WWED? (What Would Europe Do?)

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Linking disgust at the proposal to use an animal quarantine site as a place to house humans with a leftist desire to exert control over people seems typically lame. I find it difficult to believe you don't understand why anyone would object to this idea.  Why on Earth the OP would think this proposal reflects badly on American left-wingers is just as stupid.  WTF are you guys trying to signal exactly, that you're not being assholes?

Sorry but its just not working.

Is it that the animals are still there?  Did they not clean up after them?  Is there any reason to do anything else with the tossers they are putting in there?  Other than send them home, of course.  That would be preferable.  Or maybe a gulag.  Or a reeducation camp!

I am assuming you are talking about the Danish idea here. 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Is it that the animals are still there?  Did they not clean up after them? 

Its the fact that the intent is to use the facility to signal and make official Danish prejudice overtly obvious...to really rub it in.  This is made very clear in the article supporting the OP's weird point that this demonstrably right-wing policy somehow reflects badly on lefties over on this side of the pond.

Quote

 

As part of a growing anti-immigration agenda, Danish immigration minister Inger Støjberg, of the center-right Venstre party, wrote on Facebook that certain people "are unwanted and they will feel it."

...

In 2016, the so-called jewelry law was introduced, which forced people seeking refuge in Denmark to contribute some of their wealth to the government. The proposal came under heavy criticism and was likened to the Nazi persecution of minorities. At the time, it was clear that it was a largely symbolic move to deter people from seeking refuge in Denmark.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/05/europe/denmark-immigrant-island-scli-intl/index.html

 

It was clear almost twenty years ago that mass migration and the rise of right-wing extremism in reaction to that would be the norm in both Europe and North America - as a result of acting like complete assholes towards many of the same places immigrants are now fleeing.

Of course anyone pointing this out back then was roundly condemned via the usual means...lol's, references to Pol Pot, Gore et al. The usual knee-jerk assumptions so many right-wing assholes have and peddle when ridiculing anything and everything that's even remotely leftish.   Nothing's changed a single bit on that score.  Lefties are treated worse than shit most days.

 

Quote

 

Is there any reason to do anything else with the tossers they are putting in there?  Other than send them home, of course.  That would be preferable.  Or maybe a gulag.  Or a reeducation camp!

 

 

There you go again, sounding like a sphincter.  Why?  You honestly can't imagine a single reason why you should treat others the way you'd like to be treated?  You sure you're a lefty? I don't buy it.

 

Quote

I am assuming you are talking about the Danish idea here. 

I don't know why, I certainly haven't given you any reason to assume that.

Edited December 25, 2018 by eyeball

[Guest]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

Its the fact that the intent is to use the facility to signal and make official Danish prejudice overtly obvious...to really rub it in.  This is made very clear in the article supporting the OP's weird point that this demonstrably right-wing policy somehow reflects badly on lefties over on this side of the pond.

It was clear almost twenty years ago that mass migration and the rise of right-wing extremism in reaction to that would be the norm in both Europe and North America - as a result of acting like complete assholes towards many of the same places immigrants are now fleeing.

Of course anyone pointing this out back then was roundly condemned via the usual means...lol's, references to Pol Pot, Gore et al. The usual knee-jerk assumptions so many right-wing assholes have and peddle when ridiculing anything and everything that's even remotely leftish.   Nothing's changed a single bit on that score.  Lefties are treated worse than shit most days.

 

 

There you go again, sounding like a sphincter.  Why?  You honestly can't imagine a single reason why you should treat others the way you'd like to be treated?  You sure you're a lefty? I don't buy it.

 

I don't know why, I certainly haven't given you any reason to assume that.

But those who would be placed on the island are those who "do not have a residence permit but cannot be deported for other reasons, including threats to their life if they are sent home; those who are set to be deported due to criminal activity or for national security reasons; and foreign fighters and rejected asylum seekers convicted of breaking certain laws."

Obviously one can't just let them in, so the only alternatives would be to send them home (okay) or put them in jail (seems harsh).  Which one would you prefer?  I think that, of the three, they might prefer the island.

I agree with your second paragraph.  The world is going to hell and there is going to be much blood shed before it gets there.  I think a lot of it has to do with climate change, but with regard to your reasoning, I never saw any reason to accept punishment for the actions of others.

I would always want others to be treated the way I would want to be treated.  If I was someone who had  a residence permit but could not be deported for other reasons, including threats to their life if they are sent home or someone who is set to be deported due to criminal activity or for national security reasons, or a foreign fighter or rejected asylum seeker convicted of breaking certain laws, the best I would hope for would be a nice island.

