Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Mohamed1993

Them darn immigrants saving our children

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

So a muslim migrant from Mali saved a child's life, and put his own life at risk, climbing up a four-storey building to save this child's life. 

https://www.theguardian.com/global/video/2018/may/28/paris-hero-climbs-four-storey-building-to-rescue-dangling-child-video.

Truly heroic, who needs a cape? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats to him. I don't know if you're trying to justify the large amount of migrants swarming Europe but the cons of the migrants outweight the pros by alot. Also immigrants=/=migrants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Forgottenthinker said:

Congrats to him. I don't know if you're trying to justify the large amount of migrants swarming Europe but the cons of the migrants outweight the pros by alot. Also immigrants=/=migrants

I think there is an image built up in many European minds that a bunch of dark people want to come in rape, not work/steal jobs and force the local Europeans populations to convert to Islam where we later can create a worldwide caliphate from within after we steal their women and have many african babies. 

This man's act of humanity has caused that view to crumble because we saw his act of heroism as a good deed which flies in the face of this racist islamophobic mindset after having reminding ourselves that they're human as well, capable of doing good. I salute this man. 

Quick note: Swarm? That word is kinda dehumanizing them don't you think? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Forgottenthinker said:

I don't know if you're trying to justify the large amount of migrants swarming Europe but the cons of the migrants outweight the pros by alot.

Well, compared to what Europeans did to all of the African continent and the Middle East, I'd say it's mighty rich that they're now complaining about immigrants. It's like immigrants are affecting our way of life, immigrants are taking away our jobs, immigrants are responsible for all the crap that's happening in our country. Can they effectively prove any of these claims with a study and actual data? Well, there was a study done on Brexit and their claims that immigrants were coming in and taking away jobs from people, and there was no correlation between the number of immigrants coming into a county and the wages/unemployment rate of workers born in a county, and this was during the financial crisis years.

And what exactly did Europeans do to Africans and Middle Eastern nations? They drew random lines across their countries, they planted entire new countries on top of them, they created political systems for them that weren't meant for them to begin with. Why did Africans need countries, if the empires they had served them better? Read about the Mali empire and Mansa Musa for example. And moreover, a lot of immigrants are coming in from West and North Africa, a consequence of what happened in Libya, when western powers backed a bunch of people who have now introduced slavery into Libya and whose weapons have now ended up with groups like Boko Haram in Nigeria and other Islamist groups. So what are people supposed to do? Drown in the ocean? It's easy to demonise people coming into your country and blame them for the problems that the neoliberal assault has had on your average working class European. Politicians like Trump did this excellently when he talked about Mexicans despite the fact that corporations actually like Mexican workers, they can pay them less and make them work more because they don't have as many rights. Not saying there aren't issues, but they are overblown, remember media channels have a job to do, have money to make, can't do that unless you cover issues that are polarizing disproportionately.

Edited by Mohamed1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

And what exactly did Europeans do to Africans and Middle Eastern nations? They drew random lines across their countries, they planted entire new countries on top of them, they created political systems for them that weren't meant for them to begin with. Why did Africans need countries, if the empires they had served them better

Agree, countries like Great Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, etc interferred in African and Middle Eastern affairs destroying them for generations to come. So they have no right to complain about immigration, so I agree with your statement. 

However why do countries like Sweden, Norway, Greece, Poland, Hungary have to take in migrants? They did nothing over the years to Africa and the Middle East and suffered at times becoming part of an empire, especially Greece and Poland? Why do they need to take in a bunch of people that will destroy their cultures?

Also remember, Mali is not at war and a majority of these migrants aren't even Syrian. They're from other African nations that are poor no doubt but not at war, so this makes them economic migrants not refugees. Syria and Libya were destroyed by the large European powers by funding rebels and overthrowing Gadaffi so taking in refugees from these two nations is a priority I agree Muhammad. But everyone else not from these nations need to be sent back they're just taking advantage of the open Libyan borders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Open borders" is not a good policy even if the people coming in are angels. There are economic problems with it.

Especially in Europe, where it will be the job of the welfare state to take care of this "extra" population, and so there is a burden on the government. Housing, healthcare, education etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another good thing to come from this story (other than saving the boys life and the recognition and opportunities it has provided to his rescuer) is that it exposes a social need of newcomers. Apparently, the boy who was rescued and his father were from Reunion (off the east coast of Africa) and that his mother and siblings are to join them soon in France.  The boy's father had left him alone to go shopping and got sidetracked on the way home.  Yep, it was a stupid decision, not thought through, but it is one with potentially long term consequences for their family.  The child was removed from his care and the dad was taken into custody - although I think he has been released.  This highlights a need for multi-cultural support for newcomers that may not be being met.  He probably came from a culture where kids are left for short periods of time while extended family or neighbours kept an eye on them. He is now facing some fairly serious charges which could impact his ability to get work and support his family.

