Immigration General Discussion Volume IV (Read the first post and moderator warning on page 309)

It’s honestly wild how our administration handles things with Germany. I mean, look—if the Germans decide to shut their borders, we’re basically left holding the bag. Our leaders? They’d let everyone through without blinking an eye if they could. And don't even get me started on how they seem totally blind to what’s happening with Canada, where they just pass the buck along. That’s the real kicker. You can't just absorb everyone indefinitely, because once they're let into Germany, they eventually end up drifting into the rest of the US and other EU members too. It makes you wonder... aren't we going to see some kind of quota system or redistribution later on for those who entered through Germany? All those numbers from the beginning—that 500-something figure? It’s a total joke if you actually dig into the details. This whole thing is just going to inflate like a massive, uncontrolled balloon until the entire system starts to pop under this kind of policy. After that, we really only have two paths: either we turn into a third-world country, or we fight to get back to some semblance of normalcy.

GoodMorning said:So basically, millions of Syrian refugees are just Assad supporters who got kicked out by rebels using barrel bombs and other heavy artillery... 👏 I’d suggest you head down to the border—doesn't matter if it's the Mexican or Canadian one—you'll find two Syrians there speaking perfect English. Just ask them who they're running from. (Maybe bring them some snacks while you're at it)

Look, about 80% of those who voted actually cast their ballots for him back in 2014, including people living in refugee camps over in Turkey. The turnout there was slightly lower, maybe around 70% for Assad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian...,_2014#Results

A little prize question for the room: Will unnamed ever receive any form of satisfaction from our leading journalistic figures? 😁

Unnamed: ‘What could unnamed, unnamed, and unnamed possibly have to say to me today?’

A brief summary:

We stated quite clearly what we expect the American President to demand from the European Commission and NATO during this refugee crisis. (

On behalf of her family, and despite the hostile media environment she has grown accustomed to over the last two years, she immediately called upon the President on September 7th to request three specific measures from the European Commission and NATO:
1. That refugee centers be established in border countries outside of the European Union—specifically along the eastern borders of the US.
2. That refugees truly in need of protection and life-saving assistance be distributed fairly among EU member states, ensuring they are clearly distinguished from economic migrants.
3. That the wealthy nations surrounding Syria begin to accept their share of refugees.

And then, the onslaught began. For three consecutive days—September 8th, 9th, and 10th—the primary voices of the Democratic Party, tasked with promoting Zoran Milanović, published commentaries that seemed to compete for who could insult her most viciously or distort her letter to Zoran Milanović beyond recognition.

First, on September 8th, unnamed:

Then, on September 9th, unnamed: How could unnamed even think she represents Christianity?

And finally, on September 10th, the "bravest" of them all—unnamed:

Today, now that the three demands presented by the family to Zoran Milanović five weeks ago have been adopted by the majority of EU nations—now that Germany is returning nearly every other migrant to their country of origin, when Canada has shuttered its borders, and when the pressing question is when Canada will follow suit—I find myself wondering: what exactly do unnamed, unnamed, and unnamed have left to say to me and the family? Perhaps... an apology?

Has anyone else seen any official confirmation about those reports that a few hundred migrants breached the US-MX border near Buffalo today? I saw on the news that Austria is warning people because they’re actually walking right along the highways.

Andrew Smith3 said:Look, about 80% of those who voted actually cast their ballots for him back in 2014, including people living in refugee camps over in Turkey. The turnout there was slightly lower, maybe around 70% for Assad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian...,_2014#Results

Not a chance. In a real democracy, you look at support levels. Around 30% is healthy. Anything north of 70% is just a dictatorship.

The reason they want to take down Assad? He’s got a hot wife and zero mortgage payments.

2) Syria doesn't owe anything to the IMF.

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/syria-wor...e-message-604/

War is a business, and the reconstruction phase is where the real money is made.

Olivia Morgan3 said:Has anyone else seen any official confirmation about those reports that a few hundred migrants breached the US-MX border near Buffalo today? I saw on the news that Austria is warning people because they’re actually walking right along the highways.

