EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 482
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
On June 12 2016 17:45 xM(Z wrote: any, more deutsch -ish details on this?: http://en.abna24.com/service/middle-east-west-asia/archive/2016/06/12/759703/story.html ...... Yeah, this source is pretty bad. The court hasn't ruled the marriage valid, but only ruled that the girl can decide herself wheter or not she wants to see her "husband". As an other court before ruled that visitations should be limited by the youth welfare office, the case will likely go to the higher courts. Any source which quotes someone like Robin Classen is shit. | ||
|
hfglgg
Germany5372 Posts
| ||
|
AngryMag
Germany1040 Posts
| ||
|
AngryMag
Germany1040 Posts
On June 12 2016 19:45 SoSexy wrote: I'm not shocked. After Cologne, it's clear that Germany bowed down. I would have been way more surprised by 'Judge declares that marriage invalid'. + Show Spoiler + 4chan would simply say: Germany is cucked Yeah this. | ||
|
forsooth
United States3648 Posts
On June 10 2016 18:59 opisska wrote: One hand, I obviously agree that money and resources do not come out of thin air, so there needs to be some balance. On the other hand, I am not so sure whether outright excluding a group of people from welfare system is a very good idea. Together with their worse employability (people will obviously prefer locals for most things, if they can), it inevitable leads towards establishing an impoverished social layer, which will increase crime, lead to creation of ghettos and generally hinder any effort in integrating the people into our culture. All of that will then incur a lot of additional expenses on the rest of the society anyway, making the initial savings at least dubious. If competition for work is high and resources are strained, there's no reason to be letting more people immigrate in the first place. Even less so if they have few marketable skills. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On June 13 2016 04:11 forsooth wrote: If competition for work is high and resources are strained, there's no reason to be letting more people immigrate in the first place. Even less so if they have few marketable skills. I am still eagerly waiting for someone to tell me a practical way to not "let them immigrate". To make it easier, let me rehash the problems such a proposal needs to sort out: - EU outer borders are huge and to a large extent maritime, but with short distance to foreign lands. That makes them effectively impossible to patrol. - even if you could patrol all the maritime borders, international law and general human sense of decency tells you that you should not drown the people on spot - once you have the people on your soil, or on your boat, there aren't many countries willing to take them from you - even if you do succeed in it, many are likely to come again - all together, all the attempts to close the border only increase the profits of the smugglers and cause more deaths among the migrants, the efficiency in deterring people from coming is dubious. I also really dislike the "lottery with life" aspect of the whole thing, when you get rewarded for surviving the sail, but that may be just me. - did I ever mention how huge the border is? - renouncing Schengen and forcing the border states to deal with it is shortsighted, if not outright stupid, as the relevant border states are mostly the poorer ones, making it a bigger problem; it's also quite selfish (and solves nothing if you happen to live in one of those). I have yet to see a holder of a strict anti-immigration policy to answer this simple question: but how are you gonna implement it in reality? That's really when people always start to chicken out from discussion. | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On June 13 2016 04:26 opisska wrote: I am still eagerly waiting for someone to tell me a practical way to not "let them immigrate". To make it easier, let me rehash the problems such a proposal needs to sort out: - EU outer borders are huge and to a large extent maritime, but with short distance to foreign lands. That makes them effectively impossible to patrol. - even if you could patrol all the maritime borders, international law and general human sense of decency tells you that you should not drown the people on spot - once you have the people on your soil, or on your boat, there aren't many countries willing to take them from you - even if you do succeed in it, many are likely to come again - all together, all the attempts to close the border only increase the profits of the smugglers and cause more deaths among the migrants, the efficiency in deterring people from coming is dubious. I also really dislike the "lottery with life" aspect of the whole thing, when you get rewarded for surviving the sail, but that may be just me. - did I ever mention how huge the border is? - renouncing Schengen and forcing the border states to deal with it is shortsighted, if not outright stupid, as the relevant border states are mostly the poorer ones, making it a bigger problem; it's also quite selfish (and solves nothing if you happen to live in one of those). I have yet to see a holder of a strict anti-immigration policy to answer this simple question: but how are you gonna implement it in reality? That's really when people always start to chicken out from discussion. One method that will work, but that many deem inhumane, is to tow back every boat with migrants to North Africa/Turkey instead of Italy or Greece. Right now the migrants are basically making a gamble: they hope to be found by the coast guards or some NGO before their boat capsizes. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9280 Posts
| ||
|
forsooth
United States3648 Posts
That being said, Australia already solved the boat problem by making it clear that illegal immigrants will never be allowed residence in Australia. No country has any responsibility to care for any people but its own (refugees are another matter, but people already safe in northwestern Turkey trying to get a higher standard of living by paying criminals to smuggle them to Europe are hardly refugees) and when it starts prioritizing the wants of foreign nationals over the best interests of its own people, it is no longer a government worth keeping. | ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
Like, what justification do immigrants have to say "Well, Turkey, Greece, and all the other states that don't have a welfare system aren't really suitable for us, so we go on to Sweden, Germany and France?" They're willingly and knowingly breaking EU law. If we don't respect and enforce our own law, of course they think we're weak and Sharia Law is the only law they have to respect. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
Can you really tow a boat into other nation's sovereign waters? How many international laws does that break at once? What would be the peaceful sub-Saharan country exactly? What makes you think the people in question will be inclined to stay there? Can you name any successful historical examples when we have heavily subsidized a culturally heavily different country for our own needs and it worked out just fine? How exactly would you "prosecute" them? Is creating large detention facilities something we will benefit from? Or building additional prisons? It's really not a question of what we want to do, but a question of long-term sustainable feasibility. | ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
