European Migrant Crisis Megathread

[Kvatchdom]

I think you meant compatible.
Why does an "imcompatible culture" increase the consequences of breaking the law from jail to deportation?
Or conversely, why would a native born only be jailed and not deported?
Surely someone who breaks the law does not respect the local culture, which includes following the law, and should also be deported?

Because the native born is from this country. He is born there. The immigrants not, it is not his country. Get it?

No he should not be deported but jailed.

2nd generation Immigrants are born here, and a country is it's citizens, and a person with a citizenship is always a citizen, so by definition, it is his country.

[Alvecia]

I think you meant compatible.
Why does an "imcompatible culture" increase the consequences of breaking the law from jail to deportation?
Or conversely, why would a native born only be jailed and not deported?
Surely someone who breaks the law does not respect the local culture, which includes following the law, and should also be deported?

Because the native born is from this country. He is born there. The immigrants not, it is not his country. Get it?

No he should not be deported but jailed.

If he has immigrated there then it is his country.
Why should you have to put up with someone who doesn't respect your culture, seems to me they should be sent away so they can't commit crimes.
I think by saying "oh because they were born there" is kind of special pleading. "Because they were born there" is not a good enough excuse.

[Baltenstein]

Well, yes. Especially if that culture is not comparable with tha native and societal one.

I think you meant compatible.
Why does an "imcompatible culture" increase the consequences of breaking the law from jail to deportation?
Or conversely, why would a native born only be jailed and not deported?
Surely someone who breaks the law does not respect the local culture, which includes following the law, and should also be deported?

Deport where? You can hardly export your own homegrown scum to other countries who share no responsibility for them, can you? 'tis aren't the times of exile anymore.

(Granted, many countries south and east of the Mediterranean do precisely that, but they're not exactly role models.)

If he has immigrated there then it is his country.
Why should you have to put up with someone who doesn't respect your culture, seems to me they should be sent away so they can't commit crimes.
I think by saying "oh because they were born there" is kind of special pleading. "Because they were born there" is not a good enough excuse.

The concept of citizenship is well-known enough that it doesn't need detailled explanation.

[Alvecia]

I think you meant compatible.
Why does an "imcompatible culture" increase the consequences of breaking the law from jail to deportation?
Or conversely, why would a native born only be jailed and not deported?
Surely someone who breaks the law does not respect the local culture, which includes following the law, and should also be deported?

Deport where? You can hardly export your own homegrown scum to other countries who share no responsibility for them, can you? 'tis aren't the times of exile anymore.

(Granted, many countries south and east of the Mediterranean do precisely that, but they're not exactly role models.)

Point taken. I'm just trying to reconcile the difference in approach. Is it just convenience?

[Nariterrr]

Muslim countries is a wide area. I hope he specifies where, since the criminal records of Immigrants from North Africa and immigrants from the Middle East are extremely different. Not to mention Indonesia and Bangladesh, or even Singapore with 77% of their entire population being immigrants, 17% of which are Muslim, and despite this, the country is the safest on the planet due to how they treat first-gen immigrants.

Singapore is an authoritarian country as well which makes a difference.

It's not holly authoritarian.

[Immoren]

Singapore is an authoritarian country as well which makes a difference.

It's not holly authoritarian.

Is it spruce authoritarian then?
Pine authoritarian?

[Socialist Czechia]

Edit: Also, it's 14 years old. Bit out of date.

That was the point. If I would use most recent data, anyone could claim these were compromised by current 'hysteria' existing last few years.

But even data from 1980s-2000s will show you clearly some undeniable trends in difficulties of immigration/integration.

[Kvatchdom]

Edit: Also, it's 14 years old. Bit out of date.

That was the point. If I would use most recent data, anyone could claim these were compromised by current 'hysteria' existing last few years.

But even data from 1980s-2000s will show you clearly some undeniable trends in difficulties of immigration/integration.

300, 000 Finns went into Sweden as refugees during the second world war, mainly from rural areas due to bombing along the eastern border. They committed significantly more crimes than the native population, and were treated like shit. Finland, at the time, was one of the poorest countries in Europe, and definitely wasn't even near being developed.

All migration from poorer countries and regions causes issues, unless you're living in Singapore where issues don't exist.

[Novus America]

Singapore is an authoritarian country as well which makes a difference.

It's not holly authoritarian.

Singapore has excellent asimilation policies and universal conscription. Europe used to have these things. But no longer do. Bring them back would help.

[Saiwania]

Singapore has excellent asimilation policies and universal conscription. Europe used to have these things. But no longer do. Bring them back would help.

I attribute Singapore's success more to the fact that they have corporal punishment. Everyone makes sure to conform as a result.

[Nariterrr]

Singapore has excellent asimilation policies and universal conscription. Europe used to have these things. But no longer do. Bring them back would help.

