Any thoughts on this?
My personal thought is that Hungary is 100% in the right. They are an independent country that has the right to protect their borders. Hungary arrested 29 migrants the other day and confirmed that one of them was a wanted terrorist. At least Hungarians will be able to sleep at night. Their government is doing what's best for their people. I would hate to live in Croatia or Serbia right now. I wouldn't feel so safe if I was in one of those countries.
Addition to the previous: Croatia is now sending trains of refugees to the Hungarian border and encouraging them to enter Hungary. If I was Hungary I would be p*ssed. Croatia created their own mess. Now they are going to have to live with it. Croatia is now the perfect example of why you don't let thousands of so called refugees into your country. The scarier fact is Croatia has no idea who some of these people really are (terrorists acting as a refugee).
Whole cities are being abandoned, could almost have a post-apocalyptic/I Am Legend look in 10 years if no one returns to sections of the Mid East and Syria
Quote from: US 41 on September 19, 2015, 04:40:23 AM
Any thoughts on this?
My personal thought is that Hungary is 100% in the right. They are an independent country that has the right to protect their borders. Hungary arrested 29 migrants the other day and confirmed that one of them was a wanted terrorist. At least Hungarians will be able to sleep at night. Their government is doing what's best for their people. I would hate to live in Croatia or Serbia right now. I wouldn't feel so safe if I was in one of those countries.
Addition to the previous: Croatia is now sending trains of refugees to the Hungarian border and encouraging them to enter Hungary. If I was Hungary I would be p*ssed. Croatia created their own mess. Now they are going to have to live with it. Croatia is now the perfect example of why you don't let thousands of so called refugees into your country. The scarier fact is Croatia has no idea who some of these people really are (terrorists acting as a refugee).
Not quite. They gave up some of those rights when they became party to the Schengen Treaty. Issues with frontiers of the Schengen Zone are supposed to take place at the European (i.e. Strasbourg or Brussels) level rather than national level.
It would be akin to Texas taking its own border initiatives, despite the fact that immigration and border policies are solely a federal (Washington DC) prerogative.
Europe indeed has an agency to deal with these issues: http://frontex.europa.eu/
Serbia has already had plenty of issues dating back to the 1990s. I doubt many migrants intend to make Serbia their long-term home. In fact, Serbia will go down in history as one of the most infamous hosts of state-sponsored genocide ("ethnic cleansing") during their problems in the 90s. Southern European countries have no issue killing or banishing non-natives to the margins of their societies.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 19, 2015, 08:52:50 AMNot quite. They gave up some of those rights when they became party to the Schengen Treaty.
Indeed, but none of the borders that Hungary are blocking are Schengen ones, but external Schengen ones, which the rules say should be borders. The borders that Denmark, Austria and Germany (in that order) are. Austria and Germany especially funny as they attacked Hungary (and in Germany's case Austria) for bringing in some sort of policing of the border just days before they do it.
The Romanian and Croatian borders are EU, and there's meant to be free-movement of EU nationals (and Swiss, Norwegian, Icelandic and those the various microstates), but like the UK-French border, it's still a border and an ID check is perfectly acceptable.
There's some key things to bare in mind:
1) The Dublin treaty, which is still the international law regarding Schengen and EU and such things is that all refugees and economic migrants entering the region get processed in the first country they enter and then can move within the region (EU-plus for refugees, Schengen for economic migrants) once the paperwork comes through. Hungary was seeking to follow the law and got treated as a bad guy for doing so!
2) The country of entry is often Greece or Italy, both bankrupted by Brussels bailouts of bankers (via the country's Governments) and the Euro being awful for periphery economies the moment stuff goes wrong, but the EU/Schengen provides no money as they see the border as a Greek/Italian issue. Italy used to have boats rescuing migrants in the Med, but the other countries (or rather the EU) cut the supporting funding and now they have boat (they might have recently regained a second).
3) Other than the UK, which gave lots of money to Lebanon and Turkey to support them handling refugees, and Italy (which is always very generous in granting refugee status) the major European players have ignored the plight of people until they arrive in their jurisdiction (or international waters in the case of the Med). I'm not saying "we shouldn't have gone to war in Libya, and should have in Syria" (because that's quite funnily silly that we intervened in one place, and that was wrong, and didn't in another but is also wrong for the same reasons, despite the conflicts being broadly similar), but "where's the Franco-German aid spending?"
4) Germany's population, despite having the most internal European migration, and a fair few Turkish immigrants, is declining rapidly due to very low birth rate. It can take in 250k refugees/year because if it doesn't (and it needs twice that number to counteract the population decline - assuming they will all stay within the borders, which they won't), it's economically dead within 25 years.
5) The EU's proposal of quotas to balance the load is nonsense - either you have quotas, or you have free movement of people / open borders (not quite the same thing). You can't have both.
6) The EU/Italian policy of any boat found in the Med outside African/Asian territorial waters encourages boats. An Australian policy of actively turning around those seeking to enter Europe illegally (while obviously dealing with healthcare needs*) will mean that you won't get photos of dead toddlers on beaches, nor people smugglers being who decides who gets in. Because the people smugglers will be out of business if the people they are smuggling have very little chance of getting where they want to go, and the migrants will stop risking their lives to jump the queue.
QuoteEurope indeed has an agency to deal with these issues: http://frontex.europa.eu/
Ah, the agency that stopped the aid boats in the Mediterrainean while still encouraging the people smugglers that their livelyhood is worth it and killed thousands of people fleeing Libya this year.
Also, the agency that is screaming blue murder at countries for enforcing the regulations it creates is hardly something worth treating seriously!
QuoteI doubt many migrants intend to make Serbia their long-term home.
Many of them arriving at the Hungarian/Serbian border have come from the former Serbian empire (Macedonia, Kosovo). Those from Asia (and, actually, Macedonia/Kosovo) could have gone to Schengen/EU Greece - while it's a basket case, getting registered there opens up the rest of Europe to the migrants. And almost everyone, nearly including myself, forgets Bulgaria, with it's land border with Macedonia and Turkey and it's EU membership...
*and taking refugees from recognised refugee camps in the affected areas, providing an alternative route that is legal, safe and easy.
These people are economic migrants acting under the cover of a claimed refugee status to gain entry into the western world. Most were quite safe living in Turkey, and Saudi Arabia and other muslim countries have offered to take in as many as wish to go there. None really do, because moving from one culture to another is an implicit admission by the migrant that the culture of the place he or she is moving to is superior to his or her own. Which is, obviously, correct.
The problem for the West is that many, if not most, of these people, unlike previous generations of immigrants, do not wish to explicitly admit what they implicitly do. They wish to remain committed to their non-Western ways. They want the fruits of the West, but do not understand, or admit, that these fruits are the product of Western society. The West needs not import the victims of failed cultures, rather it needs to export its culture.
Send every one of these people home. Give the males 18-55 a rifle to take with them, so they take up any grievance with their own country's government themselves directly.
Quote from: SP Cook on September 19, 2015, 01:31:31 PM
These people are economic migrants acting under the cover of a claimed refugee status to gain entry into the western world. Most were quite safe living in Turkey, and Saudi Arabia and other muslim countries have offered to take in as many as wish to go there. None really do, because moving from one culture to another is an implicit admission by the migrant that the culture of the place he or she is moving to is superior to his or her own. Which is, obviously, correct.
The problem for the West is that many, if not most, of these people, unlike previous generations of immigrants, do not wish to explicitly admit what they implicitly do. They wish to remain committed to their non-Western ways. They want the fruits of the West, but do not understand, or admit, that these fruits are the product of Western society. The West needs not import the victims of failed cultures, rather it needs to export its culture.
Send every one of these people home. Give the males 18-55 a rifle to take with them, so they take up any grievance with their own country's government themselves directly.
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Offer void where prohibited
MB886
Quote from: SP Cook on September 19, 2015, 01:31:31 PMSaudi Arabia ... have offered to take in as many as wish to go there.
