Europe's multiculturalist (authoritarians?), trying to make mass immigration mandatory?

[icehorse]

But even if you are correct about the "true nature" of Islam: I still don't think that the possibility of unwittingly "providing cover" for criminals justifies stripping an entire group of people off their human rights as refugees.

Well this thread is about immigrants not refugees.

As far as Islam's true nature, I've discovered a lot of apologists for Islam on this forum aren't even aware of the two fundamental claims of Islam that ALL Muslims must support. Are you aware of these two claims?

I fully agree with you that some interpretations of islam are horrible, totalitarian and discriminatory.

see above.

However, I think there are much better ways of fighting them rather than closing our borders. It's already shameful to the highest degree that the European Union knowingly allows innocents to to drown in the mediterranean sea or pushing them back at borders under inhumane conditions.

We cannot help others if we are ill. IMO we need to defend our borders and offer aid - in place. A powerful example of such aid would be education for women and girls.

What we really need to do, imho, is to support those reformers and peaceful groups to offer an alternative interpretation of muslim values.

Totally agreed, I fully support the group called "Muslim Reform Movement".

 

[Tamino]

Well this thread is about immigrants not refugees.

Are you sure? Because I'm pretty certain that the current EU schemes to distribute refugees among member states are EXPLICITLY about people claiming refugee status.

As far as Islam's true nature, I've discovered a lot of apologists for Islam on this forum aren't even aware of the two fundamental claims of Islam that ALL Muslims must support. Are you aware of these two claims?

The two fundamental claims? I have my suspicions, but I don't care. Why should YOU define which claims are fundamental to Islam? People can interprete and change Islam however they please.

We cannot help others if we are ill. IMO we need to defend our borders and offer aid - in place. A powerful example of such aid would be education for women and girls.

and "Illness" is defined how, again? Having a population that is not entirely uniform in culture and religion?

Totally agreed, I fully support the group called "Muslim Reform Movement".

Liberal-Islamischer Bund e.V. – Offen. Inklusiv. Progressiv. Unvoreingenommen. Liberal-islamischer Bund, actually.

 

[icehorse]

The two fundamental claims? I have my suspicions, but I don't care. Why should YOU define which claims are fundamental to Islam? People can interprete and change Islam however they please.

If you don't know even this how can you defend the ideas?

Yes, there are different interpretations of Islam, the most obvious and bloody being the millennium old war between Sunni and Shia.

But even those two groups agree on the two fundamentals. And unless you're a part of a group like the Muslim Reform Movement, every Muslim MUST defend these two claims.

Are you sure? Because I'm pretty certain that the current EU schemes to distribute refugees among member states are EXPLICITLY about people claiming refugee status.

No, this thread is about the EU's migration pact:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...uphold-its-veto-eu-migration-pact-2023-09-29/

and "Illness" is defined how, again? Having a population that is not entirely uniform in culture and religion?

Another purveyor of strawman arguments, ffs.

In this case there are long standing immigration policies intended to allow only those immigrants to enter, who will help the host country. This is nothing new. Immigration IS NOT A RIGHT. The host country has every right to deny entry to people who are likely to undermine the country's success.

 

[Tamino]

No, this thread is about the EU's migration pact:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...uphold-its-veto-eu-migration-pact-2023-09-29/

Which is about refugees. I mean, the first sentence in that link you posted reads:

WARSAW, Sept 29 (Reuters) - Poland will uphold its veto on a European Union migration pact, its prime minister said on Friday, as the bloc searches for agreement on a system for the sharing out asylum seekers who reach Europe outside of official border crossings.

In this case there are long standing immigration policies intended to allow only those immigrants to enter, who will help the host country. This is nothing new. Immigration IS NOT A RIGHT. The host country has every right to deny entry to people who are likely to undermine the country's success.

Well, Poland's recent success is cloesly connected to their membership in the European Union - they gave up some souvereign rights in exchange for free trade, free work and travel in the EU and a lot of money in subsidies.

