How can people be so brutal with refugees, really?

Page 5 of 8 [ 120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

12 Nov 2015, 12:29 pm

The developing world is suppose to add 1.2 billion people in the next fifteen years alone, and many more billions in the next 60 years.

Syrian refugees are a pebble in the ocean.

There will be pressure to move billions of African and Asian people into Europe.



BuyerBeware
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,476
Location: PA, USA

12 Nov 2015, 12:51 pm

Bluntly put, we're afraid of them.

It isn't really about "How many ISIS are hiding in the ranks of refugees??" Oh, yes, there's that to fear...

But the real fear is much, much larger.

Cultural flux is the story of human history. Waves of refugees (one wonders what all those people that crossed the Bering Strait land bridge were running from), waves of conquerors... It's basically all the same thing. They come, they bring their culture with them.

And no one wants to lose their culture. Conquerors get to force theirs on the conquered. Refugees try to hang onto theirs, while hosts feel threatened by that, and naturally so. Because cultural flux happens, and no one wants to lose their culture.

Dominant groups (America and Western Europe) have even more to lose. Not just culture, but primacy. That's even scarier.

My suggestion?? Cultural flux is the story of human history. Either be kind, extend a hand, learn the language, and flow with it...

...or stop pussyfooting around, build walls, and openly declare that you're willing to kill old women and little kids.

Make peace. Or make war. One way or the other, stop f*****g around.


_________________
"Alas, our dried voices when we whisper together are quiet and meaningless, as wind in dry grass, or rats' feet over broken glass in our dry cellar." --TS Eliot, "The Hollow Men"


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,143
Location: temperate zone

12 Nov 2015, 1:03 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
The developing world is suppose to add 1.2 billion people in the next fifteen years alone, and many more billions in the next 60 years.

Syrian refugees are a pebble in the ocean.


This.

Folks talk about Syria likes it the dog, and that the rest of the world is the tail. They have no sense of how things compare to each other.

China is one of the slowest growing countries in the developing world and it adds more people to its population each 15 months than Syria even HAD its WHOLE population on the eve of its civil war !

India also adds a whole country of Syria to its population every couple of years. I dont mean that it adds the subset of Syrians who have become refugees, I mean that it adds the entire 21 million population of Syria to its population every couple of years.

If the US took in say 100 thousand Syrians we could just deport one percent of the eleven million illegal aliens that we already have here to make up the difference.

OR, we could not deport anyone, and just live with a one percent increase in the number uninvited guests that we already have, and we probably wouldnt even notice the difference.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

12 Nov 2015, 2:02 pm

Put them in camps, keep the gates closed, and when it becomes safe in their country, send them back.



Joe90
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 26,492
Location: UK

12 Nov 2015, 4:33 pm

I think there should be some sort of camps they can go to, whether it's in the UK or Germany or anywhere, where they are warm and fed and everything, and are given work to do inside the camp, like farming or whatever, and no torture, and the children are safe and even schooled. It won't be the best education or the best housing, but it will at least keep them safe, warm and fed until it is safe to go back to their own country. OK this may cost the UK or whatever other countries they go to money still because of food and stuff, but it won't be as bad as them taking over our economy and leaving no room for us British people. It will be the fairest thing to do.

OK I am probably being unrealistic, but there are braindead pricks that run this country and seem to think that everybody's rich just because they are, and that everybody on job-seekers can find a job within a week even though more and more foreign people are entering the UK each month and are taking up all the jobs. When I went in Tesco the other day, nearly all the workers I saw and heard were foreign, and I've been applying endlessly to Tesco and just get turned down each time.


_________________
Female


Neotenous Nordic
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 11 Oct 2015
Age: 1936
Posts: 275

12 Nov 2015, 4:42 pm

All pro-immigration idealists posting from the U.S, why don't you go on vacation to Malmö in Sweden for a week and spend some time in the "culturally enriched" areas, then come back here and share your experience.

Until then, I don't consider you eligible to have an opinion on this subject.



Revnant14
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Posts: 18
Location: USA

12 Nov 2015, 6:29 pm

Neotenous Nordic wrote:
All pro-immigration idealists posting from the U.S, why don't you go on vacation to Malmö in Sweden for a week and spend some time in the "culturally enriched" areas, then come back here and share your experience.

Until then, I don't consider you eligible to have an opinion on this subject.


Thats plain silly. From the stats I posted above, it should be obvious that living with large numbers of immigrants is the norm in many places, particularly in and around cities the USA, and has been for generations. But it is not exclusively in cities as people choose different locals purposely sometimes.

