"Criticism of migration will become a criminal offense. And media outlets that give room to criticism of migration, can be shut down." - EU Official to the Media.

[Marcin2 + 726]

0R0 The only 2 problems of Europe with immigrants 1. was and is administrative incompetence 2. Better treatment of immigrants than own citizens.

1. The so called refugees are in 90% young males that are economic immigrants, should never be allowed to get refugees status. 
2. Immigrants especially when they get false refugees status ( it costs 500 eur and you have Syrian passport in 24 hours) are treated much better than own citizens.

Fortunately in real democracies , with proportional electoral system like Germany this is naturally regulated through growing strength of anti-immigrant party in Bundestag.

In case of Britain you need Brexit.

Other than problems: 1 and 2 immigrants just have to blend in or be deported.

Immigrants are guests and I decide whom I invite. If they are economically viable, learn language and culture, fit in they get citizenship.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Marcin2
Typp

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

0R0 The only 2 problems of Europe with immigrants 1. was and is administrative incompetence 2. Better treatment of immigrants than own citizens.

1. The so called refugees are in 90% young males that are economic immigrants, should never be allowed to get refugees status. 

2. Immigrants especially when they get false refugees status ( it costs 500 eur and you have Syrian passport in 24 hours) are treated much better than own citizens.

Fortunately in real democracies , with proportional electoral system like Germany this is naturally regulated through growing strength of anti-immigrant party in Budestag.

In case of Britain you need Brexit.

Other than problems: 1 and 2 immigrants just have to blend in or be deported.

Remarkably astute analysis there, Marcin.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

4 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

Europeans are way less racist than Americans.

If you are American please watch French movie: Serial ( bad) weddings.

For me it was just a good comedy, how diverse we are but at the end can get along together.

Share your thoughts, be honest.

How did you come to the statement that, “Europeans are way less racist than Americans.”

This sounds like a generalization and an opinion. Furthermore, a French, or any, movie is not a reliable source of information.

[Marcin2 + 726]

5 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

How did you come to the statement that, “Europeans are way less racist than Americans.”

This sounds like a generalization and an opinion. Furthermore, a French, or any, movie is not a reliable source of information.

The thread is about freedom of speech. 

On the basis of this movie I would like to share my opinion that Europeans have more freedom of speech, more public discussion is allowed, media are more diverse in its message cause are less concentrated.

2 parties ( 200% better than China) , billionaires own Congress bills, 7 groups own vast majority of US media - it narrows debate.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

5 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

The thread is about freedom of speech. 

On the basis of this movie I would like to share my opinion that Europeans have more freedom of speech, more public discussion is allowed, media are more diverse in its message cause are less concentrated.

2 parties ( 200% better than China) , billionaires own Congress bills, 7 groups own vast majority of US media - it narrows debate.

Thank you for sharing your opinion...my opinion is that you are wrong.

Technically there are more than two parties (Bloomberg successfully ran as an independent in the past...for example). Please support your statement regarding “...billionaires own Congress bills”, otherwise it is a meaningless statement.

Take any single country in Europe and tell me that the mass media is not owned by a few ‘groups’. It is childish to compare a single country like the US with a conglomeration of countries such as Europe...you need to compare ‘apples to apples’.

[Marcin2 + 726]

18 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Thank you for sharing your opinion...my opinion is that you are wrong.

Technically there are more than two parties (Bloomberg successfully ran as an independent in the past...for example). Please support your statement regarding “...billionaires own Congress bills”, otherwise it is a meaningless statement.

Take any single country in Europe and tell me that the mass media is not owned by a few ‘groups’. It is childish to compare a single country like the US with a conglomeration of countries such as Europe...you need to compare ‘apples to apples’.

Political party is something that is represented in parliament  and thus can pursue your agenda. In most of Europe possible not in US with binary choice.

There are much more  cultural contacts within Europe, flow of news also, that is why I aggregated the continent.

System of US lobbying and financing of political parties means that wealthy and corporations just own your parliament.

Douglas you would go to jail in Poland for fraud and bribes with US lobbying, we have it in penal code.

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

Reporters without borders has created a freedom of the press index. Last year the top 6 were european countries.

US is in 48th position.

https://rsf.org/en/ranking

 

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

5 minutes ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

Reporters without borders has created a freedom of the press index. Last year the top 6 were european countries.

US is in 48th position.

https://rsf.org/en/ranking

 

 

Reporters Without Borders is a biased, liberal organization based in Paris.

Not a surprise that the US is ranked low.

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

10 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

Political party is something that is represented in parliament  and thus can pursue your agenda. In most of Europe possible not in US with binary choice.

There are much more  cultural contacts within Europe, flow of news also, that is why I aggregated the continent.

System of US lobbying and financing of political parties means that wealthy and corporations just own your parliament.

