aviationaware wrote:

Olddog wrote:

Seriously? Less democratic than the US where the popular vote loser is elected as potus ?

The United States is a federal republic. Nothing about the electoral college is undemocratic.

Except that the person with the most votes don't win, you mean.

The fact you are still with that outdated concept: each state is entitled to two senators, whatever the number of inhabitant is totally flawed. It just means that votes in the less developed and conserative states have more value than the others. A voter in Wyoming count for around 300 californians. So look at you country before trying to lecture us.

Anyway the demography evolution will change that soon or late and then I bet you will suddenly try to change the rules again. There is a limit to what crazy gerrymandering can do.

aviationaware wrote:

When the result displeases the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels,

Such as?

Olddog wrote:

The fact you are still with that outdated concept: each state is entitled to two senators, whatever the number of inhabitant is totally flawed. It just means that votes in the less developed and conserative states have more value than the others. A voter in Wyoming count for around 300 californians. So look at you country before trying to lecture us.

Anyway the demography evolution will change that soon or late and then I bet you will suddenly try to change the rules again. There is a limit to what crazy gerrymandering can do.

The last bit of concessions to the slave states, written into the US constitution. Anyhow, let's move on to the results of EU elections.

Yes, the EU could be more democratic and let's do so. The EU parliament is important but could be made more important. The commission members could be held personally accountable instead of the whole commission for instance.

Olddog wrote:

The fact you are still with that outdated concept: each state is entitled to two senators, whatever the number of inhabitant is totally flawed. It just means that votes in the less developed and conserative states have more value than the others. A voter in Wyoming count for around 300 californians. So look at you country before trying to lecture us.

Anyway the demography evolution will change that soon or late and then I bet you will suddenly try to change the rules again. There is a limit to what crazy gerrymandering can do.

Luxembourg has 6 MEPs for 600,000 inhabitants. Roughly 1 per 100,000. The UK has 73 MEPs for 66,000,000 inhabitants. That's roughly 1 per 900,000. That means that Luxembourg's votes have approximately nine times more value than those of the UK.

Since this discussion is about EU Elections, and not US Elections, it might be best to concern ourselves with what is going on in our own backyard.

Aesma wrote:

L410Turbolet wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Nobody likes Manfred Weber, not even the Germans.

Please remind us about Micron's approval ratings.

Enough to be president for 8 more years.

That's not the point of the discussion, is it? Macron has been defeated by Le Pen, had to capitulate in front of the Yellow Jackets, is unpopular even at home, yet he for unknown reason feels to have a moral ground to pass judgement on Weber who is pretty much just as inexperienced and unpopular as he is. Besides, what's the point of recycling all those mandarins who spent their entire productive in corridors of government offices.
I would prefer Vestager, btw.

Aesma wrote:

What I find ironic ... They want to do what's best for their own country, regardless of the consequences to others.

Ironic indeed. How dare they.

"Because for many member states, Macron’s mask has slipped. It’s not a new golden age for Europe he’s proposing, but simply the latest iteration of French-led centralisation and protectionism. This is classic French policy garnished with an overpriced European dressing.
...
Macron’s vision isn’t about competition, trade or protecting Europe from predatory business practices. It’s about imposing French and German will upon every other EU member state. If decades of EU trade and competition policy need to be sacrificed, then so be it. This is pure power politics without the illusions of consensus building or compromise. ,"


https://www.euronews.com/2019/03/12/fre ... -edge-view

An MEP is way less powerfull than a senator. Who controls the senate controls the US. The MEP does not have that power, ask Orban Salvini and other clowns

L410Turbolet wrote:

Aesma wrote:

L410Turbolet wrote:

Please remind us about Micron's approval ratings.

Enough to be president for 8 more years.

That's not the point of the discussion, is it? Macron has been defeated by Le Pen, had to capitulate in front of the Yellow Jackets, is unpopular even at home, yet he for unknown reason feels to have a moral ground to pass judgement on Weber who is pretty much just as inexperienced and unpopular as he is. Besides, what's the point of recycling all those mandarins who spent their entire productive in corridors of government offices.
I would prefer Vestager, btw.

Macron has not been defeated, the RN just eked out in front of his party. Watch how he is defeated when passing countless reforms until the end of the year. He gave a bone to chew to the yellow jackets, most of the measures were parts of his program he intended to fulfill later, so they got an advance payment. It turns out it will even help the French economy !

