European refugee crisis thread

[Welf]

The same thing we do with the "backwards, anti-liberal, sexist, racist, homophobic" people who were born here. Make them send their kids to school and throw them in jail if they break the law.

So basically marginalize them in society and re-educate their children to destroy their cultural identity. That sounds easy and conflict-free.

[Simon_Jester]

As long as the left isn't able to propose any major policy on how to address these kind of concerns, it will make it easy for people to demonise the refugees as "backwards, anti-liberal, sexists, racists, homophobic, economic migrants".

For the sake of argument though let us assume that this is exactly what they are. That is to say without the economic part. Say that for what ever reason your country suddenly receives an influx of several million "backwards, anti-liberal, sexists, racists, homophobic" migrants.

Since that's not what's happening, why worry about it?

The same thing we do with the "backwards, anti-liberal, sexist, racist, homophobic" people who were born here. Make them send their kids to school and throw them in jail if they break the law.

I doubt that punishing people is the best way to let people learn and more importantly change how they view society. Learning not to act it out in public, or not to cause active harm because of your beliefs does not mean they agree that their beliefs are wrong. The law does not punish people from holding those views, but segments of the host population in Europe do feel that such people with such views are not welcomed.

Well, at a bare minimum, there is a certain hierarchy of social affairs.

Before there can be order there has to be peace- the absence of active fighting.

Before there can be the rule of law, there has to be order- it has to be accepted that people will on the whole obey the law, before you can enforce any law in a particularly evenhanded way.

Before there can be justice, there has to be rule of law- you can create a just society, but only after you actually have the rule of law in place.

If a huge number of refugees enter your society, they have to be prepared to adhere to order before you can create a fair and acceptable society for them and for the people already in your society. So it is still necessary to punish any who overtly break laws.

But then, it's not hard to educate people about what the basic laws are- they cannot harm or attack any person, no matter what cultural reasons they have for doing so. As long as that is understood, there is order, and everything else can be worked on gradually.

Well, yes. But in the hypothetical I posted they are all like that. So you'll end up overflowing your jails within weeks. And it would likely lead to riots as well as they feel their culture is being oppressed. (again, hypothetical is that the migrants are all, to the last man the strawman Muslim proposed by right wingers)

Let's not forget that a number of them would be legitimately distrustful of all government and anyone throwing them into jail after the experience they had.

It occurs to me that since strawman stereotype Muslims are all fanatical militants, they wouldn't be refugees- they'd be fighting against whoever created a situation in their country that made refugees necessary.

That's not realistic human behavior, but remember that we're supposedly talking about right-wing caricatures. Right-wingers don't think of Muslims as humans with human motives, they seem to think of them as more like a swarm of Tyranids who mindlessly attack things they hate without actually needing a reason.

The same thing we do with the "backwards, anti-liberal, sexist, racist, homophobic" people who were born here. Make them send their kids to school and throw them in jail if they break the law.

So basically marginalize them in society and re-educate their children to destroy their cultural identity. That sounds easy and conflict-free.

If that's true, then you could equally well argue that racist, sexist, religious fundamentalists native to our societies are being marginalized and their children are being re-educated to destroy their cultural identity. In which case... well.

"If this be treason, then let us make the most of it;" if that's what we're doing, then maybe we had better be willing to do it properly and for a good cause. Because the alternative would be to sign away the rights of everyone now living in our societies, including in the long run the refugees.

Except of course that this is entirely an unrealistic scenario...

[Purple]

Since that's not what's happening, why worry about it?

Because the argument at point here is about the fact that the non-right does not have an argument that works. Especially not against the typical right wing argument presented. Feel free to read the tread for more details. So I said fine, lets see if we can assemble one.

[ray245]

As long as the left isn't able to propose any major policy on how to address these kind of concerns, it will make it easy for people to demonise the refugees as "backwards, anti-liberal, sexists, racists, homophobic, economic migrants".

For the sake of argument though let us assume that this is exactly what they are. That is to say without the economic part. Say that for what ever reason your country suddenly receives an influx of several million "backwards, anti-liberal, sexists, racists, homophobic" migrants.

Since that's not what's happening, why worry about it?

