-
@NTA said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
How fucking naive do you ahve to be? They all ended up in Europe why? Sure as shit not because they feared for their lives. What kind of fucked up version of events do you have that you think they were all in mortal danger right up until they got to Europe.
All the ones that that came from Afganistan, Tunisia, Pakistan etc.. there were not safe places along that route?I'm not sure if you're idealistic about how this whole crisis works, or just fucking ignorant.
The other countries passed them on. Same as asylum seekers that come to Australia go through half a dozen places that don't fucking want them. Even if they'd taken their fair share, there was no political or community desire for them. Those fleeing the conflict weren't welcomed or even tolerated anywhere else. Greece had the arse out of its pants, Hungary wasn't much better in terms of being able to settle for even a short time and find temporary employment, welfare support, or humanitarian aid.
Its the same problem Germany realised when a million people start clamouring on the doorstep.
You honestly think Turkey was going to take everyone? With a war on its doorstep and a coup around the corner every so often? Fuck who is the naive one?
Other countries passed them on? No shit really? wow.... thanks for your continued insight.
Turkey has made a deal to hold on to the refugees, so actually they are tolerated, stop talking out of your ass. The refugees left safe places to move to Europe, that is a simple fact. Wether that was Turkey, Lebanon or Jordan. And why did they leave those safe places..? because Merkel said they could and would be welcomed in Europe, some of us said it was a retarded move at the time.
The reality is that the refugees could and should have stayed in the countries neighboring the war zone. That would have allowed proper processing and assessment.
Not the shit flow Merkel invited form all over the Islamic world. -
@No-Quarter said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
The all religions are fucked argument is 100% true. All religions are fucked. But you just cannot ignore that some are more fucked than others. In 2016 Islam is, by a country fucking mile, the worst of the religions. That is due to A. the sheer number of Muslims and B. the religion has had no reformation in its history, so all of the teachings are based on what was seen as OK 1000s of years ago.
Even if you take out all of the terrorist attacks, the sheer number of human rights atrocities that are committed in Muslim countries in the name of Islam dwarfs all other religions. That doesn't make any other religion superior, they're all shit, but to ignore the biggest offender by claiming they are all bad while ignoring statistical evidence is head in the sand bullshit.
The "peaceful" Muslims argument is a load of shit. If a woman lives under the thumb of her husband, is not allowed out of the house without him, is beaten if she steps out of line, regularly raped and is consigned to a life in the kitchen/house are they "peaceful" because the husband has not strapped a bomb to his chest in a crowded area? Or do we not care about those aspects of Islam as long as we can say "oh the majority of them don't commit acts of terror so there's nothing inherently wrong with Islam!".
That sort of stuff is common practice in Muslim countries. Which is fucking insane. Which is why Islam is the worst religion of the lot.
When you take the above into account, then it's not hard to see why mass immigration from Muslim countries to the West is causing serious fucking problems. Yes any immigration has the issue of integration, but the difference in culture between Muslim countries and Western countries is absolutely huge, far greater then any other cultures.
The argument that all religions are fucked therefore they are all equally fucked is just mental midgetry,
-
@NTA said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
How fucking naive do you ahve to be? They all ended up in Europe why? Sure as shit not because they feared for their lives. What kind of fucked up version of events do you have that you think they were all in mortal danger right up until they got to Europe.
All the ones that that came from Afganistan, Tunisia, Pakistan etc.. there were not safe places along that route?I'm not sure if you're idealistic about how this whole crisis works, or just fucking ignorant.
The other countries passed them on. Same as asylum seekers that come to Australia go through half a dozen places that don't fucking want them. Even if they'd taken their fair share, there was no political or community desire for them. Those fleeing the conflict weren't welcomed or even tolerated anywhere else. Greece had the arse out of its pants, Hungary wasn't much better in terms of being able to settle for even a short time and find temporary employment, welfare support, or humanitarian aid.
Its the same problem Germany realised when a million people start clamouring on the doorstep.
You honestly think Turkey was going to take everyone? With a war on its doorstep and a coup around the corner every so often? Fuck who is the naive one?
Don't fucking want them? They don't want to stay there either. This isn't a case of finding a safe haven, its about getting to the land of milk and honey. You think those coming to Australia are only doing it because they travelled to and were spat out of every country along the way?
