|
waitwhatno posted:For a man who gets punched in the dick 37 times a day, you'd think getting punched only 36 times would be satisfactory. That man has been punched in his dick all his life and I find the whole idea that he is trying to do anything about it quite vulgar. Oh these poor refugees, the indignity of escaping a war zone only to find themselves in an Eastern European country. I'd be pissed off too. Like getting punched in the balls 36 times pissed off. Just one punch better than being in Syria. OwlFancier posted:Well if you've previously lived a life in your native country with what you believe to be a future for your children and opportunity to improve your lot, you're not going to be happy being stuck somewhere with no work where nobody talks to you. I thought the point was that they're escaping a war zone, not moving to another country because they wanted to make a better life for themselves? And I get that the two can be connected, but seeing as the reason these people are applying for asylum in the first place (like the actual reason they give when asked "why should we let you in to Europe?") is "Syria is not safe", you'd think "ok, here's a safe place" should be enough. Bulgaria is still a lot richer than Syria anyway. I would understand "I'm happy to be in Bulgaria, I'd be happier in Germany" but to be disappointed about being put in Bulgaria just suggests that the main reason they wanted to come to Europe in the first place was economic opportunity and the war in Syria just presented a convenient way to get around the normal process of coming here. And while I'm all for economic migration and think getting a visa should be easier, this isn't the way to do it. And to be honest, being put in a poor country that doesn't pay you for existing probably works out better for your long term prospects anyway (see: jobless rates for immigrants in Sweden vs USA - including refugees).
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 11:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
So you don't have an actual solution in mind Ligur, you're just complaining then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 11:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So you don't have an actual solution in mind Ligur, you're just complaining then? I have posted some of my ideas of solutions before in this thread. I don't have to post them again. Anyway, why do you make up stuff I post and then rant at me, and what do you get out of it? What's the point? Or do you mistake me for another poster?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 11:19
|
|
|
The undesireability of Eastern Europe will work out to their benefit for once. No one will suprised when the refugees settled in Bulgaria, Hungary and so on quietly leave for Germany and Scandinavia. This will give them a great relative advantage over western europe which will only increase as more and more refugees cross the Aegean. The first shall be last and the last shall be first in tomorrow`s europe, and it`s all because of Assad`s barrel bombs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 11:32
|
|
|
Ligur posted:I have posted some of my ideas of solutions before in this thread. I don't have to post them again. From memory you had a plan to deal with 'illegal immigrants', what's your plan for asylum seekers? E: Oh, wait, you want them all to pile up on the borders of the country nearest to their place of origin. Some loving solution. As long as they're not in your back yard, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 11:34
|
|
|
Anybody else starting to get the feeling that the destruction of European culture people constantly warn about might not be such a bad thing after all?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 11:49
|
|
|
I hope your personal culture gets destroyed with a bullet to the brain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 11:51
|
|
|
Play nice steinrokkan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 11:57
|
|
|
Starshark posted:From memory you had a plan to deal with 'illegal immigrants', what's your plan for asylum seekers? Your memory is faulty. Anyway, according to the Dublin agreement, an asylum seeker must enter the asylum process when he enters EU. Let's re-establish border control and make it actually so. Let's enforce the original Geneva Convention definition for refugee (for example in Finland, only a minority of asylum seekers who receive a residence permit are actually even granted asylum, most are allowed to stay for secondary reasons). Let's make seeking asylum an EU process, not what it is now with everyone having different rules. Many countries already have refugee quotas, ask where people want to go if they are found out to be actual refugees under some personal immediate threat in the country of their origin. If the country accepts them (for example, Germany would probably accept most people who are Syrians) good, if nobody wants them, then distribute according to what EU has agreed upon. If refugee camps in North-Africa or Middle-East are not viable, establish centers in Europe where asylum seekers will be processed. I'm sure Bulgaria or Romania would be fine with this if they were paid well enough. Meanwhile, offer the health-care, food, shelter and safety, but no cash benefits to asylum seekers. There's plenty of things we could try and do. And believe me, there will be measures, sooner or later, more severe than the ones taken now. That the Schengen agreement is ditched all together, and every country starts dealing with the issue as they see fit might happen. Vast sums of EU funding might be funneled to our borders and more fences built, who knows. Be as it may, this current thing with masses of asylum seekers wandering all over the continent, their numbers increasing every year, rushing here and there according to the newest social media update about residence permit decisions and benefits in country X and Y isn't working out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 12:23
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Anybody else starting to get the feeling that the destruction of European culture people constantly warn about might not be such a bad thing after all? No, not really.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Anybody else starting to get the feeling that the destruction of European culture people constantly warn about might not be such a bad thing after all? We'll lose such cultural artifacts like boiled fish and rotting fish.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 12:31
