European politics: Into the "right" futur

[Biglose]

 

I hadn't realised the Rotherham scandal had been reported abroad. But, the common feature in Rotherham, Rochdale and other urban centres has been the willingness of police and local councillors to treat "good community relations" as being more important than child protection, for political reasons, and thus to ignore abuse on the part of Muslim men.

Like back then the pedophila scandel in Belgium where they found several murdered girls burried in the yard. The question always is in europe could something like that be going on in my country, too. Because run down coal towns is something germany has too. And I guess it had an impact on the amount of trust people have in their police and the honesty of their government. I think we are for better or worse beyond the point of "well thats just a XXX thing, this could never happen in XXX" in europe. (Sitting here and asking my self if a reduction in nationalistic arrogance is actually a bad thing...Crazy)
(And yes, I was aware of the major issue, which was a police not wanting to rock the boat. In this is a perception a lot of people in germany have from their police and their government, too)

[Tijgy]

I do not really see how M. Dutroux has anything to do with the authorities treating good community relations more important than child protection. What happened was the consequence of corruption and professional incompetence but they did not look willingly aside. I will not say they did not do it in other instances, f.e. the pedophilia scandel in the Belgian chuch where the cardinal kept himself silent about some actions of one of his bisschops. 

[Biglose]

I do not really see how M. Dutroux has anything to do with the authorities treating good community relations more important than child protection. What happened was the consequence of corruption and professional incompetence but they did not look willingly aside. I will not say they did not do it in other instances, f.e. the pedophilia scandel in the Belgian chuch where the cardinal kept himself silent about some actions of one of his bisschops. 

Sorry, I did not mean to apply that. I just wanted to say it was not the first scandel crossing border lines in europe. And that people asked themself if something like that would be possible in their country, too.

[mormont]

I imagine that most Muslim women, like most Muslim men, see their religion as beautiful ; and their values as correct, and have very little desire to change them.

I imagine, though, that most Muslim women and men share broad values but differ greatly on the details of how these should rightly be put into practice in everyday life - like most adherents of every other world religion.

And I would say that there are a highly significant number of Muslim men and women who do want to change Muslim values. Some of them are making headlines just now: how else would one describe ISIS/ISIL, the Taleban and Al Qaeda? It's clear they share few values with any Muslim I knew growing up, or know now.

Others, though, want to change those values in less spectacular ways and in a more liberal direction. They should not be ignored.

[Lyanna Stark]

 

Unless you enforce segregation or you only are talking about a small minority (1-2%) thats simply not true.
There are a lot of factors playing into that. If germany would have a police force like the US, what you are saying would also be closer to the truth. As a simple example in europa, which everybody knows take Rotherham.

Because it is a different level. Look  if I am to be honest the one experiance in the last 4 years where I heard people actually talk about genderstudies and their affect on their life were two women in the bibilothek of a university where one was complaining that she could not find the right bathroom. The other replied in an eyerolling voice "yeah, gendersomething". But do you think one of them would consider themself as less capable as a men or that they should be treated with less respect in their job? No, of course not. It is probably not even been part of their live experiance (granted they were still young) And thats the one incident I can remember hearing people talking around me about gender-anything in the last 4 years outside of special circumstances.
 

 

Right, so you overheard some women suffering from internalised sexism, and that means feminism is a. in decline, and b. not relevant. Clearly, it means that both you and those two don't know the first thing about feminism and should take a course, or read a book. Be that as it may.

Your point about needing enforced segregation is also moot. Immigrant men and immigrant women are less politically represented than other groups. Same as working class people are less represented compared to middle class and upper class. This is not news. This is standard. Hence immigrants will have a smaller impact on general elections, drawing of legislation etc. if we are looking at this group as one enforcing their democratic mandate on the larger public. In fact, I do not believe any European country of today has a "muslim party" working to enforce sharia laws and completely outdated morality on to Western European countries. Hence the outcry that immigration will move countries to be more conservative because muslims and islam is simply not correct.

