To be fair, the policy is largely symbolic. It might be a step in the right direction, but it will not really matter too much given that there are not enough people to actually perform what is in the policy (and she knows it).
International Germany's Multicultural Experiment: 45% of Migrants Failed German Integration Courses
- Thread starter Arkain2K
- Start date
To be fair, the policy is largely symbolic. It might be a step in the right direction, but it will not really matter too much given that there are not enough people to actually perform what is in the policy (and she knows it).
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 19,117
- Reaction score
- 14,671
I think it is more about the message being sent out. As long as European countries are not putting out statements to the effect of "everybody come here for free money and social services", the amount of immigration will probably stay at a level that Europe can handle. As long as we are not marketing Europe as some kind of a paradise for refugees, people will be less likely to abandon their homes in search for gold and glory in another continent.
We absolutely cannot afford to make blunders like the one from a year past, which caused an all-out refugee crisis to take place.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2015
- Messages
- 6,149
- Reaction score
- 1,788
This is part of the problem. Germans, like lots of other people in the rest of Western Europe post WW2, have had it easy and become arrogant and complacent. Add in cultural marxism and the false notion that everyone is nice and civilised just like us and this increasing regularity of mass murder, violence and rape by invited outsiders that we are now seeing is what you get.
The standard of living you and me have become accustomed to isn't some divine right that is guranteed to always be there. There are still plenty of bad people with bad ideas and bad intentions in this world who will ruin for us if we let them. And boy, are we letting them.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,003
- Reaction score
- 0
Certainly.
Sweden and Germany were very optismic about how this refugee crisis would evolve. But three things became clear quickly: (A) a large part of their population was not on board with this optimism, (B) neither was the other european countries and (C) the amount of refugees they had to take in exceeded expectations (amplified because other european nations didn't want to share the burden). So she steered towards other policies in face of that.
Of course now with the recent axe attack, and the attempted bombing of a concert, both by refugees, I think it's fair to say that the german's enthusiam is dwindling even more.
That she changes her policies is not really evidence of anything, other than she's the rational politician everyone thought of her to be. It's not "only" because others tell her the initial plan was not working, by all accounts she is a thinking person herself.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 19,117
- Reaction score
- 14,671
Well, I would say that the criticism and decreasing approval rates had a major impact on her recent decisions.
Let's face it, Brexit took place mainly because EU was absolutely unwilling to compromise with Britain about border control, and David Cameron was sent packing with nothing to show for it after taking a gamble with the referendum in an attempt to force the EU to change its stance towards immigration and appease the British population.
This has soured Merkel on the current EU leadership, and made her realize that she could be steering her ship towards the same direction. The backlash was much stronger than expected. She is more pragmatic than the idealists that are in charge of EU, thus she's now doing what the people want her to do, to retain her leadership status. The EU leaders do not need to care because they aren't democratically elected anyway, thus approval ratings are of no concern to them.
But none of this could've truly happened if it wasn't for the people who continued to argue against immigration, even at the risk of being labelled a racist.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 15,231
- Reaction score
- 2
Hard to give the general dumb public the right to vote my. In America the citizens would vote for a Kardashian if given the chance.
Democracy u.s. is in debt to communist China.
Plus in America there are so many anti Americans they would vote someone in just to ruin things
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,003
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes?
No, let's not face that, because it's not true at all.
First of all; Britain is not even part of the Schengen agreement, so the British government has full authority over its own border control. So no idea how that myth ever got established.
As for the refugee crisis; the U.K have taken in a WHOPPING 5.500 refugees, with around 38k applicants total, and have pledged to grant 20k citizenship by 2020. Yes, what a dystopian nightmare for one of the richest economies in the world, and a total population of more than 60 mil.
The EU has no stance on immigration when it comes to non-EU citizens. Another myth. The EU enacted some refugee quotas to help out Greece and Italy, and that has been it. Also, there are some common asylum rules etc. enacted by the ratification of the ECHR, but that's really the extend of it. How the Brexit campaign managed to sell the myth of "breaking point" is also beyond me.
Why Brexit took place is a larger discussion. But as showcased here, misinformation played a big part.
Who are these mythical EU leaders you talk about?
Aren't democratically elected? I guess you then mean the the president of the commission (who is voted in by the european parliament - who are democatically elected)? Yeah.. If there's one word to describe good ol' Juncker it would certainly be idealist, lol. If the word "technocrat" ever manifested into flesh, I'm pretty sure it would take the form of Juncker.
Or do you mean the head of the european council (you know, who is appointed by the democratically elected leaders of each member state)? I'm sad to tell you, that that man hold little to no power at all.
