• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Clinton: Europe must curb immigration to stop rightwing populists

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,195
Reaction score
9,015
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Hillary Clinton: Europe must curb immigration to stop rightwing populists

Europe must get a handle on immigration to combat a growing threat from rightwing populists, Hillary Clinton has said, calling on the continent’s leaders to send out a stronger signal showing they are “not going to be able to continue provide refuge and support”.

In an interview with the Guardian, the former Democratic presidential candidate praised the generosity shown by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, but suggested immigration was inflaming voters and contributed to the election of Donald Trump and Britain’s vote to leave the EU.

“I think Europe needs to get a handle on migration because that is what lit the flame,” Clinton said, speaking as part of a series of interviews with senior centrist political figures about the rise of populists, particularly on the right, in Europe and the Americas.​


[...]

Hillary Clinton: Europe must curb immigration to stop rightwing populists




That is hilarious.
You must curb your immigration because it gives rise to those against immigration... and everything else they support.
Of course a leftist would come up with a valid reason from their ideological viewpoint to oppose immigration.



Seems like it just might be a reworked argument for her own beliefs and applied to the EU.


 

MTAtech

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
26,541
Reaction score
19,980
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Hillary Clinton: Europe must curb immigration to stop rightwing populists

Europe must get a handle on immigration to combat a growing threat from rightwing populists, Hillary Clinton has said, calling on the continent’s leaders to send out a stronger signal showing they are “not going to be able to continue provide refuge and support”.

In an interview with the Guardian, the former Democratic presidential candidate praised the generosity shown by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, but suggested immigration was inflaming voters and contributed to the election of Donald Trump and Britain’s vote to leave the EU.

“I think Europe needs to get a handle on migration because that is what lit the flame,” Clinton said, speaking as part of a series of interviews with senior centrist political figures about the rise of populists, particularly on the right, in Europe and the Americas.​


[...]

Hillary Clinton: Europe must curb immigration to stop rightwing populists




That is hilarious.
You must curb your immigration because it gives rise to those against immigration... and everything else they support.
Of course a leftist would come up with a valid reason from their ideological viewpoint to oppose immigration.



Seems like it just might be a reworked argument for her own beliefs and applied to the EU.


I disagree with her, if that quote is correct. Europe must curb its right wing extremists. Her statement is like saying we need to limit civil rights laws as not to inflame bigots.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,195
Reaction score
9,015
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Her statement is like saying we need to limit civil rights laws as not to inflame bigots.
That is a fair assessment from your political point of view.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
75,671
Reaction score
30,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Hillary Clinton: Europe must curb immigration to stop rightwing populists

Europe must get a handle on immigration to combat a growing threat from rightwing populists, Hillary Clinton has said, calling on the continent’s leaders to send out a stronger signal showing they are “not going to be able to continue provide refuge and support”.

In an interview with the Guardian, the former Democratic presidential candidate praised the generosity shown by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, but suggested immigration was inflaming voters and contributed to the election of Donald Trump and Britain’s vote to leave the EU.

“I think Europe needs to get a handle on migration because that is what lit the flame,” Clinton said, speaking as part of a series of interviews with senior centrist political figures about the rise of populists, particularly on the right, in Europe and the Americas.​


[...]

Hillary Clinton: Europe must curb immigration to stop rightwing populists




That is hilarious.
You must curb your immigration because it gives rise to those against immigration... and everything else they support.
Of course a leftist would come up with a valid reason from their ideological viewpoint to oppose immigration.



Seems like it just might be a reworked argument for her own beliefs and applied to the EU.



Okay. Hillary suggest giving the European nationalists what they want in regard to immigration so they stop worrying about immigration. Kind of an "appeasement" mentality, eh?

How did that work out for Chamberlain?
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
21,974
Reaction score
9,701
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Just to note

She said to curb it, not stop it.

From a general social stability aspect, controlling immigration (refuge, guest worker, or permanent) is important. The numbers per year that a society can absorb is different every year, dependent on the economy, the society as a whole and of course regional issues. Each society is also different. Canada right now can take a lot of immigrants, given our ok economy and the already high number of immigrants and 2nd generation Canadians. During the 80's and 90's I remember alot more anti immigrant Canadians than I do now. For non Canadians, it is in the 70's that the immigration pattern for Canada changed dramatically from being heavily European, to more Asian primarily.

Germany with very little history of immigration (and what was done in the past not done very well by the German state (see Turkish immigration if I recall in the 50-60's). So accepting a 1.5 million refuge's in just two years is going to cause issues. Just to note, proportionally only in 2016 did Germany accept more immigrants than Canada does on a general annual basis.

