployment, and therefore has very little need for uneducated immigrants. This, in part, is also the reason why the employment rate among 3rd world immigrants is so low. We can't even employ our own, let alone newcomers. This is bound to create social problems, which are already manifesting.

    EDIT: As for the Australian policy, you can read about it here. TL;DR: To stop illegal immigration, all you need is a policy and a will to enforce it (note, this only applies to illegal immigration, not legal one obviously). We see the same thing in Macedonia, which practically closed off the entire Balkan route.
     
  14. daft

    daft The fargone

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,398
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New World
  15. innonimatu

    innonimatu Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    12,650
    I am fairly sure that armed religious fanatics running loose killing people for not following their strict codes deserve to be killed. But you can find other effective means to stop armed fanatics that do not involve killing them, I'd also approve of that. Realistically though, I fear that killing a few as an example will always be necessary for the rest to give up and surrender.

    Pacifism is nice but violence remains necessary for defense, or you end up a dead pacifist. We risk getting into the argument about "who shot first", granted. I'm just calling for not joining other country's fights, especially when the picture is unclear. That they fight, I can try understand.
     
  16. west india man

    west india man Immortal

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    9,327
    Location:
    Brazil
    The concept of ''illegal immigrants'' is ridiculous, and marginalizing certain people from society because they entered a country illegally is horrible and often racist
     
  17. REDY

    REDY Duty Caller

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    4,668
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Praha
    I do not see how its ridiculous, marginalizing or racist generally. Follow my country laws or stay out.
     
  18. west india man

    west india man Immortal

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    9,327
    Location:
    Brazil
    You're isolating people who live in the country and pushing them out of society, generally these people aren't the same ethnic group as the people who decide the laws, especially if they're refugees. Laws suck as a concept as well
     
  19. FriendlyFire

    FriendlyFire Codex WMDicanious

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    19,583
    Location:
    Sydney
    Brazil could always volunteer to accept allocation of Syrian Refugees ?
    Germany has already process and registered the first batch of 160,000 how many do you want to take ?
     
  20. west india man

    west india man Immortal

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    9,327
    Location:
    Brazil
    All of them, and calling them batches is dehumanizing
     

Share This Page