A question to fellow members who live in Germany

[Janek12]

Refugees or other foreigners do not commit more crimes then the general population in Germany. Lots of people try to create that image, but its not true. It is pure paranoia and I am tired of it.

Well, I heard otherwise from a police commissioner himself.

Around 18 years ago, I was mugged at a gunpoint in a restroom by a highway near Duisburg. The muggers were clearly from Eastern Europe or Southern Europe but I was unable to distinguish the accent accurately.

When I freed myself (they tied me, sloppily, to the handle on the toilet for disabled) and called the police, the police treated me with great suspicion and took me to the police station. They probably thought that it was some kind of an Eastern-Europe gang-war related matter.

Fortunately for me, the police commissioner had a Czech wife for around twenty years so he had some more insight and empathy for me and knew that not everyone from Eastern Europe is necessarily a crook.

But he told me - and I cannot remember the exact figures - that foreigners accounted for (IIRC) something like 70 % of the crimes; I am quite sure that it was at least more than half of the crimes. Which is a huge disproportion taking into account the difference in the number of Germans and foreigns in Germany.

He was very nice to me and even lent me a bit of money and took me to the outskirts of the city from where I could hitch-hike back home to the Czech Republic (since my car got stolen, too, along with my wallet; the thieves probably had a soft spot for their Eastern-European compatriot because they left my glasses and my passport on a trash can in the restroom where I found them after I freed myself).

 

[Janek12]

This tragic issue will not and cannot be solved in Europe. Help should be targeted at the source and the criminals tackled.

I absolutely agree with that. For starters, it would be a huge help if the USA, Russia, Europe and anyone else stopped selling arms to African countries, dictators; to the Middle East...; well, actually, they should stop manufacturing and selling arms altogether. I am a total pacifist.
Will that happen? No. So in that sense alone, Europe (and USA and other big arms manufacturers, one of them, interestingly, is Sweden - yes, the nice, welcoming civilized country, is also the spreader of death...; not to mention my country, the Czech Republic, an inconspicuous country, which is not only the first in beer consumption in the world but it is also a disgustingly huge arms manufacturer) are the originators of their demise.

I have one question for Dunover - why do you think Europe deserves to survive in its present state?
Is it worth it, defending European's standard of living by letting people burn in hell in other parts of the world, while cherry-picking their natural resources at the same time? (And the matter is certainly more complex than that; this is just one of the many aspects of it.)

I agree with Gagamel that it is a human obligation to help those in need no matter what. Of course, it is necessary to screen incoming people and find out which ones of them are war criminals and not help them. It is difficult but it is being done; of course, with the numbers of refugees now pouring in, I have no idea how this could be done in any meaningful way.

In any case, I think this is the beginning of the end of the world as we know it and it is going to be very ugly. But it is always much more important to preserve one's soul than one's property or money.

 

[Dinahnana]

I haven't read the entire thread but I get the gist. I don't think mass immigration is the way to solve the problems of the world. The problem needs to be dealt with at the source if that makes any sense. Many people emigrate to other countries and manage to assimilate into their adopted country while keeping their own ethnic identity. That is fine. I myself was an immigrant for many years and did assimilate into US society because that is where I wanted to be and wanted to respect that fine country by learning as much about the history, culture etc. I assimilated but kept my Irish identity.

The problem I see with individuals who come from other countries and don't even try to assimilate at all. In Ireland this was a big issues in the 90's and still today. Refugees were allowed to enter the country and the government housed, clothed and fed them sometimes better than their own citizens. This caused and still causes much discord in Irish society.

Governments do need to have compassion for those in need but they also need to be mindful of the impact both negative and positive by allowing open immigration on their society. If the immigrants don't assimilate into the culture of their adopted countries then that will lead to many social problems that will be felt for decades.

I remember a case from the 90's where Ireland took refugees from the former Yugoslavia without doing due diligence (background checks. e.t.c) One of those refugees went on to rape and murder a hotel clerk. It later emerged that this guy had a long history of violent offences in his native country including rape and should have never allowed into the country in the first place. This is one example. I don't have a problem with immigration but I do think it should be controlled. Nobody wants Isis to start taking over Europe I think. Although that may be an extreme outcome it is not impossible.