Take Sweden as an example. More immigrants than most Western European countries if we look at immigration per person already living in the country. Has this made Sweden more social conservative? Not really. Instead, the social conservative powers are the ones wanting us to go back to some imaginary white viking nationalist idea when men were men, women were women, Swedes were vikings, everyone was blonde, and well, you get the idea. This place never existed of course, but the social conservatives still want to go "back" to it. The good old days. Now these groups wield real power. Unlike immigrant communities, which don't.

Of course, it is correct to be upset about the suffering of a lot of immigrant girls and women who end up living the same constrained lives as before they came to Western Europe, but that has always been the case and hasn't changed because more people are arriving. This new outrage is completely fabricated, since women's shelters, feminist movements etc. have known this all along, and have had discussions about it for a long time and tried to garner interest for it for a long time. But then, women's issues are only wielded when convenient, and when they are not convenient, nobody wants to listen. For instance, when Sweden's Minister of Foreign Affairs Margot Wallström condemned Saudi Arabia as being backwards, unequal and "medieval" in its treatment of women, people were falling over themselves to tell her what a faux pas that was. Literally NOBODY supported her in the international community and definitely not the same people who are also so concerned about inequality now when so many muslims have arrived (many of them fleeing Daesh, who are definitely not known for being paragons of equality).

So which is it? Are we for or against women's rights? It seems people like to fight for it when it suits them, and condemn others who make a stand when it suits them, with no consistency. 

My point stands: people only wield feminism and equality when it suits their already existing agenda. Which today basically is fear of islam and racism. Pure and simple.

As for women being treated unequally in their line of work (or in life in general): don't make me laugh. The only women who claim to never have experienced this are lying to themselves. 

 

[Marcus Agrippa]

http://m.spiegel.de/international/world/a-1066211.html
 

I know this is more international but I love der Spiegel, it explains the issues in Syria so well

[Biglose]

Your point about needing enforced segregation is also moot. Immigrant men and immigrant women are less politically represented than other groups. Same as working class people are less represented compared to middle class and upper class. This is not news. This is standard. Hence immigrants will have a smaller impact on general elections, drawing of legislation etc. if we are looking at this group as one enforcing their democratic mandate on the larger public. In fact, I do not believe any European country of today has a "muslim party" working to enforce sharia laws and completely outdated morality on to Western European countries. Hence the outcry that immigration will move countries to be more conservative because muslims and islam is simply not correct.

Thats not what I was talking about. Look, even if all muslims would vote for a party demanding sharia now, that would not be so much of a direct problem. Even if they would turn back time to the 60ies basically, it would still be the sixties Europe survived them once. I would not like it, but thats not really the big issue. The issue is that you are talking about a dynamic process. The problem is that the right wing will exploit it. (And of course their is no perfect scale where you just go back, the possition on every single issue is determined more or less interdependent.)

The swedish democrats are considering the poling in 2015 at about 19%...(And taking your numbers form 2010 you had 1,4%-points more non-eu immigrants(foreign born) than germany (per population)... So yeah.
 

Take Sweden as an example. More immigrants than most Western European countries if we look at immigration per person already living in the country. Has this made Sweden more social conservative?

The question is how to increase the felt security for women in germany, so they do not start voting right wing parties.
 

As for women being treated unequally in their line of work (or in life in general): don't make me laugh. The only women who claim to never have experienced this are lying to themselves.

I do not care if the are lying to themselfs or if they are lying to me or if they are correct and you just can't imagine it. I care about what they will vote in the next election. And like with most issues in germany feminists tend to be on both sides (and after the infight about the legalisation of prositution, well they are divided as hell anyway).

A big coalition which is scared of elections because the right wing could finally end them like in austria and sweden (making a coalition till 2022 yeah) is really not the direction I would like to go in germany. Because again, it would not just stay that way. Whatever happens in any other country in europe influences the others. This makes this process self-reinforcing. If it happens in germany it will probably strengthen Ukip in Great Britain, if they become stronger it will be helpful for Front national, if they become stronger it might be helpful for the party of freedom...I am not saying they are all equal radical, but successes for some enable the others. This is also one major danger of merkels politics, she does not only empower the right wing in germany, but also helps those parties in any other europeen country.

