Muslims on refugee boat throw Christians overboard for being non-Muslims

[ingemann]

I hate the term 'religion of peace' as its only ever used to attack Islam and it's followers. It's not fair to generalize about billions of people.

It was not original used to attack Islam, but to defend Muslims after 9/11, but you can't expect people not to use the term sarcastic. While I get why American politicians adopted it un-ironic in 2001 (and I to some degree support it, as anything which kept worked against hate crimes following the Attacks was a good thing). You can not use such a bombastic and clearly false neologism without other people adopting a sarcastic version of it. Both as a attack against what they see as apoligists for Islam, but also as a defence against what they see as historical revisionism. The fact that you write something like you did in the quote are a clear sign that they have won that war, and the term now only exist as ridicule.

[ingemann]

Let imagine a purely theorectical group in a purely theorectical country, completely theorectical.

This group are almost purely a immigration group from a non-European illiberal democracy.

In 1973 they made up around 0,2% of the population

In 2013 they make up 1,2% of the population, mostly as result of them bringing family to the country and natural increase. Until a immigration stop around the late 90ties.

They have a employment rate for first generation (for age 18-64) of 51,1% (versus 73,4 for the "natives"). 37% males and 56% among women in this group live of financial assistance from the state (19/26 among the "natives").

5% have commited a serious crime (2% among the natives).

Here's the thing this group is real (I'm sure you're all shocked by that fact), and it's one of non-western groups which do well in the country in question compared to other non-western groups, and the most interesting fact, is that these numbers are quite similar for descendents of non-western immigrants in employment rate and public support rate, but the crime rate is much lower for 1st generation.

[ingemann]

Impressive

I'm going completely ignore basic supply and demand 101, use historical data from before USA had any real kind of "welfare state" to claim that of course poor people wouldn't immigrate for the benefits I suggest they get.

But you're a ignoramus

See you later Loser

 

[ingemann]

Human traffickers kill people by transporting them in small, sinkable boats and cramming far too many people into them.

If you are looking for structural factors reactionaries preventing family planning, wealthy Arabs promoting Jihadism around the world and lobbies preventing free access for African products to Western and Asian markets would be more obvious culprits.

Besides, at least in Europe free immigration would lead to massive civil unrest and possibly civil war, which would kill even more. You can not have free immigration into societies where the whole nation is ethnically defined without destabilizing them and most of the non-American world is ethnically defined. Mass migration is not a viable solution to population growth.

That's a very curious interpetation of what he said

 Funny how it always goes back to, "I obviously don't want them to be killed, but I'd prefer it if there were less brown people in the world. Or people in general."

First of all because people tend to mistake me for politicus, I'm not her.

But as for the whole population growth in the undeveloped world, I agree with her, through for other reasons (her reasons are mostly green). The problem with a population growth which double every generation, is that it also demand a doubling of GDP just to upkeep status quo. If we look at the last 55 years development in the third world, we see that the growth in developing countries have been eaten up by a growing population. Only in countries, where the population growth have been slowed down like in China, South East Asia and Latin America, we have seen the greatest improvement, as the growing population no longer eat up the growing economy, and that some of the growth now end up in rising wages and improvement in infrastructure and education.

I don't suggest that Africa or India adopt a one child policy, but it's a good idea to find way to limit population growth. The best ways historical have been to educate women, as it usual push their marriage a few years further into their lives, and enable them to be more choosy in choice of husbands.

[ingemann]

Meanwhile another one capsized yesterday, with 700 (!?!) people on board. Apparently only 28 survivors have been found so far.

It may be the tragic event that changed the EU policies on refugees. The country concerned by the flow of irregular migrants (Italy, Greece, Bulgaria) have been complaining for years about the lack of European solidarity on this topic.

No sarcasm here, I would like to hear your suggestion for a solution to the problem.

[ingemann]

Could European nations process applicants literally in North African ports and take them across in our own non-dangerous ships? That's the solution that first comes to my mind, anyway.

