CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Joshua Kelly51 › Posts

Posts by Joshua Kelly51

27 posts shown.

Why didn't America follow Canada's lead? Why did we wait so long to trigger FEMA? Even though Mexico isn't an EU member, they have the legal right to request the exact same assistance, which they already activated back in late September. ☕
Dana Kern5 said:If you could finally provide us with a rational, logical explanation after your 495 posts explaining why, at the end of the day, any European nation is obligated to accept any immigrants, then you wouldn't need to drink those endless hectoliters of coffee, and we’d all be spared from your trolling.

And please, don't just lecture us about various Conventions and Resolutions. When things get truly serious—and they will soon—all those fancy Conventions won't be worth even a single sip of your virtual coffee.

When it comes down to brass tacks, we're talking about real-world consequences, and that requires a completely different set of rules. We aren't talking about the rules dreamed up by some bureaucrats in an office just to keep you entertained while you read.

Officially, yes, they are obligated because they signed paperwork legally committing them to accept a specific number of immigrants, specifically asylum seekers and refugees. ☕

The issue, again, is that the agreement was never finalized, thanks to the sheer irresponsibility of certain European Union nations who couldn't be bothered for reasons unknown to us. ☕ That’s why every country is now making up its own rules while simultaneously ignoring its neighbors. ☕
Mark Harris66 said:Honestly, the EC is just a parasitic entity at this point—mostly because of the bureaucrats running the show.

Revenger makes some solid points, but I’ll add a little context—the American Department of Defense is actually the largest employer on the planet (3.2 million people, including over a million active duty). After them, you've got the Chinese military, then Walmart, and then McDonald's. But look at the trends... Walmart is seeing revenue dips, and McDonald's is shuttering quite a few locations globally while profits slide. That alone tells you the American economy is feeling the heat... not to mention all the other issues brewing under the surface.

The European Commission proposed an immigration quota system based on each member state's economic standing, and the EU nations shut that idea down immediately. Fast forward to the refugee crisis, and suddenly Germany decides on its own how many people to take in while forcing others to endure grueling, long-distance treks just to pass through. It makes you wonder who’s actually at fault here: the individual states for rejecting the plan, or the Commission for pushing a proposal well before the crisis ever hit? ☕

There was once a proposal to set up migration processing centers outside the EU to handle the flow of immigrants and refugees before they ever reached our borders. It never actually left the drawing board. ☕

There’s a glaringly obvious pattern here that keeps popping up: official protocol dictates that the European Commission has to run every single proposal or policy shift by all member states first. Take migration policy, for example. Every time a new plan hits the table, every single nation gets a vote, yet we see a different, chaotic mess of reactions from the various countries every single time. It's a repetitive cycle of gridlock. ☕

I don't get it. How exactly is the European Commission supposed to be the root of all this trouble? ☕
Alexander Ortiz3 said:Let's take a moment to ask ourselves why anti-immigration rhetoric has suddenly become such a massive hit with voters in various countries—from Switzerland and Denmark to Sweden and France. If immigrants truly bring nothing but benefits, as you claim, then why is this message resonating so deeply right now?

The answer is pretty straightforward: individual nations wanted to adjust immigrant benefits, but they didn't get any support from the European Commission in Brussels.☕
Rachel Reyes93 said:Look, I’m not trying to force my lifestyle on you, but let's be real—books aren't going to give you the actual vibe of Europe.
Theory doesn't mean much if you never actually face reality.

Aha, so now we're claiming immigrants are mostly illiterate? Apparently, young immigrants from those countries are actually more literate than their older generations—averaging around 83%, not under 20% like some people claimed earlier (I already posted the link).

Using a hateful tone toward people from different cultures just screams ignorance, apathy, and frustration. It's pure fear. Everything can be fixed with education, but clearly, it's easier to just sit there and insist your own culture or country is superior to everyone else's.☕

I wasn't just talking about theoretical knowledge; I was talking about using all available sources to get quality information, which includes firsthand experience.☕
Rachel Reyes93 said:I'd honestly never claim to have a perfect grasp of Europe. I haven't traveled through every single country there, and I don't really know what daily life is actually like for, say, Latvians, Romanians, or Estonians.
As for the rest of the continent, I guess my knowledge is pretty surface-level.

