Europe's migrant crisis
- Thread starter GwinnettNole
- Start date
Tribalism is why we're letting them drown. If they were white Christians we'd be accepting them with open arms. We'd be sending boats and planes. But they're brown and pray funny.
The backlash is because of things like this, not how they do or do not pray.
If you have a subset of the population committing rapes at 3 times the rate of the rest of society, can that society decide to not import more of that subset?
3 times huh? I didn't see that in the story, perhaps it was in another one you forgot to link.
There was probably no crime in Italy before those immigrants showed up.
But you're right, if they were white Christians the response would be exactly the same.
There was probably no crime in Italy before those immigrants showed up.
But you're right, if they were white Christians the response would be exactly the same.
Does tribalism equate to religion? I always looked at it more like....gangs, for lack of a better description. Like in Gangs of NY. I see massacres of one tribe against another, that cross countries borders. Like the tribal boundaries supersede state boundaries. Do the countries leaders lack the ability to control this? Or, are they often complicit? No clear answers it seems.
But, if this were happening somewhere with oil or other precious natural resources, someone would have stepped in to "help".
Tribalism is about in and out groups. Humans have been dividing themselves up into groups since we first came out of the trees. It's why there are things like college rivalries. Religion is one way to do it, language and skin color are other ways.
But you're right, if they were white Christians the response would be exactly the same.
The response from the international community was the same for the 150k Georgians that were displaced during their conflict. They were provided refugee status and housed in UNHCR camps just like the ones in Turkey.
What sort of social engineering do you have in mind to achieve this?
Society will never operate at max efficiency. It's a waste of time to ponder such things. Like I said at the beginning of the post you quoted, "you can only live in the world you've got."
Strawman promptly disregarded.
The issue is not whether there was 'no crime' before, the issue is whether the immigrants commit crimes at a higher rate, and whether the society that is in place must accept them and what comes with them.
I don't expect you to trust me. But I do expect you to not stick your head in the sand and look for yourself at what kind of incarceration rates in UK, France and Italy these emigres are having.
It's not so black and white - what if the society accepted them and put them in a position to succeed and add value? Whatever the immigrant crime rate is (if even differs from the non-immigrant rate, who knows), it would decline further.
Instead societies begrudgingly accept migrants/refugees and marginalize them, give them limited opportunities to succeed - well it's not a real shock things go a little wrong once in a while then.
Capitalism is the best platform for human beings to engineer the society they want, at the best efficiency. The concepts of individual liberty requisite for capitalism to best flourish are certainly alien (indeed antithetical) to those interested in 'socially engineering' others.
Who is pondering 'max efficiency'? I'm not even sure what you're referring to here. Genuine valuations are individual and subjective. Better thought of as ordinal than cardinal.
I'm simply pointing out that economic well being is better measured per capita than in aggregate, and that unmolested by non-market forces productivity will only keep going up.
But that world isn't rigidly fixed. The world we have tomorrow depends entirely on how much we consume of what we produce today.
If we allow for policies that encourage consumption over savings, those policies hollow out the future we would otherwise enjoy.
If you have a subset of the population committing rapes at X times the rate of the rest of society, can that society decide to not import more of that subset?
(x = higher rate than native population).
FTFY
Your 'no crime' comment was a strawman. Do you get the difference between a hypothetical and a strawman?
The difference was you pulled a number out of your ass to try to make all immigrants look bad whereas I made a sarcastic comment to make you look foolish.
I tell you one thing: the pictures of that poor little boy are just heart wrenching. I must imagine that you must be in dire straights to take on that risk with your family. CNN was on at lunch at the place we ate and I had to leave.
Cheap shot? You don't think the Europeans would be reacting differently if this was the case?
To be fair I think there's a measure of truth to what he's saying. I guess we can all disagree about it though.
But there isn't. The EU didn't want to provide Georgian or Ukranian refugees asylum in greater numbers. It's terrible that this child died, but they weren't fleeing Syria at that point. They'd been living in Turkey for some time. They were trying to get to Canada.
If that's what you think, you are mistaken.
If you are interested in the (higher) crimes rates of immigrants you can find it readily
Ignorance is curable for the curious. Start here.
But the precise ratios aren't even germane to my question:
If you have a subset of the population committing rapes at X times the rate of the rest of society, can that society decide to not import more of that subset?
(x = higher rate than native population).
Can the natives say, no thanks?
The natives can say whatever they want so long as it doesn't violate any agreements they've signed to the counter. However, their inhumanity to their fellow man will likely be remembered when they find themselves needing a hand the next time.
It's a cheap shot because you know board rules yet you have fire a shot across the bow. Up until then it's been pretty respectful.
Also, I'm Christian and don't think we can let anyone in just as is. I stated why above.
