News What are the potential solutions for the EU refugee crisis?

[HossamCFD]

I'm not sure. I would really prefer to be able to wholeheartedly agree with you, and I could do that based on most of my personal experiences with muslims, which would likely include you.

Cheers for the compliment :). I'm an atheist, though I was raised as a muslim and all of my family still is.

But to extend that skepticism to the point of outright rejection of any discussion of the common viewpoints of Middle Eastern Muslims; it is that which leaves skepticism and enters the bizarre.

You know that's not my position. I have criticised Islam and the actions of some muslims A LOT on this forum. I do believe though that group identification can be quite counterproductive when it's too prevalent. Many people wouldn't identify first and foremost as muslims, but tend to do so when faced with a situation where everyone around them does.

See the Pew poll.

We've discussed that poll before and I've acknowledged that these views are deeply problematic but stated why I wouldn't take the numbers at face value. People are free to put as much weight they want on these results. However, when it comes to integration of refugees there are lots of other problems that can't directly be linked to that poll. For instance things like attitude towards women, forced marriage, etc. tend to be prevalent in Arabic societies even among non-muslims. Another huge problem, which we sadly may have to reckon with the next time there's a war in Gaza, is anti-semitism which again has deeper cultural roots in the middle east than just Islam.

I was born and live in a country that has a history of tolerance towards different religions and deviating views, but also towards irony, ridicule and blasphemy. I would like it to stay that way.

I too want Europe to stay that way (though I wasn't born here). If anything I would say we could do with more ridicule and blasphemy.

At least to my immediate eye, this would appear to indicate that Lebanese and Syrian Muslims, in comparison to Muslims from elsewhere in the Middle East, tend to hold highly secular views and thus are probably more likely to better integrate into Western countries

I agree. In Arabic spheres people normally make fun of Lebanese and Syrians because of how irreligious they are in comparison. That was before the war though and I'm not sure how much that changed now because of the war.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Which is a difference of few percent, 87% Muslim in your wiki tally. I used this wiki page, which references another source. Either way, Lebanon is far more diverse demographically than Syria over a much smaller geographic space (15% of Syria).

But again, what you fail to take into account is that there is a tremendous difference in religious practices even within Sunni or Shia Muslims (within Sunni Islam there are numerous schools of faith with different customs, traditions, etc.) It's also worth pointing out that the wiki link above lumps the Druze population with the Muslim population, which is misleading since the Druze do not consider themselves as Muslim, nor are they accepted as such by the Muslim population (either Sunni or Shia). But I digress on this point.

At any rate, Syria's history has been tightly linked to its neighbour Lebanon, and many Lebanese Muslims have close family ties with their fellow co-religionists in Syria, and thus I felt that Lebanese Muslim attitudes would correlate well with that of Syrian Muslims.

 

[mheslep]

You know that's not my position.

Yes, well, my response was to what I take to be your hypothetically (?) stated position above:

...that discussing the refugees issue only through the muslim lens, as if that's the one word that tells you everything you need to know about them, is quite oversimplified and strike me as a bit bizarre to be honest...

I think you know that in the posts here thus far nobody insists refugees *only* be considered as Muslims.

We've discussed that poll before

Sorry, had forgotten ...

 

[S.G. Janssens]

I have to say that I'm pleasantly surprised by this discussion. Although it is clear that views differ (sometimes strongly), it is one of the few online debates I have witnessed recently with enough room left for both expression as well as consideration.

 

[Tosh5457]

So you are advocating prohibiting these refugees from practicing their religion? If the refugees were, say, members of the Syrian Orthodox Church (as no doubt many of the refugees are), would you advocate a prohibition on the building of a new church?

I find it astounding to me the degree of hatred and suspicion that is leveled against Muslims. Keep in mind that these refugees are fleeing the brutality of both ISIS/ISIL and the Assad regime. The likelihood that these refugees represent some kind of "fifth column" of IS agents intent on destroying Europe reeks of both racism and paranoia. And I would like to note that Muslims are a diverse group of people, and the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists, nor do they have any desire whatsoever to commit acts of violence against others.

Now before I get accused of being an apologist for Islam, I am an agnostic with a bias towards atheism who rejects all organized religions and have criticized all religions, including Islam. At the same time, I have personally known many people who are either practicing Muslims or come from Muslim religious backgrounds -- people I consider to my good friends -- and they are no different than any of my other friends, among whom include Christians of various denominations, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Parsis, and also those who reject all traditional organized religions like myself.

Yes, because they form their communities and ghettos around the religion, so I'd straight out prohibit it. It's not my fault that there are too many muslim fundamentalists: since 9/11 there were over 2500 arrests in UK alone for terrorism, and recently there were a high number of muslims going to North Africa and Middle East to fight for ISIS. France predicts 10000 muslims will go from France to fight for the Islamic State (https://www.rt.com/news/238845-europe-islamist-number-grow/). Can't play nice when you face a terrorism threat like this and I'd understand if I went to another country and had to play by their rules, that's how it goes.

