Europe-Middle East-Africa Refugee Crisis General Thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:44:27 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Europe-Middle East-Africa Refugee Crisis General Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 47
Author Topic: Europe-Middle East-Africa Refugee Crisis General Thread  (Read 126419 times)
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #100 on: August 27, 2015, 09:30:12 PM »
« edited: August 27, 2015, 09:38:30 PM by ag »

The main reason for the "uncontrolable flow", as you put it, that the key "controllers" have been taken out or weakened. You have been happily relying on Oriental dictators to hold the flow. The qaddafis and the assads obliged. Without them you feel suddenly defenseless and propose to reestablish something similar. Oh, no, you are not talking of installing new bloody dictatorships - but, sorry to break it to you, you effectively imply it.  And that, perhaps, would be the best - least violent - outcome of your proposals. In quite a few cases you are offering to move civil wars from one country to the next. Witness Lebanon.

You talk as if those other - non-European - countries did not have politics of their own. It is only you, civilized Europeans, who are allowed to have dislikes of the "blacks", who do not "assimilate". All those "Africans" are the same - and indistinguishable from the Afghans, I know.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #101 on: August 27, 2015, 09:31:20 PM »



The refugee "concept" developed with the dissident in an East Bloc as the arch type (the academic, artist, journalist, union leader etc. who rebelled against the system from a relatively prominent position, with a political motivation based on "Western" values).


Thanks. At least this is something we can be talking about.

First, an obvious historical comment The Refugee Convention was adopted in 1951. The were not thinking of "East Bloc dissidents". Not only these were few, but, in any case, you never needed any international refugee convention to deal with them (for that matter, neither has the US needed a refugee convention to deal with much larger numbers of Cubans). These were the people that were admitted voluntarily by the host countries. You do not need a convention to commit to doing voluntarily what you would be doing anyway.

Nevertheless, they went into trouble of adopting a convention. They were thinking of the horrors of WWII. And, not the least, of the Holocaust. It is true, that already there and then they decided to exclude the largest contemporaneous post-War refugee group: the Palestinians. Then, as now, nobody wanted to accept another waive of refugees. But, still, they were thinking of the "never again" pledge.  And many of the authors remembered their own (or at least, their own countries') shameful behavior just years previously. Of course, they were cognizant of the domestic political reasoning behind it and adopted the convention as the means of commitment to never repeating the horror.

When I say developed I do not mean the basis for the convention, but the mental image of a refugee in the general population. This is what matters politically. How voters view a real refugee.

The first large post-war refugee stream to much of Western Europe came from Hungary in 1956. This stream was disproportionally well educated and politically motivated. And set a standard against which later refugee groups were judged.

(WWII is largely irrelevant in this because it was seen an exceptional occurrence).

You do not need a convention to admit such refugees. It is like you do not need "freedom of speech" written into constitution or a human rights bill to protect pleasant non-controversial speech.

WWII is a lot more typical of European history than the peace that followed it. It was only about 20 years between WWI and WWII, and even before that Europe was hardly a peaceful paradise. Much of the Americas is populated by the offspring of those who were forced to flee Europe in the 75 years before WWII.

You are ignoring my point about the popular image of a real refugee and the changes in the composition of the refugees causing delegitimization of the refugee system.

The historical facts you mention does not affect modern politics.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #102 on: August 27, 2015, 09:35:18 PM »

2) You can not meaningfully compare Europe to Canada, Australia, USA because those countries are not defined as national homes for a particular ethnicity. Comparing with Japan, Korea etc. makes a lot more sense.
The idea that Australia in the 1970s did not see it self as being for a particular ethnicity is a misreading of history. Granted the "White Australia" policy was on its last legs then, but it wasn't quite yet gone. Even in Canada and the US, our immigration policies had not foreseen the vast increase in Asian immigration that happened.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #103 on: August 27, 2015, 09:35:44 PM »



The refugee "concept" developed with the dissident in an East Bloc as the arch type (the academic, artist, journalist, union leader etc. who rebelled against the system from a relatively prominent position, with a political motivation based on "Western" values).


