Would like to hear from any dakka members from Germany on this. . .

Is this legit?

Mrs Merkel herself has previously admitted that such 'no go zones' are indeed a reality amid pledges to 'do something about them'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5620795/Most-Germans-fear-no-zones-believe-police-afraid-patrol.html

I keep hearing different things about how well things are going in various places, some say everything is great, others say there are real concerns. A lot of the negative stuff is in tabloids, but if you read CNN they will say no issues for the most part, so I feel the stories are posted with an agenda in mind.

Are any of you seeing this first-hand? What does the typical German say of the situations?

Take a pole of americans and I can bet you would get the same result. They would probably claim the same about down town Detroit. The answer is no. There are no “no-go” areas.

If it is about immigration and is in the Daily Mail then you can safely discard it.

Not German but visit occasionally and never heard of them.

It's also worth noting that the Daily Mail is what we call "gutter press" and not in any way a reliable source of news. I wouldn't rely on anything they say unless there's a citation to the origin of the information, which in this case is (unsurprisingly) completely absent.

From my recollection; the migrants have caused an increase in crime stats, though the largest growth has been crime *against* migrants, not by migrants. Most of the large anti-migrant news reports have turned out to be rubbish.

So I would err towards no-go zones not existing in the way portrayed - the information is either made up or distorted.

KTG17 wrote:
Would like to hear from any dakka members from Germany on this. . .

Is this legit?

Mrs Merkel herself has previously admitted that such 'no go zones' are indeed a reality amid pledges to 'do something about them'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5620795/Most-Germans-fear-no-zones-believe-police-afraid-patrol.html

A poll ran by Bild? Seriously, these guys:



"UFO cult wants to clone Hitler"



Hitler ordered construction of UFOs

It's basically Germany's Sun, with some added craziness and a fondness of all things Hitler and UFOs. Google a bit, there are quite a few gems there. And yes, those articles were in the cover (along with the occasional topless girl).

Yeah, you'll find stuff for No-go zones on the web if you search for it. None of them credible.

Some parties are using the flood of migrants to Germany to create pseudo-problems (without any source), twisting sources, disregarding fact based arguments as "Lügenpresse" (Fake news basically) and fire up the fear of migrants with made up stats. And the web offers the best platform for this kind of uninformed rage.

It's just like Abraham Lincoln once said: "Don't believe everything you read on the Internet."

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/every-daily-mail-story-takes-30-minutes-off-your-life-20180416147348

EVERY Daily Mail story you read takes 30 minutes off your life, experts have revealed.
The Institute for Studies found that reading the newspaper is worse for you than smoking, and much less educational.

Meanwhile, the length of the article makes little difference, with two-paragraph dissections of international events and copy and pasted features about celebrities having the same effect.
The research also showed that even when reading ironically, the result was just as detrimental.
Legal secretary Nikki Hollis said: “I just read it to laugh at it with my friends, but if I knew what it was doing to me I’d have quit years ago.”
Regular reader Wayne Hayes said: “I heard this but I won’t believe it until I see it under a headline with three spelling mistakes, and next to a picture of an American television actress I’ve never heard of in a bikini.”

We talked about this at length in the German election thread. Merkel only used the word no go zones in relation to preventing them from forming as a consequence of criminal activity. She didn't bring up foreigners, migrants or Muslims in relation to it once. Its a false connection being conjured up.

As for migrant crime rate, again from the same thread. Its not noticably different between Germans and migrants. Were talking about differences of 0.01% in most cases.

Some funny responses here lol

I'd imagine there's about as many in Germany as there are in London.

And that's none. Even though according to Das Daily Heil, I apparently drive through one ten times a week on my commute to and from work.

It's a load of sensationalist nonsense designed to stir up further nationalist nonsense.

Are these "no go zones" a popular topic for the American press? I seem to only hear them being discussed by Americans. The locals meanwhile are like "meh, its a bit dodgy if some drunks are about sometimes".

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Are these "no go zones" a popular topic for the American press? I seem to only hear them being discussed by Americans. The locals meanwhile are like "meh, its a bit dodgy if some drunks are about sometimes".

It's a popular subject for the American and European far-right because they have an equal disdain for foreigners, left-wing (compared to them) governments, and facts.

What is a *no-go* zone? Can someone define that?

Here in the states, I'll describe what I think is a *no-go* zone:
1) Doesn't mean the police or fire dept won't go there
2) Just means, you don't loiter around in this area due to high crimes
3) IE. East St. Louis and some parts of Oakland is a "no-go" zone for me... at times, you'd be forgiven for thinking you're on a "Escape from LA" set.

Yeah I am sure every large city in the US has an area you don't stop and ask for directions in. I just wasn't sure if the ones in Germany are of enclaves of refugees or something.

 whembly wrote:
What is a *no-go* zone? Can someone define that?

Here in the states, I'll describe what I think is a *no-go* zone:
1) Doesn't mean the police or fire dept won't go there
2) Just means, you don't loiter around in this area due to high crimes
3) IE. East St. Louis and some parts of Oakland is a "no-go" zone for me... at times, you'd be forgiven for thinking you're on a "Escape from LA" set.

I've only heard the term used to refer to neighborhoods associated with high immigrant, and especially Muslim immigrant, populations. I've never heard of it used to describe a "generic" unsafe neighborhood. There always seemed to be a racial and or religious "other" element added to the term. Just my observations, though.

Under the relaxed definition of "high crime area" you don't want to loiter in, I imagine nearly every city in the US has one.

I think the definition KTG is going for is the one originally floated by a Fox News commentator in 2015:

Well these no go zones exist not only in France, but they exist throughout Europe. They’re sort of amorphous, they’re not contiguous necessarily, but they’re sort of safe havens and they’re places where the governments like France, Britain, Sweden, Germany don’t exercise any sovereignty. So you basically have zones where Shariah courts were set up, where Muslim density is very intense, where the police don’t go in, and where it’s basically a separate country almost, a country within a country.

...

In Britain, it’s not just no go zones, there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in. And parts of London, there are actually Muslim religious police that actually beat and actually wound seriously anyone who doesn’t dress according to Muslim, religious Muslim attire. So there’s a situation that Western Europe is not dealing with.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

I've only heard the term used to refer to neighborhoods associated with high immigrant, and especially Muslim immigrant, populations. I've never heard of it used to describe a "generic" unsafe neighborhood. There always seemed to be a racial and or religious "other" element added to the term. Just my observations, though.

This. Most of the places which peddle nonsense like "no go zones" aren't pointing at the violence and hostility to the police in a community with a large proportion of white skinheads as those people are often its target demographic.

It pretty much always has a racist, xenophobic or anti-islam slant, ranging from a dog whistle to a bullhorn depending on the publication in question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Under the relaxed definition of "high crime area" you don't want to loiter in, I imagine nearly every city in the US has one.

I think the definition KTG is going for is the one originally floated by a Fox News commentator in 2015:

Well these no go zones exist not only in France, but they exist throughout Europe. They’re sort of amorphous, they’re not contiguous necessarily, but they’re sort of safe havens and they’re places where the governments like France, Britain, Sweden, Germany don’t exercise any sovereignty. So you basically have zones where Shariah courts were set up, where Muslim density is very intense, where the police don’t go in, and where it’s basically a separate country almost, a country within a country.

...

In Britain, it’s not just no go zones, there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in. And parts of London, there are actually Muslim religious police that actually beat and actually wound seriously anyone who doesn’t dress according to Muslim, religious Muslim attire. So there’s a situation that Western Europe is not dealing with.

And it goes without saying that it was all utter bs then and remains so now.

The Bild is a daily newspaper focused on "shock" articles, with headlines that they know will result in people picking up the paper. A poll of Bild readers will get the same result as a poll of any random xenophobic right-wing group.

As for the admission by Merkel that no-go groups exist, it requires some logical leaps to come up with that conclusion. When the topic of "no-go zones" first became a thing, it was described as areas where police are refusing to go and law enforcement was non-existent. The "no-go" was for police.

What Merkel is talking about is "there are areas where people are afraid to go to". Which is different than "there are areas where police are refusing to enforce the law". If people are scared of an area, either because of actual criminal statistics or bigotry, that is one thing. But that doesn't equal some sort of admission that Germany has areas that are under total control of immigrant Muslim populations, where Sharia law rules the neighborhoods and German police are refusing to enter to enforce real laws.

Edit: the actual Merkel interview, just for transparency:

https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Ich-kann-Erfolg-sehr-gut-teilen-article20309326.html

Is it time to drag out the Daily Mail Headline generator?

Reminds me of the time I had a guy at work tell me about the “no go” zones in the UK where sharia law was practiced and the police stayed away.

Tried to tell him it was bs but he wouldn’t listen. Alex Jones had convinced him.

As with flat earth, one wonders if these people ever actually go to the "no go zone" to find out for themselves if it's true?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As with flat earth, one wonders if these people ever actually go to the "no go zone" to find out for themselves if it's true?

And risk being pulled up in a sharia court for being white in a Muslim zone? Or walking into the set of judge dredd.

Anyone capable of critical thinking should know these claims just don't pass the sniff test. If they did exist there would be some evidence of them; barriers or checkpoints, and the police/government would be cracking down on them.

Those that want to believe in no go zones will be able to visit and confirm in. Since the odds are there will be no police presence and potentially no white people. Or their EDL t-shirt causes a negative response.

There are some areas in the UK that have very dense Muslim populations and have Arabic/Urdu signs, but having visited a few I've never had any problems beyond not being able to read the Arabic signage.

There are of course areas I wouldn't want to loiter in but not because of race or outlaws.

KTG17 wrote:
Yeah I am sure every large city in the US has an area you don't stop and ask for directions in. I just wasn't sure if the ones in Germany are of enclaves of refugees or something.

Are you not getting the answers you wanted in here?

There are some rough areas in Berlin and other major cities, but no, there are no "no go" areas where the German state does not exercise control. These things are just scare stories concocted by dishonest media to push an agenda. Germany is the safest and most civilized country I've ever lived in. I've been here for going on 7 years and had more trouble in my two years in the UK (in an area with bugger all immigrants) or my however many years in Dublin. And by trouble, I just mean run of the mill antisocial behaviour.

Please, think about what this means with regard to how much you should trust the people pushing this nonsense.

The only no go zones I read about (never seen one, especially not the type that gets mentioned in the US "press") were about some east german cities where Neo-Nazis have a bigger presence which leads to attacks against left leaning activists, immigrants, or refugees and where the police didn't help (due to being right wing or even Nazi sympathisers). If you add that left leaning people move out of those areas it can leave a rather extreme right wing taste in some areas.

 Mysterio wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
Yeah I am sure every large city in the US has an area you don't stop and ask for directions in. I just wasn't sure if the ones in Germany are of enclaves of refugees or something.

Are you not getting the answers you wanted in here?

What? Not even sure how you can read that post and then think to ask me that.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Take a pole of americans and I can bet you would get the same result. They would probably claim the same about down town Detroit. The answer is no. There are no “no-go” areas.

Depends on what your definition of No-go Zone is.

No-go Zone's do not literally exist in the sense that Police, authorities, people of certain ethnic groups etc cannot and do not ever go there.

But there most certainly do exist areas which Police forces consider high risk (or more risky than most other places) for them or others to enter, for whatever reason, and so they only go there in force.

And no, before some rabid leftist here trys to label me as a far right bigot, I personally do not think the term "No-go Zone" does or should apply only to areas dominated by Muslims and other ethnic minorities. I think a neighbourhood full of Neo Nazis who hate and attack the Police is just as much a No-Go Zone as one full of discontented Muslim immigrants.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


And no, before some rabid leftist here trys to label me as a far right bigot, I personally do not think the term "No-go Zone" does or should apply only to areas dominated by Muslims and other ethnic minorities.

