The Age of Migration: The EU and the US in Crisis

[The Human Q-Tip]

If people are living in fucked up situation I'd rather they try to get out of that situation and find safer place to be than stay. But that's just me.

Well, there are hundreds of millions of people (and that's conservative) living in fucked up situations in the third world. They can either all move in with us, or they can unfuck the places in which they live. I vote the latter, and if that makes me a cunt in your eyes, I'm fine with that.

The reality is that not only are the numbers of current potential migrants (many uneducated and culturally backwards or culturally incompatible) already huge, but they are growing rapidly because of ridiculously high birthrates. It is not as if there is a limited, discrete number that can be admitted, and the problem is solved. It's like opening the valve on a firehose.

When that decision and POV is based on racism and ignorance (which it is, I saw the fucking election) I reserve the right to call people who think that way cunts. It's the same kind of people who would vote against Obama because he's black and not based on any other reasoning. That so many people are misinformed to that degree is partly a testament to the failure of the other parties to tak a strong enough stance against the pseudo racist rhetoric of he People's Party as well, but the result is the same: The People's party appealed to ignorance and had themselves a hell of an election. Good on them, I suppose. They're still cunts and they now have ridiculous amount of pull in the government, more pull than any radical party should ever have, regardless of their ideology.

Racism sucks. But I am an absolute believer in cultural superiority and compatibility, and I think that it is perfectly proper for citizens to want to.limit immigration to a rate at which immigrants can be acculturized and absorbed.

Otherwise, you end up with the growing welfare ghettos of places like Malmo where people are not adopting the cultural norms/expectations of their new country, but rather importing their own dysfunctional culture into ever-growing enclaves within the host country.

Genetics are irrelevant. Culture is not.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

It's extremely dangerous to be a refugee, tons of people look to fuck you over, you are nothing but cattle basically and a lot fathers apparently make the decision to travel ahead first and if it proves safe the rest of family comes along. I've some fucking terrifying tales from refugees about how rough and dangerous it is, most of them were simply scared of subjecting their family to it, without being sure that the trip was worth it or safe enough.
.

Right there indicates a dividing line between migrants and refugees, at least to me. Refugees are people who have no real choice - they are forced out of their homes and must leave, and that includes women, children, and old people.

But you're talking about something different. Young, fit men going overseas for a few years to see if "the trip was worth it" in a new nation. And to me, that is not indicative of a refugee. It's simply a migrant looking for a better life somewhere else, and what you could say about any number of poor Mexicans south of the border here.

And again, for those people in africa and the ME, they should spend their efforts on unfucking they're own countries rather than bringing their problems into ours.

 

[blommen]

Right there indicates a dividing line between migrants and refugees, at least to me. Refugees are people who have no real choice - they are forced out of their homes and must leave, and that includes women, children, and old people.

But you're talking about something different. Young, fit men going overseas for a few years to see if "the trip was worth it" in a new nation. And to me, that is not indicative of a refugee. It's simply a migrant looking for a better life somewhere else. And again, for those people, they should spend their efforts on unfucking they're own countries rather than bringing their problems into ours.

Worth it was a poor choice of words, i'd like to refer to gourimokos post right above mine, which phrases it far better


Sent from yo momma using Tapatalk

 

[gourimoko]

Well, there are hundreds of millions of people (and that's conservative) living in fucked up situations in the third world. They can either all move in with us, or they can unfuck the places in which they live. I vote the latter, and if that makes me a cunt in your eyes, I'm fine with that.

The reality is that not only are the numbers of current potential migrants (many uneducated and culturally backwards or culturally incompatible) already huge, but they are growing rapidly because of ridiculously high birthrates. It is not as if there is a limited, discrete number that can be admitted, and the problem is solved. It's like opening the valve on a firehose.



Racism sucks. But I am an absolute believer in cultural superiority and compatibility, and I think that it is perfectly proper for citizens to want to.limit immigration to a rate at which immigrants can be acculturized and absorbed.

