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

[jack476]

The link Russ posted says "a majority"

There is also this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...1ed4c8-b584-11e5-8abc-d09392edc612_story.html which says"Out of the 34 suspects, 21 were asylum seekers — and the majority of those, the spokesman said, arrived this past year. The 34 reportedly include 10 Algerians, 10 Moroccans, five Iranians, four Syrians, two Germans, one American, one Serbian and one Iraqi."

In looking this up, I ran across this: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/article53711815.html which has this gem: 'Mohamed T. was reported to have been carrying what appeared to be a handwritten cheat sheet for sexual intimidation. The list had phrases in Arabic translated into German. The phrases included “I want to (have sex),” “I want to kiss you,” “Big breasts,” “I have a surprise” and most chillingly “I will kill you.”'

Well in that case, we do seem to have a problem.

Exactly what the reports have said, a mass sexual assault, the like of which is "unheard of" in Germany, by a crowd of up to 1000 Arabic or N. African young men. At this point, I'm uninterested in whether they arrived last week or ten years ago.

The reports did not say that 1000 men attacked those women, they said that there was an unruly crowd of between 400 and 600 men and a smaller group of organized attackers was using the disturbance caused by the crowd as cover. Even if they were coordinating with the crowd or were deliberately stirring a mob incident to use as cover, the police response should be the same as for any riot incident because if you disperse the crowd then you remove that cover.

No, I don't know that Germany has ever seen organized groups of sexual attackers using a riot as cover, that's a unique form of mob violence, but only in its presentation. It's still a form of mob violence, and the police are equipped to deal with that.

Incidents like this are always going to be freak occurrences, and there's not really a lot that can be done to truly prevent freak occurrences. Nonetheless, in light of V50's links, it does seem to be an indicator of an underlying problem of refugees engaging in criminal behavior. The most direct solution would be police action, if that doesn't work then it would become prudent to talk about indirect solutions by way of immigration reform.

 

[rootone]

The right wing elements in Europe are not in general making too big an issue of what religion the refugees may be.
Their primary obsession seems to be that a high proportion of the immigrants are not actually refugees but are opportunist 'economic migrants'.
(I have no idea to what extent that is actually true. but some cases of faked/duplicated Syrian ID papers are known).
One frequently hears from the right complaints that these immigrants are 'taking jobs which should be available for locals', whilst at the same time 'taking advantage of generous social welfare benefits'.
They can't have it both ways, if an individual is employed they are not entitled to any welfare claim relating to being unemployed.

 

[russ_watters]

It's a miserable English Saturday night and the weather is awful...

Seems to be a "miserable English Saturday" afternoon in Pennsylvania as well...

Is the Arabic community living in Europe going to have a bad reputation as a result of this? Quite possibly, but so be it. If sharing some of the burden and the shame of these acts is the price we need to pay to have a frank discussion about them, then, speaking as an Arab, I'm happy to pay the price. First and foremost trying to be PC and censor the discussion is an insult to the actual victims of the attacks and a betrayal to the women who can become targets of similar attacks in the future.

Not that it's the most important aspect, but it is also an insult to those in the community, such as yourself, who are willing to stand up and both take the heat and speak-out frankly about the issue. Such issues exist for lots of different groups. Similarly, I'm [kinda] a Christian and there are several different Christian communities that have put it in a bad light, such as another recent abortion clinic shooting. It's painful to be associated with that, but to try to hide from the association would be disingenuous and, as you say, disrespectful. And on a practical level makes it harder to fix the problem.

 

[russ_watters]

As for your point about trying to poison any discussion connecting the mass assaults in Germany with enormous levels of immigration -- I am doing absolutely no such thing (and frankly find the very suggestion absurd).

C'mon. You did indeed say we shouldn't even be discussing the connection because no connection exists, despite clear - if thin/preliminary - evidence that a connection did exist. And poison the well by bringing the issue of reactive hatred into the discussion when no one here has expressed any.

What I am doing is engaging and debating you and others about the Syrian refugee crisis, the events in Germany, and what steps should be taken to address the myriad issues that arise, in a manner that is civil, respectful but nonetheless vigorous.

Not as a moderator, but as a fellow participant in the debate, I ask you to try harder and to add logical to the list.