Nope. They've taken zero refugees. Outside of one week a year they have air conditioned tents outside Mecca that can house 2 million. But the funders of ISIS don't want any of those fleeing them, naturally!
And Turkey, lets be honest, is not safe at all for Kurds (Kurdistan, on the other hand is, but is in an active state of war with Turkey) or that friendly to those who aren't Muslims.
Quote from: english si on September 19, 2015, 09:41:47 PM
And Turkey, lets be honest, is not safe at all for Kurds (Kurdistan, on the other hand is, but is in an active state of war with Turkey) or that friendly to those who aren't Muslims.
Yeah. Which is why having a lot of people whose culture tells them to not be "that friendly" to people who practice other religions, or no religion at all, in Europe is a bad idea.
Modern Western values are alien to these people.
Quote from: SP Cook on September 20, 2015, 08:25:32 AMYeah. Which is why having a lot of people whose culture tells them to not be "that friendly" to people who practice other religions, or no religion at all, in Europe is a bad idea.
Yes, let's deport most of Europe out of Europe!
Got to love the mental gymnastics of you basically employing the same philosophy as Turkey to the refugees there - the "we don't really want them as they are different to us". And imputing the crimes of Turkey against the refugees to the refugees was a nice touch of clueless bigotry.
QuoteModern Western values are alien to these people.
Indeed, they (the refugees) actually understand tolerance of others, living with (rather than parallel but segregated from) other cultures, etc, etc.
Xenophobia and bigotry seem to be modern Western values - from you and others demonising those who don't live in the West, from the EU (which is basically "we Europeans have to club together against those nasty Russians, Chinese and Americans - its fundamental principle is to get closer to each other to exclude everyone else), from the cultural Left constantly demonising those who don't conform, etc, etc
Quote from: english si on September 20, 2015, 10:41:55 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on September 20, 2015, 08:25:32 AMYeah. Which is why having a lot of people whose culture tells them to not be "that friendly" to people who practice other religions, or no religion at all, in Europe is a bad idea.
Yes, let's deport most of Europe out of Europe!
Got to love the mental gymnastics of you basically employing the same philosophy as Turkey to the refugees there - the "we don't really want them as they are different to us". And imputing the crimes of Turkey against the refugees to the refugees was a nice touch of clueless bigotry.QuoteModern Western values are alien to these people.
Indeed, they (the refugees) actually understand tolerance of others, living with (rather than parallel but segregated from) other cultures, etc, etc.
Xenophobia and bigotry seem to be modern Western values - from you and others demonising those who don't live in the West, from the EU (which is basically "we Europeans have to club together against those nasty Russians, Chinese and Americans - its fundamental principle is to get closer to each other to exclude everyone else), from the cultural Left constantly demonising those who don't conform, etc, etc
Christians are persecuted (imprisoned and/or put to death) for their faith where these migrants are coming from. Christian nations shouldn't have to put up with people that don't like / want to kill them. Plus we don't even know who these people really are. Some are terrorists looking for easy passage to Europe.
I was reading your responses and then I noticed you're from western Indiana. Are there many Muslims in your community?
I ask because out here on the east coast (DC area), we manage to integrate large amounts of Muslim migrants without much of any issue whatsoever. And I can attest that no Muslim migrant has yet to try to kill me or impede on my Western Judeo-Christian lifestyle.
The only crime that our recently-immigrated Muslim colleagues are guilty of are harming my waistline with their fried falafel sandwiches and hearty kabob dinners.
Quote from: US 41 on September 20, 2015, 10:52:50 AM
Christians are persecuted (imprisoned and/or put to death) for their faith where these migrants are coming from. Christian nations shouldn't have to put up with people that don't like / want to kill them.
That's an
extremely broad statement. Plus, last I heard, a large amount of European nations are becoming a lot less religious these days...
Quote from: US 41 on September 20, 2015, 10:52:50 AMChristians are persecuted (imprisoned and/or put to death) for their faith where these migrants are coming from.
Indeed, so surely Christian nations ought to take the refugees fleeing that persecution?
QuoteChristian nations shouldn't have to put up with people that don't like them.
Muslim nations shouldn't have to put with people that don't like them too?
QuotePlus we don't even know who these people really are. Some are terrorists looking for easy passage to Europe.
Sure. Hungary is right to close its borders and process the migrants. However that doesn't mean that Europe shouldn't take genuine refugees (and not just Christian ones).
Both you and SP Cook go "these countries taking in refugees aren't friendly to Christians, therefore we shouldn't let the persecuted Christians seek sanctuary in the West, because they aren't friendly to Christians". It's totally insane logic.
Quote from: Zeffy on September 20, 2015, 12:05:06 PMPlus, last I heard, a large amount of European nations are becoming a lot less religious these days...
France is only slightly more friendly to Christians than Turkey, and less friendly to Muslims. And I'm not just talking about the fascists being the second largest party - the mainstream politicians cannot understand religious people, and the recent terror attacks happened as the authorities made no attempt to understand that people do not sign up to their secularist fundamentalism.
^^ IIRC, France has been very secular for quite some time, since the Revolution. Much more so than most European counties, including the UK.
Quote from: US71 on September 19, 2015, 09:11:54 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on September 19, 2015, 01:31:31 PM
These people are economic migrants acting under the cover of a claimed refugee status to gain entry into the western world. Most were quite safe living in Turkey, and Saudi Arabia and other muslim countries have offered to take in as many as wish to go there. None really do, because moving from one culture to another is an implicit admission by the migrant that the culture of the place he or she is moving to is superior to his or her own. Which is, obviously, correct.
The problem for the West is that many, if not most, of these people, unlike previous generations of immigrants, do not wish to explicitly admit what they implicitly do. They wish to remain committed to their non-Western ways. They want the fruits of the West, but do not understand, or admit, that these fruits are the product of Western society. The West needs not import the victims of failed cultures, rather it needs to export its culture.
Send every one of these people home. Give the males 18-55 a rifle to take with them, so they take up any grievance with their own country's government themselves directly.
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Offer void where prohibited
MB886
I highlighted the operative part - if they are not "
yearning to breathe free", then I want nothing to do with them.
I have a deep and what I believe is a very reasonable fear that this is one of the greatest Trojan Horse ruses in the history of invasive warfare. I don't see it ending well.
:banghead:
Mike
Quote from: US 41 on September 20, 2015, 10:52:50 AM
Christians are persecuted (imprisoned and/or put to death) for their faith where these migrants are coming from.
Curious statement, since the Syrian government (where many of the migrants are coming from) protects its Christians:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/july/syria-christians-assad.html
Quote"Christian service has flourished remarkably in Syria. We regard Syria as a model Arab country when it comes to freedom of worship."
Quote from: mgk920 on September 20, 2015, 12:35:02 PM
I have a deep and what I believe is a very reasonable fear that this is one of the greatest Trojan Horse ruses in the history of invasive warfare. I don't see it ending well.
Better start building your bunker!
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 20, 2015, 12:35:11 PM
Quote from: US 41 on September 20, 2015, 10:52:50 AM
Christians are persecuted (imprisoned and/or put to death) for their faith where these migrants are coming from.
Curious statement, since the Syrian government (where many of the migrants are coming from) protects its Christians:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/july/syria-christians-assad.html
Quote"Christian service has flourished remarkably in Syria. We regard Syria as a model Arab country when it comes to freedom of worship."
The problem is that since that article was written (2011), major areas in the country's north have fallen to people who have other ideas.
:no:
Mike
Quote from: SP Cook on September 19, 2015, 01:31:31 PMThe West needs not import the victims of failed cultures, rather it needs to export its culture.
Whatever, Disraeli. Western hubris like this wrecked half the globe already. The "failed cultures" here should better be called "failed empires," where the West still absolves itself of the arbitrary lines drawn to serve its needs rather than local populations', per its usual M.O.