You don't buy that I'm a lefty because I'm not a nutjob lefty.  You might be against an island for these losers, but there's nothing you'd like to see more than someone like me sent to one for a little re-education until I was thinking properly.  Cured, as it were.

 

[eyeball]

32 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

But those who would be placed on the island are those who "do not have a residence permit but cannot be deported for other reasons, including threats to their life if they are sent home; those who are set to be deported due to criminal activity or for national security reasons; and foreign fighters and rejected asylum seekers convicted of breaking certain laws."

Obviously one can't just let them in, so the only alternatives would be to send them home (okay) or put them in jail (seems harsh).  Which one would you prefer?  I think that, of the three, they might prefer the island.

Sure.  That's what Euro-trash said about the people they sent to Warsaw - it was for their own good.

Quote

 

I agree with your second paragraph.  The world is going to hell and there is going to be much blood shed before it gets there.  I think a lot of it has to do with climate change,

 

I think most of it has to do with right-wing intransigence and I enjoy a certain Schadenfreude watching conservatives but but but their way around their dawning realization of how bad things have gotten.  Like watching people try to put toothpaste back into the tube.

Quote

...but with regard to your reasoning, I never saw any reason to accept punishment for the actions of others.

And yet you've reasoned that adding insult to the injury our actions have caused so many people fleeing the shit-holes we helped create is the best way to go.

Quote

 

I would always want others to be treated the way I would want to be treated.  If I was someone who had  a residence permit but could not be deported for other reasons, including threats to their life if they are sent home or someone who is set to be deported due to criminal activity or for national security reasons, or a foreign fighter or rejected asylum seeker convicted of breaking certain laws, the best I would hope for would be a nice island.

 

You'd pin your hopes on assholes bent on rubbing your nose in their disgust?  Like I said its hilarious watching you people squirm your way towards your twisted rationalizations.  

Quote

You don't buy that I'm a lefty because I'm not a nutjob lefty.  You might be against an island for these losers, but there's nothing you'd like to see more than someone like me sent to one for a little re-education until I was thinking properly.  Cured, as it were.

There it is, I'm a lefty that leans towards Pol Pot's solutions.  There's just no cure for that sort of default thinking that pollutes right-wing sensibilities.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sure.  That's what Euro-trash said about the people they sent to Warsaw - it was for their own good.

Yeah, because the Danes are the new Nazis.  We should have seen it coming really.  Has anyone checked the island for chimneys?

 

20 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I think most of it has to do with right-wing intransigence and I enjoy a certain Schadenfreude watching conservatives but but but their way around their dawning realization of how bad things have gotten.  Like watching people try to put toothpaste back into the tube.

I can see that.  I would prefer it didn't happen myself, but there's no chance of that, so if it can bring even a little joy, I'm okay with it. 

 

21 minutes ago, eyeball said:

And yet you've reasoned that adding insult to the injury our actions have caused so many people fleeing the shit-holes we helped create is the best way to go.

You would rather let those people loose to hurt people who have done nothing to them.  Basic difference there.

 

24 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You'd pin your hopes on assholes bent on rubbing your nose in their disgust?  Like I said its hilarious watching you people squirm your way towards your twisted rationalizations.  

I have no idea what you're talking about there, but if it makes you happy, I'm okay with it.

 

26 minutes ago, eyeball said:

There it is, I'm a lefty that leans towards Pol Pot's solutions.  There's just no cure for that sort of default thinking that pollutes right-wing sensibilities.

That is the impression you give most of the time.  Okay, the death toll might not be up there with Pol Pot's, but I bet you're okay with Antifa hitting people who haven't done anything but express themselves in a disagreeable manner.

[eyeball]

On 12/25/2018 at 9:52 AM, bcsapper said:

You would rather let those people loose to hurt people who have done nothing to them.  Basic difference there.

Where did I say that? If there are people who need to be kept in custody then fine put them in custody but just don't weigh that custody down with the prejudicial disgust that's intended to send a broader message to more than just the people being held in custody.  

Quote

I have no idea what you're talking about there, but if it makes you happy, I'm okay with it.

I'm still talking about the same thing, that I'm not okay with the happiness this ugly fucking policy brings you.  

Quote

 

That is the impression you give most of the time.  Okay, the death toll might not be up there with Pol Pot's, but I bet you're okay with Antifa hitting people who haven't done anything but express themselves in a disagreeable manner.

 

Really? You're the one who's lauding a government policy that treats people as if they were diseased animals and I'm the one who gives the impression of being an inhumane monster from the past.

Quote

I have no idea what you're talking about

It really shows too. 

