Immigrant situation in Europe and sexual crimes toward women

[Tamora]

...While neighboring Hungary has erected a 3.5 meter razor-wire fence in an attempt to keep out the thousands of families fleeing war in the Middle East, Austrians race to their borders and train stations to greet them with bottles of water and fresh fruit.
....
Around 15,000 people answered a call on Facebook Monday to demonstrate their support to refugees. “Say it loud! Say it clear! Refugees are welcome here,” they chanted as they wound their way through downtown Vienna...

Yep...we saw a similar kind of thing in Germany. I wonder how many of those people are extreme left wingers who's idealist views aren't in touch with the reality of world economics or politics? Probably the same kind of people that believe the UK should have nuclear submarines without the nuclear warheads, that we can all live in harmony by giving out water and fruit and then bugger off home afterwards, or that saving the great crested newt is far more of a priority than world peace and security.

If I put up a call on Facebook to come dressed as a Nazi to protest against refugees, or to come naked with a flower stuck up your arse singing hallelujah to Elvis Presley I'd probably get the same response. Not exactly definitive proof of anything.

I believe the UK should have a points system similar to Australia and hope that we vote ourselves out of Europe to gain control of our borders once again. I am not a racist, but I do object to not hearing one English speaking person on a 5 mile journey to work on the train. If you want to emigrate here respect our language, integrate and be a productive member of our society. If you want to come here to spread extremist views, commit crime, raise the black flag of Islam above 10 Downing Street, ponce off the benefits system and sit on your arse all day then you are not welcome and should f**k off back to where you came from!

Mass Migration Drives Unemployment Up 17 Per Cent In Vienna

Syria conflict: Jordanians 'at boiling point' over refugees - BBC News

[kickinthemebs]

Wow this has turned out to be a really excellent thread. I am enjoying reading both positions and glad it didn't just descend/get closed from overly simplistic racism.

A lot of serious concerns here and I can understand both sides of the debate. Depending on what media source you reference,they will have very different positions on this. We aren't being given the full story a lot of times.

[resistor]

What I find weird about this whole situation, as least in how it is being reported by the media, is that there are no calls for the root problem to be fixed, such as the war in Syria, or religious or ethnic intolerances, such as shia/sunnis, or pretty much everyone else against the Kurds. This is only a theory, maybe a hateful one at that, but the only reason the middle east and north Africa had been so stable for so long before the invasions of Afghanistan/Iraq and the Arab rising was because of the totalitarian states maintained by the likes of Gaddafi and Hussein. I'm not condoning their governments, because the shit they pulled was reprehensible, but considering what filled the void once they left maybe they were the lesser of two evils.

But back to the point, the media doesn't seem interested in fixing the root causes, and from what I can tell neither do the politicians, and I think that is the elephant in the room. Their only concern is the fact the refugees exist, not the why.

[marinera]

marinera I could literally break down every second sentence of yours and back up with facts why it is incorrect what it says.
But it seems it wouldn't help, and you would not see clearly until something bad happens to you or someone around. Hope that never happens, though.

For someone who is open to see what happens:
Sweden: Rape Capital of the West

I could fly and become invisible, but that wouldn't help so I will not do it.

About this ridicolous 'Muslims are raping Swedish rape in mass' tale, it is better that you inform yoursefl more:
a) gaterstoneinstitute is a conservative thinkthank; its chairman is John_R._Bolton, who worked for G. W. Bush; his work was actually to spread false informations:
In 2002, Bolton accused Cuba of transfers of biological weapons technology to rogue states and called on it "to fully comply with all of its obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention."^[51] According to a Scripps Howard News Service article, Bolton "wanted to say that Cuba had a biological weapons capacity and that it was exporting it to other nations. The intelligence analysts seemed to want to limit the assessment to a declaration that Cuba 'could' develop such weapons."^[52] According to AlterNet, Bolton attempted to have the chief bioweapons analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the CIA's national intelligence officer for Latin America reassigned. Under oath at his Senate hearings for confirmation as ambassador, he denied trying to have the men fired, but seven intelligence officials contradicted him.^[40] Ultimately, "intelligence officials refused to allow Bolton to make the harsh criticism of Cuba he sought to deliver,"^[52] and were able to keep their positions. Bolton claims that the issue was procedural rather than related to the content of his speech and that the officers, who did not work under him, behaved unprofessionally.^{[citation needed]}

