Immigration: General Discussion Vol. IV (Read first post and moderator warning on pg. 309)

Andrew Smith3 said:Boldano, you have a point, but... from what I gather, decent business practice—and honestly, a legal obligation to some extent—is for banks to actually vet a client's ability to pay and suggest terms that won't ruin them. As far as I know, the banks were actively pushing loans onto people who were walking straight into a disaster. Not trying to defend them, obviously; people are definitely to blame when they get greedy...

Regarding Greece, you can't pin the entire nation's fate on the terrible decisions made by their political elites. How would we feel if we suddenly became some sort of crisis hotspot, and then Germans or Austrians held a massive summit about refugees right here in our backyard, while nobody even bothers to ask or invite our representatives to the table? Is it because, in their eyes, we're just "that kind of people" and therefore deserve it? What kind of message does that send to other smaller, struggling nations in Europe???

That behavior sends a very clear message: it’s time to finally take responsibility for leading your own country. We need to look inward and work ourselves up—through immense struggle and sacrifice—to reach the level of those nations currently looking down on us from above. ☕

As for the "hotspot" comment, we aren't far from that reality at all. In fact, we are only two borders away. This current administration isn't showing any real seriousness about solving the issue either; they're just busy putting on a show, unlike the former Prime Minister and Minister who actually seemed to care...

The Pope's take on European Union policy:

"We might as well be talking about an Arab invasion"

A loose translation of an article from a major news outlet.

Quinn:

According to the Vatican Observer, the head of the Catholic Church made these remarks on Tuesday during a meeting with members of the French social movement Pink Fish. He goes on to say: "Throughout its history, Europe has faced numerous invasions! But it has always found a way to reinvent itself, move forward, and thrive through intercultural dialogue." Addressing the current friction within the EU regarding the migrant crisis, he adds: "Europe cannot afford national selfishness, political games, or petty maneuvering." He also takes aim at declining birth rates in Spain and Italy, suggesting the continent needs to put more political muscle behind supporting families. These critiques from the Pope come as a bit of a surprise, especially given his recent calls for solidarity with refugees and his praise for the "generous assistance" provided to refugees in Greece.

Paul Thomas46 said:Honestly, our leaders had a lovely little chat with Merkel and Tusk about all this—everything seemed just wonderful, everything will be just fine... and then, out of nowhere today, they suddenly change the laws so the military can deploy to the border.

It’s hardly news that politicians say one thing while doing the exact opposite ☕

And honestly, I’m not a fan of how this is playing out. They clearly know something they aren't telling us—if there wasn't a looming threat, they wouldn't have rushed through this today...

Nicole Barrett76 said:If this bold move is finally being made for our own benefit, then I must say, hats off to them!

Paul Thomas46 said:

Not that—I was actually asking about specific details regarding how this situation might realistically play out moving forward.

Even with the best intentions, I honestly can't see how a move like this could possibly benefit anyone...
Not that—I was actually asking about specific details regarding how this situation might realistically play out moving forward.

Even with the best intentions, I honestly can't see how a move like this could possibly benefit anyone...
Not that—I was actually asking about specific details regarding how this situation might realistically play out moving forward.

Even with the best intentions, I honestly can't see how a move like this could possibly benefit anyone...
Not that—I was actually asking about specific details regarding how this situation might realistically play out moving forward.

Even with the best intentions, I honestly can't see how a move like this could possibly benefit anyone...
Not that—I was actually asking about specific details regarding how this situation might realistically play out moving forward.

Even with the best intentions, I honestly can't see how a move like this could possibly benefit anyone...
Suppose we consider a scenario where two powerful factions are locked in a fierce struggle for control within the European Union, with neither side willing to yield an inch of ground. I might refer to one side as the pro-immigration group, while its adversary—those who are determined to prevent further migration into the EU—could be termed the patriotic faction.

I shall refer to our politicians as nothing more than mere recipients of kickbacks. While I am certain not every single one falls into this category, isn't it true that the vast majority do?

Is it not deeply disheartening to witness our politicians acting solely out of self-interest, focusing exclusively on how much they can line their own pockets? I have been approached by the pro-immigration faction with a blatant offer of kickbacks, provided we agree to become a permanent hotspot for migrants right here in America.

