Immigration What should Europeans do with illegal immigrants?

If manifestations about an authoritarian governement happend, do you directly call them biased because they dont like the governement ?
 
Check your biases, privilege pig.
 
I'm actually so biased in so much topic that i deserve to be lock in peter and paul fortress.
 
Swiss fat cat with your horded Rosicrucian gold. I could survive a week off the calories you expend on two whole minutes of chauvinism.
 
I had to google Rosicrucian but yeah i'm like at 3500 kcal per day, living the good life you know. My clothes have 7 years, but food is more important. And please i'm R-L2 my ancestors could be swiss between millenia, it's legitimate chauvinism.
 
Sorry, sometimes I can barely talk through all this privilege and sarcasm.
 
With the above option of "Shoot them when crossing illegally to deter future immigrants." Chosen by four members so far... here is a pertinent article from Chris Hedges, a former writer of the Christian Science Monitor, NPR, Dallas Morning News, and The New York Times.

The Campaign to Exterminate Muslims

By Chris Hedges

April 19, 2018 "Information Clearing House" - The Israeli army’s wanton slaughter of unarmed Palestinians trapped behind the security barriers in Gaza evokes little outrage and condemnation within the United States because we have been indoctrinated into dehumanizing Muslims. Islam is condemned as barbaric and equated with terrorism. The resistance struggle against foreign occupation, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq or Gaza, sees Muslims demonized as the enemy. Muslims are branded as irrational and inclined to violence and terrorism by their religious beliefs. We attack them not for what they do but because we see them as being different from us. We must eradicate them to save ourselves. And thus we perpetuate the very hatred and counterviolence, or terrorism, that we fear.

...

The Israeli massacre of Palestinians is a prelude to a dystopian, neocolonial world where global elites, hoarding wealth and controlling the mechanisms of power, increasingly resort to widespread bloodshed to keep the oppressed at bay. What Israel is doing to Palestinians—impoverished and trapped without adequate food, water and medicine in the open-air prison that is Gaza, a strip of land subject to repeated murderous assaults by the Israeli war machine—will be done to desperate climate refugees and citizens who rise up to protest the pillage by global oligarchs. Those who resist will be as dehumanized as Muslims. They too will be branded as terrorists. The global elites have a plan for the future. It is visible in the killing fields of Gaza.
Click to expand...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/49253.htm
 
Migrants come from Europe too, Poland, for example. Now that Britain is out of the European Union, I don't know that the status of migrants has been worked out. I'm frankly surprised at the attitude toward Polish migrants among "native" Brits.

I first became aware of it when I was watching a panel discussion among women whom I could tell from other topics are typical British leftists. The conversation turned to a store policy by a large chain that employees were prohibited from answering questions in another language, and the example they gave was Polish. It's all very well and good to say immigrants have to learn the host country language, in this case English. However, the store directive seemed to be that a store employee serving someone who couldn't speak English couldn't help the person with the purchase in the person's native language even if they happened to know it. They'd forego the business over this? Then someone clarified that you could help them with the purchase if you happened to know the language but couldn't engage in further conversation in that language.

I was flabbergasted, to be honest, because all but one of the panelists thought that was perfectly ok.

Then I saw the following video. I don't get why they seem to be singling out Poles, unless it's just that there are more of them and they live near one another, so they're really visible.

 
till Brexit the Polish were not illegal in Britain because they are EU citizens
now their position is unclear, as the rules after Brexit are not made up yet
afaik they don't live in ghettos and they are filling in the jobs the Brits won't take themselves
as opposed to part of the Pakistani living in ghettos were they impose their rules and habbits
so, I don't understand the attitude of the Brits

the only thing is that the pro-Brexit campaigners stressed that Britain should decide itself over its immigration
and they were blackening the Polish as they would be taking away jobs

I would prefer some hardworking immigrants over some others who bring over all their family to live on welfare
 
Angela said:
Migrants come from Europe too, Poland, for example. Now that Britain is out of the European Union, I don't know that the status of migrants has been worked out. I'm frankly surprised at the attitude toward Polish migrants among "native" Brits.

I first became aware of it when I was watching a panel discussion among women whom I could tell from other topics are typical British leftists. The conversation turned to a store policy by a large chain that employees were prohibited from answering questions in another language, and the example they gave was Polish. It's all very well and good to say immigrants have to learn the host country language, in this case English. However, the store directive seemed to be that a store employee serving someone who couldn't speak English couldn't help the person with the purchase in the person's native language even if they happened to know it. They'd forego the business over this? Then someone clarified that you could help them with the purchase if you happened to know the language but couldn't engage in further conversation in that language.