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
Yes Nick, it was so much better when we spent billions more for the RAN to operate as a shuttle service for the people smuggling industry. You honestly want to go back to those times?
You've clearly missed something.
If an RAN ship happens to intercept a boat, it is required by the frameworks of international maritime law to render assistance. That part has not changed. They are required to render the same assistance today that they were before Operation Sovereign Borders was established. Captains who fail to follow the group of laws dealing with these situations may face prosecution.
So this "shuttle service" you are talking about is not actually a thing. The cost of running the RAN remains about the same. Similarly, Maritime surveillance carried out by the RAAF is unchanged.
Using a range of government agencies, including any part of the ADF, Border Force, Bureau of Met, etc. the intercept process is coordinated and appropriate measures - set down by Australian and International Maritime law - are followed. This includes coordination with Indonesia, where they decide to follow it. Indonesia's (sporadic) involvement is probably the only place where we've reduced some costs.
And I am fine with ALL the costs relating to surveillance and interception. That is a standard part of border patrolling. People who get towed back to Indonesia get towed back. The SAR zone we have is huge, but there are other ports and navies in that zone, and we can access them.
What is left sits in offshore detention centres, to the tune of $200K per person (maybe higher). Nauru has an average annual income of under $35K per year. PNG average salary is $46K. Even with overheads, spending 4-5 times the average salary per person seems a bit steep, and furthermore that is money that could be going to Australian industry to construct camps and process asylum seekers. The results would be the same, just that we wouldn't need to pay foreign governments for the privilege.
Its a good thing the other areas of Sovereign Borders, like buying off people smugglers, have worked so well to reduce the number of boat people.
Otherwise we'd be paying even bigger bribes to foreign governments.
-
@Frank said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
Personally, I would never have let them come in because I totally disagree with importing people with massively different belief systems,
You'd have been soooo fucked in the 30's if you're name was Frankenstein
I agree with Nick - there is no way we are in a World War - or even at war with Islam.
There a too many fucktards preaching jihad against the west but the overwhelming majority of muslims are still as abhorred by this as anyone on this board.
Add in the fact that most of ISIS' violence is directed at Shiites despite all the anti-western rhetoric
As for state sponsored terrorism - where to stop. All the permanent members of the Security Council have /do indulge all of the middle east lots of Europe
Too many absolutes on this thread.
I do agree with Frank that his difficult questions are just that - hard to answer.
Easy to say what should have been done - because you'll never be judged on the results of those hypothetical actions
-
@NTA said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
Yes Nick, it was so much better when we spent billions more for the RAN to operate as a shuttle service for the people smuggling industry. You honestly want to go back to those times?
You've clearly missed something.
If an RAN ship happens to intercept a boat, it is required by the frameworks of international maritime law to render assistance. That part has not changed. They are required to render the same assistance today that they were before Operation Sovereign Borders was established. Captains who fail to follow the group of laws dealing with these situations may face prosecution.
So this "shuttle service" you are talking about is not actually a thing. The cost of running the RAN remains about the same. Similarly, Maritime surveillance carried out by the RAAF is unchanged.
Using a range of government agencies, including any part of the ADF, Border Force, Bureau of Met, etc. the intercept process is coordinated and appropriate measures - set down by Australian and International Maritime law - are followed. This includes coordination with Indonesia, where they decide to follow it. Indonesia's (sporadic) involvement is probably the only place where we've reduced some costs.
And I am fine with ALL the costs relating to surveillance and interception. That is a standard part of border patrolling. People who get towed back to Indonesia get towed back. The SAR zone we have is huge, but there are other ports and navies in that zone, and we can access them.
What is left sits in offshore detention centres, to the tune of $200K per person (maybe higher). Nauru has an average annual income of under $35K per year. PNG average salary is $46K. Even with overheads, spending 4-5 times the average salary per person seems a bit steep, and furthermore that is money that could be going to Australian industry to construct camps and process asylum seekers. The results would be the same, just that we wouldn't need to pay foreign governments for the privilege.
Its a good thing the other areas of Sovereign Borders, like buying off people smugglers, have worked so well to reduce the number of boat people.
Otherwise we'd be paying even bigger bribes.