We continue to reap what we have sown, and with our massive collective blindness to history we keep a-planting, figuring next time our overseas
democracy- business-building ventures won't come back to punish us.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 20, 2015, 01:39:47 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on September 19, 2015, 01:31:31 PMThe West needs not import the victims of failed cultures, rather it needs to export its culture.
Whatever, Disraeli. Western hubris like this wrecked half the globe already. The "failed cultures" here should better be called "failed empires," where the West still absolves itself of the arbitrary lines drawn to serve its needs rather than local populations', per its usual M.O.
We continue to reap what we have sown, and with our massive collective blindness to history we keep a-planting, figuring next time our overseas democracy- business-building ventures won't come back to punish us.
Allllll right.
So what would YOU do about it?
:poke:
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on September 20, 2015, 12:59:41 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 20, 2015, 12:35:11 PM
Quote from: US 41 on September 20, 2015, 10:52:50 AM
Christians are persecuted (imprisoned and/or put to death) for their faith where these migrants are coming from.
Curious statement, since the Syrian government (where many of the migrants are coming from) protects its Christians:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/july/syria-christians-assad.html
Quote"Christian service has flourished remarkably in Syria. We regard Syria as a model Arab country when it comes to freedom of worship."
The problem is that since that article was written (2011), major areas in the country's north have fallen to people who have other ideas.
:no:
Mike
And soon enough Assad's government will re-consolidate power. The recent Russian-American talks (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/world/europe/us-to-begin-military-talks-with-russia-on-syria.html?_r=0) concerning Syria portend that very outcome.
Obviously if you look hard enough in the Muslim world, you will find bands of guerrillas who are militantly anti-Christian. But there are few, if any, recognized governments which have policies of killing Christians.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 20, 2015, 02:00:29 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 20, 2015, 12:59:41 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 20, 2015, 12:35:11 PM
Quote from: US 41 on September 20, 2015, 10:52:50 AM
Christians are persecuted (imprisoned and/or put to death) for their faith where these migrants are coming from.
Curious statement, since the Syrian government (where many of the migrants are coming from) protects its Christians:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/july/syria-christians-assad.html
Quote"Christian service has flourished remarkably in Syria. We regard Syria as a model Arab country when it comes to freedom of worship."
The problem is that since that article was written (2011), major areas in the country's north have fallen to people who have other ideas.
:no:
Mike
And soon enough Assad's government will re-consolidate power. The recent Russian-American talks (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/world/europe/us-to-begin-military-talks-with-russia-on-syria.html?_r=0) concerning Syria portend that very outcome.
Obviously if you look hard enough in the Muslim world, you will find bands of guerrillas who are militantly anti-Christian. But there are few, if any, recognized governments which have policies of killing Christians.
I pray for success in that endeavor.
I also recall reading that Pope Francis stated a few days ago that he carries a small cross with him that was previously carried by a Priest who was gruesomely martyred by the ISIS guys.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on September 20, 2015, 01:55:09 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 20, 2015, 01:39:47 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on September 19, 2015, 01:31:31 PMThe West needs not import the victims of failed cultures, rather it needs to export its culture.
Whatever, Disraeli. Western hubris like this wrecked half the globe already. The "failed cultures" here should better be called "failed empires," where the West still absolves itself of the arbitrary lines drawn to serve its needs rather than local populations', per its usual M.O.
We continue to reap what we have sown, and with our massive collective blindness to history we keep a-planting, figuring next time our overseas democracy- business-building ventures won't come back to punish us.
Allllll right.
So what would YOU do about it?
:poke:
Mike
A good start would be to stop with the fictions about this being "those people" and "their cultures" that are the problem here. And take a good hard look at the long-term net benefit of over a century of cheap-gas-fueled foreign policy.
This isn't going to happen, of course, because "Western culture" has a paramount profit imperative, and as we all know, maximum profit requires a source to exploit, and a "failed culture" is an easier scenario in which to do this than a strong one.
I don't want to get too much into this, but I'll say that here in Montana, we have no minorities. I was up in Alberta (which is probably the very closest you can get in a region anywhere in the world to being in America without actually being in America) a couple weeks ago and there were people with brown skin that were clearly practicing Muslims selling me things. Perhaps incredibly, I was able to complete these business transactions without a hitch and continue on with my life in exactly the same way I would have if they were white Christians. I may have had to pay a tiny bit more attention to what they were saying because they had accents, but that's about it.
Somehow Canada is able to welcome refugees at a high rate relative to their national population, and their very societal fabric doesn't collapse. I'm confident that in America, the greatest and wealthiest country ever to exist on Earth, we can figure out how to do the same. As citizens of the greatest and wealthiest country ever to exist on Earth, we spend an awful lot of time being paranoid about the world around us. We should be coming from a position of confidence, not one of fear- we are the greatest and wealthiest country ever to exist on Earth. A couple million refugees that make up a tiny, tiny drop in the bucket of the world's population, shouldn't be enough to rattle us.
Leave the fear to countries that don't have our resources. We're America. Let's be confident in ourselves, our country, and our resilience to maintain our identity while growing with an evolving world.
America has never been a country that hides from change. We grab it by the horns and work it out (it may take a while, we may make a few wrong turns) and arrive at a new stasis that preserves the key parts of our identity while acknowledging the realities of the world. That's why we're stable and that's what makes this country great. We can go as far as going to war with each other, but at the end of the day we work it out and we grow and evolve. That's what America always has been about, and that's why I'm proud to live here. I don't want to live with a bunch of sissies that bury their heads in the sand at the prospect of inevitable change.
Quote from: corco on September 20, 2015, 02:17:33 PMLeave the fear to countries that don't have our resources. We're America. Let's be confident in the ourselves, our country, and our resilience to maintain our identity while growing with an evolving world.
America has never been a country that hides from change. We grab it by the horns and work it out (it may take a while, we may make a few wrong turns) and arrive at a new stasis that preserves the key parts of our identity while acknowledging the realities of the world. That's why we're stable and that's what makes this country great. We can go as far as going to war with each other, but at the end of the day we work it out and we grow and evolve. That's what America always has been about, and that's why I'm proud to live here. I don't want to live with a bunch of sissies that bury their heads in the sand at the prospect of change.
So very well put.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 20, 2015, 12:35:11 PMCurious statement, since the Syrian government (where many of the migrants are coming from) protects its Christians:
Yes, Syria (along with Lebanon and pre-war Iraq) was about the only place in the Middle East (including Israel) where you could be a Christian and not be unreasonably hassled about it, but in case you are a bit slow on events, Assad doesn't control much of the country!
Quote from: corco on September 20, 2015, 02:17:33 PMI may have had to pay a tiny bit more attention to what they were saying because they had accents, but that's about it.
Surely the case with anyone in Canada ;)
QuoteAs citizens of the greatest and wealthiest country ever to exist on Earth, we spend an awful lot of time being paranoid about the world around us.
Surely, as a nation built from refugees, migrants who left the Old World for a better life, and natives who were treated poorly by the swarm of outsiders, it's only natural that you treat the rest of the world with disdain! ;)
I'm just waiting for them go all evil. Maybe like this: :evilgrin:
No
N.Y. Times: The Refugee Crisis Has Produced One Winner: Organized Crime (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/opinion/the-refugee-crisis-has-produced-one-winner-organized-crime.html)
QuoteIN the midst of the refugee crisis, the European Union has for the first time ever been considering deploying naval assets against organized crime. People smuggling, chiefly from Syria and the Horn of Africa, is now a multibillion-dollar business that is as profitable, if not more so, than the trade in illegal narcotics.
QuoteThis is not the trafficking of migrant labor or women for sexual purposes. These criminal gangs are effectively offering travel-agent services to desperate people fleeing conflict. Their services can include false documentation, bribes to border guards and transport, in dangerous, often deadly, circumstances.