[ElizabethB.]

For me, the whole point of freedom, democracy and equality is

that people get to choose for themselves,

even if those decisions might seem wrong to someone.

 

This includes voting, career and family choices. 

 

[Lyanna Stark]

 

Thats not what I was talking about. Look, even if all muslims would vote for a party demanding sharia now, that would not be so much of a direct problem. Even if they would turn back time to the 60ies basically, it would still be the sixties Europe survived them once. I would not like it, but thats not really the big issue. The issue is that you are talking about a dynamic process. The problem is that the right wing will exploit it. (And of course their is no perfect scale where you just go back, the possition on every single issue is determined more or less interdependent.)

 

The right-wing will exploit what? The fact that immigrants in general have very little political clout? They don' even need to exploit that, it's already there. There is no "problem" with immigrants having huge political clout. There is no "problem" with immigrant zealots setting the political discourse or changing legislation on a large scale. Apart from, of course, an imaginary problem dreamt up by the right-wing social conservatives. There is no "dynamic" process to change Europe into Sharia-land. The right-wing social conservatives are flying high on media frenzy, misinformation and fear.

 

The swedish democrats are considering the poling in 2015 at about 19%...(And taking your numbers form 2010 you had 1,4%-points more non-eu immigrants(foreign born) than germany (per population)... So yeah.

Surprise surprise, Sweden has lots of troglodyte racists. The Sweden Democrats are basically our version of the American Republicans. Keep Jesus in the schools, kick out all brown people, women belong in the kitchen, gays are unnatural, and oh yeah, market economy is great, if it means deregulation and getting more money to the rich. They are a smaller, occasionally more brown, local version of the Republicans with slightly more race hatred and slightly less Jesus.

Interesting tidbit: one of the previous party leaders for an earlier incarnation of a right-wing social conservative party, Bert Karlsson, is now the country's largest "asylum entrepreneur". There's money to be made, right? Mammon rules.

 

The question is how to increase the felt security for women in germany, so they do not start voting right wing parties.

Well here's the thing. "Felt security" vs "real security". It's like how people are more afraid of getting on a plane than in a car, even when this is completely irrational. How the "felt security" is as a basis for not accepting brown people/muslims/whatever is of course a bollocks argument. As long as the fear is riding people because they think halal meat makes you a muslim (one SD politician thought that) or that all Mexicans are rapists (Trump-facts), then fear and "felt security" are not really good measurements for how we should act.

 

I do not care if the are lying to themselfs or if they are lying to me or if they are correct and you just can't imagine it. I care about what they will vote in the next election. And like with most issues in germany feminists tend to be on both sides (and after the infight about the legalisation of prositution, well they are divided as hell anyway).

A big coalition which is scared of elections because the right wing could finally end them like in austria and sweden (making a coalition till 2022 yeah) is really not the direction I would like to go in germany. Because again, it would not just stay that way. Whatever happens in any other country in europe influences the others. This makes this process self-reinforcing. If it happens in germany it will probably strengthen Ukip in Great Britain, if they become stronger it will be helpful for Front national, if they become stronger it might be helpful for the party of freedom...I am not saying they are all equal radical, but successes for some enable the others. This is also one major danger of merkels politics, she does not only empower the right wing in germany, but also helps those parties in any other europeen country.

I am highly doubtful of this theory, since it relies a lot on how the national press behaves. If the press accepts the right-wing social conservative narrative, then yes, people will worry about the "flood" of immigrant people and how sharia law is imminent, and how the evil muslims will remove Jesus and Christmas from our schools.