OK...

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


I think a neighboured full of Neo Nazis who hate and attack the Police is just as much a No-Go Zone as one full of discontented Muslim immigrants.

Huh?

What about my post do you not understand?

I'd love to be able to dismiss this story as total nonsense carried by the usual suspects, The Daily Mail, FOX News, The Sun etc. And that is kind of true, those papers are all running this story, as part of the usual nonsense they run to scare people about Islamic hordes.

However, here's what Merkel said;

Interviewer: What does zero tolerance actually mean?
Merkel: It means, for example, that there shouldn't be any no-go areas, that is no place where people are too scared to go. There are places like that and we have to name them as such and do something about them. And I think that as the interior minister, Thomas de Maziere has done a very, very good job.

That's a pretty clear statement from the Chancellor that there are no-go areas in Germany. Of course, as always it gets more complicated. The interviewer failed to pick up on this and ask a follow up on where those areas are and exactly who they are a no-go area for. Other reporters subsequently followed up, asking for a list of no-go areas and clarification of what Merkel means by no-go area. Merkel's office refused to provide a list or clarify what she meant, and instead issued a statement that Merkel's words spoke for themselves.

So Merkel is walking away from the comment and hoping it goes away. By my reading, if the claim was actually true there'd be a clear imperative and some easy political gains from launching a policy and focusing police resources on targeted locations. The fact she isn't doing that is strong evidence that there is no real problem, no neighborhoods full of gangs that police won't enter. Likely Merkel was just playing for a strong on crime position, and oversold it with some claims that were more substantial than she intended. It's really like any time a politician claims welfare scams are out of control or big companies are evading tax or whatever, it's a political line sold to a certain audience, it isn't actually evidence of anything in itself.

But of course people can interpret it other ways. It's certainly true that the German Chancellor actually said Germany had no-go zones, and that's kind of a big deal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No-go Zone's do not literally exist in the sense that Police, authorities, people of certain ethnic groups etc cannot and do not ever go there.

But there most certainly do exist areas which Police forces consider high risk (or more risky than most other places) for them or others to enter, for whatever reason, and so they only go there in force.

Agreed, but the problems certain media outlets play something of a two card trick between those two definitions. They create an impression of the existence of the first group, areas even police won't go, and when pushed for evidence they retreat to the latter definition of places where police recognise higher risk or even just areas where crime is higher than average. It's a deliberately dishonest ploy.

I'm not sure Merkel is a big fan of the "strong on crime" tactic to gain popularity points, though this might be a deliberate shift after her famous/infamous "Wir schaffen das" - "We can do it" policies regarding immigration that really defined the last years of her in office. I've not really seen another admission by government officials about the existence of no-go zones, especially "refugee" or "muslim" ones. Local newspapers and citizens in some cities declare such an area from time to time, but obviously it's a bit hard to verify if they are objective in their assessment of the situation.

A counterpoint to this is the German head of the police union, Rainer Wendt. He recently cited a study claiming 30% of violent crime cases are due to refugees and foreigners, though they only present 10% of Germany's inhabitants. The recent rise in (solved) "violent crime cases" is apparently refugee-based in 92,1% of cases, he says. Wendt its basing these numbers on recent police crime statistics, as far as I can see it. Though as a caveat, he is a very polarizing figure here, hailed as somebody "finally naming things like they are" by more right-leaning people and political commentators and being an absolute hate magnet for the left to far-left counterparts.

In the end, I don' think there are any no-go areas as gruesome as described by FOX news, but there are certainly areas with high crime rates and possibly also ethnicity-based quarrels and issues. That there is a certain amount of segregation happening between migrants, refugees and "people living longer in the country" (as some government official described native Germans a while ago, I just find the turn of phrase still a bit weird), as can be seen in some school statistics regarding the larger cities - Berlin is dealing with 35+ schools having an 80% migrant/refugee proportion of students, every fifth school in Essen has 75%+ migrants/refugees in the school system, just two quick google results I found. However, this alone does not mean there are favela-like structures in Germany where only SWAT teams go in riot control gear, it means there are some areas who a) have a higher crime rate and b) also a higher rate of migrants/refugees - which is still comparably descriptive, since it does not incorporate aspects like poverty, education, professions, public funding for infrastructure in those areas, etc.

 Witzkatz wrote:
In the end, I don' think there are any no-go areas as gruesome as described by FOX news, but there are certainly areas with high crime rates and possibly also ethnicity-based quarrels and issues. That there is a certain amount of segregation happening between migrants, refugees and "people living longer in the country" (as some government official described native Germans a while ago, I just find the turn of phrase still a bit weird), as can be seen in some school statistics regarding the larger cities - Berlin is dealing with 35+ schools having an 80% migrant/refugee proportion of students, every fifth school in Essen has 75%+ migrants/refugees in the school system, just two quick google results I found. However, this alone does not mean there are favela-like structures in Germany where only SWAT teams go in riot control gear, it means there are some areas who a) have a higher crime rate and b) also a higher rate of migrants/refugees - which is still comparably descriptive, since it does not incorporate aspects like poverty, education, professions, public funding for infrastructure in those areas, etc.

And ofc, you don't need very much in the way of evidence (especially if you're writing for a tabloid) to declare some part of a city a "no-go" zone. After 20 years in security work I can tell enough stories about that one suburb in my home town that a dishonest (hell, maybe even a somewhat honest) reporter could leap to the conclusion. It does have the cheapest homes and a large percentage of city- and social services assisted living so many of the inhabitants are poorer people - natives with crappy jobs, immigrants, unemployed, addicts, but also many corporate-owned flats for foreign workers that do a few weeks or months of some project on the nearby refinery. The police do drug busts every month, seldom large, but still drug busts. Once a guy with personal problems started firing a rifle from his balcony. And there was that time some Russian, or possibly Polish, workers walked into the local kebab place and beat up a few of the customers, locals. Hearing what the other customers shouted after the escaping attackers I don't much wonder.

Hmm. Do you think any foreign newspaper would pay me for the story of this "no-go" zone in peaceful Finland?

 Witzkatz wrote:
In the end, I don' think there are any no-go areas as gruesome as described by FOX news, but there are certainly areas with high crime rates and possibly also ethnicity-based quarrels and issues.

Yeah, I think there are issues to be considered with ghettos. Ethnic concentration can be great, but too often for a range of reasons it occurs in low income areas with very limited economic opportunities. Then problems of language, cultural understandings etc tend to get exacerbated, while the benefits culture tend not to be enjoyed - for instance it is an enormous boost to an economy to bring in more working age people, but only if they are connected to jobs.

Like a lot of things, this is a conversation that needs to happen, because some places bypass these problems with various immigration, town planning and social services rules, and other places actually make the problems worse through bungled policy. But it's very hard to have that conversation when there's this constant drumbeat running a really alarmist, crazy version of police ceding whole areas to Sharia councils.

Only tangentially related, I suppose, but I read the other day that the Danish leftwing party wants to enforce de-segregation of immigrants to improve integration. They've gone so far as to say that integration policy of the past decades has failed, and a new course is needed.

As noted, they often tend to cluster together in city quarters which certainly can act as barrier to entering the new country's society at large and if not carefully managed can lead to ghetto's forming.

While I don't know that they're completely right, I do think that having schools with 70+% immigrant children when those only make up about 5% of the population is definitely a questionable statistic that requires attention.
Let's not get into some of the fringe political parties on the rise in, for example, the Netherlands.

Bran Dawri wrote:
Only tangentially related, I suppose, but I read the other day that the Danish leftwing party wants to enforce de-segregation of immigrants to improve integration.

Hmm... which Danish party was it that had a simpler solution to the problem? Anyone living in one of the "marked" districts will get a harsher sentence it he commits a crime, because obviously that will help. He'll immediately - and by honest means - get a place to live somewhere else if he wants to become a criminal!

It was weird when I went to Frankfurt. You think of it as a rich, trendy city but the main train station was full of crack heads and immigrants and right next to the red light district!

Certainly not a no-go area, but enough to make most middle class people distinctly uncomfortable I'd warrant!

I mean speaking of Denmark, are we really surprised when Denmark is increasingly pulling to the right politically? Remember their "hand over your valuables refugee!" plan? The emotional value clause included just made it weird.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/26/danish-parliament-approves-plan-to-seize-assets-from-refugees

Merkel’s own statement never really envoke the “no police” definitions, and leans much more heavily on the “people don’t feel safe” definition.

 Kroem wrote:
It was weird when I went to Frankfurt. You think of it as a rich, trendy city but the main train station was full of crack heads and immigrants and right next to the red light district!

Certainly not a no-go area, but enough to make most middle class people distinctly uncomfortable I'd warrant!

I think that's the sort of thing Merkel meant by no-go areas. Places people would want to avoid due to concerns about it being "unsafe"

 Kroem wrote:
It was weird when I went to Frankfurt. You think of it as a rich, trendy city but the main train station was full of crack heads and immigrants and right next to the red light district!

Certainly not a no-go area, but enough to make most middle class people distinctly uncomfortable I'd warrant!

Sounds like a regular Hauptbahnhof to me!

These things are a matter of perception.

My wife feels uncomfortable if there is a mini-cab office, a betting shop and a kebab shop in the high street.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
What about my post do you not understand?

Ha!

Nothing!

 Witzkatz wrote:
I'm not sure Merkel is a big fan of the "strong on crime" tactic to gain popularity points, though this might be a deliberate shift after her famous/infamous "Wir schaffen das" - "We can do it" policies regarding immigration that really defined the last years of her in office. I've not really seen another admission by government officials about the existence of no-go zones, especially "refugee" or "muslim" ones. Local newspapers and citizens in some cities declare such an area from time to time, but obviously it's a bit hard to verify if they are objective in their assessment of the situation.

A counterpoint to this is the German head of the police union, Rainer Wendt. He recently cited a study claiming 30% of violent crime cases are due to refugees and foreigners, though they only present 10% of Germany's inhabitants. The recent rise in (solved) "violent crime cases" is apparently refugee-based in 92,1% of cases, he says. Wendt its basing these numbers on recent police crime statistics, as far as I can see it. Though as a caveat, he is a very polarizing figure here, hailed as somebody "finally naming things like they are" by more right-leaning people and political commentators and being an absolute hate magnet for the left to far-left counterparts.

In the end, I don' think there are any no-go areas as gruesome as described by FOX news, but there are certainly areas with high crime rates and possibly also ethnicity-based quarrels and issues. That there is a certain amount of segregation happening between migrants, refugees and "people living longer in the country" (as some government official described native Germans a while ago, I just find the turn of phrase still a bit weird), as can be seen in some school statistics regarding the larger cities - Berlin is dealing with 35+ schools having an 80% migrant/refugee proportion of students, every fifth school in Essen has 75%+ migrants/refugees in the school system, just two quick google results I found. However, this alone does not mean there are favela-like structures in Germany where only SWAT teams go in riot control gear, it means there are some areas who a) have a higher crime rate and b) also a higher rate of migrants/refugees - which is still comparably descriptive, since it does not incorporate aspects like poverty, education, professions, public funding for infrastructure in those areas, etc.

Witzkatz, this is exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping to hear, thanks. I really wanted to hear more from Germans living in Germany during all this than other dakkas who aren't and theorizing what is or should be happening. I know most media and political groups have agendas these days, so its hard to get a clear picture. I imagine no-go can be used in a lot of ways. I mean, just because the police are willing to go into Overtown (Miami) for example, doesn't mean I want spend any time there.