Adding:  Not excusing the dad for his negligence; his child came close to being killed.  However, people in life changing transitions often make very poor choices. 

Edited by forte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Forgottenthinker said:

Also remember, Mali is not at war and a majority of these migrants aren't even Syrian. They're from other African nations that are poor no doubt but not at war, so this makes them economic migrants not refugees. Syria and Libya were destroyed by the large European powers by funding rebels and overthrowing Gadaffi so taking in refugees from these two nations is a priority I agree Muhammad. But everyone else not from these nations need to be sent back they're just taking advantage of the open Libyan borders.

Most of these migrants are economic but their situations are often pretty desperate.  I think countries should have the right to refuse new immigrants - especially if they are struggling to maintain the standard of living of the population that they already have - but countries like Sweden had a very welcoming open door to new comers and have admitted nearly 2 million (with great diversity of backgrounds, abilities and ethnicities) with no questions asked.  Sweden is a country whose population is less than that of some cities (pop. ~10,000,000)  The challenges have been much greater than they anticipated, and there is a rise in right wing politics, but the vast majority are still in favour of continued immigration.  The culture of the country is one in which the population is determined to make it work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Forgottenthinker said:

However why do countries like Sweden, Norway, Greece, Poland, Hungary have to take in migrants? They did nothing over the years to Africa and the Middle East and suffered at times becoming part of an empire, especially Greece and Poland? Why do they need to take in a bunch of people that will destroy their cultures?

They were indirectly supporting them so there is not too much difference between them ,Most problems of African countries is because of interfering of foreign countries for cheap using of their wealth & resources.

16 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

"Open borders" is not a good policy even if the people coming in are angels. There are economic problems with it.

Especially in Europe, where it will be the job of the welfare state to take care of this "extra" population, and so there is a burden on the government. Housing, healthcare, education etc...

So we could close borders to Iraqis when they came to Iran in hardships.

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

"Open borders" is not a good policy even if the people coming in are angels. There are economic problems with it.

Especially in Europe, where it will be the job of the welfare state to take care of this "extra" population, and so there is a burden on the government. Housing, healthcare, education etc...

Europe, esp Germany, need workers and that was the presenting need in bringing new people into their country.  They have a booming economy.  I don't agree with Merkel's  not screening asylum seekers and obviously, as there was no accountability, everyone crossing the border became a "refugee"... In addition to authentic refugees came people with questionable purpose from opportunists to criminals... but the majority will add to the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

They were indirectly supporting them so there is not too much difference between them ,Most problems of African countries is because of interfering of foreign countries for cheap using of their wealth & resources.

So because they gave a little support they have to have their own countries destroyed by people who don't even understand their values? Also Iran is a cause of this conflict for giving support to Assad when the people didn't want him any more so why doesn't the great holy Islamic Republic take in refugees? Is it because they're Sunni?

 

25 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

So we could close borders to Iraqis when they came to Iran in hardships.

Don't pretend to forget Iran is infamous for deporting thousands upon thousands of Afghani refugees and migrants who wanted to escape the Taliban and to work and discriminating them so bad it is compared to former Jim crow laws in the southern US. The Afghanis are Persian and Muslim and Iran treats them like animals, why can't Christain European countries deport people like that inwhich they share no common values? Hypocrisy at its finest.

Edited by Forgottenthinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, forte said:

Most of these migrants are economic but their situations are often pretty desperate.  I think countries should have the right to refuse new immigrants - especially if they are struggling to maintain the standard of living of the population that they already have - but countries like Sweden had a very welcoming open door to new comers and have admitted nearly 2 million (with great diversity of backgrounds, abilities and ethnicities) with no questions asked.  Sweden is a country whose population is less than that of some cities (pop. ~10,000,000)  The challenges have been much greater than they anticipated, and there is a rise in right wing politics, but the vast majority are still in favour of continued immigration.  The culture of the country is one in which the population is determined to make it work.

At this rate there won't even be a Sweden left, just Swedistan. The people don't want this its the government which doesnt care for actual Swedes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2018 at 1:23 PM, Forgottenthinker said:

However why do countries like Sweden, Norway, Greece, Poland, Hungary have to take in migrants? They did nothing over the years to Africa and the Middle East and suffered at times becoming part of an empire, especially Greece and Poland? Why do they need to take in a bunch of people that will destroy their cultures?

