Is the refugees deal time consistent?

by on March 20, 2016 at 12:53 am in Current Affairs, Economics, Law, Political Science, Uncategorized | Permalink

Just to refresh your memory, part of the deal is that newly arriving refugees in Greece get sent to Turkey, but in return the EU takes a refugee currently in Turkey.  The goal is to reduce the incentive to migrate as a refugee, since you end up in Turkey rather than in Europe.

Gideon Rachman writes:

First, will the Greek authorities have the administrative capacity to process and turn around refugees arriving on their islands — as well as the many thousands already stranded in Greece? Second, will Turkey really co-operate — particularly given the fact that the EU is unlikely to deliver on all its promises? (The pledge of visa-free travel for Turks is unpopular in many EU states.) Third, will migrants desperate to get to Europe find alternative routes — perhaps via Libya, which has no properly functioning government?

Kerem Oktem summarizes the deal and makes some excellent points, including this one:

…we know that desperate people cannot be stopped. They will simply resort to new routes that will be more dangerous, more lethal and more expensive, whether it is the land borders between Turkey and Bulgaria, the boat journey from Libya to Italy or a new trajectory through Ukraine and Eastern Europe.

I find it strange that these European governments find it repugnant to allow life-saving trade in human organs, or trading away some of one’s privacy, or for that matter a free labor market.  Yet they don’t seem to mind an institutionalized system of trading one refugee for another, with the explicit goal of increasing the number of Syrians who are trapped.

In essence, the wealthier Europeans are arranging for Syria, Greece, and Turkey to pay for building a stronger wall.

1 Steve Sailer March 20, 2016 at 1:19 am

“we know that desperate people cannot be stopped.”

Israel does a highly effective job of stopping refugees.

2 Anon. March 20, 2016 at 8:59 am

Israel does not have thousands of kilometers of coastline.

3 ricardo March 20, 2016 at 9:46 am

Israel has 1,341km of border; of this 273km, or about 20%, is coastline. With a population of about 8m that’s roughly 16.7cm of border per person. []

EU has about 88,000km of border, of which about 80,000km (roughly 91%) is coastline. That amounts to about 17.3cm of border per person with a population of about 508m. [,

Given that coastline is actually easier to defend than a land border (where exactly is Israel’s wall again?), it’s far from clear that the per capita burden is greater in the EU.

4 stephen March 20, 2016 at 2:29 pm

Ricardo: arithmetical check. I make it that Israel has 0.167 km (not cm) border per person, and the EU has 1.73 km per person.

On the other hand, much of the EU border is on the Atlantic which is not exactly easy to traverse in a small overcrowded boat.

5 Cliff March 21, 2016 at 12:28 am

stephen: arithmetical check of your arithmetical check.

Ricardo was exactly right

6 TGGP March 20, 2016 at 10:35 am

Australia has plenty of coastline, and seems to be rather effective these days in preventing arrivals. It seems to me that domestic politics make a big difference in whether aspiring immigrants are kept out.

7 AIG March 20, 2016 at 8:59 pm

Yep. Many countries have been able to stop the “desperate” hordes in the past. An inconvenient fact for libertarians.

8 Art Deco March 21, 2016 at 5:58 pm

Israel’s political class identifies with Israel’s majority population – for now. (I don’t think Israel’s intelligentsia does). Not the case anywhere else in the occidental world.

9 Amber March 20, 2016 at 1:26 am

The goal should be to “trap” Syrian refugees in Turkey:
1) They are safe there–altruistic Euros can send care packages
2) We see (Sweden, Cologne, etc.) that if they come to Europe they rape and commit other crimes at about 100x native level (maybe more–hard to say given pressure on police to under-report/enforce). Who cares why (culture, religion, inbreeding, what have you. . .)–let’s be pragmatic.

10 Nathan W March 20, 2016 at 1:50 am

I don’t imagine many are thinking of it in the way TC suggests with respect to organ trade, free labour or privacy, in the sense that they just haven’t considered it. I surmise that apparant moral inconsistencies might be easier to uphold when motivated by a desire to uphold some perceived greater moral good (in particular when not laden with scapegoating and fearmongering) regardless of the presence of a degree of moral inconsistency.

I imagine this is somewhat caving to anti-refugee sentiment (perhaps rationally so, given the genuine backlash it is creating in some circles, and in particular managing tail end risk with regard to that), in addition to recognition that managing the sheer volume of potential refugee flows is perhaps a greater challenge than originally recognized.

However, the “ceasefire” (or rather, reduction in hostilities in most camps) has entered into its third week. If things go well, in a few months time or a year or so perhaps there will be sufficient credibility of safety the vast majority of these refugees to start sending them home, and in the humanitarian spirit, save money by helping them to rebuild their country instead of housing them in Europe until they are able to access labour markets.

11 Nathan W March 20, 2016 at 1:58 am

This comment was supposed to go on its own thread …

12 Harun March 20, 2016 at 12:55 pm

Good luck getting them to go home.

“How you gonna keep them on the farm, when they’ve seen gay paree?”

13 Nathan W March 20, 2016 at 1:54 am

100 times native rates? Man, that kind of statement absolutely needs to be back by stats.

While it is clear that police has refrained from fearmongering and fanning the flames of Islamophobia, in some cases clearly on this side of excessive caution, there are absolutely zero indications that the underlying statistics (which yes, they are not always sending off to all the right wing outlets despite the wishes of these outlets, nor do they make statements which lend themselves to inflammatory citations on the part of such outlets which would lend an air of credibility to these fears which are generally outsized releative to risk), there are precisely zero signs that the underlying data is being doctored.

14 Amber March 20, 2016 at 1:59 am
15 Nathan W March 20, 2016 at 2:33 am

I highlight the first two words of the report: “All 41 …”

However, the report does not seem at all inflammatory and seems to suggest entirely reasonable thinking about such discrepancies. The proposed policy strategy seems reasonable as well. This should be considered as a model in reporting on such things. Honest data and non-inflammatory and not fearmongering in nature. Unfortunately, some will feel inclined to change the narrative, along the lines that you did.

