Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Germany, smaller than the state of Montana, population 80 million, is estimated to take in at least 800,000 migrants this year, including those seeking asylum and those who are illegally immigrating from non-war zones. They're taking in more migrants than any other EU country, though the whole continent is becoming overrun. Unlike here in the USA, European governments are beginning to use their military to stop and turn away the flow of migrants at their borders because they simply can not support anymore.

Germany, Europe's largest economy, is the country where the majority of migrants go, no matter where they started from. This is causing extreme cultural tension in the already overcrowded shelters. Just today 50 Syrian migrants went on a rampaging riot through a shelter because the shelter's security would not let them viciously beat/possibly murder an Afghan migrant who tore up a Quran (this one shelter was delegated to house 1200 migrants; it currently holds 1700).

These sorts of confrontations are becoming increasingly common across Europe as thousands more migrants appear by the day. Here's a recent scene from Greece, which is currently collapsing on its own people as we all know:

This is leading Germany to want to segregate migrants by ethnicity to stop the scuffles. Bulgaria and Hungary have… wait for it… built border fences in an attempt to stop the flow. Macedonia has declared a national emergency and has armed military standing along the border keeping people out.

---

So, KYM, what do? Unlike the USA, Europe's governments are quickly realizing that harboring such a number of migrants is impossible and hurting their own citizens and economies. While they struggle with hundreds of thousands, our own immigration population has climbed to a record 42 million in the States. How do we address the crisis? Is it the first world's responsibility to house all of these people regardless? Is it the first world's responsibility to go in and fix the countries where these people are coming from?

Here are a couple article comments from Europeans, if you need something to respond directly to.

Do other countries' governments tell the people they're racist right-wing bigots for being concerned with the dramatically increasing number of illegal immigrants, like ours does? jw.

Gee, Lisa, I don't see the problem here. Your rampant cries for military interventionism have shown us that you care very deeply about the plight of these refugees, but it turns out that dumping billions on welfare to improve the quality of life of these poor oppressed minorities would be cheaper and more convenient then dumping trillions on a war to try and fix their governments. Everybody wins!

Money isn't the only issue here, Jarbsy. Had you taken in what I wrote and possibly done a few minutes of research to bolster this discussion, instead of rushing in to spout your usual drabble, I'm sure you'd have realized. Would you like a mulligan?

Who's to say more money won't fix the problem? Just build more shelters and build more walls! It's still cheaper then throwing more money at the military until containment + finally works!

Are more shelters and walls supposed to fix the culture clashes between ethnicities uninterested in assimilating? Will they stop the unchecked flow of potential terrorists, a genuine concern for the countries not separated from them by two oceans? Is constantly throwing more money at the symptoms going to cure the underlying illness and ease the crisis? If you don't want a military intervention, why not support sending them all back to fix their society on their own instead of draining host countries? I'm looking for possible solutions here Jarbsy, not little boys who want to keep our current actions exactly the same while magically expecting the results to change.

I’m looking for possible solutions here Jarbsy, not little boys who want to keep our current actions exactly the same while magically expecting the results to change.

Somehow you missed the point that all of my posts in this thread existed to criticize you for doing just that.

Is constantly throwing more money at the symptoms going to cure the underlying illness and ease the crisis?

No, it won't; but you could say THE EXACT SAME THING for military interventionism.

Ah yes, the complete 180 opposite of what we are currently doing, a strategy advocated by every one of this country's military commanders yet ignored by Obama, is actually doing the same exact thing we've been doing. Every new post from you in one of my threads genuinely causes me to question whether you've actually stepped out of your basement in the last eight years.

So throwing money won't help, you say military intervention won't help, what exactly are you suggesting?

>implying military commanders know jack shit about rebuilding the countries they've destroyed
>implying they aren't so buried in the short term they won't advocate the same strategies for the region in 10 years when an islamist insurgency rises again

So throwing money won’t help, you say military intervention won’t help, what exactly are you suggesting?

If you seriously want to know, imposing some kind of restriction on immigration would be the best bet right now. It would also help to see what things could be done to reduce the desire to immigrate in the first place.

Imposing some kind of restriction on immigration is the question, I asked you for an answer. Every country has a set of laws that regulates exactly how many and who can come into the country. Those laws are being ignored, in our case our President has commanded our immigration officials to ignore federal law. So how do we enforce these laws without throwing money at the problem, and how do we reduce the desire to immigrate without intervening in the countries said immigrants are coming from? What do we do about economic migrants, as opposed to asylum seekers, who simply want to live in a more financially secure location but aren't willing to go through the legal process to do so?

So how do we enforce these laws without throwing money at the problem

No solution of any kind can be reached without injecting some extra money into it. However, in this case, I suspect the reason immigration laws aren't being enforced in this case is not a money issue, but because no one wants to be seen forcing the immigrants out of the country. It isn't what you'd call a pretty picture.

and how do we reduce the desire to immigrate without intervening in the countries said immigrants are coming from?

One thing that could be done is to reform the American agricultural system to not be wholly reliant on government subsidies, since artificially cheap American food products have put a lot of Mexican farmers out of business ever since NAFTA came along.