No, that's not really viable solution, all the people getting a no, would try to get after they had been screened. The problem is a lot of these people are not really refugees, but potential immigrants.

[ingemann]

I feel like the difference between an immigrant and a refugee is just a bit of semantics and shallow justification.

Really?!?

You think the difference between your house being burned down, general pillaging and plundering, and being dirt poor but but living in a mostly peaceful place is semantic and shallow?

Well I think the European extreme right would love whatever points, which you make for that argument, because it would give them an excuse to keep everybody out.

[ingemann]

I feel like the difference between an immigrant and a refugee is just a bit of semantics and shallow justification.

You think the difference between your house being burned down, general pillaging and plundering, and being dirt poor but but living in a mostly peaceful place is semantic and shallow?

It is a continuum. And, in any case, in quite a few cases starving slowly peacefully to death might not be very much more attractive than being killed off fast after lunch.

Yes I fully agree, but it's not those people who cross the Sahara desert to come to Europe. The price for that run up in thousands of dollars, and if you suffered of starvation before you started, you wouldn't make it through Sahara.

Most people who come to Europe are dirt poor, but they're rarely the worst off. Beside famines are relative rare even in Africa, it's mostly something you see in war zones.

[ingemann]

The humane solution, of course, would be a proper guest worker program, that would allow people to come to work to Europe safely, earn money, be able to save it and send it back home using the formal banking system, etc. If properly implemented, European governments could, in fact, wind up collecting whatever revenue currently going into the pockets of those "evil smugglers".

I don't disagree, the problem is that we really don't need that many unskilled workers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would love to hear your solution to that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course the Africa countries Europe border up to are also middle income countries.

[ingemann]

I wonder if ingemann is talking authoritatively of "dirt poor but mostly peaceful" places or what the hell he's referring to. I'd like to know what should be understood by violence. A recent case of an asylum seeker from Cameroon comes to my mind, certain woman whose life was threatened because of her sexual orientation (lesbian) and whose application would have been expeditiously rejected by the Spanish authorities if her case wouldn't have appeared in media. You only have to ask to yourselves how many applicants in similar situations are rejected by the 'civilised' Europe because, see, they are just "dirt poor".

Do you think Lesbian or Gay refuge seekers make up a significant part of these people? The price the human smugglers take for bringing people to Europe means that travelling to Europe usual have to be a investment a whole family make, to bring one member of the family to Europe to enable him or her to send money home. I really doubt they would send someone they had expelled from the family.

These people are not just people who flee in the middle of the night, they have to plan the trip for month sometimes years.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

'

Well RIP, but I don't really think my condolences will ever reach anybody who knew them.

[ingemann]

The humane solution, of course, would be a proper guest worker program, that would allow people to come to work to Europe safely, earn money, be able to save it and send it back home using the formal banking system, etc. If properly implemented, European governments could, in fact, wind up collecting whatever revenue currently going into the pockets of those "evil smugglers".

I don't disagree, the problem is that we really don't need that many unskilled workers.

You do. Europeans are getting older. Somebody has to wash the old.

Yes the problem is that we don't need that many to do that and we will need them in 20-30 years, and we already have a large labour supply in the east.

Plus we have increased the labour supply in Europe several times by raising the retirement age. I can retire at age 67 right now, but I expect it will have hit 70+ when I'm in my sixties. It's rather universal in Europe that the well functioning countries in the north have a high retirement age, and it those who can afford to pay Africans to wash the old.

[ingemann]

Meanwhile another one capsized yesterday, with 700 (!?!) people on board. Apparently only 28 survivors have been found so far.

It may be the tragic event that changed the EU policies on refugees. The country concerned by the flow of irregular migrants (Italy, Greece, Bulgaria) have been complaining for years about the lack of European solidarity on this topic.

No sarcasm here, I would like to hear your suggestion for a solution to the problem.

