All the better to identify welfare tourists so that they can be properly welcomed :o
All the better to identify welfare tourists so that they can be properly welcomed :o
As it happens, I think that Europe can do no better than kick any 'welfare tourist back to where he came from. Forget about losing time putting bracelets on them.
Yes, I realise this, was just thinking that what may be appropriate for tourists at a resort may not be as appropriate for refugees living under threat of violence from locals
Gosh, we have certainly advanced haven't we? Now even racists appearantly need wristbands to identify their victims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Wristbands helped people identify asylum seekers. Unless every brown person in town is an asylum seeker, bright red wristbands give additional information eg. to racists who want to target asylum seekers that a given brown person is an asylum seeker. Because the company in charge of feeding them require them to wear wristbands I presume it's not always easy to identify asylum seekers using the "is brown?" heuristic because of it were then the company wouldn't need to spend their money on expensive wristbands.
A lot of people seem gay but it sure is easier for homophobes to identify gay people if you make gay people wear gay pink wristbands.
Did the attackers in Stockholm ask for ID before they beat someone up? Just asking...Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
That is irrelevant unless you have credible information that indicates that the asylum seekers in the town we were discussing right up until your last post were hassled at the same rate and intensity as other brown people in the area who are not asylum seekers.
The mob in sthlm was ostensibly formed to "deal with" the large number of North African criminal street youths that have come to sthlm from other European countries. The action was illegal and disgusting but the particulars do not seem to be the same.
It's possible that the mob would not have been as indiscriminate as it allegedly/apparently was of wed forced said youths to wear highly visible bright red wristbands so maybe that's an argument in favor of such identifiers :o
You have such figures or are you merely thinking these people are victimized for their bracelets rather than for their skin color. Is there a law that they should never let the sleeves of their winter coats cover their bracelets?
If what you're implying is true then surely brownies in that town are being hassled in that town at the same rate as asylum-seeking brownies, yes?
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/pr...ty-for-turkey/
3bn EUR fund to help Turkey keep refugees out of the rest of Europe. What will be the good consequences for each involved party/group? What will be the negative consequences?
Turkey will have more money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The EU will have less money.Quote:
What will be the negative consequences?
There will be more corruption in Turkey.
Corruption is what I was thinking about but also wondering what consequences, if any, this may have for Turkey's military activities and for the political climate
Simply as a function of having more money and presumably a lax oversight by the organisation giving the money. Turkey already has domestic corruption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Military none, Erdogan will feel freeer to oppress his critics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
So....what does a Europe United really mean? :confused:
Obviously, a common currency isn't enough to bridge the gaps, and consolidating sovereign debt isn't politically viable unless ALL members are on board. But it did sound nice that travel between national borders might be like moving between US states -- where folks don't have to carry their "papers" to prove their citizenship. Oh wait
Today is going to be interesting. As far, it seems that the closing of the border to Greece will be ratified today.
What's important is that the council has to actually make political decisions rather than technical tinkering. I must say the Turkish offer goes much further than I would have expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
The funny thing is, that Merkel needs a decision as she wants a European solution. Otherwise it's getting harder and harder for her to argue against national solutions. On the other hand, the European solution that she can get is not the one she wants. A nice dilemma. :noob:
Anne Frank's father petitioned the US several times for a refugee visa, but was denied because policy (at that time) limited how many Jews, and from where, would be accepted into our country. The US also turned away entire ships of refugees in the WWII era for the same reasons -- and our "policies" sent them right back to the places they were trying to escape from in the first place, or forced them to hide in other countries that weren't so friendly to refugees, either.
Why do we keep repeating the same mistakes of the past, when we have so much history to learn from? :(
If you want to talk about the US policies make your own thread, thank you very much.
The same questions apply to Europe: can you make today's policies while ignoring history?Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
Of course you can, but you shouldn't.
Then why is the EU suffering a deluge of refugees?
ps, I read the last page and have no idea what Hazir was talking about. There is no system totally free of corruption or croneyism. It's a matter of degrees.....
Most of them are migrants. As for the rest, you heard about the war in Syria?
Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
And there are refugees of war that can't convince anyone that they're victims of our foreign/military policy. Where do they go, what can they do?
With our, you mean US? We aren't talking about the US. Stop being so self-centric.
Because it has nothing to do with "our foreign/military policy". Don't be so egotistical, not everything has to do with your policies.
EDIT: Jinx you beat me to it eJ.
Then stop making your policies dependent on what the UK does first, on its own. If you have a principle then stick to it, but if you can't make it work on your own, then make the appropriate concessions to your stronger allies, like the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
To Rand that means looking at a global franchise that originated in the US.
That reads as gibberish to me I don't know what you mean. The situation in Syria is not of our making.