Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

absolutely H E R E T I C A L

[Silverthrone]

Here is for heresy. I hope Assad wins. Hah!

Well, him or anyone who can possibly cling on to that soap in the bath of a war zone it has become. Someone who is not a beard-chomping lunatic, of course. I say let the Russians have that prize, or offer a decent counter-bid.

Of course, it is worth to keep in mind that many of the migrants are not Syrian refugees. Many are Afghans and Africans (north and sub-Saharan). I doubt that stream will dry up when the Syrian one does. Then, with the most immediate emergency over, will come the question if moving to a richer nation for a better life is a valid reason of entry and asylum. There is also the question what will happen to the sentiment that Europe owes it to them to keep the borders relatively open, when the immediate crisis is over.

(And, naturally, what is decided tomorrow will decide what happens a few years down the line, when the really great droughts start kicking in. This will not be a good time for someone who indentifies doing the right thing as doing the thing that feels good. There will be a lot of awful descisions to take. Doing what would make one feel like a good person is not always the right thing to do, to help everyone.)

[Sheb]

Of course, it is worth to keep in mind that many of the migrants are not Syrian refugees. Many are Afghans and Africans (north and sub-Saharan). I doubt that stream will dry up when the Syrian one does. Then, with the most immediate emergency over, will come the question if moving to a richer nation for a better life is a valid reason of entry and asylum. There is also the question what will happen to the sentiment that Europe owes it to them to keep the borders relatively open, when the immediate crisis is over.

(And, naturally, what is decided tomorrow will decide what happens a few years down the line, when the really great droughts start kicking in. This will not be a good time for someone who indentifies doing the right thing as doing the thing that feels good. There will be a lot of awful descisions to take. Doing what would make one feel like a good person is not always the right thing to do, to help everyone.)

Uh, no, just leaving for a richer country is not enough to gain asylum. That has been solved. The issue is how to filter those from legitimate asylum claims.

[martinuzz]

Uh, no, just leaving for a richer country is not enough to gain asylum. That has been solved. The issue is how to filter those from legitimate asylum claims.

That's not even the main issue. Determining someone's place of origin isn't that hard in most cases. Main issues are the clogging of the legal system, and the countries the economic migrants come from, like for example Algeria and Morocco. They won't take them back, or at the very least, don't cooperate with their repatriation efficiently.

So first they get here, then they enter initial procedure, which determines they are not refugees but economic migrants and will need to go back where they came from. Then they appeal, and appeal to high court after that. By then, 4-5 years will have passed in legal procedures alone. Then, once they can't appeal any further, their country of origin will not take them back, because they lost their passport or somesuch. Can't put them on a plane if the recipient airport won't allow you to land.

Our government is currently looking into the possibility of forming refugee deals with Morocco and a few other countries that account for the main body of economic migrants, like the Turkey deal, as in, everyone arriving on their own power will be immediatly sent back, and applying for residence is only possible from the country of origin itself. I don't think it'll come to pass, if only because there still are some grounds to grant asylum status to refugees from these countries (like persecution for homosexuality), so EU human rights commission will probably not allow our government to make such deals.

EDIT: oh, perhaps the latter is what you meant by 'filtering the legitimate asylum claims'. I assumed you meant filtering the Syrians from the 'Syrians'.

[Baffler]

It's not like even the actual Syrians will stay long after the war is over. They'll all have to go back eventually, since refugee status expires when there's no more war in wherever they came from. Taking that view it's actually a good thing that they stay unintegrated and living in camps or public housing, since they'll be easier to find and ship off that way.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Keeping people in fenced camps surrounded by armed men, I'm sure it would go over well.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

They'd probably keep trying to wander into Europe, fearing being one battle away from making up a mass grave or being enslaved.

[PanH]

Making a refugee camp in Syria is no different than just letting them where they are, in cities like Aleppo and such. It'd just create a new slum, increases western resentment, and overall would make good Isis recruitment grounds as well as making islamists harder to target (what, you want to bomb those islamists ? but that's a refugee camp you're bombing !). And the same could probably be said of anyone else that got hold of the camp.
And refugee camps make terrible defending positions. No one would ever think about guarding one : the density of population, the conditions (temporary camp, etc) make so that infiltration and general confusion/panic are going to be huge. There's better things to do than to put guards as target practice.

Either you're making fortified refuge camps and that's a terrible idea military wise, either you're just setting up 'free' refuge camps, and nothing really changed.

[martinuzz]

The Dutch court has found Geert Wilders guilty of 'group insult' and inciting to discriminate, but not guilty on inciting hatred. He will not be penalized, as the court's opinion is that the fact that he is convicted, is punishment enough in itself.

I'm unsure if this means he is disqualified from ever becoming a member of government, because he has a criminal record now. I hope so. I do recall there's some law that forbids people with a criminal record from becoming minister, or PM (but not from becoming member of parliament).

EDIT: Wilders himself was not present at the verdict, but he Twittered as soon as it was ruled:
"Three PVV (his political party) - hating judges have declared Moroccans to be a race and convicted me, and half of the Netherlands with me. It's insane", and announced he will appeal to the High Court.

