Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Agema]

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.

Firstly, the EU doesn't have spare islands to dump hundreds of thousands - millions of refugees onto. Secondly, there won't be better living conditions than the Australian model, because at every step governments will penny-pinch, not least from huge pressure from those same people who want all illegal immigrants blocked, because they are outraged at the idea their countries spend any money at all on them. (The same people overwhelmingly oppose foreign aid, etc.) Thirdly, we don't know what countries a lot of them come from to return them to, because they don't have (will even have deliberately thrown away) their ID, and other countries don't want to take back people who could as easily be random anybodies. Fourthly, damaging the economies of developing world countries by banning financial transactions with them is going to enhance social breakdown in those countries... which will generate a refugee crisis. Never mind the hardship this might inflict on the innocent.

So instead we have a shitty immoral system which encourages people taking deadly risks.

There is a certain point where our governments cannot take responsibility for what goes on outside their borders. If people want to pay criminal gangs thousands of Euros and risk their lives to get to the EU, that's their choice in jurisdictions outside the EU's remit. The EU's remit for the most part starts at the Mediterranean. It can after that attempt to mitigate refugees by helping prevent the causes of refugees, or agreeing deals various deals with other countries.

The main causes of refugees are civil disorder, warfare, and economic collapse. They feel their lives are utterly hopeless if they stay, so they leave. And when they leave, some of them will come to the EU under any circumstance whatsoever. They already know the exploitation, risk of failure and risk of death, and yet they still come. That's how desperate and determined they are. Unless the EU enacts policies to reduce their hopes below that of the misery they already have - which are policies of terrifying inhumanity - they will continue to come. It is essential to grasp this fact: people who feel they have nothing will do almost anything for a chance of having something.

 

[Silvanus]

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.

What the hell do "camps" have to do with free movement of EU citizens? Are you unable to separate free movement of citizens from external migration or refuge?

 

[Generals]

Firstly, the EU doesn't have spare islands to dump hundreds of thousands - millions of refugees onto.

You don't need Islands.
And there won't be millions of immigrants. Tough immigration policies tend to dissuade people trying to illegally enter borders. Just like it does in Australia.

Secondly, there won't be better living conditions than the Australian model, because at every step governments will penny-pinch, not least from huge pressure from those same people who want all illegal immigrants blocked, because they are outraged at the idea their countries spend any money at all on them. (The same people overwhelmingly oppose foreign aid, etc.) Thirdly, we don't know what countries a lot of them come from to return them to, because they don't have (will even have deliberately thrown away) their ID, and other countries don't want to take back people who could as easily be random anybodies. Fourthly, damaging the economies of developing world countries by banning financial transactions with them is going to enhance social breakdown in those countries... which will generate a refugee crisis. Never mind the hardship this might inflict on the innocent.

That's not necessarily true. There are plenty of people who want to resolve illegal immigration but would have issues using goulag like camps. And the money it will cost will be probably less than what it costs us now.

Them throwing their ID's away is reason enough not allow them in. This is usually done by non-refugees who want to claim they are, or adults who want to claim they are 16y old. And I am certain there are ways to prove ones identity, if you lose your ID your government doesn't suddenly consider you Non-British. That's the easy excuse these governments use to justify not taking back people who could bring money out of the EU into their country.
And there would be no damage, because these countries would likely cave under the pressure. The EU has always acted like an international wanker and never asserts itself, this is why it isn't respected by anybody. Time to change that.

There is a certain point where our governments cannot take responsibility for what goes on outside their borders. If people want to pay criminal gangs thousands of Euros and risk their lives to get to the EU, that's their choice in jurisdictions outside the EU's remit. The EU's remit for the most part starts at the Mediterranean. It can after that attempt to mitigate refugees by helping prevent the causes of refugees, or agreeing deals various deals with other countries.

You keep saying "refugees" but the major problem lies with economic migrants who pretend to be refugees. I am all in favor of helping trying to prevent causes of refugees but when it's caused by messy civil wars there is usually little we can do because one way or another things usually end up worse.

The main causes of refugees are civil disorder, warfare, and economic collapse. They feel their lives are utterly hopeless if they stay, so they leave. And when they leave, some of them will come to the EU under any circumstance whatsoever. They already know the exploitation, risk of failure and risk of death, and yet they still come. That's how desperate and determined they are. Unless the EU enacts policies to reduce their hopes below that of the misery they already have - which are policies of terrifying inhumanity - they will continue to come. It is essential to grasp this fact: people who feel they have nothing will do almost anything for a chance of having something.

