Netherlands starts seperate housing for LGBT-refugees because of threats - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49254123][U]So long as they aren't actively going through the crowd asking people if they are LGBT and then bringing them away from everyone else[/U]. Some people might want to stay anonymous and their safety might hinge on that. I'm not sure concentrating all the people that might get attacked in one building is the best idea unless they are guarding it well.[/QUOTE] This may end up happening.

[quote=rumble rumble] They have human rights yes, but so do the gays, lesbians and transgenders that they're culturally/religiously repressing and even killing.... I'm not willing to demish their standard of living in the West, by importing people with views that are incredibly detrimental to their wellbeing. The homosexuals, atheists, and other by islam unaccepted minorities fleeing Syria are in my opinion genuinely refugees. Not the majority of 'moderate' muslims who bring hateful views. [/quote] Sunnis and shias are both being killed. Kurds have wiped out sunni villages, shia militias (league of the righteous + others) are utterly awful to sunnis, sunni militias (including our moderate rebel buddies like islamic front) are dicking on shias. Hell sunnis are killing sunnis and shias and killing shias. In africa boko haram + other militias will kill anyone who disagrees with them and doesn't join them/serve them etc. These people are all fleeing conflict. They might have backwards ass views which we need to make sure they understand we will not tolerate but they are still fleeing conflict and oppression. [quote] Silly yes, yet that is exactly what you're doing when someone is critical of immigration. You insinuate the criticism stems from racism, xenophobia, or intolerance. Not just once, but systematically. You don't get to pretend that I'm intolerant of your views here. I'm starting to dislike HOW you come to your conclusion, not the conclusion that you reach itself. You might have very valid arguments, however at the moment you've not displayed anything other than infantile, emotional arguments. [/quote] Sorry if I offended you. [quote] I love how you know what my motivation is. Are you sure you're not just operating on presumptions, and generalized viewpoints, just like you're accusing of us doing when we speak out against problems that (mass)immigration is bringing? [/quote] I'm sticking to my guns here. That "economic migrant" rhetoric is used by people who are anti-immigration in general. It started as calling people "migrants" then as the general populace realised these people are fleeing conflict and pictures like that boy popped up the anto-immigration crowd started using this new rhetoric "yeah we are good people we support people fleeing war, but what about you [i]economic migrants[/i] yeah theyre the greedy ones we don't like. Most of them are economic migrants, if we send them back then I'm happy" [quote] You're completely missing the fact that we acknowledge there ARE genuine refugees, BUT that we say there's also a large group of people pretending to be war refugees, but who are in fact economic refugees. Everytime we present facts, newsreports or evidence that backs this up otherwise you come up with some empty emotional argument and an appeal to sympathy to just overlook this. [/quote] Hmm look at that "yeah we are good people we support people fleeing war, but what about you [i]economic migrants[/i] yeah theyre the greedy ones we don't like. Most of them are economic migrants, if we send them back then I'm happy" [quote] [quote=me]We'll the majority are from Syria, afghanistan, iraq, eritrea and nigeria. All states with war or, in eritrea's case, massive oppression. Sounds like a valid claim to refugee status tbh.[/quote]Even if it's a valid claim, that great, but I'll just say now that out of the global population probably about 80% has some real problem they're facing now. I'm pulling that number out of my ass, yes, but the majority in the world has more problems, sometimes even life-threathening, worse than in the west. Does that mean that we are obligated to take them all in? [/quote] The figure was taken from a UN report on the demographics of the people in boats. It lists the top 10 ethnicities of refugees on boats. The land routes would have less africans and more middle easterners. I would say we are obligated to help who we can, either by providing valid refuge to those who need refuge or helping them get their own homes sorted, there is even an economic argument for it, trade parteners and new markets. Whether we can afford it, like I said before, is a very valid question and criticism for providing help.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49254380] Hmm look at that "yeah we are good people we support people fleeing war, but what about you [i]economic migrants[/b] yeah theyre the greedy ones we don't like. Most of them are economic migrants, if we send them back then I'm happy"[/QUOTE] Nothing worth replying to in your post, except for this. I'm not saying 'There's economic refugees amongst them, so accept noone". I'm saying "Take in and care for the real refugees, and don't be afraid to reject the economic refugees". Don't burden the real refugees with the economic refugees, especially if the economic refugees bring in a toxic culture, that the real refugees were fleeing. Again, you don't get to pretend that i'm 100% anti-immigration, 100% of the time.