 Kroem wrote:
Certainly not a no-go area, but enough to make most middle class people distinctly uncomfortable I'd warrant!

This is absolutely true and not even specific to Frankfurt. Lots of cities have areas certain groups do not want to go to. As a tourist I am pretty sure there are places every where I visit that I would want to avoid. I think the issue that comes up is when people start debating why those areas want to be avoided. Its pretty natural to imagine what happens to an area when a bunch of new people with no money or jobs, settle in a area where they do not share the same culture or language. Some of these groups not only segregate themselves ("Lets just move to where we have more in common with people"), but are also biased against too ("Settle them in this area"). The next thing you know the landscape is changing and the original people living there don't recognize it.

I guess no-go is definitely over-doing it, but I don't think its outlandish to accept that crime and poverty is going to be high in those areas for awhile.

 Mysterio wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
What about my post do you not understand?

Ha!

Nothing!

Then you're clearly the only one. Everyone else in this thread understood it, some people even agreed with it (if partially) who I expected would vehemently disagree, and the thread has moved on.

Something to consider is the fact that, after a while, these areas that have been settled by a particular immigrant population become celebrated. My city is proud of it's claim to Canada's oldest Chinatown, and it's a featured heavily as part of our tourism. Similar Chinatowns and Little Italys exist across North America.

There is nothing about this new wave of brown immigrants that hasn't already been said about every other wave of Italians, Poles, Germans, Chinese and every other non-WASP immigrant that has settled. Within a few generations, the immigrant population will be subsumed by the dominant local culture, and the local culture will adopt a few of the most delicious dishes of the immigrants. (Shawarma is amazing, for example)

Good point - well said too!

 feeder wrote:
Something to consider is the fact that, after a while, these areas that have been settled by a particular immigrant population become celebrated. My city is proud of it's claim to Canada's oldest Chinatown, and it's a featured heavily as part of our tourism. Similar Chinatowns and Little Italys exist across North America.

There is nothing about this new wave of brown immigrants that hasn't already been said about every other wave of Italians, Poles, Germans, Chinese and every other non-WASP immigrant that has settled. Within a few generations, the immigrant population will be subsumed by the dominant local culture, and the local culture will adopt a few of the most delicious dishes of the immigrants. (Shawarma is amazing, for example)

How do you know that? There is no guarantee that current waves of immigrants will be integrated just as effectively as past waves of immigrants. The factors in play today are entirely different. The cultural and religious values of Muslims are different to the migrants who came from British Commonwealth countries. British culture was different back in the 1950's compared to today, and we already had a shared culture thanks to the influence of the British Empire on the Commonwealth countries that a lot of people originated from.

It's all well and good declaring that you think contemporary immigrants will be integrated effectively. But that will only happen if we don't let ourselves become complacent, and we take appropriate measures to integrate people.


That said...Shawarma is indeed delicious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mysterio wrote:
Good point - well said too!

Its a nice sentiment, but it reeks of complacency to me.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Something to consider is the fact that, after a while, these areas that have been settled by a particular immigrant population become celebrated. My city is proud of it's claim to Canada's oldest Chinatown, and it's a featured heavily as part of our tourism. Similar Chinatowns and Little Italys exist across North America.

There is nothing about this new wave of brown immigrants that hasn't already been said about every other wave of Italians, Poles, Germans, Chinese and every other non-WASP immigrant that has settled. Within a few generations, the immigrant population will be subsumed by the dominant local culture, and the local culture will adopt a few of the most delicious dishes of the immigrants. (Shawarma is amazing, for example)

How do you know that? There is no guarantee that current waves of immigrants will be integrated just as effectively as past waves of immigrants. The factors in play today are entirely different. The cultural and religious values of Muslims are different to the migrants who came from British Commonwealth countries. British culture was different back in the 1950's compared to today, and we already had a shared culture thanks to the influence of the British Empire on the Commonwealth countries that a lot of people originated from.

I don't think the folks that first came to San Francisco Chinatown had much in common with their neighbours.

Especially considering that chinatowns were in a not insignificant part created as a defence from anti-Chinese attacks from people who blamed them for driving wages down.

I would not compare the US to the UK. For better and worse they are different cultures.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Something to consider is the fact that, after a while, these areas that have been settled by a particular immigrant population become celebrated. My city is proud of it's claim to Canada's oldest Chinatown, and it's a featured heavily as part of our tourism. Similar Chinatowns and Little Italys exist across North America.

There is nothing about this new wave of brown immigrants that hasn't already been said about every other wave of Italians, Poles, Germans, Chinese and every other non-WASP immigrant that has settled. Within a few generations, the immigrant population will be subsumed by the dominant local culture, and the local culture will adopt a few of the most delicious dishes of the immigrants. (Shawarma is amazing, for example)

How do you know that? There is no guarantee that current waves of immigrants will be integrated just as effectively as past waves of immigrants. The factors in play today are entirely different. The cultural and religious values of Muslims are different to the migrants who came from British Commonwealth countries. British culture was different back in the 1950's compared to today, and we already had a shared culture thanks to the influence of the British Empire on the Commonwealth countries that a lot of people originated from.

It's all well and good declaring that you think contemporary immigrants will be integrated effectively. But that will only happen if we don't let ourselves become complacent, and we take appropriate measures to integrate people.

Chinese (and to a lesser extent, Italian and Polish and German) cultural and religious values were just as different to the contemporary North American WASP culture as the various brown and black immigrant cultures are to modern North American culture (if rampant consumerism and tribal virtue signalling can be considered culture ) They will integrate just fine.

That said...Shawarma is indeed delicious.

There is no easier way to get to know someone than breaking bread together

.

 feeder wrote:
Chinese (and to a lesser extent, Italian and Polish and German) cultural and religious values were just as different to the contemporary North American WASP culture as the various brown and black immigrant cultures are to modern North American culture (if rampant consumerism and tribal virtue signalling can be considered culture ) They will integrate just fine.

Again...you don't know that. The conditions today are different to the conditions of past generations. There is no guarantee that future immigrants will integrate.

All I'm saying is...don't be complacent.

KTG17 wrote:
Witzkatz, this is exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping to hear, thanks. I really wanted to hear more from Germans living in Germany during all this than other dakkas who aren't and theorizing what is or should be happening. I know most media and political groups have agendas these days, so its hard to get a clear picture. I imagine no-go can be used in a lot of ways. I mean, just because the police are willing to go into Overtown (Miami) for example, doesn't mean I want spend any time there.

You needed an actual German living in Germany to tell you there are indeed dangerous neighborhoods somewhere in the country?

I find it hard to believe almost anyone in any country anywhere in the world would be willing to say their entire country is pretty safe. Maybe one of those micronations or something.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Chinese (and to a lesser extent, Italian and Polish and German) cultural and religious values were just as different to the contemporary North American WASP culture as the various brown and black immigrant cultures are to modern North American culture (if rampant consumerism and tribal virtue signalling can be considered culture ) They will integrate just fine.

Again...you don't know that. The conditions today are different to the conditions of past generations. There is no guarantee that future immigrants will integrate.

All I'm saying is...don't be complacent.

What is so different?

We don't have violent racism against 'the other' ingrained in our culture, up to and including overt systemic oppression by legal authority. We don't have a unified press stirring up anti-immigrant sentiment. (we still have those things, but they are pretty much the fringe)

We now have government and volunteer run integration programs. We now have a comprehensive school system that is free until young adulthood. We have affordable sports leagues and other extra-curricular activities.

My kid has brown immigrant friends and their parents are just the same as her white friends except they have an accent and one of them wears the headscarf. They volunteer and tell jokes and complain about the weather like everyone else.

People are pretty much the same the world over. We all just want to have a laugh and something to eat and hope our kids have a slightly better life than we did.

Daily mail is like Fox News, Pretty much all of it is lies or propaganda and at worst hate speech designed to sway weak willed and uneducated people into unwarranted hate against whatever boogeyman of the week they choose.

 Ouze wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
Witzkatz, this is exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping to hear, thanks. I really wanted to hear more from Germans living in Germany during all this than other dakkas who aren't and theorizing what is or should be happening. I know most media and political groups have agendas these days, so its hard to get a clear picture. I imagine no-go can be used in a lot of ways. I mean, just because the police are willing to go into Overtown (Miami) for example, doesn't mean I want spend any time there.

You needed an actual German living in Germany to tell you there are indeed dangerous neighborhoods somewhere in the country?

No, I needed a German point of view from someone living there versus an American or Brit who thinks they know what is going on there. Saying that for the second time.

Yes, but the thing you are asking is so fundamentally obvious - "are there dangerous places in your country" - it doesn't really seem like something you need a man on the scene for. It's like me asking if it rains a lot in London, but I need someone in London to confirm.

I think you're picking a safe, vague fallback for a sharia law bait thread which had a flimsier foundation that expected.

I am a german living in germany. We had huge tents for refugees beheind the uni where i study. And there where no problems as far as I know. The article is pretty much right wing Propaganda. There is no such thing as "no go zone" in germany.

 Ouze wrote:

I think you're picking a safe, vague fallback for a sharia law bait thread which had a flimsier foundation that expected.

Its amazing every time I try to actually have a conversation about something that's going on in the world, someone like you comes along to try and ruin it.

I would honestly think that, by now, that everyone would see that I don't do vague fallbacks. I am pretty open and pretty blunt. If I wanted to trash sharia law, I would be.

But keep trying.

If I was mistaken, then I apologize.

Ok, apology accepted.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Take a pole of americans and I can bet you would get the same result. They would probably claim the same about down town Detroit. The answer is no. There are no “no-go” areas.

Eh kindda. Downtown Detroit no you shouldnt have problems, but there are/were areas in Detroit youd be a fool to hang around in during certain times of day. Im talking treating red lights like they are yield signs and not stopping if at all possible but thats typically during the night hours. For the most part Detroit is a gak hole that is over blown for how bad it is.

Flint gets the same rap too, I remember having a laugh at a southern truck driver getting freaked out for having to stay the night in Flint. He asked me if it was really as bad as he heard and I started talking about how bad the roads are. He shot me a weird look and said "naw man Im talking being robbed and murdered and stuff" It took a minute to sink in and then I just laughed.

I hope you reminded him to make sure he bought some bottled water.

I know parts of Houston and LA where your life ain't worth spit if you go there. And of course my backyard. Thank you for starring in another episode of "when wiener dogs attack!'

d-usa wrote:

 Kroem wrote:
It was weird when I went to Frankfurt. You think of it as a rich, trendy city but the main train station was full of crack heads and immigrants and right next to the red light district!

Certainly not a no-go area, but enough to make most middle class people distinctly uncomfortable I'd warrant!

Sounds like a regular Hauptbahnhof to me!

Can confirm the same for Munich, well not crack heads but many Turkish immigrants, a bit of red light district, some gambling, hotels (and there used to be many specialist computer/tech stores). It's not dangerous, just a few more homeless people at nightl But you just walk two blocks further and it looks different. It also changed somewhat, here's a google maps view of it:
https://www.google.de/maps/place/Hauptbahnhof/@48.1391545,11.5611895,3a,75y,180.67h,79.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUenYIyqIapU3Atur_Jvdxw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x479e75f995df495b:0x1e311873244f7cbd!8m2!3d48.1402042!4d11.5606774

That's how my old Hauptbahnhof in Nuernberg was. Small collection of winos roaming the station, faint odor of pee in the tunnels leading to the tracks, collection of Assi's near the entrance leading down to the subway, homeless people sleeping in the halls of the subway near the Salvation Army office.