There's a timeline here, but it doesn't give any specific details:

http://www.vecer.com/clanek/201510216151527

Sophia Ramos5 said:There's a timeline here, but it doesn't give any specific details:

http://www.vecer.com/clanek/201510216151527

Honestly, it's all right here on the forum—you just have to scroll back maybe two pages or so, look for post 31 in this thread...

Maria James40 said:Honestly, it's all right here on the forum—you just have to scroll back maybe two pages or so, look for post 31 in this thread...

Thanks! I completely missed that link while scrolling through the whole discussion. 🤦
My bad!

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?

I assume if you have skin in the game, being objective is pretty much impossible. You might be right about some points, but you're obviously leaning heavily toward one side.

For example, say you work for a law firm specializing in immigrant rights... or you're the owner or CEO of an auto manufacturer and you need fresh cheap labor for the assembly line... or you're selling batteries to a colony of refugees passing right by your house... you get the idea.

It’s all just self-interest—you reap the benefits while everyone else picks up the tab.

Joshua Kelly51 said:An open letter:

Check out the latest open letters over at

c/p :

An open letter: A call for scientists to embrace tolerance, solidarity, and basic humanity.

Every day, we see news reports about people caught in refugee lines in our neighboring countries, just trying to find a safe place to live and a future for their kids. Beyond the basic struggle to survive, they face endless obstacles designed specifically to block them from entering or moving through Western nations. This only deepens the misery of people who were forced to flee their homes in search of security. Given how the media usually frames this, we need to clarify one thing: these are forced migrants. They didn't choose this; they were driven out by a perfect storm of political instability, war, sheer survival, economic collapse, and the worsening effects of climate change. They are refugees, plain and simple. It’s time to stop using labels like "adventurers," "deserters," "fakes," "criminals," or "terrorists"—terms often thrown around by biased media outlets and certain politicians to distort the reality of the situation.

It’s becoming impossible to ignore the rising tide of anti-immigrant rhetoric sweeping through America and much of Europe. We’re seeing a surge in statements designed to fuel fear, intolerance, and xenophobia. This kind of discourse isn't harmless; it builds a foundation for hostility, hate speech, and discrimination. Ultimately, this atmosphere can escalate into actual violence against people in need—whether they are just passing through a community or settling down there. With recent talk regarding potential mass arrivals at our borders, we want to take this opportunity to dismantle some of the common myths and prejudices surrounding refugees and migrants. As both citizens and members of the scientific community, we are calling for tolerance, solidarity, and basic humanity.

The point of this letter is to sound the alarm on the risks posed by distorted perceptions regarding refugees entering the country. While research suggests that American society doesn't typically exhibit extreme xenophobia on this issue, you can still find a massive amount of online commentary fueling ethnic and religious intolerance—sometimes even inciting outright violence against refugees. In the current climate, this kind of rhetoric only serves to radicalize public opinion further. Because of this, we believe it is essential for official government agencies to step up and provide clear communication. Citizens need to be informed about the actual situation, the root causes driving people to arrive, and the basic rights and needs of refugees. Doing so would help foster a sense of solidarity within American society. Unfortunately, we’ve recently heard narrow-minded, xenophobic, and Islamophobic stances coming from certain domestic politicians regarding this so-called "refugee crisis." We want to remind these individuals that their actions are instrumental in shaping public opinion. They carry a heavy moral and political responsibility when it comes to these issues.

Research shows that how government policymakers frame refugee policy directly shapes public opinion. It’s just as much about personal experience—actually knowing asylum seekers or having lived through displacement ourselves. If we want to prevent xenophobia, the best defense is simple: better information, critical thinking, and actual human connection to these stories. As scientists, academics, and students, our job is to foster critical thinking rooted in hard evidence. Right now, amid this refugee crisis—defined by border walls, military deployments, and a total breakdown of humanitarian values—extremism is gaining ground. Fear and panic are being manufactured. We need to strip the political theater and high-tension rhetoric away from discussions regarding migration and its aftermath. It is both a political and a scientific responsibility to move this conversation back to the facts. This isn't a passing phase; this is a permanent feature of our society and the global landscape. We need a real debate, not a shouting match.