Yes he's unpopular, like all his predecessors before him, what else is new ? French people are never happy.

L410Turbolet wrote:

Aesma wrote:

What I find ironic ... They want to do what's best for their own country, regardless of the consequences to others.

Ironic indeed. How dare they.

"Because for many member states, Macron’s mask has slipped. It’s not a new golden age for Europe he’s proposing, but simply the latest iteration of French-led centralisation and protectionism. This is classic French policy garnished with an overpriced European dressing.
...
Macron’s vision isn’t about competition, trade or protecting Europe from predatory business practices. It’s about imposing French and German will upon every other EU member state. If decades of EU trade and competition policy need to be sacrificed, then so be it. This is pure power politics without the illusions of consensus building or compromise. ,"


https://www.euronews.com/2019/03/12/fre ... -edge-view

Can you give examples of things Macron wants to do that would be bad for other countries/citizens ? I'm sure it's not just in France that most MEPs have been elected on a promise to change Europe for the better.

I discussed this before, but I think the EU is going to have to face the reality that it has become too big, too bureaucratic, too involved with everyday lives. That is reflected in the recent EU elections and needs to change, perhaps even become smaller, to return to its roots in primary coordinating trade among the countries.

Since the last EU elections, there has been major issues that were ignored or not handled well by the dominate 'centrist' politicians and a shift to more 'left' and 'right' parties in reaction. The mass migrations of persons from the Middle East and North Africa. Continuing high rates of unemployment and under-employment of many. Transfers of manufacturing and other jobs to the newer, cheaper labor EU countries. Economic unevenness especially in certain cities. Austerity as to medical and other social services in part due to financial control by the EU central bank. Fear of Germany controlling too much of money to boost their own position.

The new EU Parliament will have to deal with these issues, find a new balance. The 'right' will have to be appeased by limiting outside migration, the 'left' with keeping needed medical and other services at high levels. For all, to keep jobs in the EU and not export them to China. The EU has been a huge and usually beneficial institution. But like all institutions, it much change with the times or die a slow death.

Dutchy wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Olddog wrote:

Seriously? Less democratic than the US where the popular vote loser is elected as potus ?

The United States is a federal republic. Nothing about the electoral college is undemocratic.

Except that the person with the most votes don't win, you mean.

It's a hallmark of any republic that there is an inequity in how much certain votes count to protect certain regions. The EU which you seem to be loving so much has a similar system, except that the inequities in there are much, much larger than in the US electoral college, so spare me your nonsense, please.

Olddog wrote:

Anyway the demography evolution will change that soon or late and then I bet you will suddenly try to change the rules again. There is a limit to what crazy gerrymandering can do.

The demographics argument has been brought for decades, hasn't worked out so far. One reason is that as coastal metropolitan areas become too expensive to live in, more people move to the central states. Also, watch who you accuse of gerrymandering, because the largest beneficiaries of that are Democrats. This is evidenced by Democrats winning their average district at a much narrower margin than the average Republican district. You can win much more by gerrymandering in that case than you can if you win in landslides anyway, as happens in most Republican districts.

JJJ wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

When the result displeases the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels,

Such as?

I mentioned it above. There were not one, not two but three distinct instances in which the EU did not accept a no to one on their proposals and just had the vote repeated. This happened to Denmark on the Maastricht Treaty, Ireland on the Nice Treaty and Ireland again on the Lisbon Treaty. That's appallingly antidemocratic.

Dutchy wrote:

You do know that you are calling for more EU, not less right?

It's not about more or less, but about getting it right. If the EU can't manage to coordinate the protection of its external borders, then there can't be free movement of people on the inside. That should be pretty obvious to anyone except if you want totally open borders anyway, in which case you are a raging madman who nobody should listen to.

ltbewr wrote:

I discussed this before, but I think the EU is going to have to face the reality that it has become too big, too bureaucratic, too involved with everyday lives. That is reflected in the recent EU elections and needs to change, perhaps even become smaller, to return to its roots in primary coordinating trade among the countries.

Since the last EU elections, there has been major issues that were ignored or not handled well by the dominate 'centrist' politicians and a shift to more 'left' and 'right' parties in reaction. The mass migrations of persons from the Middle East and North Africa. Continuing high rates of unemployment and under-employment of many. Transfers of manufacturing and other jobs to the newer, cheaper labor EU countries. Economic unevenness especially in certain cities. Austerity as to medical and other social services in part due to financial control by the EU central bank. Fear of Germany controlling too much of money to boost their own position.

