Inicio
rrr SEPARADOR_ESP ELPAIS ELMUNDO PUBLICO rrr LIBERTADDIITAL EFE LA_GACETA LA_RAZON EXPANSION CINCODIAS SEPARADOR_AUT LAVANGUARDIA ELPERIODICO EL_CORREO GARA VOZ_GALICIA HERALDO_DE_ARAGON DIARIO_SUR EL_COMERCIO SEPARADOR_DEP rrr rrr MUNDODEPORTIVO rrr EUROSPORT
SEPARADOR_INT EU LE_FIGARO SPIEGEL BILD THE_INDEPENDENT THE_TIMES THE_GUARDIAN LA_REPUBLICA AME CLARIN LA_NACION EL_UNIVERSAL APORREA GRANMA USA WASHINGTON_POST FINALCIAL_TIMES NY_TIMES OTROS HAARETZ JPOST
RADIO SEPARADOR_ESP RNE SER ONDACERO COPE RADIO_PUNTO ES_RADIO MARCA SEPARADOR_AUT RAC1 CAT_RADIO ONA_FM ONDA_MADRID RADIO_EUSKADI RADIO_CANAL_SUR SEPARADOR_AUT M_80 KIS_FM LOS_40 CADENA_100 RAC_105 RADIO_CLASICA FLAIX_FM EUROPA_FM MAXIMA_FM
TV SEPARADOR_ESP LA1 CUATRO TELECINCO ANTENA3 LA_SEXTA LA_SEXTA2 LA_10 TELEDEPORTE CANAL+ LASIETE 24H A3N INTERECONOMIA GOLT SEPARADOR_AUT TELEMADRID TV3 CANAL9 CANAL_SUR.jpg TPA IB3
TV SEPARADOR_ESP EL_PAIS_SEMANAL LA_VANGUARDIA_MAGAZINE XL_SEMANAL MAGAZINE_EL_MUNDO INTERVIU MUY_INTERESANTE NG ROCK SEPARADOR_INT FOREING_POLICE NEWSWEEK TIME POLITICO GALLUP ECONOMIST
TV GOOGLE YOUTUBE WIKIPEDIA IMAGESHACK TINYPIC
TV SEPARADOR_CINE FILM_AFFINITY IMDB FOTOGRAMAS CINE_MANIA CINE_TUBE SEPARADOR_MUSICA SPOTIFY ROLLING_STONE LIBROS LECTORES_ELECTRONICOS CASA_DEL_LIBRO SCRIBD SEPARADOR_JUEGOS COMUNIO PUNTOS_COMUNIO HATTRICK GOALUNITED EVE

Fecha actual 26 Sep 2018 14:53



Nuevo tema Responder al tema  [ 108 mensajes ]  Ir a p谩gina 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Siguiente
Autor Mensaje
 Asunto: La pol铆tica de inmigraci贸n europea, auspiciada por Frau Merkel, va a terminar rompiendo la Uni贸n Europea
Nota Publicado: 14 Jun 2018 20:57 
Desconectado
Cobra convenio
Avatar de Usuario

Registrado: 02 Jun 2014 17:49
Mensajes: 2813
Ubicaci贸n: Hondarribia (Gipuzkoa) (V-D y fiestas de guardar) y Madrid (L-V) (cosas del trabajo)
Citar:
La CSU lanza un 贸rdago contra Merkel y exige el rechazo de refugiados en la frontera

La fractura del bloque conservador del Gobierno se agrava por la pol铆tica de refugiados


El Pa铆s

Hay riesgo grave de ruptura del gobierno de coalici贸n en Alemania. El 14 de octubre hay elecciones en Baviera y la CSU tiembla porque AfD puede quitarle la mayor铆a (y si pasa eso, ser谩 porque los b谩varos no est谩n de acuerdo con muchas cosas). Por cierto, unido a esto est谩 que el sentimiento independentista en Baviera est谩 creciendo. Parece que 1/3 de b谩varos quieren separarse ya de Alemania.

Si se rompe la mayor铆a que sustenta al gobierno alem谩n, tocar谩 elecciones estatales y probablemente habr谩 una subida importante del partido AfD.

A partir de ah铆, fichas de domin贸 cayendo una detr谩s de otra. Y, al final, riesgo de ruptura en la Uni贸n Europea. Cuesti贸n de tiempo. Aquello de que cuando la cuerda se estira demasiado... al final se rompe.

Dimita, se帽ora Merkel.


Arriba
 Perfil  
 
 Asunto: La pol铆tica de inmigraci贸n europea, auspiciada por Frau Merkel, va a terminar rompiendo la Uni贸n Europea
Nota Publicado: 14 Jun 2018 22:03 
Desconectado
Funcionario

Registrado: 18 Ene 2014 11:57
Mensajes: 4726
Tengo que reconocer que a m铆, Echeminga Dominga, me la pone dura. Cada vez que le veo abrir esa bocaza me pongo de una mala hostiaaaa... En mi descargo dir茅 que, por lo menos, he coincidido alguna vez con 茅l y la misma impresi贸n que me trasmite por los medios de comunicaci贸n, me lo traslada en persona.
Ahora. A usted se la ponen dura los inmigrantes. Los feos, los guapos; los cojos, los mancos; los buenos y los malos. A usted le da igual. Sin discriminar y sin conocerlos. Porque me da la sensaci贸n que a usted le i.porta un huevo. Lo importante es descargar frustraciones en otros. Delegar las culpas en otros. No asumir nuestros errores sobre lo que nos hubiera gustado hacer y trasladarlo a los que vienen de fuera para aliviar nuestros remordimientos y culpas.
Felicidades. Es usted un tramposo. Intentan justificar conductas xen贸fobas con argumentos absurdos en la mayor铆a de las ocasiones. Sean por lo menos sinceros y digan lo que piensan de verdad; que les dan asco. As铆. C贸mo a mi el Echeminga Dominga.
Un saludo


Arriba
 Perfil Email  
 
 Asunto: Re: La pol铆tica de inmigraci贸n europea, auspiciada por Frau Merkel, va a terminar rompiendo la Uni贸n Europea
Nota Publicado: 15 Jun 2018 00:50 
Desconectado
Cobra convenio
Avatar de Usuario

Registrado: 02 Jun 2014 17:49
Mensajes: 2813
Ubicaci贸n: Hondarribia (Gipuzkoa) (V-D y fiestas de guardar) y Madrid (L-V) (cosas del trabajo)
xmigoll:

Es much铆simo m谩s sencillo que lo que Vd. nos ha contado. Vamos a ver, la historia nos ense帽a una y otra vez que los que est谩n en desacuerdo con algo que hay son los que protestan y presionan hasta que la situaci贸n cambie. Es decir, las quejas siempre van a venir del lado de los descontentos con algo. Y los que est谩n de acuerdo con ese algo, se dedican a criticar, menospreciar, atacar, o como lo quiera Vd. llamar, a los desafectos.

F铆jese en lo que ha pasado con el gobierno anterior del Sr. Rajoy. 驴Qui茅nes criticaban (critic谩bamos) en este foro a ese gobierno? Los que pensaban (pens谩bamos) que hab铆a otra manera de hacer las cosas. Los afines al Partido Popular en este foro no protestaban al gobierno. Quiz谩 porque no les disgustaba del todo. Y quiz谩 tambi茅n porque los conservadores en este foro son minor铆a casi extinta.

Por cierto, lo mismo pasar谩, pero a la inversa, con el actual gobierno.

En esto de la inmigraci贸n, 驴qui茅nes van a protestar o a expresar sus quejas para que la situaci贸n cambie si es posible? Pues los que estamos en contra de la actual pol铆tica migratoria. Porque supongo que se puede estar en desacuerdo con la pol铆tica migratoria europea (dictada desde Berl铆n) sin que a los desafectos haya que llamarlos todos los improperios que todos los d铆as nos dedic谩is los que est谩is de acuerdo con lo que hay. Y, por ejemplo, se pueda decir que la pol铆tica migratoria deber铆a estar enfocada especialmente a atraer trabajadores cualificados que aporten valor, y no traer por traer a gente sin cualificaci贸n que van a tener complicad铆simo encontrar un puesto de trabajo y que van a tener que ser sostenidos con cargo a los impuestos de todos. Y para eso hay que hacer una cierta planificaci贸n, hacer una estimaci贸n de cu谩ntos puestos de trabajo pueden ocupar los inmigrantes, qu茅 cualificaciones se necesitan, qu茅 t铆tulos, qu茅 edades, qu茅 herramientas se les va a proporcionar para que puedan integrarse en el mercado de trabajo (por ejemplo, ense帽arles el idoma), etc.

驴Ha o铆do Vd. algo de eso? 驴Se quieren trabajadores que aporten o s贸lo se trata de llenar esto de gente? Si sabe algo de eso, cu茅ntemelo, porque yo no he o铆do que haya previsto nada de eso ni que se haya hecho por el gobierno ninguna planificaci贸n de esas. 驴Vd. me puede decir qu茅 n煤mero de inmigrantes admite, por ejemplo, este pa铆s? 驴Cinco millones? 驴Quiz谩 diez? 驴Treinta millones? D铆gamelo, por favor, si lo sabe. 驴Y cuando lleguemos a ese n煤mero ya no se admitir谩n m谩s, o, por el contrario, montamos el camarote de los hermanos Marx? 驴Los c谩lculos se hacen contando la reagrupaci贸n familiar o no? Y, en su caso, 驴qu茅 reagrupaci贸n familiar? 驴Entran en la reagrupaci贸n familiar el t铆o de la novia del sobrino de la cu帽ada de la consuegra pol铆tica de la tercera esposa del inmigrante? 驴Vale toda la inmigraci贸n, legal o ilegal, como ahora o s贸lo la que se haya podido planificar? 驴Y qu茅 se hace con los que no est谩 previsto que llegasen pero han llegado?

Bueno, pues decir todas esas cosas, que a m铆 me parece que son de sentido com煤n, para Vd. y para la mayor铆a progre de este foro, es algo as铆 como mentar la bicha.

