Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[heydaralon]

What open door policy? Every single refugee (coming to America at least) is vetted by ELEVEN intelligence agencies. I can't say what the ones in europe go through, but I'm sure it's similar.

Even if it's not, again, that's what police are for. Not fucking handing out tickets.

They are not vetted by Europe at all. How do you run a background check on someone who comes from a country where all records are destroyed, who does not have ID (which couldn't be accurately crosschecked anyway) and is probably lying to ensure they are more likely to be allowed to stay? The only thing Europe could really do is run the aliases or names the people give them, cross check it with their intelligence services, and hope that if the person is a terrorist their name is in some alphabet soup agencies database. They are actually sending their navies into the Mediterranean to pick up these refugees who are crossing in shitty lifeboats and rafts. Explain how this is anything other than open door?

It's more like a "hey, let's not have any more bloated toddler corpses washing up in Sicily" policy. We do the same for Cubans, just to stop them from dying.

Also, what would the GCF Stop-Mid-East-Kids-From-Dying look like? What steps would you take to ensure that no more middle eastern children die? Does it simply involve having Europe take the entire third world into its borders?

I'm not set on any one plan, but maybe we only take kids under 15 or something? Maybe we set aside areas for them to settle? Maybe we only accept families. I honestly don't know, but there is definitely a middle ground between "open door" and "watch them die".

I'm ok with setting up camps or aid centers for them on middle eastern soil, although that comes with all sorts of problems (see Rwandan Hutus again), but this is like that book If you give a Mouse a Cookie. Merkel opened the floodgates, and caused a lot of this toddler death. The parents should be blamed for risking their children's life in a danger-for-euro-welfare scheme, and Merkel should be blamed for encouraging the mass migration which causes drownings and accidents. If Europe aggressively deported all boat people, and made it clear that no asylum would be given, I think you would start to see less of these folks. Also why is it that I picture after picture of healthy looking males in their 20s on these refugee boats, with not a woman or child in sight? You are a healthy man living in the middle east dude, pretty sure you can find a way to feed yourself, even if it involves joining some kind of sectarian army.

[SuburbanFarmer]

wow. You think somebody is putting their entire family on a death trap boat and leaving their home country because welfare? These are human beings dude. They think and process the same way you do.

You think those kids are safer in a war zone?? Would you really stay put and watch everything you care about blown to shit, destroyed, and say "well, at least I'm home"? Some people do, no doubt. And die for it.

Re: the 20-something males. You know the definition of a "militant" for the US military? Any 20+ yo male. Any. Anywhere any time. How do you think they came up with their bullshit "70k militants killed, 250 civilians"? That's ridiculous. It's because they're counting anyone not a child as "militant".

And if you deported all those people, theyd be found in a mass grave by next week.

[BjornP]

They are not vetted by Europe at all. How do you run a background check on someone who comes from a country where all records are destroyed, who does not have ID (which couldn't be accurately crosschecked anyway) and is probably lying to ensure they are more likely to be allowed to stay? The only thing Europe could really do is run the aliases or names the people give them, cross check it with their intelligence services, and hope that if the person is a terrorist their name is in some alphabet soup agencies database. They are actually sending their navies into the Mediterranean to pick up these refugees who are crossing in shitty lifeboats and rafts. Explain how this is anything other than open door?

Also, what would the GCF Stop-Mid-East-Kids-From-Dying look like? What steps would you take to ensure that no more middle eastern children die? Does it simply involve having Europe take the entire third world into its borders?

Who "vets" refugees? In what universe would that even be possible? How and why would Germany have a record of all the possible terrorists who live in Syria and thus be able to cross them off a list at the border? Not going to be any reliable government agencies to call, and not all of the refugees are going to have passports and then there's the part of a country like Syria may designate someone a terrorist for political reasons, while not seeing Hezbollah as anything than a political party.

