71 dead found in a truck abandoned in Austria

[What 23]

What would you do to save yourself and your family from an uninhabitable bombed-out shell of a homeland?
Can't see yourself acting in desperation?
You guys really are something else.

I never said I didn't understand why refugees have a legitimate reason to be refugees. I argue that the indigenous peoples have a legitimate reason to not let them resettle there.

 

[RedWhiteNTrue]

No, people granted asylum in, say, Germany are not illegal immigrants.

They illegally travel through many countries to get there. After they are granted asylum obviously definition they are no longer illegal, just like Mexicans granted amnesty cease being illegal after that but nonetheless snuck into the country illegally.

 

[spacejunk]

But you'd do the same if you and your family were caught in the middle of a terrible warzone, no?
Playing dumb to weasel out of the discussion won't work here, friend.

 

[RedWhiteNTrue]

But you'd do the same if you and your family were caught in the middle of a terrible warzone, no?
Playing dumb to weasel out of the discussion won't work here, friend.

What families? In this particular story: of the 71 people in the truck, there was 8 women and 4 children.

In the videos we see of migrants pouring into train stations, sailing across in boats, it's almost exclusively young men coming in. Not "families". Sure, there is a few but overwhelming it is young men.

Now that we have used the loaded language "terrible warzone" are we working with the assumption all of these immigrants are from Syria? I'm not sure what there is to substantiate this. Where else is there currently terrible warzones?

I can't speak out hypothetical situations. Surely some men, would fight ISIS as they flood their country and not run away. If we are invaded tommorow I wonder if all our true Americans flying the red white and blue on their Ford F150s would high tail it over to Canada with their tail in between their legs begging for asylum.

But in the end I would probably be happy just to not hear the sound of bombs and gunfire. Which means Turkey or somewhere near there is adequate. Especially if it means travelling with a 3-year old in a makeshift boat across the Mediterranean Sea or cramming into a refrigerated truck to go from Hungary to Austria to inevitably whichever country offers the most welfare money.

 

[spacejunk]

War is "the sound of bombs and gunfire"?
And you complain about my use of "loaded language"?

 

[RedWhiteNTrue]

War is "the sound of bombs and gunfire"?
And you complain about my use of "loaded language"?

Just to not hear sound of bombs, gunfire, chance of getting killed, shall I go on.

Again, which countries are warzones now? Where do people have to be from to be considered refugees? I know Syria, where else? I can assure you not all these migrants are coming from active warzones. I can also assure you that I don't see much families!

 

[What 23]

It is quite peculiar isn't it? I'm sure many actually from Syria have families with them. I've seen images (not to say that means it is conclusive). But I've also seen the images you're talking about.

There are probably a number of factors contributing to more young males. Young males have the budding testosterone. Young males often go exploring around the age that many of these look to be anyways. This is the prime age to move and experience. Many of the older people, and people with families, probably do look for more stable closer regions. When you look at actual statistics, Turkey and Lebanon have taken in and continue to house, or give refuge to considerably more than are pouring into Europe.
At least it seems this way to me.

But anyways, so you have the fact that young unattached males naturally have more inclination to go far and fight for their own livelihood. People are selfish. But they probably do have families, that they will, because they are "soldiering" through this for survival, try to help or provide a way for.

And some probably take advantage of this situation, and are more economic migrants than anything else. They simply want a more upward moving life. And maybe they are strong enough to make the journey first. They don't want to put the wives, sisters, grandmothers, daughters, grandfathers, and children on boats that might sink, or make them be at the mercy of the elements and chance. As men they have a higher survivability in many circumstances with only other men, who can also take care of themselves, more or less... Who are less likely to be victimized by others.

Don't get me wrong. I think the forced sense of altruism Europeans have for these people is wrong... At the degree they are expected to have it. It is "pathological" altruism, and isn't really smart. But the doesn't mean I don't understand their plight as humans.

It is really up to Europe to just be realistic and shut the fucking door.

 

[SKL]

In Vienna there are lots of places with high % of immigrants (most of them from former Yugoslavia and Turkey and yes, many of them muslims).

