Germany: 14-year old Jewish girl raped & killed by Iraqi asylum seeker

[DavidB.]

Infuriating. Poor girl. These animals should be shot.

Germany allowing in hundreds of thousands rabidly violent antisemites to their country - and hundreds of thousands more to other European countries - to make up for its past of rabidly violent antisemitism was such a great idea.

[DavidB.]

Aside from making people less economically disadvantaged and more educated (which apparently seems to happen, since it was recently reported that a) the number of refugees holding a job in Germany continues to increase and b) the number of crimes committed by refugees has decreased more significantly in 2017 than the crimes committed by German nationals) one way to decrease the number of younger, economically disadvantaged, less-educated, male refugees would be to reunite them with their often female and/or older family members.

Uh, no. That's quite literally not how you decrease the number of young male refugees -- it only reduces their share of the total refugee population.

The way to decrease the number of young male refugees is to deport them.

If they have their family come over, they will have ~4 children, and they will forever remain in Germany. The expectation would be that their children will be integrated in German society about as well as the current descendants of Muslim immigrants in Germany.

Nice perspective for those who hate the German people, like Old Europe, who once said: "There are so many "indigenous" people here who can only be described as human garbage who shouldn't live here let alone be citizens, what does it matter to let hundreds of thousands of Muslims in? They can only raise the quality of our culture, not lower it."

Not a nice perspective for those who do not hate the German people, like me, and, I imagine, most Germans.

Another way to reduce younger, economically disadvantaged, less-educated, male refugees is of course to deport them to their countries of origin... a practice which has been at least tripled in numbers in recent years with regards to North African countries, but sometimes faces criticism when the refugees in question happen to be deported right from the company they're working or the school they're learning.

Not sure why that would be controversial.

Then again, they must think that keeping the country's refugee population male, economically disadvantaged, and less-educated is ensuring future electoral gains for the AfD.

Projection. Your side thinks like this. The other side cares about Germany.

[DavidB.]

Also love how Old Europe goes on another pro-immigration tirade in a thread on a Jewish girl who's been raped and killed by illegal immigrants: indeed, we are living in times where facts don't seem to matter anymore...

People like Old Europe, who has said on Atlas that he works for a pro-immigration organization or party, are literally responsible for completely preventable tragedies like these and for the damage that is being done, for the crimes that are being inflicted on Germany and Europe in general. You should feel ashamed.

[DavidB.]

Their grandfathers also engaged in fact-free, ideologically driven, rigorous social engineering with populations. It's just that this time, we Jews (those of us who are left) are "merely" collateral damage instead of the main victims.

[DavidB.]

This thread reeks with racism

Racism by "refugees" like the perpetrators of this vicious attack, who view European women as objects, yes.

Sad to see so many people exploiting a girl's murder to push their bigotry

Would you say this if the girl were in an American school, if she was shot by a gun owner, and if people would demand a change in gun policies?

[DavidB.]

So, a minute of silence was held by the AfD in the German parliament for the slain girl - which was interrupted by the Green Claudia Roth and by chants from the other parties.

Newspapers wrote: "AfD provokes by holding a minute of silence in parliament."

https://rtlnext.rtl.de/cms/afd-abgeordneter-provoziert-im-bundestag-mit-schweigeminute-fuer-susanna-4174482.html

What a shame.

What if the - more fitting - headline would be:

"Minute of silence for raped and slain Jewish girl interrupted in the German parliament by heartless Green politicians."

Think about it ... the Greens and their naive fundie partners have come a long way.

The German left is completely evil.

One very simple question is how offended you were when Europeans, Christians, Jews, etc. committed acts of violence and collective punishment against Iraqis, Syrians, Palestinians, etc., systemically and at large scale in the last 15 years.

Today on Things That Never Happened...

Because he would be hanged in Iraq for his crime, Germany will issue an extradition warrant to put him on trial there.