Poland's contributions to and receipts from the EU budget 2023 | Statista

Since 2004, Poland has received nearly 246 billion euros from the European Union budget.

www.statista.com

So they are profiting from their membership in the EU, but they also need to find compromise with the other members on topics of general importance. Seems fair to me.

I am also not seeing where exactly Poland's rights are being violated by "Europe's multiculturalist (authoritarians?)" - you noticed that bit about Poland being able to veto the decision, didn't you??

 

[icehorse]

From the link below:

Regular immigration: The EU is competent to lay down the conditions governing entry into and legal residence in a Member State, including for the purposes of family reunification, for third-country nationals. Member States retain the right to determine volumes of admission for people coming from third countries to seek work.

Immigration policy | Fact Sheets on the European Union | European Parliament

 

[Tamino]

Uuuuuhmmm ....what?

Your thread is titled:

Europe's multiculturalist (authoritarians?), trying to make mass immigration mandatory?

and then you highlight:

Member States retain the right to determine volumes of admission for people coming from third countries to seek work.​

Sooooo, we would have to conclude that the answer is "no". Mass immigration is not mandatory.

 

[icehorse]

Uuuuuhmmm ....what?

Your thread is titled:

Europe's multiculturalist (authoritarians?), trying to make mass immigration mandatory?​

​

and then you highlight:​

​

Member States retain the right to determine volumes of admission for people coming from third countries to seek work.​

Sooooo, we would have to conclude that the answer is "no". Mass immigration is not mandatory.

But it appears that the EU is trying to change the rules.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But it appears that the EU is trying to change the rules.

What rules is the EU trying to change and in what way?

 

[icehorse]

What rules is the EU trying to change and in what way?

see posts 1-4 and maybe watch a bit of the video in the OP

 

[ImmortalFlame]

see posts 1-4 and maybe watch a bit of the video in the OP

Or, you could just answer my question, because none of those first four posts say anything specific and I'm not going to sit through a twenty-minute video just to find out it also says nothing specific. You can just tell me.

 

[icehorse]

Or, you could just answer my question, because none of those first four posts say anything specific and I'm not going to sit through a twenty-minute video just to find out it also says nothing specific. You can just tell me.

It appears that the EU wants to change the immigration rules of member nations. It appears the EU wants to take control of immigration across the EU, and loosen immigration policies. Some countries, like Poland, are pushing back.

 

[Tamino]

It appears that the EU wants to change the immigration rules of member nations.

- the EU consists of the member nations. The EU parliament is elected by all EU citizens... and most important changes still need the active agreement of the national governments. So if they change immigration rules, then it's the EU member nations changing their own rules, which sounds fine to me. That's how democracy works.

- the EU is by no means opening the borders. Quite the opposite - I am not happy with many of the proposed measures, I think they are too hard, not too lenient. The plans to corral migrants outside of EU territory in some kind of camps, and to turn back people from certain regions on principle without even giving them the chance to apply for asylum... very fishy in terms of human rights standards.
I am not sure if you are familiar with these points, it's being discussed in German media but I have no English language links on that, I'd have to check it if you need sources

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It appears that the EU wants to change the immigration rules of member nations.

Firstly, "it appears" is some very ambiguous wording.

Secondly, what immigration rules are they wanting to change?

It appears the EU wants to take control of immigration across the EU, and loosen immigration policies. Some countries, like Poland, are pushing back.

In what ways are they taking control? Be specific. I'm tired of ambiguity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

see posts 1-4 and maybe watch a bit of the video in the OP

Right wing sources often cannot tell the difference between migrants and refugees. From my understanding most are refugees and most countries not only agreed to take them in a pact with the UN, they also have it in their own laws that they have to accept refugees. Do you have a way of telling refugees from migrants looking for work?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Firstly, "it appears" is some very ambiguous wording.

Secondly, what immigration rules are they wanting to change?


In what ways are they taking control? Be specific. I'm tired of ambiguity.

Oh, that's dead easy. They want to change the rules that do not exist.