Apple Partners With Imagine Dragons and One4 Project to Aid in Refugee Relief Efforts

[captain cadet]

In all honesty, what did you think would happen? If you offer free housing, free education, free food, and a fairly large amount of cash... to anyone who shows up, papers or not... guess what happens? An enormous amount of people will come. It's hardly shocking.

The figures from the UN state that the migrants are 72% (mostly young) men, 15% women, 13% children. How odd.

It's also interesting how far away people are travelling through safe countries to 'flee war'...

Take a good look at what's going on, from all kinds of sources (some of which may need to be translated from EU countries). The routes are littered with identification from countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh because it's easier to claim asylum with no papers than to not be from Syria.

Some of the other countries the migrants are arriving from: Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Iraq, Armenia, Macedonia, Albania, and a few from India.

Here they are throwing away aid supplies:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...rowing-food-and-water-away-onto-train-tracks/

Interesting how there are pretty much zero applications for asylum in the 'safe-but-few-benefits' countries, such as Croatia:
https://vlada.gov.hr/news/only-one-refugee-has-requested-asylum-says-croatian-fm/17745

Honestly, if you genuinely believe that all of these people are fleeing a relatively small war in Syria, you're really choosing to ignore reality.

Now I have a question for you: What is the long-term plan? Is the plan just to completely evacuate all of Syria? Is the plan to permanently relocate everyone to other countries around the world?

And if that's the case... why aren't the wealthy gulf states accepting refugees? None of this adds up. We're being so manipulated by appeals to emotions and shamed to avoid using evidence and reason to evaluate the situation.

Your forgetting poor financial situation, bad islamiaphobia, Civial wars, corruption and no on? Also the wealthy gulf states have accepted more than 3 million refugees - around two million more than we have!

 

[Altis]

Your forgetting poor financial situation, bad islamiaphobia, Civial wars, corruption and no on? Also the wealthy gulf states have accepted more than 3 million refugees - around two million more than we have!

So countries should be required to accept people who are escaping poor financial situations? That describes billions of people. Should we relocate them all?

And no, those aren't the wealthy gulf states. Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan are not what I'm referring to... UAE, Saudi, Oman, Yemen, Qatar are the weathly ones.

 

[Altis]

That's not what's happening though is it? Otherwise it wouldn't be a refugee crisis would it? If it was that easy to bowl up to country and set up a life there, and all of these people only want to go to European countries for economic reasons, rather than to flee dangerous situations, then why haven't they all come and set up before hand?

It is what's happening, and that's what makes it such a mess. If it were just refugees making the trek, it would be far easier to deal with the mess. I don't even know how you can pretend it isn't happening when all the "refugees" are trying to make it to UK, Germany, or Sweden, almost exclusively.

Why is there a camp Calais in the first place? What does Calais have? Oh yes, the chunnel to the UK. What does the UK have? Lots of benefits.

So yes, it is precisely what's happening. When Denmark drastically reduces the initial benefits offered to migrants, suddenly the numbers diminished significantly.

Refugees would, you might expect, be happy with any safe country that welcomes them and provides for them, but you aren't seeing that.

When I talk about the refugees, I am talking about ones that have been displaced because it is unsafe for them to remain in their homes, I am not talking about the migrants, which you've also listed.

As far as the rest of your post, I'm not going to answer it, I'm talking now about refugees, you're talking about migrants, 2 different sets of people.

You can't pretend that both issues aren't, at this point, completely mixed up. Germany opened their borders to refugees and ended up with a huge mix of refugees and economic migrants. You can't really talk about one without dealing with the other.

What we have is a migration crisis, the likes we haven't seen since the second world war. But the second world war involved dozens of countries, mass genocide... is that what's happening in Syria? No, it isn't, it's hardly a fraction of the chaos back then. So why the huge (permanent) displacement of so many people?

And what is the end game plan? I can't get that answer. Are we to evacuate the entire country, permanently relocating them?

Is that the only way to help them? Or the best way? Who does it really help?

And yes, in Canada is does affect us. In fact, it's the biggest election issue we have for our federal election in less than a week. You can't tell people it doesn't affect them, while expecting them to do things for your cause (I use "you" more generally to whom it applies).