I think under international law, it's legitimate to secure your borders. Nobody wants to consider the awful possibility of shooting a the ships, but if you think about it, you will deter crossing via the Mediterranean, which in the short term saves a lot of refugees from drowning and in the long term saves a lot of Europeans from being killed and raped. €: I hate that I'm developing this 'us vs. them' mentality, but it more and more looks like we've extended a hand in help and we're getting repaid with rape, murder and theft. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6266 Posts
On June 13 2016 16:59 DickMcFanny wrote: Right, what kind of message are you sending when you don't prosecute them for breaking the laws of their host country? Like, what justification do immigrants have to say "Well, Turkey, Greece, and all the other states that don't have a welfare system aren't really suitable for us, so we go on to Sweden, Germany and France?" They're willingly and knowingly breaking EU law. If we don't respect and enforce our own law, of course they think we're weak and Sharia Law is the only law they have to respect. The problem is that they basically get no rights in those countries. Cant work, no education etc. There are numerous examples of huge refugee camps existing for years which basically turned into cities. Ideally they would get the right to work,education etc. and the west would take off pressure via legal immigration and monetary support for good policy regarding refugees. Why they go to Germany and Sweden instead of other countries is pretty simple as well. They let everyone come no strings attached at the start. The refugee numbers in France which you mention are actually pretty small. Merkel basically went full retard. Should have made a deal with Turkey to take refugees in the legal way a lot earlier instead of condoning refugees using boats and taking the illegal route | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22103 Posts
On June 13 2016 18:45 DickMcFanny wrote: Well, you have to deter immigration somehow. I think under international law, it's legitimate to secure your borders. Nobody wants to consider the awful possibility of shooting a the ships, but if you think about it, you will deter crossing via the Mediterranean, which in the short term saves a lot of refugees from drowning and in the long term saves a lot of Europeans from being killed and raped. €: I hate that I'm developing this 'us vs. them' mentality, but it more and more looks like we've extended a hand in help and we're getting repaid with rape, murder and theft. did you seriously just say we should shoot at rubber dingies full of refugees? Just think for 2 seconds about what you just said. | ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
On June 13 2016 18:49 Gorsameth wrote: did you seriously just say we should shoot at rubber dingies full of refugees? Just think for 2 seconds about what you just said. I realise how stupid and extreme that sounds. But I think you can save a lot of lives with a couple of warning shots, not literally gunning down refugees in boats. How many people drown every month in the Mediterranean Sea? If you send a clear signal saying their efforts to cross are futile, they might be deterred from taking the journey. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22103 Posts
On June 13 2016 19:00 DickMcFanny wrote: I realise how stupid and extreme that sounds. But I think you can save a lot of lives with a couple of warning shots, not literally gunning down refugees in boats. How many people drown every month in the Mediterranean Sea? If you send a clear signal saying their efforts to cross are futile, they might be deterred from taking the journey. People who are desperate enough to try and cross the Mediterranean in a rubber life-raft are not going to be deterred by warning shots. You don't think bodies of those who drown wash up on the other shore as well? The deaths don't seem to deter them now. Gunning down refugees makes us no better then the animals they are fleeing. Is it that easy to get us to throw aside our morality? We really are no different or better then ISIS. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9280 Posts
On June 13 2016 18:21 opisska wrote: The Australia solution works, because it's a problem smaller by orders of magnitude, I have found numbers around 400-500 a month, is that correct? I think that with such numbers, we could deal to everyone's satisfaction without any clever strategies. Can you really tow a boat into other nation's sovereign waters? How many international laws does that break at once? What would be the peaceful sub-Saharan country exactly? What makes you think the people in question will be inclined to stay there? Can you name any successful historical examples when we have heavily subsidized a culturally heavily different country for our own needs and it worked out just fine? How exactly would you "prosecute" them? Is creating large detention facilities something we will benefit from? Or building additional prisons? It's really not a question of what we want to do, but a question of long-term sustainable feasibility. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do (in fact I think the Australian solution is a bit too harsh) but it's an option that should be considered. I don't have a strong opinion on this matter so I'm not going to defend the Australian model, I'll just explain how I think it works. The Australia solution works, because it's a problem smaller by orders of magnitude The problem is smaller partially because migrants know that Europe will take them in and Australia will not. Can you really tow a boat into other nation's sovereign waters? How many international laws does that break at once? If Australians can, why can't we? What would be the peaceful sub-Saharan country exactly? I don't know, any country that's politically stable and willing to take in migrants and refugees in exchange for money would do. What makes you think the people in question will be inclined to stay there? How exactly would you "prosecute" them? Is creating large detention facilities something we will benefit from? Or building additional prisons? You get their fingerprints and fly them to the facility in that African country and provide them with everything they need. If they don't like the conditions they can just leave, it's not a prison but a refugee facility. If they somehow get back to Europe you deport them again, this time faster because you have their fingerprints. If the war ends you fly the refugees back to their countries. I guess you could also have a second asylum procedure for refugees who spent some time in your African facility and behaved nicely. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
basically your argument follows nothing and goes nowhere. for years i was a slave and build this awesome place people want to immigrate to and when i'm to enjoy it, you tell me to fuck off 'cause you have cheaper slaves.  | ||
| ||
