Poland shoots immigrants legally

[Emerald]

5 minutes ago, Basman said:

People are complaining but if this happened during any other time in human history these migrants would simply have been massacred and the killers would be celebrated as heroes. 

That's true. And that's why we need to move forward and not backward.

Otherwise, it just normalizes massacres.

Edit: I see that you added more to your response. It really is quite lucky that we've collectively moved forward (at least a little bit) from those times... even if there are tons of people who exist that still want to massacre immigrants on sight.

Edited Monday at 01:28 AM by Emerald

[Basman]

5 hours ago, Emerald said:

The way that society develops is between catabolic and anabolic phases. And these go back and forth until humanity is untied as one.

It the anabolic phases, the collective coalesces and a strong collective identity is forged. And in the catabolic phases that collective identity is dissolved and broken down.

In early human times, small nomadic groups coalesced together under a strong identity (the anabolic phase).

Then, the catabolic phase hits... and those identities faded. And in the following anabolic phase, they were absorbed into larger and more developed tribes with an ever greater stronger collective identity.

Then, the catabolic phase hit again... and the tribal identities were broken down. And the anabolic phase comes again where those tribes are absorbed into a greater empire and nation state with a greater national identity that unites far more people than the tribal and nomadic identities before it.

And now, we're on the cusp of a catabolic phase once again... where national identities fade and are coming into an anabolic coalescence with a global identity... which will have a greater collective identity than nomadic, tribal, and national identities of times past and present.

And those who are attached to the old ways and keeping strong national identities are in a collective death knell where they're trying to keep a grip on what is dying.

And so, there is currently a resurgence of hyper-tribalism... and an attempt to go backwards in time. But it is just fighting nature... and nature will eventually win out.

One thing you aren't addressing is how violence is the main driver of societies "merging". For instance, a tribe "merging" with another tribe usually occurs in the way of massacring all men, gangraping the women, killing the babies and abducting the young children so they then can expand the tribe with new members. Its only really the last 100 years that societies forming greater holons tending to be more peaceful, but that is of the back of 100s of years of conflict. Many modern countries and ethnicities where built of the back of ethnic cleansing for instance, like the US or Israel. Conservatism isn't inherently wrong in trying to protect "their" version of society from a human survivalist perspective. The alternative might be destruction.

Edited Monday at 01:41 AM by Basman

[Emerald]

3 hours ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

It's always fascinating to see the 'if you don't provide evidence, I don't have to believe you' approach—especially when it conveniently ignores that data can be interpreted in multiple ways.

Sure, you found an EU-funded study that claims no link between immigration and crime. And naturally, a government body that supports mass migration would be entirely objective in its research, right? Because the EU has been spot-on with all its policies—like the seamless integration of migrants and the economic boom that was promised. Remind me how well that's working out across Europe?

As for the U.S., it's great that legal immigrants have lower crime rates than native-born citizens. But comparing them to illegal immigrants or, better yet, to entirely different migrant groups in Europe is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Just because it works one way in the States doesn’t mean it’s a universal truth.

And while we're talking about cherry-picking, it’s amusing how any mention of crime related to migration is instantly labeled as fear-mongering. Of course, questioning mass migration policies must be rooted in xenophobia, right? Couldn’t possibly be about maintaining social order or addressing legitimate concerns.

By the way, ever wonder why countries like Poland and Hungary, which have tighter immigration controls, consistently report lower crime rates? But I guess that's just another coincidence we shouldn't read into.

Anyway, keep the studies coming. If nothing else, it’s entertaining to see how far we can stretch a narrative without breaking it.

Actually, the statistics show that legal and illegal immigrants have a lower crime rate per capita compared to natural born US citizens.

And it's not cherry picked. Just type in "US crime and immigration statistics" and you will find tons of reputable articles saying the same thing. (I tried to do in with the search query "Europe crime and immigration statistics", but I couldn't find any reputable sources in either direction.)

Here's a link... https://www.migrationpolicy.org/content/immigrants-and-crime

And here's a quote...

"While being present in the United States without authorization represents an administrative infraction (punishable by removal), unauthorized immigrants are less likely to commit misdemeanor and felony crimes than the U.S.-born population and other immigrant groups."

And if you think about it for a minute, it makes total sense that immigrant crime rates would be lower.

If you immigrate to a country (especially if you immigrate illegally), you're probably going to want to stay out of trouble as much as possible... because you want to remain in that country.