Douglas you would go to jail in Poland for fraud and bribes with US lobbying, we have it in penal code.

Right, the US sucks, we are all gun toting criminals, the elites run the place, we are more racist than anyone else on the planet, etc....

That said, to my knowledge none of the 50 separate criminal entities (States) which make up our hellish union have recently voted to leave.🤔

It sucks so bad to be an American that, for some inexplicable reason, we have a serious problem with illegal immigration. Perhaps we should redirect them to the Polish utopia...

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

10 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Reporters Without Borders is a biased, liberal organization based in Paris.

Not a surprise that the US is ranked low.

 

Can you name an international organization you think is not corrupt?

https://www.doctorswithoutborders.ca/donate-now?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIgavtqajx5wIVtR-tBh2IQweNEAAYASAAEgIhkvD_BwE

http://www.wwf.ca/

https://www.greenpeace.org/international/

https://www.gatesfoundation.org/

https://www.unicef.org/   <-- they may actually suck

https://www.un.org/

Edited February 27, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

28 minutes ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

Reporters without borders has created a freedom of the press index. Last year the top 6 were european countries.

US is in 48th position.

https://rsf.org/en/ranking

 

 

@0R0

Take note... 

I believe the term is nuff said..

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

US bad ranking in the RSF index is based on several facts explained by the NGO :

 

 

Quote

 

Unprecedented violence targets journalists

Press freedom has continued to decline in the second year of President Donald Trump’s presidency. Rhetorical attacks from the government and private individuals alike grew increasingly hostile, and in June they became physical when a gunman entered the Capital Gazette newsroom in Maryland, killing four journalists and one other staffer in a targeted attack on the local newspaper. Since then, President Trump has continued to declare the press as the “enemy of the American people” and “fake news” in an apparent attempt to discredit critical reporting. At least one White House correspondent has hired private security for fear of their life after receiving death threats, and newsrooms throughout the country have been plagued by bomb threats and were the recipients of other potentially dangerous packages, prompting journalism organizations to reconsider the security of their staffs in a uniquely hostile environment. The Trump administration repeatedly attempted to deny journalists access to events of public interest in 2018, breaking multiple records for the span of time without a White House press briefing, denying a CNN reporter access to an open-press White House event and even revoking reporter Jim Acosta’s press pass, which was only restored by court order. Meanwhile, the nation still waits for the Trump administration to hold the Saudi authorities responsible for the murder of Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi, who was brutally killed in Saudi Arabia’s Turkish consulate in October.

 

 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

11 hours ago, 0R0 said:

Thus a right to self determination is viewed as anathema to the notion of a unified Europe. EC and member state bureaucrats have for 30 years been reaching into the press and financial analytical community as well as academia to threaten critics and get them fired under threats of arbitrary regulatory interventions.

This is simply not true. 

Many in Europe choose the EU and accept to shed some sovereignty as many feel the positives outweigh the negatives. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

44 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Can you name an international organization you think is not corrupt?

https://www.doctorswithoutborders.ca/donate-now?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIgavtqajx5wIVtR-tBh2IQweNEAAYASAAEgIhkvD_BwE

http://www.wwf.ca/

https://www.greenpeace.org/international/

https://www.gatesfoundation.org/

https://www.unicef.org/   <-- they may actually suck

https://www.un.org/

The UN sucks as well...

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

18 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

I would be interested to hear from other Europeans as to how interested their respective peoples are when it comes to voting for their EU representative and if they feel its worthwhile voting at all.

At the beginning there was little interest for the EU parliament. It was considered as a place to send "has been" politicians or young unexperimented ones. Generally the EU parliamentary election was an opportunity to express discontent against the ruling party at the national level

But in recent years this vision has changed. The Europeans  discovered that the votes in the EU parliament could have an effective impact on ther lives. Brexit, the rise of anti-EU populism and the growing concern about climate change contributed to turn the 2019 election into a real european election and not an accumulation of national elections. For the first time EU-wide topics outpaced national politics.There was a feeling that the European Union was at risk and a surge of anti-EU parties was expected. But the result of the vote showed that the rise of the anti-EU was lower than expected and the pro-EU won the election, the real surprise being the progression of the Greens. The turnout (50.7%) was the highest since the EU expansion to central Europe and is quite similar to the US 2018 midterms turnout (53.4%).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_European_Parliament_election

https://europarl.europa.eu/election-results-2019/en/turnout/

 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

14 minutes ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

At the beginning there was little interest for the EU parliament. It was considered as a place to send "has been" politicians or young unexperimented ones. Generally the EU parliamentary election was an opportunity to express discontent against the ruling party at the national level

But in recent years this vision has changed. The Europeans  discovered that the votes in the EU parliament could have an effective impact on ther lives. Brexit, the rise of anti-EU populism and the growing concern about climate change contributed to turn the 2019 election into a real european election and not an accumulation of national elections. For the first time EU-wide topics outpaced national politics.There was a feeling that the European Union was at risk and a surge of anti-EU parties was expected. But the result of the vote showed that the rise of the anti-EU was lower than expected and the pro-EU won the election, the real surprise being the progression of the Greens. The turnout (50.7%) was the highest since the EU expansion to central Europe and is quite similar to the US 2018 midterms turnout (53.4%).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_European_Parliament_election

https://europarl.europa.eu/election-results-2019/en/turnout/

 

Interesting, not sure I trust anything on wikipedia though!

