Difference between revisions of "Talk:European migrant crisis"

Revision as of 21:30, February 23, 2017

!

This article or part thereof was copied from Wikipedia but the copied text was originally written by me, 1990'sguy, (under the same name) and does not include alterations made by others on that site.

Just this and this. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2017 (EST)

In this format, perhaps a bit about the migrant status in each country, and then a section on the dominant party that's been formed in reaction to immigration. RobS^{#NeverHillary} 02:00, 29 December 2016 (EST)

Calais border fence

What can be said about the Calais border fence? Was it funded primarily by the UK? And if so, should it go in the UK section or France section? Thanks. RobS^{#NeverHillary} 01:11, 11 January 2017 (EST)

Not sure about who's funding it, but it should probably go in the UK section (while clearly explaining it is geographically in France) because this border fence (if I have it correct) is securing the UK's border, not France's. Better yet, we could put it in both. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2017 (EST)

Have you seen this clip? The action begins at about 4:00 and at about 8:00 he shows the camp with 18,000 migrants and the border fence, mentioning the UK built it. RobS^{Make Exxon Great Again} 10:54, 11 January 2017 (EST)

I saw the video, and boy am I glad I don't live in France (and also that I don't live near the truck driver with his language). I found some sources saying Britain financed the wall:[1][2] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2017 (EST)

Christian fundamentalists and Moderaterna

The sub-section on Moderaterna in the Sweden section mentions "Christian fundamentalists" and "right-wing conservatives." Are these terms really accurate? The vast majority of those who call themselves Christians in Sweden are theologically liberal rather than bible-based fundamentalists. Additionally, I disagree with the term "right-wing conservatives", as the "traditional" "conservative" parties in Sweden (and most of Europe) are not conservative or right-wing at all. Most of them do not try to advance any conservative or Christian point of view, particularly on social issues. The National Review article cited also calls Moderaterna "center right"[3], which assures me that this party is not really conservative. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2017 (EST)

Yes, you're right. There are problems drawing parallels in Swedish politics to others outside Sweden, and moreso to US conceptions. As to religious groups, Swedish Lutherans are pretty mainstream, but charismatic groups, often called fundamentalist, which are prevelent in Sweden, have long been described as "conservative" pretty much elsewhere and I was under the impression my sources were speaking primarily of them (and perhaps some Lutheran groups) as conservative.

But please feel free to improve it how you see fit. Also, the Swedish section marks a departure from the rest of the structure, as Moderaturna surely isn't a group a populists movement is looking to support. RobS^{Make Exxon Great Again} 02:51, 13 January 2017 (EST)

Hungarian border fence

We should definitely mention Hungary's successful border fence that was constructed in 2015 and successfully ended the illegal immigration surge.[4][5] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2017 (EST)

Yes definitely. Not sure if it ended the surge, but did cutoff the Balkan Route. RobS^{Make Exxon Great Again} 22:20, 15 January 2017 (EST)

The second linked article shows that illegal immigration levels dropped to pre-crisis levels because of the fence. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2017 (EST)

Article suggestion

I recommend creating another article about the border fences around the world, such as the Hungarian and Israeli ones, that have massively reduced immigration and increased safety and security. These fences really have worked. We could begin after finishing this article. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2017 (EST)

Good idea. We could even start simultaneously, then go back and fill in historical stuff like the Berlin Wall, Hadrians Wall, Great Wall of China, while laying the groundwork for the upcoming Congressional debate. Any ideas for a title? RobS^{Make Exxon Great Again} 01:39, 17 January 2017 (EST)

We could give it a simple title like "Border fence", or we could do something like "Border fence effectiveness." Of course, some of the examples will be walls. We could use the term "barrier" like Wikipedia does and make redirects for the wall and fence titles. I don't know which title will give the most page views, though. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2017 (EST)

Border fence encompasses everything we mean to say. I'd suggest we emphasize sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, sometimes their meant to keep peole out, sometimes to keep people in. RobS^{Make Exxon Great Again} 22:58, 17 January 2017 (EST)

An aside

3 years ago I saw the Swedish film Melancholia which was disturbing, confusing, and at the same time not avant garde junk. After reading and seeing the fatalism which has gripped Sweden the past two years, it now makes sense. The natural disaster of the collision of earth with an asteroid and inevitable doomsday is an allegory for non-intervention to stop global warming. Here's the Swedes awaiting the final destruction of the planet. The reality of 2016 and the future is, the Swedish model of liberalism is dead dead dead. And dead by hopelessness and self destruction. RobS^{Make Exxon Great Again} 22:24, 21 January 2017 (EST)

A case of false news?

