Migration Megathread

RandomName2 · 07-04-2019 10:55pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, you did. While you were trawling through my posts, you seem to have missed this one of yours:

No, it doesn't. Don't quote a newspaper article in support of your claim; quote me.

Either that journalist's opinion is on the table or off the table. You can't have it both ways. I don't actually care either way, but it seems strange of you to ignore the quote from that journalist, and then subsequently hold it up like it is some triumph.

oscarBravo wrote: »

into obligations on asylum seekers

I don't care about this. You clearly do, presumably because, by some rhetorical device, you previously won an argument in relation to the Dublin regulation. Because individuals, like the aforementioned journalist generally sum the regulation up as 'refugees have to seek asylum in the first country they enter in the EU'.

Well in practical terms they do. They generally have to by circumstance. The circumstance being that the state is legally obliged to make them.

Was that your great comeback oscarbravo?

I don't care whether or not the legislation says that illegal immigrants are obliged to be processed in the first EU country they enter. It makes no difference to my argument that the eastern European countries are enforcing the rules by blocking migrants who have already entered the EU from travelling through their countries.

So.. eastern Europe.. Dublin regulation. I sense you have nothing more to say on the matter (although in truth all you had to begin with was asking me to define it in the hopes of being able to poke holes in the definition provided)

oscarBravo wrote: »

Conflating asylum seekers with criminals? Classy.

Conflation and analogy are not synonymous. Also the preferred term is irregular civic actors, not criminals, thank you.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not opposed to the legislation.

Of course you're not.

oscarBravo · 08-04-2019 10:30am

RandomName2 wrote: »

No, it doesn't. Don't quote a newspaper article in support of your claim; quote me.

Either that journalist's opinion is on the table or off the table. You can't have it both ways. I don't actually care either way, but it seems strange of you to ignore the quote from that journalist, and then subsequently hold it up like it is some triumph.

Ah, OK. I see what you did: you quoted a newspaper article, without either quote tags or quotation marks. I thought I was quoting you, when in fact I was quoting someone you were quoting.

The journalist is still wrong. By quoting him in support of your argument, you're still wrong also.

...individuals, like the aforementioned journalist generally sum the regulation up as 'refugees have to seek asylum in the first country they enter in the EU'.

Yes, some people sum the Regulation up that way. Summing it up that way is wrong, because the Regulation doesn't say that. It doesn't matter how convenient a shorthand description is, if that shorthand description is wrong.

Well in practical terms they do. They generally have to by circumstance. The circumstance being that the state is legally obliged to make them.

No, it isn't.

I'll keep repeating this, because you keep desperately trying to find ways of pretending it isn't true:

The Dublin Regulation imposes no obligations whatsoever on asylum seekers.

I'll expand that assertion further:

The Dublin Regulation imposes no obligations on asylum seekers, either directly or indirectly through the obligations it imposes on member states.

If that assertion is untrue, it will be easy to disprove by reference to the text of the Regulation.

I don't care whether or not the legislation says that illegal immigrants are obliged to be processed in the first EU country they enter. It makes no difference to my argument that the eastern European countries are enforcing the rules...

Oh come on. When did you stop even pretending to try to make sense?

How can you argue that countries are enforcing the rules, when - by your own admission - you don't even care whether or not what they are enforcing even are the rules?

Also: "illegal immigrants"? I thought we were talking about asylum seekers. Or is this one of those situations where you don't care about definitions, because you've got strongly held views that are more important to you than mere facts?

So.. eastern Europe.. Dublin regulation. I sense you have nothing more to say on the matter (although in truth all you had to begin with was asking me to define it in the hopes of being able to poke holes in the definition provided)

Anything I have to say on the matter has at least the merit of being based on the text of the Regulation itself, rather than on specious "I don't care what the legislation says" interpretations of it.

RandomName2 · 08-04-2019 12:36pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah, OK. I see what you did: you quoted a newspaper article, without either quote tags or quotation marks. I thought I was quoting you, when in fact I was quoting someone you were quoting.

The journalist is still wrong. By quoting him in support of your argument, you're still wrong also. Yes, some people sum the Regulation up that way. Summing it up that way is wrong, because the Regulation doesn't say that. It doesn't matter how convenient a shorthand description is, if that shorthand description is wrong. No, it isn't.

