First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Swedish centre worker girl stabbed to death by teen refugee
2519 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / Anime World
Offline
Posted 1/27/16
Don't mind me. I'm just here to read all the SJW posts.
Humms 
12003 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 1/27/16 , edited 1/27/16
XD good. A taste of their own medicine, and no I'm not heartless, this is just what they brought onto themselves. They just stop letting refugees come into Canada because we have no where to put them.

It's like these people think you can figure out why someone kills another person. Keep it up, because it's going to keep happening if the world doesn't smartin up and take off the belt......("snap") back to the fuckin old days if this keeps up.
Posted 1/27/16 , edited 1/27/16
I see a lot of anecdotes on both sides of the issue, but it's difficult to find much data on the problem. Anybody have anything to offer to counterbalance the 20-60,000-ish (death tolls are infamously tough to calculate) civilian death toll in Syria? I know there are millions of refugees worldwide, but obviously not all of them would have died otherwise. The stat I have on Sweden is 60,000-ish refugees accepted? How has this affected Sweden's death toll? Has accepting Syrian refugees saved more people or less people? Are more lives lost now that Sweden has accepted the refugees? What about all countries combined? Is there any hard data to combat the fact that millions of people are probably better off now than they would otherwise be if countries didn't accept refugees?

From an intuitive standpoint, I can't see the numbers matching up in favor turning away refugees, but I don't really have much data. Can anyone help me out here?

Edit: For the record, I am for accepting refugees, but I'm honestly curious what the numbers are here. I am honestly having a tough time finding anything that, in general, suggests that the world is better off denying refugees. So if anyone has anything that doesn't -- from either side of the debate -- rely on guilt, fear, anger, or religion, please let me know. Because given the vast number of people and the high level of violence in the region, I'm having a hard time seeing how accepting refugees would be worse on the whole.
15242 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Online
Posted 1/27/16 , edited 1/27/16

theYchromosome wrote:

I see a lot of anecdotes on both sides of the issue, but it's difficult to find much data on the problem. Anybody have anything to offer to counterbalance the 20-60,000-ish (death tolls are infamously tough to calculate) civilian death toll in Syria? I know there are millions of refugees worldwide, but obviously not all of them would have died otherwise. The stat I have on Sweden is 60,000-ish refugees accepted? How has this affected Sweden's death toll? Has accepting Syrian refugees saved more people or less people? Are more lives lost now that Sweden has accepted the refugees? What about all countries combined? Is there any hard data to combat the fact that millions of people are probably better off now than they would otherwise be if countries didn't accept refugees?

From an intuitive standpoint, I can't see the numbers matching up in favor turning away refugees, but I don't really have much data. Can anyone help me out here?


I was looking for information earlier today and I found only a few sources, some which presented seemingly contradictory information

-------------------------------

http://www.dw.com/en/report-refugees-have-not-increased-crime-rate-in-germany/a-18848890
Refugee crime rate equivalent to native crime rate in germany, and increase in crime is due to increase in citizens (before new years eve fiasco).

-----------------------------

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00148-015-0543-2
Increase in immigration in Europe not correlated with increase in crime, but correlated with increase in fear of being criminalized

--------------------------------

http://www.dw.com/en/identifying-the-roots-of-immigrant-crime/a-1953916
"young male immigrants are three times more likely to commit violent crimes than their German peer" but doesn't provide sources (from what I can tell)

---------------------------------

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11352268/What-is-going-wrong-in-Frances-prisons.html
Disproportional amount of muslims in French prisons


EDIT: Its quite worth perusing this part of this Wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime#Europe). Quite a few sources here...
55322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/27/16 , edited 1/27/16

Dariamus
"One bad apple spoils the barrel."


Partly true, partly not. The "weird" thing is there are just as many crimes by the xenophobic people as well. Hundreds of cases of arson on refugee housings here in germany in the last year, in some cases only big luck prevented people (like innocent little children) from dying due to them.
Yet nobody starts to point fingers at "the germans" for being arsonists.
It's not a pure "a few bad apples"-thing. If it were germany would be quite spoiled. It's racism, xenophobic instincts coming to light in a large portion of the EU and, judging on the responses in threads like this one, US population.
If it were pure generalization without prior prejudice then I'd expect people to overgeneralize against, for example, us germans as well.
But they don't. Instead the look for the next source of a potential crime by a migrant to use for their xenophobic campaign.
Maybe one should start a counter campaign and make one thread a day, showcasing a crime committed by xenophobic people against innocent refugees.



theYchromosome
From an intuitive standpoint, I can't see the numbers matching up in favor turning away refugees, but I don't really have much data. Can anyone help me out here?


