|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On September 11 2015 08:35 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 06:38 WhiteDog wrote:
In reality, it was in Germany's interests to prevent Greece from restructuring its debt, and it is now in Germany's interests to welcome migrants (due to its demography and lack of unemployment). But sure, facts are secondary, it must be compassion. The refugees are here. we can ignore them, shoot down their boats, or do the only humane thing which is grant them asylum. They are not going to go away and we can't turn Europe into a fortress and we really shouldn't even if we could. The question is not if, but how to distribute the refugee stream over Europe. That you smell some kind of German plot behind literally everything is fucking hilarious. There is a war in Syria going on, people will flee the country no matter if it is "in our interest" or not.
Your arguments seems like a strawman.
Did I say Germany created the refugee question ? No, they are just imposing a solution on europz "their way" (a solution that favor them as always - just like the dublin rule used to favor germany) - and I pointed out a fact : refugee that came to france lately are coming from Germany. Syria has a border with Germany ? And did Europe did a thing when those refugees were stacking up in Greece and Italy ?
Molte you ignore half history to support your claim and now you argue that I have no facts... I have no facts to support that Germany has demographic problem or that restructuring the greek debt will hurt germans saving ? And against that you oppose us the so called "compassion" - supported by a beautiful picture of Merkel - of the german politics. Is it serious ?
|
On September 11 2015 12:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 10:16 Nyxisto wrote:On September 11 2015 09:58 LegalLord wrote:
Evidently you're not interested in backing your buzzwords with substance, so there is really nothing more to add here. Sorry but calling a "ban on Muslim immigration" reasonable is pretty Islamophobic in the literal sense of the word. Chechen Muslims and Syrian war refugees aren't actually comparable groups of people just because they're Muslims. Also the Chechen violence has about as much to do with religion as the Uyghur terrorism in China or IRA terrorism in Ireland. It's all nationalist/independence struggles that you have going on in hundreds of places, you could as well hold the common language responsible. I also see that it's reasonable to feel that Muslims specifically might be a problem group, while Christian refugees are a better choice.
There's nothing reasonable about calling Muslims a "problem group". At all. It's nothing else than a xenophobic generalization.
|
On September 11 2015 15:40 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 12:02 LegalLord wrote:On September 11 2015 10:16 Nyxisto wrote:On September 11 2015 09:58 LegalLord wrote:
Evidently you're not interested in backing your buzzwords with substance, so there is really nothing more to add here. Sorry but calling a "ban on Muslim immigration" reasonable is pretty Islamophobic in the literal sense of the word. Chechen Muslims and Syrian war refugees aren't actually comparable groups of people just because they're Muslims. Also the Chechen violence has about as much to do with religion as the Uyghur terrorism in China or IRA terrorism in Ireland. It's all nationalist/independence struggles that you have going on in hundreds of places, you could as well hold the common language responsible. I also see that it's reasonable to feel that Muslims specifically might be a problem group, while Christian refugees are a better choice. There's nothing reasonable about calling Muslims a "problem group". At all. It's nothing else than a xenophobic generalization.
Replace " Muslim" with "non-western" and define "non-western" as coming from the middle-east with a predominant Muslim conviction and all statistics in Denmark point to them being a "problem group" for generations. They do worse on literally all parameters than other immigrants or native citizens. You can call it xenophobic all you want, it is still true.
EDIT: Just to clarify if it isn't clear: Muslims as such are not a problem-group, however Muslims from the Middle-east are (and it is probably a lot more important that they are from the Middle-east than that they are Muslims).
|
who figures out what Germany is getting for all of this, besides some random working force, gets a cookie!
|
Romania, with a declaration from our president Klaus Iohannis, rejected the ECs imposed quotas and our interior minister said we can only integrate a max nr. of 1785 refugees.
the tone of the speech was mostly of dissatisfaction about the quotas(people counted like cattle then spread all over based on ... math?) and about the fact that they were imposed(members states were supposed to just take it ... because; that the states were not consulted prior).
