Female Police officer stabbed to death in France

Cordell

It is generally used as an argument for accepting migration in the western world, forgetting two very important things: those immigrants were from a superior culture and civilization and the natives were either wiped out or had their culture and civilization wiped out.

Of course we can discuss it, but not as a justification for the kind of migration Europe is experiencing now.
Do we really want our culture to mix with the culture these people bring and devolve into something less advanced?

And in case anyone wonders, I'm very unapologetic about calling most non western cultures inferior.

Overheal

Cordell wrote: »

It is generally used as an argument for accepting migration in the western world, forgetting two very important things: those immigrants were from a superior culture and civilization and the natives were either wiped out or had their culture and civilization wiped out.

Of course we can discuss it, but not as a justification for the kind of migration Europe is experiencing now.
Do we really want our culture to mix with the culture these people bring and devolve into something less advanced?

And in case anyone wonders, I'm very unapologetic about calling most non western cultures inferior.

What's your alternative to integration? I don't see how you have any integration on this scale and context that doesn't have some bidirectional flow.

Cordell

Do I need to provide an alternative?
I don't have any, I don't need to have a solution in order to be able to point out a problem. But acknowledging that immigration from the islamic world is a problem would be a good first step.

Overheal

Cordell wrote: »

Do I need to provide an alternative?

Not you specifically but the crisis is not going away on its own and I don't think there are viable alternatives to facilitating an intergenerational integration.

Cordell

So if there are no "viable alternatives to facilitating an intergenerational integration" how about, you know, stopping letting them in?

Overheal

Cordell wrote: »

So if there are no "viable alternatives to facilitating an intergenerational integration" how about, you know, stopping letting them in?

It doesn't address everyone already there: French Muslims and their geographic origins,

Algeria 1,550,000
Morocco 1,000,000
Tunisia 350,000
Turkey 315,000
Sub-Saharan Africa 250,000
Middle East 100,000
remaining Asia (mostly Pakistan and Bangladesh) 100,000
Converts 40,000
Illegal immigrants or awaiting regularization 350,000
Other 100,000
Total 4,155,000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_France#Estimations_based_on_people's_geographic_origin

And the reason refugees are accepted in the first place is humanitarian. Even if we could erect some Ideal sovereign border, impervious to infiltration and charmed with magical hexes etc. the entire geographic territory spanning North Africa and the Middle East itself is becoming largely uninhabitable. It would be akin to just kicking back behind a glass door and watching untold millions of people die off in droves from a combination of poverty famine and war. I find that to be a nonviable solution that history would damn us all for.

Cordell

I think the humanitarian angle is a load of HS and people that support it quickly change their tune when the humanitarian act is to happen next to them, as we seen it here already.
The history will definitely damn us if we allow our civilization to devolve and disappear, as it did with others.

biko

Overheal wrote: »

the entire geographic territory spanning North Africa and the Middle East itself is becoming largely uninhabitable.

Climate migrants is becoming a thing.
Do you think the best option is to move the millions from those countries to France?

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

so, no I don't have a 'number' of people I believe should be allowed into the country. I have no issue with people who want to live here, in fact I think it is a good thing that people actually choose to live here.

This is the what causes the problem. A cap needs to be created. There are 8 billion people in the world, a huge percentage of whom would move to Ireland and Europe if they could. Africa's population is 1.2 billion, expected to grow to 3-4 billion by the end of the century. Nigeria alone will have approximately 700,000,000. Under no circumstances should millions of people be allowed to move here because some people and politicians don't want to put a cap on it.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

It doesn't address everyone already there: French Muslims and their geographic origins,

Algeria 1,550,000
Morocco 1,000,000
Tunisia 350,000
Turkey 315,000
Sub-Saharan Africa 250,000
Middle East 100,000
remaining Asia (mostly Pakistan and Bangladesh) 100,000
Converts 40,000
Illegal immigrants or awaiting regularization 350,000
Other 100,000
Total 4,155,000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_France#Estimations_based_on_people's_geographic_origin

And the reason refugees are accepted in the first place is humanitarian. Even if we could erect some Ideal sovereign border, impervious to infiltration and charmed with magical hexes etc. the entire geographic territory spanning North Africa and the Middle East itself is becoming largely uninhabitable. It would be akin to just kicking back behind a glass door and watching untold millions of people die off in droves from a combination of poverty famine and war. I find that to be a nonviable solution that history would damn us all for.