I’m not one who likes to minimize such things, but out of ignorance of how the definition of “assault” is functionally applied in Norway, I think it’s also worth pointing out that the vast sum of 41 cases groups together rape and assualt as one category. Assault can be as little as slapping a lady’s bottom in some places. Not to be encouraged, to be sure, but not rape. Having engaged in offensive minimization, perhaps I should use my imagination to think of what worse kinds of things might also be classified as “assault” but not “rape”. But, I don’t like to use my imagination in such ways. A clear definition would be better, and I simply don’t know what it is.

16 Nathan W March 20, 2016 at 3:04 am

Anti-SJ Warrior indeed, in supremely twisted fashion employing SJW rhetoric to its opposite application.

Western culture definitely has a lot to be proud of. Recent forays into scapegoating and fearmongering are not among them. We remain king of the castle, and some would have us believe that we are on th verge of complete eradication and collapse into historical relevance.

And, there is precisely ZERO publicly available information to evaluate whether these offenses were “particularly violent/horrific”. Which stands as proof that you are positioned to potray things in the maximum possible negative light. It is not conducive to rational discussions of how to imbue respect for women among newcomers, among other things. Building bridges works. But not if you’re calling them all monsters from the very first. But many will continue to build bridges, and they will succeed despite such pro-radicalization outlooks.

17 Moreno Klaus March 20, 2016 at 8:33 am

Nathan W: the claims seemed quite shocking to me, and after some wikipedia search i found this, A 2011 report by the Oslo Police District shows that of the 131 individuals charged with the 152 rapes in which the perpetrator could be identified, 45.8% were of African, Middle Eastern or Asian origin while 54.2% were of Norwegian, other European or American origin.

18 Harun March 20, 2016 at 12:57 pm

What’s the ethnic breakdown of the populace? Surely not the same as those numbers.

19 Greg March 20, 2016 at 12:55 pm

I can’t tell exactly what the situation is from the source you cite. It discusses 41 “assault rapes” (in the Google translation), out of apparently 16,000 rapes overall in the country during that period.

I find this source much clearer: “In 2010 13% of sexual crimes charges were filed against first generation immigrants who make up 7.8% of the population – a rate of overrepresentaion of 1.7.”

20 Nathan W March 21, 2016 at 7:49 am

Thank God (or, us, actually) for Wikipedia. I easily believe that the numbers are higher for immigrants, but in considering the 1.7 times overrepresentation statistic, also consider that the perpetrator is a lot easier to identify if they are the only black man in the crowd, and so this statistic is likely to slightly overstate the discrepancy. I also wonder whether sexual assaults may be slightly more likely to be reported when perpetrated by a visible minority. In consideration of these, perhaps 1.5-1.6 times higher is the likely actual overrepresentation in sexual assaults perpetrated. Good cause for some public outreach efforts, but no need to descend into irrational hysteria that dirty brown people are busily raping all the virgins of Europe.

21 Ray Lopez March 20, 2016 at 1:39 am

The points made are mountains out of molehills. I saw the other day that NATO will stop refugees from Turkey using just five warships. The point: up to now there’s been no warships, aside from the Greek navy which I would imagine doesn’t even have authority to stop refugees (or maybe not even the desire). So if five warships can stop Turkish migrants, and keep in mind the land bridge between Turkey and Greece is heavily mined, I think the new proposals are “doable”.

Larger point: I live in Greece on occasion (I’m a Greek-American living in SE Asia). I find this entire issue boring. Does anybody else? If I find it almost as boring as Obamacare, I’m sure others do. Who cares what a bunch of geriatric Europeans do? Yawn.

22 Em March 20, 2016 at 5:26 am

Can you please refrain from posting in the future? thanks.

23 chuck martel March 20, 2016 at 9:51 am

His posting seems to take place in the present. If he can, indeed, post in the future, he’s doing something rather unusual.

24 Ray Lopez March 20, 2016 at 11:58 am

You have to be more assertive than the passive-aggressive ‘please’ and ‘thanks’ to get my attention. I ignore you little person.

25 Greg March 20, 2016 at 12:56 pm

Don’t feed the trolls.

26 AIG March 20, 2016 at 9:01 pm

As usual Ray has no clue what he’s talking about. What do you think Turkish ships are doing?

No warships aside from Greek Navy? Total BS.

27 Kris March 20, 2016 at 3:03 am

I find it strange that these European governments find it repugnant to allow life-saving trade in human organs, or trading away some of one’s privacy, or for that matter a free labor market. Yet they don’t seem to mind an institutionalized system of trading one refugee for another, with the explicit goal of increasing the number of Syrians who are trapped.

Nationalism (aka tribalism on a national scale) trumps human rights. Every time.

28 BC March 20, 2016 at 3:43 am

One could attribute the European governments’ positions to anti-foreign bias. To be fair, however, there is a consistent theme to all of the positions: in each case the European governments favor regulating and managing details of everyone’s lives. In that sense, they are treating natives and refugees the same.

For example, it’s not that the governments oppose all trading of organs. They just don’t want the organ donors and recipients *themselves* to do the trading. They governments are fine with taking organs from donors and deciding which recipients should receive them, who has higher priority under what circumstances, etc. Similarly, the governments aren’t opposed to all labor, obviously. They just think that the government, rather than the workers and employers themselves, should determine all the terms and conditions of the labor contracts.

The real inconsistency comes from those that say that they favor smaller, less intrusive government in most areas yet want the government to manage and restrict every aspect of people’s lives when they cross borders to engage in voluntary activity with each other.

29 Moreno Klaus March 20, 2016 at 8:19 am

“One could attribute the European governments’ positions to anti-foreign bias” > just like in US and Australia…They dont like “non-white” people.

30 Ray Lopez March 20, 2016 at 11:59 am

Not only that, but Europe is full of old people, so it’s more like old people anywhere and their “get off my lawn” attitude.

31 Cliff March 21, 2016 at 12:32 am

You know, once I bought a house I realized how annoying it is to have kids playing on your lawn. I have to maintain that landscaping!

32 prior_test2 March 20, 2016 at 3:17 am

‘Third, will migrants desperate to get to Europe find alternative routes — perhaps via Libya, which has no properly functioning government?’

Almost as if someone cannot remember that the current route through Turkey is the alternative route to the one involving Libya, and hundreds (or many more) drowned people.