/realpolitik
|
On September 11 2015 15:40 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 12:02 LegalLord wrote:On September 11 2015 10:16 Nyxisto wrote:On September 11 2015 09:58 LegalLord wrote:
Evidently you're not interested in backing your buzzwords with substance, so there is really nothing more to add here. Sorry but calling a "ban on Muslim immigration" reasonable is pretty Islamophobic in the literal sense of the word. Chechen Muslims and Syrian war refugees aren't actually comparable groups of people just because they're Muslims. Also the Chechen violence has about as much to do with religion as the Uyghur terrorism in China or IRA terrorism in Ireland. It's all nationalist/independence struggles that you have going on in hundreds of places, you could as well hold the common language responsible. I also see that it's reasonable to feel that Muslims specifically might be a problem group, while Christian refugees are a better choice. There's nothing reasonable about calling Muslims a "problem group". At all. It's nothing else than a xenophobic generalization.
Agreed. Neo-reactionaries on the internet are hilarious and very sad.
On September 11 2015 11:51 Nyxisto wrote:
It's way more than a technicality though. In many Eastern European and Scandinavian countries politicians play on the fears of the population for months now for political capital, using lingo along the lines of "being overrun", "cultural endangerment", "asylum critics", "concerned citizens" and so on. For quite some time now that version of "soft"-racism/xenophobia has become so fashionable and is being adopted into mainstream society that just calling someone out for what they are is being interpreted as being a "SJW" or the German equivalent, a "gutmensch".
Republicans here do the same thing near election time when they need to get the base to polls. Spreading fear-mongering agendas about things like ebola (vaccine was found, didn't end the world like Fox News conveniently predicted right around poll time), mexican immigrants, and so on.
However unless your factoring in pure emotion illegal mexican immigration is a total non-issues. There are simply not enough illegal Mexican immigrants to statistically be a national concern whether it be economically or criminally. It's nothing more than a distraction issue designed to gin up anti-brown people sentiment. Period, end of story. If there is any kind of actual problem to be solved there, it's the exploitative wages we pay the poor souls who risk life and limb to come here to pick vegetables so they can support their families back home.
I imagine the situation is similar in Europe with some of these neo-reactionary groups.
|
Too bad people can't see the menace Islam is. I am sure many governments would not have a problem with buddhists, christians, induists, etc - but when you take in people whose religion clashes so hard with society (Sharia law, unparalleled in any other religion of the world) you are going to have problems, sooner or later.
|
I don't get why the fear of Islam is so taboo here. I mean, if you follow a little bit of what is happening in middle orient because of Islam, your fears are totally reasonable.
Islam is a pretty primitive religion, it doesn't promote equity, it doesn't value the women as anything but a possession. It doesn't respect other religions. It doesn't emphasis on education, or any other things you would expect from a civilized culture.
Yes, there are probably a lot of moderate, but still, at least half of the muslim, at least the one who should be integrated havd some extremists views that doesn't goes along with our secular society.
You can try and say that Christians did as much horrible things in the past, but oh boy it's been hundreds of years the last time we burnt a witch ima right (Salem ok ok..). And every countries that got a secular system is well beyond any other theocracies in term of enlightment.
Anyway, I read someone saying it's your duty to accept refugees (they aren't really refugee if you don't pick them at the Syria border though). But why ? It will cost hundred of billion to the EU, while actually denting the very structure and future of the EU.
Why not investing this money into creating safe zone in Syria ? That wouldn't cost much more. The public would be happier (already 65% of french people were for a ground intervention). I'm not even saying to go and take a party, either killings ISIS or Assad, just landing somewhere, put up huge fence and barrack, and taking refugees in.
And about the whole SJW thing, I agree with KiWiKaKi, it's a dangerous movement because it's using the very same way as any authoritarian power, which is censorship and shaming. Plus it's really really stupid as fuck that these movements come from US Universities, where you'd expect people to be less stupid than that. But well, if calling yourself by gender neutral prenom like "xer" "xyr" "xor" if your fetish, do as you want lmao.
Also. I want to come back to "overrun by muslim". How to say that, it's probably a bias from the news (eventhough it's impossible to get up to date otherwise) but muslim are indead terrible in term of integration. We are partly responsible but not the only one.
You can't integrate huge block of people easily, especially since housing is so scarce. So what is the only option ? Building ugly grey sky craper and putting them there. It will be a terrible incentive for them to live in community and keeping their religious value.
Also, even when you try to separe them, they tend to clunk back together so it's no use anyway.