I attribute Singapore's success more to the fact that they have corporal punishment. Everyone makes sure to conform as a result.

What do you suppose, we whip refugees? Some of them are just children. My lord..

[Ghatawerpya]

It's not holly authoritarian.

Singapore has excellent asimilation policies and universal conscription. Europe used to have these things. But no longer do. Bring them back would help.

Europe never had any assimilation policies. Foreigners were simply alienated, and it didn't matter because they never were a very large demographic a long time ago. Europe's current problems stem from the fact that they accepted tons of immigrants from former colonies and elsewhere, without a policy on how to integrate them. The result is that immigrants remain separated from the majority populations of the countries they live in, who expected them to be "guests" rather than new members of society.

[Nariterrr]

It's not holly authoritarian.

Is it spruce authoritarian then?
Pine authoritarian?

For the record, I meant to say wholly.

[Novus America]

Singapore has excellent asimilation policies and universal conscription. Europe used to have these things. But no longer do. Bring them back would help.

Europe never had any assimilation policies. Foreigners were simply alienated, and it didn't matter because they never were a very large demographic a long time ago. Europe's current problems stem from the fact that they accepted tons of immigrants from former colonies and elsewhere, without a policy on how to integrate them. The result is that immigrants remain separated from the majority populations of the countries they live in, who expected them to be "guests" rather than new members of society.

I would have to disagree that they never did. I mean even France had a assimilated ethnic Hungarian president. Also the UK used to do a good job integrating.

I agree about now however. Europe now has a worst of both world's combo of nativist biggoted from the right combined with "multiculturalist" anti assimilation BS from the left. Cleary it is not working.

Europe needs strong assimilationism. Teach them to adapt and integrate into society. I think reintroducing conscription is a great way. Provides a way to make people to work and live together, view people of different ethnicities as fellow countrymen, and create patriotism. That is why Singapore has it, it is more for social benefit than military need.

[The Conez Imperium]

Europe never had any assimilation policies. Foreigners were simply alienated, and it didn't matter because they never were a very large demographic a long time ago. Europe's current problems stem from the fact that they accepted tons of immigrants from former colonies and elsewhere, without a policy on how to integrate them. The result is that immigrants remain separated from the majority populations of the countries they live in, who expected them to be "guests" rather than new members of society.

I would have to disagree that they never did. I mean even France had a assimilated ethnic Hungarian president. Also the UK used to do a good job integrating.

I agree about now however. Europe now has a worst of both world's combo of nativist biggoted from the right combined with "multiculturalist" anti assimilation BS from the left. Cleary it is not working.

Europe needs strong assimilationism. Teach them to adapt and integrate into society. I think reintroducing conscription is a great way. Provides a way to make people to work and live together, view people of different ethnicities as fellow countrymen, and create patriotism. That is why Singapore has it, it is more for social benefit than military need.

Military conscription makes no sense in the context of Europe as they are not in the threat of war.

In South Korea, conscripts are sent to guard the DMZ against potential North Korean attacks. In Singapore conscripts prepare for a possible invasion of their country by their neighbors. Yet what threat is there to Europe?

In essence, what's the point of giving military training to 18-20 year if there's no premise in the first place? Are they going to place all the German conscripts on the border of Alsace-Lorraine? Or perhaps station 20 year old on the border of Poland

[Novus America]

I would have to disagree that they never did. I mean even France had a assimilated ethnic Hungarian president. Also the UK used to do a good job integrating.

I agree about now however. Europe now has a worst of both world's combo of nativist biggoted from the right combined with "multiculturalist" anti assimilation BS from the left. Cleary it is not working.

Europe needs strong assimilationism. Teach them to adapt and integrate into society. I think reintroducing conscription is a great way. Provides a way to make people to work and live together, view people of different ethnicities as fellow countrymen, and create patriotism. That is why Singapore has it, it is more for social benefit than military need.

Military conscription makes no sense in the context of Europe as they are not in the threat of war.

In South Korea, conscripts are sent to guard the DMZ against potential North Korean attacks. In Singapore conscripts prepare for a possible invasion of their country by their neighbors. Yet what threat is there to Europe?

In essence, what's the point of giving military training to 18-20 year if there's no premise in the first place? Are they going to place all the German conscripts on the border of Alsace-Lorraine? Or perhaps station 20 year old on the border of Poland

Switzerland and Austria and Norway have conscription. Who is going to invade Switerland?
And Singapore faces no credible invasion threat at all.

And there is a threat of war for Europe. War in Ukraine just happened you know. Yes, big German tank forces on the Eastern border ready to back up Poland is a great idea. A 20 year old can fix or drive a tank. Would be good for the economy of those areas too.

But again and on topic it is the social benefits that matters. Makes everybody regardless of race and class live and work with each other, instill partriotism, common values and a common language. Has worked very well in this regard in Singapore and for Israeli Jews. (the Arabs are not conscripted and not integrated).