Por cierto, le voy a regalar un art铆culo sobre algo de esto que ha pasado tambi茅n en los Estados Unidos. Ya sabe, cuando las barbas de tu vecino veas...

Pues eso.

Citar:

How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration

In the past decade, liberals have avoided inconvenient truths about the issue.

The myth, which liberals like myself find tempting, is that only the right has changed. In June 2015, we tell ourselves, Donald Trump rode down his golden escalator and pretty soon nativism, long a feature of conservative politics, had engulfed it. But that鈥檚 not the full story. If the right has grown more nationalistic, the left has grown less so. A decade ago, liberals publicly questioned immigration in ways that would shock many progressives today.

In 2005, a left-leaning blogger wrote, 鈥淚llegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone.鈥 In 2006, a liberal columnist wrote that 鈥渋mmigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants鈥 and that 鈥渢he fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear.鈥 His conclusion: 鈥淲e鈥檒l need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.鈥 That same year, a Democratic senator wrote, 鈥淲hen I see Mexican flags waved at proimmigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I鈥檓 forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.鈥

The blogger was Glenn Greenwald. The columnist was Paul Krugman. The senator was Barack Obama.

Prominent liberals didn鈥檛 oppose immigration a decade ago. Most acknowledged its benefits to America鈥檚 economy and culture. They supported a path to citizenship for the undocumented. Still, they routinely asserted that low-skilled immigrants depressed the wages of low-skilled American workers and strained America鈥檚 welfare state. And they were far more likely than liberals today are to acknowledge that, as Krugman put it, 鈥渋mmigration is an intensely painful topic 鈥 because it places basic principles in conflict.鈥

Today, little of that ambivalence remains. In 2008, the Democratic platform called undocumented immigrants 鈥渙ur neighbors.鈥 But it also warned, 鈥淲e cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked,鈥 adding that 鈥渢hose who enter our country鈥檚 borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.鈥 By 2016, such language was gone. The party鈥檚 platform described America鈥檚 immigration system as a problem, but not illegal immigration itself. And it focused almost entirely on the forms of immigration enforcement that Democrats opposed. In its immigration section, the 2008 platform referred three times to people entering the country 鈥渋llegally.鈥 The immigration section of the 2016 platform didn鈥檛 use the word illegal, or any variation of it, at all.

鈥淎 decade or two ago,鈥 says Jason Furman, a former chairman of President Obama鈥檚 Council of Economic Advisers, 鈥淒emocrats were divided on immigration. Now everyone agrees and is passionate and thinks very little about any potential downsides.鈥 How did this come to be?

There are several explanations for liberals鈥 shift. The first is that they have changed because the reality on the ground has changed, particularly as regards illegal immigration. In the two decades preceding 2008, the United States experienced sharp growth in its undocumented population. Since then, the numbers have leveled off.

But this alone doesn鈥檛 explain the transformation. The number of undocumented people in the United States hasn鈥檛 gone down significantly, after all; it鈥檚 stayed roughly the same. So the economic concerns that Krugman raised a decade ago remain relevant today.

A larger explanation is political. Between 2008 and 2016, Democrats became more and more confident that the country鈥檚 growing Latino population gave the party an electoral edge. To win the presidency, Democrats convinced themselves, they didn鈥檛 need to reassure white people skeptical of immigration so long as they turned out their Latino base. 鈥淭he fastest-growing sector of the American electorate stampeded toward the Democrats this November,鈥 Salon declared after Obama鈥檚 2008 win. 鈥淚f that pattern continues, the GOP is doomed to 40 years of wandering in a desert.鈥

As the Democrats grew more reliant on Latino votes, they were more influenced by pro-immigrant activism. While Obama was running for reelection, immigrants鈥-rights advocates launched protests against the administration鈥檚 deportation practices; these protests culminated, in June 2012, in a sit-in at an Obama campaign office in Denver. Ten days later, the administration announced that it would defer the deportation of undocumented immigrants who had arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 and met various other criteria. Obama, The New York Times noted, 鈥渨as facing growing pressure from Latino leaders and Democrats who warned that because of his harsh immigration enforcement, his support was lagging among Latinos who could be crucial voters in his race for re-election.鈥

Alongside pressure from pro-immigrant activists came pressure from corporate America, especially the Democrat-aligned tech industry, which uses the H-1B visa program to import workers. In 2010, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, along with the CEOs of companies including Hewlett-Packard, Boeing, Disney, and News Corporation, formed New American Economy to advocate for business-friendly immigration policies. Three years later, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates helped found FWD.us to promote a similar agenda.

This combination of Latino and corporate activism made it perilous for Democrats to discuss immigration鈥檚 costs, as Bernie Sanders learned the hard way. In July 2015, two months after officially announcing his candidacy for president, Sanders was interviewed by Ezra Klein, the editor in chief of Vox. Klein asked whether, in order to fight global poverty, the U.S. should consider 鈥渟harply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders.鈥 Sanders reacted with horror. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 a Koch brothers proposal,鈥 he scoffed. He went on to insist that 鈥渞ight-wing people in this country would love 鈥 an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don鈥檛 believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country.鈥

Sanders came under immediate attack. Vox鈥檚 Dylan Matthews declared that his 鈥渇ear of immigrant labor is ugly鈥攁nd wrongheaded.鈥 The president of FWD.us accused Sanders of 鈥渢he sort of backward-looking thinking that progressives have rightly moved away from in the past years.鈥 ThinkProgress published a blog post titled 鈥淲hy Immigration Is the Hole in Bernie Sanders鈥 Progressive Agenda.鈥 The senator, it argued, was supporting 鈥渢he idea that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs and hurting the economy, a theory that has been proven incorrect.鈥

Sanders stopped emphasizing immigration鈥檚 costs. By January 2016, FWD.us鈥檚 policy director noted with satisfaction that he had 鈥渆volved on this issue.鈥

But has the claim that 鈥渋mmigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs鈥 actually been proved 鈥渋ncorrect鈥? A decade ago, liberals weren鈥檛 so sure. In 2006, Krugman wrote that America was experiencing 鈥渓arge increases in the number of low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production, so it鈥檚 inevitable that this means a fall in wages.鈥

It鈥檚 hard to imagine a prominent liberal columnist writing that sentence today. To the contrary, progressive commentators now routinely claim that there鈥檚 a near-consensus among economists on immigration鈥檚 benefits.

There isn鈥檛. According to a comprehensive new report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 鈥淕roups comparable to 鈥 immigrants in terms of their skill may experience a wage reduction as a result of immigration-induced increases in labor supply.鈥 But academics sometimes de-emphasize this wage reduction because, like liberal journalists and politicians, they face pressures to support immigration.

Many of the immigration scholars regularly cited in the press have worked for, or received funding from, pro-immigration businesses and associations. Consider, for instance, Giovanni Peri, an economist at UC Davis whose name pops up a lot in liberal commentary on the virtues of immigration. A 2015 New York Times Magazine essay titled 鈥淒ebunking the Myth of the Job-Stealing Immigrant鈥 declared that Peri, whom it called the 鈥渓eading scholar鈥 on how nations respond to immigration, had 鈥渟hown that immigrants tend to complement鈥攔ather than compete against鈥攖he existing work force.鈥 Peri is indeed a respected scholar. But Microsoft has funded some of his research into high-skilled immigration. And New American Economy paid to help him turn his research into a 2014 policy paper decrying limitations on the H-1B visa program. Such grants are more likely the result of his scholarship than their cause. Still, the prevalence of corporate funding can subtly influence which questions economists ask, and which ones they don鈥檛. (Peri says grants like those from Microsoft and New American Economy are neither large nor crucial to his work, and that 鈥渢hey don鈥檛 determine 鈥 the direction of my academic research.鈥)

Academics face cultural pressures too. In his book Exodus, Paul Collier, an economist at the University of Oxford, claims that in their 鈥渄esperate [desire] not to give succor鈥 to nativist bigots, 鈥渟ocial scientists have strained every muscle to show that migration is good for everyone.鈥 George Borjas of Harvard argues that since he began studying immigration in the 1980s, his fellow economists have grown far less tolerant of research that emphasizes its costs. There is, he told me, 鈥渁 lot of self-censorship among young social scientists.鈥 Because Borjas is an immigration skeptic, some might discount his perspective. But when I asked Donald Davis, a Columbia University economist who takes a more favorable view of immigration鈥檚 economic impact, about Borjas鈥檚 claim, he made a similar point. 鈥淕eorge and I come out on different sides of policy on immigration,鈥 Davis said, 鈥渂ut I agree that there are aspects of discussion in academia that don鈥檛 get sort of full view if you come to the wrong conclusion.鈥

None of this means that liberals should oppose immigration. Entry to the United States is, for starters, a boon to immigrants and to the family members back home to whom they send money. It should be valued on these moral grounds alone. But immigration benefits the economy, too. Because immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to be of working age, they improve the ratio of workers to retirees, which helps keep programs like Social Security and Medicare solvent. Immigration has also been found to boost productivity, and the National Academies report finds that 鈥渘atives鈥 incomes rise in aggregate as a result of immigration.鈥

The problem is that, although economists differ about the extent of the damage, immigration hurts the Americans with whom immigrants compete. And since more than a quarter of America鈥檚 recent immigrants lack even a high-school diploma or its equivalent, immigration particularly hurts the least-educated native workers, the very people who are already struggling the most. America鈥檚 immigration system, in other words, pits two of the groups liberals care about most鈥攖he native-born poor and the immigrant poor鈥攁gainst each other.

One way of mitigating this problem would be to scrap the current system, which allows immigrants living in the U.S. to bring certain close relatives to the country, in favor of what Donald Trump in February called a 鈥渕erit based鈥 approach that prioritizes highly skilled and educated workers. The problem with this idea, from a liberal perspective, is its cruelty. It denies many immigrants who are already here the ability to reunite with their loved ones. And it flouts the country鈥檚 best traditions. Would we remove from the Statue of Liberty the poem welcoming the 鈥減oor,鈥 the 鈥渨retched,鈥 and the 鈥渉omeless鈥?