[QUOTE=Rumbler;49254405]Nothing worth replying to in your post, except for this. I'm not saying 'There's economic refugees amongst them, so accept noone". I'm saying "Take in and care for the real refugees, and don't be afraid to reject the economic refugees". Don't burden the real refugees with the economic refugees, especially if the economic refugees bring in a toxic culture, that the real refugees were fleeing. Again, you don't get to pretend that i'm 100% anti-immigration, 100% of the time.[/QUOTE] I think we're seeing common ground. My argument from here is that the majority are refugees from war. I agree people who do not have valid claim as refugees and are not seeking asylum should perhaps be sent home if it is deemed safe. Sadly these are the only reliable stats I can find on demographics (this is for the people crossing by boat) I suspect land routes will have less africans and more arabs. [url]http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php[/url] Changed since I last saw it, bangladesh used to be on there, likely that people from bangladesh might not have valid claim for asylum/refugee status. Pakistan again might be as you say, economic, that is at maximum 2% and its worth nothing there is violence in pakistan the northern region is almost lawless and suffering attacks, so some of those 2% will be people fleeing that violence. Syria 51% afghan 20% iraq 7% eritrea 4% Already that 82% being a large majority and, as I said before, land routes would have more syrians, afghans and iraqis. So imo the majority are war/oppression refugees.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49254511]I think we're seeing common ground. My argument from here is that the majority are refugees from war. I agree people who do not have valid claim as refugees and are not seeking asylum should perhaps be sent home if it is deemed safe. Sadly these are the only reliable stats I can find on demographics (this is for the people crossing by boat) I suspect land routes will have less africans and more arabs. [url]http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php[/url] Changed since I last saw it, bangladesh used to be on there, likely that people from bangladesh might not have valid claim for asylum/refugee status. Pakistan again might be as you say, economic, that is at maximum 2% and its worth nothing there is violence in pakistan the northern region is almost lawless and suffering attacks, so some of those 2% will be people fleeing that violence. Syria 51% afghan 20% iraq 7% eritrea 4% Already that 82% being a large majority and, as I said before, land routes would have more syrians, afghans and iraqis. So imo the majority are war/oppression refugees.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry to say this, but YOU'RE only now seeing commonground. I've been saying this shit since day one. You were just too prejudiced to see it, or want to see it. I don't have a personal problem with you, let me make that very clear. However as I said before, I'm really disliking HOW you get to your conclusions, and how you enter discussions. A real question, that I'd like you to answer: And how many of these people, legitimate refugee or no, are bringing in a toxic culture that is proven to clash with Western culture and values resulting in economic burdening, prolific ethnic segregation, and unhappiness for both the natives and the immigrants?

[QUOTE=Rumbler;49254576]I'm sorry to say this, but YOU'RE only now seeing commonground. I've been saying this shit since day one. You were just too prejudiced to see it, or want to see it. I don't have a personal problem with you, let me make that very clear. However as I said before, I'm really disliking HOW you get to your conclusions, and how you enter discussions. A real question, that I'd like you to answer: And how many of these people, legitimate refugee or no, are bringing in a toxic culture that is proven to clash with Western culture and values resulting in economic burdening, prolific ethnic segregation, and unhappiness for both the natives and the immigrants?[/QUOTE] So since you can't prove they're economic migrants you've fallen back to opposing them on economic (valid) and cultural grounds. Thats that I spose

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49254643]So since you can't prove they're economic migrants you've fallen back to opposing them on economic (valid) and cultural grounds. Thats that I spose[/QUOTe] I was hoping to skip over that momentarily, so as not to pollute my hopes of getting you to answer an actual questions that I have towards you. You've been systemically ignoring what I said up to this point. However, I'll respond on what you posted now, to avoid the misconception that I'm not ignoring evidence and still sticking to my viewpoint. I am fully aware of where people come from, and that those places aren't as safe, or economically prosperous, or as healthy as the West that they're not fleeing to. WE fully agree on that, and have always done so. They are 'legitimate' refugees in the sense that by coming to the West, they do have something to gain in the sense of safety, prosperity, or health yes. However, you taking someones homecountry and then saying. "*country of origin with bad conditions*, therefor legitimate refugee". I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but there's a lot of safe area's even in countries where legimate refugees come from. [b]What I'm trying to get you to answer and acknowledge is;[/b] Do you see, how these problems in those area's of the world stem from social, religious, ethnic and economic tensions, that I do not wish to import here? The reason I don't wish to import them here, is because of the wellbeing of the natives, and the wellbeing of actual refugees that are currently housed here AND have integrated. You're operating under the axiom that every human just wants to live in peace and calm. As I said many times before, I've been volunteering at the IND here in the Netherlands for about 8 years now, helping newcomers integrate, and I've started volunteering in August in refugeecenter Nijmegen. I see on a weekly basis, that we are importing the problems I listed above, by importing the people from those area's in such massive numbers, and by not checking who they are properly. I'm not against helping humans, I"m just against helping humans if it harms the people already here in a real, statisically proven, and measureable way. Again, stop pretending like I'm a redneck set-in-his-ways blacky-hater. Also, answer my damn question. [quote]A real question, that I'd like you to answer: And how many of these people, legitimate refugee or no, are bringing in a toxic culture that is proven to clash with Western culture and values resulting in economic burdening, prolific ethnic segregation, and unhappiness for both the natives and the immigrants?[/quote]