Let's keep this in context -- we have a candidate running for the Republican presidential nomination (i.e. Donald Trump) that have specifically called for the temporary ban on all Muslims in the US, and another Republican candidate (i.e. Ted Cruz) who has drafted a bill that specifically allows Syrian Christians to be allowed into the US as refugees (i.e. setting a religious test on who gets into the US). One of my many concerns (on top of the obvious concern about the safety of citizens in European countries) is that the mass assaults that have occurred there could be used as a pretext by right-wing groups to bolster support for such measures in the US, which (in the US context) are clearly bigoted, unconstitutional, and un-American.

Are we allowed to discuss that without being pegged as racists for bringing-up the question? Let's try: what criteria may the US government use to decide on who and how many immigrants/refugees to let in?

 

[256bits]

Is the Arabic community living in Europe going to have a bad reputation as a result of this? Quite possibly, but so be it. If sharing some of the burden and the shame of these acts is the price we need to pay to have a frank discussion about them, then, speaking as an Arab, I'm happy to pay the price. First and foremost trying to be PC and censor the discussion is an insult to the actual victims of the attacks and a betrayal to the women who can become targets of similar attacks in the future. This should be the priority. Secondly, putting this behaviour under the spotlight isn't such a bad thing. It's an ugly reality that needs to be confronted, and this attention might force the Arabic community to do something about it. Arab women had to deal with this garbage for a long time. It's about time we dealt with it.

Also the damage to the reputation is not irreversible.

Is there going to be a knee-jerk reaction against the immigrants (whether recent or not)? Unlikely IMO. Also the borders will have to be tightened sooner or later regardless of these events. Europe already took more than a Million refugees in a year and it's doubtful that much more can be admitted.

Something strange about this whole story in Cologne.
1000 drunken men, gang sexual attacks - how did they get that number. Pick a number, any number?? Prove it. I don't see any proof yet.

117 reported cases -
no one reports to the police til how much later after being assaulted.
Media coverup accusations, and/or delay in the reporting.
Police are so inept that they can't tell when something odd is going on.

Swarming is a known method used by groups to acquire (steal ) stuff from individuals or groups of 2 or three people. Police are usually aware that such practices occur, and it should have been easy to spot that this was going on amongst the revelers, and called in reinforcements with the knowledge that gangs were working the crowd, and taken action immediately.

Fireworks allowed ? that is really bizarre. No checks of what people can bring into this area?

Also the damage to the reputation is not irreversible.
Possibly,
Sorry about that. I am not of Cologne, but someone mentioned this,
The list had phrases in Arabic translated into German. The phrases included “I want to (have sex),” “I want to kiss you,” “Big breasts,” “I have a surprise” and most chillingly “I will kill you.”' Which leads me to believe that somewhere along the line, these individuals with the list were just dupes. ( Is the translation Arabic to English or Germain to English, journalism ain't what it used to be to check all the facts before publishing in this Internet age ). A nice tidbit of inflammatory information for the masses, but for the journalist - you somehow found this out if true, (or is it heresay - no source listed ), do some investigation and find out and report who gave the list to the person, why, when.

It seems that the pips and squeeks from Internet reporting may not always be the most responsible.

 

[StatGuy2000]

C'mon. You did indeed say we shouldn't even be discussing the connection because no connection exists, despite clear - if thin/preliminary - evidence that a connection did exist. And poison the well by bringing the issue of reactive hatred into the discussion when no one here has expressed any.

russ, here are my exact quotes on this previous thread:

"mheslep, you know that being "Arab" or "North African" includes groups from at least 25 countries, right? Including Turkey -- there is a large Turkish community in Germany, many of whom have been established there since the 1960s if I'm not mistaken, and certainly many Turks can be mistaken for being "Arab" or "North African" in appearance. You can't therefore conclude that somehow these young men are Syrian refugees (which you are clearly trying to link in your posts)."

"According to reports I've read, some of the suspects have been known to police for other types of crimes, which to me indicates that these are members of organized gangs involved in a range of criminal activity. Sexually assaulting 90 women is new because we're hearing about it now, but there is no link as of yet that this is in any way tied to the refugee situation."