 

[Janek12]

The european countries laid the cornerstones for the situation we have.

European soldiers raped, plundered and burned the whole world. Colonialism was the biggest crime in the history of mankind. Started with South America (90% of the natives killed), North America, Africa (8-10 million dead natives between 1888 and 1908 only in the Congo). We don`t want to talk about the slaves who where caught like animals and selled like pieces of flesh.

I can see your point, the history of colonisation is horrible; but I would like to expand on your point - IMO these past horrible deeds are not the direct cause of the current situation - it is the continued current exploitation that is one of the important causes - both economically and karmically, IMO.

In other words, Europe is still boosting its "standard of living" (of which it is so proud of and which some Europeans would like to "defend" against immigrants) by exploiting third-world countries (or is it developing or underdeveloped countries today? I am unable to keep up with the PC BS ), by underpaying for agricultural products, etc.

I have been translating refugee-related documents for the Czech Ministry of the Interior for the past dozen years so I have some rough idea what it looks like in other parts of the world; and these things do not get into the mainstream media, there is not enough time and space to cover all the horrible things that happen in the world.

Just one example: In the Niger delta in Nigeria, Shell (and maybe others) extract oil and the profits go to Shell and the corrupt local government while the local residents get very little benefit from this natural resource. Is it the fault of the local government that it did not do for its population what Arab leaders were able to do who made sure that the whole nation benefits from the wealth? (Speaking specifically about Kuwait where I spent my childhood).
Yes, it certainly is the fault of the government but there is also guilt on the part of the "civilized" European corporations who exploit every opportunity for increasing their profits ruthlessly.

 

[syntynyt]

And it does NOT help the countries these people 'flee' from if they all leave. Romania became free because the people couldn't just leave and sacrificed themselves to overthrow the Ceaucescus, and now have a secure free nation. If they had all just run away over the border, what would have changed??

in the absence of a balance to lose i read the thread and i should respond to this. history is full of lies, and is a lie that we stood against Ceausescu by our own. everything was settled outside borders by masterminds like George Soros and locally by Silviu Brucan(Saul Brucken, as the eastern european Jews tend to change their names), which directly orchestrated the execution of Ceausescu couple after dictating what and how to happen. is EXACTLY like Egyptian 2011 revolution and the fall of Mubarak, the difference being this was part of Arab Spring - a full project to eliminate all Israel enemies or those that stopped listening(Libya 'civil war', anyone?, Syria current conflict...)

Romanian population was tired of communist oppresion and wanted to talk free, travel free, buy basic things and more or less be like west. during his regime most of our country was build(in my city 95% of buildings are made under his regime), we've been economically a lot on +(even borrowed some countries), external relations were all great, everyone had a job and a house without exception, everyone took their family in vacantions and we've been a reference for industrial exports of all kinds. weve been under control but rich. After 'revolution' everyone was excited, lots of things were imported from Turkey, the most desired jeans etc. shortly a new puppet was elected and deprivation started. All the factories were taken down and the iron from them was sold, the industry paralized, over the years practical jobs stopped to exist and we became very poor. the entry in EU put us in 100 billions euros in dept(see Greece case, Argentina 2001) and we emigrated in other countries for a better life(and im not talking on gypsyes side). Ceausescu was a nationalist that put people first, the only thing to condemn being the agressive system he build to control everything and the lack of basic things(like jeans) in the market and rations of food. with a noadays Russian or Chinese communist concept he could have ruled the country for the years to come(with people support, they would have done Kennedy pattern so nothing would have changed). the minimum salary now is 220 euros(in the happy case to find a job) and to survive here you must have parents, brothers working over the borders like majority of us have. the paradox is that we have now all the things in the world but lack money to buy them contary to ceausescu regime. we are being tell by USA what to do and how to do which pisses me off. at bin cans lot of people collect plastic bottles from trash and sell them at centres to have what to eat.in the process tell above romania was sold and we became slaves.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[zaalouk29]

I wish my nieces husband would learn English. He has been here for about 30 yrs and still does not. I honestly think he makes no effort what-so-ever.

