Swedish Immigrants Attack 60 Minutes Crew

I don't post this to inflame our own divergent political factions - but just as a genuine and sincere question:

Can someone please give me a cogent and reasonable argument as to why any country would invite, allow or permit these migrants into their country?

55 "No-Go" zones - where natural born citizens are not permitted to freely travel, and where the police must accompany ambulances, so as to ensure for their safety.

Areas where the police (as you'll see in the video) say that their mere presence could cause a disturbance, and frankly (perhaps rightfully), they seem afraid to enter?

And an economic strain that is so overwhelming as to threaten the country's entire economy.

And now, Sweden is "checking papers" at their border - which seems a bit like the Titanic struggling to adjust the flatware for dinner.

Why does it make me a racist and a xenophobe to find this to be sheer madness, the height of stupidity, and at running the greatest possible risk to its nation and people?

Is this the liberal idealism, at its worst and most extreme? Or is this metely the goal of a liberal globalization effort - to erase all borders, to integrate all people, and to submit all nations beneath one common rule of authority, indistinguishable from one another? If globalization is not the plan, whether intended or not, then what is? What's the end game, here, who is advancing it, and based on what premise of belief?

If this isn't liberal idealism run absolutely amuck, on its grandest and most dangerous scale, then I don't have the faintest idea as to how it might be explained otherwise.

And for those who may prefer a more practical approach - what should Sweden, and other similarly entangled EU countries, now do? What should the US do, now witnessing all of this?

[youtube]42jpuXJPk0w[/youtube]

 

I've got nothing to add really, but that was a really good report.

 

All of your questions are based on faulty assumptions. Don't know where to begin.

 

I would be curious to see the actual numbers behind the economic burden/stress on Sweden. I don't doubt that there is one, just curious about the extent of it.

 

Their biggest stress is cheap oil

 

I assume you to mean that this isn't liberalism run amuck.

I can admit that, and will concede the point, if true.

But why is it that it's only liberals that I ever hear, see or know to advocate for allowing these things? And why is it that every country who has taken in these refugees is not only now in some degree of crisis, but are either working to undo the migration or have sustained historically lopsided losses in the polls for having encouraged or supported it (I know that Germany is now deporting migrants, is stopping and refusing them entry at the border, and is threatening to withhold aid from those countries who won't stop the flood of new immigrants....ironically, this is the same thing that Trump will do to Mexico in requiring them to "pay for the wall", but that's another matter, entirely)?

And is it an effort for a globalized society, IP? And if not by liberals, then who, and to what end?

Does it make me a racist xenophobe to think that these people should not be allowed in the US, and should instead be sent directly back to their countries?

 

It's the basic assumption for all topics and issues, according to Tenny, that everything "liberal", or what can be construed as liberal, is bad, evil, dysfunctional, etc., so let's create a narrative that fits this perspective.

 

That's a mischaracterization.

1. This mass migration is the acme of foolishness, and is a dangerous idea that must be opposed, stopped and reversed.
2. Their idea or not, it is only liberals who have - and continue - to support this nonsense and insist upon its continuance.

If it's anyone who supports these things besides liberals, who is it? Give me some notable non-liberal names, Un.

Also, what are your thoughts on our becoming a globalized society, Un, where there are essentially borderless nations. Is that something that you support?

 

My objection is not with the question of immigration you posed, an entirely worthwhile discussion. It's the Classic Tenny tactic of forcing the ball on to the "our" side of the playing field with the usual prosecutorial harangue of liberals and the demand for an answer. Am I answering for the terrible liberals or the issue of immigration? Why am I to be put on the defensive immediately? Is it so that I am forced to deal with defending liberalism in order to be softened up for your view on immigration? Why am I demanded to have an answer, in the first place?

