|
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 26 2015 01:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 01:22 DickMcFanny wrote:
Because the projected contribution to the GPD of a 20 year old immigrant is larger than that of a 50 year old native.
That's why it makes me sick to see Merkel pretending to be oh so altruistic, as if politicians followed their hearts instead of industrial mandates. Its the only political play she has for this. She can't tell voters is because the immigrants and refugees will be hard workers and worth more to the economy. That will go over like a fart in a spacesuit.
That's the worst argument ever.
For one to few jobs are created. They told us that when the babyboomers retired there wouldn't be enough workers for all the jobs that were needed. Unemployment went up. They said, fine just wait for the 50's to retire. Unemployment went up. Retired people are just replaced with robots.
And more importantly. Have you looked at youth unemployment in other countries in EU? You know the ones where 25 yo university educated people who speak english/spanish and usually one more language can't get work.
Do you think the greek guy with academic merits who speaks english isn't a bit more compelling than the refugee with no useful skills who can't speak german or english?
Those guys can move freely around EU as long as they get a job in 3 months. People at least tried coming to Sweden a few years ago before they gave up. BECAUSE THERE ARE NO JOBS.
If the future of the welfare state was at stake because of a lack of workers intra EU migration would take care of that easily and everyone would be happier.
|
On September 26 2015 09:41 Paljas wrote:A couple of remarks/questions: I seem unable to read the article without a registration on the site. Could you maybe further summarize a few more key points? When you talk about Wester politicans calling you racists, could you give some examples? Because I have'nt heard anything like this from any relevant politican in Germany, and I doubt that french or british politicans would be much harsher. I don't want to call you out or anything, but I am genuinely curious and maybe I missed something. The only real critic I heard was against Viktor Orban, but I think most would agree that this dude is an asshole. Now, let me present a small defense of international quotas: If you look at the immigrations politics of the single europeans states in the past, most of them showed to be pretty awful. Germany did nothing useful or sensible, French didn't really either and the other european countries sans maybe sweden also didnt get anything done. When the single countries don't manage do be effective, a collective initiative seems to be a good idea and worth to try, especially because the immigration topic is a european topic due to open borders. Now, the most powerful political institution in Europe is the EU, where Germany has a huge influence/is the dominating force for several reasons. This is unfortunate and I really would love if this wasn't the case, but thats all we have to work with currently. I honestly just don't see a better strategy right now. Of course, I also would love when Germany could drop it's "holier-than-thou" attitude and contain the rise from german nationalist pride which is connected to this (especially considering Germany's failure in immigration politics in the past few years and the new reactionary law which gets implemented right now), but yeah, thats how it is. However, there are certain posters in this thread which make me believe that the underlying issue is just the general unwillingness to take in more refugees, regardless if that gets deceided by the EU, Germany or the own country. For this, there is now clear solution, except that those people recognize their moral obligations.
Here's the article, I didn't know you have to register to read it from a direct link. I just googled "Rostowski financial times" and it works every time.
+ Show Spoiler +Refugees who want a better future look to Germany not Hungary or Poland, writes Jacek Rostowski
Western Europeans are indulging in an orgy of self-righteousness over the Syrian refugee crisis, and eastern Europeans have become a favourite whipping boy in this story. How can they fail to show compassion and solidarity, it is asked, when they themselves benefited for years from refugee status in the west, and are at present the largest group of intra-EU economic migrants? Clearly, these newly minted Europeans do not understand European values, are totally egotistical, and are probably xenophobes and racist.
While there are, doubtless, elements of xenophobia and even racism in the reactions of some east Europeans (as indeed of some west Europeans) to the refugee crisis, nevertheless the policy of the new eastern member states, while they are acting firmly in their own self-interest, is rational and in line with that of other EU members when faced with similar calls for solidarity.
Just as Germany has resisted such calls over the eurozone crisis, demanding that existing rules be honoured in spite of a radical change in circumstances since the 2008 financial crisis, so the east Europeans have a strong argument when they say that EU rules on refugees should simply be applied.