The risk of failure isn't that high though for those who can afford paying smugglers. And that's the point. There should be another barrier for those who do not meet asylum criteria. There is a reason why illegal immigration increases when governments become softer, it happened under Merkel and it happened in Australia (before they went back to their tougher stance). Most are not that desperate, they try it because they know that once they are here it's a done deal in most cases. Sure it might take years of camping left and right but they won't be kicked out anymore and will be left free to roam around and try to get papers year after year. And off course they all hope that for them it will be faster. Take that hope away and the motivation is gone for most.

 

[Silvanus]

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

How do you ascertain that? If the UK arbitrarily decides that all arrivals came from France, and attempts to return them, then France can (rightly) respond that the UK actually has no idea how many came from wherever, and that this is as much the UK's issue as it is theirs.

Putting aside the fact that the UK had a big fat hand in creating and fuelling the conflicts that have caused a great number of people to need to claim refuge. I mean, France did too, but the UK more so in modern times. We're responsible (as a state) for a lot of the underlying issues, or have at least exacerbated them; and you want us to just refuse to take responsibility for the people who've been terribly affected? What happened to the right's preoccupation with taking responsibility?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

What the hell do "camps" have to do with free movement of EU citizens? Are you unable to separate free movement of citizens from external migration or refuge?

But the EU is supposed to take them as EU citizens for them claiming asylum.

 

[Agema]

You don't need Islands.
And there won't be millions of immigrants. Tough immigration policies tend to dissuade people trying to illegally enter borders. Just like it does in Australia.
...
That's not necessarily true. There are plenty of people who want to resolve illegal immigration but would have issues using goulag like camps. And the money it will cost will be probably less than what it costs us now.

"Gulag" might be overstating the case, but they will be concentration camps with all the misery and awfulness that implies, abusive guards, etc. These places are always incredibly shit. They always are.

You have to think from the perspective of a politician, who wants to reduce the departmental budget for a government that wants to reduce costs where it can. You need to think about what "zero tolerance" really means: the very ethos of the process is to make immigration as undesirable as possible and so that's what the system will do. Nor does it end there, because the means to make these policies happen is about turning the people against refugees, so the public will have higher tolerance for harshness.

An analogy here is the benefits system for our own citizens: benefit cuts don't just happen in isolation, they are accompanied by attacking the poor as lazy, criminal, violent, disgusting, a drain on honest, hard-working taxpayers. This occurs because when the policy is to make their lives worse, it is desirable to morally justify doing so, and that is accomplished by demonising them. It will be an order of magnitude worse for refugees. It's the basis of drugs policy, where ineffective and absurdly punitive policies are defended by dehumanising rhetoric and harsh attitudes.

Let's take the UK as a case. Denial of asylum is decided by the Home Office. Denials can be overturned by the courts on appeal, so the government attempted to change the law to ban such appeals. This is flagrantly against the principle of law, and was struck down. But it indicates a government that doesn't really care whether it's sending someone back to a country where they may face torture and death, and sought to prevent the courts interfering with their attempts to shove people back, because the overriding aim is simply to deport. Or take the recent Windrush scandal: where the government, despite being comprehensively caught out, waited for the fuss to die down and... continued deportations.

That's all you'll ever get for a zero tolerance policy: ever more injustice and inhumanity. It's what always happens. Your dream of some sort of humane residential camps will only ever be a dream.

Them throwing their ID's away is reason enough not allow them in.

The problem with them throwing away their IDs is where to return them to. No country needs to accept random people that the EU tries to foist on them.

You keep saying "refugees" but the major problem lies with economic migrants who pretend to be refugees.

I think in the real world the boundary between the two is remarkably vague in terms of illegal immigration. Step back and really think who puts themselves at such risk of exploitation and death just for a chance to eventually clean toilets in Turin or Toledo. That's not just wanting to earn a bit more money, is it? That's people who are fleeing such immense poverty that they feel they cannot fulfill their basic life needs. This is technically not someone who meets standards to receive asylum under current definitions. But we should not be under any illusions that sending them back isn't potentially as harmful to them as it would be to send back someone at risk of persecution.

The distinction is however a very convenient one for European politicians to latch onto, precisely as explained above, to justify ever-harsher restrictions on refugees.

 

[Silvanus]

But the EU is supposed to take them as EU citizens for them claiming asylum.

The EU does not control its members' citizenship policies. In Germany, for instance, an asylum seeker who successfully is granted asylum must then live in Germany for about 6 years and pass various other requirements to be granted German citizenship.

So no, this isn't true.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

The EU does not control its members' citizenship policies. In Germany, for instance, an asylum seeker who successfully is granted asylum must then live in Germany for about 6 years and pass various other requirements to be granted German citizenship.

So no, this isn't true.

That's more a show of the hypocrisy of the EU as other EU states are giving them passports etc on the ground of "We'll give you this as long as you piss off to other mmber states and don't stay here"

 

[Trunkage]

That's more a show of the hypocrisy of the EU as other EU states are giving them passports etc on the ground of "We'll give you this as long as you piss off to other mmber states and don't stay here"

If you haven't learnt it by now after what happened with Covid-19, I dont know when you will.