Otherwise, you end up with the growing welfare ghettos of places like Malmo where people are not adopting the cultural norms/expectations of their new country, but rather importing their own dysfunctional culture into ever-growing enclaves within the host country.

Genetics are irrelevant. Culture is not.

You keep conflating the issues of immigration policy with policies dealing with mass migrations that result from ethnic cleansing.

I have no problem with countries enforcing immigration policy under normal circumstances, but you're entire argument ignores the present conditions in Syria and the fact that there are 4 million refugees today as a result of an ongoing war.

Also, this argument of "cultural superiority" has no place in this conversation; it's meaningless and beside the point. Beyond the fact that it's an asinine statement in and of itself, "my culture is better than yours," it has little bearing on this conversation of refugees.

These people aren't asking to become Europeans, they are asking for refuge. That does not generally require or suggest assimilation.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Worth it was a poor choice of words, i'd like to refer to gourimokos post right above mine, which phrases it far better


Sent from yo momma using Tapatalk

You say "poor choice of words", I say "gaffe".

In any case, my point stands. True refugees don't have the option of sending out an advance party to feel things out before deciding whether, or if, to leave.

As I said, there are parts of Mexico that are very fucked up, with very limited economic opportunity, drug gangs, etc., that ould qualify under your standard of wanting people to leave " fucked up" places. And I don't see them as refugees either.

Btw, how many countries in Latin America, Africa, the ME, and even the rest of Asia would you say are "fucked up?"

 

[No Regard]

Well, there are hundreds of millions of people (and that's conservative) living in fucked up situations in the third world. They can either all move in with us, or they can unfuck the places in which they live. I vote the latter, and if that makes me a cunt in your eyes, I'm fine with that.

No doubt that war has to end. We need to stop killing each other asap. The hate and political blame game has to stop at once. People must come together. We need to create a world community that includes everyone. This might sound overly idealistic, but it's the only way the crisis can be solved. It is the only way for the human kind to survive from themselves.

My problem with what you are saying, @The Human Q-Tip , is that "they can unfuck the places in which they live". This is overly simplistic and it completely lacks a historic perspective. Because why exactly are these situations as fucked up as they are? Who's guilty for ruining stable regimes over and over again? Yeah, that's right. It is the West led by the US, using the world as their playground.

At some point the West has to look itself deeply into the mirror and realize that we and our shitty capitalistic over-producing, over-consuming societies are the root cause to so many of the problems we are seeing today.

 

[gourimoko]

You say "poor choice of words", I say "gaffe".

In any case, my point stands. True refugees don't have the option of sending out an advance party to feel things out before deciding whether, or if, to leave.

As I said, there are parts of Mexico that are very fucked up, with very limited economic opportunity, drug gangs, etc., that ould qualify under your standard of wanting people to leave " fucked up" places. And I don't see them as refugees either.

Btw, how many countries in Latin America, Africa, the ME, and even the rest of Asia would you say are "fucked up?"

None of these places are as bad as the situation in Syria.

A very close person to me, an ex of mine, grew up in the worst slums of Columbia and was adopted by Australians to get her out of the horrible conditions there. Even her situation, as bad as it was, doesn't compare to war ravaged Syria.

The mass deaths and displacement that resulted from Typhoon Yolanda in the southern portions of the Philippines, including Cebu and Mindanao were horrible. Bodies left strewn on the ground for months. No water, food; starvation, dysentery, cholera. Even that situation, that killed tens of thousands of Filipinos, even that isn't as bad as this.

By even asking these questions you're demonstrating that you have no idea what you're talking about and that you have no idea what's going on in the region.

These people aren't seeking "better economic conditions in Europe." Again, less than 10% of these refugees are even seeking asylum in European nations. They are seeking safe haven.

Your argument is completely baseless and seems rooted in this irrational ideal of "superiority" that you keep referencing.

Why you feel the need to look down your nose at an entire culture of people is beyond me, but whatever your reasons are, they aren't really rational premises to back up this argument you continue to make.