 

[sim667]

I was appalled by it - Not because it was Muslims but the way the police reacted.... Took them way to long stop it.
Being Muslim wasn't the reason they rapped. There are more terror attacks, rapes and crimes done by Christians (per 1000) in the UK than Muslims so please stop reading Britain First posts and get outside, stop blaming a religion and enjoy life!

The Rotherham grooming gang were predominantly Pakistani, that much is true..... However that is not a reflection suggesting all Muslims are paedophiles, and to say otherwise would be false.

There are horrid people of all ethnicities.

 

[sim667]

It is what's happening, and that's what makes it such a mess. If it were just refugees making the trek, it would be far easier to deal with the mess. I don't even know how you can pretend it isn't happening when all the "refugees" are trying to make it to UK, Germany, or Sweden, almost exclusively.

Why is there a camp Calais in the first place? What does Calais have? Oh yes, the chunnel to the UK. What does the UK have? Lots of benefits.

So yes, it is precisely what's happening. When Denmark drastically reduces the initial benefits offered to migrants, suddenly the numbers diminished significantly.

Refugees would, you might expect, be happy with any safe country that welcomes them and provides for them, but you aren't seeing that.



You can't pretend that both issues aren't, at this point, completely mixed up. Germany opened their borders to refugees and ended up with a huge mix of refugees and economic migrants. You can't really talk about one without dealing with the other.

What we have is a migration crisis, the likes we haven't seen since the second world war. But the second world war involved dozens of countries, mass genocide... is that what's happening in Syria? No, it isn't, it's hardly a fraction of the chaos back then. So why the huge (permanent) displacement of so many people?

And what is the end game plan? I can't get that answer. Are we to evacuate the entire country, permanently relocating them?

Is that the only way to help them? Or the best way? Who does it really help?

And yes, in Canada is does affect us. In fact, it's the biggest election issue we have for our federal election in less than a week. You can't tell people it doesn't affect them, while expecting them to do things for your cause (I use "you" more generally to whom it applies).

There's no point in discussing the issue with you, you've already been sly and underhanded by intentionally misquoting me, and have still not corrected it.

Post 96. I reported it, it's unacceptable.

Edit: no I will bite because I think once again you've posted some intentionally misleading information.

Firstly: "it's hardly happening in Syria"

Something like 8 million people have been forced to leave their homes in Syria, of that 150,000 have applied for asylum in the EU.... You work out the percentage, I can't be bothered, but i do know it's a small percentage.

Secondly "they want to come to Europe for the benefits"

Asylum seekers are not entitled to mainstream benefits, nor jump queues for housing or schools. Please stop trying to continue with factually incorrect information about Britain.

 

[Eraserhead]

Why is there a camp Calais in the first place? What does Calais have? Oh yes, the chunnel to the UK. What does the UK have? Lots of benefits.

Source?

And housing benefit doesn't count as the bill in the UK is only as high as it is because there is very little government owned housing.

Something like 8 million people have been forced to leave their homes in Syria, of that 150,000 have applied for asylum in the EU.... You work out the percentage, I can't be bothered, but i do know it's a small percentage.

~1.9%

 

[Altis]

There's no point in discussing the issue with you, you've already been sly and underhanded by intentionally misquoting me, and have still not corrected it.

Post 96. I reported it, it's unacceptable.

I couldn't figure out what you're talking about. The quote wasn't from you, it was from the article. I thought that was obvious since it immediately preceded the link and the quote didn't have your name in it. I made it more clear now that I know what you were referring to. Sorry for the confusion -- it was not my intent.

Edit: no I will bite because I think once again you've posted some intentionally misleading information.

Firstly: "it's hardly happening in Syria"

Something like 8 million people have been forced to leave their homes in Syria, of that 150,000 have applied for asylum in the EU.... You work out the percentage, I can't be bothered, but i do know it's a small percentage.

Again, compared with the second world war, the conflict in Syria is extremely limited. In fact, if you look at how many people are actually involved in the conflict, it's a very small number (especially compared with the population of the country). We should be focusing on making the country safe and stable again rather than trying to permanently relocate everyone, and be providing relief efforts in nearby countries until they can return.