The refugees are not your usual emmigrants looking for a tech job in a first world country. Also, you do realize that being a refugee is not the same as being granted permanent residence or citizenship in a country, right? Most refugees and asylum seekers simply return home again.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... -countries

Btw, you mention the old (true) story of most of those Syrian refugees in the news who were mostly young males... and earlier you and others point out (factually so) that rape is more prevalent among those same refugees. So, with those two facts in mind...... if you were a Syrian father, brother or husband...would you want to send off your wife, daughter or sister off on a journey alone with even a small amount of men from your own culture, sleeping in the same camp as them? Or would you prefer being the one to arrive in Sweden or Germany, get asylum and have the country you sought refuge in provide for a safe plane ticket for your wife and kids? Thus avoiding that whole: "Subjecting my wife and daughters to my fellow male countrymen who think unattended women are simply asking for it".

And how is the existence of navies the Mediterrean Ocean proof on an "open door"? Patrolling the Med is evidence of an open door policy? It's not like the US where illegal immigrants are allowed to work legal jobs, access to education and healthcare and can simply give birth to a child and voila! = Citizenship for that kid.

[heydaralon]

Since a lot of the drowning happened from Turkish migrants, that is a false comparison. Turkey has some terrorism, and some bad government, but it is not a warzone. They could have stayed there. They wanted more benefits. It makes sense. If I could make more money by sponging off some Euro government and I was a completely unprincipled asshole I would do the same thing. In fact, a lot of these migrants end up in places like Egypt first, which is how you can tell they are economic opportunists. Egypt is not a warzone either, but they can't get that Merkel welfare/white women rape there, so they gotta keep travelling. And here's the thing: it is fucked up that these parents jeopardized their family for that reason. My son or daughter drowned because I can get better dental insurance in hamburg than in Ankara or Cairo. Also, many of these migrants do not stay in the first country they land in like Italy or Greece. They keep moving until they hit the welfare jackpot in Germany or Scandinavia. Some of this extra travel is the result of EU gov'ts not wanting them in their countries and playing shariah hot potato with the new arrivals (completely understandable), but I think this travel after getting asylum shows apparently that beggars can be choosers.

Didn't you just say in an earlier post about possibly only accepting children under 15 or only families? I pointed out that boat after boat of these migrants were males who are military age, historically and statistically the most dangerous group. For instance, the gang rapes and sexual assaults in Europe are a result of that demographic. To me it is very suspicious that there are no women or children on the boats. As bad as life in the middle east is for men, women and children are more vulnerable and in more immediate danger, which tells me there is some fuckery going on when they are absent. It kind of skews the narrative a bit. Also another point I want to make is that, several of the terrorist attacks were a result of people whose asylum status was not granted, so they decided to try and harm other people. If you let desperate people in, they will often come to believe that your charity is something that is owed to them, and that you are weak rather than kind. I'm not claiming terrorism would stop if Europe stopped the immigration, but it is very foolish to think many of these problems can be adequately stopped by police. I suppose the police could arrest a guy after he drives a truck into a group of people, or arrest a group of Libyans after they gang rape an elderly woman, but the damage has kind of already been done. Since many of these people do not have proper IDs, it is hard to effectively track and investigate them, much less stop them. This is all common sense dude.

[heydaralon]

They are not vetted by Europe at all. How do you run a background check on someone who comes from a country where all records are destroyed, who does not have ID (which couldn't be accurately crosschecked anyway) and is probably lying to ensure they are more likely to be allowed to stay? The only thing Europe could really do is run the aliases or names the people give them, cross check it with their intelligence services, and hope that if the person is a terrorist their name is in some alphabet soup agencies database. They are actually sending their navies into the Mediterranean to pick up these refugees who are crossing in shitty lifeboats and rafts. Explain how this is anything other than open door?

Also, what would the GCF Stop-Mid-East-Kids-From-Dying look like? What steps would you take to ensure that no more middle eastern children die? Does it simply involve having Europe take the entire third world into its borders?