Because not talking about it allows the right to frame the entire debate in favour of them? It's a hard enough task convincing people that these kind of characterisation isn't true, but it is even harder when you have no argument against that kind of scenario in a "even if" scenario. I think there are many moderates that buys into such view because of the idea that someone whose muslim is that kind of person. Having IS and Saudi being the representative of Muslims in most western media doesn't help as well. Hearing stories of how Mosques promotes such kind of thinking further reinforce such views. Islamophobia is a major issue that many people sitting in the political centre are concerned, and even influenced by.

There's a inherent distrust of the left in regards to migration because these kinds of concerns, be it actual or myth, are not being answered in any way. There are people in Europe that don't believe crime and punishment is enough to stop people from Muslim background from being so socially conservative. More importantly, there's huge difficulty in showing it when you have so many cases of domestic terrorism and so many stories of people joining IS.

Well, at a bare minimum, there is a certain hierarchy of social affairs.

Before there can be order there has to be peace- the absence of active fighting.

Before there can be the rule of law, there has to be order- it has to be accepted that people will on the whole obey the law, before you can enforce any law in a particularly evenhanded way.

Before there can be justice, there has to be rule of law- you can create a just society, but only after you actually have the rule of law in place.

If a huge number of refugees enter your society, they have to be prepared to adhere to order before you can create a fair and acceptable society for them and for the people already in your society. So it is still necessary to punish any who overtly break laws.

But then, it's not hard to educate people about what the basic laws are- they cannot harm or attack any person, no matter what cultural reasons they have for doing so. As long as that is understood, there is order, and everything else can be worked on gradually.

I think that kind of trust in the system has been gradually eroded in recent times, with increasing stories and news footage of IS supporters from a European background. More stories of desperate migrants rioting further reinforces this idea. There are people that don't think refugees are adhere to laws that aren't Islamic or aren't conservative in nature.

There's different kinds of moral outrage when people hear stories of a crime being committed. Someone can be outraged at a person for committing a crime against the law itself, while others can be morally outraged because someone went against the culture that shaped the law.

It occurs to me that since strawman stereotype Muslims are all fanatical militants, they wouldn't be refugees- they'd be fighting against whoever created a situation in their country that made refugees necessary.

That's not realistic human behavior, but remember that we're supposedly talking about right-wing caricatures. Right-wingers don't think of Muslims as humans with human motives, they seem to think of them as more like a swarm of Tyranids who mindlessly attack things they hate without actually needing a reason.

There's already huge amount of comments that the proportion of adult males among refugee populations meant that they aren't really refugees.

If that's true, then you could equally well argue that racist, sexist, religious fundamentalists native to our societies are being marginalized and their children are being re-educated to destroy their cultural identity. In which case... well.

"If this be treason, then let us make the most of it;" if that's what we're doing, then maybe we had better be willing to do it properly and for a good cause. Because the alternative would be to sign away the rights of everyone now living in our societies, including in the long run the refugees.

Except of course that this is entirely an unrealistic scenario...

Except the left is seen as being protective of migrant communities that are perceived to be culturally conservative while going against established culturally conservatives. That kind of image isn't helpful to the migrant and refugee communities, the left, or even the wider community at large.

People hear about honour killings in Europe being committed in the name of Islam far more often than in the name Christianity today. People hear more stories about Muslim men complaining about how Women who don't cover themselves are sinners and deserves to be punished. Some of those stories are legitimately true, and there's no denying that Islam was the main motivating factors for this kinds of beliefs and actions.

It's the same back during the Charlie Hedbo's killings. People aren't happy that there are Muslims in the world condemning the actual acts of killings. They want Muslims to condemn the people who thinks drawing a picture of the Prophet is offensive. There are people wants to see more Muslims being able to hang out in pubs, drink beer and wine and don't think there's anything wrong with having pre-martial sex. Having communities or parents that disallow their kids to do so is also seen as a form of antagonism even though those parents or communities haven't really broken any laws.

I think there are still many segments of society that aren't ready to accept the idea that a German citizen can find drinking Beer and eating sausages to be morally wrong.

Because the argument at point here is about the fact that the non-right does not have an argument that works. Especially not against the typical right wing argument presented. Feel free to read the tread for more details. So I said fine, lets see if we can assemble one.