Thanks. At least this is something we can be talking about.

First, an obvious historical comment The Refugee Convention was adopted in 1951. The were not thinking of "East Bloc dissidents". Not only these were few, but, in any case, you never needed any international refugee convention to deal with them (for that matter, neither has the US needed a refugee convention to deal with much larger numbers of Cubans). These were the people that were admitted voluntarily by the host countries. You do not need a convention to commit to doing voluntarily what you would be doing anyway.

Nevertheless, they went into trouble of adopting a convention. They were thinking of the horrors of WWII. And, not the least, of the Holocaust. It is true, that already there and then they decided to exclude the largest contemporaneous post-War refugee group: the Palestinians. Then, as now, nobody wanted to accept another waive of refugees. But, still, they were thinking of the "never again" pledge.  And many of the authors remembered their own (or at least, their own countries') shameful behavior just years previously. Of course, they were cognizant of the domestic political reasoning behind it and adopted the convention as the means of commitment to never repeating the horror.

When I say developed I do not mean the basis for the convention, but the mental image of a refugee in the general population. This is what matters politically. How voters view a real refugee.

The first large post-war refugee stream to much of Western Europe came from Hungary in 1956. This stream was disproportionally well educated and politically motivated. And set a standard against which later refugee groups were judged.

(WWII is largely irrelevant in this because it was seen an exceptional occurrence).

You do not need a convention to admit such refugees. It is like you do not need "freedom of speech" written into constitution or a human rights bill to protect pleasant non-controversial speech.

WWII is a lot more typical of European history than the peace that followed it. It was only about 20 years between WWI and WWII, and even before that Europe was hardly a peaceful paradise. Much of the Americas is populated by the offspring of those who were forced to flee Europe in the 75 years before WWII.

You are ignoring my point about the popular image of a real refugee and the changes in the composition of the refugees causing delegitimization of the refugee system.

The historical facts you mention does not affect modern politics.

I am perfectly aware of the fact that for a lot of people most real refugees are illegitimate, since they are not of the same race as themselves. And I am aware of European politics. May I open your eyes to the fact that politics exists also outside of Europe?
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #104 on: August 27, 2015, 09:38:01 PM »

2) You can not meaningfully compare Europe to Canada, Australia, USA because those countries are not defined as national homes for a particular ethnicity. Comparing with Japan, Korea etc. makes a lot more sense.
The idea that Australia in the 1970s did not see it self as being for a particular ethnicity is a misreading of history. Granted the "White Australia" policy was on its last legs then, but it wasn't quite yet gone. Even in Canada and the US, our immigration policies had not foreseen the vast increase in Asian immigration that happened.

Actually, yep. I have missed that whoopsie. Australia has, probably, had the biggest ethnic and racial change over the last 50 years than any other country that did not go through a major ethnic-cleansing-accompanied war.

But, you know, for a Dane there is no politics outside Europe Smiley
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #105 on: August 27, 2015, 09:38:07 PM »
« Edited: August 27, 2015, 10:53:31 PM by politicus »

Ok, I was planning to go slower and softer, but, it seems, everything, in any case, is being reduced by you to the general dislike of the "Europeans "towards the "blacks". That may well be the case. But, unfortunately, that is something that can hardly engender sympathy on my part. To a large extent it is the previous migration waives from the East that, to a non-insignificant degree were responsible for the appeal of the likes of Hitler in the interwar Europe. There are things I am capable of understanding, but not willing to forgive.

Not "blacks"/people of colour in general. Some specific groups. One of the tragedies in the modern refugee system is that we do not try to coordinate which refugee groups go where - and distribute them to places there they have the best chance of getting integrated and received well.

Syrians have historically done well in Latin America (mainly Christian Syrians, but still) and Syrians may get a better reception in Indonesia and Malaysia than Europe, whereas, say, Burmese refugees might be better received in Europe.

Filipinos are the largest immigrant group on Iceland and well liked, Pakistanis are one of the largest immigrant groups in Norway and disliked. Are Norwegians more racist than their Icelandic neighbors? Hardly. But cultural fit matters and if the UN coordinated refugee distribution this sensitive issue might be dealt with in a smarter way.

