|
XMNN posted:He's right kids have been dying every day in the same way for months but because there weren't photos plastered everywhere people could just push it to the back of their minds. He probably intends it in a "So we shouldn't care" way, rather than "We are disgusting for not caring before" way, though. I think the EU are forcing his hand behind closed doors as well. He's desperate to get some nebulous 'concessions' for the UK on trade issues and has been told that he's getting more or less nothing until he offers to take in more refugees. Unfortunately his base hates refugees as well so this doesn't leave him much flexibility. He's trying to realign the British right wing's expectations on certain key issues with the EU's as he doesn't actually want a Brexit. lmaoboy1998 fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Sep 4, 2015 |
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It's pretty surreal as an American to see educated, nominally liberal first worlders basically argue for white supremacist immigration policy You guys should feel free to take in some Syrian refugees yourselves of course, if you're that concerned about it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:The correct terminology is 'urban ferals stealing our white women' As in all things, Europe is decades behind the times on this 121 Syrian refugees in 2014. I accept that there's only a thin sliver of coast where brown people can actually live without fear of persecution but really, you guys are letting the side down.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:As an American, the US has a horrible immigration policy and absolutely should absolutely accept more refugees. That said I don't think I implied that we were blameless at all. To clarify, I think the UK's refugee policy is very bad. We get a lot of heat for that, and so we should. I'm not arguing for lessening the pressure on the UK at all, if anything it should be heightened. We need to take more refugees. That said, it's literally unbelievable to me that the richest country in the world, and one of the most populous, accepted ~121~ Syrian refugees between 2011 and the start of 2014, so we've got to see a little more pressure there as well. Is the American media discussing this problem at all? I watch a few American poltiics shows regularly and it really doesn't seem to be a hot topic of discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2015 00:59
|
|
at your naked attempt to distract from the moral failings of your own government by turning the discussion to US policy.
|
icantfindaname posted:Why should a country a thousand miles further away across an ocean take them in, instead of the even larger, just as wealthy region a thousand miles closer, not across an ocean? Like just from a logistical perspective this is a baffling complaint A ticket to the US costs less than what these people are paying to get to Europe. If your asylum quotas for Syria were wider there would be no shortage of applications for refuguees wishing to immigrate to the US legally and pay their own flight, so the ocean wouldn't make a huge difference to the 'logistics' of anything. Both regions are trying to limit their exposure to the refugee crisis by refusing to accept a sensible number of asylum applications - for the EU this is a completely futile tactic because they can just move here illegally, for the US it is a very successful one because they can't. I fail to see how the same cynical tactic becomes more morally acceptable in the American case simply because geography had made it more effective.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Seeing countries that are a hair-length away from electing actual neo-fascist parties to government in reaction to 10% of their population now being ethnic minorities, criticizing the United States for racism, is one of the best things. Irony is dead, and we're currently beating its corpse with lead pipes and kicking the poo poo out of it Which countries are you talking about specifically? No one expects any of the serious European players to elect a far-right wing party anytime soon. There are crazy racists but they're no closer to winning power than your own are (Donald Trump springs to mind). Your reaction to having a large minority population has been to permit police to execute them on the streets, so forgive me if we avoid taking advice on that one. + You didn't answer my last post on why America's refugee policy is a disgrace (I'm still lolling at the 'big ocean'/logistics gambit), presumably because you don't have an answer. lmaoboy1998 fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Sep 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:Or for one of them to actually be elected president. Was England a bastion of feminism in 1980 just because we elected Margaret Thatcher? I can assure you we weren't. Choosing a slightly brown man as figurehead (who half the country seem to despise) doesn't prove an awful lot to me, what matters is how normal people live. I'd rather be of African descent here in the UK, if I had to choose. Europe, in any case, consists of 50 extremely different countries. Some of them (not many) have really good social integration - I really don't think being of African or Arabian or Indian descent is easier in the US than it is in Britain, for example. On the other hand, some of them are very racist and don't even offer that safety net (partly because