Immigration What should Europeans do with illegal immigrants?

[Wheal]

I choose solution 3 then.
You begin as a rational and open-minded poster and you then become totally partisan in your posts.
DejaVu is correct.
Canada, USA and Australia, which you laud to the heavens largely eliminated their native populations in seas of blood before they became a Shangri-La for immigrants.
I trust you want the same fate for the poor, racist, obstructive indigenous Europeans.
The Anglophone world has so much blood on its hands that it makes the medieval Mongols look like Amnesty International.

Before you go condemning other countries @DejaVu and @Vallicanus the British removed many of the French settlers from Canada, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Acadians, and the native people of North America fought back and killed and took as slaves many European and Canadian people. I am not condemning either, even though my ancestors were victims of both.

 

[Rewind]

Simple.


Treat them as they would treat you if you went to their country seeking sanctuary. They would expect you to integrate, respect their rules, their laws, their property, etc. or you would potentially run into hot water (jail or other). They would hardly be as lenient & likely wouldn't "bend" so easily for you.

Plenty of dopey tourists, after all, find themselves running into trouble when in mid-eastern/west-asian/arabic countries because they don't do as is expected of them or think they have the 'liberty' to do as they like as if still in their home countries [e.g. 'push their weight' around]. Having a number of Egyptian, Indian and other friends I am, at times, amused by the utter stupidity of some tourists in these regions.


Besides a number are not, and never were, refugees in the literal sense of the word. They are migrants, often of the lowest totem pole in their society. If they were legitimate refugees fleeing from war, famine, etc. they would stop once safe instead of trudging on and on seeking the cash-cow countries with the easiest welfare systems. They do, after all, apply & reapply for status until they get the (welfare) country desired.

 

[Miss Marple's nephew]

Simple. ..... Treat them as they would treat you if you went to their country seeking sanctuary.

I would be a lot happier if my government would at least treat them the same way the government treats us. As it is in Sweden the immigrants are getting the red carpet while we are getting kicked in the teeth. For example: In order for us to receive social benefits we must first sell all our possessions. The immigrants are allowed to keep theirs.

 

[Mchenry123]

I think Europe should only let native Europeans into Europe and stop giving handouts to non-Europeans.

 

[Ownstyler]

Someone has voted other solution. What is the other solution?

I voted other solution.

Europe has a very messy and naive immigration policy. It seems the choices are either to welcome immigrants with no conditions or not welcome them at all. But there's plenty more.

First of all, you need to distinguish between immigrants and refugees. If Europeans want to help refugees from war zones, they can just pay Turkey or other Middle Eastern countries to keep them, provide shelter, food, water and education if the crises last long enough. The funds can be provided collectively through the EU or if more countries are willing to pay, through the UN.

As for immigrants, there are two problems that I think solve each-other.

First, the European economy. European labor is not internationally competitive, especially the low-skilled. This lack of competitiveness has very high costs through subsidies in agriculture and high minimum wages in other sectors, which weaken exports or move jobs abroad. Europe is also getting very old, so there is a shortage of labor.

Second, in the Middle East and in Africa, there are plenty of young people, sometimes even middle or high-skilled, who are willing to work even for much less than the minimum wage in Europe. That's because economic opportunities where they are from are close to zero. But most European countries only offer working visas for very, very high-skilled labor. The only solution for these people remains to enter Europe illegally and work under the minimum wage. Some even take advantage of asylum policies through welfare.

The solutions are very simple. First, you need each European country to make a list of sectors where they have shortage of labor or very low competitiveness, and predict how many extra workers are needed. Second, provide working visas for these positions, even for low-paying jobs. Some Europeans will lose their jobs, but the extra money from the competitiveness of the new economy can be directed towards them through new training opportunities, or just social services. Third, get all asylum residents and all other non-citizens (except handicapped, etc) completely off welfare. If you don't want to work, you don't deserve to be sustained. Fourth, make stricter rules for citizenship. I'd say make it around 20 years. If, at any point during these years, you commit a crime, you get sent back. Fifth, give current illegal immigrants the choice to work, attend a short training program and then work, or go back to their native country. Sixth, use any means necessary to stop further illegal immigration.

This is the way to help people in need, but just the ones willing to earn this help. And trust me, there are so many of them. And if there was a legal way for them to go to Europe, maybe we would see less people living off welfare, and more hard-working and tax-paying ones.