 

[HossamCFD]

so I'd straight out prohibit it

Europe isn't really big on banning religions, not anymore. That sounds more like something Saudi Arabia would do.

But forget about freedom of worship and equality and everything Europe stands for, do you honestly think banning mosques or prohibiting the practice of Islam would *decrease* the number of extremists?

 

[S.G. Janssens]

That sounds more like something Saudi Arabia would do.

I agree. It doesn't make much sense to me to repeat the errors of those we rightfully criticize. Better to be tolerant towards those who practise their beliefs within the law and relentless for muslim extremists here or abroad.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Yes, because they form their communities and ghettos around the religion, so I'd straight out prohibit it. It's not my fault that there are too many muslim fundamentalists: since 9/11 there were over 2500 arrests in UK alone for terrorism, and recently there were a high number of muslims going to North Africa and Middle East to fight for ISIS. France predicts 10000 muslims will go from France to fight for the Islamic State (https://www.rt.com/news/238845-europe-islamist-number-grow/). Can't play nice when you face a terrorism threat like this and I'd understand if I went to another country and had to play by their rules, that's how it goes.

Tosh5457, you know that there are an estimated 1.6 billion Muslims in the world today. Out of that population, you are talking about 2500 arrested in the UK and 10000 Muslims from France going to fight for IS. That is a tiny percentage of people who are engaged in terrorist activities. Are you going to condemn 1.6 billion people in the world for the actions of a few? That's like saying we should ban Christianity because a small fringe engage in bombing abortion clinics, or because German Christians were involved in the Holocaust.

If you think my above example is absurd, why should Muslims be treated any differently? Your post above reeks of intolerance and bigotry of the type that right-wing extremist types like what Fox News in the US, or the VHP (acronym for Vishva Hindu Parishad, or World Hindu Council, a Hindu nationalist group, who have been accused of inciting violence against Muslims and other religious minorities in India) spout off.

 

[mheslep]

Stat2000, the discussion would go better if you would state your opinion, and then let others state their opinions, as opposed to you attempting to state for them and then heaping associations on them.

 

[JorisL]

Tosh5457, you know that there are an estimated 1.6 billion Muslims in the world today. Out of that population, you are talking about 2500 arrested in the UK and 10000 Muslims from France going to fight for IS. That is a tiny percentage of people who are engaged in terrorist activities. Are you going to condemn 1.6 billion people in the world for the actions of a few? That's like saying we should ban Christianity because a small fringe engage in bombing abortion clinics, or because German Christians were involved in the Holocaust.

This is making up statistics. You have to take into account that people in the UK have a different mentality than people in France.
So it goes for every region on earth, then why would you lump them all together (not to mention the different "flavours" of Islam).

I'm not saying your idea is wrong, the way you present it minimizes the impact.
For example there were an estimated 2.7 million muslims in the UK in 2011. (wiki, no time for in depth research)
Granted it's still less than 1 in a thousand but that's way worse than 1.5 in a million compared to the world wide population.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Stat2000, the discussion would go better if you would state your opinion, and then let others state their opinions, as opposed to you attempting to state for them and then heaping associations on them.

mheslep, I frankly don't understand your criticism here. Others have stated their opinions and I have stated my opinions. I have also criticized and scrutinized the opinions stated by others here in this thread, particularly if those opinions are based on incorrect or misleading information, outright fallacies, or opinions that I feel are based on prejudice. I think that is a legitimate way to engage in debate (and I see this thread as at least partially a debate), and as far as I know, I have tried to behave in a respectful manner as per the values outlined in this forum (moderators, please feel free to step in and inform me if I have not).

 

[HossamCFD]

I didn't really know which thread fits this best. Moderators please feel free to move it where you think is more appropriate.

Trump 'not opposed to muslim database' in US
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34873057

I don't know anything about American politics. But I'm very upset, and to some extent even personally concerned, with the rise of this rhetoric. What's the next suggestion? Perhaps force them to sew a yellow crescent?

Also how does he suggest creating this database? Would he ask them to voluntarily declare they're muslim? Why would they comply? Or would he just include anyone with a vaguely Arabic sounding name?

Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, another leading contender in the Republican race for president, compared Syrian refugees to dogs while talking to reporters in Alabama on Tuesday.

"If there's a rabid dog running around in your neighbourhood, you're probably not going to assume something good about that dog," Mr Carson said. "And you're probably going to put your children out of the way. That doesn't mean that you hate all dogs."

 

[S.G. Janssens]

Sorry, I don't have a lot of time to reply, so I will keep it brief and straightforward.