And then a couple hundred normal folks, tourists, businessman just doing their thing.

Haha 'assi' is a new bit of vocab for me, thank god for Leo.de

It must be a common thing then, I wouldn't have minded but some of them were begging quite aggressively and I look like a soft mark!

If I remember right, some of the professional beggars are from Eastern Europe and are part of begging groups. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a handler that collects from them each day, like a begging pimp.

 d-usa wrote:
If I remember right, some of the professional beggars are from Eastern Europe and are part of begging groups. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a handler that collects from them each day, like a begging pimp.

I've experienced professional child beggars in Calcutta, India, also being quite aggressive. In contrast, at least in Northern Germany I've so far not run into any beggar actively dragging on my arm and running after me for a dozen meters. You might be right that some of 'em might still be professionals, though.

And yes, train stations, Hauptbahnhöfe, tend to attract a certain clientele, especially at night, but so far I've also not run into any bad situations, the suspicious elements still usually keep to themselves. Hamburg and Lübeck up north, where I'm from, are a bit notorious for the drug trading near their train stations, and they have ramped up police presence there in the last years, usually teams of two, actually carrying batons and pistols, which is not necessarily always the case in Germany; recently even MP5 submachine guns on larger train stations after recent terror attacks in Europe or during large football matches. So - these train stations look shady, sometimes feel shady, but the normal passer-by or tourist still hasn't much to fear apart from possible beggars and maybe the odd pickpocket, and police presence is UP, not down. Certainly not a no-go area.

There are some reports though that the federal police - whose responsibility the German train traffic safety is - have a bit of an issue in dealing with undocumented/tolerated refugees, because the usual approach of fines and a slightly delayed court hearing for larger infractions does not work when the suspect neither has a clear name nor a clear adress and most probably not a bank account. In some cases, police have admitted to sending troublemakers (shouting, harassing shop workers, ignoring house bans on shops and restaurants) on one train station simply by train to another train station because they had no concept of how deal with them otherwise. That is a bit of a problem in my eyes, because it achieves jack squat and news about "processing" like this will probably spread among low-level criminals like wildfire, knowing they don't have much to fear.

 feeder wrote:
Something to consider is the fact that, after a while, these areas that have been settled by a particular immigrant population become celebrated. My city is proud of it's claim to Canada's oldest Chinatown, and it's a featured heavily as part of our tourism. Similar Chinatowns and Little Italys exist across North America.

One day in the future every city will have an "Arabtown" with patronising faux Arabian pillars and locals swamped by a morass of tourists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
How do you know that? There is no guarantee that current waves of immigrants will be integrated just as effectively as past waves of immigrants. The factors in play today are entirely different. The cultural and religious values of Muslims are different to the migrants who came from British Commonwealth countries. British culture was different back in the 1950's compared to today, and we already had a shared culture thanks to the influence of the British Empire on the Commonwealth countries that a lot of people originated from.

Because those immigrants have migrated to many countries other than Britain. There's nothing unique in Britain and the Commonwealth that makes migration work better. And we know it will work this time because it is already working. Rates of inter-marriage are on the rise, and already ahead of previous rates in prior immigration waves.

"But this time is different" rarely works out. And it never works out when all the supposedly new concerns are the exact same concerns shown every other time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Again...you don't know that. The conditions today are different to the conditions of past generations. There is no guarantee that future immigrants will integrate.

All I'm saying is...don't be complacent.

Sure, successful integration needs effective policy (or at least the absence of bad policy). But you know what hurts integration more than negative policy? A hostile host population.

 d-usa wrote:
That's how my old Hauptbahnhof in Nuernberg was. Small collection of winos roaming the station, faint odor of pee in the tunnels leading to the tracks, collection of Assi's near the entrance leading down to the subway, homeless people sleeping in the halls of the subway near the Salvation Army office.

And then a couple hundred normal folks, tourists, businessman just doing their thing.

As a current Nuernberg resident and daily commuter by train, can confirm, tunnels still smell like pee, sex shops and drunks still everywhere, as well as the ubiquitous lesser spotted punk. But aside from that, Nuernberg is one of the quietest, most peaceful cities I've ever lived in. Never get any trouble. That's not to say bad things don't sometimes happen - a couple of homeless people have been murdered in the last year, and the window prostitution at Frauentormauer is pretty disconcerting for someone not used to legalized prostitution, but I live right in the Altstadt and have not had any problems whatsoever. We have a refugee shelter near the school where I work and we never have any problems either.

Again, not to say there are not problems, and not to say some of those problems are not concentrated in some migrant or ethnic groups. But Germany is a remarkably orderly and safe country.

 sebster wrote:
A hostile host population.

Still, with everything that's going on, host population is several degrees of magnitude more welcoming than back in the day.

You won't see nativist gangs slagging it on with Irish and Italian gangs out in the streets.

It can tell you the example of Latin gangs in Madrid, at the height of low-skilled immigration almost doubled the murder rate. Now 15 days later gang membership is down over 50% and the murder rate is 1/3 than it was at the height of the gang problem. Now the media is again up in arms about gang murders growing but that's because in 2016 there were just 3 in the whole Madrid region.

 Da Boss wrote:
Again, not to say there are not problems, and not to say some of those problems are not concentrated in some migrant or ethnic groups. But Germany is a remarkably orderly and safe country.

I wonder if any of the noted German trouble spots would have a murder rate equal to the US national average?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:
Still, with everything that's going on, host population is several degrees of magnitude more welcoming than back in the day.

Oh definitely. I mean more improvement is always better and will help encourage integration, but you're right that we shouldn't lose track how, on the whole, we are so much more welcoming than ever before. My father-in-law is a Croatian migrant, he was telling us the other day that he borrowed from other immigrant families to buy his first home, because the banks wouldn't lend to him. He would later help lend money to other immigrant families so they could buy their own homes. It was a common practice. This was in the 1970s.

Obviously, comparisons are difficult because of different legal definitions. But the murder rate per million in the US is five times that in Germany, and there are more than double the number of rapes (though of course, rape statistics are hard to parse due to different legal standards and reporting rates.)

It seems likely to me that if you broke the rate down, they would be very localized and clustered in areas with a lot of gang violence in both countries.

 Da Boss wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
That's how my old Hauptbahnhof in Nuernberg was. Small collection of winos roaming the station, faint odor of pee in the tunnels leading to the tracks, collection of Assi's near the entrance leading down to the subway, homeless people sleeping in the halls of the subway near the Salvation Army office.

And then a couple hundred normal folks, tourists, businessman just doing their thing.

As a current Nuernberg resident and daily commuter by train, can confirm, tunnels still smell like pee, sex shops and drunks still everywhere, as well as the ubiquitous lesser spotted punk. But aside from that, Nuernberg is one of the quietest, most peaceful cities I've ever lived in. Never get any trouble. That's not to say bad things don't sometimes happen - a couple of homeless people have been murdered in the last year, and the window prostitution at Frauentormauer is pretty disconcerting for someone not used to legalized prostitution, but I live right in the Altstadt and have not had any problems whatsoever. We have a refugee shelter near the school where I work and we never have any problems either.

Again, not to say there are not problems, and not to say some of those problems are not concentrated in some migrant or ethnic groups. But Germany is a remarkably orderly and safe country.

I mean, yeah, that kind of stuff exists in pretty much every reasonably sized urban centre on the planet, right? Even back in my hometown of Edinburgh, which is stereotypically considered a pretty posh university town(people from other parts of Scotland *cough weegies cough* who buy into that stereotype manage to totally ignore the more deprived areas of the city) has homeless folk and reeking alleys and, at least when I was one, big groups of "alternative" younger people hanging around parts of the city.

Outside of gated communities there's probably a part of every city that would turn your average comfortable middle-class person into a jumpy eyes-down quickwalker who later recounts tales of their "near miss" with a "foreign looking" beggar to their friends as if they were recalling their time as a war correspondent or something, it's bizarre some people are taking that kind of hyperbolic pearl-clutching as being evidence of "no-go zones" and that kind of nonsense.

I though we all ready had a thread on conspiracy theories?

That's just a rumour.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Outside of gated communities there's probably a part of every city that would turn your average comfortable middle-class person into a jumpy eyes-down quickwalker who later recounts tales of their "near miss" with a "foreign looking" beggar to their friends as if they were recalling their time as a war correspondent or something, it's bizarre some people are taking that kind of hyperbolic pearl-clutching as being evidence of "no-go zones" and that kind of nonsense.

I only heard of no-go zones from US right wing media (and internet loons who want to somehow show evidence that muslim immigrants are destroying our way of life) but I also never knew that gated communities exist. Maybe it's because I'm not from the wealthy upper class (financially speaking) but that's also something that US media taught me. I think stuff like gated communities has recently (like a decade or two?) started appearing over here (or I'm now just cognisant of it?). The most similar stuff I knew of was expensive apartment complexes that had a reception area with somebody sitting next to the door to collect bigger packages.

 Da Boss wrote:
Obviously, comparisons are difficult because of different legal definitions. But the murder rate per million in the US is five times that in Germany, and there are more than double the number of rapes (though of course, rape statistics are hard to parse due to different legal standards and reporting rates.)

It seems likely to me that if you broke the rate down, they would be very localized and clustered in areas with a lot of gang violence in both countries.

The different legal definitions don't change the numbers that much, they're +/- a few percent, when one rate is 500% of the other. Nor is gang violence that much of a factor, it only represents a small share of total murders. But that's all off topic, on a subject that's been debated endlessly.

I was just making an observation really, that we define no-go areas as places with much higher rates of crime, and treat these as problems that must be addressed with strong police action and only talked about with very serious furrowed brows. But to put those no-go zones in perspective, even if the murder rate was 3 times the national average, it would still less than the average across the whole of another prosperous, lawful nation.

Just a bit of context, is all.

This morning there was an article by a non-jewish Israeli who decided to walk through Berlin's streets with a Kippa on his head, because somebody told him you can't do that in Germany without getting harassed. According to him, it didn't take that long before three young men shouted at him and his friend, and when he told them to stop it he got beaten with a belt. The attackers were shouting "Jahudi", arabic for Jew.

The president of the German Jewish Central Committee recently released a surprising statement, openly addressing the fact that the recent influx of migrants and refugees from North Africa and the middle east also brought a noticeable rise in incidents involving openly antisemitic behaviour, be it harassment like above, the symbolic burning of Israeli flags or even beatings and brawls in schools based on religion of the children. The American Jewish Committee (AJC) even ordered and analysed a study (planned during a NEBA - network for research and combatting of antisemitism - conference) trying to determine the amount of antisemitism specifically found in recent migrants and refugees. This is a noticeable issue, because while Germany of course has its own share of home-grown antisemitic idiots (usually glorifying a certain area of our past...), they have been mostly removed from making their "voice heard" as openly as some of these last incidents.

This kind of fits the discussion about whether or not there are no-go zones in Germany, and while I still argue that the FOX-defined areas without any police protection and impromptu sharia courts simply do not exist, this is certainly something fitting the point on areas where people do not feel very comfortable going.
And like sebster put it distinctly, if I may borrow the phrase, there are issues that need to be openly discussed in a polite and objective manner, because neither completely sweeping the recent changes in antisemitism especially in larger cities under the rug nor simply painting all refugees as troublemakers who should've rather "stayed home" will help in finding solutions for these issues.

My kid has brown immigrant friends and their parents are just the same as her white friends except they have an accent and one of them wears the headscarf. They volunteer and tell jokes and complain about the weather like everyone else.