Another talking point widely used to brow beat people into accepting millions of immigrants, "we need to be on the right side of history". This is rubbish, money spent in their home countries will go a lot further than letting people into Europe.

Overheal

biko wrote: »

Climate migrants is becoming a thing.
Do you think the best option is to move the millions from those countries to France?

The best option is to facilitate robust integration processes in general. There are something like 70 million refugees worldwide it is estimated, not nearly all of which are just from climate displacement or from these countries. If France is currently unable to integrate 400,000 then it is inadequately set up for what is likely to come.

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

Another talking point widely used to brow beat people into accepting millions of immigrants, "we need to be on the right side of history". This is rubbish, money spent in their home countries will go a lot further than letting people into Europe.

Spend it to do what? Where do you grow food? Where is the water?

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Spend it to do what? Where do you grow food? Where is the water?

There is no shortage of food in the world, any shortages are caused by bad management and governance. Money spent at source will go a lot further in making these countries sustainable than bringing millions of people into the West.

Also, the solution to Africa's exploding population isn't to bring 2 billion people into Europe and America to alleviate their population pressures.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

The best option is to facilitate robust integration processes in general. There are something like 70 million refugees worldwide it is estimated, not nearly all of which are just from climate displacement or from these countries. If France is currently unable to integrate 400,000 then it is inadequately set up for what is likely to come.

We now have NGOs demanding that people fleeing climate change, people who are gay and people who suffer domestic violence are also allowed to enter the West. France and Ireland for that matter has no duty to take them all in. This madness needs to stop. It's been done to line the pockets of the vested interests.

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

There is no shortage of food in the world, any shortages are caused by bad management and governance. Money spent at source will go a lot further in making these countries sustainable than bringing millions of people into the West.

This policy has been tried in Africa for decades. It hasn't worked, and people from those countries are becoming displaced. Perpetuating the policy doesn't feel like a solution, then.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

This policy has been tried in Africa for decades. It hasn't worked, and people from those countries are becoming displaced. Perpetuating the policy doesn't feel like a solution, then.

The answer definitely isn't to transport all these people to Europe and Ireland.

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

We now have NGOs demanding that people fleeing climate change, people who are gay and people who suffer domestic violence are also allowed to enter the West.

I see no issue with that. They behead LGBTQ in some parts of the world, including the ones in question, where they also behead and stone women as others have helpfully pointed out. Not suggesting that those practices be imported or allowed to integrate, but human beings ought to be.

France and Ireland for that matter has no duty to take them all in.

'Duty' is one thing, stability is another.

I for one think things will only get worse if they're just 'left alone' etc. - eventually total international anarchy will ensue making the Arab Spring look like a pep rally. In the worst case scenario nukes start flying, and then it's literally everyone's problem.

This madness needs to stop. It's been done to line the pockets of the vested interests.

What's the conspiracy?

biko

Overheal wrote: »

The best option is to facilitate robust integration processes in general.

I disagree. Better is to disincentive people from leaving.
Mainly by making their countries better but also by making it useless to boat across the Mediterranean.

Europe cannot possibly hold all these migrants, nor is it a sustainable way of handling the problem by bringing people here that only will add to the effect that is claimed to cause the climate change in the first place.

Overheal

biko wrote: »

I disagree. Better is to disincentive people from leaving.
Mainly by making their countries better but also by making it useless to boat across the Mediterranean.

Europe cannot possibly hold all these migrants, not is is a sustainable way of handling the problem.