I'll keep repeating this, because you keep desperately trying to find ways of pretending it isn't true:

The Dublin Regulation imposes no obligations whatsoever on asylum seekers.

I'll expand that assertion further:

The Dublin Regulation imposes no obligations on asylum seekers, either directly or indirectly through the obligations it imposes on member states.

If that assertion is untrue, it will be easy to disprove by reference to the text of the Regulation. Oh come on. When did you stop even pretending to try to make sense?

How can you argue that countries are enforcing the rules, when - by your own admission - you don't even care whether or not what they are enforcing even are the rules?

Also: "illegal immigrants"? I thought we were talking about asylum seekers. Or is this one of those situations where you don't care about definitions, because you've got strongly held views that are more important to you than mere facts? Anything I have to say on the matter has at least the merit of being based on the text of the Regulation itself, rather than on specious "I don't care what the legislation says" interpretations of it.

Eastern European governments.

Dublin regulation.

Do you support their implementation of it?

This is the third time you are being asked this question. This is the argument, and your ignoratio elenchi that there is no responsibility for non-citizens of the EU who irregularly enter the EU to not attempt to go to their country of preference within the EU is wearing thin.

You asked me to provide a definition. I did so. You asked me to provide a definition based on the actual text. I did so.

Eastern European governments.

Dublin regulation.

Do you support their implementation of it?

I would have thought this would be an easy question to answer. One has to wonder why you refuse to answer it.

Eastern European governments.

Dublin regulation.

Do you support their implementation of it?

oscarBravo · 08-04-2019 1:00pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

I don't care whether or not the legislation says that illegal immigrants are obliged to be processed in the first EU country they enter.

RandomName2 wrote: »

You asked me to provide a definition based on the actual text. I did so.

No, you didn't.

RandomName2 · 08-04-2019 1:31pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, you didn't.

I did. You weren't interested in it, but I did it.

Fourth time

Eastern European governments.

Dublin regulation.

Do you support their implementation of it?

Brian? · 08-04-2019 1:47pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

I did. You weren't interested in it, but I did it.

You absolutely did not. You quoted a passage on the obligations of the member states, not the asylum seekers themselves.

RandomName2 · 08-04-2019 2:04pm

Brian? wrote: »

You absolutely did not. You quoted a passage on the obligations of the member states, not the asylum seekers themselves.

I absolutely did not quote the recipe for a milkshake. Don't dare say I gave you the recipe for a milkshake! There was no listing of milkshake ingredients.

However, there was a definition based on the actual text which is what I said.

RandomName2 wrote: »

You asked me to provide a definition. I did so. You asked me to provide a definition based on the actual text.

I know what this is! This is lobster logic!

Prop: Eastern European states are enforcing the Dublin regulations.
Op: So you're erroneously saying that there is an obligation on asylum seekers.

Lobster logic is only one step down from ad hominem in terms of how nauseatingly stupid it is. If you can't argue the point, redirect.

Brian? · 08-04-2019 2:20pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

I absolutely did not quote the recipe for a milkshake. Don't dare say I gave you the recipe for a milkshake! There was no listing of milkshake ingredients.

However, there was a definition based on the actual text which is what I said.

I know what this is! This is lobster logic!

Prop: Eastern European states are enforcing the Dublin regulations.
Op: So you're erroneously saying that there is an obligation on asylum seekers.

Lobster logic is only one step down from ad hominem in terms of how nauseatingly stupid it is. If you can't argue the point, redirect.

I find it interesting that you're vehemently defending a statement that is factually incorrect, while calling other posters stupid. I don't have a fancy name for it like you throw around sorry.

RandomName2 · 08-04-2019 3:30pm

Brian? wrote: »

I find it interesting that you're vehemently defending a statement that is factually incorrect, while calling other posters stupid. I don't have a fancy name for it like you throw around sorry.

If you have such a strong opinion about the Irish Times feel free to write in to complain to them. My argument was, and is, that those who are opposed to the way in which eastern European countries have handled the migrant crisis are in favor of illegal immigration.

And red herrings are a stupid way of arguing a subject. It is stupid to send someone off on a wild goose chase when you have no interest in the salient point of their argument, and it is frankly embarrassing to be thanking oscarbravo's use of such a technique. The fact that the red herring is transparent just makes it slightly amusing.

It is not mere pedanticism, which would be just dull, it is clearly misdirection, and the misdirection suits you because the ends justify the means.