The new EU Parliament will have to deal with these issues, find a new balance. The 'right' will have to be appeased by limiting outside migration, the 'left' with keeping needed medical and other services at high levels. For all, to keep jobs in the EU and not export them to China. The EU has been a huge and usually beneficial institution. But like all institutions, it much change with the times or die a slow death.

You do know that you are calling for more EU, not less right?

aviationaware wrote:

JJJ wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

When the result displeases the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels,

Such as?

I mentioned it above. There were not one, not two but three distinct instances in which the EU did not accept a no to one on their proposals and just had the vote repeated. This happened to Denmark on the Maastricht Treaty, Ireland on the Nice Treaty and Ireland again on the Lisbon Treaty. That's appallingly antidemocratic.

I was asking specifically at the unelected label you threw out (hence the graph)

JJJ wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Such as?

I mentioned it above. There were not one, not two but three distinct instances in which the EU did not accept a no to one on their proposals and just had the vote repeated. This happened to Denmark on the Maastricht Treaty, Ireland on the Nice Treaty and Ireland again on the Lisbon Treaty. That's appallingly antidemocratic.

I was asking specifically at the unelected label you threw out (hence the graph)

Well they are unelected. Being appointed in a backroom by elected people does not make you an elected official. Sorry to bust your bubble there.

aviationaware wrote:

JJJ wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

I mentioned it above. There were not one, not two but three distinct instances in which the EU did not accept a no to one on their proposals and just had the vote repeated. This happened to Denmark on the Maastricht Treaty, Ireland on the Nice Treaty and Ireland again on the Lisbon Treaty. That's appallingly antidemocratic.

I was asking specifically at the unelected label you threw out (hence the graph)

Well they are unelected. Being appointed in a backroom by elected people does not make you an elected official. Sorry to bust your bubble there.

Makes it democratic though and democratically accountable.

But let me ask something else, why are you against the EU in the first place?

aviationaware wrote:

JJJ wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

I mentioned it above. There were not one, not two but three distinct instances in which the EU did not accept a no to one on their proposals and just had the vote repeated. This happened to Denmark on the Maastricht Treaty, Ireland on the Nice Treaty and Ireland again on the Lisbon Treaty. That's appallingly antidemocratic.

I was asking specifically at the unelected label you threw out (hence the graph)

Well they are unelected. Being appointed in a backroom by elected people does not make you an elected official. Sorry to bust your bubble there.

By that measure most people in most governments are unelected. I hope you apply the same standard to your own.

Dutchy wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

I discussed this before, but I think the EU is going to have to face the reality that it has become too big, too bureaucratic, too involved with everyday lives. That is reflected in the recent EU elections and needs to change, perhaps even become smaller, to return to its roots in primary coordinating trade among the countries.

Since the last EU elections, there has been major issues that were ignored or not handled well by the dominate 'centrist' politicians and a shift to more 'left' and 'right' parties in reaction. The mass migrations of persons from the Middle East and North Africa. Continuing high rates of unemployment and under-employment of many. Transfers of manufacturing and other jobs to the newer, cheaper labor EU countries. Economic unevenness especially in certain cities. Austerity as to medical and other social services in part due to financial control by the EU central bank. Fear of Germany controlling too much of money to boost their own position.

The new EU Parliament will have to deal with these issues, find a new balance. The 'right' will have to be appeased by limiting outside migration, the 'left' with keeping needed medical and other services at high levels. For all, to keep jobs in the EU and not export them to China. The EU has been a huge and usually beneficial institution. But like all institutions, it much change with the times or die a slow death.

You do know that you are calling for more EU, not less right?

To me it means the the EU dealing with trade internally and externally, limiting external migration into the EU, assuring human rights, but not micromanaging individual member states.

JJJ wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

JJJ wrote:

I was asking specifically at the unelected label you threw out (hence the graph)

Well they are unelected. Being appointed in a backroom by elected people does not make you an elected official. Sorry to bust your bubble there.

By that measure most people in most governments are unelected. I hope you apply the same standard to your own.

Everyone in the United States government is elected. The President is indirectly elected (even though laws in most states make it so that it's virtually a direct election) and every cabinet secretary and even their deputies are legitimized by an individual majority vote in the Senate.

