Our ancestors were conquerors not immigrants :DAnd no one lived forever in Great Britain or Slovakia, you are all immigrants (maybe your great-grandparents were even economic refugees!) and you should thank god people weren't restricted and full of preconception like you back then.There are rights and then there are duties. You can not separate them. And since many people fail to understand that, I consider your argument invalid.
I am not dictionary but one of many definitions of argument is statement (or more statements) expressed in order to reach conslusion or to persuade/reason someone. You stated that some people should refrain from posting on "refugee" matter because of reasons. You obviously tried to persuade someone to do something unless you stated otherwise, so I consider it argument. (Argument even thou I did not respond to that exact part but other part of your post)Human rights - universal phrase for abusing civilized world. There are rights and then there are duties. You can not separate them. And since many people fail to understand that, I consider your argument invalid.
You failed to see that I did not even put forward an argument. I just made an observation.
Your rights-duties discourse is all very nice. But it is not really how human rights in the European Convention on Human Rights work. A civilised country is a country in which the rule of law applies. For the moment and in Europe this means respecting human rights. If you don't like it, change it. But in the meantime, respect it.
Yes I judge.. I am avoiding future trouble based on my observation of events and phenomenas in recent and far past. I am not driven by emotions, I try to see things realistic. Sorry for my lack of empathy.There are rights and then there are duties. You can not separate them. And since many people fail to understand that, I consider your argument invalid.
so how can you judge about people that aren't even there how they gonna follow their duties?
that really makes no sense to me and i can't find something about that in the human rights except "Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible." (Art 29 / 1)
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declarat ... an-rights/
And no one lived forever in Great Britain or Slovakia, you are all immigrants (maybe your great-grandparents were even economic refugees!) and you should thank god people weren't restricted and full of preconception like you back then.
I don't know, maybe because civilized countries have something called freedom of religion? I find the "would these countries let you do that"-argument so weird. No they wouldn't. But why in the world should we emulate those countries? That's a terrible idea lol.
Obviously you have to work hard to integrate them, that means language courses etc. and of course it has to be made clear that anything that goes against the law is not tolerable, even if it's something their culture doesn't have a problem with.
But regardless of what you think of Islam, as long as they're infringing on someone else's rights they can do what they want. If churches are allowed to ring their bells, there is no reason to ban muezzins from making their calls.
lol'd.
I am not driven by emotions [...] So your comparing between european immigrants in past and sitatuion today is quite an insult.
Without going out of my way to read the rest of the discussion and relying only on what's quoted, what jumps out at me is:
- Immigrants should be working hard to integrate, rather than taxpayers footing the bill for extensive programs for their integration, programs that have little to no evidence of even working.
- 'As long as they're [not] infringing on someone else's rights' - and therein lies the problem. I know a lot of Westerners like to consider Islam with other Abrahamic religions like Christianity and Judaism as a frame of reference, but this is wrong. Islam makes extensive proscriptions for the treatment of non-Muslims, how to use deception against them, how to subvert and dominate their societies, etc. It is a complete religious, social and political ideology, unlike the other two religions I mentioned. A better frame of reference would be communism, which is another world-dominating ideology.
I don't know, maybe because civilized countries have something called freedom of religion? I find the "would these countries let you do that"-argument so weird. No they wouldn't. But why in the world should we emulate those countries? That's a terrible idea lol.
Obviously you have to work hard to integrate them, that means language courses etc. and of course it has to be made clear that anything that goes against the law is not tolerable, even if it's something their culture doesn't have a problem with.
But regardless of what you think of Islam, as long as they're infringing on someone else's rights they can do what they want. If churches are allowed to ring their bells, there is no reason to ban muezzins from making their calls.
lol'd.
Do you have something substantial to explain why this notion is apparently so ridiculous to you?
Without going out of my way to read the rest of the discussion and relying only on what's quoted, what jumps out at me is:
- Immigrants should be working hard to integrate, rather than taxpayers footing the bill for extensive programs for their integration, programs that have little to no evidence of even working.
- 'As long as they're [not] infringing on someone else's rights' - and therein lies the problem. I know a lot of Westerners like to consider Islam with other Abrahamic religions like Christianity and Judaism as a frame of reference, but this is wrong. Islam makes extensive proscriptions for the treatment of non-Muslims, how to use deception against them, how to subvert and dominate their societies, etc. It is a complete religious, social and political ideology, unlike the other two religions I mentioned. A better frame of reference would be communism, which is another world-dominating ideology.
ahh okidoki. than we will just state that human rights are not valid for moslems and communists. oh wait a second. thats not possible, because its against the **** law. and it would undermine all the values which are coming with our constitution. DAMN! Thats just bad luck ops: ops: ops:
in fact we are talking about the eu and refugees here in the EU. More exactly some people brought forward that the german act of "inviting" hundred of thousend refugees in our country had led to the descision that the uk has left the eu. So i had to think that we are speaking about the law in europe, uk, germany ect ...