Admitting you're uninformed is human enough, but making an effort to understand different cultures and traditions is a choice. In this century, the barrier to entry is basically zero. You have books, virtual tours, or just talking to people who have actually lived abroad. It isn't a difficult "assignment"; it just requires a bit of curiosity. That’s the first step toward grasping how much reality differs from your own culture, lifestyle, or religion. Honestly, the comments on this thread regarding immigrants and refugees shock me. Most of them seem rooted in pure ignorance or hostility—which is ironic, considering people love to complain about how "uneducated" these groups are. Smh. ☕
Rachel Reyes93 said:Even I can see that isn't even true for the States.
And honestly, your take on Europe based on your posts is just totally off base.
Europe has changed a ton since the wars in the former America, and it's been a really long time since you were last there.
I haven't really followed your stuff in a while, but whenever I catch one of your shorter posts, it feels like what you're saying just doesn't match reality at all.

Everything I wrote about the USA is clearly based on facts.

Of course Europe has changed—specifically its individual nations. Every country evolves over time; I never claimed Europe stayed static. ☕ There are phases that vary in intensity, but change is constant. ☕

My knowledge of Europe is accurate. If I actually got something specific wrong, point out the exact error instead of making sweeping generalizations. ☕
Brenda Taylor13 said:See, things work totally differently in the States. In America, you don't get this whole—"Oh, please give me social security, a house, an apartment, and a job tailored specifically to my whims..." kind of deal. No way. In the USA, it’s basically: get to work or starve, and frankly, nobody gives a damn about you if you don't. But Europe? With its whole "welfare state" obsession, handing out social benefits to anyone who knocks on the door crying about being a "poor migrant"... well, that’s going to come back to haunt them. And I'm not talking about some distant future, either—it's happening right now. Europe simply CANNOT sustain a policy like that. The current social safety net in Europe was built for today's conditions, with today's workforce and today's number of benefit recipients. Once the number of people relying on those benefits spikes—which is exactly what we're seeing happen at this very moment—the whole system SNAPS. It just can't handle that kind of pressure. Either Europe is incredibly, hopelessly stupid and hasn't realized what's happening to it, or someone is doing this on purpose. There isn't a third option.

The Golden Rules of the USA:

1. If you work, you don't have to worry about starving.
2. You shouldn't subsidize able-bodied people just to keep them afloat. It's like parents giving money to a 35-year-old kid who refuses to work because they don't have to.
3. You don't get to pick and choose based on your preferences. You take what's offered, and you earn your spot by contributing your labor and skills to society. Nothing is free.☕
4. If immigrants don't like their new home, they are always welcome to head back where they came from.
5. Life in the USA is a litmus test. If you put in the effort, you'll be fine.☕
Lisa Jackson7 said:Lobbying groups have way more pull when it comes to immigration policy in some countries than others—it’s definitely not a level playing field everywhere.
Some countries have it in spades—looking at you, Germany—while others are barely hanging on by a thread, like Canada.

Immigrants aren't conquerors—they aren't out here trying to overhaul the society they’re moving into. ☕ Maybe you just don't get that immigrants are their own damn category in any society they move to—it's just how it works. ☕

Powerful interest groups are basically using immigration as a tool to reshape America—it's all about social engineering. Their goal? To give these people a life that’s way better than anything they'd find in a refugee camp... obviously. And let's be real—once their own countries get wrecked (one way or another), plenty of today's "humanitarian" types actually had their hands dirty in making that happen.

Real behavior is all about being human—sharing this one planet we live on. It’s not about forcing people to ditch who they are just to make room for some foreign identities—as long as those identities aren't out here trying to wreck the local culture. ☕

Thanks—just trying to hold onto my own identity while respecting everyone else's.