Give me a break Nick. Did the period from 2008 to 2013 not occur in your universe? Are you honestly advocating a return to that policy whereby Australia picks up everyone trying to get here and then brings them in for processing on the mainland? And yes the RAN was acting as a shuttle service and the poor fuckers on board had to dredge up the bodies. But that's fine for you Nick, because you're not out there and you can feel a good and wonderful inside.
As for cost. What do you think it will cost when people smugglers find out that Aus is open to business again? What do you think it will cost to process the 10s of thousands or more who will come here? If cost is your problem then you should prefer the current system, but I suspect you don't actually give a shit about the cost.
-
@Frank unfortunately, most of it is taken up by a salt water pool. And they've probably seen enough salt water for now
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
As for cost. What do you think it will cost when people smugglers find out that Aus is open to business again? What do you think it will cost to process the 10s of thousands or more who will come here? If cost is your problem then you should prefer the current system, but I suspect you don't actually give a shit about the cost.
You've missed the bit where I applauded the government's measures in Indonesia - particularly buying off people smugglers. They also advertised among local communities to report smugglers and departures. They went in and actually paid people off, bought decrepit boats off them to prevent departure, and got a semi-working arrangement with Indonesia to help stop the bullshit. That was actually the most cost-effective part of the plan. Should have put more money into it.
It has reduced the numbers turning up. That is a good thing if it prevents deaths at sea, and makes a few countries take on more of their obligations.
But they've pissed away that reduced interception cost by paying Nauru and PNG to host them at the tune of billions per year. I just googled it and estimates say about $400K per person. Pretty choice if you're the foreign government official on the end of that. The Indonesians must be angry they only got a few million for the info campaign. Cambodia will be laughing at them.
And the result is the same as if they're processed onshore: repatriation, resettlement in Australia for the worthy, or resettlement elsewhere. The promise of "you'll never reach Australia" has stopped a lot of them, but by definition the people in Manus or Nauru have actually gotten to Australia.
-
@NTA said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@Frank unfortunately, most of it is taken up by a salt water pool. And they've probably seen enough salt water for now
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
As for cost. What do you think it will cost when people smugglers find out that Aus is open to business again? What do you think it will cost to process the 10s of thousands or more who will come here? If cost is your problem then you should prefer the current system, but I suspect you don't actually give a shit about the cost.
You've missed the bit where I applauded the government's measures in Indonesia - particularly buying off people smugglers. They also advertised among local communities to report smugglers and departures. They went in and actually paid people off, bought decrepit boats off them to prevent departure, and got a semi-working arrangement with Indonesia to help stop the bullshit. That was actually the most cost-effective part of the plan. Should have put more money into it.
It has reduced the numbers turning up. That is a good thing if it prevents deaths at sea, and makes a few countries take on more of their obligations.
But they've pissed away that reduced interception cost by paying Nauru and PNG to host them at the tune of billions per year. I just googled it and estimates say about $400K per person. Pretty choice if you're the foreign government official on the end of that. The Indonesians must be angry they only got a few million for the info campaign. Cambodia will be laughing at them.
And the result is the same as if they're processed onshore: repatriation, resettlement in Australia for the worthy, or resettlement elsewhere. The promise of "you'll never reach Australia" has stopped a lot of them, but by definition the people in Manus or Nauru have actually gotten to Australia.
Nick that last part is complete bollocks. You close Nauru and Manus and the floodgates will open again. There is actually a point to offshore processing.
Your argument is eerily similar to Rudd in 2008. Too expensive, unnecessary cost etc. Well that worked out well didn't it.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
All the refugees should have stayed in neighboring countries. They were not in danger there, and were in a position to be easily transferred back. The best place for dispossessed people is back in thier own country.
As I said.. somewhere else, that has been what has happened till recently, but with 1.5m in Lebanon - a country of 6.5m people it can't cope. There is already Cholora & Typhoid breaking out in camps there & the camps themselves are, well, exactly what you would expect when 1.5m turn up in a tiny country with no cash... while Lebanon is always right on the edge of civil war anyway.
If a million Aussie refugees turned up in NZ could we cope? Could we fuck. We struggled to get shitroll to tourists in Kaikora. And then when another million arrive?