Trump 'not opposed to muslim database' in US
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34873057

Retarded, but could we expect anything different from him?

And about Carson: I'm glad I'm not his dog, rabid or otherwise.

 

[BobG]

"If there's a rabid dog running around in your neighborhood, you're probably not going to assume something good about that dog, and you're probably going to put your children out of the way," he said during remarks in Mobile, Alabama. "[It] doesn't mean that you hate all dogs, by any stretch of the imagination, but you're putting your intellect into motion and you're thinking 'How do I protect my children? At the same time, I love dogs and I'm going to call the humane society and hopefully they can come take this dog away and create a safe environment once again.'"

A more complete version of the quote.

To be honest, I don't even know what he means by that statement. With Carson, I'm never quite sure if he's the world's worst communicator or just stupid. Given that he's a neurosurgeon, you think he surely can't be stupid, but...

 

[nikkkom]

Europe isn't really big on banning religions, not anymore.

Religions are ideologies.

Europe has no problem with banning *specific* ideologues. In almost every European country, trying to publish or air Nazi ideas would land you in prison. I don't see why it would be wrong if an especially evil religion would get the same treatment.

I am not saying that Islam is such a religion. It remains to be determined through the usual democratic lawmaking mechanisms whether there are sects in it which are evil enough to be banned. I'm saying that it is not out of realms of possibility.

 

[nikkkom]

Tosh5457, you know that there are an estimated 1.6 billion Muslims in the world today. Out of that population, you are talking about 2500 arrested in the UK and 10000 Muslims from France going to fight for IS. That is a tiny percentage...

This is intellectually unfair. In making this argument, you should take the total of *UK and France* muslims, not entire world.

 

[nikkkom]

I agree. It doesn't make much sense to me to repeat the errors of those we rightfully criticize. Better to be tolerant towards those who practise their beliefs within the law and relentless for muslim extremists here or abroad.

I almost pressed [like] after reading the above. But... what to do if there is a group of people whose beliefs *do* include killing of infidels and apostates? They want to practice their beliefs.

I guess the logical thing is to say that not *any* beliefs are okay to practice. We can have a very permissive rules which allow lots of beliefs to be held, even peculiar ones. But not "no rules at all".

 

[S.G. Janssens]

I almost pressed [like] after reading the above.

Thank you, even though it was just "almost"

But... what to do if there is a group of people whose beliefs *do* include killing of infidels and apostates? They want to practice their beliefs.

I guess the logical thing is to say that not *any* beliefs are okay to practice. We can have a very permissive rules which allow lots of beliefs to be held, even peculiar ones. But not "no rules at all".

That's why in my post to which you are referring I included the phrase

within the law

There is no reason to be tolerant towards people whose beliefs include doing the things you mentioned, quite on the contrary.

One can of course wonder what to do when those people are (or become) a majority or otherwise sufficiently influential to legalize such madness, but I was not referring to those unhappy places where this is indeed reality.

 

[nikkkom]

There is no reason to be tolerant towards people whose beliefs include doing the things you mentioned, quite on the contrary.

Well, but we *are* too tolerant.

One example of many. What happens when news get out that police tries to monitor what is being preached in mosques? The outrage. No, not at the mosques. At the police. How dare they to assume that muslims may have some evil intentions?? Racist white pigs!

Police men are just men, not robots. When they are treated like this repeatedly, they just stop trying too hard. Why, if you risk your career doing so?

Check this link out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_sex_trafficking_gang
"""
Reaction and public debate
The case raised a serious debate about whether the crimes were racially motivated. Suggestions emerged that police and social work departments failed to act when details of the gang emerged for fear of appearing racist, and vulnerable white teenagers being groomed by Pakistani men were ignored.
"""

 

[rootone]

'Suggestions emerged' isn't proof that police and social workers failed to act.
They must have acted in fact, because the gang actually were arrested and prosecuted.
Probably some people thought they were slow to act, but police generally do take time to ensure they have enough rock solid evidence of a crime before prosecuting.

What has this to do with refugees though?

 

[nikkkom]

'Suggestions emerged' isn't proof that police and social workers failed to act.
They must have acted in fact, because the gang actually were arrested and prosecuted.

The first complaints were filed by parents 2005. Police did not believe them. More complains came in 2007 and 2008. "the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute two men, invoking the witnesses' credibility". More complains in 2009. Apparently arrests happened only in 2011!

So, yes. You are right. They did act. After some six years of prodding and begging!

Can you at least try reading the article before replying?

"""
Ann Cryer, Labour MP for Keighley, recalled in a BBC documentary filmed in 2012 that she had worked with the families of the victims involved, and had been "round at the police station virtually every week" and was "begging" both the police and social services to do something. However, Cryer said, "neither the police nor social services would touch those cases...I think it was they were afraid of being called racist."
"""

 

[mheslep]

...

