Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 78

Thread: New wave of Islamic invasion of Europe

  1. Top | #11
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,769
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    In Pakistan a person can be put to death for blasphemy. A Christian must not proselytize or face death. In Western countries, you can blaspheme and spread whatever religion you want. The reason? Borders.
    In the USA a secular constitution that at least tries to prevent govt from pushing religion. Despite our race issues we do have a general culture of tolerance.

    In the 19th century Mormons with a military force marched west. A jihad of the times.

  2. Top | #12
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,769
    Rep Power
    15
    I do not think people in Pakistan and other places have any idea what our culture is.

    When Jay Leno used a picture of a Hindu scared temple to mock Romney the Indian govt wanted to sue the USA.

    There is an Indian Hindu in my building who came here in the 80s. He said if he went to Pakistan he would be killed.

  3. Top | #13
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    3,985
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    5,735
    Rep Power
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    ISLAM IS NOT A RACE!!!
    LOL, you wouldn't be so scared of them if they were white.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    You can stick your head in the sand all you want, safe in the knowledge that your government stopped the boats.
    Actually, the boats were never much of a problem, relatively speaking. If I were some xenophobic Henny Penny, I would be more concerned about the planes. Even when boat arrivals were at their peak, the vast majority of asylum seekers arrived by plane. It's so much easier to get here by plane: you buy a ticket, fly to Australia and request asylum at the airport once you arrive.

    Australia used to be totally fine with boat people. We didn't give a shit that it was an "illegal" way to enter the country, because a request for asylum is valid regardless of whether you asked permission to seek refuge. The first boat people were Vietnamese: they spoke a different language, looked different, spoke a different language, had different customs, and embodied an enemy we had just lost a war against. But we welcomed them with compassion because it's a big country and there's plenty of room for a few more.

    Fast forward a few decades, and the Lord Mayor of my city is a Vietnamese refugee and a patriotic Aussie, through and through. Giving refuge to boat people worked out pretty well for us, and I think it's fair to say that as a country, we did a good thing for people who needed help. We didn't turn them away because they sailed past Indonesia to get to us; we weren't stupid enough to accuse them of economic migration; we didn't think that the sovereignty of our territorial waters was more important than our moral duty to provide humanitarian aid to victims of war.

    But as time went by, Australians became hostile to immigration. Can't get a job? Housing too expensive? Must be because of the immigrants. As public sentiment turned increasingly anti-immigrant, political parties sought to capitalise on the fear by selling themselves as tough on immigration. The government faked the "children overboard" affair to re-frame boat people as criminal opportunists. It worked extremely well; boat people became a threat to national security and a threat to our very society. Not only did we have immigrants coming to take our jobs, we had illegal immigrants bludging off of welfare. Boat people became the national scapegoat to appease the rising xenophobia. We didn't build a wall; we just started towing people back to their persecutors or throwing them in island concentration camps.

    The boat arrivals never warranted the national panic that has gripped us over the course of several election cycles. We process far, far more asylum seekers arriving by plane, and boat people are far more likely to qualify as refugees. If anything, we should flip it around and only allow boat arrivals to claim asylum. It's just dirty politics; right-wing politicians fostered and leveraged xenophobia so they could blame our economic pressures on immigrants instead of their own mismanagment of the economy. Stopping the boats didn't make me feel safe, because I was never worried about them in the first place. If anything, I'm worried that the government has successfully avoided blame for the housing crisis and chronic underemployment that have been blamed on immigration.

  4. Top | #14
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Port Clinton, Ohio
    Posts
    2,596
    Archived
    591
    Total Posts
    3,187
    Rep Power
    63
    Wasn't America enriched by the arrival of the Drumpfmenschen, of Germany? I mean, the whorehouses alone provided employment and fairly hygienic recreation in the pre-Internet world.

  5. Top | #15
    Veteran Member KeepTalking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    St. Louis Metro East
    Posts
    3,564
    Archived
    3,057
    Total Posts
    6,621
    Rep Power
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    In Pakistan a person can be put to death for blasphemy. A Christian must not proselytize or face death. In Western countries, you can blaspheme and spread whatever religion you want. The reason? Borders.
    And yet you do not want them to be able migrate to a more civilized Country, where they might receive more tolerance, or learn that being tolerant is a good thing. The reason? Your precious Borders.

  6. Top | #16
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    17,403
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    33,089
    Rep Power
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by KeepTalking View Post
    And yet you do not want them to be able migrate
    Who is "them"? Nobody is advocating a blanket ban on migration for anybody from Pakistan. But at the same time, there should not be a blanket acceptance of mass migration, including from Pakistan. There is a huge difference there, even if left wingers try to pretend that unless you support mass migration and de facto open borders, that's the same as being against all immigration.
    to a more civilized Country, where they might receive more tolerance, or learn that being tolerant is a good thing.
    How long will these countries remain "more civilized" under sustained mass migration? Vast majority of people in Pakistan, Iraq, "Palestine" and Afghanistan support the Shariah Law for example.


    A sane migration policy must include
    1) Limits on numbers that the host society actually needs and can absorb easily.
    2) Vetting of every individual would-be migrant for things like criminal record and willingness to integrate into host society, including learning the language and not subscribing to extremist ideologies such as Islamism.
    3) Effective means to deport those who entered illegally and who have violated the terms of their immigrant visas.