A better answer is to take some of the windfall that immigration brings to wealthier Americans and give it to those poorer Americans whom immigration harms. Borjas has suggested taxing the high-tech, agricultural, and service-sector companies that profit from cheap immigrant labor and using the money to compensate those Americans who are displaced by it.

Unfortunately, while admitting poor immigrants makes redistributing wealth more necessary, it also makes it harder, at least in the short term. By some estimates, immigrants, who are poorer on average than native-born Americans and have larger families, receive more in government services than they pay in taxes. According to the National Academies report, immigrant-headed families with children are 15 percentage points more likely to rely on food assistance, and 12 points more likely to rely on Medicaid, than other families with children. In the long term, the United States will likely recoup much if not all of the money it spends on educating and caring for the children of immigrants. But in the meantime, these costs strain the very welfare state that liberals want to expand in order to help those native-born Americans with whom immigrants compete.

What鈥檚 more, studies by the Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam and others suggest that greater diversity makes Americans less charitable and less willing to redistribute wealth. People tend to be less generous when large segments of society don鈥檛 look or talk like them. Surprisingly, Putnam鈥檚 research suggests that greater diversity doesn鈥檛 reduce trust and cooperation just among people of different races or ethnicities鈥攊t also reduces trust and cooperation among people of the same race and ethnicity.

Trump appears to sense this. His implicit message during the campaign was that if the government kept out Mexicans and Muslims, white, Christian Americans would not only grow richer and safer, they would also regain the sense of community that they identified with a bygone age. 鈥淎t the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America,鈥 he declared in his inaugural address, 鈥渁nd through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.鈥

Liberals must take seriously Americans鈥 yearning for social cohesion. To promote both mass immigration and greater economic redistribution, they must convince more native-born white Americans that immigrants will not weaken the bonds of national identity. This means dusting off a concept many on the left currently hate: assimilation.

Promoting assimilation need not mean expecting immigrants to abandon their culture. But it does mean breaking down the barriers that segregate them from the native-born. And it means celebrating America鈥檚 diversity less, and its unity more.

Writing last year in American Sociological Review, Ariela Schachter, a sociology professor at Washington University in St. Louis, examined the factors that influence how native-born whites view immigrants. Foremost among them is an immigrant鈥檚 legal status. Given that natives often assume Latinos are undocumented even when they aren鈥檛, it follows that illegal immigration indirectly undermines the status of those Latinos who live in the U.S. legally. That鈥檚 why conservatives rail against government benefits for undocumented immigrants (even though the undocumented are already barred from receiving many of those benefits): They know Americans will be more reluctant to support government programs if they believe those programs to be benefiting people who have entered the country illegally.

Liberal immigration policy must work to ensure that immigrants do not occupy a separate legal caste. This means opposing the guest-worker programs鈥攂eloved by many Democrat-friendly tech companies, among other employers鈥攖hat require immigrants to work in a particular job to remain in the U.S. Some scholars believe such programs drive down wages; they certainly inhibit assimilation. And, as Schachter鈥檚 research suggests, strengthening the bonds of identity between natives and immigrants is harder when natives and immigrants are not equal under the law.

The next Democratic presidential candidate should say again and again that because Americans are one people, who must abide by one law, his or her goal is to reduce America鈥檚 undocumented population to zero. For liberals, the easy part of fulfilling that pledge is supporting a path to citizenship for the undocumented who have put down roots in the United States. The hard part, which Hillary Clinton largely ignored in her 2016 presidential run, is backing tough immigration enforcement so that path to citizenship doesn鈥檛 become a magnet that entices more immigrants to enter the U.S. illegally.

Enforcement need not mean tearing apart families, as Trump is doing with gusto. Liberals can propose that the government deal harshly not with the undocumented themselves but with their employers. Trump鈥檚 brutal policies already appear to be slowing illegal immigration. But making sure companies follow the law and verify the legal status of their employees would curtail it too: Migrants would presumably be less likely to come to the U.S. if they know they won鈥檛 be able to find work.

Schachter鈥檚 research also shows that native-born whites feel a greater affinity toward immigrants who speak fluent English. That鈥檚 particularly significant because, according to the National Academies report, newer immigrants are learning English more slowly than their predecessors did. During the campaign, Clinton proposed increasing funding for adult English-language education. But she rarely talked about it. In fact, she ran an ad attacking Trump for saying, among other things, 鈥淭his is a country where we speak English, not Spanish.鈥 The immigration section of her website showed her surrounded by Spanish-language signs.

Democrats should put immigrants鈥 learning English at the center of their immigration agenda. If more immigrants speak English fluently, native-born whites may well feel a stronger connection to them, and be more likely to support government policies that help them. Promoting English will also give Democrats a greater chance of attracting those native-born whites who consider growing diversity a threat. According to a preelection study by Adam Bonica, a Stanford political scientist, the single best predictor of whether a voter supported Trump was whether he or she agreed with the statement 鈥淧eople living in the U.S. should follow American customs and traditions.鈥

In her 2005 book, The Authoritarian Dynamic, which has been heralded for identifying the forces that powered Trump鈥檚 campaign, Karen Stenner, then a professor of politics at Princeton, wrote:

"Exposure to difference, talking about difference, and applauding difference鈥攖he hallmarks of liberal democracy鈥攁re the surest ways to aggravate those who are innately intolerant, and to guarantee the increased expression of their predispositions in manifestly intolerant attitudes and behaviors. Paradoxically, then, it would seem that we can best limit intolerance of difference by parading, talking about, and applauding our sameness."

The next Democratic presidential nominee should commit those words to memory. There鈥檚 a reason Barack Obama鈥檚 declaration at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that 鈥渢here is not a liberal America and a conservative America 鈥 There is not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there鈥檚 the United States of America鈥 is among his most famous lines. Americans know that liberals celebrate diversity. They鈥檙e less sure that liberals celebrate unity. And Obama鈥檚 ability to effectively do the latter probably contributed to the fact that he鈥攁 black man with a Muslim-sounding name鈥攖wice won a higher percentage of the white vote than did Hillary Clinton.

In 2014, the University of California listed melting pot as a term it considered a 鈥渕icroaggression.鈥 What if Hillary Clinton had traveled to one of its campuses and called that absurd? What if she had challenged elite universities to celebrate not merely multiculturalism and globalization but Americanness? What if she had said more boldly that the slowing rate of English-language acquisition was a problem she was determined to solve? What if she had acknowledged the challenges that mass immigration brings, and then insisted that Americans could overcome those challenges by focusing not on what makes them different but on what makes them the same?

Some on the left would have howled. But I suspect that Clinton would be president today.


The Atlantic


Arriba
 Perfil  
 
 Asunto: Re: La pol铆tica de inmigraci贸n europea, auspiciada por Frau Merkel, va a terminar rompiendo la Uni贸n Europea
Nota Publicado: 15 Jun 2018 02:38 
Desconectado
Funcionario

Registrado: 18 Ene 2014 11:57
Mensajes: 4726
skye escribi贸:
xmigoll:

Es much铆simo m谩s sencillo que lo que Vd. nos ha contado. Vamos a ver, la historia nos ense帽a una y otra vez que los que est谩n en desacuerdo con algo que hay son los que protestan y presionan hasta que la situaci贸n cambie. Es decir, las quejas siempre van a venir del lado de los descontentos con algo. Y los que est谩n de acuerdo con ese algo, se dedican a criticar, menospreciar, atacar, o como lo quiera Vd. llamar, a los desafectos.

F铆jese en lo que ha pasado con el gobierno anterior del Sr. Rajoy. 驴Qui茅nes criticaban (critic谩bamos) en este foro a ese gobierno? Los que pensaban (pens谩bamos) que hab铆a otra manera de hacer las cosas. Los afines al Partido Popular en este foro no protestaban al gobierno. Quiz谩 porque no les disgustaba del todo. Y quiz谩 tambi茅n porque los conservadores en este foro son minor铆a casi extinta.

Por cierto, lo mismo pasar谩, pero a la inversa, con el actual gobierno.

En esto de la inmigraci贸n, 驴qui茅nes van a protestar o a expresar sus quejas para que la situaci贸n cambie si es posible? Pues los que estamos en contra de la actual pol铆tica migratoria. Porque supongo que se puede estar en desacuerdo con la pol铆tica migratoria europea (dictada desde Berl铆n) sin que a los desafectos haya que llamarlos todos los improperios que todos los d铆as nos dedic谩is los que est谩is de acuerdo con lo que hay. Y, por ejemplo, se pueda decir que la pol铆tica migratoria deber铆a estar enfocada especialmente a atraer trabajadores cualificados que aporten valor, y no traer por traer a gente sin cualificaci贸n que van a tener complicad铆simo encontrar un puesto de trabajo y que van a tener que ser sostenidos con cargo a los impuestos de todos. Y para eso hay que hacer una cierta planificaci贸n, hacer una estimaci贸n de cu谩ntos puestos de trabajo pueden ocupar los inmigrantes, qu茅 cualificaciones se necesitan, qu茅 t铆tulos, qu茅 edades, qu茅 herramientas se les va a proporcionar para que puedan integrarse en el mercado de trabajo (por ejemplo, ense帽arles el idoma), etc.

驴Ha o铆do Vd. algo de eso? 驴Se quieren trabajadores que aporten o s贸lo se trata de llenar esto de gente? Si sabe algo de eso, cu茅ntemelo, porque yo no he o铆do que haya previsto nada de eso ni que se haya hecho por el gobierno ninguna planificaci贸n de esas. 驴Vd. me puede decir qu茅 n煤mero de inmigrantes admite, por ejemplo, este pa铆s? 驴Cinco millones? 驴Quiz谩 diez? 驴Treinta millones? D铆gamelo, por favor, si lo sabe. 驴Y cuando lleguemos a ese n煤mero ya no se admitir谩n m谩s, o, por el contrario, montamos el camarote de los hermanos Marx? 驴Los c谩lculos se hacen contando la reagrupaci贸n familiar o no? Y, en su caso, 驴qu茅 reagrupaci贸n familiar? 驴Entran en la reagrupaci贸n familiar el t铆o de la novia del sobrino de la cu帽ada de la consuegra pol铆tica de la tercera esposa del inmigrante? 驴Vale toda la inmigraci贸n, legal o ilegal, como ahora o s贸lo la que se haya podido planificar? 驴Y qu茅 se hace con los que no est谩 previsto que llegasen pero han llegado?