Check this link out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_sex_trafficking_gang
"""
Reaction and public debate
The case raised a serious debate about whether the crimes were racially motivated. Suggestions emerged that police and social work departments failed to act when details of the gang emerged for fear of appearing racist, and vulnerable white teenagers being groomed by Pakistani men were ignored.
"""

Unfortunately, the child rapes in Rochdale were few compared to the medieval exploitation in Rotherham, an estimated 1,400 child rapes over two decades, with similar circumstances where the authorities were aware of and willfully ignored the crimes due to "institutionalized political correctness" according to the Home Secretary. PC was applied here since the criminals were mainly British-Pakistani.

Jay Report:

No one knows the true scale of child sexual exploitation (CSE) in Rotherham over the years. Our conservative estimate is that approximately 1400 children were sexually exploited over the full Inquiry period, from 1997 to 2013.
In just over a third of cases, children affected by sexual exploitation were previously known to services because of child protection and neglect. It is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse that child victims suffered. They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten, and intimidated.
...
Over the first twelve years covered by this Inquiry, the collective failures of political and officer leadership were blatant. From the beginning, there was growing evidence that child sexual exploitation was a serious problem in Rotherham.

Within social care, the scale and seriousness of the problem was underplayed by senior managers. At an operational level, the Police gave no priority to CSE, regarding many child victims with contempt and failing to act on their abuse as a crime. ...

reports were ignored and no action was taken to deal with the issues that were identified in them.
...
11. Issues of ethnicity
... In the broader organisational context, however, there was a widespread perception that messages conveyed by some senior people in the Council and also the Police, were to 'downplay' the ethnic dimensions of CSE. Unsurprisingly, frontline staff appeared to be confused as to what they were supposed to say and do and what would be interpreted as 'racist'.

 

[mheslep]

What has this to do with refugees though?

Rotherham and Rochdale are cases of large scale immigration without integration into the culture of the society.

 

[jack476]

There's nothing "Muslim" about these values. These are just ordinary HUMAN values that we all have innately in us, regardless of where we were born. If you want to define "Muslim" values, then you should look at the values a person has only because they are a Muslim. These include the subjugation of Women, hatred and violence towards the Jews, a belief in martyrdom and religion by the sword, etc... no, not all Muslims believe these things, but if you do believe them, there's an extremely good chance it's because you're a Muslim.

You've never been in the Bible Belt south, have you?

More broadly, I think the example of history shows pretty clearly that the Western world is one bad day away from extremist Christianity becoming just as vicious and dangerous as extremist Islam. There is plenty of Christian rhetoric out there unapologetically advocating for exactly the same treatment of minorities, women, Jews, and for the same kind of martyrdom and religion by the sword.

There is a huge cultural disconnect between Western society and that of the middle east, and I don't believe they will ever coexist peacefully, so long as people's minds are dominated by their religion. The presence of millions of more Muslims in the EU will increase occurrences of violence, terrorism, and conflict which is directly connected to religion.

Wouldn't exposure to secular European culture reduce extremist views?

As others have pointed out, why is it the EUs responsibility to deal with this mess?

Because you don't always get to choose which messes you find yourself in. Either Europe extends them asylum status and maintains control over the integration process, or the refugees (who, I remind you, are motivated primarily by the desire to not be beheaded, blown up, or crucified by ISIL rebels) desperate to escape from the violence do everything they can to get in anyway. It's exactly what's been happening with undocumented immigration in the US, just replace ISIL with cartel violence: we can say that we won't admit any more immigrants, but if what you're trying to get away from is violence and starvation, do you think that you're just going to turn around and go back when you realize that you're not entering the country through the official channels? It's the EU's problem because the alternative is a million undocumented immigrants.

Where are their Muslim brothers in the surrounding regions to help out?

The majority of the soldiers that have been killed by ISIL rebels have been Muslims. As have the majority of civilians. The Middle Eastern governments right now simply lack the ability to contain and eliminate the ISIL threat.

 

[nikkkom]

Because you don't always get to choose which messes you find yourself in. Either Europe extends them asylum status and maintains control over the integration process, or the refugees (who, I remind you, are motivated primarily by the desire to not be beheaded, blown up, or crucified by ISIL rebels) desperate to escape from the violence do everything they can to get in anyway. It's exactly what's been happening with undocumented immigration in the US, just replace ISIL with cartel violence: we can say that we won't admit any more immigrants, but if what you're trying to get away from is violence and starvation, do you think that you're just going to turn around and go back when you realize that you're not entering the country through the official channels? It's the EU's problem because the alternative is a million undocumented immigrants.

Completely unsubstantiated. Border controls can easily be tightened up, up to not allowing any foreigners in (if for some reason country would want to do that). There is no will for significantly tightening them up.