Exactly. Saying fundamentalist Muslims represented a minority of the refugee population does not have the argumentative power to convince a significant number of people, when it is hard for anyone to deny that Syria or Afghanistan is a much more socially conservative population than Western Europe.

[Simon_Jester]

Since that's not what's happening, why worry about it?

Because the argument at point here is about the fact that the non-right does not have an argument that works. Especially not against the typical right wing argument presented.

the non-right also does not have an argument about how we would cope with having millions of unicorns or leprechauns immigrate to our countries.

That doesn't mean we need such an argument, or that it would be a productive use of our time to create one.

Because not talking about it allows the right to frame the entire debate in favour of them? It's a hard enough task convincing people that these kind of characterisation isn't true, but it is even harder when you have no argument against that kind of scenario in a "even if" scenario.

Personally, I disagree. I think we are more likely to run into problems from people who get into the habit of always thinking of Muslims as savage illiberal fanatics, even when thinking about hypothetical scenarios. We observe this even on this website, let alone among the general public.

It is far more appropriate to point out that the refugees are in fact normal people, that they are specifically running AWAY from religious fanaticism, that if they wanted to run TOWARD it they would have only a short walk to the nearest Da'esh recruiting station on their hands and wouldn't have bothered emigrating to another continent.

There's a inherent distrust of the left in regards to migration because these kinds of concerns, be it actual or myth, are not being answered in any way. There are people in Europe that don't believe crime and punishment is enough to stop people from Muslim background from being so socially conservative. More importantly, there's huge difficulty in showing it when you have so many cases of domestic terrorism and so many stories of people joining IS.

Most of the problematic Muslims in Europe aren't refugees, they're guest workers and the descendants of guest workers, who were deliberately not assimilated (e.g. Algerian-French immigrants who came to France after Algeria became independent).

So pretending that the refugees are undesirable fanatics, when they aren't, just so we can have an answer to the question "what if literally all refugees were undesirable fanatics," isn't productive. It's more likely to bias people against the refugees (who have no real alternatives and are at our mercy) than it is to create a sensible policy response.

I think that kind of trust in the system has been gradually eroded in recent times, with increasing stories and news footage of IS supporters from a European background. More stories of desperate migrants rioting further reinforces this idea. There are people that don't think refugees are adhere to laws that aren't Islamic or aren't conservative in nature.

I grasp that- but the response should be that the European IS supporters aren't coming from the same population as the refugees. If the refugees supported Da'esh, why on Earth would they even leave Syria?

Conversely, the migrants are rioting because they're not being fed, or not being transported, or in other ways not having some urgent perceived physical need taken care of. They're rioting for the same reasons a bunch of European refugees might choose to riot if some disaster drove them out of Europe.

So sure, this perception you're talking about exists, but it is factually wrong and there's no point trying to invent a special "well, this is what we will do if the refugees are unicorns" argument that is based entirely in myth to coddle people who think the refugees are unicorns.

It occurs to me that since strawman stereotype Muslims are all fanatical militants, they wouldn't be refugees- they'd be fighting against whoever created a situation in their country that made refugees necessary.

That's not realistic human behavior, but remember that we're supposedly talking about right-wing caricatures. Right-wingers don't think of Muslims as humans with human motives, they seem to think of them as more like a swarm of Tyranids who mindlessly attack things they hate without actually needing a reason.

There's already huge amount of comments that the proportion of adult males among refugee populations meant that they aren't really refugees.

Now, see, that at least makes sense, but it is also a lie, because refugee populations ROUTINELY contain large numbers of adult males, especially in societies that do not practice conscription. I bet you could look at post-WWII populations of refugees, and if you don't find a lot of able-bodied males it would only be because literally every able-bodied male in the territory had already been drafted into someone's army.

If that's true, then you could equally well argue that racist, sexist, religious fundamentalists native to our societies are being marginalized and their children are being re-educated to destroy their cultural identity. In which case... well.

"If this be treason, then let us make the most of it;" if that's what we're doing, then maybe we had better be willing to do it properly and for a good cause. Because the alternative would be to sign away the rights of everyone now living in our societies, including in the long run the refugees.