What do we do about economic migrants, as opposed to asylum seekers, who simply want to live in a more financially secure location but aren’t willing to go through the legal process to do so?

We do what the laws tell us to do…?

Why are you talking about the USA exclusively? This thread is about Europe in the first place, and they don't have any problem being seen forcing immigrants out of the country or lining up their military along the borders, as is happening. Did you even read the OP?

{ since artificially cheap American food products have put a lot of Mexican farmers out of business ever since NAFTA came along. }

Putting legitimate workers out of jobs for collectively lower-wage replacements is the point of a trade agreement. Why is your suggestion to reform only one of the participating country's agricultural systems?

{ We do what the laws tell us to do…? }

The law has been deemed racist and xenophobic, the leader of the USA has directed federal agents to not do what the laws tell us to do. You're not offering solutions, and now you're repeating tired conservative media talking points from when Obama first got elected and "why aren't we just following the law" seemed rather obvious.

Why are you talking about the USA exclusively?

It seems appropriate given how much time you spend talking about Trump.

Why is your suggestion to reform only one of the participating country’s agricultural systems?

The American agricultural system relies on government subsidies. That's why.

the leader of the USA has directed federal agents to not do what the laws tell us to do.

That is a problem. I hope the federal agents start doing their job once Obama leaves office.

Crying out loud can you give the antagonistic comments a rest.

For the past month and a half now the Calais migrant crisis has dominated the paper that I read (and many others) with constant updates on the migrant invasion attempts, their living conditions, where they are coming from and the volume in which they are arriving in Calais. David Cameron (UK PM) has recently been under fire for describing this massive influx of refugees as a "swarm" which, to put it frankly, is.

It was only a couple of weeks ago that about 1400 of them stormed the channel tunnel, this however isn't even a big deal, its a common occurrence. In this attempt one of them was injured due to being nearly crushed by a truck. When they actually do manage to breach security they are often equipped with knives to cut their way into the back of lorrie trailers. It isn't going to be long before one of these drivers isn't going to just lock the doors and try and ignore the fact that a small army of Eritreans are cramming themselves into the hold and he is going to be attacked. Sometime soon they are going to become so desperate that the Calais situation is going to turn very violent.

I mean HGV drivers who are caught (unintentionally obviously) carrying illegal migrants into the UK are actually being penalised with massive fines to both the driver personally and the haulage firm he works for. Why on earth has it been made the drivers responsibility that he is not accidentally smuggling migrants into the country? not only are HGV drivers taking a hit but it is almost 99% that the entire load that they are hauling has to be dumped due to the fact that these refugees shit and piss over all the cargo thus rendering is contaminated. I'll think about that next time I'm buying my potatoes from Tesco.

It's become a nightmare with absolutely no solution in sight. The UK is their final destination and day by day more of them arrive at the channel in massive numbers. They can't be arrested by the French authorities because of reason and David Cameron seems to be hesitant about sending the army down there to bolster security, no one has come up with a proper solution, only that security needs to be tightened to prevent them reaching the UK.

In the paper today it was said that a new "British run command centre" is being set up in Calais today to try and, once again, bolster security.

"What are we supposed to do about the refugees?" Not in anyway is Britain to open the floodgate and let them all in, the army needs to be drafted in to deal with the situation and work in British interests in defending the border. Let France deal with it.

I'm only responding in kind to how I'm addressed~ it's pretty obvious he doesn't come into my threads to actually discuss the issues. He hasn't even been on topic for a single post in this thread, having not read the OP at all, he busted in here to bring up unrelated past discussions like always. See how his posts get shorter and shorter when you actually ask him to participate?

---

France is dealing with more Muslim migrants than any other European country, if anyone is getting the short end of the stick it would be France at this point. At least you can assume most of the people heading to the UK/Germany might actually be asylum seekers. ISIS has put out the call for lone wolfs to enter France and attack from within in retaliation for the air support they've been offering the US. & despite that they've got one of the most open border policies in Europe atm on top of the EU dumping tens of thousands of migrants at a time on them.

Europe's borders are all so collectively open that just one country dealing with it really isn't an option. I really don't know what you guys are going to do, we're in pretty similar boats but I'm at least confident that half of my country's pissed off enough to do something about it.

Europe’s borders are all so collectively open that just one country dealing with it really isn’t an option.

Every EU country has to adhere to the EU Laws, Freedom of Movement throughout the EU is one of the central laws and also the most impactful, especially on the UK as pretty much every poor country apart of it ends up dumping its lower class intro Britain with absolutely nothing stopping them.

So yeah it's no surprise that you say this because it is actually true. There are practically no borders in the EU. You won't find anything resembling the American/Mexican border here. It's due to this that refugees can freely pour into it and collect at Calais.

I’m at least confident that half of my country’s pissed off enough to do something about it.

In the UK the English are quick to complain about the migrant crisis but completely idle when it comes to taking action. Those who do take action are slandered as racists by both foreigners and English alike.

Like I said before there is no true solution but I can guarantee you that very soon the Calais situation is going to reach a break point, what happens then is anyones guess.