they're ex-Soviet and/or very poor). I do object to the idea that when Hungary or whoever elects a fascist I'm responsible for that because it's in 'Europe'. I shudder to think how geography lessons work over there. lmaoboy1998 fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Sep 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Get these people off the boats and into proper living quarters throughout Europe and the United States shouldn't just wait for these people to 'make it'. Bring them here if Europeans can't be helped to look at their man-made disaster square in the face. Haha, 'our' disaster? I reckon your inability to keep your dick out of the Middle East might have played a small role in it mate. Unbelievable. A better suggestion than yours: Stop waiting for us to solve this unilaterally and behave like human beings.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I mean if you don't give a poo poo about the refugees and don't want them in your country say so, but don't do this thing where you point at the US and scream about it as if it has anything to do with that country and not Europe American foreign policy helped create the refugee crisis. Remind me why you shouldn't play a part in solving it? Of course I've heard your answer, the ocean means you can't possibly take an interest in this particular Middle Eastern issue for 'logistical reasons'. Lmao.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:That's not gonna happen, friend. Here's how this will work. You all will get together and push for an EU refugee deal that mostly fairly distributes refugees throughout Europe, while removing a bunch of obstacles for refugees to make it there, with the intent being a massive increase in refugee resettlement. This will happen, and it will be good. The US will not take part in that debate. 20 years from now, when people in my shoes are saying "the US is 20 years behind the rest of the world on its refugee policy, and it's archaic and disgusting," and you all are talking about how rear end backwards the US and Americans are, then we might get progress. Not one second before. Sorry, that's all I've got for you. I think you're optimistic about our levels of compassion/competence/foresight. Most of Europe is retarded and is definitely going to half-rear end this, so unless you and others (cough Israel) are willing to half-rear end it with us, there's probably not going to be a fully-assed solution. People can apportion blame for that if they wish, but it's not realistic for the US (and indeed the UK) to sit behind bodies of water and moralise about why Poland and Hungary and Greece are being inhumane to people we displaced. For the US, France and the UK it's a political opportunity as well. Perhaps we an change the standard Middle Eastern image of the US/WE from 'Those dumbasses who hosed up Iraq/Libya' to 'Those guys who save Muslim women and children from the grip of ISIS when they didn't really have to'. It's disappointing that none of us are exploiting that. lmaoboy1998 fucked around with this message at 11:19 on Sep 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2015 11:17
|
|
|
PerpetualSelf posted:I don't think Europe or England understand what true Diversity, Tolerance, or Common Sense means anymore and that this whole endeavor is going to fail miserably. PerpetualSelf posted:Colombo-American. lol at both "Europe or England" and calling women "broads" when trying to make a feminist point. Your argument in any case seems to be "America is so much better to refugees than Europe so let's airlift them all to... The Gulf  ". Even if we leave the premise unchallenged (we shouldn't), do you not think a better plan suggests itself here? A way you guys can actually improve the situation rather than gibbering impotently about Racist Tea Time and its effects on migration?(Just so you know, Arab states won't treat refugees more pleasantly or integrate them more effectively just because 'lol, same race!'. Ask the Palestinians.) lmaoboy1998 fucked around with this message at 08:49 on Sep 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
Forced repatriation certainly doesn't happen to every refugee who turns 18, to be clear. As with any asylum application its dependent on circumstance and most refugees turning 18 get to remain in the UK. Even doing this to one child is awful though. http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/09/08/the-deportation-game-what-happens-when-refugees-turn-18
lmaoboy1998 fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Sep 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Yeah I remember Bush picking him based on Maliki claiming he knew the plight of Iraq despite having not been there in like 30 years and with little-to-no contacts among the actual populace. I'm refusing to believe this, for my own sanity.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
