Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Trunkage]

The EU does death camps for migrants.

EU support for Libya contributes to 'extreme abuse' of refugees, says study

Human Rights Watch accuses EU institutions of sustaining network of ‘inhuman and degrading’ migrant detention centres

www.theguardian.com

Are you claiming EU is woke?

Tbh, this should have its own thread because this sounds horrendous

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Are you claiming EU is woke?

Tbh, this should have its own thread because this sounds horrendous

EU are always very pro immigration / onto other companies for not being pro immigration.

E.G. they have a real go multiple times at the UK for "Not doing it's fare share to help refugees". The UK at the time was paying more than every EU state combined to help fund aid and rebuilding of I think it was Syria at the time. But the UK was being told off because it also wasn't taking that many refugees that were coming into Europe. The UK's response was to literally have it's envoys in refugee camps in Syria select the most needy people who couldn't travel on their own and bring them and their families to the UK to settle. Which the EU then played it's face at because they accused the UK of picking and choosing it's refugees because it refused to just take some of the number that had fled into the EU in a large train which wasn't just refugees but economic migrants joining them trying to take advantage of the situation somewhat to claim asylum status in another country for economic benefits.

Also the EU is always having a go about free movement etc etc.

 

[Buyetyen]

The point of the show is that they're assholes,

"I have my opinions dictated to me by fictional assholes because I admire their ability to get away with it."

 

[Generals]

The EU does death camps for migrants.

EU support for Libya contributes to 'extreme abuse' of refugees, says study

Human Rights Watch accuses EU institutions of sustaining network of ‘inhuman and degrading’ migrant detention centres

www.theguardian.com

And that's because the EU doesn't have the courage to enforce the only sustainable immigration policy which involves a 0 tolerance towards illegal entries. So instead of enforcing push-backs or having their own detention centers they ask other countries to do it for them. And as the EU is quite tolerant towards illegal immigration once you are there (people who are refused asylum are rarely sent back and NGO's are actively helping Human traffickers getting people across the Mediterranean) many people try to flood into the EU. And if they cross the wrong country they end up in shitty camps abroad.

 

[Silvanus]

Also the EU is always having a go about free movement etc etc.

Free movement is literally a founding principle of the European Union. If a member state isn't obliging, but is still reaping the benefits of economic union, then it would be contravention of treaty.

Stopping a country from breaking international law or its own treaty obligations is not "having a go". It's actually quite reasonable.

And that's because the EU doesn't have the courage to enforce the only sustainable immigration policy which involves a 0 tolerance towards illegal entries. So instead of enforcing push-backs or having their own detention centers they ask other countries to do it for them. And as the EU is quite tolerant towards illegal immigration once you are there (people who are refused asylum are rarely sent back and NGO's are actively helping Human traffickers getting people across the Mediterranean) many people try to flood into the EU. And if they cross the wrong country they end up in shitty camps abroad.

I assume by "actively helping human traffuckers", what you actually mean is "not letting people drown".

Christ, the sheer inhumanity of the anti-immigration lobby.

 

[Buyetyen]

Christ, the sheer inhumanity of the anti-immigration lobby.

All you have to do is not consider immigrants humans, and it's easy.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Free movement is literally a founding principle of the European Union. If a member state isn't obliging, but is still reaping the benefits of economic union, then it would be contravention of treaty.

Stopping a country from breaking international law or its own treaty obligations is not "having a go". It's actually quite reasonable.



I assume by "actively helping human traffuckers", what you actually mean is "not letting people drown".

Christ, the sheer inhumanity of the anti-immigration lobby.

So would you rather be in a migrant detention centre where the conditions aren't great but you have a roof over your head and some level of warmth or in a tent somewhere in France having to build a fire out in the open to get heat?

 

[Silvanus]

So would you rather be in a migrant detention centre where the conditions aren't great but you have a roof over your head and some level of warmth or in a tent somewhere in France having to build a fire out in the open to get heat?

What possible relevance does this have to the post you quoted? Did you quote the wrong person?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

What possible relevance does this have to the post you quoted? Did you quote the wrong person?

Sorry I thought you were objecting to the camps which while not great may worryingly be better than how some EU countries are already treating said refugees and migrants.

