Immigration

  • Thread starter KSaiyu
  • 1,702 comments
  • 65,206 views

The only thing in reality that you should be ashamed when it come to your country is the fact the austrailan government is taking part in america and british foolish effort to oust assad which in turn created this situation.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/front-lines-refugee-crisis-hungarians-worry-accepting-newcomers/

I love this article and why? good to see hungarians resisting these refugees because just accepting them blindly would only encourage more to make the dangerous trip.
 
Everybody should really listen to
The moderators when they tell you to do something. Or not to do something.

In this instance:
The only thing in reality that you should be ashamed when it come to your country is the fact the Austrailan government is taking part in America and British foolish effort to oust Assad which in turn created this situation.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/front-lines-refugee-crisis-hungarians-worry-accepting-newcomers/

I love this article and why? Good to see Hungarians resisting these refugees because just accepting them blindly would only encourage more to make the dangerous trip.
And you double-posted. Yet again.
 
exactly my point of view ...

Then might I suggest that you unbolt your head, take your brain out and give it a lovely bath to cool it down? :)

Shouty-man suggests that favouring refugees is a Left Wing Agenda as that's who the refugees will inevitably vote for*, that people must be too stupid realise there's a difference between genuine refugees and economic migrants**, that "many" of them don't even look like refugees***, that Saudi Arabia's acceptance of over 100,000 refugees never happened****... I stopped there. The guy's mad.

*Huh?
**Huh?
***Huh?
****Huh?
 
I love this article and why? good to see hungarians resisting these refugees because just accepting them blindly would only encourage more to make the dangerous trip.
Let's see here: Syrian refugees are attempting to flee a broken state locked in a perpetual civil war where both the government and a terrorist group are doing their utmost to kill them. They are fleeing from persecution, brutal violence, poor sanitary conditions in refugee camps, and the use of rape as a weapon. And yet Hungary is to be applauded for consciously making the trip more dangerous than staying put?

That's pretty much what our asylum seeker policy is at the moment. If anybody arrives illegally, we lock them up in a detention facility somewhere offshore where they get no legal representation or adequate access to medical care. They're subject to persecution from the locals - including the police forces - and there have been accusations of mistreatment by the guards. The policy then amounts to waiting them out to try and convince them to go back. All of it is hidden under the blanket of National Security so that the government does not need to discuss it, and they have also criminalised whistleblowing - anyone who works there and draws public attention to conditions there is subject to punitive prison sentences for it. The last time a non-government senator went out to inspect the facility (after dozens of attempts to stall her), she was spied on twenty-four hours a day. The UN commissioner against torture - a man who was himself repeatedly tortured by his own government - has called our policy torture (to which our government's response was "shut up, UN, you should be applauding us").

If it looks like a concentration camp and it smells like a concentration camp, then it's probably a concentration camp. Not that anyone could verify, because it's all done in secret - out of sight, and out of mind.
 
.. that Saudi Arabia's acceptance of over 100,000 refugees never happened...

nobody knows real numbers and this wasn't main point of the video. He is wondering who will benefit from influx of refugees, and it will not be the population which already lives in the Europe.


I often hear that politicians who are anti-immigrant are labeled as populist (in negative meaning), which I don't understand because politicians are supposed to represent people of the country, so what is wrong with being populist. Are we in times when few people with syndrome of pathological altruism (or whatever you want to call them) are bullying sane majority?
 
I often hear that politicians who are anti-immigrant are labeled as populist (in negative meaning), which I don't understand because politicians are supposed to represent people of the country, so what is wrong with being populist.
There's a difference between acting in the interests of the people and simply telling them what they want to hear, because with the latter, it's only a short step to setting policy based on what will keep you in power. You're only ever reacting to short-term changes in public opinion - which can be fickle - and you lose sight of the long-term needs of the country and the people.

He is wondering who will benefit from influx of refugees, and it will not be the population which already lives in the Europe.
Why does everything need to be decided based on who gets the most benefit?
 
nobody knows real numbers and this wasn't main point of the video.

It's certainly far nearer to 100,000 than 0 though. I suspect the author's point was along the lines of "why should we bother when those darned Muslamicists don't?".

He is wondering who will benefit from influx of refugees, and it will not be the population which already lives in the Europe.

As @prisonermonkeys asked; why should it be decided based on who gets the most benefit?

I often hear that politicians who are anti-immigrant are labeled as populist (in negative meaning)...

Before addressing the rest of that question... source required.
 
nobody knows real numbers and this wasn't main point of the video. He is wondering who will benefit from influx of refugees, and it will not be the population which already lives in the Europe.


I often hear that politicians who are anti-immigrant are labeled as populist (in negative meaning), which I don't understand because politicians are supposed to represent people of the country, so what is wrong with being populist. Are we in times when few people with syndrome of pathological altruism (or whatever you want to call them) are bullying sane majority?
I find it odd that your stance is so anti immigration, given that a generation ago there were more people wanted out of your country than wanted in.
That ranty guy in your video might be right in that there are some imposters (economic refugees) in the current flood, but the massive majority of them don't want to move - it was move or die. Paying your life savings and taking a boat of dubious seaworthiness across the sea to walk for days is not exactly on many people's bucket list.