If you like you could say that the burden is unfair on Greece or something, but I mean, I'm not going to do the arguing for you: you're going to have to do that graft yourself if you're interested enough.

Edit: actually, I'm going to pick you up on 'vehemently defending'. Show me where I vehemently defend Patrick Smyth. I would be really interested if you could do that Brian? Where I vehemently defend Patrick Smyth. Going to say it again so that we are clear. Where I vehemently defend the writings of Patrick Smyth.

Brian? · 08-04-2019 6:13pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

If you have such a strong opinion about the Irish Times feel free to write in to complain to them. My argument was, and is, that those who are opposed to the way in which eastern European countries have handled the migrant crisis are in favor of illegal immigration.

Your underlying point is wrong. You brought up a a regulation about how EU states agreed to treat asylum seekers. Which is noting to do with illegal immigration. They only become illegal immigrants if they stay once they’ve been refused asylum. They are not breaking the law by not claiming asylum in the first country they land in. They haven’t done anything illegal to be called illegal immigrants yet.

And red herrings are a stupid way of arguing a subject. It is stupid to send someone off on a wild goose chase when you have no interest in the salient point of their argument, and it is frankly embarrassing to be thanking oscarbravo's use of such a technique. The fact that the red herring is transparent just makes it slightly amusing.

The only red herring here is you bringing up the Dublin agreement in relation to illegal immigrants. I’m not sure you actually understand that though.

It is not mere pedanticism, which would be just dull, it is clearly misdirection, and the misdirection suits you because the ends justify the means.

If you like you could say that the burden is unfair on Greece or something, but I mean, I'm not going to do the arguing for you: you're going to have to do that graft yourself if you're interested enough.

It’s not pedantic point out that you’re calling asylum seekers “illegal immigrants” when they haven’t done anything illegal. Sometimes it’s important to be factually correct. That’s not pedantry, that’s reality.

Edit: actually, I'm going to pick you up on 'vehemently defending'. Show me where I vehemently defend Patrick Smyth. I would be really interested if you could do that Brian? Where I vehemently defend Patrick Smyth. Going to say it again so that we are clear. Where I vehemently defend the writings of Patrick Smyth.

The false outrage is unbecoming. You've spent a few pages defending the position that asylum seekers become illegal immigrants when they don’t claim asylum in the first EU country they land in. You brought up the Dublin agreement, you clearly misunderstood the regulations, I have a suspicion because of the constant misinformation out there about it.

So yeah, vehemently defending something that’s plainly incorrect.

RandomName2 · 08-04-2019 7:49pm

Brian? wrote: »

Your underlying point is wrong. You brought up a a regulation about how EU states agreed to treat asylum seekers. Which is noting to do with illegal immigration.

Asylum shopping has nothing to do with illegal immigration. That is your reply.

Well, it is actually a reply to my original argument, and for that you get good marks. However the logic of your statement is.. well it's not great. Asylum shopping clearly has a very significant role in terms of illegal immigration. It acts as a major incentive for illegal entry in the first place.

Numbers entering the EU have massively declined. Now this is multifaceted, but part of the reason is the difficulty of migrants attempting to move from country to country, in contravention of the Dublin regulation.

If you don't believe that asylum shopping is a thing (and I'm very well prepared to believe that you don't), just take a look as the relative numbers of people claiming asylum in Germany and Sweden compared to Bulgaria or Italy. Again, I'll just point it out in case it's necessary, although both Sweden and Germany have coastlines, the North Sea is not a significant route of access into the EU. By not significant, I mean negligible. By negligible I mean it can be discounted.

Brian? wrote: »

They only become illegal immigrants if they stay once they’ve been refused asylum. They are not breaking the law by not claiming asylum in the first country they land in. They haven’t done anything illegal to be called illegal immigrants yet.

Except for illegally entering
https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/content/irregular-entry-0_en

Wait, why am I replying to this part. My argument was that people who are against the eastern European states' enforcement of the Dublin regulation are in favor of illegal immigration. I wonder if you could find someone that is pro-border enforcement and pro immigration? I think it would be difficult.

Brian? wrote: »

The only red herring here is you bringing up the Dublin agreement in relation to illegal immigrants. I’m not sure you actually understand that though.

