Islamic State: Germany and Europe are once again a target
Islamic State: Germany and Europe are once again a target
The attack in Solingen is just the latest example of a new wave of violence linked to the Islamic State terrorist group. Experts say the war in the Middle East is the main catalyst.
The attack in Solingen is just the latest example of a new wave of violence linked to the Islamic State terrorist group. Experts say the war in the Middle East is the main catalyst.
The terrorist militia Islamic State (IS) has claimed responsibility for the knife attack in Solingen. According to Amak, the mouthpiece of IS, the attack was carried out in "revenge for Muslims in Palestine and elsewhere" and targeted a "group of Christians."
You're viewing part of a thread.
make any sense of these numbers
A. Immigrants were responsible for some murders and rapes and other crimes
B. They had to be present in the country to commit these proximal acts
C. Had they not been present, the murders, rapes, and other crimes perpetrated would not have been committed by them in the country
D. There would have been less crime and the immigration system would not have caused harm to the actual domestic population.
The crime rates of citizens vs immigrants is informative in terms of helping determine policy adjustments in terms of country of origin and specific cultural concerns but it doesn't change the fact that the immigration system is doing harm to the domestic population which it should rightfully otherwise protect and benefit and be sustainable in the service of all it does.
Nobody owes a violent, unstable refugee or criminal migrant (legal/economic, illegal etc) a fox in the henhouse situation. Doesn't matter what they've been thru, it seems like there's not even an in the alternative where they are mitigated and supervised until they can demonstrate they belong or removed before they can take root by causing harm.
Edit: by the way this can actually lead to citizens committing crimes of desperation because they can't find housing or employment or any other necessary. We don't have infinite resources but there is infinite profit potential for those encouraging this mandate.
Housing profits/crisis 🚀 Lower wages/wage growth suppression 🚀 Private healthcare system 🚀
So you want to assign every immigrant a babysitter till they have been evaluated to be no risk?
While we are at it, might just as well give EVERYONE a government sponsored supervisor to be sure, because I've heard even some of those people already here rape, murder or commit other crimes. All in the name of the security of our state. I guess we should form some sort of ministry to supervise this effort. I guess Ministry for State Security might be fitting.
Do you even realize how contemptuous your idea is? I don't know anything about you, but I guess to be sure you won't kill me should you ever visit my city/county/state/planet, I will put you in a cage and point a camera at you.
I hope you keep your idea in mind should you plan to take your next vacation anywhere but your own apartment.
Would you allow any random person who showed up at your doorstep a live-in gig as a nanny without doing some due dilligence? What does high-trust/low-trust mean to you?
Hell no, and I don't care if that person is black, white, blue, has an American, French or Iraqi passport.
But you are trying to build a strawman here, because babysitting is not the same as granting people shelter from hardships.
And to loop back to your previous statements regarding the number of crimes committed by immigrants: Am I statistically more likely to get murdered by an immigrant or by a fellow country man? You might have to reconsider your approach towards high/low threat environments in your everyday life.
Does the aspiration of granting refuge to people facing hardship take precedence over the actual moral and societal imperative to ensure the safety for those you are already responsible for?
There are many people who are facing hardship who we refuse to shelter already and they were always here. And by taking in more people from the outside while refusing existing inside hardship-facers shelter and safety, what is this really accomplishing?
Is that right or fair or even practical?
I guess I might as well argue with a stone instead of an American about universal moral values but here goes nothing:
Wait, did I just judge a person by their membership of a group they got randomly assigned at birth which says nothing about their character?
Anyways...
The suffering of one person is not justification to inflict the same on others. Secondly why are you refusing to help people through hardship in the first place.
Let me ask you in return: Why are neither deserving of your help?
I believe very strongly that the group we are responsible for already should be helped and stabillized before we consider newcomers. I must also point out that mass immigration without regard to the provision of necessaries like plentiful affordable housing, healthcare, good jobs and wage increases, and other finite public resources actually hurts everyone in ways that are profound and difficult to reverse.
There never should have been "we're taking in however many hundred thousand of any demographic (students, asylum seekers, economic immigrants, etc)" unless
- we have a place for each of those folks
- they are not driving prices up with their presence to the point average citizens can't even afford or find an things like an apartment or a job with a living wage for themselves.
- institutions driving this like post-secondary schools and corporations wanting cheap exploitable labor are responsible for housing each and every student or foreign worker they endeavor to host