As for German feminists, I feel for them with the legalising of prostitution. That's a bitter and fraught battle between liberal feminist on one side and socialist feminists plus anti-trafficking advocates on the other. On the other hand, feminists are not always left-wing. Some are, and perhaps the most prominent are, but not all. Many also do not adhere to any sort of socialist feminist theory either.

In general, should people actually look at how SD and their equivalents in other European countries actually vote on economic issues they'd most likely be frightened, but the fear and the racism get to rule instead of sensible thinking. We are turning into USA light, but instead of United we are the Bickering States of Europe, I guess. So it would be BSE. Which is fitting since it's also the name of Mad Cow Disease!

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

 

The right-wing will exploit what? The fact that immigrants in general have very little political clout? They don' even need to exploit that, it's already there. There is no "problem" with immigrants having huge political clout. There is no "problem" with immigrant zealots setting the political discourse or changing legislation on a large scale. Apart from, of course, an imaginary problem dreamt up by the right-wing social conservatives. There is no "dynamic" process to change Europe into Sharia-land. The right-wing social conservatives are flying high on media frenzy, misinformation and fear.

Surprise surprise, Sweden has lots of troglodyte racists. The Sweden Democrats are basically our version of the American Republicans. Keep Jesus in the schools, kick out all brown people, women belong in the kitchen, gays are unnatural, and oh yeah, market economy is great, if it means deregulation and getting more money to the rich. They are a smaller, occasionally more brown, local version of the Republicans with slightly more race hatred and slightly less Jesus.

Interesting tidbit: one of the previous party leaders for an earlier incarnation of a right-wing social conservative party, Bert Karlsson, is now the country's largest "asylum entrepreneur". There's money to be made, right? Mammon rules.

 

Well here's the thing. "Felt security" vs "real security". It's like how people are more afraid of getting on a plane than in a car, even when this is completely irrational. How the "felt security" is as a basis for not accepting brown people/muslims/whatever is of course a bollocks argument. As long as the fear is riding people because they think halal meat makes you a muslim (one SD politician thought that) or that all Mexicans are rapists (Trump-facts), then fear and "felt security" are not really good measurements for how we should act.

 

I am highly doubtful of this theory, since it relies a lot on how the national press behaves. If the press accepts the right-wing social conservative narrative, then yes, people will worry about the "flood" of immigrant people and how sharia law is imminent, and how the evil muslims will remove Jesus and Christmas from our schools.

As for German feminists, I feel for them with the legalising of prostitution. That's a bitter and fraught battle between liberal feminist on one side and socialist feminists plus anti-trafficking advocates on the other. On the other hand, feminists are not always left-wing. Some are, and perhaps the most prominent are, but not all. Many also do not adhere to any sort of socialist feminist theory either.

In general, should people actually look at how SD and their equivalents in other European countries actually vote on economic issues they'd most likely be frightened, but the fear and the racism get to rule instead of sensible thinking. We are turning into USA light, but instead of United we are the Bickering States of Europe, I guess. So it would be BSE. Which is fitting since it's also the name of Mad Cow Disease!

The great thing is that both the Swedish media and politicians have started changing their positions over the past couple of months, so that the BS you espouse here is now finally starting to disappear from the mainstream debate. Though it still has a long way to go, even the left-wing Social Democrats and Environmental Party are now starting to enact very similar immigration policies as the "Brownz" you are harping on about where proposing only half a year ago, and there is every reason to believe that they will end up going much further. Considering that even these proposals are likely insufficient for the huge masses of people flooding into the country now. 

 

[Biglose]

The great thing is that both the Swedish media and politicians have started changing their positions over the past couple of months, so that the BS you espouse here is now finally starting to disappear from the mainstream debate. Though it still has a long way to go, even the left-wing Social Democrats and Environmental Party are now starting to enact very similar immigration policies as the "Brownz" you are harping on about where proposing only half a year ago, and there is every reason to believe that they will end up going much further. Considering that even these proposals are likely insufficient for the huge masses of people flooding into the country now. 