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Where did I say that? If there are people who need to be kept in custody then fine put them in custody but just don't weigh that custody down with the prejudicial disgust that's intended to send a broader message to more than just the people being held in custody.  

I'm still talking about the same thing, that I'm not okay with the happiness this ugly fucking policy brings you.  

Really? You're the one who's lauding a government policy that treats people as if they were diseased animals and I'm the one who gives the impression of being an inhumane monster from the past.

It really shows too. 

Well, it's not the same as when Bradford City win but it sure doesn't make me miserable.  I would rather they sent them all home, of course.  (But then, I'm in favour of that for anyone who misbehaves, regardless of where they are from.  I'm very fair when it comes to this kind of thing)

As it is, I think the Danes are treating them better than they have a right to expect.  If one of them comes down with rabies I'll rethink.

Edited December 26, 2018 by bcsapper

[JamesHackerMP]

Ok, OK, I regret posting this. You're absolutely right, I'm a bad person for linking left wing b.s. with cruelty. Mea culpa. I do agree I was over the top on this one.

Edited December 31, 2018 by JamesHackerMP

[Argus]

13 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Ok, OK, I regret posting this. You're absolutely right, I'm a bad person for linking left wing b.s. with cruelty. Mea culpa. I do agree I was over the top on this one.

Nothing wrong with linking left wing BS with cruelty. This was simply a poor example.

[Iznogoud]

This looks like another attempt to discredit immigration.  Of course there are immigrants who cause problems, that has always been the case.  However, the history of nations with large immigrant populations such as Australia, Canada, and the United States clearly show that the benefits of immigration far outweigh the disadvantages.  Not only that, but given the low birthrate of most European nations immigration is not only going to be desirable, it may be absolutely necessary. 

[bush_cheney2004]

10 minutes ago, Iznogoud said:

This looks like another attempt to discredit immigration.  Of course there are immigrants who cause problems, that has always been the case. 

 

Illegal immigration should always be "discredited".

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Iznogoud said:

This looks like another attempt to discredit immigration.  Of course there are immigrants who cause problems, that has always been the case.  However, the history of nations with large immigrant populations such as Australia, Canada, and the United States clearly show that the benefits of immigration far outweigh the disadvantages.  Not only that, but given the low birthrate of most European nations immigration is not only going to be desirable, it may be absolutely necessary. 

Just because historical immigration worked doesn't mean present day immigration does. Historical immigration was between nations with similar religious and cultural beliefs, similar levels of technology and wealth. Much of today's immigration is from impoverished, technologically and socially backward nations with far different religious beliefs and social values than the nations they are going to. This is also the age of the welfare state, which robs those immigrants of the incentive they had historically, to support themselves and their families or go home, and to assimilate.

Nor is immigration going to have much impact on a low birthrate unless it increases to such proportions you are basically replacing your own native population with foreigners in a generation or two.

Edited January 1, 2019 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

Just because historical immigration worked doesn't mean present day immigration does. Historical immigration was between nations with similar religious and cultural beliefs, similar levels of technology and wealth.

 

Further to this point, historical immigration was also severely restricted by legislation and policies by design.   Many emigres were routinely rejected/deported at points of entry.   Conflict over immigration has been the norm for many generations...no reason it would be different today.

[Iznogoud]

13 hours ago, Argus said:

Just because historical immigration worked doesn't mean present day immigration does. Historical immigration was between nations with similar religious and cultural beliefs, similar levels of technology and wealth. Much of today's immigration is from impoverished, technologically and socially backward nations with far different religious beliefs and social values than the nations they are going to. This is also the age of the welfare state, which robs those immigrants of the incentive they had historically, to support themselves and their families or go home, and to assimilate.

Nor is immigration going to have much impact on a low birthrate unless it increases to such proportions you are basically replacing your own native population with foreigners in a generation or two.

Actually you are wrong about historical immigration.  Immigrants to Canada from Eastern Europe were so different that many Canadians did not even consider them to be White.  In fact Ukrainian immigrants to the Prairies were referred to by the term "Jacks" as opposed by being part of the "White" mainstream culture.  And your reference to impoverished, technologically, and socially backward pretty much fits immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe.  You appear to be confusing modern immigrants with refugees, some of whom might actually fit your description.  In fact many immigrants are quite well-educated and generally seek high level education for their children; exactly the sort of people Canada needs. 

Immigrants are largely behind Canada's status as one of the best-educated countries

https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2018/02/01/immigrants-are-largely-behind-canadas-status-as-one-of-the-best-educated-countries.html

[Iznogoud]

On 12/31/2018 at 6:15 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Illegal immigration should always be "discredited".