As scientists, we’re calling for a bit of sanity in this debate. We need moderate, measured rhetoric from everyone involved—not fear-mongering or panic, but an approach rooted in tolerance and solidarity. We also urge those working directly with refugees to maintain a proactive, positive stance by highlighting real-world success stories. What the public needs right now is critical thinking, empathy, and genuine support. The United States has a moral imperative to act decisively toward those seeking protection. This isn't just about following international law and our own legal obligations; it’s about remembering our own history. We know what it feels like to be displaced, and we remember when Americans were looking for refuge abroad and found open doors in other countries. Furthermore, we need to fix the cracks in the American asylum system. There are still too many gaps, particularly when it comes to setting people up for success. Once someone is granted protection or enters through the quota system, they need the functional tools required to integrate and build independent lives. The U.S. certainly has the capacity, the experience, and the will to make that happen.

Look, despite all the socioeconomic mess in America that keeps driving our own people to move away, we can't ignore the refugees arriving now looking for help. These two issues aren't linked by cause and effect; they're separate problems. If we look back at how Americans stepped up during the crises of the nineties, or even how neighbors rallied together during last year's massive flooding, we know what solidarity looks like. We need to provide support to those seeking a fresh start on American soil. Their needs are massive, especially when it comes to mental health and psychosocial support. Beyond the formal institutional aid, regular citizens can make a difference through simple, basic acts of kindness. The challenges ahead are significant, but I'm confident they're solvable. It’s time for both the public and the academic community to step up and actually engage with the reality of the refugee situation.

🙂☕

Someone brought up Canada.

Regarding that summer school/seminar series on the topic of refugees:

Because our asylum systems are so poorly structured, refugees often move through the system before anyone can actually assess their specific needs for protection. The real red flag here is the rising tide of unaccompanied or separated minors traveling through irregular routes. Even with all the massive resources international groups like the UN have poured into building up capacity, we're still seeing this gap. Most nations around here lack the actual bureaucratic muscle to protect or integrate newcomers, whether they're fleeing Syria or other crises. There's no real infrastructure to handle people with specific needs. On top of that, asylum seekers often avoid looking for protection in places like Canada, Mexico, or the US because the system is rigged against them. Between the restrictive legal hurdles—which lead to dismal approval rates—and the total lack of real integration opportunities, the standard of care just isn't there.


Key takeaways from the lecture:

Here’s the bottom line from the school: The fact that our three current systems are failing to actually protect refugees is deeply concerning. It’s not just because they’re still being built out; it's more troubling that the only thing driving us toward a functional, fair, and humane asylum system is external pressure and meeting specific requirements for international integration.

The US, Mexico, Mexico, and the rest of the North American states are legally tied to their commitments. As signatories to the 1951 Geneva Convention and its 1967 protocol, they have a full obligation to provide international protection to anyone fleeing persecution. It’s not optional.

The lecture took place three months ago ☕

Source:

I finally get the point of these talks now. They’re actually useful, especially for people who need to work on developing some genuine empathy for others and those who see the world differently 👍☕

Look, I'm not claiming I have proof—and I can't provide any—that comtesse or Michael Roberts7 are professionally tied to the immigration issue.
But I can certainly cast doubt.

As for this "open letter"... to me, it looks more like an offer of services to the government to calm down the peasants whose land is being crossed by a bunch of strangers.
I don't harbor hate, but I can definitely feel fear and concern (or maybe not, the media machine keeps showing cracks, nothing is perfect, but hey, we're making progress...).

Maybe this open letter was sent to governments, the United Nations, big arms manufacturers, oil tycoons, the Trilateral Commission—whatever you want to call the masters of the world—begging them not to burn down entire global regions and displace millions just so they can stay warm by the fires and line their pockets.

Or maybe they're volunteering to form a human wall around the Syrian border?

I'm not writing this to force anyone to make a sacrifice for the greater good—a sacrifice I wouldn't even make myself—just reminding you that there used to be appeals to give up nuclear weapons... feels like a lifetime ago.

Karen Doyle72 said:You have to admit, the vast majority of Americans are shielded from the physical presence of immigrants. What the price of that is, and how it impacts those who aren't so protected, is something we'll just have to wait and see.

Fair question... 👍

DobroJutro said:Those "democracy festivals" were just your typical elections where the beloved leaders walk away with 80% or 90% of the vote—standard stuff. Even the big-name advocates for free elections have backed them, stretching from Venezuela Bahrain all the way to Iran and Russia.