[Silverthrone]

Meanwhile, it appears that the lid cannot quite stay on in Germany. The lid intended to avoid a backlash against migrants overall, when some migrants are found complicit in sex crime and, recently, murder. Naturally, that lid creates more scalding steam than the pot would do by itself.
I shall make a confession. It rather revolts me how the first concern in the minds of (some) state and media authorities seems to be how to hide and negate the possible fallout from the crimes of certain groups, and to ensure nothing can risk upsetting the current arrangement. That the safety, the very lives, apparently, of native citizens are, in effect, worth less than the warm, self-indulgent feeling of false generousity one gets when one calls for the borders to be open and everyone allowed in to stay, no questions asked.
The worst of it is that it is not working. It will only bolster the importance and range of these 'false news' sources. It would appear that they come in flavours False and 'False'. Demonstrably untrue or not aligned with the correct and proper narrative. In their fright and worry to not frighten people into the arms of reactionary elements, they fail to see that the silence and the defensiveness does that quite splendidly on its own.
Now, I do not intend it as a boot particularly aimed at Germany's rear, as it were, for I was taught to not throw stones in glass houses, and policy in Sweden is no better. None at all, and I believe part of the reason why this upsets me so is that it strikes so close to home. It is something I have had to see up close, and it is sickening, infuriating, and does more to boil one's blood than what any of the clowns, that government and media are so afraid of helping, could manage on their own.
I am just fed up with it. I really am. I am a horrible old xenophobe, or so I have been told, but a degree of xenophobia is evidently warranted in these times...


Reguarding Geert Wilders, I do not think I know enough about the man to really contribute a worthy opinion. He does appear as mainly a show man, someone who has found a tidy little racket and is making the most of it. The sort of person that people could secretly give support, nose pinched, because they are tired of the current arrangement and he profiles himself as the one to undo it.

On the face of it, the sentencing seems odd. A panic reaction to halt his influence, and to pin him to the wall with something. It did not seem that hateful or agitating a speech, but I do not know the context, and I do not know Dutch, and how it would have come across in that language or in the Dutch environment. It was, however, a rather aggressive and ungraceful expression, in my mind. But it seems quite clear that it is mainly used to clip his wings in this case. But once again, I do not know.
Of course, I doubt it will help to stop him, or the sentiment he represents.

[Rolepgeek]

The similarities to US gun control, except being new instead of always being there, are astounding to me.

But maybe I'm reading too much into the irrationality of saying 'never make immigration any stricter ever' and equating it with 'never put any regulation on firearms ever'. Or the opposite end of 'ban all guns/kick out all immigrants'. Obviously no one realistically believes the latter in a serious manner (yes I understand there will still be some who do, unfortunately), but it's the extreme and that's what the people who don't want any restrictions believe will happen otherwise. >.>

Plus, both kill people (yes, rates of gun ownership directly correlate with female homicide rate, which is probably the single most influential argument someone can make for 'ban all guns', as shitty of an idea as it is).

[Lordinquisitor]

Meanwhile, it appears that the lid cannot quite stay on in Germany. The lid intended to avoid a backlash against migrants overall, when some migrants are found complicit in sex crime and, recently, murder.

Actually none of that is covered up in germany. There recently was a "scandal" when a german news show (Tagesschau) didn`t report when a migrant apparently raped and killed a girl.

But.. Murder is usually never really reported. At least not in the bigger newspapers/news shows, but rather in the papers of the region where the murder happened. The murder of someone simply isn`t of translocal interest.

Ofc, this provided fodder for the anti-media / anti-migrant fraction and launched a completely unnecessary discussion.  The anti-migrant fraction in germany is notoriously unhinged, actively malevolent, stupid and loud.*

*barring the one or two people who might actually be reasonable, as always.

[Silverthrone]

Hmm. That does put things in a different light. Not all-together, but certainly more than enough to re-evaluate my stance. I shall have to do a bit more work, see what I can learn to put it in better context. I did not know of that standard, I must confess. I'm rather happy to do so, now.
On that note, it was rather silly and shortsighted of me to lash this question so firmly to that particular case by choice of word. It is broader than that. Well, well, I have some catching-up to do.

The similarities to US gun control, except being new instead of always being there, are astounding to me.

But maybe I'm reading too much into the irrationality of saying 'never make immigration any stricter ever' and equating it with 'never put any regulation on firearms ever'. Or the opposite end of 'ban all guns/kick out all immigrants'. Obviously no one realistically believes the latter in a serious manner (yes I understand there will still be some who do, unfortunately), but it's the extreme and that's what the people who don't want any restrictions believe will happen otherwise. >.>

Plus, both kill people (yes, rates of gun ownership directly correlate with female homicide rate, which is probably the single most influential argument someone can make for 'ban all guns', as shitty of an idea as it is).

I do think there are similarities, if one looks for them. Naturally, they are very different, but there is an odd tendency towards a reinforced binary stance in both. All or nothing, like. Any concession towards either is treason, a breach against what should be the natural stance, as it were. It might be a case of "how many potential lives is this ideal worth?", but I am rather out of my depth to be certain.

[Sheb]

Uh, no, just leaving for a richer country is not enough to gain asylum. That has been solved. The issue is how to filter those from legitimate asylum claims.

It hasn't been solved though. There are people arguing against the existence of borders at all - not just arguing, in fact, but actively committing criminal acts to aid illegal immigrants in smuggling themselves from Calais to the UK, for example.

Not to mention last year's furore over 'HIV tourists', where the person bringing up the problem wasn't attacked on the grounds of being incorrect, he was attacked because it was somehow unseemly to complain about foreign nationals accessing a healthcare system they hadn't paid for in order to receive free treatment.

Just because you or various reasonable people agree that 'wanting a better life in a rich country' isn't enough to be allowed admittance/gained asylum does not mean that it's universally accepted or that the problem is solved.

It's the law of the land. The fact that some people disagree isn't a problem, it's called freedom of opinion. Some people would want to stick all muslims in death camps, but that's not a problem because the law of the land prevent that.

[hector13]

Asylum seekers have no obligations under the Dublin Agreement. All it says is the member state that the asylum seeker first state it can be proven they earliest entered is responsible for processing the asylum claim.

This does, however, place an entirely unfair burden on EU border states.