My proposition was that people who do not support eastern European states' enforcement of the Dublin regulation are in favor of illegal immigration.

Brian? wrote: »

It’s not pedantic point out that you’re calling asylum seekers “illegal immigrants” when they haven’t done anything illegal. Sometimes it’s important to be factually correct. That’s not pedantry, that’s reality.

Irregular is the preferred terminology by the organs of the EU, and..

My proposition was that people who do not support eastern European states' enforcement of the Dublin regulation are in favor of illegal immigration.

Brian? wrote: »

The false outrage is unbecoming.

It's not outrage. You go on in a pedantic style so I decided to be pedantic back. Show me where I vehemently defend Patrick Smyth. I would be really interested if you could do that Brian? Where I vehemently defend Patrick Smyth. Going to say it again so that we are clear. Where I vehemently defend the writings of Patrick Smyth.

You cannot, because I did not. I will assume your mistake to be honest, but I think it would be a poor choice for you to double down on your error.

Brian? wrote: »

You've spent a few pages defending the position that asylum seekers become illegal immigrants when they don’t claim asylum in the first EU country they land in.

My proposition was that people who do not support eastern European states' enforcement of the Dublin regulation are in favor of illegal immigration.

Brian? wrote: »

You brought up the Dublin agreement, you clearly misunderstood the regulations, I have a suspicion because of the constant misinformation out there about it.

My proposition was that people who do not support eastern European states' enforcement of the Dublin regulation are in favor of illegal immigration.

Now I didn't really consider this to be a particularly important argument, you understand, but I find it interesting that my proposition is entirely ignored. You asked for a profile assessment of someone who I think is in favor of illegal immigration. I gave it, and oscarbravo decided to lazily single out the Dublin regulation, out of the profile I gave, because it was a ground that he felt comfortable on. He didn't really make much use out of it though. I guess it has worked out better for him in the past doing that sort of tangent.

You, as you tend to, have been beating to death a definition of what obligations those who illrrrregularly enter the EU are under. But that doesn't respond to my proposition.

My proposition was that people who do not support eastern European states' enforcement of the Dublin regulation are in favor of illegal immigration.

Brian? · 08-04-2019 8:40pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

Asylum shopping has nothing to do with illegal immigration. That is your reply.

Well, it is actually a reply to my original argument, and for that you get good marks. However the logic of your statement is.. well it's not great. Asylum shopping clearly has a very significant role in terms of illegal immigration. It acts as a major incentive for illegal entry in the first place.

Numbers entering the EU have massively declined. Now this is multifaceted, but part of the reason is the difficulty of migrants attempting to move from country to country, in contravention of the Dublin regulation.

If you don't believe that asylum shopping is a thing (and I'm very well prepared to believe that you don't), just take a look as the relative numbers of people claiming asylum in Germany and Sweden compared to Bulgaria or Italy. Again, I'll just point it out in case it's necessary, although both Sweden and Germany have coastlines, the North Sea is not a significant route of access into the EU. By not significant, I mean negligible. By negligible I mean it can be discounted.

Except for illegally entering
https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/content/irregular-entry-0_en

Wait, why am I replying to this part. My argument was that people who are against the eastern European states' enforcement of the Dublin regulation are in favor of illegal immigration. I wonder if you could find someone that is pro-border enforcement and pro immigration? I think it would be difficult.

My proposition was that people who do not support eastern European states' enforcement of the Dublin regulation are in favor of illegal immigration.

Irregular is the preferred terminology by the organs of the EU, and..

My proposition was that people who do not support eastern European states' enforcement of the Dublin regulation are in favor of illegal immigration.

It's not outrage. You go on in a pedantic style so I decided to be pedantic back. Show me where I vehemently defend Patrick Smyth. I would be really interested if you could do that Brian? Where I vehemently defend Patrick Smyth. Going to say it again so that we are clear. Where I vehemently defend the writings of Patrick Smyth.

You cannot, because I did not. I will assume your mistake to be honest, but I think it would be a poor choice for you to double down on your error.

My proposition was that people who do not support eastern European states' enforcement of the Dublin regulation are in favor of illegal immigration.

My proposition was that people who do not support eastern European states' enforcement of the Dublin regulation are in favor of illegal immigration.