QuoteSadly, the measures countries are taking to counteract the flood of refugees serve only to make organized crime stronger. As long as European countries fail to implement a plan to take in refugees across member states, the business of people smuggling will continue to grow.
Yes the US is built of immigrants; mostly European ones. Also we weren't just letting everyone come over either. We checked them at Ellis Island. Europe is just letting everyone come over and they are not checking these people at all. The US is going to take some migrants, but we are doing background checks on them first. The US doesn't do the best job at stopping illegal immigrants (mostly Mexicans) from entering the country, but illegal Mexicans are a very small problem compared to Muslims from the Middle East. After all in the last 10 years I can almost guarantee that over 90% of major terrorist attacks in the world were caused by Muslims. I'm not going to say there aren't good ones, but I'm very cautious when it comes to people from those areas.
The US has been the victim of these threats especially on September 11th. Islamic extremists crashed planes into our second and third tallest buildings, crashed a plane into the pentagon, and would have crashed one into the US Capitol if not for the people in the plane stopping it. We are currently fighting Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. We're trying (I hope) to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons. These people aren't all innocent people. Some Americans remember what happened just barely over 14 years ago.
About Hungary. They are an independent country and they can legally drop out of the EU and/or the Schengen anytime they want. They have a sovereign right to keep people out they don't want. Hungary's PM also stated a few months ago that "Hungary doesn't need more Muslims here." Hungary also stated that they would take refugees that are Christian.
Israel on the other hand is not allowing anyone from Syria into their country. They know who these people are. They are hated by every country that surrounds them. The only friend Israel has in that region is the Mediterranean Sea. They are hated by these people because they are a Jewish country. Most real Muslims hate Jews and Christians. They are not tolerant of others religions. Even the beginning of Islam supports that. Mohammad spread Islam by taking over towns by force and then giving the people 2 options, convert to Islam or die. The Islamic State is taking the same approach. Anyone that says the Islamic State is not Islamic is totally false and is totally unaware of the history of the religion. So yes there is a reason to be concerned. When you outnumber them it's not a big deal, but when they outnumber you then trouble starts to brew. Below in a quote is your little history lesson.
QuoteAfter Mohammed's forces destroyed all of his enemies in Medina they turned toward Mecca. His army marched into the city, destroyed all opposition and forcibly converted everyone there, as well as those in neighboring villages. He thus built for himself a strong base of power with a large army, whose avowed purpose was to go forth, conquer the rest of the Middle East and convert it to Islam.
Mohammed is the one who invented — or at least introduced – the concept of the jihad, or holy war, into the Muslim religion. He said that anyone who dies in the jihad receives the greatest rewards in the afterlife. The Muslim afterlife has much more tangible rewards than the spiritual "World to Come" of Judaism or even of Christianity. The Muslim afterlife is wine, women, and song–not necessarily in that order. Therefore, he had a relatively easy time convincing others that death in a jihad was to be viewed as nothing to be feared.
Over the centuries, the Muslims have been able to raise such a fervor among themselves for these types of holy wars that outsiders tend to associate Islam with jihad more than anything else.
At the end of the day I'm just glad all this is happening in Europe and not here in America.
Quote from: US 41 on September 21, 2015, 09:39:00 AM
Most real Muslims hate Jews and Christians.
I'll have to tell my Muslim friends that have no problem with me being a Christian that they're in the minority, then. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Rothman on September 21, 2015, 10:15:08 AM
Quote from: US 41 on September 21, 2015, 09:39:00 AM
Most real Muslims hate Jews and Christians.
I'll have to tell my Muslim friends that have no problem with me being a Christian that they're in the minority, then. :rolleyes:
Right? I'll have to tell my Muslim friends they're not real Muslims, which is going to make them sad. I'm not looking forward to it.
Quote from: US 41 on September 21, 2015, 09:39:00 AM
Yes the US is built of immigrants; mostly European ones. Also we weren't just letting everyone come over either. We checked them at Ellis Island. Europe is just letting everyone come over and they are not checking these people at all. The US is going to take some migrants, but we are doing background checks on them first.
Err, we're checking them. Of course, those doing the checking are being told off for doing the checking.
QuoteThe US doesn't do the best job at stopping illegal immigrants (mostly Mexicans) from entering the country, but illegal Mexicans are a very small problem compared to Muslims from the Middle East.
So you don't do background checks, like you just asserted!
Also, you keep asserting that these people are Muslims - many are, sure, but most are people fleeing from oppression by Muslims.
QuoteAfter all in the last 10 years I can almost guarantee that over 90% of major terrorist attacks in the world were caused by Muslims. I'm not going to say there aren't good ones, but I'm very cautious when it comes to people from those areas.
The UK never, even in the heights of the troubles, stopped the Common Travel Area, allowing UK and Irish citizens to come and go as they pleased. Yes there were border crossings closed and checkpoints set up in Northern Ireland, but nothing like the extent of
QuoteThe US has been the victim of these threats especially on September 11th.
And Europe hasn't? I like that you have no real argument but
reducto ad novem undecim and bigotry.
QuoteIslamic extremists crashed planes into our second and third tallest buildings, crashed a plane into the pentagon, and would have crashed one into the US Capitol if not for the people in the plane stopping it.
We all know what happened there, no need to reiterate it: doing so just undermines your argument as it is showing that it is not rational.
QuoteWe are currently fighting Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Nope. You moved out of both countries.
QuoteWe're trying (I hope) to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
But didn't stop Israel, which is the only reason why Iran wants them so badly.
And it's not like the Hindu extremist in charge of India, or even the hardline Muslim government of Pakistan have used their bombs (and throw in China into the mix there as another state that shouldn't have weapons has them).
Even the genuinely insane North Koreans haven't used their nuke yet, despite having starved their people to make it!
QuoteSome Americans remember what happened just barely over 14 years ago.
As pointed out,
no one has forgotten that.
QuoteAbout Hungary. They are an independent country and they can legally drop out of the EU and/or the Schengen anytime they want.
Schengen maybe, but the EU (I know, because Brexit is being seriously talked about) will require the other 27 members approving.
But Hungary is merely following the Schengen/EU rules. The issue is much bigger than it would be by Germany asserting its sovereign right to say who enters its country, but giving those it wants no way of getting in but via land.
QuoteThey have a sovereign right to keep people out they don't want.
I'm not denying that. Germany and the EU are denying that.
QuoteHungary's PM also stated a few months ago that "Hungary doesn't need more Muslims here." Hungary also stated that they would take refugees that are Christian.
And I have no problem with that, other than the xenophobia towards Muslims. The problem is that they would have to leave the EU to do it and that isn't easy.
QuoteIsrael on the other hand is not allowing anyone from Syria into their country.
Even ignoring that Israel is as friendly to Christians, Druze, etc as Turkey is (ie less friendly than Syria was - a country that you are paranoid is full of anti-Christian Muslims wanting to turn the West into a Caliphate), Syria and Israel are technically at war, merely under a long ceasefire.
When Top Gear drove from Iraq to Bethlehem through the area where ISIS currently operate (this was before ISIS existed, about 5 years ago), they found out, just after they entered Syria (which was so friendly to them, they had to avoid the towns because even under Assad's regime, they loved the Western shows like Top Gear and in the towns they were getting mobbed by fans) they found out that they would have real difficulty entering Israel because they had merely driven through and got a passport stamped with Syria. The producers had thought ahead and gave them a second passport that didn't have the Syrian stamp.
It's the same sort of thing as Armenia and Azerbaijan, Georgia and Russia, etc. There's an unresolved conflict and so there's a lack of diplomatic ties. It's not about "Syrians will blow you up" it's a "you've been there, so you are not coming here" thing. The Top Gear team were Brits, not Syrians. They aren't Muslims and had film footage of what they did in Syria (drive through one town, then off-roaded it through the desert), but they needed to pretend to the Israeli authorities that they had never been there because otherwise Israel wouldn't let them in because they are bigots.