Your own number of 150,000 asylum seekers from Syria... it's interesting, because there have been more than 600,000 who have migrated to the EU. These people are not all Syrian refugees. I know you acknowledge the difference between refugees and economic migrants, but I'll stress again that what we really have is both tangled up into one mass permanent relocation of people. Many are pretending to be Syrian to enhance their chances of getting asylum.

http://news.yahoo.com/latest-boat-runs-aground-baby-dies-greek-incidents-063446312.html

Secondly "they want to come to Europe for the benefits"

Asylum seekers are not entitled to mainstream benefits, nor jump queues for housing or schools. Please stop trying to continue with factually incorrect information about Britain.

I didn't list any of those things. I'd count the NHS as one example of a pretty good benefit (we have an equivalent here in Canada).

Seeing as almost all the migrants are dead-set on either Germany or Sweden, the two welfare states that have promised the world (in cash) to anyone who shows up, it's really difficult to imagine that many of these people are fleeing for safety. They cross a whole ton of safe countries in order to reach these states.

Do you not also find it interesting how pretty well every single front-line country involved in this has an extremely rapidly growing anti-mass-immigration sentiment, both politically and culturally? The places that experience high rates of violence and are in chaos, the ground zero for what we're discussing, will likely soon end up with right-wing political parties in power to try to restore peace.

Source?

And housing benefit doesn't count as the bill in the UK is only as high as it is because there is very little government owned housing.

Source for what? Do you think that a massive number of people from the middle-East have decided to camp out at Calais, where the physical connection to the UK is, is not directly a result of the intent to get to the UK?

And why do you think so many want in the UK? It sure isn't the weather...

 

[ginkobiloba]

What we have is a migration crisis, the likes we haven't seen since the second world war. But the second world war involved dozens of countries, mass genocide... is that what's happening in Syria? No, it isn't, it's hardly a fraction of the chaos back then. So why the huge (permanent) displacement of so many people?

Nope, nothing happening in Syria. Just more than 100.000 people killed , caught in a war between a rampaging dictator and religious nut-jobs. Really makes you wonder why would anybody want to flee the country. Weird people...
Probably it's because they're not getting their iPhone 6s shipments in time. It's the only explanation I can find.

 

[ginkobiloba]

Do you not also find it interesting how pretty well every single front-line country involved in this has an extremely rapidly growing anti-mass-immigration sentiment, both politically and culturally?

Those places got anti-foreigner sentiments WAY before this crisis. Most of them steaming from extreme right-wingers and neo-nazis. Many of them has been condemned for various hate speechs multiple times in Europe. The biggest extreme right-wing political party in France "Front National" is notorious for having denied gas chambers and the Holocaust, and for saying that the Nazi occupation wasn't that bad actually. It was the jews immigrants, then the portuguese, then the spanish, then the north-africans, now the syrians...
Nothing new there.

Seeing as almost all the migrants are dead-set on either Germany or Sweden, the two welfare states that have promised the world (in cash) to anyone who shows up, it's really difficult to imagine that many of these people are fleeing for safety. They cross a whole ton of safe countries in order to reach these states.

Do you not also find it interesting how pretty well every single front-line country involved in this has an extremely rapidly growing anti-mass-immigration sentiment, both politically and culturally? The places that experience high rates of violence and are in chaos, the ground zero for what we're discussing, will likely soon end up with right-wing political parties in power to try to restore peace.
.

that's what you get for getting your news from Fox News. Might as well get your news from the Muppet Show.
Talk to u later. I need to wear my bullet proof suit and get in my Sherman Tank to go to the boulangerie for some fresh croissants this morning. Cause you know, .. chaos, no-go zones and all that stuff.

 

[sim667]

I couldn't figure out what you're talking about. The quote wasn't from you, it was from the article. I thought that was obvious since it immediately preceded the link and the quote didn't have your name in it. I made it more clear now that I know what you were referring to. Sorry for the confusion -- it was not my intent.



Again, compared with the second world war, the conflict in Syria is extremely limited. In fact, if you look at how many people are actually involved in the conflict, it's a very small number (especially compared with the population of the country). We should be focusing on making the country safe and stable again rather than trying to permanently relocate everyone, and be providing relief efforts in nearby countries until they can return.

Your own number of 150,000 asylum seekers from Syria... it's interesting, because there have been more than 600,000 who have migrated to the EU. These people are not all Syrian refugees. I know you acknowledge the difference between refugees and economic migrants, but I'll stress again that what we really have is both tangled up into one mass permanent relocation of people. Many are pretending to be Syrian to enhance their chances of getting asylum.

http://news.yahoo.com/latest-boat-runs-aground-baby-dies-greek-incidents-063446312.html



I didn't list any of those things. I'd count the NHS as one example of a pretty good benefit (we have an equivalent here in Canada).