Specifically in US, immigrants give cheaper labor force for businesses and loyal voters to Democrats.

 

[jack476]

godwins law - you lose.

That's not Godwin's law. It is not an ad hominem to invoke the example of World War 2. Godwin's Law would only have been invoked if he had called you a Nazi.

You have, however, run straight into Danth's Law: If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly.

Yeah, the people fleeing are muslim - but aint it a surprise they want to go to secular countries. They are not banging on the door of Iran and Saudi Arabia. They are not heading east in Pakistan.

Because, and this may come as an absolute shock, reactionary and extremist religion that you have to follow to the letter lest you be crucified in the streets kind of blows. Like, if the KKK decided to violently take over the US and decided they represented all of Christianity, I'm pretty sure everyone else, including Christians, would be eager to get out of there.

Also, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia aren't exactly bastions of security and stability right now. You'd just be replacing one threat, ISIL, with another, al Qaeda.

Better that they come here and be secularized than stay there and risk getting used to life under the ISIL regime with the result of ultimately coming to tolerate it. The more people we can take away from them, the more potential converts we deprive them of.

Completely unsubstantiated. Border controls can easily be tightened up, up to not allowing any foreigners in (if for some reason country would want to do that). There is no will for significantly tightening them up.

How, exactly, would you do that? You can tighten them up all you want, I guarantee you it will be doomed to failure because the will to escape a life under ISIL is way stronger than any possible will on the part of the hypothetical European border guard to keep refugees out.

And to actually even come close to being able to effectively keep every refugee out would be a greater cost than any possible cost, even in the worst case scenario, of providing asylum.

Once again, just like in the US. Sure, in some nebulous way, undocumented immigration is a drain on the economy just as any influx of poor people would be. But that economic cost pales in comparison to what it would cost to thoroughly prevent undocumented immigration. "Tightening up" thousands of miles of border is not easy, let alone thousands more miles of shoreline.

And how do you think that that's actually going to work? They're going to get there and say "Gee, I guess we're not allowed in, sorry guys, let's just head back to Syria and spend the rest of our lives in terror of being beheaded or sold into sex slavery"?

Specifically in US, immigrants give cheaper labor force for businesses and loyal voters to Democrats.

How, dare I ask, would they vote Democrat? You have to have a permanent address and a state ID or Social Security number to register to vote.

 

[S.G. Janssens]

"Gee, I guess we're not allowed in, sorry guys, let's just head back to Syria and spend the rest of our lives in terror of being beheaded or sold into sex slavery"?

I find it hard to believe that all the immigrants that have come to Western Europe during the past months are refugees. There is certainly a fraction, unknown to me, that is not from Syria and / or has economic motives.

I welcome refugees that seek safety. I also welcome economic immigrants, as long as they either come with a job contract (for this the job market in the EU should be open to qualified non-EU citizens) or they can prove that they can sustain themselves otherwise. I don't welcome islam fanatics, they should be kept out forcefully.

To differentiate between those that are welcome and those that are not, effective registration is necessary. So, in my opinion, yes we should "tighten up" the outer borders of the EU, but not necessarily to keep everybody out. For this European cooperation is essential, and of course that is where it all falls short, as usual.

 

[nikkkom]

>> Border controls can easily be tightened up, up to not allowing any foreigners in (if for some reason country would want to do that).

How, exactly, would you do that? You can tighten them up all you want, I guarantee you it will be doomed to failure because the will to escape a life under ISIL is way stronger than any possible will on the part of the hypothetical European border guard to keep refugees out.

The naivete of someone who is living in the free country all his life. Your governments restrict your life only in a rather limited way (which is good) and you fail to imagine that they can restrict some things to a much higher degree.

There are many historical and contemporary examples how to secure borders. Let's pick one. Not the most restrictive, far from that.

Israelis are in exactly the same situation - there are hordes of Arabs and Africans wanting to enter it. Many for purely economic reasons.
Yet Israel is not flooded by illegal immigrants. How they do this thing which is "impossible"?

* They have intact, well-repaired and monitored border fence. (The "separation wall" is mostly wire fence, despite what concrete wall photos on the Internet tyr to make you believe).
* They have armed patrols on the border.
* These patrols arrest and deport trespassers.
* They do open fire when a mass crossing is attempted (a few years ago in Golan Heights).

And to actually even come close to being able to effectively keep every refugee out would be a greater cost than any possible cost, even in the worst case scenario, of providing asylum.

I disagree.

"Tightening up" thousands of miles of border is not easy, let alone thousands more miles of shoreline.

What is not easy about that? US souther border is ~1500 miles. US has 310 million people. and at 5% unemployment that's easily several millions of unemployed males of working age. It is *impossible* to hire enough guards to police 1500 mile border? PHLEASE!