These were posted back last Thursday, when at the time there wasn't evidence that Syrian refugees were involved in the mass assaults. Now there is some preliminary reports that there may have been some Syrian refugees/asylum seekers/immigrants involved. As you can clearly see, I was making the argument that we should not jump to conclusions and make a link between the refugee crisis and these mass assaults without more information.

As for poisoning the well by talking about reactive hatred -- again, at no time did I say that anyone on this forum expressed reactive hatred. What I was saying was that right-wing elements in the US (e.g. Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Fox News commentators) have sought to link the mass assaults to the Syrian refugee crisis and therefore insinuate that Syrian refugees are dangerous. I have heard similar talk coming out of Germany from right wing elements that sought to inflame public opinion by pointing to the mass assaults and thus blame Syrian refugees as a group. That is what I am responding to when I choose to bring up the reactive hatred.

Not as a moderator, but as a fellow participant in the debate, I ask you to try harder and to add logical to the list.

russ, my arguments and counter-arguments are based on the information that I have gathered from various different news and documentary sources online and in print (the CBC and documentaries on TVO in Canada, PBS Newshour, BBC, Al Jazeera, the Young Turks website, VICE news, the Economist, among many others). I am taking the evidence, making logical inferences to the best of my ability, and then responding to the forum. I am not posting these threads lightly.

Are we allowed to discuss that without being pegged as racists for bringing-up the question? Let's try: what criteria may the US government use to decide on who and how many immigrants/refugees to let in?

russ, for question #1, what are you specifically asking? Whether you are allowed to ask to have a discussion on whether people can be denied the right to immigrate to the US based on their religion (i.e. religious test)? Whether such a question should even be asked? My answer is another question, what is the point of bringing up the question?

As for question #2, each government in different countries can use their own particular set of rules and regulations on the number of immigrants that are allowed to come in. These may include opportunities for employment, family reunification, and other such criteria. My personal bias is to allow greater flexibility in allowing people to immigrate to the US, in much the same way and using the same criteria that Canada (where I live -- I am a dual Canadian/American citizen) does.

Specifically on the number of refugees, I think the current Liberal government under Prime Minister Trudeau is carrying out the right balance of ensuring at refugees who wish to come to Canada are able to do so while also carrying out reasonable security measures. So far, Canada has committed to bringing in 25000 Syrian refugees into Canada by early this year (this is in addition to 23,218 Iraqi refugees resettled in Canada as of Nov 2015 and the 3089 Syrian refugees who have already arrived between Jan 2014 and Nov 2015, and the tens of thousands of regular immigrants who arrive to Canada on a monthly basis).

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/welcome/index.asp

http://www.international.gc.ca/development-developpement/humanitarian_response-situations_crises/syria-syrie.aspx?lang=engThe above links are from the official Canadian government website outlining their efforts regarding the Syrian refugees (I admit that these links are biased in favour of the current government policy of the day, but at least it should give you an idea of what Canada is doing on this issue). I think the US has the resources to do something similar, but again, that's just my opinion.

 

[mheslep]

broader rhetoric

Yes, rhetoric, hurtful to some, as rhetoric always is. There are no safe spaces.

Let's keep this in context -- we have a candidate running for the Republican presidential nomination (i.e. Donald Trump)

I have little doubt that there is some fringe EU politician or political hopeful running around spouting hate about immigrants, which would be much closer to events at hand, but would still be mostly irrelevant because though these guys pop up they fail, remain in the minority of the minority.

So yes, please keep this context, the assaults, Germany, the EU, mass immigration into the EU from the ME. Trump on the other side of the world and his (so far voteless) shannanigans are not it.

"We have a candidate ..."? Arent you Canadian?

 

[jack476]

Yes, rhetoric, hurtful to some, as rhetoric always is. There are no safe spaces.

Careful not to cut yourself on that edge.

I have little doubt that there is some fringe EU politician or political hopeful running around spouting hate about immigrants, which would be much closer to events at hand, but would still be mostly irrelevant because though these guys pop up they fail, remain in the minority of the minority.

So yes, please keep this context, the assaults, Germany, the EU, mass immigration into the EU from the ME. Trump on the other side of the world and his (so far voteless) shannanigans are not it.

