There are a lot of dated attacks, where when and who by.if it's true it shouldn't be hidden. If it is true, it proves my point, no need to use doctored alt right bullshit if real verifiable articles are available.
Had never heard of the Gatestone Institute but Googled it doesn't look to be the most trustworthy source, though that doesn't mean it's not true on this occasion.
It has links to Geert Wilders apparently. Just a snippet from Wikipedia (itself not always the most accurate!):
The Gatestone Institute published false articles during the German federal election of 2017.[26] A Gatestone article, shared thousands of times on social media, including by senior German far-right politicians, claimed that vacant homes were being seized in Germany to provide housing solutions for "hundreds of thousands of migrants from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East."[5] The German fact-checker Correctiv.org found that this was false; a single house was placed in temporary trusteeship, and had nothing to do with refugees whatsoever.[5] Gatestone also cross-posted a Daily Mail article, which "grossly mischaracterized crime data" concerning crime by refugees in Germany.[27]
There are a lot of dated attacks, where when and who by.
I believe that sort of thing more than a government which normally plays down what they don't want us to know or those that have an agenda on making it sound worse than it is.
Sounds like the EU
There are a lot of dated attacks, where when and who by.
I believe that sort of thing more than a government which normally plays down what they don't want us to know or those that have an agenda on making it sound worse than it is.
This is from the National Geographic
://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/10/europe-immigration-muslim-refugees-portraits/
So Germany is welcoming?
I have been mentioning it on here but it got ignored as usual. Even people in the EU were saying that it should come later.
Knowing what sort of trade deal is going to be offered would make a massive difference. You could then make a plan. But they are having to make a plan without knowing the details that they have to work within.
And as I said earlier is it to make things more difficult?
Attacking migrant school children being one of the crimes adding to the spike. Probably the children’s fault though.
It's strange how once the reality of Britain's lack of power in these negotiations are revealed, some posters show their true colours and the ugliness behind their views.
Wait until we try and get „good“ trade deals with our previous colonies. We are already seeing the shift of power when dealing with Ireland. The days when London ruled what is now ROI are long gone and the North are dictating what May can or cannot agree to.
We are in trouble at the first hurdle.
Strange?It's strange how once the reality of Britain's lack of power in these negotiations are revealed, some posters show their true colours and the ugliness behind their views.
And we shall ignore the rest eh?Attacking migrant school children being one of the crimes adding to the spike. Probably the children’s fault though.
Strange?
I'll tell you what is normal. Anything that could look bad on the EU is defended. And by the same culprits each time. Strangely enough one lives in Germany and the other has a partner from Italy.
So the National Geographic is now biased? And the one who tries to say so gets an automatic back pat from the one we could have guessed. So wherever the information is from it isn't good enough. That isn't a surprise.
Very strange that I point out the two that will defend anything and point out the bad happening to migrants?Why are you so self-obsessed? I was not referring to you. Instead of comdeming the far right posts though you decide to attack someone who lives in the EU and someone with a partner from the EU.
Very strange.
Strange?
I'll tell you what is normal. Anything that could look bad on the EU is defended. And by the same culprits each time. Strangely enough one lives in Germany and the other has a partner from Italy.
So the National Geographic is now biased? And the one who tries to say so gets an automatic back pat from the one we could have guessed. So wherever the information is from it isn't good enough. That isn't a surprise.
And we shall ignore the rest eh?
The guest-worker program was shut down in 1973, when the Arab oil embargo triggered a recession. But today there are nearly three million people of Turkish descent living in Germany. Only half are German citizens. Some have ascended to prominence—such as Cem Özdemir, co-leader of the Green Party. What struck me about the conversations I had with ordinary Turks, however, was the consistent note of ambivalence toward Germany.
“To be a ‘guest’ in a country for decades—that’s insanity,” said Ayşe Köse Küçük, a social worker in Kreuzberg, the Berlin neighborhood where many Turks settled. She came to Berlin when she was 11 and has lived there 36 years. She still doesn’t feel accepted, and her children don’t either. “My children, whom I never told, ‘You are Turkish,’ started saying, ‘We are Turks,’ after fourth grade,” she said. “Because they were excluded. That hurts me.” And yet Kreuzberg is her beloved home.