You're aware of the fact that Canada lets in only the cream, yes? People who can read and write, probably have a university level education and are actually fit to work in your society?
One of the major pull factors for immigration from Africa and Arabia to Germany is the social system. If you happen to breathe, you've got the right to be alimented by the state at least for a while if you made it over the border. People cleverly discard their papers once they're in so they can't be sent back as no country wants them back. So even if you're poor here by our standards, it's still loads better than what you could achieve at home if you're an analphabet. The last wave currently costs about 50 Billion Euros a year, I don't think the system will be able to carry on like that once the economy dips.
Then the question is what the politicians will do. As Milton Friedman said: You can have a social state or open borders. At the moment we have both because business is good, but I wonder where it will go.

As to no-go zones: not really. There are some streets that police only enters in force, mainly in cities with high numbers of Libanese immigrants (we don't have that many of those, but the ones we have tend to be part of criminal clans that have headcounts in the thousands) and some Turkish dominated quarters (in a nearby city a while ago a family banded together and beat up a bunch of police because they didn't accept a parking ticket, as it was "in their street"), but I guess you have this everywhere in some way or other.

If I remember right, some of the professional beggars are from Eastern Europe and are part of begging groups. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a handler that collects from them each day, like a begging pimp.

Probably most of them, it's been quite a while that I've seen a "native" beggar beyond the one or two that have always been there. Most are Romanian and Bulgarian Gypsies nowadays.

XuQishi wrote:
You're aware of the fact that Canada lets in only the cream, yes?

Immigration programs for Germany and Canada are fairly similar. The bulk of immigration come through skilled worker programs, student programs, or family reunification. Then there's also a much smaller amount coming in through refugee programs. Germany has had a much bigger refugee intake lately, but prior to that Germany's refugee intake was a lot smaller.

People who can read and write, probably have a university level education and are actually fit to work in your society?

That describes the majority of the intake in both Germany and Canada, and just about every other country as well.

Then the question is what the politicians will do. As Milton Friedman said: You can have a social state or open borders.

Milton Friedman was a strident supporter of completely open borders. That quote, in context, is actually an argument against the welfare state. He's saying one of the problems of a welfare state is you don't get the wonderful open borders that libertarians like him dream of.

It works in the abstract, like a lot of stuff Friedman said. In reality it doesn't make much sense at all, because there's nothing saying hat a person granted any kind of VISA gets automatic and complete access to every part of the welfare system. Outside of refugees, no country I'm aware of allows full access to benefits for new migrants.

Immigration programs for Germany and Canada are fairly similar. The bulk of immigration come through skilled worker programs, student programs, or family reunification.

Actually no. Our Blue Card program (like the Green Card) was and is a major flop, we do not get qualified workers from outside the EU. The reason for that is that people who're already sitting on the luggage and have something to offer do not come here. Most of them speak English and in the Anglo-Saxon world skilled labor commands much higher wages at lower taxation than in Germany (actually, only Belgium is worse in that regard). Also you don't generally have to pay a crapload of money for a welfare system that you don't need. This makes countries like the US and Canada much more interesting for people who possess useful skills, while the open access to welfare draws mostly nonachievers. The migration balance in terms of highly educated people in Germany is actually slightly negative, we're more on the brain-drain side of things for the reasons above: it's not much fun to work here and it feels like a rip-off. If it weren't for social ties, my wife and I would emigrate, too. I don't care if I have to pay for my healthcare, I have to do that here anyway (and not nothing, we spent about 20 grand last year on that, I kid you not. And that was without ever needing anthing for the dentist, I dread the moment when that crap starts, my dad's carrying a Mercedes in his mouth), 140.000 USD sounds a lot better than 50.000 Euros (that's the average salary for what my wife does in the US vs. Germany), particularly if you keep in mind that you get to keep about 30K of those 50K. PhD level, too. The average salary in my line of work is about twice as high in the US, so while I'm not on a doctorate level, this would still be a load of extra cash. So yeah, as soon as the parents die, we intend to change over to the US subsidiaries of our respective companies, everything else is madness. I'm also kind of sick of paying through the nose for stuff I don't want or need. We're working class kids and worked hard to get to where we're now. There's no sign on any school that says: "Getting something out of this is forbidden for poor people".

That quote, in context, is actually an argument against the welfare state. He's saying one of the problems of a welfare state is you don't get the wonderful open borders that libertarians like him dream of.

It's still true the other way round, though. If you have 15 million people paying for something, you can't have billions of people theoretically entitled to the benefits of that system. That cannot work.

 Witzkatz wrote:
This morning there was an article by a non-jewish Israeli who decided to walk through Berlin's streets with a Kippa on his head, because somebody told him you can't do that in Germany without getting harassed. According to him, it didn't take that long before three young men shouted at him and his friend, and when he told them to stop it he got beaten with a belt. The attackers were shouting "Jahudi", arabic for Jew.

The president of the German Jewish Central Committee recently released a surprising statement, openly addressing the fact that the recent influx of migrants and refugees from North Africa and the middle east also brought a noticeable rise in incidents involving openly antisemitic behaviour, be it harassment like above, the symbolic burning of Israeli flags or even beatings and brawls in schools based on religion of the children. The American Jewish Committee (AJC) even ordered and analysed a study (planned during a NEBA - network for research and combatting of antisemitism - conference) trying to determine the amount of antisemitism specifically found in recent migrants and refugees. This is a noticeable issue, because while Germany of course has its own share of home-grown antisemitic idiots (usually glorifying a certain area of our past...), they have been mostly removed from making their "voice heard" as openly as some of these last incidents.

This kind of fits the discussion about whether or not there are no-go zones in Germany, and while I still argue that the FOX-defined areas without any police protection and impromptu sharia courts simply do not exist, this is certainly something fitting the point on areas where people do not feel very comfortable going.
And like sebster put it distinctly, if I may borrow the phrase, there are issues that need to be openly discussed in a polite and objective manner, because neither completely sweeping the recent changes in antisemitism especially in larger cities under the rug nor simply painting all refugees as troublemakers who should've rather "stayed home" will help in finding solutions for these issues.

You know, I saw this story and the video too, and thought about this thread, but figured if I said anything, it would be called an isolated event. But there has been a rise of anti-semetic crimes not just in Germany, but apparently Europe. A lot of arabs hate Israel, and it seems only natural they would bring their hatred along with them when they resettle.

So I guess for some people, there might be no-go areas (meaning an obvious Jewish person walking down the neighborhood filled with refugees. I am sure its no different than me walking down a street in the 'hood. There is a gak-hole taco stand I go to that makes the most amazing carnitas. Like mind-blowing. Most of you wouldn't set foot in the place as its pretty filthy. I am surprised I do. But whenever I am in there, all the hispanics look at me like I just stepped out of a UFO. And this is a form of natural segregation that I expect to happen in a lot of places with refugees. I certainly haven't had any real issues (while the owner likes me, one of the ladies who works there seems to dislike me for no reason), but the fact there are only what looks like migrant families going there, and then me, the only white guy, kind of says something.

Anyways, I wouldn't be surprised if the issues go beyond antisemitism. Its just the natural tendencies of people hanging out with other people they have in common, like language and customs. But if the economy buckles, and unemployment becomes a serious issue, there will be a lot of problems. And I think naturally some people will blame the immigrants for the higher crime rate.

So I do see issues like this happening, its just that I didn't think they would happen so soon. Which is why I started this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

XuQishi wrote:
Actually no. Our Blue Card program (like the Green Card) was and is a major flop, we do not get qualified workers from outside the EU. The reason for that is that people who're already sitting on the luggage and have something to offer do not come here. Most of them speak English and in the Anglo-Saxon world skilled labor commands much higher wages at lower taxation than in Germany (actually, only Belgium is worse in that regard). Also you don't generally have to pay a crapload of money for a welfare system that you don't need. This makes countries like the US and Canada much more interesting for people who possess useful skills, while the open access to welfare draws mostly nonachievers. The migration balance in terms of highly educated people in Germany is actually slightly negative, we're more on the brain-drain side of things for the reasons above: it's not much fun to work here and it feels like a rip-off. If it weren't for social ties, my wife and I would emigrate, too. I don't care if I have to pay for my healthcare, I have to do that here anyway (and not nothing, we spent about 20 grand last year on that, I kid you not. And that was without ever needing anthing for the dentist, I dread the moment when that crap starts, my dad's carrying a Mercedes in his mouth), 140.000 USD sounds a lot better than 50.000 Euros (that's the average salary for what my wife does in the US vs. Germany), particularly if you keep in mind that you get to keep about 30K of those 50K. PhD level, too. The average salary in my line of work is about twice as high in the US, so while I'm not on a doctorate level, this would still be a load of extra cash. So yeah, as soon as the parents die, we intend to change over to the US subsidiaries of our respective companies, everything else is madness. I'm also kind of sick of paying through the nose for stuff I don't want or need. We're working class kids and worked hard to get to where we're now. There's no sign on any school that says: "Getting something out of this is forbidden for poor people".

Wow. You sound like you feel trapped. I had no idea about the wages, All I ever hear is that Germany is a utopia for social programs. Someone living in Germany in another thread mentioned that half of their pay go towards taxes and some kind of pension. I can imagine if has to be frustrating that you don't have more control of what you earn.

KTG17 wrote:

So I guess for some people, there might be no-go areas (meaning an obvious Jewish person walking down the neighborhood filled with refugees. I am sure its no different than me walking down a street in the 'hood. There is a gak-hole taco stand I go to that makes the most amazing carnitas. Like mind-blowing. Most of you wouldn't set foot in the place as its pretty filthy. I am surprised I do. But whenever I am in there, all the hispanics look at me like I just stepped out of a UFO. And this is a form of natural segregation that I expect to happen in a lot of places with refugees. I certainly haven't had any real issues (while the owner likes me, one of the ladies who works there seems to dislike me for no reason), but the fact there are only what looks like migrant families going there, and then me, the only white guy, kind of says something.

I think I already told here the story of a younger me parking a rental dark crown vic behind a home depot somewhere in or around Pomona for a quick bite from a pupusa truck, walking towards them in my then mandatory suit and tie and having half the line in front of me running for their lives thinking I was a cop or the migra. We had quite the laugh afterwards.

You don't see that deer caught of the headlights look in, say, Miami. They're mainstream there.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

KTG17 wrote:

XuQishi wrote:
Actually no. Our Blue Card program (like the Green Card) was and is a major flop, we do not get qualified workers from outside the EU. The reason for that is that people who're already sitting on the luggage and have something to offer do not come here. Most of them speak English and in the Anglo-Saxon world skilled labor commands much higher wages at lower taxation than in Germany (actually, only Belgium is worse in that regard). Also you don't generally have to pay a crapload of money for a welfare system that you don't need. This makes countries like the US and Canada much more interesting for people who possess useful skills, while the open access to welfare draws mostly nonachievers. The migration balance in terms of highly educated people in Germany is actually slightly negative, we're more on the brain-drain side of things for the reasons above: it's not much fun to work here and it feels like a rip-off. If it weren't for social ties, my wife and I would emigrate, too. I don't care if I have to pay for my healthcare, I have to do that here anyway (and not nothing, we spent about 20 grand last year on that, I kid you not. And that was without ever needing anthing for the dentist, I dread the moment when that crap starts, my dad's carrying a Mercedes in his mouth), 140.000 USD sounds a lot better than 50.000 Euros (that's the average salary for what my wife does in the US vs. Germany), particularly if you keep in mind that you get to keep about 30K of those 50K. PhD level, too. The average salary in my line of work is about twice as high in the US, so while I'm not on a doctorate level, this would still be a load of extra cash. So yeah, as soon as the parents die, we intend to change over to the US subsidiaries of our respective companies, everything else is madness. I'm also kind of sick of paying through the nose for stuff I don't want or need. We're working class kids and worked hard to get to where we're now. There's no sign on any school that says: "Getting something out of this is forbidden for poor people".