 

[blommen]

Well, there are hundreds of millions of people (and that's conservative) living in fucked up situations in the third world. They can either all move in with us, or they can unfuck the places in which they live. I vote the latter, and if that makes me a cunt in your eyes, I'm fine with that.

The reality is that not only are the numbers of current potential migrants (many uneducated and culturally backwards or culturally incompatible) already huge, but they are growing rapidly because of ridiculously high birthrates. It is not as if there is a limited, discrete number that can be admitted, and the problem is solved. It's like opening the valve on a firehose.

true, my problem is that Denmark is one of the richest countries in the world and we absolutely have the capacity to help out, yet due to our government basically being certified prison bitch to the People's party, we're electing not to do so, based on their right wing propaganda.

Racism sucks. But I am an absolute believer in cultural superiority and compatibility, and I think that it is perfectly proper for citizens to want to.limit immigration to a rate at which immigrants can be acculturized and absorbed.

Otherwise, you end up with the growing welfare ghettos of places like Malmo where people are not adopting the cultural norms/expectations of their new country, but rather importing their own dysfunctional culture into ever-growing enclaves within the host country.

Genetics are irrelevant. Culture is not.

You know why immigrants hole up inside the ghettos? because that's the only place they can afford to live. that's why there is a problem with integration, it's not a matter of "native culture" so to speak, it's a matter of their environment. Of course it's tough to integrate yourself into danish culture when your entire neighboorhood is made up of other immigrants. In spite of all this, tons of them still do try to assimilate themselves. I've worked in the school system in one of those ghettos and a lot of those families are hardworking, grateful and trying to integrate themselves, despite all of the roadblocks that are put up in front of them due the environmental restraints.

The people who vote against having more immigrants aren't the people who interact with the immigrants either, the city areas all across Denmark are predominately against the Danish People's Party, it's the fringe parts of country, the people who live out in the middle of nowhere who have never met an immigrant, and are scared to death of them because they don't understand them. The People's Party prey on those people, and instead of correcting said ignorance, the embrace it and score a bunch of easy votes.

The whole system is absolutely fucked, it's hard enough to be an immigrant in Denmark as it is, there is no reason to make it harder. Unless of course you are cunts, which our government currently seem to be.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

No doubt that war has to end. We need to stop killing each other asap. The hate and political blame game has to stop at once. People must come together. We need to create a world community that includes everyone. This might sound overly idealistic, but it's the only way the crisis can be solved. It is the only way for the human kind to survive from themselves.

You don't need a perfect world with no wars. You just need something less than a crisis.

But you have go back to the initial post by @King Stannis to grasp the true scope of the problem. Some of this crisis is due to war. But a large component is due to some very bad long-term trends, including exploding birth rates in nations that can't support the populations they already have. That is one underlying cause of a lot of these conflicts.

My problem with what you are saying, @The Human Q-Tip , is that "they can unfuck the places in which they live". This is overly simplistic and it completely lacks a historic perspective. Because why exactly are these situations as fucked up as they are? Who's guilty for ruining stable regimes over and over again? Yeah, that's right. It is the West led by the US, using the world as their playground.

And I think that's overly simplistic, largely untrue, and ignores much of history.

First, blaming " the West" generally is unfair to most of those nations because most Europeans countries were not colonising Africa. Neither was the U.S.. What blame does Poland or even the U.S., deserve for what has happened in sub-Saharan Africa?

Blaming "the West" also ignores completely the role non-western nations such as Russia had in destabilizing part of that region.

The Brits did have a lot of colonization, but I think the evidence for them making things worse is far from clear. Generally, the longer they were in a place, the better of it is. I doubt India would be the world's largest democracy if not for Britain. And at least for awhile, the countries.with the largest British presence, including South Africa and Rhodesia, seemed to do better after independence. France's influence, on the other hand, seems to have been pretty negative. Most of the other nations of Europe, other than Belgium, had.little involvement in Africa.