Seeing as almost all the migrants are dead-set on either Germany or Sweden, the two welfare states that have promised the world (in cash) to anyone who shows up, it's really difficult to imagine that many of these people are fleeing for safety. They cross a whole ton of safe countries in order to reach these states.

Do you not also find it interesting how pretty well every single front-line country involved in this has an extremely rapidly growing anti-mass-immigration sentiment, both politically and culturally? The places that experience high rates of violence and are in chaos, the ground zero for what we're discussing, will likely soon end up with right-wing political parties in power to try to restore peace.



Source for what? Do you think that a massive number of people from the middle-East have decided to camp out at Calais, where the physical connection to the UK is, is not directly a result of the intent to get to the UK?

And why do you think so many want in the UK? It sure isn't the weather...

150K Asylum applications....

The NHS isn't a "benefit", it does not come under the realm of welfare benefit.

As far as "safe countries" go, I'd be interested to know which particular countries you're talking about? Please list them.

 

[Eraserhead]

I couldn't figure out what you're talking about. The quote wasn't from you, it was from the article. I thought that was obvious since it immediately preceded the link and the quote didn't have your name in it. I made it more clear now that I know what you were referring to. Sorry for the confusion -- it was not my intent.



Again, compared with the second world war, the conflict in Syria is extremely limited. In fact, if you look at how many people are actually involved in the conflict, it's a very small number (especially compared with the population of the country). We should be focusing on making the country safe and stable again rather than trying to permanently relocate everyone, and be providing relief efforts in nearby countries until they can return.

Your own number of 150,000 asylum seekers from Syria... it's interesting, because there have been more than 600,000 who have migrated to the EU. These people are not all Syrian refugees. I know you acknowledge the difference between refugees and economic migrants, but I'll stress again that what we really have is both tangled up into one mass permanent relocation of people. Many are pretending to be Syrian to enhance their chances of getting asylum.

http://news.yahoo.com/latest-boat-runs-aground-baby-dies-greek-incidents-063446312.html



I didn't list any of those things. I'd count the NHS as one example of a pretty good benefit (we have an equivalent here in Canada).

Seeing as almost all the migrants are dead-set on either Germany or Sweden, the two welfare states that have promised the world (in cash) to anyone who shows up, it's really difficult to imagine that many of these people are fleeing for safety. They cross a whole ton of safe countries in order to reach these states.

Do you not also find it interesting how pretty well every single front-line country involved in this has an extremely rapidly growing anti-mass-immigration sentiment, both politically and culturally? The places that experience high rates of violence and are in chaos, the ground zero for what we're discussing, will likely soon end up with right-wing political parties in power to try to restore peace.



Source for what? Do you think that a massive number of people from the middle-East have decided to camp out at Calais, where the physical connection to the UK is, is not directly a result of the intent to get to the UK?

And why do you think so many want in the UK? It sure isn't the weather...

With regards to Syria it's a giant mess. I'm not sure what will happen if Assad leaves - I think he will kill a lot of Rebels. And if the Rebels win there will be no country.

With regards to being in the UK I think they come as they can speak English and work.

 

[Altis]

Those places got anti-foreigner sentiments WAY before this crisis. Most of them steaming from extreme right-wingers and neo-nazis. Many of them has been condemned for various hate speechs multiple times in Europe. The biggest extreme right-wing political party in France "Front National" is notorious for having denied gas chambers and the Holocaust, and for saying that the Nazi occupation wasn't that bad actually. It was the jews immigrants, then the portuguese, then the spanish, then the north-africans, now the syrians...
Nothing new there.

And if they become the popular parties, what does that tell you about the left-wing parties? If they don't take into account the will of the people of the nation, then they will lose power to those that do.

It's also interesting how any form of nationalism is deemed inherently 'problematic' by those on the left. Look how much flak Hungarian PM got for not wanting a massive influx of people in their nation.

that's what you get for getting your news from Fox News. Might as well get your news from the Muppet Show.
Talk to u later. I need to wear my bullet proof suit and get in my Sherman Tank to go to the boulangerie for some fresh croissants this morning. Cause you know, .. chaos, no-go zones and all that stuff.

