Tusk: EU migrant quotas have 'no future'

[ranzino]

How exactly? If someone has been registered as a refugee, you tell him to buy a plane ticket back to where he came from? What if he doesn't?

We will have them seated on our own cost if it helps to get them home and germany for example offers money for voluntary return. no worrys, we will sink a billion into the deportation business anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

Then we confiscate their belongings, put them on a bigger boat so we can fit more of them on and personally make sure they head back to where they came from.

we are entitled to rob their belongings anyway, except some memorabilia and very personal stuff. asylum seekers are not entitled to stay above a low limit of wealth as long as they harp on our hospitality.

[Freighter]

Sounds like a truly great plan, but what if some of these people decide to, I don't know, take the rubber dingys and sell them on the internet? And decide not to leave? You know, hundreds of thousands of refugees?

Then you force them to leave. I don't know why people think you have to let people stay in your country just because they crossed your border.

- - - Updated - - -

First of all, that would break the Refugee Convention pretty much everyone has signed in 1951. The one that defines what a war refugee is (the refugees were talking about match the criteria), and that every country that has signed it should grant them asylum if they shall seek it. Quite an old convention, but makes sense in post - WW2 world, and is mentioned when countries like Hungary leave refugees on the boarders, in pretty damn bad conditions.

The refugee convention is unenforceable, it's worth less than the piece of paper it was originally printed on.

But for some people that's just a convention, who cares. Even if, taking such desperate actions against all the refugees we have in Europe is incredibly dangerous. You're basically telling around 1 million war-torn people to fuck off and go back to the shithole they came from. You think it was bad with our cultural differences before? Well, wait for them all to unite against a new, common enemy - those bastards trying to forcibly put them on boat (and probably kill them if they don't go on their own, that's what "putting someone somewhere" implies).

So you think extortion should be fine? Take us in or we will do violence? The state is entirely justified in quelling them if they decide to do that, by whatever means necessary.

[Kalis]

It isn’t racism if quite a few refugees are rapey or terroristy, which they are.

‘Quite a few’ is ambiguous, you could say “Quite a few seagulls stole chips from the plate” and it would be perfectly acceptable in English, even if you are referring to just half a dozen seagulls.

Also, refugee is not a race.


[Infracted]

@Darsithis could you explain why I got infracted for talking about refugees in a thread about refugees? Or was it for mentioning seagulls? Are they now a forbidden topic?

[Okacz]

So you think extortion should be fine? Take us in or we will do violence? The state is entirely justified in quelling them if they decide to do that, by whatever means necessary.

No, I don't think anything is "fine".

At the same time, it doesn't matter if it is or not. Assuming we are completly ignoring all the international and ethical refugee protection laws, the current situation is a real crisis that needs to be dealt with. Asking whether or not it's "fine" is not really a solution.

Refugees weren't dragged to Europe against their will, or cut-and-pasted into it, they ran away from their homes in search of a place that isn't getting exploded every few seconds. Every "refugee" that saw the trend and chose to jump into the chaos just in search of welfare is a deviation and another problem to deal with, but not a norm. The fact is, a LOT of people appeared in Europe to seek shelter before anyone had time to react. Let's leave the reason why it happened alone for now.

So, the problem of few hundred thousand people unfamiliar with our culture and being raised in violent enviroment happened. What were the ways to react to it?

1) Drive them back to where they came from, putting the Europe at great danger of internal enemy and near impossible to complete task (seriously, rounding up every refugee and making them go back home?). Also, pretty much pulverizing all the diplomatic relations between the EU and any muslim countries by making the whole think look quite like religious discrimination kind of thing.
2) Relocate them evenly between EU countries to minimalize the damage to each of them and end the problem peacefully, hoping that after the wars in Syria etc. cease, the refugees won't protest when they will be told to go back to their homes.

Of course the whole 2) is based on wishfull thinking that "everything is going to be alright", but still seems like a safer option than 1) for me.

