Germany: 14-year old Jewish girl raped & killed by Iraqi asylum seeker

[DavidB.]

It's really a massive simplification to say that European countries were "founded"as ethnic homelands, seeing as by their very nature, ethnic identities are things that are in a constant state of flux. Like, not just the centuries of intra-European migration and population movements, but even if you look at somewhere like France, you have the modern French identity emerging out of what used to be separate Occitan, franco-provençal, langue d'oïl identites (and more) and the French national mythology was built in part to unite those disparate groups. And you get the same everywhere - Germany, Italy, the UK.

Even then, euro nation states as ethnic homelands is a half truth at best, they did play a role, but don't forget the extent to which modern European borders are the creations of the fallouts and settlements from various wars. Hungary and Albania arw two obvious examples, but even Switzerland's modern borders are to a huge extent the result of the napoleonic wars. Like, no-one would say Geneva isn't Swiss, but when they joined the confederation in 1815, it was because the Swiss were the old ally, not because the genevois felt ethnically Swiss.

Also, if we, as a basic example take language as a parallel for ethnicity it still doesn't work. Languages exist on a continuum, like you go from the langues d'oïl through franco-provençal to the various dialects of Italian gradually, not in one leap. The standardisation of Italian and French largely actually followed the definition of Italy and France's borders. And before someone talks about the language borders between eg Romance and Germanic languages, bear in mind that language border doesn't actually follow national borders very faithfully at all.

Languages and ethnicities are a continuum, yes. But intra-European migration was usually exactly that: individuals of groups from Europe moving from one area to another, in times when nations and languages were certainly more "fluid" than they are right now. And sure, the nation-building process in the 19th and 20th century was often quite artificial. And yes, seemingly random events like the outcomes of wars (or even more trivial things) often had a decisive effect on today's borders.

None of this, however, refutes the point that was made earlier in this thread: unlike Americans, European peoples have been rooted in their countries for centuries and centuries. These are Europeans' ancestral homelands. Sure, most people would have some ancestors from (what would now be) other countries and regions if you go back in time, but for those whose ancestors did so long ago this isn't noticeable in any way, and for those whose ancestors did it recently, it is easy for Europeans to fully assimilate in other European countries (the closer culturally the "new" country is, the easier it is, of course).

It seems like a major stretch to argue, implicitly or explicitly, that taking in enormous amounts of non-Europeans from groups that have proven to have big problems with integrating in our societies is fine, just because most of us have ancestors from other European countries and borders have changed over time.

[parochial boy]

Languages and ethnicities are a continuum, yes. But intra-European migration was usually exactly that: individuals of groups from Europe moving from one area to another, in times when nations and languages were certainly more "fluid" than they are right now. And sure, the nation-building process in the 19th and 20th century has often been quite artificial. And yes, seemingly random events like the outcomes of wars (or even more trivial things) have often had a decisive effect on today's borders.

None of this, however, refutes the point that was made earlier in this thread: unlike Americans, European peoples have been rooted in their countries for centuries and centuries. These are Europeans' ancestral homelands. Sure, most people would have some ancestors from (what would now be) other countries and regions if you go back in time, but for those whose ancestors did so long ago this isn't noticeable in any way, and for those whose ancestors did it recently, it is easy for Europeans to fully assimilate in other European countries (the closer culturally the "new" country is, the easier it is, of course).

It seems like a major stretch to argue, implicitly or explicitly, that taking in enormous amounts of non-Europeans from groups that have proven to have big problems with integrating in our societies is fine, just because most of us have ancestors from other European countries and borders have changed over time.

tbh I was mainly trying to refute the argument that "European countries are ethnostates" because it has this seeming implication that Europeans are massive racists who can't deal with foreigners and minority groups are doomed to live on the margins. As you yourself have recognised, there are examples of non-European minorities integrating successfully and being appreciated in the society that the move to.

Ignoring the question of what would constitute "mass" or "too much" immigration (and yes, I know it is an argument to be had), the argument that European states are "ethnic homelands" has this implication that ancestry is a requisite in order to be genuinely part of a European society, which is, well, something that I am going to be quite sensitive about because of my own background.

[DavidB.]

the argument that European states are "ethnic homelands" has this implication that ancestry is a requisite in order to be genuinely part of a European society

This is an important point: I do not think it carries this implication. To me, it implies that "native ancestry" is generally assumed the standard (which is most definitely still the case in Europe), that native people with this ancestry get to remain the majority in their homelands, and that the cultural traditions of the country are assumed to be the standard and get to remain dominant. However, small numbers of people with different ancestry can still become fully equal members of this society and of this nation if they seek to fit in. This doesn't necessarily mean fully assimilating, but ideally assimilation should happen to a fairly high degree.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

why are crimes committing by certain ethnicities/groups of people given special attention over others? it doesnt make sense... how is a crime committed by an asylum seeker any more remarkable than a crime committed by a citizen? they're both crimes, both individuals get punished... it especially doesnt make sense cuz immigrants dont commit crimes at a higher rate than native citizens.