Meanwhile, the entire European Commission can only be voted on as a single entity by the European Parliament. What a joke.

Dutchy wrote:

But let me ask something else, why are you against the EU in the first place?

Because it's a power grab of the corporatist elite that takes sovereignty from the nation states but does not hold itself accountable to it. Exhibit a is the border problematic that I already mentioned. The EU forbids its members to control their own borders but it does not replace that with a controlled common border. So now Europe has no border at all, and everyone can come and go as they please. That's no way to run a government.

ltbewr wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

You do know that you are calling for more EU, not less right?

To me it means the the EU dealing with trade internally and externally, limiting external migration into the EU, assuring human rights, but not micromanaging individual member states.

For me, the EU can deal with everything a single country can't handle on its own.

aviationaware wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

But let me ask something else, why are you against the EU in the first place?

Because it's a power grab of the corporatist elite that takes sovereignty from the nation states but does not hold itself accountable to it. Exhibit a is the border problematic that I already mentioned. The EU forbids its members to control their own borders but it does not replace that with a controlled common border. So now Europe has no border at all, and everyone can come and go as they please. That's no way to run a government.

Ok, you do know you are making conflicting statements here right. And again, it just shows that you absolutely know nothing about the inner workings of the EU. Frontex is helping nations to control their border for instance, at the request of those sovereign nations.

Dutchy wrote:

Ok, you do know you are making conflicting statements here right. And again, it just shows that you absolutely know nothing about the inner workings of the EU. Frontex is helping nations to control their border for instance, at the request of those sovereign nations.

Great theory, however it does not work in practice.

aviationaware wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Ok, you do know you are making conflicting statements here right. And again, it just shows that you absolutely know nothing about the inner workings of the EU. Frontex is helping nations to control their border for instance, at the request of those sovereign nations.

Great theory, however it does not work in practice.

So what is your great solution then? Criticism is easy, solutions are hard.

It seems that the Eu bureaucrats are undemocratic just because, and Federal workers in the US are democratic just because you say so....

Olddog wrote:

Seriously? Less democratic than the US where the popular vote loser is elected as potus ?

Yes, this is peculiarity of the U.S. election system, but it comes from how this Commonwealth was formed originally, so that every state’s voice can be heard. Changing that will require not only an overwhelming majority of votes in the country, but also in each and every state. Otherwise you are risking to destabilize the country.

Dutchy wrote:

Ok, you do know you are making conflicting statements here right. And again, it just shows that you absolutely know nothing about the inner workings of the EU. Frontex is helping nations to control their border for instance, at the request of those sovereign nations.

A sovereign EU nation? Don’t you yourself find this an oxymoron?

Dutchy wrote:

So what is your great solution then? Criticism is easy, solutions are hard.

The solution is, there was a change made that didn't work, so go back to square one. And next time, try incremental changes and not this grand overhaul in one go. If the EU can't get on the same page to protecting their outside borders, the member states need to reinstate their own border controls.

Dutchy wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

The United States is a federal republic. Nothing about the electoral college is undemocratic.

Except that the person with the most votes don't win, you mean.

So what? An election is in essence a process for society to make collective decision that will be viewed as legitimate by nearly every member of this society. Somewhere it’s a simple majority, somewhere there is 51% requirement - it’s up to each community, each society. American indirect election by electoral college was agreed upon when the country was formed, and up to this date the results of such election are viewed as legitimate by nearly every American. This is what’s most important, whether it is a majority of votes or not - this is secondary.

aviationaware wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So what is your great solution then? Criticism is easy, solutions are hard.

The solution is, there was a change made that didn't work, so go back to square one. And next time, try incremental changes and not this grand overhaul in one go. If the EU can't get on the same page to protecting their outside borders, the member states need to reinstate their own border controls.

That is no solution to the underlining problem. You suggest leaving the problem with the southern states and leave it with that.

Dutchy wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So what is your great solution then? Criticism is easy, solutions are hard.

The solution is, there was a change made that didn't work, so go back to square one. And next time, try incremental changes and not this grand overhaul in one go. If the EU can't get on the same page to protecting their outside borders, the member states need to reinstate their own border controls.

That is no solution to the underlining problem. You suggest leaving the problem with the southern states and leave it with that.