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I think Europe should do more to settle asylum-seekers, but also be more organized and cooperative about how they are accepted so that asylum-seekers are settled on Europe's terms and not by barging through hastily-constructed checkpoints. Angela Merkel has expressed the same view. Someone will be outraged no doubt
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 12:32
|
|
|
The destruction of European culture (whatever that means) would be a bad thing, yes. But even if we took in 20 or 30 million refugees in a few years Europe would still be basically the same. The fears of islamisation are ridiculously exaggerated and funnily enough sometimes not even debated anymore even by leftists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
Europe did pretty well out of al-Andalus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 13:35
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Europe did pretty well out of al-Andalus. People are more scared of Muslims today.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 13:36
|
|
|
I'm more worried about virulent racists in my own country than a bunch of people who worship the crescent star religion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
Starshark posted:Australia and the US are taking in refugees. The problem is, as with Europe, they aren't taking enough (Australia is taking something paltry like 12 000). They aren't being given a pass. If you'd googled for a second you'd know that. Japan and Korea are also OECD countries (as is Chile). Why can't they take some refugees as well?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
Well Japan won't because it's xenophobic as poo poo and the current PM is a proto-fascist dickhead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
Isn't Japan like 99% ethnic Japanese or something crazy like that Basically if you're asking "why isn't country x taking in any refugees" the answer is always that they're xenophobic as hell.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
FINGERBLASTER69 posted:Japan and Korea are also OECD countries (as is Chile). Why can't they take some refugees as well? Because they're racist but you aren't racist so you don't have a problem taking refugees, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I'm more worried about virulent racists in my own country than a bunch of people who worship the crescent star religion. In fairness you can do both without much difficulty. The one thing the Jingoistic crowd have been right about in the last ten years is that Islam is a really bad religion. Muhammed, the exemplar of godly behaviour, ordered the murders of hundreds of people and raped at least one 13 year old girl. Most Muslims in the Arab world are very socially conservative and they do hate gay people, attitudes that concern me when I see them in non-immigrants and non-muslims as well. We don't have to pretend the rising influence of Islam is a good thing (it's not) to think we should treat Muslims themselves humanely. I guess some people who share my views on refugees will see a doctrinal contradiction in that and be very offended, but I personally don't think I have to agree with everything immigrants believe to defend their right to live and prosper and protect their children from war. I also think immigrants are more likely to ensconce themselves in toxic religious sub-cultures if we treat them like poo poo, so let's not do that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
I think any religious fundamentalism is dangerous (well apart from Jainism I guess). Many, many adherents of Islam are relatively agnostic and do it more out of habit, the same way Christians do in the UK. Yes, some are more like Christians in the US, but frankly they are probably not the ones fleeing Syria right now and even if there are it's not like we don't already have religious douchebags in the UK (Anjem, Paisley Jr.) who fail to do anything worse than yell loudly and get eye-rolled at. We are not going to see Sharia enacted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
Seriously, what is it with you guys and Muslims? It takes two posts at most about something else for you return talking about how other people supposedly view Muslims. And racism. The people swarming in and outside of Europe could be tinted green and believe in the Flying Spaghetti monster and we'd still be in a loving mess and Macedonian and Hungarian police would tear gas them. Couldn't you take that Muslims stuff to the Middle-East or whatever thread instead and talk about the refugee crisis here?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:I thought the point was that they're escaping a war zone, not moving to another country because they wanted to make a better life for themselves? And I get that the two can be connected, but seeing as the reason these people are applying for asylum in the first place (like the actual reason they give when asked "why should we let you in to Europe?") is "Syria is not safe", you'd think "ok, here's a safe place" should be enough. Bulgaria is still a lot richer than Syria anyway. I would understand "I'm happy to be in Bulgaria, I'd be happier in Germany" but to be disappointed about being put in Bulgaria just suggests that the main reason they wanted to come to Europe in the first place was economic opportunity and the war in Syria just presented a convenient way to get around the normal process of coming here. And while I'm all for economic migration and think getting a visa should be easier, this isn't the way to do it. Because they can't just sit and bum about all day until Syria stops being a warzone, because gently caress knows how long that will take, or if the peace is going to be somewhere they can go back to? Maybe they don't want to pack their entire life up again? If you accept refugees you should do it on the assumption they're going to want to live in your country permanently, people can't put their entire life on hold and simply exist in camps indefinitely. Or at least they can't reasonably be expected to be happy about it. Bulgaria may be richer than Syria but a lot of the people displaced will have had money to do it, so they were probably modestly wealthy in Syria, going from that to a place where you can't work, can't get a nice house, and nobody likes you is a bit of a loving downgrade. If I dumped you in Bulgaria you'd probably have a lovely time of things. You can help somewhat by giving people basic shelter, but you shouldn't really expect them to be happy living somewhere with poor prospects and conditions. That they are not literally being shot at doesn't make any alternative seem like paradise. They haven't lived their whole lives being shot at, they've had perfectly serviceable lives in their home country which they've had to give up, there's no reason why they should be happy about their circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