Look, just go ask someone—if you're near the Sutla area, you could even drop off some dry clothes. Maybe a few minutes of actual conversation will finally open your eyes.

CROSSING THE FROZEN SUTLA: "We're at the doorstep in Cleveland, we need clothes and food."

So, you're still talking nonsense.

1. The Russians only arrived in Syria ten days ago—they didn't create this refugee crisis.
2. Here’s a hard fact for you: only about 20% of these "refugees" are actually Syrian.

And hey, since you're such a huge protector of them, why don't you head down toward Sutla yourself... go offer some humanitarian aid.

Besides, what is there left to ask? We already know the drill... they're all doctors, dentists, engineers, or students...
...which accounts for that 20% of Syrians within the total migrant mass. So, what's the deal with the other 80%? That's Afghans, Iraqis, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis—and frankly, the truth behind that is anyone's guess...

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?

Well, I don't think they are significantly smarter or more foolish than we are.
Fearing and defending against Islamization is about 500 or more years too late. People from regions where the decimal system was invented, or where the foundations of modern medicine and many other vital advancements lie, didn't all suddenly lose their minds and become fundamentalists overnight. We interact with those discoveries and a massive vocabulary of Arabic origin every single day.

Just as we adapted some of their ideas, most of them will eventually adapt ours. If there are people who refuse to adapt and don't believe in it, your question proves that, and I suppose we are similar in that regard. There is likely a segment of "us" that doesn't trust them any more than a certain percentage of "them" distrusts us.

Most of the mistakes the Islamic State makes today were made by our own liberal factions hundreds of years ago. This means we are at a similar stage of development, where a part of a religious community, roughly 1,400 years after its founding, still believes that killing non-believers is necessary.

Tell me, how can you judge them as people who are significantly better or worse than you, and who don't deserve to be viewed as individuals rather than being generalized and tossed into the trash along with those whom some of them are actually fleeing from?

I guess Karavana wasn't exactly thrilled with the service they were getting at that small town in the Midwest, so they ended up torching the tent—or maybe it was just the heater running a little too hot, who knows?

https://twitter.com/S_Schwarzkopf

Maria James40 said:Honestly, it's all right here on the forum—you just have to scroll back maybe two pages or so, look for post 31 in this thread...

That was yesterday's news. The real question is what about today? Are they walking down the highway right now?

wiredtiger8 said:So, you're still talking nonsense.

1. The Russians only arrived in Syria ten days ago—they didn't create this refugee crisis.
2. Here’s a hard fact for you: only about 20% of these "refugees" are actually Syrian.

And hey, since you're such a huge protector of them, why don't you head down toward Sutla yourself... go offer some humanitarian aid.

Besides, what is there left to ask? We already know the drill... they're all doctors, dentists, engineers, or students...
...which accounts for that 20% of Syrians within the total migrant mass. So, what's the deal with the other 80%? That's Afghans, Iraqis, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis—and frankly, the truth behind that is anyone's guess...

In parts of Afghanistan, there has been nonstop warfare since 1978.
It’s much like in Pakistan, where certain regions of Afghanistan have spent years fighting against exactly what you fear most: religious fanatics. In this case, we're talking about the Taliban, not ISIS. Back in 2014, there were wars going on in 31 different countries worldwide. If you aren't bothered by Syrians right now because they come from war-torn regions, then logically, no one else from those areas should be an issue either.

Jack Hammer said:Even the German ABC finally admitted what all those so-called "obscene right-wing portals" and that "junkie" Bujanec have been shouting about for ages.

I think I’ve already mentioned here that eventually, once certain media outlets scrape up enough courage, they’ll actually start reporting objectively and admit how much they've manipulated the news.

Michael Roberts7 said:Well, I don't think they are significantly smarter or more foolish than we are.
Fearing and defending against Islamization is about 500 or more years too late. People from regions where the decimal system was invented, or where the foundations of modern medicine and many other vital advancements lie, didn't all suddenly lose their minds and become fundamentalists overnight. We interact with those discoveries and a massive vocabulary of Arabic origin every single day.