 

[Trunkage]

EU are always very pro immigration / onto other companies for not being pro immigration.

Being 'pro-immigrant' is woke?

E.G. they have a real go multiple times at the UK for "Not doing it's fare share to help refugees". The UK at the time was paying more than every EU state combined to help fund aid and rebuilding of I think it was Syria at the time. But the UK was being told off because it also wasn't taking that many refugees that were coming into Europe. The UK's response was to literally have it's envoys in refugee camps in Syria select the most needy people who couldn't travel on their own and bring them and their families to the UK to settle. Which the EU then played it's face at because they accused the UK of picking and choosing it's refugees because it refused to just take some of the number that had fled into the EU in a large train which wasn't just refugees but economic migrants joining them trying to take advantage of the situation somewhat to claim asylum status in another country for economic benefits.

Also the EU is always having a go about free movement etc etc.

Just so we are clear. The UK took like 20K refugees from Syria. They were beaten by Sweden, Switzerland, Sudan, Spain, Greece, Egypt, Norway, Netherlands, Jordan, Denmark, Belgium, Austria, Lebanon, Armenia and Canada. EVEN FUCKING IRAQ. Hell, Australia took 15K and they aren't in the EU. The UK paid a bunch of money so they could be in this privilege position of not taking refugees. So, they could have paid less if they wanted, but they chose not to. And I feel like I have to repeat this: Australia, who has just a bit more than a third of the UK population, took almost the same amount of refugees. But the UK was 'doing its fair share.' Yes, we know, you wanted to do nothing. We get it

Now, you could complain that the EU shouldn't have taken too many refugees. They didn't. They took less than a quarter 1/5 of all Syrian refugees. Except Turkey, who took 4 times the amount of the rest of Europe. So, IMO, the EU didn't do its fair share.

As to your claim of picking and choosing. I don't know what clearer evidence of picking and choosing anyone could provide, because you pretty much proved the EU point. So freighted that a bad 'economic immigrant' might slip through, the UK decided they would make their own rules. See also: This utter nonsense by Pretti Patel and her jet ski solutions.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

All you have to do is not consider immigrants humans, and it's easy.

I mean, that's just a hop, skip and jump away when you already consider yourself superior to others just because you were born in a certain country.

 

[Agema]

And that's because the EU doesn't have the courage to enforce the only sustainable immigration policy which involves a 0 tolerance towards illegal entries.

Do you mean murdering them all? Or do you mean breaching other countries' sovereignty by forcibly shipping refugees out of the EU to somewhere - anywhere - irrespective of whether those countries agree?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Being 'pro-immigrant' is woke?

Kinda because how else are you going to get people to take bare minimum money to act as personal maids or whatever while making sure the oiks know their place.

Just so we are clear. The UK took like 20K refugees from Syria. They were beaten by Sweden, Switzerland, Sudan, Spain, Greece, Egypt, Norway, Netherlands, Jordan, Denmark, Belgium, Austria, Lebanon, Armenia and Canada. EVEN FUCKING IRAQ. Hell, Australia took 15K and they aren't in the EU. The UK paid a bunch of money so they could be in this privilege position of not taking refugees. So, they could have paid less if they wanted, but they chose not to. And I feel like I have to repeat this: Australia, who has just a bit more than a third of the UK population, took almost the same amount of refugees. But the UK was 'doing its fair share.' Yes, we know, you wanted to do nothing. We get it

Now, you could complain that the EU shouldn't have taken too many refugees. They didn't. They took less than a quarter 1/5 of all Syrian refugees. Except Turkey, who took 4 times the amount of the rest of Europe. So, IMO, the EU didn't do its fair share.

As to your claim of picking and choosing. I don't know what clearer evidence of picking and choosing anyone could provide, because you pretty much proved the EU point. So freighted that a bad 'economic immigrant' might slip through, the UK decided they would make their own rules. See also: This utter nonsense by Pretti Patel and her jet ski solutions.

Just so we're also clear. Adding the independent aid contributions of every country in the EU together. The UK still donated more in aid to Syria as a single independent entity than any of them both support and rebuilding funds. It also contributed to the EU joint rebuilding fund to the same level as every other company and that combined fund was only slightly more than the UK individually had given.