That nonsense Brexiteers said about EU controlling member states has shown to be just a lie. Member states could do whatever they want

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

If you haven't learnt it by now after what happened with Covid-19, I dont know when you will.

That nonsense Brexiteers said about EU controlling member states has shown to be just a lie. Member states could do whatever they want

Only to an extent and the EU very much does apply pressure for conformity or consistency among the states, sometimes in very silly ways.

 

[Generals]

"Gulag" might be overstating the case, but they will be concentration camps with all the misery and awfulness that implies, abusive guards, etc. These places are always incredibly shit. They always are.

You have to think from the perspective of a politician, who wants to reduce the departmental budget for a government that wants to reduce costs where it can. You need to think about what "zero tolerance" really means: the very ethos of the process is to make immigration as undesirable as possible and so that's what the system will do. Nor does it end there, because the means to make these policies happen is about turning the people against refugees, so the public will have higher tolerance for harshness.

That's just convenient fatalism.
Such detention centers already exist all around Europe and don't involve scandals like in the US or Australia. The difference is that they are used much much less we can we really don't really try very hard to kick out illegal aliens.
And talking about who protests against high quality detention facilities... well that would be the left wing. I remember when in 2016 Theo Francken sent a family which had to be sent back to a closed family unit which had no qualitative issues whatsoever, oooh the drama. A child in detention! it cannot be!

An analogy here is the benefits system for our own citizens: benefit cuts don't just happen in isolation, they are accompanied by attacking the poor as lazy, criminal, violent, disgusting, a drain on honest, hard-working taxpayers. This occurs because when the policy is to make their lives worse, it is desirable to morally justify doing so, and that is accomplished by demonising them. It will be an order of magnitude worse for refugees. It's the basis of drugs policy, where ineffective and absurdly punitive policies are defended by dehumanising rhetoric and harsh attitudes.

That's not really true. Over here those who wish to reduce some forms of welfare do so without necessarily demonizing anybody. The argument is usually as simple as the following: we have people who are unemployed, there are a lot of job openings (amongst which low skilled jobs), maybe it's because some welfare is too generous and people are not motivated to work instead of benefiting from unemployment welfare. That's not demonizing, that's making the proper assessment that in certain case you earn very little more to go from 0 hours of work to 38 hours/week.

This is just self serving fatalism on your part. You can be strict but humane on immigration.

Let's take the UK as a case. Denial of asylum is decided by the Home Office. Denials can be overturned by the courts on appeal, so the government attempted to change the law to ban such appeals. This is flagrantly against the principle of law, and was struck down. But it indicates a government that doesn't really care whether it's sending someone back to a country where they may face torture and death, and sought to prevent the courts interfering with their attempts to shove people back, because the overriding aim is simply to deport. Or take the recent Windrush scandal: where the government, despite being comprehensively caught out, waited for the fuss to die down and... continued deportations.

I do not know the specific case of the UK. But what I do know is that in Belgium pro deo lawyers are specialized in filing appeal after appeal. Usually it leads to refusal after refusal until at one point they argue: but my client has been here for years, he even has a child has lived longer here than in their home country, it makes no sense to send them back! And than you have a whole bunch of far left activists who protest against the deportation and ultimately they win as always and so again immigration laws are not applied because the appeals system is being abused. I would have no issue the amount of appeals being strictly limited. but at least one appeal should be allowed. If that is what Boris wanted to change I strongly disagree with his stance.

That's all you'll ever get for a zero tolerance policy: ever more injustice and inhumanity. It's what always happens. Your dream of some sort of humane residential camps will only ever be a dream.

As long as other countries have shitty rulers which are unable to ensure a minimum of welfare and security to their citizens there will be injustice and inhumanity. The advantage of tough and strict policy is that it will be coherent and dissuade people from risking their lives and the lives of their children while trying to cross the Mediterranean or even the North Sea.

The problem with them throwing away their IDs is where to return them to. No country needs to accept random people that the EU tries to foist on them.

Because they act in bad faith. We have already had a cooperative Sudanese delegation which helped ID their nationals to be deported. It caused an outcry on the left but that's another issue. So it is possible. Just like Boris Johnson wouldn't consider Agema stateless if he were to lose his passport while on holiday abroad.

I think in the real world the boundary between the two is remarkably vague in terms of illegal immigration. Step back and really think who puts themselves at such risk of exploitation and death just for a chance to eventually clean toilets in Turin or Toledo. That's not just wanting to earn a bit more money, is it? That's people who are fleeing such immense poverty that they feel they cannot fulfill their basic life needs. This is technically not someone who meets standards to receive asylum under current definitions. But we should not be under any illusions that sending them back isn't potentially as harmful to them as it would be to send back someone at risk of persecution.

