Donald Trump's Immigration and Refugee Ban

[Ludicus]

That isn't xenophobia that's a realistic expectation

Bollocks, refugees are not terrorists. Go here, I'm not going to repeat myself: #450

But your friend, the Trump of Netherlands, agrees with you,
Far-right Dutch politician says Islam 'more dangerous' than Nazism

--------

No,you don't get it. The conclusions you draw from that abstract are your ownfantasy, not what the science says

You don't know whats cience means. That's exactly what's sciences says - generalization is based on the assumption that thefindings from the original study on a set of participants will be the same for every other member of that target population.

[Heathen Hammer]

Bollocks, refugees are not terrorists. Go here, I'm not going to repeat myself: #450

Lies.

http://www.eastafro.com/2016/12/26/r...lot-in-london/
http://www.breitbart.com/national-se...efugee-greece/

[sumskilz]

I am a bit of both, I think. There will probably always be suffering, but we can try to minimize it as much as possible. Humans are naturally selfish, but that's no reason not to help others in addition to ourselves.

Helping people tends to be a net positive for both the helper and the helped (in one way or another). However, I think instances when the helping is self-destructive to the helper, enables destructive behavior in the helped, or unnecessarily leaves the helped dependent, are usually the result of helping without a realistic view of human tendencies and limitations.

[swabian]

Bollocks, refugees are not terrorists.

Nobody seriously equates refugees with terrorists, stop harping around strawmen all over the place. However, the situation in Europe is this:

- 90% of the refugees are unemployable (with Syrians it's a bit better, but not much).
- for every 2 acknowledged refugees you get at least 1 illegal, who is likely going to stay indefinitely.
- Even acknowledged refugees are much more likely to end up with a criminal record.
- The likelihood of terrorist attacks rises steadily with the growth of Muslim populations (be it refugees, illegals or legals).
- Muslims tend to integrate very badly, often even despise Western culture and are sometimes outright thankless :wub:s.
- The Middle East has the full capacity to care for their own refugees by providing them basic needs and securing their survival, refusing them in Western countries is certainly not a death sentence or the like.

If Europe (or the West in it's entirety) distributes refugees fairly and limits the annual admittance, i will rethink my view, but we both know that's never going to happen. So i don't see an alternative to full opposition to this policy. As for the US, i think America does have a moral obligation to take over a million or two, but that's not going to happen either.

Helping people tends to be a net positive for both the helper and the helped (in one way or another). However, I think instances when the helping is self-destructive to the helper, enables destructive behavior in the helped, or unnecessarily leaves the helped dependent, are usually the result of helping without a realistic view of human tendencies and limitations.

Out of curiosity: do you have a rough idea what the concrete benefits for Israel are (accepting Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans)?

[Vanoi]

The likelihood of terrorism increases as Muslim population increases? Is there a source for that?

[sumskilz]

Out of curiosity: do you have a rough idea what the concrete benefits for Israel are (accepting Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans)?

Well I can't see any for the majority population, with the exception of accepting religious minorities. From the Assyrians I've met (in Israel by the way), they seem fairly pro Israel. Accepting them could create another moderately nationalist voting block similar to the Druze, and increase Israel's legitimacy as a refuge for Middle Eastern minorities. Of course there aren't really any Jews left in those countries.

[Heathen Hammer]

The likelihood of terrorism increases as Muslim population increases? Is there a source for that?

In general, the likelihood of a violent acts increases as the population group, that believes that violence against the non-members of the group is acceptable, increases as well.

[swabian]

The likelihood of terrorism increases as Muslim population increases? Is there a source for that?

Aww, come on.
Muslims concentrate mostly in big cities and take over entire districts. About 80 Mosques are under surveillance in Bavaria alone. This results in growing networks providing connections and hideouts for potential terrorists, as was the case regarding the events in Belgium and France. Are you suggesting that the number of potentially dangerous radicals is somehow magically independent of the total local Muslim population and the number of Mosques, a percentage of whitch is inevitably supporting extremist preachers?