    People should not be allowed in just because they show up at the borders and demand to be let in.


    The reason? Your precious Borders.
    You can't have a country without borders any more than you can have a cell without a cytoplasmic membrane. Open borders is a death-wish for any country.
    Last edited by Derec; 03-06-2020 at 11:13 PM.

  7. Top | #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    3,198
    Archived
    1,250
    Total Posts
    4,448
    Rep Power
    0
    "Multiple terrorist attacks in Europe that show no signs of slowing down? People's lives being taken away is a small price to pay in order for people to not call me a racist!" - People on this board

  8. Top | #18
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    17,403
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    33,089
    Rep Power
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post
    LOL, you wouldn't be so scared of them if they were white.
    Bullshit! And many of them (particularly the Syrians) ARE white.

    Actually, the boats were never much of a problem, relatively speaking.
    Because they were stopped. In Europe, where they haven't been stopped, vast quantities of mass migrants are still arriving by boat.

    If I were some xenophobic Henny Penny, I would be more concerned about the planes. Even when boat arrivals were at their peak, the vast majority of asylum seekers arrived by plane. It's so much easier to get here by plane: you buy a ticket, fly to Australia and request asylum at the airport once you arrive.
    Obviously mass migration needs to be stopped no matter the mode of travel.

    Australia used to be totally fine with boat people. We didn't give a shit that it was an "illegal" way to enter the country, because a request for asylum is valid regardless of whether you asked permission to seek refuge.
    Asylum system has been broken for the last couple of decades. Asylum is well-intentioned - to protect individuals persecuted by their home countries. It was never intended to facilitate wholesale transfer of millions of people like is happening now. Asylum should be suspended until it can be fundamentally reworked and made compatible with 21st century realities.

    The first boat people were Vietnamese: they spoke a different language, looked different, spoke a different language, had different customs, and embodied an enemy we had just lost a war against. But we welcomed them with compassion because it's a big country and there's plenty of room for a few more.
    First of all, the Vietnamese who were coming to the West were from South Vietnam, fleeing the communist takeover. Subject to "ARVN rifles, never been fired and only been dropped once" jokes, but not the enemy. Second, the numbers were orders of magnitude less than what we are dealing with now, and thirdly, they are not Muslims.

    Giving refuge to boat people worked out pretty well for us,
    Just because it worked out for a relatively small number of people in the 70s does not mean it will work out for a culturally very different group of people, especially when the numbers are 100x bigger.
    A million mass migrants (Syrians, Afghans, Pakistanis and other assorted Islamics) entered Germany alone in 2015 alone. That is unprecedented and not at all comparable with the Vietnamese.

    and I think it's fair to say that as a country, we did a good thing for people who needed help. We didn't turn them away because they sailed past Indonesia to get to us; we weren't stupid enough to accuse them of economic migration; we didn't think that the sovereignty of our territorial waters was more important than our moral duty to provide humanitarian aid to victims of war.
    But imagine if you opened the border to a few 10,000 Vietnamese and all of a sudden millions of Indonesians, Malaysians, Laotians, Thais and Burmese started coming, vast majority of them economic migrants. Because that's what's been happening in Europe. Most of the migrants are not Syrians.

    But as time went by, Australians became hostile to immigration. Can't get a job? Housing too expensive? Must be because of the immigrants.
    Immigration is not all good. It has good and bad consequences, and the level of immigration and the kinds of people you let immigrate decides the balance between good and bad consequences. If you have too many immigrants and especially the wrong kind (not willing to assimilate, etc) you get too many negative consequences and a backlash by the people. Europe is currently in that stage, although they still have idealistic idiots hanging on their open borders ideology - in Germany mostly in the Green Party.

    It is certianly counterproductive to label anybody critical of an immigration policy as racist or xenophobe, especially if the policy they oppose is de facto open borders.


    We didn't build a wall; we just started towing people back to their persecutors or throwing them in island concentration camps.
    What "persecutors"? Most of these mass migrants are economic opportunists.

    right-wing politicians fostered and leveraged xenophobia
    Again, being critical of overly permissive migration policies is not "xenophobia".

    Stopping the boats didn't make me feel safe, because I was never worried about them in the first place. If anything, I'm worried that the government has successfully avoided blame for the housing crisis and chronic underemployment that have been blamed on immigration.
    If Australia hadn't blocked most mass migrants people like Hussein Khavari might have ended up in Australia instead.
    Last edited by Derec; 03-06-2020 at 11:50 PM.

  9. Top | #19
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    3,985
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    5,735
    Rep Power
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    But imagine if you opened the border to a few 10,000 Vietnamese and all of a sudden millions of Indonesians, Malaysians, Laotians, Thais and Burmese started coming, vast majority of them economic migrants. Because that's what's been happening in Europe. Most of the migrants are not Syrians.
    There you go: You have to resort to an alternate history hypothetical to try and convince me that boat people were something to worry about. It isn't going to work, because I'm not some xenophobic Henny Penny.

  10. Top | #20
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    17,403
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    33,089
    Rep Power
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post
    There you go: You have to resort to an alternate history hypothetical to try and convince me that boat people were something to worry about. It isn't going to work, because I'm not some xenophobic Henny Penny.
    It's an analogy based on what is actually happening in Europe, where millions of people from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria, Ethiopia, etc. are coming along with the Syrian refugees. It's not xenophobia to reject mass migration.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •