|Community >> View Post|
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)
Reply Subj: Re: Im talking about war refugees not economic migrant workers
Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 at 09:20:48 pm EDT (Viewed 294 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Quote:Maybe there is more to it, but that is generally what I hear when I listen to experts on the matter.
And there are experts on the opposing side. But we ignore them yes?
Quote:Economics in and of itself does not really affect being a target for terrorists attacks in and of itself.
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.
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.
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?
Quote:My thoughts are that there are numerous middle grounds between letting them all in and trying to keep them all out.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Quote:Not arguing about Japan one way or another. Or their politics. Merely that they are a bad example.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just as it was nice of you to make every single point and not want to talk about it.
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.
One issue yes...something they clearly should have but did not foresee.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe you should supply the percentage. Since you asked you surely have an idea. Or is it ALL of them?
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.
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.
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.
And you know they have none?
Only Political think tanks have agendas?
You just stated with good analysis it does not matter...then why would a political think tank matter if it was logical?
The reasons for migration mean nothing then? I would think they matter quite a bit.
So you agree...the refugees political leanings can matter?
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.
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.
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.
Can you show me where he said..."Refugees should be kept out. Period, keep them out. They are terrorists and awful."
This is a false argument.
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.
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.
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.
Not really relevant to the discussion but catchy.
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software|