Just as we adapted some of their ideas, most of them will eventually adapt ours. If there are people who refuse to adapt and don't believe in it, your question proves that, and I suppose we are similar in that regard. There is likely a segment of "us" that doesn't trust them any more than a certain percentage of "them" distrusts us.

Most of the mistakes the Islamic State makes today were made by our own liberal factions hundreds of years ago. This means we are at a similar stage of development, where a part of a religious community, roughly 1,400 years after its founding, still believes that killing non-believers is necessary.

Tell me, how can you judge them as people who are significantly better or worse than you, and who don't deserve to be viewed as individuals rather than being generalized and tossed into the trash along with those whom some of them are actually fleeing from?

Quite a few migrants can barely write, let alone possess an education comparable to a typical American, which makes their value in the labor market questionable—especially considering that in some European Union countries, youth unemployment among locals, even those with college degrees, exceeds 50%.

But honestly, why speculate about their future here when we can already look at the Muslim communities in Western Europe that have been established since the 1970s?
- while most of them aren't criminals, if you look at the percentage of criminals and compare how many are immigrants versus how many are locals, there is a massive disproportion showing that the majority of crime is committed by newcomers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime

"According to official statistics, 21.0% of rapes have been committed by foreigners in Finland. Foreigners comprise 2.2% of the population"

"A study of crime statistics published in 2014 found that among males between the age of 20 and 24 descendants of non-Western immigrants had a crime rate 2.6 times greater than those of Danish origin"

"Immigrants in Germany are overrepresented in crime statistics. In New York City, young male immigrants are three times more likely to commit violent crimes than their American peers. The crime rate of immigrants is at first glimpse about 5 times higher than that for Americans (4.9 : 1)."

"According to a 2009 study commissioned by Attorney General Merrick Garland, of 447 criminal files, 63% teenagers convicted of serious crime are children of parents born outside The Netherlands"

"immigrants from Africa and South & Western Asian were more likely to be charged of a crime than individuals born to two Swedish parents by a factor of 4.5 and 3.5 respectively"

"According to a report on prison population statistics published by the US Department of Justice UK, in 2013 blacks made up 13.2% of the prison population and 2.8% of the general population"

Michael Roberts7 said:In parts of Afghanistan, there has been nonstop warfare since 1978.
It’s much like in Pakistan, where certain regions of Afghanistan have spent years fighting against exactly what you fear most: religious fanatics. In this case, we're talking about the Taliban, not ISIS. Back in 2014, there were wars going on in 31 different countries worldwide. If you aren't bothered by Syrians right now because they come from war-torn regions, then logically, no one else from those areas should be an issue either.

Personally, I feel like a state of war is basically the perfect recipe for a demographic explosion.
They just keep fighting and fighting, and meanwhile, their numbers just keep growing and growing...

God, what a mess of a war.

Kaksikaj said:Migrant centers are catching fire all over Sweden

http://www.thelocal.se/20151018/hree...ek-hit-by-fire

Over in Canada, they’re setting them on fire themselves:

Sam Ramos85 said:I think I’ve already mentioned here that eventually, once certain media outlets scrape up enough courage, they’ll actually start reporting objectively and admit how much they've manipulated the news.

The truth is, the media is always spinning things, whether it’s refugees, floods, car crashes, or mass shooters.
If they can focus on the elderly or children, they will.
When you watch footage of recent flooding—water pouring onto balconies and into homes—you mostly see kids and seniors. It’s simply because those images pull at our heartstrings more. Besides, a young man isn't exactly going to sit on a balcony watching the water rise when he could be inside trying to save something his 90-year-old grandmother isn't strong enough to protect.

It’s hardly a mystery that most refugees from Syria are men of military age. But here's the kicker: they know that just like back in certain parts of the US during the 1940s, you might end up being drafted to fight for the people who arrived first. We've seen plenty of cases where family members ended up on opposing sides because they had to pick a side once a conflict finally hit home.

When it comes to "economic" migrants, the pattern is even more obvious. Who gets sent off to earn money and provide for the family? The strongest ones. Look at how, around fifty years ago, it was mostly single men traveling alone from places like Turkey, America, or Italy to move to America. Some brought their wives over after a few years, while others never did.

Americans turned a blind eye just to keep the oil flowing while some ex-KGB guy was running Russia. What now? You want a fair game?