Bolton is alleged by Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman to have played a role in encouraging the inclusion of statement that British Intelligence had determined Iraq attempted to procure yellowcake uranium from Niger in Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address.^[53] These statements were claimed by critics of the President to be partly based on documents found to be forged.^[54] Waxman's allegations could not be confirmed as they were based on classified documents.^[53]

Bolton stated in June 2004 congressional testimony that Iran was lying about enriched uranium contamination: "Another unmistakable indicator of Iran's intentions is the pattern of repeatedly lying to ... the IAEA, ... when evidence of uranium enriched to 36 percent was found, it attributed this to contamination from imported centrifuge parts." However, later isotope analysis supported Iran’s explanation of foreign contamination for most of the observed enriched uranium.^[55] At their August 2005 meeting the IAEA's Board of Governors concluded: "Based on the information currently available to the Agency, the results of that analysis tend, on balance, to support Iran’s statement about the foreign origin of most of the observed HEU contamination.".^[56] Bolton authored a book titled Surrender Is Not an Option. In it Bolton criticizes the Bush administration for changing its foreign policy objectives during the start of the administration's second term.^[57]

Critics allege Bolton tried to spin intelligence to support his views and political objectives on a number of occasions. Greg Thielmann, of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), was assigned as the daily intelligence liaison to Bolton. Thielmann stated to Seymour Hersh that, "Bolton seemed troubled because INR was not telling him what he wanted to hear ... I was intercepted at the door of his office and told, 'The Under Secretary doesn't need you to attend this meeting anymore.'" According to former coworkers, Bolton withheld information that ran counter to his goals from Secretary of State Colin Powell on multiple occasions, and from Powell's successor Condoleezza Rice on at least one occasion.^[58]

In 2006 a former politician from Sweden's Liberal Party, who a quarter of a century earlier had been the party chairman but since had left the stage of active politics, nominated Bolton for the Nobel Peace Prize.^[59] Technically almost anyone can file such a nomination and there was no indication that the Nobel Committee had pondered the name of Bolton. The prize that year went to Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank "for advancing economic and social opportunities for the poor, especially women, through their pioneering microcredit work".^[60]

On May 28, 2008, at the Hay Festival of Literature & Arts in Hay-on-Wye, Wales, the British activist George Monbiot attempted to make a citizen's arrest of Bolton, for his role as an architect of the Iraq War. The attempt was unsuccessful, and Monbiot was ejected by security personnel.^[61]
In July 2013, Bolton was identified as a key member of Groundswell, a secretive coalition of right wing activists and journalists attempting to make political change behind the scenes through lobbying of high-level contacts<sup>[62].

Source: wikipedia

Check your sources.

b) the number of rapes in Sweden is unlikely to have grown, what has changed is the legal definition of 'rape' according to the Swedish law:

...There have been several international comparisons made, placing Sweden at the top end of the number of reported rapes. However, police procedures and legal definitions vary widely across countries, which makes it difficult to compare rape statistics.[8][9][10][11] For example, Sweden reformed its sex crime legislation and made the legal definition of rape much wider in 2005,[3][4][8][12] which largely explains a significant increase in the number of reported rapes in the ten-year period of 2004-2013.[13][14]

The Swedish police also record each instance of sexual violence in every case separately, leading to an inflated number of cases compared to other countries.[8][11][15] Additionally, the Swedish police have improved the handling of rape cases, in an effort to increase the number of crimes reported.[8][14][16][17]


There isn't either any proof that most of the rapes are committed by immigrants, since the Swedish Agency for crime has not released data about rapes committed by immigrants from 1996.

So both claims are bogus.</sup>

[marinera]

Ok marinera you have repeatedly refused to take in or completely ignored repeated clear posts ....