 

Thanks I have been wondering if all the things about sweden (no more refugees etc.) were wrong like my information about norway. But I guess Lyanna is just lying to me.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

Thanks I have been wondering if all the things about sweden (no more refugees etc.) were wrong like my information about norway. But I guess Lyanna is just lying to me.

Something like that. The Social democrats and the Environmental party (the currently governing coalition) are definitely talking about the volumes of migrants coming now being a huge problem, and this would have been unheard of just a few months ago. They actually just recently wanted to be able to close the Öresund Bridge, the only land connection between Sweden and Denmark, to temporarily stop the inflow. But that proposition fell through since it would have messed up the economy of southern Sweden, because lots of people commute to Copenhagen on a daily basis and so on. 

 

What they are instead proposing now is instating full ID-controls along the borders for anyone wishing to travel into the country, which would be a hard blow to many of these migrants since they throw away their papers of identification before they get here (many of them not actually coming from war-torn areas and all). There are also plans by the major parties to change the legislation around asylum seekers so that temporary residence status for five years becomes the norm rather than as it is now where most of them get to stay permanently, which would be another big change. 

[mormont]

I think we can do without accusations of lying. People can and do differ. If you can't respect differing opinions and are inclined to toss accusations of bad faith around, then you are not participating in a discussion, you're looking for an argument.

[SeanF]

 

The right-wing will exploit what? The fact that immigrants in general have very little political clout? They don' even need to exploit that, it's already there. There is no "problem" with immigrants having huge political clout. There is no "problem" with immigrant zealots setting the political discourse or changing legislation on a large scale. Apart from, of course, an imaginary problem dreamt up by the right-wing social conservatives. There is no "dynamic" process to change Europe into Sharia-land. The right-wing social conservatives are flying high on media frenzy, misinformation and fear.

Surprise surprise, Sweden has lots of troglodyte racists. The Sweden Democrats are basically our version of the American Republicans. Keep Jesus in the schools, kick out all brown people, women belong in the kitchen, gays are unnatural, and oh yeah, market economy is great, if it means deregulation and getting more money to the rich. They are a smaller, occasionally more brown, local version of the Republicans with slightly more race hatred and slightly less Jesus.

Interesting tidbit: one of the previous party leaders for an earlier incarnation of a right-wing social conservative party, Bert Karlsson, is now the country's largest "asylum entrepreneur". There's money to be made, right? Mammon rules.

 

Well here's the thing. "Felt security" vs "real security". It's like how people are more afraid of getting on a plane than in a car, even when this is completely irrational. How the "felt security" is as a basis for not accepting brown people/muslims/whatever is of course a bollocks argument. As long as the fear is riding people because they think halal meat makes you a muslim (one SD politician thought that) or that all Mexicans are rapists (Trump-facts), then fear and "felt security" are not really good measurements for how we should act.

 

I am highly doubtful of this theory, since it relies a lot on how the national press behaves. If the press accepts the right-wing social conservative narrative, then yes, people will worry about the "flood" of immigrant people and how sharia law is imminent, and how the evil muslims will remove Jesus and Christmas from our schools.

As for German feminists, I feel for them with the legalising of prostitution. That's a bitter and fraught battle between liberal feminist on one side and socialist feminists plus anti-trafficking advocates on the other. On the other hand, feminists are not always left-wing. Some are, and perhaps the most prominent are, but not all. Many also do not adhere to any sort of socialist feminist theory either.

In general, should people actually look at how SD and their equivalents in other European countries actually vote on economic issues they'd most likely be frightened, but the fear and the racism get to rule instead of sensible thinking. We are turning into USA light, but instead of United we are the Bickering States of Europe, I guess. So it would be BSE. Which is fitting since it's also the name of Mad Cow Disease!

Unhappiness about mass immigration is pretty well universal across Europe, and by no means confined to the Right Wing.  Polling, and election results demonstrate this.  Ultimately, if we accept that we live in democracies, then we must accept that the voters are entitled to set limits on how many, and what kinds, of people they're willing to allow to settle in their own countries.