Who "vets" refugees? In what universe would that even be possible? How and why would Germany have a record of all the possible terrorists who live in Syria and thus be able to cross them off a list at the border? Not going to be any reliable government agencies to call, and not all of the refugees are going to have passports and then there's the part of a country like Syria may designate someone a terrorist for political reasons, while not seeing Hezbollah as anything than a political party.

The refugees are not your usual emmigrants looking for a tech job in a first world country. Also, you do realize that being a refugee is not the same as being granted permanent residence or citizenship in a country, right? Most refugees and asylum seekers simply return home again.

I was making that point about refugees when GCF was saying that they were vetted by intelligence agencies. I said that was nearly impossible, for the reasons you listed. We are in agreement on this point. I don't know your stance on all this migration, but aren't you kind of making my case for me that Europe has no idea who they are letting in?

As far as your point about the refugees versus asylum seekers, what is the timeline for their return to their own country? When the civil war ends? When the middle east stops being a poor, dangerous place to live? Call me crazy, but I don't think thats going to happen soon, if ever. Also what happens if the war in Syria ended tomorrow? Would they just tell all the migrants: "Hey you should go home now!" Would the migrants listen? Would they start being deported by force? I have no idea, but based on the way the EU is set up and the violent blowback from migrants who wanted to stay, it seems like a difficult task.

[heydaralon]

[


Btw, you mention the old (true) story of most of those Syrian refugees in the news who were mostly young males... and earlier you and others point out (factually so) that rape is more prevalent among those same refugees. So, with those two facts in mind...... if you were a Syrian father, brother or husband...would you want to send off your wife, daughter or sister off on a journey alone with even a small amount of men from your own culture, sleeping in the same camp as them? Or would you prefer being the one to arrive in Sweden or Germany, get asylum and have the country you sought refuge in provide for a safe plane ticket for your wife and kids? Thus avoiding that whole: "Subjecting my wife and daughters to my fellow male countrymen who think unattended women are simply asking for it".

And how is the existence of navies the Mediterrean Ocean proof on an "open door"? Patrolling the Med is evidence of an open door policy? It's not like the US where illegal immigrants are allowed to work legal jobs, access to education and healthcare and can simply give birth to a child and voila! = Citizenship for that kid.

If the father and brother were travelling with their wives and daughters, they would not be unattended. Plus, isn't it kind of strange if they were really worried about the welfare of their family that they would simply leave them unattended in a dangerous and violent third world country while they make the trip? I have no idea, but that doesn't really seem right to me.

If Merkel or whoever encourages people to come to Europe, and then has the navy pick them up halfway into their journey because their vessels are not safe, and does not return them to their origin country but puts them on European soil, that is an open door policy, even if it is not identified as such. What kind of message does that send? She is basically saying, "If you put yourself and others in danger by crossing the ocean, you will be picked up a Euro navy and placed on European soil." Also, as to your point about the difference between asylum and citizenship, don't you think those nuances would be lost on many of the desperate people in the Middle East? They clearly have different expectations when they travel to Europe.

[BjornP]

Since a lot of the drowning happened from Turkish migrants, that is a false comparison. Turkey has some terrorism, and some bad government, but it is not a warzone. They could have stayed there. They wanted more benefits. It makes sense.

Uhmm....what? Which "Turkish migrants"? Yeah, most of those drowning set off from Turkey, but they're not Turkish refugees. The Turks in Europe are not refugees, they're not even migrants anymore. They've been here since the 1970's. They're at third generation by now.

If I could make more money by sponging off some Euro government and I was a completely unprincipled asshole I would do the same thing. In fact, a lot of these migrants end up in places like Egypt first, which is how you can tell they are economic opportunists. Egypt is not a warzone either, but they can't get that Merkel welfare/white women rape there, so they gotta keep travelling. And here's the thing: it is fucked up that these parents jeopardized their family for that reason. My son or daughter drowned because I can get better dental insurance in hamburg than in Ankara or Cairo. Also, many of these migrants do not stay in the first country they land in like Italy or Greece. They keep moving until they hit the welfare jackpot in Germany or Scandinavia. Some of this extra travel is the result of EU gov'ts not wanting them in their countries and playing shariah hot potato with the new arrivals (completely understandable), but I think this travel after getting asylum shows apparently that beggars can be choosers.

