|Community >> View Post|
Subj: Re: Im talking about war refugees not economic migrant workers
Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 03:20:47 pm EDT (Viewed 237 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Im talking about war refugees not economic migrant workers
Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2017 at 01:35:25 pm EDT (Viewed 244 times)
Quote:He does make a valid point though...IF crimes are also going up. Terrorist or not who cares? It's bad. Just because its not terrorist inspired doesn't make it any less terrible.
Quote:To my mind he is conflating the two. Crimes committed by immigrants is terrorism. That is not the case.
Quote:Actually I took it more as...BOTH will increase with massive amounts of refugees and immigrants. I don't see the conflict in saying that at all.
They will BOTH increase.
I am not sure I buy they increase on equal levels. Pending other factors. Crime will go up, terrorists acts may or may not. IMO.
Quote:You were trying to minimize the crime aspect by saying its not terrorism. So imo you are combining the issue not him. I read his statement as saying these were 2 negative impacts. And that just because their crimes are not terroristic in nature (when they are just crimes) is not an argument for letting massive migration in...its another reason NOT too.
I may have read his post wrong, but most of his post is pretty much implying they are one in the same.
I am not saying that crime is ok. I am saying that when one allows large numbers of any population in there will be increases in crime. I do not think that is grounds to keep people out in and of itself. Unless there is reason to believe that it is moreso.
Quote:It can be a problem, but the issue is also assuming that crimes from immigrants or refugees is somehow worse. Taking in more people will lead to an increase in crime. But that is not a new observation nor changes the need to take in refugees because some act poorly.
Quote:Punishing all for the actions of a few is a way to justify nearly any sort of policing action.
Quote:And saying some bad apples are not a reason to react in some way can justify all sorts of appeasement. I think we both agree the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Except I am trying to argue for a middle ground of sorts. If you read my post I am taking the opposite end but most of my points are trying to fall somewhere in there.
Countries do not have an obligation to take everyone but they cannot turn a blind eye either.
Quote:Not really. Being a supporter of the US in and of itself is not going to make one a strong target. In terms of PR. Britain and France are more involved in the middle east and have been pointed out as areas to focus on.
Quote:Are you serious? You think being known to the world over as a USA ally, has no impact on countries who have negative views of the USA?
That is not what I said.
Poland is a US ally but not as strong as other European countries. Poland also has a minimal footprint in the regions where the war on terror is occurring.
Being an ally in and of itself would have minimal impact. At least in my mind. That is not zero. I imagine it would factor in, but from the experts I have listened to on the matter it seems that punishing those involved that directly stick their nose in things is more important.
At least as far as symbols go. From what I have heard, it is a major factor. Does not mean there are not others.
Quote:Maybe there is more to it, but that is generally what I hear when I listen to experts on the matter.
Quote:And there are experts on the opposing side. But we ignore them yes?
Probably, but I can only go by what I hear on various reports. Various shows with round tables on the matter. Some are for exclusionary methods, but most of them agreed with what I am pointing out.
I did not just make that up on the spot. I am not sure there is a need for hostility here.
Quote:Economics in and of itself does not really affect being a target for terrorists attacks in and of itself.
Quote:Well we disagree...Economics is a huge factor in everything that happens on this planet. Everyone wants things, Corporations practically rule the world, etc...I would argue Economics may be the biggest factor bar none in the world.
At some level, not sure a terrorist group or a criminal enterprise picks a target based on GDP though.
Economics is a reason for major instability in regions of the world. Along with primary scarce resources etc. There are multiple aspects that factor in.
I am not sure this diminishes the point I was making. Unless you can point me to a source indicating that the general wealth of a country is indicative of acts on them. Seems like it has more to do with other factors. Maybe I am mistaken.
Quote:Except I never made the claim you are assuming I am. I never said that there should not be some sort of vetting process. I have an issue with keeping everybody out. As was proposed. I do not find it to be much of a response.
Quote:No I agree you have not. But you seem to automatically ignore that there is some reasoning behind this other view. IMO it has as much validity as those who say let them all in. The truth is somewhere in the middle yes?
So, you sort of agree with me, but not really. And are singling my view out for attack but not really addressing much of the other fellows points?
Quote:My thoughts are that there are numerous middle grounds between letting them all in and trying to keep them all out.
Quote:See I think we agree...my above responses were that you seemed to think there was nothing valid in his comments. Not that you don't think he is just going too far.
At various times in my response to him I indicate that I have sympathies with some of the ideas and reasoning he is putting out. Particularly at the end of one of the things.