Its just the way it is, wave after wave. There was even a Swedish wave once upon a time.

What is different is this is a relatively new situation for some european countries.

Rather then arguing with others who do take in refugees and immigrants, consider those that take in none.



xenocity
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282
Location: Metro Detroit Michigan

12 Nov 2015, 7:56 pm

If you want to know ask the Australians and British they'll tell you (both countries treat foreigners something awful to the point BBC can't even spin it good).


_________________
Something.... Weird... Something...


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

12 Nov 2015, 8:40 pm

How many of these refugees are actually fleeing the war in Syria? If it wasn't the fact that we started this war then I wouldn't feel so bad not like we'd actually that tho but a good portion of these people are just economic migrants and the simple fact is that we can't support these people. There are 7 billion people in the world right now, probably 2 billion at least would move to the west at the drop of the hat if given the chance. We wouldn't be raising these people up, they would be bringing us down. We can't save the world, we can't sustain the insanity we have going on right now. I don't really care to sacrifice my standard of living, I'm struggling as it is so the thought of things getting worse doesn't make me want to help them do it. To me immigration is all about integration, creating enclaves and ethnic ghettos doesn't help anyone. Multicultural is a sham, if you move to a country then you are joining another culture and should be expected to respect their values and way of life because if you didn't then why did you move here in the first place? Demographic shocks should probably be avoided.



xenocity
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282
Location: Metro Detroit Michigan

12 Nov 2015, 8:52 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
The developing world is suppose to add 1.2 billion people in the next fifteen years alone, and many more billions in the next 60 years.

Syrian refugees are a pebble in the ocean.

There will be pressure to move billions of African and Asian people into Europe.


Actually that is a misconception.

The Total Fertility Rate (TFR) for the world is 2.36 (as of now), 2.1 is needed for 0 population growth.
The Global TFR and Global Birth Rate is falling faster than all predictions which is being caused by economic growth.
As people make more money, the have less children.

The Global TFR and Global Birth Rate is expected to be negative by 2020.

Right now the Global TFR and Global Birth Rate are both negative for every continent except for Africa.

The global population is expected to stabilize by 2030 at the current rate and start declining by 2040.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

Human population should stabilize between 8 - 9 Billion by 2020.


_________________
Something.... Weird... Something...


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

12 Nov 2015, 11:26 pm

Jacoby wrote:
How many of these refugees are actually fleeing the war in Syria? If it wasn't the fact that we started this war then I wouldn't feel so bad not like we'd actually that tho but a good portion of these people are just economic migrants and the simple fact is that we can't support these people. There are 7 billion people in the world right now, probably 2 billion at least would move to the west at the drop of the hat if given the chance. We wouldn't be raising these people up, they would be bringing us down. We can't save the world, we can't sustain the insanity we have going on right now. I don't really care to sacrifice my standard of living, I'm struggling as it is so the thought of things getting worse doesn't make me want to help them do it. To me immigration is all about integration, creating enclaves and ethnic ghettos doesn't help anyone. Multicultural is a sham, if you move to a country then you are joining another culture and should be expected to respect their values and way of life because if you didn't then why did you move here in the first place? Demographic shocks should probably be avoided.


Actually, it can be said that George W. had created the situation by invading Iraq without just cause, upsetting the balance of power, and leaving the Iraqi army jobless, humiliated, and looking for revenge - - and taking revenge when they became ISIS. So yes, you can say the US had helped create that situation from which the Syrian refugees are fleeing.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

12 Nov 2015, 11:51 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
How many of these refugees are actually fleeing the war in Syria? If it wasn't the fact that we started this war then I wouldn't feel so bad not like we'd actually that tho but a good portion of these people are just economic migrants and the simple fact is that we can't support these people. There are 7 billion people in the world right now, probably 2 billion at least would move to the west at the drop of the hat if given the chance. We wouldn't be raising these people up, they would be bringing us down. We can't save the world, we can't sustain the insanity we have going on right now. I don't really care to sacrifice my standard of living, I'm struggling as it is so the thought of things getting worse doesn't make me want to help them do it. To me immigration is all about integration, creating enclaves and ethnic ghettos doesn't help anyone. Multicultural is a sham, if you move to a country then you are joining another culture and should be expected to respect their values and way of life because if you didn't then why did you move here in the first place? Demographic shocks should probably be avoided.


Actually, it can be said that George W. had created the situation by invading Iraq without just cause, upsetting the balance of power, and leaving the Iraqi army jobless, humiliated, and looking for revenge - - and taking revenge when they became ISIS. So yes, you can say the US had helped create that situation from which the Syrian refugees are fleeing.