[The guy from the Vale]

Something like that. The Social democrats and the Environmental party (the currently governing coalition) are definitely talking about the volumes of migrants coming now being a huge problem, and this would have been unheard of just a few months ago. They actually just recently wanted to be able to close the Öresund Bridge, the only land connection between Sweden and Denmark, to temporarily stop the inflow. But that proposition fell through since it would have messed up the economy of southern Sweden, because lots of people commute to Copenhagen on a daily basis and so on. 

 

What they are instead proposing now is instating full ID-controls along the borders for anyone wishing to travel into the country, which would be a hard blow to many of these migrants since they throw away their papers of identification before they get here (many of them not actually coming from war-torn areas and all). There are also plans by the major parties to change the legislation around asylum seekers so that temporary residence status for five years becomes the norm rather than as it is now where most of them get to stay permanently, which would be another big change. 

A recent survey in Germany found that only 8% came with fake passports, after claims of 30% before. It's still too high, but the vast majority of refugees are indeed coming here for substantial reasons. Many may not like that, but ultimately, by succumbing to that sentiment we're just refusing to save drowning children because we're worried about our own suits.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

A recent survey in Germany found that only 8% came with fake passports, after claims of 30% before. It's still too high, but the vast majority of refugees are indeed coming here for substantial reasons. Many may not like that, but ultimately, by succumbing to that sentiment we're just refusing to save drowning children because we're worried about our own suits.

There are fake passports, and then there are those with no passports at all. I don't know about German laws, but very many people coming here have certainly been completely undocumented, and usually their only proofs about their ages or their origins are what they say themselves. 

[Lyanna Stark]

The great thing is that both the Swedish media and politicians have started changing their positions over the past couple of months, so that the BS you espouse here is now finally starting to disappear from the mainstream debate. Though it still has a long way to go, even the left-wing Social Democrats and Environmental Party are now starting to enact very similar immigration policies as the "Brownz" you are harping on about where proposing only half a year ago, and there is every reason to believe that they will end up going much further. Considering that even these proposals are likely insufficient for the huge masses of people flooding into the country now. 

 

Yes, isn't it nice to live in a country slowly turning brown. Get your boots on, I suppose?

Regarding the politicians'position on ID checks. Did I write how much I agreed with it? As a matter of fact I think it's a terrible idea. On the other hand, it's expected, since the housing issue has remained unsolved for 25 years, public housing is more or less gone, the framework for public sector to act is underfunded and our education sector could definitely use a huge boost. With housing + education and old fashioned social democratic bureaucracy, this could be fixed. It's a challenge, not a systemic collapse, which the naysayers are claiming. Sweden used to have a very robust public sector equipped to handle a lot of stuff, but unfortunately it has been privatised. A lot of really hard work us done by local councils, btw, and one of the main reasons for the lame ID-controls (which is a symbolic act and adds nothing in practice) is that the councils (kommunerna) cannot handle the organisation needed to receive so many people at once. Contrary to all alarmist reports, this is an issue for public sector organising, funding and management.

Further, it is clear why so many refugees come to Germany and Sweden: because the rest of Europe is basically shutting their door. That does not take a NASA scientist to figure out.

But I am really excited to see how much my daily commute will be delayed because of the ID checks of thousands of people on the Öresund bridge every day. I seriously wonder if the Stockholm politicians ever go south of Eskilstuna. Even you agree that it's "insufficient" although my wording would be "inefficient" since that's what it is. It will stop a few people sure, and it will cause insane amount of hassle for thousands of commuters along the west coast and all the way up to Kalmar. Although I imagine that none of the smartarses thinking this was a good idea has made the calculations of: "train time tables for Southern Sweden" + "amount of trains" + " amount of commuters". The Öresund trains run across the Öresund bridge, and then as far north as Göteborg and as far east as Kalmar. If they are going to stop every train on the bridge checking IDs, then the delays will have cascading effects all across southern Sweden and eastern Denmark. 