So yes Hillary is right in this regard. If the goal of a country is to accept immigrants, it has to do so in a controlled manner as to ensure social stability, which will ensure that immigration in the future can continue.

Now as to the immigration issue/crisis in Europe specifically. The highest number of immigrants to the EU in the last few years were from countries destabilized by the EU and US (Libya, Syria, Iraq, along with various African and other Asian countries. Countries around Syria have take in far more refugees than Europe did (vastly more than the US did), despite the refugee's being a direct result of Nato/US actions in those countries. Jordan and Lebanon each have 1.5 million Syrian refugees, both countries are vastly smaller in size, population and economy than the EU or US. So I do not have much sympathy for the EU/Nato countries in seeing refugee's coming to their countries in large part due to their actions
 

Buzz62

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2017
Messages
6,805
Reaction score
1,069
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Just to note

She said to curb it, not stop it.

From a general social stability aspect, controlling immigration (refuge, guest worker, or permanent) is important. The numbers per year that a society can absorb is different every year, dependent on the economy, the society as a whole and of course regional issues. Each society is also different. Canada right now can take a lot of immigrants, given our ok economy and the already high number of immigrants and 2nd generation Canadians. During the 80's and 90's I remember alot more anti immigrant Canadians than I do now. For non Canadians, it is in the 70's that the immigration pattern for Canada changed dramatically from being heavily European, to more Asian primarily.

Germany with very little history of immigration (and what was done in the past not done very well by the German state (see Turkish immigration if I recall in the 50-60's). So accepting a 1.5 million refuge's in just two years is going to cause issues. Just to note, proportionally only in 2016 did Germany accept more immigrants than Canada does on a general annual basis.

So yes Hillary is right in this regard. If the goal of a country is to accept immigrants, it has to do so in a controlled manner as to ensure social stability, which will ensure that immigration in the future can continue.

Now as to the immigration issue/crisis in Europe specifically. The highest number of immigrants to the EU in the last few years were from countries destabilized by the EU and US (Libya, Syria, Iraq, along with various African and other Asian countries. Countries around Syria have take in far more refugees than Europe did (vastly more than the US did), despite the refugee's being a direct result of Nato/US actions in those countries. Jordan and Lebanon each have 1.5 million Syrian refugees, both countries are vastly smaller in size, population and economy than the EU or US. So I do not have much sympathy for the EU/Nato countries in seeing refugee's coming to their countries in large part due to their actions

Ya, you can just leave good ol' Canuckland out of this, thank you very much.
Neither Europe nor NA have any responsibility to allow their own societies and cultures to be altered and/or destroyed by migrants from nations who can't maintain their own. They created mud in Syria all on their own. Same with the African nations. Nobody needs people, who have a proclivity to creating ****-holes, to flood into their nations to begin the pleasant journey to creating one more ****-hole.
 

JustHanging

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 25, 2018
Messages
17,236
Reaction score
7,119
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hillary Clinton: Europe must curb immigration to stop rightwing populists

Europe must get a handle on immigration to combat a growing threat from rightwing populists, Hillary Clinton has said, calling on the continent’s leaders to send out a stronger signal showing they are “not going to be able to continue provide refuge and support”.

In an interview with the Guardian, the former Democratic presidential candidate praised the generosity shown by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, but suggested immigration was inflaming voters and contributed to the election of Donald Trump and Britain’s vote to leave the EU.

“I think Europe needs to get a handle on migration because that is what lit the flame,” Clinton said, speaking as part of a series of interviews with senior centrist political figures about the rise of populists, particularly on the right, in Europe and the Americas.​


[...]

Hillary Clinton: Europe must curb immigration to stop rightwing populists




That is hilarious.
You must curb your immigration because it gives rise to those against immigration... and everything else they support.
Of course a leftist would come up with a valid reason from their ideological viewpoint to oppose immigration.



Seems like it just might be a reworked argument for her own beliefs and applied to the EU.



If you are quoting her accurately and in context, then she would be wrong imo.

That's the good thing about being a liberal, from my experience, we're a lot freer to think outside of what we've been told to think. Personally I think that's because a lot of Conservatives are Christians, especially Evangelical Christians, and so have spent their entire lives learning to believe what they are instructed to believe, without question.

How much difference is there believing in an imaginary being like Christ because you're told to, and believing what Trump tells you, because you're told to? Just different sides of the same coin.
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
31,397
Reaction score
16,024
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Just to note

She said to curb it, not stop it.