However, just because I do does not mean I agree that they are the strongest points to be had. I concede that terrorism occurs in Europe. I agree that they have an interest in protecting their population. I also think that civilized countries have a duty to help those in need.
Like I said in my original response to him. It is a game of degrees. What is acceptable to one may be unacceptable to somebody else. He seems to find any criminal activity as a zero some game for those that did not do anything. I disagree with that.
Quote:But no outcry from those politicans with an agenda to keep those refugees coming yes? They attempted to cover it up. Should they not be held accountable? Should not their reasons be examined and questioned? Or do they get a free ride here? The politicians to be exact.
Quote:They should be. But I am not a total expert on what happened there. Looking at the things I see, it looks like alot of the cover up was by local police. At least if I am reading right.
Quote:This come across as apologetic for those politicians you realize. Why would the Police hide this? They don't have an agenda or stated platform about allowing a large number of refugees. That is the Politicians. That they are clearly from the liberal party should not be cutting them slack. Or is it the modern knee-jerk reaction to blame everything on the Police?
It is one I read about the matter. In the original post I stated I was not an expert on this. So, I read up on it to a cursory degree. The sources I looked over indicated that this was the police.
Jump on me about political biases all you want to. All I can come back with is what I read from sources that seemed to be unbiased.
But sure, think I blame the police for everything. Police are and can be political if you want to get at it on that end too. It is foolish to pretend that they are not. As those in charge have bias too.
Quote:They are the same but not the same.
Quote:Terrorism is a crime. Not all crime is terrorism. Just because an immigrant or refugee commits a crime does not mean it is an act of terrorism. That is the whole thing. Period.
Quote:Again unless you are arguing that refugees committing acts of crime with the caveat that they are not terrorist acts is a GOOD thing...doesn't really help your case.
Read what I wrote and consider the context. You made a statement about them being the same but not the same.
I piece by piece put together what I was thinking in quick fragments.
I am not defending crime, but nor do I pretend that one should expect no increase in crime from influxes of people. At various points I think I make the case that those who commit crimes should be punished.
From the few statistics I have seen, most crimes involve non violent crimes. Does not mean there is no rape, murder or so on. Or that those should not go punished.
My general point, that seems to be lost on all, is that keeping everybody out does not promise to keep out terrorism. Given citizens of the countries are helping in these acts. And while crimes need to be punished an discouraged, because there is crime where there are people is also not great grounds to keep people out that would die otherwise.
At least my two cents. Others can disagree with me and they do. I am allowed an opinion though. Even if you do not think so.
Quote:Not arguing about Japan one way or another. Or their politics. Merely that they are a bad example.
Quote:In and off themselves alone I would agree, they do add to the validity if other countries with their trends in policies are in a similar state. Personally I would need more examples of such countries...because then you have a trend.
Quote:3. Japan is an island, meaning an increased degree of geographical separation.
Quote:This supports his argument though...harder for terrorists to get to. Harder to enter their society, and they have much less terrorism.
Quote:Not really, it makes it easier to control their borders than other countries. They are not right up on their neighbors which has led to histories of isolationist policies over the years. And ironically, expansionist ideals at other times.
Quote:Britain is an island too. Also why are you bringing up other times, those times are not the issue being discussed here. As you like to say...not relevant to the topic.
Why are you hammering me for addressing your points and trying to explain things. You made a point I disagree with. You them come at me like you are stating I am coming off. Being very dismissive.
Is Britain not part of the EU and the policies there in? Is Britain not involved in the middle east and the war on terror? Is it easier to travel from France or Poland to Britain or Japan?
And yes they are. You and the other fellow are pointing out that it is a good example. It is not at all a good example. Poland is a better comparative than Japan for a laundry list of reasons if you want to consider policy.
For that matter, we also do not consider that many Britain are more angry about Polish immigration than they were about taking refugees. It is a reason for Brexit.
Quote:That is a separate issue. A country that is in the EU has to abide by the rules the EU sets up. If they want out than that is fine.
Quote:Or...you try to force a change. Not everything has to be a Brexit. But by your answer...YES every EU country must do as they are told or take their ball and go home.
Some do see it that way from what I can tell. Brexit was caused by multiple sources that included but not only about refugees. It was also about immigration around the EU and other factors. Both real and imagined. By the later some of the things brought up were blown out of proportion.
By joining the EU countries accepted to act in some manner as a collective. The EU cannot demand things of the countries per se but if countries in the EU define general ideas than it is defeating the purpose in the first place. They are in effect ignoring what they agreed to be a part of in the first place.