For me it basically comes down to whether you feel European or not. Whether you feel your opinion is going to be heard or indeed matters at all on the European stage. the vast majority of the older generation in the UK voted Brexit whilst the younger voters voted to remain. Nobody has really got to the bottom of why this is. Many claim it is because the elderly dont consider themselves European, its English first and then British (if your'e English that is). The elderly voters can remember a strong Britain that wasnt at the mercy of being told what to do by anyone let alone historical adversaries, so they voted in defiance. The younger voters knew nothing but Europe, so voted for the status quo.

For those Texans out there I guess it was a bit like Texas finally being dragged into the United States and forego their autonomy, most seem to accept it now but I believe there are still some people who are pro independence from the United States.

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

10 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

IFor those Texans out there I guess it was a bit like Texas finally being dragged into the United States and forego their autonomy, most seem to accept it now but I believe there are still some people who are pro independence from the United States.

In 2016 the Brexit vote triggered some articles on a Texit...

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/explainer/article/secession-texit-brexit-independence-8323802.php

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/19/texas-secession-movement-brexit-eu-referendum

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

Interesting, not sure I trust anything on wikipedia though!

For me it basically comes down to whether you feel European or not. Whether you feel your opinion is going to be heard or indeed matters at all on the European stage. the vast majority of the older generation in the UK voted Brexit whilst the younger voters voted to remain. Nobody has really got to the bottom of why this is. Many claim it is because the elderly dont consider themselves European, its English first and then British (if your'e English that is). The elderly voters can remember a strong Britain that wasnt at the mercy of being told what to do by anyone let alone historical adversaries, so they voted in defiance. The younger voters knew nothing but Europe, so voted for the status quo.

For those Texans out there I guess it was a bit like Texas finally being dragged into the United States and forego their autonomy, most seem to accept it now but I believe there are still some people who are pro independence from the United States.

The comparison with the Annexation of Texas is a bit of a stretch. In the 1830’s (1836 I believe) Texas ‘applied’ (if that is the word) for annexation, but were refused.

The issue of slavery arose (Texas was a ‘slave holding’ territory. This issue was dividing the country and culminated in the Civil War.

President Tyler offered to annex Texas as the 28th State in 1845. The annexation was ratified by popular vote the same year.

 

[Geoff Guenther + 317]

On 2/26/2020 at 12:20 AM, Guillaume Albasini said:

De Graff is member of a dutch xenophobic political party calling for the administrative detention of the migrants, banning the Curan and shutting down all mosques in the Netherlands. So it's not really surprising to see him opposing a text fighting racism and xenophobia.

This is the entire populist far-right summed up in a nutshell. 

The party proposes to ban the Qur'an, suppressing Muslim speech. Instead of defending their stance rationally, in a proper argument, THEY ACCUSE EVERYONE ELSE OF DOING WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO.

It is so important to have these rational discussions, removing the trolls who show up just to show discord. Guys like DeGraff should not have a platform, but they do because they make headlines.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Points taken, but what is the ‘rational’ response to immigrants who have no intention of assimilating into the cultures which accept them, who form enclaves to apparently recreate what they left, and live off of the dole?

Freedom of speech and religion is all well and good, but bringing Sharia Law (for example) into non-Muslim countries goes against common sense and against the laws of the countries which have granted sanctuary.

Legal immigrants should ONLY have the same rights, and RESPONSIBILITIES, of any other citizen.

Finally, as I will be ‘tarred & feathered’ as a racist bigot anyhow...who is responsible for saving/rebuilding these countries which these immigrants have left once they have all immigrated? Perhaps conditional or temporary immigration is the answer. You can have sanctuary until it is deemed safe for you to return to your home country.

Keep in mind that by law, you are supposed to seek asylum at the FIRST safe haven you encounter. Selective asylum based on public benefits or the size of the dole package was not how the system was intended to operate.

[Bob D + 562]

16 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

0R0 The only 2 problems of Europe with immigrants 1. was and is administrative incompetence 2. Better treatment of immigrants than own citizens.

1. The so called refugees are in 90% young males that are economic immigrants, should never be allowed to get refugees status. 
2. Immigrants especially when they get false refugees status ( it costs 500 eur and you have Syrian passport in 24 hours) are treated much better than own citizens.