‘I find it strange that these European governments find it repugnant to allow life-saving trade in human organs, or trading away some of one’s privacy, or for that matter a free labor market. Yet they don’t seem to mind an institutionalized system of trading one refugee for another, with the explicit goal of increasing the number of Syrians who are trapped.’

Unpacking this is fascinating – it isn’t the ‘government’ that finds forbidding organ trading or enforcing data privacy worthwhile, it is the citizens of those nations. As for that ‘free labor market’ – intriguingly, members of the EU are allowed to work in any other EU country, which was not the case a generation ago for people living in Eastern Europe. Whether the EU labor market should be more free by a GMU econ dept. professors favored measures is another discussion, but to argue that somehow European governments aren’t interested in a free labor market when it has been consistently a goal of EU integration to create a freer labor market is the sort of willful ignorance that could make one think that the narratives that need to be followed here will always have a greater weight than any facts that contradict them.

‘In essence, the wealthier Europeans are arranging for Syria, Greece, and Turkey to pay for building a stronger wall.’

Well, apart from the billions of euros being transferred to Turkey and continuing EU assistance to Greece. As for the ‘Syrians’ building a stronger wall, are we talking about Daesh or Assad?

And what is truly amusing in a sad way is just how fully this misrepresents what is happening. Even at the sealed Balkan borders, actual Syrian refugees are being let through – people fleeing the hell of a civil war involving the truly barbaric forces of Daesh and the equally brutal forces of Assad are not being kept out of the EU. A detail that might just get lost, when there is yet another narrative to construct.

33 AIG March 20, 2016 at 9:03 pm

All excellent points, and a good summary of the misrepresentation of facts here by Tyler.

34 cliff arroyo March 20, 2016 at 5:32 am

As I’ve mentioned before. If you want to know why there’s such widespread resistance to opening European borders to the current flood of refugees caused by middle eastern dysfunction then look at similar populations already in western europe. Large scale migration by middle eastern and/or muslim majority countries is a very well known quantity and the results have been a disaster everywhere.

I can’t find statistics that suggest there’s a single country where they’re not a net drain on the economy. Usually about half the working age men and three quarters of working age women are officially unemployed and about half on social benefits.

Is there any reason to believe that this group will be any different?

If muslim communities had proven themselves to be an economic asset then I think that European citizens would be happier about accepting more.

35 Jan March 20, 2016 at 9:08 am

What if they are doing it for humanitarian reasons and think that the simplest way to make individual lives better is to just let them come?

36 cliff arroyo March 20, 2016 at 9:55 am

Why should European governments prioritize making the lives of random middle easterners better over making the lives of citizens better?

And what on earth is humanitarian about making people wards of the state forever?

37 Nathan W March 20, 2016 at 11:25 am

These aren’t “random” people. They are large numbers of very specific people, each and every one of them human, who are fleeing one of the worst conflicts we’ve seen for a very long time.

And, if concerns about being “wards of the state” are a big deal, then facilitate their access to the labour market. Start with language learning where various cultural specificites are taught, and help to ensure that foreign credentials are of some value in accessing retraining or direct recognition by employers.

Because they are human, and so are we. We are rich, and can do something. Until we can all see each other as members of the human tribe.

With power comes responsibility. Money is power.

38 cliff arroyo March 20, 2016 at 12:21 pm

” facilitate their access to the labour market. Start with language learning where various cultural specificites are taught ”

Oh, what an original idea! Maybe Germany should…. oh wait, they have. Back in October a study was released that 70% of refugees from Syria, Aghanistand and Iraw who had begun apprenticeships in the previous few years did not finish them (many apparently felt that it was beneath them). Among new arrivals an estimate was that 70% had no marketable skills whatsoever so education will have to start at pretty basic levels.

And they have started “don’t rape!” courses, so I guess that’s culturally specific.

39 Nathan W March 20, 2016 at 12:40 pm

Not a remotely original idea. We’ve been doing it for a very long time in Canada, and it works.

40 Harun March 20, 2016 at 1:01 pm

Refugees are supposed to stop at the first safe country. Going from Turkey to say Germany, and then deciding to go to Sweden essentially reveals that they are not refugees anymore but economic migrants.

The fact that many of the “war” refugees are not actually from places at war should also tip you off.

41 Horhe March 20, 2016 at 8:56 pm

Each one of these people is human. Got it. That will shut up the naysayers. And they are fleeing the worst conflicts we’ve seen in a long time – the conflicts in Eritrea and Ethiopia and Pakistan.

So, on the one hand, you offer meaningless platitudes (we’re all human, we all live on Earth, it’s the current year). On the other hand, you will not discriminate between people who might be legitimate refugees and simple economic migrants taking advantage of a golden opportunity thanks to Western weakness. Regardless of the effects on the actual refugees (fewer resources for integration, fewer resources to take care of them in the camps of countries adjacent to their country, the risks associated with being cooped up with other representatives of their religion or civilization without a pre-selection etc).

“We are rich”. No, you’re not. Or maybe you are, in which case, speak for yourself.

Responsibility first to your own. Do no harm. Do not make things worse. The precautionary principle. Ring a bell? Every act of violence or intimidation that affects the host population, as well as the measures taken to reduce its freedoms for the sake of managing the rapidly diversifying society is an indictment of everything you said.

By all means, help them… in their countries. Because, as people always remind us, the world is interdependent. Western Europe is not just effing itself up for its citizens and their posterity, but also effing up everybody who depends on it – partners, allies, third world dependents. Sweden has cut its foreign aid budget to deal with the costs of its refugees. I bet you could feed a lot of Syrians in Lebanon with the money for just one migrant subsidized by the state in Malmo or Stockholm – food, housing, edumacation, courses how not to rape, then paying off employers to hire these folk instead of locals,w hen they can be bothered to work etc etc. In perpetuity, for themselves and their descendants.

42 Cliff March 21, 2016 at 12:35 am


You are basically proposing open borders which is the opposite of what Canada has- an extremely selective immigration policy designed to benefit its citizens

43 Nathan W March 21, 2016 at 8:25 am

Harun – that is the MINIMUM obligation with respect to refugees. When they are piling up in the many millions in the neighbouring countries, it is correct to exceed the minimum oblligations with respect to international law. Much like the law often sets minimum standards in child rearing, but we are generally encouraged to do better. In times of crisis (or any time for that matter), we should not constrain ourselves to the minimum statutorily required response, we should do more.

