Refugee/illegal migrant/asylum seeker crime crisis in Europe

[Incontinenta Buttox]

I don't know. Expelling underage teenagers is tricky. Even detaining them is tricky since their parents are likely to panic about it depending on their literacy.

Teenagers do stupid all the time, let alone refugee teenagers.

I certainly never sexually assaulted anyone as a teenager. How about you guys?

[fkizz]

I certainly never sexually assaulted anyone as a teenager. How about you guys?

Thankfully no

[Love Mountain]

I certainly never sexually assaulted anyone as a teenager. How about you guys?

You've never done stupid as a teenager? Good for you.

So the Austrians should accept a degenerate rapist and pay for his food, lodging and weekly allowance instead? As I already said, such people are in the vast minority, but they should be rooted out and deported as soon as they show themselves to be criminals prone to sexual violence.

Whats wrong with treating a Muslim teenager in the same way you would treat an Austrian teenager?

Not only are they abusing the hospitality afforded to them by their hosts, but they are also putting fellow refugees (the majority of whom are not committing crimes) in danger by giving them all a bad reputation, thus making them easy targets for right wing groups. The crimes of these degenerates are one of the main reasons that public opinion cross Europe is being turned against refugees.

That's for the Austrian government to decide. Criminals should be dealt in the same way you deal with any crime. Its not about special treatment. Its about fairness.



Sent from my LG-H901 using Tapatalk

[IrishBlood]

You've never done stupid as a teenager? Good for you.



Whats wrong with treating a Muslim teenager in the same way you would treat an Austrian teenager?



That's for the Austrian government to decide. Criminals should be dealt in the same way you deal with any crime. Its not about special treatment. Its about fairness.



Sent from my LG-H901 using Tapatalk

At no point did I, or the article I linked, mention anything about the refugees religion. I could not care less what religion they are. They could be Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists or Pastafarians, it makes no difference. If you, as a refugee, repeatedly break the laws of the country that is giving you refuge, particularly if the crimes you are committing are as serious as sexual assault, then why should they continue to extend their hospitality to you?

Also we've all done stupid as teenagers, but I (and I'd say this applies to most others here) would class 'stupid ' as getting super drunk, stealing traffic cones (it's quite the fun past time in Ireland), getting into fights, getting kicked out of night clubs, graffiti, joyriding, etc etc. Sexual assault and/or rape is a serious crime and you can't just pass it off as 'boys will be boys'.

[Love Mountain]

At no point did I, or the article I linked, mention anything about the refugees religion. I could not care less what religion they are. They could be Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists or Pastafarians, it makes no difference. If you, as a refugee, repeatedly break the laws of the country that is giving you refuge, particularly if the crimes you are committing are as serious as sexual assault, then why should they continue to extend their hospitality to you?

Like I said, they should be treated as any other criminal or underage criminal.

Also we've all done stupid as teenagers, but I (and I'd say this applies to most others here) would class 'stupid ' as getting super drunk, stealing traffic cones (it's quite the fun past time in Ireland), getting into fights, getting kicked out of night clubs, graffiti, joyriding, etc etc. Sexual assault and/or rape is a serious crime and you can't just pass it off as 'boys will be boys'.

And I wasn't suggesting giving them a pass. I simply was against charging an underage person as an adult. Things like rape, vandalism, crime, theft, etc have significant consequences regardless of your age. What's so hard to understand?

[Dr. Croccer]

It's different if they're not teenagers obviously, but would I deport a 16 year old back into the Arab world? No. I don't need one more terrorist in this world.

But we need one in our world, when he has clearly shown himself to be a danger to the community and to be likely to radicalize and when we have done nothing to cause that?

I fail to see why any country should be obligated to take in criminals, let alone one who committed a crime in that country before he even had any legal status.

[ITClown]

Okay, I'm going to offer my perspective on this one.

The argument I've heard multiple times, not just on here, is that "natives commit crime too so expel them as well" when someone brings up the crime that is brought by these people pouring unabated into Europe's borders (Cologne is an example- many more I am sure). This is seriously one of the most stupid arguments I've ever heard. To me, it sounds like "Oh let's just put up with this crime wave because natives do it too", yeah I know they do, but in my country (New Zealand) we have more than enough criminals, we don't need any more.