Except of course that this is entirely an unrealistic scenario...

Except the left is seen as being protective of migrant communities that are perceived to be culturally conservative while going against established culturally conservatives. That kind of image isn't helpful to the migrant and refugee communities, the left, or even the wider community at large.

Again, there is only so much you can do for someone whose political perceptions are hallucinations. And the only sane response is to directly counter them, not to create bizarre counterfactual arguments that humor the hallucinatory worldview and empower it.

Point out that Muslim honor killings get prosecuted. Point out that harassing women for not wearing a headscarf is illegal and that if anything the pressure is in the opposite direction (e.g. France banning the hijab). Point out that no there is no parallel network of sharia courts being established and that any 'sharia judges' they've heard of have the same status as legally nonbinding arbitrators used by mutual consent to settle small claims.

But don't waste time pointing out that you have a backup plan for what if all the refugees are violent fanatics.

It's the same back during the Charlie Hedbo's killings. People aren't happy that there are Muslims in the world condemning the actual acts of killings. They want Muslims to condemn the people who thinks drawing a picture of the Prophet is offensive. There are people wants to see more Muslims being able to hang out in pubs, drink beer and wine and don't think there's anything wrong with having pre-martial sex.

Well then perhaps we had better point out that the refugees are if anything more likely to be like this than the Muslims already present in those countries...

I think there are still many segments of society that aren't ready to accept the idea that a German citizen can find drinking Beer and eating sausages to be morally wrong.

What, there aren't any teetotaling vegetarian Germans?

[Purple]

the non-right also does not have an argument about how we would cope with having millions of unicorns or leprechauns immigrate to our countries.

Yea well when any of those actually becomes a talking point of your opponents which you need to counter you will get a use of constructing an argument against it. I seriously do not see how you can not understand this simple fact. In order to prevail in an argument you must provide a encouragement that not only completes the bare minimum requirement but that completely and utterly ensures the enemies argument is invalidated in all its forms.

[ray245]

Because the argument at point here is about the fact that the non-right does not have an argument that works. Especially not against the typical right wing argument presented.

the non-right also does not have an argument about how we would cope with having millions of unicorns or leprechauns immigrate to our countries.

That doesn't mean we need such an argument, or that it would be a productive use of our time to create one.[/quote]

That won't be a problem those right wing arguments can hold so much sway over the rest of the population. It's hard to even convince people on this very board that they don't need to fear a rise in Islamic conservative and how that would destroy the European culture.

Personally, I disagree. I think we are more likely to run into problems from people who get into the habit of always thinking of Muslims as savage illiberal fanatics, even when thinking about hypothetical scenarios. We observe this even on this website, let alone among the general public.

It is far more appropriate to point out that the refugees are in fact normal people, that they are specifically running AWAY from religious fanaticism, that if they wanted to run TOWARD it they would have only a short walk to the nearest Da'esh recruiting station on their hands and wouldn't have bothered emigrating to another continent.

It doesn't really matter whether they are necessary normal people who wished to run away from IS or Assad. The point is that people do hear stories from Unicef that there are some refugees that still hangs a picture of Saddam on their wall frightens people. It's also how people keep hearing homophobic remarks from people that are supposedly Muslims, or how there are very few Muslims that openly campaigned for gay marriages that frightens people.

How on earth can anyone not avoid this kind of argument when people on the left buys into Islamophobia?

Most of the problematic Muslims in Europe aren't refugees, they're guest workers and the descendants of guest workers, who were deliberately not assimilated (e.g. Algerian-French immigrants who came to France after Algeria became independent).

So pretending that the refugees are undesirable fanatics, when they aren't, just so we can have an answer to the question "what if literally all refugees were undesirable fanatics," isn't productive. It's more likely to bias people against the refugees (who have no real alternatives and are at our mercy) than it is to create a sensible policy response.

At the same time, neither can anyone argues that the refugees and many of the "economic migrants" are generally socially liberal either, which is already causing people on the left to shut the door on refugees.

I grasp that- but the response should be that the European IS supporters aren't coming from the same population as the refugees. If the refugees supported Da'esh, why on Earth would they even leave Syria?

Which largely stems from the beliefs that Muslims can't be integrated into a socially liberal, anti-homophobic and anti-sexists society.