Horhe – how many times do I have to say that I support treating economic migrants under one stream and refugees under another? These are entirely different streams of people and the legal apparatus surrounding each is entirely different. Most of what you write is minimization of patently obvious moral reasoning and strawmanning people for views that no reasonable person would hold. If the individual is not from a war torn country or cannot prove that they are at risk for political reasons, then deport them – it is as simple as that.

Cliff – In no way, shape or form did I endorse any form of open borders. True to form, you position my argument on one side of the spectrum and then paint it into the most extreme position possible. There is black. There is white. Reality is grey. If you can stop thinking in black and white, you will be able to better understand reality.

On the matter of Canada, which I think has a very sensible immigration system – a) there is a refugee stream which varies in response to crisis and accepts refugees even if they have transited through a safe country, b) there is an economic migrant stream dedicated to attracting high human capital immigrants, c) there is a framework for a large population of labouring migrant workers, who only remain temporarily, and they easily return home because they can expect legal access in the following year as well. I regularly support the logic of this system, and have never once advocated for open borders of any sort, except to idealize that it would be nice to live in a world where all non-criminals could go wherever their abilities are most in demand (the reality experienced by myself, and it seems rather unfair that the vast majority of the world does not enjoy such freedoms).

44 Nathan W March 20, 2016 at 11:16 am

Things are fine in Canada. But then again they do not tend to be excluded from labour markets and public services are tailored to the needs of these citizens.

Make the first move, make it good, and things work out. Not sure what to do about instances of verifiably radicalized districts such as Malenbeek though. I half wonder if a military-style house-to-house search for weapons with extensive strategically dangerous accomodations to ensure that European values are communicated loud and clear could be in order. Start with a security perimeter, give notice so civilians can exit to very temporary shelters, and after the dust settles and all the weapons seized and verifiable terrorists identified (may not be able to prosecute in the first instance because it’s not strictly legal), start the culturally-sensitive charm offensive while encouraging those who legitimately hate European humanist values to go somewhere else (e.g., hand out leaflets with information on cheap airfares while lauding the highly Islamic character of those foreign countries).

45 Cliff March 21, 2016 at 12:39 am

Canada has taken essentially no refugees up until the last three months and is focusing on religious minorities…

46 Nathan W March 21, 2016 at 8:33 am

It was a major issue in the election. And look who won? Canada has a long history of accepting a manageable number of refugees, a cultural preference that was demonstrated in ejecting the refugee minimalists from power.

And yes, the focus on religious minorities (well, only Christians, that is) by the previous government was deemed offensive to the principle that we should not discriminate, and, again, look who won the election. The more widely shared Canadian values clearly came to light in response to the crisis, and any obligations taken on were in the complete absence of pressure from any external country, it was done freely and willingly.

Your perspective is old news and the the party representing that perspective got kicked to the curb.

47 Derek March 20, 2016 at 6:54 am

This is a desperate attempt to come up with something that doesn’t involve shooting them. It will come to that at one point. The first line countries are desperate and overwhelmed, facing wave after wave of humanity they don’t know what to do with and unable to in any case. Behind them are the same people who were willing last year to impose crushing economic burdens upon them, and now are trying to avoid responsibility for this mess. Another emergency ‘Save Europe’ weekend meeting.

This deal essentially is a payment to run the camps, because the whole European project could collapse otherwise. How much of Brexit fervor is driven by the refugees showing up to cross the channel?

What is fascinating about these issues is that the solution is getting tantalizingly close to being the hanging out a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats. Merkel can consider herself lucky that a bad turn in this saga simply means she retires to a comfortable place somewhere.

48 cliff arroyo March 20, 2016 at 6:58 am

“This is a desperate attempt to come up with something that doesn’t involve shooting them. It will come to that at one point.”

It does seem clear that nothing but physical force will stop them (that is greater physical force than they can inflict on those trying to stop them).

49 Nathan W March 20, 2016 at 11:28 am

Limited ceasefire in Syria is entering its third week.

If Lebanon can handle 25% of its population as refugees, Europe can handle 1%. After all, Europeans are better, no?

But let’s not let that get in the way of lusting over murderous violence against dirty brown people who hold values roughly similar to what was the norm a few short generations ago in the West.

50 Engineer March 20, 2016 at 12:21 pm

But what will the limited cease fire in Syria do to stop the waves of immigrates from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Somalia, and Iraq, etc.? According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the top three nationalities of the over one million Mediterranean Sea arrivals in 2015 were Syrian (49%), Afghan (21%) and Iraqi (8%).

Over half of the immigrants are single males, based on historical experience, many will bring their extended families once they are settled.

But the real problem, to which Europe does not appear to have given any thought, or have any solution, are the 100’s of millions of people behind these.

Numbers matter. A few hundred immigrants means interesting ethic restaurants. Millions, particularly Moslems who will not assimilate, means your (European) culture dies.

Europe had ordered a Darwin Award. They are likely to get it.

51 Nathan W March 20, 2016 at 12:45 pm

I would imagine that a lot of single males would go home if/when they conflict stops, unless they are in a decent job later on. Single men, of course, are a primary target in warfare, so it’s easy to understand why many flee (although we might lecture them about not fighting back from the comfort of our armchairs).

As is commonly stated, your fears roughly echo those about Irish, Germans, etc. who emigrated to America in the 19th century.

If you’re concerned about the 100s millions of others (ignoring the fact that their countries aren’t at war and so do not qualify for consideration as refugees), perhaps it would be wise to promote diffusion of existing technologies so that economies there can grow more easily and meet the aspirations of their populations. It would be virtually impossible for them to hate us after that.

52 John March 20, 2016 at 2:27 pm

“If you’re concerned about the 100s millions of others (ignoring the fact that their countries aren’t at war and so do not qualify for consideration as refugees), perhaps it would be wise to promote diffusion of existing technologies so that economies there can grow more easily and meet the aspirations of their populations.”

Why would I want to do that when it’s far cheaper, evolutionary beneficial for me and more likely to work just to shoot them in the head when they try to cross the border? Bullets are cheaper (and more likely to work) than technology transfer. Which we have tried and it has largely failed.

