The current refugee wave in Europe

[Malcador]

It's really that bad ? At worst I was just expecting people to beat up refugees now and then.

[213374U]

A popular newspaper in my country supposedly got their hands on an official document signed by all of the various police branches and sent to the ministry of the interior, saying they can no longer guarantee internal security of the country due to complete chaos created by incoming waves of refugees and the crime spree that is following. The rest of the ''report'' looks pretty worrying as well.

 

Anyone who believes that police can ever guarantee security deserves what they get. The report is just cops being pussies about being in over their heads, and hoping that the circumstances and their opportunistic fear mongering will get them emergency budget approvals. Understand that cops are conditioned to believe that they can call down overwhelming force on any problem, even if they don't need to do that most of the time. Whenever that feeling is threatened, they are scared ****less.

 

 

[...]

but everyone agrees on that one should not sacrifice himself to help others which is clearly the case now.

[...]

But first and foremost the duty of the government is to protect its CITIZEN, and this is clearly not the case now.

[...]

 

Yep, that seems to be more or less the prevalent opinion here as well. But it's selfish and wrong. The foremost duty of the state is (should be) to uphold human rights within its jurisdiction to the best of its ablity, and human rights are universal and not contingent on citizenship. Sad that some of the hardest lessons learned in the wake of the bloodiest conflicts in history are already forgotten.

 

Personally, handling refugees is probably the only excuse I'd accept for a tax raise, considering that my country has been directly involved in causing the current state of affairs in the Middle East. I'd like to believe that the state is resourceful enough to handle ~15k refugees without levying new taxes, but as usual in public management matters, I'll just assume that I'll be disappointed again.

Edited September 24, 2015 by 213374U

[Meshugger]

So how much should a nation take in? Where is the limit? What is the end game?

[Hurlshort]

 

Ah, very edgy, bagging on a 1300 year old religious icon.  Let's throw in some carpenter jokes as well.   

 

Not all religious icons are equal. Mohammed's life is much better known and he was a warlord in his time. Much of what ISIS is doing, is exactly what Mohammad was doing in his time - including decapitations, destruction of anything "pagan" etc. 

 

Liberals need to outgrow the childish manner of treating all religions as the same thing as a way of taking the moral high ground. Most religious texts are open ended and can be interpreted in many different ways, but the Quran, and Islam in general is an extremely militant religion, has been since its creation. It was stopped by endless wars at the gates of Europe, and the downfall of its empires - not because anything about it changed, or because it was internally pushed aside by new ideologies like Christianity in Europe.

 

Europeans may like to think they've outgrown religion, but muslims don't and treat that very idea as an insult. The only thing worse to a muslim believer than a Christian is an atheist and there is no way any of them can, in good conscience, like that sort of liberal, sex drenched,"gay rights" pride parade society. I'm not even much of a believer and I don't like where Europe is heading, so I can only imagine what they think.

 

This leads to the creation of a parallel society where the entire immigrant class socializes internally and is closed off to the rest of the society and vice versa. When they're a few hundred thousand in a society of millions, you can say that's irrelevent, but when there are millions of them living an entirely separate existence it doesn't take a genius to see that that can't lead anywhere good.

 

 

Conservatives need to stop generalizing all Muslims as the same.  If that were true, why would all these Muslims be fleeing ISIS?  

 

My rolling of eyes over the dig at Mohammad has nothing to do with liberalism and everything to do with historical context.  Judging a 7th Century figure by modern standards is weak.  It's funny, because a liberal group was just protesting Junipero Serra gaining sainthood in much the same way that you are going after Muhammad.  

 

Not acknowledging how religions adapt and change to modern times is short-sighted.  

[Woldan]

Yep, that seems to be more or less the prevalent opinion here as well. But it's selfish and wrong. The foremost duty of the state is (should be) to uphold human rights within its jurisdiction to the best of its ablity, and human rights are universal and not contingent on citizenship.