1. UNHCR data: currently, there are about 2,000 Asians from Afghanistan in Canada, along with other groups.☕
2. Throughout history, immigrants have always shifted population demographics. The makeup of the US today isn't the same as it was 25 years ago or 70 years ago.☕
Population migration is a constant; it’s been happening since the dawn of Homo Sapiens. Today, it’s just accelerated. People travel more, and expats or temporary workers are part of our global reality. It’s a process that isn't going to stop.
3. Immigrants also want to preserve their own identity abroad, just as they want to respect yours and have theirs respected. Is that really so difficult to practice?☕
Henry Cox2 said:Have you ever—and I mean, truly, at any point in your life—actually bothered to read a single local news site from Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Syria?

Do you know any American soldiers who served in Afghanistan or Syria?

Has anyone here ever worked in Libya, Morocco, Algeria, or Egypt for an oil major, or maybe for some of those old state enterprises back in the former America?

Have you ever actually had any real-world experience dealing with people from that part of the world?

There’s a report circulating about some kind of "Sharia police" being established over in Germany. It sounds like something straight out of a dystopian novel, but apparently, it's becoming a reality in certain pockets of Europe. I’ve been watching these developments for a while now, and honestly, it feels like we're witnessing a slow-motion collision between traditional Western legal frameworks and radical religious enforcement. You have these groups attempting to impose their own moral codes on public spaces, effectively creating mini-states within the state. It’s a bizarre, unsettling sight. If you look at how things are shifting across the European Union, there seems to be a growing tension between secular liberal values and these more fundamentalist movements. It’s not just a fringe issue anymore; it’s a structural challenge that's forcing a massive conversation about integration, law, and what it actually means to live in a free society. We see similar debates happening here in the States regarding the limits of religious influence in the public square, though the flavor is different. Still, the underlying friction—this struggle to maintain a unified rule of law when different groups want to play by entirely different rules—is universal. It’s easy to be cynical about it. I usually am. But this isn't just about one specific group or one specific city; it's about whether a modern democracy can actually absorb such diametrically opposed social structures without losing its core identity. It's a messy, complicated problem, and nobody seems to have a clean answer.

Authorities in North Rhine-Westphalia are reporting that around 1,800 individuals are active within the local Salafist scene. Of those, about ten percent are classified as violent extremists.

The recent news about increased patrols around sensitive infrastructure in Germany is exactly what you’d expect from the current climate over there. It’s that classic, weary cycle of heightened security measures following vague threats, where everyone stays on edge, waiting for the other shoe to drop. They're ramping up surveillance and presence, essentially trying to tighten the net around critical sites, but it feels like a reactive scramble rather than a proactive strategy. Honestly, it just adds another layer of tension to an already exhausting situation in Europe. It’s the same old story: more boots on the ground, more eyes on the screens, and a general sense of unease that never really goes away.

Wednesday, October 21, 2015
A man's skull was crushed by Sharia police in Canada.

1. I don't bother with news portals; I talk to people and read books. TV and mainstream media just dull the mind.☕

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. That news in your link about Salafis and Sharia police represents fringe groups acting out personal frustrations. They stopped being a hot topic very quickly. Don't worry, they aren't interesting anymore because they stopped making such stupid mistakes. Every group has its share of crazed fanatics.☕
Anthony Cook40 said:
I'm sorry, but I don't have any text to rewrite for you yet! Please provide the post you'd like me to work on, and I'll get right to it—re-crafting it with that conversational, easygoing vibe while making sure everything sounds perfectly at home in the States. kaže:
Look, I get it—as a short-term headache, it makes sense. You’ve got sudden shifts in movement, logistics going haywire, all that stuff. But presenting this as some unsolvable, permanent disaster? That’s just plain wrong. Honestly, every problem has a solution. The real issue right now isn't that we can't fix things; it's that we haven't even established a way to address them yet. Realistically, emergencies shouldn't catch you off guard—they need to be planned for. It’s just basic business logic. Every major corporation has a playbook ready to go the second something goes sideways in a short window of time. At the end of the day, it all comes down to one thing: preparedness.

