The examples that you give are quite telling, the perpetrators tend to be people who gave lived for decades (often having moved as children) or native born, many cases third or fourth generation. That pretty much true elsewhere as well, the London bombers were second/third generation, three had college degrees, one had a white wife. Most terror attacks tend to come from such individuals, people who are integrated, educated and have lived most of their lives in country and who actually feel they have a stake, which they are being denied, you know the profile of radical/anarchist/terrorist throughout history.
The threat posed by the people who have escaped with only their lives and the clothes oj their backs is minimal.
Thanks for the insult, however, I’m fully aware of the religious diversity of Syria, I’m quite positive that they will be absorbed into the wider European community no problem (as will the Yazidis) However, this leaves the problem of Muslim integration.
So pray tell, how do you convince Joe average that 20-30 years down the line, we’re not going to see some of the 2nd generation of Muslim refugees doing the same sort of things which have been reported, for instance, massacring a bunch of journalists in Paris, attempted terrorist attack on a train, bombing the London underground etc etc, how will you assauge their doubts, their grievances? Do you not appreciate why people have such a negative reaction towards them?
I really doubt you have any idea about Syria or the Levant or frankly most of the world. That is not really germane to the topic however.
Oh, I am sure they will remain a threat. If 2nd Generation (meaning born and bred) of these people (or for that matter any people anywhere in the world) are still thought of as “refugees” than they will be trouble for decades.
On the other hand, as I am sure many of these people are the same ethnicity who saw French oppression inN Africa and Syria-Lebanon, and of course the Iraq War, where many European nations happily partook in the destruction of an nation on false pretences… all sides can play the atrocities game till the cows come home.
Oh so two wrongs DO make a right, I didn’t realise. I also wasn’t aware Germany bombed Iraq. So if they remain a threat in the 2nd generation, don’t be surprised by nations in Europe only wanting Christian refugees.
Again, thank you for the curt insult, I shall add to the collection.
All West European countries are already settled with massive, and probably unsolved within our lifetime, problems with previous immigrants: ghettos, inability to integrated, unemployment and pressure on public finances, increased crime, etc.
Of course one can claim that all this is going to be solved in 200 years, and maybe so, who knows. In the meanwhile, for everybody alive in Europe at this moment in time, the current waves of immigrants are going to increase overall poverty, increase taxes and put pressure on welfare state models, increase feelings of insecurity, reduce trust, increase (often violent) crime, and in general reduce living standards across a wide range of parametres.
Wow. Denmark must have turned into a true hellhole.
Isn’t yours the country with the sixth highest per capita GDP in the world? To me that does not look like all those pesky immigrants have put you in that bad a place so far.
If you do not want to help people in need, say “I do not want to.” Do not say “I can’t.”
I don’t think it’s just a question of economics, many are productive members of society, it’s just some 2nd generation or 3rd generation descendants who have been perceived as not integrating properly, and you get the likes of such as in Denmark who are trialling out a system of re-integration for people who’ve been fighting for ISIS. Do you see how that can infuriate many people?
Yes, I can see how it would infuriate them. But fury is never a good counsellor.
Fact is: Most European countries today *can *help the refugees fleeing the wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere. (The same is true for North American countries by the way.) We have the capacity and te means to do it. But of course it is going to cost us. It is expensive and even though most of those we welcome will integrate nicely into society over time, some will not and will cause trouble in the future. The question is, knowing all this, do we *want *to help or not?
People who are escaping the unrest are not fighting for ISIS. As for reintegration and control of 2nd and 3rd generation radicals the numbers are telling us that Denmark is on to something that is working.
In this discussion - about mass immigration - it is important to distinguish between refugees and (more traditional) immigrants.
In Canada, at least for the last twenty years or so, the government has given huge preference to well educated and/or financially secure immigrants. The former, in particular, have been a great boon to the economy, the tech sector, etc. Not only do they pose little threat to the public purse (i.e. social services) but they contribute financially, scientifically, culturally, etc. Further, it is my opinion that the children of such accomplished people (whether by genetics or by their families’ values or something else) continue to make huge contributions and in many ways. I often marvel at the composition of the medical school classes (and engineering, law, journalism, . . . )
On the other hand, refugees have not been pre-screened; we get what we get. In fact, it’s possible that being a refugee is a ‘risk factor’ or marker for inability (yes, I get that in many cases they were forced out at gunpoint, figuratively or literally. But some are refugees because, as has been pointed out above, they have nothing to lose).
In any case, accepting refugees en masse is very different than increasing immigration quotas. And, I would say, unwise if limits are not set.
The point was GIGO, the average Joe is going to go through the thought process of why should we burden ourselves with this, when 20-30 years down the line their descendants decide our society isn’t good enough for them and work to actively undermine it, it seems a waste of resources having to solve this problem.
Not that it has anything to do with anything, but I don’t actually live there anymore for the most part. And yes Denmark too has massive, and largely unsolvable, problems with immigrants and unemployment, crime, ghettos, and what not. For instance, going into the second generation, only about 20% of Somali immigrants and their decedents have managed to find employment (those numbers are pretty much the same across Europe btw.), on the other hand they’re massively overrepresented in the crime stats (1,000% over average).
I do not want to. The problems of the whole world are not mine to solve and in any case cannot be solved by importing people to Denmark.
Yep. And? He is wrong about the number of Orthodox Christians in Syria by 10 to 100 times (depending on whether “millions” is 2 million or 10 million). FYI.
And I’m just saying, your point was undermined by what Denmark is doing. What I see is that the average Joe is being misled by very conservative groups with an agenda.