Conversely, the migrants are rioting because they're not being fed, or not being transported, or in other ways not having some urgent perceived physical need taken care of. They're rioting for the same reasons a bunch of European refugees might choose to riot if some disaster drove them out of Europe.

So sure, this perception you're talking about exists, but it is factually wrong and there's no point trying to invent a special "well, this is what we will do if the refugees are unicorns" argument that is based entirely in myth to coddle people who think the refugees are unicorns.

And the vast majority of people would hardly get to see a refugee often enough in their daily life to NOT see them as unicorns. Unless you can somehow force a vast majority of population to actually interact with a refugee often enough, they will always be the unicorn to them.

Again, there is only so much you can do for someone whose political perceptions are hallucinations. And the only sane response is to directly counter them, not to create bizarre counterfactual arguments that humor the hallucinatory worldview and empower it.

I won't be raising this issue if those arguments are working in among the wider segment of the population in the Western World.

Point out that Muslim honor killings get prosecuted. Point out that harassing women for not wearing a headscarf is illegal and that if anything the pressure is in the opposite direction (e.g. France banning the hijab). Point out that no there is no parallel network of sharia courts being established and that any 'sharia judges' they've heard of have the same status as legally nonbinding arbitrators used by mutual consent to settle small claims.

Doesn't matter. The fear does not lie in whether they will be thrown into jail, but whether the kind of people that thinks the law is wrong to punish people for this exist within society.

But don't waste time pointing out that you have a backup plan for what if all the refugees are violent fanatics.

We live in an environment when holding the wrong view is enough to make many people severely dislike that person. All it needs is for someone who is Muslim to say they believe homosexuality is wrong for many people to dislike them and want them out of their social circles.

Well then perhaps we had better point out that the refugees are if anything more likely to be like this than the Muslims already present in those countries...

Good luck convincing people on this when they point out that IS took its roots and did find popular support among many people in Syria initially. The stories of Sunni in Mosul welcoming the IS aren't false either. Stories of refugees getting offended when a Christian tore up the Qua'ran in refugee camps aren't necessarily false, and it's extremely prevalent for people to hear stories of Christians being kicked off refugee boats by Muslims.

I think there are still many segments of society that aren't ready to accept the idea that a German citizen can find drinking Beer and eating sausages to be morally wrong.

What, there aren't any teetotaling vegetarian Germans?[/quote]

That's not the point. It's how the refugees from Syria would have greater difficulties in reconstructing their cultural identity to fit in enough for the rest of society to accept them as French/German/English.

[Simon_Jester]

the non-right also does not have an argument about how we would cope with having millions of unicorns or leprechauns immigrate to our countries.

Yea well when any of those actually becomes a talking point of your opponents which you need to counter you will get a use of constructing an argument against it.

Yes, and the counter is simple:

"There are not millions of unicorns and leprechauns migrating to our country. You are delusional."

Arguments of the form "even if there were millions of them coming into our country, we would just do this!" simply serve to reinforce the fantasy of imaginary creatures like leprechauns and psychotic hate-everything Islamic terrormurderfreaks.

I seriously do not see how you can not understand this simple fact. In order to prevail in an argument you must provide a encouragement that not only completes the bare minimum requirement but that completely and utterly ensures the enemies argument is invalidated in all its forms.

Purple, once again you're having a problem with human psychology.

With real humans, if you're seriously trying to debate them, it is seldom a good idea to grant one of their premises if that premise is a delusion.

Here is why.

If the humans in question are not trained in formal logic, they will hear you grant the premise and it will reinforce in their minds that the premise is 'obviously' right, and that therefore their conclusions are also right. Basically, they will take your words as a sign that you agree with their false premise. If they believe immigrants are leprechauns and that this is dangerous, and you say "look, we can handle the leprechauns by sprinkling Lucky Charms all over the place," this will just result in them cooking up more leprechaun-related delusions at a later time. So you emphasize "leprechauns aren't real."

If your long term goal is to convince them that immigrants are not leprechauns and are therefore not a threat, you will only undermine yourself by conceding temporarily that they 'might be' leprechauns.