QuoteThey know who these people are.
They certainly knew who Clarkson, May and Hammond were, but they wouldn't let them in their country merely because they visited Syria.
QuoteThey are hated by every country that surrounds them.
They get on fairly well with Lebanon now, and Egypt and Jordan were relatively OK (the regime change has undermined the Egyptian relations). And Palestine has genuine beef with them, especially the West Bank, which has acted much less hostile towards Israel in recent years.
QuoteThey are not tolerant of others religions.
Maybe not, but you are the pot calling the kettle black here!
QuoteMohammad spread Islam by taking over towns by force and then giving the people 2 options, convert to Islam or die.
Not quite true - they could pay a heavily penalising tax.
But those fleeing ISIS are fucking fleeing it to escape that, not to import it into Europe!
Quote from: US 41 on September 21, 2015, 09:39:00 AM
About Hungary. They are an independent country and they can legally drop out of the EU and/or the Schengen anytime they want. They have a sovereign right to keep people out they don't want. Hungary's PM also stated a few months ago that "Hungary doesn't need more Muslims here." Hungary also stated that they would take refugees that are Christian.
It's funny that you express concern about Jews and then cite Hungary as a country to emulate. Hungary collaborated with the Third Reich and has anti-Semetic sentiments. I suspect that you have not read much on European history and culture...
Quote from: US 41 on September 21, 2015, 09:39:00 AM
At the end of the day I'm just glad all this is happening in Europe and not here in America.
I think you can rest assured that you'll be safe in western Indiana. Please do pray for those of us on the coasts and in big cities. What will we ever do?
As I said in a earlier post. Not all Muslims are bad people. I just find it hard to trust them based on the religion's history. The fact that Hungary arrested 29 people and one of them was a wanted ISIS terrorist makes it hard to believe that everyone is being checked. A terrorist in Germany attempted to murder a police officer 4 days ago. A lot of these "migrants" are terrorists and European countries should be concerned. Once they cross into Hungary or Slovenia they can go anywhere they want and no one will what country they are in. At the end of the day they are still illegal aliens and should be deported. Turkey is accepting refugees and is pretty safe. There's no reason for them to have to go to an EU nation.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 21, 2015, 12:28:05 PM
It's funny that you express concern about Jews and then cite Hungary as a country to emulate. Hungary collaborated with the Third Reich and has anti-Semetic sentiments. I suspect that you have not read much on European history and culture...
Things are different in Hungary now. Things are not different in Middle Eastern countries. Maybe you should ask Iran that question. One of their former leaders denied the holocaust and thought Israel should be wiped off the map. Yet some think allowing them to have nukes is not that big of a deal. Iran and other middle eastern places are about as anti-semetic as you can get, yet you're worried about Hungary. Give me a break.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Visa_requirements_for_Israeli_citizens.png/1280px-Visa_requirements_for_Israeli_citizens.png)
All the countries in black refuse Israeli citizens.
Quote from: US 41 on September 21, 2015, 12:35:48 PM
As I said in a earlier post. Not all Muslims are bad people. I just find it hard to trust them based on the religion's history. The fact that Hungary arrested 29 people and one of them was a wanted ISIS terrorist makes it hard to believe that everyone is being checked. A terrorist in Germany attempted to murder a police officer 4 days ago. A lot of these "migrants" are terrorists and European countries should be concerned. Once they cross into Hungary or Slovenia they can go anywhere they want and no one will what country they are in. At the end of the day they are still illegal aliens and should be deported. Turkey is accepting refugees and is pretty safe. There's no reason for them to have to go to an EU nation.
So... Do you also distrust most people of non-white origin in cities where crime is prevalent?
I think you should considering broadening the news sources you rely on. It would do well for your worldview, I think. What newspapers and magazines are available for purchase in Western Indiana?
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 21, 2015, 12:57:59 PM
I think you should considering broadening the news sources you rely on. It would do well for your worldview, I think. What newspapers and magazines are available for purchase in Western Indiana?
Farmer's Almanac.
Quote from: US 41 on September 21, 2015, 12:35:48 PM
The fact that Hungary arrested 29 people and one of them was a wanted ISIS terrorist makes it hard to believe that everyone is being checked.
Huh. Kind of hard to arrest people without some sort of check.
All I'm saying is there is going to be an internal security threat in the EU. Instead of opening up the floodgates they need to start checking these people. These migrants are from an area that has terrorism and the EU needs to make sure that potential terrorists are not acting as refugees. There's a reason Israel and Hungary don't want them. Hungary's PM's favorability rating increased a lot when they started building fences. Most European and American citizens polled don't want them in their countries either.
Quote from: Rothman on September 21, 2015, 01:07:16 PM
Quote from: US 41 on September 21, 2015, 12:35:48 PM
The fact that Hungary arrested 29 people and one of them was a wanted ISIS terrorist makes it hard to believe that everyone is being checked.
Huh. Kind of hard to arrest people without some sort of check.
The only reason they were checked is because Hungary built a fence and these 29 people were caught illegally entering Hungary. If Hungary hadn't build a fence and closed sown the border that terrorist would still be running lose somewhere in Europe.
Quote from: US 41 on September 21, 2015, 01:18:41 PM
Most European and American citizens polled don't want them in their countries either.
Evidently, people have forgotten the terrible lesson of turning away the
St. Louis.
Quote from: US 41 on September 21, 2015, 01:20:46 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 21, 2015, 01:07:16 PM
Quote from: US 41 on September 21, 2015, 12:35:48 PM
The fact that Hungary arrested 29 people and one of them was a wanted ISIS terrorist makes it hard to believe that everyone is being checked.
Huh. Kind of hard to arrest people without some sort of check.
The only reason they were checked is because Hungary built a fence and these 29 people were caught illegally entering Hungary. If Hungary hadn't build a fence and closed sown the border that terrorist would still be running lose somewhere in Europe.
Funny thing: There's not a fence between Canada and the U.S. in lots of places. Think of all the terrorists that must be pouring in through that border and all the deaths that have occurred because of it.
...
Oh...wait.
Quote from: US 41 on September 21, 2015, 01:18:41 PMMost European and American citizens polled don't want them in their countries either.
Neither place conducts immigration policy by referendum. We would be an overwhelmingly English/Scotch-Irish population here if we did.
During the late 19th and very early 20th centuries, the period of the great European migration, yes, most were checked in at Ellis Island. The USA was also very actively rejecting and deporting bad people from that lot. MANY potential immigrants were rejected at Ellis Island, mostly for medical reasons, but also a substantial number, primarily from southeastern Europe (the Balkans) were rejected due to their being known anarchists. Those who did get through and started causing trouble (a well-known Hollywood cliché - the 'Boris Badinov bomb', that black ball with the fuse sticking out - emerged from that period) were arrested by local cops and federal marshalls, returned to Ellis Island and deported.
Also, during that period, English was *NOT* the majority language in Wisconsin - the #1 spoken language here in Wisconsin was German, about 40-45% of Wisconsinites spoke it at home and in many places, one could not get along without being conversant in it. About a third spoke English and most of the rest spoke other European languages such as Polish, Italian, Gaelic, Dutch, Serbo-Croatian and several Scandinavian languages and about 1% spoke various aboriginal languages. Within a couple of generations, they had pretty much all assimilated into English.
If people are coming "yearning to breathe free", I'm all for their coming and being here. If not, then I don't want anything to do with them.
Mike
What, specifically, is contained in the rhetoric "yearning to breathe free"?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 21, 2015, 03:18:32 PM
What, specifically, is contained in the rhetoric "yearning to breathe free"?
I think he means wanting to start over and not bringing over the old. If you are going to move here you need to try to learn the language and try to fit in with our culture. I think it also means not causing trouble when you get here.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 21, 2015, 01:59:55 PM
Neither place conducts immigration policy by referendum.