I said moored in the harbor you offended downvoters, few others than smugglers and human traffickers would die, and no refugees would die crossing the sea if there's no boats to cross it in.

^ this is the serious debate forum bruh.

Wow speaking of France.

Moroccan migrant opens fire on high-speed train heading to Paris in suspected terrorist attack.

3 US Marines were on board and jumped him. He only managed to injure three people. He is apparently known to security services, not that it stopped him at all. The Marines held him on the platform until the police showed up.

Just send them to Canada. 35 Million people in a country that can engulf Europe twice in its boarders.

Or better yet, Greenland. Just make the Queen of Denmark do it and create a safezone for immigration. All that space, and only 55,984 people. There's enough space there, assuming they don't mind the near unbearable cold.

Fact of the matter is, there is no good answer for this problem. Military Intervention doesn't work, period, and only really worked when countries were invaded and became part of a larger nation. And let's be honest here, who wants to be the one who invades a country and takes it over in 2015? These countries are getting fucked up for a number of reasons, ideological, economical from the wests demands for these resources, political, and outside of having to bear it to be a decent human being, there's little other solution then to knowingly send them back to die.

I guess what it comes down to, is how much blood you actually want on your hands, and how much you can sleep at night when you see a baby and mother get sent back and knowing both are gonna die? Personally, I don't think I could sleep very well watching them get deported back from the boarder, but I'm a big softie that way.

Also assuming you don't mind being hated throughout history from that point on. Many people say that the nazi's extermination campaign was one caused by having no place to send the people they wanted gone from the countries they took over. Not drawing any parallels here, but if that were true, which even then can be contentious at best, it wouldn't be too hard to say that history will remember turning way immigrants as the active campaign to kill people based on nationality.

If you can live with those, there's a solution. If not, well, you're pretty much stuck having to grin and bear it and hope decades down the line, everyone just becomes part of the great gestalt of your countries national identity and fully incorporates into it. Happened to America with the Irish, Germans, and Asain communities, and it's happening more and more with the African-American community and Mexican American communities. But the growing pains are still there, and still happen for everyone whose freshly immigrating or whose decided to dig their feet in the sand about letting the past go.

So who knows? What I do know is, that outside of these two choices, there's not a lot of solutions that will actually work.

{ And let’s be honest here, who wants to be the one who invades a country and takes it over in 2015? }

The immigrants are doing a pretty good job so far. Why does it only count as an invasion if a government is behind it?

Assimilation isn't happening, anywhere, and that's the problem. The actual options are send them back to clean up their own mess, or a united effort goes in and conquers the regions. If hundreds of thousands of people are fleeing from those regions because they don't want to be under the native government's rule, why should we not use a full military confrontation and take those countries? Clearly the people currently leading them can't run them right, and hundreds of thousands of citizens say they'd rather be under first world rule. There would be plenty of space for them right back where they came from, now under a functioning government's rule.

There is no peaceful option where absolutely nobody dies and we all hold hands and make daisy crowns for each other. Stalling the inevitable only grows resentment in the people of the host countries who are being overrun.

{ And let’s be honest here, who wants to be the one who invades a country and takes it over in 2015? }

The immigrants are doing a pretty good job so far. Why does it only count as an invasion if a government is behind it?

I am sorry what? Are you seriously implying that legaly entering a country and becoming a citizen is comparable to taking over a country with the aid of f-16s and guns along with killing millions? This is an unbelievable comparison. Because with immigration, they don't kill people as much as a full nation funded invading force!

If hundreds of thousands of people are fleeing from those regions because they don’t want to be under the native government’s rule, why should we not use a full military confrontation and take those countries?

That is a freaking loaded question you are putting out. There are too many variables to determine whether a country is bad.

I do think that there is something to be said for Jarbox's comment, interventionalism was the root cause of the continuing conflicts that generate stateless people. I think that the solution is to retool the foreign policy strategies of major world powers to be more geared toward international development and democracy, not resource extraction. No walls, no deporation plans and no incarceratjon will stop the creation of stateless people, and if we stopped spending tens of times more on these causes and not defense, ae would find a much less conflicted world and yes, one with less refugees.

Do you think assimilation is something that you can just force to happen fast? Because trust me from growing up in a place where forced accelerated assimilation was attempted, all it does is make everyone hate the person in charge, and extend racial and cultural divides.

Let me spin you a tale about the United States. When Irish, German, Italian, Polish, Jewish, Greek, Russian, all the countries that could be considered modern Eastern Europe, and not to mention South American, Chinese, Japanese, pretty much all the world populations coming together, do you think it took them about 20 years to assimilate?

No. Most of these people faced a lot of backlash against them, and fears that they would dilute the purity of the nations identity. A lot wanted them all sent back to where they came from. They were put into tiny parts of cities designed specifically for their ethnicity so they wouldn't cause trouble for the rest of the country, sound familiar? They also brought a lot of crime over, undeniably, some of it fueled by how much they felt they were outsiders, others because they saw an opportunity for it. Also sound familiar?