And, ironically, my niece is a teacher!

They have 2 small children too.

I just don't get it........... that's all

How about you learn his language and make a step towards him...maybe you ll get it (then)

 

[Janek12]

Crime, as lazyness, is indeed not ethnic-related. Let's not get overwhelmed by negative emotions and judge people on their ethnic background...

Well, in statistical terms, crime is nationality-related IMO. There is a reason why there is hell on Earth in many countries in Africa, Latin America, Middle East and even Asia. It is because a certain, sufficiently big critical mass of people there are quite horrible criminals. And they manage to create hell on Earth for others.

Laziness is also nationality-related IMO. As an extreme example: I read somewhere that there is a tribe of South American Indians who do not have the word for "work" .

BUT - nobody can see into other person's soul, so judging a specific person by their ethnicity is completely wrong.
As the Solzhenitsyn's very famous quote says "... the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. ..."

In other words, it is important, IMO, to distinguish between NATIONS, which have their characteristic traits, and between INDIVIDUALS, whose traits may be completely different or opposite to their NATION's traits.

 

[weesie]

How about you learn his language and make a step towards him...maybe you ll get it (then)

That is not the point!

He is a grown man, married with two young children and has been here for about 30 years!

How can he possibly function, other than the bare necessities, in a world where he can't communicate with 75%-80% of the people he deals with each and every day?

Besides, I have nothing to GET........

So, any and all countries with foreigners coming to their country are suppose to learn

THEIR language?

A year or so, even 3 yrs............... but THIRTY YEARS!

Give me a break!

 

[dunover]

I absolutely agree with that. For starters, it would be a huge help if the USA, Russia, Europe and anyone else stopped selling arms to African countries, dictators; to the Middle East...; well, actually, they should stop manufacturing and selling arms altogether. I am a total pacifist.
Will that happen? No. So in that sense alone, Europe (and USA and other big arms manufacturers, one of them, interestingly, is Sweden - yes, the nice, welcoming civilized country, is also the spreader of death...; not to mention my country, the Czech Republic, an inconspicuous country, which is not only the first in beer consumption in the world but it is also a disgustingly huge arms manufacturer) are the originators of their demise.

I have one question for Dunover - why do you think Europe deserves to survive in its present state?
Is it worth it, defending European's standard of living by letting people burn in hell in other parts of the world, while cherry-picking their natural resources at the same time? (And the matter is certainly more complex than that; this is just one of the many aspects of it.)

I agree with Gagamel that it is a human obligation to help those in need no matter what. Of course, it is necessary to screen incoming people and find out which ones of them are war criminals and not help them. It is difficult but it is being done; of course, with the numbers of refugees now pouring in, I have no idea how this could be done in any meaningful way.

In any case, I think this is the beginning of the end of the world as we know it and it is going to be very ugly. But it is always much more important to preserve one's soul than one's property or money.

Whether people like it or not, 95% of what we utilize or value in the modern world was invented by Europeans. Liberal democracy. Telecoms, Internet, Air Travel, Rockets, Steel, Tarmac or by Europeans that went abroad. It is Europe that in the modern era has advanced the world, and got a good standard of life as a result. This has been exported and sold to better the lives of poorer people too. Gaga mentions colonialism, but let me mention immunization and the eradication of smallpox and other nasties - I could go on for hours like that, but you get the point. You mention resources we 'exploit' but who else could? World trade is underpinned by profit, that's been the way for a thousand years. These countries could always kick the European firms out (and would if they could do the job themselves).

So yes, I like Europe, the clearly defined ancient cultures whether Greek, Anglo, German, French or Italian. Europe deserves to survive because it CAN survive and has survived thus far, because the traditional people of Europe have the will despite the useless EU and treasonous politicians. Whether people accept it or not Europe is strong and has shaped the world we live in. It HAS to survive - the USA doesn't have the resources to police the world, the Chinese couldn't care less and the Russians will do little. Believe or not the suffering in the world is far less than historically, it's just we have it beamed into our rooms via TV and are aware of it. Can you imagine if people had TV after the RAF had 'carpet bombed' Hamburg in WWII for example showing the petrified corpses of families trapped in cellars and incinerated? Would it have weakened our resolve to defeat the Nazis?