The UK paid a bunch of money because it knew it wasn't a permanent solution to just take everyone out of the country and instead started trying to stabilise it and rebuild it to make it so people could live there.

Also this entire complaint / call out was about how the EU wasn't doing it's fair share really anyway. They talk big but that's it. That's why people are calling out the EU. Also in terms of picking and choosing, yeh choosing to help those who needed it most not those perfectly able to easily leave. But hey guess we should have not bothered and gone all Darwin with "Oh if you're not able to make the journey yourself guess you don't deserve a better chance of survival" right?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

"I have my opinions dictated to me by fictional assholes because I admire their ability to get away with it."

You do realize you're only proving what Dennis said right, right?

Most people agree with that quote without even knowing who said it because it's true.

 

[Buyetyen]

You do realize you're only proving what Dennis said right, right?

Most people agree with that quote without even knowing who said it because it's true.

This refutes my point, how?

 

[AnxietyProne]

So would you rather be in a migrant detention centre where the conditions aren't great but you have a roof over your head and some level of warmth or in a tent somewhere in France having to build a fire out in the open to get heat?

In the tent. It beats being in a cage while men with assault rifles loom over your shoulder.

 

[Trunkage]

In the tent. It beats being in a cage while men with assault rifles loom over your shoulder.

How is it even a question?
You have the chance to get some work
You aren't branded as evil just because someone bombed your house
You can go to the toilet without having to ask permission
You have the chance to get schooling
You have the chance to get proper food
I haven't checked these migrant camps but if they are anything like Australia or the US, you are STILL IN A TENT. You just cant light a fire
You can make friends with whoever you want
And, as you stated, you don't have guns pointed at you because some politicians needs to score political points
Lastly, and most importantly, you arent subject to political whims that delete the validity of your claim. Eg. Australia still have 7K people locked up on islands after 8 years because their claims are totally valid.... but who cares when you can just call them bad. So we spend $1.3million on EACH refugee, every year. (That's over $10million per refugee.) Which sounds so much cheaper then letting valid refugees in. This is what my taxes pay for.... utter stupidity

 

[Generals]

Do you mean murdering them all? Or do you mean breaching other countries' sovereignty by forcibly shipping refugees out of the EU to somewhere - anywhere - irrespective of whether those countries agree?

Nope, I mean the Australian model (with better living conditions in the detention centers) combined with political pressure to force said countries to accept their citizens back. A country should never be able to refuse one of its citizens, now THAT is inhumane. But we all know why that is, they're lowly skilled and once in the EU they will either have a min. wage job or benefit from welfare and transfer a part of it to family in the home country. Well, block financial transfers to that country if it blocks re-entry for its own citizens.

Or do you like the current approach? Telling immigrants that once they have risked their lives and the ones of their families by crossing dangerous countries and the Mediterranean they get free roaming access? It's literally encouraging people to take deadly risks. The only immigration policy that would be truly humane would be to ship them all over from their home country (a bit like the last minute effort in Afghanistan). But we all know that would increase the amount of "refugees" and "economic immigrants" by a hundred fold and the EU would collapse under the pressure. So even the left is not dumb enough to propose the only policy that would actually be humane according to their morale code. So instead we have a shitty immoral system which encourages people taking deadly risks.

I assume by "actively helping human traffuckers", what you actually mean is "not letting people drown".

Christ, the sheer inhumanity of the anti-immigration lobby.

One doesn't exclude the other. It is well known traffickers are providing ever cheaper boats to cross the Mediterranean because they know that there are NGO's out there to pick people up. And people getting into these boats are also very well aware of the patrols of boats which will de-facto help them cross over.

 

[Silvanus]

One doesn't exclude the other. It is well known traffickers are providing ever cheaper boats to cross the Mediterranean because they know that there are NGO's out there to pick people up. And people getting into these boats are also very well aware of the patrols of boats which will de-facto help them cross over.

To be clear: you are suggesting that if a refugee ship sinks, NGOs and other governments should just let people die.

 

[Generals]

To be clear: you are suggesting that if a refugee ship sinks, NGOs and other governments should just let people die.

No, I am suggesting they bring them back on the coasts they came from.