Second of all- there are all these people offering up their homes to refugees. As kind as that is, I don't see them ever doing that for our own homeless people, or people offering to donate, yes, that is very charitable, but I don't see them starting all these campaigns to help our own people. My father would always say to me "charity begins at home", yes, in my opinion, it does! A government's first priority is it's own people, and any politician letting in hundreds of thousands of military aged men simply doesn't care, they only want to make themselves look good, at the expense of their own people's security.

Thirdly- the race card. I'm getting really sick of being called a racist when I suggest that these people's cultures (they treat women really well over there I've heard!) are not compatible with our own. It's not racist, first of all, because Islam isn't a race, and second of all, I never criticized these people for their skin color or anything like that. Also, I've noticed, Syria is quite close to filthy rich Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and so on. Why don't they do anything? Why do Western countries have to become the third world's welfare office just because culturally similar and filthy rich nations won't do anything?

I'm not saying we leave these people to die. But taking them into our own societies is a stupid idea. I and many others thought it would be and we were right. We could fund the camps in which they live to ensure they have decent living conditions (after all, the cost of taking care of one of them in Western Europe could probably cater for many more in the camps) and can return to Syria when the war ends.

I'm not racist- I simply don't want millions of third world people coming to my doorstep (or to the west's doorstep for that matter) and expecting to be fed, clothed and given somewhere to live, as well as that we respect their outdated cultural beliefs.

Not wanting thousands of people pouring across your border makes you a racist in the same way it would make you intolerant if you had a problem with people breaking into your house at night and stealing your belongings.

Sorry for the length- I have a strong view on this.

[PointOfViewGun]

The argument I've heard multiple times, not just on here, is that "natives commit crime too so expel them as well" when someone brings up the crime that is brought by these people pouring unabated into Europe's borders (Cologne is an example- many more I am sure). This is seriously one of the most stupid arguments I've ever heard. To me, it sounds like "Oh let's just put up with this crime wave because natives do it too", yeah I know they do, but in my country (New Zealand) we have more than enough criminals, we don't need any more.

Nobody really argues that.

Second of all- there are all these people offering up their homes to refugees. As kind as that is, I don't see them ever doing that for our own homeless people, or people offering to donate, yes, that is very charitable, but I don't see them starting all these campaigns to help our own people. My father would always say to me "charity begins at home", yes, in my opinion, it does! A government's first priority is it's own people, and any politician letting in hundreds of thousands of military aged men simply doesn't care, they only want to make themselves look good, at the expense of their own people's security.

They probably value people who run away from war more than your regular homeless. There are people that open their homes or wallets for the homeless as well though. There is also a difference between letting in thousands of people who are at your borders and shipping in thousands of people from somewhere else. You're mostly arguing against the latter. In any case, there are a lot of things your government spends on before they deal with the homeless. I don't really saw anyone making an issue out of that, but when refugees come there is a different story.

Thirdly- the race card. I'm getting really sick of being called a racist when I suggest that these people's cultures (they treat women really well over there I've heard!) are not compatible with our own. It's not racist, first of all, because Islam isn't a race, and second of all, I never criticized these people for their skin color or anything like that. Also, I've noticed, Syria is quite close to filthy rich Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and so on. Why don't they do anything? Why do Western countries have to become the third world's welfare office just because culturally similar and filthy rich nations won't do anything?

I'm not saying we leave these people to die. But taking them into our own societies is a stupid idea. I and many others thought it would be and we were right. We could fund the camps in which they live to ensure they have decent living conditions (after all, the cost of taking care of one of them in Western Europe could probably cater for many more in the camps) and can return to Syria when the war ends.

I'm not racist- I simply don't want millions of third world people coming to my doorstep (or to the west's doorstep for that matter) and expecting to be fed, clothed and given somewhere to live, as well as that we respect their outdated cultural beliefs.

