They do not have that power. They refuse but they must submit themselves to the federal government at the end
Last edited:
General / Off-Topic World refugee crisis
- Thread starter Surfinjo
- Start date
They do not have that power. They refuse but they must submit themselves to the federal government at the end
One of the worst consequences of the Orwellian manipulation of thought that has occurred since WW2 has been the way divergent opinions have become marginalised by negative association. It has of course been used a little too often and is beginning to fray. But it has meant that discussion of some ideas has been suppressed rather than being aired, as they should be in a healthy democracy.
This creates resentment and inevitably results in the eventual discrediting not just of the negative associations but potentially constructive ideas as well.
AIUI the scheme can be pushed through by a qualified majority vote. Of course, states can still refuse but they will be breaking EU law and thus subject to fines. I think it's only Schengen states that are subject to this.
From the current coverage, it seems that their real "ammunition" is the ability not to provide state assistance programmes. I'm not sure that the Federal government can step in and force state agencies to do this kind of stuff. As we see in Europe, the more generous states attract the most migrants in any case.
I think that's why a Europe wide "benefits" scheme is needed. If Germany offers free housing, healthcare and E500 a month whilst (say) Poland offers only hostels and E100 a month plus no work visa, then refugees will want to be in Germany. Even if placed in Poland they will use the free movement to travel to Germany to get the better deal (I would).
:
If we made the "deal" the same across europe that would reduce the incentive to move. If you also withdrew (or rather did not grant) the right to free movement through the EU to refugees that would reduce the movement.
:
Further conditions on refugee status would be an agreement to abide by your hosts laws and customs and to attend integration classes (language and cultural lessons but also serving as "parole officer" appointments where the refugees can be monitored and help with integration provided).
:
Finally, the work issue must be resolved. Large numbers of unemployed young men are fertile ground for discontent. If the refugees were allowed to work but subject to higher taxes (e.g. no personal allowance or higher NI or higher base rate) to help pay for their refugee status. Employment in the state sector, municipal jobs, caring, etc could be encouraged to make the refugee population busy.
:
I think the experiment in multiculturalism has been a mistake. It has resulted in "ghettos" of particular nationalities that don't integrate with mainstream society. It is terrible that there are Pakistani immigrants in arts of the uk who, after decades I. The uk, still don't speak English. Immigrant populations should be very strongly encouraged to engage with mainstream society. That doesn't mean be assimilated, a distinct cultural identity is to be applauded, just that they should not regard mainstream society as alien.
:
My own background is partly from outside Europe yet I would consider myself British albeit with some foreign history.
:
If we made the "deal" the same across europe that would reduce the incentive to move. If you also withdrew (or rather did not grant) the right to free movement through the EU to refugees that would reduce the movement.
:
Further conditions on refugee status would be an agreement to abide by your hosts laws and customs and to attend integration classes (language and cultural lessons but also serving as "parole officer" appointments where the refugees can be monitored and help with integration provided).
:
Finally, the work issue must be resolved. Large numbers of unemployed young men are fertile ground for discontent. If the refugees were allowed to work but subject to higher taxes (e.g. no personal allowance or higher NI or higher base rate) to help pay for their refugee status. Employment in the state sector, municipal jobs, caring, etc could be encouraged to make the refugee population busy.
:
I think the experiment in multiculturalism has been a mistake. It has resulted in "ghettos" of particular nationalities that don't integrate with mainstream society. It is terrible that there are Pakistani immigrants in arts of the uk who, after decades I. The uk, still don't speak English. Immigrant populations should be very strongly encouraged to engage with mainstream society. That doesn't mean be assimilated, a distinct cultural identity is to be applauded, just that they should not regard mainstream society as alien.
:
My own background is partly from outside Europe yet I would consider myself British albeit with some foreign history.
25 out of 50 : Half the nation's governors announce their state will refuse the Syrian refugees
OMG:-
Why does anyone need to respond to accusations against a religious deity? If you don't agree with what someone is saying, ignore them. Banning the ability to comment (even redicule) religion is a huge backward step, simply pandering to religions inability to move forward with the times.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Pat Condell said it perfectly months ago. See what he says here at about 4mins 47seconds. Scary!
To quote him... "Serious bloodshed is on the way..." And given what's just happened in Paris, he may be spot on!
[video=youtube;rIcltV7r-nM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIcltV7r-nM&t[/video]
Last edited:
The first secretary of the Socialist Party in France (currently in power), Mr Cambadélis said yesterday that "we enter into the years of blood"
That would mean the end of Schengen (which relies on open, unchecked borders). Which might well be the outcome, tbh.
If they refuse to sign, or sign but don't co-operate, what would we do? We've already decided they are refugees and thus in need of safe haven, remember.
More broadly, does it fit in with the multi-cultural approach to which Western Europe is so wedded (e.g. see the free speech issue mentioned by NeilF above)?
Europe already has painful levels of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment.
I agree. Hence my preference for making it possible for refugees to find safe haven closer to home.