I don't believe my post stated otherwise. 

[Argus]

10 hours ago, Iznogoud said:

Actually you are wrong about historical immigration.  Immigrants to Canada from Eastern Europe were so different that many Canadians did not even consider them to be White. 

Yes. Canada was less tolerant of differences back then. Nevertheless, any unbiased analyses would show that there were actually very little differences aside from language Comparing a Ukrainian of the day to a Canadian involved little variance compared to comparing a Canadian today to an Iranian or a Pakistani or a Chinese.

Quote

 And your reference to impoverished, technologically, and socially backward pretty much fits immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe. 

As compared to what? As compared to rural Canada at the time, which is where we were bringing them to farm or log or fish?
Again, what differences there were are nothing compared to what exists today.

Quote

You appear to be confusing modern immigrants with refugees, some of whom might actually fit your description.  In fact many immigrants are quite well-educated and generally seek high level education for their children; exactly the sort of people Canada needs. 

Are they? Are they really? Note that we do not interview prospective candidates, nor follow up to see how many people with "degrees" ever got jobs in their alleged field. There are a TON of diploma/degree mills in our largest source countries, all with phone numbers and addresses to respond to queries from potential employers. Those institutions which ARE real exist in deeply corrupt societies where marks can be altered and changed for a few dollars and cheating is endemic. And even without that most of the universities are fourth rate, at best, compared to Canada. Add the language barrier, and you have a recipe for people with 'degrees' stocking shelves at Walmart and driving taxis.

We would be better off bringing in tradesmen. They don't really need to know the language very well.

 

Edited January 2, 2019 by Argus

[turningrite]

On 12/31/2018 at 8:15 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Illegal immigration should always be "discredited".

One point a lot of migration advocates don't seem to acknowledge is that illegal/irregular migration is in many cases intertwined with human trafficking, which is considered a form of exploitation. Thus, I place little value on the opinions expressed by those who think uncontrolled migration is an unmitigated good. Do they understand or consider the implications of their position?

[eyeball]

On 12/30/2018 at 5:35 PM, JamesHackerMP said:

Ok, OK, I regret posting this. You're absolutely right, I'm a bad person for linking left wing b.s. with cruelty. Mea culpa. I do agree I was over the top on this one.

What left-wing bullshit? This is about your bullshit. 

[Iznogoud]

10 hours ago, Argus said:

Yes. Canada was less tolerant of differences back then. Nevertheless, any unbiased analyses would show that there were actually very little differences aside from language Comparing a Ukrainian of the day to a Canadian involved little variance compared to comparing a Canadian today to an Iranian or a Pakistani or a Chinese.

As compared to what? As compared to rural Canada at the time, which is where we were bringing them to farm or log or fish?
Again, what differences there were are nothing compared to what exists today.

Are they? Are they really? Note that we do not interview prospective candidates, nor follow up to see how many people with "degrees" ever got jobs in their alleged field. There are a TON of diploma/degree mills in our largest source countries, all with phone numbers and addresses to respond to queries from potential employers. Those institutions which ARE real exist in deeply corrupt societies where marks can be altered and changed for a few dollars and cheating is endemic. And even without that most of the universities are fourth rate, at best, compared to Canada. Add the language barrier, and you have a recipe for people with 'degrees' stocking shelves at Walmart and driving taxis.

We would be better off bringing in tradesmen. They don't really need to know the language very well.

 

Whether the languages are similar are not is quite beside the point.   Non-immigrant Canadians were certainly not going to learn the multitude of languages and dialects immigrants brought with them.  It might interest you to know that even the Irish were disliked and distrusted by many Canadians.  The main thing is that they were different and that every immigrant group was different enough in language and culture and even dress to create suspicion and even hostility. 

And no, Canada did not just bring in immigrants to log or fish.  Immigrants took jobs in a host of areas in both agriculture and industry.  As an example the CPR was largely built by immigrant labour.

And we do interview prospective candidates depending on the situation.  Immigrants are also interviewed after they enter Canada.  Also, do you really think immigration officials are unable to determine a valid university diploma or technical certificate?  If so they should choose another profession.

You are right about language being a barrier even for highly trained immigrants.  That is why a number of skilled immigrants end up with menial occupations.  Unfortunately, Canada no longer receives much in the way of immigration applications from English-speaking countries.  You have a choice between qualified English speakers as immigrants which would not meet the necessary quota, or selecting those who speak only a little English. 

As for tradesmen I have had some experience in dealing with them in second-language training.  Quite frankly you do not want tradespeople who are unfamiliar with Canadian codes;