They should. The government is supposed to represent the people of their country, not the people of other countries.
Quote from: US 41 on September 21, 2015, 05:51:31 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 21, 2015, 03:18:32 PM
What, specifically, is contained in the rhetoric "yearning to breathe free"?
I think he means wanting to start over and not bringing over the old. If you are going to move here you need to try to learn the language and try to fit in with our culture. I think it also means not causing trouble when you get here.
Pretty sure "yearning to breathe free" means "wants to be free", not "required to learn English"
Quote from: US 41 on September 21, 2015, 05:51:31 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 21, 2015, 01:59:55 PM
Neither place conducts immigration policy by referendum.
They should. The government is supposed to represent the people of their country, not the people of other countries.
Do you even know what the difference is between a republican and direct democratic form of government? You'd fail your own US citizenship test!
Quote from: US 41 on September 21, 2015, 05:51:31 PM
I think it also means not causing trouble when you get here.
Only native-born citizens are allowed to cause trouble!
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 21, 2015, 06:00:22 PM
Quote from: US 41 on September 21, 2015, 05:51:31 PM
I think it also means not causing trouble when you get here.
Only native-born citizens are allowed to cause trouble!
Like the Cherokee, the Sioux, the Muscogee, etc?
Quote from: US 41 on September 21, 2015, 05:51:31 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 21, 2015, 03:18:32 PM
What, specifically, is contained in the rhetoric "yearning to breathe free"?
I think he means wanting to start over and not bringing over the old. If you are going to move here you need to try to learn the language and try to fit in with our culture. I think it also means not causing trouble when you get here.
I thought "yearning to breathe free" meant "wanting very much to no longer be subjugated or oppressed." Am I reading Emma Lazarus too literally?
QuoteQuote from: Pete from Boston on September 21, 2015, 01:59:55 PM
Neither place conducts immigration policy by referendum.
They should. The government is supposed to represent the people of their country, not the people of other countries.
By that logic, we should all be casting direct votes daily on government business. I am quite sure this was not the Framers' intent.
It is also contraindicated as a sound guiding principle. We have at least one notable executive decision in our history, not extremely popular at the time, essentially granting protections to a very large class of non-citizens with "cultural differences" that most citizens of the United States were not looking to welcome into their lives. Nevertheless, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation because following the people's will is not always the right thing to do.
Quote from: US71 on September 21, 2015, 06:05:24 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 21, 2015, 06:00:22 PM
Quote from: US 41 on September 21, 2015, 05:51:31 PM
I think it also means not causing trouble when you get here.
Only native-born citizens are allowed to cause trouble!
Like the Cherokee, the Sioux, the Muscogee, etc?
No, silly. It took us 150 years to let them be citizens.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 21, 2015, 06:08:59 PM
Quote from: US71 on September 21, 2015, 06:05:24 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 21, 2015, 06:00:22 PM
Quote from: US 41 on September 21, 2015, 05:51:31 PM
I think it also means not causing trouble when you get here.
Only native-born citizens are allowed to cause trouble!
Like the Cherokee, the Sioux, the Muscogee, etc?
No, silly. It took us 150 years to let them be citizens.
All of those European immigrants and how they handled the natives. Didn't even learn the local dialects, how rude of them.
The American Indians shouldn't have trusted the European Christians based on the history of their religion, what with the Spanish Inquisition and all.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 21, 2015, 06:30:07 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 21, 2015, 06:08:59 PM
Quote from: US71 on September 21, 2015, 06:05:24 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 21, 2015, 06:00:22 PM
Quote from: US 41 on September 21, 2015, 05:51:31 PM
I think it also means not causing trouble when you get here.
Only native-born citizens are allowed to cause trouble!
Like the Cherokee, the Sioux, the Muscogee, etc?
No, silly. It took us 150 years to let them be citizens.
All of those European immigrants and how they handled the natives. Didn't even learn the local dialects, how rude of them.
The American Indians shouldn't have trusted the European Christians based on the history of their religion, what with the Spanish Inquisition and all.
At least in this part of the country, the natives were not unfamiliar with the various European tribes and their scheming, such that making deals with one was better than making deals with none.
Ultimately, it probably mattered very little which ones they chose to deal with, as the smallpox and greed were already in full swing before the Pilgrims arrived.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 21, 2015, 06:08:59 PM
Quote from: US71 on September 21, 2015, 06:05:24 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 21, 2015, 06:00:22 PM
Quote from: US 41 on September 21, 2015, 05:51:31 PM
I think it also means not causing trouble when you get here.
Only native-born citizens are allowed to cause trouble!
Like the Cherokee, the Sioux, the Muscogee, etc?
No, silly. It took us 150 years to let them be citizens.
You did say "native-born"
Hungary warns migrants to stay away. They have also deployed the army to the Serbian and Croatian border and have authorized the use of rubber bullets, pyrotechnical devices, tear gas grenades or net guns for anyone that illegal tries to cross. Illegally crossing the border is now a crime punishable of 3 years in prison. There's also a video of Hungary's army building the fence.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/22/us-europe-migrants-hungary-law-idUSKCN0RL1K220150922
Kind of makes one grateful we have achieved the why-isn't-Klinger-consistent level (pinnacle?) of societal development.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 21, 2015, 06:07:39 PM
I thought "yearning to breathe free" meant "wanting very much to no longer be subjugated or oppressed." Am I reading Emma Lazarus too literally?
I suppose if one were truly reading it too literally, we'd have to assume that people were coming over for anything from decongestants to needing the Heimlich Maneuver.
More news. The EU passed a plan that will distribute 120,000 refugees across Europe. Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic all voted no the resolution. The EU is now trying to force these countries to take them anyways.
Czech Rep. has announced that they will follow the quota.
Slovakia's PM says that they will sue the EU and if they lose they will accept zero migrants.
Hungary just announced they will be extending their border fence across the Slovenian border. Whether or not Hungary will accept the quota is still unclear.
Austria will accept the quota, but they are sending extras back to Croatia and Slovenia.
Serbia and Croatia have put embargos on each other.
Saudi Arabia still hasn't accepted refugees. What is their quota? And they practice Sharia Law. Western nations allow women to have freedom. Muslim countries don't. My point for they don't believe in western values. Why accept someone into your society that believes more in Sharia Law than your laws?
And to the EU. By the time this mess is over you will have way over 120,000 refugees in your Union. I promise.
Quote from: US 41 on September 26, 2015, 08:41:32 AM
Western nations allow women to have freedom. Muslim countries don't. My point for they don't believe in western values. Why accept someone into your society that believes more in Sharia Law than your laws?
Exactly. These economic migrants, and their ancestors, have been trying to impose their (failed) culture on the West for 1500 years. There is no parallel to this and the great migrations to the Americas, Australasia, etc. These people need to be returned the where their culture rules, and live with its consequences. Which are violence, poverty, ignorance, intolerance, suffering, etc.
Quote from: SP Cook on September 26, 2015, 09:49:11 AM
Quote from: US 41 on September 26, 2015, 08:41:32 AM
Western nations allow women to have freedom. Muslim countries don't. My point for they don't believe in western values. Why accept someone into your society that believes more in Sharia Law than your laws?
Exactly. These economic migrants, and their ancestors, have been trying to impose their (failed) culture on the West for 1500 years. There is no parallel to this and the great migrations to the Americas, Australasia, etc. These people need to be returned the where their culture rules, and live with its consequences. Which are violence, poverty, ignorance, intolerance, suffering, etc.
Can we just call this a de facto instance of Godwin's Law?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 26, 2015, 10:12:03 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on September 26, 2015, 09:49:11 AM
Quote from: US 41 on September 26, 2015, 08:41:32 AM
Western nations allow women to have freedom. Muslim countries don't. My point for they don't believe in western values. Why accept someone into your society that believes more in Sharia Law than your laws?
