10 year old child of pro-refugee mother gets raped

[Ditch]

While I understand the concerns of Europeans regarding the crime and problems the influx of refugees has brought along, I think it is wrong to brush all Muslims with a broad stroke based on the behavior of a sub-set of the Muslim population.

The primary issue with the refugees in Europe is that the majority are young, single males raised in very different cultures. Approx 80% of the "refugees" are young single males, and the majority are economic migrants and not refugees.

How should Europe deal with this crisis? All refugees should be placed in camps until processed and validated to have no terrorist ties. In the camps they should be educated about western cultural norms, expected behavior, and given language lessons. Complete families with children should have priority for resettlement, followed by single mothers with children, then others who are not young single males. Canada has had success by focusing on families with children to come across the Atlantic because they tend to integrate with western society and follow the law - young single males statistically tend to have the criminal issues. Only refugees who agree to work and hold a job should be accepted. A job should be lined up for them prior to being moved to a permanent residence.

"Refugees" who are economic migrants should be sent back to their home countries. Young single uneducated males who are refugees should have their entry rejected and sent back to camps on the border of Syria (or where ever) unless a case is made for why they will be successfully integrated.

Any refugee re-settled in a western country should have a host family or organization. The host family or organization will be responsible for paying for damages for any crimes committed by the hosted refugees. Also any refugee convicted of a crime should be immediately deported. Any refugee accused of a felony crime should not be allowed bail since they are high flight risks.

Please note the primary victims of Islamic terrorism are other Muslims. Many Muslims are victims and not perpetrators. There are many Muslims world-wide who are educated and integrated into western societies and ideals.

It is unfair to take the readings of a holy book and making the case that all the followers of a faith are uncivilized and violent. I certainly hope that nobody reads the Old Testament and states that all Jews and Christians that follow the book are automatically uncivilized, violent, backwards, hostile, and living in an earlier era.

I understand that people from Muslim countries many times have difficulty assimilating into western societies because the cultures are very different. The way to solve this issue is by proper screening and education -- not by banning all people of a particular religious faith.

I do appreciate you bringing the stories and issues from Europe involving refugees to our attention in the ET forum; however I believe there is a better approach to solving these issues than pouring on hatred extended to all people of a particular religion.

And yes, I have also worked with professionals who are Muslim. I know their families, I have coached their kids in soccer, and they are good members of our community. I am sure that I am not the only member on P&R who will say this.

History has shown that as long the muslim population in a country remains under 2%, they will be regarded as a peaceful minority, that poses no threat to other citizens. And the immigration policy of the USA and Canada has been geared towards admitting talented individuals to their countries, opposite to that of the EU, where immigration from muslim countries mainly consisted of uneducated laborers. These two factors forge a more favorable view of muslims in your case.

In the Netherlands, we're dealing with third-generation muslims, that compare unfavorable in any statistic, they're much more criminal, perform badly in school and are far more often dependent on welfare. Research has shown that even after 3 generations they still consider themselves Arabs and muslims in the first place and not Dutch citizens. Also the majority of muslims in the West favors sharia law above Western law. If that doesn't convince you of my view that muslims remain a "Fremdkoerper" in Western societies I don't know what would.

With regard to your plans about assimilating/educating refugees: it's pearls before swines. 80% of refugees have no formal education whatsoever and are illiterate. They are coming from societies where no law and order exists and disputes are settled by using violence.

The question at hand is, how much lives are we willing to sacrifice, how much crime are we willing to accept in order to provide shelter to these so called "refugees"?

 

[Nine_Ender]

Logical conclusion... that muslims should be prevented from invading western civilization. They should be "corralled" in the ME where than can live life they way they see fit... NOT inflict their values upon others.

If they are still instant upon "invading the West"... they should be SHOT ON SIGHT as invading marauders... whether "welcomed into western countries by Merkel, Odumbo, or others!!"

Your values are immoral. I advocate taking all Americans who share in these twisted views and form a community of like minded people in prison. I wouldn't advocate shooting you because I don't believe in the death penalty for crimes against humanity ( or for any crime for that matter ). If you can be rehabilitated in prison, you can be let back into society.