Hence: I do not think our politicians are handling this well. Their decision making so far has been mostly ineffectual. They need to really put their foot down and start building, borrow money and finally get our education system the injection it needs, fast track teacher education (because that part is ridiculously slow and complicated for no reason) get the old teacher certification from the 90s back, so anyone with academic qualifications can add on one year and get a teacher certificate within their subject, they need to add social housing, remove some hindrances in PBL etc etc etc. I could go on forever, but there is no political will to do this although it is painfully obvious it is needed.

Try this, for an article that finally takes about what is needed to be done, instead of just whining about OMG the sky is falling. If we have a situation that is causing issues, then we solve the problem, we don't sit there crying about how terrible everything is, and if at some point in the future, we can just erase the problem and carry on like before.

On the other hand, if I remember correctly, you were also the person who though that Malmö was one big ghetto, so I suppose there is just no reasoning on this. I made some casual questions among my colleagues and every single one of them thought Malmö was a brilliant place to visit and one of the most interesting citites in Sweden. So I guess not everyone is so taken with the doom and gloom? Perhaps that could be something to consider: the glass isn't always half empty, it's half-full.

 

[Lyanna Stark]

There are fake passports, and then there are those with no passports at all. I don't know about German laws, but very many people coming here have certainly been completely undocumented, and usually their only proofs about their ages or their origins are what they say themselves. 

Source?

[Lyanna Stark]

Unhappiness about mass immigration is pretty well universal across Europe, and by no means confined to the Right Wing.  Polling, and election results demonstrate this.  Ultimately, if we accept that we live in democracies, then we must accept that the voters are entitled to set limits on how many, and what kinds, of people they're willing to allow to settle in their own countries.

Well, that depends. 

There are also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

If voters in NoToBrownPeople-land decide and vote that they don't want muslims stealing their jobs, their benefits and their girlfriends, then that country will be in breach of these agreements. I mean sure, we can disregard these human rights if we feel like it, which is what is happening right now as a matter of fact. It's entirely possible.

However, to paint that as Good or Necessary is to paint it as something it is not. It's a selfish act to be in breach of the human rights. I think that's fine, if people can live with themselves. My main issue is the rationalisation going around it and the arguing that adhering to the right to seek asylum, or to human decency, is basically to be a naive idiot who wants to ruin society. There is nothing inherently Good or Morally upstanding in disregarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Hell, people vote for "I want to keep all my money and sod the poor" all the time, and the main problem I have with that is that it is recast as being something positive that poor people need to "bootstrap" themselves. 

 

EDIT: I am interested however what you mean with "what kinds of people". Could you expand on this? What "kinds" of people are there?

[SeanF]

Well, that depends.

There are also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

If voters in NoToBrownPeople-land decide and vote that they don't want muslims stealing their jobs, their benefits and their girlfriends, then that country will be in breach of these agreements. I mean sure, we can disregard these human rights if we feel like it, which is what is happening right now as a matter of fact. It's entirely possible.

However, to paint that as Good or Necessary is to paint it as something it is not. It's a selfish act to be in breach of the human rights. I think that's fine, if people can live with themselves. My main issue is the rationalisation going around it and the arguing that adhering to the right to seek asylum, or to human decency, is basically to be a naive idiot who wants to ruin society. There is nothing inherently Good or Morally upstanding in disregarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Hell, people vote for "I want to keep all my money and sod the poor" all the time, and the main problem I have with that is that it is recast as being something positive that poor people need to "bootstrap" themselves.

EDIT: I am interested however what you mean with "what kinds of people". Could you expand on this? What "kinds" of people are there?

Well, for example, a country could, quite reasonably, operate a points-based system of immigration control, so that people with professional qualifications, capital, or skills in areas of work where there's a shortage of labour, were given priority ahead of people who did not possess these things.

As to the rest, of course people vote in the interests of themselves, their families, their neighbours, their countrymen in that order, well ahead of the interests of strangers.