Cleary the current European thing is not working. So why not try it?

[The Nuclear Fist]

Or conversely, why would a native born only be jailed and not deported?

. . . because deporting a native back to their homeland just means letting them go?

[Immoren]

In essence, what's the point of giving military training to 18-20 year if there's no premise in the first place? Are they going to place all the German conscripts on the border of Alsace-Lorraine? Or perhaps station 20 year old on the border of Poland

Put them on Russo-Finnish border.
Maybe couple extra garrisons on our eastern parts would to wonders to our economy.

[The Conez Imperium]

Military conscription makes no sense in the context of Europe as they are not in the threat of war.

In South Korea, conscripts are sent to guard the DMZ against potential North Korean attacks. In Singapore conscripts prepare for a possible invasion of their country by their neighbors. Yet what threat is there to Europe?

In essence, what's the point of giving military training to 18-20 year if there's no premise in the first place? Are they going to place all the German conscripts on the border of Alsace-Lorraine? Or perhaps station 20 year old on the border of Poland

Switzerland and Austria and Norway have conscription. Who is going to invade Switerland?
And Singapore faces no credible invasion threat at all.

And there is a threat of war for Europe. War in Ukraine just happened you know. Yes, big German tank forces on the Eastern border ready to back up Poland is a great idea. A 20 year old can fix or drive a tank. Would be good for the economy of those areas too.

But again and on topic it is the social benefits that matters. Makes everybody regardless of race and class live and work with each other, instill partriotism, common values and a common language. Has worked very well in this regard in Singapore and for Israeli Jews. (the Arabs are not conscripted and not integrated).

Cleary the current European thing is not working. So why not try it?

I don't think the Russian annexation of Ukraine is a realistic threat of a total outbreak of war across all of Europe. If your advocating conscription then have the conscripts work in civil areas. Have them work in nursing homes or as helpers in a hospital. I find it distasteful when a country maintains military training conscription with no real threat of war.

[Immoren]

Switzerland and Austria and Norway have conscription. Who is going to invade Switerland?
And Singapore faces no credible invasion threat at all.

And there is a threat of war for Europe. War in Ukraine just happened you know. Yes, big German tank forces on the Eastern border ready to back up Poland is a great idea. A 20 year old can fix or drive a tank. Would be good for the economy of those areas too.

But again and on topic it is the social benefits that matters. Makes everybody regardless of race and class live and work with each other, instill partriotism, common values and a common language. Has worked very well in this regard in Singapore and for Israeli Jews. (the Arabs are not conscripted and not integrated).

Cleary the current European thing is not working. So why not try it?

I don't think the Russian annexation of Ukraine is a realistic threat of a total outbreak of war across all of Europe. If your advocating conscription then have the conscripts work in civil areas. Have them work in nursing homes or as helpers in a hospital. I find it distasteful when a country maintains military training conscription with no real threat of war.

Si vis pacem, para bellum
*nods*

[Novus America]

Switzerland and Austria and Norway have conscription. Who is going to invade Switerland?
And Singapore faces no credible invasion threat at all.

And there is a threat of war for Europe. War in Ukraine just happened you know. Yes, big German tank forces on the Eastern border ready to back up Poland is a great idea. A 20 year old can fix or drive a tank. Would be good for the economy of those areas too.

But again and on topic it is the social benefits that matters. Makes everybody regardless of race and class live and work with each other, instill partriotism, common values and a common language. Has worked very well in this regard in Singapore and for Israeli Jews. (the Arabs are not conscripted and not integrated).

Cleary the current European thing is not working. So why not try it?

I don't think the Russian annexation of Ukraine is a realistic threat of a total outbreak of war across all of Europe. If your advocating conscription then have the conscripts work in civil areas. Have them work in nursing homes or as helpers in a hospital. I find it distasteful when a country maintains military training conscription with no real threat of war.

What is your alternative then? How else would you integrate society? Make people of all races live together, work together and build a common sense of brotherhood? It works. Very well.

War could start. Unlikely but possible. And Deterrence is the only thing stopping Russia. So there is a need. Also Austria has alternative civillian service. In Singapore conscripts can serve in the emergency services.

US national guard cleared roads and transported patients and hospital personnel in the blizzard. Military units can be mobilized for volunteer type work. Have each unit do a certain number of volunteer service hours or something. Military engineers can work on infrastructure. Surely the conscripts could be put to good social use.

[The Conez Imperium]

I don't think the Russian annexation of Ukraine is a realistic threat of a total outbreak of war across all of Europe. If your advocating conscription then have the conscripts work in civil areas. Have them work in nursing homes or as helpers in a hospital. I find it distasteful when a country maintains military training conscription with no real threat of war.

Si vis pacem, para bellum
*nods*

I don't understand. Is this supposed to be sarcasm or a jab at my ignorance?