And if you're illegal and the cops talk to you at all (even for a noise complaint or minor traffic violation).. you could be deported for good and not allowed to return. 

And I don't know how it is in Europe. But I can't imagine it would be that much different.

Also, my husband is Hungarian, and we even spent some time there. 

And I'm not so sure that Hungary's crime rate is all that low. Though, there is next to no gun violence... which is very different from here in the states.

And he and most of the people that he knows personally are not big fans of Viktor Orban or his immigration controls. 

[Emerald]

13 minutes ago, Basman said:

One thing you aren't addressing is how violence is the main driver of societies "merging". For instance, a tribe "merging" with another tribe usually occurs in the way of massacring all men, gangraping the women, killing the babies and abducting the young children so they then can expand the tribe with new members. Its only really the last 100 years that societies forming greater holons tending to be more peaceful, but that is of the back of 100s of years of conflict. Many modern countries and ethnicities where built of the back of ethnic cleansing for instance, like the US or Israel. Conservatism isn't inherently wrong in trying to protect "their" version of society from a human survivalist perspective. The alternative might be destruction.

That's true. This merging has been done violently in the past.... when going from Stage Purple to Stage Red to Stage Blue.

It could happen now as well, in a similarly violent way. And I hope not.

But I'm thinking the transition between Orange and Blue might operate a bit differently.

[aurum]

Stay informed, don't get unnessarily radicalized.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clly79jvy8do

Quote

According to Deputy Interior Minister Maciej Duszczyk, 13 border protection officers have suffered permanent health damage following attacks by migrants since the crisis began three years ago.

Mr Duszczyk said officers would only be exempt from criminal liability if they use their weapons in response to a direct assault to protect colleagues’ lives.

“I would like to resolve any doubts about the excessive nature of these provisions,” he wrote in response to concerns raised by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Michael O’Flaherty.

Mr O’Flaherty and other human rights’ organisations urged MPs to reject the proposals saying they contravene human rights’ standards.

He said the new rules may remove the disincentive for border patrols to use excessive force.

“It may also lead to a situation where the circumstances in which the arbitrary use of force or firearms by state agents may result in the loss of life or bodily harm are not properly investigated, particularly in cases where the victims are on the other side of the border,” he wrote in a letter to the Polish authorities.

The situation appears to be more nuanced. No, Poland is not just open firing on all immigrants. But they have legalized lethal force.

If someone has a more up to date source, please share.

Now would also be a good time to do some Tier 2 politics and assess your reaction to this story. Was your gut reaction to defend Poland for protecting its border from illegals? Did you feel empathy for the immigrants just trying to make a life? Which side did you immediately assume was true? Which side did you want to be true?

[Emerald]

37 minutes ago, aurum said:

Stay informed, don't get unnessarily radicalized.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clly79jvy8do

The situation appears to be more nuanced. No, Poland is not just open firing on all immigrants. But they have legalized lethal force.

If someone has a more up to date source, please share.

Now would also be a good time to do some Tier 2 politics and assess your reaction to this story. Was your gut reaction to defend Poland for protecting its border from illegals? Did you feel empathy for the immigrants just trying to make a life? Which side did you immediately assume was true? Which side did you want to be true?

The way that the post was written and by the way that people were responding to it, it sounded like Poland was allowing border guards to open fire on any immigrants attempting to come into the country.

And in my opinion, any reasonable person would be against that.

But if it's just allowing the border guards to use lethal force if they are genuinely threatened it is fine. I have no issue with self-defense.

[Moutushi]

I just have to get something off my chest. There's a lot of anti-trump talk on this forum, especially in the past two months, not saying that it's not valid, but I feel it's unbalanced. I try to be balanced in my criticism of the current administration. There may be comments out there, but I did not read a single comment on this forum in support of border security and appropriately vetting foreigners, especially from hot spots that breed terrorism. I do have compassion for people struggling around the world, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't protect our house and choose wisely which guests we allow into it.  That is something I support the current administration fully on.  

Second, In light of the staggering debt that we currently have in the US, I agree with revising our trade agreements around the world and analyzing the foreign aid that we provide to ensure that it is going where we intend it to go. What is wrong with doing that?  

I just rarely hear this discussed on this forum in a balanced way where we can agree with some things this administration does right, and disagree with other things they do wrong as well.  I hear mostly anti-trump rhetoric, without a balanced view of what right is being done. I'm open to bring wrong about this, but I feel strongly about stating it here on this forum. 