Selfish and wrong? Yeah, its so selfish to protect ones country, living standards, health care system and security. Lets give it all up for the sake of humanity.

 

If thats what you believe then its your duty to give up all the luxury, the stuff you don't really need and sacrifice medical care to help the refugees.

To hell with your living standards, help them. You can start right now!

Edited September 24, 2015 by Woldan

[213374U]

 

Yep, that seems to be more or less the prevalent opinion here as well. But it's selfish and wrong. The foremost duty of the state is (should be) to uphold human rights within its jurisdiction to the best of its ablity, and human rights are universal and not contingent on citizenship.

Selfish and wrong? Yeah, its so selfish to protect ones country, living standards, health care system and security. Lets give it all up for the sake of humanity.

 

If thats what you believe then its your duty to give up all the luxury and the stuff you don't really need to donate it to the poor refugees. Help them. You can start right now!

 

 

 

And, yes. Sorry to break it to you, but it is wrong to leave people to die to protect your living standards. Deal with it.

[Bartimaeus]

In that case, we're all morally compromised, as every single one of us could give up and sell at least some of our non-vital possessions (such as the devices we use to access these forums, for example) to instead put that money towards saving the lives of others. If you want to make the argument that the vast, vast (>99.9%, likely) majority of people throughout history are selfish (i.e. human) to some degree, well, you won't get any argument here.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[Woldan]

And, yes. Sorry to break it to you, but it is wrong to leave people to die to protect your living standards. Deal with it.

If all people would think like that there would be no progress in anything because all the resources and energy would be spent to help the poor. All the time. And that mindset would create even more people in need because why should I be doing anything to improve my life if other people do that for me? Leading humanity to lethargy and stagnation, that is wrong. I believe in a more balanced sustainable welfare program.

 

And please explain that picture to me, have you made your donations and sacrifices yet? Have you sacrificed your welfare, living standards and health care to help the people in dire need?  - Because that is what it comes down to in my country right now, and I'd rather not see my country becoming a terrorism-infested third world country that is dealing with the problems other careless nations created.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Woldan

[Meshugger]

 

 

Ah, very edgy, bagging on a 1300 year old religious icon.  Let's throw in some carpenter jokes as well.   

 

Not all religious icons are equal. Mohammed's life is much better known and he was a warlord in his time. Much of what ISIS is doing, is exactly what Mohammad was doing in his time - including decapitations, destruction of anything "pagan" etc. 

 

Liberals need to outgrow the childish manner of treating all religions as the same thing as a way of taking the moral high ground. Most religious texts are open ended and can be interpreted in many different ways, but the Quran, and Islam in general is an extremely militant religion, has been since its creation. It was stopped by endless wars at the gates of Europe, and the downfall of its empires - not because anything about it changed, or because it was internally pushed aside by new ideologies like Christianity in Europe.

 

Europeans may like to think they've outgrown religion, but muslims don't and treat that very idea as an insult. The only thing worse to a muslim believer than a Christian is an atheist and there is no way any of them can, in good conscience, like that sort of liberal, sex drenched,"gay rights" pride parade society. I'm not even much of a believer and I don't like where Europe is heading, so I can only imagine what they think.

 

This leads to the creation of a parallel society where the entire immigrant class socializes internally and is closed off to the rest of the society and vice versa. When they're a few hundred thousand in a society of millions, you can say that's irrelevent, but when there are millions of them living an entirely separate existence it doesn't take a genius to see that that can't lead anywhere good.

 

 

Conservatives need to stop generalizing all Muslims as the same.  If that were true, why would all these Muslims be fleeing ISIS?  

 

My rolling of eyes over the dig at Mohammad has nothing to do with liberalism and everything to do with historical context.  Judging a 7th Century figure by modern standards is weak.  It's funny, because a liberal group was just protesting Junipero Serra gaining sainthood in much the same way that you are going after Muhammad.  