I was flabbergasted, to be honest, because all but one of the panelists thought that was perfectly ok.

Then I saw the following video. I don't get why they seem to be singling out Poles, unless it's just that there are more of them and they live near one another, so they're really visible.

Click to expand...

My wife is Ukrainian (outside of EU, "similar to Poles"), and there is a similar trend in Continental Europe. Bringing her to become a EU citizen (we are married, and we have a child born here) was an odyssey. The "legal process" is just a nightmare, I could write a book on it. It is extremely long, very expensive, it is not transparent (even hiring lawyers specialized on the issue, as I did; the whole process is based on arbitrariness left to civil servants), and designed to be extremely negative towards foreigners.

Instead, immigrants coming from other countries (generally, dominated by young males, of Muslim religion) have a free pass. They do not need to accomplish anything, the process is for free, fast, and they get resources (money, apartments) from the State.

I went to see these organizations that help this people, and I asked for the same, for my wife and my mother-in-law. I recall very vividly that all the people working there, they had a "rigidity moment" when they understood what I was asking: that a woman, white skin and non-brown eyes, of Orthodox religion, should have the same treatment and help than a man, dark skin, of Muslim religion. After a few seconds of not knowing what to say, they smiled and they left away from me, telling me politely to go away. This happened not only once, but a few times (I tried with several organizations).

I guess some social scientist could try to explain what is going on. Personally, I feel completely discriminated for the color of skin and origin of my wife, since I see people are treated differently (not by individuals, but by State representatives) depending on their origin and color of skin.

I lived in the UK, and my feeling here (but I could be wrong) is that it is OK to discriminate publicly people of white skin and Christian religion (Poles) but not people of dark skin and Muslim religion. As a consequence, people who are against immigrants in general, they speak badly about Polish, because this is OK in public opinion; instead, if they spoke badly of dark-skinned people, they would be boo-ed, and even maybe they could lose their jobs and go to jail.

In Europe, there is a clear discrimination, and this discrimination is towards poor citizens of Christian origin and white skin.

In my opinion, there should not be "illegal immigrants", all people should be allowed to immigrate. I find distressing that some people are not allowed to enter a country, for administrative reasons. Of course, there should be ways to check for compliance of these newcomers to the usual rules of behaviour to the country, and people who are not well adapted, in a clear and repetitive way, should be stopped from living in the country. But current regulations are not like this, on the contrary: compliance with rules is irrelevant, but instead, "privileged people" can enter when and how they want, and "not-privileged people" have all the problems in the world to come here.
 
Angela said:
Migrants come from Europe too, Poland, for example. Now that Britain is out of the European Union, I don't know that the status of migrants has been worked out. I'm frankly surprised at the attitude toward Polish migrants among "native" Brits.

I first became aware of it when I was watching a panel discussion among women whom I could tell from other topics are typical British leftists. The conversation turned to a store policy by a large chain that employees were prohibited from answering questions in another language, and the example they gave was Polish. It's all very well and good to say immigrants have to learn the host country language, in this case English. However, the store directive seemed to be that a store employee serving someone who couldn't speak English couldn't help the person with the purchase in the person's native language even if they happened to know it. They'd forego the business over this? Then someone clarified that you could help them with the purchase if you happened to know the language but couldn't engage in further conversation in that language.

I was flabbergasted, to be honest, because all but one of the panelists thought that was perfectly ok.

Then I saw the following video. I don't get why they seem to be singling out Poles, unless it's just that there are more of them and they live near one another, so they're really visible.

Click to expand...

the reason was to many polish in very short time went to England. they created competition for jobs. Polish are not portrayed bad though compared to Albanians, Turks, Romanians
 
Farstar said:
My wife is Ukrainian (outside of EU, "similar to Poles"), and there is a similar trend in Continental Europe. Bringing her to become a EU citizen (we are married, and we have a child born here) was an odyssey. The "legal process" is just a nightmare, I could write a book on it. It is extremely long, very expensive, it is not transparent (even hiring lawyers specialized on the issue, as I did; the whole process is based on arbitrariness left to civil servants), and designed to be extremely negative towards foreigners.

Instead, immigrants coming from other countries (generally, dominated by young males, of Muslim religion) have a free pass. They do not need to accomplish anything, the process is for free, fast, and they get resources (money, apartments) from the State.

I went to see these organizations that help this people, and I asked for the same, for my wife and my mother-in-law. I recall very vividly that all the people working there, they had a "rigidity moment" when they understood what I was asking: that a woman, white skin and non-brown eyes, of Orthodox religion, should have the same treatment and help than a man, dark skin, of Muslim religion. After a few seconds of not knowing what to say, they smiled and they left away from me, telling me politely to go away. This happened not only once, but a few times (I tried with several organizations).