Exactly. These economic migrants, and their ancestors, have been trying to impose their (failed) culture on the West for 1500 years. There is no parallel to this and the great migrations to the Americas, Australasia, etc. These people need to be returned the where their culture rules, and live with its consequences. Which are violence, poverty, ignorance, intolerance, suffering, etc.
Can we just call this a de facto instance of Godwin's Law?
Yes.
Quote from: US 41 on September 26, 2015, 08:41:32 AMThe EU passed a plan that will distribute 120,000 refugees across Europe.
Which is contrary to the fundamental pillar of free-movement of people within the EU. And the Schengen treaty's borderless area. You can have quotas, or you can have free-movement within the external borders. You cannot have both.
The aim of the quotas is as Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc know that without it, they would bare the brunt of the migration population, given their economies aren't tanking like Greece and Italy's (which are cruel victims of the 'the Euro must be saved at whatever cost' policy) and there's the general trend northwestwards within the EU. The quotas, so fundamentally against the principles of Schengen, are designed to keep Schengen alive by keeping the North Sea countries in it (seemingly they don't care about Central Europe leaving it).
QuoteSlovakia's PM says that they will sue the EU and if they lose they will accept zero migrants.
Good, about time the EU falls apart.
Wasn't the EU about peace and harmony and so on? Seems to be about pitting member states against one another and against it.
QuoteHungary just announced they will be extending their border fence across the Slovenian border.
Ouch Slovenia is Schengen. Of course, the issue of a shared external border is that there needs to be a shared external policy and Slovenia won't bother with a fence on its Croatian border, nor actually do it's legal requirement of processing migrants entering Schengen...
QuoteSerbia and Croatia have put embargos on each other.
Serbo-Croat relations have a lot more issues than migration. And Croatia cannot actually put embargoes on people due to being EU members (we'll let them off that mistake as they are new to the club. The UK keeps doing trade missions to China, India, the US, etc without realising that they are mostly futile while our trade policy comes from Brussels and it has been a member for over 40 years).
QuoteSaudi Arabia still hasn't accepted refugees.
They'll only kill them like they do the pilgrims on Hajj.
QuoteAnd they practice Sharia Law.
Which the refugees are fleeing - while it is rude of the Saudis to not open their border to refugees, the refugees wouldn't be entering a country that would be safe for them.
QuoteWhy accept someone into your society that believes more in Sharia Law than your laws?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcommentphotos.com%2Fgallery%2FCommentPhotos.com_1405786188.jpg&hash=8c756d7e9a432afc77e999cc0bd9eedc458364fe)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcommentphotos.com%2Fgallery%2FCommentPhotos.com_1405786188.jpg&hash=8c756d7e9a432afc77e999cc0bd9eedc458364fe)
Four facepalms - four reasons
1) You were talking about Saudi Arabia and then jumped to the assumption that those fleeing Saudi-style Wahhabi Sharia law in ISIS-controlled Syria want Sharia law.
2) You are talking about the EU, where rule of law is openly flaunted and obeying it come-what-may is actively discouraged (as Hungary is finding out and as the quota plan also shows). The big issue about those who want Sharia law for Eurocrats is not the content of said law, but that those wanting it believe in rule of law, rather than rule of diktat.
3) You were attacking the Saudis for not taking Shiite Muslims, Druze, Christians, etc in, praising Israel for not taking them in (in a previous post) and condemning Europe for taking them in because of their different religion. Saudi Arabia is Sunni Muslim (with nothing else allowed, with the exception of Western migrant workers and their families provided that they never actually speak to a native) and the refugees are not.
4) You were talking about Saudi Arabia and then jumped to the assumption that those fleeing Saudi-style Wahhabi Sharia law in ISIS-controlled Syria want Sharia law. (this one deserves a second facepalm as not only is it the height of stupidity, but I'd trashed this nonsense in a previous post)
QuoteAnd to the EU. By the time this mess is over you will have way over 120,000 refugees in your Union. I promise.
They won't.
For a start, by the time the mess is over, at least one country (the UK, which will have a big quota) will have left the EU. If not other countries too, the rate Brussels' disdain for everyone who doesn't agree with them is going.
And secondly, the quotas are about migrants. Yet again the actual refugees are ignored as migrants are confused with being refugees. Refugees is a legal status, whereas the EU doesn't want member states processing them (see the abuse Hungary is getting) in order to confer that status. And the EU's plan is to take them from the borders of Europe - continuing to encourage people to pay illegal traffickers for the privilege of drowning in the Med - rather than from the refugee camps. What a horrible plan!
Quote from: english si on September 26, 2015, 11:51:30 AM
QuoteSlovakia's PM says that they will sue the EU and if they lose they will accept zero migrants.
Good, about time the EU falls apart.
Wasn't the EU about peace and harmony and so on? Seems to be about pitting member states against one another and against it.
What this crisis seems to be exposing is how half-assed Schengen as it currently stands is. People can freely travel between nations but the nations involved have not agreed to make their customs and immigration policies uniform in terms of what the rules are and how well they are enforced.
When nothing was wrong no one noticed, but throw a wave of refugees at Europe and all of a sudden everyone's fighting with each other over who has to deal with them, because no one thought to plan for this sort of scenario ahead of time and agree on what to do in the event of it.
Seems to me that two things should happen:
1) In the short term, let Schengen nations put their money where their mouth is on open borders and allow the refugees to hang out wherever within the zone they like. If Schengen citizens can travel, live, and work in whatever Schengen nation they want, the same standard should apply to non-citizens living within the zone.
2) In the long term, centralize customs and immigration for all of the EU under one roof, so that everyone has the same rules and enforcement of them won't be lax in countries where they otherwise would be.
I think the best thing for European Union nations would be to close the borders, reintroduce customs, and let each individual country determine their immigration laws. Keep the EU, but make it a lot less powerful than it currently is. The EU should have the leaders of all the countries meet once a month, keep free trade, keep the Euro, and keep visa-free (passport required however) between the countries.
I know that (almost) none of the above will happen, but it would be the best for all those countries and their sovereignty. I strongly believe that in 5 years Europe will be a lot different than it is now, and I don't think it will be for the better.
As to the EU, if "Europe" is a country, then "France" is a state or province. If "France" is a country, then "Europe" is a continent.
The EU needs to return to being what it was. The "Common Market", a way to cut taxes (always a good thing) by eliminating tariffs and duties. And forget about all this who-ha about pretending to legislate about issues for which there can be no commonality between places far more different that different parts of the USA are from one another.
As to immigration policy, all Western places need the same one. Those who refuse to accept Western values, stay out.
Quote from: SP Cook on September 27, 2015, 03:08:17 PMAs to immigration policy, all Western places need the same one. Those who refuse to accept Western values, stay out.
Paradoxically, this statement would put you first on a list for deportation under such a regime.
iPhone
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 28, 2015, 08:45:23 AMParadoxically, this statement would put you first on a list for deportation under such a regime.
Would it? or would it put people who refused to accept the xenophobia of that policy?
Quote from: english si on September 28, 2015, 08:51:47 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 28, 2015, 08:45:23 AMParadoxically, this statement would put you first on a list for deportation under such a regime.
Would it? or would it put people who refused to accept the xenophobia of that policy?
The statement runs counter to accepted standards of "Western values."
iPhone
Quote from: Duke87 on September 26, 2015, 10:53:41 PMWhat this crisis seems to be exposing is how half-assed Schengen as it currently stands is.
No, it's exposing how many places in Europe don't give a shit about the rules that exist.
Quotethe nations involved have not agreed to make their customs and immigration policies uniform in terms of what the rules are and how well they are enforced.
The rules are there. The issue is enforcement levels. The same issue as seen with border patrols in certain states just north of Mexico.
Also, customs has nothing to do with the crisis, nor with Schengen.
QuoteWhen nothing was wrong no one noticed, but throw a wave of refugees at Europe and all of a sudden everyone's fighting with each other over who has to deal with them, because no one thought to plan for this sort of scenario ahead of time and agree on what to do in the event of it.