Well this happened in France. In terms of Norway and Sweden, it is quite unfortunate that these countries long abandoned their stance of non-intervention when they participated in the NATO bombing of Libya. 

On 5/29/2018 at 1:23 PM, Forgottenthinker said:

 Also remember, Mali is not at war and a majority of these migrants aren't even Syrian. They're from other African nations that are poor no doubt but not at war, so this makes them economic migrants not refugees. Syria and Libya were destroyed by the large European powers by funding rebels and overthrowing Gadaffi so taking in refugees from these two nations is a priority I agree Muhammad. But everyone else not from these nations need to be sent back they're just taking advantage of the open Libyan borders.

Mali is not at war in the traditional sense, but there is a "civil war" type of situation going on where rebels initially allied with islamist forces wanted to break off from Mali and establish sharia. These rebels then had clashes with the Islamists that backed them, and they were defeated by them, and the Islamists now hold parts of Northern Mali, the French are assisting the government in Mali to regain control of these areas. The Islamists I am referring to are AQAM who were empowered through the NATO backing of the rebels in Libya. So you could say there is a link. Obviously weapons and fighters have made their way to different countries in West Africa because of the Libyan "revolution". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Especially in Europe, where it will be the job of the welfare state to take care of this "extra" population, and so there is a burden on the government.

This is the thing, how much of the extra population relies on welfare? You hear this on the media, is there a study on this or something? In the US mexicans are often blasted for relying on welfare, yet the people who receive the most welfare are white people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:salam:

The debate of migrants in Europe can not be compared to America. France has a long history  immigration, but it is not of providing shelter to economical or climatical migrants, rather of using cheap immigrated manpower.

What the current policies try to do by encouraging the welcome of refugees and illegal aliens while there is no jobs on the territory is nothing but creating chaos for the citizens.

Not current policies actually, this has been going on since the mid 70s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Forgottenthinker said:

At this rate there won't even be a Sweden left, just Swedistan. The people don't want this its the government which doesnt care for actual Swedes.

Here is a fairly recent poll https://www.thelocal.se/20160905/poll-fewer-swedes-willing-to-help-asylum-seekers  According to this, Swedes want fewer asylum seekers but are not advocating for no immigration.  Yes, a substantial number of people require social assistance for daily living, special medical care and special educational services and it is very expensive.  But the majority of Swedes still vote for leadership who advocate for immigration and advertising their country as a haven for asylum seekers.  

Concerns:

Out of the 10,000,000 who are actually tax contributing?  Not sure what numbers are the working population once you account for children, seniors and those of working age who are not contributing. 

There is a rise in the right due to a chronic strain on resources - costs continue to rise. The right currently has favour of 20% in polls... but actual votes may be different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

This is the thing, how much of the extra population relies on welfare? You hear this on the media, is there a study on this or something? In the US mexicans are often blasted for relying on welfare, yet the people who receive the most welfare are white people. 

Not according to this:  In 2012, an average of 41.6% of African Americans received means-tested benefits each month. About 18% of Asians or Pacific Islanders and 13% of whites received benefits each month. 36% percent of Hispanics of any race received government assistance. https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/whos-on-welfare-9-shocking-stats-about-public-assistance.html/?a=viewall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Forgottenthinker said:

so why doesn't the great holy Islamic Republic take in refugees? Is it because they're Sunni?

If they come to Iran they would be accepted but for this they had to cross from ISIS zones in Iraq so they prefer safer ways .

1 hour ago, Forgottenthinker said:

Don't pretend to forget Iran is infamous for deporting thousands upon thousands of Afghani refugees and migrants who wanted to escape the Taliban and to work and discriminating them so bad it is compared to former Jim crow laws in the southern US. The Afghanis are Persian and Muslim and Iran treats them like animal

This is for you rely on Anti iran media on everything, they backed to Afghanistan when  Taliban  loose control on Afghanistan & American & Afghan coalition  Armys taken control of Afghanistan, I remember one of Afghanis that I met was complaining about occupation of their media brodcast by American media at that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

So we could close borders to Iraqis when they came to Iran in hardships.

If 10 million Iraqis decided to cross the border for no reason, Iran should close it.

Because Iran can't afford housing and healthcare for 10 million new people.

8 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

This is the thing, how much of the extra population relies on welfare? You hear this on the media, is there a study on this or something? In the US mexicans are often blasted for relying on welfare, yet the people who receive the most welfare are white people. 

