Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

An election to end all elections - emails, benghazi, and dictators oh my!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by msc View Post

    Well obviously the first choice is better. Trump is pointing out the problems just as you have. He proposes to do what you say should be done. I'm not understanding why you're not favoring Trumps policies in this area?

    Than why does Trump blast precisely that policy ? :




    http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/16/...me-in-germany/
    Last edited by Voland; 09-19-2016, 01:55 AM.

    ?


    • #47
      Originally posted by Voland View Post


      Than why does Trump blast precisely that policy ? :




      http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/16/...me-in-germany/
      I'm having trouble pulling up your link. But from what I've heard Trump say:

      Trump opposes letting people wander around the US, unchecked and unregistered. That's what's happening here now. What you presented is what he wants to do, but what he opposes, when saying Germany's refugee policy is insane, I believe he's speaking about the policy you have that decides who can stay and who must go and taking in too many at one time without being able to vet the refugees as well when in such mass. And he's also saying, there should be a higher standard of who is accepted. What Trump is calling for is a more thorough and intense screening process, using more available tools, not cutting corners on the screening process to accommodate more people than we have the ability to screen properly.

      What you presented is exactly what he wants to do after the approved refugees are here. When there are less people to accommodate we can give better accommodations. Too many, then not enough to offer, which in not good for American Citizens, nor the refugees. Too many, not enough vetting. Lower screening standards, too much crime.

      Here is a story about what happens when a place has nothing to offer, but refuge, food, and water. South Africa.

      http://truthuncensored.net/liberals-...e-to-refugees/

      Here's a story in Germany. You can tell me if this is true.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...breakfast.html

      And note, I'm not saying one interpretation of the story or another is correct. I'm sure there is some slanting going on, but what I'm pointing out is that when you take in more people than you can handle, with little to offer them, it makes for unhappy asylum seekers and unhappy asylum givers.

      Economically speaking:
      For the refugee's alone, it is better to offer 1,000 a life of opportunity to prosper and be happy, then to take in 10,000 and offer a life of poverty and misery.

      And the economic harm to Americans, is a primary concern:
      updated May 28, 2015 at 3:18 PM.
      CLEVELAND, Ohio -- One in five Americans received monthly assistance from at least one of a variety of government programs throughout 2012, a report issued Thursdayby the Census Bureau says.
      The report estimated that 52.2 million Americans -- or 21.3 percent of the people in the United States -- received assistance each month during 2012.

      http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral...ive_gover.html

      We have many people in need in our country, living in poverty, jobless, and even homeless. A middle class just getting by with more hours at work and less time with their family, little time to enjoy their lives. We are in no position to offer to others when we haven't yet figured out how to help inside our own family. We have much to work on, and until our ducks are in a row, we have to stop giving to others when we aren't supporting our own. It is irresponsible, uncompassionate and a betrayal to American citizens.

      ?


      • #48
        Originally posted by msc View Post

        I'm having trouble pulling up your link. But from what I've heard Trump say:

        Trump opposes letting people wander around the US, unchecked and unregistered. That's what's happening here now. What you presented is what he wants to do, but what he opposes, when saying Germany's refugee policy is insane, I believe he's speaking about the policy you have that decides who can stay and who must go and taking in too many at one time without being able to vet the refugees as well when in such mass. And he's also saying, there should be a higher standard of who is accepted. What Trump is calling for is a more thorough and intense screening process, using more available tools, not cutting corners on the screening process to accommodate more people than we have the ability to screen properly.

        What you presented is exactly what he wants to do after the approved refugees are here. When there are less people to accommodate we can give better accommodations. Too many, then not enough to offer, which in not good for American Citizens, nor the refugees. Too many, not enough vetting. Lower screening standards, too much crime.

        Here is a story about what happens when a place has nothing to offer, but refuge, food, and water. South Africa.

        http://truthuncensored.net/liberals-...e-to-refugees/

        Here's a story in Germany. You can tell me if this is true.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...breakfast.html

        And note, I'm not saying one interpretation of the story or another is correct. I'm sure there is some slanting going on, but what I'm pointing out is that when you take in more people than you can handle, with little to offer them, it makes for unhappy asylum seekers and unhappy asylum givers.

        Economically speaking:
        For the refugee's alone, it is better to offer 1,000 a life of opportunity to prosper and be happy, then to take in 10,000 and offer a life of poverty and misery.