Immigrants can, and do, contribute to society. They want to go to Germany, UK etc to get a hand up, not a hand out. It is pretty hard to get a foot hold in a new country with absolutely nothing. If you get a cheap roof over your head and means to employment, then things are already looking up. And then they will probably help the next wave of their countrymen. Leaving them in a tent city achieves nothing.
 
Immigrants can, and do, contribute to society. They want to go to Germany, UK etc to get a hand up, not a hand out. It is pretty hard to get a foot hold in a new country with absolutely nothing. If you get a cheap roof over your head and means to employment, then things are already looking up. And then they will probably help the next wave of their countrymen. Leaving them in a tent city achieves nothing.
But that's the problem - the anti-immigration crowd simply have to argue that their national values and identity are under threat from migrants who want to settle in their country, appropriate those values and identity and force the citizens to identify with something that no longer represents them. So long as they portray "traditional values" as being under threat and claim that they are protecting their way of life, they will always find an audience in the conservative voters. Just look at our own country, where the conservatives are the champions of defending our borders, and the progressives want to throw the borders open to anyone who shows up. It's impossible to find a middle ground.
 
Speaking of populists.

A poll held yesterday showed that if we now held elections, the PVV, Geert Wilders party, would be the biggest. Partially accredited to the current immigration debate, mostly accredited to people being unhappy with Mark Rutte and Friends.
 
It's impossible to find a middle ground.

Voters are avoiding the political center, attracted to the socialist left and nationalist right. Did Tony Blair poison the center with the bitter legacy of war and the refugee crisis now sweeping Europe?
 
The move comes amid extraordinary scenes at Munich’s main train station over the weekend and a growing backlash inside Germany over the decision last week by Merkel, to allow unregistered refugees to enter the country. The numbers exceeded all expectations.

On Saturday, 13,015 refugees arrived at the station on trains from Austria. Another 1,400 came on Sunday morning. The city’s mayor, Dieter Reiter, said Munich was “full”, with its capacities completely exhausted

Germany’s stunning ad hoc move sets the stage for a bitter showdown on Monday at a meeting of EU interior ministers in Brussels
.
 
Why does everything need to be decided based on who gets the most benefit?

So why Merkel and others acting like they do? If they don't see benefit from influx of refugees they acting quite strange, actually I'm quite surprised that nobody killed Merkel yet.
 
So why Merkel and others acting like they do?
When joining the EU, formerly sovereign nations are asked to pledge support for a variety of European values, including open borders, cultural diversity, protection of minorities and rejection of xenophobia.
 
When joining the EU, formerly sovereign nations are asked to pledge support for a variety of European values, including open borders, cultural diversity, protection of minorities and rejection of xenophobia.
Interesting values you got there. I suppose this is a good enough reason to do whatever I'm able to (just vote, tbh) in order to leave the union then. :)
 
Interesting values you got there. I suppose this is a good enough reason to do whatever I'm able to (just vote, tbh) in order to leave the union then. :)

Central and eastern Europe were apparently insincere when they made these pledges. Or at least the people are not exactly herding in the directions the politicians have pointed.
 
The problem with the European system at the moment is that it not only encourages refugees to head for Germany, but countries like Hungary do nothing to facilitate it. So you get refugees landing in Greece and making a mad dash for the German border, with everyone in between throwing up hurdles along the way. If countries like Hungary don't want to take refugees, then at the very least, they should offer a hand in getting people to a safe haven. But all it is really doing is creating a situation where the refugees choose where they are resettling - and any safe haven should be acceptable - and nobody is communicating with them.
 
When joining the EU, formerly sovereign nations are asked to pledge support for a variety of European values, including open borders, cultural diversity, protection of minorities and rejection of xenophobia.

they advertised EU as economic project not political one ... now it looks like we exchanged Kremlin for Brussels
 
So you are comparing a corrupt government who were happy to see the population starve for a collection of governments who are trying to work out how not to let a population starve...

Or in other words - would you rather live in poverty under Soviet rule, or be in a country prosperous enough to support those displaced by a war they want no part of? Sounds like you prefer the former.
 
So you are comparing a corrupt government who were happy to see the population starve for a collection of governments who are trying to work out how not to let a population starve...

Or in other words - would you rather live in poverty under Soviet rule, or be in a country prosperous enough to support those displaced by a war they want no part of? Sounds like you prefer the former.
Soviet rule?
 
So you are comparing a corrupt government who were happy to see the population starve for a collection of governments who are trying to work out how not to let a population starve...

Or in other words - would you rather live in poverty under Soviet rule, or be in a country prosperous enough to support those displaced by a war they want no part of? Sounds like you prefer the former.

it's about independence, we are taking in refugees but we don't need Brussels/Germany to tell us how many.


btw. former Czechoslovakia was never part of Soviet union, we were officially independent state but as part of eastern block under Kremlin influence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovakia–Soviet_Union_relations
 
Back