Yugoslavians and Turks, even Algerians, are far closer culturally to Europeans and more familiar with European lifestyles and mores than Syrians or other Middle Easterners, even if they are Muslim. They are maybe on the level of cultural difference of religious Ashkenazim with Yiddish as a native language, a century ago give or take. A different thing entirely than Mideasterners from a very radically different cultural and political setting than Europe.

Comparing apples and oranges.

This is much like the argument that gets made in the U.S. that, statistically, immigrants commit less crime than native born, but this is accounting for all immigrants, coming from heterogenous groups. Immigrants of, say, East Asians and European extraction are not committing as much crime as Mexicans, South Americans, West Indians, and various other groups. It is intellectually dishonest to lump all these groups together. Socioeconomic factors and relative affluence of course play a role but so does culture.

I never said I didn't understand why refugees have a legitimate reason to be refugees. I argue that the indigenous peoples have a legitimate reason to not let them resettle there.

This TBH. We have a humanitarian obligation to help others but not at the expensive of demographic and cultural suicide.

 

[Bagseed]

Yugoslavians and Turks, even Algerians, are far closer culturally to Europeans and more familiar with European lifestyles and mores than Syrians or other Middle Easterners, even if they are Muslim. They are maybe on the level of cultural difference of religious Ashkenazim with Yiddish as a native language, a century ago give or take. A different thing entirely than Mideasterners from a very radically different cultural and political setting than Europe.

ok. so you claim that people from the middle east are inherently more violent and criminal? where do you take this from?

ps directly in front of my house there was a spot where lots of african immigrants were hanging out, some of them dealing drugs. but there never was any violence, and not even the girls I live with felt endangered by those people.

You still haven't commented to my point that less poverty and better social security for everybody equals a safer society.

This TBH. We have a humanitarian obligation to help others but not at the expensive of demographic and cultural suicide.

again, please explain this theory of "demographic and cultural suicide", because I still don't get it. maybe you should blame globalization in general, because I believe that American television and fast food are probably more harmful to "our culture" than some muslim immigrants and refugees.

 

[SKL]

^You're instinct for self-preservation is fine, but it doesn't override the instinct of others to flee danger. Protecting the ambiguous idea of culture over the tangible, concrete reality of fleeing humans in danger is immoral.

No, it is not. Ignoring the suffering of others is immoral, for certain, on that we are agreed, although as to what to do about it, this is a difficult question. Opening our borders inflicts danger on ourselves, our culture, and our descendants. A middle ground needs to be found, so we can retain our own identities (and this is not just about a pan-European identity or a USA identity, but identities much more local than that, say Northern Ireland, Texas, Sicily, whatever ...)

I don't think many religions are a real friend to us these days. So much of this nonsense has emerged from essentially power struggles between denominations. If anything, I hope that the current wave of religious extremism helps us move away from such irrationality.

Well, wars have been fought over or more or less fine points of theology for a long time. I think the Shi'a-Sunni conflict has a good potential to become a rough 21st century analogue to the 30 years war. As far Islam and Christianity, geography and demography, more than theology. Commerce could happen and indeed was essential in the development of East and West, but cultural encroachment has inevitably lead to wars, Charles Martel at Tours, Don Juan at Lepanto, and many other conflicts both east, west, and south. We have our own ways, some of us can assimilate to other ways, and otherwise we had ought to stick to our own. It is better for all involved.

Identifying with a subjective, invented "race" is pointless. You are identifying with something that has no real tangible markers or reality. Just because you have white skin is nor eason for you to consider yourself kin to other white people. No offense, but I don't look at other whites like you and consider yourself kin or connected with me at all, and I hope you don't see me as your white-brother. I would never help you over any other person because you are white. I guess I am saying that your faux-racial heritage is not going to be of any use to you in reality.

Europeans are not a single ethnic group. Look at people in Greece, people in Norway, people in Romania. All have distinct ethnic heritage, all of them are on the continent called Europe. The mediterranean countries have had huge input from Africa for many many years. There's really very few true "white" people in Europe. I wonder if you are trying to defend or identify a subset that doesn't exist.

"White" is a subjective category, socially constructed, although of course there are genetic markers for different kinds of heritage which in turn are correlated with a variety of characteristics, physical, psychical, behavioural. Europe has always had some inward and outward migration with considerable ethnocultural diversity, but what we're now looking at seems to rapidly be evolving into a Le Camp des Saints type situation, and every European and everyone who identifies themselves with the European cause should pay attention to this, probably the most pressing issue our generation.