        And the economic harm to Americans, is a primary concern:
        updated May 28, 2015 at 3:18 PM.
        CLEVELAND, Ohio -- One in five Americans received monthly assistance from at least one of a variety of government programs throughout 2012, a report issued Thursdayby the Census Bureau says.
        The report estimated that 52.2 million Americans -- or 21.3 percent of the people in the United States -- received assistance each month during 2012.

        http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral...ive_gover.html

        We have many people in need in our country, living in poverty, jobless, and even homeless. A middle class just getting by with more hours at work and less time with their family, little time to enjoy their lives. We are in no position to offer to others when we haven't yet figured out how to help inside our own family. We have much to work on, and until our ducks are in a row, we have to stop giving to others when we aren't supporting our own. It is irresponsible, uncompassionate and a betrayal to American citizens.
        When you bring in refugees and give them a fast track to welfare, you are burdening a welfare system that is already insufficient for our own people. There are not enough FBI agents to watch who you bring in, and then these people can slip through the cracks. We cannot afford what our gov't is doing, and we cannot afford the risk either. But we just borrow and borrow to finance this stuff. The stupidity and irresponsibility here should not be put up with, and yet we keep putting these idiots in office. Or the democratic voters and enough independents keep doing this, which shows just how irresponsible so many americans are. We will not do a house cleaning because of a mental incoherence. The people give congress a single digit approval rating, but then they like their own senator or representative and vote them back in. It is the others ones from other states they do not like. LOL. Our brains are putting our bodies at risk.

        ?


        • #49
          Originally posted by msc View Post

          I'm having trouble pulling up your link. But from what I've heard Trump say:

          Trump opposes letting people wander around the US, unchecked and unregistered. That's what's happening here now. What you presented is what he wants to do, but what he opposes, when saying Germany's refugee policy is insane, I believe he's speaking about the policy you have that decides who can stay and who must go and taking in too many at one time without being able to vet the refugees as well when in such mass. And he's also saying, there should be a higher standard of who is accepted. What Trump is calling for is a more thorough and intense screening process, using more available tools, not cutting corners on the screening process to accommodate more people than we have the ability to screen properly.

          What you presented is exactly what he wants to do after the approved refugees are here. When there are less people to accommodate we can give better accommodations. Too many, then not enough to offer, which in not good for American Citizens, nor the refugees. Too many, not enough vetting. Lower screening standards, too much crime.

          Here is a story about what happens when a place has nothing to offer, but refuge, food, and water. South Africa.

          http://truthuncensored.net/liberals-...e-to-refugees/

          Here's a story in Germany. You can tell me if this is true.

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...breakfast.html

          And note, I'm not saying one interpretation of the story or another is correct. I'm sure there is some slanting going on, but what I'm pointing out is that when you take in more people than you can handle, with little to offer them, it makes for unhappy asylum seekers and unhappy asylum givers.

          Economically speaking:
          For the refugee's alone, it is better to offer 1,000 a life of opportunity to prosper and be happy, then to take in 10,000 and offer a life of poverty and misery.

          And the economic harm to Americans, is a primary concern:
          updated May 28, 2015 at 3:18 PM.
          CLEVELAND, Ohio -- One in five Americans received monthly assistance from at least one of a variety of government programs throughout 2012, a report issued Thursdayby the Census Bureau says.
          The report estimated that 52.2 million Americans -- or 21.3 percent of the people in the United States -- received assistance each month during 2012.

          http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral...ive_gover.html

          We have many people in need in our country, living in poverty, jobless, and even homeless. A middle class just getting by with more hours at work and less time with their family, little time to enjoy their lives. We are in no position to offer to others when we haven't yet figured out how to help inside our own family. We have much to work on, and until our ducks are in a row, we have to stop giving to others when we aren't supporting our own. It is irresponsible, uncompassionate and a betrayal to American citizens.