It took time, a lot of time, for people to fully assimilate and then fully be accepted as assimilated. Catholics used to be outright discriminated against in the United States. Like, full on "You're gonna bow down to the pope and turn the country into a Papal State if you get elected" levels of hysteria. Similar to what you hear now, "We can't let the Muslims in or they'll make everyone worship the prophet". And do I need to bring up what happened to jewish people? What happened to the Japanese or Chinese? Hell, the Italians and Irish alone used to get mobs of angry people after them, and get barred from work cause of how weird they talked.

Yet, now nobody bats an eye if you come up and go "I'm Catholic" in this country. Having an Irish or Italian, or even Asian surname isn't anything to get uppity about. And the people themselves make up productive members of society, the fabric of "American People" who so fear other immigrants coming in now.

So let me be frank in this when I say it. Expecting people to fully assimilate into a country, after only a decade, is ridiculous. Hell, expecting assimilation after half a decade is borderline absurd.

The problem I'm seeing is that these types of changes come with growing pains that have to come with it, and would come with it regardless. But nobodies got the patience for it, so they try quick fix solutions to the problem, nor realizing that it'll only make the pains worse, not better.

{ Are you seriously implying that legaly entering a country }

No, I'm implying that illegally entering a country for nothing but economic reasons while importing the parts of your culture you claim to be fleeing from is an extremely destructive force on a nation. I wasn't comparing anything, it's "and" not "or".

{ There are too many variables to determine whether a country is bad. }

There are hundreds of thousands of variables who say the country is bad. Is there some reason to not believe them?

---

{ I think that the solution is to retool the foreign policy strategies of major world powers to be more geared toward international development and democracy, not resource extraction. }

Globalization is exactly what we're headed towards, but it will always be about resource extraction. The only reason we're even trading with the countries we currently trade with is because they're supposed to adhere to certain human rights standards, but the UN conveniently overlooks them because what's the alternative? War is always the alternative, war that would start with a breakdown in daily life across the globe because vital resources are at the center of the conflict. But looking the other way means we're ignoring the human rights conflicts that spur asylum seekers and keep the region from developing economically, which spurs low-skill economic migration.

We're not going to accomplish anything doing nothing. This world formed through conquering and revolting and conquering again. Why does anybody think it would/should stop now?

---

{ Expecting people to fully assimilate into a country, after only a decade, is ridiculous. Hell, expecting assimilation after half a decade is borderline absurd. }

The Italians and Irish and Asians didn't wage urban warfare in their admitted resistance to assimilation. The crime rates were dropping through the 90s and even early-mid 2000s. Now large urban cities, and those small towns where the feds are shipping refugees and holding illegal immigrants that they definitely don't want the MSM reporting on because it looks exactly like Germany, are seeing crime rates that match levels not seen in decades. New York has essentially reverted to the 70s, not very long ago it was thought of as the safest big city to live in. In 2015 alone its gotten even worse, and other countries are calling it the Ferguson effect.

{ In New York City, the murder rate has gone up by 20% in 2015 compared with the first few months of 2014. Mayor Bill de Blasio called a special news conference at which he acknowledged the increase, but said it could be contained. He said he had faith in the New York Police Department that they will "turn the tide".

In other cities, there are similar increases reported. In Baltimore, murders are up 37% and in Los Angeles, violent crime is up by 27%. In Houston, murders are up nearly 50% so far this year. Shootings in Chicago rose by about 40% during the first three months of this year, according to the statistics. }

These people are not innocent victims of xenophobia. In the couple of decades (not one) that mass immigration has been happening, it's easy to tell who is actively trying to fit in and benefit themselves by being here, and it's not the people who are statistically committing an extremely disproportionate amount of gang, gun, and drug crime in this country.

>The italians didn't wage urban warfare in their assimilation.
> La Cosa Nostra
> The entire 1900's through 1980's crime rates
> The very term Mafia.

XD you're killing me here.

The mafia began as a response to Prohibition, not an uprising against the host nation. No country has seen this mass scale immigration in such a short period from so many different conflicting cultures, half of the problems stemming from the situation originate with that fact.

People are no longer coming here to be American, they're fleeing here because we can support asylum seekers, who have no desire to be American, but we can't support an entire continent worth of people especially all at once. No one can, hence we go back to the conquering option. You really have to separate between asylum seekers, legal immigrants, and illegal immigrants because their motivations and end goals are all completely different.

And once again the Calais crisis takes the headline, big surprise…

Yesterday British security and police forces have been attempting to demoralize the thousands of refugees with speeches of how life is in the UK and that it is no where near the image they have envisioned of their final destination.

Apparently todays new solution of dealing with the crisis is to pump £7 million into a new scheme where the refugees are sent back home. France is collaborating with this new approach with a cash injection of its own. This is tax payer money, money that could have gone to better causes within the country.

Security has now been so overly beefed up in Calais that traffickers are simply dumping their refugees on other ports, Dunkirk is one example where a new man-made refugee camp has already been built.

I fail to see how they are even going to be able to detain these refugees let alone cram them into planes to be flown back home. These people have travelled thousands of miles across the shittest parts of the middle east with the sole intention of making it into the UK, the themselves have often declared that it is either Britain or death. Do they really think that people this fanatical and this determined that they can be simply told to go home?