...
I am not trying to get your sympathy. You as a person are completely irrelevant in this discussion. I am trying to explain the political realities in Europe and what I think will happen.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #106 on: August 27, 2015, 09:43:14 PM »

Finally, I am, of course, aware of the fact that Denmark has chosen to colonize, mostly, sparsely-populated ice deserts without land borders. But, you know, it is in Europe that you are Danish. Elsewhere, you are a European - not easily distinguishable from, say, a Belgian. Or a Brit. Or a Frenchman. Or even a German.

Now, modern Africa is largely shaped by European colonizers. Its borders, its conflicts, its problems. Even, not infrequently, its dictators are all European iheritance. I know, you guys would prefer not to take the responsibility for the sins of your grandfathers. Belgians definitely do not like talking of King Leopold. But, you know what...
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #107 on: August 27, 2015, 09:45:08 PM »



The refugee "concept" developed with the dissident in an East Bloc as the arch type (the academic, artist, journalist, union leader etc. who rebelled against the system from a relatively prominent position, with a political motivation based on "Western" values).


Thanks. At least this is something we can be talking about.

First, an obvious historical comment The Refugee Convention was adopted in 1951. The were not thinking of "East Bloc dissidents". Not only these were few, but, in any case, you never needed any international refugee convention to deal with them (for that matter, neither has the US needed a refugee convention to deal with much larger numbers of Cubans). These were the people that were admitted voluntarily by the host countries. You do not need a convention to commit to doing voluntarily what you would be doing anyway.

Nevertheless, they went into trouble of adopting a convention. They were thinking of the horrors of WWII. And, not the least, of the Holocaust. It is true, that already there and then they decided to exclude the largest contemporaneous post-War refugee group: the Palestinians. Then, as now, nobody wanted to accept another waive of refugees. But, still, they were thinking of the "never again" pledge.  And many of the authors remembered their own (or at least, their own countries') shameful behavior just years previously. Of course, they were cognizant of the domestic political reasoning behind it and adopted the convention as the means of commitment to never repeating the horror.

When I say developed I do not mean the basis for the convention, but the mental image of a refugee in the general population. This is what matters politically. How voters view a real refugee.

The first large post-war refugee stream to much of Western Europe came from Hungary in 1956. This stream was disproportionally well educated and politically motivated. And set a standard against which later refugee groups were judged.

(WWII is largely irrelevant in this because it was seen an exceptional occurrence).

You do not need a convention to admit such refugees. It is like you do not need "freedom of speech" written into constitution or a human rights bill to protect pleasant non-controversial speech.

WWII is a lot more typical of European history than the peace that followed it. It was only about 20 years between WWI and WWII, and even before that Europe was hardly a peaceful paradise. Much of the Americas is populated by the offspring of those who were forced to flee Europe in the 75 years before WWII.

You are ignoring my point about the popular image of a real refugee and the changes in the composition of the refugees causing delegitimization of the refugee system.

The historical facts you mention does not affect modern politics.

I am perfectly aware of the fact that for a lot of people most real refugees are illegitimate, since they are not of the same race as themselves. And I am aware of European politics. May I open your eyes to the fact that politics exists also outside of Europe?

Now you are just trolling. It is the move from political refugees to a more broadly defined group where economic motives mix with general oppression and ethnic persecution that is central, not race. (See the flight to America comparison).

Your second comment is unwarranted. Fx. I know a lot more about African politics than you. But the change in the refugee system will be initiated in Europe. Only European countries have an incentive to stop this, so the initiatives will come from Europe (hopefully we will then be able to work with African countries to solve this).
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #108 on: August 27, 2015, 09:45:45 PM »



I am not trying to get your sympathy. You as a person are completely irrelevant in this discussion. I am trying to explain the political realities in Europe and what I think will happen.

I will tell you what will happen. WWIII will happen. And sooner than you expect. Pandering to racial resentment rarely ends well.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #109 on: August 27, 2015, 09:49:18 PM »



Now you are just trolling. It is the move from political refugees to a more broadly defined group where economic motives mix with general oppression and ethnic persecution that is central, not race. (See the flight to America comparison).