hackbunny posted:Someone will be outraged no doubt Discussing immigration on SA is like talking to a pro-lifer; talk about compromise and you are evil.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Seriously, what is it with you guys and Muslims? One state has only allowed Syrian Christians as its refugees and Orban himself specifically said the refugees are incompatible with Hungary's Christian culture. Their religion is relevant because a lot of people loving hate Islam. Look, we get it, you live so far North even God has nothing to do with you, but can you stop pretending the rest of the world is like your culturally homogeneous snow desert. Also you even used the word 'swarm' dude these are people not locusts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Seriously, what is it with you guys and Muslims? I think if they were largely white Christians you would see a lot less people trying to come up with economic justifications to keep them out (or saying stuff like WHY DOENS'T EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD TAKE THEM INSTEAD). Most of the fear is based on their race and religion. And finally, you're obsessing about this topic in three different threads so 'what is it with you guys and Muslims' indeed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
Starshark posted:I think if they were largely white Christians you would see a lot less people trying to come up with economic justifications to keep them out (or saying stuff like WHY DOENS'T EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD TAKE THEM INSTEAD). Most of the fear is based on their race and religion. And finally, you're obsessing about this topic in three different threads so 'what is it with you guys and Muslims' indeed. But he's not racist because Muslims aren't a race!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I think any religious fundamentalism is dangerous (well apart from Jainism I guess). Many, many adherents of Islam are relatively agnostic and do it more out of habit, the same way Christians do in the UK. Yes, some are more like Christians in the US, but frankly they are probably not the ones fleeing Syria right now and even if there are it's not like we don't already have religious douchebags in the UK (Anjem, Paisley Jr.). Homophobes and sexists dislike war and want to protect their children too. As a former resident of the Levant I think it's quite naive to pretend that a majority of Syrian refugees won't be very socially conservative by the average West European's standards. I just don't think you have to pick sides on this one. Islam from its roots to how it's widely practiced today is some insanely bad poo poo, as is the Daily Mail and David Cameron. The only thing we can do is vocally reject all forms of social conservatism and try to behave humanely to all, including those with bad cultural backgrounds and ideas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:But he's not racist because Muslims aren't a race! It's odd I haven't been talking about race at all, and religion very little. Some of you guys are talking about either or both of these things every other post. Then you sort of place these race and religion thoughts into my head. So, if you are insinuating I have some sort of racial supremacy theories, what, exactly makes you think so? Or are you perhaps just projecting here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You can help somewhat by giving people basic shelter, but you shouldn't really expect them to be happy living somewhere with poor prospects and conditions. That they are not literally being shot at doesn't make any alternative seem like paradise. They haven't lived their whole lives being shot at, they've had perfectly serviceable lives in their home country which they've had to give up, there's no reason why they should be happy about their circumstances. I'm not happy with my prospects where I'm now either. Guess I'm just gonna go live in the NYC or maybe Geneva now. Otherwise I won't be happy about my circumstances. Edit: who do I talk to about receiving my house, car, and cash? mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Sep 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I'm not happy with my prospects where I'm now either. Guess I'm just gonna go live in the NYC or maybe Geneva now. Otherwise I won't be happy about my circumstances. Moving places where there's work/the sort of people/facilities they want to be around is a thing people do? I mean it'd be nice if they didn't have to don't get me wrong but it does appear to be a mechanism by which people seek to achieve satisfaction with their lives?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
Won't the EU quotas stop the refugees from picking and choosing which country they want to go to?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Seriously, what is it with you guys and Muslims? This whole controversy is literally about Islam and Arabic culture. Just compare it to the Yugoslavian refugee crisis in the 90's, if you have any doubts. To be more precise, this is about a bunch of people trying to use fear and scare tactics for their own advantage. If you do it right, screaming about Pedo-Mohammad can get you elected to the highest office and bestow unimaginable riches upon you. It's a gold mine. Look at Lutz Bachmann, he turned from violent hardcore criminal and drug dealer to the most talked person in Germany and leader of a gigantic political mass movement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