Yes, a big shout out to the bravery of the people on the right. They risked being called "racist", but even against this epic threat, they kept marching on. I'm sure the history books will be filled with legendary tales of this great bravery, that was maintaining the status quo, and avoiding helping people fleeing war and terror.
Say what you want about Hitler, he would have fucked these guys up.
I guess people think life is better with the jews running the place.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 19,117
- Reaction score
- 14,671
Immigration and border control is not only about refugees, but about the free movement of people within Europe. Let's not even talk about Schengen which turned out to be a total sham. Everything in my statement reflects the reality of the situation.
This is what I said:
You don't need to hear it from me, you can hear it from the horse's mouth:
"When talks return to the UK's reforms, Mr Cameron will seek to secure the deal which he wants before holding an in/out referendum on the UK's EU membership.
However, he has said he will walk away from the summit without agreement unless he gets a "credible" package he can sell to voters in the referendum."
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35599279
"David Cameron’s pledge to reform freedom of movement was undermined by Jean-Claude Juncker yesterday, who said there could be no changes to the renegotiation deal he was given in February.
The president of the European Commission said Mr Cameron had been given the “maximum he could receive” and said there could be “no kind of renegotiation”."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/22/juncker-tells-britain-you-wont-get-a-better-deal/
"David Cameron has told the EU it must reform freedom of movement rules if Britain is to maintain close economic ties with the continent in the wake of the referendum.
In his final meeting with EU leaders before standing down as Prime Minister, Mr Cameron claimed that British voters backed a Brexit because people believe the country has “no control” of its borders."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ld-the-eu-it-must-reform-freedom-of-movement/
"After Merkel speaks with Juncker on the phone that weekend, her belief that the Commission president is more a part of the problem than a part of the solution doesn't change. The chancellor believes that Juncker's appetite for power is one of the reasons why the British have turned their backs on Europe."
http://www.spiegel.de/international...gle-between-merkel-and-juncker-a-1100852.html
Juncker is a prime example, nobody in their right mind would vote for him to become the EU President. You would think that a person holding the position of a President ought to be chosen by the people. I can guarantee that Juncker would not even get 1% of the vote in a democratic vote. Nobody knows who he is and nobody cares, but the people behind EU understand that the system could not withstand open democracy, due to the large amount of opposition towards the institution and the army of grey bureucrats running it.
They also risked losing their jobs, having their reputation tarnished by the media, being undermined in politics. If you look at the kind of bullshit that a Nigel Farage had to deal with throughout his career as a politician, compared to your average politician who goes under the radar and mainly gets soft-ball questions thrown at him, who would willingly take his place? A man, with less of a way with words, would've been constantly humiliated by the media, the hostile crowds and the random hecklers who kept challenging him.
The amount of people who flee actual war and terror is minimal. Syrians do not amount to a very large percentage of the people who make up the refugees. In Finland, they amount to maybe 1-2% of the refugees. A whopping 409 of the tens of thousands of immigrants last year were from Syria. The rest are from countries that aren't in an active state of war, they simply have lower living standards.
It is too bad but Finland would not have developed post-World War II if the people didn't break their backs while working their asses off from the point of total devastation to create a welfare state which is capable of holding true refugees, but not every person looking for a hand-out.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2015
- Messages
- 20,105
- Reaction score
- 15,707
To be fair in the case the coach still pretend they're not losing the game and censor who say otherwise
Also is a coach that don't seem to particularly love the team
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2015
- Messages
- 21,164
- Reaction score
- 4,681
Good. Nationalism is a direct cause of racism and xenophobia. Islamophobia is a huge problem and a major cause of terrorism. More leaders should take her cue.
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 10,848
- Reaction score
- 8,862
Piss off
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2015
- Messages
- 21,164
- Reaction score
- 4,681
nm
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2005
- Messages
- 31,929
- Reaction score
- 34,287
What's your definition of islamaphobia?
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2015
- Messages
- 21,164
- Reaction score
- 4,681
It's a label and useful name to call people to get them to back down.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2015
- Messages
- 20,105
- Reaction score
- 15,707
Yes, because EU spread legs approach is defintely not pushing everyday more peoples to see immigrants and different ethnic groups as a problem.
It's not pushing everyday more peoples toward extreme rights (wich often traslate into racism and xenophobia)
Maybe a bit of nationalism to make clear who own the house and that guest should respect owners or fuckoff out of the house may have generated less "racism and xenophobia"
The irony is that the first to benefit from that will be good immigrants willing to integrate
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2004
- Messages
- 106,542
- Reaction score
- 209