mikemil828 posted:If given the option would refugees really want to come to America? Europe's the place with the social safety nets, the universal healthcare, the mandatory vacations, etc. If Europe has the resources to handle everyone and according to you guys they do, why should America take anyone who would not be able to handle our 'gently caress you got mine' society, it would be cruel imo. Your self-awareness about your own society's faults is refreshing given the amazing mix of geographical illiteracy, neo-exceptionalist mythology and nimbyism that American posters constantly inflict on this thread. But your optimism about ours is misplaced. France and Spain treat their immigrants at least as poorly as the States (6/10 young prisoners in France are children of recent immigrants, for example), they're just smart enough not to give everyone involved heavy weaponry so the problem is possibly less striking. It's only a small number of Northern European countries that have integrated ethnic minorities in a semi-functional manner and those societies still aren't anything to shout about. Eastern Europe and the borderline fascists in Hungary are going to end up rehousing a large number of refugees as things stand so America and Australia (lmao at the idea of those guys stepping up though) are definitely preferable options. lmaoboy1998 fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 09:37
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It can be both! A bit irrelevant though as the US only treated Cuban refugees well as a way of scoring propaganda points against the Castro regime. The US (and most states) are pretty good at accepting and integrating refugees when there's some kind of ideological battle being waged against the country of origin. Notice the percentage of US asylum seekers that currently come from Russia and China. The problem is everyone, the US included, loses interest in refugees when they come from irrelevant countries that no one particularly cares to flick the nose of.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2015 13:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's actually quite relevant because that system of schooling became the standard in lots of bilingual education in the US. Sure. I just think we should remember why that happened in America (the government wanted to wave successful refugees in the face of Communist Latin America), and why it probably won't happen in Finland (the Finnish government doesn't give a poo poo about impressing Somalis). computer parts posted:Even if you just focus on Mexicans, most of them still go to primarily English speaking within a decade or so (starting as kids). It's not anywhere near the issues Europe has. It's not a big problem in the European countries with sensible languages. lmaoboy1998 fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Sep 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
The_Franz posted:What exactly qualifies a language as 'sensible'? Doesn't sound silly. Sensible: English, Arabic, Persian, Russian Not sensible: Hebrew, Finnish, Spanish, Ukrainian
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I'd say Lebanon is an example of an 'undeveloped' (or perhaps 'underdeveloped' is the better term) economy that's coping with its astounding number of refugees, albeit at a lowering of national quality of life. I'd hope that our supposed 'developed' economies could manage a large fraction of those people, let alone the much smaller numbers currently being accepted, without seeing a drop in quality of life. The comparison isn't useful. Lebanon doesn't really provide anything for those people apart from land (which in fairness is at more of a premium in Lebanon), and isn't funding the expensive integration programs that Europe will presumably be expected to. The refugees depend entirely on the UNHCR to actually live. Europe is offering to feed, house and integrate refugees, whereas Turkey and Lebanon are offering campsites. That's fine considering their GDP, but it does invalidate the 'Why can't Europe be as generous as Lebanon' argument, as it would actually suck for everyone involved if we followed Lebanon's example.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:imo the refugees should be shipped to usa In a just world the US, Russia, France and the UK would be made to take in every single refugee and all the countries that didn't help create the ISIS/Assad dynamic would be allowed to lean back and enjoy the qq. But the world isn't fair.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
computer parts posted:If there's any justice then the EU as a whole would pay reparations to the Middle East and other war torn regions. But the EU has never actually invaded anyone (you're thinking of two particular countries in Western Europe). I'm failing to see how you can hold places like Poland and Bulgaria responsible for all of that really, were they meant to invade France and the UK back in 1800? The amount of power you guys invest in the idea of 'Europe' as some kind of coordinated evil-empire that's just  masquerading as a bunch of independent states is crazy. The EU doesn't bear responsibility for anything because its ability to direct the foreign policy of its larger members is near zero.
lmaoboy1998 fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Sep 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:I think it's silly to accept refugees to "make up" for colonialism (real or tenuous). This sounds very profound but is actually very vapid if you think about it for more than a second. "We were terrible back then, sorry, but now we have to keep being terrible because we can never completely make up for the past anyway" - a bad argument. computer parts posted:The two main countries in the EU had worldwide empires, as did Italy, Belgium, and other nations. Uh, punish those countries then? Your hard on for collective EU responsibility is weirding me out.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2015 15:32
|
|