It all sounds wonderful in theory—really, it does—but the reality is that Europe just doesn't have the cash to back it up.
If we actually had some level-headed people running things over in the UK, France, and New Jersey, I wouldn't even be wasting my breath on this—it would be a non-issue.
Honestly, they might as well just go consult with former Australian PM Abbott and call it a day—it would be about as productive as trying to find peace in a war zone.

I realized pretty quickly she wasn't actually an American journalist—but honestly, even if she was, the question is still hilarious.
If you think someone just wants immigrants to come through official ports of entry, then you're basically calling them a Nazi. 🙏

And who exactly told you the European Union is out of cash? ☕
hiddenmarlin14 said:I can't believe you used that smiley 🙂 instead of a coffee emoji 🙏 🙏 🙏

But seriously, how was this supposed to be planned to avoid this total mess and panic? Any ideas? 🤔

Heh, I’m actually drinking real coffee right now, not just the virtual kind. ☕

Of course it could have been planned. There just wasn't any will, or maybe there was a half-hearted attempt, but no plan ever reached the finish line. A plan regarding this "surprise" migration existed; it's only news to us because we didn't see it coming. Experts, predictably, knew this sudden surge was going to happen. ☕

The war in Syria is entering its fifth year. Is this refugee migration really a surprise? No, obviously not. ☕

I've made this suggestion several times, though nobody seems to like it: instead of ignoring the reality of refugee movement, we should provide aid and facilitate their migration. Migration is a fact of our modern reality. They should be treated as human beings in need of help, not as cargo being loaded at one border and unloaded at another. ☕ Is there even a political party in the US that supports aiding refugees during their journey as part of forced migration?
Morgan Newman7 said:But where were they all heading in such huge numbers? A massive influx in a short window creates problems. Simple as that.

As a short-term issue, it makes sense—you're looking at sudden shifts in movement, logistics, and all that. But framing an unsolvable problem is just plain wrong. ☕ Every problem can be solved. The current issue isn't that it's impossible; it's that there isn't a solution in place yet because, realistically, emergencies require planning. Just like any major US corporation has a contingency plan for when things go sideways in a heartbeat, the key here is preparedness. ☕

P.S. There are plenty of historical precedents for sudden, rapid population shifts. 🙂 You have to look at the historical context of mass migration relative to the era in which it happened.

People move across the globe much faster today than they did decades or centuries ago. That doesn't mean migration wasn't fast back then; it's just logically slower than what we see today.
Alexander Ortiz3 said:There is a whole string of countries across Europe that deal with varying numbers of immigrants, but there isn't a single nation where immigrants have integrated without issues. Not one. Every single one faces problems, and as the number of immigrants grows, those problems scale right along with them. That is a plain fact.
So when someone suggests we should allow immigrants to settle in America, what am I even supposed to think or say about that?

The sheer number of immigrants isn't the deciding factor here. It comes down to the Constitution, the Immigration law, and how society actually behaves toward newcomers. If a country protects immigrants with the same legal rights and protections it gives its own citizens, things run smoothly—and that requires a certain level of willpower from the host nation. ☕ Integration isn't solely on the immigrant to fit in; it depends heavily on the state's relationship with them. Just look at how differently immigrants are received in different parts of the world.☕
wiredtiger8 said:I still don't get one thing...

You people here who are constantly out there championing immigrants, refugees—call them whatever you want at this point... I can wrap my head around having a stance that sort of... partially... supports certain aspects of their struggles or whatever... it doesn't even matter right now.

But this relentless, non-stop defense of absolutely everything tied to them... like... they aren't worse workers than Americans or anyone else... their culture isn't actually different from ours... they aren't more or less uneducated... it’s not true that they can't integrate... it’s not true that they’re going to flip the entire demographic structure of the US in just a few years... blah, blah, blah...

...Well, that part just flies right over my head.

Is it actually possible that you believe all that? Are they really just identical in every single way to the native-born population here in America?
What, they just need a month or two... or maybe a year to settle in and find their footing? And that's it?
Everything stays exactly the same as it was before they arrived, except maybe some demographic stats look a little better?