How do you do that

biko

By shipping migrants back to place of origin.
Find the people smugglers and boat captains and jail them.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

I see no issue with that. They behead LGBTQ in some parts of the world, including the ones in question, where they also behead and stone women as others have helpfully pointed out. Not suggesting that those practices be imported or allowed to integrate, but human beings ought to be.

What you are asking for is for freedom of movement for billions of people because of climate change, lack of gay rights, violence etc.

When all these people arrive into Europe what happens? Who builds the millions of houses, schools, hospitals? Who pays for all this. Will crime increase? Will social tensions increase? Western civilization would collapse.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

So what's easier to solve here sounds like the Western influence on the Middle East. Perhaps we should stop giving them the environment to radicalize, rather than kicking the ocean for all the good it would do of us to expect to have an entire religion go under some kind of coerced renaissance?

I don't disagree, but even in Western, first World nations, radicalisation occurs. Islam, and people's bizarre devotion to a God above all else, is a major problem. Islam itself is a problem and needs addressing. The question is how!

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

I don't see what someone's religion has to Do with it? Surely their circumstances, ability to work, need for migration are the important factors?
Do you think the millions of Muslims believe exactly what you have listed above?

Very likely, considering there is 1.9 billion Muslims in the World.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

What you are asking for is for freedom of movement for billions of people because of climate change, lack of gay rights, violence etc.

When all these people arrive into Europe what happens? Who builds the millions of houses, schools, hospitals? Who pays for all this. Will crime increase? Will social tensions increase? Western civilization would collapse.

And what happens when the gay rights, women's rights come under attack from the very people we have let in? It is not the case that someone from an extremely conservative society joining a liberal one suddenly sees the light and becomes liberal themselves.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

The best option is to facilitate robust integration processes in general. .

Except, with regards to many cultures, integration doesn't work. Integration has been the endgame of European attitudes towards immigration for the last 40 years, and it's had very little actual success, except with cultures who are already more flexible in how they live.

Assimilation is the only logical answer to mass immigration into Europe. The expectation that immigrants would adopt the customs, values, etc of the host culture, leaving behind whatever previous cultural/religious beliefs they might have. Multiculturalism doesn't work.

Migrants should have a limited time in which to show that they're assimilating, with failure to do so, resulting in deportation. Those who want to live in Europe, should assimilate, and do so willingly.

There are something like 70 million refugees worldwide it is estimated, not nearly all of which are just from climate displacement or from these countries. If France is currently unable to integrate 400,000 then it is inadequately set up for what is likely to come

The expectation should be that the majority of these refugees would go elsewhere. ie. Asia, or other parts of Africa. Why should Europe accept the majority of these refugees? Since Asia is comparable in terms of work, and living standards to where they came from, and also represents a significant landmass, it makes more sense to provide encouragement for Asia to be a target. As such, illegals should be deported, and the majority of unskilled migrants should be refused access to Europe.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

How do you do that

Giving police the ability to determine/check who are legal citizens, and arresting those who are not. We're already reaching the point where people will have a national identification, which results in a tracking system for everyone who should be here. Easy enough to pick up those who don't have ID... if there is the political will to give the police the powers to catch these immigrants, with subsequent deportations, or other measures who have repeatedly come across.

Targeting those who provide transportation services would also help. Seizure of boats/assets, prison time for citizens breaking immigration laws, etc.

If you look at most Asian major cities, it's hard for anyone who do much without their ID/Passport... just extend that to here.

Marco23d

Marcos wrote: »

ISIS have been very clear about why they hate the west, and invading Muslim lands is far down the list. These are their own words, they list six reasons why they wage jihad against the west.

1. Because you are disbelievers
   
2. Because you are liberal
   
3. Because some of you are atheist
   
4. For your crimes against Islam
   
5. For your crimes against Muslims
   
6. For invading our lands

An article from the mirror, you lads really do make me laugh.

biko

Marco23d wrote: »

An article from the mirror, you lads really do make me laugh.

Look it up in your July 2016 issue of Dabiq.