TV is not the only medium though.
Even if you do, you don't sound like that.
So, if one's experience is not in line with yours, what does that mean? People have different experiences, different perceptions. I've seen some of your posts regarding LGBT, f.e, and while I might not agree with your rhetorics or motivations, sometimes I did agree with the general idea. The point is, just because I disagree with you, it doesn't denounce in itself your life-experience and/or the validity of your views. The fact that you have to resort to ad hominem argumentation betrays to an extent a form of cognitive dissonance.
I've already been called a traitor for the mere fact of helping people in need. I've been called garbage for providing data without receiving any substantial rebuttal backed up by any source. I was simply called an idiot because...well, because I plucked the bubble of some people. People that live in the country...places far away from the bulk of events that are taking place in the main course of relevant happenings pertaining to migrants/migration. Now those people really get info only from the media, and they only see muslims/migrants on TV. I have not much to say to such people- they indeed think alongside of political ideas/ideologies only.
So, what do I sound like?
Yes, I've seen people behaving in a not really civilized way,among migrants, but I haven't experienced any atrocity from their part. Nothing that was uncalled for. If we expect them to comply with our rules- maybe we ourselves should keep those rules (made by us) first. But we don't/can't/don't want to.
Therefore, just because I show empathy and solidarity towards them, it doesn't mean I'm not aware of some negativities.
If you think completly unbaised about the situation, you would get that they do nothing good for our society.
"Immigration has a positive impact, says Office for Budget Responsibility head"
You must be registered for see links
That is from The Telegraph. A right-wing journal.
The latest from The Huffington Post, a rather neutral American medium:
"There's a prominent claim among immigration opponents that the majority of people who are entering Europe through irregular means during this crisis are not refugees, but rather economic migrants searching for economic opportunities.
Hungary Prime Minister Viktor Orban has claimed that economic migrants constitute the "overwhelming majority" of those who are seeking to enter the bloc, while characterizing the current crisis as a "rebellion by illegal migrants." Orban's sentiment was echoed by other hardline conservative politicians, including Britain's Nigel Farage and Slovakia's Robert Fico.
Yet the idea that the majority of those arriving in the EU -- 95 percent by Fico's calculation -- are economic migrants is not borne out by reality. While there is no definitive proof of the background and origin of every migrant and refugee entering Europe, UNHCR estimates that just over 50 percent of the people who have arrived to Europe by sea so far in 2015 are from Syria, a country ravaged by civil war where bombings and violence are a daily threat.
Some of the other prevalent nationalities arriving in Europe are from similarly war-torn states, like Afghanistan and Iraq. Many others are fleeing repression and sometimes forced conscription under regimes in Eritrea and Gambia.
In an analysis of migrant and refugee arrivals, The Economist estimates that 75 percent of people who take irregular sea routes to Europe are from countries whose citizens are usually granted EU protection in some form.
.
.
.
Beyond security and humanitarian criticisms, a prominent complaint from the anti-immigration camp is that taking in refugees is a tremendous economic cost. These newcomers, they say, will take away jobs from the native population and create poverty.
This nativist argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny, experts say, and some economists argue that if handled correctly, the influx of refugees could actually have a positive effect on the economy.
Studies across a number of countries show that when there is an influx of refugees into a population, it produces long-term positive or neutral effect on the nation's economy, The Washington Post reports. Migration expert Hein de Haas also told The WorldPost that in general, migration has a relatively small -- rather than radical or negative -- effect on economies.
"It would be outrageous to suggest that migration is either the cause of structural unemployment, which is one example, or the precariousness of labor," de Haas said.
As The Washington Post explains, states will have to spend heavily at first to receive the number of refugees that are currently arriving. But in the long-term, this should be seen as a potentially lucrative investment."
You must be registered for see links
There you can see even The Washington Post quoted- a rather right-wing paper. The Economist is also quoted- it might be left-centered, but the sources I'm using and I've quoted to you embrace the most prominent journals.
If you say so. But you know, I never invated another country, I don't lay on the back of others without giving anything back.
Oh. So tell me, how old are you, how much you've worked in your life, how much taxes you've paid, and how much you've given back so far?
Nope, it's not. All you see is them, but you don't see the people living in countries they come to. You're ignorant with you left thoughts.
Well, then here you are to tell me about people living in countries where they go to.