Wow. You sound like you feel trapped. I had no idea about the wages, All I ever hear is that Germany is a utopia for social programs. Someone living in Germany in another thread mentioned that half of their pay go towards taxes and some kind of pension. I can imagine if has to be frustrating that you don't have more control of what you earn.

OTOH you get what you pay for.

I did a quick math at the time I was offered a permanent posting in the US and the difference didn't even compensate for all the extra care my ASD son needs and that in the US runs at over 50K per year in extra health care and school fees.

I think it would help if we define what a no-go area is supposed to be.

When “no-go area” first became a thing, the definition was “an area full of Muslims, where Sharia law is supreme, and civil authorities refuse to enter to enforce civil laws”.

If that is the definition, then there are none in Germany.

If we want to use the water down the term to mean “areas where people feel uncomfortable or unsafe”, then of course there are areas like that. They have been there for decades long before the last round of refugees came to Germany. We had them there when I was growing up in the 80s and 90s.

But we really should use a racially and emotionally charged term to describe something else.

XuQishi wrote:

My kid has brown immigrant friends and their parents are just the same as her white friends except they have an accent and one of them wears the headscarf. They volunteer and tell jokes and complain about the weather like everyone else.

You're aware of the fact that Canada lets in only the cream, yes? People who can read and write, probably have a university level education and are actually fit to work in your society?

Yeah, that's not completely true. We have refugees. One of the first big conservative panic attacks about Trudeau was when he promised to bring in X thousand (I think it was 20 thousand, but I'm not sure) number of Syrian immigrants. One of them ended up on my street. While the parents speak very little English, they are very friendly and fun to be around. The dad is a labourer. Their kid's English went from 0 to fluent in a matter of months. They are a great addition to my neighbourhood.

Probably most of them, it's been quite a while that I've seen a "native" beggar beyond the one or two that have always been there. Most are Romanian and Bulgarian Gypsies nowadays.

Every single beggar in my town is either white or First Nations. There's even two beggars I see around town that I went to school with.

Someone living in Germany in another thread mentioned that half of their pay go towards taxes and some kind of pension

That's the ballpark, yes. Extra work is extra tasty. I did a side project a while ago, but I stopped doing that when I saw that I got to keep a grand 34% of the gross income of that side project, and well, at the end of the year the taxman decided that we still hadn't done our part yet (we basically bought the country a C-Class Mercedes - we're regular white collar employees, not company owners or so) and asked for yet another 600ish Euros which ate the entire profit of that project, so basically I put in the work for taxes and nothing else. That's motivating. I'm not doing that anymore, it's not worth the loss of free time.

you get what you pay for

Healthcare somewhat, although all the general stuff has to be paid for by yourself. It's why my spectacles have to last, I pay about 1000 Euros per glass plus the frame.

Pension is not great, though. At the current rate I'd have to make it to 98 to get back what I spend on that. Since no man in my family ever made it past 75, I'm not counting on that. If I compare the fees with the projected outcome I'm probably overpaying by 33% (i.e. negative 33% yield). To be honest, I'd rather put that money in stocks and hope for the best, it can hardly be worse.

I can only say: when people talk of the rich Germany, they mean the state, not the people putting in the work. There's a reason why we have the lowest rate of people with houses or apartments that they own in Europe. It's really hard to save up even if your gross salary is quite good.

XuQishi wrote:
Actually no. Our Blue Card program (like the Green Card) was and is a major flop, we do not get qualified workers from outside the EU. The reason for that is that people who're already sitting on the luggage and have something to offer do not come here.

Germany has about 16 million people who have migrated from outside Europe. Only about 800,000 are refugees, the rest came through skilled migration and education programs.

Most of them speak English and in the Anglo-Saxon world skilled labor commands much higher wages at lower taxation than in Germany (actually, only Belgium is worse in that regard). Also you don't generally have to pay a crapload of money for a welfare system that you don't need. This makes countries like the US and Canada much more interesting for people who possess useful skills, while the open access to welfare draws mostly nonachievers.

Germany spends more on social welfare than for instance the UK, 22% vs 25%. But it's such a marginal difference, on such a marginal matter, that claiming it drives where skilled migrants go is really not worth bothering with. You think a guy finishes his engineering degree in India and then refuses a company sponsorship in Germany, because he wants to hang out and see if England will allow him to pay 3% less in social welfare?

It's still true the other way round, though. If you have 15 million people paying for something, you can't have billions of people theoretically entitled to the benefits of that system. That cannot work.

Only if you assume that anyone migrating would be instantly entitled to access that system from day one and it would never risk their migration status. Which is a ridiculous assumption.

And the fact Friedman intended in the opposite meaning matters. When people name drop someone, they do it because that name adds authority to their argument. So when it turns out Friedman felt the argument for open borders was so strong that he could attack welfare systems for their effect on undermining open borders, that means something. Well, what it actually means is that Friedman was a kook, but that probably is besides the point. What it means in this context is that arguing against open borders because it doesn't integrate with an abstract vision of welfare that reflects no welfare state anywhere is a bad argument from the very beginning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KTG17 wrote:
You know, I saw this story and the video too, and thought about this thread, but figured if I said anything, it would be called an isolated event. But there has been a rise of anti-semetic crimes not just in Germany, but apparently Europe. A lot of arabs hate Israel, and it seems only natural they would bring their hatred along with them when they resettle.

Anti-semitism in the Arabic world long predates Israel. Anti-semitism is also pretty strong in other Islamic populations, though not as pronounced, I believe.

And it is a serious issue. One of the frustrating things about the over-focus on terrorism is it effectively shut down all conversation on the much more substantial issues of gender relations and anti-semitism. And those are issues that muslim refugees bring with them when they migrate. Are they more serious issues than say, the high rates of domestic violence among Italian Catholic migrants, or the Catholic/Protetant hostility that came with Irish migrants? Those issues pretty much just disappeared in subsequent generations, but are these issues more serious and less likely to disappear? I don't know, but we shouldn't just not talk about it.

And this is a form of natural segregation that I expect to happen in a lot of places with refugees.

This might feel like a nitpick, but it really isn't - refugees and migrants are not the same thing. Refugees are a tiny share of total migration, and it's very unlikely a large number of hispanic people are going to have many refugees among their numbers, not today anyway.

This might feel like a nitpick, but it really isn't - refugees and migrants are not the same thing. Refugees are a tiny share of total migration, and it's very unlikely a large number of hispanic people are going to have many refugees among their numbers, not today anyway.

Interestingly enough, many German newspapers have started using the term "migrants" for all kinds of refugees and regular migrants, with little asterisks explaining so. Some use the term "Geflüchtete" which means the "fled" people, because somebody argued "refugee" is a pejorative term. What I'm saying is, large media outlets, just as well as some government officials, have really begun blurring the line between refugee and migrants - my cynical assumption is that they do this because they know quite a few of the people coming in as refugees don't entirely fit the historical/official criteria for refugee/asylum seeker, often turning out to be economic migrants.
It's just a side note, but it's one of the weird changes of terms in the public discourse here that ruffles my feathers a bit, maybe because my fiancee is from India, works here on limited contracts and constantly has to worry about the next grant coming and possibilites of deportation - while emotional, heartfelt articles lob economic migrants from African countries into the same bin as genuine refugees from wars, famines (I know a family of Somalis in my city that fled the last big drought there, something I've seen rather few articles about, too), political persecution, etc.

I feelthe same way, Witzkatz. I'm all for looking after refugees, I'm very proud to pay my taxes to help those fleeing from the maelstrom of violence in the various middle eastern wars. Germany has done a really moral thing in helping to alleviate the pressure on Greece and Italy in that respect.

But I'm a lot less sympathetic to the economic migrants from North Africa who tend to be lumped into the same boat in left-wing popular consequence. They are economic migrants, and we have other rules for that kind of migration that need to be enforced.

 Witzkatz wrote:
Interestingly enough, many German newspapers have started using the term "migrants" for all kinds of refugees and regular migrants, with little asterisks explaining so. Some use the term "Geflüchtete" which means the "fled" people, because somebody argued "refugee" is a pejorative term. What I'm saying is, large media outlets, just as well as some government officials, have really begun blurring the line between refugee and migrants - my cynical assumption is that they do this because they know quite a few of the people coming in as refugees don't entirely fit the historical/official criteria for refugee/asylum seeker, often turning out to be economic migrants.
It's just a side note, but it's one of the weird changes of terms in the public discourse here that ruffles my feathers a bit, maybe because my fiancee is from India, works here on limited contracts and constantly has to worry about the next grant coming and possibilites of deportation - while emotional, heartfelt articles lob economic migrants from African countries into the same bin as genuine refugees from wars, famines (I know a family of Somalis in my city that fled the last big drought there, something I've seen rather few articles about, too), political persecution, etc.

My experience is refugees and migrants lumped together in order to invent a kind of worst of both worlds horror story. Take the high numbers and economic incentive, and add to that the loose processes and service consumption of refugees, and get a kind of vague but very scary notion of great masses of people coming every year with limited government intel, no directly employable skills, and immediate access to welfare. It'd be a scary thing, if it were true.

Only about 800,000 are refugees

Where did you get that number from? That was the prognosis for 2015 alone, however in that year alone there were 900.000 asylum seekers. It's hard to get totals, but the assumption seems to be that we're talking about 1.5 million at the moment, with a steady influx of about 16.000 per month and a very low rate of people leaving again (officially IIRC about 60K, but since nobody checks that, it could be less, it could be more. There are also probably fewer real people than 1.5 million since a lot of people asked for asylum several times under several identities).

Germany spends more on social welfare than for instance the UK, 22% vs 25%. But it's such a marginal difference, on such a marginal matter, that claiming it drives where skilled migrants go is really not worth bothering with. You think a guy finishes his engineering degree in India and then refuses a company sponsorship in Germany, because he wants to hang out and see if England will allow him to pay 3% less in social welfare?

You make more in the UK and are taxed less, that's how it works. It's not just the difference of 3 percent, it's the amount that those 3 percent are deducted from. If you have skills, Germany sucks for you. Since you mentioned the Indian engineer: the idea of the greencard program was to get 20.000 of those guys here. We got 13000 in 4 years, that's how popular that was.

Only if you assume that anyone migrating would be instantly entitled to access that system from day one and it would never risk their migration status.

In theory that is correct. However, it's quite easy to enter the country, ask for asylum, get it denied, litigate until you've stayed for a long while and then being allowed to stay because it's inhuman to ask you to leave. 91% of people whose asylum is denied fight this in court. About half of them win. The litigation, however, takes so long that it's very hard to send people home who made it here.
I used to be a GSL teacher, I know a lot of the tricks.

My experience is refugees and migrants lumped together in order to invent a kind of worst of both worlds horror story.

This is not a right-wing policy, though. The right-wingers actually demand that this is not done because it lumps taxpayers in with people who're most likely going to spend their life living off a welfare system that they never paid a dime into.

On mobile, so just a quick reply to sebster:
Just now an official case has been opened against employees and officials of our bureau for migration and refugees (bamf) for over 1200 cases of malpractice and possible corruption, in the vast majority of those 1200 cases for playing the system or falsifying information to have applicants accepted as refugees that would be denied under the actual laws, or getting imbalanced benefits for refugees that would otherwise be reserved for more severe cases.