Because outsider crime can be remedied quicker than citizen crime.

Because I'm enormously and blatantly racist and this thread is about five seconds away from me quoting "black on white" crime statistics and talking about how (((immigrants))) are genetically inferior.

FTFY.

[ingemann]

why are crimes committing by certain ethnicities/groups of people given special attention over others? it doesnt make sense... how is a crime committed by an asylum seeker any more remarkable than a crime committed by a citizen? they're both crimes, both individuals get punished... it especially doesnt make sense cuz immigrants dont commit crimes at a higher rate than native citizens.

Because outsider crime can be remedied quicker than citizen crime.

there's at least 1 person out of any group of people that is a criminal. so really, if we wanna remedy crime by outsiders, we shouldnt let ANY outsiders in, right? unless 100% of immigrants aren't criminals... except that that doesnt make sense.

frankly, if our concern is to combat crime, refusing entry by immigrants doesnt solve that at all. their crime rate isn't higher; also, it's not like the situation is that countries are openly accepting criminals... they're accepting noncriminals who later break the law. the solution of limiting immigration doesnt address crime, it's ineffective, and the problem of "rising crime" doesn't exist. MS13 for example... they arent any more remarkable in terms of their harm to the US than any other domestic gangs. we should be equally concerned by domestic and foreign gangs. of course, foreign gangs will have an easier time coming here when we accept foreigners, but 1) our efforts to combat them havent subsided, 2) their "reign of terror" is waaaay exaggerated, 3) it's only one con against the many pros of immigration.

Their (Muslim immigrant and refugees in Europe) crime rate are higher, it's significant higher.  But if the only problem with these people was that their crime rate was higher, we wouldn't see the large opposition to them entering Europe, 97% of them aren't criminals. The problem is that they're also a money loss for the European states they usual emigrate to, their employment rate are very low (in Denmark below 50%), they use social and healthcare service more.

So we have a group, which are a net drain for society, while at the same we have to deal with a higher crime rate, which are especially higher in sexual crime, and we have to adapt our society and infrastructure to deal with the fact that they have behind most violent terror acts in Europe since 2000. Also at the same time thouand of European Muslims have travelled to the Middle East to join ISIS. There exist other refugee groups, which are a net drain for the society they end up in, but we rarely hear any great opposition to these, because they're not horrble on all these other points.

[Mopsus]

Not to mention that the US have done a better job integrating those minorities into American culture. In the way someone put it, anyone from anywhere in the world can move to the US and become an American but the same isn't true in most cases in Europe.

Very true. European countries are ethnic homelands and they derive their cultures and identities from that. America, on the other hand, was founded as an ideological experiment.

Yes, but that ideology was born out of a specifically European context, and has struggled to flourish anywhere but Europe or European settler states...

[HisGrace]

Crime is actually as low as it's been for quite some time in Germany, so this is an isolated incident as bad as it is.

I really fail to see the difference between this and the media's ranting about "white male violence" that conservatives (rightly) complain about. Cherry picking a bunch of anecdotal incidents to create the impression that they are more widespread than they are to make a group look bad is about as low as it gets.

[EPG]

Crime is actually as low as it's been for quite some time in Germany, so this is an isolated incident as bad as it is.

I really fail to see the difference between this and the media's ranting about "white male violence" that conservatives (rightly) complain about. Cherry picking a bunch of anecdotal incidents to create the impression that they are more widespread than they are to make a group look bad is about as low as it gets.

If it helps, Muslims are to Europeans as African-Americans are to Americans.

[ingemann]

Crime is actually as low as it's been for quite some time in Germany, so this is an isolated incident as bad as it is.

I really fail to see the difference between this and the media's ranting about "white male violence" that conservatives (rightly) complain about. Cherry picking a bunch of anecdotal incidents to create the impression that they are more widespread than they are to make a group look bad is about as low as it gets.

If it helps, Muslims are to Europeans as African-Americans are to Americans.

No they're not.

[Sir Mohamed]

Crime is actually as low as it's been for quite some time in Germany, so this is an isolated incident as bad as it is.

I really fail to see the difference between this and the media's ranting about "white male violence" that conservatives (rightly) complain about. Cherry picking a bunch of anecdotal incidents to create the impression that they are more widespread than they are to make a group look bad is about as low as it gets.

If it helps, Muslims are to Europeans as African-Americans are to Americans.

Hardly a comparison. Blacks have been far longer part of US society and are closer to the cultrual mainstream of the country.

[ingemann]

Crime is actually as low as it's been for quite some time in Germany, so this is an isolated incident as bad as it is.

I really fail to see the difference between this and the media's ranting about "white male violence" that conservatives (rightly) complain about. Cherry picking a bunch of anecdotal incidents to create the impression that they are more widespread than they are to make a group look bad is about as low as it gets.

If it helps, Muslims are to Europeans as African-Americans are to Americans.

Hardly a comparison. Blacks have been far longer part of US society and are closer to the cultrual mainstream of the country.

They was also imported involuntary, while Muslims in Europe are there voluntary.