Told this one to my Polish girlfriend. Third degree burn right there.

the frequent terror attacks make me sick too, but you clearly seem to have no idea how bad it is in the middle east, how devastating the terror attacks there are. why don't you move there for a year and report back if your experience backs up your claim?

better import that demographic in large numbers with no plans on how to assimilate them eh?

no, better put stricter regulations in place to make sure only people who are seriously in need of refuge, and who are willing to integrate, are allowed in.
what are you talking about, you madman? do you want even more radicals in europe?!

I love how this post was just magically ignored

you should learn to distinguish between real stuff and an ironic comment in between



that would apply to only a handful of people which would no hurt our society
fully agreed for once



first of all, its ridiculous how merkel opened the door for half the world to come here and then uses brussels to force these people on nations that have NEVER been asked if they want this

second, lets face the truth
these illegal migrants do NOT want to go eastern europe

i can give you multiple sources about relocated "refugees" and you know what happened? it wasnt good enough so every single one packed their shit and went to germany
further proof that those people are not refugees, but in fact migrants looking for state handouts

so its not only unfair, but unrealistic as well

This post was edited by ampoo on Jun 19 2017 01:26pm

Just because this hasn't been properly implemented it doesn't mean it's bad in concept.

Firstly, it doesn't matter what Merkel or the other countries' leaders say... there are international treaties that we have signed that say we need to attend refugees. I repeat: refugees. People escaping from the war, and not some a bunch of illegal immigrants trying to make a living here. The idea of opening borders to everyone is ridiculous, and the whole thing should have been handled much better, but countries do have the obligation of letting in those in honest need. Merkel was indeed reckless and better controls should have been implemented from the beginning, but whether countries wanted to accept refugees or not is irrelevant because they all agreed to sign the international treaties on the issue.

Secondly, I agree that only refugees in need that are willing to integrate should be let in. Children escaping war should all be let in.

Thirdly, refugees should be assigned a place to stay at, and they should not be allowed to leave that country, unless authorized otherwise. The moment a refugee is identified outside of its country, he should lose his refugee status and be kicked out.

This post was edited by zarkadon on Jun 19 2017 02:04pm

first of all, i think your points are perfectly reasonable

but its way too late to make the distinctions you suggest here, the uncontrolled tsunami has seen to that
i havent seen an international treaty that compels states to accept and house illegal migrants that have come through several safe states and the many who paid shitloads of money that the mostly poor eastern european people could never afford
hungary does it right, they assign them to camps to then see what to do with them
needless to say that they send like 99,9% back and let perhaps a few travel to germany

so in actual in reality we have no clue who is a refugee and who is a migrant (according to german law even syrians are not refugees as civil war is not a reason for asylum)
how would we do that if not for serious border enforcement, which nobody seems to be ready for
and what about the identities of refugees? its standard to procedure to just show up here since its also a shield against deportation

my standpoint is clear, send everyone without a cleared identity back immediately, but then again there might some actual refugees that really have nothing and do not try to cheat us
with your second point i agree, we should handpick refugees with actual education/skill being a priority and i think nobody would let children freeze and starve at the border

eventually it leads to the policy australia is enforcing

third point is fine, but not realistic, in germany there have been many discussions about "mandatory residence" that led to nothing, how would it work for europe? and since refugees all around the world think that germany is promise land you still have to deal with narrative somehow (which has become impossible)

and then comes the most important point, we are talking about asylum
it meant temporary protection before that word has been corrupted to justify unrestricted, permanent migration
so is there really a need for integration except a tiny minority of skilled people that will integrate on their own? usually that point never makes a discussion, they have to return at some point (in theory at least)

there is no other choice except mass deportations, creating camps and safe zones in africa and the middle east or we will be overrun

but that wont happen, there is no political will to stop mass migration and the only explanation left is that it is done on purpose

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=irony



oh sure, "only a handful of people" are fleeing from war and terror, it's hardly worth mentioning...




shocking! unlike you ofc, most other people don't like to settle for less?! don't get me wrong, i agree with the sentiment that they should be grateful wherever they are accepted - it's much better than civil war or living under those religious fanatics, and i would support some kind of LEGAL pressure to make them stay where they are sent (like making a refusal to do so an automatic loss of their status as refugees), but it's not like our eastern neighbours hide their animosity against them and it's not like we would act different - if we were to flee a war in europe, i assure you we all would rather go to canada or australia than to india or mexico...

i just think it's pretty shitty from nations like poland and hungary to outright refuse to do their part when those are the countries that we've been supporting for ages, financially and politically.



pretty much this...

This post was edited by fender on Jun 19 2017 02:52pm

No no, that's not what I meant, I said: When there is no religion, they'll find something else to justify the violence. Like: Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
The religion isn't per definition backwards. How it is used to justify violence that is backwards.

sorry for the late reaction, freaking busy at work.



great post


I'm pretty serious there as explained in this post on the top

This post was edited by Knaapie on Jun 19 2017 03:23pm