” It would be virtually impossible for them to hate us after that.”
Apparently you are not only evolutionary maladaptive scum but a complete moron as well. You know nothing about human nature and the way we function. Your statement above reflects that.

53 Nathan W March 21, 2016 at 8:52 am

John – Among other things, your countrymen might think it is OK to kill people who try such things, in the case that it all gets out of hand and we run out of room in prisons. Not a very evolutionarily viable strategy, since the likely outcomes are life in prison or dead.

You see us as the traitor to your narrowly defined in-group, we see you as a traitor to humanity. Humanity >> in-group.

Remember who lost WWII? The world rose up to destroy those who go beyond pandering in such thinking and stray into the realm of action.

Your lot is vocal, but marginal. Try to put your words into action and you will end up dead or sequestered from society for the rest of your life. You also have the option of striving to join a society where mutual respect and decency is deemed an honourable objective. Given how completely brainwashed and enveloped in hate you are at present, it would take superhuman strength of will to undergo such a transformation. But probably you lack the strength of will and capacity to expand your sympathies beyond the tribe, and will be unable to prove your ability to grow out of hate.

Technology transfer – “Which we have tried and it has largely failed.”

Right, technology transfer falied in China, which enjoyed the highest extended rate of growth in the history of humanity. And it failed in countries where agricultural productivity quadrupled in the space of a generation. And it failed when mobile phones became the backbone of communications and access to finance for many in the third world. Au contraire, it has succeeded in the few cases where it has been put into practice.

But don’t let that get in the way of twisting reality to suit the narrative that nothing but violence and genocide is the right way to go.

When you are brought up in hate and racism, it might seem to make sense to attribute your views to “human nature”. However, when children are not brought up in hate and racism, they easily extend their sympathies across racial boundaries – that is proof that your views are due to brainwashing or anti-social upbringing and the other views are rather more reflective of human nature. You can also extend your sympathies beyond racial boundaries, but are too weak willed to break out of the cycle of hate and racism.

Question: Are you officially affiliated with the KKK or any established neo-Nazi group which has helped to form your thoughts on the matter, or are you independently activist in promoting hate and genocide?

The only way to end up like you is if you were brought up that way or brainwashed by neo-Nazi propaganda. Which is it? Your views are not natural at all.

54 John March 21, 2016 at 10:09 am

“Not a very evolutionarily viable strategy, since the likely outcomes are life in prison or dead.”
Or living in a country free of subhumans, traitorous scum and morons. Since this virtually guarantees sustainable evolutionary success, I’d take my chances.

“You see us as the traitor to your narrowly defined in-group, we see you as a traitor to humanity. Humanity >> in-group.”
Yeah, except that this is not how evolution works for subgroups of apex predators. But then again, you are a complete moron with no understanding of evolutionary biology, game theory and its implications via modelling evolutionary success, so of course you will claim bullshit.

“Remember who lost WWII? The world rose up to destroy those who go beyond pandering in such thinking and stray into the realm of action.”
Yeah, you are ignorant of history as well. Virtually nobody cared that Germans were slaughtering jews and gypsies. All they cared about was economic interests and preserving their sovereignty.

“But don’t let that get in the way of twisting reality to suit the narrative that nothing but violence and genocide is the right way to go.”
Technology transfer failed in Africa, failed in India and will fail everywhere in the third world. Except if by ‘success’ you mean that the subhumans will still achieve suboptimal results and have several times lower standard of living than whites in similar circumstances. But then again you have to twist the reality of our world to cover the failures of your pet subhumans.

“However, when children are not brought up in hate and racism, they easily extend their sympathies across racial boundaries”
Why don’t you try to prove that with some reproducible science, cuck? Familiarity breeds contempt.

“The only way to end up like you is if you were brought up that way or brainwashed by neo-Nazi propaganda.”
I’m not affiliated with anybody. I’m just a person several standard deviations above you in the IQ department who is able to observe the world and conclude that:
a) By and large, third world populations are literally subhuman who do not deserve to be allowed to waste oxygen and resources via their useless existence.
b) The only sustainable human social organization is the monocultural ethnostate. Preferably one in which cucked scum like you are kicked out (at the very least).

55 Harun March 20, 2016 at 1:02 pm

Lebanon and Syria share many cultural aspects.

56 Nathan W March 21, 2016 at 9:09 am

Fair point. But consider an analogous case. War breaks out in Europe and 90 million Europeans (25% of the US population) show up in the USA (culturally similar) as refugees (let’s pretend that this is logistically even feasible for purposes of the analogy).

I think by the time even just 5 or 10 million culturally similar refugees had entered the USA, there would be a) much pressure from the USA for others countries to carry some of the short-term weight, and b) many other countries would sense a moral imperative to do something. Might China take on a few million despite concerns that proper vetting against infiltration by foreign operatives could not be 100% guaranteed in a timely basis? Another million or two to Mexico? How many millions would Brazil welcome? And the Africans, despite their poverty, would surely not turn a blind eye. A few million more might easily end up in Indonesia, Malaysia and other moderate Muslim countries.

Surely there would be complaints from some segments of society, in many ways roughly analagous to what we hear from some circles in Europe today (defilement of the women, threats to jobs, threats to the national character, etc). But leaders would be leaders and do the right thing, regardless of the potential political costs against anti-refugee factions.

Consider that in WWII even China accepted some Jewish refugees despite being a basically impoverished country at barely higher than subsistence living, and despite being in the midst of their very own fight for survival against the Japanese.

I think the difference is this. The West has been so removed from genuine hardship for so long, we have lost much of our ability to sympathize with such situations. Most of the countries I mention are well versed in the experience of hardship, and would more easliy extend a hand, or at the very least, offer a place of refuge for the duration of the war.

57 Horhe March 20, 2016 at 9:02 pm

Lebanon is not handling it. It’s bearing it. There’s a difference. It starts with not having any choice because they’re not as willful and resourceful as Israelis to keep people out.

I so want my country to be as vibrant and diverse as Lebanon has been, especially during the last century. Maybe I too will have the pleasure of seeing my country go from 85% Christian to 40% in less than a century, with a stopover at 25% along the way. You know, during the civil war.