          You are not seriously comparing Germany and South Africa ?
          Anyway, explicitly calling someone and/or someones policy"insane", implies having a better idea. So what would have been the better plan ? Ignoring refugee movements in/to Europe ? Telling the countries most affected to get stuffed ? Since chaos spilling over would have been no big deal ? Or pushing people back ? Where ? To Syria ? I hope you are kidding. It is very easy to give unwanted lectures when you dont have to bother about the small details on the ground.
          By late summer 2015 it was TOO LATE for academic debates how many refugees would have been desirable/could have been easily absorbed, even if certain people safely isolated by an ocean chose to ignore that (along with their own responsibility for the mess in Syria/Iraq).
          Greece ( that was always a mess and obviously incapable of dealing with the influx) was creaking and pleading for help and Hungary declared the state of emergency and brought the miitary to the streets and the borders. The same in several countries on the Balcans that had been at each others throat not too long ago. The situation was on the brink of getting out of control when Germany, along with a group of smaller nations like Austria, Luxembourg and Sweden, decided to let the refugees come to leave pressure out of the pot. Since they considered themselves to be more capable of sorting the situation out than the sout/southeastern countries, repatriation (to Syria ?) was not an option nor keeping such numbers where they were. Such a situation is commonly called an emergency. That is very easily documentable and has already been documented on here.
          Obviously : Germany has a dynamic economy with a chronic lack of workers, a budget in the black and many refugees are of schooling and training age. Germany has furthermore experience in managing refugee streams. 15 Million were resettled after WW II under far worse circumstances. Before and after 1990 there were millions of refugees from the East and in the mid-1990s similar numbers than today came from Yugoslavia.
          And still we didnt volunteer to take so many, we took so many because others ( yes, including the US) took so few. Our city of around 100 000 people had to take around 3500 refugees alone. Church communities, sports associations, all kinds of private volunteers companies, university and school students, pensioneers etc. were helping together and we practically we know few people, independent of political affiliation who havent or dont volunteer. Like making shelters winterproof, like offering language lessons, like counselling people on bureaucracy, or like inviting people to join associations or sports teams. You will find few volunteers that are enthusiastic and wouldnt prefer if these people were living happily in the Middle East. But under the circumstances they do what needs to be done, since without their engagement the situation would be far worse. They consider it the pragmatic thing to do. ( actually it works reasonably well here with the refugees).
          An unclear number of these people will try to make Germany their home, but it is not as easy as Trump appears to claim.
          For starters, refugees are not the same to us as immigrants :

          a) refugees get a short-term, temporary visa issued for humanitarian reasons. They recieve protection, medical care, their children are sent to school and they can ( within limits and according to their recognized qualifications) also seek work, yet their stay is TEMPORARY ( and usually linked to the situation in their homecountry. If that is considered safe enough, they are requested to leave). Refugees can apply for a regular residency visa , yet they have to match the conditions. These are ( at least and non-negotiatable) : Passing an advanced language and culture exam, having a clean criminal record (actually criminal refugees get deported very easily) having a job or confirmation of getting a job that pays enough not to rely on welfare and/or beeing enrolled in schooling/training/studying that with reasonable likelihood leads to a permanent job. If these conditions are not met or authorities have other doubts about a candidate (security f.e.) they can refuse a residency visa. In the case of the yugoslavian refugees the recognition quota was about 70 % (no), 30 % (yes). Former Yugoslavs have been causing very little problems ever since, yet those given permission to stay beyond asylum were usually the productive, educated, enterprising and multilingual ones.

          b) Even EU citizens have to document a job and/or the means to sustain themselves. When my (italian) wife was moving to Germany and registered with authorities she was asked for a copy of her job contract as well. For benefits there is a minimum of no less than 3/4 years of working and paying tax. Applications not matching that criteria will be rejected. By law. And relying ( or likely relying) on welfare without having paid into the system before is a valid reason to deny you residency.
          Non EU citizens have to match far tougher criteria to recieve a nod to stay and to work ( including "screening"), often documentation of language skills, always documentation of financial means means and obviously already an employer willing to cut through the bureaucratic jungle to hire a non EU citizen ( which may not be easy and wont be done without valid reason).
          Additionally we have mandatory ID, that means noone walks around here for longer periods undocumented.
          But that is at least partially another issue.


          If you need a link for any of this, no problem, but you find them also in other threads.


          Lastly :

          The illegal problem, the shrinking of the american middle class, and the dysfunctional american welfare system ( partially because based on false incentives) are understood, but these are home-made problems that have to solved at home. Solutions would exist, yet you would have to implement them.
          The refugee crisis is arguably the biggest humanitarian desaster of our time in this part of the world and the US had a big hand in causing it ( from the invasion of Iraq till regime change in Libya or Obamas botched engagement in Syria. By applying your logic we could confidently declare : " Sorry guys, we opposed smashing Iraq, we saw no logic in toppling Ghaddafi without plan and we were against overthrowing Assad using a bunch of remote-controlled bearded guys. Your misery is thus none of our concern. Try swimming to the US if you can, because we also have our own problems."
          And then what ?
          At the very least Americans should be very careful with self-righteous lectures for a while ( yes, Trump-style) about "muslim immigration" and all that. Noone has invited these people, we took them because not taking them was considered potentially more dangerous under the circumstances. Or about "responsibility" ( no, the US are not exactly making the impression of taking any responsibiltiy for this desaster). But that is the price for bombing countries on the other side of the world.
          By the way : The countries housing by far the most syrian refugees are not in Europe. They are regional neighbours, such as Lebanon, Jordan or Turkey :

          http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php


          The US pushing for regime change in Syria and then walking away from the wars humanitarian consequences is endangering quite a bit more than stability in southeastern Europe.
          Last edited by Voland; 09-22-2016, 03:47 AM.

          ?


