What's the purpose of western Europe bringing in all these refugees, many of which aren't working? Is it just for brownie points to showoff to the other liberal nations, or are they planning to convert them into a fully-functional labor force in time, somehow and sometime along in the future? What are the potential issues concerning refugees? Could refugees reasonably integrate without causing some sort of structural change, or are western leaders digging their own graves here?
What's the purpose of western Europe bringing in all these refugees, many of which aren't working...
Other urls found in this thread:
They are not bringing in them anymore. They brought them in because they agreed to some international law after the Second World War so that nobody could deny refuge to the victims of the next Holocaust. Now they are partners in crime in turning the Mediterranean Sea into a new Auschwitz, replacing the fire of the crematoriums with the water of the sea.
Can you provide a source for them not bringing them in anymore? And why don't they simply refuse them and make up some excuse as well; is it because they too big, and therefore the spotlight's on them, and they can't get away with it like a smaller country such as Hungary? Collectively west Europe houses a couple million refugees already – why would they start killing them in the Mediterranean, and how?
Also, regarding your picture, it says "foreign" so it is likely to include economic migrants from Eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary, and Roumania especially).
Quite a misleading graph OP, makes it seem like foreigners are a majority or something.
Lol what a retarded statement. Fucking treehuggers and the italian coastguard were litterally picking up people from inside libyan territorial waters. The people bringing them to boats are smugglers, and if we (read, nato) hadnt overthrown ghaddafi we wouldnt have these problems.
and so on and so on
Every ship on the sea has a duty under international law to help those in distress.
Territorial waters of another country are not "at sea" or "under international law", furthermore, deliberately buying a boat and cruising around to ferry migrants across, then even bringing back the boats to the smugglers, is not "helping out those in distress", it is enabling human smuggling.
Thats because migration season is coming to an end because of the weather.
It wont start up till spring next year.
I feel like there should be a substantial penalty for ships who arrange with human traffickers on land to create these 'distress situations'.
They are not colluding with smugglers, stop spreading reactionary propaganda:
Only because migration season is over.
Take a look at the shipping movements next year and you will see what im getting at.
Just because you repeat the same lie again and again won't make it true. Your claim was already debunked in the linked article, which of course you didn't read. Maybe you should actually pay attention to what's happening in the world and who's saying what instead of eating up shitty outrage articles from Daily Mail.
I stopped reading the article when they were blaming the Libyan coast guard for destroying the people smugglers boats.
Its a really very unconvincing article. From a biased source.
Next you will be saying there were women and children on the boats.
Heres an article which says the opposite (posted in teh comments of the article you linked)
By your own rules that every article published in the mainstream media must be true, I now demand a retraction and apology from yourself.
So who's right? Any details to break the tie as to whether Europe collaborates with smugglers?
Have you read the article? It's someone claiming to be a prosecutor saying that they have evidence without showing the evidence anyone or going to court with it. Total bullshit, it's a propaganda piece, no wonder nothing came out of it.
A lot of this is going through the Italian courts at the moment.
Which may further explain the decline of NGO ships.
Id like to see what happens if the Italians tried to make use of the 'European Arrest Warrant' system to arrest any NGO leaders who have crossed the line in to illegality.
Would the other european countries comply with that or would they throw the entire mechanism in the trash?
Yeah. Obviously the telegraph has a much better reputation as a news organization but both articles are heavily biased.
Its always futile to play a battle of news articles because they all have their own agenda.
Capitalism destroys aggregate demand through downward pressure on wages. Having more and more consumers adding demand is one way to delay the next crash.
it's the White genocide agenda
Surely housing the extra migrants would increase the demand for aggregate?
It's yet another way to fuck over the 3rd-world. Funds for foreign aid that would otherwise be going to host nations economically/geographically/culturally closer to refugees' homelands can, thanks to hosting them in Europe, be diverted to Europe:
Not seeing any actual numbers in those articles for gross arrivals. In fact, I can't find numbers like graph related for 2017 or 2018 ANYWHERE.
Sure, but why bring up housing specifically?
Foreign aid is a scam anyway. Untenable conditions are merely prolonged at best. At worst nothing changes, the west just covers a part of the bare minimum expense local authoritarians need to pay to keep themselves in power.
Fuck off with your relativizing bullshit. Your article was about an anonymous nobody that claimed they had evidence but refused to bring it to court, what I linked reported on a study done at a respected university. Of course the latter holds much more weight.
Eastern Europe already fulfils that role, the EU does not need the much more expensive refugees. Just look at Hungary where the German automotive industry has access to quasi-free labour and doesn't need to pay taxes. No wonder Orbán is so strong on the border issue.
More expensive to whom?