1200 is not a lot with the hundreds of thousands of migrants and refugees (see how it's unclear who's who) who arrived in the last few years, but still it's a notable case.

Insofar the fear of an impotent or ineffective system in regards to determining who's a genuine refugee and who's an economic migrant supplied with the funds to reach Germany and then create a base from which to apply for family reunification is not completely baseless in my eyes.

What the pink lion said.

1200 is not a lot with the hundreds of thousands of migrants and refugees (see how it's unclear who's who) who arrived in the last few years, but still it's a notable case.

Well, they caught one woman and a few lawyers. I would suspect that this is not the only case, given that refugee litigation is a nice income boost for shady lawyers. Long processes, lots of letters to write and the state pays for it.

Don't take this the wrong way: I'm very much pro immigration, but not all kinds of it. I'd take a million Chinese, Vietnamese or Indian engineers in a heartbeat... It's actually idiotic how our country caters to people who can't contribute while keeping people who want to and can away. I've seen scientists - mostly Chinese in my career - being deported (not actually, they tend to leave on their own without police involvement ) who would have been a good fit and wanted to stay, while basically everything seems to be done to keep people here who're on welfare.

 feeder wrote:
Something to consider is the fact that, after a while, these areas that have been settled by a particular immigrant population become celebrated. My city is proud of it's claim to Canada's oldest Chinatown, and it's a featured heavily as part of our tourism. Similar Chinatowns and Little Italys exist across North America.

There is nothing about this new wave of brown immigrants that hasn't already been said about every other wave of Italians, Poles, Germans, Chinese and every other non-WASP immigrant that has settled. Within a few generations, the immigrant population will be subsumed by the dominant local culture, and the local culture will adopt a few of the most delicious dishes of the immigrants. (Shawarma is amazing, for example)

At any given point in history, it's fairly consistent that the immigrants of a generation or more ago are honest, hard-working people and it says good things about our country that they came here to enrich us. Not like the immigrants we've got NOW, who are clearly a threat to our way of life!

 Elemental wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Something to consider is the fact that, after a while, these areas that have been settled by a particular immigrant population become celebrated. My city is proud of it's claim to Canada's oldest Chinatown, and it's a featured heavily as part of our tourism. Similar Chinatowns and Little Italys exist across North America.

There is nothing about this new wave of brown immigrants that hasn't already been said about every other wave of Italians, Poles, Germans, Chinese and every other non-WASP immigrant that has settled. Within a few generations, the immigrant population will be subsumed by the dominant local culture, and the local culture will adopt a few of the most delicious dishes of the immigrants. (Shawarma is amazing, for example)

At any given point in history, it's fairly consistent that the immigrants of a generation or more ago are honest, hard-working people and it says good things about our country that they came here to enrich us. Not like the immigrants we've got NOW, who are clearly a threat to our way of life!

Exactly. Things that I'm used to are fine, things that are new are dangerous and scary!

XuQishi wrote:

Only about 800,000 are refugees

Where did you get that number from? That was the prognosis for 2015 alone, however in that year alone there were 900.000 asylum seekers. It's hard to get totals, but the assumption seems to be that we're talking about 1.5 million at the moment, with a steady influx of about 16.000 per month and a very low rate of people leaving again (officially IIRC about 60K, but since nobody checks that, it could be less, it could be more. There are also probably fewer real people than 1.5 million since a lot of people asked for asylum several times under several identities).

Those 1.6 million aren't all refugees though. Just people seeking asylum, which doesn't mean they all have a valid case. Destatis tracks those numbers and so far about 600k still require processing, 160k have had their application declined, 270k has permanent status and another 600k only have temporary asylum. So in total that means of those 1.6 million only about a quarter so far is going to be allowed to stay long term.

For example, Germany has around 120k asylum seekers from the Balkans. The majority of those are likely seeking asylum for economic reasons and would not be classified as refugees considering the political conditions in the Balkans currently.

https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/SocietyState/Population/MigrationIntegration/Tables_ProtectionSeekers/CountriesOfOriginProtectionStatus.html

XuQishi wrote:

Germany spends more on social welfare than for instance the UK, 22% vs 25%. But it's such a marginal difference, on such a marginal matter, that claiming it drives where skilled migrants go is really not worth bothering with. You think a guy finishes his engineering degree in India and then refuses a company sponsorship in Germany, because he wants to hang out and see if England will allow him to pay 3% less in social welfare?

You make more in the UK and are taxed less, that's how it works. It's not just the difference of 3 percent, it's the amount that those 3 percent are deducted from. If you have skills, Germany sucks for you. Since you mentioned the Indian engineer: the idea of the greencard program was to get 20.000 of those guys here. We got 13000 in 4 years, that's how popular that was.

I think the main problem for those Indian engineers isn't the taxes, but the language barrier. If you can choose between a more English speaking country versus a country where English is less accepted, the choice is more easily made.

XuQishi wrote:

My experience is refugees and migrants lumped together in order to invent a kind of worst of both worlds horror story.

This is not a right-wing policy, though. The right-wingers actually demand that this is not done because it lumps taxpayers in with people who're most likely going to spend their life living off a welfare system that they never paid a dime into.

I think its important to distinguish between Western migrants versus Middle Eastern/African ones. Right wingers love to lump African and Middle Eastern migrants and refugees on the same heap of them coming to live of Europe's pocket, that is very much the political reality. Even on this forum you can see right wingers saying refugees are just gold digging migrants coming over to Europe for their welfare checks.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think its important to distinguish between Western migrants versus Middle Eastern/African ones. Even on this forum you can see right wingers saying refugees are just gold digging migrants coming over to Europe for their welfare checks.

Foreigners are outsiders, some are just a bit more outsiders than others. Many of the discontent-populist movements in EU countries are just as much (or even more) against the free movement of EU citizens as they are against letting refugees in. Not the real western prosperous people, ofc, but those from the former Soviet satellite states should stay at home instead of moving to a richer country, taking jobs and/or using social security they haven't paid for. Even if they only take a crappy job we don't want (because you actually can't live on it here) they can still save up enough by cheap living (sharing accomodations etc) that it's a pretty penny when sent back home. My local bus service hasn't seen a new native driver in ten years or more, they're all Estonians or of middle-eastern origin. Same with the morning post delivery, except it's too crappy for Estonians so there's a lot of Nepalese for some reason.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think its important to distinguish between Western migrants versus Middle Eastern/African ones. Even on this forum you can see right wingers saying refugees are just gold digging migrants coming over to Europe for their welfare checks.

Foreigners are outsiders, some are just a bit more outsiders than others. Many of the discontent-populist movements in EU countries are just as much (or even more) against the free movement of EU citizens as they are against letting refugees in. Not the real western prosperous people, ofc, but those from the former Soviet satellite states should stay at home instead of moving to a richer country, taking jobs and/or using social security they haven't paid for. Even if they only take a crappy job we don't want (because you actually can't live on it here) they can still save up enough by cheap living (sharing accomodations etc) that it's a pretty penny when sent back home. My local bus service hasn't seen a new native driver in ten years or more, they're all Estonians or of middle-eastern origin. Same with the morning post delivery, except it's too crappy for Estonians so there's a lot of Nepalese for some reason.

Sure, I didn't mean to imply that those groups don't face right wing stigma. But as you sort of said, that is also heavily tied up in anti-EU sentiment. But its not on the same level as the: "slightly darker than white skin tone people are coming here to rape your daughters, blow us up and enforce sharia law/destroy the welfare state!" that the right wing loves to engage in. The right wing has a bashing hierarchy when it comes to migrants that goes something like this: white people from roughly our neck of the woods>white people from different neck of the woods> brown/black> Muslims. Yeah sure I skip a few steps and Asians don't really factor in it, but that is the bare bones basics I think.

XuQishi wrote:
Where did you get that number from? That was the prognosis for 2015 alone, however in that year alone there were 900.000 asylum seekers.

An asylum seeker and a refugee are not the same thing. An asylum seeker has merely requested protection in a new home, a refugee has been granted status by government.

You make more in the UK and are taxed less, that's how it works. It's not just the difference of 3 percent, it's the amount that those 3 percent are deducted from. If you have skills, Germany sucks for you.

You're confusing things there. If Germany has an oversupply of high skilled workers (or Britain has an undersupply I guess), that's entirely different to accepting refugees and them doing anything.

In theory that is correct. However, it's quite easy to enter the country, ask for asylum, get it denied, litigate until you've stayed for a long while and then being allowed to stay because it's inhuman to ask you to leave. 91% of people whose asylum is denied fight this in court. About half of them win. The litigation, however, takes so long that it's very hard to send people home who made it here.

You've only told half the story. The other half is government finding it very easy to reject claims, and the applicant then asking if government is really going to send him back to Syria, because, you know. Suddenly the Government that was so keen to claim he had no pressing danger gets squeamish, and won't deport him. The whole thing moves in to limbo.

This is not a right-wing policy, though. The right-wingers actually demand that this is not done because it lumps taxpayers in with people who're most likely going to spend their life living off a welfare system that they never paid a dime into.

My experience is the right wing is conservative, not sociopathic. As such they accept and want to help people who need refuge, they're just very sensitive about it being exploited by people chasing a higher standard of living.

Your answer... doesn't really make a lot of sense in that context.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Witzkatz wrote:
Insofar the fear of an impotent or ineffective system in regards to determining who's a genuine refugee and who's an economic migrant supplied with the funds to reach Germany and then create a base from which to apply for family reunification is not completely baseless in my eyes.

Interesting case, I hope people go to jail if they systematically falsified info.

I don't think I said anything to claim assessing refugee status was simple, or argued against anyone claiming it was far from perfect. I'm aware of the problems. But they are what they are. If a nation says it is willing to take in people fleeing violence and genocide, it must accept there's going to be a lot of subjectivity on who exactly who makes the standard and who doesn't, and of course there will be some people trying to game the system to get in to the country. The only alternative is to not take refugees, and that's not really an alternative.

 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Witzkatz wrote:
Insofar the fear of an impotent or ineffective system in regards to determining who's a genuine refugee and who's an economic migrant supplied with the funds to reach Germany and then create a base from which to apply for family reunification is not completely baseless in my eyes.

Interesting case, I hope people go to jail if they systematically falsified info.

I don't think I said anything to claim assessing refugee status was simple, or argued against anyone claiming it was far from perfect. I'm aware of the problems. But they are what they are. If a nation says it is willing to take in people fleeing violence and genocide, it must accept there's going to be a lot of subjectivity on who exactly who makes the standard and who doesn't, and of course there will be some people trying to game the system to get in to the country. The only alternative is to not take refugees, and that's not really an alternative.

I'd agree that the decision-making process and the steps behind verifying information about each asylum seeker are subjective in the end, and I can also understand that there might be workers in the migration and refugee office that are very reluctant to send somebody back when there's the slightest chance left that their story is true. I read an article a while back about an ex-refugee case worker who was very disillusioned about the whole process - he got very little training and got immediately tasked with the full responsibility of deciding about asylum claims after hearing explanations translated by a third party for 30 minutes or so. He felt that he didn't really have the tools to do his job the way it was supposed to be done, simply because the agency was so swamped with asylum claims that they had to very quickly install new staff if they wanted to avoid asylum seekers having to wait years for their claim to be heard.

On that note, the BaMF (the federal agency for migration and refugees) apparently fired a four-digit number of translators over the last years, some of them over "breach of ethical conduct", probably also because a lot of them had to be hired with very low standards to deal with the high influx of asylum seekers.