As for the Mideast, the primary troublemakers there aren't westerners, but home-grown troublemakers Syria (though Russian supported) and Iran.

And I'd add that the primary historical cause for the nations of the ME not being experienced in self-government or having settled borders was the Ottoman Empire, which ran that region until 1920 or so. Not the West.

At some point the West has to look itself deeply into the mirror and realize that we and our shitty capitalistic over-producing, over-consuming societies are the root cause to so many of the problems we are seeing today.

So all those nations would actually be better off if the industrialized world wasn't buying oil and minerals from them, and it all just sat in the ground? Because they sure as shit lacked the technological ability to develop it on their own. Absent that, they'd have pretty much no income at all.

At some point, the developing world has to quit making excuses, put on their big boy pants, and start fixing their own nations. The West has been pouring bilions in there for decades, improving medicine, water supplies. opening schools, etc.. Doesn't seem to have helped much unfortunately.

The people killing each other in the ME, and in Africa, are overwhelmingly the people of those regions themselves. And when we try to get involved to improve things, it almost inevitable leads to another chorus of "Western Imperialism" or "Western Interference", and starts the cycle of excuses all over again.

ETA:

And to be clear, I'm not opposed to trying to help those nations with technology, medicine, etc. And I've got no problem with spending more money to make Syrian refugee camps more livable.

The problem is I'm honestly at a complete loss as to what we really could do to pull the developing world forward. We've spent lots of money, sent over doctors, teachers , etc., and a lot of it just seems to be getting worse. So, I think it's gotten to the point where " you need to unfuck yourselves" is about all we've got left.

Do I think it will happen? No. That's the ultimate tragedy, but I'm not sure what can really be done about it other than mouthing more platitudes.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

You know why immigrants hole up inside the ghettos? because that's the only place they can afford to live. that's why there is a problem with integration, it's not a matter of "native culture" so to speak, it's a matter of their environment. Of course it's tough to integrate yourself into danish culture when your entire neighboorhood is made up of other immigrants.

I was actually talking about Sweden, which by all accounts is nicer to immigrants.than anyone. And it still isn't working.

The whole system is absolutely fucked, it's hard enough to be an immigrant in Denmark as it is, there is no reason to make it harder. Unless of course you are cunts, which our government currently seem to be.

Sure there is. You're proceeding from the completely different starting point that Denmark should admit more immigrants from those regions, and therefore should make them welcome.

A lot of Danes don't see the benefits to them of doing that, and therefore don't want to encourage more of them to come. So of course they're not welcoming.

Should immigration policy be targeted to benefit the host country, or potential immigrants? In some cases, there will be overlap. But it's hardly surprising that some Danes don't see the benefit to Denmark of letting in large numbers of people who don't speak the language, are of a different religious and cultural background, and will require public support at least for an initial period.

Maybe you think they should be more compassionate, but their concerns aren't inherently irrational.

 

[gourimoko]

Maybe you think they should be more compassionate, but their concerns aren't inherently irrational.

You've not actually addressed anything @blommen said though. You simply pulled the "well, some people say," Fox News line.

"Some people say xyz," so, it must be somewhat rational, right?

 

[blommen]

I was actually talking about Sweden, which by all accounts is nicer to immigrants.than anyone. And it still isn't working.

I'm not sure why you brought up sweeden to be honest, when I've been talking about Denmark, the country I live in, the entire time. either way, the problem with housing imigrants in ghettos are the same regardless of country, and the Swedish Democrats use the same scare tacticts as the Danish People's Party. This is what is happening all over Europe.

Sure there is. You're proceeding from the completely different starting point that Denmark should admit more immigrants from those regions. A lot of Danes don't see the benefits to them of doing that, and therefore don't want to encourage more of them to come. So of course they're not welcoming.

And I think that is a selfish, cunty move considering just how well off we are in Denmark and how fucked the situation is in the middle east. It further proves how ignorant and out of touch the Danish People's Party voters are, and they finally have an ear-piece to spout their pablem.