Not wanting thousands of people pouring across your border makes you a racist in the same way it would make you intolerant if you had a problem with people breaking into your house at night and stealing your belongings.

There is a difference between opposing people because of their acts and opposing people because of their identities. You're doing the latter. That's why people are likely to incline to use the race card. Do all refugees commit a crime? Do even a significant portion of them do that? Like 10%? Not really. Yet, here you are, passing sweeping judgment on a whole group of people.

[ITClown]

Nobody really argues that.

Thought so. I know for a fact not 100% of them commit crimes but there are plenty that do, a lot (a lot by contrast do want to work, just in case anyone tries to misquote me and claim I said all of them don't) of others simply don't want to work, simply going to the west in search of pavements lined with gold. Take this as an example http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...D-country.html.

They probably value people who run away from war more than your regular homeless. There are people that open their homes or wallets for the homeless as well though. There is also a difference between letting in thousands of people who are at your borders and shipping in thousands of people from somewhere else. You're mostly arguing against the latter. In any case, there are a lot of things your government spends on before they deal with the homeless. I don't really saw anyone making an issue out of that, but when refugees come there is a different story.

You probably don't know (and I'm not criticizing you for it either, don't worry) but here there simply aren't enough state houses to house our own people and the average house price in a lot of areas is out of the reach of most working people, and then the government spends $13 M on building an apartment complex for the "refugees". If they were building homes for us too I wouldn't have so much of a gripe with that particular issue but they're not. Furthermore, there are never these massive campaigns to help our own poor and homeless (29% of children in my country live in poverty, and the government treats them like it's their fault http://www.childpoverty.co.nz/) so it seems the politicians want to import these people just to further their own profile. And yes- they value people in other countries more than our own- that's where my issue is.

There is a difference between opposing people because of their acts and opposing people because of their identities. You're doing the latter. That's why people are likely to incline to use the race card. Do all refugees commit a crime? Do even a significant portion of them do that? Like 10%? Not really. Yet, here you are, passing sweeping judgment on a whole group of people.

Quote me exactly where I said all of them commit crime. And my issue isn't really with them specifically or with helping them even (hence I suggested helping them in the camps, or that the Gulf Arabs do something), but the flow should be limited, or as I said, help them where they are. But that's not what's happening. In my view people are inclined to use the race card because they actually can't think of a rational argument, to give you credit, at least you've actually put forward some points, rather than just shout "racist" like some others I have presented these points to. Some people think shouting racist over and over constitutes and argument, it doesn't. And no, not all Muslims are terrorists but if you look at most of the terrorist attacks recently they've been perpetrated by people of Islamic origin so something isn't right there. I think it's perfectly justified if I have a concern about how well these people will fit in, having seen the results of a virtual open door policy, courtesy of Mrs Merkel.

[PointOfViewGun]

Thought so. I know for a fact not 100% of them commit crimes but there are plenty that do, a lot (a lot by contrast do want to work, just in case anyone tries to misquote me and claim I said all of them don't) of others simply don't want to work, simply going to the west in search of pavements lined with gold. Take this as an example http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...D-country.html.

Thought so? These were your words:

The argument I've heard multiple times, not just on here, is that "natives commit crime too so expel them as well" when someone brings up the crime that is brought by these people pouring unabated into Europe's borders (Cologne is an example- many more I am sure). This is seriously one of the most stupid arguments I've ever heard. To me, it sounds like "Oh let's just put up with this crime wave because natives do it too", yeah I know they do, but in my country (New Zealand) we have more than enough criminals, we don't need any more.

So, you just made that up?..

The link you provide is nothing more than claims being made. There is no substance to back them up nor they are cross examined. We don't know the scale of it. It could very well be a dozen people that might have refused to work. If that's enough for you to make sweeping judgment on a million people, well, there isn't much I can argue with you.

No one really argues against kicking off those who chose to commit a crime. Just because a few of them do doesn't mean you can talk about them in general which you did. You're holding the entire group of people responsible. That's what calling them "these people" and talking about them bringing crime to Europe means.