          • #50
            Originally posted by Voland View Post






            You are not seriously comparing Germany and South Africa ?
            Anyway, explicitly calling someone and/or someones policy"insane", implies having a better idea. So what would have been the better plan ? Ignoring refugee movements in/to Europe ? Telling the countries most affected to get stuffed ? Since chaos spilling over would have been no big deal ? Or pushing people back ? Where ? To Syria ? I hope you are kidding. It is very easy to give unwanted lectures when you dont have to bother about the small details on the ground.
            By late summer 2015 it was TOO LATE for academic debates how many refugees would have been desirable/could have been easily absorbed, even if certain people safely isolated by an ocean chose to ignore that (along with their own responsibility for the mess in Syria/Iraq).
            Greece ( that was always a mess and obviously incapable of dealing with the influx) was creaking and pleading for help and Hungary declared the state of emergency and brought the miitary to the streets and the borders. The same in several countries on the Balcans that had been at each others throat not too long ago. The situation was on the brink of getting out of control when Germany, along with a group of smaller nations like Austria, Luxembourg and Sweden, decided to let the refugees come to leave pressure out of the pot. Since they considered themselves to be more capable of sorting the situation out than the sout/southeastern countries, repatriation (to Syria ?) was not an option nor keeping such numbers where they were. Such a situation is commonly called an emergency. That is very easily documentable and has already been documented on here.
            Obviously : Germany has a dynamic economy with a chronic lack of workers, a budget in the black and many refugees are of schooling and training age. Germany has furthermore experience in managing refugee streams. 15 Million were resettled after WW II under far worse circumstances. Before and after 1990 there were millions of refugees from the East and in the mid-1990s similar numbers than today came from Yugoslavia.
            And still we didnt volunteer to take so many, we took so many because others ( yes, including the US) took so few. Our city of around 100 000 people had to take around 3500 refugees alone. Church communities, sports associations, all kinds of private volunteers companies, university and school students, pensioneers etc. were helping together and we practically we know few people, independent of political affiliation who havent or dont volunteer. Like making shelters winterproof, like offering language lessons, like counselling people on bureaucracy, or like inviting people to join associations or sports teams. You will find few volunteers that are enthusiastic and wouldnt prefer if these people were living happily in the Middle East. But under the circumstances they do what needs to be done, since without their engagement the situation would be far worse. They consider it the pragmatic thing to do. ( actually it works reasonably well here with the refugees).
            An unclear number of these people will try to make Germany their home, but it is not as easy as Trump appears to claim.
            For starters, refugees are not the same to us as immigrants :

            a) refugees get a short-term, temporary visa issued for humanitarian reasons. They recieve protection, medical care, their children are sent to school and they can ( within limits and according to their recognized qualifications) also seek work, yet their stay is TEMPORARY ( and usually linked to the situation in their homecountry. If that is considered safe enough, they are requested to leave). Refugees can apply for a regular residency visa , yet they have to match the conditions. These are ( at least and non-negotiatable) : Passing an advanced language and culture exam, having a clean criminal record (actually criminal refugees get deported very easily) having a job or confirmation of getting a job that pays enough not to rely on welfare and/or beeing enrolled in schooling/training/studying that with reasonable likelihood leads to a permanent job. If these conditions are not met or authorities have other doubts about a candidate (security f.e.) they can refuse a residency visa. In the case of the yugoslavian refugees the recognition quota was about 70 % (no), 30 % (yes). Former Yugoslavs have been causing very little problems ever since, yet those given permission to stay beyond asylum were usually the productive, educated, enterprising and multilingual ones.

            b) Even EU citizens have to document a job and/or the means to sustain themselves. When my (italian) wife was moving to Germany and registered with authorities she was asked for a copy of her job contract as well. For benefits there is a minimum of no less than 3/4 years of working and paying tax. Applications not matching that criteria will be rejected. By law. And relying ( or likely relying) on welfare without having paid into the system before is a valid reason to deny you residency.
            Non EU citizens have to match far tougher criteria to recieve a nod to stay and to work ( including "screening"), often documentation of language skills, always documentation of financial means means and obviously already an employer willing to cut through the bureaucratic jungle to hire a non EU citizen ( which may not be easy and wont be done without valid reason).
            Additionally we have mandatory ID, that means noone walks around here for longer periods undocumented.
            But that is at least partially another issue.


            If you need a link for any of this, no problem, but you find them also in other threads.