And as pointed out, they get turned back if they're not actually refugees. The various governments do have translators available, and they can tell if some Egyptian migrant is trying to bullshit his way into asylum status as a war refugee from Syria. I don't disagree with your assessment that they want to reach the welfare jackpots...or rather that's what they imagine they'd get. Sweden's not accepting as many refugees and they're sending people back now, too.

As for accusing parents of jeopardizing their kids in a raft for a shot at a better life. Not going to criticize that. Those fathers and mothers who cross the sea with their children between Libya and Italy and die.... that's what a family must do. I still support not giving them anything and turning them away again unless they're fleeing war or persecution (and then only for as long as the conflict they're fleeing from lasts), but they're still only doing what any responsible parent ought to do if they're from some African shit-hole, like Mali where they still have slavery and shit and where there's no such thing as unemployment benefits or welfare. Seek out better conditions for your family...or die trying. They died trying. Better than sitting at home and watching your children starve to death.

Didn't you just say in an earlier post about possibly only accepting children under 15 or only families? I pointed out that boat after boat of these migrants were males who are military age, historically and statistically the most dangerous group. For instance, the gang rapes and sexual assaults in Europe are a result of that demographic. To me it is very suspicious that there are no women or children on the boats.

No, I haven't said anything about only accepting children under 15 or families. And as I am pointing out, the reason the refugee groups back then were almost all male could be quite logical given the rape thing: They trust women and girls to be alone with refugee Arab men as much as the posters here would. IOW, and using a different rhetorical perspective... it's not just evil, right-wing conservative "Islamophobes" who think Muslims are all rapists, Muslim men expect the same from other Muslim men, as well.

As bad as life in the middle east is for men, women and children are more vulnerable and in more immediate danger, which tells me there is some fuckery going on when they are absent. It kind of skews the narrative a bit. Also another point I want to make is that, several of the terrorist attacks were a result of people whose asylum status was not granted, so they decided to try and harm other people. If you let desperate people in, they will often come to believe that your charity is something that is owed to them, and that you are weak rather than kind. I'm not claiming terrorism would stop if Europe stopped the immigration, but it is very foolish to think many of these problems can be adequately stopped by police. I suppose the police could arrest a guy after he drives a truck into a group of people, or arrest a group of Libyans after they gang rape an elderly woman, but the damage has kind of already been done. Since many of these people do not have proper IDs, it is hard to effectively track and investigate them, much less stop them. This is all common sense dude.

[/quote]

Yes, desperate people will do desperate, dangerous shit if they don't get their way. That's a shame, but not a persuasive argument against accepting refugees from warzones. So someone snaps, kills some people? Using that as argument for banning all refugees is hysteria. Keeping them in the country indefinitely? Totally against that. But not accepting refugees at all because one or two might kill someone? That's too fearful.

But you're right, most of the problems aren't going to be solved by police. Police react to problems. Solutions are social and cultural. There was a social worker in a Danish municipality, one who worked in one of the "integration centers" (where refugees and asylum seekers are taught about Danish language, laws and values), who created a little booklet about how to treat women in Denmark. Simple info like: "Wearing a top that shows cleavage isn't an invitation to groping, nor does it mean that the girl's a prostitute". Courses were quite well recieved, even by the refugees themselves. They simply didn't understand the cultural differences, and there was no one expecting them to know. In order to integrate people, you have to make demands of them, have to expect things of them, and communicate those demands and expectations. Worrying about appearing "racist" or culturally insensitive means any minority you have, will never adapt to your society. You can't treat anyone as members of the tribe if you keep insisting they have to be treated like guests who need coddling and special rules.

[BjornP]

I was making that point about refugees when GCF was saying that they were vetted by intelligence agencies. I said that was nearly impossible, for the reasons you listed. We are in agreement on this point. I don't know your stance on all this migration, but aren't you kind of making my case for me that Europe has no idea who they are letting in?