I am unaware of a good refugee policy on the matter by the EU as a whole. Partly because of extremely different opinions.
However, there are international agreements that could be being ignored along the way.
Quote:It is not possible to make that case. It is nice that you want to debate each point but it changes nothing about it.
Quote:Just as it was nice of you to make every single point and not want to talk about it.
Except where I did.
Quote:One of the things that allows easy movement of potential unsavory types in Europe is free travel for citizens in the countries. This has been cracked down on a little but only to a point.
Quote:One issue yes...something they clearly should have but did not foresee.
But is ignored by the other poster and your points at times. As even keeping outsiders out does not change dealing with internal terrorism or crimes.
Which to me is a major inconsistency of keep them out policy when a fair bit of some of the more high profile cases have had a more local component that can freely move about the EU. Legally
Quote:6. You assume that for the purposes of impact targets that Poland is equal to other countries in the EU. Which is not really the case. Not to mention many seek to punish countries involved in the ME. Poland has minimal footprint and taken few actions there.
Quote:Poland is not a top 3 EU country but it is a top 6 (at least economically...maybe 5th since Brexit). And has strong ties to Germany. That they resist this refugee decision, championed by Merkle does make this an issue.
Quote:Again, what does that have to do with it. Being a strong economy does not mean one is a target for terror.
Quote:Why would terrorists go outside their one poor country to target other poor countries...they don't...they target those with a strong economy as well. You seem to thinks it s a complete non-factor, I think its a factor though not the only one.
Except that is not what I said. Having a strong GDP is not what marks one for terror. Being in outspoken opposition to the terrorist organizations etc. does.
Those countries tend to have more economic power. The responses to the countries that are targeting them in order to try and get a change in that country.
Also, your premise is incorrect. Terrorists attack individuals in poorer countries all of the time. Unless we think those in Syria and suppressed regions of the middle east are not poor. They are attacked a fair bit more often. to try and get political change.
The goal of ISIS is to promote their ideology. To my knowledge on the matter economics is not high on the list of things terrorists target. Nor are most terrorist targets in wealthy countries. If there were maps of such things the middle east, generally much less wealth than the EU, suffers far more from terrorist acts.
Quote:7. You disregard all of this and attach it to one policy alone in isolation. That alone seems highly flawed.
Quote:Not wanting mass refugees with a unarguable higher percentage of terrorists among them is not isolationist.
Quote:What is the percentage? And wanting outsiders not allowed in is very much an isolationist policy. It is not taking the country full that way.
Quote:Maybe you should supply the percentage. Since you asked you surely have an idea. Or is it ALL of them?
No idea, but it would be good to know. You are the one talking about percentages here. The only study I cited you disregarded. I would be happy to see something more relevant.
Not about the EU but about the US, I think it is generally telling.
However, before you tare into this and me. These are about the US and not apples to apples. But I think they may give an idea of the rarity. That is my entire point. I wish I had numbers on the EU but I do not. These acts are more common in Europe for sure but consider how the US population reacts to these acts when they do occur. As a whole we respond with knee jerk fear. I see little reason to give into fear on these situations. Consider security but also consider that policies pointed out by the other poster are probably along the lines of what some groups want.
How easy is the message that they do not want you etc. It is a complicated situation. I merely agree with the absolute idea of keeping everybody out and the examples given.
Even if we do, at what point are they ok? As every bodies sensibilities differ. We would all like to say we want 0% terrorism and 0% crime but that is not possible.
Quote:I just find it to be inappropriate to conflate so many strings and then try to use it as a reason or logic behind this view. I mean if we are making rhetorical points. Why would a terrorists see New York as a better target than Wyoming?
Quote:Because of Hollywood movies. But I don't buy that there are not targets they can pick in Wyoming that would lead to a massive impact. It's not always about the number of deaths, its about how soft the target is versus the impact.
Quote:Partly, also higher impact. I think you are largely being ridiculous.
Quote:But why? You say only for visual impact. I say for that plus economics plus to strike DIRECTLY at the USA which had never been done before party due to media coverage (the only target was NOT NY), partly as a world landmark, was something they figured they could pull off (not impossible), etc...multiple factors.
How did economics factor in? The US was not directly a target of terror attacks because of their economic strength. They were targeted for reasons including activity in the given regions, culture and standing in the world. The last part has economics involved but moreso in what it allows a country to do with the resources provided.
I assume you are talking about 9/11. The major target was NY, the one plane was brought down. I do not recall the target. The other hit Washington DC. The Pentagon in fact. Also, a powerful symbolic target of US strength.