Yes, Trump and most people like him are unelectable idiots, and it's been shown time and again that polls say nothing about how likely a candidate is to actually succeed in the election. What's worrying isn't the possibility that he could be elected, it's the fact that in the space of less than a year he's gone from being a running gag about American celebrities to having a sizable portion of the country believe he should be the President and that shift in public opinion has been driven primarily by what can only be called hate speech. I'm not worried about a Trump presidency, I'm worried about what's changed in the public attitude to make it so that he hasn't been laughed out of the race yet like he was the last time he ran.

 

[Dotini]

what's changed in the public attitude

A good question. There are many currently trying to understand and explain this phenomenon. I liken it to a prairie fire.

 

[StatGuy2000]

"We have a candidate ..."? Arent you Canadian?

I was born in Japan to an American father and a Japanese mother, and raised in Canada. Therefore, I am a dual Canadian/American citizen (American by birth, Canadian by naturalization).

 

[russ_watters]

These were posted back last Thursday, when at the time there wasn't evidence that Syrian refugees were involved in the mass assaults.

I really don't understand why this disconnect still exists. I'll repeat: The first post discussing the attacks contains a link to a BBC story that paraphrases a police officer saying he'd detained 8 card-carrying "asylum seekers" in connection with the attacks. *That's evidence.*

Given that this story was posted in a thread about the EU refugee crisis, you really should take a step back and consider how Hossam could have known to post the story here. It wasn't a lucky guess. I suggest that you be more open-minded to considering the evidence that was available, rather than shutting your eyes/ears and pretending none existed.

As for poisoning the well by talking about reactive hatred -- again, at no time did I say that anyone on this forum expressed reactive hatred. What I was saying was that right-wing elements in the US (e.g. Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Fox News commentators) have sought to link the mass assaults to the Syrian refugee crisis and therefore insinuate that Syrian refugees are dangerous.

Yes: That's poisoning the well. The implication you are making is that by suggesting a link, one puts themselves in the same category as those such as Donald Trump (et al). [edit] It is a way to both discourage others from staking out a similar position by pre-emptively/automatically comparing them with an undesirable and it is a way to avoid having a logical argument about a subject (ie: if Trump holds the position, it must be bad -- no need to discuss why).

 

[StatGuy2000]

I really don't understand why this disconnect still exists. I'll repeat: The first post discussing the attacks contains a link to a BBC story that paraphrases a police officer saying he'd detained 8 card-carrying "asylum seekers" in connection with the attacks. *That's evidence.*

Given that this story was posted in a thread about the EU refugee crisis, you really should take a step back and consider how Hossam could have known to post the story here. It wasn't a lucky guess. I suggest that you be more open-minded to considering the evidence that was available, rather than shutting your eyes/ears and pretending none existed.

For your information, there are more "asylum seekers" in Germany than just Syrians. So the fact that the BBC story you are referring to paraphrases a police officer saying he'd detained 8 card-carrying "asylum seekers" in connection with the attacks is suggestive, but is definitely not evidence. Also, as an American you should know that there is the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" -- we don't know how many of the people that officer detained were ultimately criminally charged, let alone were actually involved in the attacks. All I'm saying is not to jump to the conclusion that the mass sexual assaults in Germany is somehow definitively linked to the EU refugee crisis. That is all.

Yes: That's poisoning the well. The implication you are making is that by suggesting a link, one puts themselves in the same category as those such as Donald Trump (et al). [edit] It is a way to both discourage others from staking out a similar position by pre-emptively/automatically comparing them with an undesirable and it is a way to avoid having a logical argument about a subject (ie: if Trump holds the position, it must be bad -- no need to discuss why).

russ, I respectfully disagree. Discussions about refugees and other such topics don't occur in a political vacuum. Ever since the Syrian refugee crisis has reached the public consciousness here in the West, there have been reactionary voices stoking fear (whether the refugees are members of ISIS, even most of the refugees are fleeing from ISIS, as an example), in both the US and elsewhere. You cannot deny that those voices stoking fear have only grown louder with both the terrorists attacks in Paris and the mass sexual assaults in Cologne. So I do not think it is at all unreasonable to be mindful when bringing up the discussion of the assaults and exploring the (potential) links with the Syrian refugees that we be extra diligent that we are basing any such conclusions on carefully investigated fact. And that we don't simplistically conclude the following: accepting refugees = bad. Because most Americans (who have an unsophisticated understanding of the rest of the world) I'm afraid may conclude precisely that, and as an American I don't think you can deny that.