[Freighter]

No, I don't think anything is "fine".

At the same time, it doesn't matter if it is or not. Assuming we are completly ignoring all the international and ethical refugee protection laws, the current situation is a real crisis that needs to be dealt with. Asking whether or not it's "fine" is not really a solution.

Refugees weren't dragged to Europe against their will, or cut-and-pasted into it, they ran away from their homes in search of a place that isn't getting exploded every few seconds. Every "refugee" that saw the trend and chose to jump into the chaos just in search of welfare is a deviation and another problem to deal with, but not a norm. The fact is, a LOT of people appeared in Europe to seek shelter before anyone had time to react. Let's leave the reason why it happened alone for now.

So, the problem of few hundred thousand people unfamiliar with our culture and being raised in violent enviroment happened. What were the ways to react to it?

1) Drive them back to where they came from, putting the Europe at great danger of internal enemy and near impossible to complete task (seriously, rounding up every refugee and making them go back home?). Also, pretty much pulverizing all the diplomatic relations between the EU and any muslim countries by making the whole think look quite like religious discrimination kind of thing.
2) Relocate them evenly between EU countries to minimalize the damage to each of them and end the problem peacefully, hoping that after the wars in Syria etc. cease, the refugees won't protest when they will be told to go back to their homes.

Of course the whole 2) is based on wishfull thinking that "everything is going to be alright", but still seems like a safer option than 1) for me.

All I can read is excuses.

[Okacz]

All I can read is excuses.

Well, you're not wrong I guess.

[Deleted]

@Endus If you want to drown in refugee cum, why not just move to one the source countries?

[Deleted]

germany literally just voted for her again knowing her stance on the issue, you cant really blame anti-immigration europeans to look at the germany with squinted eyes, when apparently they are somewhat okay with her policies

You seem to be misinformed, there has yet to be a new government established. All current coalitions are shaky at best.

Also, the CDU/CSU got the WORST RESULT post WW II, just 32.9%, leading to only 249/709 Seats. The Majority of Germans did not vote for Merkel. Get your facts straight.

[tehealadin]

@Darsithis could you explain why I got infracted for talking about refugees in a thread about refugees? Or was it for mentioning seagulls? Are they now a forbidden topic?

Refugees enrich Europe. It makes it more diverse. And Europe owes them because of imperialism (Europeans were the only ones to engage in empire and slavery, so the chickens have came home to roost*). To deny this is Nazism. So I suspect this is why you got infracted. For being a literal Nazi.

*=If you insist on being historically accurate, then sure, some places outside of Europe engaged in these practices, but it wasn't as bad, and it was probably the Europeans fault anyway, so.

[Deleted]

Refugees enrich Europe. It makes it more diverse. And Europe owes them because of imperialism (Europeans were the only ones to engage in empire and slavery, so the chickens have came home to roost*). To deny this is Nazism. So I suspect this is why you got infracted. For being a literal Nazi.

*=If you insist on being historically accurate, then sure, some places outside of Europe engaged in these practices, but it wasn't as bad, and it was probably the Europeans fault anyway, so.

is this post a parody? i really can't tell anymore
not wanting people who break the law and come to your country illegally, and statistically are way more likely to cause crime and not integrate into society, is now being a nazi. i guess statistics and facts are racist

[Azadina]

Refugees enrich Europe. It makes it more diverse. And Europe owes them because of imperialism (Europeans were the only ones to engage in empire and slavery, so the chickens have came home to roost*). To deny this is Nazism. So I suspect this is why you got infracted. For being a literal Nazi.

*=If you insist on being historically accurate, then sure, some places outside of Europe engaged in these practices, but it wasn't as bad, and it was probably the Europeans fault anyway, so.

What is this? Is there some communist version of Infowars I'm not aware of? Because this is Alex Jones level of crackpottery, but seemingly in another direction.