You also can say that the US just straight up gave ISIS guns, we used Islamist militants to overthrow Gaddafi and tried the same in Syria. The soldiers we spent billions training and sacrificed the lives of thousands of servicemen for just laid down their weapons when faced with ISIS, how many of these cowards are refugees now? The US was there every step of the way during the development of ISIS and bare the most responsibility out of any country for their existence. Shout out to Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf!



Revnant14
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Posts: 18
Location: USA

13 Nov 2015, 12:40 am

The Syrian civil war and increasing world population aside there is yet another bit of cheery news. If the global warming based predictions many climatologists have made concerning the degration of the equatorial zone for agriculture and cattle raising come true, even partially, truly huge numbers of people will be dislocated.

The primary path used is by land and or short sea transits. The path in the americas, south to north, is easy to see and already well used. Looking at at map I would guess Europe is going to be swamped from Africa, The Middle East, Southwest Asia, and possibly including a significant flow from the Indian Subcontinent. I do not know what will happen further east as the northern countries there have no modern precedent for taking in refugees.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

13 Nov 2015, 12:51 am

There are a lot of chicken littles out there.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Nov 2015, 1:07 am

Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
How many of these refugees are actually fleeing the war in Syria? If it wasn't the fact that we started this war then I wouldn't feel so bad not like we'd actually that tho but a good portion of these people are just economic migrants and the simple fact is that we can't support these people. There are 7 billion people in the world right now, probably 2 billion at least would move to the west at the drop of the hat if given the chance. We wouldn't be raising these people up, they would be bringing us down. We can't save the world, we can't sustain the insanity we have going on right now. I don't really care to sacrifice my standard of living, I'm struggling as it is so the thought of things getting worse doesn't make me want to help them do it. To me immigration is all about integration, creating enclaves and ethnic ghettos doesn't help anyone. Multicultural is a sham, if you move to a country then you are joining another culture and should be expected to respect their values and way of life because if you didn't then why did you move here in the first place? Demographic shocks should probably be avoided.


Actually, it can be said that George W. had created the situation by invading Iraq without just cause, upsetting the balance of power, and leaving the Iraqi army jobless, humiliated, and looking for revenge - - and taking revenge when they became ISIS. So yes, you can say the US had helped create that situation from which the Syrian refugees are fleeing.


You also can say that the US just straight up gave ISIS guns, we used Islamist militants to overthrow Gaddafi and tried the same in Syria. The soldiers we spent billions training and sacrificed the lives of thousands of servicemen for just laid down their weapons when faced with ISIS, how many of these cowards are refugees now? The US was there every step of the way during the development of ISIS and bare the most responsibility out of any country for their existence. Shout out to Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf!


As I understand it, a great many of the Iraqi troops who laid down their guns and ran did so primarily because their officer corps, who were more interested in being on the take, grabbed as much cash as possible, and got the hell out of Dodge. Basically, the officers had often been unqualified douche bags who bought their ranks, and saw the military as a means of making money through graft and corruption. When it finally came down to having to fight for their country, they instead decided they wanted to live rich cowards than die as heroes, so they deserted their men. This is the outcome of the policy of paying bribes to Iraqi military and civilian leaders, which the US government had been doing since we had overthrown Saddam Hussein and his gang of thugs.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

13 Nov 2015, 1:24 am

xenocity wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
The developing world is suppose to add 1.2 billion people in the next fifteen years alone, and many more billions in the next 60 years.

Syrian refugees are a pebble in the ocean.

There will be pressure to move billions of African and Asian people into Europe.


Actually that is a misconception.

The Total Fertility Rate (TFR) for the world is 2.36 (as of now), 2.1 is needed for 0 population growth.
The Global TFR and Global Birth Rate is falling faster than all predictions which is being caused by economic growth.
As people make more money, the have less children.

The Global TFR and Global Birth Rate is expected to be negative by 2020.

Right now the Global TFR and Global Birth Rate are both negative for every continent except for Africa.

The global population is expected to stabilize by 2030 at the current rate and start declining by 2040.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

Human population should stabilize between 8 - 9 Billion by 2020.


This is what the UN scientists are saying.

UN projects world population to reach 8.5 billion by 2030,
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?N ... kWBzvmrSCg

"8.5 billion by 2030"
"9.7 billion in 2050" and
"11.2 billion in 2100".

There is no reason to think it will slow at 11.2 billion, since there is much uninhabited land.

"World population to hit 11bn in 2100 – with 70% chance of continuous rise"
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -11bn-2100

African population expected to go from 1 billion today to 5 billion by 2100.