 

Not acknowledging how religions adapt and change to modern times is short-sighted.  

 

 

Exactly. Muslims need to learn to accept homosexuality, transgenderism, fight against rape culture, drink alcohol, do drugs, listen metal, appriciate porn, celebrate secularism, fight for feminism, denounce the traditional familty unit, deconstruct art, deconstruct masculinity and deconstruct their identities. Just like the rest of us.

[Meshugger]

 

 

Yep, that seems to be more or less the prevalent opinion here as well. But it's selfish and wrong. The foremost duty of the state is (should be) to uphold human rights within its jurisdiction to the best of its ablity, and human rights are universal and not contingent on citizenship.

Selfish and wrong? Yeah, its so selfish to protect ones country, living standards, health care system and security. Lets give it all up for the sake of humanity.

 

If thats what you believe then its your duty to give up all the luxury and the stuff you don't really need to donate it to the poor refugees. Help them. You can start right now!

 

 

 

And, yes. Sorry to break it to you, but it is wrong to leave people to die to protect your living standards. Deal with it.

 

 

lol

[213374U]

If all people would think like that there would be no progress in anything because all the resources and energy would be spent to help the poor. All the time. And that mindset would create even more people in need because why should I be doing anything to improve my life if other people do that for me? Leading humanity to lethargy and stagnation, that is wrong. I believe in a more balanced sustainable welfare program.

 

And please explain that picture to me, have you made your donations and sacrifices yet? Have you sacrificed your welfare, living standards and health care to help the people in dire need?  - Because that is what it comes down to in my country right now, and I'd rather not see my country becoming a terrorism-infested third world country that is dealing with the problems other careless nations created.

 

The hell are you talking about. Who said anything about dedicating ALL RESOURCES and spending ALL ENERGY to "help the poor"? I'm talking in the context of a refugee crisis, in the context of what you can do NOW, to prevent people from being slaughtered, starving to death in camps, etc. Please keep your slippery slopes to yourself. And lol @ "sustainable welfare". You mean sustainable for you, right? "I got mine so **** you", is what you mean. At least be honest.

 

And yeah, I have made my donations, as a matter of fact. Not just now, I donate to several NGOs, yearly, on top of volunteering part of my free time (not with refugees, though), of which I thankfully have quite a bit. But of course, that's not going to be enough for you because, since you are arguing from a fallacy (seriously, slippery slope, look it up), you won't be satisfied until I live in the same squalor as the refugees we're discussing.

 

But please, enlighten me. How exactly are your living standards being affected. How is your country being "attacked". How much has your purchasing power decreased since the refugees started pouring? To what extent have waiting lists for public healthcare increased? What is the increase in violent crime (%)? Is there rationing going on? Power outages? I'd like concrete figures, please. With citations.

Edited September 24, 2015 by 213374U

[Barothmuk]

Exactly. Muslims need to learn to accept homosexuality, transgenderism, fight against rape culture, drink alcohol, do drugs, listen metal, appriciate porn, celebrate secularism, fight for feminism, denounce the traditional familty unit, deconstruct art, deconstruct masculinity and deconstruct their identities. Just like the rest of us.

You forgot practice witchcraft. Edited September 24, 2015 by Barothmuk

[HoonDing]

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

[Meshugger]

 

Exactly. Muslims need to learn to accept homosexuality, transgenderism, fight against rape culture, drink alcohol, do drugs, listen metal, appriciate porn, celebrate secularism, fight for feminism, denounce the traditional familty unit, deconstruct art, deconstruct masculinity and deconstruct their identities. Just like the rest of us.

You forgot practice witchcraft.

 

 

You silly willy. The next thing you know you will be claiming that worship of a Moon God isn't already witchcraft.

 

Numbersboy: Chill already, your righteous fumes are clouding my screen. It is you who have prove how radically changing entire demographics in Europe with people from the third world in the name helping is the best outcome out of all options. 