 

[S.G. Janssens]

The attacks appear to have been more widespread across Europe than initially reported

Indeed. An article titled

Swedish police face allegations of covering up mass sex assault

appeared in the news today.

EDIT: Please note that these are not just "allegations". As you can read in the article:

Peter Agren, who was in charge of policing at the festival, was reported by Dagens Nyheter as saying about the cover-up allegations: “This is a sore point. We sometimes dare not to say how it is because we think it might play into the hands of the Sweden Democrats.”

 

[S.G. Janssens]

All I'm saying is not to jump to the conclusion that the mass sexual assaults in Germany is somehow definitively linked to the EU refugee crisis.

Of course it is. Until recently, and most likely still, there is no checking whatsoever of who enters the EU. This is very bad, because it allows not only benign people to enter, but also all kinds of scum. In order to protect the citizens of the EU, as well as those refugees with good intentions that I very much welcome, irrespective of their religion, it is essential to stop covering up incidents and start hitting back when under siege.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Of course it is. Until recently, and most likely still, there is no checking whatsoever of who enters the EU. This is very bad, because it allows not only benign people to enter, but also all kinds of scum. In order to protect the citizens of the EU, as well as those refugees with good intentions that I very much welcome, irrespective of their religion, it is essential to stop covering up incidents and start hitting back when under siege.

Let me ask you something, Krylov. When you think about Syrian refugees, are the first thoughts that come to your mind are that these people are "scum" and that you are "under siege", or are your thoughts more along the lines of people "with good intentions"?

 

[S.G. Janssens]

Let me ask you something, Krylov. When you think about Syrian refugees, are the first thoughts that come to your mind are that these people are "scum" and that you are "under siege", or are your thoughts more along the lines of people "with good intentions"?

Both, and everything in between. Syrian refugees are just like ordinary people.

EDIT: By the way, on a much more general note, when I think of people from North Africa and the Middle East, reading Hossam's posts now and then over the past couple of weeks really made me a lot more optimistic. (I don't solicit "likes" for this, I just wanted to take this opportunity to point it out.)

 

[mheslep]

Discussions about refugees and other such topics don't occur in a political vacuum.

Be that as it may, it is not a valid excuse for derailing every current event discussion on PF to some political candidate on the other side of the world that concerns your particular sensibilities.

 

[jack476]

Indeed. An article titled

Swedish police face allegations of covering up mass sex assault

appeared in the news today.

EDIT: Please note that these are not just "allegations". As you can read in the article:

Peter Agren, who was in charge of policing at the festival, was reported by Dagens Nyheter as saying about the cover-up allegations: “This is a sore point. We sometimes dare not to say how it is because we think it might play into the hands of the Sweden Democrats.”

Yes, yes, they are just allegations. http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/qu...ns-handling-of-events-in-the-kungstradgarden/

The context of the quote by Agren was that they did not wish to potentially provoke violence against immigrants. The Sweden Democrats are a fringe right-wing party that originated with the Swedish Neo-Nazi movement, the majority of the Swedish government refuses to cooperate with them. Not wanting to encourage them is thoroughly justifiable, since the investigation would not be able to complete if it became politicized.

 

[mheslep]

Let me ask you something, Krylov. When you think about Syrian refugees, are the first thoughts that come to your mind are that these people are "scum" and that you are "under siege", or are your thoughts more along the lines of people "with good intentions"?

The point's not getting across.

Let me ask you SG. When you think about those women claiming assault in Cologne, are your first thoughts that they were asking for assault by their behavior and dress, that the women had it coming to them, that the women make too much of the so called "assaults", and those women really don't matter compared to the other troubles in the world, or are your thoughts more along the lines of innocent women, grotesquely abused and deserving prompt justice?

 

[jack476]

The point's not getting across.