Don't think we get Fox news in Canada. You act like there's nothing bad happening and any account of the violence and high rates of crime that follow the massive influx of people are just fear-mongering by the right-wing.

You're simply in denial of reality. There is video proof of a lot of what's going on. Do you think it's normal to see hand grenades in use on the streets of Sweden? Attacks on gay pride parades? Beheadings in IKEA? There are several interviews of Swedish police who won't go in certain areas (such as Malmo). Even the new immigrants there complain that the conditions are no better than the places they fled. You aren't helping anyone by denying the reality of the situation.

 

[Eraserhead]

And if they become the popular parties, what does that tell you about the left-wing parties? If they don't take into account the will of the people of the nation, then they will lose power to those that do.

It's also interesting how any form of nationalism is deemed inherently 'problematic' by those on the left. Look how much flak Hungarian PM got for not wanting a massive influx of people in their nation.



Don't think we get Fox news in Canada. You act like there's nothing bad happening and any account of the violence and high rates of crime that follow the massive influx of people are just fear-mongering by the right-wing.

You're simply in denial of reality. There is video proof of a lot of what's going on. Do you think it's normal to see hand grenades in use on the streets of Sweden? Attacks on gay pride parades? Beheadings in IKEA? There are several interviews of Swedish police who won't go in certain areas (such as Malmo). Even the new immigrants there complain that the conditions are no better than the places they fled. You aren't helping anyone by denying the reality of the situation.

And yet crime is at historic lows...

 

[Altis]

150K Asylum applications....

The NHS isn't a "benefit", it does not come under the realm of welfare benefit.

Call it what you want. Most of the world views free (or nearly free) public health care as a massive benefit, if not the most important social service. It's one of the most important benefits you can have. I certainly don't take it for granted here in Canada.

As far as "safe countries" go, I'd be interested to know which particular countries you're talking about? Please list them.

I'll refer to this graphic again for a minute:

Once people leave Syria and the other surrounding affected areas, they are more or less in safe countries.

To get to Germany and Sweden, people are travelling through Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Hungary, Croatia, Austria, Italy, and the Czec Republic.

There are other countries along the way but I haven't heard much about them. They could also go the other way, towards Saudi Arabia, and some do go to Jordan and Lebanon.

My point is simply that quite a few safe countries (countries with no war or known threats) are passed en route to Germany and Sweden. It makes more sense when you consider how many other countries people are migrating from, which makes up a very large portion of the people on the move.

 

[Altis]

And yet crime is at historic lows...

Are you talking about Sweden, the rape capitol of Europe?

With regards to Syria it's a giant mess. I'm not sure what will happen if Assad leaves - I think he will kill a lot of Rebels. And if the Rebels win there will be no country.

With regards to being in the UK I think they come as they can speak English and work.

Totally agreed here. It sure is a mess, and it isn't all that straight forward to fix it when there isn't even really a 'good side', so to speak.

 

[Renzatic]

Call it what you want. Most of the world views free (or nearly free) public health care as a massive benefit, if not the most important social service. It's one of the most important benefits you can have.

Hey look, guy! A radical Communists!

Sorry. Kneejerk reaction. We Americans tend to get our political pants in a wad when it comes to healthcare.

 

[sim667]

Call it what you want. Most of the world views free (or nearly free) public health care as a massive benefit, if not the most important social service. It's one of the most important benefits you can have. I certainly don't take it for granted here in Canada.



I'll refer to this graphic again for a minute:

Once people leave Syria and the other surrounding affected areas, they are more or less in safe countries.

To get to Germany and Sweden, people are travelling through Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Hungary, Croatia, Austria, Italy, and the Czec Republic.

There are other countries along the way but I haven't heard much about them. They could also go the other way, towards Saudi Arabia, and some do go to Jordan and Lebanon.

My point is simply that quite a few safe countries (countries with no war or known threats) are passed en route to Germany and Sweden. It makes more sense when you consider how many other countries people are migrating from, which makes up a very large portion of the people on the move.

bulgaria, albania, macedonia, romania, serbia and the czech republic are not in the EU, thus do not have to abide by the asylum agreements within the eu, so its quite obvious that refugees aren't going to apply with asylum.

I don't know if turkey, croatia or the czech republic are full members yet either?

If thats the case, thats a whole 2 countries it would be worth applying for asylum in the EU you've listed.