And how do you think that that's actually going to work? They're going to get there and say "Gee, I guess we're not allowed in, sorry guys, let's just head back to Syria and spend the rest of our lives in terror of being beheaded or sold into sex slavery"?

No, it will go like "We live here in <insert ME country name>. A new message on my phone. Our friend Ahmed had horrible time trying to sneak into Germany. Spend tons of money and got arrested, flown back here with mere $500 given by Germans. Let's not go there". Today, the opposite happens all over ME: all "refugees" who managed to get into EU and sit on welfare there, instruct their relatives and friends to repeat the trick.

>> Specifically in US, immigrants give cheaper labor force for businesses and loyal voters to Democrats.

How, dare I ask, would they vote Democrat? You have to have a permanent address and a state ID or Social Security number to register to vote.

Why do you think Democrats are staunchly opposing any attempts at enforcing identity check at polling stations?

 

[jack476]

The naivete of someone who is living in the free country all his life. Your governments restrict your life only in a rather limited way (which is good) and you fail to imagine that they can restrict some things to a much higher degree.

I'm well aware that they could, but I also have enough experience living in this country to know that any program on this scale has roughly a 95% chance of being thoroughly half-assed.

There are many historical and contemporary examples how to secure borders. Let's pick one. Not the most restrictive, far from that.

Israelis are in exactly the same situation - there are hordes of Arabs and Africans wanting to enter it. Many for purely economic reasons.
Yet Israel is not flooded by illegal immigrants. How they do this thing which is "impossible"?

* They have intact, well-repaired and monitored border fence. (The "separation wall" is mostly wire fence, despite what concrete wall photos on the Internet tyr to make you believe).
* They have armed patrols on the border.
* These patrols arrest and deport trespassers.
* They do open fire when a mass crossing is attempted (a few years ago in Golan Heights).

Israel's situation is very different from that of the US and EU. For us, undocumented immigration is at worst an irritation. For Israel, they have to keep the borders very strong as a matter of national defense because they are surrounded by hostile countries on all sides. They're trying to keep out foreign soldiers, but the US and EU are trying to keep out peaceful immigrants.

What is not easy about that? US souther border is ~1500 miles. US has 310 million people. and at 5% unemployment that's easily several millions of unemployed males of working age. It is *impossible* to hire enough guards to police 1500 mile border? PHLEASE!

Does the border security program have the money to hire those millions of unemployed people? Would those unemployed people be able and willing to work in those positions? Is it logistically feasible and economically rational to have an entire law enforcement division whose sole purpose is to hunt around for illegal immigrants?

No, it will go like "We live here in <insert ME country name>. A new message on my phone. Our friend Ahmed had horrible time trying to sneak into Germany. Spend tons of money and got arrested, flown back here with mere $500 given by Germans. Let's not go there". Today, the opposite happens all over ME: all "refugees" who managed to get into EU and sit on welfare there, instruct their relatives and friends to repeat the trick.

How, moving to EU and going on welfare must be so easy. We should all go try that.

But more seriously, you have to provide evidence countering the findings that the refugees have placed no strain on the welfare system or economies of any of the affected countries: http://bruegel.org/2015/10/how-will-refugees-affect-european-economies/

Why do you think Democrats are staunchly opposing any attempts at enforcing identity check at polling stations?

Mostly because it's superfluous. Voter registration already prevents elector fraud, and elector fraud is such an extremely rare crime to begin with anyway: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/story?id=17213376

 

[mheslep]

For us, undocumented immigration is at worst an irritation.

Who is "us"?

 

[nikkkom]

Does the border security program have the money to hire those millions of unemployed people?

You think you need a million people to secure a 1500 mile border? LOL.

 

[mheslep]

You think you need a million people to secure a 1500 mile border? LOL.

The US Mexico border is 1989 miles, much of it over difficult terrain. Wiki reports a couple hundred miles of pedestrian fence had been built as of 2008. Closing that border to mass uncontrolled immigration would not be simple, but it is feasible, as per the examples you reference from other countries, and the clear success of the limited areas where barriers have been erected on the US border.
https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/578/~/border-in-miles

 

[Sophia]

Slovakia is accepting only Christian immigrant families. We refuse obligatory quotes.
Of course, I don't like the idea of immigrants flooding Europe, but at the same time I am ashamed of my country discriminating against people based on their religion.
This really resembles Nazi Germany or socialism.

 

[nikkkom]

Slovakia is accepting only Christian immigrant families. We refuse obligatory quotes.
Of course, I don't like the idea of immigrants flooding Europe, but at the same time I am ashamed of my country discriminating against people based on their religion.
This really resembles Nazi Germany or socialism.

No, it is not resembling Nazi Germany or socialism.