            Lastly :

            The illegal problem, the shrinking of the american middle class, and the dysfunctional american welfare system ( partially because based on false incentives) are understood, but these are home-made problems that have to solved at home. Solutions would exist, yet you would have to implement them.
            The refugee crisis is arguably the biggest humanitarian desaster of our time in this part of the world and the US had a big hand in causing it ( from the invasion of Iraq till regime change in Libya or Obamas botched engagement in Syria. By applying your logic we could confidently declare : " Sorry guys, we opposed smashing Iraq, we saw no logic in toppling Ghaddafi without plan and we were against overthrowing Assad using a bunch of remote-controlled bearded guys. Your misery is thus none of our concern. Try swimming to the US if you can, because we also have our own problems."
            And then what ?
            At the very least Americans should be very careful with self-righteous lectures for a while ( yes, Trump-style) about "muslim immigration" and all that. Noone has invited these people, we took them because not taking them was considered potentially more dangerous under the circumstances. Or about "responsibility" ( no, the US are not exactly making the impression of taking any responsibiltiy for this desaster). But that is the price for bombing countries on the other side of the world.
            By the way : The countries housing by far the most syrian refugees are not in Europe. They are regional neighbours, such as Lebanon, Jordan or Turkey :

            http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php


            The US pushing for regime change in Syria and then walking away from the wars humanitarian consequences is endangering quite a bit more than stability in southeastern Europe.
            You're ignoring everything I said.

            First, I am not comparing Germany to South Africa. That's not what you should have gotten out of what I posted. I explained that I was pointing out the harm when too many people are offered too little opposed to fewer people being offer sufficiently more.

            Second, Trump has voiced his opposition to going into Iraq, Libya, and all wars that weren't for the protection and defense of America. This was long before he became a candidate. Trump is representing the citizens of this country specifically in this case regarding foreign policy. Trumps foreign policy represents what America is about. His voice, desires, and policy is in line with a gov't that does not create problems elsewhere and is not responsible to provide refuge for anyone outside American. Taking in refugees is not opposed, but when taking them in, it would be a gift of compassion, a personal commitment to our sense of humanity. Not a responsibility because we took part in.

            Now I understand what you're saying that the fact is that America did take part in it. So we do have responsibility in your eyes. But if you view the situation in the eyes of Americans, many of us, I'd even say most of us do not see our gov't as representing America. We see it as a regime that has enslaved our citizens, redistributing our rights among us against our will, and negating our God given rights. We see our gov't as a country within itself. A country that America too wants to fight against. We are in fact at the beginnings of a civil war within, that wants to overthrow the regime that has done wrong by the world and America, and return our gov't to the American people who are the big brother and not the irresponsible parents. Your gripe is with the "US gov't country". Not America. We/Americans are good. We Americans did not cause problems. We are captives that do not hold ourselves responsible and don't want to pay for the actions of our captors. (Those who force our people into war and treat us like tools to maintain their regime).

            Note: 1. My point is to give you insight how many of us see the situation from the perspective of Americans.
            2. I am not speaking for ALL Americans. Though I do believe those who I am not speaking for are those who have been deceived, manipulated and conditioned by our captors.
            3. I am not saying the Iraq was a wrong decision. Many supported it because we believed they had WMD that would threaten America and the world. I'm not confident that they did not have them but were hidden and not found. Though I'm not confident that they had them, and it was a mistake. And I'm not confident that it was a mistake or intentional deceit by Bush to settle a score for his father, (unwanted by his father) or for the oil. If it was deceit, don't know if others deceived Bush, or if Bush deceived congress, or if congress knew and deceived the public as well. Regardless of whether it was an intentional wrong by our gov't or a mistake, Americans supported it in good will. But we should take responsibility for the mistake, which I believe taking responsibility would have been staying in Iraq and assisting the people in safety and reorganization for the good of the people in Iraq and by assisting in what they want and need, not what we want or need and think is best for us.

            Our current gov't which falsely represents America, has involved themselves in creating issues. Instead of being the big brother and helping only when asked and needed, our gov't has behaved like parents, with distorted interest, who think they know best.

            The Most important Note is:
            We, America, blames them, "'The US gov't country" for some, (not ALL) things done wrong. Though we love and respect our older governments that represented America. We do not blame them as separate and do not consider them captors. America has been more positive than negative for the world. We made some mistakes. We do not release ourselves from the responsibility for mistakes, but overall, we have been a country of positive affect throughout the world with people who love and admire all who have fought and died to protect the freedoms of this wonderful amazing country designed to our liking, with the moral compass in favor of humanity.

            Today is different from yesterday.

            ?


            • #51
              Originally posted by msc View Post

              You're ignoring everything I said.

              First, I am not comparing Germany to South Africa. That's not what you should have gotten out of what I posted. I explained that I was pointing out the harm when too many people are offered too little opposed to fewer people being offer sufficiently more.

              Second, Trump has voiced his opposition to going into Iraq, Libya, and all wars that weren't for the protection and defense of America. This was long before he became a candidate. Trump is representing the citizens of this country specifically in this case regarding foreign policy. Trumps foreign policy represents what America is about. His voice, desires, and policy is in line with a gov't that does not create problems elsewhere and is not responsible to provide refuge for anyone outside American. Taking in refugees is not opposed, but when taking them in, it would be a gift of compassion, a personal commitment to our sense of humanity. Not a responsibility because we took part in.