I'd rather see him hanged, but the German state will now literally make an effort to keep him alive after killing a German citizen. This world is so messed up.

[DavidB.]

Some people are still convinced that shouting racist at their opponents will win them the discussion. But this bullying tactic doesn't work anymore in the ~current year~.

Protecting our countries is common sense and the right thing to do. Whether or not I'll be considered a racist by leftists for advocating for what is right, I don't particularly care.

[DavidB.]

Do you have any evidence that immigrants are more likely to commit crimes than demographically similar natives? At all? Or would you just like to use a victim as a bludgeon against those you hate?

Dutch highbrow liberal newspaper NRC last year fact-checked Geert Wilders' statement that 60% of the imprisoned population had a migration background and 60% on the most elementary type of welfare benefits had a migration background. Based on Central Statistics Agency data, NRC concluded that Wilders was right on both counts (only 36% of prison inmates in 2015 had a Dutch background, 62% had a migration background, 2% unknown). See also the Central Statistics Agency data.

[DavidB.]

At the very least, I'm pleasantly surprised that the usual suspects on this forum have stopped pretending to embody the ideals of feminism, secularism, liberalism and so on. If you believe that Afghan or Iraqi or Syrian men stem from abusive and misogynistic cultures where women are routinely abused and you also support deporting Afghan or Iraqi or Syrian women, well, uh, there's nothing feminist about that, is there?

Real *clap* feminists *clap* have *clap* given *clap* up *clap* hope *clap* for *clap* other *clap* places *clap* and *clap* have *clap* to *clap* support *clap* mass *clap* immigration *clap* of *clap* non-Western *clap* women *clap* -- is this a new thing?

[DavidB.]

European myopia on this topic is revealed everytime the topic shifts to "mass immigration" - mass immigration isn't the problem. The problem is that you see the children of immigrants as immigrants and that you cannot accept the fact that they will remain in your countries for decades. You need to consider how to integrate these people into your societies. There's no other option besides engaging in ethnic cleansing.

Those who sincerely want to be part of our society are treated like "us". Those who wish to remain safely and comfortably within their own pillars have the right to do so, but they are treated accordingly. It's a choice -- for Muslims and other immigrant groups as much as for Jews, I would add.

The raison d'être for European countries is to be the homeland of a particular nation. The Netherlands is not for everyone. It is the homeland of the Dutch. To a certain extent, new people can be taken in, and if they assimilate, like my own grandfather did, they will be Dutch and their children will be Dutch. No problem. Nobody would say I am not Dutch. But the number of immigrants that we take in has to be proportional, and it has been disproportional for decades: when our big cities become minority-majority, I, and many other Dutch, start to think we have gone too far.

You might wish to send these refugees back to where they came from. That's a simplistic and naive desire. Europe isn't an island. Turkey's impending balance of payments crisis, which I see as an inevitability, will showcase what happens when millions of refugees are expelled to a failed state. The United States began deporting petty criminals in the 1990s, a seemingly sound policy, but this only made MS-13 a transnational gang and resulted in El Salvador becoming a much more violent place, leading to the child refugee crisis.

Europe is not an island, but we can build high fences and we can have Frontex coastal guards patrol the seas and send boats back to Africa. We can also ban people from applying for asylum in our countries, instead sending them to certain "hubs" outside the EU where their application would be reviewed. And we can be much more strict in allowing immigrants into our countries than we currently do. Most of this is likely to happen and likely to lead to a significantly reduced influx of immigrants. If it does not happen, it would be a political choice and the mood in Europe will soon turn to a point where this solution does become politically inevitable.

Your ultra-nationalism isn't serious, it's petty prejudice that pretends to be a serious solution to intractable and endemic problems of the 21st Century. You may curtail refugee flows going forward but you cannot turn the clock back by deporting refugees back - that wouldn't solve anything.

Do you think European countries will be incapable of deporting migrants from the 2015 wave? We are already doing so. Most, of course, will stay, but this is a political choice and it will teach European populations that massive amounts of refugees who come here are always here to stay, thus further solidifying opposition to mass immigration.