As far as your point about the refugees versus asylum seekers, what is the timeline for their return to their own country? When the civil war ends? When the middle east stops being a poor, dangerous place to live? Call me crazy, but I don't think thats going to happen soon, if ever. Also what happens if the war in Syria ended tomorrow? Would they just tell all the migrants: "Hey you should go home now!" Would the migrants listen? Would they start being deported by force? I have no idea, but based on the way the EU is set up and the violent blowback from migrants who wanted to stay, it seems like a difficult task.

I'm making the case that no one can know who they let in when it comes to refugees. And making the case that I don't really care if they don't know. I think it was Dick Cheney who made a comment once about how torture was justified if there was just 1% risk of a terrorist bombing a US city. Well, I don't give a shit about 1% risk of rape or terrorism, or even 99%. Insisting that one must fundamentally change society, change one's values because of even a guarenteed threat... means one never really believed in one's values in the first place. I believe in helping refugees, to an extent. "Even" if they're Muslim.

The parameters for who can get asylum or not, are pretty strict. Being from "the Middle East" isn't going get you asylum. People are already being shipped back to Iraq. And you do realize that all those sweet, sweet Scandinavian welfare benefits will stop materializing after their asylum is rejected, right? And yes, just google "refugees sent home", daralon. They are sent home. Outside of Greece, it's not like there's as many of them now as there were two years ago.

The EU is not a state, doesn't have a unified immigration policy. What they tried to make a deal about was that each country should accept a certain amount of refugees. That fell through... hard. Then they made a deal with Turkey for them to keep most of the Syrians in their camps withing Turkey. It seems to be holding, but you never know with Erdogan.

In essence, the "refugee crisis" that was the news a couple years ago, is over. Economic hangovers will last some time, I suspect.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Fully agree with your last point.

I'm sick of the hyphenated shit.

[heydaralon]

Since a lot of the drowning happened from Turkish migrants, that is a false comparison. Turkey has some terrorism, and some bad government, but it is not a warzone. They could have stayed there. They wanted more benefits. It makes sense.

Uhmm....what? Which "Turkish migrants"? Yeah, most of those drowning set off from Turkey, but they're not Turkish refugees. The Turks in Europe are not refugees, they're not even migrants anymore. They've been here since the 1970's. They're at third generation by now.

If I could make more money by sponging off some Euro government and I was a completely unprincipled asshole I would do the same thing. In fact, a lot of these migrants end up in places like Egypt first, which is how you can tell they are economic opportunists. Egypt is not a warzone either, but they can't get that Merkel welfare/white women rape there, so they gotta keep travelling. And here's the thing: it is fucked up that these parents jeopardized their family for that reason. My son or daughter drowned because I can get better dental insurance in hamburg than in Ankara or Cairo. Also, many of these migrants do not stay in the first country they land in like Italy or Greece. They keep moving until they hit the welfare jackpot in Germany or Scandinavia. Some of this extra travel is the result of EU gov'ts not wanting them in their countries and playing shariah hot potato with the new arrivals (completely understandable), but I think this travel after getting asylum shows apparently that beggars can be choosers.

And as pointed out, they get turned back if they're not actually refugees. The various governments do have translators available, and they can tell if some Egyptian migrant is trying to bullshit his way into asylum status as a war refugee from Syria. I don't disagree with your assessment that they want to reach the welfare jackpots...or rather that's what they imagine they'd get. Sweden's not accepting as many refugees and they're sending people back now, too.

As for accusing parents of jeopardizing their kids in a raft for a shot at a better life. Not going to criticize that. Those fathers and mothers who cross the sea with their children between Libya and Italy and die.... that's what a family must do. I still support not giving them anything and turning them away again unless they're fleeing war or persecution (and then only for as long as the conflict they're fleeing from lasts), but they're still only doing what any responsible parent ought to do if they're from some African shit-hole, like Mali where they still have slavery and shit and where there's no such thing as unemployment benefits or welfare. Seek out better conditions for your family...or die trying. They died trying. Better than sitting at home and watching your children starve to death.