58 Horhe March 20, 2016 at 9:02 pm
59 Derek March 20, 2016 at 6:54 am

Hanging of.

60 rayward March 20, 2016 at 8:23 am

What’s being ignored in the post is the incentive/disincentive for Syrians to solve their own problem. If Syrians can flee to Europe, what’s the incentive to solve the problem in Syria. What’s been ignored regarding the sectarian division in Syria is that Assad’s army is made up almost entirely of Sunni Muslims (conscripts) who, if they were to defect in large numbers, could overwhelm both Assad’s Shia (Alawite) republican guard and the Sunni extremists (ISIS/al Qaeda) that threaten Syria, all of the middle east, and the west. What’s been the obstacle to a resolution is Iran. No, not Iran’s support of Assad but the west’s obsession with Iran, rendering the west incapable of thinking rationally. [Roughly 85% of Muslims in Syria are Sunnis while less than 15% are Shia (Alawite). Absent loyalty to Assad by Sunni conscripts in Assad’s army the Assad government would have fallen long ago. Why would the Sunni conscripts remain loyal to Assad? Two reasons, one economic and one practical: the civil war has devastated the Syrian economy so army pay is the only means of support for the Sunni conscripts and their families and Sunni extremists are far worse than Assad and the Shia (Alawites).]

61 Nathan W March 20, 2016 at 12:02 pm

I don’t think you need being made aware of the point, but it’s not exactly realistic to demand (suggest) that civilians solve military problems. We could send every last one of the millions back to Syria with their own jeeps, AK47s and plenty of ammo, and they would be mown down in an instant by experienced warriors. Among other things, there is no chain of command or a realistic proposal to have one, unlike, say, the greenies sent into WWII who at least benefitted from leadership under experienced commanders.

62 chuck martel March 20, 2016 at 9:54 am

“Libya, which has no properly functioning government….” Not a bug but a feature.

63 GoneWithTheWind March 20, 2016 at 11:05 am

The correct way to deal with this problem is treat it like an invasion. Greece should turn out their military to round up their invaders/refugees and give them a simple choice; jail or turn around and walk back to where you came from. And the jail should be on the border with no amenities except two meals a day and each day everyone gets the same choice; stay in jail or walk back to where you came from. No lawyers, no due process, no red cross, no other options.

64 Nathan W March 20, 2016 at 12:08 pm

“No lawyers, no due process, no red cross, no other options.”

Yeah, because that’s the world we want to live in. I sincerely hope that you never have the misfortune of understanding, due to personal experience, what a horrible world we would live in were we to follow such thinking.

65 John March 20, 2016 at 2:37 pm

“I sincerely hope that you never have the misfortune of understanding, due to personal experience, what a horrible world we would live in were we to follow such thinking.”

It would indeed be horrible for the non-white subhumans and the evolutionary cucked scum like you as it will mean your end. But it should not concern us.

66 Cliff March 21, 2016 at 12:42 am

sub-humans?? I assume this is satire?

67 albatross March 21, 2016 at 9:09 am

Do Not Feed the Troll

68 Nathan W March 21, 2016 at 9:27 am

Not even close. This is the guy I mentioned when JWatts was trying to suggest that I was delusional in suggesting that there were any neo-Nazis around.

John The Uncuckable. Completely brainwashed and no hope of return. Well, maybe one day he will prove his superhuman abilities to exercise free will and break free of the spell. But then he would be cucked, and cucks are weak weak people. Hence, uncuckable. There is no undoing his brainwashing. Unless he wants to. And he doesn’t want to.

Hey John – did you look into meds like I suggested before? It might help with the delusions of grandeur, for example the belief that you are genetically superior to any and all. You could even lie a little and not expose your neo-Nazi roots. Perhaps, just explain how you feel genetically superior to everyone, but in reflection you’re not that superior at all, and that you heard there were some pills that might help. But I bet it makes you supremely angry to consider that there are those who would mean well to someone so full of anger and hate, on the receiving end of your death wishes. Good luck! You can uncuck your uncukability (unbrainwash yourself)!

Do not be bullied by the shaming of your neo-Nazi connections,. You can prove your free will is stronger than theirs, and cuck yourself knowingly and willingly. Do not be beaten down into irrelevance via cuck shaming. Be free.

69 John March 21, 2016 at 10:11 am

“did you look into meds like I suggested before?”
I would suggest you look into medication for pathological altruism but none exist. And even if they did, I would not encourage you to take them as trash like you should be prevented from reproducing.

70 GoneWithTheWind March 20, 2016 at 6:10 pm

Little substance but lots of name calling. Should you welcome squatters and freeloaders with open arms? If you believe that than YOU pay for them. There are 3-4 billion people in this world living in abject poverty, should they all go to Germany? Where do you draw the line? If 5 million arrived this year would you then be willing to take steps to stop it or is THAT the kind of world you want to live in. How about 10 million or 20 million, maybe 50 million? Where does it stop and when do you finally figure out they are there to take what you have by force if necessary. Now THAT would be a horrible world.

71 Nathan W March 21, 2016 at 9:35 am

Where the name calling? A world where refugees were denied any point of exit would be a horrible place to live. If you perceive that I’ve called anyone names and take offense at it, this suggests that you in fact recognize the moral repugnance of doing nothing when people flee war. How else could you have perceive it as name calling?

Should 3-4 billion people go to Germany? I could hardly imagine a less realistic proposal. This would indeed be dumb, and even suggesting that anyone could take such a suggestion credibly is not suggestive of clear thinking on the matter.

If 5 million arrived this year? Well, 1 million arrived, and this seems to be straining the capacity to welcome them, so we seem to have arrived at a fairly concerete limitation.

You see, if you multiply the actual situation by 20 or 50 times, indeed, it starts to look unmanageable. But, reality strikes, the actual situation is not 100 times larger than it is.

“Where does it stop and when do you finally figure out they are there to take what you have by force if necessary”

Right, they are here to take things by force. And that’s why they arrive with no guns. Do you think you’re considering the matter rationally? Like, it’s possible to imagine things 100 times worse than they are, but the ability to imagine things 100 times worse than they are does not imply that we are unable to deal with the present situation.