Bueno, pues decir todas esas cosas, que a m铆 me parece que son de sentido com煤n, para Vd. y para la mayor铆a progre de este foro, es algo as铆 como mentar la bicha.

Por cierto, le voy a regalar un art铆culo sobre algo de esto que ha pasado tambi茅n en los Estados Unidos. Ya sabe, cuando las barbas de tu vecino veas...

Pues eso.

Citar:

How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration

In the past decade, liberals have avoided inconvenient truths about the issue.

The myth, which liberals like myself find tempting, is that only the right has changed. In June 2015, we tell ourselves, Donald Trump rode down his golden escalator and pretty soon nativism, long a feature of conservative politics, had engulfed it. But that鈥檚 not the full story. If the right has grown more nationalistic, the left has grown less so. A decade ago, liberals publicly questioned immigration in ways that would shock many progressives today.

In 2005, a left-leaning blogger wrote, 鈥淚llegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone.鈥 In 2006, a liberal columnist wrote that 鈥渋mmigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants鈥 and that 鈥渢he fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear.鈥 His conclusion: 鈥淲e鈥檒l need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.鈥 That same year, a Democratic senator wrote, 鈥淲hen I see Mexican flags waved at proimmigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I鈥檓 forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.鈥

The blogger was Glenn Greenwald. The columnist was Paul Krugman. The senator was Barack Obama.

Prominent liberals didn鈥檛 oppose immigration a decade ago. Most acknowledged its benefits to America鈥檚 economy and culture. They supported a path to citizenship for the undocumented. Still, they routinely asserted that low-skilled immigrants depressed the wages of low-skilled American workers and strained America鈥檚 welfare state. And they were far more likely than liberals today are to acknowledge that, as Krugman put it, 鈥渋mmigration is an intensely painful topic 鈥 because it places basic principles in conflict.鈥

Today, little of that ambivalence remains. In 2008, the Democratic platform called undocumented immigrants 鈥渙ur neighbors.鈥 But it also warned, 鈥淲e cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked,鈥 adding that 鈥渢hose who enter our country鈥檚 borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.鈥 By 2016, such language was gone. The party鈥檚 platform described America鈥檚 immigration system as a problem, but not illegal immigration itself. And it focused almost entirely on the forms of immigration enforcement that Democrats opposed. In its immigration section, the 2008 platform referred three times to people entering the country 鈥渋llegally.鈥 The immigration section of the 2016 platform didn鈥檛 use the word illegal, or any variation of it, at all.

鈥淎 decade or two ago,鈥 says Jason Furman, a former chairman of President Obama鈥檚 Council of Economic Advisers, 鈥淒emocrats were divided on immigration. Now everyone agrees and is passionate and thinks very little about any potential downsides.鈥 How did this come to be?

There are several explanations for liberals鈥 shift. The first is that they have changed because the reality on the ground has changed, particularly as regards illegal immigration. In the two decades preceding 2008, the United States experienced sharp growth in its undocumented population. Since then, the numbers have leveled off.

But this alone doesn鈥檛 explain the transformation. The number of undocumented people in the United States hasn鈥檛 gone down significantly, after all; it鈥檚 stayed roughly the same. So the economic concerns that Krugman raised a decade ago remain relevant today.

A larger explanation is political. Between 2008 and 2016, Democrats became more and more confident that the country鈥檚 growing Latino population gave the party an electoral edge. To win the presidency, Democrats convinced themselves, they didn鈥檛 need to reassure white people skeptical of immigration so long as they turned out their Latino base. 鈥淭he fastest-growing sector of the American electorate stampeded toward the Democrats this November,鈥 Salon declared after Obama鈥檚 2008 win. 鈥淚f that pattern continues, the GOP is doomed to 40 years of wandering in a desert.鈥

As the Democrats grew more reliant on Latino votes, they were more influenced by pro-immigrant activism. While Obama was running for reelection, immigrants鈥-rights advocates launched protests against the administration鈥檚 deportation practices; these protests culminated, in June 2012, in a sit-in at an Obama campaign office in Denver. Ten days later, the administration announced that it would defer the deportation of undocumented immigrants who had arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 and met various other criteria. Obama, The New York Times noted, 鈥渨as facing growing pressure from Latino leaders and Democrats who warned that because of his harsh immigration enforcement, his support was lagging among Latinos who could be crucial voters in his race for re-election.鈥

Alongside pressure from pro-immigrant activists came pressure from corporate America, especially the Democrat-aligned tech industry, which uses the H-1B visa program to import workers. In 2010, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, along with the CEOs of companies including Hewlett-Packard, Boeing, Disney, and News Corporation, formed New American Economy to advocate for business-friendly immigration policies. Three years later, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates helped found FWD.us to promote a similar agenda.

This combination of Latino and corporate activism made it perilous for Democrats to discuss immigration鈥檚 costs, as Bernie Sanders learned the hard way. In July 2015, two months after officially announcing his candidacy for president, Sanders was interviewed by Ezra Klein, the editor in chief of Vox. Klein asked whether, in order to fight global poverty, the U.S. should consider 鈥渟harply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders.鈥 Sanders reacted with horror. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 a Koch brothers proposal,鈥 he scoffed. He went on to insist that 鈥渞ight-wing people in this country would love 鈥 an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don鈥檛 believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country.鈥

Sanders came under immediate attack. Vox鈥檚 Dylan Matthews declared that his 鈥渇ear of immigrant labor is ugly鈥攁nd wrongheaded.鈥 The president of FWD.us accused Sanders of 鈥渢he sort of backward-looking thinking that progressives have rightly moved away from in the past years.鈥 ThinkProgress published a blog post titled 鈥淲hy Immigration Is the Hole in Bernie Sanders鈥 Progressive Agenda.鈥 The senator, it argued, was supporting 鈥渢he idea that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs and hurting the economy, a theory that has been proven incorrect.鈥

Sanders stopped emphasizing immigration鈥檚 costs. By January 2016, FWD.us鈥檚 policy director noted with satisfaction that he had 鈥渆volved on this issue.鈥

But has the claim that 鈥渋mmigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs鈥 actually been proved 鈥渋ncorrect鈥? A decade ago, liberals weren鈥檛 so sure. In 2006, Krugman wrote that America was experiencing 鈥渓arge increases in the number of low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production, so it鈥檚 inevitable that this means a fall in wages.鈥

It鈥檚 hard to imagine a prominent liberal columnist writing that sentence today. To the contrary, progressive commentators now routinely claim that there鈥檚 a near-consensus among economists on immigration鈥檚 benefits.

There isn鈥檛. According to a comprehensive new report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 鈥淕roups comparable to 鈥 immigrants in terms of their skill may experience a wage reduction as a result of immigration-induced increases in labor supply.鈥 But academics sometimes de-emphasize this wage reduction because, like liberal journalists and politicians, they face pressures to support immigration.

Many of the immigration scholars regularly cited in the press have worked for, or received funding from, pro-immigration businesses and associations. Consider, for instance, Giovanni Peri, an economist at UC Davis whose name pops up a lot in liberal commentary on the virtues of immigration. A 2015 New York Times Magazine essay titled 鈥淒ebunking the Myth of the Job-Stealing Immigrant鈥 declared that Peri, whom it called the 鈥渓eading scholar鈥 on how nations respond to immigration, had 鈥渟hown that immigrants tend to complement鈥攔ather than compete against鈥攖he existing work force.鈥 Peri is indeed a respected scholar. But Microsoft has funded some of his research into high-skilled immigration. And New American Economy paid to help him turn his research into a 2014 policy paper decrying limitations on the H-1B visa program. Such grants are more likely the result of his scholarship than their cause. Still, the prevalence of corporate funding can subtly influence which questions economists ask, and which ones they don鈥檛. (Peri says grants like those from Microsoft and New American Economy are neither large nor crucial to his work, and that 鈥渢hey don鈥檛 determine 鈥 the direction of my academic research.鈥)

Academics face cultural pressures too. In his book Exodus, Paul Collier, an economist at the University of Oxford, claims that in their 鈥渄esperate [desire] not to give succor鈥 to nativist bigots, 鈥渟ocial scientists have strained every muscle to show that migration is good for everyone.鈥 George Borjas of Harvard argues that since he began studying immigration in the 1980s, his fellow economists have grown far less tolerant of research that emphasizes its costs. There is, he told me, 鈥渁 lot of self-censorship among young social scientists.鈥 Because Borjas is an immigration skeptic, some might discount his perspective. But when I asked Donald Davis, a Columbia University economist who takes a more favorable view of immigration鈥檚 economic impact, about Borjas鈥檚 claim, he made a similar point. 鈥淕eorge and I come out on different sides of policy on immigration,鈥 Davis said, 鈥渂ut I agree that there are aspects of discussion in academia that don鈥檛 get sort of full view if you come to the wrong conclusion.鈥

None of this means that liberals should oppose immigration. Entry to the United States is, for starters, a boon to immigrants and to the family members back home to whom they send money. It should be valued on these moral grounds alone. But immigration benefits the economy, too. Because immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to be of working age, they improve the ratio of workers to retirees, which helps keep programs like Social Security and Medicare solvent. Immigration has also been found to boost productivity, and the National Academies report finds that 鈥渘atives鈥 incomes rise in aggregate as a result of immigration.鈥

The problem is that, although economists differ about the extent of the damage, immigration hurts the Americans with whom immigrants compete. And since more than a quarter of America鈥檚 recent immigrants lack even a high-school diploma or its equivalent, immigration particularly hurts the least-educated native workers, the very people who are already struggling the most. America鈥檚 immigration system, in other words, pits two of the groups liberals care about most鈥攖he native-born poor and the immigrant poor鈥攁gainst each other.