Let me ask you SG. When you think about those women claiming assault in Cologne, are your first thoughts that they were asking for assault by their behavior and dress, that the women had it coming to them, that the women make too much of the so called "assaults", and those women really don't matter compared to the other troubles in the world, or are your thoughts more along the lines of innocent women, grotesquely abused and deserving prompt justice?

Right, they deserve prompt justice. So arrest the attackers, grant the victims whatever restitution they are owed, and increase the police presence in that area. I honestly do not see what is so complicated about this. I don't think anyone here is trying to apologize for the acts that were committed and with all due respect I think that it's a bit intellectually dishonest to imply that someone is.

I really don't understand why this disconnect still exists. I'll repeat: The first post discussing the attacks contains a link to a BBC story that paraphrases a police officer saying he'd detained 8 card-carrying "asylum seekers" in connection with the attacks. *That's evidence.*

No, that is a guy saying something. At the time, his claims had not yet been officially substantiated, more definitive evidence has emerged since then.

 

[russ_watters]

For your information, there are more "asylum seekers" in Germany than just Syrians.

Statguy, near as I can tell, *you* are the one who added the "Syrians" qualification to the discussion - it certainly doesn't appear in my post or the article we're discussing. And mhselp pointed this out to you when you accused him of bringing it up, when he didn't. So, yes, there are more than just Syrian asylum seekers and I agree it is improper for you to attempt to constrain the discussion as such.

So the fact that the BBC story you are referring to paraphrases a police officer saying he'd detained 8 card-carrying "asylum seekers" in connection with the attacks is suggestive, but is definitely not evidence. Also, as an American you should know that there is the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" -- we don't know how many of the people that officer detained were ultimately criminally charged, let alone were actually involved in the attacks. All I'm saying is not to jump to the conclusion that the mass sexual assaults in Germany is somehow definitively linked to the EU refugee crisis. That is all.

Please step back and think about what you are saying. Now you are saying we can't even discuss this until it is proven in a court of law. The question was about *evidence*. Evidence is what goes into making the ruling, it isn't the ruling itself. It is patently absurd to suggest that the words of police officer aren't evidence and patently absurd to suggest that we can't discuss what happened until the resutl is proven in court. Jeez, imagine if someone would have said that about the Zimerman or Wilson cases! Indeed, imagine telling the BLM protesters that they can't discuss those issues anymore because those cases are closed and their side lost!

Statguy, I asked you nicely before, now I'm telling you as a moderator: You've gone way off the reservation here. Please take a step back and reel-yourself in. Rational discussion of these issues is not possible under the posture you've taken.

 

[russ_watters]

Both, and everything in between. Syrian refugees are just like ordinary people.

[Again, with the caveat that we're not just talking about Syrians here.]
We're not far apart, but I still want to point out that while most of the middle-eastern refugees are "just like ordinary people", we wouldn't be having this discussion if the cross sections were "just like" other groups. The percentage of extremists entering the West is small, but it is non-zero and that is a problem: The refugees present a useful/convenient cover for the entry of extremists.

 

[russ_watters]

No, that is a guy saying something.

It is disingenuous to say it was "a guy": it was a police officer and statements - eyewitness testimony - are evidence. Jeez, this is ridiculous! Yes, preliminary. Yes, unconfirmed. But *evidence* nonetheless. It is information on which we should be able to base a discussion. Ferguson, Missouri was looted and burned over less, that turned out to be wrong.

 

[mheslep]

I think that it's a bit intellectually dishonest to imply that someone is.

I agree. So is selectively applying that standard, that it is dishonest to suggest someone thinks what they did not say, by way of a question of other device. Read what I replied to.

 

[S.G. Janssens]

Yes, yes, they are just allegations. http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/qu...ns-handling-of-events-in-the-kungstradgarden/

The context of the quote by Agren was that they did not wish to potentially provoke violence against immigrants. The Sweden Democrats are a fringe right-wing party that originated with the Swedish Neo-Nazi movement, the majority of the Swedish government refuses to cooperate with them. Not wanting to encourage them is thoroughly justifiable, since the investigation would not be able to complete if it became politicized.

Don't you see how your last sentence in the above quote is a contradiction in terms? The very act of "not wanting to encourage them" by itself politicized the investigation!