It is, of course, very important to distinguish between racial and ethnic persecution, because.... Sorry, havenīt been able to figure out the continuation.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #110 on: August 27, 2015, 09:50:23 PM »


But the change in the refugee system will be initiated in Europe. Only European countries have an incentive to stop this, so the initiatives will come from Europe.

Have no doubt of that. No matter how many people will be killed in the process.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #111 on: August 27, 2015, 09:52:11 PM »

It is not funny how many things seemingly normal people would voluntarily and without prompting say, that should make one shudder. Especially, when talking about foreigners.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #112 on: August 27, 2015, 09:56:28 PM »

Finally, I am, of course, aware of the fact that Denmark has chosen to colonize, mostly, sparsely-populated ice deserts without land borders. But, you know, it is in Europe that you are Danish. Elsewhere, you are a European - not easily distinguishable from, say, a Belgian. Or a Brit. Or a Frenchman. Or even a German.

Now, modern Africa is largely shaped by European colonizers. Its borders, its conflicts, its problems. Even, not infrequently, its dictators are all European iheritance. I know, you guys would prefer not to take the responsibility for the sins of your grandfathers. Belgians definitely do not like talking of King Leopold. But, you know what...

Pure trolling. I will try once more to give a serious reply, but please try not to stray so much from the topic.  

1) it is irrelevant how, say, Danes are seen outside Denmark when debating how they react politically. In this context only self identity matters.

2) Old history does not generally determine how people think and act towards a current crisis (there are many notable exceptions, but Western Europeans are not among them. The Eastern Europeans (and some WE nations) never participated in colonization in the first place.

3) The African elite is increasingly ditching the post-colonial explanations and moving on. Zambia recently celebrated the end of its post-colonial era (50 years after independence). The "everything bad is due to evil colonialism" line is seen as outdated and something old dictators use to excuse their own fallacies.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #113 on: August 27, 2015, 10:02:02 PM »



Now you are just trolling. It is the move from political refugees to a more broadly defined group where economic motives mix with general oppression and ethnic persecution that is central, not race. (See the flight to America comparison).



It is, of course, very important to distinguish between racial and ethnic persecution, because.... Sorry, havenīt been able to figure out the continuation.

Huh

Cmon. That is besides the point. I refuse to believe you do not get my argument here.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #114 on: August 27, 2015, 10:02:41 PM »



I am not trying to get your sympathy. You as a person are completely irrelevant in this discussion. I am trying to explain the political realities in Europe and what I think will happen.

I will tell you what will happen. WWIII will happen. And sooner than you expect. Pandering to racial resentment rarely ends well.

BS
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #115 on: August 27, 2015, 10:06:38 PM »

 

1) it is irrelevant how, say, Danes are seen outside Denmark when debating how they react politically. In this context only self identity matters.


I am perfectly aware of how the Danes will react politically. Have no doubt of that, unfortunately: I am not simply randomly on this forum, you know Smiley So, of course I am perfectly aware of the fact that everything will be done to push the problem off to the other side of the Mediterrainean.

My original question was asked for a reason: I wanted to figure out, what you - personally - consider the problem. I think, out of this conversation I got a clear answer: the problem is that Danes are uncomfortable about foreigners. To some extent, there may be also the problem that too many deaths happen within the area covered by European journalists, so that makes Danes even more uncomfortable. So, the objective is clear: to make sure the problem never lands on the European shores. The fact that people might be killed elsewhere, if it enters at all, is of minor importance - something to, perhaps, be later "considered with African governments". Got it.

It is always nice when you understand your conversation partner. And god...? Well, here I am in full agreement with you: s/he does not exist.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #116 on: August 27, 2015, 10:07:10 PM »



Now you are just trolling. It is the move from political refugees to a more broadly defined group where economic motives mix with general oppression and ethnic persecution that is central, not race. (See the flight to America comparison).




It is, of course, very important to distinguish between racial and ethnic persecution, because.... Sorry, havenīt been able to figure out the continuation.