The simple fact is that unless you want Communism (everybody poor) there will always be richer and poorer nations. If Germany had the living standards of Albania, would 800,000 want to go there? Would they hell.

So with your oh-so-compassionate consciences, I would assume you would all be happy to take in a few 'refugees' in your spare room, donate your second car because you have two and buy them food and clothes? You are excellent at spending other peoples' money with your principles, so I assume that would extend to your personal means too?

Or is that like Merkel, you live in a small town or village away from Ghettoes that this 'benevolence' will create and less better-off citizens can live with the consequences of your principles??

 

[Janek12]

Whether people like it or not, 95% of what we utilize or value in the modern world was invented by Europeans. Liberal democracy. Telecoms, Internet, Air Travel, Rockets, Steel, Tarmac or by Europeans that went abroad.

Thank you Dunover for your elaborate answer; you have touched very many points; I will focus on just one for now.
Yes, Europe has been the technically and spiritually leading continent for centuries now. And one aspect of the domination by more advanced nations is mentioned in the Monty Python's Life of Brian when the Israelites exclaim "What good did the Romans ever bring us?" ""Nothing! Well..., except..." You surely know the rest .

But with being the most advanced, there comes responsibility. And Europeans have mostly abused their dominance over others.
In other words, I am not disputing the huge positive contribution Europe has made to the entire world. But in many hugely important aspects, Europe failed. And that's what has now come to bite it in the ass.

To use another example, common in my country: "But the Communists built metro!" Meaning, they were not all bad. Yeah, but metro would have been built anyway. And it would have even been built faster and better, if there were not for Communism.
And the same goes for the contributions of Europeans to the world IMO.

 

[zaalouk29]

Whether people like it or not, 95% of what we utilize or value in the modern world was invented by Europeans. Liberal democracy. Telecoms, Internet, Air Travel, Rockets, Steel, Tarmac or by Europeans that went abroad. It is Europe that in the modern era has advanced the world, and got a good standard of life as a result. This has been exported and sold to better the lives of poorer people too. Gaga mentions colonialism, but let me mention immunization and the eradication of smallpox and other nasties - I could go on for hours like that, but you get the point. You mention resources we 'exploit' but who else could? World trade is underpinned by profit, that's been the way for a thousand years. These countries could always kick the European firms out (and would if they could do the job themselves).

So yes, I like Europe, the clearly defined ancient cultures whether Greek, Anglo, German, French or Italian. Europe deserves to survive because it CAN survive and has survived thus far, because the traditional people of Europe have the will despite the useless EU and treasonous politicians. Whether people accept it or not Europe is strong and has shaped the world we live in. It HAS to survive - the USA doesn't have the resources to police the world, the Chinese couldn't care less and the Russians will do little. Believe or not the suffering in the world is far less than historically, it's just we have it beamed into our rooms via TV and are aware of it. Can you imagine if people had TV after the RAF had 'carpet bombed' Hamburg in WWII for example showing the petrified corpses of families trapped in cellars and incinerated? Would it have weakened our resolve to defeat the Nazis?

The simple fact is that unless you want Communism (everybody poor) there will always be richer and poorer nations. If Germany had the living standards of Albania, would 800,000 want to go there? Would they hell.

So with your oh-so-compassionate consciences, I would assume you would all be happy to take in a few 'refugees' in your spare room, donate your second car because you have two and buy them food and clothes? You are excellent at spending other peoples' money with your principles, so I assume that would extend to your personal means too?

Or is that like Merkel, you live in a small town or village away from Ghettoes that this 'benevolence' will create and less better-off citizens can live with the consequences of your principles??