The Sweden Democrats are not prohibited by law, they do not form a criminal organization. Therefore, it is not up to the Swedish police to make such decisions. This is by and large a cover up, admitted by a policeman in charge, that ultimately harms anyone directly or indirectly involved, except perhaps the perpetrators.

 

[S.G. Janssens]

[Again, with the caveat that we're not just talking about Syrians here.]
We're not far apart, but I still want to point out that while most of the middle-eastern refugees are "just like ordinary people", we wouldn't be having this discussion if the cross sections were "just like" other groups. The percentage of extremists entering the West is small, but it is non-zero and that is a problem: The refugees present a useful/convenient cover for the entry of extremists.

I agree with you.

And unfortunately the cover provided by refugees is not only useful for extremists, but also for all kinds of other hoodlums from different nations that are not "motivated" by any ideology. In my original reply to @StatGuy2000 I wanted to make clear that I am very well aware of the diverse character of the population entering the EU. It is exactly to do justice to this diversity that the EU needs proper control of its outer borders.

 

[jack476]

Don't you see how your last sentence in the above quote is a contradiction in terms? The very act of "not wanting to encourage them" by itself politicized the investigation!

It is not a contradiction. Police officers have good reason to want to keep media attention away from ongoing investigations. If an active political party were to try to use the incident to propagandize, which would be very likely given that the Sweden Democrats' party-line is entirely focused on an anti-immigration platform, then the backlash could cause a media frenzy.

The Sweden Democrats are not prohibited by law, they do not form a criminal organization. Therefore, it is not up to the Swedish police to make such decisions. This is by and large a cover up, admitted by a policeman in charge, that ultimately harms anyone directly or indirectly involved, except perhaps the perpetrators.

[/quote]

Major news networks are legal organizations too, that doesn't mean that police are obligated to ignore their likely behavior in the decision to make information public. My understanding is that police departments are obligated by law to not comment in detail on ongoing investigations, especially when they involve minors. The fact that some things are prudent to not share does not mean that there is a conspiracy afoot.

It is disingenuous to say it was "a guy": it was a police officer and statements - eyewitness testimony - are evidence. Jeez, this is ridiculous! Yes, preliminary. Yes, unconfirmed. But *evidence* nonetheless. It is information on which we should be able to base a discussion.

Sure, in that case I guess. I thought you were going somewhere else with it.

 

[mheslep]

It is not a contradiction. Police officers have good reason to want to keep media attention away from ongoing investigations.

The issue is not the details of the investigation, but the simple admission that crimes have been reported, and no the police (here anyway) do not enjoy the discretion as to whether or not to hide public crime reports because of their political sensibilities.

 

[russ_watters]

It is not a contradiction. Police officers have good reason to want to keep media attention away from ongoing investigations. If an active political party were to try to use the incident to propagandize, which would be very likely given that the Sweden Democrats' party-line is entirely focused on an anti-immigration platform, then the backlash could cause a media frenzy.

Major news networks are legal organizations too, that doesn't mean that police are obligated to ignore their likely behavior in the decision to make information public. My understanding is that police departments are obligated by law to not comment in detail on ongoing investigations, especially when they involve minors. The fact that some things are prudent to not share does not mean that there is a conspiracy afoot.

There are at least two layers to this. First is the at face value idea that in a society that values free exchange of information and government transparency, withholding information on police activity is typically anathema. But laws do vary widely on the specifics. A random example of some of the details of types of records and what is released and why:
http://multimedia.journalism.berkeley.edu/tutorials/police-records/

So (next layer) the witholding of the information on something like this is a fairly unusual thing and requires a good reason/explanation. One example would be that if the police are closing in on a suspect, they don't want to tip him off to the details of the investigation. On the other hand, releasing details can both serve the public safety interest and aid in the investigation by prompting witnesses to come forward. So in this case, based on what you are suggesting, the police/government used their political beliefs to decide against addressing the known/extant public safety problem in order to not provide fodder for a political debate. That's really bad. At least if they were weighing the risk of backlash against the immigrants there would a safety vs safety consideration, but a safety vs politics decision is 1984/J Edgar Hoover (Rahm Emanual?) type manipulation/corruption.