One way of mitigating this problem would be to scrap the current system, which allows immigrants living in the U.S. to bring certain close relatives to the country, in favor of what Donald Trump in February called a 鈥渕erit based鈥 approach that prioritizes highly skilled and educated workers. The problem with this idea, from a liberal perspective, is its cruelty. It denies many immigrants who are already here the ability to reunite with their loved ones. And it flouts the country鈥檚 best traditions. Would we remove from the Statue of Liberty the poem welcoming the 鈥減oor,鈥 the 鈥渨retched,鈥 and the 鈥渉omeless鈥?

A better answer is to take some of the windfall that immigration brings to wealthier Americans and give it to those poorer Americans whom immigration harms. Borjas has suggested taxing the high-tech, agricultural, and service-sector companies that profit from cheap immigrant labor and using the money to compensate those Americans who are displaced by it.

Unfortunately, while admitting poor immigrants makes redistributing wealth more necessary, it also makes it harder, at least in the short term. By some estimates, immigrants, who are poorer on average than native-born Americans and have larger families, receive more in government services than they pay in taxes. According to the National Academies report, immigrant-headed families with children are 15 percentage points more likely to rely on food assistance, and 12 points more likely to rely on Medicaid, than other families with children. In the long term, the United States will likely recoup much if not all of the money it spends on educating and caring for the children of immigrants. But in the meantime, these costs strain the very welfare state that liberals want to expand in order to help those native-born Americans with whom immigrants compete.

What鈥檚 more, studies by the Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam and others suggest that greater diversity makes Americans less charitable and less willing to redistribute wealth. People tend to be less generous when large segments of society don鈥檛 look or talk like them. Surprisingly, Putnam鈥檚 research suggests that greater diversity doesn鈥檛 reduce trust and cooperation just among people of different races or ethnicities鈥攊t also reduces trust and cooperation among people of the same race and ethnicity.

Trump appears to sense this. His implicit message during the campaign was that if the government kept out Mexicans and Muslims, white, Christian Americans would not only grow richer and safer, they would also regain the sense of community that they identified with a bygone age. 鈥淎t the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America,鈥 he declared in his inaugural address, 鈥渁nd through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.鈥

Liberals must take seriously Americans鈥 yearning for social cohesion. To promote both mass immigration and greater economic redistribution, they must convince more native-born white Americans that immigrants will not weaken the bonds of national identity. This means dusting off a concept many on the left currently hate: assimilation.

Promoting assimilation need not mean expecting immigrants to abandon their culture. But it does mean breaking down the barriers that segregate them from the native-born. And it means celebrating America鈥檚 diversity less, and its unity more.

Writing last year in American Sociological Review, Ariela Schachter, a sociology professor at Washington University in St. Louis, examined the factors that influence how native-born whites view immigrants. Foremost among them is an immigrant鈥檚 legal status. Given that natives often assume Latinos are undocumented even when they aren鈥檛, it follows that illegal immigration indirectly undermines the status of those Latinos who live in the U.S. legally. That鈥檚 why conservatives rail against government benefits for undocumented immigrants (even though the undocumented are already barred from receiving many of those benefits): They know Americans will be more reluctant to support government programs if they believe those programs to be benefiting people who have entered the country illegally.

Liberal immigration policy must work to ensure that immigrants do not occupy a separate legal caste. This means opposing the guest-worker programs鈥攂eloved by many Democrat-friendly tech companies, among other employers鈥攖hat require immigrants to work in a particular job to remain in the U.S. Some scholars believe such programs drive down wages; they certainly inhibit assimilation. And, as Schachter鈥檚 research suggests, strengthening the bonds of identity between natives and immigrants is harder when natives and immigrants are not equal under the law.

The next Democratic presidential candidate should say again and again that because Americans are one people, who must abide by one law, his or her goal is to reduce America鈥檚 undocumented population to zero. For liberals, the easy part of fulfilling that pledge is supporting a path to citizenship for the undocumented who have put down roots in the United States. The hard part, which Hillary Clinton largely ignored in her 2016 presidential run, is backing tough immigration enforcement so that path to citizenship doesn鈥檛 become a magnet that entices more immigrants to enter the U.S. illegally.

Enforcement need not mean tearing apart families, as Trump is doing with gusto. Liberals can propose that the government deal harshly not with the undocumented themselves but with their employers. Trump鈥檚 brutal policies already appear to be slowing illegal immigration. But making sure companies follow the law and verify the legal status of their employees would curtail it too: Migrants would presumably be less likely to come to the U.S. if they know they won鈥檛 be able to find work.

Schachter鈥檚 research also shows that native-born whites feel a greater affinity toward immigrants who speak fluent English. That鈥檚 particularly significant because, according to the National Academies report, newer immigrants are learning English more slowly than their predecessors did. During the campaign, Clinton proposed increasing funding for adult English-language education. But she rarely talked about it. In fact, she ran an ad attacking Trump for saying, among other things, 鈥淭his is a country where we speak English, not Spanish.鈥 The immigration section of her website showed her surrounded by Spanish-language signs.

Democrats should put immigrants鈥 learning English at the center of their immigration agenda. If more immigrants speak English fluently, native-born whites may well feel a stronger connection to them, and be more likely to support government policies that help them. Promoting English will also give Democrats a greater chance of attracting those native-born whites who consider growing diversity a threat. According to a preelection study by Adam Bonica, a Stanford political scientist, the single best predictor of whether a voter supported Trump was whether he or she agreed with the statement 鈥淧eople living in the U.S. should follow American customs and traditions.鈥

In her 2005 book, The Authoritarian Dynamic, which has been heralded for identifying the forces that powered Trump鈥檚 campaign, Karen Stenner, then a professor of politics at Princeton, wrote:

"Exposure to difference, talking about difference, and applauding difference鈥攖he hallmarks of liberal democracy鈥攁re the surest ways to aggravate those who are innately intolerant, and to guarantee the increased expression of their predispositions in manifestly intolerant attitudes and behaviors. Paradoxically, then, it would seem that we can best limit intolerance of difference by parading, talking about, and applauding our sameness."

The next Democratic presidential nominee should commit those words to memory. There鈥檚 a reason Barack Obama鈥檚 declaration at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that 鈥渢here is not a liberal America and a conservative America 鈥 There is not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there鈥檚 the United States of America鈥 is among his most famous lines. Americans know that liberals celebrate diversity. They鈥檙e less sure that liberals celebrate unity. And Obama鈥檚 ability to effectively do the latter probably contributed to the fact that he鈥攁 black man with a Muslim-sounding name鈥攖wice won a higher percentage of the white vote than did Hillary Clinton.

In 2014, the University of California listed melting pot as a term it considered a 鈥渕icroaggression.鈥 What if Hillary Clinton had traveled to one of its campuses and called that absurd? What if she had challenged elite universities to celebrate not merely multiculturalism and globalization but Americanness? What if she had said more boldly that the slowing rate of English-language acquisition was a problem she was determined to solve? What if she had acknowledged the challenges that mass immigration brings, and then insisted that Americans could overcome those challenges by focusing not on what makes them different but on what makes them the same?

Some on the left would have howled. But I suspect that Clinton would be president today.


The Atlantic
Esta entrada le gusta a tito Giribito Goebbels.


Arriba
 Perfil Email  
 
 Asunto: Re: La pol铆tica de inmigraci贸n europea, auspiciada por Frau Merkel, va a terminar rompiendo la Uni贸n Europea
Nota Publicado: 15 Jun 2018 08:07 
Desconectado
Becario
Avatar de Usuario

Registrado: 20 Feb 2018 15:28
Mensajes: 151
Tiene raz贸n skye. Sigamos escondiendo la cabeza y evadiendo el debate ante el problema migratorio y seguir谩n subiendo los partidos xen贸fobos y de ultraderecha...

_________________

Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto


Arriba
 Perfil  
 
 Asunto: Re: La pol铆tica de inmigraci贸n europea, auspiciada por Frau Merkel, va a terminar rompiendo la Uni贸n Europea
Nota Publicado: 15 Jun 2018 08:58 
Desconectado
Miembro del Politbur贸
Avatar de Usuario

Registrado: 11 Oct 2011 19:48
Mensajes: 21067
Kallaikoi escribi贸:
Tiene raz贸n skye. Sigamos escondiendo la cabeza y evadiendo el debate ante el problema migratorio y seguir谩n subiendo los partidos xen贸fobos y de ultraderecha...



El que debe de haber un debate sobre la emigraci贸n es cierto.Eludir debates siempre es malo.
Otra cosa es c贸mo se plantean esos debates. Porque la forma en que se plantean es en base a hilos del tipo "REfugiado moro viola y asesina a adorable y guapa muchacha blanca y europea"

Porque es que ese es el nivel

Solo recuero un debate en este foro planteado en t茅rminos interesantes , creoq ue fue con Hadouken pero no tuvo continuidad por temas de agenda.

Por otra parte una cosa es plantearse un debate serio sobre el tema (porque efectivamente ciertas cosas son insostenibles y tal)y otra tener que asumir los principios de la extrema derecha para que esta no suba.
Es decir, a mi de la extrema derecha lo que me molesta precisamente son sus plantaamientos supremacistas. Si debo de asumirlos para evitar que suban,entonces es que me da igual que suban o no suban.

saludos

_________________

Image Image


Arriba
 Perfil Email  
 
 Asunto: Re: La pol铆tica de inmigraci贸n europea, auspiciada por Frau Merkel, va a terminar rompiendo la Uni贸n Europea
Nota Publicado: 15 Jun 2018 09:04 
Desconectado
Becario
Avatar de Usuario

Registrado: 20 Feb 2018 15:28
Mensajes: 151
Citar:
Porque la forma en que se plantean es en base a hilos del tipo "REfugiado moro viola y asesina a adorable y guapa muchacha blanca y europea"

驴Y la forma que se responde... "este mensaje lo aprobar铆a Goebbels"?