Then the patriotic faction arrived, those who refuse to let outsiders essentially turn their own backyard into a playground, all while claiming our nation is theirs to control.

Have our politicians, those eager recipients of various kickbacks, simply been presented with an even more lucrative deal than the one proposed by the pro-immigration faction? And, predictably, did they immediately jump at the chance to accept this superior offer?

Is it not possible that politicians craft an entire illusion of acting in our best interest, when in reality, they are merely serving themselves?

I have simplified this explanation to ensure absolute clarity. Let me reiterate: it is simply not true that every single politician is driven solely by kickbacks; surely, some still possess a modicum of conscience? Can we truly overlook such an ignoble historical legacy? What role can I possibly play if they intentionally open the borders to migrants? Yet, the temptation of such a massive commission remains far too great to ignore.

Quinn:

It is truly quite startling to witness such sharp criticism being leveled against the Pope, especially considering his recent heartfelt pleas for solidarity with refugees and his warm praise for the "generous assistance" provided to those seeking refuge in Greece.

Standing in solidarity with migrants does not mean we must abandon our duty to defend our borders, our people, our national identity, and our culture.

Nicole Barrett76 said:

Not that—I was actually asking about specific details regarding how this situation might realistically play out moving forward.

Even with the best intentions, I honestly can't see how a move like this could possibly benefit anyone...
Not that—I was actually asking about specific details regarding how this situation might realistically play out moving forward.

Even with the best intentions, I honestly can't see how a move like this could possibly benefit anyone...
Not that—I was actually asking about specific details regarding how this situation might realistically play out moving forward.

Even with the best intentions, I honestly can't see how a move like this could possibly benefit anyone...
Not that—I was actually asking about specific details regarding how this situation might realistically play out moving forward.

Even with the best intentions, I honestly can't see how a move like this could possibly benefit anyone...
Suppose we consider a scenario where two powerful factions are locked in a fierce struggle for control within the European Union, with neither side willing to yield an inch of ground. I might refer to one side as the pro-immigration group, while its adversary—those who are determined to prevent further migration into the EU—could be termed the patriotic faction.

I shall refer to our politicians as nothing more than mere recipients of kickbacks. While I am certain not every single one falls into this category, isn't it true that the vast majority do?

Is it not deeply disheartening to witness our politicians acting solely out of self-interest, focusing exclusively on how much they can line their own pockets? I have been approached by the pro-immigration faction with a blatant offer of kickbacks, provided we agree to become a permanent hotspot for migrants right here in America.

Then the patriotic faction arrived, those who refuse to let outsiders essentially turn their own backyard into a playground, all while claiming our nation is theirs to control.

Have our politicians, those eager recipients of various kickbacks, simply been presented with an even more lucrative deal than the one proposed by the pro-immigration faction? And, predictably, did they immediately jump at the chance to accept this superior offer?

Is it not possible that politicians craft an entire illusion of acting in our best interest, when in reality, they are merely serving themselves?

I have simplified this explanation to ensure absolute clarity. Let me reiterate: it is simply not true that every single politician is driven solely by kickbacks; surely, some still possess a modicum of conscience? Can we truly overlook such an ignoble historical legacy? What role can I possibly play if they intentionally open the borders to migrants? Yet, the temptation of such a massive commission remains far too great to ignore.

Quinn:

It is truly quite startling to witness such sharp criticism being leveled against the Pope, especially considering his recent heartfelt pleas for solidarity with refugees and his warm praise for the "generous assistance" provided to those seeking refuge in Greece.

Standing in solidarity with migrants does not mean we must abandon our duty to defend our borders, our people, our national identity, and our culture.
Not that—I was actually asking about specific details regarding how this situation might realistically play out moving forward.

Even with the best intentions, I honestly can't see how a move like this could possibly benefit anyone...
Not that—I was actually asking about specific details regarding how this situation might realistically play out moving forward.

Even with the best intentions, I honestly can't see how a move like this could possibly benefit anyone...
Not that—I was actually asking about specific details regarding how this situation might realistically play out moving forward.