There is no doubt that the vast majority of the people coming to Europe via the western Balkans and Libya are genuine refugees, not economic migrants. The rules on refugees — the so-called Dublin principles — are clear: they have an absolute right under international law to asylum in the first safe country they come to, and that country has an absolute obligation to accept them irrespective of the numbers involved. European rules further determine that once granted asylum, refugees have a right to social benefits and to work, if they can find a job.
It is obvious that for the vast majority of refugees from Syria the natural first safe countries are now Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. For refugees coming via Libya, the first safe nations are Malta and Italy. These countries have generously taken in more than 4m Syrian and Libyan refugees, and Europe’s failure to offer them massive financial support has been incredibly shortsighted. Such support is what solidarity, and indeed national self-interest, demands.
But solidarity and self-interest do not require countries to accept refugee quotas, whether mandatory or not.
One of the reasons for the surge in refugee numbers arriving via the Balkan route this summer is the statement by Germany that it will grant asylum to Syrians who reach its territory, even from safe countries. While refugees have a right to asylum, it is quite natural that they want more: the possibility of well-paid work (and if they cannot find that, of social benefits) in the rich countries of northern Europe. Once that prospect appeared, a dash for the west became inevitable.
Now that the consequences have become clear, Germany is trying to stem the flow by insisting that the Dublin rules be respected, while at the same time arguing for mandatory quotas that have no basis in those rules.
The fact is that those refugees who want a better future than can be ensured by asylum in Turkey, want to have it in Germany, not in Hungary or Poland. If allocated to eastern Europe, there can be little doubt that they will do their best to leave for Germany or Sweden.
Twenty-six years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we must not accept the building of new walls in Europe. This is particularly apt in the context of mandatory quotas. The Berlin Wall was not built to keep people out but to stop them from leaving.
If quotas are to be enforced effectively, that may well be what would be needed in countries such as Poland. Not only is this contrary to European law, but the creation of camps surrounded by barbed wire on Polish soil is quite unthinkable and unacceptable to us. Mandatory quotas are indeed the first step on a perilous road.
The writer is a former deputy prime minister and finance minister of Poland
I shouldn't say Western leaders call us racist. They don't accuse other countries directly but they say stuff like "we're the only ones doing the right thing", making it look like everyone else is evil and doesn't want to help. For example when I listened to a press conference of Angela Merkel and Austrian chancellor they never said a bad word about Hungary but right after (or before, I don't remember) mentioning that country they said that only Germany, Austria and Sweden are taking care of refugees. I wrongly exaggerated that into Western leaders calling us all racists. My bad.
We agree that immigration policies in Western Europe are not good but I don't see how EU officials could make it any better. At the moment the EU doesn't have (and I think it's not ready to have) a common immigration policy so quotas are the maximum level of cooperation available. It is reasonable but you have to admit there is a difference between "please take as many refugees as you can" and "you have to take 10 213 refugees in". Mandatory quotas make people feel like they're being forced to do something instead of feeling like they're helping.
About Eastern Europeans not wanting refugees: One of the big arguments against inviting immigrants here is that if Germany, France and UK couldn't assimilate their immigrants, then there is no way we're going to do it in less developed Eastern Europe.
People are understandably afraid of muslim immigrants and the opinion that they don't integrate is very popular here. Eastern societies are very homogeneous (for example 97% of our citizens are ethnic Poles) so the vision of enclaves full of unassimilated (and possibly aggressive) foreigners in their own countries is very scary to them. Remember that stupid report about 55 Sharia zones in Sweden mentioned in this thread like a dozen pages ago? This is how average Eastern European imagines muslim immigration. We don't have multi-cultural societies so something normal to you can be completely alien to us.
Another thing is that refugees wouldn't even come here if the EU didn't send them. They all want to be in Germany so when they're sent here some of us think it's because Germans didn't want them. "Accepting people in need" sounds much better than "accepting German rejects".