I have backuped everything I said with reliable sources, but if what I posted wasn't clear enough, I can help:
Are ‘boat people’ doing something illegal?


No. Asylum seekers are NOT illegal. They’ve broken no laws at all. Under Article 14 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.”

The terms, ‘illegal immigrants’, ‘illegals’, etc., are completely incorrect.


...
Is Australia obligated to help them?

Yes. Australia has a legal obligation to assist ‘boat people’ whether or not they follow our polite protocol. We signed an international law called the Refugee Convention.


Are most ‘illegal immigrants’ boat people?

No. According to the Australian Department of Immigration and Border Protection, in 2012-13, 25,091 asylum seekers arrived by boat, more than 8,308 arrived by plane, 2,813 visa overstayers were detected, 2,328 immigration clearances were refused at air and seaports, and 15,077 other ‘unlawful non-citizens were discovered in the community.

Do all asylum seekers arrive by boat?

No. Since 2003, only 42% of all asylum seekers have arrived by boat.


Are asylum seekers who arrive by boat treated the same as asylum seekers who arrive by plane?

No. Those arriving by plane aren’t detained. Plus, they can immediately apply for a protection visa, and are typically given a bridging visa while their application is processed. Boat people, on the other hand, are immediately moved to a detention centre, and they can’t immediately apply for a protection visa. Instead, they’re screened into a refugee status determination process to determine whether they’ll be allowed to apply.



Are all ‘boat people’ actually refugees?

9 out of every 10 ‘boat people’ are eventually found to be genuine refugees


Are they ‘jumping the queue’?

No. There’s no such thing as a queue. Anyone who wants to claim asylum must leave their home country first. So all asylum seekers flee to other countries. Some overland, some by plane, some by boat.


Are they still genuine refugees if they can afford boat passage?

Yes. The manner of an asylum seeker’s arrival isn’t what makes them a genuine refugee (or not). They’re judged to be a genuine refugee if they have a well-founded fear of persecution at home.


..........


Do harsh border protection laws deter ‘boat people’?

No. There’s no evidence to suggest our harsh policies on ‘border protection’ reduce the number of boat people trying to get to Australia. Here’s a timeline showing when Australia introduced its harsh asylum seeker policies…

• June 1989 – Prime Minister Hawke introduced changes that included mandatory deportation, and allowed for the recovery of funds from asylum seekers to pay for the costs of their detention and deportation. The number of boat people continued to increase after these changes were introduced.
• December 1992 – Prime Minister Keating introduced limited mandatory detention. The number of boat people remained unchanged afterwards.
• April 1994 – Keating expanded mandatory detention. The number of boat people increased afterwards.
• October 1999 – Prime Minister Howard introduced temporary visas (TPVs). Instead of getting a permanent protection visa, refugees were instead given only temporary protection (a 3 year protection visa). After that, their case would be reviewed. Also, their protection could be revoked if they left Australia during the 3 years, and it didn’t allow their families to settle in Australia. The number of boat people continued to increase afterwards.
• September 2001 – Howard introduced the ‘Pacific Solution’. This involved offshore processing and detention, and turning back of boats. Again, some people claim this policy slowed the arrival of boats, but the data show the numbers were already dropping by the time he introduced the Pacific Solution. Plus, the introduction of the Pacific Solution (Sept 2001) coincided with the removal of the Taliban from power in Afghanistan (Oct 2001). Leading up to this point, Afghanistan had been one of our major sources of asylum seekers (17% in 2001-01). Also, from 2001 to 2002 there was a 45% drop in refugee numbers worldwide.
• August 2012 – Prime Minister Gillard reintroduces the Pacific Solution. It didn’t slow the boats. In fact, the number of boat more than doubled.

It’s clear these hard-line policies can’t be claimed as deterrents. In all but 2 cases, the number of boat people increased afterwards. Once it remained unchanged, and once it was already going down before the policy was introduced. So if we’re to believe that Australia’s harsh policy has any significant impact on boat people numbers, we’d have to deduce it’s often an incentive!

....