If the humans in question are trained in formal logic, you still emphasize "leprechauns aren't real," because logical humans who somehow believe a false premise will actually reexamine their beliefs once the false premise is punctured.

Because the argument at point here is about the fact that the non-right does not have an argument that works. Especially not against the typical right wing argument presented.

the non-right also does not have an argument about how we would cope with having millions of unicorns or leprechauns immigrate to our countries.

That doesn't mean we need such an argument, or that it would be a productive use of our time to create one.

That won't be a problem those right wing arguments can hold so much sway over the rest of the population. It's hard to even convince people on this very board that they don't need to fear a rise in Islamic conservative and how that would destroy the European culture.

Thing is, specifically in the context of the refugee problem, it makes far more sense to push the "the refugees aren't Islamic fundamentalists and are in fact running away from Islamic fundamentalism or they wouldn't be here."

In other words, even if we DO choose not to dispute that leprechauns exist, we don't make up a hypothetical for what we'd do if millions of leprechauns were migrating to our country. We point out that the actual immigrants who are actually in existence are not, themselves, leprechauns.

At the same time, neither can anyone argues that the refugees and many of the "economic migrants" are generally socially liberal either, which is already causing people on the left to shut the door on refugees.

And in THAT case the correct response is simply to hammer them for gross hypocrisy, for claiming that all people have rights while refusing to grant basic help and support to desperate people who happen to disagree with them politically.

...the beliefs that Muslims can't be integrated into a socially liberal, anti-homophobic and anti-sexists society.

Then address those beliefs with evidence and logic and convince people to be consistent and honor their own promises regarding treatment of refugees. Do not waste time saying "this is what we'd do if the refugees really were homicidal evil savages out to destroy our freedom." That will serve only to empower the xenophobes and confuse your own supporters.

And the vast majority of people would hardly get to see a refugee often enough in their daily life to NOT see them as unicorns. Unless you can somehow force a vast majority of population to actually interact with a refugee often enough, they will always be the unicorn to them.

Well there you are, then- that is something we should do, publicize the normal character of the refugees.

Again, there is only so much you can do for someone whose political perceptions are hallucinations. And the only sane response is to directly counter them, not to create bizarre counterfactual arguments that humor the hallucinatory worldview and empower it.

I won't be raising this issue if those arguments are working in among the wider segment of the population in the Western World.

Then we need to counter them fast, not play along with them until they become so deeply entrenched that we can't do anything about them.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Conversely, the migrants are rioting because they're not being fed, or not being transported, or in other ways not having some urgent perceived physical need taken care of. They're rioting for the same reasons a bunch of European refugees might choose to riot if some disaster drove them out of Europe.

There is another reason too.

Refugees have had literally everything taken from them. For a lot of them, the only thing that they have left is Islam, and when some douchebag rips up their Koran and puts it in the toilet, it is going to set them off. No matter their theological position, their emotional investment with that one thing that connects them to their old lives is going to be rather high. The exact same thing would happen if a bunch of English refugees witnessed their Mansfield United football jersey ripped up and put in a rag pile, or if their CoE hymnal got the same treatment.

[ray245]

Thing is, specifically in the context of the refugee problem, it makes far more sense to push the "the refugees aren't Islamic fundamentalists and are in fact running away from Islamic fundamentalism or they wouldn't be here."

In other words, even if we DO choose not to dispute that leprechauns exist, we don't make up a hypothetical for what we'd do if millions of leprechauns were migrating to our country. We point out that the actual immigrants who are actually in existence are not, themselves, leprechauns.

That relies on the premise that everyone of them are running away from Islamic fundamentalism, and not war.

And in THAT case the correct response is simply to hammer them for gross hypocrisy, for claiming that all people have rights while refusing to grant basic help and support to desperate people who happen to disagree with them politically.

I think the human rights argument is becoming increasingly weak as long as people believe that a segment of the people from middle-east are inherently anti-human rights. That is the big problem now. How do you convince people to believe in the notion of human rights when they keep hearing stories of how people in the Middle East disrespect the notion of human rights again and again ever since 9-11?

Then address those beliefs with evidence and logic and convince people to be consistent and honor their own promises regarding treatment of refugees. Do not waste time saying "this is what we'd do if the refugees really were homicidal evil savages out to destroy our freedom." That will serve only to empower the xenophobes and confuse your own supporters.