For one in my life I have to agree with Lisa with this:

The immigrants are doing a pretty good job so far. Why does it only count as an invasion if a government is behind it?

The migrant surge into Britain is and invasion, they are not EU members and a lot of them aren't even escaping warzones but are simply looking for a better life. English are minorities in most major cities throughout the UK. The government talks of integration and diversity yet these ethnic groups naturally separate and seclude one another. I see this shit first hand every day.

Just another case of throwing money at the symptoms instead of the cause. Now France and the UK will be pumping money into a circle of deporting the same exact people four or five times before they commit a crime serious enough to warrant a prison sentence, as is the pattern here.

---

{ Macedonia on Thursday declared a state of emergency and ordered its borders sealed to migrants, many of them refugees from war who have been entering from Greece at a rate of 2,000 per day en route to Hungary and Europe’s borderless Schengen zone.

Security forces managed to contain hundreds in no-man’s land. But several thousand others – many of them Syrian refugees – tore through muddy fields to Macedonian territory after days spent in the open without access to shelter, food or water.

Far more have since arrived on the Greek side, converging on a filthy, chaotic strip of frontier with little sign of an organized aid effort. Some industrious Greeks sold sandwiches and drinks to those prepared to pay. A man with a generator charged 1.5 euros to charge mobile phones. }

Thousands of Syrian "refugees" with money and nice clothes and smart phones. Good luck France!

I'm Italian and what you're saying is a bunch of bullshit.

- The Mafia was endemic in Southern Italy since the fall of the Borbone kingdom, and it basically was a transformation of a pre-existing system which had been semi-legal in that state in previous centuries. That's at least fourty years before the Prohibition era. The structure was imported in America, and since it still is very succesful even to this day and Italians were more or less considered "half-niggers" nobody cared. Rather than a response to an unjust law, it was a criminal mob finding a new way to make profit.

- Nobody ever came to America to become American, as much as you'd like it to be true. People emigrated to sustain themselves economically, just as they're doing now and they always did since the world have been turning. People tend to go to greener pastures if theirs a rocky wasteland, you know.

- The conquering option? Yeah, you've done a great job in recent years with that idea.

You really have to separate between asylum seekers, legal immigrants, and illegal immigrants because their motivations and end goals are all completely different.

- No, they usually aren't. They usually want to survive.

I'm Sicilian bruh, not that it means I'm auto right, but you could have Googled it. Here's a good piece on the beginning of the mafia in the USA.

We haven't tried to conquer any nations recently. It's certainly not the half-assed jobs we've been doing in the middle east. You didn't offer any suggestions of your own, what do you think should happen?

Asylum seekers aren't looking for permanent citizenship or work. They represent a completely different economic and ethical set of problems. Legal immigrants are regulated under three different sets of standards depending on why they're here. They're not people coming from desolate countries, they're increasingly from Asia and educated. Illegal immigrants are not asylum seekers or refugees. They're economic migrants, low-skill individuals who often turn to crime because they don't have the skills or resources to get a job here anyway.

By far the most celebrated gangster of the day, though, was Al Capone, a New York-born hoodlum who controlled much of the Chicago underworld in the mid-1920s

Which means he already controlled it and that the Mafia was already established in the market, the Prohibition just jumpstarted its success. You know, you don't get a "family" up and running in a few days. And by the way, I was talking about the beggining of the original Mafia, which was the one that inspired Capone and the gang.

I was here just to point out how moronic your "solution" sounds, not to offer one of my own, because sadly there's not an easy one that I can conjure up out of thin air.

How would a war exactly solve your nation and their nation problems, anyway? You'd just devastate their country (and countless others if the conflict grew bigger), thus making more people going your way. Not to mention the damage for your and their economy. Your way to solve this particular problem is to create other problems.

So you're of Sicilian ancestry? Cool. I live and I was born in Italy. That doesn't mean I'm automatically right, but maybe I know better than you how things works and were in my country. Bruh.

I don't think anyone here said they were against immigration. They're against an unsustainable flood of illegal immigration that's contributing to a very significant crisis throughout Europe right now, which is in no way comparable to legal immigration.

The Native Americans, also being immigrants, would therefore also have to pack their bags and go, by that logic.

---

{ maybe I know better than you how things works and were in my country. }

Well there's your first problem, we're not talking about Italy. We're talking about Italian immigrants in America. Prohibition started in 1919. If it hadn't, the mafia would not have had the funds or notoriety to grow as significant as it did post-Prohibition. Either way, it was only brought up as a bad comparison to low-skill, economic migrants who turn to generally petty crime and end up in jail.

{ How would a war exactly solve your nation and their nation problems, anyway? }

The war would not, the result of conquering the country/region and incorporating the native people under the first world government that they're desperately trying to be part of is what solves the problem. Hundreds of thousands of people don't need to flee oppressive middle eastern culture for basic rights in the UK if the middle east becomes an extension of the UK. It's not going to stop if we don't change what motivates them to flee. Resettling an entire continents' worth of people dispersed throughout harsh empty climates or crammed into already overpopulated cities is just putting off the inevitable, and it only addresses the single symptom of space.