Don’t boat people get more social security?

No. Asylum seekers aren’t entitled to the same welfare as citizens and permanent residents. They get Asylum Seeker Assistance (ASA), which covers basic living expenses, at a rate below Centrelink benefits.


Once an asylum seeker’s claim is processed, and they’re judged a refugee, they receive the same amount of social security as a citizen or permanent resident. They “apply for social security through Centrelink like everyone else and are assessed for the different payment options in the same way as everyone else. There are no separate Centrelink allowances that one can receive simply by virtue of being a refugee.” (http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/m...php#centrelink)


Unfortunately, the Australian government doesn’t allow asylum seekers to work. Nor does it allow refugees to work until they become permanent residents (which can take years). If they were allowed to work, the burden on our welfare system would be far less.

............


Is Australia breaching international law?

Yes. We’re breaching all of the following (see below list for details):

• UN Refugee Convention
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
• International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)
• United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
• Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
• United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
• International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR)
• International Maritime Organization (IMO)
• Australia’s Criminal Code (Commonwealth)
  

http://theaimn.com/facts-boat-people-government-media-lying/


Don't believe to him? Another source again:

People who arrive by air in Australia with a valid visa such as a tourist or student visa and then apply for asylum are generally granted a bridging visa and are allowed to live within the community while their claims are assessed. Protection visas for those who apply in this way are approved in about 45 percent of cases annually. In contrast, asylum seekers who come by sea are either intercepted and turned back or transferred to Australian-funded detention centres in Pacific Island nations such as The Republic of Nauru or Manus Province, Papuan New Guinea. They will never be allowed to resettle in Australia even if they are found to be genuine refugees. More than 90 percent of asylum seekers arriving by boat are assessed to be refugees.

In 2013, the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) reported that offshore processing centres, both in Nauru and in Papua New Guinea, “do not provide safe and humane conditions of treatment in detention,” constitute arbitrary detention under international law and do not provide for adequate and timely solutions for asylum seekers.

UN special rapporteur on torture, Juan Méndez, has raised concerns about Australia’s violation of the rights of asylum seekers in relation to the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; and the treaty body has called for the required standards of protection to be afforded to all people seeking asylum, regardless of their mode of arrival.


The offshore centres have come with a string of tragedies and controversies.
........................

Cases of sexual abuse against asylum seekers and refugees, including against children, have surfaced from Nauru. In October, Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) spokesperson, Rupert Colville expressed concern about reports that Nauru police have failed to take action against alleged perpetrators of sexual violence, including that “impunity for such serious crimes increases the risk they will be repeated.”



A national inquiry into children in detention culminated with a 2014 report, The Forgotten Children. It found that, “Children on Nauru are suffering from extreme levels of physical, emotional, psychological and developmental distress.” The report notes that Australia’s policies are in breach of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and raises concern that detention is mandatory and without a time limit. Latest figures show there are still 92 children at the processing center on Nauru.


........
What’s Happening at Sea?
Operation Sovereign Borders puts military forces in charge of intercepting and towing or turning boats back to where they came from, often Indonesia (which has not signed the Refugee Convention).
What goes on at sea is veiled in secrecy, with the government refusing to answer questions relating to “operational matters.”
..............
Restricted Media Access to Nauru
In 2014, the Nauruan Government hiked its media visa application price from AUD200 to AUD8000 ($147 to $5862), which is non-refundable in the case of rejection. This is an increase of 4000 percent.
Visa requests, to enable reporting from Nauru, by media organizations such as Al Jazeera and the ABC have been refused, while the Guardian’s inquiry for information about obtaining a visa was ignored. The ABC’s Ginny Stein said even before submitting her application she was informed that it had been rejected.
............

Not only are journalists barred from accessing Nauru but their questions to its government are also met with resistance. In an October press release, Justice Minister David Adeang said the reason the government refuses to answer many of the “ridiculous” questions posed to it by Australian journalists is because, “Nauru has no obligation to answer to Australian media…They do not show us the respect of a sovereign nation and in return we have little respect for them.”