kikkelivelho posted:Won't the EU quotas stop the refugees from picking and choosing which country they want to go to? Probably not, dear dickwizard, unless something like "they would lose all benefits for three years if they leave" is introduced, but it probably won't be because human rights this and that. Also what about the 500k or so asylum seekers who remain outside of the quota? They will still pick and choose. Right now asylum seekers refuse to give fingerprints or register themselves in countries they don't want to be in, if some quota system is placed, they will try to avoid being quotaed to the bitter end and those who end up in Eastern Europe will gently caress off right away. OwlFancier posted:Moving places where there's work/the sort of people/facilities they want to be around is a thing people do? So are you saying that we should get to choose which European country we live in if we get, I don't know, unemployed or in problems with the police or something, and we are entitled to all benefits related to living there, or what.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
I'm saying you shouldn't tell people they should be grateful for poo poo with sugar on as opposed to being shot. I appreciate that it may not be practical to house refugees in the ideal locations for them, but I don't think you can fault the refugees for being unhappy about being stuck somewhere that doesn't allow them to live a very good life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
lmaoboy1998 posted:Homophobes and sexists dislike war and want to protect their children too. As a former resident of the Levant I think it's quite naive to pretend that a majority of Syrian refugees won't be very socially conservative by the average West European's standards. I don't doubt, but those are not 'Islamic' problems so much as reactionary/conservative problems. We could talk about the role theocracy has played in this, but my point isn't that there isn't a problem, but that it's a problem that can be addressed with time. lmaoboy1998 posted:I just don't think you have to pick sides on this one. Islam from its roots to how it's widely practiced today is some insanely bad poo poo, as is the Daily Mail and David Cameron. The only thing we can do is vocally reject all forms of social conservatism and try to behave humanely to all, including those with bad cultural backgrounds and ideas. Indeed, I think we're on the same page even if I'm not making it clear. Now, this guy on the other hand: Ligur posted:It's odd I haven't been talking about race at all, and religion very little. Some of you guys are talking about either or both of these things every other post. You post about how foreigners 'can't' assimilate in your culture or 'don't' get jobs, but you don't say why. Just because you're an expert in not quoting the 14 words outright doesn't mean you're not disingenuous. Especially when I was joking about the racists in my country being more of an extant problem than having Muslims in the country, in the context of the contributions of Arab culture via the conquest of Spain. This is not an obsession with Muslims, although you do have an obsession with going "WHOA WHY'D YOU BRING UP RACE DURING THIS MIGRANT CRISIS!! Guess your the REAL racists  "
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I'm not happy with my prospects where I'm now either. Guess I'm just gonna go live in the NYC or maybe Geneva now. Otherwise I won't be happy about my circumstances. If you're a European/American/Westerner with even a decent amount of starting money, you can pretty much move, study and work anywhere in the world if you want. It takes some effort, of course but you're not going to be blocked. It's even easier if you are in the EU because bang, there is 27 other countries wide open for you. We don't do it as much because we don't really have to in order to massively benefit our lives but people do it all the time with few, if any true difficulties. You'll get housing and support too because you would be a legal immigrant. There are millions and millions of poorer EU citizens moving into wealthier ones. Poles in UK is probably the most common example of that but most are going into Germany. And people are whining just as much about that. It is the same inside countries too - not so much in rich Western ones but in places like China - in regards to people moving from rural ares to the city. City people complain because they have more wealth and have been there longer. kikkelivelho posted:Won't the EU quotas stop the refugees from picking and choosing which country they want to go to? It should. I await seeing details on the proposal. EU should really approach this as one supranational entity, with the money to support refugees coming from a common EU budget, and everyone getting the same amount of aid (adjusted for the general price levels in the country ofc) instead of it being left to each individual state's social support system. That way the refugees in say, Bulgaria or Finland would at least get the same level of income (unless they get a job) even if they have to hang out with surly Slavs and Ugrics instead of the happy Germans. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Sep 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Probably not, dear dickwizard, unless something like "they would lose all benefits for three years if they leave" is introduced, but it probably won't be because human rights this and that. Also what about the 500k or so asylum seekers who remain outside of the quota? They will still pick and choose. Right now asylum seekers refuse to give fingerprints or register themselves in countries they don't want to be in, if some quota system is placed, they will try to avoid being quotaed to the bitter end and those who end up in Eastern Europe will gently caress off right away. My question was made under the assumption that the EU will not complete and hilariously botch the entire quota system (this will probably happen). Also, now that the precedent has been set the EU can in theory distribute any number of refugees.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
Ligur posted:So are you saying that we should get to choose which European country we live in if we get, I don't know, unemployed or in problems with the police or something, and we are entitled to all benefits related to living there, or what. Lol yes, that's how it works. Governments are not required to pay welfare to foreign EU citizens, but most countries like Germany use an "job seeking assistance benefits" scheme that doesn't count as welfare and EU foreigners are generally entitled to those. You are even allowed to partake in local elections as an EU foreigner. Despite that, the Polish and Rumanian locusts waves never came. Still waiting for the barbarians. Any day now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 15:09
|
|