Like, what if Katrina was a category 22 hurriance with wind speeds at 3000 km/hr, dumping 20 feet of rain per minute? What then? What would we do? I refuse to think about hurrance planning until you answer the question. That’s how rational you’re being.

72 GoneWithTheWind March 21, 2016 at 6:10 pm

Good! At least you have a limit. If it were 100 times worse or even 5 times worse than you would see a problem. But what I don’t understand is why do people who feel like you want and expect ME and others who feel like me have to accept your standard of too many refugees? I feel a million is a million too many, I prefer zero. If you want more refugees than YOU and others who feel like YOU pay for it and I don’t just mean money. You lose YOUR job to refugees, lose YOUR country and have YOUR children raped by them not me. I want ZERO freeloaders YOU take them.

What is going to happen in Europe/Germany will be an uprising, civil unrest. People will die. It is unlikely that the media will report it or will at least fail to report it correctly but real people will suffer for this poorly thought out policy. It has already begun and it will get worse and it will be multi-decadal and it all could be prevented by refusing the refugees. It would be interesting if someone were to keep a scorecard. Record how many rapes, how many murders, robberies and other small crimes these refugees commit or cause.

73 Horhe March 20, 2016 at 9:05 pm

If it’s what you have to do in the West so your children can live in the world of your parents, then so be it.

John Adams: “I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.”

Well, the grandchildren are wasting their inheritance, so their children will have to go back to politics and war.

74 Nathan W March 21, 2016 at 9:47 am

Why would we want to go back in time? Things are better than they were before, and they will get better yet. Nor will your children live in your world, nor their children in theirs. And a mere 5 generations down the road, the world would be utterly unrecognizable to those who preceded them by 5 generations.

If it takes genocide or state violence against vulnerable people to turn back the clock and return to the inferior past, count me out. I want to live in a genocide-free world, and virtually everyone on the planet is in agreement on this.

And don’t discount the ability of new generations to turn against old farts if they propose the use of violence to drag us back into the inferior past. It would be much better to let such ideas die off naturally with the people who hold them, but if they insist on forcing us to hurry them on the way, it is entirely within the realm of possibility to do so. The natural way out would be much better. No one wants to have to have to force such people on their way out before their natural time has come. It would be a horrible horrible thing, even if it ever proves necessary.

The world is changing. Your time iwill draw to a close in the blinking of an eye. The future will be better for us, no matter that it offends your sensibilities. I encourage you to make peace with the changing times and find small pleasures of mind to keep you content in the remaining time you have. Dragging us back into an inferior past is not an option on the table. Do not force our hand.

75 Horhe March 21, 2016 at 3:49 pm

I don’t subscribe to the whig theory of history as continuous progress. I think we are in an exceptional era whose engine of prosperity is faltering for the very people that created it in the first place.

I don’t want to go back in time. I want to keep the good things around for the next batch of human beings, out of gratitude or a desire to pass an inheritance stretching from the past into the future. An economist would call it capital accumulation. We might fail, but it’s a worthwhile endeavor. Since the world always changes, being a conservative is not about being an indolent old fart stuck in his ways, but an active participant or at least supporter of the identification and conservation of worthwhile components, structures etc. Like a city. You don’t necessarily want it to be an open air museum stuck in time, but you don’t want every generation to flatten it and start anew. A good balance is what should be sought, preserving especially the most important and meaningful bits.

And I’m not an old fart. I’m 27 and doomed to live in the world my elders and betters are leaving to me. My Adams quote is apt. Mine is the generation that has to pick up politics and conflict again.

76 John March 21, 2016 at 10:20 am

“And don’t discount the ability of new generations to turn against old farts if they propose the use of violence to drag us back into the inferior past. It would be much better to let such ideas die off naturally with the people who hold them, but if they insist on forcing us to hurry them on the way, it is entirely within the realm of possibility to do so.”

The stupid cucked moron strikes again.
Unfortunately for you, dumbo, due to exposure to your pet subhumans and their absolute disfunction, the white youth is more racist and nationalist now than any point in the last 50 years. More and more subhumans comming will mean more and more far right white youngsters. And, ultimately, your disfunctional untermenschen will bring about victory for me and an all-white ethnostate. Free of scum like you.

77 Jim March 20, 2016 at 11:44 am

Instead of criticisms of the various EU immigration policies and approaches, I would be interested in knowing what Tyler thinks they should be doing instead.

78 Nathan W March 20, 2016 at 12:17 pm

It would be interesting to know, but I imagine he will play rather coy due to the inevitable barrage of personal attacks that would come out of the woodworks basically regardless of what he says. Regardless of the strategy applied, not everything will go perfect, and those who endorse any solution that is ultimately adopted will be held liable-by-proxy for any less-than-perfect implementation and outcomes (a guaranteed downside in endorsing anything that actually gets implemented, with zero credit for contributing to its actually happening). Also, I don’t imagine that he considers himself a specialist on the matter, and as such there is essentially no value into straying into such a political minefield. It is clear that he holds a degree of sympathy for those who flee war.

One of the many reasons I don’t understand why anyone would want to be a public figure. Every last intellectual twitch is a damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-don’t situation, with ideologues of all stripes ever on the lookout for points to score.

Short: he probably won’t say because there’s no potential upside and guaranteed downside.

79 Thor March 20, 2016 at 5:04 pm

Why do you add the “short” version, Nathan, if not because of some kind of implicit grasp that you post and post and post, and yet these many posts contain distressingly few insights per word.

Would it kill you to edit a little, and think a little more?

80 Nathan W March 21, 2016 at 10:00 am

Like, when you have a professor and he/she closes the lecture saying “and the take home point is …”, while the takehome point is not obvious if he/she has not elaborated on the point already. Is it not natural to provide a concise conclusion in any piece of writing? As someone who claims to be a historian (which specific area of study? It might be relevant in picking your brains on an area of specialization one day.), I would think this would seem rather natural to you.

If you see no insight in any exchange of knowledge of perspectives following from anything I write, or have precisely zero relevant points to make in disagreeing with any perspectives, then I 100% encourage you to scroll past me and ignore me altogether. As a historian, I’m sure you are quite familiar with skimming through hundreds and thousands of pages at a time, looking for that key little piece of insight that you’re looking for. Is the insight that Tyler would sensibly not take a strong stand on a highly emotionally charged political issue where he has no special expertise irrelevant in your eyes?