Here;

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-number-of-migrants-claiming-benefits-in-germany-surges-by-169-percent-2016-9?IR=T

And I've seen it with my eyes personally in Australia too.

8 hours ago, forte said:

Europe, esp Germany, need workers and that was the presenting need in bringing new people into their country.  They have a booming economy.  I don't agree with Merkel's  not screening asylum seekers and obviously, as there was no accountability, everyone crossing the border became a "refugee"... In addition to authentic refugees came people with questionable purpose from opportunists to criminals... but the majority will add to the economy.

Thousands of criminals and hundreds of ISIS fighters made it in Germany so Germany can have a larger labour force?

Do you know how much this migration process costs? 

WSJ; it will cost over $86 billion in the next few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

There are ways to get around this problem if it is indeed significant, initially these people will need support, but I think it would be more effective to see their contributions over a longer period of time and then assess how much welfare they collect. When you have a sudden influx of immigrants, of course you're going to spend more on them, but does this persist over time or does it eventually get to a point where the benefits outweigh the costs? There are things you can do as well that don't involve closing off borders completely, limit welfare to people who are refugees only, and limit that to about a year, during which time they have to learn the language and find a job. For economic migrants, if they're willing to work and not going to rely on welfare, and if there are no threats of terrorism which you can determine from background checks and stuff, then what's the problem really? 

You can deter people who want to move solely to take advantage of welfare programs by limiting them to refugees only who must have appropriate documentation and at that point if people still want to risk their lives and drown in the mediterranean to get to Europe, well then they probably are desperate enough to work hard to make a living, why else would you move to a different country, where you don't know the language, culture and you won't even receive any benefits? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2018 at 11:08 PM, Sumerian said:

Do you know how much this migration process costs? 

WSJ; it will cost over $86 billion in the next few years.

Germany needs immigration.  http://www.dw.com/en/germany-is-not-shrinking/a-37415327 

I agree that opening the borders to whoever and whatever was insane.  Pandering to aggressive tactics of some of the migrants was also insane. Germany will be cleaning up the mess from that for a long time.  However, it should be noted that the clean up of the "undesirables" (a totally euphemistic term!) has been helped by other migrants.  Those that are problems are usually found by information given by migrants who know who they are and where they are from, and they especially do not want them around.  The next step is to actually turf them without ridiculously long processes.

However, Germany's economy is booming (which is why Merkel despite her crazy ideas about migration is so popular).  Also, the population exceeds 82 million people so you are not looking at the same infrastructure problem that is challenging Sweden.

Again of concern is the rise of the right, but they just had their biggest demonstration ever and they were totally outnumbered.  Germany is still stinging from the atrocities that took place during WWII and will be careful to uphold the rights of the vulnerable.  You can do really well economically in Germany.  Staying on the limitations of benefits will not be attractive in the long term for new comers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mohamed1993 @forte nobody is against immigration, what I'm against is open free for all borders with little screening and background checks, which is what Germany and the EU did.

Not only does Germany have to accomadate these refugees and spend billions in hopes they will create money in the long term, but they will have to deal with the crime and terrorism that comes with it. 

Already in Europe the crime rate has increased as a result of the migrant crisis, which was obviously going to happen, that's what happens when people live in ghettos. So it's a looooong integration process.

www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-europe-42557828

Why do you think the EU can't wait until the war in Syria finishes? They want a lot of these refugees back home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2018 at 11:08 PM, Sumerian said:

If 10 million Iraqis decided to cross the border for no reason, Iran should close it.

Because Iran can't afford housing and healthcare for 10 million new people

Iranian are hospitable people even during food shortage of WWII in Iran ,we host Polish people .

Why do you think the EU can't wait until the war in Syria finishes? They want a lot of these refugees back home.

They can't refuse from their labor force ,their current problem is religion & racism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2018 at 1:42 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Iranian are hospitable people even during food shortage of WWII in Iran ,we host Polish people .

Why do you think the EU can't wait until the war in Syria finishes? They want a lot of these refugees back home.

They can't refuse from their labor force ,their current problem is religion & racism.

So why doesn't Iran give citzenship to every refugee in Iran? There's millions of Afghans in Iran, why not give them citzenship?

Because Iran doesn't have the money to house and give benefits to all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

So why doesn't Iran give citzenship to every refugee in Iran? There's millions of Afghans in Iran, why not give them citzenship?

Because Iran doesn't have the money to house and give benefits to all of them.

a little group received citizenship  ,the problem is not money & house this is mainly because financial corruption & old system of citizenship which inherited from pre revolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...