Now I didn't really consider this to be a particularly important argument, you understand, but I find it interesting that my proposition is entirely ignored. You asked for a profile assessment of someone who I think is in favor of illegal immigration. I gave it, and oscarbravo decided to lazily single out the Dublin regulation, out of the profile I gave, because it was a ground that he felt comfortable on. He didn't really make much use out of it though. I guess it has worked out better for him in the past doing that sort of tangent.

You, as you tend to, have been beating to death a definition of what obligations those who illrrrregularly enter the EU are under. But that doesn't respond to my proposition.

My proposition was that people who do not support eastern European states' enforcement of the Dublin regulation are in favor of illegal immigration.

Your proposition that people who do not support eastern European states enforcement of the Dublin regulation are in favor of illegal immigration is wrong. Because how you define illegal immigration is incorrect. I really can't make this any more simple.

For what it's worth, I have no problem with countries applying the Dublin regulation and deporting asylum seekers to other EU countries to have their application processed. As long as it's done humanely, keeping family units intact etc., and it's done consistently in all cases. Neither of which are guaranteed.

Eric Cartman · 08-04-2019 9:24pm

possibly getting pedantic with this, but using the below definition, if a person arrives at an EU country, having travelled through another EU country, are they no longer trying to be considered refugees as the EU country they came from does not meet the defenition of fearful persecution for them not to return. Theoretically any asylum seeker who has even spent one evening sleeping in another EU jurisdiction is not a genuine asylum seeker in any other.

https://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/information-and-referral-service/law-centre-information

RandomName2 · 08-04-2019 9:28pm

Brian? wrote: »

Your proposition that people who do not support eastern European states enforcement of the Dublin regulation are in favor of illegal immigration is wrong. Because how you define illegal immigration is incorrect. I really can't make this any more simple.

Immigration is illegal if it breaks the law (or in this case the rules of the EU). We can leave aside the fact that irregular entry into the EU is synonymous for illegal entry into the EU (and entry into the EU is immigration) because I was only talking about internal migration (which for the record might include leaving and reentering the EU).

I was talking about a particular rule where it is mandatory that asylum seekers, if entering irregularly, be processed in the first country in the EU that they enter. This rule is part of the Dublin regulations. People who are opposed to this are in favor of illegal immigration. I really can't make this any more simple.

Brian? wrote: »

For what it's worth, I have no problem with countries applying the Dublin regulation and deporting asylum seekers to other EU countries to have their application processed. As long as it's done humanely, keeping family units intact etc., and it's done consistently in all cases. Neither of which are guaranteed.

It is easier to solve a problem before it becomes one. Stopping asylum seekers from leaving the first country is typically easier than the second (or third/forth) country deporting them to the first country for the first country to process them.

Sand · 08-04-2019 9:47pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

It is easier to solve a problem before it becomes one. Stopping asylum seekers from leaving the first country is typically easier than the second (or third/forth) country deporting them to the first country for the first country to process them.

It is certainly safer for Europe's to protect the borders of the EU rather than permit undocumented, unknown individuals - mostly young men - illegally enter the EU and travel throughout it unimpeded. The Paris 2015 attacks were carried out by ISIS cells who took advantage of Merkels invitation to travel past the border to Germany to enter Europe from Syria, travel to Paris and murder & maim hundreds of people. If the choice is between the safety of Europeans or the supposed right of non-Europeans to seek out the best welfare state in the EU, I choose the Europeans.

MrFresh · 09-04-2019 1:38pm

Sand wrote: »

The Paris 2015 attacks were carried out by ISIS cells who took advantage of Merkels invitation to travel past the border to Germany to enter Europe from Syria, travel to Paris and murder & maim hundreds of people.

Have you got a source for this claim? As far as I know, 7 of the 9 perpetrators were EU nationals as well as the organiser and cell leader.

James Brown · 09-04-2019 4:25pm

Every society has it's elements of nasty people who will bend any religion or philosophy to suit their will.

It is still unclear who or what is responsible for the burning of three historically black Louisiana churches in 10 days.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/09/us/tuesday-black-church-fires/index.html

We do't see threads or 'politicians' talking about vetting or banning Christians, specifically those coming from the U.S. region, we get our share of western illegals too. It's important to keep such stories as the above in mind when discussing labeling an entire religion or people from a particular region as a problem. One might expect as much vigour on this as with Muslim migration? There has been a decline in recent years yet it's seemingly some kind of crisis for the western way of life.