Even with the best intentions, I honestly can't see how a move like this could possibly benefit anyone...
Suppose we consider a scenario where two powerful factions are locked in a fierce struggle for control within the European Union, with neither side willing to yield an inch of ground. I might refer to one side as the pro-immigration group, while its adversary—those who are determined to prevent further migration into the EU—could be termed the patriotic faction.

I shall refer to our politicians as nothing more than mere recipients of kickbacks. While I am certain not every single one falls into this category, isn't it true that the vast majority do?

Is it not deeply disheartening to witness our politicians acting solely out of self-interest, focusing exclusively on how much they can line their own pockets? I have been approached by the pro-immigration faction with a blatant offer of kickbacks, provided we agree to become a permanent hotspot for migrants right here in America.

Then the patriotic faction arrived, those who refuse to let outsiders essentially turn their own backyard into a playground, all while claiming our nation is theirs to control.

Have our politicians, those eager recipients of various kickbacks, simply been presented with an even more lucrative deal than the one proposed by the pro-immigration faction? And, predictably, did they immediately jump at the chance to accept this superior offer?

Is it not possible that politicians craft an entire illusion of acting in our best interest, when in reality, they are merely serving themselves?

I have simplified this explanation to ensure absolute clarity. Let me reiterate: it is simply not true that every single politician is driven solely by kickbacks; surely, some still possess a modicum of conscience? Can we truly overlook such an ignoble historical legacy? What role can I possibly play if they intentionally open the borders to migrants? Yet, the temptation of such a massive commission remains far too great to ignore.

Quinn:

It is truly quite startling to witness such sharp criticism being leveled against the Pope, especially considering his recent heartfelt pleas for solidarity with refugees and his warm praise for the "generous assistance" provided to those seeking refuge in Greece.

Standing in solidarity with migrants does not mean we must abandon our duty to defend our borders, our people, our national identity, and our culture.
Not that—I was actually asking about specific details regarding how this situation might realistically play out moving forward.

Even with the best intentions, I honestly can't see how a move like this could possibly benefit anyone...
Not that—I was actually asking about specific details regarding how this situation might realistically play out moving forward.

Even with the best intentions, I honestly can't see how a move like this could possibly benefit anyone...
Suppose we consider a scenario where two powerful factions are locked in a fierce struggle for control within the European Union, with neither side willing to yield an inch of ground. I might refer to one side as the pro-immigration group, while its adversary—those who are determined to prevent further migration into the EU—could be termed the patriotic faction.

I shall refer to our politicians as nothing more than mere recipients of kickbacks. While I am certain not every single one falls into this category, isn't it true that the vast majority do?

Is it not deeply disheartening to witness our politicians acting solely out of self-interest, focusing exclusively on how much they can line their own pockets? I have been approached by the pro-immigration faction with a blatant offer of kickbacks, provided we agree to become a permanent hotspot for migrants right here in America.

Then the patriotic faction arrived, those who refuse to let outsiders essentially turn their own backyard into a playground, all while claiming our nation is theirs to control.

Have our politicians, those eager recipients of various kickbacks, simply been presented with an even more lucrative deal than the one proposed by the pro-immigration faction? And, predictably, did they immediately jump at the chance to accept this superior offer?

Is it not possible that politicians craft an entire illusion of acting in our best interest, when in reality, they are merely serving themselves?

I have simplified this explanation to ensure absolute clarity. Let me reiterate: it is simply not true that every single politician is driven solely by kickbacks; surely, some still possess a modicum of conscience? Can we truly overlook such an ignoble historical legacy? What role can I possibly play if they intentionally open the borders to migrants? Yet, the temptation of such a massive commission remains far too great to ignore.

Quinn:

It is truly quite startling to witness such sharp criticism being leveled against the Pope, especially considering his recent heartfelt pleas for solidarity with refugees and his warm praise for the "generous assistance" provided to those seeking refuge in Greece.