Last thing I want to mention is that the problem became "mainstream" when those people started arriving to Germany. Nobody cared when the civil war started in Syria, or when people started to flee to Turkey and Lebanon, or when they started crossing EU borders in Greece and Italy. This makes us feel like Western Europe is full of hypocrites who only talk about solidarity when they need it.
Those and other fears cause the lower support for accepting refugees in Eastern Europe. It's true that we're afraid of muslim immigrants. However I think the way Western Europe is handling this situation is also a big factor.
|
Remember that stupid report about 55 Sharia zones in Sweden mentioned in this thread like a dozen pages ago
No, i don't remember report about Sharia zones in Sweden, I remember official Swedish police report about zones they can't enter without possibility of being attacked. You are mixing what i linked with what Kaczynski made from that report.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On September 26 2015 21:07 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 09:41 Paljas wrote:On September 26 2015 08:47 Sent. wrote:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/606bf3ec-5b07-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html#axzz3mnQBioipArticle from Financial Times, written by our former finance minister. I think it explains well how we (Poles or Eastern Europeans) feel about the refugee problem. We want to help but it's easy to get frustrated when the EU is trying to impose mandatory quotas on us and Western politicians call us racists. A couple of remarks/questions: I seem unable to read the article without a registration on the site. Could you maybe further summarize a few more key points? When you talk about Wester politicans calling you racists, could you give some examples? Because I have'nt heard anything like this from any relevant politican in Germany, and I doubt that french or british politicans would be much harsher. I don't want to call you out or anything, but I am genuinely curious and maybe I missed something. The only real critic I heard was against Viktor Orban, but I think most would agree that this dude is an asshole. Now, let me present a small defense of international quotas: If you look at the immigrations politics of the single europeans states in the past, most of them showed to be pretty awful. Germany did nothing useful or sensible, French didn't really either and the other european countries sans maybe sweden also didnt get anything done. When the single countries don't manage do be effective, a collective initiative seems to be a good idea and worth to try, especially because the immigration topic is a european topic due to open borders. Now, the most powerful political institution in Europe is the EU, where Germany has a huge influence/is the dominating force for several reasons. This is unfortunate and I really would love if this wasn't the case, but thats all we have to work with currently. I honestly just don't see a better strategy right now. Of course, I also would love when Germany could drop it's "holier-than-thou" attitude and contain the rise from german nationalist pride which is connected to this (especially considering Germany's failure in immigration politics in the past few years and the new reactionary law which gets implemented right now), but yeah, thats how it is. However, there are certain posters in this thread which make me believe that the underlying issue is just the general unwillingness to take in more refugees, regardless if that gets deceided by the EU, Germany or the own country. For this, there is now clear solution, except that those people recognize their moral obligations. Here's the article, I didn't know you have to register to read it from a direct link. I just googled "Rostowski financial times" and it works every time. + Show Spoiler +Refugees who want a better future look to Germany not Hungary or Poland, writes Jacek Rostowski
Western Europeans are indulging in an orgy of self-righteousness over the Syrian refugee crisis, and eastern Europeans have become a favourite whipping boy in this story. How can they fail to show compassion and solidarity, it is asked, when they themselves benefited for years from refugee status in the west, and are at present the largest group of intra-EU economic migrants? Clearly, these newly minted Europeans do not understand European values, are totally egotistical, and are probably xenophobes and racist.
While there are, doubtless, elements of xenophobia and even racism in the reactions of some east Europeans (as indeed of some west Europeans) to the refugee crisis, nevertheless the policy of the new eastern member states, while they are acting firmly in their own self-interest, is rational and in line with that of other EU members when faced with similar calls for solidarity.
Just as Germany has resisted such calls over the eurozone crisis, demanding that existing rules be honoured in spite of a radical change in circumstances since the 2008 financial crisis, so the east Europeans have a strong argument when they say that EU rules on refugees should simply be applied.