No. Do you think the illegals would keep coming if they knew there was no hope of getting to Germany or Scandinavia? Guess again.

aviationaware wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

The solution is, there was a change made that didn't work, so go back to square one. And next time, try incremental changes and not this grand overhaul in one go. If the EU can't get on the same page to protecting their outside borders, the member states need to reinstate their own border controls.

That is no solution to the underlining problem. You suggest leaving the problem with the southern states and leave it with that.

No. Do you think the illegals would keep coming if they knew there was no hope of getting to Germany or Scandinavia? Guess again.

Oversimplifying things will not get you anywhere. Getting a border up and effectively patroling it will not happen, too much hassle and people don't want it. Border control has been gone for since 1995 or almost 25years and before that it was quite relaxed anyway, much more relaxed than the Canadian - American border (which makes you feel unwelcome in the US). So to answer your question, yes they will come, see the border with the UK or even Italia, France closed its border.

aviationaware wrote:

JJJ wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Well they are unelected. Being appointed in a backroom by elected people does not make you an elected official. Sorry to bust your bubble there.

By that measure most people in most governments are unelected. I hope you apply the same standard to your own.

Everyone in the United States government is elected. The President is indirectly elected (even though laws in most states make it so that it's virtually a direct election) and every cabinet secretary and even their deputies are legitimized by an individual majority vote in the Senate.

Meanwhile, the entire European Commission can only be voted on as a single entity by the European Parliament. What a joke.

So, again, you don't know how the whole thing works. Not the first time and won't be the last.

The EC commission president is first selected by the council (itself elected, since it's the heads of state of each member state) then ratified by the parliament. Then each member state government (elected) appoints their own Commissioner, which are again confirmed by the Parliament.

JJJ wrote:

The EC commission president is first selected by the council (itself elected, since it's the heads of state of each member state) then ratified by the parliament. Then each member state government (elected) appoints their own Commissioner, which are again confirmed by the Parliament.

Yea. Jointly.

And then, many heads of national governments are only indirectly elected in Europe. And then THEY in turn indirectly appoint someone. How does that bear any semblance of democratic decision making? It doesn't.

aviationaware wrote:

JJJ wrote:

The EC commission president is first selected by the council (itself elected, since it's the heads of state of each member state) then ratified by the parliament. Then each member state government (elected) appoints their own Commissioner, which are again confirmed by the Parliament.

Yea. Jointly.

And then, many heads of national governments are only indirectly elected in Europe. And then THEY in turn indirectly appoint someone. How does that bear any semblance of democratic decision making? It doesn't.

BS.
You are actually stating that every country with a coalition (which is indirectly chosen) is not democratic.

marcelh wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

JJJ wrote:

The EC commission president is first selected by the council (itself elected, since it's the heads of state of each member state) then ratified by the parliament. Then each member state government (elected) appoints their own Commissioner, which are again confirmed by the Parliament.

Yea. Jointly.

And then, many heads of national governments are only indirectly elected in Europe. And then THEY in turn indirectly appoint someone. How does that bear any semblance of democratic decision making? It doesn't.

BS.
You are actually stating that every country with a coalition (which is indirectly chosen) is not democratic.

Care to explain how you got from what I said to coalitions? Enlighten me.

aviationaware wrote:

JJJ wrote:

The EC commission president is first selected by the council (itself elected, since it's the heads of state of each member state) then ratified by the parliament. Then each member state government (elected) appoints their own Commissioner, which are again confirmed by the Parliament.

Yea. Jointly.

And then, many heads of national governments are only indirectly elected in Europe. And then THEY in turn indirectly appoint someone. How does that bear any semblance of democratic decision making? It doesn't.

Looking at the world through the eyes of a two-party system does that to your mind.

Here is the benchmark for democracy performance where, incidentally, the US doesn't even crack top 20. Most leaders topping the US are indirectly elected.
https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index

Dutchy wrote:

Oversimplifying things will not get you anywhere. Getting a border up and effectively patroling it will not happen, too much hassle and people don't want it. Border control has been gone for since 1995 or almost 25years and before that it was quite relaxed anyway, much more relaxed than the Canadian - American border (which makes you feel unwelcome in the US). So to answer your question, yes they will come, see the border with the UK or even Italia, France closed its border.