Fortunately in real democracies , with proportional electoral system like Germany this is naturally regulated through growing strength of anti-immigrant party in Bundestag.

In case of Britain you need Brexit.

Other than problems: 1 and 2 immigrants just have to blend in or be deported.

Immigrants are guests and I decide whom I invite. If they are economically viable, learn language and culture, fit in they get citizenship.

This is confusingly NOT what I'd ever expect from anyone on the left Marcin.

The EU does not think this way.  The EU's worst offender, Germany, certainly does not think this way.  How is it possible that someone who supports the EU and railed against Brexit can have these beliefs Marcin?  My theory is Britain escaped further demise with Brexit for now.  The EU had a chance to succeed if it was only an economic union (trade).  Instead the Liberal policies (immigration, social safety net, standards of living) drove the agenda.  That agenda struggles in good times and will collapse in bad times.  The EU is getting ready to implode and when that happens the once great nations of Europe will struggle for economic viability and political stability.  History will not be kind to politicians/nations who supported policies that provided less benefit to their own populations than to invaders (foreigners/illegal immigrants).  The whole notion of Liberalism works until society cannot support the leaches it confers benefits upon simply to further the power of Liberal leaders.  Liberalism is not a benevolent theory.  It is a theory designed to capture political power .... PERIOD!  That power is used to drain a society of greatness to, in theory, raise the the standards of the lowest among us.  In reality, Liberalism harms the economic engine that lifts us all.  Liberals know this.  That's what makes them so evil.    

The US is fighting that battle right now.  Millennials/Dems/Liberals support the idea of illegal immigration now but it will change when their own economic demise sets in, and it will.  The question is how long will it take to unwind or reverse the policies and their effects. If that is even possible.

 

  

      

 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by Bob D
I can't spell

[Bob D + 562]

6 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Interesting, not sure I trust anything on wikipedia though!

For me it basically comes down to whether you feel European or not. Whether you feel your opinion is going to be heard or indeed matters at all on the European stage. the vast majority of the older generation in the UK voted Brexit whilst the younger voters voted to remain. Nobody has really got to the bottom of why this is. Many claim it is because the elderly dont consider themselves European, its English first and then British (if your'e English that is). The elderly voters can remember a strong Britain that wasnt at the mercy of being told what to do by anyone let alone historical adversaries, so they voted in defiance. The younger voters knew nothing but Europe, so voted for the status quo.

For those Texans out there I guess it was a bit like Texas finally being dragged into the United States and forego their autonomy, most seem to accept it now but I believe there are still some people who are pro independence from the United States.

I'm a NYer who moved to Texas 25 years ago.  The pride of an average Texan is palpable.  That pride extends through Texas to America.  An average NYC resident (separate NY and NYC) does not have such pride ... period!   Do I want to be associated with the mentality of NYC, LA, Portland, Chicago , or even Houston now.  Hell no!!  In my lifetime, I expect to see an end to the grand experiment of the United States of America.  The famous NYer magazine cover from 45 years ago is truer today than ever before.  And that sentiment is shared on the West Coast looking back to the Atlantic.  

BTW - I love visiting NY and I love leaving NY.

   

Edited February 27, 2020 by Bob D

[Geoff Guenther + 317]

4 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Legal immigrants should ONLY have the same rights, and RESPONSIBILITIES, of any other citizen.

That's exactly what they get. They have fewer rights than the average American until they gain citizenship. 

People have to be able to talk about immigration and not get branded racist - it's an important issue, and wanting less change doesn't mean you hate brown people. 

On the other side, Bob D's ludicrous statement that liberals want illegal immigration kills the dialog as well. 

[Bob D + 562]

9 minutes ago, Geoff Guenther said:

That's exactly what they get. They have fewer rights than the average American until they gain citizenship. 

People have to be able to talk about immigration and not get branded racist - it's an important issue, and wanting less change doesn't mean you hate brown people. 

On the other side, Bob D's ludicrous statement that liberals want illegal immigration kills the dialog as well. 

Didn't kill your dialog did it? 

This was my statement  "Millennials/Dems/Liberals support the idea of illegal immigration "

Maybe I should have stated that Dem Presidential candidates which BTW is who the vast majority of Liberals will vote for.  And let's not play games Geoff ... who supports enforcing existing Federal Immigration law and who doesn't.  I find it ludicrous that you can type a defense to the truth; Liberals want to make illegal immigration legal.  That is a fact Geoff.   

Every Democratic candidate (Bloomberg is deciding - coward) supports the elimination of criminal penalties for entering the country illegally. Some candidates have specifically called to repeal Section 1325 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code, which makes crossing the border without undergoing an inspection by an immigration officer a misdemeanor offense.

 

 

[Geoff Guenther + 317]

Citations please. And preferably from a trusted source (I.e. not Brietbart).