Evidentemente no hay que asumir todos, pero algunos de sus planteamientos s铆 pueden ser asumibles. Da igual que los propongan ellos. la verdad es la verdad, la diga Agamen贸n o su porquero.

Por poner unos ejemplos: es evidente que no puede entrar todo el mundo en Europa. Es evidente que hay que establecer cupos y condiciones. Es evidente que no hay recursos, ni creo que pueda haberlos, para estudiar las solicitudes de asilo caso por caso.

El ministro hoy dice que va a quitar las concertinas. Y? Alguna medida por el lado de impedir la entrada?

_________________

Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto


Arriba
 Perfil  
 
 Asunto: Re: La pol铆tica de inmigraci贸n europea, auspiciada por Frau Merkel, va a terminar rompiendo la Uni贸n Europea
Nota Publicado: 15 Jun 2018 09:13 
Desconectado
Miembro del Politbur贸
Avatar de Usuario

Registrado: 11 Oct 2011 19:48
Mensajes: 21067
Kallaikoi escribi贸:
Citar:
Porque la forma en que se plantean es en base a hilos del tipo "REfugiado moro viola y asesina a adorable y guapa muchacha blanca y europea"

驴Y la forma que se responde... "este mensaje lo aprobar铆a Goebbels"?


Evidentemente no hay que asumir todos, pero algunos de sus planteamientos s铆 pueden ser asumibles. Da igual que los propongan ellos. la verdad es la verdad, la diga Agamen贸n o su porquero.

Por poner unos ejemplos: es evidente que no puede entrar todo el mundo en Europa. Es evidente que hay que establecer cupos y condiciones. Es evidente que no hay recursos, ni creo que pueda haberlos, para estudiar las solicitudes de asilo caso por caso.

El ministro hoy dice que va a quitar las concertinas. Y? Alguna medida por el lado de impedir la entrada?


1) Es que Goebless precisamente aprobar铆a ese tipo de mensajes porque ese tipo de mensajes lo invent贸 Goebless
Una cosa es plantear un debate de forma racional y sensata, y otra hacerlo demonizando a seres humanos.Una cosa es apelar a la raz贸n y otra hacerlo apelando a las visceras.

2)驴Y cuales son los criterios de la extrema derecha que hay que asumir?驴cual es su propuesta al respecto?
Lo digo para iniciar el debate al que usted alud铆a

3)No me parece bien lo de quitar las concertinas. Son una medida meramente disuasorias . Solo te hacen pupa si te subes en la valla.Porque la propia valla va de que no pase la gente.

saludos

_________________

Image Image


Arriba
 Perfil Email  
 
 Asunto: Re: La pol铆tica de inmigraci贸n europea, auspiciada por Frau Merkel, va a terminar rompiendo la Uni贸n Europea
Nota Publicado: 15 Jun 2018 09:23 
Desconectado
Becario
Avatar de Usuario

Registrado: 20 Feb 2018 15:28
Mensajes: 151
Este hilo lo aprobar铆a Goebbels??? Yo no veo que est茅 mal planteado, ni lo que se ha copiado en el art铆culo en ingl茅s.

_________________

Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto


Arriba
 Perfil  
 
 Asunto: Re: La pol铆tica de inmigraci贸n europea, auspiciada por Frau Merkel, va a terminar rompiendo la Uni贸n Europea
Nota Publicado: 15 Jun 2018 09:43 
Desconectado
Miembro del Politbur贸
Avatar de Usuario

Registrado: 11 Oct 2011 19:48
Mensajes: 21067
Kallaikoi escribi贸:
Este hilo lo aprobar铆a Goebbels??? Yo no veo que est茅 mal planteado, ni lo que se ha copiado en el art铆culo en ingl茅s.

Te doy la raz贸n.
VEngo arrastrando el debate del hilo inmediatamente anterior y tambi茅n abierto por Skye donde el planteamiento era otro.
Este art铆culo es un enfoque distinto.AL menos mas complejo

Pero mantengo en pie mi propuesta de debate. 驴cuales son los principios de la extrema derecha que tenemos que asumir para que esta no suba?

Porque a mi el plantearlo de este modo me parece err贸neo.
No se debe de plantear el modelo de la lucha contra la emigraci贸n con la finalidad de frenar a la extrema derecha...porque el adoptar los postulados de LePen para robarles votos a LePen no creo que sea ni moralmente aceptable ni siquiera electoralmente rentable (al socialismo franc茅s poner a un tipejo c贸mo Valls tampoco le ha dado buenos resultados)
Al final haciendo eso lo que logras es legitimar a la extrema derecha (porque dices lo mismo que ellos dicen...as铆 que ya no son tan chungos y degradarte tu mismo ) .

Es un planteamiento err贸neo porque a la hora de afrontar una cuesti贸n debes de tener claro cual es el fin que debes de perseguir.

Y el problema de la (mala) gesti贸n de la emigraci贸n es que esta es una realidad que nos afecta social y econ贸micamente y que c贸mo nos afecta y c贸mo es un fen贸meno de una dimensi贸n colosal hay que plantearselo de forma integral, viendo todos y cada uno de los factores que influyen en el mismo, no solo su vertiendte electoral (que mi partido va a perder votos y van a crecer los lepenes), pues la vertiente electoral es solo un sintoma del problema, no es el problema.

Plantear tu politica para frenar el sintoma de un problema no es solucionar un problema , sino su sintoma.
Cuando todos seamos parecidos a Lepen, a lo mejor no sube tanto LePen, pero a lo mejor sigue el problema
驴Porque si ma帽ana gana Le Pen en Francia.....se habr谩 resuelto el tema de la emigraci贸n?

saludos

_________________

Image Image


Arriba
 Perfil Email  
 
 Asunto: Re: La pol铆tica de inmigraci贸n europea, auspiciada por Frau Merkel, va a terminar rompiendo la Uni贸n Europea
Nota Publicado: 15 Jun 2018 09:52 
Desconectado
Becario
Avatar de Usuario

Registrado: 20 Feb 2018 15:28
Mensajes: 151
Conceptualmente tienes raz贸n. No hay que aceptar los planteamientos de la extrema derecha para que esta no suba.

Hay que aceptar los planteamientos de la extrema derecha que consideremos buenos. Eso es lo principal. Y un efecto secundario tambi茅n bueno es que la extrema derecha no suba.

De la misma forma, si conceptualmente no se aceptan para no legitimar a la extrema derecha, eso es un error. Hay que rechazar los que consideremos malos.

_________________

Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto


Arriba
 Perfil  
 
 Asunto: Re: La pol铆tica de inmigraci贸n europea, auspiciada por Frau Merkel, va a terminar rompiendo la Uni贸n Europea
Nota Publicado: 15 Jun 2018 10:13 
Desconectado
Miembro del Politbur贸
Avatar de Usuario

Registrado: 11 Oct 2011 19:48
Mensajes: 21067
Kallaikoi escribi贸:
Conceptualmente tienes raz贸n. No hay que aceptar los planteamientos de la extrema derecha para que esta no suba.

Hay que aceptar los planteamientos de la extrema derecha que consideremos buenos. Eso es lo principal. Y un efecto secundario tambi茅n bueno es que la extrema derecha no suba.

De la misma forma, si conceptualmente no se aceptan para no legitimar a la extrema derecha, eso es un error. Hay que rechazar los que consideremos malos.


Sigo entonces haci茅ndote la misma pregunta 驴cuales son los planteamientos de la extrema derecha "buenos"? y ya de paso me dices cuales son los malos

Porque tampoco tengo yo claro que la extrema derecha tenga la soluci贸n a los problemas que generan los flujos migraorios. Porque de ganar por ejemplo LePen en Francia.....驴se solucionar铆a dicho problema si aplicase esas medidas "buenas" que todav铆a no me has dicho cuales son?

Hasta ahora solo leo "hag谩monos de extrema derecha, pero solo un poquito" no que medidas son las que debemos de aplicar.

saludos

_________________

Image Image


Arriba
 Perfil Email  
 
 Asunto: Re: La pol铆tica de inmigraci贸n europea, auspiciada por Frau Merkel, va a terminar rompiendo la Uni贸n Europea
Nota Publicado: 15 Jun 2018 10:33 
Desconectado
Becario
Avatar de Usuario

Registrado: 20 Feb 2018 15:28
Mensajes: 151
g谩lvez escribi贸:
Hasta ahora solo leo "hag谩monos de extrema derecha, pero solo un poquito" no que medidas son las que debemos de aplicar.

Hombre, si me dices que hay que elevar el nivel del debate entonces mejor dejar las caricaturas tambi茅n, no?

En cuanto a las medidas, pues yo creo que hay muchos temas que tratar. Por un lado est谩 el tema ultracomplejo de c贸mo actuar en los pa铆ses de origen. Que si ayudas, que si programas. Pero tenemos que reconocer que ese cambio deseados no se producir谩 de un d铆a para otro, siendo optimistas durar谩 d茅cadas. Y adem谩s es un lugar donde nuestra acci贸n es muy limitada, porque no tenemos "derecho" a intervenir en pa铆ses extranjeros. Est谩 fuera de nuestra jurisdicci贸n, por decirlo as铆.

Donde s铆 que tenemos competencia total es internamente.
Temas de asilo. Hay medios, o puede haberlos, para estudiar caso por caso como dice la ley (si me equivoco que alguien me corrija? Yo opino que no. Entonces hay que cambiar la ley, no se puede hacer una ley imposible de cumplir. Asilo pol铆tico solamente para casos ultraclaros, con discrecionalidad ejecutiva. El resto se rechazan todos judicialmente.
Cupos por zonas o pa铆ses. Hasta USA, que es un pa铆s de inmigrantes, tiene y ten铆a con Obama restringido en sus programas de visados diferentes territorios.
Reforzar fronteras. No es l贸gico lo que pasa en las vallas de Ceuta y Melilla, que no son miles de Km a controlar, y el ministro a煤n encima quiere hacerlo peor. No se puede permitir que haya un s贸lo asalto m谩s.
Temas mar铆timos: un barco de una ONG que se dedica a recoger a gente y transportarla de forma masiva qu茅 es? Por razones humanitarias podemos permitir que alguien se dedique a traer personas a Europa? Yo creo que no.