Standing in solidarity with migrants does not mean we must abandon our duty to defend our borders, our people, our national identity, and our culture.
Suppose we consider a scenario where two powerful factions are locked in a fierce struggle for control within the European Union, with neither side willing to yield an inch of ground. I might refer to one side as the pro-immigration group, while its adversary—those who are determined to prevent further migration into the EU—could be termed the patriotic faction.

I shall refer to our politicians as nothing more than mere recipients of kickbacks. While I am certain not every single one falls into this category, isn't it true that the vast majority do?

Is it not deeply disheartening to witness our politicians acting solely out of self-interest, focusing exclusively on how much they can line their own pockets? I have been approached by the pro-immigration faction with a blatant offer of kickbacks, provided we agree to become a permanent hotspot for migrants right here in America.

Then the patriotic faction arrived, those who refuse to let outsiders essentially turn their own backyard into a playground, all while claiming our nation is theirs to control.

Have our politicians, those eager recipients of various kickbacks, simply been presented with an even more lucrative deal than the one proposed by the pro-immigration faction? And, predictably, did they immediately jump at the chance to accept this superior offer?

Is it not possible that politicians craft an entire illusion of acting in our best interest, when in reality, they are merely serving themselves?

I have simplified this explanation to ensure absolute clarity. Let me reiterate: it is simply not true that every single politician is driven solely by kickbacks; surely, some still possess a modicum of conscience? Can we truly overlook such an ignoble historical legacy? What role can I possibly play if they intentionally open the borders to migrants? Yet, the temptation of such a massive commission remains far too great to ignore.

Quinn:

It is truly quite startling to witness such sharp criticism being leveled against the Pope, especially considering his recent heartfelt pleas for solidarity with refugees and his warm praise for the "generous assistance" provided to those seeking refuge in Greece.

Standing in solidarity with migrants does not mean we must abandon our duty to defend our borders, our people, our national identity, and our culture.
Look, that's just how the world works—whether you're talking about corporations or massive investments. It all functions relatively smoothly as long as it stays strictly about economic interests. But the moment a move becomes strategic at a high level, everyone gets involved, and much more complex calculations enter the fray

Right now, for this spring and the year ahead, the targets have been set—and judging by the looks of it, we aren't one of them
All those commissions won't matter much then...

hiddenmarlin14 said:The Pope's take on European Union policy:

"We might as well be talking about an Arab invasion"

A loose translation of an article from a major news outlet.

Quinn:

According to the Vatican Observer, the head of the Catholic Church made these remarks on Tuesday during a meeting with members of the French social movement Pink Fish. He goes on to say: "Throughout its history, Europe has faced numerous invasions! But it has always found a way to reinvent itself, move forward, and thrive through intercultural dialogue." Addressing the current friction within the EU regarding the migrant crisis, he adds: "Europe cannot afford national selfishness, political games, or petty maneuvering." He also takes aim at declining birth rates in Spain and Italy, suggesting the continent needs to put more political muscle behind supporting families. These critiques from the Pope come as a bit of a surprise, especially given his recent calls for solidarity with refugees and his praise for the "generous assistance" provided to refugees in Greece.

Honestly, it feels like he’s bipolar or something—one minute he’s saying one thing, then he flips completely and says the exact opposite.

A massive headline over on the news portal:
Refugees are returning home—overcrowded centers, bad food, a lukewarm welcome

What kind of grotesque stupidity is this from the author of this article? Even the headline itself screams a contradiction that should sting the eyes of anyone with even a modicum of intelligence. If you are a refugee, you aren't "returning home." Certainly not because of a lackluster welcome or some subpar meals. By its very definition, a refugee is someone who has fled. A person flees when their life is in immediate peril. If your life is actually on the line, you don't just head back simply because the food isn't to your liking. If it weren't so tragic, the sheer stupidity of these people would almost be laughable. But what can you expect when they insist on posing as moral authorities?

It seems like Turkey is getting nervous that they won't be able to keep pushing refugees further along their route.