              Now I understand what you're saying that the fact is that America did take part in it. So we do have responsibility in your eyes. But if you view the situation in the eyes of Americans, many of us, I'd even say most of us do not see our gov't as representing America. We see it as a regime that has enslaved our citizens, redistributing our rights among us against our will, and negating our God given rights. We see our gov't as a country within itself. A country that America too wants to fight against. We are in fact at the beginnings of a civil war within, that wants to overthrow the regime that has done wrong by the world and America, and return our gov't to the American people who are the big brother and not the irresponsible parents. Your gripe is with the "US gov't country". Not America. We/Americans are good. We Americans did not cause problems. We are captives that do not hold ourselves responsible and don't want to pay for the actions of our captors. (Those who force our people into war and treat us like tools to maintain their regime).

              Note: 1. My point is to give you insight how many of us see the situation from the perspective of Americans.
              2. I am not speaking for ALL Americans. Though I do believe those who I am not speaking for are those who have been deceived, manipulated and conditioned by our captors.
              3. I am not saying the Iraq was a wrong decision. Many supported it because we believed they had WMD that would threaten America and the world. I'm not confident that they did not have them but were hidden and not found. Though I'm not confident that they had them, and it was a mistake. And I'm not confident that it was a mistake or intentional deceit by Bush to settle a score for his father, (unwanted by his father) or for the oil. If it was deceit, don't know if others deceived Bush, or if Bush deceived congress, or if congress knew and deceived the public as well. Regardless of whether it was an intentional wrong by our gov't or a mistake, Americans supported it in good will. But we should take responsibility for the mistake, which I believe taking responsibility would have been staying in Iraq and assisting the people in safety and reorganization for the good of the people in Iraq and by assisting in what they want and need, not what we want or need and think is best for us.

              Our current gov't which falsely represents America, has involved themselves in creating issues. Instead of being the big brother and helping only when asked and needed, our gov't has behaved like parents, with distorted interest, who think they know best.

              The Most important Note is:
              We, America, blames them, "'The US gov't country" for some, (not ALL) things done wrong. Though we love and respect our older governments that represented America. We do not blame them as separate and do not consider them captors. America has been more positive than negative for the world. We made some mistakes. We do not release ourselves from the responsibility for mistakes, but overall, we have been a country of positive affect throughout the world with people who love and admire all who have fought and died to protect the freedoms of this wonderful amazing country designed to our liking, with the moral compass in favor of humanity.

              Today is different from yesterday.

              Oh, I am getting quite well what you say.
              Probably most importantly that you are sidestepping the most important question ( Which is no surprise, Trump does it as well) : What would been the grand alternative strategy to the one we chose last year ? What should have been done instead ? Calling someone "insane" and a couple of other things implies having an idea, right ?
              To be clear : I am all for managing immigration, flexible quotas, points system, screening of candidates and all that. I am completely on board with linking residency to demonstratable integration, I expect immigrants to learn the language and at least respect the culture of their host country and I completely support running the welfare state on a contributions base to discourage benefit tourism. I also think that the reception country needs to create the opportunities and the encouragement for immigrants to join society as productive members and that if properly managed, it can be a good deal for both sides. I am also for granting asylum to those most in need ( like the Yazidi from Iraq). But none of these categories applies here. ( and that is what you keep ignoring).
              The moment to discuss all that HAD PASSED in September last year.
              We had to act in a moment of emergency as outlined several times before. Greece tumbling, Hungary in national state of emergency with military on the streets, and the Balcans in chaos. We could have also chosen not to act of course. That would have sent a couple of countries in chaos, it would have led to breakdowns of economic activity that would hardly have been limited to the region and it would have meant to let refugee streams wander around Europe without registration, documentation or care (If noone had taken them......) At least.
              That mistakes were made, that none of the options on the table was perfect or without risks and that OF COURSE the arrival of so many people creates mighty problems of its own ----well, who would have thought ? Yet as always it is obviously easier to shout loud from the sidelines than to actually take ownership of a problem (Trump is an example).
              As far as Americans and responsibility for governement actions is concerned : Beeing a holder of a certain passport can have advantages and disadvantages. Few greek citizens have had any personal role in the creation of the national debt, yet all have to contribute to paying it down. Few Germans alive have had any personal role under Naziism, yet most Germans will be able to tell about the Nazi past beeing hurled at them ( not to mention payment claims from a time long before their births). And most Germans ( including governements past and present) have even categorically opposed the USs interventions in the Near East, yet we are still getting the refugees. Yet the parties at least broadly in favour represent between 80% and 90 % of the electorate. Which is not a question of enthusiasm, but the understanding that maintaining stability on the european mainland is in our national interest. Wether we like the price tag coming with that realization or not (for each citizen).
              Also for the US there will be a price tag, even if you continue to evade responsibility for the refugee crisis. The price is how you want your country to behave and to be seen on the world stage. As a "moral compass" ? Hardly. Americas behaviour towards the people fleeing the wars in Syria, Iraq or Libya and towards those Allies that are at least cleaning up a part of the mess has nothing, sod all to do with morality. Look : I am not claiming that for us morals would beat realpolitik either. But we are at least trying to solve a problem constructively. That may also fail, but it is better than not even trying.