You probably don't know (and I'm not criticizing you for it either, don't worry) but here there simply aren't enough state houses to house our own people and the average house price in a lot of areas is out of the reach of most working people, and then the government spends $13 M on building an apartment complex for the "refugees". If they were building homes for us too I wouldn't have so much of a gripe with that particular issue but they're not. Furthermore, there are never these massive campaigns to help our own poor and homeless (29% of children in my country live in poverty, and the government treats them like it's their fault http://www.childpoverty.co.nz/) so it seems the politicians want to import these people just to further their own profile. And yes- they value people in other countries more than our own- that's where my issue is.

Yet, people in general starting making under-funding of homeless people as an issue before. Heck, people usually argue against doing any of it. So, to suddenly start arguing about how people how homeless people are ignored in favor of refugees raises a little bit of a red flag. As I said though, the difference is like caused by the difference between homeless people and people running away from war. That's not really valuing people from other countries more. It's not like they have citizens who are running away from war who are ignored.

Quote me exactly where I said all of them commit crime. And my issue isn't really with them specifically or with helping them even (hence I suggested helping them in the camps, or that the Gulf Arabs do something), but the flow should be limited, or as I said, help them where they are. But that's not what's happening. In my view people are inclined to use the race card because they actually can't think of a rational argument, to give you credit, at least you've actually put forward some points, rather than just shout "racist" like some others I have presented these points to. Some people think shouting racist over and over constitutes and argument, it doesn't. And no, not all Muslims are terrorists but if you look at most of the terrorist attacks recently they've been perpetrated by people of Islamic origin so something isn't right there. I think it's perfectly justified if I have a concern about how well these people will fit in, having seen the results of a virtual open door policy, courtesy of Mrs Merkel.

the crime that is brought by these people pouring unabated into Europe's borders

That's a quite encompassing statement. As I said, If you do that people are more inclined to see racism being in use.

Ah, yes, lets jumble up imaginary numbers and pretend they support an argument of discrimination. There is hardly an exhaustive list of terror attacks in the world for us to say that most terrorists are Muslims. While acts of drug cartels in Latin America can easily classify as terrorism you don't really consider them terror attacks. Why? No reason at all. In any case, when Europe was dealing extensively with separatists terror groups instead of Muslim terror groups for decades you didn't really worry about the Spanish or the Irish. We're dealing with a very tiny percentage of the population. You should be talking about how to better deal with that portion, not passing judgment on all of them.

[nein]

RIP Europe, the Marxist terrorists have won.

[ITClown]

Thought so? These were your words:

Nobody really argues that.

/ If I somehow misunderstood, please, enlighten me.

So, you just made that up?..

Nope. Whenever I argue about this with someone, there's always a high probability they say that. Not you, but others I have argued with and there have been many.

The link you provide is nothing more than claims being made. There is no substance to back them up nor they are cross examined. We don't know the scale of it. It could very well be a dozen people that might have refused to work. If that's enough for you to make sweeping judgment on a million people, well, there isn't much I can argue with you.

No one really argues against kicking off those who chose to commit a crime. Just because a few of them do doesn't mean you can talk about them in general which you did. You're holding the entire group of people responsible. That's what calling them "these people" and talking about them bringing crime to Europe means.

I never said it was enough to make a sweeping judgement. It's not. I am saying that there are lots of people among the migrants who will refuse to work, commit crimes or be a nuisance in general. Furthermore for the terrorism side of things, I'm not holding the people responsible- I'm holding radical Islam responsible. Another issue is that a lot of them bite the hand that feeds and are generally ungrateful, which really ticks me off. https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...sweden-removed from the guardian, no less.

Yet, people in general starting making under-funding of homeless people as an issue before. Heck, people usually argue against doing any of it. So, to suddenly start arguing about how people how homeless people are ignored in favor of refugees raises a little bit of a red flag. As I said though, the difference is like caused by the difference between homeless people and people running away from war. That's not really valuing people from other countries more. It's not like they have citizens who are running away from war who are ignored.