I am in Germany. There are one million refugees supposed to be somewhere around here. No chaos has broken out yet. Not even close. I am not aware of any people who died around here due to taking in refugees.
A valid "we lose to many of our own for trying to help"-kind of argument would mean that horrible chaos has broken out here. It has not.
21995 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 1/27/16

Humms wrote:

XD good. A taste of their own medicine, and no I'm not heartless, this is just what they brought onto themselves. They just stop letting refugees come into Canada because we have no where to put them.

It's like these people think you can figure out why someone kills another person. Keep it up, because it's going to keep happening if the world doesn't smartin up and take off the belt......("snap") back to the fuckin old days if this keeps up.


You could send them all to nunavut. Lots of space and no one wants to live there.
10222 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 1/27/16
And yet the EU and the government in all it's countries will still insist that not all refugees are bad.
runec 
36327 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 1/27/16

Morbidhanson wrote:
"Well, not all refugees are like that," they'll say. And nothing will be done until it happens again. And they'll say the same thing.


Given that he was apprehended and subdued by the other kids there the story itself literally demonstrates that not all of them are like that.



Rujikin wrote:
We need to build a wall AROUND the middle east to keep them in there and make THEM pay for it!


Somalia is in Africa.



Humms wrote:
XD good. A taste of their own medicine, and no I'm not heartless, this is just what they brought onto themselves. They just stop letting refugees come into Canada because we have no where to put them.


A) Yes, you are heartless.
B) No where to put them? Uh.
C) Canada is historically a humanitarian and peacekeeping country. So I'm not sure what "old days" you are referring too.

The US and Canada are built entirely on a history of immigration. So unless you're Inuit? And if you are Inuit, you would know just how much damn space is up there... >.>




15989 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 1/27/16 , edited 1/27/16
I see much bad things happend with this culture clash (really in this cind of state of events, etc)

and why can't people see that there IS more crimes from all of this? (if not there is something else you guys go by)
Children, teenagers and adultes are taught, teaching, showing things that would create things like this.

Most people around europe have seen and more of in day light knife attacks (something that would mostly never happend, because of many reasons/if cares at all)


runec wrote:
Somalia is in Africa.

A) Yes, you are heartless.
B) No where to put them? Uh.
C) Canada is historically a humanitarian and peacekeeping country. So I'm not sure what "old days" you are referring too.

The US and Canada are built entirely on a history of immigration. So unless you're Inuit? And if you are Inuit, you would know just how much damn space is up there... >.>
yeah Africa not the best place, and nobody said it was syrian.
Much extreme violence I have seen is from africa by very good reasons... its well... africa and in there somalia....

Space and then what?.....
space are just a little issue...
(jobs, money, can survive?)
Posted 1/27/16 , edited 1/27/16

sundin13 wrote:



It is, unfortunately, a very difficult thing to gather data on. I always forget that Wikipedia lists sources -- that was actually the most helpful.

It's tricky, because we should accept an increase in crime, given that, since they're coming from a war zone -- we're literally saving lives. Add to that the fact that refugee camps, while capable of supporting lives, are generally considered to have a higher crime rate as well (although data for that is even scarcer for obvious reasons), so if we treat each life equally, we should see a global decrease in crime when people in refugee camps migrate to more or less stable societies. So when, in those societies, does crime rate become too high, against the fact that lives are being saved? To my mind, even if sizable amounts of them are stealing, rioting, fighting, raping, etc. (although that doesn't seem to be happening on a large scale), it's also a fact that many people live as a result, that wouldn't otherwise. You'd have to have a pretty high murder rate among refugees (something that would have a lot more coverage if true), to counterbalance the lives saved since they no longer have to live in, you know, a war zone.

At any rate, that was helpful, so I appreciate it. Unfortunately, as should be expected, what we have is pretty inconclusive, and not a whole lot of it seems to outweigh the benefits in lives by accepting refugees.


Cola_Colin wrote:

I am in Germany. There are one million refugees supposed to be somewhere around here. No chaos has broken out yet. Not even close. I am not aware of any people who died around here due to taking in refugees.
A valid "we lose to many of our own for trying to help"-kind of argument would mean that horrible chaos has broken out here. It has not.


That's what I've heard. Unfortunately, while you're probably right, looks can be deceiving sometimes. It would be nice to have some more information to back it up, but a lot of the time it's hard to gather statistics on these sorts of things. Thanks, though.
15242 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Online
Posted 1/27/16

theYchromosome wrote:

At any rate, that was helpful, so I appreciate it. Unfortunately, as should be expected, what we have is pretty inconclusive, and not a whole lot of it seems to outweigh the benefits in lives.


The problem is that countries have to look out for themselves first and foremost. They cannot ignore negative consequences on their soil for the good of foreigners. Altruism does have some play in the scenario, but it is not an equal balance.