From a general social stability aspect, controlling immigration (refuge, guest worker, or permanent) is important. The numbers per year that a society can absorb is different every year, dependent on the economy, the society as a whole and of course regional issues. Each society is also different. Canada right now can take a lot of immigrants, given our ok economy and the already high number of immigrants and 2nd generation Canadians. During the 80's and 90's I remember alot more anti immigrant Canadians than I do now. For non Canadians, it is in the 70's that the immigration pattern for Canada changed dramatically from being heavily European, to more Asian primarily.

Germany with very little history of immigration (and what was done in the past not done very well by the German state (see Turkish immigration if I recall in the 50-60's). So accepting a 1.5 million refuge's in just two years is going to cause issues. Just to note, proportionally only in 2016 did Germany accept more immigrants than Canada does on a general annual basis.

So yes Hillary is right in this regard. If the goal of a country is to accept immigrants, it has to do so in a controlled manner as to ensure social stability, which will ensure that immigration in the future can continue.

Now as to the immigration issue/crisis in Europe specifically. The highest number of immigrants to the EU in the last few years were from countries destabilized by the EU and US (Libya, Syria, Iraq, along with various African and other Asian countries. Countries around Syria have take in far more refugees than Europe did (vastly more than the US did), despite the refugee's being a direct result of Nato/US actions in those countries. Jordan and Lebanon each have 1.5 million Syrian refugees, both countries are vastly smaller in size, population and economy than the EU or US. So I do not have much sympathy for the EU/Nato countries in seeing refugee's coming to their countries in large part due to their actions

It's not the why, and it's not the how many, it's the who.
 

JustHanging

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 25, 2018
Messages
17,236
Reaction score
7,119
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ya, you can just leave good ol' Canuckland out of this, thank you very much.

Why? We've been very successful integrating immigrants into our society.

Neither Europe nor NA have any responsibility to allow their own societies and cultures to be altered and/or destroyed by migrants from nations who can't maintain their own.

Well now, that depends. We've stolen from them for centuries, by installing puppet governments, and then paying that government peanuts to let NA and Euro countries essentially rape and pillage.

So maybe it's time to share? Maybe a bit of short term pain, but in the long term a huge benefit to mankind.

They created mud in Syria all on their own. Same with the African nations. Nobody needs people, who have a proclivity to creating ****-holes, to flood into their nations to begin the pleasant journey to creating one more ****-hole.[/QUOTE]
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
21,974
Reaction score
9,701
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ya, you can just leave good ol' Canuckland out of this, thank you very much.
Neither Europe nor NA have any responsibility to allow their own societies and cultures to be altered and/or destroyed by migrants from nations who can't maintain their own. They created mud in Syria all on their own. Same with the African nations. Nobody needs people, who have a proclivity to creating ****-holes, to flood into their nations to begin the pleasant journey to creating one more ****-hole.

The US, Nato have had a strong hand in destroying Syria, so yes they have a responsibility for the refugees from Syria as they would not exist without actions by the US and Nato
 

Fishking

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
28,610
Reaction score
9,462
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
That's the good thing about being a liberal, from my experience, we're a lot freer to think outside of what we've been told to think.

I don't thin I've read a more false statement in a good long time. The debate is alive on the right, where it is dead on the left. The left has no room for free thinkers, none.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
21,974
Reaction score
9,701
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's not the why, and it's not the how many, it's the who.

It is the many

Brexit's anti immigration stance was not against East Indians or Syrians, but the Polish Plumber (or more correctly the high number of eastern European workers in the UK). If it was not the Poles in high numbers it would have been any other group in high numbers
 

Buzz62

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2017
Messages
6,805
Reaction score
1,069
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Why? We've been very successful integrating immigrants into our society.



Well now, that depends. We've stolen from them for centuries, by installing puppet governments, and then paying that government peanuts to let NA and Euro countries essentially rape and pillage.

So maybe it's time to share? Maybe a bit of short term pain, but in the long term a huge benefit to mankind.

They created mud in Syria all on their own. Same with the African nations. Nobody needs people, who have a proclivity to creating ****-holes, to flood into their nations to begin the pleasant journey to creating one more ****-hole.
[/QUOTE]

so send aid...send managers and administrators...build the infrastructure there so they can progress.
but DO NOT sacrifice our world.!
 

Buzz62

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2017
Messages
6,805
Reaction score
1,069
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The US, Nato have had a strong hand in destroying Syria, so yes they have a responsibility for the refugees from Syria as they would not exist without actions by the US and Nato

horse-kaka!
they're own leadership started this all on his lonesome.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
21,974
Reaction score
9,701
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't thin I've read a more false statement in a good long time. The debate is alive on the right, where it is dead on the left. The left has no room for free thinkers, none.