[aurum]

22 minutes ago, Emerald said:

The way that the post was written and by the way that people were responding to it, it sounded like Poland was allowing border guards to open fire on any immigrants attempting to come into the country.

And in my opinion, any reasonable person would be against that.

But if it's just allowing the border guards to use lethal force if they are genuinely threatened it is fine. I have no issue with self-defense.

Propaganda, propaganda.

The way these right-wing media outlets distort facts is almost comical. Everything they say needs to be verified. 

[aurum]

2 hours ago, Moutushi said:

I just have to get something off my chest. There's a lot of anti-trump talk on this forum, especially in the past two months, not saying that it's not valid, but I feel it's unbalanced. I try to be balanced in my criticism of the current administration. There may be comments out there, but I did not read a single comment on this forum in support of border security and appropriately vetting foreigners, especially from hot spots that breed terrorism. I do have compassion for people struggling around the world, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't protect our house and choose wisely which guests we allow into it.  That is something I support the current administration fully on.  

Second, In light of the staggering debt that we currently have in the US, I agree with revising our trade agreements around the world and analyzing the foreign aid that we provide to ensure that it is going where we intend it to go. What is wrong with doing that?  

I just rarely hear this discussed on this forum in a balanced way where we can agree with some things this administration does right, and disagree with other things they do wrong as well.  I hear mostly anti-trump rhetoric, without a balanced view of what right is being done. I'm open to bring wrong about this, but I feel strongly about stating it here on this forum. 

Yes, our rhetoric is not completely neutral. This is not a mistake, this is how it should be. Truth cannot just be neutral.

Debt and the border are a real problem. You are valid for noticing that, and we could have a nuanced discussion about how to resolve them. 

But you should also realize that Trump has no real interest or ability to solve these problems. He will not stop the border crisis or the debt crisis without creating even bigger problems, if at all. All his tough guy talk on these issues is bluster, ignornance and red meat for his fan base.

That we need border security is obvious enough it shouldn't even need to be said. The harder question is how to do it in a humane way that doesn't ruin as many people's lives and the economy. 

Also, you should research how the democrats have actually handled the border. They ain't exactly been a bunch of care-bears.

Edited Monday at 06:32 AM by aurum

[Moutushi]

24 minutes ago, aurum said:

Yes, our rhetoric is not completely neutral. This is not a mistake, this is how it should be. Truth cannot just be neutral.

Debt and the border are a real problem. You are valid for noticing that, and we could have a nuanced discussion about how to resolve these them. 

But you should also realize that Trump has no real interest or ability to solve these problems. He will not stop the border crisis or the debt crisis without creating even bigger problems, if at all. All his tough guy talk on these issues is bluster, ignornance and red meat for his fan base.

That we need border security is so obvious it shouldn't even need to be said. The harder question is how to do it in a humane way that doesn't ruin as many people's lives and the economy. 

Also, you should research how the democrats have actually handled the border. They ain't exactly been a bunch of care-bears.

I agree with you that Democrats have handled the border better than Trump says, but still not enough for it to be considered "secure". I disagree with your point that Trump has no real interest in solving the border crisis or the debt crisis, as I see a number of decisions he made that make me think he does, such as deploying more troops, including National Guard troops now, to the southern border to combat several threats, along with his designation of cartels operating in Mexico as foreign terrorist organizations. Those cartels treat humans worse than animals and need to be met with the most lethal force that the US can possibly muster, which I see Trump strongly supporting. I have such strong disdain towards the cartels, for all the suffering they inflicted on people, which makes me strongly favor implementing the strictest policy that we can possibly have against them, including the strategic use of special forces (Navy seals, Delta forces, and Green Berets), which Trump has reportedly been considering as well. 

Humane ways can come after the US effectively weakens the cartel to a significant degree, which should be a priority in my opinion, for the sake of humanity. For now, we have an emergent situation at the southern border, and until that national security issue is resolved with the cartels, I honestly think the border should be sealed tight except for exceptional cases that have strong a case to be allowed entry. 

Edited Monday at 04:32 AM by Moutushi

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

Propaganda, propaganda.

The way these right-wing media outlets distort facts is almost comical. Everything they say needs to be verified. 

Yeah, my mistake for not watching the video nor fact-checking the claim.