I guess some social scientist could try to explain what is going on. Personally, I feel completely discriminated for the color of skin and origin of my wife, since I see people are treated differently (not by individuals, but by State representatives) depending on their origin and color of skin.

I lived in the UK, and my feeling here (but I could be wrong) is that it is OK to discriminate publicly people of white skin and Christian religion (Poles) but not people of dark skin and Muslim religion. As a consequence, people who are against immigrants in general, they speak badly about Polish, because this is OK in public opinion; instead, if they spoke badly of dark-skinned people, they would be boo-ed, and even maybe they could lose their jobs and go to jail.

In Europe, there is a clear discrimination, and this discrimination is towards poor citizens of Christian origin and white skin.

In my opinion, there should not be "illegal immigrants", all people should be allowed to immigrate. I find distressing that some people are not allowed to enter a country, for administrative reasons. Of course, there should be ways to check for compliance of these newcomers to the usual rules of behaviour to the country, and people who are not well adapted, in a clear and repetitive way, should be stopped from living in the country. But current regulations are not like this, on the contrary: compliance with rules is irrelevant, but instead, "privileged people" can enter when and how they want, and "not-privileged people" have all the problems in the world to come here.
Click to expand...

that wasn't because she had "non-brown" eyes and didn't have "brown" skin, but probably because she asked for citizenship and not a simple residence permit or even asylum. you can't compare these things. citizenship is often tied to too many hurdles in europe.

as for the example with polish people in the UK, they had it easier to immigrate than people of many other countries including people with darker skin tones so there isn't really discrimination against them.
 
Ailchu said:
that wasn't because she had "non-brown" eyes and didn't have "brown" skin, but probably because she asked for citizenship and not a simple residence permit or even asylum. you can't compare these things. citizenship is often tied to too many hurdles in europe.
Click to expand...

No. We asked for a residence permit, which is a pre-condition to become a citizen. So, we asked "what anybody else would ask". Just that (rationally at least), my now-wife had many more reasons to get that residence permit, since she had a couple (future husband) in the EU.

When I asked to marry her, and she accepted, she had to fly to Ukraine back for a month, since Spain would not give her residence, and she had to be away from the EU for at least one month. Imagine, the sweetest period in your life, when you are in love at 100%, you and your future-wife have decided to marry, we had to be away from each other. A drama. I still remember that with strong pain.

For my mother-in-law, the drama was still bigger, since it took more than two years to ask for residence for her (the process is very long, you just need to wait for many months, and then they tell you No for no particular reason: there is no "you do not comply with law ZZZ" or "you did not bring YYY document", just a "No"). This was a drama, since she was alone in Ukraine, no income, without her daughter and her greatson.

I went to the official organizations to ask about asylum conditions. In the end, Ukraine has a GDP per capita lower than say Morocco (the main source of immigrants to Spain), and Morocco does not have any war, unlike Ukraine, which is at war with Russia in two fronts (the Eastern part of the country, and its South).

But in all cases, they said No from the beginning. I can understand that, since asylum should be used for the specific purposes it was designed for. But then, I asked how it is that so many young males, with dark skin and Muslim religion, were coming and living here, many using asylum. They did not have any connection to the country. So how could it be that for me and my family, having real reasons for immigration, we were denied that, and the others had carte blanche.

The answer is as follows: the Spanish law says that if an illegal immigrant is in the country for 3 years (and this can be proven, since despite being illegal, they can register themselves locally), they immediately get a residence permit, and a track for nationality, I think at 10 years.

In addition to this, many were asking for asylum. They knew that in 100% of the cases, the asylum would be denied. But this denial may take 1.5 years to 2 years. So, in this time, they are "legal" and they get State resources. Then, they are only "illegal" about one year or little more (the time between asylum denial and the 3-year period).

But the key of the issue is that these organizations only allow you to start for the asylum process if you are a young male, of dark skin and Muslim religion (despite knowing 100% that it will be denied). If you are a woman of white skin and blue eyes, and Orthodox religion, do not even think that they will start this process for you. And this is what happened to us.

In addition to this, a woman of white skin and blue eyes, and Orthodox religion is scared to death to do anything illegal. My mother-in-law preferred to have an awful life in her country rather than do anything illegal. She thought "oh, what would happen if during these three years, I get caught by the police and they send me back to Ukraine? I will not be able to come back to Spain for the rest of my life!" (there are some cases like that in the press, not for a lifetime, but yes for five years ... imagine not being able to see your daughter and grandson for 5 years!).