Furthermore, Horst Seehofer (from CSU - our most conservative party that's not AfD or NPD, aligned with Merkel's CDU at all times) now wants to start an investigation into further BaMF officials and case workers over the last years to determine if there were more cases of wilful fraud and falsifying of information. An FDP spokesperson for the interior agreed and demanded the BaMF itself should be subject to further scrutiny to uncover possible flaws in the system itself. They want random samples of the handled asylum cases so far and hope for a report on the issue until summer. The number of 1200 cases falsified by that one case worker has been corrected upwards by now.

 Witzkatz wrote:
On that note, the BaMF (the federal agency for migration and refugees) apparently fired a four-digit number of translators over the last years, some of them over "breach of ethical conduct", probably also because a lot of them had to be hired with very low standards to deal with the high influx of asylum seekers.

Yeah, one of the real problems with very suddenly changing refugee intakes is the staff needed to process and review that many more claims can't just be hired on Monday, and up to speed on Tuesday. Particularly with claims assessment you need to develop those skills slowly, over long periods of time.

 sebster wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
On that note, the BaMF (the federal agency for migration and refugees) apparently fired a four-digit number of translators over the last years, some of them over "breach of ethical conduct", probably also because a lot of them had to be hired with very low standards to deal with the high influx of asylum seekers.

Yeah, one of the real problems with very suddenly changing refugee intakes is the staff needed to process and review that many more claims can't just be hired on Monday, and up to speed on Tuesday. Particularly with claims assessment you need to develop those skills slowly, over long periods of time.

Exactly. A lawyer friend of mine does part-time work as a public defender (like most non-obscenely rich lawyers).

He always tells me the language situation is desperate. Like the court bringing an Arabic translator when the defendant is a Pashto speaker or, in the case of African countries, bringing translators according to country without account for the many languages spoken there.

And a lot of those who are actually sent to the right case are barely proficient in Spanish anyway and the lawyers or judge have to communicate with him in broken English or French.

It doesn't help that the process to become an official translator is long and expensive.

Huh. Just a random tidbit I read this morning while having my coffee:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/nachrichten-am-morgen-die-news-in-echtzeit-a-1203708.html

A known ex-bodyguard of Osama bin Laden, a Tunisian by the name of Sami A., is living in Germany right now, collecting welfare from the government. He is watched by the intelligence services and the Bundespolizei (FBI equivalent) for being an "islamistic endangerer", however - a high court ruled he cannot be deported because he might face torture in his home country.

I mean, I'm trying to see this as neutrally as possible - first I was thinking, man, maybe he really turned his life around, maybe he's turned informant and crown witness and spilled details about Al Qaida or something - but if he's still being watched for being an islamic extremist, that seems rather improbable? And in that case, there's really nothing the Western intelligence services can pin on an ex-member of Osama bin Laden's own personal guard that might warrant some jail time, decided by the Hague or something?


Read up a bit more about it:
https://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/sami-a-aus-bochum-ehemaliger-leibwaechter-bin-ladens-wird-nicht-abgeschoben-und-kassiert-weiter-hilfeleistungen_id_8817498.html

He's 42, has a wife and 4 kids here, with his family apparently having German citizenship. He was living as a student in Germany from 1997 onwards, went to Afghanistan to train in a terror camp from 1999 to 2000 and rose in the ranks of bin Laden's personal guard. The article is unclear about the next years, but apparently he's been back in Germany for quite some time now, for example being caught with an alleged Al-Qaida terrorist in the same car here in 20089. The Bundeskriminalamt (Federal police branch) tried to get him deported multiple times, but is being blocked by higher courts.
He seems to be required to check back with the police every day in order to be able to collect his welfare payments.


Edit: Realized this is getting a bit off the no-go-area discussion that is the topic of this thread. If it's too far off, I apologize. I just get the feeling discussions in German newspaper forums or even some private forums tend to only feature quite entrenched positions, and I like dakka's more international, perhaps more objective input into these matters.

Tabloid News Media - Twisting the truth and exaggeration of incidents to make for a good story.

I'd say there's definitely a certain amount of truth in whatever was reported, except it was probably self-reported of a small scale sample. I mean come on, every country in the world has their own 'no-go' zones that tend to be perhaps a little rowdier or past incidents happening but it usually just means to take care of yourself if you decide to visit said places. You won't die from going there (well, at least probably not).

Of course there are no-go zones in Germany, there are in France (they throw fridges, FRIDGES, on the Police from rooftops if they come, and even gaz them with teargas ON TV !) why wouldn't there be in Germany ?
How can someone say it doesn't exist ? Just come to Marseille, South of France, come and see !
I live near such a population, I know it.
And we have "mobile" no-go zone when gypsies (is this a bad word in English ? I hope no !) come and just...settle somewhere, like a stadium, breaking walls etc. for about one week (it takes a full week to get to the judge etc. to make them legally move, and they know it; so they can freely settle somewhere, use electricity, gas and water for one week, and then move). They even settled in the stadium of my high school once...

Weird thing where I live in Canada, the no go zones have always been pretty no go, just the race of the people has changed over time.
They're not Europe bad yet, they're just really run down and ugly.
All the grass is always overgrown and there's trash everywhere.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
Weird thing where I live in Canada, the no go zones have always been pretty no go, just the race of the people has changed over time.
They're not Europe bad yet, they're just really run down and ugly.
All the grass is always overgrown and there's trash everywhere.

That's how it all beggins
Broken windows theory !!! Brave yourselve, no go zones are coming !
And then, your sister / cousin won't be able to wear a skirt or a short, because you know, this is not how a good woman should behave, according to a very specific category of the population that lives in the no go zones....
Etc

 godardc wrote:
Of course there are no-go zones in Germany, there are in France (they throw fridges, FRIDGES, on the Police from rooftops if they come, and even gaz them with teargas ON TV !) why wouldn't there be in Germany ?

If they're throwing fridges on the police, then that means there are police there, which means they go in to the no-go, which must mean it isn't a no-go at all. It's funny when right wing fantasies contradict each other like this.

Anyhow, you raised this thread from the dead and then proceeded to ignore the whole conversation that took place. Forget the crazypants politics, what you did is just plain rude. I mean, who would in the real world would raise a conversation that happened a month ago, and try to continue that conversation while ignoring everything that was actually said a month ago?

Manners are important.

 sebster wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Of course there are no-go zones in Germany, there are in France (they throw fridges, FRIDGES, on the Police from rooftops if they come, and even gaz them with teargas ON TV !) why wouldn't there be in Germany ?

If they're throwing fridges on the police, then that means there are police there, which means they go in to the no-go, which must mean it isn't a no-go at all. It's funny when right wing fantasies contradict each other like this.

Anyhow, you raised this thread from the dead and then proceeded to ignore the whole conversation that took place. Forget the crazypants politics, what you did is just plain rude. I mean, who would in the real world would raise a conversation that happened a month ago, and try to continue that conversation while ignoring everything that was actually said a month ago?

Manners are important.

If criminals have the temerity to attack police, then logically it would be even more dangerous for innocent folk, as they tend to be unarmed with no training. Hence no-go zones. Just because police can go there, doesn't mean everyone else can.
Next you'll be telling me I can ignore the yellow tape or raid a drug den. After all, police can go there, right?

That said...citation needed? Those are fairly sensationalist claims. Did they get a catapult to launch appliances at the police? Fetchez la Frigo, as it were? And how did these thugs acquire tear gas, exactly? I would think that tear gas is classified under B6, which is only for riot police, and as such not accessible to civilians.

Well, if we keep on changing the definition of a no-go zione, we can necro all kind of threads and claim they exist.

What do you mean? A no-go zone can refer to an area where the level of crime is high enough that people are afraid to go there. There is no definition change. That's what its used to mean.

If you refer to a place as a no-go area, you mean that it has a reputation for violence and crime which makes people frightened to go there.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/no-go-area

That’s not the definition that has been used, especially in context of immigration.

We have no-go zones in spain but they are because of gipsy clans. People that is 100% spanish by the way.

 d-usa wrote:
Well, if we keep on changing the definition of a no-go zione, we can necro all kind of threads and claim they exist.

My ancestors helped develop a very large no go zone in the East.

Look at the hooligans hanging out on a burned out government vehicle. Barbarians!

No go zones, in this context, do not mean run down, high crime neigbourhoods.

No go zones, in relation to brown immigrants, refer to areas that are Muslim majority, where the local authority does not go, where there are Sharia courts, and white women are raped on sight. This is the version of 'no go zone' that is pushed by dishonest or sensationalist media, and this is the version of no go zone that does not exist.

Oh, ok.

Then we don't have of those. Not even in Ceuta and Melilla, that are mostly muslim cities.

The problem with reporting of immigration issues is that one side often uses alarmist rhetoric while the other denies the problem exists at all.

I cant speak for Germany but there are no 'no-go' zones in the UK. However this is being used dishonestly as evidence that there isn't any problems with integration or that they are taken out of context. Daily Mail and Daily Express gets more flak than is actually fair, yes they do front the headlines but it is a lesser sin than the apologism of the sections of the press that would have you think there aren't any integration problems.

While there aren't any actual no-go zones there are places where non integration have raised serious issues, and not just from the far right. Sharia bullying, yes it happens, Islamic indoctrination in schools. Daily Mail believed that was a problem, Guardian would have you believe that was racist twaddle, and the only problem was with those reporting it, the Daily Mail was right, but it took a change of government and a crackdown for the issue to be dealt with.

I saw a hidden camera video of two women in Paris trying to visist a cafe only to find that in that (Islamic) section of town, women were not welcome.

People might holler and whine and shout 'Daily Fail', trouble is they are far greater problem than the Daily Mail ever was. the Daily Mail for all its faults beleives that ghettoization is a bad thing, and they are correct, which is a lot more palletable than a head in sand approach by which if it isn't happening near you, it isn't happening at all.

 feeder wrote:
No go zones, in this context, do not mean run down, high crime neigbourhoods.

No go zones, in relation to brown immigrants, refer to areas that are Muslim majority, where the local authority does not go, where there are Sharia courts, and white women are raped on sight. This is the version of 'no go zone' that is pushed by dishonest or sensationalist media, and this is the version of no go zone that does not exist.

There sure are no go zones in Germany. USAG Stuttgart for example, pretty much guaranteed to get shot on site if you wander in there. Nothing to do with Muslims though...

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
If criminals have the temerity to attack police, then logically it would be even more dangerous for innocent folk, as they tend to be unarmed with no training. Hence no-go zones. Just because police can go there, doesn't mean everyone else can.

A no-go zone isn't any place that some people are afraid to go. If that were the case, then the story would be reduced down to the existence of areas with higher poverty and higher crime than citizens are used to. Every country has those areas, it reduces the no-go story down to absolute nothingness.

A no-go zone is meant to be a place so bad that even police won't go there, that's just been left to govern itself. Which if true would be a hell of a thing, and if immigrants were creating areas that bad it would be a reason to consider immigration had failed in that country. Which is exactly why anti-immigration people tell stories about no-go zones.

The problem for those people, of course, is there are no areas so bad that police won't go there. When pushed on it, the anti-immigrant people will fall back on that much weaker definition of no-go as just being an area with high crime while still trying to claim the exciting, scary label of 'no-go zone'. It's a false argument from beginning to end.

All of which is why I was making fun of that other poster. Because we'd been through all of this already in the thread, from the claims of no-go areas to the reduced definition where it just meant higher than average crime, only for that guy to resurrect the thread beginning with the original claim all over again. Its pure nonsense, and needs to be mocked.