If you are talking about/Syrians/Afghans wanting to leave their countries for better places, there is of course no short term solution.
If you are talking about hundreds of people dying at sea, there are solutions, see for example the EU propositions: http://news.yahoo.com/factbox-eus-10-point-plan-tackle-mediterranean-crisis-172945665.html. For example, the number of migrants dying at sea increased since the budget of the rescue programme was cut.

I absolute agree that we countries without non-EU borders should help finance the external borders, and while I original got this lack of solidarity (Italians, Greeks and Bulgarians got free access to our countries against they kept the outer border closed), the situation have changed and they no only deserve financial support they need it.

[ingemann]

The humane solution, of course, would be a proper guest worker program, that would allow people to come to work to Europe safely, earn money, be able to save it and send it back home using the formal banking system, etc. If properly implemented, European governments could, in fact, wind up collecting whatever revenue currently going into the pockets of those "evil smugglers".

I don't disagree, the problem is that we really don't need that many unskilled workers.

You do. Europeans are getting older. Somebody has to wash the old.

Yes the problem is that we don't need that many to do that and we will need them in 20-30 years, and we already have a large labour supply in the east.

Plus we have increased the labour supply in Europe several times by raising the retirement age. I can retire at age 67 right now, but I expect it will have hit 70+ when I'm in my sixties. It's rather universal in Europe that the well functioning countries in the north have a high retirement age, and it those who can afford to pay Africans to wash the old.

Well, it is all the matter of the price. At present, the wages are still very attractive to the newcomers. That suggests to me, as an economist, that you do have enough jobs In fact, you could easily avoid having to work into your 70s by getting somebody to start wiping your ass earlier (while paying into your tax and social security systems for the privillege).

Of course the wages will be attrative to new comers, if we should continue to fill our countries up with third worlders until the price of an hour of labour was the same in London as in Lagos, we would impoverish the vast majority of our own populations.

As for the whole wiping my ass, my grandmother was in her late eighties before she needed help in her house and she never needed someone to wipe her ass for her, even through she lived into her nineties. As for me I would prefer a smart toilet to a Nigerian to clean my ass.

[ingemann]

As for the whole wiping my ass, my grandmother was in her late eighties before she needed help in her house and she never needed someone to wipe her ass for her, even through she lived into her nineties. As for me I would prefer a smart toilet to a Nigerian to clean my ass.

Lucky you. My granfaterh did not need to use an elevator till he was 84, but by the time he was 90 there was no smart toilet he could get to - and he needed somebody not only to wipe his ass, but also to turn him to avoid bed sores and to feed him from the spoon. I am sure you will take the poison before you you get to that state. But, assuming you do not do this in time, you might wind up in that state for many years.

Yes, but the large generation who need their ass wiped in 20 years, will live in a time when smart toilets do exist as they already do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe the conclusion you should come with from that, that the price on labour in Copenhagen are not solely put in place by supply and demand.

[ingemann]

Meanwhile another one capsized yesterday, with 700 (!?!) people on board. Apparently only 28 survivors have been found so far.

It may be the tragic event that changed the EU policies on refugees. The country concerned by the flow of irregular migrants (Italy, Greece, Bulgaria) have been complaining for years about the lack of European solidarity on this topic.

No sarcasm here, I would like to hear your suggestion for a solution to the problem.

If you are talking about/Syrians/Afghans wanting to leave their countries for better places, there is of course no short term solution.
If you are talking about hundreds of people dying at sea, there are solutions, see for example the EU propositions: http://news.yahoo.com/factbox-eus-10-point-plan-tackle-mediterranean-crisis-172945665.html. For example, the number of migrants dying at sea increased since the budget of the rescue programme was cut.

I absolute agree that we countries without non-EU borders should help finance the external borders, and while I original got this lack of solidarity (Italians, Greeks and Bulgarians got free access to our countries against they kept the outer border closed), the situation have changed and they no only deserve financial support they need it.

Yes, sure, you are willing to pay Greeks to kill Syrians, no problem there.

I thought I had to trust the Greeks, people keep telling me that in other threads, but suddenly they can't be trusted, when they guard the external border.