And in germany, as long as we are speaking about refugees and not immigrants (but i think for you it is equal) they do have a human right to come and stay as long as the threat is considered as real. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_Germany
combined: i read your post in relation to this thread and i thought that for you refugees = immigrants.
we in europe don't have visible borders anymore. so if a refugee comes to a a contry with a non-european border he can travel to germany anyways. Furthermore, the situation in the refugee camps inside and outside of the non-european borders are mostly not "safe" according to the german law.In truth, the first safe place a refugee sets foot in is their refuge. When they start country-shopping they're not refugees anymore. By the time they get to Germany, it probably is true that immigrants, refugees, what's the difference.
surely you can show some numbers or statistics and the related citation if you so confident about this. otherwise its just your guessing. nothing else.This is just an aside to the fact that the vast majority are migrants, not refugees
we in europe don't have visible borders anymore. so if a refugee comes to a a contry with a non-european border he can travel to germany anyways. Furthermore, the situation in the refugee camps inside and outside of the non-european borders are mostly not "safe" according to the german law.In truth, the first safe place a refugee sets foot in is their refuge. When they start country-shopping they're not refugees anymore. By the time they get to Germany, it probably is true that immigrants, refugees, what's the difference.
surely you can show some numbers or statistics and the related citation if you so confident about this. otherwise its just your guessing. nothing else.This is just an aside to the fact that the vast majority are migrants, not refugees
as far as i know at least the half of the applicants were allowed to stay because of our law in 2015. page 31 (http://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/D ... cationFile) from where do u take your "vast majority". for only approximately 20% of the applications the german governant was not responsible. for 2016 there are still no reliable numbers.
so neither germany was not ther refuge nor the vast majority were migrants according to the german law. both of your statements should be wrong.
I don't know, maybe because civilized countries have something called freedom of religion?
I find the "would these countries let you do that"-argument so weird. No they wouldn't. But why in the world should we emulate those countries? That's a terrible idea lol.
Obviously you have to work hard to integrate them, that means language courses etc. and of course it has to be made clear that anything that goes against the law is not tolerable, even if it's something their culture doesn't have a problem with.
But regardless of what you think of Islam, as long as they're infringing on someone else's rights they can do what they want. If churches are allowed to ring their bells, there is no reason to ban muezzins from making their calls.
lol'd.
Do you have something substantial to explain why this notion is apparently so ridiculous to you?
lol'd.
Do you have something substantial to explain why this notion is apparently so ridiculous to you?
Got some free time now.
Opening with the self righteous zinger of 'I don't know, but I actually do know'. Not once was it suggested to take away their religious freedoms. Your zinger is therefore irrelevant. Assimilation doesn't involve indoctrinating Muslims away from Islam. It means they must respect the beliefs of others as much as they respect their own, and show as such. Their freedoms must match the freedoms of the new country that now governs them. Or do you think they deserve the freedom to practice Sharia Law in a new country if they desire so?
Why shouldn't we emulate them? They have cultures and traditions they desperately want to uphold, so why shouldn't other countries strive for that? Multiculturalism shouldn't be replacing previous traditions and cultural past times with new outside ones, it should be the outside cultures take on the current. I think companies turning Halal and paying ridiculous fees for yearly accreditation is an absolute travesty, just to appease one religious culture in the world.
Both sides should be working hard to integrate these immigrants. It's not a God given right to go wherever you want, whenever you want. It's a privilege which people don't seem to understand in this world, and take for granted.
I don't want Islam infringing on anyone's rights so a person can do whatever they want. You've obviously made a terrible error and didn't mean that.
Like I said, lol'd.
The other point was the difference between refugees and immigrants.
First of all, it is true, that the law says, they are refugees until the first safe country they reach and have to be granted a place there. Therefore they would have to stay in said country.
Here is the thing: When this law was made, no one had this number of refugees in mind. Also it is realy unfair from some countries, as there is literaly no way of getting for example to germany without passing a safe country.
But now, as the numbers of refugees became that large, greece for example can't take care of that amount of refugees anymore. In my opinion, it would be realy egoistic to not help themtake care of some of them. That is why they are welcome to Germany as well.
And still, those here, who come with the refugees from Greece, but are from safe homelands, are getting denied Asyl here as well and get send home. So there is still a difference between refugees and immigrants (just take their status when entering EU, it is not so complicated )
Please also keep in mind, we have those refugees thanks to a war started from the USA and supported by Great Britain and 34 other states. Those are responsibile.