“We came as workers, and as workers we’re integrated, but not as neighbors and fellow citizens,” said Ahmet Sözen, 44, who was born in Berlin. He can’t fully integrate, he explained, into a society his father doesn’t belong to. In Bebra, on the other hand, everybody knows one another, and Turks stage an annual cultural festival in the town square, Fatih Evren said; integration has worked. Still, although he was born and grew up in Germany and has many German friends, he expects to be buried in Turkey.
Feeling fully accepted in Germany has never been easy, even for some Germans. Christian Grunwald’s maternal grandparents were refugees—ethnic Germans from northern Serbia who ended up in Rotenburg after the war. His mother told me the story one afternoon at the Alheimer Kaserne. We were in the old guardhouse, surrounded by jail cells full of donated clothes; Gisela Grunwald coordinates a Red Cross operation that supplies clothing to today’s refugees.
Gisela’s mother is in a nursing home now, she said. Her ancestry is German, she has lived in Rotenburg for 65 years, her grandson is the popular mayor—and still, Gisela said, one day not long ago “someone came to her and said, ‘You’re not German.’ ” It seems she hadn’t quite shaken the accent she’d brought along with her from Serbia.
A large majority of Germans accept immigration and Islam intellectually, said political scientist Naika Foroutan of the Berlin Institute for Integration and Migration Research—but emotionally, not so many. Foroutan’s team surveyed 8,270 German residents in 2014, before the Paris or Brussels attacks or the surge in refugees. They found that nearly 40 percent believed you can’t be German if you wear a head scarf. Forty percent would limit the construction of conspicuous mosques. More than 60 percent would ban circumcision, an essential ritual in both the Islamic and Jewish religions. Finally, some 40 percent believed that to be German you must speak German without an accent. (Gisela Grunwald’s mother must have met one of those.)
Even before the terrorist attacks, even before a bizarre series of incidents outside the Cologne train station on New Year’s Eve, when immigrants, more than half from North Africa, harassed and molested hundreds of women, many Germans perceived Muslims as a threat. That feeling has fueled the resurgence of the political right. “I don’t believe such a mass of people can be integrated,” said Björn Höcke of the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), the populist party that after elections in March is now in half of Germany’s state legislatures. Höcke leads the delegation in the eastern state of Thuringia. Immigration, he thinks, has undermined the “community of trust” that once existed in Germany. The AfD, he has said a little menacingly, is “the last peaceful chance for our country.”
Höcke scares and disgusts many Germans. “Good God!” Damm exclaimed, when I mentioned I was going to see him. In person, Höcke is cerebral and almost mild; a few years ago he was a history teacher. But when he strikes the mystic chords of nationalism at the AfD rallies in Erfurt, when he leads the crowd on the cathedral square in chants of “Wir sind das Volk—We are the people,” meaning the German one that Merkel is allegedly trying to “abolish” with immigration—it reminds many Germans of the Nazis. “Sportpalast, 1943,” said Christian Grunwald, referring to an infamous speech by Joseph Goebbels.
Yet many Germans share at least some of Höcke’s unease—and a spate of attacks by refugees this past summer only increased it. In county elections in Hesse last March, one in eight Rotenburg voters chose the AfD; in state legislative elections in Saxony-Anhalt the following week, it was one in four. It would be hard to shove that many people into the Nazi corner. What are they afraid of?
In a word: Parallelgesellschaften, or “parallel societies.” “The parts of cities where you wouldn’t know you were in Germany,” as Höcke puts it. The term is a bogeyman even among moderate Germans. To an American, it may evoke a more benign image—of a Chinatown or a Little Italy or even one of the hundreds of Little Germanys that once existed in the U.S. Why can’t Germans take in immigrants now, in the same spirit? I put the question to Erika Steinbach, who, in spite of being a former refugee herself, has been a controversial critic of Merkel’s policy from the right flank of the CDU.
“I don’t want that,” she said simply. “We should preserve our identity.” Steinbach limned the threat with anecdotes. Her secretary in Berlin had been groped at the train station by a man she “could tell” was a refugee. Her hairdresser’s son in Frankfurt was one of only two native Germans in his elementary school class. A CDU staffer there said that gangs of immigrants walk down the main shopping street belching in people’s faces. “My goodness,” Steinbach said. “What is it all leading to?”
By the time I talked to her, I had met some of the new faces of Germany. There was Ahmad, sweeping in front of his door in Rotenburg. There were the two boys at a shelter in Berlin, who cry themselves to sleep, their father Mohamad told me, when they can’t reach their mother back in Damascus. There was Sharif, a restaurant owner from Aleppo, who saw Germany as a last chance; his kids hadn’t been to school since the fighting began in 2011.