Immigrants represent a unique social group within the society they enter. I am specifically writing about integrated immigrants whose children have been assimilated into the environment where they were born. Immigrants are a distinct group who are often no longer perceived as part of the "local community" even in their old home country. Both reactions—from the new society and the old—are expected and entirely normal because they are based on facts that any immigrant understands; it's simply a reality of the immigrant experience. ☕ This is their wealth, the universe that makes them feel whole. However, if that same immigrant is viewed negatively by the old society, and especially by the new one, the immigrant becomes threatened as a human being, not just as an immigrant. The point is that their fundamental human rights are being denied, not just specific immigrant rights. Demographics influence the evolution of any society, but if a society nurtures its own traditions while embracing new ones, it won't struggle with the changes brought by globalization—changes that many refuse to accept for xyz reasons. Any attempt to deny globalization will only slow down that society's development.☕
Brenda Taylor13 said:Look, lady, I haven't seen this level of pure, unadulterated naivety on this forum in ages—seriously, believe me. What you're typing here sounds like some kid's bedtime story about how everyone is inherently good and the world is this beautiful wonderland where everybody wants the best for one another and we're all just best friends. It's nonsense. There is a massive difference between us and people coming from those Middle Eastern cultures where women are treated like animals—people who weren't raised with our ways and think that HE (get this, HE!) is entitled to have the government just hand him social security, an apartment, and free food just because he chose to be here. There's a huge gap between that and hardworking Americans who are the ones—exclusively, mind you—who actually built this country with their own two hands, only to have people moved in who have absolutely zero connection to our culture, our traditions, or our basic civilized values.

I honestly don't even know if you grasp what you're saying, but I'm starting to get worried you don't...

In the US, immigrants from Middle Eastern countries get the same assistance during their arrival, but there isn't a situation where the government keeps throwing money at refugees after six months of help. While certain European Union nations have forced taxpayers to fund asylum seekers for years instead of motivating them to work by cutting off aid, ☕ therefore USA doesn't have these problems. Either work, or go home. ☕
Amanda Moore8 said:And then there are those who thought they could play the leftist card—well, after seeing how the current administration has handled things, especially with this migration crisis, many have had to rethink their positions. At least, most of the ones I know, anyway. The real champions of this unchecked border situation are our mainstream media outlets—we all know who pulls their strings, not to mention the government censorship—along with the various NGOs (it shouldn't be a secret who's footing their bills) and a few naive souls who genuinely believe they're doing good by helping people in need. If there's any small consolation in all of this, it's the thought that one day, when migrants and their descendants eventually reshape our American traditions and Western civilization, those very same organizations and media pundits will likely be the first ones to face the consequences.

And how exactly is that supposed to happen? Please, walk me through the mechanics of that phenomenon. I'm genuinely curious. ☕
Rachel Reyes93 said:Given how things are looking across Europe right now, when you have this massive influx of people who aren't educated and don't even speak the language, money becomes a huge, huge problem.

The US is dealing with major financial strain because of migrants for those exact same reasons, too.

At the end of the day, I guess money is the decisive factor, the absolute key problem.

Let’s be real: money isn't the issue here. We spend billions on wars and all sorts of other non-essentials anyway, right? ☕
Anthony Cook40 said:I can see it for myself. None of the big players—think Germany, France, or the UK—are actually in a great spot economically right now, and things in Southern Europe are honestly looking pretty dire.
I mean, countries like Greece, Spain, and Italy are already struggling just to keep their healthcare and social security systems afloat under all the pressure from their own citizens. Now, on top of all that, they're expected to fund housing, medical care, food, language classes, and full-scale integration for newcomers... and let's be real, trying to integrate these men into society is an even bigger hurdle.

Money isn't the issue here; the lack of consensus is. ☕
Anthony Garcia19 said:But they also weren't unstable enough to trigger a massive shift in how the EU operates—whether we're talking about pulling closer together or falling apart completely.

Well, that’s exactly where their stability hits a wall. Basically, they lacked the momentum to actually change anything.☕