[Acidbaron]

He is correct in the sense that we'll see more immigration waves in the future and so we need a plan that can tackles the effects on an EU wide level. Merely putting up a wall won't work as that's something we learn from history.

We need a frame work in more than one way to deal with this. Quotas are not a cure they are hardly even a bandaid. But sadly plenty of nations lack the political maturity to be able to participate in this debate since they build their electorate on populist rhetoric.

For those completely oblivious to EU politics, what is probably majority of the Gen-OT forum. Tusk is being intentional over ambitious, hence why his plans are often controversial he wants to get the talks started somewhere, he doesn't give support on everything and an EU president (there are 3 here) does not have something like an executive order, he needs to obtain political support for his ideas. But it is best that he tries to get the ball rolling instead of playing it safe, since you are always going to get push back regardless of what you do might as well go all out.

Another thing that is good, the people you say really throwing a tantrum about his plans on a political level are those you can dismiss as populists, since while you can oppose his plans and many do, really screaming murder just means they are trying to score points with their base, trying to use fear about something that really is not going to happen and they really know it, since those plans take a long time when moving from an idea to an actual execution of it.

[Malacrass]

You seem to be misinformed, there has yet to be a new government established. All current coalitions are shaky at best.

Also, the CDU/CSU got the WORST RESULT post WW II, just 32.9%, leading to only 249/709 Seats. The Majority of Germans did not vote for Merkel. Get your facts straight.

True, the majority voted for even more liberal parties than Merkel's CDU.

[Kiri]

You seem to be misinformed, there has yet to be a new government established. All current coalitions are shaky at best.

Also, the CDU/CSU got the WORST RESULT post WW II, just 32.9%, leading to only 249/709 Seats. The Majority of Germans did not vote for Merkel. Get your facts straight.

Well, you too are not exactly representing the results in an unbiased manner.
1) 'Germany votes for chancellor X' is not equivalent to 'Chancellor X's party got 50%+ of the votes'. In German post-war elections, only a single time (1957) has a party garnered over 50% of the votes by itself. Every other election, a coalition was necessary to have an effective majority. As such, in Germany, we use 'Germany votes for chancellor X' when talking about the party that has the highest share of votes - since that party's candidate usually becomes chancellor.
2) It is true that this is the worst result post WW II. It is also only 0.9% worse than the result 8 years ago, to put that into relation. Plus, their natural partner, the FDP, has gained almost as much as the CDU lost, which could imply that voters switched to FDP in order to not have a great coalition again, and to ensure that the FDP does not get knocked out again. Though that is obviously just guesswork. However, in the past almost 40 years, CDU and FDP usually work in a block, either as ruling party or coalition, as long as the FDP is represented. Their combined results have not changed that much.
There is a lot of debatable stuff here, of course, but taking the CDU result alone as a sign that Germany voted against Merkel and her policies is not a given.

tl; dr: the 'Majority of Germans' never votes directly for a chancellor, but if she can secure a coalition, then the majority of Germans did vote for a Merkel-led coalition; the CDU/CSU result is not nearly as catastrophic as you make it out to be.

[ranzino]

the jamaica coalition (named after the colors of that caribbean nation) may not hold for 4 years though. they are struggling to find common ground by now, such debates are usually not a pretty sign for future problems which will arise for sure.

[Malacrass]

the jamaica coalition (named after the colors of that caribbean nation) may not hold for 4 years though. they are struggling to find common ground by now, such debates are usually not a pretty sign for future problems which will arise for sure.

Probably.

But I also find it likely that especially the smaller parties try to be as dramatic as possible now, just to to sell the outcome of the coalition as a hard-fought compromise. Especially the FDP has a ton to lose if they appear to be making quick concessions just to be part of the future government. And whatever is written in the coalition contract has to pass the party congress of the Greens to boot. Good luck with that.