Modern warfare doesn't have to mean dropping a nuke on the place and destroying everything alive within 500 miles. If our first world weapons and tech are so advanced and untouchable, being confronted with an actual threat of war might spur a very quick, relatively easy defeat after fighting off the government/extremists who would rather die than go moderate. Pretending we can continue to exist and cooperate with people who refuse to adhere to even the most basic of human rights treaties is what drives this crisis.

Western countries take responsibility for bombing the ever-loving tar out of poorer nations, but they won't take responsibility for the throngs displaced as a result.

Most of the refugees are fleeing from the Syrian Civil War, where the Syrian government has bombed over 200k civilians to date. This is the war Iran supports the Syrian government in, and which Saudi Arabia fights against both of them, contributing to our ME allies concerns over the Iran Agreement. To say it's the responsibility of Western countries is ignorant of the full situation.

---

Here's another comment from another article about the protests in Germany that gives another POV:

Ah, my bad. Thank you.

Native Americans, also being immigrants, would therefore also have to pack their bags and go, by that logic.

Funny that you bring up prohibition since it was started by the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. Thanks to women like you on a soapbox and the SJW's of the time. That's what happens you let idiots have a voice.

Hey now. I disagree with Lisa a lot, but that was just uncalled for. You don't berate someone for having non-liberal opinions right before unleashing sexist ad-hominems.

Well there’s your first problem, we’re not talking about Italy. We’re talking about Italian immigrants in America. Prohibition started in 1919. If it hadn’t, the mafia would not have had the funds or notoriety to grow as significant as it did post-Prohibition. Either way, it was only brought up as a bad comparison to low-skill, economic migrants who turn to generally petty crime and end up in jail.

Why exactly is it a bad comparison? Most of the European immigrants were unqualified economic immigrants, who sometimes resorted to petty crime to sustain themselves. There's a good book on the topic of Italian emigration I could point you to but I don't think it has ever been translated.

Anyway, you said that the Mafia began as a response to Prohibition, which is factually wrong. It took advantage of the Prohibition, sure, but that wasn't your point and doesn't change anything in the grand scheme of the discussion.

The war would not, the result of conquering the country/region and incorporating the native people under the first world government that they’re desperately trying to be part of is what solves the problem. Hundreds of thousands of people don’t need to flee oppressive middle eastern culture for basic rights in the UK if the middle east becomes an extension of the UK. It’s not going to stop if we don’t change what motivates them to flee.

Except that, as you said, many migrants are coming in Europe/USA/whatever for economic reasons. Even hypotesizing that the war itself doesn't drag to long and doesn't damage the already shaky economy in their country, ignoring the possibility of the resistance of the local populace, terrorism caused by this and the fact that you're not dealing with just one foreign country (which aren't really small things to ignore), you seem to be completely oblivious of the logistics and cost that such an operation would require. Even if the invasion was aimed at better the economy of the invaded country without touching anything (which I guess would take that country to surrender immediately), that would still require years.

Furthermore, even if we take for granted that the US government can control the foreign criminality better than a foreign government can (which seems even more unlikely) you would still have a flux of migration towards places which are economically better than theirs, except that now you don't even have a good reason to stop them on the border. Freedom of movement inside your nation it's still an unalienable right or would you prefer to whip out your passport every time you get out of town?

If our first world weapons and tech are so advanced and untouchable, being confronted with an actual threat of war might spur a very quick, relatively easy defeat after fighting off the government/extremists who would rather die than go moderate.

Ahh, here we go. That's the point. Our first world weapons and tech aren't untouchable, and you'd think that after something like 53 years of history you'd have learned that. Do you think the viet congs were more advanced technologically than the US Army? Or that you need more than some old AK-47 and a cave to become dangerous and dificult to defeat? Pol Pot hid in the jungle for 22 years refusing to surrender after the Vietnamese invasion, and Cambodia's now one of the poorest countries in the world.

You don't have the money to occupy indefinitely a country. You don't have an invincible army. You don't have some divine mandate to control the world while the others sit watching. You don't have any idea of what kind of hornet's nest you want to kick.

Immigration is a ticking bomb, sure, but rather than finding a way to defuse it, you are suggesting to hit it with a hammer and see what happens.

To be honest I'm going soft on her here because this is SRS debate but what she says is bait, she is a troll and I haven't even begun to berate her. And I will berate her hard.

"Do other countries’ governments tell the people they’re racist right-wing bigots for being concerned with the dramatically increasing number of illegal immigrants, like ours does? jw."

Where I live, while the government does not do this, plenty of citizens do, along with spouting other far-left fallacies such as "tax the rich; that will solve all money problems!" (I should point out at this point that I'm left culturally but centrist economically). This is because for the most part, people are working-class and it's more socially acceptable to be seen as moderate left than moderate right (admittedly this may have something to do with the far right being potentially dangerous). I don't actually think that this is a bad thing; it keeps the far right from getting too powerful. However it means that often people who espouse views like Lombs, with valid and genuine intentions, are immediately branded "racist" when it's completely unfair to do so. There's a reason we have the term "closet conservative".