In a thread where we are borderline close to getting it locked due to the topic it's best not to drop a bomb in the middle of the discussion. He knew dang well what reaction that post could have.
I didn't violate any board rules other than the one that says we shouldn't be discussing the topic to begin with. You don't violate any by disagreeing with me.
Exactly. Now let's try to stay civil. Can you not see the trouble that your post could cause? Nevermind... Just move along.
This has been an amazingly civil thread for one that is dealing with dead children washing up on shore. Much more civilized than it should be. I find that much more explosive than pointing out some obvious realities about the world.
Why is it explosive? They were trying to illegally leave Turkey without an exit visa in an attempt to get to Canada. They weren't in danger in Turkey. They chose to go by sea, despite the fact that three of them couldn't swim. And they didn't put PFD's on the kids.
It's a tragedy.
I've got an interesting question, has this situation really risen to "Crisis" levels for European nations?
Certainly there's a crisis in Syria and other nations in terms of death/starvation/rape/etc...
Would like to see some numbers that would backup the subjective use of the term 'crisis' in relation to the situation being faced by EU governments.
Certainly there's a crisis in Syria and other nations in terms of death/starvation/rape/etc...
Would like to see some numbers that would backup the subjective use of the term 'crisis' in relation to the situation being faced by EU governments.
I keep thinking about it. So sad.
The smugglers taking advantage of these people are villains in this as well.
So 1.2 applicants per 1000 inhabitants doesn't seem crazy when you think about the suffering going on in.
Several EU nations have said applicants should be allowed into countries at a rate proportional to the existing population - essentially keeping it around 1.2 app / 1000 inhabitants in each nation - your graph certainly makes that seem like a very viable solution.
Let's hope Europe steps up and does the right thing.
Several EU nations have said applicants should be allowed into countries at a rate proportional to the existing population - essentially keeping it around 1.2 app / 1000 inhabitants in each nation - your graph certainly makes that seem like a very viable solution.
Let's hope Europe steps up and does the right thing.
Those are the numbers for last year. Germany is on track for four times as many applications as last year.
More concerned w/ the EU aggregate level.
If they're going to deal with this, it will be as a union.
Why? It's pretty clear that immigrants to Europe are seeking out the richest economies with the most generous social welfare. These people don't want to be in poor economies, or even growing ones with poor social welfare benefits. Look at the numbers for Poland, Ireland, and Estonia. Hell, look at the Czech Republic.
To that point....
Following talks with the president of the European Parliament Martin Schulz, Orban noted the current refugee crisis was not an EU problem, but rather "a German problem," as he put it. According to Orban, none of the migrants want to "stay in Hungary." All of them want to go to Germany, the Hungarian prime minister said.
"We Hungarians are full of fear, people in Europe are full of fear because they see that the European leaders, among them prime ministers, are not able to control the situation," Orban said.
Europe is facing the most serious refugee crisis since the end of the second world war. In response, EU leaders are acting in very different ways. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has taken the humanitarian high ground, declaring that her country will receive up to 800,000 asylum applicants this year and confronting the anti-immigrant voices in her country. By contrast, David Cameron seems to be taking a mean approach, strictly limiting the number of refugees Britain will receive. - FT
Following talks with the president of the European Parliament Martin Schulz, Orban noted the current refugee crisis was not an EU problem, but rather "a German problem," as he put it. According to Orban, none of the migrants want to "stay in Hungary." All of them want to go to Germany, the Hungarian prime minister said.
"We Hungarians are full of fear, people in Europe are full of fear because they see that the European leaders, among them prime ministers, are not able to control the situation," Orban said.
Europe is facing the most serious refugee crisis since the end of the second world war. In response, EU leaders are acting in very different ways. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has taken the humanitarian high ground, declaring that her country will receive up to 800,000 asylum applicants this year and confronting the anti-immigrant voices in her country. By contrast, David Cameron seems to be taking a mean approach, strictly limiting the number of refugees Britain will receive. - FT
Last edited:
Maybe they're looking for countries with job opportunities.... So like, they can have jobs, to like, buy things for their family and be all productive n stuff
But thanks for assuming the worst about them.
They aren't choosing the countries with better job opportunities. Even Germany, which boasts one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe, has horrendous employment statistics for non-native residents. Sweden, Belgium, France, Denmark, and Austria don't offer better prospects than the Czech Republic, Romania, Poland, or Estonia.
Ah I'm sure they knew this already - I mean considering I didn't and I'm comfortably sitting at a computer, it's pretty reasonable to think they already know this while they sit in Hungarian refugee cams and train stations - they must all be working on complex economic models. I'm sure the irish and italians did similar in depth research before hopping on a boat over to ellis island while bypassing spain, england, france, and iceland.