Well I can't see any for the majority population, with the exception of accepting religious minorities. From the Assyrians I've met (in Israel by the way), they seem fairly pro Israel. Accepting them could create another moderately nationalist voting block similar to the Druze, and increase Israel's legitimacy as a refuge for Middle Eastern minorities. Of course there aren't really any Jews left in those countries.

Hm, i doubt the US or Europe could benefit in a similar way.
BTW, I have no problem with Assyrians and Syrian Christians whatsoever. Especially Yezidis are a completely legitimate group of refugees.

[Vanoi]

Aww, come on.
Muslims concentrate mostly in big cities and take over entire districts. About 80 Mosques are under survaillance in Bavaria alone. This results in growing networks providing connections and hideouts for potential terrorists, as was the case regarding the events in Belgium and France. Are you suggesting that the number of potentially dangerous radicals is somehow magically independent of the total local Muslim population and the number of Mosques, a percentage of witch is inevitably supporting extremist preachers?

The number of radicals is not exactly dependent on population it's more like ideology. Simply having a large Muslim population or an increasing does not equal terror attacks. You cite Germany, Belgium, and France like every other single country in the world is like them and experiencing the same problems related to Muslims. You have still cited no evidence and sources and use simple conjecture as your argument.

Can't lie though ur kind of logic goes perfectly with IS propaganda.

[Prodromos]

Helping people tends to be a net positive for both the helper and the helped (in one way or another). However, I think instances when the helping is self-destructive to the helper, enables destructive behavior in the helped, or unnecessarily leaves the helped dependent, are usually the result of helping without a realistic view of human tendencies and limitations.

True.

As for the US, i think America does have a moral obligation to take over a million or two, but that's not going to happen either.

America has resettled several million refugees that the UN recommended for third-country resettlement; i.e. these are people who can't integrate in the country of asylum, and will not return to their country of origin. Very few countries agree to that. It's mostly just America, Canada, Australia and Scandinavia.

America also has an ongoing refugee crisis involving Latin Americans and can't handle another million refugees.

[swabian]

The number of radicals is not exactly dependent on population it's more like ideology. Simply having a large Muslim population or an increasing does not equal terror attacks. You cite Germany, Belgium, and France like every other single country in the world is like them and experiencing the same problems related to Muslims. You have still cited no evidence and sources and use simple conjecture as your argument.

Why don't you provide a source disproving me. In the worst case for me, it's my formulated, perfectly plausible hypothesis vs your undifferentiated, unformulated, emotional resistance.

Can't lie though ur kind of logic goes perfectly with IS propaganda.

You don't always have to source that 1 + 1 = 2, that's even the case in the US.
Where you find Muslims, you find radicals. The more Muslims, the more radicals, the more likely attacks are (Bell Curve). I guess that means even ISIS can teach you something about logic then.

[Copperknickers II]

There is no win-win situation, Copper. The choice is to help good people or help evil ones. It is ludicrous to coddle rapists, pedophiles and such, and hope it changes them. They should certainly not be welcomed into the West and unleashed on innocent women and children. It is not moral to help evil.

If you have a choice between helping 10 good people and 1 evil person, or helping none of them, then you have a moral imperative to help all of them. I can't seriously believe anyone would disagree with me on that in any situation where Muslims are not involved. If someone gave you a grenade and told you there was a (white, Christian) rapist in a room somewhere, and you were free to throw it in there and kill him without any consequences, but the room also contained 10 other (white, Christian) innocent men, women and children, who would also die, would you do it? Of course not.

When you say things like "let's invite in millions of pedophiles, Jew-haters, misogynists, etc., and let the Western world's melting pot do its magic" (paraphrasing), I think you ignore what that would entail. A lot of good people would be harmed in the process. For instance, there would be many cases like this if your policies were put into action. Is that child merely an acceptable casualty in the effort to "civilize" that Iraqi?

Yes. One person is an acceptable casualty if you are trying to help 100 people, if the majority of those 100 people are good people and not rapists or paedophiles. Which is exactly the case with migrants - we are inadvertantly accepting 100s of misogynists and terror sympathisers and sexual predators in order to help millions who are NOT any of those things.