 

[Nine_Ender]

History has shown that as long the muslim population in a country remains under 2%, they will be regarded as a peaceful minority, that poses no threat to other citizens. And the immigration policy of the USA and Canada has been geared towards admitting talented individuals to their countries, opposite to that of the EU, where immigration from muslim countries mainly consisted of uneducated laborers. These two factors forge a more favorable view of muslims in your case.

In the Netherlands, we're dealing with third-generation muslims, that compare unfavorable in any statistic, they're much more criminal, perform badly in school and are far more often dependent on welfare. Research has shown that even after 3 generations they still consider themselves Arabs and muslims in the first place and not Dutch citizens. Also the majority of muslims in the West favors sharia law above Western law. If that doesn't convince you of my view that muslims remain a "Fremdkoerper" in Western societies I don't know what would.

With regards to your plans about assimilating/educating refugees: it's pearls before swines. 80% of refugees have no formal education whatsoever and are illiterate. They are coming from societies where no law and order exists and disputes are settled by using violence.

Any place that has war zones and/or poverty, poor education, and forces mass displacement of people can naturally have some bad side effects. During WW2, it was racism that supported the idea of internment camps for innocent Japanese families who lived in North America. You cannot define people by their background, as I said in a previous post, that would mean all Americans would have to be defined as more violent in nature then most Western democracies. We could all talk about the violence of Americans day and night, what causes it, what can we do about it, why we should ban Americans from crossing the border etc etc.

 

[jem]

of course you harp on racism again.
Ironically, that is what leftists do.
that is their m.o..
They don't want to expose their thinking to facts so they change the subject to something that makes them feel more comfortable... calling out ists and isms.


Its not racist to close your border to protect people. Admit that, and we can have a substantive conversation. Til you can accept that you need to realize you are closed minded.

It is a well know fact that social media in the US has a very real undercurrent of racism at all times. And this P&R site is a working example of this in action. I'm not closed minded at all, in fact, quite the opposite. I have no idea if you are siding with some of the malcontents on here who use hateful speech about minorities on many topics in P&R. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt on this, warning you not to get too comfortable conversing with these people like Scat without standing up to the racist ideas. Now I'm not so sure on you. Nevertheless, I stand by my comment that "leftist" is a very strange term with very little real meaning behind it beyond trying to label someone or a group in order to blame them for something. It's a stupid premise. It's like saying people who wear red clothes are somehow different then people who wear blue clothes. I have noted that the more mainstream term "socialist" is misinterpreted and abused frequently on this site. I have no idea what a "leftist" is supposed to be.

Please note none of these terms reflect on my political beliefs and that Canada is in fact not a "socialist" country no matter how many Americans in P&R think this is the case. Canadians tend to believe in allowing people of all backgrounds and beliefs to live together, without the expecting them to necessarily become "more Canadian". We do consider stated racism to be a "hate crime". So it is natural for me to present a different view on some topics, as would the majority of Canadians. Whatever the American majority thinks on these topics is unclear, and I highly doubt this site is a good barometer of this ( e.g. many traders on this site tend to believe in conspiracy theories ).

 

[Ditch]

Your values are immoral. I advocate taking all Americans who share in these twisted views and form a community of like minded people in prison. I wouldn't advocate shooting you because I don't believe in the death penalty for crimes against humanity ( or for any crime for that matter ). If you can be rehabilitated in prison, you can be let back into society.

In what kind of world one gets incarcerated for having immoral values (something which could be highly debatable in itself)?

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

In what kind of world one gets incarcerated for having immoral values (something which could be highly debatable in itself)?

Liberal nirvana. Where PC fascism is enforced at gunpoint.

 

[gwb-trading]

In what kind of world one gets incarcerated for having immoral values (something which could be highly debatable in itself)?

This is because nine_ender is from the nanny state of Canada where the Canadian Human Rights Commission has been taking anyone to court and locking them up if they criticize gays, Muslims, or anything multi-cultural. Any speech or internet postings they disagree with is "hate speech" and they will lock you up and fine you for having values they deem immoral.