Edited September 24, 2015 by Meshugger

[213374U]

Numbersboy: Chill already, your righteous fumes are clouding my screen. It is you who have prove how radically changing entire demographics in Europe with people from the third world in the name helping is the best outcome out of all options. 

 

No, bro. In fact, it's you who has to prove how fulfilling your ****ing obligations with regards to basic international law (cf. Geneva Convention on Refugees), not to mention showing a modicum of humanity is going to "radically change the entire demographics in Europe", let alone the rest of the tripe about the end of Yurop, Allahu Akbars taking over the world and so on, that you have been spouting lately. Take your time, I'll be here.

 

My screen is fine, by the way. You sure it's not your own bile?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Is the PM of UK ****ing a pig too offputting for the refugees?

[Malcador]

Probably would be easier if sone refugees didn't turn their noses up at some of the countries they wish to use as way stations. You should help out others in need, just do it reasonably - none of this "No one is illegal" stuff or fortifying your borders.

 

Maybe eventually they will collectively halt them at Greece and funnel them around as needed.

 

Hm...need to be a Refugee Crisis simulator.

[Zoraptor]

In that case, we're all morally compromised, as every single one of us could give up and sell at least some of our non-vital possessions (such as the devices we use to access these forums, for example) to instead put that money towards saving the lives of others.

 

Well, we pretty much are morally compromised. We live lives of quite genuine privilege and extraordinary wastage while most of the planet doesn't- and we also tend to pat ourselves on the back for doing so. The vast majority of 'our' achievements were made by others decades or centuries ago and are near completely removed from us. For all the talk of muslims and what they believe most of us had better hope that Jesus's "camel through eye of needle" quote was just an advisory.

 

Practically of course you can't give everything away, anyway. But that does not stop there being a moral obligation. It's probably closest to the situation with benefits or healthcare where you don't want everyone to be having MRIs every time they get a cold or to have an unemployment benefit higher than the minimum wage but at the same time you don't want people dying of tuberculosis or cholera on the streets and unemployed people starving under bridges. Once the refugees are there you have an obligation to them and cannot just ship them off in cattle cars back to Syria. The really stupid thing about this crisis is not the direct response to it or the acceptance of refugees in principle, that response is both morally and legally necessary.

 

The problem is that the peripheral response has been so terrible, either grossly incompetent or malign. Merkel actively exacerbated the problem by having encouraged refugees- and economic migrants- to use people smugglers and forged documents to get into Europe; a vicious circle where the smugglers have more money/ encouragement and refugees are encouraged to move in an uncontrolled and personally risky manner, it short circuits the 'proper' way of doing things so those who actually follow the rules and stay in their refugee camps in Turkey/ Lebanon/ Jordan are effectively punished for doing so as they see people who break the rules being 'rewarded' by getting their Euro refugee status for breaking those rules. That was utterly stupid and there ought to be real consequences for her for doing so because she's asterisked up other countries with her 'philanthropy' and has now taken it back to boot, collectivising the consequences.

 

There really are two distinct issues though, direct dealing with refugees once they have arrived where options are very limited, and preventing the refugees from arriving in a uncontrolled manner and disadvantaging those who actually follow the rules.

[Woldan]

21something

 

What do you think is going to happen to a country if hundreds of thousands of complete strangers who won't be contributing to the country anytime soon and only cost tons of money literally invade it?

A country that is already severely plagued with inflation, ever increasing unemployment -which is already blowing the record from post-WWII out of the water-, a country whose health care system is breaking down as we speak, a country that is experiencing super high crime rates with a police force thats is absolutely incapable of dealing with it all? 

Oh, and I forgot to mention, a country where all the big companies pack their gear and leave because they can no longer afford their business due to the extreme wages they have to pay?

 

Do I really have to explain it all to you or can think for yourself here for a second? 

 

You know, once the civil unrests start, the health care system no longer exists and the economy further dwindles your refugees won't feel so happy anymore.