So what if all those wordly wonders (tv,internet,etc..) are owed to europeans ? what do you want ? a medal? would that make you feel better? I AM EUROPEAN THEREFORE I AM SUPERIOR TO YOU ALL ...way to go with with this thinking.
How about you throw out all foreigners and make europe 100% european , will that appease whatever is troubling you?
But let say something you overlook and the deciders in europeans countries know very well: europe is an aging continent: the dont make ebough babies to sustain growth and replace aging manpower and provide for eldery pensions!!! did you think about that for a second? who will pay for your retirement pension huh? No other solution than immigration my friend , britishers dont bring in hindus and pakistanis because they love exotic flavors!!! So wake up to the real world my friend and come down from your piedestal : the only way to survive for human race is by caring one for another...not the other way around
I might be wrong somewhere along the line

 

[Janek12]

You mention resources we 'exploit' but who else could? World trade is underpinned by profit, that's been the way for a thousand years. These countries could always kick the European firms out (and would if they could do the job themselves).

Yes, it is true that nobody else has the technical means to utilise the resources. But if they are not utilised fairly, there will be bad consequences. In other words, taking advantage of superiority is immoral; I have mentioned that in the previous post.

As for the world trade being underpinned by profit - this is one of the things that will lead to the downfall of this civilisation. If profit is put first systematically - and it is, despite all the (often ill-conceived) tendencies that try to correct this deviation - then the ultimate end is a catastrophe - an environmental, humanitarian, moral, political, cultural one... it will destroy everything.

One of the main reasons why nobody wants to deal with this is that it is generally accepted that profit-seeking is inherently in human nature. And to eradicate ruthless profit-seeking (I am not talking about reasonable, proportionate profit - actually a fair remuneration for one's work of a banker, artisan, teacher, etc.) would mean to change people within. And no person, no politician, no religious leader can do that.
And that's why people cling to various views that are skewed and out of touch with the actual reality - because they do not like to face the fact that within their realm of thinking there is no solution to the current situation in Europe and in the world.

For example, the view I gathered from your posts is so confrontational IMO that it would lead to a really hard conflict between the inflow of immigrants and the original population; it would most probably escalate into a global war (not in the traditional sense, not between countries and nations but actually between people, to put it in simplified terms) and Europe would witness horrors that have been non-existent here for quite a long time.
But on the other hands, if Europe lets the immigrants in indiscriminately, I think it might amount to "importing hell", once again put in simplified terms.
So the only moral solution IMO is to screen the immigrants, not to let in war criminals, etc. But that is technically impossible due to the huge numbers that have already arrived and that will yet come.

So it's simple! There is no global systemic solution... Karma and history will simply run its course... But of course, as always, the actions of an individual matter...

And now I want a VWM's prize for all the posts I typed today .

 

[dionysus]

So with your oh-so-compassionate consciences, I would assume you would all be happy to take in a few 'refugees' in your spare room, donate your second car because you have two and buy them food and clothes? You are excellent at spending other peoples' money with your principles, so I assume that would extend to your personal means too?

Sure. I've taken in people and people have taken me in. So yes, ty, I am quite ok with this.
And by the way, 'other people's monies' is also portionally my monies. I DO pay my taxes.

 

[Janek12]

The simple fact is that unless you want Communism (everybody poor) there will always be richer and poorer nations. If Germany had the living standards of Albania, would 800,000 want to go there? Would they hell.

Just to reiterate my point, which I think you missed. I agree there will always be richer and poorer nations and there rightly should be - each nation, just as each person, should get only what they deserve according to their merits. But no nation should abuse its superiority, should ever encroach on the freedom of other nations, etc.; a superior nation should only offer cooperation (and should not abuse corrupt local leaders, etc.).

This might sound idealistic - but it is completely realistic; because any civilisation built on other premises is destined for a nasty downall (Roman empire is so frequently and perhaps sometimes mindlessly used as an example but it is really a fitting one, IMO).

 

[dionysus]

Well, in statistical terms, crime is nationality-related IMO. There is a reason why there is hell on Earth in many countries in Africa, Latin America, Middle East and even Asia. It is because a certain, sufficiently big critical mass of people there are quite horrible criminals. And they manage to create hell on Earth for others.