Huh

Cmon. That is besides the point. I refuse to believe you do not get my argument here.

I get them too well. As I told you: I can understand, but not forgive.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #117 on: August 27, 2015, 10:08:29 PM »



I am not trying to get your sympathy. You as a person are completely irrelevant in this discussion. I am trying to explain the political realities in Europe and what I think will happen.

I will tell you what will happen. WWIII will happen. And sooner than you expect. Pandering to racial resentment rarely ends well.

BS

May be yes, may be no.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #118 on: August 27, 2015, 10:26:12 PM »

I just want to be clear. I am perfectly aware of the fact that my personal preferences about migration are not very representative, to say the least. I am, in fact, perfectly aware of the fact that most people dislike foreigners. And, of course, I am more than aware of the European and US politics involved. I am, in fact, perfectly willing to discuss political implications: who wins, who looses, how Mr. Wump exploits this and how the Worrik party plays that: this is all good fun.

And, of course, I am always willing to talk about how one can implement policies that would result in improvement of human welfare. A discussion of how the current situation can be reformed to avoid people drowining in the sea and suffocating on buses is, most definitely, in order. And political constraints are very much valid constraints that any policy-maker has to take into account.

But... Is it that hard to understand why I start screaming?
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #119 on: August 27, 2015, 10:27:32 PM »

2) You can not meaningfully compare Europe to Canada, Australia, USA because those countries are not defined as national homes for a particular ethnicity. Comparing with Japan, Korea etc. makes a lot more sense.
The idea that Australia in the 1970s did not see it self as being for a particular ethnicity is a misreading of history. Granted the "White Australia" policy was on its last legs then, but it wasn't quite yet gone. Even in Canada and the US, our immigration policies had not foreseen the vast increase in Asian immigration that happened.

Actually, yep. I have missed that whoopsie. Australia has, probably, had the biggest ethnic and racial change over the last 50 years than any other country that did not go through a major ethnic-cleansing-accompanied war.

But, you know, for a Dane there is no politics outside Europe Smiley

Of course there is, but settler societies were able to make that transformation without losing their core identity (for some partly because they were still in the later stages of an ongoing nation building phase when it happened). Australia had already made the transformation from being Anglo-Celtic to being all-round "White" before the Asian immigration started and was obviously never considered the national home/core territory of the British nation. Populate or perish was a more decisive moment because it redefined what Australia was supposed to be (and even then Australia incorporated many different groups).

Another factor is that Australia, Canada, USA are large continental countries that are natural entities in many ways (large enough to encompass diverse economies and form the basis of strong states) , whereas European countries today exists to house a particular people and their culture (even if many have old historical roots). There is no need for a Hungary if not to act as the home land of Hungarians and to act as base for Hungarian culture and language. Just as there is no need for a Samoa if not to act as the home land for Samoans and a for the Samoan culture and way of life.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #120 on: August 27, 2015, 10:39:14 PM »
« Edited: August 27, 2015, 10:54:49 PM by politicus »

I just want to be clear. I am perfectly aware of the fact that my personal preferences about migration are not very representative, to say the least. I am, in fact, perfectly aware of the fact that most people dislike foreigners. And, of course, I am more than aware of the European and US politics involved. I am, in fact, perfectly willing to discuss political implications: who wins, who looses, how Mr. Wump exploits this and how the Worrik party plays that: this is all good fun.

And, of course, I am always willing to talk about how one can implement policies that would result in improvement of human welfare. A discussion of how the current situation can be reformed to avoid people drowining in the sea and suffocating on buses is, most definitely, in order. And political constraints are very much valid constraints that any policy-maker has to take into account.

But... Is it that hard to understand why I start screaming?


Can't you do it elsewhere instead of ruining immigration threads on Atlas?

And you are wasting my time when you refuse to acknowledge things like the influence of the different composition of refugees groups over time (a pretty basic and important fact) and instead keep sprouting out bits of old history or deliberately misunderstanding what I write.

Also, I probably write more about African and other non-European politics than any other poster here (although Simfan might be catching up), so the can not see beyond Europe line is a low blow.