In this case "our type" is all the good people. Only good people should be welcomed. We are stocked up on evil in the Western world. No need to import more of it.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that a majority of migrants are evil people.

[Ludicus]

Lies.

http://www.eastafro.com/2016/12/26/r...lot-in-london/
http://www.breitbart.com/national-se...efugee-greece/

Another Breitbart's acolyte.
--
I'm going to repeat myself, in Europe and in the US, the real threat are homegrown terrorists, not refugees. Every lethal terrorist attack in the States in the past decade has been carried out by American citizens or legal permanent residents.
That said, even in the US, even Muslim homegrown terrorism is not a serious threat,
Muslim Homegrown Terrorism in the United States: How Serious Is

Conclusion,
This article demonstrates that the threat posed by Muslim homegrown terrorism is not particularly serious, and it does not appear to be growing, especially in its most lethal incarnation—deadly attacks within the United States. Indeed,many analysts and public officials risk overstating the threat posed by Muslim American terrorism. Mischaracterizing that threat, in turn, is potentially costly and counterproductive for the security of the United States and the welfare of its citizens, for several reasons.

In Europe, don't blame don't blame immigration for homegrown terrorism. In this case, Europe (ie France and Belgium) is at a higher risk than the US-well, blame the lack of integration of minorities in those countries,



For the lazy, a short summary,

Oliver Decottignies,

Europeans must also be careful not to turn the situation into "us and them." Not only does this dichotomy play right into the Islamic State's trap, it is also factually wrong. Most of the European youths who have participated in the Syrian jihad were born in France, and a third of French FTFs were not born into Muslim families -- rather, they converted directly to the IS brand of Islam. Meanwhile, European Muslims join their country's security forces in far greater number than they join IS, and they play a key role in fighting the group

Matthew Levitt,

Social integration. Many of the people who join the Islamic State (IS) feel like they have gone from "zero to hero" -- for them, embracing an ideology and being a part of a group as it grows is an extremely empowering experience. The large Muslim community in the Molenbeek district of Brussels has become so isolated that their children do not attend school or speak the local language; similarly, only 8 of 114 imams in the entire capital speak any of the local languages. Molenbeek is also the second-poorest municipality in the country, with the second-youngest population, high unemployment and crime rates, and a nearly 10 percent annual population turnover.

Eric Rosand,

For example, Vilvoorde, Belgium, had the highest per capita number of FTFs leaving for Iraq and Syria... several other places in Europe (e.g., Denmark and the Netherlands) have innovative community-level programs that deal with the exact same challenges Belgian authorities face in Brussels. So why aren't these programs being implemented in Molenbeek?

Finally, it is worth noting that after 9/11, Europeans endlessly reminded the United States not to let its response to the attacks overreach in regard to human rights. Now that Europe is under attack, such rhetoric has decreased significantly. The risk of overreacting is real, however, so as the EU seeks a balanced approach to the latest threats, it must be sure not to create more radicalized individuals.

--
swabian

Nobody seriously equates refugees with terrorists

Not really, read above. (Heathen Hammer's post)

If Europe (or the West in it's entirety) distributes refugees fairly (1)...i will rethink my view

It's good to hear. Well, don't say that to the fascistoid Orban. Orban he rejects the idea, "We strongly reject any quotas”, "one has the right to choose the people one accepts"

(1) So, I presume you agree with Guterres. Read the full statement,

Plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly on ... - António Guterres

...But let me make it clear that refugee flows are the result of war and terror, not its source.
Refugees are fleeing events very much like those of Paris or Beirut, happening in their home towns, every month, every week, for the past few years. And fear and rejection of refugees – especially Muslim refugees – are precisely the wrong answer to extremist threats.
This is above all a battle of values. If you lose your values you lose the battle. A Western world that would reject Muslim refugees would provide extremists the best propaganda tool they could wish for in the recruitment of new supporters, including inside the very countries that might close their borders to refugees.

Refugees should not divert the attention from the risks created by homegrown radical movements.