For me personally, homelessness has always been an issue, some people have done as you said, but not me. But keep passing judgements about my political beliefs, sure. Well, if our government helps people from other countries then doesn't lift a finger to help our own, then to me, that looks a lot like they're valuing them more in order to make themselves look better on the international stage. That's a big reason as to why Merkel did what she did (but by far not the only reason). I've already said this twice- help them where they are, and maybe the Gulf states should do something.

That's a quite encompassing statement. As I said, If you do that people are more inclined to see racism being in use.

Ah, yes, lets jumble up imaginary numbers and pretend they support an argument of discrimination. There is hardly an exhaustive list of terror attacks in the world for us to say that most terrorists are Muslims. While acts of drug cartels in Latin America can easily classify as terrorism you don't really consider them terror attacks. Why? No reason at all. In any case, when Europe was dealing extensively with separatists terror groups instead of Muslim terror groups for decades you didn't really worry about the Spanish or the Irish. We're dealing with a very tiny percentage of the population. You should be talking about how to better deal with that portion, not passing judgment on all of them.

Okay, anyone with half a brain can assume that any large influx of people will cause crime, but not on the part of the whole group, but on the part of the criminals themselves, of which there are many. That's what I was implying. And imaginary numbers? This month alone, there were 115 terrorist incidents around the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...September_2016). Many of them connected in some way to Islam. I don't consider anything an act of terror or not by judging who perpetrated it. And yes, not ALL terrorist incidents are committed by Muslims, I said nothing of the sort that supported such a claim.

Just in case you don't know, here's the primary definition of racism, according to google: "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."

At which point did I say these people were inferior? It's elements of their beliefs that aren't compatible with the west, but not necessarily inferior, just different, and incompatible as a result.

And my gripe isn't with people using that argument, but that they simply shout racist and don't back it up with anything. Such is an absurd argument, in fact it's so absurd it shouldn't be considered an argument at all.

[PointOfViewGun]

/ If I somehow misunderstood, please, enlighten me.

Nope. Whenever I argue about this with someone, there's always a high probability they say that. Not you, but others I have argued with and there have been many.

Saying "thought so" after I say that that doesn't really happen means that you agreed with me... I doubt it's something you can back up with examples.

I never said it was enough to make a sweeping judgement. It's not. I am saying that there are lots of people among the migrants who will refuse to work, commit crimes or be a nuisance in general. Furthermore for the terrorism side of things, I'm not holding the people responsible- I'm holding radical Islam responsible. Another issue is that a lot of them bite the hand that feeds and are generally ungrateful, which really ticks me off. https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...sweden-removed from the guardian, no less.

I didn't accuse you of saying that it's enough to make a sweeping judgment. I accused you of making sweeping judgment. You're claiming that there are lots of examples and the examples you have come up with are quite shady. Colour me a skeptic but I'd be quite frightened to leave a bus in the middle of nowhere like that as well. More over, per your source, you're talking about 14 people out of 60 that was sent to the village. At the same time, it tells us that Sweden is receiving about 10 thousand refugees a week. The article itself points out that such cases was rare. Basically, you're using a case labeled as rare to pass judgment on all refugees.

For me personally, homelessness has always been an issue, some people have done as you said, but not me. But keep passing judgements about my political beliefs, sure. Well, if our government helps people from other countries then doesn't lift a finger to help our own, then to me, that looks a lot like they're valuing them more in order to make themselves look better on the international stage. That's a big reason as to why Merkel did what she did (but by far not the only reason). I've already said this twice- help them where they are, and maybe the Gulf states should do something.

So, if I look around I'll see posts on the homeless people not getting enough attention posted before the current refugee crisis? I doubt that. To claim that any government is not lifting a finger to help their own people is a rather bold one as well. A quite baseless one too. There is also no reason why any of the countries in question would need or want to make themselves look better on the international stage. A lot of these countries, if not most, helped create the refugee situation in Syria.

Okay, anyone with half a brain can assume that any large influx of people will cause crime, but not on the part of the whole group, but on the part of the criminals themselves, of which there are many. That's what I was implying. And imaginary numbers? This month alone, there were 115 terrorist incidents around the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...September_2016). Many of them connected in some way to Islam. I don't consider anything an act of terror or not by judging who perpetrated it. And yes, not ALL terrorist incidents are committed by Muslims, I said nothing of the sort that supported such a claim.