Now, speaking of identity, the U.S. "melting pot" project as I've spoken about before is something of a special case, given that we were multicultural from our inception even though even moderate soi-disant "white nationalists" ignore this fact. That's why I said above that we aren't really a "nation" in the sense of being able to have an authentic "nationalism." Our rough equivalent we call "patriotism" which is something of a different animal. "White nationalism" is a problematic term, I'd prefer to speak of a "pan-European nationalism," but that in turn sounds too much like the leftist "postnationalism" of the EU, etc. Terminology is difficult.

Inuit and Eskimo have been in Europe for longer then white germanic peoples. There is evidence of them in Euope (Greenland, Siberia) over 4000 years ago. Are they not more European then most Europeans? But the truth is, inhabitants of a land change often, and there is little point in claiming history as a reason to avoid changing the present. No culture has ever been truly static.

Culture isn't static and culture from 4,000 years ago isn't relevant to culture today, but demographic changes on the scope being contemplated at the present time are unprecedented and will almost certainly ensure the total destruction of our shared traditional culture in favour of, I can't really predict the future, but increasingly atomised and probably mutually hostile communities and civil chaos? It is almost certainly sure to be ugly. We owe it to one another to rescue ourselves from this. My heart breaks that this will cause suffering to migrants and refugees, but we have other modes to aid them, and we cannot do so at the expensive of our civilization.

I suspect that the reason is twofold. One, geographically Syrians are closer to Northern Europe, and there is (was) a relatively direct route for them to take to get to Northern Europe. Secondly, I think most of these asylum seekers have chosen to go to Europe. There's no point in forcing people fleeing their homes to go somewhere else against there will.

Geography and the ease of obtaining benefits, yes. Forcing people to go somewhere against their will, well, I hope it doesn't end this way, but I'm mainly just pointing out that Japan sees no real criticism for being a monoethnic and ethnic supremacist society but such criticism was and is flung at Rhodesia, South Africa, even the U.S. Israel is a special case and would probably be beter left out of this discussion because of the tangents it tends to bring up.

I personally think that all nations are obligated to help those seeking protection. I think that affluent countries like Japan should certainly be hlpeing out and it is an indictment of their society if they are not doing so. Its probably a bad example though, because Japan is historically quite monocultural; look at the Ainu.

I'm not hearing anything about a statement I made, which is that a lot fo the asylum seekers I have heard talk about fleeing temporarily to Europe. It seems quite a few wish to return when their country is safe. That appears to be a fact that the fear mongers are unwilling to discuss.

I think the principle of reciprocity needs to be invoked here to. Wouldn't we expect help if/when we need it?

You and I agree we are obligated to help, but not in terms of opening borders. I suspect a lot of the temporary resettlement won't be so temporary - this has been our experience in the U.S. by a ngreat measure. And plus the risk, nay practical certainty, of the infilitration of hostile elements. We should with the UN be setting up and administering humane refugee camps in the appropriate eras and managing the crisis. Offering military or political assistance sounds good but it was our political machinations and military misadventures that caused the current situation so the best that we can do would I guess be classed as species of "harm reduction."

BY THE WAY, I'd like to thank my leftist threads in this thread for by and large being respectful, if in my personal perception hard-headed, over the course of this discussion. Not too much slinging of labels like "racist," "fascist," although I did catch "a right wing asshole" on one occasion, but that's OK, that's a label I can live with because I am, in fact, both right-wing and something of an asshole. But yeah, cheers to pretty much everyone involved that we've kept it civil, reasonably educated, and hopefully mutually enriching. I like this kind of conversation.

 

[Deleted member 210577]

So peaceful. Migrants trying to breach the Hungarian border. Next video shows them lobbing shit. How would you like to try and spin this one huh? And you want my nation to take on this ungrateful bunch of tossers who have ZERO respect?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f4e_1442414364

No one prepared to comment on this huh?

 

[What 23]

I'm watching this Vice thing on it... It is hard to not feel something. Confirmed. I'm human. I still consider controlling ones borders important.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f4e_1442414364
No one prepared to comment on this huh?