Should immigration policy be targeted to benefit the host country, or potential immigrants? In some cases, there will be overlap. But it's hardly surprising that some Danes don't see the benefit to Denmark of letting in large numbers of people who don't speak the language, are of a different religious and cultural background, and will require public support at least for an initial period.

Maybe you think they should be more compassionate, but their concerns aren't inherently irrational.

Oh I never said they were inherently irrational, I'm just saying that their concerns are driven by ignorance instead actual facts or first hand experiences with immigrants. You can also blame the media for painting a terrible picture when it comes the immigrants, something that's been happening for decades now. There are plenty of reasons people are misinformed, that doesn't mean they are in any way justified in being assholes for silly reasons.

Of course there are people who will say it's a matter of priorities, which I suppose it is. I just think that when you are as well of as Denmark, basic human compassion should be higher up on the god damn list.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I'm not sure why you brought up sweeden to be honest, when I've been talking about Denmark, the country I live in, the entire time.

Because Sweden's experience shows what happens if you admit too many immigrants.

either way, the problem with housing imigrants in ghettos are the same regardless of country, and the Swedish Democrats use the same scare tacticts as the Danish People's Party. This is what is happening all over Europe.

The Sweden Democrats have nothing to do with how those ghettos developed because they're not a part of the government. The point is that those immigrants employment rates have remained incredibly low, and the article explained why. The ghettos (nice, though) have developed because there aren't enough jobs for those people, and they lack the skills for the jobs that are available. The ghettos were not planned that way.

And I think that is a selfish, cunty move considering just how well off we are in Denmark and how fucked the situation is in the middle east....

Of course there are people who will say it's a matter of priorities, which I suppose it is. I just think that when you are as well of as Denmark, basic human compassion should be higher up on the god damn list.

This all gets into the morality of social welfare and socialism, and there's really no way to debate that because it's a moral question. But i would like to see how far you think this moral obligation extends.

I asked you a question before that you didn't answer. So I'd like to re-ask it, with a little follow-up:

1) how many countries do you think qualify as "fucked up" enough to justify Europe accepting people from those countries?

2) what is the minimum/maximum number of people you think Denmark should accept annually?

 

[blommen]

Because Sweden's experience shows what happens if you admit too many immogrants.



The Sweden Democrats have nothing to do with how those ghettos developed because they're not a part of the government. The point is that those immigrants employment rates have remained incredibly low, and the article explained why. The ghettos (nice, though) have developed because there aren't enough kobs for those people, and they lack the skills for the jobs that are available. The ghettos were not planned that way.

First of all, The Sweden Democrats, like the Danish People's Party may not be part of the government but they are so large that the right wing government have to take what they're saying as gospel, because otherwise they won't be able to form a government due to lack of mandates. It's great way for SD and DPP to maintain a massive amount of power without any of the responsibility that comes with being in government.

As far as being able to get jobs, part of it is the language, which is very hard to learn. Danish is one of the hardest languages to learn on the planet and it gets progressively harder the older you are. once again, a lot of immigrants try to learn the language but have a tough time doing it, because they are surrounded by other immigrants all the time (that goes for the children as well, who live in these areas).

Wether or not the ghettos were planned this way or not, that is the reality of the situation. it doesn't change the fact that it's incredibly hard to get integrated into another country when that's your environment. It has nothing to do being stubborn or having an "inferior culture".

This all gets into the morality of social welfare and socialism, and there's really now way to debate that because it's a moral question.

sure there is: Should you help other people if you have the capacity to do so? In my opinion, yes you absolutely should. I realize it's more rational to not help the starving man, and rather keep the food for yourself, but it's still an asshole thing to do.

But I asked you a question before that you didn't answer. So I'd like to re-ask it, with a little follow-up:

1) how many countries do you think qualify as "fucked up" enough to justify Europe accepting people from those countries?