And then, at the same gym in Berlin, there was an anguished 20-year-old, visibly pregnant, her face a smooth oval framed by a white head scarf. Soon after she started talking, she burst into tears—at how much she missed her family in Syria, at how kind the Germans were, but also at how scared she’d been one night when an angry crowd of them gathered on the street outside. If she could, she said, she’d tell those Germans she wasn’t there to take anything away.
The hate was appalling, but I could understand the apprehension many Germans feel. Even Ahmad could. “Germans are right to be afraid for their country,” he had told me. “Germany is used to security and order. People are afraid that will change.” But the encounter with him and the others had affected me. I asked Steinbach whether she’d had any personal contact with refugees.
“No,” she said.
And all from a non biased quote?
It has been argued against here. So is it biased or not?
And if I am biased why am I putting links up that are not biased? How many non biased links does Mart put up?
Because it says the total opposite of what you have always said. And that is why I have been ignoring you. You won't have anything said against the EU or Germany. Everything is insignificant to you. So yes it was aimed at you. Especially as you agree that it isn't biased :banghead:You missed half the article. The half which describes what the Germans are doing to help refugees. Many Turks live their own lives in their own communities. That is their choice. Ambivalence to German culture is what the author called it.
The author also said the vast majority of Germans accept immigration intellectually.
I don’t get what you are trying to edit the article for. I thought it was balanced and covered several points of view. Why you cut out half is more than strange. Shows bias.
The guest-worker program was shut down in 1973, when the Arab oil embargo triggered a recession. But today there are nearly three million people of Turkish descent living in Germany. Only half are German citizens. Some have ascended to prominence—such as Cem Özdemir, co-leader of the Green Party. What struck me about the conversations I had with ordinary Turks, however, was the consistent note of ambivalence toward Germany.
“To be a ‘guest’ in a country for decades—that’s insanity,” said Ayşe Köse Küçük, a social worker in Kreuzberg, the Berlin neighborhood where many Turks settled. She came to Berlin when she was 11 and has lived there 36 years. She still doesn’t feel accepted, and her children don’t either. “My children, whom I never told, ‘You are Turkish,’ started saying, ‘We are Turks,’ after fourth grade,” she said. “Because they were excluded. That hurts me.” And yet Kreuzberg is her beloved home.
“We came as workers, and as workers we’re integrated, but not as neighbors and fellow citizens,” said Ahmet Sözen, 44, who was born in Berlin. He can’t fully integrate, he explained, into a society his father doesn’t belong to. In Bebra, on the other hand, everybody knows one another, and Turks stage an annual cultural festival in the town square, Fatih Evren said; integration has worked. Still, although he was born and grew up in Germany and has many German friends, he expects to be buried in Turkey.
Feeling fully accepted in Germany has never been easy, even for some Germans. Christian Grunwald’s maternal grandparents were refugees—ethnic Germans from northern Serbia who ended up in Rotenburg after the war. His mother told me the story one afternoon at the Alheimer Kaserne. We were in the old guardhouse, surrounded by jail cells full of donated clothes; Gisela Grunwald coordinates a Red Cross operation that supplies clothing to today’s refugees.
Gisela’s mother is in a nursing home now, she said. Her ancestry is German, she has lived in Rotenburg for 65 years, her grandson is the popular mayor—and still, Gisela said, one day not long ago “someone came to her and said, ‘You’re not German.’ ” It seems she hadn’t quite shaken the accent she’d brought along with her from Serbia.
A large majority of Germans accept immigration and Islam intellectually, said political scientist Naika Foroutan of the Berlin Institute for Integration and Migration Research—but emotionally, not so many. Foroutan’s team surveyed 8,270 German residents in 2014, before the Paris or Brussels attacks or the surge in refugees. They found that nearly 40 percent believed you can’t be German if you wear a head scarf. Forty percent would limit the construction of conspicuous mosques. More than 60 percent would ban circumcision, an essential ritual in both the Islamic and Jewish religions. Finally, some 40 percent believed that to be German you must speak German without an accent. (Gisela Grunwald’s mother must have met one of those.)