Thats what happens if you load a boat beyond its capacity.

[Rosbjerg]

[...] country that is already severely plagued with inflation, ever increasing unemployment -which is already blowing the record from post-WWII out of the water-, a country whose health care system is breaking down as we speak, a country that is experiencing super high crime rates with a police force thats is absolutely incapable of dealing with it all? 

Oh, and I forgot to mention, a country where all the big companies pack their gear and leave because they can no longer afford their business due to the extreme wages they have to pay?

 

Do I really have to explain it all to you or can think for yourself here for a second? 

 

Hopefully it'll cause people to look at why we've come to this point in the first place. 

 

Hint: it's not the refugees.

[Hurlshort]

I'm certainly no expert on all the economic realities of different European countries, but you do have a surprising amount of data showing that immigration plays a positive impact on economies, not a negative one.  

[Bartimaeus]

Well, we pretty much are morally compromised. We live lives of quite genuine privilege and extraordinary wastage while most of the planet doesn't- and we also tend to pat ourselves on the back for doing so. The vast majority of 'our' achievements were made by others decades or centuries ago and are near completely removed from us. For all the talk of muslims and what they believe most of us had better hope that Jesus's "camel through eye of needle" quote was just an advisory.

I don't disagree: my point was that this is how humans have behaved since time immemorial, and that it's unlikely to change anytime soon. We look after ourselves and the ones we love first...and then others second, and then the latter group to a much different (i.e. lesser) degree than the former.

 

Practically of course you can't give everything away, anyway. But that does not stop there being a moral obligation.

No, that was hyperbole in response to 213374U's "it is wrong to leave people to die to protect your living standards". I mean, we literally all do that all of the time...we could all decide to live places less nice than where we are, or do without certain amenities, or decide to work more so that we can donate more of our money to saving other people's lives...very, very scant few of us actually want to or really can live that way, though - the people we're trying to save included, because humans, regardless of station of life, simply aren't really capable of doing that day in and day out. It's physically possible, if we had iron wills with a bent towards caring about anyone and everyone...but almost all of us are simply human, just as our ancestors were.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[Malcador]

 

[...] country that is already severely plagued with inflation, ever increasing unemployment -which is already blowing the record from post-WWII out of the water-, a country whose health care system is breaking down as we speak, a country that is experiencing super high crime rates with a police force thats is absolutely incapable of dealing with it all?

Oh, and I forgot to mention, a country where all the big companies pack their gear and leave because they can no longer afford their business due to the extreme wages they have to pay?

 

Do I really have to explain it all to you or can think for yourself here for a second?

Hopefully it'll cause people to look at why we've come to this point in the first place.

 

Hint: it's not the refugees.

Nope and sounds cool and all, but they might make those problems worse which isn't of use to anyone.

[Rosbjerg]

Nope and sounds cool and all, but they might make those problems worse which isn't of use to anyone.

 

They won't because they are not even remotely the cause of it. In fact throughout history influx of workers have been a boon to the economy, they take loans you see and need to buy a lot of things, plus they want luxury items to "fit in". The problem for a fractional reserve system is when money is kept in the banks and the banks are apprehensive about loaning them out at anything but outrages rates. Our system runs on inflation and loan bubbles, without 'em (and with the current austerity fad) the growth slows to a grind.

 

Of course European neo-liberals love to shrink the economy for intermittent periods, as it consolidates power (in the hands of their backers to boot) and reigns in the state's influence over businesses. With the added bonus of creating bursts of unemployment which drives wages down (high wages being the true culprit in many libertarians eyes) - on top of it all the crafty ones can even use the outrage to fuel xenophobia and grab those votes. It's a neat package.

[Malcador]

Well, if a country is under strain due to its existing populace, adding more people certainly runs the risk of just adding to that. Hard to really generalize all these migrants anyway, whether it's as people who will only bring good or bad. Though if countries sift through them before they take them in, and even a bit after, should work out same old.