How on earth do you want to assimilate people who doesn't want to ? Best case scenario is just to not try and not accepting them.
|
The fact that you believe that SJW is a "movement" is comical. It is jut a pejorative used by neo-cons and internet edgelords to refer to modern day progressives. Its the "Limp dick liberals" of the internet. And the rest of what you said is mostly anti-Muslim fear mongering. Even if they have a more challenge time integrating than other cultures, that doesn't make them inherently dangerous or bad. They are not going to take over the Government. And furthermore, a many of them want to return home when the war is over.
|
On September 11 2015 20:09 Plansix wrote:
The fact that you believe that SJW is a "movement" is comical. It is jut a pejorative used by neo-cons and internet edgelords to refer to modern day progressives. Its the "Limp dick liberals" of the internet. And the rest of what you said is mostly anti-Muslim fear mongering. Even if they have a more challenge time integrating than other cultures, that doesn't make them inherently dangerous or bad. They are not going to take over the Government. And furthermore, a many of them want to return home when the war is over.
Oh you are a naive guy aren't you.
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/will-the-world-come-to-europe/
In the US, the mexican population became so huge it's a primary incentive to get vote from the mexican community. Not like they have any influance right ? 
Totally going back
Do you really think those healthcare tourists will go back once they tasted the sweet life of Sweden ?
Anyway, saying that the SJW movment doesn't exist is being blind as fuck. Yeah it's a pejorative word used to describe ultra progressist, it still doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
+ Show Spoiler +
Yup, totally doesn't exist.
Also, what I said isn't fear mongering, just stating fact. You don't see Christians States in Syria killing everything that doesn't either suck your cock or does accept to behead his sons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_democracy#Indices_of_democracy_in_Muslim_countries
Yup, Muslim are the best at democracy too.
|
Modern history is fairly ripe with examples that the modern day refugee that makes it to Europe does in fact NOT return to their country of origin once it is safe. And really why should they? Modern conflicts in the ME spans generations and when it becomes safe to return the original refugees do no longer want to leave their asylum-country as their kids have no real relation to the former country.
|
Molte you ignore half history to support your claim and now you argue that I have no facts... I have no facts to support that Germany has demographic problem or that restructuring the greek debt will hurt germans saving ? And against that you oppose us the so called "compassion" - supported by a beautiful picture of Merkel - of the german politics. Is it serious ?
Your facts are generally derived by reasoning backwards from the conclusion. The main axis of your argument does not really depend on them, although they may be selectively marshaled to embellish the argument.
Germany follows its self-interest, therefore Germany is following its self-interest. is both circular reasoning and begging the question. What are you really saying?
I am tempted here to quote from John Lukacs' Historical Consciousness:
...it is not enough to say that we still live in an era of national states, and that the principal motive of their actions is still national interest. There is more to "national" than meets the eye: there is more to "interest," too. We may say of persons that the main motive factor of their actions is self-interest; but this is a truism. Take such different modern thinkers are Machiavelli, La Rochefoucauld, Bentham, Stendhal, Spencer, Tocqueville, Marx, Freud - yes, of course, this is what all of them say. But the better thinkers among them (Stendhal rather than Bentham, Tocqueville rather than Marx) do not leave it at that; they see deeper motives: fear and greed, guilt and ambition, all entangled; the best of them see vanity as the basic human motive. For what is self-interest, after all? Its formation comes from the concept of the self: an entangled thing, a complex thing, a tendency rather than a category, an aspiration rather than a constant.
The character of a person is formed as well as revealed by his own ideas of self-interest. These ideas change with time; they are often influenced by other persons; except in rare instances they cannot be accurately defined; they nonetheless exist. So it is with the interest of a nation: the character of a nation too, is revealed by its own ideas of self-interest, by the nation's own image of itself, by its own concept of the place it would like to occupy, of the figure it would like to cut in the world.
|
On September 11 2015 20:09 Plansix wrote:
The fact that you believe that SJW is a "movement" is comical. It is jut a pejorative used by neo-cons and internet edgelords to refer to modern day progressives. Its the "Limp dick liberals" of the internet. And the rest of what you said is mostly anti-Muslim fear mongering. Even if they have a more challenge time integrating than other cultures, that doesn't make them inherently dangerous or bad. They are not going to take over the Government. And furthermore, a many of them want to return home when the war is over.
The SJWs are just the current outcropping of Marxist group-think. But they've been around for a rather long time in one form or another and are utterly totalitarian in their thinking. They also have no ability to take a joke. That's why mockery works so well on them. The problem becomes that the style of thinking is extremely active within most Western governments. It's one thing to be a person going crazy on the Internet. It's wholly another thing when people act the same in the government. Freedoms die that way. And very quickly.