Even before the terrorist attacks, even before a bizarre series of incidents outside the Cologne train station on New Year’s Eve, when immigrants, more than half from North Africa, harassed and molested hundreds of women, many Germans perceived Muslims as a threat. That feeling has fueled the resurgence of the political right. “I don’t believe such a mass of people can be integrated,” said Björn Höcke of the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), the populist party that after elections in March is now in half of Germany’s state legislatures. Höcke leads the delegation in the eastern state of Thuringia. Immigration, he thinks, has undermined the “community of trust” that once existed in Germany. The AfD, he has said a little menacingly, is “the last peaceful chance for our country.”
Höcke scares and disgusts many Germans. “Good God!” Damm exclaimed, when I mentioned I was going to see him. In person, Höcke is cerebral and almost mild; a few years ago he was a history teacher. But when he strikes the mystic chords of nationalism at the AfD rallies in Erfurt, when he leads the crowd on the cathedral square in chants of “Wir sind das Volk—We are the people,” meaning the German one that Merkel is allegedly trying to “abolish” with immigration—it reminds many Germans of the Nazis. “Sportpalast, 1943,” said Christian Grunwald, referring to an infamous speech by Joseph Goebbels.
Yet many Germans share at least some of Höcke’s unease—and a spate of attacks by refugees this past summer only increased it. In county elections in Hesse last March, one in eight Rotenburg voters chose the AfD; in state legislative elections in Saxony-Anhalt the following week, it was one in four. It would be hard to shove that many people into the Nazi corner. What are they afraid of?
In a word: Parallelgesellschaften, or “parallel societies.” “The parts of cities where you wouldn’t know you were in Germany,” as Höcke puts it. The term is a bogeyman even among moderate Germans. To an American, it may evoke a more benign image—of a Chinatown or a Little Italy or even one of the hundreds of Little Germanys that once existed in the U.S. Why can’t Germans take in immigrants now, in the same spirit? I put the question to Erika Steinbach, who, in spite of being a former refugee herself, has been a controversial critic of Merkel’s policy from the right flank of the CDU.
“I don’t want that,” she said simply. “We should preserve our identity.” Steinbach limned the threat with anecdotes. Her secretary in Berlin had been groped at the train station by a man she “could tell” was a refugee. Her hairdresser’s son in Frankfurt was one of only two native Germans in his elementary school class. A CDU staffer there said that gangs of immigrants walk down the main shopping street belching in people’s faces. “My goodness,” Steinbach said. “What is it all leading to?”
By the time I talked to her, I had met some of the new faces of Germany. There was Ahmad, sweeping in front of his door in Rotenburg. There were the two boys at a shelter in Berlin, who cry themselves to sleep, their father Mohamad told me, when they can’t reach their mother back in Damascus. There was Sharif, a restaurant owner from Aleppo, who saw Germany as a last chance; his kids hadn’t been to school since the fighting began in 2011.
And then, at the same gym in Berlin, there was an anguished 20-year-old, visibly pregnant, her face a smooth oval framed by a white head scarf. Soon after she started talking, she burst into tears—at how much she missed her family in Syria, at how kind the Germans were, but also at how scared she’d been one night when an angry crowd of them gathered on the street outside. If she could, she said, she’d tell those Germans she wasn’t there to take anything away.
The hate was appalling, but I could understand the apprehension many Germans feel. Even Ahmad could. “Germans are right to be afraid for their country,” he had told me. “Germany is used to security and order. People are afraid that will change.” But the encounter with him and the others had affected me. I asked Steinbach whether she’d had any personal contact with refugees.
“No,” she said.
And all from a non biased quote?
It has been argued against here. So is it biased or not?
And if I am biased why am I putting links up that are not biased? How many non biased links does Mart put up?
Because it says the total opposite of what you have always said. And that is why I have been ignoring you. You won't have anything said against the EU or Germany. Everything is insignificant to you. So yes it was aimed at you. Especially as you agree that it isn't biased :banghead:
Some of the stuff Davis was coming out with at that committee meeting was very worrying.Fail to prepare, prepare to fail.
Googled the area in Sweden the video refers to and an interesting article came up:
https://www.economist.com/news/euro...st-work-out-how-assimilate-them-sweden-trying
This line did make me chuckle: the troubles of areas like Tensta have been exaggerated by outsiders with an anti-immigrant agenda
Unfortunately its not as easy as migrants = crime. At its most basic refugees are likely to be very poor and therefore cluster around the poorest areas. Those are the areas most likely to be impacted by unemployment, crime, drug use etc. The key is, if you're going to accept refugees, you have to put systems in place to avoid them ending up grouped together in areas with little or no communication with the native population in low employment, high crime areas. There's only going to be one outcome there.
