Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. DLC
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
      7. The Diamond Casino Heist
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

GTA_stu

The Migration Crisis

Recommended Posts

sivispacem

How it a scare tactic? There is a very real possibility that in 40, 50, 60, 70 years ethnic Brits/French/Swedes will be less than 50% of the population in their respective countries.

Well if you're using the ridiculous definition of ethnic citizens thst you posted below you're a few hundred years too late at the very latest, but let's think about this a bit more. You're effectively saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that all "non ethnic" blood diluting the domestic British bloodline is bad? I don't really see that. Then again, I don't base my political views on thinly veiled eugenics and don't really give a sh*t about the notion of an imaginary, arbitrary ethnicity which practically died out long ago.

 

You want a definition of what makes a person ethnicly British? How about this: "Genetic ancestry predominantly (80-100%) consisting of the people that have been inhabiting the British Isles since they were first settled roughly 12,000-15,000 years ago." There you go Sivis, I know you've been wanting that more than an Iphone 8.

I reckon that ship sailed hundreds of years ago at a very minimum. Let's ignore the fact that British settlers aren't a single homogenous genetic group and thst discerning genetically between someone descended directly from early British settlers is astonishingly difficult. Whst percentage of the British population do you think have a bloodline not dilluted more than 20% by foreign nationals in twelve thousand years? I bet that percentage is vanishingly small. Interesting, too, that by your metric I'm not actually ethnically British. In fact, basically no-one is. Are you? Can you demonstrate you're 80% genetically derived from the earliest British settlers?

 

So Tibetans are just being silly when they fear that the Chinese are attempting to make them a minority by increasing the immigration levels of Han Chinese into Tibet?

Right, because foreign citizen immigrants becoming British natives voluntarily and changing the genetic makeup of the country is exactly the same as the Chinese using population warfare to destroy the society of a nation they've spend the best part of a century occupying and attempting to systematically destroy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

I am bemused by the notion that there is a concept of an ethnic Briton, considering all the tribes that lived in Britannia. The division was perhaps more noticeable before 1066, but it certainly still remains. The Picts, the Belgae, the Scots, the Angles, the Welsh, the Saxons, the Normans, the Danes and the Norwegians. And let's not forget the Romano-British. Britannia have been invaded so many times, that the notion of a 'single ethnic Briton' is laughable. At least to someone who knows basic British history.

 

The people who settled the British islands 12,000 years ago are long gone. Most modern Brits are descendants of one of the invading tribes/peoples.

Edited by Svip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene.html

 

That ship hasn't sailed at all, most Brits still derive most of their gene pool from the early settlers of Britain. We've discussed this before, those early settlers were never displaced. The subsequent invaders like the Anglo-Saxons, the Normans, the Romans, came and dominated politically and culturally, but they never dominated genetically or replaced the original inhabitants.

 

It's not about diluting or making the bloodline impure. Lol. Seriously where do you get this sh*t. It's about simply recognising that we are a distinct people, who's ancestors have been living here for thousands of years. And wanting to remain a distinct people in our homeland, and living together and ruling ourselves. That's all. There's nothing sinister about that. It's a perfectly reasonable and honourable thing, which most groups want and expect. It doesn't have to be exclusionary either, you can have that and also still have a number of non-natives.

 

Tibet is a very relevant example, and the same thing is happening there, albeit slightly differently. A people are being displaced in their homeland and there is a good chance they will become a minority, and it will hapen against their will. The same is happening here. Ethnic brits don't want excess immigration and multiculturalism, to the extent that it leads to ethnic Brits being below 50% of the population, but the globalists do. And globalists, like those running the EU, and like those who run the UK, are winning. I think it's naive to think the current situation is just a blip, when everything indicates it is a long term trend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Heh, funny as a much more recent study shows 30% of White British DNA is German Anglo-Saxon derived, plus a myriad of other things. On average:

 

 

People living in southern and central England today typically share about 40% of their DNA with the French, 11% with the Danes and 9% with the Belgians, the study of more than 2,000 people found. The French contribution was not linked to the Norman invasion of 1066, however, but a previously unknown wave of migration to Britain some time after then end of the last Ice Age nearly 10,000 years ago.