Instead, young males, with dark skin and Muslim religion, they known they are protected. There have been cases were these people were selling products in the middle of the most central locations in cities, with no paperwork, no license to sell, selling illegal products, the police then takes them, and they start an immigration process, and then NGOs start complaining there is racism, and they let them go.

These people 1) know they are protected and 2) they do not care if they break the law at all.

So, I completely understand that young males, dark-skinned, of Muslim religion do what they do. I would do the same, if I were in their shoes. My complaint is not on them (I believe 100% on immigration) but on our laws. Irrespective of how theoretically good they are, in practice, the application of the law is discriminatory (against poor Christians with white skin).

In the end, discrimination (either to dark-skinned Muslims by the "right" or to white-skinned Christians by the "left") is always hidden below a screen of respectability.

In my opinion, the discrimination against white-skinned Christians is even "worse", since it is State sponsored discrimination, by legal means. The other discrimination, being also awful, is not undertaken by the State, but by individuals, so the State can penalize these discriminations, eventually. But State discriminations will never be penalized. They just become normal practice.
 
Last edited:
Farstar said:
But the key of the issue is that these organizations only allow you to start for the asylum process if you are a young male, of dark skin and Muslim religion (despite knowing 100% that it will be denied). If you are a woman of white skin and blue eyes, and Orthodox religion, do not even think that they will start this process for you. And this is what happened to us.
Click to expand...

everyone is allowed to request asylum regardless of their skin colour. many north africans are white, they don't just have "brown" skin. also, for example in france the second largest group who requests asylum, after afghanis, are albanians. third are georgians. they both get rejected a lot, around 90% of the time, but they are allowed to request it.

Farstar said:
The answer is as follows: the Spanish law says that if an illegal immigrant is in the country for 3 years (and this can be proven, since despite being illegal, they can register themselves locally), they immediately get a residence permit, and a track for nationality, I think at 10 years.
Click to expand...

how often does this happen and what are the requirements? i doubt its just having lived in spain for 3 years.
 
Yes, it is just having lived in Spain for 3 years. I was also very surprised when I realized of that. In fact, an overwhelming majority of non-Europeans living in Spain followed that route (especially in recent times).

The truth that nobody tells in the media, but when you speak to people on the ground becomes obvious, is that this arbitrary 3-year rule is intended to force these immigrants to work in an illegal way for 3 years, i.e. giving cheap workers, with no job security at all, to (some) Spanish employers. I think this is monstrous.

And this leads to me to the hypothesis that in Europe we are targeting the type of immigrants we are targeting, not because we are good people and we want to help those most in need, but because we are trying to create a society of castes, whereby the "locals" will be in the upper caste, and the newcomers (distinguished by color of skin, religion, etc i.e. characteristics which are easily observable) will be in the lower "caste", without having any possibility to use the social escalator.

I think this is really horrible, and goes opposite to, for example, the way the US integrates newcomers.

Again, all this is not the fault of the newcomers, but of our political system, which is completely dysfunctional.
 
Farstar said:
Yes, it is just having lived in Spain for 3 years. I was also very surprised when I realized of that. In fact, an overwhelming majority of non-Europeans living in Spain followed that route (especially in recent times).

The truth that nobody tells in the media, but when you speak to people on the ground becomes obvious, is that this arbitrary 3-year rule is intended to force these immigrants to work in an illegal way for 3 years, i.e. giving cheap workers, with no job security at all, to (some) Spanish employers. I think this is monstrous.

And this leads to me to the hypothesis that in Europe we are targeting the type of immigrants we are targeting, not because we are good people and we want to help those most in need, but because we are trying to create a society of castes, whereby the "locals" will be in the upper caste, and the newcomers (distinguished by color of skin, religion, etc i.e. characteristics which are easily observable) will be in the lower "caste", without having any possibility to use the social escalator.

I think this is really horrible, and goes opposite to, for example, the way the US integrates newcomers.

Again, all this is not the fault of the newcomers, but of our political system, which is completely dysfunctional.
Click to expand...

it is indeed a bit questionable, but it also has its good sides. according to what i found on the web you have to prove that you are integrated in the society and this is decided by a council. you need to speak the language and have ties to the spanish society. and it is exactly acting against this caste system, since it enables illegal to become legal and forces the employer to pay for the employee.

in 2005 the spanish governement gave amnesty to illegals living in spain because there were so many. most of them from latin america. these people were probably not brown skinned muslims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 17644 times.

Back
Top