This would also make the system work for the Europeans, getting rid of the extra burden of immigrant welfare, getting cheaper labor and a more internationally competitive economy, and in the future, a younger population. The only temporary losers would be some low-skilled workers, but as I said, the extra wealth can be used to accommodate them.

 

[vyvyx]

I think Europe should only let native Europeans into Europe and stop giving handouts to non-Europeans.

Philistine Americans will be the death of classical liberalism

 

[Mchenry123]

I will be the reason for the death of civil liberties, and economic freedom? More like illegal immigrants and non-Europeans will be the end of European genetics aka Genocide.

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (mass immigration)

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
​

 

[Zvrk9]

The problem is the treatment of these people (refugees) at their origin. So, we should focus on resolving the problem, and we will not have such overwhelming consequence. This seems to be the course of current action anyway.

 

[bicicleur 2]

The problem is the treatment of these people (refugees) at their origin. So, we should focus on resolving the problem, and we will not have such overwhelming consequence. This seems to be the course of current action anyway.

I'm not so optimistic that this could succeed.
Look at the failure of 'Arabic Spring'.
There are still to much dictators in the world, but it is something we must accept, there are no alternatives, unless if we would conquer and colonise these countries again.

And as for 'refugees', Europe can only accept those whose life is in direct danger and for whom there is no alternatif.
Furthermore, those who are here and can't integrate should be locked up and send back as soon as the life-threatening situation at their homes is finished.

All those who think other solutions are possible are dreamers.
I know, there are plenty of them.

 

[LeBrok]

I'm not so optimistic that this could succeed.
Look at the failure of 'Arabic Spring'.
There are still to much dictators in the world, but it is something we must accept, there are no alternatives, unless if we would conquer and colonise these countries again.

Look at the failure of Europe after WW1, when monarchs, the dictators, were gone. Nazi and Communists took over, which have lead to even bigger war and 60 millions killed in WW2 and other cleansings.
It took Europe almost 100 years to make it right! Oh wait, Russia still can't figure it out, "Long live Tzar Putin", screw the freedoms!. You on other hand, are declaring almost weekly, that Arab spring failed just few short years after it started. Maybe you think they are smarter and superior to us and should figure the shit out much faster?

And as for 'refugees', Europe can only accept those whose life is in direct danger and for whom there is no alternatif.
Furthermore, those who are here and can't integrate should be locked up and send back as soon as the life-threatening situation at their homes is finished.

Acceptance of immigrants should be based on values of modern Europe. Equity, inclusiveness, democracy, tolerance etc. Would be much easier for host countries and these new citizens.

All those who think other solutions are possible are dreamers.
I know, there are plenty of them.

If not the dreamers of the world, you would still live in a cave.

 

[Angela]

I certainly hope that the Muslim countries work their way toward inclusive, democratic societies which respect the rights of women and provide for freedom of religion. I don't see what that has to do with whether migrants from those countries NOW should be allowed into western Europe.

The question is whether any country has the right to control its borders and to set standards as to how many and what kind of immigrants it should accept. No country can economically handle unlimited immigration from ANYWHERE. As far as the types of migrants are concerned, I see absolutely nothing wrong with a country demanding that migrants adhere to and accept the prevailing customs of the host country, particularly, as I said, with regard to freedom of religion and women's rights. They should also have some skill which the host country needs.

This is just common sense as far as I'm concerned.

Before anyone asks, I wouldn't want millions of any group pouring into Italy, given the state of the economy there. I don't care if they came from Ireland or Germany or Russia. At least in their case, though, they would probably have a skill of some sort, and would hold to common European values.

If, however, as a hypothetical example, there had been a civil war in Germany in 1935, and the Nazis lost, and thousands of them tried to get into Italy, I wouldn't have wanted to accept them either. It's not a question of race, or ethnicity or even religion. It's a question of whether immigrants will drain the economy and lower the standard of living in the host country, and whether they have anti-"western" values.

 

[Yetos]

I'm not so optimistic that this could succeed.
Look at the failure of 'Arabic Spring'.
There are still to much dictators in the world, but it is something we must accept, there are no alternatives, unless if we would conquer and colonise these countries again.

And as for 'refugees', Europe can only accept those whose life is in direct danger and for whom there is no alternatif.
Furthermore, those who are here and can't integrate should be locked up and send back as soon as the life-threatening situation at their homes is finished.