And I do not disagree that it is multiple factors. I disagree that economics in and of itself is a primary factor. It leads into the other factors but by itself is not as important as actions taken with what that might leads to.
IMO, and from what I do hear and read, that symbolism is the main goal of these things. Horror to take the fight out of a population or get them to change policies in retaliation. Political change is what terrorism is about. And the bigger and more important the symbols the better.
Particularly if one is aiming for big targets in the west.
Quote:1)What is the political agenda of the group that did this research?
2)Does their study of previous waves of immigration actually apply here. They use the word immigration...this is not the same as refuges. Then later they mention asylum seeker did have a small increase in crime where as workers did not.
3)Where exactly did these immigrants come from? Does their idealogy vary as drastically as the current waves? Are the conditions the same etc...or are apples and oranges being compared.
Quote:1. I have not. My claim is generally those with conflicting interests should be questioned.
Quote:And you know they have none?
To the best of my knowledge. Researchers can have political views of their own. They are human.
All researcher in and of itself does not have a political agenda. Some does and some does not.
Quote:Only Political think tanks have agendas?
No, but they are the easiest to point out. If the mission statement makes ideology a key point of their context than one has to be careful of intentional or unintentional bias.
Other sources may have it too, but those are the easiest to figure out.
Quote:You just stated with good analysis it does not matter...then why would a political think tank matter if it was logical?
How would you go about telling if it was good analysis or not?
The best analysis undergo peer review. Examination by experts with potentially different points of view on the matter. The methods were found sound and the conclusions reasonable by those in the know on the matter.
Think Tanks for most part release publications that were not reviewed. Theirs are more pamphlets etc. They may have facts in them but they are under no obligation to put forward the limitations of their work or avoid cherry picking whenever possible. They are highly biased sources.
If a given study has been peer reviewed and supports one side or the other it alone in isolation would still not be enough. It would need to be taken as a collection of the best available data to come together on the clearest picture possible. This normalizes any bias of a given study, most without clear political attachments are reasonable.
One can look at the researchers themselves, but this can be dangerous. Clear conflicts of interest is something to take note of in any research. For instance, a study funded by a pharmaceutical industry may or may not be correct. The work is probably good, but one should be skeptical of it until there are confirmatory studies.
The article I posted is one that I found while scanning for more academic work on the matter. I could try and find a review or something more comprehensive but I am not as familiar with this literature. And I have said as much.
Quote:The reasons for migration mean nothing then? I would think they matter quite a bit.
Quote:So you agree...the refugees political leanings can matter?
The reason for migration matters more than political leanings. As political leanings are not in and of themselves indicators of terrorism. Not every uber religious person is a terrorist. Some are. Most are not. Why they are fleeing is important.
How do you know a person is being honest about a question about their political beliefs. It is a virtue in the west that free speech and opinions are critical as well.
Also, we are ignoring terrorists activities by local populations. Separatists and so on. We tend to do that in the US too in our discourse. Seems to me that they are all bad.
Quote:I agree...there is a problem though. There is a tendency for large groups of immigrants to stay together (understandable) and make little or no effort to join the country they are now in. Everything cannot be on the country letting them in, refugees have to make some efforts for integration on their own. Making them feel welcome...yes...just letting them in isn't enough...but its a 2-way street.
Quote:Where are you getting the idea that I am saying let them all in? You are throwing a straw man against me and apparently ignoring the other fellows point outright.
Quote:I am not throwing a straw man, I think you are. I don't think he is completely against refuges...he can correct me if I am wrong. If he is I will disagree with him. I think he is simply approaching it from the other side as you are and with caution.
The caution of saying do not accept any refugees? That is a cautious take? That is a pretty extreme end of the spectrum.
I did not say that he was anti-refugee. I take him at his word that he feels for them. That said, the policy position throws them to the wolves. Putting the two in a moral conflict. As many would go back to die.
He even flat out says there are only two options. That is cautious?
And yes, you are using a straw man. You are arguing against letting everybody in and putting that position on me. I am not saying that. I even give other ideas in my reply to him. Which is very much a straw man. Your main point is that you are defending him because you find a need to force some sort of balance in.
Arguing that one side with a zero-sum game and the other saying there is some middle ground between that and letting everybody in is not as easy as arguing against two zero sum games.
I do not know what the answer is. I am giving my opinion. Just as he did. I found his to be extreme. You do not, somehow you found it cautious.