Tax payers (i.e., the people who vote)
Small amounts of foreign aid (except disaster aid, obviously) can't do much good, but massive aid can, as demonstrated by post-WWII efforts. Looking at the corpulent $1.6T/year burgerstan military (on/off-DoD combined) budget, for instance, that would obviously do quite a bit of good, properly spent as foreign aid. Likewise, to a slightly lesser degree, the EU's combined military spending (~$200B/year for explicit military, likely double that including related expenditures).
So? This is capitalism, not democracy. More profit is more profit.
Refugees don't bring in more profit than immigrant workers from Eastern Europe.
But capitalists can have both.
They can't, actually.
The Marshal plan, when the US gave the equivalent of something like hundreds of billions of dollars to west Europe to rebuild it and sway them to their side (they thought about going commie previously).
Yes, it actually is possible to have both refugees and eastern european workers in a society.
Post-WWII west europe seems hard to compare to the 3rd world.
Capitalists don't live in vacuum.
are you kidding me? sometimes they turned transponders off. One of those vessels, the Lifeline, was a fully pirate boat.
IMHO migrants are either part of an islamization plan leading to civil war (think Yugoslavia for all EU, and you will know who is behind it as they will be the first to offer "assistance") or the casus belli for total surveillance antidemocratic governments. Or a way to deal with all the cruft that opposes the rule of money (with the progressives cheering).
Remember that post-WWII Europe looked like pic related.
Sorry poor choice of words. I meant housing as in 'accomodating'.
All the infrastructure would require a lot of construction materials.
Destroyed cities isn't enough to make western europe comparable to the 3rd world. The 3rd world is simply so far behind in terms of historical materialism.
The big ones pretty much do. Refugees and other cheap labour can be shoved into shithole ghettos while the rich capitalists can live in any gated community of their choice, and they can daughters brought to school and back by armed security.
How do you figure? What is it that makes a place that has little productive capacity different from a place whose former productive capacity is a smouldering ruin?
Culture doesn't change immediately with material conditions.
I guess its education and skill levels.
A lot of the insustrialized places that got completely flattened during WW2 were rebuilt incredibly quickly. Not only that, they took the opportunity to do things better the second time around. They are now some of the most productive areas in the world.
Culture? Culture becomes whatever it needs to be to justify the status quo, and it does so very quickly.Anyone over thirty knows just how quickly, too.
Well, you've certainly got a paper-thin understanding of things.
Oh piss off, Mao. Culture takes care of itself.
It's a plot by multinational porky to divide and conquer the masses through an engineered ethno-cultural conflict. That's the real purpose of the western intervention in the Syrian civil war and never-ending conflict in Iraq. The emerging far-right is exactly the point of it all, they're just useful idiots.
It's about the global markets, refugees themselves are a product. Pharma, housing markets, and various other industries benefit from refugees. The worker doesn't really. Many of these refugees coming from Africa aren't really a refugee I believe according to reports some 2/3 are not refugee, I fear that the actual figure would be even higher because you need to screen fast if you get as many refugees as Germany got.
It's undeniable that wars and such will cause many refugees, Europe can accept them as refugee but it shouldn't guarantee a path to citizenship nor should it give entitlement to extra benefits. A logical policy would be to decrease reward structure for coming to Europe, or doing something similar to what Hungary did, but that does not favor global markets so it's not happening in western Europe. France Netherlands Germany have very weak politicians that are basically puppets of the global market. It might seem like these countries have a president, parliament, justice system but they all work to appease the international market. Just recently the president and his coalition of the Netherlands embarrassed himself in a spectacular way. He wanted to remove a tax regarding dividend tax, this would favor large corporations and the trick was to get Unilever their main office to the Netherlands. Unilever announced to not do this and suddenly the coalition dropped immediately the plan to push for the removal of that tax.
They are behind intellectually which is far worse. Many people create society with their mind, their bodies being tools. So even if some third would countries sit on a gigantic amount of natural resources that can turn their countries into first world countries with ease, they won't be able to utilize this to the extent first world countries, and also second world countries (China/Russia) are doing.
On top of this: most third world countries lack teaching facilities. Majority is of a lower Autism Level than in western Europe. Many things point toward a significant intellectual difference of the averages when comparing two countries. Nature vs nurture debate aside, this is does impede the overall growth a county can expect. Now to top the terrible situation off: the brightest in the country are braindrained away out of Africa. But of course a bright person would get paid 10-20 times the amount for the same work in the west as opposed to Africa.
I would say Brazil is the endgoal. A point where everything is mixed together and there is no real threat from societal cooperation. A society that would be fully obedient towards international and global markets.
bringing unskilled labor so porky can get rich.