There is no doubt that the vast majority of the people coming to Europe via the western Balkans and Libya are genuine refugees, not economic migrants. The rules on refugees — the so-called Dublin principles — are clear: they have an absolute right under international law to asylum in the first safe country they come to, and that country has an absolute obligation to accept them irrespective of the numbers involved. European rules further determine that once granted asylum, refugees have a right to social benefits and to work, if they can find a job.
It is obvious that for the vast majority of refugees from Syria the natural first safe countries are now Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. For refugees coming via Libya, the first safe nations are Malta and Italy. These countries have generously taken in more than 4m Syrian and Libyan refugees, and Europe’s failure to offer them massive financial support has been incredibly shortsighted. Such support is what solidarity, and indeed national self-interest, demands.
But solidarity and self-interest do not require countries to accept refugee quotas, whether mandatory or not.
One of the reasons for the surge in refugee numbers arriving via the Balkan route this summer is the statement by Germany that it will grant asylum to Syrians who reach its territory, even from safe countries. While refugees have a right to asylum, it is quite natural that they want more: the possibility of well-paid work (and if they cannot find that, of social benefits) in the rich countries of northern Europe. Once that prospect appeared, a dash for the west became inevitable.
Now that the consequences have become clear, Germany is trying to stem the flow by insisting that the Dublin rules be respected, while at the same time arguing for mandatory quotas that have no basis in those rules.
The fact is that those refugees who want a better future than can be ensured by asylum in Turkey, want to have it in Germany, not in Hungary or Poland. If allocated to eastern Europe, there can be little doubt that they will do their best to leave for Germany or Sweden.
Twenty-six years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we must not accept the building of new walls in Europe. This is particularly apt in the context of mandatory quotas. The Berlin Wall was not built to keep people out but to stop them from leaving.
If quotas are to be enforced effectively, that may well be what would be needed in countries such as Poland. Not only is this contrary to European law, but the creation of camps surrounded by barbed wire on Polish soil is quite unthinkable and unacceptable to us. Mandatory quotas are indeed the first step on a perilous road.
The writer is a former deputy prime minister and finance minister of Poland I shouldn't say Western leaders call us racist. They don't accuse other countries directly but they say stuff like "we're the only ones doing the right thing", making it look like everyone else is evil and doesn't want to help. For example when I listened to a press conference of Angela Merkel and Austrian chancellor they never said a bad word about Hungary but right after (or before, I don't remember) mentioning that country they said that only Germany, Austria and Sweden are taking care of refugees. I wrongly exaggerated that into Western leaders calling us all racists. My bad. We agree that immigration policies in Western Europe are not good but I don't see how EU officials could make it any better. At the moment the EU doesn't have (and I think it's not ready to have) a common immigration policy so quotas are the maximum level of cooperation available. It is reasonable but you have to admit there is a difference between "please take as many refugees as you can" and "you have to take 10 213 refugees in". Mandatory quotas make people feel like they're being forced to do something instead of feeling like they're helping. About Eastern Europeans not wanting refugees: One of the big arguments against inviting immigrants here is that if Germany, France and UK couldn't assimilate their immigrants, then there is no way we're going to do it in less developed Eastern Europe. People are understandably afraid of muslim immigrants and the opinion that they don't integrate is very popular here. Eastern societies are very homogeneous (for example 97% of our citizens are ethnic Poles) so the vision of enclaves full of unassimilated (and possibly aggressive) foreigners in their own countries is very scary to them. Remember that stupid report about 55 Sharia zones in Sweden mentioned in this thread like a dozen pages ago? This is how average Eastern European imagines muslim immigration. We don't have multi-cultural societies so something normal to you can be completely alien to us. Another thing is that refugees wouldn't even come here if the EU didn't send them. They all want to be in Germany so when they're sent here some of us think it's because Germans didn't want them. "Accepting people in need" sounds much better than "accepting German rejects". Last thing I want to mention is that the problem became "mainstream" when those people started arriving to Germany. Nobody cared when the civil war started in Syria, or when people started to flee to Turkey and Lebanon, or when they started crossing EU borders in Greece and Italy. This makes us feel like Western Europe is full of hypocrites who only talk about solidarity when they need it.Those and other fears cause the lower support for accepting refugees in Eastern Europe. It's true that we're afraid of muslim immigrants. However I think the way Western Europe is handling this situation is also a big factor.