I don’t think this is oversimplification. Have you ever thought why they all are trying to get to Netherlands, Germany, Scandinavia, while there are other, just as safe places in the world? Why don’t they want to Saudi Arabia even? It’s their Muslim culture, same language for many. They also haven’t shown any eagerness to stay in Baltic states, Poland. Even if a hundred or so of them gets there - the first thing they do is trying to get out of there.

A simple reason - welfare of all sorts. See, in Poland you don’t get free housing, food and stuff. You actually have to find yourself work and support yourself. But this is not why African Middle class is paying thousands to smugglers for - to actually work. You mentioned it yourself it costs thousands of euros to get from Africa or Middle East to Europe. They know that off German or Dutch welfare (plus working for cash here and there) they can return that money rather fast. Have you looked into dismantling that system? You will see by far less illegal migration.

anrec80 wrote:

A simple reason - welfare of all sorts. See, in Poland you don’t get free housing, food and stuff. You actually have to find yourself work and support yourself. But this is not why African Middle class is paying thousands to smugglers for - to actually work. You mentioned it yourself it costs thousands of euros to get from Africa or Middle East to Europe. They know that off German or Dutch welfare (plus working for cash here and there) they can return that money rather fast. Have you looked into dismantling that system? You will see by far less illegal migration.

Why are you deliberating confusing illegal aliens with asylum seekers? To make the obvious perfectly clear: illegal aliens have no right to anything you mentioned and thus they don't get any. Asylum seekers are a bit different of course, if they are granted a status, they are allegeable for welfare, but expect to fetch for their own.

So what is your angle here?

JJJ wrote:

Most leaders topping the US are indirectly elected.

That's misleading at best. Most states have laws that bind the electors to the vote of the people in their state.

Dutchy wrote:

Why are you deliberating confusing illegal aliens with asylum seekers? To make the obvious perfectly clear: illegal aliens have no right to anything you mentioned and thus they don't get any.

Really? Those two are often mixed up, but mostly by the left. You'll find very few people opposed to genuine asylum, but genuine asylum seekers were a minority of this huge immigration wave that swept over Europe a few years ago. The term illegal alien is something most leftists would deny even exists. To them, all immigration is by default good and legal.

aviationaware wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Most leaders topping the US are indirectly elected.

That's misleading at best. Most states have laws that bind the electors to the vote of the people in their state.

Nope. Governments in multi-party systems (which are the majority) are all elected this way. Otherwise they just wouldn't work.

aviationaware wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Why are you deliberating confusing illegal aliens with asylum seekers? To make the obvious perfectly clear: illegal aliens have no right to anything you mentioned and thus they don't get any.

Really? Those two are often mixed up, but mostly by the left. You'll find very few people opposed to genuine asylum, but genuine asylum seekers were a minority of this huge immigration wave that swept over Europe a few years ago. The term illegal alien is something most leftists would deny even exists. To them, all immigration is by default good and legal.

Again you show complete ignorance to the EU situation.

Easy to say that when you have nothing of substance to say anymore.

Dutchy wrote:

Why are you deliberating confusing illegal aliens with asylum seekers? To make the obvious perfectly clear: illegal aliens have no right to anything you mentioned and thus they don't get any. Asylum seekers are a bit different of course, if they are granted a status, they are allegeable for welfare, but expect to fetch for their own.

I am not confusing anything - IRL it’s the same thing essentially. All illegal aliens essentially become “asylum seekers”, for some time at least. It’s time to remove those pink glasses. Expectedly, nobody will say they are coming somewhere for welfare at someone else’s expense. They will say and present anything they need in order to get that apartment “they give”, or get access to “the giving place” (Germany). As I mentioned - nobody wants to seek asylum in Eastern Europe, even though those are perfectly safe places.

The real solution - clear and strong laws that restrict welfare assistance stuff to citizens only. Period. No other case. End of story. If you are asylum seeker - you have received enough favor by being let into a safe country and provided an ability to work legally. That is generous of the accepting nation, and your turn is to not be a burden and seek ways to support yourself. But - those Africans aren’t coming to Europe to work and pay taxes, obviously.

aviationaware wrote:

Easy to say that when you have nothing of substance to say anymore.

Yup, you are right, nothing of substance to say when confronted with such ignorance and half-truths at best.

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Why are you deliberating confusing illegal aliens with asylum seekers? To make the obvious perfectly clear: illegal aliens have no right to anything you mentioned and thus they don't get any. Asylum seekers are a bit different of course, if they are granted a status, they are allegeable for welfare, but expect to fetch for their own.