[Jetan]

Plase, give me source for the first sentence. As the title of the video shows they are asylium seekers.

Gods Army in Uganda is not comparable with ISIS, or Saudi Arabia or something. It is a local army without global influence contrary to the later, and also did not comiteed genocide. Considering how many people Islam had killed your morther should at least feel sorry for the Yazidis. It was done in her name. What if Germans started to relativise Hitler like many muslims do with radical Islam/ISIS?

They spoke Finnish at one spot in the video, it was clear, non-accented Helsinki slang. Also, how does the video show anything? We've had Muslims in Finland for like 30 bloody years.

Nothing's done in my mum's name, because Islam hasn't done any of that, psychopathic murderers did. Germans shouldn't feel shame for Hitler either, since Hitler did not act on behalf of Germany.

Even longer, actually. Since the latter half of 1800's.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Tatars

[Vassenor]

Plase, give me source for the first sentence. As the title of the video shows they are asylium seekers.

Gods Army in Uganda is not comparable with ISIS, or Saudi Arabia or something. It is a local army without global influence contrary to the later, and also did not comiteed genocide. Considering how many people Islam had killed your morther should at least feel sorry for the Yazidis. It was done in her name. What if Germans started to relativise Hitler like many muslims do with radical Islam/ISIS?

They spoke Finnish at one spot in the video, it was clear, non-accented Helsinki slang. Also, how does the video show anything? We've had Muslims in Finland for like 30 bloody years.

Nothing's done in my mum's name, because Islam hasn't done any of that, psychopathic murderers did. Germans shouldn't feel shame for Hitler either, since Hitler did not act on behalf of Germany.

And besides, how is this sort of thing any different from the whole "white guilt" thing that people claim is being thrown around by left-wing pundits?

[Valystria]

Preventing radicalism? In the same way as a predominantly Catholic nation having state-employed Catholic priests, mandatory Catholic theology classes and an openly Catholic governing party would be?

State religion doesn't prevent radicalism, and there's certainly no prevention of radicalism from Turkey's practice of state Islam.

1: I've addressed this.
2: It's a class on religion in general, not propagating Sunni theology.
3: Just like Germany!

1 in 4 Turks support honour killings;
http://www.realcourage.org/2009/03/turkey-war-on-women/

I'd be cautious to trust a poll carried out by one of Fethullah Gulen's media sources.

29% of Muslims in Turkey supporting punishing adultery with stoning, in contrast with 25% of Muslims in Kosovo, 25% in Albania, and 21% in Bosnia and Herzegovina;
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

17% of Muslims in Turkey support the death penalty for leaving Islam, in contrast with 14% of Muslims in Kyrgyzstan, 11% in Kosovo, and 4% in Kazakhstan;
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

I cannot find reference to these in the study. Although I don't have that much time at the moment, and may come back to that.

43% of Muslims in Turkey support Sharia law for all citizens, in contrast with 38% of Muslims in Iraq, 29% in Morocco, and 24% in Thailand;
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

Take a look at what it actually says.

Among Muslims who support making sharia
the law of the land, most do not believe that it
should be applied to non-Muslims. Only in five
of 21 countries where this follow-up question
was asked do at least half say all citizens
should be subject to Islamic law.

And if we step backwards and look at how many Turks support Sharia, the term is 12%. So in reality less than 6% of Muslim Turks believe Sharia should apply to all citizens.

Turkey hasn't avoided radical Islam. It has embraced it. As for the compulsory religious classes, a Catholic country mandating compulsory Catholicism classes teaching about Catholicism in particular and teaching ethics from a Catholicism view would be state Catholicism. Repeating the myth of Turkish secularism won't make it true when all the evidence demonstrates Turkey's rigid adherence to state Islam.

I think you could learn from what the International Association for Religious Freedom has to say about that.

You haven't addressed anything. You are doing nothing but repeating unsubstantiated assertions and ignoring evidence by saying the surveys are invalid for no other reason than it goes against your desired narrative.

A class on religion is a class on theology. There is no reason for a religious class on Sunni Islam or for having state-employed Imams. You have been provided several examples of how neither Turkey or its populace are secular, and you have went so far as to compare Turkey's de facto state Islam to France's state secularism.

Provide evidence for how Germany is anywhere near comparable to Turkey's policy of de facto state Islam, or stop making baseless claims.

43% of Turkish Muslims who support de jure Sharia law believe it should apply to all citizens. Similarly extreme numbers are prevalent throughout other Islamic countries, and Turkey scoring worse than many. Your claims do not stand up scrutiny.

The empirical evidence is not in support of your narrative. Handwaving away the inconvenient numbers isn't helping your case.

As said before;

A majority of Turkish Muslims want de facto Sharia law.

And most Muslims not favouring Sharia law?

Except when the vast majority of them do.