It is paralyzing, to know what to say. It is fucked up.

 

[malakaix]

Hungary is definitely not backing down from this, taking a firm stand. I don't blame them, just look at the liveleak video above.

 

[Deleted member 210577]

I'm watching this Vice thing on it... It is hard to not feel something. Confirmed. I'm human. I still consider controlling ones borders important.

It is paralyzing, to know what to say. It is fucked up.

Fully support Hungary. The UN and EU leaders have condemned Hungary for daring to protect its own borders and sovereignty. Just let that sink in for one moment.. what that really means, what it tells you about the UN and EU.

The migrants tried to force their way through a closed border. They were repelled by police. Totally legitimate response. And Hungary gets condemned for it? I think they were lucky not to get shot quite honestly!

You don't go demanding or forcing your way into another nation. At that point you are no longer a migrant but an invading force. Anyone who sanctions that action, which appears to be nearly all of the mainstream media and international agencies, have lost their minds and are totally corrupted. It's being spun as Hungary acting wrongly.. that is very worrying.


I can not believe anyone at this point still wants to welcome these people into our nations.

 

[malakaix]

Fully support Hungary. The UN and EU leaders have condemned Hungary for daring to protect its own borders and sovereignty. Just let that sink in for one moment.. what that really means, what it tells you about the UN and EU.

The migrants tried to force their way through a closed border. They were repelled by police. Totally legitimate response. And Hungary gets condemned for it? I think they were lucky not to get shot quite honestly!

You don't go demanding or forcing your way into another nation. At that point you are no longer a migrant but an invading force. Anyone who sanctions that action, which appears to be nearly all of the mainstream media and international agencies, have lost their minds and are totally corrupted. It's being spun as Hungary acting wrongly.. that is very worrying.


I can not believe anyone at this point still wants to welcome these people into our nations.

Agreed.

At no point was it mentioned on mainstream media the manner in which the migrants conducted themselves at the border.. stones, sticks, bottles been thrown at police of the country there demanding to enter, kicking and breaking down a barrier. Hungary was simply portrayed as a violent oppressor for responding to defending it's borders.

 

[Deleted member 210577]

More demanding. More putting their children in danger to further their aim of economic migration. Incredible. And typical of the BBC to obfuscate the truth about what happened yesterday at the Hungarian border, further on in that article:

On Wednesday, Hungarian security forces at Horgos, on the Serbian border, clashed with migrants wanting to enter, using tear gas and water cannon to stop them forcing their way in.

Notice the language and phrasing. Forcing and breaking the border entry gate has become "wanting to enter", and the order of the sentence structure subtly implies the Hungarian security forces acted first to stop them entering.. when actually the immigrants attempted to break the border crossing first and were then fired on by security forces. This is the level of media bullshit we have to put up with and it's a fucking disgrace.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34278228

 

[drug_mentor]

I will happily comment on your liveleak video. First of all, very few refugees are seen engaging in acts of aggression. Secondly, when you deploy razor wire and an army of police in riot gear to prevent asylum seekers from exercising their legal rights, your state has escalated the situation to a point that aggression is predictable behaviour. Seeking asylum is not a crime, in my view, if employing thugs to beat down people fleeing horrible conflicts in order to maintain border sovereignty is not a crime, it fucking well should be.

If you truly think these people are economic migrants, there is a very easy solution. Let them in, have their case made, and reject asylum on the basis they are not refugees. It is unclear to me why you would assume they are economic migrants, but the solution to a wave of economic migrants is not to beat them down at the border, it is to fairly hear and reject their claim so the message gets through to potential economic migrants that your state takes evaluations of asylum seeker claims seriously. A handful of people throwing empty bottles does not give a state permission to renege on its international obligations.

 

[RedWhiteNTrue]

I will happily comment on your liveleak video. First of all, very few refugees are seen engaging in acts of aggression. Secondly, when you deploy razor wire and an army of police in riot gear to prevent asylum seekers from exercising their legal rights, your state has escalated the situation to a point that aggression is predictable behaviour. Seeking asylum is not a crime, in my view, if employing thugs to beat down people fleeing horrible conflicts in order to maintain border sovereignty is not a crime, it fucking well should be.