Immigration laws are often "discriminatory" in a sense that they give advantages to people on such grounds as ethnicity, wealth (if you open a business of certain size in the country, often this makes it much easier to get permanent residence permit or citizenship), marital status and so on.

Personally I find this acceptable. I think countries have a right to decide who is allowed to enter and live in them.

Nazis and Commies are discriminating *citizens*, not only potential immigrants.

 

[HossamCFD]

I think countries have a right to decide who is allowed to enter and live in them.

Of course countries get to decide who is allowed in. And in many cases they have preferences in terms of professions, financial status, education records, and so on. But when religion becomes a deciding factor as a matter of policy, not for instance the level of religiosity of a certain individual, then IMO this is quite abhorrent, and indeed bigoted.

 

[nikkkom]

Of course countries get to decide who is allowed in. And in many cases they have preferences in terms of professions, financial status, education records, and so on. But when religion becomes a deciding factor as a matter of policy, not for instance the level of religiosity of a certain individual, then IMO this is quite abhorrent, and indeed bigoted.

Many Muslim countries demonstrate extreme levels of intolerance to us unbelievers. Christians in Egypt are *killed* for their beliefs, not merely "not allowed to immigrate". Same for Lebanon, Iraq.

Why are you surprised when Muslims get a tiny bit of that treatment back on them? On what grounds you demand that people must not judge Islam on the basis of its adherents' behavior? Because it's their "religion", it must be allowed?

 

[rootone]

I don't know much about Christians in Egypt or Iraq, but members of Christian sects in Lebanon most certainly are not persecuted and murdered.
Various christian sects collectively amount to around 40% of the population, they are well represented in government, and the head of state is often Christian.
I am neither Christian or Muslim, (well technically it says Christian on my birth cert, but am non practicing).
I have visited Lebanon on a number of occasions and not once heard of Christians being slaughtered because of their belief..

 

[HossamCFD]

On what grounds you demand that people must not judge Islam

You can judge Islam all you want. I'm not particularly a fan of it myself. But there's a difference between disliking a religion and banning its adherents from entering a country.

Many Muslim countries demonstrate extreme levels of intolerance to us unbelievers.

"Muslim countries" are not people. Muslims are people. They're individuals with different beliefs and aspirations in life, and they should be treated as such. Especially when many of them are immigrating precisely because of how their governments behaving, and the others won't particularly stand for their governments actions.

Christians in Egypt are *killed* for their beliefs

There is legal discrimination between Christians and Muslims in Egypt (and there are groups who are treated even worse than Christians, try being an Atheist in Egypt). And Egypt is notorious for state violence in general. But claiming that "Christians are being killed for their beliefs" is frankly an absurd statement. There is no wide scale violence by the state against Christians.

Why are you surprised when Muslims get a tiny bit of that treatment back on them?

Because we've progressed from the medieval era.

 

[nikkkom]

You can judge Islam all you want. I'm not particularly a fan of it myself. But there's a difference between disliking a religion and banning its adherents from entering a country.

Adherents of the view that "Jews weren't killed in the millions by Nazis" get jailed in many European countries.

Why would it be a horrible, completely unacceptable thing to not allow immigration of adherents of the view that "those who leave Islam should be killed"? Not jailed. Not fined. Merely not allowed to enter the country. Immigration is not a right, it is a privilege.

 

[Sophia]

But the question is, do all Muslims believe that?
I think this is a dangerous generalisation. I understand and 100% agree that each immigrant should be checked by the state and secret agents even before they enter the country. This is how they checked the 149 people that are allowed to enter our territory. That's fine. But if people pass security check, why should they be denied help just because of their religion?

 

[mheslep]

But the question is, do all Muslims believe that?

No, this was not the question. The proposal by Nikkkom was whether or not to "not allow immigration of adherents of the view that "those who leave Islam should be killed"? " Why change it to your generalized strawman? The US naturalization Oath of Allegiance suggests a starting point:

...I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen...

 

[S.G. Janssens]

No, this was not the question. The proposal by Nikkkom was whether or not to "not allow immigration of adherents of the view that "those who leave Islam should be killed"? "

I disagree.

Nikkkom quotes HossamCFD, who wrote:

You can judge Islam all you want. I'm not particularly a fan of it myself. But there's a difference between disliking a religion and banning its adherents from entering a country.

Then nikkkom replied, immediately following this quote:

Adherents of the view that "Jews weren't killed in the millions by Nazis" get jailed in many European countries.

Why would it be a horrible, completely unacceptable thing to not allow immigration of adherents of the view that "those who leave Islam should be killed"? Not jailed. Not fined. Merely not allowed to enter the country. Immigration is not a right, it is a privilege.