Full paper here

 

More interesting related tip-bits:

 

1) There was no single 'Celtic' genetic group. In fact the Celtic parts of the UK (Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Cornwall) are among the most different from each other genetically. For example, the Cornish are much more similar genetically to other English groups than they are to the Welsh or the Scots.

2) There are separate genetic groups in Cornwall and Devon, with a division almost exactly along the modern county boundary.

3) The majority of eastern, central and southern England is made up of a single, relatively homogeneous, genetic group with a significant DNA contribution from Anglo-Saxon migrations (10-40% of total ancestry). This settles a historical controversy in showing that the Anglo-Saxons intermarried with, rather than replaced, the existing populations.

The population in Orkney emerged as the most genetically distinct, with 25% of DNA coming from Norwegian ancestors. This shows clearly that the Norse Viking invasion (9th century) did not simply replace the indigenous Orkney population.

4)The Welsh appear more similar to the earliest settlers of Britain after the last ice age than do other people in the UK.

5) There is no obvious genetic signature of the Danish Vikings, who controlled large parts of England ('The Danelaw') from the 9th century.

6) There is genetic evidence of the effect of the Landsker line – the boundary between English-speaking people in south-west Pembrokeshire (sometimes known as 'Little England beyond Wales') and the Welsh speakers in the rest of Wales, which persisted for almost a millennium.

7) The analyses suggest there was a substantial migration across the channel after the original post-ice-age settlers, but before Roman times. DNA from these migrants spread across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, but had little impact in Wales.

8) Many of the genetic clusters show similar locations to the tribal groupings and kingdoms around end of the 6th century, after the settlement of the Anglo-Saxons, suggesting these tribes and kingdoms may have maintained a regional identity for many centuries.

 

On this matter I'm more inclined to defer to the geneticists from one of the most prestigious universities in the world rather than a sole archeologist, but maybe that's just me.

 

 

It's about simply recognising that we are a distinct people, who's[sic] ancestors have been living here for thousands of years.

Except, as you can see above, we aren't a distinct people, there's a huge degree of genetic variation in the UK to the point at which most people in Central, Southern and Eastern parts of the country are genetically more similar to the Anglo-Saxons than any other group, and that citizens of the Scottish isles are in some cases predominantly Nordic. The notion of a homogenous British ethnicity is simply a falsehood.

 

 

Tibet is a very relevant example

No, it really isn't. It's absolutely nothing like what's happening in Western Europe. Han Chinese are being settled by force in an occupied sovereign land with the explicit purpose of maintaining Chinese political control. The Chinese authorities don't care about the Tibetan genetic make-up or even the principle of making them foreigners in their own land, they're using a mass of population to assert military control and justify their continued occupation.

 

 

The same is happening here

What utterly delusional fantasy land do you live in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

Heh, funny as a much more recent study shows 30% of White British DNA is German Anglo-Saxon derived, plus a myriad of other things.

 

David Miles himself warns that his genetic data is still in its infancy.

 

Miles acknowledged that the techniques used to explore genetic ancestry are still in their infancy and that many more samples are needed to fully understand the origins of the British people.

 

"By mapping the genetic variability of humans around the world, geneticists can begin to track their dispersal, migrations, and interrelationships," Miles writes.

 

I would go as far to suggest that Miles is making a sensation out of something that he admits may not be clear yet.

 

But I will concede that it is too excessive to write the 'original tribes' of Britain off completely.

Edited by Svip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smith John

Y'know, I've been putting off doing this for quite some time now, as it's abundantly clear this section is not only awash with leftist members' inputs, but is also moderated by similar thinking staff members who care to partake in such discussions carefully and selectively choosing what and what not to tackle, but I'm going to take this opportunity to ignore this 'high moral' group mentality and ask the following question, as of much as leftists would love to censor freedom of expression by applying the usual buzzwords to shut down anything they disagree with, I'd like to think it still actually means something.

