Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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...