Thereby, in my opinion, he took the "adherents" from Hossam's quote (i.e. muslims) and attributed to them, indiscriminately and non-specifically, the belief that "those who leave Islam should be killed". He may not have meant to make such a generalization, but this surely is the strong suggestion that speaks from his post.

 

[Sophia]

I understood it the same way as Krylov did.
There may have been a misunderstanding, of course.

 

[nikkkom]

But the question is, do all Muslims believe that?

According to Pew Research Center in 2012, 63,6% of Egyptian Muslims do. 58% of Palestinian and Jordanian Muslims do. 78% of Afghan Muslims do. 63% of Pakistani Muslims do.

But if people pass security check, why should they be denied help just because of their religion?

Because immigration laws of a country are meant to work foremost for the benefit of this country, not the benefit of the people asking to enter it.

Do you object to people being "discriminated" regarding immigration based on age, when young men with University degree are much more likely to get a visa than 65 year old men, also with University degree? That's "blatant discrimination", yes? How dare this country to suspect that this old man will not be able to find a job and will need to be cared for!

 

[Sophia]

I think we are talking about two different groups now. One thing is economic migration. That's I think what you are talking about.
But in this situation, the immigrants are people from Syria running from war areas. If we want to help those people, shouldn't we first think about their circumstances and consider who is having more difficulties instead of their religion? Especially when we decided to accept less than 150 people (which I agree with) our main purpose should be charity.
There is also another aspect. It's the Catholic Church trying to gain more power in Slovakia. It was their idea and they are starting to be more and more politically active. That irritates many people and view this discrimination as Church's attempt to gain influence over public matters. They have been attempting that since 1990.
If, however, we are speaking about economic migration, than yes, we definitely should be more picky. Anyway, no one would even want to go here :) Those 149 immigrants will go away, too, as soon as they can :D.

 

[Astronuc]

http://news.yahoo.com/crossing-to-l...ntlines-of-the-refugee-crisis--034222258.html

In 2015 so far, 751,873 migrants — mostly from Syria but also Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and other war-torn countries — have made their way through Turkey to Greece by sea, often crammed into unstable inflatable dinghies. By the time Bronstein arrived in late October, winter weather was already setting in, making the short boat ride more dangerous and, in some cases, deadly.

A quarter of a million migrants/refugees is an enormous problem, to say the least.

 

[HossamCFD]

Cologne suffers gang sexual assaults on women on new year's eve
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35231046

The scale of the attacks on women at the city's central railway station has shocked Germany. About 1,000 drunk and aggressive young men were involved.

City police chief Wolfgang Albers called it "a completely new dimension of crime". The men were of Arab or North African appearance, he said.

Absolutely despicable...Sickening

The Guardian reports that

Authorities and media were accused of a cover-up linked to initial indications that those allegedly responsible for the attacks, which also included numerous robberies, were of Arab and north African origin, according to the police.

There is no room for PC in situations like that.

 

[jack476]

Cologne suffers gang sexual assaults on women on new year's eve
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35231046

That's worrying, but something about it just seems a little off, for lack of a better word. Perhaps that's why the BBC article included this disclaimer:

However, there was no official confirmation that asylum seekers had been involved in the violence. Commentators in Germany were quick to urge people not to jump to conclusions.

Hmm...

Absolutely despicable...Sickening

The Guardian reports that

There is no room for PC in situations like that.

Speaking of, the Guardian reports in that same article that

Critics of Merkel’s open-door policy on refugees were quick to blame it for the attacks, despite the police’s insistence that the alleged perpetrators were not new arrivals.

(Emphasis mine).

Lastly, according to that same article, the "accusations of media cover up" came from Twitter, which as we all know is surely a bastion of rational thinking and level-headed, critical evaluation of the facts.

Please, let's try to not lose our heads over this. Rape investigations are difficult enough, for the police and especially for the victims, without everyone trying to make the incidents into a soapbox for issues that are at most tangential to the matter.

 

[HossamCFD]

That's worrying, but something about it just seems a little off, for lack of a better word. Perhaps that's why the BBC article included this disclaimer:

Thanks for the clarification. I too am waiting for the follow up investigation. The BBC article did include this bit as well, just before the disclaimer:

A policeman told the city's Express news website that he had detained eight suspects. "They were all asylum seekers, carrying copies of their residence certificates," he said.

Caution seems to be the keyword.

 

[mheslep]

...
Please, let's try to not lose our heads over this. Rape investigations are difficult enough, for the police and especially for the victims, without everyone trying to make the incidents into a soapbox for issues that are at most tangential to the matter.

This event as described does not warrant the typical "rape investigation", which would be appropriate for an isolated or serial event. A mob of a 1000 young men is described, and many dozens of women were assaulted on one night. Other issues are involved and describing them as tangential at the outset is misleading. Rotherham is an example of what happens under such pretense.