Deporting these migrants would solve something, of course. Germany took in over a million immigrants over the last three years, who, collectively, are likely to have a (probably significantly) higher birthrate than Germans do. Assuming they integrate just as well as other immigrants from the MENA region have, this means an added 2-3 million "Germans" in name only. So yes, deporting them would absolutely help prevent this.

Our European leaders have a responsibility towards their own people, not towards the whole world. Instead, they have been trying to save the whole world at the expense of their own people. The most fundamental reason that our states exist, namely to preserve the sovereignty and independence of our nations, has now come under threat.

[DavidB.]

Regardless, there are hundreds of thousands of people who are the children of immigrants who were born in Europe. You cannot "send them back". You may think that you can but they are effectively stateless without Europe. This is your longer-term problem. You have to integrate them - how you decide to do this is your call, of course.

Many have double citizenship, almost all Dutch Turks and Moroccans do: if they commit crimes, we can actually send them back to where their grandparents (or great-grandparents, at this point; I really don't care) came from. We don't (yet), but we can, we should, and perhaps we will.

The remainder will stay. However, in the coming decades, native peoples will still continue to make up the (vast) majority of the population, and the more the native share of the population decreases, the less patience there will be for antics that are technically legal but a deliberate provocation towards European societies. In five years or so, countries like Germany will adopt laws like the Austrians do now, and fifteen years from now such laws will have become even tougher. As Salvini said: "the party is over".

[DavidB.]

Thanks for your constructive responses, which I appreciate.

I am not denying that we are in quite a difficult situation and will likely experience the problems for decades to go, which will likely involve crime, terrorism, riots, and worsening relations with states in the MENA region. I also don't claim to have a clear answer to these problems. But I also think we will have these problems either way, no matter what we do, and it might be worse if we follow the approach of the past decades, according to which we, as European countries, have not clearly shown what the boundaries of acceptable behavior in our countries are. It will also undoubtedly get worse if we allow even more people from countries with similar cultures to immigrate to our countries. Integration gets more difficult once immigrants have their own community to rely upon and don't necessarily have to do anything to integrate beyond their legal obligations.

As for jus soli: I am not sure what difference this would make. Descendants of immigrants born here almost always have Dutch citizenship upon birth, and the same goes for descendants of immigrants with European passports elsewhere. All the people in March 2017 rioting against the police in Rotterdam because they wanted to listen to this Turkish minister have Dutch passports, almost all of them from birth. They do not feel any more Dutch because of it.

[DavidB.]

You never hear anything about Moroccans in Spain though. How does that work out? Are there tensions?

[DavidB.]

Love how American left-wingers with no clue about the situation here start virtue-signalling in this thread. Do you guys live in a big Western European city that's minority-majority, like me? I don't think so.

[DavidB.]

Love how American left-wingers with no clue about the situation here start virtue-signalling in this thread. Do you guys live in a big Western European city that's minority-majority, like me? I don't think so.

Now that I think about it how many European cities are majority minority to begin with? I thought London and Paris were the only ones.

In the Netherlands, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague all three are majority-minority: 47.5% in Amsterdam, 47.3% in The Hague and 49.7% in Rotterdam had a Dutch background on January 1st 2017 (Central Statistics Agency, November 2017).

[DavidB.]

Love how American left-wingers with no clue about the situation here start virtue-signalling in this thread. Do you guys live in a big Western European city that's minority-majority, like me? I don't think so.

For what it's worth, you cannot claim that Americans are sheltered or ignorant - our society is violent, filled with drug overdoses and misery. We know very well what it's like to live in communities where murders, stabbings and rape are a common occurrence. If anything, we're too habituated to the point where it's hard for us to react to headlines like this - the assumption is that there's more rapes/murders, which is why the standard American liberal response is to bring up the fact that immigrants are "less violent" and in Europe, that's not accurate (it is here though).