A lot of the "solutions" only work if you completely ignore the actual world. Not just the politics, logistics & economics but the geography too.
The borders of Syria are Turkey - taken 2.5m already, Lebanon (1.5m) Jordan (millionish) Iraq, fucking war zone but still taken a lot. And also the Iraq side is 90% desert, infact you have to cross miles of ISIS controlled desert to get to the Iraqi desert. And of course Israel. Who probably are not that keen...
So which neighboring countries would you put them in?
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@mooshld said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
What I find absurdly naive, is the argument above that those pouring into Europe are all starving Syrians who will die if they don't get to Europe. What complete horseshit.
I am not sure who claimed that, it certainly was not me. There are plenty of other people coming into Europe and certainly there were some that used the Syrian crisis as an opportunity. But you can't deny that given the choice of living in that war zone or doing anything they could to get out. Plenty of people took insane risks to get away and thousands died trying. Most north African economic immigrants that come illegally are not bothering to travel overland through half of Europe though they just get a ferry to Spain.
A working asylum system should find those that have no right to be here and deport them. It will take time though and I am happy to take the cost of that over the alternative of blocking them on the border and setting up a barricade in the med to send back the boats and forcing people to live in a war zone.
I don't expect everyone to agree with my view. I would love to hear how someone could do better, without "Meddling" or passing the buck to some other country.
Yes you did. You said that Merkel had no other option and talked about them "starving to death on your doorstep". And yes there were plenty of other options proposed by other people, you just choose to ignore them.
I don't want to be rude because your idealism is admirable, but I question your grasp on reality. Have you ever talked to someone involved in the asylum/deportation process or even bothered to read about it? Are you aware of the time, money and resources involved in processing and deporting a single person? By hey, I guess you personally won't be involved with that process and you personally won't have to share your neighbourhoods and towns with "starving" young men. Other people can sort out and deal with the consequences while you virtue signal.
I totally get that people coming from a shithole will want to get to a better country (or one offering heaps of free shit). Shit, if I was a young man from these places I might even try in on myself. But, that does not mean that Europe has an obligation to throw open it's borders to everyone wanting to come and then "figure it out from there". That's farking insane.
I m sorry you are wrong if you re-read what I wrote it was in response to Franks very specific question about how would a "liberal" handle the syrian refugee crisis. I answered with my ideas something that no one else has done regardless of their political persuasion. I did not say let everyone in the world in and let them sort it out later. i said let the refugees in and sort it out later. They were a very specific group in a very specific location at the time.
Before you start throwing around accusations about what my involvement with this process is I think its only fair that you disclose yours? Assuming you live in mainland Europe as I do then we will probably be relatively equally affected by the costs of this decision.
I have met several refugees and several Syrian ones at that I am acutely aware of the processes they have to go through. My town does have social housing available for refugees and is currently in the process of building more as mandated by the government. Though only a small percentage will actually be used for refugees. As the majority is earmarked for low income French families. I won't devolve what I have done personally as I am not some grandstanding prick.
-
@gollum said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
All the refugees should have stayed in neighboring countries. They were not in danger there, and were in a position to be easily transferred back. The best place for dispossessed people is back in thier own country.
As I said.. somewhere else, that has been what has happened till recently, but with 1.5m in Lebanon - a country of 6.5m people it can't cope. There is already Cholora & Typhoid breaking out in camps there & the camps themselves are, well, exactly what you would expect when 1.5m turn up in a tiny country with no cash... while Lebanon is always right on the edge of civil war anyway.
If a million Aussie refugees turned up in NZ could we cope? Could we fuck. We struggled to get shitroll to tourists in Kaikora. And then when another million arrive?
A lot of the "solutions" only work if you completely ignore the actual world. Not just the politics, logistics & economics but the geography too.
The borders of Syria are Turkey - taken 2.5m already, Lebanon (1.5m) Jordan (millionish) Iraq, fucking war zone but still taken a lot. And also the Iraq side is 90% desert, infact you have to cross miles of ISIS controlled desert to get to the Iraqi desert. And of course Israel. Who probably are not that keen...
So which neighboring countries would you put them in?
Is I don't really care as long as they don't come here an option?