The chaotic movement of people from Greece through the Western Balkans and northwards is also largely the result of the absence of a united and comprehensive European response to the crises.

Since the very beginning we have been insisting on the need to put in place the required reception capacity at the points of entry, to allow for the humane and effective accommodation, assistance, registration and screening of the thousands of people arriving every day – to identify those who are in need of protection, those that should be relocated to all other countries in the Union in a fair distribution, and people who do not qualify for refugee protection and for whom effective and dignified return mechanisms have to be put in place

swabian

As for the US, i think America does have a moral obligation to take over a million or two,

As any other country, US has a moral obligation to take a fair proportion of refugees.

[riskymonk]

Saudi Arabia has one of the most advanced surveillance systems, which is doing nothing to prevent wealthy Saudis from funding terrorist groups, hence why Saudi government is "in" on it.
The regime itself is essentially worse then North Koreas, with capital punishment for homosexuality, no women's rights, de-facto slavery, etc.

That's like when people leap to the conclusion that it must be ghosts or it must be aliens or it must be God if there isn't an answer to a mystery.

We could ask how their government would benefit from attacking the U.S. Especially when the Saudi's already have powerful enemies. And then on top of that we could remind ourselves that even in Europe and North America where security is incredibly tight that there are still attacks. I understand that for every 1 attack, a thousand were prevented but there's always going to be a few that slip through.

[swabian]

If you have a choice between helping 10 good people and 1 evil person, or helping none of them, then you have a moral imperative to help all of them. I can't seriously believe anyone would disagree with me on that in any situation where Muslims are not involved.

This is an absurd construction. The decision about asylum is not a decision over life or death. Keep this in mind and think again considering and remembering what happened in Europe and how Muslims too often behave regardless of terrorism.

Yes. One person is an acceptable casualty if you are trying to help 100 people, if the majority of those 100 people are good people and not rapists or paedophiles.

Again, this is not the sinking Titanic where you have life-or-death-situations. Refusing refuge is very unlikely to result in even a few deaths, depending on how large the group of refugees is and where they come from. The likelihood to die a violent death in the whole of Syria over the last 6 years was roughly 400,000 (estimated losses)/20,000,000 (total population=23M; estimating the influence of the increasing refugee exodus with -3 million) therefore ~0.3% per year or 300 deaths per 100,000 per year (and that's only Syria, in Iraq and Afghanistan it is much less). That's about 10 times of the current murder rate in South Africa: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...early-49-a-day (Africa has 54 recognized states afaik).

Those 300 deaths per 100K per year could easily be prevented with the resources the Middle East could provide (perhaps in large parts even western Syria herself). I don't see, why we should accept considerable societal long term damage and an increasing risk of terrorist strikes, just because of that.

[Vanoi]

Why don't you provide a source disproving me. In the worst case for me, it's my formulated, perfectly plausible hypothesis vs your undifferentiated, unformulated, emotional resistance

What is there to disprove? The whole point is you haven't proven . You have provided zero evidence to support anything you have said. If it's so easy as 1+1=2 then show us the proof.

You don't have a hypothesis you have unsupported conjecture.

I'm sorry, but France, Germany, and Belgium are not the USA either. Using them as examples is simply nitpicking and not mentioning the other European countries who aren't have the same problems.

[Heathen Hammer]

If you have a choice between helping 10 good people and 1 evil person, or helping none of them, then you have a moral imperative to help all of them. I can't seriously believe anyone would disagree with me on that in any situation where Muslims are not involved. If someone gave you a grenade and told you there was a (white, Christian) rapist in a room somewhere, and you were free to throw it in there and kill him without any consequences, but the room also contained 10 other (white, Christian) innocent men, women and children, who would also die, would you do it? Of course not.

Action and lack of such a two different things.
In this context, I don't see how this is relevant, without acknowledging the fact that it is better to help refugees without settling them in Western countries.
Seizing support to terrorist groups in Syria and yanking the Saudi king's leash would have done fare more for Syrian people's welfare then importing them to geographically and socially alien society, which would only cause problems.