 

I know I'm inevitably going to have a response from the bigoted, white-hating, Western cultures-despising partnership of Melchior and make total destruction or whatever his edgy name is, but the question is being more aimed at their sympathisers, sivispacem & Co: Would you accept or object to Sharia Law becoming the national custom in the UK or other Western nations? Please, no waffle, or paragraphs of the unlikelihood of such a thing happening. Just a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer to this hypothetical scenario, as I'm genuinely interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

Y'know, I've been putting off doing this for quite some time now, as it's abundantly clear this section is not only awash with leftist members' inputs, but is also moderated by similar thinking staff members who care to partake in such discussions carefully and selectively choosing what and what not to tackle, but I'm going to take this opportunity to ignore this 'high moral' group mentality and ask the following question, as of much as leftists would love to censor freedom of expression by applying the usual buzzwords to shut down anything they disagree with, I'd like to think it still actually means something.

 

I know I'm inevitably going to have a response from the bigoted, white-hating, Western cultures-despising partnership of Melchior and make total destruction or whatever his edgy name is, but the question is being more aimed at their sympathisers, sivispacem & Co: Would you accept or object to Sharia Law becoming the national custom in the UK or other Western nations? Please, no waffle, or paragraphs of the unlikelihood of such a thing happening. Just a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer to this hypothetical scenario, as I'm genuinely interested.

 

I would not accept it, because religion should have no say in how a country is run.

Edited by Tchuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

Y'know, I've been putting off doing this for quite some time now, as it's abundantly clear this section is not only awash with leftist members' inputs

 

 

There's like, 6-7 or 'leftists' on this board. If anything, discussion here swings to the right, much like it does literally anywhere else--except for leftist spaces--on the internet. Should we just refrain from having opinions because it's too taxing to think about for you? Because it contradicts your per-concieved notions, and ultimately, your racialist, fascist (and I don't just throw this term around like I would 'hello') ideology?

 

but is also moderated by similar thinking staff members who care to partake in such discussions carefully and selectively choosing what and what not to tackle

Who? It's not like there's some f*cking elaborate conspiracy against you and those who share your views. Any sane person can look at the nationalist vomit spewed by the likes of UKIP--for example--and realize that it's all a bunch of alarmist, racist, xenophobic bullsh*t. You don't have to be a leftist to see right through that right-wing populist trash. It is not rooted in reality.

 

but I'm going to take this opportunity to ignore this 'high moral' group mentality

DAE SHARIA LAW

 

as of much as leftists would love to censor freedom of expression by applying the usual buzzwords to shut down anything they disagree with

Bro, I don't even believe in 'rights'. They're literally a bourgeois concept, a tenet of liberal ideology. In any case, your "right" to "free speech" and "freedom of expression" are based on the idea that no government can enfringe upon those rights. It doesn't mean you won't get made fun of on a video game forum, or have your ass kicked if you try to rally that cause in public.

 

And if you wanna talk about buzzwords, let's talk about terms like "anti-white", a term that originated in Neo-Nazi circles. What the f*ck does that term really mean? You accuse me of being "anti-white" because I don't support your cyrpto-fascist agenda.

 

>tfw i'm white

 

 

make total destruction or whatever his edgy name is

 

Don't even pretend like you don't know what my name is, as if you don't f*cking follow me around this forum looking to start sh*t. You're ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

 

Y'know, I've been putting off doing this for quite some time now, as it's abundantly clear this section is not only awash with leftist members' inputs, but is also moderated by similar thinking staff members who care to partake in such discussions carefully and selectively choosing what and what not to tackle, but I'm going to take this opportunity to ignore this 'high moral' group mentality and ask the following question, as of much as leftists would love to censor freedom of expression by applying the usual buzzwords to shut down anything they disagree with, I'd like to think it still actually means something.

 

I know I'm inevitably going to have a response from the bigoted, white-hating, Western cultures-despising partnership of Melchior and make total destruction or whatever his edgy name is, but the question is being more aimed at their sympathisers, sivispacem & Co: Would you accept or object to Sharia Law becoming the national custom in the UK or other Western nations? Please, no waffle, or paragraphs of the unlikelihood of such a thing happening. Just a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer to this hypothetical scenario, as I'm genuinely interested.

 

I would not accept it, because religion should have no say in how a country is run.

 

Sharia law is a set of legal principles. They are theological at their core, but can be expressed and applied in secular ways. A good parallel would be Catholic social justice. You might disagree with the theology behind it but you can still accept the principles.