I must admit, it's a very clever and effective tactic, but not a really honest manner in which to have a discussion on the topic. I'm sure the next step is that I'm declared now to be in full support of the nefarious liberals ' policy of whatever you have determined or defined them to be, but, in reality, I'm just not interested in playing that semantic game. So, without playing the "liberals are bad" game, what is the issue we're really discussing here?

 

"Let's have a debate. Your position is X. You lose!"

 

1. Just remove the word "liberal". Insert "X", instead.
2. Am I mistaken in the belief that it's almost exclusively liberals who support just such mass migration, as this, and which the EU is now experiencing? Because it ISN'T conservatives...and if not liberals, then who?

And could either of you speak to the purely liberal ideal of a globalized society / borderless nations, etc. Do either of you, or anyone else, support this? Do you think that anyone does, and if so, what political philosophy do you think that most gravitate toward?

 

I am too old and not in a mood to argue over it, so do not expect much if any of an exchange. I do not care who is a liberal, conservative, a Trump supporter or a Clinton sheep, I just use some damn common sense. It seems that most if not all countries with significant numbers of Muslim immigrants or refugees, is having trouble with them. Some even being what I feel is stupid by making special concessions to try to avoid offending them. Of course they just see this as weakness and demand more. Terrorists are using them to infiltrate. It is sad that those in genuine need have it withheld due to their being used as pawns by their own kind. We are and will continue to be stupid too if we let them in this country without very strict and enforced criteria. Their purpose is to kill infidels, in particular American ones. We are the great Satan. They publish propaganda encouraging their youth to become martyrs and take as many of us with them as they can. They rule by brutality, and have no problem committing heinous acts of cowardice and unbelievable violence toward anyone they consider an enemy. They have no rules, and laugh at our "civilized" way of warfare. They only understand violence and bullying, and that's what we need to give them. If you cannot understand or see this, I suggest you either trade your Bible for the Koran or start honing your shooting skills.

 

I don't feel compelled to answer nor defend anything. But I'll tell you what I think.

We start with a foreign country where bad leaders are mistreating innocent citizens. We feel bad for the innocents.
We tell the bad leaders to be nice to them. They refuse.

Now our choices are punish the bad guys, help the innocents ourselves or ignore the suffering. We used to lean on the bad guys but they called us arrogant. If we ignore them we're hypocrites so we try to help them ourselves.

That gets expensive. Then they don't appreciate our offorts.

Now we're back to doing nothing. And either we feel guilty because we don't feel like exceptional Americans that can fix anything. Or we feel betrayed and angry because either we're no longer exceptional Americans who can fix anything or we never were.

Just my $0.02.

Is my analysis liberally slanted by wanting to help to begin with? What would the non-liberal do?

 

The assumption that all positions fit into a dichotomy hasn't been supported.

 

This is, more or less, how I feel about the situation. One of the main arguments I made in the thread about bringing refugees to America is that we have a really strong processing system in place to ferret out the ones who may be an issue. Freely allowing people just to arrive and receive benefits, thumb their nose at the host country, etc. is not, in my opinion, the policy of liberals, in the least, nor certainly a very smart one. The process of dealing with refugees is never going to be an entirely smooth one, nor perfect, but should that be the expectation? I can say, without reservation, that the acceptance of refugees into this country and my town, specifically has been a net positive.

 

Blaming Sweden's problems ignores the path of migration from poorer EU nations without the resources to manage the people coming in, then going through an unregulated eurozone. It'd be no different than blaming any illegal immigrants not in California or Texas on the liberal policies of, say, Tennessee.

 

It's Trumps fault.

 

Wait everything that is liberal isn't bad, evil, dysfunctional, etc?

 

No one forced them to have open borders.

 

Why does the question of support for a globalized society - essentially a borderless world - continue to go unanswered, even when directly and repeatedly asked?

I think some genuinely desire this.

Here, let me offer mine: There is no cirumstance that I would accept this, in whole or in part, nor would I fail to oppose it within the law, or to my last dying breath.

It is treasonous to say otherwise.