We need immigration policy but not a biased one based on treating individuals differently depending on their cultures or ethnic groups.

weisses · 09-04-2019 4:48pm

Sand wrote: »

It is certainly safer for Europe's to protect the borders of the EU rather than permit undocumented, unknown individuals - mostly young men - illegally enter the EU and travel throughout it unimpeded. The Paris 2015 attacks were carried out by ISIS cells who took advantage of Merkels invitation to travel past the border to Germany to enter Europe from Syria, travel to Paris and murder & maim hundreds of people. If the choice is between the safety of Europeans or the supposed right of non-Europeans to seek out the best welfare state in the EU, I choose the Europeans.

Most of them were Europeans ... one of the key figures was born and raised in Belgium

I know facts can be inconvenient

tretorn · 09-04-2019 5:05pm

weisses wrote: »

Most of them were Europeans ... one of the key figures was born and raised in Belgium

I know facts can be inconvenient

Which is the exact reason why we should limit numbers arriving from Muslim countries to people applying for asylum legally. We should be encouraging Libya and Turkey to take refugees off dinghys and land them in Muslim countries.

The best move ever was to take those NGO boats including the Irish ones out of the Mediterranean, this was encouraging people smugglers and hordes of Africans to ply a trade trying to access European countries illegally. Every picture of those hundreds of young black males meant more and more people turning to right wing Politicans because they speak the language of people worried about uncontrolled immigration. Merkel thought she was doing the right thing by opening Germanys borders but all this did was encourage another few hundred thousand more to leave their country enticed here by selfies posed by those Merkel let in.

Midlife · 09-04-2019 6:26pm

tretorn wrote: »

Which is the exact reason why we should limit numbers arriving from Muslim countries to people applying for asylum legally.

Shouldn't we just limit all illegal immigration?

4068ac1elhodqr · 09-04-2019 7:17pm

weisses wrote: »

Most of them were Europeans ... one of the key figures was born and raised in Belgium

I know facts can be inconvenient

These 'Europeans' (below)?.

Some may have been born in Europe (2nd generation migrants), but they had zero affinity to Europe, or any interest in it's future.

Indeed they rejected Europe, living 'un-integrated'. Then extinguished the everyday freedoms that some actual Europeans enjoy, such as going to a music concert, football match, visiting a cafe, having a beer and so on.

RandomName2 · 09-04-2019 7:34pm

weisses wrote: »

Most of them were Europeans ... one of the key figures was born and raised in Belgium

I know facts can be inconvenient

Sand strictly speaking was wrong. Almost all the terrorists in France and Belgium in 2015/2016 (there were numerous attacks) were by French and Belgium nationals. Although ISIS publicly stated that they intended to send attackers to Europe, most of their members were radicalized second generation nationals.

This is way, way worse. It is deeply alarming that people born and raised in a country would have no loyalty to that country. It is too simplistic to blame Islam for this, as it often seems that radicalized second generation migrants come from very non-radicalized families.

It is undeniable that every civilian death related to terrorism in the EU in the last 10 years has been perpetrated by Muslim assailants. However, more telling perhaps is that every terrorist attack in the last 30 years in the EU has been a clash of cultures (this is usually summed up as 'separatist', but both the IRA and ETA for instance are more defined by their cultural nationalism than political aspirations).

I think it is pretty alarming if religious identity takes precedence over national one, and with these second generation terrorists, those who facilitated them, and those who sympathized with them, that clearly has been the case. I don't know whether this is a failure on the part of governments to adequately integrate immigrants, or if the difference of culture and creed in itself makes the likelihood of integration far lower. Either way, this demands consideration.

RandomName2 · 09-04-2019 7:45pm

tretorn wrote: »

Deleted post.

That isn't a terrorist attack, it is just crime. Even were it a terrorist attack, and it's not, I don't think any isolated case is ever going to add much to the discussion.

Timberrrrrrrr · 09-04-2019 7:50pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

Sand strictly speaking was wrong. Almost all the terrorists in France and Belgium in 2015/2016 (there were numerous attacks) were by French and Belgium nationals. Although ISIS publicly stated that they intended to send attackers to Europe, most of their members were radicalized second generation nationals.

This is way, way worse. It is deeply alarming that people born and raised in a country would have no loyalty to that country. It is too simplistic to blame Islam for this, as it often seems that radicalized second generation migrants come from very non-radicalized families.