The distinction is however a very convenient one for European politicians to latch onto, precisely as explained above, to justify ever-harsher restrictions on refugees.

An argument can be made on that respect but unfortunately if you need to start considering every overtly poor person a refugee and want to be truly humane to left wing standards you would need to offer chartered flights to hundreds of millions of people. The system would quickly collapse. Why only reward those who are willing to put the lives of their children at risk? Is that really humane?

A more realistic solution is to apply strict standards and try to further develop relationships with poorer countries and try to invest more in them.

 

[Generals]

Only to an extent and the EU very much does apply pressure for conformity or consistency among the states, sometimes in very silly ways.

Yes and no. Let's be fair to the EU, a lot of countries like to use it as a scapegoat in order to avoid having to take the blame.

 

[Agema]

That's just convenient fatalism.
Such detention centers already exist all around Europe and don't involve scandals like in the US or Australia. The difference is that they are used much much less we can we really don't really try very hard to kick out illegal aliens.
And talking about who protests against high quality detention facilities... well that would be the left wing. I remember when in 2016 Theo Francken sent a family which had to be sent back to a closed family unit which had no qualitative issues whatsoever, oooh the drama. A child in detention! it cannot be!

Standards are maintained because people fight for them. The more generous-minded segment of left in this situation are the counterpoint to the anti-immigration right (up to 20% of the population in many countries, even more in the likes of Hungary) who use delightful terms like "cockroaches", "vermin" and so on to describe immigrants, want to leave them to drown if their boats fail, along with pumping fearmongering ideology like "replacement theory".

This is about the Overton window, the idea that what is politically possible fits within a certain range governed by the attitudes of the populace. In order to introduce more extreme policy, the government needs to shift the Overton window. What you are suggesting depends on shifting the Overton window, and you're shifting it decisively towards the anti-immigration right, bolstering those attitudes and making them more mainstream.

That is going to have some very ugly consequences. It is not fatalism to recognise that fact.

 

[Trunkage]

Only to an extent and the EU very much does apply pressure for conformity or consistency among the states, sometimes in very silly ways.

So... you want to ban the EU from applying pressure and consistency?

Would you ask the UK government to not use any pressure to make sure Wales, Scotland and NI? Like... Brexit is the EXACT thing your worried about. It's just the thing done to minority counties in the UK and it's way more pressure than anything that the EU has done

 

[AnxietyProne]

And the really good part..." I was just trying to piss off Christian conservatives!" is part of her apologetic....

PragerU Presenter Says Jewish People Chose To Die In Holocaust

In a number of tweets, Borysenko also explained her spiritual beliefs mean that Adolf Hitler went to heaven because hell does not exist.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

BLM backs Jussie Smollett: ‘We can never believe the police’

Black Lives Matter is backing Jussie Smollett because “we can never believe the police,” a founder of the movement said in a statement.

nypost.com

BLM LA comes out in support of Jussie Smollett and claim the police and lying and old Juicy totally was attacked by Mask wearing Maga supporters despite the fact in court the brothers from Nigeria have admitted they were the ones who staged the attack.

Black Lives Matter is backing Jussie Smollett — who’s on trial for allegedly staging a hate crime attack — because “we can never believe the police,” a founder of the movement said in a statement.

“As abolitionists, we approach situations of injustice with love and align ourselves with our community,” Dr. Melina Abdullah, director of BLM Grassroots and co-founder of BLM Los Angeles, said in a Tuesday statement.

“In an abolitionist society, this trial would not be taking place, and our communities would not have to fight and suffer to prove our worth,” Abdullah said.

“In our commitment to abolition, we can never believe police, especially the Chicago Police Department (CPD) over Jussie Smollett, a Black man who has been courageously present, visible, and vocal in the struggle for Black freedom,” the statement continued.

So to be clear hear BLM is saying Jussie Smollett is telling the truth but two Nigerian brothers are lying under oath to help the police. So it's not about truth anymore just narrative and defending allies it seems.

 

[AnxietyProne]

So to be clear hear BLM is saying Jussie Smollett is telling the truth but two Nigerian brothers are lying under oath to help the police. So it's not about truth anymore just narrative and defending allies it seems.

When has it ever been anything different?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

When has it ever been anything different?

I mean, in the early days the comments about police brutality and policing issues I'd have said had some basis in reality not merely narrative.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So Kyle Rittenhouse was allegedly banned by EA for using his own name on his EA account because apparently his name is being deemed harmful to others and against EA's positive play charter.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

This refutes my point, how?

That I have my opinions dictated by fictional characters? Cuz that was my opinion beforehand...