All those who think other solutions are possible are dreamers.
I know, there are plenty of them.

'Arab Spring' is a failure from the begining
It was clear a Diplomatic solution
designed and planed so no Western boot step foot to the ground,
Not to Be turned to a Jihad, against West,
As also the creation of Taliban in Afganistan,
a needed but later wrong desicion,
as also the support to ISIS with amunition
etc etc,

'Arab Spring' is the biggest failure of West
to bring Democracy to Big Arab dictatorships,
A diplomatic effort with hidden plans, hiden training camps,
ended to an eternal war,
BUT THAT HAPPENS WHEN MERCAINAIRIES ARE BROKEN LOOSE
AND VERY WELL SUPLIED WITH AMUNITIONS.

Not a Supporter of Kantafi, Sadam, Assant etc
BUT WHAT IS HAPPENING TODAY IS WORSE!!!!!!!!!

I think they should find and hang the designers of 'Arab Spring'
with main accusation, creators of Chaos and Global Terrorists,

PS
there is another terrorist today alive and ruling,
why not him also?


Where ever you gather mercainairies
a mess you got when they finish the job


Notice my words when Afrin ends, after 1-2 years max,
Either will join the Big one,
eternal occupation,
either eternal chaos,

that is the view when I want to see with a 'third eye'

 

[halfalp]

I certainly hope that the Muslim countries work their way toward inclusive, democratic societies which respect the rights of women and provide for freedom of religion. I don't see what that has to do with whether migrants from those countries NOW should be allowed into western Europe.

The question is whether any country has the right to control its borders and to set standards as to how many and what kind of immigrants it should accept. No country can economically handle unlimited immigration from ANYWHERE. As far as the types of migrants are concerned, I see absolutely nothing wrong with a country demanding that migrants adhere to and accept the prevailing customs of the host country, particularly, as I said, with regard to freedom of religion and women's rights. They should also have some skill which the host country needs.

This is just common sense as far as I'm concerned.

Before anyone asks, I wouldn't want millions of any group pouring into Italy, given the state of the economy there. I don't care if they came from Ireland or Germany or Russia. At least in their case, though, they would probably have a skill of some sort, and would hold to common European values.

If, however, as a hypothetical example, there had been a civil war in Germany in 1935, and the Nazis lost, and thousands of them tried to get into Italy, I wouldn't have wanted to accept them either. It's not a question of race, or ethnicity or even religion. It's a question of whether immigrants will drain the economy and lower the standard of living in the host country, and whether they have anti-"western" values.

Hmmm ! i have always been fascinated and search to understand, who are the people that legitimate mass migration and why. So one obvious group are the " antifascists " recently there was that story in Italy where an italian start to shoot to african migrants in retaliation of an african illegals and dealer that had dismembered a young italian girl. Thousands of antifascists where going on the street for support to migrants, even if the two case are not really a matter of immigration itself, but more about the hate that immigration bring, those people felt the need to support the foreigners. Recently in Hungary a town was refused by a committee of EU the status of " Best Cultural city of Europe " for the reason that, the video included too much white and happy people. I'm not gonna rambling on Sweden, UK or Germany. Recently Orban was reelected, whatever we are at the same page of him, apparently for certain people, being open with migrants is better than anything else. I'm try to understand how this work psychologically, why would you instinctively prefer stranger to people that you know, of your own cultural sphere ? What is actually the goal of those humans, what are they try to acheve ? There's more and more that thinking à la américaine, where apparently strangers, muslims, homosexuals, women etc are oppressed by the white privileged male and that for live in a better society, oppressed people must be empowered. This is of course crippling, sweden is govern by feminists and have the higher rape % of all EU, some people in Sweden even said things " when a migrant rape a swedish women, there are two victims "... I feel more and more anxiogene about the situation here, mostly because i dont understand how the people are reasoning, it goes way off me.

 

[LeBrok]

This is of course crippling, sweden is govern by feminists and have the higher rape % of all EU, some people in Sweden even said things " when a migrant rape a swedish women, there are two victims "... I feel more and more anxiogene about the situation here, mostly because i dont understand how the people are reasoning, it goes way off me.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you have strong bias that makes you take for truth things which are not. Sweden have "more rape" in their statistics than others, only because they count every instance of rape separately. For example, a gang rape will be classified as one rape in most countries, but as multiple in Sweden. So instead of being sceptical and looking into this matter, your "logic" goes like this: (You don't like immigrants or swedish liberal approach, biased), Sweden has problem with its immigrants therefore in your mind, high rape statistic of sweden is right. Well, it is wrong approach and untrue statement.
Let this be a lesson to you. Don't trust your logic too much.