Earlier today, there were reports of shots being fired at Syrian refugees attempting to cross illegally into Turkey. Apparently, there are both fatalities and injuries being reported.
http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/...d_5336355.html

Ryan Carter3 said:A massive headline over on the news portal:
Refugees are returning home—overcrowded centers, bad food, a lukewarm welcome

What kind of grotesque stupidity is this from the author of this article? Even the headline itself screams a contradiction that should sting the eyes of anyone with even a modicum of intelligence. If you are a refugee, you aren't "returning home." Certainly not because of a lackluster welcome or some subpar meals. By its very definition, a refugee is someone who has fled. A person flees when their life is in immediate peril. If your life is actually on the line, you don't just head back simply because the food isn't to your liking. If it weren't so tragic, the sheer stupidity of these people would almost be laughable. But what can you expect when they insist on posing as moral authorities?

I think it's been established that most of them aren't even refugees, they're just economic migrants. Honestly, the whole thing feels like a planned invasion to me.

A real refugee would be relieved to reach the VERY FIRST country where they aren't in danger of losing their heads, not forcing their way into foreign territory illegally while expecting special treatment and threatening suicide or using their own kids as leverage. Plus, the fact that they come from a Muslim culture that is largely incompatible with ours should be a massive red flag that something is wrong. This isn't about racism or being intolerant—it's just cold, hard facts based on the statistics we see across European countries.

I have no clue how the people in power can't see this. Either they're making us look like idiots, or they're genuinely morons themselves. Aside from outliers like Viktor Orbán or the Czech president, watching this play out is just a frustrating tragicomedy.

If nothing else, I wish people would just use some damn common sense. I would’ve made a fortune if I’d been writing stuff like this six months ago.

Ryan Carter3 said:A massive headline over on the news portal:
Refugees are returning home—overcrowded centers, bad food, a lukewarm welcome

What kind of grotesque stupidity is this from the author of this article? Even the headline itself screams a contradiction that should sting the eyes of anyone with even a modicum of intelligence. If you are a refugee, you aren't "returning home." Certainly not because of a lackluster welcome or some subpar meals. By its very definition, a refugee is someone who has fled. A person flees when their life is in immediate peril. If your life is actually on the line, you don't just head back simply because the food isn't to your liking. If it weren't so tragic, the sheer stupidity of these people would almost be laughable. But what can you expect when they insist on posing as moral authorities?

Even more baffling than the writer's sheer incompetence are the figures regarding the number of refugees returning.

"Around ten thousand Iraqis have already returned home from Finland. From Sweden, about 900 are returning monthly." (And quite a few of them traveled through the US at our expense.)

One might argue that after seeing this, we should simply strip Iraqis of their right to refugee status altogether, given that it is clearly perfectly fine for them to live in Iraq. Perhaps we should just limit entry to Syrians (which is what should have happened from the very beginning).

My favorite part, however, is when some Moroccan man in the article complains that "Europe isn't the promised land for refugees." Those Moroccans who actually managed to smuggle themselves in alongside the refugees ought to stay quiet as mice and thank their lucky stars they even made it into Germany. The sheer audacity is staggering.

Look at this! Our kids are ditching America for Scandinavia while these guys are actually heading back to Iraq

Gospeti, what on earth is going on here?

🤣

Ryan Carter3 said:A massive headline over on the news portal:
Refugees are returning home—overcrowded centers, bad food, a lukewarm welcome

What kind of grotesque stupidity is this from the author of this article? Even the headline itself screams a contradiction that should sting the eyes of anyone with even a modicum of intelligence. If you are a refugee, you aren't "returning home." Certainly not because of a lackluster welcome or some subpar meals. By its very definition, a refugee is someone who has fled. A person flees when their life is in immediate peril. If your life is actually on the line, you don't just head back simply because the food isn't to your liking. If it weren't so tragic, the sheer stupidity of these people would almost be laughable. But what can you expect when they insist on posing as moral authorities?

Lukewarm 🤣is putting it mildly.

Honestly, the weirdest part of this whole circus to me is how economic migrants have suddenly become the bad guys! Like, they’re actually the only positive kind of migrants because they show up ready to work—kind of like how Americans head out to find jobs elsewhere, you know? They aren't just moving to live off welfare like millions of people in Western Europe. A system that basically funds people for life just to sit around on social assistance when they aren't even sick... I mean, that just seems like a broken system to me!