As for Muslims, it's a little more specific the "problem groups". It's mostly those from repressive Sunni Police States/Functional Theocracies. And parts of it are a bit more recent in the practice, as most rulers of Muslim countries used to be about as Islamic as 1700s European Monarchs were Christian. Things have changed with an expansionist, imperialistic and anti-Modern movement inside Islam. The only upside is that the strain is pretty terrible at fighting a war. (Free people do fight a lot better) But it doesn't take terribly long to replace a population that doesn't replace itself.
Culture matters. Ideas matter. Assimilation takes time, even if it's not necessarily possible in all cases. Modern living is built on several shared assumptions about how people should act and the supremacy of the Rule of Law. Those assumptions and the cultural backing that allowed for functional self-rule took all humanity's time on this planet to develop. That's why these things are an issue. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." (Even if the full quote is longer) Each generation ends up learning this the hard way.
|
I am not so certain that the more virile aspects of Islam, including Revolutionary Islam, can be said to be anti-modern. There is reason to believe that many of their features have been formed by Islamic societies' contact with, and assimilation of modernity. If we escape the kind of tautological practice which explicitly defines "radical Islam" as anti-modern, we may free ourselves to consider why Sharia Law is being practised on the streets of London, and large swathes of Muslim opinion in the West are immune to cultural conversion.
The case for bringing them in... Universal human rights, which is complete bullshit in the first place. Where was everyone for the first 4 years of the Syrian Civil War? I've been following this conflict for a long time, and why do people magically care now? We always choose when we want to help, and when we don't, just like we chose during the Rwandan Genocide. I don't see a single solid argument for bringing in the refugees.
In Canada's case, there would be no case for bringing them in, but generally nations which have signed the UN Refugee Convention are obligated under treaty law to grant legitimate requests for Asylum. Bethmann-Hollweg aside, paper still has some force in the civilised world, and if we do not want to adhere to them, we had better withdraw our signatures than simply ignore our promises.
|
This seems to be the right thread for discussing the refugees issue, based on the posts in the last couple of pages, pardon if another thread would've been better.
I don't feel that the australian plan is good. I feel quite confident that it is a bad plan.
I looked for an article and found this one to get me some info:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...an-refugees-in-australia-20150909-gjibqz.html
$700 million for 12000 refugees is a terrible investment.
Later in the article it says:
"The government will also spend $44 million supplying 240,000 refugees with cash, food, water and blankets in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan."
now I don't know how long that is for;
but I'm sure, based on that, and based on general prices in the region,
that spending that 700 million to help the refugees where they are would help a LOT more people.
I strongly suspect that it would also do more overall good to spend that money on the refugees generally, rather than transporting a small number of them halfway around the world to a place where prices are higher.
I think this applies to many of the other nations as well;
taking in refugees elsewhere would be less cost-effective than helping the refugees where they are.
|
On September 11 2015 20:53 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +Molte you ignore half history to support your claim and now you argue that I have no facts... I have no facts to support that Germany has demographic problem or that restructuring the greek debt will hurt germans saving ? And against that you oppose us the so called "compassion" - supported by a beautiful picture of Merkel - of the german politics. Is it serious ? Your facts are generally derived by reasoning backwards from the conclusion. The main axis of your argument does not really depend on them, although they may be selectively marshaled to embellish the argument. Germany follows its self-interest, therefore Germany is following its self-interest. is both circular reasoning and begging the question. What are you really saying? I am tempted here to quote from John Lukacs' Historical Consciousness: ...it is not enough to say that we still live in an era of national states, and that the principal motive of their actions is still national interest. There is more to "national" than meets the eye: there is more to "interest," too. We may say of persons that the main motive factor of their actions is self-interest; but this is a truism. Take such different modern thinkers are Machiavelli, La Rochefoucauld, Bentham, Stendhal, Spencer, Tocqueville, Marx, Freud - yes, of course, this is what all of them say. But the better thinkers among them (Stendhal rather than Bentham, Tocqueville rather than Marx) do not leave it at that; they see deeper motives: fear and greed, guilt and ambition, all entangled; the best of them see vanity as the basic human motive. For what is self-interest, after all? Its formation comes from the concept of the self: an entangled thing, a complex thing, a tendency rather than a category, an aspiration rather than a constant.