As for the 4 years with Jamaica, obviously it means almost complete standstill and it will fall apart at the first major issue. Financial crisis in Italy, Greece reloaded? Another massive refugee wave? Impossible to imagine that such a coalition would be capable of acting, not with one of the members getting the axe in the next elections.

[Strawberry]

2000 known terrorists and terrorist sympathizers in Sweden alone. Arabs and africans massively overrepresented in rape. Yeah, a large number of them are terrorists and rapists, not to mention criminals with like 20-25% crime rate here in Sweden. Reality denial isn't admirable.


[Infracted]

Swedes have turned from bearded Vikings into bearded pussies who only scream loud and get drunk on weekends. No wonder that humans who have experienced war and the worst of humanity are taking over Sweden. You will either adapt or get overrun.

However, he's another fact. Immigrants in Sweden, while do represent a huge chunk of criminality, they are basically just that, criminals. The worst offenders by far are actual Swedes.
Here are a few examples of fine swedish role models:
Clark Olofsson has spent half his life in jail. Not sure if he's just stupid as fuck and never gets away with it or just can't keep his fingers away from doing bad things.
Lars-Inge Svartenbrandt this guy has been robbing banks like... forever. Has a hot and somewhat known daughter I wouldn't mind tagging for a night.
Mattias Flink shot dead 7 people in Falun. American style.
Jackie Arklöv doesn't actually look like a Swede, but more like a latino. However he's born in Sweden and he's a neo-nazi. Murdered 2 cops as well as being a mercenary in the Yugoslav wars where he participated in torture.
Johan Ausonius better known as Lasermannen, the guy who shot random immigrants in Stockholm.
Tony Olsson, another cop killer.
Peter Mangs, another shooter focusing on immigrants. Ironically, the only person he managed to kill (by a mistake) was a swedish girl. I actually lived in Malmö during the time he was actively hiding in bushes and shooting at people.
Anders Eklund, he's my favorite (not so much) on this list. This guy raped and murdered a 10 year old girl (and another woman). He looks like a typical fat westerner who goes to Thailand to buy sex. Disgusting.

Now, from what I've noticed (and I live in Sweden), the criminality in Sweden has increased because of the immigrants, however it's mostly drug dealing and a store robbery here and there. Also when someone dies, it's almost always gang related and one (or more) gang member(s) gets shot dead.
They don't rape children, they don't murder cops.
What I don't like is that the immigrants in Sweden are so damn isolated, but that is society's failure. You cannot just push people in a corner, give them no jobs and call it a day. Then complain "but but, immigrants!".

[Player Twelve]

What I don't like is that the immigrants in Sweden are so damn isolated, but that is society's failure. You cannot just push people in a corner, give them no jobs and call it a day. Then complain "but but, immigrants!".

Isolated? In what way? It's mostly arabs or africans that seem isolated to me, maybe the thai women too who mostly have friends who are other thais and rarely get to know anyone outside of the other thais and the swedish man she married. They're often isolated by their own choice to only live among their countrymen and only associate socially with their countrymen.

My mothers side of the family are all non-swedes and they haven't been isolated nor have their children, most are immigrants.

[Eazy]

They just don't want to take them because of the fear of terrorism.

@Darsithis could you explain why I got infracted for talking about refugees in a thread about refugees? Or was it for mentioning seagulls? Are they now a forbidden topic?

LOL

Getting infraction for such a thing. General Off-Topic never change....

[Kalis]

Getting infraction for such a thing. General Off-Topic never change....

I never did get a response from @Darsithis as to what the infraction was for.

Considering the current revelations about sexual assault, it seems odd that a mod would infract me for highlighting sexual assaults. Downplaying, ignoring and silencing people who highlighted these sorts of issues was the exact same behaviour which allowed the sexual assaults to carry on unchecked for so long. Personally I believe that sexual assault is far worse than potentially offending some refugees, but it is clear from my infraction that the moderation team thinks otherwise.

Or maybe it was the seagulls.