It is undeniable that every civilian death related to terrorism in the EU in the last 10 years has been perpetrated by Muslim assailants. However, more telling perhaps is that every terrorist attack in the last 30 years in the EU has been a clash of cultures (this is usually summed up as 'separatist', but both the IRA and ETA for instance are more defined by their cultural nationalism than political aspirations).

I think it is pretty alarming if religious identity takes precedence over national one, and with these second generation terrorists, those who facilitated them, and those who sympathized with them, that clearly has been the case. I don't know whether this is a failure on the part of governments to adequately integrate immigrants, or if the difference of culture and creed in itself makes the likelihood of integration far lower. Either way, this demands consideration.

Ever hear of a chap named Anders Brevik?

tretorn · 09-04-2019 7:52pm

It isnt an isolated case, its a pattern developing and its not just in the taxi service. There is a problem with Pakistani men and their attitude to young white women. You can be assured that they wont put their paws near a woman of their own race, well they might if she goes out without being covered up and if she isnt covered up then she has asked for it.

I cant believe the bail conditions set mean this man isnt allowed to have female passengers in the front of his taxi, does this mean he is still allowed to drive taxis with these allegations against him, words fail me.

We will never successfully integrate people like this and No, it isnt the fault of the Government, the Government will provide housing and welfare payments and education and health care to refugees and economic migrants and still we have these cases before the courts continually.

MrFresh · 09-04-2019 8:06pm

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

These 'Europeans' (below)?.

Some may have been born in Europe (2nd generation migrants), but they had zero affinity to Europe, or any interest in it's future.

Indeed they rejected Europe, living 'un-integrated'. Then extinguished the everyday freedoms that some actual Europeans enjoy, such as going to a music concert, football match, visiting a cafe, having a beer and so on.

So it seems you've made up your own definition of what a European is. That's one way to prove a point I suppose.

RandomName2 wrote: »

It is undeniable that every civilian death related to terrorism in the EU in the last 10 years has been perpetrated by Muslim assailants.

It's very deniable because it simply isn't true. It's a flat out lie.

RandomName2 · 09-04-2019 8:06pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ever hear of a chap named Anders Brevik?

So Timberrrrrrrr, your posts in this thread haven't been very good. Not deliberate thread derailment like oscarbravo, but not good.

I think knowing what countries are and are not in the EU is expected in a political discussion forum.

Edit: with Odhinn thanking this I now know that if someone farts in my general direction, he'd thank the fart.

MrFresh wrote: »

It's very deniable because it simply isn't true. It's a flat out lie.

It's not just a flat out lie, it's a super lie. One so lying you don't need any actual evidence to refute it.

MrFresh · 09-04-2019 8:11pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

So Timberrrrrrrr, your posts in this thread haven't been very good. Not deliberate thread derailment like oscarbravo, but not good.

I think knowing what countries are and are not in the EU is expected in a political discussion forum.

It's not just a flat out lie, it's a super lie. One so lying you don't need any actual evidence to refute it.

What about the murder of Jo Cox and the Finsbury Park Mosque vehicle attack?

RandomName2 · 09-04-2019 8:23pm

MrFresh wrote: »

What about the murder of Jo Cox

Like with treton I am going to reprimand you for talking about crime when we are talking about terrorism

MrFresh wrote: »

Finsbury Park Mosque vehicle attack?

I hadn't forgotten the single victim of this attack, but this was complicated by the fact that the victim in this case had suffered from a very serious medical incident unrelated to the attack. If I remember correctly he had already collapsed in the street prior to the attack. It is debatable if he would have died anyway even had an attack not occurred (there was a question mark over whether it was heart failure?) though the attack certainly wouldn't have helped.

4068ac1elhodqr · 09-04-2019 8:33pm

MrFresh wrote: »

So it seems you've made up your own definition of what a European is..

Seems you're keen to empahsis the 'europeaness' of these folks, the leader born and 'raised' in belgium as you mention, but not a lot else.

Hardly 'typical Europeans' that you might have been trying to imply, are they?

Indeed wholly un-integrated, and 'raised' in an enclosed community that breeds anti-european views (to put it mildly), to the point of attempting to directly extinguish everyday European life.

Maybe you're right, and this is just what to expect in the Europe of the 21st century, across generations.

Migration Megathread

Comments