If you truly think these people are economic migrants, there is a very easy solution. Let them in, have their case made, and reject asylum on the basis they are not refugees. It is unclear to me why you would assume they are economic migrants, but the solution to a wave of economic migrants is not to beat them down at the border, it is to fairly hear and reject their claim so the message gets through to potential economic migrants that your state takes evaluations of asylum seeker claims seriously. A handful of people throwing empty bottles does not give a state permission to renege on its international obligations.

By this logic no countries should have any fences along their border and should let in unlimited numbers of people to get theor asylum requests processed. Once they let them in their will undoubtedly be complaints about the living conditions/food, they process theor request for asylum it gets accepted and as far as I know they must remain in the country which granted them asylum. If there request is denied, what will they do ?

You would just let them into your country. Not examine any documents check terror databases ensure they dont have weapons pr drugs? Or infectious disease?

 

[Deleted member 210577]

I will happily comment on your liveleak video. First of all, very few refugees are seen engaging in acts of aggression. Secondly, when you deploy razor wire and an army of police in riot gear to prevent asylum seekers from exercising their legal rights, your state has escalated the situation to a point that aggression is predictable behaviour. Seeking asylum is not a crime, in my view, if employing thugs to beat down people fleeing horrible conflicts in order to maintain border sovereignty is not a crime, it fucking well should be.

They have no legal superiority if a nation wishes to enact border controls.. they are essentially guests and a country has every right to consider whether admitting them through or not. Asylum has formal and legal process, in order to process people properly and allocate them resources, for the benefit of the asylum seeker and to ensure the host nation is not adversely affected. If I try tried to go anywhere without my passport I would either be arrested or fucking shot.. so long as we have national boundaries there has to be a system of control involved. Forcing your way through when you have traveled over several nations, from an already safe place, is bullshit quite frankly. Hungary had every right to do what it did.

The attitude of trying to force their way through is why I am so against this migration wave. It displays clear lack of disrespect and uncivil behavior. Do I want people with that way of thinking in my nation? Sorry, but no.

If you truly think these people are economic migrants, there is a very easy solution. Let them in, have their case made, and reject asylum on the basis they are not refugees. It is unclear to me why you would assume they are economic migrants, but the solution to a wave of economic migrants is not to beat them down at the border, it is to fairly hear and reject their claim so the message gets through to potential economic migrants that your state takes evaluations of asylum seeker claims seriously. A handful of people throwing empty bottles does not give a state permission to renege on its international obligations.

They are several nations away from where they started, seeking to get to Germany, Sweden and the UK, specifically. They even chant those country names. Why? Because they know they will get the most freebies from those nations. Not only does that clearly make them economic migrants, but even deciding on where they would like to go.. the absolute nerve of these people to dictate that. Why should the public of the host nations be forced to cover the costs of these economic migrants? They are not my problem. If they go through the formal process and do it properly, that's alright, we have our system in place for that and we can control the numbers. But just opening the gates to everyone is a piss take, and potentially putting people of our nations at risk. ISIS has specifically stated they will use this to smuggle people through.. waves of people who are not being processed properly only facilitates that danger.

We (UK) have had a problem at Calais for some time now, with African economic migrants and others. Failure to be tough has resulted in these people becoming ever more daring, putting not only themselves at risk but also other people. If it means beating a few people down so the whole lot get the message, then so be it, I can live with that.

Genuine refugees don't go around dictating what country they want to go to, especially picking the ones with most freebies. Genuine refugees are just genuinely happy to be out of a warzone or other disaster situation and counting their stars they are alive!! What we are seeing are not refugees but economic migrants. We have an obligation to help refugees, which we already do and have done. We have no obligation to pander to waves of economic migrants who just want an easy ride at the expense of the taxpayer, who in the case of the UK get shafted a LOT already.

 

[alasdairm]

^ fwiw, when i see stuff like this, i have a problem with it: Rioting Migrants - Watch African Refugees Destroy Southern Europe (assuming that the video is what it says it is).

i think the problem is that you seem to assume that 100% of refugees behave this way and, thus, they should all be repelled. i think it's a mistake to make that assumption (as much of a mistake as it would be to assume the opposite).

alasdair