 

[jack476]

There are at least two layers to this. First is the at face value idea that in a society that values free exchange of information and government transparency, withholding information on police activity is typically anathema. But laws do vary widely on the specifics. A random example of some of the details of types of records and what is released and why:
http://multimedia.journalism.berkeley.edu/tutorials/police-records/

So (next layer) the witholding of the information on something like this is a fairly unusual thing and requires a good reason/explanation. One example would be that if the police are closing in on a suspect, they don't want to tip him off to the details of the investigation. On the other hand, releasing details can both serve the public safety interest and aid in the investigation by prompting witnesses to come forward. So in this case, based on what you are suggesting, the police/government used their political beliefs to decide against addressing the known/extant public safety problem in order to not provide fodder for a political debate. That's really bad. At least if they were weighing the risk of backlash against the immigrants there would a safety vs safety consideration, but a safety vs politics decision is 1984/J Edgar Hoover (Rahm Emanual?) type manipulation/corruption.

From your source:

...documents like arrest reports or crime/incident reports kept at police departments are not presumed to be open to the public as court records are.

Thus almost no police investigative records are posted online.

So it is incorrect to claim that the public necessarily has a right to that information.

And:

There also are general exemptions that police can cite, such as that the release of information would endanger someone’s life or undermine an investigation, to decline to provide copies of arrest or crime/incident reports.

As a result, police departments vary widely in how they respond to reporters’ requests for arrest or crime reports. Some will routinely provide the reports but with sensitive information edited out. Some will provide most reports but withhold those that concern sensitive pending cases. Some will decline to release any police reports.

Emphasis mine.

They do indeed have the right to use discretion about what they make available. I would certainly call an incident of a gang of people who were likely immigrants sexually abusing a large number of teenage girls in a political climate that is ready to explode over the immigration issue "sensitive", as I would consider any sexual assault involving children or teenagers.

Just look at what's been happening:

Anti-immigration protest escalates to police using water cannons and pepper spray: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ew-Years-Eve-cases-rise-to-more-than-500.html

Violence against immigrants has spiked: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ew-Years-Eve-cases-rise-to-more-than-500.html

Surge in militia movements, fears of civil unrest: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/w...divisions-in-europes-migrant-crisis.html?_r=0

Taking all of that into consideration, you can see why one would be inclined to be very careful about what information you make public because of the risk of making things worse.

 

[mheslep]

Sensitivity to possible incitement of violence against a group is one side of the concern for public release. Another side is the possibility that the authorities decide, in secret, to bury the incidents and take little or no action, encouraging more crime, as has happened in recent years in a large, infamous and reprehensible case.

 

[chingel]

Taking all of that into consideration, you can see why one would be inclined to be very careful about what information you make public because of the risk of making things worse.

How would you like doing it the other way around? Since there is a lot of hatred of the west in certain groups you should stop reporting about the anti-immigrant incidents, because you need to be very careful not to incite any violence against westerners.

 

[jack476]

How would you like doing it the other way around? Since there is a lot of hatred of the west in certain groups you should stop reporting about the anti-immigrant incidents, because you need to be very careful not to incite any violence against westerners.

If people from Germany and Sweden start being violently attacked because they happen to be from the same country as anti-immigration extremists, then yes, I would say that there is cause for caution. But that's not exactly something that's at risk of happening right now.

All I'm saying is, let's try to understand that police have a difficult decision to make when it comes to incidents like this and that human error is much more common than organized conspiracies.

 

[mheslep]

human error is much more common than organized conspiracies.

Human error? You mean the possibility that somehow the majority of the assault reports by the women in Cologne were wrong? And horrid conspiracies on mass assaults, involving city government and its police force allowing victimization of citizens for years, are no longer unheard of.

 

[nikkkom]

Thats right, things are changing now.
I think that 90% of Europeans are not racist. In my opinion, the problem is, that each attempt to discuss problems associated with migration is immediately banned as "racist".

You yourself were doing that, in this very thread. :D

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.

 

[mheslep]

Many ME christians are now recognized to be victims of a genocide, and as such qualify as refugees and not simply migrants.

http://www.unhcr.org/55df0e556.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-the-islamic-state-commits-genocide-now-what/