And Italians I doubt will be welcoming.

 

[ginkobiloba]

And if they become the popular parties, what does that tell you about the left-wing parties? If they don't take into account the will of the people of the nation, then they will lose power to those that do.

It's also interesting how any form of nationalism is deemed inherently 'problematic' by those on the left. Look how much flak Hungarian PM got for not wanting a massive influx of people in their nation.

You're mixing together all sorts of different issues. I don't care about what that tells about left-wing parties. There are in fact many parties from the right here in Europe that are vehemently opposed to the extreme right-wing populist parties. If you're wrong , you're wrong, whether you're left , center or right. I don't care if they become more popular, it still doesn't make what they say any more true. It doesn't make the nazi occupation "not so bad after all", it doesn't make their deformed white suprematist stances any more true.
We have ample examples by now that historically, crowds don't always hold the truth. Extreme right winger and white suprematists/neo-nazis have historically always used the fact that most people don't get the big picture to manipulate them. If you only get a fragmented view of reality, you can't make wise decisions, you can't think straight.
By the way, Syria has some the most educated population in the middle-east. Many of those immigrants are doctors, engineers, technicians, etc... The reason they are also migrating more to Germany and Sweden than other places in Europe is simple : Germany has serious low birth rate problem, as well as a booming economy and not enough workers, and had made it clear that they need and want new migrants because of that .
Here's a fun fact : The European Union decided that all EU countries should participate with a certain quota to accept these new immigrants. The funny thing is that France, wich has probably a better welfare system than Germany, can't seem to fullfill the quota. So much that they actually had to send people from the government to the refugee camps to convince them to come to France ! And those syrian migrants say no, because :
1- not enough jobs in France and dwindling economy ( true )
2- Too much racism and the increasingly popular "Front National" party. ( true )

They want to go where they can work. They want to work. Your mantra about them going only where they can benefit from welfare is wrong. A small proportion will end up on welfare, sure. The older ones, the underqualified. The majority want to work and will, especially with their higher level of education.

Don't think we get Fox news in Canada. You act like there's nothing bad happening and any account of the violence and high rates of crime that follow the massive influx of people are just fear-mongering by the right-wing.

You're simply in denial of reality. There is video proof of a lot of what's going on.

Well, I guess you're more informed , by sitting there in Ottawa , Canada, about the everyday life of people here in Europe , or France in my case, than I am informed about my own everyday life in France and Europe where I travel all year long.. If you read it on the internet or saw a video on youtube, then it must be true and I am living in denial. How can I argue with that ?
( Hey , I saw on Youtube , that some guy in montreal ate his boyfriend last year , then killed and chopped several other people? It was all over the news. He flew to Europe and got arrested in germany I think. So I have video proof that Canadians are serial killers and cannibals. You can't argue with such a solid argument.)

 

[Altis]

bulgaria, albania, macedonia, romania, serbia and the czech republic are not in the EU, thus do not have to abide by the asylum agreements within the eu, so its quite obvious that refugees aren't going to apply with asylum.

I don't know if turkey, croatia or the czech republic are full members yet either?

If thats the case, thats a whole 2 countries it would be worth applying for asylum in the EU you've listed.

And Italians I doubt will be welcoming.

Why is the EU the only safe place that should be worth applying for asylum in?

If safety was the exclusive goal, Germany wouldn't be overwhelmed with people, and they would be more evenly distributed. Why are Germany and Sweden almost exclusively the destination for all these people?

 

[Altis]

You're mixing together all sorts of different issues. I don't care about what that tells about left-wing parties. There are in fact many parties from the right here in Europe that are vehemently opposed to the extreme right-wing populist parties. If you're wrong , you're wrong, whether you're left , center or right. I don't care if they become more popular, it still doesn't make what they say any more true. It doesn't make the nazi occupation "not so bad after all", it doesn't make their deformed white suprematist stances any more true.
We have ample examples by now that historically, crowds don't always hold the truth. Extreme right winger and white suprematists/neo-nazis have historically always used the fact that most people don't get the big picture to manipulate them. If you only get a fragmented view of reality, you can't make wise decisions, you can't think straight.

So all these people are just wrong, and your view is correct? I don't support extreme right or left politics, but it would seem that the will of the people is the mantra of a democracy. Nobody is saying to hurt anyone by saying they want to protect their national identity.