-
@jegga said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@gollum said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
All the refugees should have stayed in neighboring countries. They were not in danger there, and were in a position to be easily transferred back. The best place for dispossessed people is back in thier own country.
As I said.. somewhere else, that has been what has happened till recently, but with 1.5m in Lebanon - a country of 6.5m people it can't cope. There is already Cholora & Typhoid breaking out in camps there & the camps themselves are, well, exactly what you would expect when 1.5m turn up in a tiny country with no cash... while Lebanon is always right on the edge of civil war anyway.
If a million Aussie refugees turned up in NZ could we cope? Could we fuck. We struggled to get shitroll to tourists in Kaikora. And then when another million arrive?
A lot of the "solutions" only work if you completely ignore the actual world. Not just the politics, logistics & economics but the geography too.
The borders of Syria are Turkey - taken 2.5m already, Lebanon (1.5m) Jordan (millionish) Iraq, fucking war zone but still taken a lot. And also the Iraq side is 90% desert, infact you have to cross miles of ISIS controlled desert to get to the Iraqi desert. And of course Israel. Who probably are not that keen...
So which neighboring countries would you put them in?
Is I don't really care as long as they don't come here an option?
Unfortunately mate, not for everyone.
-
@Catogrande said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@jegga said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@gollum said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
All the refugees should have stayed in neighboring countries. They were not in danger there, and were in a position to be easily transferred back. The best place for dispossessed people is back in thier own country.
As I said.. somewhere else, that has been what has happened till recently, but with 1.5m in Lebanon - a country of 6.5m people it can't cope. There is already Cholora & Typhoid breaking out in camps there & the camps themselves are, well, exactly what you would expect when 1.5m turn up in a tiny country with no cash... while Lebanon is always right on the edge of civil war anyway.
If a million Aussie refugees turned up in NZ could we cope? Could we fuck. We struggled to get shitroll to tourists in Kaikora. And then when another million arrive?
A lot of the "solutions" only work if you completely ignore the actual world. Not just the politics, logistics & economics but the geography too.
The borders of Syria are Turkey - taken 2.5m already, Lebanon (1.5m) Jordan (millionish) Iraq, fucking war zone but still taken a lot. And also the Iraq side is 90% desert, infact you have to cross miles of ISIS controlled desert to get to the Iraqi desert. And of course Israel. Who probably are not that keen...
So which neighboring countries would you put them in?
Is I don't really care as long as they don't come here an option?
Unfortunately mate, not for everyone.
You have my sympathy there, sometimes being miles from anywhere has its advantages.
-
@mooshld said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@mooshld said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
What I find absurdly naive, is the argument above that those pouring into Europe are all starving Syrians who will die if they don't get to Europe. What complete horseshit.
I am not sure who claimed that, it certainly was not me. There are plenty of other people coming into Europe and certainly there were some that used the Syrian crisis as an opportunity. But you can't deny that given the choice of living in that war zone or doing anything they could to get out. Plenty of people took insane risks to get away and thousands died trying. Most north African economic immigrants that come illegally are not bothering to travel overland through half of Europe though they just get a ferry to Spain.
A working asylum system should find those that have no right to be here and deport them. It will take time though and I am happy to take the cost of that over the alternative of blocking them on the border and setting up a barricade in the med to send back the boats and forcing people to live in a war zone.
I don't expect everyone to agree with my view. I would love to hear how someone could do better, without "Meddling" or passing the buck to some other country.
Yes you did. You said that Merkel had no other option and talked about them "starving to death on your doorstep". And yes there were plenty of other options proposed by other people, you just choose to ignore them.
I don't want to be rude because your idealism is admirable, but I question your grasp on reality. Have you ever talked to someone involved in the asylum/deportation process or even bothered to read about it? Are you aware of the time, money and resources involved in processing and deporting a single person? By hey, I guess you personally won't be involved with that process and you personally won't have to share your neighbourhoods and towns with "starving" young men. Other people can sort out and deal with the consequences while you virtue signal.
I totally get that people coming from a shithole will want to get to a better country (or one offering heaps of free shit). Shit, if I was a young man from these places I might even try in on myself. But, that does not mean that Europe has an obligation to throw open it's borders to everyone wanting to come and then "figure it out from there". That's farking insane.