2) what is the minimum/maximum number of people you think Denmark should accept annually?

1) I think it's disgusting to try and quantify grief and suffering like that, so you'll have to excuse me for not answering that question. My general philosophy is that if people ask me for help, I will help them to the best of my abilities. I realize that may not be how everyone feels but there you go. like I said, some people are cunts.

2) again, It's not just a question of accepting people into our country, it's a question of helping them in whatever way you can. You can do that by giving them food, or transport them closer to where they can get help, you can do it by granting them asylum, and you can do it by treating them like human beings when they arrive tired and scared to your country after having fled a warzone, instead of spitting on them and telling them to fuck off back to where they came from.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

First of all, The Sweden Democrats, like the Danish People's Party may not be part of the government but they are so large that the right wing government have to take what they're saying as gospel, because otherwise they won't be able to form a government due to lack of mandates. It's great way for SD and DPP to maintain a massive amount of power without any of the responsibility that comes with being in government.

As far as being able to get jobs, part of it is the language, which is very hard to learn. Danish is one of the hardest languages to learn on the planet and it gets progressively harder the older you are. once again, a lot of immigrants try to learn the language but have a tough time doing it, because they are surrounded by other immigrants all the time (that goes for the children as well, who live in these areas).

Wether or not the ghettos were planned this way or not, that is the reality of the situation. it doesn't change the fact that it's incredibly hard to get integrated into another country when that's your environment.

It may be somewhat easier if you come from a nation with a similar culture or language, or if you come with particular skills that are valued. But ultimately, I agree 100%. And you've just validated the concerns of those who want to limit immigration because of a failure to assimilate. As you just said, it's not even happening with those that are already here.

It has nothing to do being stubborn or having an "inferior culture".

Agreed. My point about cultures is that I think most nations are ultimately the product of their culture. And culture is simply the name we give to that combination of beliefs, morals, practices, habits, philosophies, etc., held by a group of people. In other words, people carry their culture with them.

So my point is that if you bring in large numbers of people from " fucked up" countries, and they don't assimilate quickly enough, their new place of residence often will start to look like their old one. And adding new Third World enclaves isn't good for either the immigrants, or the host nation.

1) I think it's disgusting to try and quantify grief and suffering like that, so you'll have to excuse me for not answering that question.

That's a complete copout because i'm not asking you to "quantify grief and suffering". I'm asking you to quantify the problem you identified by saying that there were a lot of fucked up countries whose people Europeans should help if they want to leave. If you're going to admit refugees, then deciding who qualifies is an essential first step.

I suspect the real reason you don't want to answer that is that it will make obvious that the scope of the problem is well beyond something that can be solved by taking in some refugees. And you don't want to answer the "so what about all the rest of them" follow-up.

philosophy is that if people ask me for help, I will help them to the best of my abilities. I realize that may not be how everyone feels but there you go. like I said, some people are cunts.

That's wonderful as a personal philosophy, but what you're talking about is not individual charity, but national policy. And that requires that actual laws be passed, the adoption of standards and procedures, and of course an overall plan that might actually work. And since you're criticizing some Danes for not wanting to take in more immigrants, asking "then how many do you think they should take" is a completely fair question.

What are the limits, if any, to the charity you believe European nations should show/as a matter of legal policy?

2) again, It's not just a question of accepting people into our country, it's a question of helping them in whatever way you can. You can do that by giving them food, or transport them closer to where they can get help, you can do it by granting them asylum, and you can do it by treating them like human beings when they arrive tired and scared to your country after having fled a warzone, instead of spitting on them and telling them to fuck off back to where they came from.

It may not be only a question of actually admitting them to your country, but that is certainly a (the?) major issue dividing most Europeans at this point. You yourself just mentioned taking in those who want asylum. Okay... How many?

And what to you do after that number has been reached, and neighboring countries won't take any more? I mean, if you're going to be criticizing fellow Danes for being unreasonable, these are pretty legitimate questions.