That said, I still believe that overall, some degree of refugees should be accepted by European countries. The steps that should be taken to mitigate risk should focus of integration and understanding, and also countries should aim to keep migrants per capita fairly low, meaning that instead of having large centers of migrants, have more smaller centers requiring more community integration.

However, one key to all this is upholding the law. Far too often we are seeing governments try to sweep things under the rug or ignore problems right in front of their faces in the name of, I don't know, political correctness? If an individual wishes to take refuge in a country, they must first be willing to uphold its laws and values and they do not get to dance around that because they are foreigners. This pussyfooting around the issue needs to stop or these problems will only get worse...
Posted 1/27/16 , edited 1/27/16

sundin13 wrote:


theYchromosome wrote:

At any rate, that was helpful, so I appreciate it. Unfortunately, as should be expected, what we have is pretty inconclusive, and not a whole lot of it seems to outweigh the benefits in lives.


The problem is that countries have to look out for themselves first and foremost. They cannot ignore negative consequences on their soil for the good of foreigners. Altruism does have some play in the scenario, but it is not an equal balance.

That said, I still believe that overall, some degree of refugees should be accepted by European countries. The steps that should be taken to mitigate risk should focus of integration and understanding, and also countries should aim to keep migrants per capita fairly low, meaning that instead of having large centers of migrants, have more smaller centers requiring more community integration.

However, one key to all this is upholding the law. Far too often we are seeing governments try to sweep things under the rug or ignore problems right in front of their faces in the name of, I don't know, political correctness? If an individual wishes to take refuge in a country, they must first be willing to uphold its laws and values and they do not get to dance around that because they are foreigners. This pussyfooting around the issue needs to stop or these problems will only get worse...


There's a good deal of sense in what you're saying, particularly with community integration and lack of government transparency. However, because refugees in particular don't have the money to live in the more stable places of the country, there's some pretty salient problems no matter how many or how few you do let in.

Where I disagree, I guess, is that I don't think of it as a matter of altruism. Every life we lose is lost capacity for workers, students, culture -- people that can contribute to the progress of society. In my mind, it's against my own self-interest to cut those people out of the potential they have to improve my life in particular. Plus, there's the moral argument. But I do get it -- an influx of people can tilt the stability of a community, and that's never a comfortable position to be in. It's just that stability is, to me I guess, less of an important thing.
55322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/27/16

sundin13
However, one key to all this is upholding the law. Far too often we are seeing governments try to sweep things under the rug or ignore problems right in front of their faces in the name of, I don't know, political correctness?

There are indeed some such problems. It's however mainly police forces trying not to give "food" to people who will use whatever they can to push very extreme xenophobic standpoints.
Basically the problem is that just one or two crimes, by one or two refugees easily cause a massive uproar on the level of "all refugees are evil", as one can see even this very thread.
So do you put out a report pointing at a crime by a refugee or not? If you do you are in danger of getting an angry mob that goes and burns down another refugee housing. That's a problem.
15242 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Online
Posted 1/27/16

Cola_Colin wrote:


sundin13
However, one key to all this is upholding the law. Far too often we are seeing governments try to sweep things under the rug or ignore problems right in front of their faces in the name of, I don't know, political correctness?

There are indeed some such problems. It's however mainly police forces trying not to give "food" to people who will use whatever they can to push very extreme xenophobic standpoints.
Basically the problem is that just one or two crimes, by one or two refugees easily cause a massive uproar on the level of "all refugees are evil", as one can see even this very thread.
So do you put out a report pointing at a crime by a refugee or not? If you do you are in danger of getting an angry mob that goes and burns down another refugee housing. That's a problem.


I don't know what the solution to the problem is (certainly do more to ensure prosecution of the individuals committing hate crimes), but it is not allowing crimes to continue going on unchecked and turning a blind eye to them. If you want to avoid putting out a public report somehow on some of this information, sure, thats fine (ish) (depending on local laws), but stuff like this is inexcusable (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerscruton/2014/08/30/why-did-british-police-ignore-pakistani-gangs-raping-rotherham-children-political-correctness/#1f9c8a205a7c).
15989 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 1/27/16

Cola_Colin wrote:
There are indeed some such problems. It's however mainly police forces trying not to give "food" to people who will use whatever they can to push very extreme xenophobic standpoints.
Basically the problem is that just one or two crimes, by one or two refugees easily cause a massive uproar on the level of "all refugees are evil", as one can see even this very thread.
So do you put out a report pointing at a crime by a refugee or not? If you do you are in danger of getting an angry mob that goes and burns down another refugee housing. That's a problem.
some truth to that but much we have not dealt with or had "no problems with" but much came after sweden and when that culture clash there happend + feminism created issues and cults that want to do like the other side (religion or groupes)



First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.