I normally ignore you on this subject (and will do so from now on again), but you got me wasting a couple of hours of sleep. So congrats on succesful trolling, but I think this topic is too important for trolling. It is complex and includes a wide range of dilemmas and I hope the mods start being harder on trolling in these threads so we can start having these factual debates.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #121 on: August 27, 2015, 10:44:06 PM »



And you are wasting my time when you refuse to acknowledge things like the influence of the different composition of refugees groups (a pretty basic and important fact)

Influence on what? On Danish domestic politics? No question about that, never raised any doubts about that. But I thought this was not a Danish politics thread.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #122 on: August 27, 2015, 10:50:25 PM »
« Edited: August 27, 2015, 10:53:16 PM by ag »

2) You can not meaningfully compare Europe to Canada, Australia, USA because those countries are not defined as national homes for a particular ethnicity. Comparing with Japan, Korea etc. makes a lot more sense.
The idea that Australia in the 1970s did not see it self as being for a particular ethnicity is a misreading of history. Granted the "White Australia" policy was on its last legs then, but it wasn't quite yet gone. Even in Canada and the US, our immigration policies had not foreseen the vast increase in Asian immigration that happened.

Actually, yep. I have missed that whoopsie. Australia has, probably, had the biggest ethnic and racial change over the last 50 years than any other country that did not go through a major ethnic-cleansing-accompanied war.

But, you know, for a Dane there is no politics outside Europe Smiley

Of course there is, but settler societies were able to make that transformation without losing their core identity (for some partly because they were still in the later stages of an ongoing nation building phase when it happened). Australia had already made the transformation from being Anglo-Celtic to being all-round "White" before the Asian immigration started and was obviously never considered the national home/core territory of the British nation. Populate or perish was a more decisive moment because it redefined what Australia was supposed to be (and even then Australia incorporated many different groups).

Another factor is that Australia, Canada, USA are large continental countries that are natural entities in many ways (large enough to encompass diverse economies and form the basis of strong states) , whereas European countries today exists to house a particular people and their culture (even if many have old historical roots). There is no need for a Hungary if not to act as the home land of Hungarians and to act as base for Hungarian culture and language. Just as there is no need for a Samoa if not to act as the home land for Samoans and a for the Samoan culture and way of life.

This is, really, the reason why you think I am trolling Smiley Fundamentally, for me there is no need for any country in particular, if it is to be defined in these terms. My own identity is a Russian speaker is not dependent on the existence of Russia. And, of course, my own Jewish identity is independent of the existence of Israel. Romantic European nationalism has exactly no attraction to me. In fact, it is very much incomprehensible.

BTW, what is the need for Austria? Or Belgium? And why is then there is not need for Prussia or Silesia? And where is the space for the entire EU project in all that?
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #123 on: August 27, 2015, 10:52:50 PM »



Also, I probably write more about African and other non-European politics than any other poster here (although Simfan might be catching up), so the can not see beyond Europe line is a low blow.



Why would it be a low blow if it were not true? Half the Jewish posters here have called me an anti-semite, and I am not losing my sleep over that.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #124 on: August 27, 2015, 10:55:05 PM »

I just want to be clear. I am perfectly aware of the fact that my personal preferences about migration are not very representative, to say the least. I am, in fact, perfectly aware of the fact that most people dislike foreigners. And, of course, I am more than aware of the European and US politics involved. I am, in fact, perfectly willing to discuss political implications: who wins, who looses, how Mr. Wump exploits this and how the Worrik party plays that: this is all good fun.

And, of course, I am always willing to talk about how one can implement policies that would result in improvement of human welfare. A discussion of how the current situation can be reformed to avoid people drowining in the sea and suffocating on buses is, most definitely, in order. And political constraints are very much valid constraints that any policy-maker has to take into account.

But... Is it that hard to understand why I start screaming?


Can't you do it elsewhere instead of ruining immigration threads on Atlas?


Trust me, I do not merely do this on Atlas. The key word here is "immigration", though. Where exactly should I be screaming about immigration?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 47  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 12 queries.