 

I would object to Sharia law purely on the grounds that I prefer Common law. The French might as well adopt Sharia law, their legal system is terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Would you accept or object to Sharia Law becoming the national custom in the UK or other Western nations?

Would I want it? As Melc says, common law is vastly preferable so no, I don't think I'd actively support it or even welcome it. Would I accept a legal system based on Shari'a? If it was the will of the majority of citizens and proper provisions existed to protect the rights of non-Muslims, then I don't see how it's any worse than most of the Christian theology based legal systems that exist around the world.

 

But are you talking Sharia law as in actual Sharia law, Islamic legal theology used as the basis for the legal system in numerous nations in a similar way to how Catholicism forms the moral basis for the legal systems of most Southern European countries? Or are you talking about "Sharia law", that vapid term used by the right wing press to refer you everything from the Saudi Wahhabi justice system to those stupid gangs of Muslim youths who go around harassing people in parts of London for wearing skirts? Because obviously the answer is going to be different depending on whether you're talking about actual Sharia law or what the media tends to call Sharia law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smith John

So in essence, you would accept it if it was the "will of the majority". It's quite clear you have no interest in preserving our cultures and way of life as it stands, but if you wouldn't mind, I'd be interested in what exact policies of Sharia Law you'd happily have implemented should it ever come to it. And I rarely see the media- at least in this country- touch on this 'taboo' subject, but then I'm used to the BBC, so I don't know where this nationally informed interpretation of the practice derives from, but when I see the vocal advocates calling death to Jews, death to British soldiers, 'Sharia for Britain' etc, can you blame me for concluding the very, very silent objection from fellow Muslims leads me to believe there is a shared, fundamental principle looking to be achieved here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

So in essence, you would accept it if it was the "will of the majority".

In the same way that I accept British common law which is based on Protestantism, yes.

 

 

It's quite clear you have no interest in preserving our cultures and way of life as it stands

Or perhaps I don't think that Sharia fundamentally contradicts it.

 

 

I'd be interested in what exact policies of Sharia Law you'd happily have implemented

Sharia law has no explicit "policies". It's an interpretive framework, hence the widely differing implementations of Sharia Law in different countries. For instance, the Malaysian law system is a hybrid of liberal Sharia and common law and doesn't differ fundamentally from that enforced in other historic British colonies. I get the impression you seem to have an issue comprehending the idea that "Sharia law" doesn't necessarily equate to stoning homosexuals and removing the limbs from thieves and I'm genuinely at a loss as to why. It's not a fundamentally complex idea to grasp, is it?

 

 

can you blame me for concluding the very, very silent objection from fellow Muslims leads me to believe there is a shared, fundamental principle looking to be achieved here?

I can certainly conclude that you should probably research the subject rather than just taking what's presented in the reactionary media as canon. Numerous scholars, theologians and philosophers, both Islamic and Western, have addressed the subject. And the whole "lack of condemnation" argument is such a pathetically feeble one; we don't expect Christians to publicly condemn Phalange Christians, the LRA and the Christian Patriot movement in order for us to assume they don't tacitly agree with murdering Palestinian Shi'ites, enslaving and raping children or bombing abortion clinics, do we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

I question the idea that Sharia Law is actually a threat to Western countries... we can go back and forth about whether it is inherently dangerous or not, whether you look at Hanafi Sunni law or Alawite Shiite law is a nonissue. The fact is I don't exactly see how it's something we need to be worried/concerned about as if it is encroaching upon Western countries and that we will one day wake up having to wear hijab... I think that we need to act to stop it if it starts becoming the law in say, a small Muslim dominate area of a Western country because, even if the majority of the people in that small area want it, that's not allowed under our legal system. In the US we don't allow Chinese immigrants to Chinatown NY to import Chinese laws in the neighborhood... But I've yet to see evidence that that is happening at all so it's really a nonstarter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SouthLand

Moderate Right wing: Yaaay let's bring a lot of immigrants so we can hire them and pay them less money than what a local gets paid for more work hours.

 

 

Left Wing: We should help all the refugees and African migrants beacause they are human beings. Locals that are unemployed and can't afford basic stuff like food, or pay a low rent can f*ck off, they are NOT important. And any group or Organization that help only locals will be attacked by Antifa.