[QUOTE=Rumbler;49254720]I was hoping to skip over that momentarily, so as not to pollute my hopes of getting you to answer an actual questions that I have towards you. You've been systemically ignoring what I said up to this point. [/quote] Systematically, consistently ignoring everything you said while I reply to each section. Honestly this is getting rather silly. [quote=question]And how many of these people, legitimate refugee or no, are bringing in a toxic culture that is proven to clash with Western culture and values resulting in economic burdening, prolific ethnic segregation, and unhappiness for both the natives and the immigrants?[/quote] Some are bringing in bad culture. Note I called some of them backwards ass with regard to their treatment of the LGBT people which this thread was originally talking about. Integration would fix that, stop them all living in the same place, spread them out, let them get jobs, force them to learn the language and go to school and integrate. Your examples of places where people haven't integrated (you mentioned them in other threads) isn't proving integration can't happen, only that its been done wrong. What are the alternatives? Let them wander europe going from country to country being rejected by people like you, forcibly remove them and put them where(?), what other options would there be? No actually don't answer because VVV Now I think I will systematically ignore the rest of your post because frankly you are a pain to talk to.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49253815] Ironic I see it the other way round "lets call them economic migrants instead of refugees, so we can make them seem antagonistic and greedy" Clash of the view points![/QUOTE] They stopped being refugees when they left the warzone. They started becoming economic migrants when they left their safe haven to undertake a (possibly dangerous) journey for economic gain. That's what people like you fail to understand. They were refugees in Jordan and Turkey. They're economic migrants in Holland, France, England, etc.

[QUOTE=Hyperbole;49255308]They stopped being refugees when they left the warzone. They started becoming economic migrants when they left their safe haven to undertake a (possibly dangerous) journey for economic gain. That's what people like you fail to understand. They were refugees in Jordan and Turkey. They're economic migrants in Holland, France, England, etc.[/QUOTE] EU has an interest in saving lives and providing security, are you saying that Jordan and Turkey should deal with all of them? A country in the EU closes their borders and claims to not be able to take care of ten thousand immigrants or so let alone a hundred thousand, and in Turkey there are a couple millions of them.

Yeah, but turkey's not delusional enough to think they can give them all thousands and thousands of dollars per refugee, It'd be better for the EU to send Turkey money and aid, and check in to make sure they're taking care of the refugees, than to accept them where they expect to receive free housing, amenities, and more than the country's own citizens receive (in the EU).

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;49255799]EU has an interest in saving lives and providing security, are you saying that Jordan and Turkey should deal with all of them? A country in the EU closes their borders and claims to not be able to take care of ten thousand immigrants or so let alone a hundred thousand, and in Turkey there are a couple millions of them.[/QUOTE] It'd be [B]immensely[/B] cheaper to give money to turkey/jordan in order to build up the camps. For each "refugee" we house here, dozens could be housed in turkey or jordan. It would also lessen the strain on our society and economy.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;49255799]EU has an interest in saving lives and providing security, are you saying that Jordan and Turkey should deal with all of them? A country in the EU closes their borders and claims to not be able to take care of ten thousand immigrants or so let alone a hundred thousand, and in Turkey there are a couple millions of them.[/QUOTE] A country has only so much to give. We cannot uphold the usual standards for taking in refugees/immigrants when they are rapidly overloading our capabilities. Hell, most refugees/immigrants now are going to be placed in tent camps here because we simply don't have any space or housing left. Sweden was off even worse from what I've heard, you lot don't even have enough beds left to house many more. And most of them came here because of what was told by them by Human Traffickers and Merkel: That the EU was going to give them free housing, loads of money and well-paying work if they want, and otherwise a very generous welfare system. Well, you don't need to think hard about it what's going to happen to the behavior of a refugee/immigrant who has walked all the way to Sweden only to hear that he is going to be put in a refugee camp in some Swedish forest without getting any money or hopes of a job? Do you really think that they will still ever intergrate into your society after that?

Yet people deny that Islamic migrants are going to clash with the local people and culture.

[QUOTE=Lurr;49259739]Yet people deny that Islamic migrants are going to clash with the local people and culture.[/QUOTE] Of course it will. It already does.

[QUOTE=Lurr;49259739]Yet people deny that Islamic migrants are going to clash with the local people and culture.[/QUOTE] Dunno how it came into existence but people seem to think that only white people can be racist or bigoted.

[QUOTE=Fourier;49251473]Where are all refugee loving people now?[/QUOTE] I'm still here.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49259889]Dunno how it came into existence but people seem to think that only white people can be racist or bigoted.[/QUOTE] It because the current concept is related and due to communistic thought. Any thing nationalistic and of western culture = bad.