I m sorry you are wrong if you re-read what I wrote it was in response to Franks very specific question about how would a "liberal" handle the syrian refugee crisis. I answered with my ideas something that no one else has done regardless of their political persuasion. I did not say let everyone in the world in and let them sort it out later. i said let the refugees in and sort it out later. They were a very specific group in a very specific location at the time.
Before you start throwing around accusations about what my involvement with this process is I think its only fair that you disclose yours? Assuming you live in mainland Europe as I do then we will probably be relatively equally affected by the costs of this decision.
I have met several refugees and several Syrian ones at that I am acutely aware of the processes they have to go through. My town does have social housing available for refugees and is currently in the process of building more as mandated by the government. Though only a small percentage will actually be used for refugees. As the majority is earmarked for low income French families. I won't devolve what I have done personally as I am not some grandstanding prick.
Let the refugees in and sort it out later? What, like Merkel did? I'm sorry you've lost me there. How on earth are you supposed to do that?
As for involvement. I lived in Norway for 12 years. I have some good friends who work with immigration and asylum matters (verifying evidence, recommendations, appeals etc). The caseload and cost for one person is enormous. How do you verify what someone is saying when the place they claim they come from is under ISIS control? Better still, how do you send them back? When the sheer volume of people is as enormous as you have in Germany, it's impossible to have proper control of the process.
At a personal level, I've had work relating to customs and the police in connection with border control, specifically pertaining to EU/EEA policy and implementation. To say that Merkel fucked up the entire Schengen process is the understatement of the century.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel You've got two sides of the same coin there RS. Firstly, in a manner of speaking you are agreeing with Mooshld in that there is not really an answer to the refugee problem. You both see this and neither of you can offer realistic argument for what should be or should have been done. This is not surprising as the problem is so huge.
Secondly, your point about the Schengen Agreement is quite correct. With Merkel (and any others) accepting refugees into their country they are, de facto, accepting them into all the other Schengen states. So yes the Schengen Agreement is now fucked up.
But what is the answer? Fucked if I know.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
Let the refugees in and sort it out later? What, like Merkel did? I'm sorry you've lost me there. How on earth are you supposed to do that?
As for involvement. I lived in Norway for 12 years. I have some good friends who work with immigration and asylum matters (verifying evidence, recommendations, appeals etc). The caseload and cost for one person is enormous. How do you verify what someone is saying when the place they claim they come from is under ISIS control? Better still, how do you send them back? When the sheer volume of people is as enormous as you have in Germany, it's impossible to have proper control of the process.
At a personal level, I've had work relating to customs and the police in connection with border control, specifically pertaining to EU/EEA policy and implementation. To say that Merkel fucked up the entire Schengen process is the understatement of the century.
What do you mean how do you do that you do exactly what she did. You open the border you send a fuckload of buses down the motorway, you get them on special trains and you have 100's of people who were ferrying them in personal cars.. Then when they arrive you document them and begin their asylum applications.
So you don't live in Europe now and you don't have to foot the bill for this operation. Thanks for clearing that up.
I am not sure why Frank never replied to my anwser after asking the question I am starting to suspect he is just here to stir things up. Anyway I gave my 2c. Im happy with the situation and happy with the level of risk it introduces to my family and my life.
Merry xmas to all and I hope none of you ever have to make the kind of decisions for your family that those refugees had to make.
-
@Catogrande said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@Rancid-Schnitzel You've got two sides of the same coin there RS. Firstly, in a manner of speaking you are agreeing with Mooshld in that there is not really an answer to the refugee problem. You both see this and neither of you can offer realistic argument for what should be or should have been done. This is not surprising as the problem is so huge.
Secondly, your point about the Schengen Agreement is quite correct. With Merkel (and any others) accepting refugees into their country they are, de facto, accepting them into all the other Schengen states. So yes the Schengen Agreement is now fucked up.
But what is the answer? Fucked if I know.
Firstly I'd note that if Europe (or Northern Europe in particular) didn't offer such generous benefits, it's highly doubtful that such huge numbers would be coming over. I get that there are major push factors from the Syrian conflict, but when the majority of those coming in are military age men, then you have to seriously question whether those who actually make it to Europe are those who are most in need.