Now I'm in favour of immigrants generally speaking, and people being allowed to choose where they work, and work alongside many migrant workers quite a bit in one of my jobs, they are hardworking, decent people. But one has to consider that humanity is competing for resources and a whole new group of people in a short space of time really puts a strain on things. A government needs to say "okay, only this many new workers allowed in this year, because we won't have enough jobs for you".

It's not a simple matter and as such can't simply be defined "people who are anti-immigration are racist" because that's mislabelling the stance and oversimplifying the matter.

Also I strongly feel that everyone in the thread should avoid talking about Lombs' personal views since everyone's already aware of what those are, and focus on the subject at hand since when you look past her firebrand rhetoric she makes good counterpoints to "acceptable" opinions.

{ Why exactly is it a bad comparison? }

idk why this part is so hard for you guys → { In the 1890s alone, some 600,000 Italians migrated to America, and by 1920 more than 4 million had entered the United States. The peak year for admission of new immigrants was 1907, when approximately 1.3 million people entered the country legally. }

Legal immigration is regulated, there are limits, there are standards, the process is humane. Illegal immigrants and asylum seekers 99% of the time have paid money/worse to human smugglers to get them to the border. Here's a quote from an Italian senator just yesterday as the Italian coast guard pulled more than 3,000 migrants out of the sea (the biggest single-day rescue operation throughout all of Europe):

{ "This must a joke. We are using our own forces to do the people smugglers' business for them and ensure we are invaded," said Maurizio Gasparri, a senator for Silvio Berlusconi's centre-right Forza Italia party. }

& a summary of a recent police report:

{ Police in Palermo, Sicily, announced Saturday that they had arrested six Egyptian nationals on suspicion of people smuggling following the rescue of a stricken boat on August 19.

Testimony from the 432 migrants on board suggest the vessel had been packed with more than 10 times the number of people it was designed for, with many of the passengers, including a number of women and children, locked below decks.

They had each paid the traffickers 2,000 euros ($2,200) for the passage from Egypt to Italy, according to statements given to police. }

Simply sending them back puts more money in the smugglers' pockets. How much will this circular logic cost us in the end? How many millionaire human traffickers do we have to create before you people realize we need to do something else?

---

{ you would still have a flux of migration towards places which are economically better than theirs }

The countries we take over would quickly grow economically and socially. People wont want to leave a place that's about to economically explode. All of these countries have resources we want, from oil to exotic goods we want to import to a prime location for solar energy to be generated. They've seen what happened to Dubai and the Gulf States, that's what they want.

This civil war started in early 2011 with demands for democracy and human rights, so what did we do mid-late 2011? We pulled all our troops and support out of the region, of course! Four years later ISIS is bigger than some European countries, the Syrian government that made promises of moderate reform has slaughtered over 200k of its own citizens, and millions of migrants are fleeing. Sitting back and continuing the hands-off circumstances that allowed this situation to happen is the proverbial nuclear bomb going off, not finally demanding the end to a region of oppressive regimes.

Quoting from wikipedia:

Congress passed a literacy requirement in 1917 to curb the influx of low-skilled immigrants from entering the country.

Congress passed the Emergency Quota Act in 1921, followed by the Immigration Act of 1924, which was aimed at further restricting the Southern Europeans and Russians who had begun to enter the country in large numbers beginning in the 1890s. This ultimately resulted in precluding the all "extra" immigration to the United States, including Jews fleeing Nazi German persecution.

The Immigration Act of 1924 set quotas for European immigrants so that no more than 2% of the 1890 immigrant stocks were allowed into America.

These laws were passed after the peak of European immigration at the end of the 19th century. Before that, the single States made their own rules, resulting in a complete legislative void. If you survived the Atlantic, you were in. Hard to be an illegal immigrant when there's no law to break. Not to mention, human smugglers aren't a recent invention, but I don't want to digress.

Ugh, I almost lost it when you quoted Gasparri of all people. The guy's a joke even for the standard of Italian politicians. Not to mention, allied with and voted by people who has to gain from the mass of underqualified, rightless workforce coming from across the sea.

The countries we take over would quickly grow economically and socially. People wont want to leave a place that’s about to economically explode. All of these countries have resources we want, from oil to exotic goods we want to import to a prime location for solar energy to be generated.

How, exactly? By wishing for it really, really hard? Yes, they want the resources you want. But it's hard to see the benefit for them if you're forcefully taking them after an invasion.
Oh wait, you're the freedom fighters, so they're gonna just give them to you, I forgot.

Bottomline, yes, you have your proposal. But you have no guarantee that it would work in reality nor any actual way to make it work, and you're ignoring every single previous experience that tells you "wait, maybe this isn't a good idea".

Sorry if I'm not so keen on letting you try it.

{ After certain states passed immigration laws following the Civil War, the Supreme Court in 1875 declared regulation of immigration a federal responsibility. These national immigration laws created the need for new federal enforcement authorities. In the 1880s, state boards or commissions enforced immigration law with direction from U.S. Treasury Department officials. }

See, the problem with wikipedia is if you don't actually know the history of what you're talking about, you can very easily miss important dates and events. & either way, the immigrants rushing over here now are very clearly breaking current federal law.