 

 

In other words.

 

Big corporations happy as hell for cheap labor due to the immigrant invasion in European countries and left wing are naive thinking that those migrants are actually going to adapt and live their life the European way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smith John

Yet another fine award-winning following display of the pro-mass immigration, left-wing BBC's impartiality.

 

The language/tone of this Labour/EU spokesman is not the actions of a neutral journalist asking questions, but that of somebody projecting their own personal beliefs onto an opponent whilst simultaneously, repeatedly ignoring the answers to his pre-prepared attacks. F*cking disgraceful. I honestly feel like enough people are seeing through the bullsh*t that the beeb are pushing that they [the BBC] don't even care how blatant they are anymore. The sooner the Tories slash the budget of this propaganda machine the better.

 

https://youtu.be/YH-bV_S4E4o

 

What I find equally disgusting is the media's exploitation of an image of a dead child to push its emotionally-charged agenda on the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I'd argue that most of your comments regarding that interview are simply confirmation bias. You already have the Beeb and have strong feelings regarding their apparent liberal bias, so an otherwise unremarkable interview conducted in the same aggressive style as most interviews with politicians conducted by the BBC are gets held up as abnormally aggressive and dufgesetive when it's anyrhing but.

 

I also find you complaining about the behaviour of the paper press in regards to the subject quite funny given that, two or three papers aside, it's universally centre-right leaning, largely eurosceptic and generally opposed to immigration. Perhaps they're just reflecting changing views of Britons on the subject?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephan90

If Sivispacem stood behind his attitude, which he displays here, then he would fill in a paycheck for our government for all the money he has already saved because of Cameron's position until now. He would contribute his share, instead of fighting with his keyboard. Because 40% of all refugees who come to Europe go to Germany.

Edited by Stephan90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

If Sivispacem stood behind his attitude, which he displays here, then he would fill in a paycheck for our government for all the money he has already saved because of Cameron's position until now. He would contribute his share, instead of fighting with his keyboard. Because 40% of all refugees who come to Europe go to Germany.

 

That's stupid. All the money sivispacem has saved is insignificant compared to the amount of money he has paid in taxes over the years. His time and money, assuming he wants to spend his money to help the refugees, would be much better spent getting the British government to accept more.

 

Besides, wouldn't it benefit you (and Germany and Germans in general) if sivispacem had any influence in skewing the British government towards to accepting more refugees?

 

Moreover, there is no way of knowing exactly how one's tax money are spent. Neither would there be in the case where sivispacem paid directly to the German government, assuming that is even possible.

 

Also I believe your figure may be inaccurate. The 40% appear to be the amount of refugee asylum seekers that Germany accepts. But no one is denying that Germany is accepting a large amount. But if we make a relative chart, then Sweden, Malta, Switzerland, Cyprus, Denmark, Bulgaria, Norway, Netherlands and Belgium accept more refugees than Germany. Also, all those countries (besides Belgium) have a higher acceptance rate than Germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephan90

Our home secretary himself said that we are taking 40% of all refugees who come to the EU right now.

 

http://www.zeit.de/politik/2015-08/fluechtlinge-deutschland-innenministerium-prognose-rechnung

 

""Wir nehmen jetzt 40 Prozent aller Flüchtlinge in der EU auf"

 

"We accomodate 40% of all refuigees in the EU now:"

 

The process which decides whether an asylum seeker is allowed to stay or not lasts months because there are so many people coming. As long as they are here our state pays for them.

 

I would rather accept money from Sivispacem than his "smart" comments.

Edited by Stephan90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

Oh, if your Minister of Domestic Affairs says it, then it must be true. The 800,000 figure is four times as many as 2014. But there is no figure for all of Europe so far. While Germany definitely receives (note the word receive, not accept) more refugees in total numbers and its percentage of all of Europe may be in the double digits, I have no evidence to support it is anywhere near 40%. Well except de Maizière's word.