-
@mooshld said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
Let the refugees in and sort it out later? What, like Merkel did? I'm sorry you've lost me there. How on earth are you supposed to do that?
As for involvement. I lived in Norway for 12 years. I have some good friends who work with immigration and asylum matters (verifying evidence, recommendations, appeals etc). The caseload and cost for one person is enormous. How do you verify what someone is saying when the place they claim they come from is under ISIS control? Better still, how do you send them back? When the sheer volume of people is as enormous as you have in Germany, it's impossible to have proper control of the process.
At a personal level, I've had work relating to customs and the police in connection with border control, specifically pertaining to EU/EEA policy and implementation. To say that Merkel fucked up the entire Schengen process is the understatement of the century.
What do you mean how do you do that you do exactly what she did. You open the border you send a fuckload of buses down the motorway, you get them on special trains and you have 100's of people who were ferrying them in personal cars.. Then when they arrive you document them and begin their asylum applications.
So you don't live in Europe now and you don't have to foot the bill for this operation. Thanks for clearing that up.
I am not sure why Frank never replied to my anwser after asking the question I am starting to suspect he is just here to stir things up. Anyway I gave my 2c. Im happy with the situation and happy with the level of risk it introduces to my family and my life.
Merry xmas to all and I hope none of you ever have to make the kind of decisions for your family that those refugees had to make.
So basically you let everyone in and then take it from there? For the reasons I have outlined above, that is not a particularly sensible option.
So since I no longer live in Europe I can't have an opinion on this or have a stake in it? Cheers for that.
That last comment just typifies your entire argument on this. All emotion and absolutely no common sense. I believe there are 60 million refugees in the world and God knows how many billions more who live in the worst kind of poverty. How many do you think Europe should take in? How many is too many?
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@Catogrande said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@Rancid-Schnitzel You've got two sides of the same coin there RS. Firstly, in a manner of speaking you are agreeing with Mooshld in that there is not really an answer to the refugee problem. You both see this and neither of you can offer realistic argument for what should be or should have been done. This is not surprising as the problem is so huge.
Secondly, your point about the Schengen Agreement is quite correct. With Merkel (and any others) accepting refugees into their country they are, de facto, accepting them into all the other Schengen states. So yes the Schengen Agreement is now fucked up.
But what is the answer? Fucked if I know.
Firstly I'd note that if Europe (or Northern Europe in particular) didn't offer such generous benefits, it's highly doubtful that such huge numbers would be coming over. I get that there are major push factors from the Syrian conflict, but when the majority of those coming in are military age men, then you have to seriously question whether those who actually make it to Europe are those who are most in need.
Your point on benefit handouts has some merit and TBH we have enough giro bludgers of our own not to want too many more, but this is a side issue really. Yeah, the lifestyles on offer in many N European countries has to be an incentive but in reality what is driving these people northwards is the lack of acceptance or lack of resources in the southern countries. If you were to draw a straight line between Syria and Germany or Syria and the UK as examples, then which countries along the way are viable options? Turkey? They've already taken a shed load. Greece? Bankrupt. The Balkan States? Fuck this, it's no better than Syria plus they don't want us. Austria? Taken loads. Italy? Taken loads. France? Taken loads. All the neighbouring countries to Syria have already been dealt with by @gollum better than I could have done.
No-one needs to be told that this thing is fucked into a cocked hat. What we need are strategies put in place to handle what has already happened and to manage any further problems. It is absolutely no bloody good everyone shouting that this should never have been allowed. It's already happened. Now we have to deal with it.
As a start I'd like to see some sort of action taken against the scum that traffic on people's misery - if that's at all possible. More as a punishment than any thought that it might have a significant enough effect.
That thing about the majority being men of a military age being the majority, well I just don't know. We hear anecdotal evidence that there is a large number and then we hear Merkel saying the opposite. Do I trust anecdotal evidence? No. Do i trust Merkel on this? No. However what we can unequivocally say is that the majority of the terrorist atrocities since the refugee crisis have been undertaken not by people coming to Europe as Syrian refugees but either as migrants, economic or otherwise or people already here as s second or third gen immigrants. So the rhetoric of refugees equals terrorism does not yet hold water and just fuels bigotry.
The Failed policy of Multiculturalism