When a German town of a few hundred will be accepting one thousand new migrants, most of whom are not fleeing for safety but are relocating for economic reasons, they are supposed to be perfectly fine with that new dynamic else be labeled the usual 'racist', 'xenophobe'?

By the way, Syria has some the most educated population in the middle-east. Many of those immigrants are doctors, engineers, technicians, etc... The reason they are also migrating more to Germany and Sweden than other places in Europe is simple : Germany has serious low birth rate problem, as well as a booming economy and not enough workers, and had made it clear that they need and want new migrants because of that .

So the Hungarian PM is correct in saying that by simple mathematics, the native populations are going extinct (birthrates around 1 to 1.5 tops per couple in EU) while foreigners have 3-5 children per couple.

The solution to the low birthrate problem isn't just to bring in people who populate as rapidly as possible, unless you're fine with the native population diminishing endlessly.

Here's a fun fact : The European Union decided that all EU countries should participate with a certain quota to accept these new immigrants. The funny thing is that France, wich has probably a better welfare system than Germany, can't seem to fullfill the quota. So much that they actually had to send people from the government to the refugee camps to convince them to come to France ! And those syrian migrants say no, because :
1- not enough jobs in France and dwindling economy ( true )
2- Too much racism and the increasingly popular "Front National" party. ( true )

They want to go where they can work. They want to work. Your mantra about them going only where they can benefit from welfare is wrong. A small proportion will end up on welfare, sure. The older ones, the underqualified. The majority want to work and will, especially with their higher level of education.

Are you certain that's why? I haven't once said that people don't want to work, I'm sure that isn't by and large the case. But if you could choose between a country offering you $10,000 on arrival, plus housing, food, and education.... would that not make your top choice?

And here we are discussing economic migrants rather than refugees once again. Genuine refugees escaping warfare aren't quite so picky about which safe countries to go to.

Well, I guess you're more informed , by sitting there in Ottawa , Canada, about the everyday life of people here in Europe , or France in my case, than I am informed about my own everyday life in France and Europe where I travel all year long.. If you read it on the internet or saw a video on youtube, then it must be true and I am living in denial. How can I argue with that ?
( Hey , I saw on Youtube , that some guy in montreal ate his boyfriend last year , then killed and chopped several other people? It was all over the news. He flew to Europe and got arrested in germany I think. So I have video proof that Canadians are serial killers and cannibals. You can't argue with such a solid argument.)

You're just trying to shame me from having an opinion on the matter, and it's a nasty thing to do. It's extremely common in far-left politics, though, so not exactly something we haven't seen before. You know absolutely nothing about me beyond what I've indicated is my hometown.

What you're saying did happen. You read about it on the Internet, saw it on YouTube, and it was true. That event took place and you'd be correct in saying we had at least one incidence of that. Now if you saw 100 separate cases like that (even on the Internet!) you'd logically follow that conclusion, would you not?

But what you're saying is one isolated incidence does not a trend make... but I'm not really talking about an isolated case of violence, but a trend reported by countless news sources spanning multiple countries. Telling me that because I haven't seen it with my own eyes doesn't really mean anything considering that's true of almost everything we know.

 

[ginkobiloba]

So the Hungarian PM is correct in saying that by simple mathematics, the native populations are going extinct (birthrates around 1 to 1.5 tops per couple in EU) while foreigners have 3-5 children per couple.

The solution to the low birthrate problem isn't just to bring in people who populate as rapidly as possible, unless you're fine with the native population diminishing endlessly.

Immigrants become native. That's how it works around the world. You're yourself a previous immigrant from Europe ( I guess ) that moved to Canada , and became Canadian native. Unless you're a Huron or Algonquin Indian, all canadians are immigrants and foreigners first, then they become native. There are blacks from africa, polish, italians , lebanese, french, asians in Canada. They are all canadians once they settle in and become part of the country. You become a "native" once you learn the language, get the nationality , pay your taxes and participate in the economic and cultural life of the country.
If you want to analyze people's DNA to know who is racially "pure" enough or not to be country native, good luck with that....

Are you certain that's why?

Yes, I am positively sure. Pardon me for being more informed about local politics than you. There was an lenghty article about it in the most serious and most politically balanced french newspaper "Le Monde" .

But if you could choose between a country offering you $10,000 on arrival, plus housing, food, and education.... would that not make your top choice?