              ?


              • #52
                Originally posted by Voland View Post


                Oh, I am getting quite well what you say.
                Probably most importantly that you are sidestepping the most important question ( Which is no surprise, Trump does it as well) : What would been the grand alternative strategy to the one we chose last year ? What should have been done instead ? Calling someone "insane" and a couple of other things implies having an idea, right ?
                Wasn't side stepping, thought it was obvious.

                Here is what is insane about your refugee policy: You didn't balance who you took in properly. You took in more and too many Men. An overwhelmingly unbalanced amount of single fighting age men. You should have focused on giving asylum to women and children and the fathers of their families. The elderly. Then perhaps screen more intensely to offer a miniscule amount of single men refuge that were not felt to be able to defend themselves and their own country. Not men that WILL not, but men who CAN not. And take in some who are deemed necessary to support the refugee community.

                Unaccompanied minors, you can't use the European standard of 18yrs. old. For females, yes 18. For males, NO. The mentality of teenage boys coming from many of these countries does not coincide with the mentality and rearing of European teenagers. Males above the age of 14 should not be considered minors.

                Sure even if you did it right, you'll still get a few bad eggs, but you wouldn't be experiencing the level of rape and violence, that you're getting from refugees. And I don't care if you say that the violence is small in comparison to overall crime. If 1 thousand less women were raped, because of a smarter refugee policy, it's worth it.

                So if you did it right, you could have still offered refuge to people. And with this more logical policy you would probably need even more time for screening, which means perhaps you'd only take in 600,000. But the point is that doing it right comes first. You do it right, then take in as many as you can while doing it right. Whatever the number ends up being. You don't sacrifice the safety of your citizens to meet a quota. That's insane.

                https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7...migrant-crisis
                Last edited by msc; 09-23-2016, 05:01 AM.

                ?


                • #53
                  Originally posted by msc View Post
                  Wasn't side stepping, thought it was obvious.

                  Here is what is insane about your refugee policy: You didn't balance who you took in properly. You took in more and too many Men. An overwhelmingly unbalanced amount of single fighting age men. You should have focused on giving asylum to women and children and the fathers of their families. The elderly. Then perhaps screen more intensely to offer a miniscule amount of single men refuge that were not felt to be able to defend themselves and their own country. Not men that WILL not, but men who CAN not. And take in some who are deemed necessary to support the refugee community.

                  Unaccompanied minors, you can't use the European standard of 18yrs. old. For females, yes 18. For males, NO. The mentality of teenage boys coming from many of these countries does not coincide with the mentality and rearing of European teenagers. Males above the age of 14 should not be considered minors.

                  Sure even if you did it right, you'll still get a few bad eggs, but you wouldn't be experiencing the level of rape and violence, that you're getting from refugees. And I don't care if you say that the violence is small in comparison to overall crime. If 1 thousand less women were raped, because of a smarter refugee policy, it's worth it.

                  So if you did it right, you could have still offered refuge to people. And with this more logical policy you would probably need even more time for screening, which means perhaps you'd only take in 600,000. But the point is that doing it right comes first. You do it right, then take in as many as you can while doing it right. Whatever the number ends up being. You don't sacrifice the safety of your citizens to meet a quota. That's insane.