 

But in 2014, the crisis amounted to 0.03% of the total population. Shocking to learn this year it might be 0.12% of the total population of Europe! We will soon become a minority in our own lands!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephan90

This is for last year: "But Germany, along with Sweden, is the preferred destination for many asylum seekers in part because it is comparatively liberal. These two countries alone processed 40% of the EU’s asylum applications last year." This year our share should be higher because many other countries completely refuse to take any new refugees.

 

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21661941-wanting-burden-shared-germany-eu-country-which-takes-most-asylum-seekers-straining

 

According to Eurostat, from January until the end of June there were 417,430 new applications for asylum in the EU of which 171,785 were made in Germany. That is 41,15% The UK had 12,530 applications and Denmark 2990. Our figure per capita is exactly 4 times higher than the one of Denmark.

 

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=migr_asyappctzm&lang=en

Edited by Stephan90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

Thanks for the statistics. But again, those are just applicants, and Germany only accepts ~40% of applicants. Unlike Sweden that accepts ~70%. Of course, those are 2014 statistics, but again I don't think that policy has changed.

 

You assume that I am somehow defending the UK and Denmark. I don't think it is right that Germany is receiving as many as they are (and even when I thought the number was lower, I was still of that mindset).

 

But my point about your 'jab' at sivispacem remains; sending money to Germany has no point. In fact, considering the UK is part of the EU, in a way, he is already sending money to Germany.

Edited by Svip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephan90

The percentage of how many applicants we accept doesn't say anything. We have clear rules, who is allowed to stay and who not. Allowed are those who flee from discrimination and war but not those who come for economical reasons from the balkans countries. We are not responsible for them. If Sweden handles it different, it is ok for them. But in any case. Over 99% of the people from the Balkans who apply for asylum in Germany are refused asylum. But since there are so many people coming the process lasts months in which we pay them more each month than the average wage is in their countries.

Edited by Stephan90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rented

Well what I saw for my self at Calais was not nice at all.

 

These people are commiting a crime by crossing that tunnel and they will possibly commit other crimes once in the country.

 

Even if they choose an honest life, unskilled people coming migrating into a country is never good, they won't pay taxes but will waste the government's money.

 

What I personally don't get is why they have to get in the best such as Germany or the UK. If they're really that innocent, poor refugees that some believe they are, why can't they settle for something like Romania? But no their soft little assessment won't even consider such place, only the best for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

If Sivispacem stood behind his attitude, which he displays here, then he would fill in a paycheck for our government for all the money he has already saved because of Cameron's position until now.

I'm sorry, but what the f*ck are you blithering on about? This really can't be described as anything other than incomprehensible drivel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephan90

 

If Sivispacem stood behind his attitude, which he displays here, then he would fill in a paycheck for our government for all the money he has already saved because of Cameron's position until now.

I'm sorry, but what the f*ck are you blithering on about?

 

 

I am always wondering the same too when I read your posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Funny, no-one else seems to have an issue understanding me. Must be a comprehension issue on your part. Still, I have no idea what you're trying to suggest.

 

Are you suggesting that, if I support the idea of letting legitimate asylum seekers escaping persecution, conflict or genocide claim asylum in Europe as is their right under Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I should pay the government of one specific European country- coincidentally your own- to do what they're legally bound to? That's certainly how it reads. And its utterly laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SouthLand

Funny, no-one else seems to have an issue understanding me. Must be a comprehension issue on your part. Still, I have no idea what you're trying to suggest.

 

Are you suggesting that, if I support the idea of letting legitimate asylum seekers escaping persecution, conflict or genocide claim asylum in Europe as is their right under Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I should pay the government of one specific European country- coincidentally your own- to do what they're legally bound to? That's certainly how it reads. And its utterly laughable.

They are NOT asylum seekers. They rejected asylum in Turkey. They are illegal migrants who want to go to Germany and the UK where they will be given a nice apartment payed by you Sivis much better than yours (If you are a working class citizen).

 

They could go to Bosnia or Albania where there is a lot of Muslims too and they could feel like home but... Oh wait, they are not going to get food by he goverment.

 

658538d71efde74cba352a0b6fbdde35o.jpg

Edited by SouthLand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

Haha at "No war" in Ukraine and Turkey. Good one.

Edited by Svip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephan90

Technically seen it is placed in Western Ukraine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.