It doesn't help when people in general thinks that all efforts to integrate people of Muslim background into Europe has failed, be it in France or the UK. Stories of how bright students who went to British schools being attracted by the IS is massively undermining the credibility of any integration effort. The notion that the person who gleefully cut off people's head have a London accent absolutely discredited these kind of ideals among the significant number of the population.

Every single failure stories is going to scare people far more than any single success story ever will.

Well there you are, then- that is something we should do, publicize the normal character of the refugees.

Except normal isn't enough. Muslims have to be as liberal as the average European to be accepted.

Then we need to counter them fast, not play along with them until they become so deeply entrenched that we can't do anything about them.

Except none of the media, even the left-leaning media is addressing this kind of concerns. They are still making the arguments based on the notion of human rights, which have less argumentative power for a pretty long time.


At the heart of this issue is people are refusing to accept anyone else in unless they can prove themselves to hold liberal views on par with most of western Europe. There is a lack of visible liberal Muslims in public's eye, which hurts the image of all Muslims even further.

There is another reason too.

Refugees have had literally everything taken from them. For a lot of them, the only thing that they have left is Islam, and when some douchebag rips up their Koran and puts it in the toilet, it is going to set them off. No matter their theological position, their emotional investment with that one thing that connects them to their old lives is going to be rather high. The exact same thing would happen if a bunch of English refugees witnessed their Mansfield United football jersey ripped up and put in a rag pile, or if their CoE hymnal got the same treatment.

Which can be easily perceived by many as a sign of "how dare they be offended when our society mocked Jesus and the Bible all the time".

[Dartzap]

beeb

Germany is to introduce temporary controls on its border with Austria to cope with the influx of migrants, the interior minister has said.

Thomas de Maiziere said refugees could "not choose" their host countries and called on other EU states to do more.

Trains between Germany and Austria have been suspended for 12 hours.

Germany's vice-chancellor has said the country is "at the limit of its capabilities" as more than 13,000 migrants arrived in Munich on Saturday.

Couldn't see a mention of this when I skimmed through, apologies if posted already.

[Broomstick]

I was expecting that - German hospitality can't be limitless.

I expect things are going to get ugly in some other locations very soon.

It's horrific enough reading about this sort of thing in a history book, I really really hate seeing them unfold in the present.

[cosmicalstorm]

Is Merkel schizophrenic?
Things are about to get very ugly in Greece and the Balkans.

The EU is coming apart..?

[Thanas]

The same thing we do with the "backwards, anti-liberal, sexist, racist, homophobic" people who were born here. Make them send their kids to school and throw them in jail if they break the law.

So basically marginalize them in society and re-educate their children to destroy their cultural identity. That sounds easy and conflict-free.

Culture is not an excuse to ignore fundamental rights, especially not if you arrive in a society you have not built and which generously has taken you in. I also fail how marginalizing bigots in society is a bad thing.

[Broomstick]

Funny - all those hyphenated Americans feel like they still have a connection to their ancestral culture no matter how many generations removed, while still being fully assimilated.

Culture isn't a static thing, they do change over time. If they didn't change to accommodate changing circumstances they'd die out.

We might also see the development of distinctive "Syrian-German" sub-culture, or a "Franco-Syrian" one, still connected to the ancestral one but also connected to other places. Frankly, that's not an inherently bad thing. Generally, the more positive connections people have between each other the better off we are.

[Dartzap]

Is Merkel schizophrenic?
Things are about to get very ugly in Greece and the Balkans.

The EU is coming apart..?

No, I don't think so. Germany may be the brightest star of the Union, but has near enough the same political schisms as the rest if us. It only becomes apparent in times of crisis which even the Anglosphere picks up on it.

I can well imagine ructions on the borders though, especially if/when people get frustrated at the guards not letting them past.

[Simon_Jester]

Ray245- I am simply going to observe that while the xenophobia of Europeans (rightist and, based on what you're saying, leftist) is an issue that needs to be addressed as the refugee crisis goes on, Purple's hypothetical scenario is quite simply not an effective way to address it, because people do not work that way.