Laziness is also nationality-related IMO. As an extreme example: I read somewhere that there is a tribe of South American Indians who do not have the word for "work" .

BUT - nobody can see into other person's soul, so judging a specific person by their ethnicity is completely wrong.
As the Solzhenitsyn's very famous quote says "... the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. ..."

In other words, it is important, IMO, to distinguish between NATIONS, which have their characteristic traits, and between INDIVIDUALS, whose traits may be completely different or opposite to their NATION's traits.

Statistically crime relations may have as much to do with cirumstances - region, economics, supplies..ie govts, moreso than people innately by virtue of the colour of the their parents' skin.

And sure, perhaps a S. American tribe has no word for work. But barter or trade may well be one. Just because you don't punch a clock, doesnt mean you arent actively busy and contributing to your community.

 

[Janek12]

Can you imagine if people had TV after the RAF had 'carpet bombed' Hamburg in WWII for example showing the petrified corpses of families trapped in cellars and incinerated? Would it have weakened our resolve to defeat the Nazis?

It is off-topic but I cannot resist : Yes, IMO it would have been better if it could have been shown in TV and it should have weakened the resolve "to defeat the Nazis" by waging a war against Germany.
It seems to me as a complete madness to try to defeat evil with evil, killing with killing, violence with violence. As I said, I am a total pacifist. I refer to the Solzhenitsyn's quote once again.

Not to mention how complex and dark the background of WWI and WWII is and how the guilt for these wars lies with all the European nations and probably even the USA... I admit I am not the expert on this part of history but from what I have glimpsed... The current official version of history omits a lot of aspects IMO...

 

[Janek12]

Statistically crime relations may have as much to do with cirumstances - region, economics, supplies..ie govts, moreso than people innately by virtue of the colour of the their parents' skin.

And sure, perhaps a S. American tribe has no word for work. But barter or trade may well be one. Just because you don't punch a clock, doesnt mean you arent actively busy and contributing to your community.

Of course, there are many circumstances that can be statistically correlated to crime. I deliberately did not use the term "ethnic-related" because that is too broad, therefore I was not even mentioning colour of skin because that is even broader. You misunderstood what I wrote - I wrote nations and you read "races" "people with different colours of skin".

I really think that there are distinct characteristic traits in nations; for example, I recommend reading a history of Albanian people - the blood feuds, the violence... The specific towers without doors that they built where men, engaged in blood feuds, stayed for many years, while women had to work in the fields and do everything else... The capital called Tirana ... And compare them with us Czechs who are too lazy to get up from our glass of beer, let alone fight and engage in violence ... (at least for the last couple of hundreds of years)

 

[dionysus]

And compare them with us Czechs who are too lazy to get up from our glass of beer, let alone fight and engage in violence ... (at least for the last couple of hundreds of years)

I blame our cold and surplus of beer as well.

 

[spintee]

Edit:: For another day

 

[interlog]

You fled Syria and managed to get to Turkey. You find a job and have a good life.

But no, that is not good enough so you go to Sweden to claim asylum.

Is that a piss take?

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Why is that those fleeing a war country and land in a country that is free of war are not satisfied and go and seek the wealth? They are not the real asylum seekers but are the economical migrants that any country can ill afford to have when some of their own population is struggling to rub two pennies together and need to be supported by others and their own Government.

 

[SlotMonster]

Hundreds of refugees stranded outside Budapest's main international railway station have protested for two days as authorities block them from travelling to other countries.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Also, I found very interesting article on Wikipedia regarding Dublin Regulation:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

The Dublin Regulation aims to “determine rapidly the Member State responsible [for an asylum claim]”[1] and provides for the transfer of an asylum seeker to that Member State. Usually, the responsible Member State will be the state through which the asylum seeker first entered the EU.

 

[gagamel]

You are brainwashed by the liberal media, like many. They choose not to supply 'inconvenient' facts.
Unfortunately I can back up my points (unlike you) with some true statistics.

Anti-female violence/rape: (unless the Norwegian Police are lying about it.)