The character of a person is formed as well as revealed by his own ideas of self-interest. These ideas change with time; they are often influenced by other persons; except in rare instances they cannot be accurately defined; they nonetheless exist. So it is with the interest of a nation: the character of a nation too, is revealed by its own ideas of self-interest, by the nation's own image of itself, by its own concept of the place it would like to occupy, of the figure it would like to cut in the world.
You were arguing that there was some kind of innate compassion that dictate the behavior nations have toward refugee - I respond that a "vulgar" historical materialism could be a good way to get past those "emotional" and "cultural" explanations that we see flourish in europe (both in the greek fiasco and now facing the refugee question). I'm consciously using the term "vulgar" to explain that it is just a simple analysis - I am not proposing to you a deep on analysis on what is happening in europe but I am trying to get past those cultural and emotional analysis that plague the mind and the media (and that oftentime lead us to racist judgement - "the polish/hungarians are culturally racist", "the greek are inferior economically because of their culture", etc.).
Now you argue that there is more to interests than interests ? How does that contredict my points ? Did I argued that history and politics can be resumed to historical materialism ? Are you arguing that compassion (an emotion we all possess, even outside of Germany ! lol) and interests goes hand in hand in modern Germany ? If that is the case, I think so too, but it is irrelevant to what I was saying. But if you are arguing that compassion is in Germany's national character and that it thus define Germany's interests, then I must say "lol" (because you're going back to a cultural judgement - that's closer to racism than anything to me, not to mention that it is anhistoric, Germany had no compassion two month ago Greeks, I doubt the "character" of nations change so fast).
But the better thinkers among them (Stendhal rather than Bentham, Tocqueville rather than Marx)
Fucking joke. Tocqueville is better than Marx ? Please.
|
On September 11 2015 14:49 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 12:49 Nyxisto wrote:On September 11 2015 12:45 MoltkeWarding wrote:
I thought the point was that he was Islamophobe; so on that basis he should only be parroting the claims of societies faced with the influx of Muslims throughout history, but since I cannot think of any historical precedents for a Muslim mass influx into non-Muslim lands not accompanied by military conquest, we are in fact facing something completely novel in world history. Is that a sophisticated way of implying that you're buying into the silly "racewar" narrative? We've had millions of Muslims coming into our country barely half a century ago and I'm not wearing a turban yet, our culture isn't threatened. Just don't be naive or ignorant is all. A lot of the time the majority that is the best off doesn't say much, until they become the ones discriminated against. Feminism in some western countries is a prime example, I know this facebook page is a bit biased, but just do give some examples: https://www.facebook.com/TheMensRightsInitiative?fref=tsJust remember, when being white was a huge advantage... And then we all went for equality. Who benefited from that, who lost from that? It isn't a coincidence that almost all the parties fighting for these movement in Canada are usually Islamic and Indian. Because it benefits them more than anyone. These "takeovers" if you will, are really subtle things... The culture in Germany has changed, in Canada too in the last 20-30 years. If there's a potential change to culture, then the culture is threatened.
I just want to clarify something about your post....
Setting aside the fact that it's still advantageous to be a white male in Canada (I am one, I live a privileged life, I know this to be a fact), are you seriously bemoaning the fact that white people "lost out" in Canada when society generally agreed to acknowledge that racism is bad, and people shouldn't be discriminated on or privileged because of their race?
Of course white people lost privileges associated with racism from that. That's what's called "a good thing".
|
Except it's not a good way at all, because it is unreal and cannot be established by any evidence other than the circularity of its inner assumptions about human nature, an assumption that breaks down after half a second of self-reflection by the non-indoctrinated.
What I said about the asymmetry of compassion earlier was referring to the story on the Polish parish's adoption of the Syrian family, and their attempts to provide for the material and human well-being of the said family, only to be abandoned without gratitude or explanation. It is a warning against assuming that these people have sentimental and behavioural norms similar to, or even comprehensible by ourselves. The compassion of the media is largely propagandist, but the compassion of the little people whom we see represented in the media donating, helping, welcoming, is genuine, and their existence lends weight to a certain moral narrative which is presently being used by Germans to foster a certain self-image. My complaint was that there is another side of the story which is not being represented, and we need to exercise a little more realism in evaluating the potential consequences of what we are doing.