True, Italy was overwhelmed with it and nobody cared. The crises that we had recently (Greece and now the refugee) made me lose hope in the UE which looks less and less like an union and more like Germany and friends.
|
The EU should never have moved beyond being a trade union. To many culture, to many conflicting idea's and visions and a population that is unwilling to hand over sovereignty.
|
Too many particularly annoying mistakes, I have to.
On September 27 2015 01:08 Gorsameth wrote:
The EU should never have moved beyond being a trade union. Too many culture, too many conflicting idea's and visions and a population that is unwilling to hand over sovereignty.
(obviously cultures with an S but that just seems like "English as a second language" rather than "apostrophes wherever I feel like them")
It is worth noting that apostrophes with a strike through them do not work so well. You learn something every day.
*Breathes a sigh of relief*
Actually, a question about that apostrophe...what makes you put one there and not try to put one before the S in "visions"?
|
On September 27 2015 02:08 Fuchsteufelswild wrote:Too many particularly annoying mistakes, I have to. Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 01:08 Gorsameth wrote:
The EU should never have moved beyond being a trade union. Too many culture, too many conflicting idea's and visions and a population that is unwilling to hand over sovereignty.
(obviously cultures with an S but that just seems like "English as a second language" rather than "apostrophes wherever I feel like them") It is worth noting that apostrophes with a strike through them do not work so well. You learn something every day. *Breathes a sigh of relief* Actually, a question about that apostrophe...what makes you put one there and not try to put one before the S in "visions"?
Feel free to write a post in dutch and have Gorsameth correct it. I wonder how that would look like. I think it is impolite to correct the grammar of people who are polite enough to learn your native language as a second language and just want to communicate to you about something that is totally unrelated to your language unless they specifically ask for it.
|
Yeah, I wondered if I'd get some daft overreacting response like that just for correcting.
Look at my wording. Nothing impolite about it. Explain to me what you're offended by if you like.
It's not typical English mistakes, it's the same old bizarre apostrophe stuff. I'd have left it, but there were a few things.
Yes, we should all fall in line with the "never correct anything" police. Then people will certainly learn.
In his position, if someone had verbally attacked me for it, sure, it'd feel stupid and unnecessary, but I didn't do that.
Some mistakes bother me more than others, those more, so I pointed it out.
I'm disappointed I didn't at least get to see his response first, if he would think it's even offensive or worth arguing about.
EDIT: Also to be clear, I'm aware that English is not his first language and it's not like I'm picking because of that. If anything, the apostrophe is the kind of mistake made more often by native speakers! (people did it in the past but the misuse of them mainly spread to other countries because of internet, I believe)
Actually, I've at least seen WhiteDog use phrases incorrectly and be corrected by someone else, I don't recall you rushing to his defence on those occasions. I also don't recall WhiteDog being too offended, probably just reminded the other that it's not his first language. *Sigh*
It seems that in Spain, while the Citizens* party gained a lot of support and have "stolen" some of Podemos' supporters no doubt, it doesn't look to me like they could form government together (if they'd even like to) unless they join with another of the two big parties, PP or PSOE.
Is it possible with Current Polling that if PP get in again but have to form a coalition, they would choose Citizens? They'd need about 43% of polling together, I think, together they'd have just under from the last polls.
Is the loss of interest in Podemos down to fading hype and connections with Venezuelan and other supposedly concerning figures?
*(actually this is sheer coincidence I'm talking about this is one of the same posts but but they call it C's for short, which I guess is short for Citizens' party, only they don't write the full name with an apostrophe. :S *Shrug*)
|
Rewrite your post in perfect dutch or gtfo.
|
You can correct someone by PMs if you feel the need to. Instead, you are being a condescendent prick.
|
|
|
Germany25657 Posts
Please take your discussion about correct spelling to PM.
|
Wow, so much undeserved attitude. See this is what happens. Try correcting and people see directly insulting wording as justified against you. Undeserved, manners go both ways. Now, Godwrath, any thoughts on the Spanish topic I was editing in?