There is a plan. Greece and Italy are struggling to afford it as they are being sacrificed on the altar of Ever Closer Union. Hungary is being condemned for trying to do the plan.
QuoteSeems to me that two things should happen:
1) In the short term, let Schengen nations put their money where their mouth is on open borders and allow the refugees to hang out wherever within the zone they like.
That is the case.
QuoteIf Schengen citizens can travel, live, and work in whatever Schengen nation they want, the same standard should apply to non-citizens living within the zone.
It does, once granted status of what, in US terms, would be "resident alien". Of course, they need to be granted that status, which means being processed - which is what Hungary is trying to do. Plus the Schengen nations are doing a really bad job of explaining this free movement thing to the migrants.
Quote2) In the long term, centralize customs and immigration for all of the EU under one roof, so that everyone has the same rules and enforcement of them won't be lax in countries where they otherwise would be.
1) Customs is centralised. The EU is a Customs Union (definitely not a trade block).
2) Schengen have the same rules, and then chose, as a body, not to enforce them.
3) Schengen is closely linked, but not part of the EU. In fact, it was (before it went tits up just now (deliberate much?)) a brilliant example of how an anti-democratic superstate wasn't needed for intergovernmental co-operation in Europe.
Quote from: US 41 on September 27, 2015, 01:16:09 PM
I think the best thing for European Union nations would be to close the borders,
The internal ones? They aren't the issue - the external Schengen one is.
Quotereintroduce customs,
That's the end of the EU, which is a Customs Union.
Quoteand let each individual country determine their immigration laws.
Also EU heresy against Ever-Closer Union (which is why Catalonia will get a lot of flack from European leaders over the coming months, which was why Scotland was told that if they voted for independence they wouldn't be given EU membership, etc).
QuoteKeep the EU,
You've just robbed the EU about what it is really about: what you have is EFTA - a much better organisation!
Quotebut make it a lot less powerful than it currently is.
I'm ALL for this, especially as the EU is exacerbating the issues in Schengen, both by being a third party that is spouting off and being the forum for Schengen nations to express their grievances. However, I'm with Churchill that tying Germany and France, together with some other countries (Benelux, Italy, Austria, etc) is pretty essential for European harmony. The issue is that the EU is too big - the Franco-Germanic desire to challenge the US and China made it bigger, the UK's desire to trade more widely (due to the perennial British EUphilic misinterpretation of the EU as a trade block) and Central/Eastern Europe's desire to reunite with the West post-Cold War meant that the union that should have been small and deepening became wider than it ought, making the deepening harder but still inevitable (as the EU is about that deepening)
QuoteThe EU should have the leaders of all the countries meet once a month,
That's more than now!
Quotekeep free trade,
What free trade? Common Market isn't the same thing. Common Market is just pan-European rules and a protectionist boundary making it hard for outsiders (ie those who aren't European - like the US) to enter that market.
If the EU was in any way about free trade, it wouldn't have taken 40 years for the UK to get a decent trade agreement with Canada back!
Quotekeep the Euro,
Ditch Schengen as it's not working, but keep the Euro? :confused:
Quoteand keep visa-free (passport required however) between the countries.
Won't this keep the issues that already exist of different efforts put into border control. On entering Schengen via ferry, I have never had my passport checked (have done by train and plane). Pre-9/11 security theatre stopped it about 2005, internal Common Travel Area (UK, Ireland, Crown Dependencies) flights only needed photo id and I think it's still the case for internal Schengen ones.
And then there's the pre-Schengen travel areas - the Nordic Union, Benelux, etc. Are these not allowed to keep their open internal borders? Likewise the non-Schengen Common Travel Area? Would I, under your proposal, really need a passport to travel to Derry from some of it's exburbs (Muff, Buncara, etc) just a few miles away? That will be fun, given the local's dislike of there being an international border between them and their place of work!
QuoteI know that (almost) none of the above will happen,
Yep
Quotebut it would be the best for all those countries and their sovereignty.
You've not listened to your EU propaganda: national sovereignty is the cause of all wars. Belgium should have just let the Kaiser's army walk across it raping and pillaging to get to France, and Britain shouldn't have intervened on Belgium's behalf creating WW1.
And the Slovenes, Croats, Bosniacs, Macedonians (not the ones in northern Greece), Montenegrins and Kosovars should have accepted a Serbian dictator ruling them rather than fight wars of independence to create nation states - I mean the EU has had to suspend democracy in
its territory the sovereign state of Bosnia and Herzegovina a couple of times because a party that wants a break up of the union of autonomous provinces won some seats: they had to be ousted, lest BiH becomes several viable and (with time) friendly neighbours, rather than an unviable state full of bad housemates needing EU oversight!
QuoteMan I strongly believe that in 5 years Europe will be a lot different than it is now, and I don't think it will be for the better.
(Hopefully happening) Brexit in 2017 will hopefully create some internal reflection in Brussels, and show an alternative way for those countries like Hungary that would be much happier with a Norwegian/Swiss/Icelandic type relationship with the EU.
Quote from: SP Cook on September 27, 2015, 03:08:17 PMAs to the EU, if "Europe" is a country, then "France" is a state or province. If "France" is a country, then "Europe" is a continent.
1) EU is not Europe - the two are totally different things (one political, one geographic).
2) It's complicated. France is a sovereign state that has delegated, and increasingly is delegating (as part of EU tenant 1: ever-closer union), sovereign functions to the EU.
QuoteThe EU needs to return to being what it was.
A plan to create a United States of Europe? That's what it always has been: from before the Coal and Steel Pact, from before WW2 even. Or do you mean turning back the clock on the core tenant of 'Ever-Closer Union' so things are more apart? The latter would be seen as treason.
QuoteThe "Common Market", a way to cut taxes (always a good thing) by eliminating tariffs and duties.
Which is why the UK suddenly gained tariffs and duties when trading with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc on 01-01-1973 (the day it joined the EC)? BTW, it had tariff-free trade with the EC before that date, as part of EFTA.
The Common Market isn't about eliminating tariffs and duties - it's about pan-EU regulations on business and a protectionist Common External Tariff designed to stop the outside world from being competitive (and also to make countries less dependent on the outside world and more on the EU). Oh, and Common Fisheries Policy and Common Agricultural Policy that have caused untold environmental damage in the sea, and poverty in Africa respectively, due to free movement of goods supposedly making such things essential.
And the Common Market meaning they get 29 voices at the WTO (as every country has delegated their policy to the EU, and the EU has a non-voting seat). OK, given their bonkers policy to replace 2 Permanent UN Security Council seats, and usually 1, if not 2, temporary ones with a single seat - its clear that they don't want to dominate the WTO, just deny their members' a sovereign say.
And, to bring it back to the topic of this thread, the Common Immigration Policy they are talking about (what, the crisis might have been steered in a way to make such a thing the most obvious solution? Just as the Euro crisis was met with calls for Fiscal Union?) that is 'essential' due to free-movement of people.
QuoteAnd forget about all this who-ha about pretending to legislate about issues for which there can be no commonality between places far more different that different parts of the USA are from one another.
Such differences are the cause of all wars: they must be abolished! Resistance is Futile. ;)
I'm with you here. Creating a demos out of the 13 Colonies was very very hard (the common enemy of the British Army helped), and they were all mostly of a very similar cultural and religious background. You have a far more diverse grouping, far less shared history, and a lot of tension between subdivisions. Given that many European countries (Spain, France, UK, Italy, Belgium) all have succession movements and almost every other country in Europe is a the product of a successful succession movement from the last 100 years (most within the last 25), then I find it hard to even get Benelux to reach the EU's end goal.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 28, 2015, 09:21:26 AMThe statement runs counter to accepted standards of "Western values."
I would argue that, should such a policy be enacted, then it would be a "western value" to hate the other...