Pictures of Clinton with the Burmese fighter for democracy Ang San Suu Kyi, including the one on this article, were taken in Rangoon (Yangon) Myanmnar at the beginning of December 2011. they were Not taken in Tripoli that October as stated beneath CP's photo.

(Here's one for a conspiracy theorist like you Rob - why can I find one or other of them on various and assorted news outlets, not all of which are mad leftists, but they have been removed from the US State Dep't website.)

AlanE (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2017 (EST)

Know what? Your right. It comes from here, pg 17 (in the Chapter entitled, DS Protects Lives.) I misread the caption and format. And yes, that is Ambassador Christopher Stevens just below Hillary's photo, along with the text about how great a job State Department Security is doing protecting Sec. Clinton & Amb. Stevens. Scroll back to page 15 and see how "couragrously" the State Department under Sec. Clinton defended an attack on the Embassey in Kabul. The whole document, all 44 pages, is nothing but State Department Security patting itself on the back for the great job its doing protecting the lives of State Department personal - typical of the BS & crap the Obama administration & Hillary churned out about themselves for 8 years. RobS^{Make Exxon Great Again} 01:05, 27 January 2017 (EST)

One of the most complex security challenges presented to the Secretary’s Detail was her equally historic and ground-breaking trip to Libya in October, after the fall of the Qadhafi regime. The transitional operating environment in Tripoli was turbulent and unpredictable. DS advance team agents engaged in delicate negotiations with local militia, and quickly coordinated a diverse security team of quick-reaction forces, a tactical operations center, casualty evacuation planners, and DoD assets pre-positioned off the coast of Tripoli. Her DS protective detail then safely escorted the Secretary and her party into the country, where she was able to raise the level of U.S. government contact with that nation’s fledgling freedom initiative.

DS also protected the U.S. Special Representative to the Libyan Transitional National Council, John Christopher Stevens, during the height of the crisis.

That mission required DS special agents to operate for five months in rebel-held Benghazi, in the midst of the civil war, evolving from a small mission of limited duration into an extensive mission focused on critical political reporting and humanitarian assistance.

No wonder they took it off their servers, it is sickening to read today. Just like Obama & Biden awarding themselves presidential medels. This is their legacy. Now the truth can be spoken - and it ain't hate speech. RobS^{Make Exxon Great Again} 10:54, 27 January 2017 (EST)

Desecularization

Just what exactly is this term supposed to mean? That people are leaving atheism and adopting the First Pillar of Islam, and wearing the hijab to avoid rape? RobS^{Make Exxon Great Again} 13:52, 27 January 2017 (EST)

Nigel Farage's arguable success

Let's have some perspective. Nigel Farage has stood in Parliamentary elections eight times and lost every time. His party has only one MP. He did not influence David Cameron's decision to hold a referendum on EU membership; it was part of Cameron's clumsy attempt to liberalise the Conservative Party and force the Eurosceptics out into UKIP, where they would have no leverage. He was not part of the official leave campaign prior to the referendum because Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, two conservatives, saw him as a loose cannon, more of a liability than an asset. When the referendum result came in, when serious polticians rolled up their sleeves to prepare for the tough work ahead, Farage ducked out.

Yes, he has a high profile but, outside of the media and the tabloids in particular, he has very little influence, as shown by his misguided attempt to work as an intermediary between the British and US governments.

There are plenty of real, committed, successful conservatives working hard to ensure Britain thrives outside the EU. Farage is not one of them. Rafael (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2017 (EST)