Rino's, We need to save the endangered RINO's

Taint no debate on the right. The left runs from corporate liberal elites, to pro union, to pro minority, to pro gay and lesbian rights, to protection of religious minority rights. It runs from globalists like Clinton, to democratic socialists like Sanders

Where does the right in the US have anywhere near the thought diversity that the left in the US has
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
31,397
Reaction score
16,024
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It is the many

Brexit's anti immigration stance was not against East Indians or Syrians, but the Polish Plumber (or more correctly the high number of eastern European workers in the UK). If it was not the Poles in high numbers it would have been any other group in high numbers

The Poles have been terrorizing France, Germany, & England have they?
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
21,974
Reaction score
9,701
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
horse-kaka!
they're own leadership started this all on his lonesome.

Step back into reality for a while and lay off the ganja.

Is not the US bombing, supplying weapons, locating soldiers in Syria? Has not the US had an active role in trying to remove the government of Syria from power?
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
21,974
Reaction score
9,701
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Poles have been terrorizing France, Germany, & England have they?

Just the British, enough so that the Brits voted to leave the EU as means to "control their boarders"
 

Buzz62

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2017
Messages
6,805
Reaction score
1,069
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Step back into reality for a while and lay off the ganja.

Is not the US bombing, supplying weapons, locating soldiers in Syria? Has not the US had an active role in trying to remove the government of Syria from power?

The reality is that the US and NATO had and have no business getting involved in a Syrian conflict. They should just get out completely and let them fight this out on their own.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
21,974
Reaction score
9,701
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The reality is that the US and NATO had and have no business getting involved in a Syrian conflict. They should just get out completely and let them fight this out on their own.

Well they did, and caused a conflict that last for years, that led to millions of Syrian refugees, 4 million in countries surrounding Syria, and about 1.5 million into Europe
 

Verax

Disappointed in Trump
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
12,240
Reaction score
4,519
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I don't thin I've read a more false statement in a good long time. The debate is alive on the right, where it is dead on the left. The left has no room for free thinkers, none.

What's funny is, my wife will tell me something somebody on her Facebook said. If they are a right winger, I can tell her every single thing about how that person feels about any issue / what they will say, and she is stunned because I'm always right. The reason is because they're all the same.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
12,431
Reaction score
6,724
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hillary Clinton is a private citizen. She is no more a politician than you or I. So this thread isn't even about politics aside from discussing what some random person thinks. In other words, it doesn't matter one iota what Clinton thinks. Conservatives love to use her as a punching bag still, though, for some dumb reason that doesn't make any sense. Probably because they realize their base is braindead and any mention of her will provide a visceral reaction.

Also, we all know she's wrong, but who cares?
 

Acadia

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
16,989
Reaction score
10,708
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
Just to note

She said to curb it, not stop it.

From a general social stability aspect, controlling immigration (refuge, guest worker, or permanent) is important. The numbers per year that a society can absorb is different every year, dependent on the economy, the society as a whole and of course regional issues. Each society is also different. Canada right now can take a lot of immigrants, given our ok economy and the already high number of immigrants and 2nd generation Canadians. During the 80's and 90's I remember alot more anti immigrant Canadians than I do now. For non Canadians, it is in the 70's that the immigration pattern for Canada changed dramatically from being heavily European, to more Asian primarily.

Germany with very little history of immigration (and what was done in the past not done very well by the German state (see Turkish immigration if I recall in the 50-60's). So accepting a 1.5 million refuge's in just two years is going to cause issues. Just to note, proportionally only in 2016 did Germany accept more immigrants than Canada does on a general annual basis.

So yes Hillary is right in this regard. If the goal of a country is to accept immigrants, it has to do so in a controlled manner as to ensure social stability, which will ensure that immigration in the future can continue.

Now as to the immigration issue/crisis in Europe specifically. The highest number of immigrants to the EU in the last few years were from countries destabilized by the EU and US (Libya, Syria, Iraq, along with various African and other Asian countries. Countries around Syria have take in far more refugees than Europe did (vastly more than the US did), despite the refugee's being a direct result of Nato/US actions in those countries. Jordan and Lebanon each have 1.5 million Syrian refugees, both countries are vastly smaller in size, population and economy than the EU or US. So I do not have much sympathy for the EU/Nato countries in seeing refugee's coming to their countries in large part due to their actions
I understand that sentiment and while ostensibly true, it's not the stupid war-mongering, nation-building leaders who feel the ill effects of unchecked migration. They live in their walled mansions with their security team and security systems. It's the people who suffer.
 
Top Bottom