Quote:His point is that refugees should be kept out. Period, keep them out. They are terrorists and awful. Based on what? There are examples but one cannot argue keeping them out will prevent 100% of anything. It is not possible to make that case. It is not even thatb ased on the examples given.
Quote:Can you show me where he said..."Refugees should be kept out. Period, keep them out. They are terrorists and awful."
Quote:This is a false argument.
He says it more eloquently than that but says it just the same
"The choice is clear. A country can choose to keep it's own people safe, and allow others far away to suffer and die. Or it can help people from far away lands, and different cultures (a very noble act), but while doing so accept their 8 year old daughters are at risk for being blown up by a shrapnel bomb if they go to a concert.
I don't see a third choice unfortunately. There are valid arguments to be made on both sides. The idea of allowing women and children is very compassionate. But ideas have to worked into policy, which is not always easy. For example, how will these women and children support themselves in a land where they don't know the language? This is a horrible, horrible tragedy without question. I don't think anyone can be certain of the solution. But I don't think spreading terrorism to more parts or Europe is part of that solution."
"The argument "not everybody ends up a terrorist" carries no weight for me. Sure, it's not all migrants. But it's enough. How many children need to be blown up? How many husbands and wives need to lose a spouse? How many rapes need to occur? How many before the amount that "isn't everybody" becomes enough? "
It is stated well, but the summation of this is that it is tragic but to keep terrorism out we must stop taking refugees in. To me acknowledging sorrow but then doing nothing about it as policy is an extreme position. As is not acknowledging any other path.
And it is comparing human suffering too. It is a hard call with security and resources, but at the same time sending people back to areas where they are likely to suffer everything and more than he lays out. Is it worth saving one life in location x to send 1000 to die in location y?
His other points reflect the idea that refugees and immigrants lead to terrorism. He does not ever make the claim that it is 1:1 and they all are but his argument is that there are more in there and they are the cause of the terrorism.
I agree with him that policy wise this is very hard. As it ends up with math about people's lives. And that is not fun. But morally and even legally to some point it does not seem like the idea of keeping them out is the only solution.
I also point out that EU citizens are involved in these. Which is being totally ignored. If terrorism spreads either way, doesn't it undercut some of the points outright?
Quote:My entire premise is that there are loads of room between let them all in and keep them all out. I am arguing for something in the middle. I am not sure what the answer is.
Quote:If this is what you are trying to say I agree with you. But they way you are doing so is not coming across that way, at least to me.
And to me you come off as letting him totally off the hook for views that he freely admits are let them all in or keep them out. With the later as the only choice.
I have issues with that. Particularly when you single me out for bias. My entire point if you read everything is it is not black and white. You seem to think I am taking the opposite side of the coin he is. That is not my total argument or point. It never was.
One is allowed to point out what they perceive as flaws. I do not think some of his examples are the best either. I would rather see actual solid reports on the Poland thing. If I do a quick google search the only websites discussing the matter are highly political. Which makes me skeptical to start with.
I rather see something that at least appears more independent do an analysis on the matter.
Quote:Also, increasing the number of people in an area leads to increases in crime. That is just the way it is. It is a problem, but innocent until proven guilty is something that we pride ourselves on in the West.
Quote:Not really relevant to the discussion but catchy.
Except it is. Saying keep people out because they are terrorists or as you are implying because they may commit a crime is prejudging them for actions they have not yet taken.
Very very relaxant. If we start deciding things like that than it has bad potentials. In the US for instance we love to prejudge people before their trial. Mostly for our own ideological reasons. Say somebody is a terrorist and people are already against them.
Remember when Sean Hannity said the one random guy was the one who was responsible for the Boston bombing and got off the hook? People turned on that guy, despite the fact that he did nothing. Just because of how he looked.
That is prejudging somebody. Assuming innocents until found guilty of a crime is critical or why bother with the judicial system at all.
Some will argue that terrorists are basically combatants and can be taken out before the fact. I agree to some extent but then it becomes a matter of degree. Are you for people having the right above and being treated fairly. To have it proven they are what is being accused or just blast them on the spot.
To me that is a MAJOR issue at hand. And highly related. As I point out in a few of my posts that punishing crime and terrorism is critical, but to the best of our ability we have to punish the right people. Even in the battle field a civilized country does not start out aiming at kids because they are there. You get the best info you can and hit those that are doing the bad stuff.
It is not perfect, but it is the argument the US had too. Personal liberty vs safety. In the US we went too far one way and only now are gradually getting it back. It is scary to think that because of fear we can give away so much of who we like to think we are.
Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 54.0 on Windows 7
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software|