I am not confusing anything - IRL it’s the same thing essentially. All illegal aliens essentially become “asylum seekers”, for some time at least. It’s time to remove those pink glasses. Expectedly, nobody will say they are coming somewhere for welfare at someone else’s expense. They will say and present anything they need in order to get that apartment “they give”, or get access to “the giving place” (Germany). As I mentioned - nobody wants to seek asylum in Eastern Europe, even though those are perfectly safe places.

The real solution - clear and strong laws that restrict welfare assistance stuff to citizens only. Period. No other case. End of story. If you are asylum seeker - you have received enough favor by being let into a safe country and provided an ability to work legally. That is generous of the accepting nation, and your turn is to not be a burden and seek ways to support yourself. But - those Africans aren’t coming to Europe to work and pay taxes, obviously.

Ah, the Putin approach. I see. Luckily I live in a compassionate society.

Dutchy wrote:

Ah, the Putin approach. I see. Luckily I live in a compassionate society.

Dude, you are continuing to worry me. You just can’t stop seeing Putin everywhere.

This approach just comes from me being a migrant honest taxpayer in a high tax jurisdiction, nothing more. I just see too often where my taxes are going. You think you are being compassionate, but in fact an honest taxpayer is being viewed by those newcomers as a dupe, nothing more. Someone who is destined and is there to be milked. There is no compassion anywhere other than in your mind, no gratefulness anywhere either. Common migrant talk - “What? Are you working for check? Don’t you feel you are being ripped off by all those deductions? Can’t you switch to cash and get your apartment and your healthcare for free? You clearly aren’t smart”.

If you want to be treated like this - be my guest. I don’t. But keep in mind - your economy can support such desires up to limited degree only.

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Ah, the Putin approach. I see. Luckily I live in a compassionate society.

Dude, you are continuing to worry me. You just can’t stop seeing Putin everywhere.

This approach just comes from me being a migrant honest taxpayer in a high tax jurisdiction, nothing more. I just see too often where my taxes are going. You think you are being compassionate, but in fact an honest taxpayer is being viewed by those newcomers as a dupe, nothing more. Someone who is destined and is there to be milked. There is no compassion anywhere other than in your mind, no gratefulness anywhere either. Common migrant talk - “What? Are you working for check? Don’t you feel you are being ripped off by all those deductions? Can’t you switch to cash and get your apartment and your healthcare for free? You clearly aren’t smart”.

If you want to be treated like this - be my guest. I don’t. But keep in mind - your economy can support such desires up to limited degree only.

As long as you continue to write stuff designed to divide western populations, just like the Internet Research Agency in St. Petersburg, I continue to see Putin in your scripts.

Dutchy wrote:

As long as you continue to write stuff designed to divide western populations, just like the Internet Research Agency in St. Petersburg, I continue to see Putin in your scripts.

I am not dividing your population Dutchy. It is divided already, and it has nothing to do with Putin, Russia, me, that “Internet Research Agency”. The two (or how many are there) parts of your society need to start listening to one another’s opinions. But you are just refusing to, and, unfortunately, liberals (whose viewpoints you share) firmly believe that there are two opinions - the right one (theirs) and that of some “enemy of free people” (e.g. Putin, etc.). Even though as elections show, my opinion is similar to that of a significant share of Europeans. For Europeans (and their leadership), listening to your fellow citizens - is the only way to overcome that division. The key to it is inside your society, not anywhere outside of it.

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

As long as you continue to write stuff designed to divide western populations, just like the Internet Research Agency in St. Petersburg, I continue to see Putin in your scripts.

I am not dividing your population Dutchy. It is divided already, and it has nothing to do with Putin, Russia, me, that “Internet Research Agency”. The two (or how many are there) parts of your society need to start listening to one another’s opinions. But you are just refusing to, and, unfortunately, liberals (whose viewpoints you share) firmly believe that there are two opinions - the right one (theirs) and that of some “enemy of free people” (e.g. Putin, etc.). Even though as elections show, my opinion is similar to that of a significant share of Europeans. For Europeans (and their leadership), listening to your fellow citizens - is the only way to overcome that division. The key to it is inside your society, not anywhere outside of it.

There you go, you know nothing about me. Let's highlight one portion: “enemy of free people” (e.g. Putin, etc.). That is correct, Putin is an autocrat, so he is an enemy of free people.