_________________

Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto


Arriba
 Perfil  
 
 Asunto: Re: La pol铆tica de inmigraci贸n europea, auspiciada por Frau Merkel, va a terminar rompiendo la Uni贸n Europea
Nota Publicado: 15 Jun 2018 10:37 
Desconectado
Aut贸nomo
Avatar de Usuario

Registrado: 02 Sep 2010 00:27
Mensajes: 11945
Image

_________________

"El Estado no puede salvarnos de ser gilipollas"


Arriba
 Perfil Email  
 
 Asunto: Re: La pol铆tica de inmigraci贸n europea, auspiciada por Frau Merkel, va a terminar rompiendo la Uni贸n Europea
Nota Publicado: 15 Jun 2018 11:32 
Desconectado
Miembro del Politbur贸
Avatar de Usuario

Registrado: 01 Sep 2010 23:42
Mensajes: 26347
g谩lvez escribi贸:
3)No me parece bien lo de quitar las concertinas. Son una medida meramente disuasorias . Solo te hacen pupa si te subes en la valla.Porque la propia valla va de que no pase la gente.

saludos


驴Es en serio o est谩s siendo ir贸nico? La valla ir谩 de que no pase la gente pero con una concertina y unas cuchillas te puedes desangrar, no s茅 que diferencia hay entre esto y la postura de Nowo con la valla de Israel, "si no se acercan no se les dispara", para eso tambi茅n ponemos un campo minado "meramente disuasorio" eso s铆. La valla est谩 para dificultar que la gente cruce la frontera, no para que pierdan la vida en el proceso. Ni siquiera el muro de Trump va a tener trampas mortales dignas de la guarida de Fu Manch煤

Por otro lado, se habla mucho de Espa帽a o Grecia pero Irlanda es un puto coladero, para tener visado de estudiante (que por encima te permite trabajar a media jornada, y a煤n as铆 se lo pasan por el forro), s贸lo se necesitan 2.500 鈧 y matricularse en una academia de ingl茅s, de hecho hay academias falsas que simplemente hacen los papeles y cogen el dinero, el asunto est谩 en que los subsaharianos no pueden permitirse todo eso, esta es la raz贸n por la que todos los brasile帽os eligen Irlanda como destino, aunque la mayor铆a lo hace para ver Europa (no vienen de fabelas) despu茅s de ahorrar algo de dinero, un % min煤sculo es para aprender ingl茅s realmente

_________________

Homo homini lupus


Arriba
 Perfil  
 
 Asunto: Re: La pol铆tica de inmigraci贸n europea, auspiciada por Frau Merkel, va a terminar rompiendo la Uni贸n Europea
Nota Publicado: 15 Jun 2018 12:06 
Desconectado
Miembro del Politbur贸
Avatar de Usuario

Registrado: 11 Oct 2011 19:48
Mensajes: 21067
Citar:
Hombre, si me dices que hay que elevar el nivel del debate entonces mejor dejar las caricaturas tambi茅n, no?

Dime en que te he caricaturizado. :hombros
Dec铆as que hab铆a que tomar las buenas medidas que tuviesen la extrema derecha, pero no termina de decirmelas...entonces lo que tengo es una cosa indefinida...hay que tener en consideraci贸n parte del ideario del FN, pero sigo sin saber cual.


Citar:
En cuanto a las medidas, pues yo creo que hay muchos temas que tratar. Por un lado est谩 el tema ultracomplejo de c贸mo actuar en los pa铆ses de origen. Que si ayudas, que si programas. Pero tenemos que reconocer que ese cambio deseados no se producir谩 de un d铆a para otro, siendo optimistas durar谩 d茅cadas. Y adem谩s es un lugar donde nuestra acci贸n es muy limitada, porque no tenemos "derecho" a intervenir en pa铆ses extranjeros. Est谩 fuera de nuestra jurisdicci贸n, por decirlo as铆.


Es decir, las causas del emigraci贸n si, pero da perecilla porque eso es a largo plazo y no vamos a darle nuestro dinero a los corruptos lideres de esos paisuchos.
As铆 que en lugar d eintentar paliar las causas de la migraci贸n centr茅monos en c贸mo evitar que nos salpique demasiado.Porque eso lo podemos controlar mejor.
驴es esto lo que pretendes decir?

Citar:
Donde s铆 que tenemos competencia total es internamente.
Temas de asilo. Hay medios, o puede haberlos, para estudiar caso por caso como dice la ley (si me equivoco que alguien me corrija? Yo opino que no. Entonces hay que cambiar la ley, no se puede hacer una ley imposible de cumplir. Asilo pol铆tico solamente para casos ultraclaros, con discrecionalidad ejecutiva. El resto se rechazan todos judicialmente.


Huir de una guerra es un caso ultraclaro de refugiado de guerra 驴o no lo es?
Explicame que es para ti un caso ultraclaro de refugiado porque en la definici贸n de esto `podemos ir desde el "entra todo Dios" por discrecionalidad ejecutiva, al "no entra nadie " por discrecionalidad ejecutiva.
El tema de los refugiados es algo a lo que nos hemos comprometido por tratado internacional, est谩 legalmente incluso por encima de las constituciones internacionales. Incumplirlos es algo equivalente al incumplir le pago de la deuda unilateralmente o a violar la no proliferaci贸n de armas nucleares. Cosas todas ellas firmadas por tratados.

Citar:
Cupos por zonas o pa铆ses. Hasta USA, que es un pa铆s de inmigrantes, tiene y ten铆a con Obama restringido en sus programas de visados diferentes territorios.

En Espa帽a igual, hay paises a los que se les exige visado y otros a los que no.Uno a los que se les pide mas papeleo y otros a los que no
En todo caso 驴cual ser铆a tu propuesta al respecto?驴como clasificamos a los extranjeros y cupos esos?

Citar:
Reforzar fronteras. No es l贸gico lo que pasa en las vallas de Ceuta y Melilla, que no son miles de Km a controlar, y el ministro a煤n encima quiere hacerlo peor. No se puede permitir que haya un s贸lo asalto m谩s.

De acuerdo, me parece mal lo de quitar las concentinas, pero 驴donde ponemos los l铆mites?
Campos minados, disparar al que se acerque, foso con pira帽as...
No es caricaturizar, es que quiero saber exactamente donde ponemos los l铆mites el tema y hasta donde estamos dispuestos a llegar para saber si son aceptables o no dichos l铆mites.

Citar:
Temas mar铆timos: un barco de una ONG que se dedica a recoger a gente y transportarla de forma masiva qu茅 es? Por razones humanitarias podemos permitir que alguien se dedique a traer personas a Europa? Yo creo que no.


Lo cierto es que en el Mediterraneo han muerto decenas de miles de personas naufragos. No me parece mal que existan ONGs que se dediquen a ello si los estados no cumplen lo suficiente con esas tareas
驴Si los naufragos se los encuentra un barco de la armada, qu茅 debemos de hacer....dejar que se ahoguen?, porque una vez rescatados le buque de la armada se los debe de traer para Espa帽a igualmente.
Si se lo encuentra un mercante o un privado de bandera nacional 驴debemos de encarcelarlos si los rescatan y traen a tierra?O por contra debemos de encarcelarlos por denegaci贸n de auxilio.
驴Qu茅 debe de hacerse en ese caso....preguntarles si son naufragos de una patera o naufragos del Costa Concordia para proceder o no a su rescate?

NO es un tema tan f谩cil, y hay que saber donde est谩n los l铆mites.
Pero no dejan de ser meras tiritas que al final no abordamos las causas de la migraci贸n , que nos las pondremos cada vez mas gordas o mas desagradables, pero no te llevan mas que a degradarte moralmente y a ser cada vez mas miserable sin llegar a solucionar ning煤n porblema.

驴Te acuerdas del muro de Berlin?
Que tiempos aquellos donde occidente se part铆a los cuernos por atraer refugiados pol铆ticos,.
Los de la Alemania del este ten铆a el muro alambraod y ocn soldados malotes con AK47 que disparaban a matar a los que hu铆an.....y hab铆a gente que se lo saltaba y no era por hambre, o por salvar el gaznate de la limpieza etnica de turno....era por algo tan rid铆culo en comparativa c贸mo la libertad.
Imaginate lo segundo Kalla, 驴a qu茅 niveles deberemos de llegar para evitar lo segundo?

No intento ridiculizarte ni mucho menos, te agradezco el afrontar el tema abiertamente, pero solo una reflexi贸n....si no afrontas los motivos de que se produzcan aluviones de agua, el tema se va a desbordar por muy gorda que sea la presa.LAs pol铆ticas en origen son imprescindibles si quieres que ese flujo disminuya y se haga manejable. Todo lo que est谩s proponiendo es cerrar puertas, y eso tiene un coste "moral" el de mancharte las manos de sangre para evitarlo
Que oye, a lo mejor la sanfgre es un buen disuasor del efecto llamada.Pero 驴cuanta sangre es asumible?