And what are these left thoughts? Why is it that so many people on both political sides can only think in extremes such as left or right? And what makes you think I'm a leftist? For your information, I did vote for the conservative party in the past two parliamentary elections. I don't support LGBT stuff, I'm not pro-abortion, I wouldn't mind the death penalty...etc. Just tell me, why do I have to put myself into a box labeled either 'leftist' or 'rightist' ? Can't I be neutral? Can't I be simply humane? As we're all humans...even if a huge influx of migrants would mean you have to turn off your air conditioner to spare the budget so that you can help others. I don't think it's a sacrifice you can't make. Germany has taken in many guest workers when they were needed- so they did boost your economy. A certain number of immigrants are still needed to keep up your economic performance. While I can understand the cultural concerns of some people, I have nothing much to say to people like you who think that we "whites will die out in 15-20 yrs". Also, as far as I know, the right usually embraces Christian values, so where is hospitality?
@ bold. You should always look where those studies are coming from. + which people will read or use it. Left people, who are pro immigrants, mostly some of their families are not born in the country they're living in.
Again, with this kind of thinking you're debunking yourself, actually. European societies are aging- immigration is inevitable. We can discuss about the pros and cons, but its necessity is a harsh reality. And of course I never denied it has cons. And again, you're free to show me better stats.
1) Western countries, ruled by America/ Israel. The population don't support it, so no, we aren't responsible. America/ Isreal are.
Things are not that simplistic.
And anyway, many people there do help migrants. Also, you being obliged by international treaties is not the US's and Israel's fault, I guess, so you still have a humanitarian responsibility to take in refugees- it's not and cannot be a matter of whether it's comfortable or not. Of course it doesn't mean one country alone shall take care of all the refugees- but that's why quotas are being negotiated.
2) Why should we? All they do is hurt our society, they cost a lot, need food, water. If they get food and it's not halal, we know how they react.
They act like monkeys, not humans.
Well, how do they react? They reject the food, right? And? Not all of them react like monkeys in the first place. Also, if you're treated like an animal, it's only understandable that some get frustrated, especially considering what they've been through so far. The police are throwing food at them, as if they were animals- and yeah, when you're hungry and are treated as an animal, you might really end up acting like one. I'm in a dilemma. I don't know if I should wish that you go through teh same experience, or not...
And why is it a big deal to give them halal food? It's not that big of a favor to give them poultry instead of pork, or simply avoid meat.
And seriosly, they're hurting your society because they don't eat pork? Come on.
Not to mention, have you seen what the football hooligans have done? I can tell you that they've caused more damage in a day than all the refugees so far. Now those are real monkeys.
It's funny how people argue and don't know what they're are talking about because they're baised.
We're all biased to an extent. Again: please show me your sources of information, if you knwo so much better what you're talking about. I have first-hand experience with these people, which is supported by stats. Of course you can show me videos and articles on the negativities- but those are the exception, not the rule. Most of them have traveled through rather peacefully.
A country with depts, hungry people, etc., can't take more people who are hungry and without money.
That's the biggest nonsense you've spouted so far. I guess the FRG shouldn't have taken in people from the GDR either, by that logic.
If you're not biased at all, at least you should admit some of the things I say, especially that I've provided you with numbers and facts- while you've only been addressing me with accusations.
I look at both sides, every time.
What makes you think we don't? Is it not possible that you look at both sides and reach your conclusion, while someone else, also having peered at both sides, arrives at a different conclusion?
But if one side has like no arguments, facts, only opinions,..
Like, yourself?
I will say so. Just because most people wouldn't dare to say something against most people view, doesn't mean I have to shut up.
What are you talking about? What most people? Here most people are anti-immigrants.
I'm nationalist. I think the government should make lifes of their people great first.
Your lives are already good enough, compared to that of refugees.
I'm talking about economic refugees,
'Economic refugee' is not a real term, as economic reasons are not listed in the Geneva Convention. You're not reall keen on law, are you?
they are coming because, apparently, they're to stupid to rebuild their homes.
So apparently Europeans were also too stupid to rebuild their homes after WW II, without the assistance of immigrants.
Why do we have to help them if people in our countries are in a bad situation?
Tell me.
- because you're bound by international treaties to do so
- because you'd also expect others to help you if your country was bombed to shreds, just like Germany had received aid from abroad after WW II.
- because there were times in your history when people had to flee because of your regime, and you'd be ungrateful to those countries that had accepted your refugees, if you refused to help others now
We can help war refugees, but our countries and people have to come first. We can help them if we have no homeless, poor, hungry people.
But you'll always have at least some poor people so it's not a good excuse.