In April, the Nauruan government enforced a ban on Facebook citing its power to: “disrupt, embarrass, destroy one’s reputation and to create instability.”
............


And while Australia’s policies do not make sense from a humanitarian point of view, they also appear irrational from an economic perspective. The national commission of audit report shows it costs more than AUD400,000 per year to keep one person in offshore detention.
A Guardian article notes that letting the same person live in the community would cost less than AUD40,000.

.................

Director of legal advocacy at the Human Rights Law Centre, Daniel Webb said, “We’re currently spending $1 billion a year detaining asylum seekers offshore. That’s more than five times the United Nations refugee agency’s entire budget for all of South East Asia.”


And while Australia cruelly and wastefully spends time and money exporting its refugee protection responsibilities to other, less well-off, nations it has also slashed the foreign aid budget by about 20 percent in 2015-2016. The largest cut ever.




...
Australia?s Controversial Asylum Policies | The Diplomat

The Diplomat is an online international news magazine covering politics, society, and culture in the Asia-Pacific region. It is based in Tokyo, Japan.
.....
In December 2010, the online news aggregator RealClearWorld (RCW) cited The Diplomat as one of the top-five world news sites of 2010.^[13] In 2011, RCW again listed the The Diplomat as one of its top-five world news sites. The only other website that made RCW's list for two consecutive years is The National Interest.<sup>[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diplomat</sup>

[marinera]

What I find weird about this whole situation, as least in how it is being reported by the media, is that there are no calls for the root problem to be fixed, such as the war in Syria, or religious or ethnic intolerances, such as shia/sunnis, or pretty much everyone else against the Kurds. This is only a theory, maybe a hateful one at that, but the only reason the middle east and north Africa had been so stable for so long before the invasions of Afghanistan/Iraq and the Arab rising was because of the totalitarian states maintained by the likes of Gaddafi and Hussein. I'm not condoning their governments, because the shit they pulled was reprehensible, but considering what filled the void once they left maybe they were the lesser of two evils.

But back to the point, the media doesn't seem interested in fixing the root causes, and from what I can tell neither do the politicians, and I think that is the elephant in the room. Their only concern is the fact the refugees exist, not the why.

Exactly, and what is happening in this thread too. All you hear is rants and dreaming of solutions like 'Let's repatriate all of them'. The roots of the problem are directly linked to the West messing with Middle East and Africa, and once we created the havoc we pretend to have no responsibilities.

Here are my views: first, stop bombing, it is not just expensive and ineffective, but counterproductive. Wars are won on the ground, so helping locals who fight the ISIS (Kurds in first place) and maybe sending there western troops (I know, it will means messing again with ME internal affairs, but in this case I think it justifiable).

But Syrians are just a minority of the immigrants. In Italy, for example, most of immigrants are from Africa; in Greece, from Syria and Afghans. A big number of immigrants comes also from Balkans: Serbia, Kosovo and Albania, they generally go to Germany; add people coming from places like Pakisan, Eritrea, Somalia, Iraq, Ukraina; even if there isn't a war, in most of those countries there are religious/racial prosecution, repression and instability, so many of them would qualify as refugees as well. So there isn't an easy way to fix issues. Even when Syrian civil war will end, 80% of immigrants will still keep coming.

The crisis is planetary, so all ONU members where there isn't a war or a totalitarian regimen should take their quota of immigrants, in the meanwhile the Syrian crisis is solved.

What this crisis points to : both EU and ONU are near useless. A sovereign entity with power and resources that could impose respect of human rights everywhere and wokr fair social and economic standards of living on a global scale would have avoided this crisis.

The solution of this crisis, which is not episodic, doesn't lie in walls, fences or repatriating all the immigrants, that will not work. Quite adversely, the solution is less Nationalism and more international cooperation.

[PurpleOnes]

Just because there are immigrants does not mean you should take them inside your country if mostly they are bringing problems.

If these people would actually work , learn the language and communicate with native people then it would be cool. Also if they would respect how people are dressing , respect women and people in general in a country which is trying to help them.