No amount of "this is what we would do if all our refugees were a brutal hate-maddened mob of ogres who inexplicably are running away from their fellow hate-maddened mob of ogres in Syria" is going to make people want to live in the same country as a bunch of hate-maddened ogres.

Therefore, if you're actually worried that too many Europeans are viewing the Muslim immigrants as hate-maddened ogres, the response should be to change that, not to engage in contrived hypotheticals. That really is all I have to say on the matter.

[Purple]

I disagree. These people are not malevolent. They are panicking. They fear that the society they live in and have helped build is going to get torn down, that the values they hold dear are going to get subverted as the population demographics change around them. I think that the way to do it is to explain why even if they are 100% right they still don't have anything to worry about. And than when they realize this and calm down, than you can explain that they are not even right in the first place.

[LaCroix]

beeb

Germany is to introduce temporary controls on its border with Austria to cope with the influx of migrants, the interior minister has said.

Thomas de Maiziere said refugees could "not choose" their host countries and called on other EU states to do more.

Trains between Germany and Austria have been suspended for 12 hours.

Germany's vice-chancellor has said the country is "at the limit of its capabilities" as more than 13,000 migrants arrived in Munich on Saturday.

Couldn't see a mention of this when I skimmed through, apologies if posted already.

This might cause trouble in Austria. They only could cope with the influx because they could send 2/3rds or more on to Germany. They will probably shut down the border to Hungary, again, until Germany reopens, and meanwhile, things will get ugly in Hungary. Refugees will riot if they think they are being denied entry. Sadly, Hungary cannot close their borders at will when they think there are too many refugees coming in. If the refugees are at least let into Austria, they might accept a temporary transit pause easier.

tl;dr If Austria closes their borders, excrement might make contact with the air moving device.

[Thanas]

Is Merkel schizophrenic?
Things are about to get very ugly in Greece and the Balkans.

The EU is coming apart..?

Do you ever post anything less than utter shit?

[Thanas]

As to the recent border controls, we cannot handle 13k refugees a day. That is blowing every projection out of the water. 500k is okay. 800k is manageable. Several million are not.

[Purple]

Problem is that realistically speaking that's how many are going to come. If not for the economic difficulty I wager that every single person from that region who does not like ISIS would gladly come to the EU.

[LaCroix]

As to the recent border controls, we cannot handle 13k refugees a day. That is blowing every projection out of the water. 500k is okay. 800k is manageable. Several million are not.

Sadly, that's the rate they are arriving at, currently. Given the time they need to travel towards Europe, I'd assume that the bulk of the people who started travelling when the news of open borders were sent back is still in transit, so numbers could grow exponentially, soon.

[Edi]

It's a fact of reality that the capacity to receive these refugees is less than the rate they are coming in at and the uncontrolled flow must be stemmed and directed. It'll require a lot of coordination and shouldering responsibility also by those who have not yet done so.

Yet, at the same time, if the refugees refuse to abide by this and wait, and instead start rioting, then they will get to experience the business end of the nightstick and possibly worse. There is a lot of goodwill toward them as a whole in Europe, in many countries at least, but that will only last as long as the general perception among the greater public does not switch to seeing them as a rioting, dangerous problem. Once that happens, attitudes will instantly harden. And then things will go to hell in a handbasket in a hurry.

That is a rather bleak and pessimistic assessment, one that I would expect if a lot of things go off the rails simultaneously, but obviously I hope there will be as little trouble as possible.

[Broomstick]

As to the recent border controls, we cannot handle 13k refugees a day. That is blowing every projection out of the water. 500k is okay. 800k is manageable. Several million are not.

>sigh<

Was it really not foreseen that millions would come? Syria is being savaged between Assad and ISIS. There are 20 million or so in Syria (or was, not too long ago). If even 1 in 10 were to flee that's still 2 million refugees and all indications are that it will be more than that.

Once it looks like there will be safe haven abroad the human tide will only accelerate.

Europe need to be thinking in terms not of 800K but 8 million. At least five, could be twice that. Worst case scenario, if other parts of the Middle East start to collapse, even more than that.

Naturally, I would be ecstatic if that turns out to be a wildly inflated estimate. It's one of those instances where I would be happy to be wrong.