No digo que haya que abrir las fronteras de par en par. Ni mucho menos.Tampoco digo que no se deba de usar ni a la fuerza ni a la disuasi贸n para defender nuestras fronteras.
Lo que digo es que eso no solucionar谩 gran parte del problema,que es una pol铆tica que tiene sus l铆mites, que tiene su techo y que si apostamos solo por ella no solo no lograremos atajar el problema sino que de paso nos degradaremos por el camino.


saludos

_________________

Image Image


Arriba
 Perfil Email  
 
 Asunto: Re: La pol铆tica de inmigraci贸n europea, auspiciada por Frau Merkel, va a terminar rompiendo la Uni贸n Europea
Nota Publicado: 15 Jun 2018 12:14 
Desconectado
Miembro del Politbur贸
Avatar de Usuario

Registrado: 11 Oct 2011 19:48
Mensajes: 21067
Enxebre escribi贸:
g谩lvez escribi贸:
3)No me parece bien lo de quitar las concertinas. Son una medida meramente disuasorias . Solo te hacen pupa si te subes en la valla.Porque la propia valla va de que no pase la gente.

saludos


驴Es en serio o est谩s siendo ir贸nico? La valla ir谩 de que no pase la gente pero con una concertina y unas cuchillas te puedes desangrar, no s茅 que diferencia hay entre esto y la postura de Nowo con la valla de Israel, "si no se acercan no se les dispara", para eso tambi茅n ponemos un campo minado "meramente disuasorio" eso s铆. La valla est谩 para dificultar que la gente cruce la frontera, no para que pierdan la vida en el proceso. Ni siquiera el muro de Trump va a tener trampas mortales dignas de la guarida de Fu Manch煤

Por otro lado, se habla mucho de Espa帽a o Grecia pero Irlanda es un puto coladero, para tener visado de estudiante (que por encima te permite trabajar a media jornada, y a煤n as铆 se lo pasan por el forro), s贸lo se necesitan 2.500 鈧 y matricularse en una academia de ingl茅s, de hecho hay academias falsas que simplemente hacen los papeles y cogen el dinero, el asunto est谩 en que los subsaharianos no pueden permitirse todo eso, esta es la raz贸n por la que todos los brasile帽os eligen Irlanda como destino, aunque la mayor铆a lo hace para ver Europa (no vienen de fabelas) despu茅s de ahorrar algo de dinero, un % min煤sculo es para aprender ingl茅s realmente


Poner pinchos en lo alto de un muro lo he visto en muchas casas particulares....no he visto por contra a nadie que dispare con armas desde la valla de su jardin a quien se acerque ni que lo siembre de minas antipersona. Es la diferencia entre medidas activas y pasivas. En una tu asumes el riesgo de pincharte o no,en otras otro decide apretar le gatillo o no
Unos pinchos es un impedimento lo mismo que puede ser la altura de la valla.
El tener una valla de 8 metros es tambi茅n una trampa mortal, te caes y te descalabras...hag谩moslas de metro y medio.

De todos modos el que le pongan pinchos o no se lo pongan a un muro es realmente intrascendete, el chocolate del loro a la hora de afrontar el tema migratorio

saludos

_________________

Image Image


Arriba
 Perfil Email  
 
 Asunto: Re: La pol铆tica de inmigraci贸n europea, auspiciada por Frau Merkel, va a terminar rompiendo la Uni贸n Europea
Nota Publicado: 15 Jun 2018 12:27 
Desconectado
Funcionario

Registrado: 18 Ene 2014 11:57
Mensajes: 4726
Kallaikoi escribi贸:
Este hilo lo aprobar铆a Goebbels??? Yo no veo que est茅 mal planteado, ni lo que se ha copiado en el art铆culo en ingl茅s.
Desde el mismo momento es que se cuestiona la validez de unas medidas tomadas por el gobierno estadounidense en materia migratoria, por el hecho de que un buen n煤mero de los votantes don inmigrantes, me dir谩 usted que no es una falacia de libro y un argumento que apesta a lo que es. Una mierda.
Oiga. Al igual que el calvo de los mon贸logos que es experto en asuntos americanos yo, un t铆o guapo, lo es en asuntos alemanes. Y es un art铆culo de los que le gustaban a tito geribito pues es de los que 茅l escribia al maravilloso, aut茅ntico, grandioso, escultural (!) dictador hijo de la gran puta Adolf Hitler.
Repita conmigo 隆Sieg Heil!


Arriba
 Perfil Email  
 
 Asunto: Re: La pol铆tica de inmigraci贸n europea, auspiciada por Frau Merkel, va a terminar rompiendo la Uni贸n Europea
Nota Publicado: 15 Jun 2018 12:29 
Desconectado
Miembro del Politbur贸
Avatar de Usuario

Registrado: 01 Sep 2010 23:42
Mensajes: 26347
g谩lvez escribi贸:
Poner pinchos en lo alto de un muro lo he visto en muchas casas particulares....no he visto por contra a nadie que dispare con armas desde la valla de su jardin a quien se acerque ni que lo siembre de minas antipersona. Es la diferencia entre medidas activas y pasivas. En una tu asumes el riesgo de pincharte o no,en otras otro decide apretar le gatillo o no
Unos pinchos es un impedimento lo mismo que puede ser la altura de la valla.
El tener una valla de 8 metros es tambi茅n una trampa mortal, te caes y te descalabras...hag谩moslas de metro y medio.

De todos modos el que le pongan pinchos o no se lo pongan a un muro es realmente intrascendete, el chocolate del loro a la hora de afrontar el tema migratorio

saludos


Si avisas que vas a disparar (pongamos robots con ametralladoras si tal en la premisa) y que hay minas tambi茅n es la persona que salta la que asume los riesgos, el que avisa no es traidor y tal.

Yo lo de los pinchos en casas y fincas siempre pens茅 que era para los animales (gatos, zorros) y no para que un ni帽o travieso o un ladr贸n se desangre, am茅n que igual la motivaci贸n de un inmigrante ilegal despu茅s de cruzar 500 km. y un ladr贸n no es la misma ni por asomo, es una barbaridad, est谩 siendo sistem谩ticamente denunciado por todas las ONG's por haber, puedes buscar fotos de las heridas que causan si tienes est贸mago, no las traigo porque no me gusta entrar en ese terreno...Para m铆 no es un tema intrascendente, es un sadismo innecesario

No he dicho nada contra que la valla tenga 8 metros o 2, he dicho que ni a Trump se le ha ocurrido poner trampas mortales, su apuesta es una valla muy pero muy d铆ficil de escalar sin que la persona desesperada pueda morir en el intento, es un tema interesante desde el punto de vista de la ingenier铆a, porque se hizo un concurso entre diferentes compa帽铆as y cada una expon铆a una muestra con su modelo http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-inter ... l-41771498

S贸lo una apost贸 por alambrado y pinchos, y ya ves, medio mundo contra el muro de Trump...Ah y ni que decir tiene que el reto de EEUU con M茅xico es bastante m谩s d铆ficil que el de Espa帽a, de hecho ya he dicho unas cuantas veces que ha muerto mucha m谩s gente en el muro de EEUU que en el muro de Berl铆n pero a nadie parece importarle, en Espa帽a no nos falta mucho tampoco

_________________

Homo homini lupus


脷ltima edici贸n por Enxebre el 15 Jun 2018 12:35, editado 1 vez en total

Arriba
 Perfil  
 
 Asunto: Re: La pol铆tica de inmigraci贸n europea, auspiciada por Frau Merkel, va a terminar rompiendo la Uni贸n Europea
Nota Publicado: 15 Jun 2018 12:35 
Desconectado
Becario
Avatar de Usuario

Registrado: 20 Feb 2018 15:28
Mensajes: 151
Hombre, la frasecita de "hag谩monos de derecha pero s贸lo un poco" no me dir谩s que no es una caricatura.

La medida de ultraderecha clara es que hay que endurecer la entrada de personas.

En cuanto a las causas de la emigraci贸n por supuesto que hay que actuar sobre ellas. Pero lo que yo quiero recalcar es que las medidas en la entrada son independientes de las de salida. Tenemos que tomarlas se act煤e o no en el origen. El origen es mucho m谩s dif铆cil de controlar, primero porque son muchas causas y segundo porque escapa a nuestro control. Actuando all铆 tardaremos d茅cadas.

No, huir de una guerra no es un caso de asilo. Porque cuantas guerras hay en el mundo actualmente? hay que acoger a todo el que escape de esas guerras? No, no podemos.
Hay que reconocer que no se puede cumplir ese tratado, si es que realmente estamos obligados a cumplirlo que yo tengo mis dudas. En todo caso, se renuncia a ese tratado y ya est谩. Un caso ultraclaro es la refugiada esa de Afganist谩n que est谩 en Londres, no recuerdo el nombre. Casos excepcionales, que est茅n bastante bien demostrados. Porque si hay que investigar si una persona est谩 bajo las amenazas de los talibanes, no tenemos muchos medios para hacerlo. No sabemos si a Pepito en su pueblo alguien le ha dicho que debe dejarse barba.

Pa铆ses a mirar con lupa: todos aquellos con un PIB per c谩pita claramente inferior al nuestro.

L铆mites en la valla: pues que se estudien, yo no soy un experto en seguridad. Pero no me parece un territorio tan extenso.

las ONG: que los salven si quieren, yo no digo que no, pero que los devuelvan a donde salieron. No es l贸gico que salgan de costas libias y ya est茅n esper谩ndolos, si es verdad lo que he le铆do. Hasta dicen que los llaman directamente para ir a recogerlos. Me parece muy fuerte esa forma de actuar.

Claro que lo que estoy proponiendo es cerrar puertas. Porque me preguntaste por cosas de la ultraderecha que hay que aceptar. Y yo creo que hay que aceptar que el control de las fronteras debe ser m谩s estricto.

_________________

Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto


Arriba
 Perfil  
 
Mostrar mensajes previos:  Ordenar por  
Nuevo tema Responder al tema  [ 108 mensajes ]  Ir a p谩gina 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Siguiente

Fecha actual 26 Sep 2018 14:53


驴Qui茅n est谩 conectado?

Usuarios navegando por este Foro: No hay usuarios registrados visitando el Foro y 2 invitados


No puede abrir nuevos temas en este Foro
No puede responder a temas en este Foro
No puede editar sus mensajes en este Foro
No puede borrar sus mensajes en este Foro

Buscar:
Saltar a:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Template made by DEVPPL/ThatBigForum
Mencion especial al improbo trabajo de Exprofeso y FLO
 

Soloespolitica.com © 2010, 2011
contacto@soloespolitica.com