Mind, that I'm not saying there are no problems with some immigrants in Sweden. There are. When you transplant very conservative, chauvinistic, patriarchal and very religious culture into a liberal culture like in Sweden, there will be problems for both sides. I'm sure these conservative migrants would fit better into your redneck village.

 

[Mark]

“Redneck” is a derogatory term for white laborers referring to the sun beating down their necks until reddened, you think white laborers are all stupid? “Villages” are typically far less environmentally impactful than urban areas.

I believe labor is good for the soul and urban areas are generally bad for it. I don’t think you can ascribe any more political leanings of rural people than what they know... so if they’re stupid, how could they be judged so harshly for their views?

 

[halfalp]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you have strong bias that makes you take for truth things which are not. Sweden have "more rape" in their statistics than others, only because they count every instance of rape separately. For example, a gang rape will be classified as one rape in most countries, but as multiple in Sweden. So instead of being sceptical and looking into this matter, your "logic" goes like this: (You don't like immigrants or swedish liberal approach, biased), Sweden has problem with its immigrants therefore in your mind, high rape statistic of sweden is right. Well, it is wrong approach and untrue statement.
Let this be a lesson to you. Don't trust your logic too much.

Mind, that I'm not saying there are no problems with some immigrants in Sweden. There are. When you transplant very conservative, chauvinistic, patriarchal and very religious culture into a liberal culture like in Sweden, there will be problems for both sides. I'm sure these conservative migrants would fit better into your redneck village.

Well thanks for your ad hominem attack on my redneck village but i come from the third city of switzerland. Secondly, so let me just rethink what i just read, did you try to somehow " debunk " me and my logic by saying that most of sweden rapes are factual gang rapes ? So by gang rapes i think you talk about icelandic lumberjack gangs dont you ? not about immigrant gangs because i live in bubbles.

 

[halfalp]

“Redneck” is a derogatory term for white laborers referring to the sun beating down their necks until reddened, you think white laborers are all stupid? “Villages” are typically far less environmentally impactful than urban areas.

I believe labor is good for the soul and urban areas are generally bad for it. I don’t think you can ascribe any more political leanings of rural people than what they know... so if they’re stupid, how could they be judged so harshly for their views?

Well funny thing i'm a total urban raised guy and my IQ is over the request to be gifted.

 

[halfalp]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you have strong bias that makes you take for truth things which are not. Sweden have "more rape" in their statistics than others, only because they count every instance of rape separately. For example, a gang rape will be classified as one rape in most countries, but as multiple in Sweden. So instead of being sceptical and looking into this matter, your "logic" goes like this: (You don't like immigrants or swedish liberal approach, biased), Sweden has problem with its immigrants therefore in your mind, high rape statistic of sweden is right. Well, it is wrong approach and untrue statement.Let this be a lesson to you. Don't trust your logic too much.Mind, that I'm not saying there are no problems with some immigrants in Sweden. There are. When you transplant very conservative, chauvinistic, patriarchal and very religious culture into a liberal culture like in Sweden, there will be problems for both sides. I'm sure these conservative migrants would fit better into your redneck village.

" (You don't like immigrants or swedish liberal approach, biased), Sweden has problem with its immigrants therefore in your mind, high rape statistic of sweden is right. Well, it is wrong approach and untrue statement.Let this be a lesson to you. Don't trust your logic too much. " You just make things yourself, this is maybe how you see every conservative, wheter who they are, what their knowledge are and how intelligent they are.

 

[Mark]

Well on a purely logical level, putting two biological/cultural groups into the same area without agreed conventions/goals appears to have rather poor outcomes, especially if one or more is “chauvinistic.” It helps nothing to pretend this is not so or that politicians do not put to use racial polemics drawing upon ancient hatreds. It’s a dangerous game to play that will only lead to more bloodshed and I see left and right politicians/public figures doing it.

 

[halfalp]

How is it logical to say that i'm biased because i dont like a liberal government that hide social issues ? how are you supposed to act or react in that kind of situation ? that's not even a logic issue actually...