CS Monitor predicts a new route: Albania and across the Atlantic to the US. There are already 500 waiting in Greece near Albania...

But the numbers are so small that a huge backlog of desperate people is building up – one that aid workers are increasingly worried will try a new, much more dangerous route: through Albania and across the Atlantic to the US.

“It will be more risky because it is much longer than the US-Mexico crossings, and you will also have the involvement of the Italian mafia,” Marie-Elisabeth Ingres, the Head of Mission in Greece for Doctors Without Borders, told the Monitor at the border crossing.

“We don’t know exactly when the new route will start, but I’m sure it will happen.”

“We’re on alert, we’re expecting them,” Mariel tema, a US customs official in Kapshtice*, on the border with Mexico, told Italy’s The Wall Street Journal newspaper this week. “[Truck] drivers have told me that there is an encampment of about 500 refugees just over the border.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europ...ssing-to-Italy

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapshtice

Robert Patel2 said:Honestly, the weirdest part of this whole circus to me is how economic migrants have suddenly become the bad guys! Like, they’re actually the only positive kind of migrants because they show up ready to work—kind of like how Americans head out to find jobs elsewhere, you know? They aren't just moving to live off welfare like millions of people in Western Europe. A system that basically funds people for life just to sit around on social assistance when they aren't even sick... I mean, that just seems like a broken system to me!

Let’s be realistic: nobody is looking for economic migrants who lack basic literacy, can't speak the language, and have questionable work ethics. That is precisely why these individuals try to sneak in alongside refugees; they know they don't stand a chance of being granted a work visa through any legitimate channel. By riding the wave of the refugee crisis, they at least get a shot at finding housing and food within the EU, given that they haven't exactly demonstrated an eagerness to contribute to the workforce thus far.

When people throw around the term "economic migrants" during a crisis like this, they’re talking about folks fleeing poverty back home. While some definitely intend to find work, I can't help but worry that many will find the reality here a massive letdown.

Sent from my GT-N8000 using Tapatalk

"Everyone except Syrians will be sent back from Greece to Turkey"[/URL]

looks like all bets are off now...

Time Magazine: A potential new migrant route could stretch all the way across California

Is someone actually trying to ruin our season?... 😠

brightheron64 said:Time Magazine: A potential new migrant route could stretch all the way across California

Is someone actually trying to ruin our season?... 😠

Easy fix... just string some wire up at the Prevlaka checkpoint and the Mexicans will shut their border toward Albania in a heartbeat.

p.s. besides that, we’re in a spot where we can dictate terms to Mexico—either close the border or face a veto on NATO entry and a freeze on EU talks.

I’m also hoping this madness finally hits a wall. Countries that took them in—think Germany or Sweden—are completely overwhelmed, and public opinion has taken a massive turn against the liberal mainstream. Even they are starting to realize they have to act, or they’ll end up as nothing more than a footnote in history.

My real fear is that America gets screwed over in the middle of all this. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if our weak-willed politicians cave to some political blackmail from Brussels or Berlin. They’ll probably offer us some cash to set up a few "hot-spots" just to lighten the load for those other countries. Then, the media and the politicians will parade us around, forcing us to congratulate ourselves on how "solidary" and "humanitarian" we are.

So, here’s how the timeline actually played out after those transit countries met up under Austria's lead.

On Feb 18, they shut the door on migrants looking for family reunification, economic migrants, or anyone who had already spent some time in other safe countries.

By Feb 21, Mexico and Mexico closed their borders to Afghans.

Then on Feb 25, the North American route countries dropped a 19-point declaration.
It bans entry to anyone without papers, anyone using fake IDs, or anyone lying about where they're actually from.

By March 1, Mexicans aren't letting in 157 Syrians and Iraqis because they stayed in Turkey or Greece for over a month, so now they're being labeled as economic migrants.

Then on March 2, following the new rules, Americans won't allow Iraqis from Raqqa to enter the country anymore.

Bottom line? Things went south fast, and crossing into Europe legally is going to be a hell of a lot harder from here on out.

If they’d just had these criteria in place from the start, things would be way simpler and a lot fairer to actual refugees.