I hope that explanation will satisfy you, in courtesy to the consideration that you are attempting to argue in a foreign tongue. Generally I do not like to explain myself and will likely ignore your misrepresentations of my words, rather than correct them. I apologise in advance for these minor personal quirks.
Fucking joke. Tocqueville is better than Marx ? Please.
Not only a better thinker, but a better prophet. Democracy Vol. II, Ch. XXI: Why Great Revolutions will become more rare is, not only pace Marx, but more accurate than anything the latter had ever written.
I also think that Stendhal was a genius of psychological reflection, making him one of the best bad writers, much better than the well-educated bore Bentham. So although the historian's judgements do not come from me, they have no trouble finding agreement in me.
|
Except it's not a good way at all, because it is unreal and cannot be established by any evidence other than the circularity of its inner assumptions about human nature, an assumption that breaks down after half a second of self-reflection by the non-indoctrinated.
This is a huge flaw in your discourse tho. The idea that the society is structured around groups with different interests and that the struggle of those groups is relevant to explain what has been, what is and what will be does not break down after half a second of reflection even if you consider that groups and their identities can change throughout history. Again, simply reading Marx can tell you that much - he distinguish between 2 (the ideal type if you will) class and 9 to 11 class considering the subject he is studying ; stressing on the importance of the historical context and the culture next to the economical structure to define the groups.
What I said about the asymmetry of compassion earlier was referring to the story on the Polish parish's adoption of the Syrian family, and their attempts to provide for the material and human well-being of the said family, only to be abandoned without gratitude or explanation. It is a warning against assuming that these people have sentimental and behavioural norms similar to, or even comprehensible by ourselves. The compassion of the media is largely propagandist, but the compassion of the little people whom we see represented in the media donating, helping, welcoming, is genuine, and their existence lends weight to a certain moral narrative which is presently being used by Germans to foster a certain self-image. My complaint was that there is another side of the story which is not being represented, and we need to exercise a little more realism in evaluating the potential consequences of what we are doing.
You started your post saying that the asymetry in compassion must be acknowledged. This was the sentence I was questionning.
By the way, the second part of your post I agree with - the compassion of the little people is genuine - but as soon as you generalize this idea it just drop down. You argue that I have no fact to support the idea that interests dictates the behavior of nations, I have most of history on my side. Meanwhile, you cannot really prove that the "compassion" the "little people" of germany feel towards refugee will truly Foster a "certain self-image - this is only speculation on your part, and speculation that has a heavy cultural bias (this nation is culturally leaning towards a compassionate behavior and not this one).
Not only a better thinker, but a better prophet. Democracy Vol. II, Ch. XXI: Why Great Revolutions will become more rare is, not only pace Marx, but more accurate than anything the latter had ever written.
Marx's analysis of capitalism created not only a school of thinking, but generation of thinkers. There is a reason why Lévi-Strauss used to read 30 min of Marx every day and not Tocqueville. Considering Tocqueville above Marx is ignorance.
I hope that explanation will satisfy you, in courtesy to the consideration that you are attempting to argue in a foreign tongue. Generally I do not like to explain myself and will likely ignore your misrepresentations of my words, rather than correct them. I apologise in advance for these minor personal quirks.
Don't be condescendant.
|
On September 11 2015 16:36 xM(Z wrote:
who figures out what Germany is getting for all of this, besides some random working force, gets a cookie!
1. Germany already signed a contract with Russia behind the scene to build a new line of gas pipe that doesn't include Poland.
2. From what I've heard, based on todays information, Germany population would drop much by 2060 as they would have less population than UK and France and therefore it would weaken a lot their position in European Union. Migrants are a good solution to this.
3. There are probably a shitload of other reasons we're not aware yet.
I'm up for helping migrants that are really in need of help. Sorting those people out of migrant horde would be a great way to deal with it. Also, country borders cannot be crossed without any documents, therefore illegaly. Hungary did a good job dealing with that. Europe NEEDS to control how many people, how and when crosses their borders.
Also someone already quoted on what's happening in Poland. Different people/agencies are trying to help migrants, giving them place to live/jobs etc and they escaped at night to Germany, meh.
Edit : I've just read statement from Orban, that migrants in last days been agressive, refused to register, occupied train stations and in the next week Police will react appropriately to their behaviour. No jokes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