Didn't you just say in an earlier post about possibly only accepting children under 15 or only families? I pointed out that boat after boat of these migrants were males who are military age, historically and statistically the most dangerous group. For instance, the gang rapes and sexual assaults in Europe are a result of that demographic. To me it is very suspicious that there are no women or children on the boats.

No, I haven't said anything about only accepting children under 15 or families. And as I am pointing out, the reason the refugee groups back then were almost all male could be quite logical given the rape thing: They trust women and girls to be alone with refugee Arab men as much as the posters here would. IOW, and using a different rhetorical perspective... it's not just evil, right-wing conservative "Islamophobes" who think Muslims are all rapists, Muslim men expect the same from other Muslim men, as well.

As bad as life in the middle east is for men, women and children are more vulnerable and in more immediate danger, which tells me there is some fuckery going on when they are absent. It kind of skews the narrative a bit. Also another point I want to make is that, several of the terrorist attacks were a result of people whose asylum status was not granted, so they decided to try and harm other people. If you let desperate people in, they will often come to believe that your charity is something that is owed to them, and that you are weak rather than kind. I'm not claiming terrorism would stop if Europe stopped the immigration, but it is very foolish to think many of these problems can be adequately stopped by police. I suppose the police could arrest a guy after he drives a truck into a group of people, or arrest a group of Libyans after they gang rape an elderly woman, but the damage has kind of already been done. Since many of these people do not have proper IDs, it is hard to effectively track and investigate them, much less stop them. This is all common sense dude.

Yes, desperate people will do desperate, dangerous shit if they don't get their way. That's a shame, but not a persuasive argument against accepting refugees from warzones. So someone snaps, kills some people? Using that as argument for banning all refugees is hysteria. Keeping them in the country indefinitely? Totally against that. But not accepting refugees at all because one or two might kill someone? That's too fearful.

But you're right, most of the problems aren't going to be solved by police. Police react to problems. Solutions are social and cultural. There was a social worker in a Danish municipality, one who worked in one of the "integration centers" (where refugees and asylum seekers are taught about Danish language, laws and values), who created a little booklet about how to treat women in Denmark. Simple info like: "Wearing a top that shows cleavage isn't an invitation to groping, nor does it mean that the girl's a prostitute". Courses were quite well recieved, even by the refugees themselves. They simply didn't understand the cultural differences, and there was no one expecting them to know. In order to integrate people, you have to make demands of them, have to expect things of them, and communicate those demands and expectations. Worrying about appearing "racist" or culturally insensitive means any minority you have, will never adapt to your society. You can't treat anyone as members of the tribe if you keep insisting they have to be treated like guests who need coddling and special rules.[/quote]

The point about the 15 year olds was directed at GCF, when we were discussing that earlier in the thread, he brought up the point about a different approach to it.

Here's a question: If Turkey is not a warzone, why can't the Syrians and others fleeing conflict simply stay there? I realize the Turks probably wouldn't like it, but it seems to me like that if they made it to Turkey, they are out of immediate harms way. Any further travel does seem like economic opportunism to me. I just looked up that Turkey has about 2.5 million refugees. What if Europe simply gave them funding to set up more refugee camps on their soil, in exchange for aid or more favorable trade terms or something? It would not be perfect, but it would be better than the current situation.

Also I just realized from your post that I am using different terms, than you. I am probably carelessly interchanging the terms migrant, refugee, and asylum seeker. With that in mind I am just trying to describe an overall trend of people from North Africa and the Middle East attempting to get into Europe.

Are you from Sweden? You mentioned they were turning people away and starting to send people back. What kind of numbers are we talking about here? I'm glad they are doing it, but I don't really understand the logic because these people are fleeing the Syrian civil war, which is the reason they are supposedly in Europe. If the war is still ongoing, why are they being sent back?