And here we are discussing economic migrants rather than refugees once again. Genuine refugees escaping warfare aren't quite so picky about which safe countries to go to.

If you had a choice between a country where people smile at you and say welcome, and another where people spit at you and even ( extreme right-wing) journalists kick your 5 year old children with their feet and stomp over you , would that not make your top choice?

 

[Altis]

Immigrants become native. That's how it works around the world. You're yourself a previous immigrant from Europe ( I guess ) that moved to Canada , and became Canadian native. Unless you're a Huron or Algonquin Indian, all canadians are immigrants and foreigners first, then they become native. There are blacks from africa, polish, italians , lebanese, french, asians in Canada. They are all canadians once they settle in and become part of the country. You become a "native" once you learn the language, get the nationality , pay your taxes and participate in the economic and cultural life of the country.
If you want to analyze people's DNA to know who is racially "pure" enough or not to be country native, good luck with that....

I'm 3/4 native (Cree and Ojibwe), but regardless...

Interesting point but the fact remains that the country is then replaced by people from another part of the world. Most would consider that to be a form of an invasion, as we natives considered it when the Europeans took over North America ever such a long time ago. Your theory only works if there is full integration. That tends to fail the more quickly you populate with groups of people from the same area.

Do you think that when the ethnic Swedes become fewer and fewer that their values and traditions will live on?

It seems everyone but the Europeans are allowed to have pride in their culture and are shamed from maintaining it. When Sweden (or any other country) has a different set of people with a completely different set of cultural values, the whole nation will change.

Do you think Syria is in a mess because of where it is, or because of the values of the culture? Same with other conflict zones in the middle East. What happens when attacks on gay pride parades become normalized, as is slowly occurring in Sweden and Norway?

Yes, I am positively sure. Pardon me for being more informed about local politics than you. There was an lenghty article about it in the most serious and most politically balanced french newspaper "Le Monde" .

Sounds like you think awfully highly of yourself. Referencing one single news article doesn't mean much since it won't represent the motives of half a million people accurately. And if what you're saying is true, then these are not simply refugees but economic migrants. Refugees seek safety; economic migrants seek a better life overall.

Tell me, what jobs are the 1000 being located in an old rural town of a few hundred people likely to get? I don't think there are 1000 jobs waiting for them there.

If you had a choice between a country where people smile at you and say welcome, and another where people spit at you and even ( extreme right-wing) journalists kick your 5 year old children with their feet and stomp over you , would that not make your top choice?

Is it really that bad there? Is this something you've seen? I can imagine the odd occurrence but for it to be normalized.....

And by that logic, not wanting to go to a country because there are a few people who don't treat you well is equivalent to not wanting foreigners to come because a few of them commit crimes such as rape, honour killings, intolerance of LGBT, etc...

How is that any different?

 

[Eraserhead]

Are you talking about Sweden, the rape capitol of Europe?

Talking about all developed countries. But Sweden does have a high rape rate, mostly because the police take it seriously so the report rate is high.

Totally agreed here. It sure is a mess, and it isn't all that straight forward to fix it when there isn't even really a 'good side', so to speak.

And some of that is going to require other countries letting Syrians live there.

 

[Altis]

Talking about all developed countries. But Sweden does have a high rape rate, mostly because the police take it seriously so the report rate is high.

True. It likely isn't a coincidence that the country with some of the most radical-feminist-influenced governments would have higher rates of rape reports.

And some of that is going to require other countries letting Syrians live there.

I don't see how this solves the problem long-term at all. How does permanently relocating the population of the country help it? Who is going to fix the country if everyone leaves?

Temporary relocation in nearby countries with foreign aid from around the globe to help seems to make more sense to me. I'd love to see Syria become a stable democracy and thrive in its successes.

 

[Eraserhead]

I don't see how this solves the problem long-term at all. How does permanently relocating the population of the country help it? Who is going to fix the country if everyone leaves?

Temporary relocation in nearby countries with foreign aid from around the globe to help seems to make more sense to me. I'd love to see Syria become a stable democracy and thrive in its successes.

Temporary relocation would work if there was a credible opposition to govern Syria in the absence of Assad. As it is the "best" case scenario is Assad winning, but he'll probably have to liberally massacre his enemies to stop another uprising.

Fundamentally Syria isn't a country anymore.