                  https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7...migrant-crisis



                  Well, you evidently dont know what you are talking about. But nevermind and once again :
                  The decision to let the refugees come was taken on September 4th, 2015. First by train from Hungary, later also directly via Austria, again later came also direct airlifts from places such as Greece and a number of especially vulnerable people taken directly from camps in the Near East. By 5th of September, municipalities all over the country were ordered to create emergency accomodation space in sports halls, conference centers etc., by the end of the year the number had reached around 1,2 million ( 2016 will add some more to that).
                  It is not even necessary to frame or discuss this as a moral issue to understand its realpolitikal motivations :
                  A humanitarian catastrophy ( which is no exaggeration) was ( and is) simmering on our doorstep, due to the people made homeless by the wars in the Near East trying to reach Europe and safety. The US may believe they can ignore that, we cant, because we live on an interconnected continent NOT isolated by an ocean. The trip from Turkey over to Greece requires a rubber boat and in some case can be done swimming. And last summer hundreds of thousands arrived on the greek Islands, sometimes tens of thousands per day. In a situation like that, you dont impose an arbitrary quota and otherwise look the other way. The trip across the open Mediterranean in nutshells is far more dangerous but in places such as Libya there are evidently countless people desperate enough. The italian coastguard has fished far more than 100 000 boat people out of the water this year and before winter more are expected. Most of them will try to head north.
                  Greece on the edge, tensions rising in the Balcans, Hungary mobilizing the military because police was overwhelmed, the Schengen zone of free travel in real danger of imploding was a part of the backround when Germany decided that it would be taking the task on itself, to avoid greater disruptions. Merkel (correctly) concluded that hers was the only country capable of leading an emergency effort that imposes orderly conditions in the refugee crisis. Financially, administratively, logistically, based on its thriving labour market and past experience. By taking the vast majority of refugees into Germany Merkel acknowledged Germanys interest in maintaining stable conditions in Europe. For its own political and economical sake by taking steps to secure its political and economical direct environment. And to a degree pushed into the position of having to take leadership as the most populous and biggest european economy ( that arguably also has the most to loose if things go really badly in Europe).
                  At the same time Germany has been tirelessly working on EU wide refugee distribution schemes, and EU wide border protection, has drawn up lists of "safe countries" of origin, whose citizens will be denied asylum, has pushed for the creation of "hotspot" camps on the EUs periphery, where refugees can apply for asylum in the EU without picking and choosing their country of destination and has signed a handful of deals also with questionable governements on taking back rejected asylum seekers.
                  But Trump might not tell you that, it is far more fun to shout from the sidelines, right ? Not to mention and not for the first time that a refugee visa is a TEMPORARY one. It is up to refugees themselves to apply for residency, and to get residency requires a few conditions (language, job, education etc.) a criminal record is pretty much a guarantee for a ticket home :


                  https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ugees-migrants



                  By the way : The claim that refugees were almost all young men is an often debunked lie, but if you insist :


                  https://www.theguardian.com/public-l...vice-president

                  Quote : / By January 2016, UN figures showed women and children accounted for 55% of those reaching Greece to seek asylum in the EU.


                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusra_Mardini


                  http://www.dw.com/en/syrian-refugee-...any/a-19445977


                  As far as the flood of "rape" stories in anglophone media is concerned : Looking closer many of these stories are taken out of context, not properly sourced, mistranslated or simply made up :


                  http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/hoax...gees-1.3444503


                  http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/01/eu...nt-rape-false/


                  It is crucially important to put issues in perspective, without blindness, but also without hysteria :



                  http://www.dw.com/en/germany-has-bec...fer/a-19444826


                  Quote : / Of course, not all immigrants are angels. Among refugees, and would-be refugees, there are also criminals. According to figures from the German Federal Criminal Office, last year 84,000 asylum seekers fell under suspicion of crimes other than migration law violations. But a look at the figures from 1993 takes some of the drama out of this number. At that time there were 160,000 asylum seekers under suspicion - almost twice as many.

                  The number of suspects has been growing at a lower rate than the number of asylum applicants. And most cases are petty crimes like shoplifting, which accounted for 39 percent, and fare dodging at 18 percent. Rape and sexual assault made up only 0.5 percent of cases.

                  Pfeiffer says he does not intend to downplay crimes with his facts and figures, but wants to keep the debate rational. When it comes to migrants, he acknowledges that the young men from Syria and Iraq have grown up in a culture shaped by male dominance. But, he says, that was also the case with Turks and Yugoslavs.

                  Pfeiffer says he hopes for a process of cultural learning. "But that very much depends on making these people part of our society, so that they do not remain isolated."

                  Pfeiffer says the risk of increased criminality is especially acute in young men from the Arab world, including "safe" countries in North Africa, who have no likelihood of gaining residency in Germany and therefore nothing to lose. The number of these "migration losers," he said, must be kept as small as possible and "an effort must be made to ensure that they return to their countries, either voluntarily or by expulsion.".....It's a finding Ulf Kch would probably agree with. As head of criminal investigation in the western German city of Braunschweig, he deals with criminals every day, including foreigners, and refugees in particular. Kch is the head of criminal investigation in Braunschweig. Kch draws particular attention to two groups of offenders: "There are those who come from Eastern Europe and people who are from the Maghreb. They are not part of the group of people who arrived last year with the influx of refugees," he said.

                  Last edited by Voland; 09-27-2016, 05:40 AM.

                  ?

                  Working...
                  X