Anyhow, there are many views, some I agree with some I don't, but I take a stand if people want to limit freedom.

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Oversimplifying things will not get you anywhere. Getting a border up and effectively patroling it will not happen, too much hassle and people don't want it. Border control has been gone for since 1995 or almost 25years and before that it was quite relaxed anyway, much more relaxed than the Canadian - American border (which makes you feel unwelcome in the US). So to answer your question, yes they will come, see the border with the UK or even Italia, France closed its border.

I don’t think this is oversimplification. Have you ever thought why they all are trying to get to Netherlands, Germany, Scandinavia, while there are other, just as safe places in the world? Why don’t they want to Saudi Arabia even? It’s their Muslim culture, same language for many. They also haven’t shown any eagerness to stay in Baltic states, Poland. Even if a hundred or so of them gets there - the first thing they do is trying to get out of there.

A simple reason - welfare of all sorts. See, in Poland you don’t get free housing, food and stuff. You actually have to find yourself work and support yourself. But this is not why African Middle class is paying thousands to smugglers for - to actually work. You mentioned it yourself it costs thousands of euros to get from Africa or Middle East to Europe. They know that off German or Dutch welfare (plus working for cash here and there) they can return that money rather fast. Have you looked into dismantling that system? You will see by far less illegal migration.

I think it very unlikely people would claim asylum for welfare payments. Certainly not in the UK. they get paid a pittance. Some claim to frustrate deportation or if all avenues to remain in the UK have failed. Roughly half have no legitimate claim and are clearly economic migrants. The proportion of chancers was a lot higher back in the day.

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Ah, the Putin approach. I see. Luckily I live in a compassionate society.

Dude, you are continuing to worry me. You just can’t stop seeing Putin everywhere.

This approach just comes from me being a migrant honest taxpayer in a high tax jurisdiction, nothing more. I just see too often where my taxes are going. You think you are being compassionate, but in fact an honest taxpayer is being viewed by those newcomers as a dupe, nothing more. Someone who is destined and is there to be milked. There is no compassion anywhere other than in your mind, no gratefulness anywhere either. Common migrant talk - “What? Are you working for check? Don’t you feel you are being ripped off by all those deductions? Can’t you switch to cash and get your apartment and your healthcare for free? You clearly aren’t smart”.

If you want to be treated like this - be my guest. I don’t. But keep in mind - your economy can support such desires up to limited degree only.

I agree, I call them welfare shoppers or economic refugee as a true refugee can’t afford to pay to get to countries like the UK

Dutchy wrote:

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Why are you deliberating confusing illegal aliens with asylum seekers? To make the obvious perfectly clear: illegal aliens have no right to anything you mentioned and thus they don't get any. Asylum seekers are a bit different of course, if they are granted a status, they are allegeable for welfare, but expect to fetch for their own.

I am not confusing anything - IRL it’s the same thing essentially. All illegal aliens essentially become “asylum seekers”, for some time at least. It’s time to remove those pink glasses. Expectedly, nobody will say they are coming somewhere for welfare at someone else’s expense. They will say and present anything they need in order to get that apartment “they give”, or get access to “the giving place” (Germany). As I mentioned - nobody wants to seek asylum in Eastern Europe, even though those are perfectly safe places.

The real solution - clear and strong laws that restrict welfare assistance stuff to citizens only. Period. No other case. End of story. If you are asylum seeker - you have received enough favor by being let into a safe country and provided an ability to work legally. That is generous of the accepting nation, and your turn is to not be a burden and seek ways to support yourself. But - those Africans aren’t coming to Europe to work and pay taxes, obviously.

Ah, the Putin approach. I see. Luckily I live in a compassionate society.

While I find Europe much more compassionate than other countries in general I wonder how you come to that conclusion on this issue and with your stance. You know that your democratically elected government tried every legal avenue to block NGO ships registered under it’s flag from rescuing migrants which is fully supported by a majority of the society you live in? And this is not just in The Netherlands, but a united European effort that got rid of dozens of NGO boats working in the Mediterranean and the EU’s own rescue mission while hundreds of migrants drown or are locked up in Libyan detention camps.

Then there is the US not even building a wall. Comparing these two Europe is by far the less compassionate towards migrants and more right wing. This reflects popular opinion in the EU where most citizens don’t want any more immigration of Muslims.