EDIT: just for the below, nazi too, great  Making it public was not meant to attack/humiliate him or anything like that, it just feels natural to me to type it in the thread I saw it in. Sorry if it seemed that way, but this brutal response is kind of crazy to me.
|
Edit: forgot to refresh; didn't see the mod comments. my bad
|
Podemos gets its votes from discontented people with the current political parties, it is a leftist party. Citizens does the same, but is a right wing party. So yeah on general elections, it's pretty much Podemos + PSOE or PP + Citizens.
Anyways, i might be a bit out of the loop, but citizens was way behind podemos a few months ago, dunno if they are gaining some traction lately (haven't checked CIS numbers like this one http://www.cis.es/cis/export/sites/default/-Archivos/Indicadores/documentos_html/sB606050010.html).
|
On September 28 2015 02:11 Godwrath wrote:Podemos gets its votes from discontented people with the current political parties, it is a leftist party. Citizens does the same, but is a right wing party. So yeah on general elections, it's pretty much Podemos + PSOE or PP + Citizens. Anyways, i might be a bit out of the loop, but citizens was way behind podemos a few months ago, dunno if they are gaining some traction lately (haven't checked CIS numbers like this one http://www.cis.es/cis/export/sites/default/-Archivos/Indicadores/documentos_html/sB606050010.html).
Imo Podemos, Syriza and the left in europe (Varoufakis & friends) already lost the fight. Every information I have about them is that they are losing steam trying to institutionalize the movement.
I respect those movements but their own ideas defeat their own solutions. The left is unable to understand the role of nations, too eager to get past nations and create a unified europe, with no ground or no basis.
It's sad because they're morally superior.
|
I don't think the left was any more nationalist than they are now, Syriza literally entered a coalition with a far-right wing party and many European left parties seem to be willing to do the same because they categorically resent European institutions. Horseshoe theory has become pretty relevant again, Antisemitism is a good indicator how the political left has adopted conspiracy and 'step in the back' myths of the political right.
Another thing is homophobia. In France 'La Manif pour tous' has lots of left-wing elements and members but is spreading homophobic messenges. Essentially gay people have been thrown into the group of "urban elites" and apparently they need to be opposed now. The left is not in a very healthy state. Essentially everything intellectual has been thrown out and the only common factor is a fight against 'the establishment' including the media, minorities or whoever is suspected of belonging to that group.
|
Yes, unfortunately in most countries, candidates who address the legitimate concern about an influx of potentially malicious immigrants also have a tendency to have stupid reactionist beliefs like antisemitism. Makes it harder to have a real solution to a real issue when candidates either ignore the issue or come bundled with actual racism/other unjustified phobias.
|
On September 28 2015 05:53 Nyxisto wrote:
Another thing is homophobia. In France 'La Manif pour tous' has lots of left-wing elements and members but is spreading homophobic messenges. Essentially gay people have been thrown into the group of "urban elites" and apparently they need to be opposed now. The left is not in a very healthy state.
Homophobic leftists? France is more upside down than Polandball comics lol. It has to be really hard to combine left wing ideas and homophobia without having a logical fallacy somewhere.
|
On September 28 2015 05:57 LegalLord wrote:
Yes, unfortunately in most countries, candidates who address the legitimate concern about an influx of potentially malicious immigrants also have a tendency to have stupid reactionist beliefs like antisemitism. Makes it harder to have a real solution to a real issue when candidates either ignore the issue or come bundled with actual racism/other unjustified phobias.
a problem indeed.
There's been some interesting and fairly preliminary research on the biological underpinning that may affect political viewpoints in an approximate way, but most of the studies seem to be in America, I'm wondering how much research has been done in other countries.
the article is marked as having some issues, but I wanted to provide a link for clarity as to what I'm talking about, I also looked thru some other links I found in google.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