Think you would struggle to find anyone, even the most liberal or left wing, who believes it should be a free for all and countries should allow unlimited numbers of people in. Problem is the argument is stated in such a binary way. Instead of having one side saying they're all bad, and one saying they're not a problem wouldn't it be better to look at the actual issues, such as how we ensure we allow genuine refugees in and not imposters, and try and improve things for everyone?
The last time people were told their concerns were not valid, 17 and a half million people voted to leave the EU. You just don't get it do you? The more you push, shout 'racist', 'far-right', or ignore tons of migrant crime by then saying 'people are throwing stones at them', the more people are going to rebel, and the more groups like Britain First will prosper, the more right wing leaders will be elected, and the more the left will die of death. If there cannot be a moderate and mature discussion, the extremes will fill the void.
In my last post I illustrated the issues in Oskarshamn and the replies I got were just pathetic. Straight up denial. Of course, some aspects are exaggerated by people who (can understandably) have an anti-migrant agenda. The thing is, it swings the other way much harder.
A few months ago a dentist in Sweden revealed his study on migrant children showed that as many as three quarters were not actually children. What happened then? He was threatened to lose his job and his house but so many said it is just right wing propaganda and not true. The government even said it was 'hate'. Yesterday, the BBC actually published an article about this, proving in fact it was true. So facts are now hate basically.
What an absolute joke.
You're the one citing far right extreme sources so how can you then turn round and say its the fault of others that there's not a mature discussion? Nobody is ignoring immigrant crime or saying it doesn't exist.The last time people were told their concerns were not valid, 17 and a half million people voted to leave the EU. You just don't get it do you? The more you push, shout 'racist', 'far-right', or ignore tons of migrant crime by then saying 'people are throwing stones at them', the more people are going to rebel, and the more groups like Britain First will prosper, the more right wing leaders will be elected, and the more the left will die of death. If there cannot be a moderate and mature discussion, the extremes will fill the void.
I hope you aren't referring to me there. I was concerned when it was said you were using a far right source so googled it for myself and linked back to what came up.In my last post I illustrated the issues in Oskarshamn and the replies I got were just pathetic. Straight up denial.
I'm guessing you're referring to Bernt Herlitz who is a dental hygienist not a dentist and was fired for breach of patient confidentially not claiming migrants weren't children.A few months ago a dentist in Sweden revealed his study on migrant children showed that as many as three quarters were not actually children. What happened then? He was threatened to lose his job and his house but so many said it is just right wing propaganda and not true. The government even said it was 'hate'. Yesterday, the BBC actually published an article about this, proving in fact it was true. So facts are now hate basically.
Its rapidly gone from we've done the reports but nobody is allowed to see them, to we've done them but a lot of vital information is missing (when parliament said they had to be released), to we've not done them at all. How can they get away with that?Davies should be charged with misleading parliament though. The sheer arrogance of the Tories is breathtaking.
Its rapidly gone from we've done the reports but nobody is allowed to see them, to we've done them but a lot of vital information is missing (when parliament said they had to be released), to we've not done them at all. How can they get away with that?
You're the one citing far right extreme sources so how can you then turn round and say its the fault of others that there's not a mature discussion? Nobody is ignoring immigrant crime or saying it doesn't exist.
I hope you aren't referring to me there. I was concerned when it was said you were using a far right source so googled it for myself and linked back to what came up.
I'm guessing you're referring to Bernt Herlitz who is a dental hygienist not a dentist and was fired for breach of patient confidentially not claiming migrants weren't children.
The study the BBC is referring to is by the National Board of Forensic Medicine in to concerns that adult migrants were attempting to gain free dental care by claiming to be children. In Sweden it is for the child to prove they are below 18, the government decided to do this via the NBFM. This was pushed through before the methods being proposed were verified as accurate.
This of course means the whole thing is flawed for two major reasons:
1) the only people being examined were those who were suspected by the Swedish Migration Agency to be over 18
2) the method used has a margin of error of 3 years either side so those failing the test could be as young as 15.
The majority of leave voters were not supporters of the far right and the likes of Robinson and the idiots from Britain First. Why are you trying to paint all leave voters as having sympathies with the far right?
It's a shame some refuse to learn from our country's history.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?