No they do not do those things. Majory come for financial benefits and sit at home only talking to their own kind. That is the truth in this situation.

I know it personally and do not try to put any bs around this.

If there would not be such a big financial support just by sitting at home doing nothing in European countries then these people would not bother coming in such masses except those that are really fleeing from war.

For some odd reason European countries are ''owing'' these people something when they shouldn't. Just because your from a poor country that does not mean you can just hop on the back of someone and just consume without producing anything(not working).If you come to any European country you will act like the laws are made here and follow the rules.

There would not be this immigration problem if all of these immigrants would straight away go and take language classes , finding a job and not just isolate themselves totally while doing nothing and only demanding others to do as they please.

Supposedly majority of these immigrants are highly educated people based on the decisions they are making I'm not seeing this. I guess Merkels plan was to let inside men aged from 20-25 as a healthy work force but these fuckers are not even planning on working.

So if all of them would work , learn the language and act like normal people then there would be less of a problem but they aren't doing those things.

Even if they would do those things then they should not have a higher priority than people in your own country and even then they should be let in much less amounts.

People fully without any papers should not be even let inside a country. Those who are found with fraud papers should straight away be turned back.

Just because you have experienced war and you were poor your not supposed to be let just sit at home your whole life in some European country and collecting unemployement check. Huge amount who came even before these immigrants are doing this.

How in the hell you live in a country and still going 5-10 years into basic language classses? It's about desire learning the language if there is none that's the result.

On top of these majority these people are Muslim and follow Islam and are let inside Christian countries while Islam does not really approve other religions and only consider it being only right one. On top of that how they treat women and other things included.

[resistor]

I don't think it's quite right to blame the west for creating the situations in the middle east and north Africa. I think the west is just a convenient boogeyman/strawman, much in the same way feminists blame everything on this phantom "patriarchy". The problem with this way of thinking is that no-one within the spheres of conflict is ever held accountable,because everything can be passed off as the fault of the west, and that'll lead to history repeating itself. Remember, this whole shitstorm started with the Arab spring in 2011, a phenomenon exclusive of western intervention.

[marinera]

Even USA acknowledged that the birth of ISIS is a direct consequence of the (illegal) war against Iraq. If you read back in this very same thread you'll see I posted reasonable evidence that what is happening in Africa and Asia is a direct consequence of the activity of western Countries.

Suffit to say that Bashar al-Assad was a USA allied few years ago, now it is an enemy, but he is fighting the ISIS and is friend of Iran and Russia, so he can't be attacked. The same happened with Gaddafi : the west put him on power, then the west invaded Lybia. When Gaddafi was in charge, he was restraining immigration; immigrants that lands in Italy comes mostly from Lybia. We should manage an arrangement with the guy who is in charge in Lybia now, but, little problem: who is in charge in Lybia right now? Nobody knows. Plus that Country, that was once the heaven of Africa, is greatly impoverished now, so we have added lybian immigrants in the basket.

[CUSP82]

Here's a real novel idea. Instead of running away from your country like cowards, leaving your fellow countrymen behind, why not stay and fix it? What is that too hard so you want to take the easy way out? I guess you really love your country.

My countrymen a couple of hundred years ago fought the greatest power on earth at that time; the British Empire. Oh yes it was called a revolution. They were mostly farmers with pitchforks yet they fought and they died. They died for love of country and love of their countrymen. They gave the impetus for the formation of the greatest country on earth.

Many countries have gone through similar things; the French, Russians, Chinese, India, Iran, Egypt and many many others. For love of THEIR country, for love of their homes, their families; for the dream of a better way of life they fought and many of them died. Their blood gave rise to a new beginning for them, their families, their fellow countrymen, their country. Is it an easy thing to do? No it takes guts.

No thanks; I don't want cowards. I don't like them much either. You want to run and make your country's problems mine don't bother. You want to show some guts and change things? Well my country and many others will help you if you have a just cause. Just run away, complain, take from the generosity of others? No thanks; like I said before me and most of my countrymen don't like cowards. Do what we have done. Oh it's too hard? Well too bad!