[Moutushi]

40 minutes ago, Moutushi said:

I agree with you that Democrats have handled the border better than Trump says, but still not enough for it to be considered "secure". I disagree with your point that Trump has no real interest in solving the border crisis or the debt crisis, as I see a number of decisions he made that make me think he does, such as deploying more troops, including National Guard troops now, to the southern border to combat several threats, along with his designation of cartels operating in Mexico as foreign terrorist organizations. Those cartels treat humans worse than animals and need to be met with the most lethal force that the US can possibly muster, which I see Trump strongly supporting. I have such strong disdain towards the cartels, for all the suffering they inflicted on people, which makes me strongly favor implementing the strictest policy that we can possibly have against them, including the strategic use of special forces (Navy seals, Delta forces, and Green Berets), which Trump has reportedly been considering as well. 

Humane ways can come after the US effectively weakens the cartel to a significant degree, which should be a priority in my opinion, for the sake of humanity. For now, we have an emergent situation at the southern border, and until that national security issue is resolved with the cartels, I honestly think the border should be sealed tight except for exceptional cases that have strong a case to be allowed entry. 

@aurum I also forgot to mention that I do agree that Truth cannot just be neutral, and I don't want it to be neutral. I want us on this forum to clearly support or reject certain policies that this administration does without being heavily focused on Trump's policies that we disagree with, which I feel is done far too much on this forum. I'm open to being wrong about what I detailed above regarding the southern border, and I welcome views to the contrary that might expand my perspective on the matter. 

[PurpleTree]

8 hours ago, Emerald said:

And if you think about it for a minute, it makes total sense that immigrant crime rates would be lower.

If you immigrate to a country (especially if you immigrate illegally), you're probably going to want to stay out of trouble as much as possible... because you want to remain in that country.

It was like that when i grew up in a European country in the 90s. We had a lot of refugees and immigrants from the Balkan wars. First generation often just worked a lot. But their kids some of them also came to the country as children. Were often violent and criminal. A lot more violent and criminal than the natives here.  Of course not all but a lot.
 

But i think recently it changed because some countries in Europe were overwhelmed with refugees/immigrants from places like Syria, Somalia etc. and the countries had no means of really integrating them. And many of them became criminal in places like Sweden for example. 

[Gidiot]

I think Leo would back me on this or any serious intellectual or maybe not but my opinion is that to believe trump has a solution to any political problem with any sort of expertise on ANY issue over the past 8 years has been shown to be a complete total and utter farce and is completely just vibes based.

 

What did he do right in his first term?

the only thing I remember is wipe out student loan debt for disabled veterans. His major policy purposal the tax cuts only benefited the richest Americans and corps and he did a trade war with china almost started a war with Iran all well dividing the country. 
 

trumps immigration solution is have ice go into schools and round up kids and open up Guantanamo bay for a migrant detention facility, make Gaza beach front property, start a trade war with Canada and Mexico, Christ it’s fucking horrific to say but he might even think of invading one or even BOTH of these countries. That’s what the maga crowd wants from what I see on social media.

 

Propaganda propaganda propaganda like @aurum says this is truly the only political expertise trump has, making digestible talking points and changing the narrative to his imaginary world.

 

not to say the cartels and migrant crime wasn’t an issue but check this post from Chris Murphy…

 

it’s just an insult to human intelligence to genuinely advocate for trump as a leader that will solve real world problems with intelligent solutions. 
 

it’s like believing your abusive partner when they say they aren’t going to hit you again for the 50th time. I have deep compassion for humanity but I think maybe pain is the only teacher. I’ve been saying it for more than 6 years on the forum Leo has others have it’s like people are either naaive, devils, and straight up lying to themselves. 
 

I personally will never shut up about trump and his corruption because that is precisely how things get bad, people giving up their will to see the truth or at least observing how certain patterns have played out over humanities political history.

 

i personally don’t think we have enough trump critique. If we were as developed as we say we are we wouldn’t have any serious trump supporters on this forum, but we do. So if people here can’t even see it let it sink in how hard it is for your regular normie.

Edited Monday at 03:44 PM by Gidiot

[Moutushi]

@Gidiot

I don't like how an opinion about a policy that Trump says he wants to enact, which could possibly be beneficial, immediately equates to someone supporting Trump, and being either naïve, a devil, or a liar.

To be clear, I did say clearly that I encourage valid criticism of Trump, there is plenty of it to spread around. We can spend the next 4 years and more criticizing him. What I am suggesting we do more of, is exploring the impact of the policies he reports wanting to enact, weighing the benefits versus risks of each policy, in a relatively unbiased manner, without being only occupied with just criticizing Trump (I'm not saying that the criticism is not valid). 