Yes. One person is an acceptable casualty if you are trying to help 100 people, if the majority of those 100 people are good people and not rapists or paedophiles. Which is exactly the case with migrants - we are inadvertantly accepting 100s of misogynists and terror sympathisers and sexual predators in order to help millions who are NOT any of those things.

Again, you are not helping them, you are just making Western countries worse.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that a majority of migrants are evil people.

Who cares? There is no reason to let them in, even if they were not part of rapist sexist homophobic culture.
The best way to help them is to force Gulf terrorist countries to accept them instead, since they were the ones who funded terrorists in Syria in the first place.

[Knight of Heaven]

Nobody seriously equates refugees with terrorists......

Judging from tons of posts in this thread, and others, i realy beg to differ.

[Copperknickers II]

This is an absurd construction. The decision about asylum is not a decision over life or death.

Did I say it was? Although for the record it can be in a minority of situations as I already explained to Sum.

Keep this in mind and think again considering and remembering what happened in Europe and how Muslims too often behave regardless of terrorism.

Pleae tell us, what exactly did happen in Europe? In my experience most Muslims behave perfectly well and they don't cause a major threat. Terrorism is not a major threat to European national security. They don't make newspaper articles with the headline '4000 MUSLIM migrants arrive in London, and don't commit any crime or terror attacks!', but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen every month.

Again, this is not the sinking Titanic where you have life-or-death-situations. Refusing refuge is very unlikely to result in even a few deaths, depending on how large the group of refugees is and where they come from. The likelihood to die a violent death in the whole of Syria over the last 6 years was roughly 400,000 (estimated losses)/20,000,000 (total population=23M; estimating the influence of the increasing refugee exodus with -3 million) therefore ~0.3% per year or 300 deaths per 100,000 per year (and that's only Syria, in Iraq and Afghanistan it is much less). That's about 10 times of the current murder rate in South Africa: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...early-49-a-day (Africa has 54 recognized states afaik).

Which is quite a lot of people, no? The Syrian war is a war, not a genocide, nobody disputes that most people will come out of it alive. I am disputing the fact that asylum is about saving millions of lives. It isn't. It's about helping human beings in a desparate situation and sharing the burden with our regional allies who are struggling to cope. Asylum law does not specify that only people whose lives are in danger are eligible for refugee status.

Those 300 deaths per 100K per year could easily be prevented with the resources the Middle East could provide (perhaps in large parts even western Syria herself). I don't see, why we should accept considerable societal long term damage and an increasing risk of terrorist strikes, just because of that.

Because a few extra rapes and terror attacks are not 'considerable societal long term damage', especially when weighed up against the economic advantages of accepting young immigrants into aging countries. Germany has accepted a huge number of immigrants, what I'm proposing is that we share them out. We haven't seen the same kinds of problems in the UK that have been seen in Sweden and Germany, because we have taken a sensible number of immigrants and spread them out (we could take a few more mind you). If every country took their fair share then no country would experience major problems (excepting the odd terror attack and rape which are unavoidable and acceptable).

[swabian]

What is there to disprove? The whole point is you haven't proven . You have provided zero evidence to support anything you have said. If it's so easy as 1+1=2 then show us the proof.

You don't have a hypothesis you have unsupported conjecture.

I'm sorry, but France, Germany, and Belgium are not the USA either. Using them as examples is simply nitpicking and not mentioning the other European countries who aren't have the same problems.

Berlin for example has a percentage of inhabitants who identify as religious Muslims of ~7% to 8%, in Bremen it's 10% (90% of prison inmates in Berlin are Muslims btw. and that's under german soft-ass laws).

Questions:

a) Where is a comparable example to this in any American city?
b) Why would an American city be so different from those two examples, once the percentage of Muslims reaches those levels?

It's a bit of mystery to me, why you are so defiant against the idea that the demographical, criminological and sociological phenomena wouldn't be so different in US cities at all.

You could assume that the US has a stronger capacity to integrate, i'd say the US just a bigger country and cultural groups are distributed more widely. I don't think the problems you have with black communities would come close to an American Bremen or Berlin.