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Sweden:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Link Removed (Old/Invalid)

Welfare/dependency:

Simply search, over 30% in Scandinavian cities.

P.S. Slotmonster makes a valid point - why indeed are we in the EU 'responsible' for the world's Islamic population? Surely the last place they would want to be is with us 'dogs' 'infidels' and 'imperialists'? They made it clear they didn't want the Europeans in their countries after WWII and their religion is diametrically opposed to most facets of our way of life. So why? Wouldn't be money, would it? Most have paid huge sums respective to their societies to be trafficked here, again why? An investment? And yes, I do know the difference between 95% (chancers) and 5% (refugees) and to that I simply add:

Under the UNCHR and EU Dublin treaty, a refugee should seek asylum in the FIRST safe nation they get to. Not the UK, not Germany, Sweden, Austria. In reality it's like a supermarket sweep when a reporter asks them in Greece "!Where to?" and the shouts go up 'YOOKAY' 'SJERMANY' or 'SWAYDEN'. It's a complete shambles and we are not legally required to, and should not take ANY in.

Name of the Youtube site: CrushtheIslam

Gatestone Institute: A well known antiislamic society

Muslimstatistics: Linked to Gatestone institute

To use informations from these sources is like asking the Ku Klux Klan how to deal with coloured People.

Does anyone here really believe that 100% of all rapists in Norway are muslim immigrants ?

 

[spintee]

Name of the Youtube site: CrushtheIslam

Gatestone Institute: A well known antiislamic society

Muslimstatistics: Linked to Gatestone institute

To use informations from these sources is like asking the Ku Klux Klan how to deal with coloured People.

Does anyone here really believe that 100% of all rapists in Norway are muslim immigrants ?

And theres a good reason why there are you tube channels/ & Gatestone Institutes. Do you think they just got together one day and said lets pick a religion to go after? Have a think about it,

 

[gagamel]

And theres a good reason why there are you tube channels/ & Gatestone Institutes. Do you think they just got together one day and said lets pick a religion to go after? Have a think about it,

Yes I think so.

 

[vinylweatherman]

You fled Syria and managed to get to Turkey. You find a job and have a good life.

But no, that is not good enough so you go to Sweden to claim asylum.

Is that a piss take?

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Why is that those fleeing a war country and land in a country that is free of war are not satisfied and go and seek the wealth? They are not the real asylum seekers but are the economical migrants that any country can ill afford to have when some of their own population is struggling to rub two pennies together and need to be supported by others and their own Government.

The system is broken. If it worked exactly as intended, then the countries at the edge of the EU would get all the asylum claims, and those further in would be taking none. Claiming asylum in any given EU country should not prevent a further application to resettle in a different EU country once an asylum claim has been accepted. It seems that those in Hungary fear that by being processed there, they will be condemned to settling there for life. I very much doubt that Hungary would put up with this, and if all the refugees did as they were supposed to and registered in Hungary, we would see Hungary demanding that other EU countries take a portion as their fair share.

Britain has agreed to take 4000, but NONE can actually claim asylum in Britain by following the correct procedure of claiming in the first EU country they arrive in, therefore in saying that we will accept 4000, all 4000 will have to be the result of an agreed variation in the rules for claiming asylum. It's a concept that should have all the people smugglers signing on at the Jobcentre in due course if both refugees and host countries can get it working in a way that is trusted. There have also been a number of people who have come forward to offer a place in their own homes for a few refugee families.

Just now, an Egyptian billionaire has offered to buy some deserted islands from Greece and resettle thousands of refugees at his own personal expense. This offer should not be rejected simply because of politics, but should be made to work as it would both ease the burden of numbers and reduce the expense for a cash strapped country like Greece. It's possible that if this goes ahead, it might spur other overly rich persons into making similar offers. The Egyptian offer was that a group of refugees would be given the means to build themselves a community on these deserted islands that would end up not being a burden to any other community (other than the billionaire funding it). Of course, if this is scuppered by politics, he could consider a "floating city" in international waters, which should just about be possible with modern technology, and would be an interesting way to test the concept in a real world setting.