For example, you do seem to agree with the drug cartels in Mexico being an issue that we need to address; I would go as far as saying that that is an issue that I feel needs to be prioritized, as they are a major source in transporting illegal drugs to this country, along with fentanyl. This is a complex matter, that needs to be addressed in a nuanced way, including strengthening outreach efforts within this country to help and rehabilitate people struggling with substance use amongst other measures. Targeting the drug cartels is not enough on its own. 

I do see evidence of the border issue being taken seriously by this administration (which does not mean I support every single they do). Today, Mexico agreed to send 10,000 troops to secure the border on its end as a result of Trump's tariffs bringing them to the negotiation table, in addition, to more and more US troops being deployed to secure the border on our end, over the last two weeks. I think we can agree to be somewhat hopeful that these measures will have a positive effect in effectively weakening the drug cartels' operations, not saying they definitely will, but hoping they will, and I don't see why that is wrong ? 

Again, I welcome views to the contrary that might expand my perspective on the matter. 

Edited Monday at 04:29 PM by Moutushi

[Basman]

12 hours ago, Emerald said:

That's true. This merging has been done violently in the past.... when going from Stage Purple to Stage Red to Stage Blue.

It could happen now as well, in a similarly violent way. And I hope not.

But I'm thinking the transition between Orange and Blue might operate a bit differently.

Peaceful transition I believe to be a-historical. Stage Orange is itself not peaceful (industrialized warfare) and didn't truly flourish until after WW2, when European Blue became too exhausting and destructive. Chinese capitalism came of the back of communism where millions died. Currently Stage Orange countries, the US primarily, are keeping current Stage Blue countries in check, primarily Russia and China, from invading their neighbors.

Peace is more a feature of geography, interdependent needs and shared values rather than an innate feature of mankind. Conflict is a pervasive feature of this reality and humanity is not a peaceful species. Before man was, war waited for him.

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Basman said:

Peaceful transition I believe to be a-historical. Stage Orange is itself not peaceful (industrialized warfare) and didn't truly flourish until after WW2, when European Blue became too exhausting and destructive. Chinese capitalism came of the back of communism where millions died. Currently Stage Orange countries, the US primarily, are keeping current Stage Blue countries in check, primarily Russia and China, from invading their neighbors.

Peace is more a feature of geography, interdependent needs and shared values rather than an innate feature of mankind. Conflict is a pervasive feature of this reality and humanity is not a peaceful species. Before man was, war waited for him.

What I'm saying is not that there won't be bloody conflicts in these transitions. I'm sure there will be.

What I'm saying is that I hope there won't be quite as much violence towards civilians as in times past.... like with the dynamic you mentioned of tribes merging by murdering all the men, raping all the women, and abducting all the children.

And a big part of that is the laws and international organizations created during Stage Orange.

My hope is that the transition from Orange to Green will spare civilian populations moreso than in times past.

[ryoko]

13 hours ago, Moutushi said:

 I hear mostly anti-trump rhetoric, without a balanced view of what right is being done

It's not Trump's fault.
It doesn't matter what amusing circus is being done on a weak foundation. A collapse is inevitable. And it's the people who end up suffering, just because they're born in a certain era, in a certain region. Collective Karma; Collective Action.

[Basman]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

What I'm saying is not that there won't be bloody conflicts in these transitions. I'm sure there will be.

What I'm saying is that I hope there won't be quite as much violence towards civilians as in times past.... like with the dynamic you mentioned of tribes merging by murdering all the men, raping all the women, and abducting all the children.

And a big part of that is the laws and international organizations created during Stage Orange.

My hope is that the transition from Orange to Green will spare civilian populations moreso than in times past.

In my understanding, brutality peaked with red and there has been a general trend of violence becomes less and less as different groups become more interdependent. Orange to Green will be nothing like the example of tribal warfare but there is probably still going to be victims and necessarily so. Transition tends to come off the back of suffering. People have to be squeezed so hard by Stage Orange that their hair literally falls of from pollution and stress, etc. such that the old paradigm becomes definitely untenable. Likewise, Green will transition into yellow when people start dying from political incompetence.

[Wilhelm44]

On 02/02/2025 at 0:08 PM, Salvijus said:

I like it. There no wisdom in being compassionate when the people who don't care about you want to take advantage out of your kindness. 

Yeah mate, refugees deserve to be shot ?