Mine too. One grandmother barely spoke English; after a few years in school her children were fully integrated culturally and linguistically and could only be distinguished by looks. That's how immigration should work IMO.
Schengen always was one of the sillier pipe dreams. I hate to say this, but reading the various reactions and attitudes around Europe over the last 20 years I suspect it was, to a significant extent, inspired by and encouraged by the refusal of the UK to be involved.
It seems most of the problems in Europe are borne out of the one-upmanship of many of the EU ruling classes. What makes it all so laughable is how they each seek to portray themselves as being the wounded party while stirring the pot as vigorously as anyone. The UK seems to be especially skilled at that piece of nonsense.
Perhaps some small progress will be made because of this tragedy. But not enough.
I suspect not so much by preventing them moving through borders, but by preventing them settling in other countries. i.e. their refugee status would only be valid in the designated country. If they pitched up in another and were caught they would have no right to be in that other country.
Technically, they've decided they are refugees and in need of safe haven. We didn't appear in their home country and hoover them up, they made the choice (often an understandable choice) to travel to us. When they arrive at our borders they say "I am a refugee fleeing from XXXX please let me in and shelter me".
.
Remember their refugee status is still to be determined at the point of arrival. There will be numerous screenings to decide if someone genuinely is to be awarded refugee status by us.
.
I am proposing that the first test of their refugee status should be will they declare they are not a terrorist and that they will abide by their host country's laws and the refugee regulations.
.
The agreement would need to be mild, literally no more than "I am not a terrorist, I will abide by my host countries laws and my refugee status regulation.". Laws would need to be in place to say what "breaking of host countries laws" would constitute a big enough reason for ejection. Clearly a parking ticket or drunken disorderly or even petty theft would not (and should not be) enough grounds. I'd say serious intentional criminal offences, e.g. murder, attempted murder that level. The same with breaking the refugee regulations, small breaches would not be grounds for ejection, but absconding (i.e. moving countries without authorisation) might be.
.
If you are claiming asylum you are essentially saying that your life and wellbeing are under serious threat in your home country. if that is the case then you shouldn't balk at obeying some mild rules. If someone would rather risk the threat in their home country rather than agree to abide by our (almost always less restrictive than anywhere else in the world) laws, I'm going to say that that threat wasn't bad enough to be an asylum case in the first place.
I think that the MC experiment has failed. I'm not anti immigration per se but I don think that more effort (on both sides) needs to be made to integrate immigrant into the mainstream culture. That is not to say that immigrant populations must drop all their cultural history and adopt wholly British (or French or Dutch) culture. Part of what makes Britain great is it's merging of other cultures with it's mainstream culture. look at our cuisine, our music (a very successful export), our fashion, our language ("bungalow", "pyjamas", "bling") our sporting hero's, most of British culture is a mishmash of other cultures.
.
When I was a student in the 90's the main student area was predominantly Pakistani. All the street signs had Urdu translations underneath, there were posters of (who I now know to be) Osama Bin Laden with "Death to the infidel dogs" pasted on some of the lamp posts. Some of the residents literally spoke no English. They relied on their children to interface with the outside world. That was bad.
Yeah, this is why careful attention is needed so that the immigrant population doesn't outcompete the local population. on the other hand unemployed youth (either native or immigrant) is always going to lead to problems. So youth unemployment as a whole needs to be addressed.
Wholeheartedly agree. The best solution is to either remove the need for them to leave (peace in the Middle East!) and/or accommodate them much nearer to home. Frankly the gulf states also need to pick up the tab. it's is highly telling that the majority of the displaced Muslims are having to find sanctuary amongst the "infidel crusader" countries rather than being assisted by their brother Muslims.
I agree with this, but experience shows that people will not be deported to an unsafe place since it would breach their human rights. If it's safe enough to send someone back without breaching his human rights, it's safe enough that he wasn't a refugee in the first place.
That's quite an eye-opener.
That is true, so that is where some modification of the convention on human rights would be required, to place some minimum obligations on the asylum seekers, and I mean minimum. Essentially the obligation not to commit major crimes in the host country in order to remain an asylum candidate. Of course, at first there would be some appeals to define the nature of "major crimes", but once that's all set by precedent it should be pretty clear.
Yeah, strangely it never really felt threatening, we were just amused. We'd regularly stand with the immigrants in the queue for fish and chips and they were almost always very polite. I guess the whole "death to the unbelievers" thing was probably one or two hot heads.
.
The problem is that it is just a few hot heads who are tarnishing a whole religion. Having worked, socialised and lived with Muslims I don't really see Islam as incompatible with the British way of life any more than being Jewish, Buddhist or Sheik is. I see extreme and intolerant religion (be they Jihadists, the Westbro Baptist church, militant Jewish settlers etc) as incompatible with British culture.
That guy is a racist bigot who hates Islam and will find any excuse at all to decry it. There is no need to take him seriously at all.