Just in case you don't know, here's the primary definition of racism, according to google: "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."

At which point did I say these people were inferior? It's elements of their beliefs that aren't compatible with the west, but not necessarily inferior, just different, and incompatible as a result.

And my gripe isn't with people using that argument, but that they simply shout racist and don't back it up with anything. Such is an absurd argument, in fact it's so absurd it shouldn't be considered an argument at all.

Pretty much none of them has anything to do with Islam. They're mostly from civil wars. It's funny how you objected to the label of racism on the grounds of Islam not being a race but now you're here talking about how Islam is connected to terror attacks as if its a person.

There aren't really many of such people when you consider the entire population of Muslims in this world. As I said, people didn't really worry about the Spanish because of ETA, or the Irish because of IRA, or the Armenians because of ASALA. Similarly, we don't really worry about the Japanese or the Italians just in case they set up a mafia branch in your country. No one accused you of saying that all Muslims are terrorists.

[Love Mountain]

RIP Europe, the Marxist terrorists have won.

Hardly Marxist or Terrorist, but whatever.

[Incontinenta Buttox]

You've never done stupid as a teenager? Good for you.

Rape, is a little more serious than doing stupid .

I suppose Rotheram was just a little bit of "high spirits?"

[hehehe]

Ah, yes, lets jumble up imaginary numbers and pretend they support an argument of discrimination. There is hardly an exhaustive list of terror attacks in the world for us to say that most terrorists are Muslims. While acts of drug cartels in Latin America can easily classify as terrorism you don't really consider them terror attacks. Why? No reason at all.

For whatever it's worth, I wouldn't let the Latin American drug cartels in either. Or wait does that count as discriminating someone based on their identity?

[PointOfViewGun]

For whatever it's worth, I wouldn't let the Latin American drug cartels in either. Or wait does that count as discriminating someone based on their identity?

This post would make sense either if you said that you wouldn't let Latin Americans in or if the issue was people saying that they wouldn't let ISIL in...

[Akrotatos]

S
There aren't really many of such people when you consider the entire population of Muslims in this world. As I said, people didn't really worry about the Spanish because of ETA, or the Irish because of IRA, or the Armenians because of ASALA. Similarly, we don't really worry about the Japanese or the Italians just in case they set up a mafia branch in your country. No one accused you of saying that all Muslims are terrorists. The fact that you're utilizing too many straw man arguments here suggests a lot about the merits of your actual positions.

This is a false argument. First of all there have not been terrorist attacks from these groups outside of their strict areas of operations for decades.

Second, Westerners can understand at least the motive of groups such as the ones you mentioned: nationalistic terrorist groups with a specific and not-completely unrealistic goal. What does an Islamist want? Death to the infidels? Who can understand that?

Third, their targets were not random like the Islamists that attack pretty much anything. You knew that if you were not a police officer or high-level government employee you had nothing to fear except from the 0.001% to be there when they hit and get hit accidentally. It could be in the train you ride, the festival you attend, the school of your children. Nobody feared that IRA would hit German festivals.

[hehehe]

This post would make sense either if you said that you wouldn't let Latin Americans in or if the issue was people saying that they wouldn't let ISIL in...

I wouldn't let Latin Americans in if I knew there's even a small chance that cartels might come with them. In fact, I wouldn't let Latin Americans in if I knew there absolutely no chance that cartels come with them. Do you know why? Because it isn't in our interests. I do not owe them anything. We do not need them, and I believe we have a right to pursue our own interests.

[Love Mountain]

Rape, is a little more serious than doing stupid .

I suppose Rotheram was just a little bit of "high spirits?"

You seem a little triggered. I ddin't mean to hit a nerve, but the fact is that young people do a ton of stupid . Have you ever been at a frat party? And yes, I am of the opinion that sexual harassment is a big deal, but there's a difference when it's a 20 year old and a 16 year old.