I now see how my post could be viewed ambiguously. To be clear, I do not disagree with your post and I do not have a rosy picture of the state of affairs in the U.S. at all. I used to, a few years ago, but Atlas has woken me up to it and it is awful. Issues like healthcare, the epidemic of violence, the opioid crisis and the like would definitely make me more of a left-winger there than I am here.

[DavidB.]

Love how American left-wingers with no clue about the situation here start virtue-signalling in this thread. Do you guys live in a big Western European city that's minority-majority, like me? I don't think so.

The fact that America functions just fine (exaggeration, but still) with a large number of majority-minority cities while you all have completely lost your minds that your imperial subjects have dared come to the home continent is kind of my entire point.

If it were just Dutch imperial subjects it wouldn't be much of an issue at all. Surinamese Dutch have largely integrated, and Indonesian Dutch even more so, with most of the latter group having assimilated completely.

[DavidB.]

It's really a massive simplification to say that European countries were "founded"as ethnic homelands, seeing as by their very nature, ethnic identities are things that are in a constant state of flux. Like, not just the centuries of intra-European migration and population movements, but even if you look at somewhere like France, you have the modern French identity emerging out of what used to be separate Occitan, franco-provençal, langue d'oïl identites (and more) and the French national mythology was built in part to unite those disparate groups. And you get the same everywhere - Germany, Italy, the UK.

Even then, euro nation states as ethnic homelands is a half truth at best, they did play a role, but don't forget the extent to which modern European borders are the creations of the fallouts and settlements from various wars. Hungary and Albania arw two obvious examples, but even Switzerland's modern borders are to a huge extent the result of the napoleonic wars. Like, no-one would say Geneva isn't Swiss, but when they joined the confederation in 1815, it was because the Swiss were the old ally, not because the genevois felt ethnically Swiss.

Also, if we, as a basic example take language as a parallel for ethnicity it still doesn't work. Languages exist on a continuum, like you go from the langues d'oïl through franco-provençal to the various dialects of Italian gradually, not in one leap. The standardisation of Italian and French largely actually followed the definition of Italy and France's borders. And before someone talks about the language borders between eg Romance and Germanic languages, bear in mind that language border doesn't actually follow national borders very faithfully at all.

Languages and ethnicities are a continuum, yes. But intra-European migration was usually exactly that: individuals of groups from Europe moving from one area to another, in times when nations and languages were certainly more "fluid" than they are right now. And sure, the nation-building process in the 19th and 20th century was often quite artificial. And yes, seemingly random events like the outcomes of wars (or even more trivial things) often had a decisive effect on today's borders.

None of this, however, refutes the point that was made earlier in this thread: unlike Americans, European peoples have been rooted in their countries for centuries and centuries. These are Europeans' ancestral homelands. Sure, most people would have some ancestors from (what would now be) other countries and regions if you go back in time, but for those whose ancestors did so long ago this isn't noticeable in any way, and for those whose ancestors did it recently, it is easy for Europeans to fully assimilate in other European countries (the closer culturally the "new" country is, the easier it is, of course).

It seems like a major stretch to argue, implicitly or explicitly, that taking in enormous amounts of non-Europeans from groups that have proven to have big problems with integrating in our societies is fine, just because most of us have ancestors from other European countries and borders have changed over time.

[DavidB.]

the argument that European states are "ethnic homelands" has this implication that ancestry is a requisite in order to be genuinely part of a European society

This is an important point: I do not think it carries this implication. To me, it implies that "native ancestry" is generally assumed the standard (which is most definitely still the case in Europe), that native people with this ancestry get to remain the majority in their homelands, and that the cultural traditions of the country are assumed to be the standard and get to remain dominant. However, small numbers of people with different ancestry can still become fully equal members of this society and of this nation if they seek to fit in. This doesn't necessarily mean fully assimilating, but ideally assimilation should happen to a fairly high degree.