---

{ How, exactly? By wishing for it really, really hard? }

Overthrowing the government and replacing it with our own means all of the resources currently under control of an oppressive dictatorship would fall under our control. We don't have to forcefully take anything. Are you forgetting that this is what the citizens are asking for? The entire region fell to ruins after citizens began to demand democracy and moderates, and you think they'd be upset if we facilitated both of those demands? The only people who would be upset about this are the extremists and government officials who want the region to remain archaic under their total control.

What previous experiences say this is a bad idea? We have 13 unincorporated territories atm, meaning our government enforces fundamental rights and select Constitutional provisions. The UK has 12. We have a guarantee it could work in reality, and experience is telling me this is a viable idea that actually solves our problems instead of slapping a few bandaids on and calling it a day.

You and me aren't going to "try" anything. We're discussing possibilities, we're considering the pros and cons of each (or we would be if you weren't calling ideas moronic while refusing to offer your own alternatives).

You know the Americans and British tried the whole forced joint modernization thing before. They put a person in power, had an overlord type relationship to them, and got economic benefits such as heavily reduced oil prices.

Too bad that was Iran, and the man we put in power was the Shah, a mass murder whose tinpot dictatorship put progress over human life.

But hey, im sure that's just a 1 time thing, and looking down to south America won't yeild results that show the US putting puppet governments in charge in order to get favorable treatment out of them.

Don't forget some indirect help to some dictators in Africa
--
Now to be on topic,I think Europe (being on the EU or not)must take all the emigrants (priory for the ones coming from war zones) that already are in Europe ,make them understand the Laws to avoid situations like Lisa described in the German shelter.And work out with the country's in the south of the Mediterranean and Turkey to patrol their beaches and their sea to avoid the boats filled with emigrants to even arrive to international waters.

In the 70s… gee, you know, I think the general point of view may have evolved since then. Plus, the whole thing was working out extremely well until the Shah got power-mad with its newfound wealth and political status. Iran was enjoying prosperity, society was becoming more moderate, censorship was loosened, then all of that was undone and Iran became the Islamic Republic it remains today. You have to acknowledge that it was working exactly as it was supposed to until the Shah went corrupt, and that it would have been able to get back on track had the Islamic extremists not taken over the revolution (which supported Westernization) and turned it into an Islamic revival movement.

I'm not talking about joint modernization anyway, I'm talking about capturing the territory and making it part of the US/UK/etc, which we haven't done since the early 70s. It probably wouldn't be the US because of how geographically separated we are from the region. We wouldn't be putting anyone else in charge as a stand-in or puppet, we'd be in charge directly. I keep saying we but like I said before, it would be more likely that the UK or Germany would take most of the region.

---

{ And work out with the country’s in the south of the Mediterranean and Turkey to patrol their beaches and their sea to avoid the boats filled with emigrants to even arrive to international waters. }

So your solution is to somehow force people that don't want to follow your laws to follow your laws, and then turn anymore away period. How does that solve the crisis? People will still be fleeing their countries except now they'll be fleeing to definitely drown because no country will save them or take them in. We need to stop the reason people are fleeing in the first place if we want to stop the flow of migrants.

Except it didn't end in the 70's. Papa Doc and his son Francis got support by the us all the way until the governments collapse in the 80's. And let's not forget Sadam Hussain, put in power because he liked to kill iranians and supported by the united states up until thr 90's. Hell Egypt's dictator had support from the us until he was ousted in the 2010's.

So much for our policy changing.

You mean the wonderful Page Act of 1875 , the one made to stop the flux of Asian prostitutes that assumed every Asian woman travelling alone was a prostitute? Of course there was also the part about literal slaves brought over, but nobody cared for that part and nobody enforced that part of the law.

But ok, you caught me. I missed it because I thought we were talking about Italian immigrants. I wonder how I got that impression.

By the way, the focal point about that statement was that European immigrants then were mostly artisans and unskilled laborer, which is more or less the same demographic of today illegal immigrants.

And again, you keep shifting the focus: first the problem are economic migrants, then are asylum seekers. I'm tired of running around. If I answer about one group, you shift to the others. You say I am confusing the two, but you are the one who keeps mixing them.

Also, you want examples of how it didn't work? Imperialism in the 19th century, the Philippines, Iran/Persia, Rhodesia. Pick one.

I'm really sorry that I haven't made a proposal yet, I'm just baffled by the general stupidity of the idea that the United States can invade the whole South America/Middle East and everybody would just welcome them.

Sooo, since we're not talking about anything realistic, especially regarding the European front of the problem, we could theoretically redistribute the refugees across the 28 nations of the Union according to the capability of sustaining them, or need of workforce (but considering the state of the economy, the latter seems even more unplausible). That's not going to happen, because it would require actual cooperation between European nations, but it could be a helpful measure until the situation stabilizes and ISIS, Boko Haram & co. are defeated (which would require Shiites and Sunnis to bury the waraxe for once).

About the social progress of poorer countries, forced modernization doesn't work and I really don't have any valid idea, sorry.

If we're devolving into the unrealistic, like I said. Greenland has only 53,000 people. they got enough space to house a couple million people. :P