For a start consider the demographics and logistics. Firstly there are 3,000,000 Muslims in the UK. Easily enough to create a serious threat to us. Yet in ten years there were less than 60 deaths due to terrorism by Muslims, by contrast there were over 300 deaths in police custody or people shot by police. As horrible as this might sound in the wake of the Paris attacks, the actual threat of terrorism to us as individuals is barely worth thinking about. It's a nonsense thing to worry about. Secondly terrorist attacks are, contrary to popular belief, not committed in the name of religion. In fact religion is a negative predictor of terrorism. (Dying to Win and, Scott Atran lecture for references)
Take a look at this:
That about sums up the insanity that is our response to terrorism.
Our response to the refugee crisis is something that I, as a European, am ashamed by. I think this guy sums it up best.
[video=youtube;KVV6_1Sef9M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVV6_1Sef9M[/video]
I must be a racist bigot too then, as I find his thought processes rather "spot on" most of the time...
I suspect in the next year or two Europe will regret its rather open door policy...
Last edited:
I agree with NeilF. A reasoned crititique of the essential ideas of a religion/political ideology is not racism. Misusing that word (as happens often, nowadays, to shut down unwelcome debate) is not helpful to anyone, in the long term.
Apparently Yoga is racist now...
Apparently Yoga is racist now...
I agree with NeilF. A reasoned crititique of the essential ideas of a religion/political ideology is not racism. Misusing that word (as happens often, nowadays, to shut down unwelcome debate) is not helpful to anyone, in the long term.
Apparently Yoga is racist now...
The key word there is "reasoned". There is nothing at all that is reasonable about Pat Condells rants.
When "critiques" of an entire culture revolve around things which aren't true then they aren't critiques. Do some looking. Or alternatively just read this. Lying about foreign cultures, religions, and races, and using a few bad examples from those places to sir up hatred is the very definition of bigotry.
Condell, like so many bigoted degenerates, starts with a premise (X is bad and we should all hate it) then searches for evidence to justify that premise. That is not how a "reasoned" mind works. You start without judgement, you look at the situation, and you formulate your opinion based upon what you find.
Maybe you could do some looking too, not at random internet apologism but at the scripture and history itself.
For example, compare the claim in your link that "Muhammad wanted his armies to fight like freaking hippies" with this.
Some hippies
Incidentally, here is a defense of the above incident.
So ... male captives executed in self-defence, and women/children not enslaved but taken into custody for their own protection
Last edited:
I'd say a core predictor for terrorism is the rejection or subordination of the laws and authorities of the land.
:
The IRA came from a fundamental rejection of British rule.
:
The Unabomber and other US domestic terrorists rejected the Federal government as a lawful authority.
:
Essentially, once you reject a country's laws you are no longer bound by them. Instead you are bound by the laws you have deemed legitimate.
:
So in the case of the IRA, they deemed themselves a legitimate army fighting under occupation. They deemed their targets legitimate targets (by their definition).
:
In the case of Islam inspired terrorism, there are some people who reject the laws of the west and instead consider the laws of Islam as interpreted by certain preacher legitimate. And here we have the problem. Once you accept a "divine" law as interpreted by someone as legitimate, you are extremely venerable to manipulation by the interpreter.
:
We see this with cults all the time. The cults reject outside authority in favour of their leadership and therefore what, to outsiders seem unthinkable actions, become acceptable.
:
The big difference is that, where previously you needed geographical proximity to exert the kinds of social pressure that is needed to maintain a "cult" like hold over members, social media allows this pressure to be brought remotely.
:
However, one of the key requirements for this to happen is an initial "alienation", that is a bias that the laws of the land are not necessarily the laws you should subscribe to. This is where religion can be a problem as, at it's core, every religion has the concept that there are higher laws than man made laws. Essentially religion (and it can be any religion) can act as a "rootkit" to allow people to be convinced that extreme acts are reasonable.
:
The IRA came from a fundamental rejection of British rule.
:
The Unabomber and other US domestic terrorists rejected the Federal government as a lawful authority.
:
Essentially, once you reject a country's laws you are no longer bound by them. Instead you are bound by the laws you have deemed legitimate.
:
So in the case of the IRA, they deemed themselves a legitimate army fighting under occupation. They deemed their targets legitimate targets (by their definition).
:
In the case of Islam inspired terrorism, there are some people who reject the laws of the west and instead consider the laws of Islam as interpreted by certain preacher legitimate. And here we have the problem. Once you accept a "divine" law as interpreted by someone as legitimate, you are extremely venerable to manipulation by the interpreter.
:
We see this with cults all the time. The cults reject outside authority in favour of their leadership and therefore what, to outsiders seem unthinkable actions, become acceptable.
:
The big difference is that, where previously you needed geographical proximity to exert the kinds of social pressure that is needed to maintain a "cult" like hold over members, social media allows this pressure to be brought remotely.
:
However, one of the key requirements for this to happen is an initial "alienation", that is a bias that the laws of the land are not necessarily the laws you should subscribe to. This is where religion can be a problem as, at it's core, every religion has the concept that there are higher laws than man made laws. Essentially religion (and it can be any religion) can act as a "rootkit" to allow people to be convinced that extreme acts are reasonable.