Here is the view of the Canadian Human Rights Commission on free speech:

In an exchange during the Marc Lemire case, lead CHRC investigator Dean Steacy was asked "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?" Steacy responded:

"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value... It's not my job to give value to an American concept."[25][26]

In the same transcript, Mr. Steacy later repeated that "freedom of speech is an American concept, it is not a Canadian concept" but added that a person stating that they were protected by "freedom of speech," would be equivalent "to somebody raising a 'freedom of expression' concept," which Mr. Steacy stated was protected under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms "to a point."[27] He later added that "you don't have the right to say absolutely anything you desire, especially when it's in written format."[28]

 

[Piptaker]

Your values are immoral. I advocate taking all Americans who share in these twisted views and form a community of like minded people in prison. I wouldn't advocate shooting you because I don't believe in the death penalty for crimes against humanity ( or for any crime for that matter ). If you can be rehabilitated in prison, you can be let back into society.

You can't imprison someone just for thinking or saying something you don't agree with, whether moral or immoral is irrelevant as people are inherently entitled to free speech.People have given their life for this inherent right that you want to give away so freely. You want to take somebody's freedom or steal their freedom which is an act of theft against somebody because of something they said, their opinion ?

 

[achilles28]

Please note none of these terms reflect on my political beliefs and that Canada is in fact not a "socialist" country no matter how many Americans in P&R think this is the case. Canadians tend to believe in allowing people of all backgrounds and beliefs to live together, without the expecting them to necessarily become "more Canadian". We do consider stated racism to be a "hate crime". So it is natural for me to present a different view on some topics, as would the majority of Canadians. Whatever the American majority thinks on these topics is unclear, and I highly doubt this site is a good barometer of this ( e.g. many traders on this site tend to believe in conspiracy theories ).

Some Canadians believe that - mostly Liberals (of which you're one) and new immigrants. Many 'old stock' Canadians do not. Most Canadians hate the level of immigration we have and want to end it. That includes minorities and long-time immigrant families with significant accumulated assets. Even they can see we've let in far too many low-to-no skilled people who end up as leeches on the system and refuse to integrate. Many Canadians want integration. If immigrants don't like Canada and refuse to adopt our customs and laws, wtf do they even come here? They can go back to their shithole countries as far as I'm concerned.

As for hate crime law, Harpers conservatives repealed it, so the only enforcement is essentially the Human Rights Tribunal which have almost no authority over anything. Basically a show trial. The Minister of Justice has to okay all hate crime prosecutions, and only the most egregious behavior calling for violence gets a charge.

America is about 10 years ahead of Canada. The Conservatives held power for nearly a decade, and many Canadians criticized their immigration policy as far too weak. Trudeau was a protest vote against Harpers authoritarian ambitions. I wouldn't get too excited. Liberals always run the economy into the ground with backroom deals and handouts. Canada has the highest per capita immigration rates in the developed world, and they are changing our society far more then they're integrating. Many people hate this. Then again, many Canadians are stupid pussies (like Europe) which is why America has to take the lead.

Take a look at Europe if you want to know the future of open-door immigration. It's a disaster that ends in riots, civil war, and right-wing nationalist movements. That's a natural reaction to a problem that's been festering for decades now under the leadership of liberal socialists you would deem as astute and progressive.

 

[achilles28]

History has shown that as long the muslim population in a country remains under 2%, they will be regarded as a peaceful minority, that poses no threat to other citizens. And the immigration policy of the USA and Canada has been geared towards admitting talented individuals to their countries, opposite to that of the EU, where immigration from muslim countries mainly consisted of uneducated laborers. These two factors forge a more favorable view of muslims in your case.

In the Netherlands, we're dealing with third-generation muslims, that compare unfavorable in any statistic, they're much more criminal, perform badly in school and are far more often dependent on welfare. Research has shown that even after 3 generations they still consider themselves Arabs and muslims in the first place and not Dutch citizens. Also the majority of muslims in the West favors sharia law above Western law. If that doesn't convince you of my view that muslims remain a "Fremdkoerper" in Western societies I don't know what would.

With regard to your plans about assimilating/educating refugees: it's pearls before swines. 80% of refugees have no formal education whatsoever and are illiterate. They are coming from societies where no law and order exists and disputes are settled by using violence.

The question at hand is, how much lives are we willing to sacrifice, how much crime are we willing to accept in order to provide shelter to these so called "refugees"?

I'll be in the Netherlands this year. Any must-see or do things for a newb?