Just ignore me. Or, perhaps cite me back the words you think are useless and should be culled form the above post.

Question: Which part of the above post was sufficiently bothersome to you that it was deemed worthwhile to say that at this time? I assume the point about the inevitability of facing a barrage of personal attacks when expressing opinions on such an emotionally charged political issue.

81 AIG March 20, 2016 at 8:57 pm

1) Yes, “desperate people” can be stopped. Europe has in fact done this several times in the past when they’ve had immigrant waves. Ask the Italian Coast Guard how it’s done. And these people aren’t so “desperate”. Please, don’t insult your readers by appealing to emotions, Tyler. Of course, living in Basra Iraq is a “desperate” proposition compared to living in Stockholm Sweden, but these people aren’t “desperate” in the sense you imply.

2) Why do you find it strange? That’s exactly the deal that was predictable: Turkey, Greece etc. will get some kick-backs in order to stop “refugees” at their borders. This was Turkey’s and Greece’s end goal…in fact.

3) Europe’s goal in turning back the “refugees” already in Europe, and bringing new ones from Turkey is precisely to…

a) get rid of the 80% young single male “refugees” who are clearly not refugees, nor from Syria, but economic migrants trying to get a foothold in Europe.

b) bring in women and children who are actual refugees from Syria.

Europe wins.

82 Horhe March 20, 2016 at 9:11 pm

Europe still loses, just not as fast as it would have seemed initially. I’d say this is the camel’s nose in the tent, but all that happened these past few decades. Now there’s a herd on its way to the tent. Do you think that those women will be without husbands, fathers, cousins that may join them later? That their children will not grow up to be as alienated from European society as the legal migrants of these past few decades?

A country that cannot control who sets foot and who lives in its territory and what rules they must conform to is not a country anymore. It’s a labor market and fiscal transfer area with residual nationhood, like place names and the preferred language.

83 AIG March 20, 2016 at 9:33 pm

No no. These people are not going to permanently stay in Europe. Its become clear to the Merkels of the world that the European populations will not tolerate this anymore.

They will stay as refugees, in refugee camps. They will not be integrated, and they will not be permanent residents. Europe has done this in the past as well, so this isn’t new.

Europe wins for several reasons:

1) The number of Syrian refugees it will take will, likely, be smaller then the numbers they will kick out.

2) Getting rid of the worst bunch of offenders, i.e. the young single men who have rushed in, and who are potentially the worst types of “immigrants” imaginable, is a reward in itself.

3) Since Europe will only take in Syrian refugees, it makes the matter of repatriating them easier. Now its not people from 6 different conflict regions, but just 1. Now only 1 solution needs to be found, and then they can be repatriated.

4) Having a controlled, documented flow of “refugees”, especially not the kind that are prone to fleeing and disappearing into the population (as would be the case with young single men), makes the process of returning them at a later date easier and more complete.

Sure, some will stay permanently as political refugees or some other reason. But as will previous refugee crises in Europe, that’s a smaller group and a more “select” group. And its better than the current situation. Once the uncontrolled flow is stopped, it’s game over. Then all sorts of measures can be taken to pick the “right” people, to stop when wanted, to control, and to repatriate eventually.

And I suspect the deal with Turkey will be short lived, and more money and rewards will flow to Turkey instead of taking in more Syrian refugees. I suspect the “we’ll take in new Syrian refugees” part of the plan is simply to appease Leftists in Europe who still want to spread their legs as wide as possible. But once the controls are in place…I suspect…it will not be upheld.

84 Horhe March 21, 2016 at 7:07 am

I hope it will be so. A lot of people will be finding monochrome shirts in earthy tones in their closets if it won’t.

85 AIG March 21, 2016 at 9:25 am

I can only hope so too. But I think we, as the western world, have reached “peak diversity” when it comes to more “cultural enrichment” from the third world. Even Trumpism (as much as I despise it for all its faults), at least has the positive impact of demonstrating that enough is enough (its an over-reaction which I mostly disagree with, but at least it nudges the conversation away from the extreme left where it is now).

Politicians are interested in political survival, and if they are getting such extreme negative feedback from the population, almost everywhere in the Western world, then pragmatism will, and has forced them to reverse course.

In fact, this “refugee” crises was the best thing that could have happened. An extreme manifestation of the Leftist/Libertarian ideal on immigration has produced such an extreme over-reaction, that it indicates this is not going to end well for the Leftist/Libertarian ideal. If they had proceeded slowly and stealthily instead, few would have noticed.

86 Nathan W March 21, 2016 at 10:17 am

The Nazis lost last time. Do we need to make the point again? I sure hope not.

87 John March 21, 2016 at 10:33 am

“The Nazis lost last time. Do we need to make the point again? I sure hope not.”

Yeah, I am sure testosteroneless moron like you will be very effective at making any point.
You are horrified by the inevitable rise of white nationalism because it means cucks like you are finished once and for all.

88 Nathan W March 21, 2016 at 10:08 am

What do you call a person who flees war and seeks refuge, regardless of gender or age?

89 John March 21, 2016 at 10:33 am

A useless, unwanted invader.
And, preferably, in the future – a dead one.

90 AIG March 21, 2016 at 2:01 pm

What do you call a person who lies and who he is, where’s he from, and seeks to enter your country with the only intention of sucking dry your welfare system?

Fish food.

91 Nathan W March 21, 2016 at 10:05 am

1) Previous waves were not as a general rule fleeing war, and were far fewer in number.

3) The goal is to stop the dangerous refugee crossing and establish some sense of order over the process.

a) Since when are men who flee war not refugees? Indeed, they are the number one target. American policy proves the point, in referring to such men as “military age men”. They face the first and harshest brunt of all brutality.

92 AIG March 21, 2016 at 2:12 pm

As usual, you have no clue

1) Previous waves were escaping wars, or mass devastation in their countries. Previous waves were…BIGGER…then the current ones. Despite what you may have read in your Lefty trash opinion pieces, there have been many refugee crises in Europe bigger than this one. Hell, there were more refugees in 2014 in UKRAINE than there were produced from Syria. There were about as many during Bosnia, and about double as many during Kosovo.

2) LOL at your #2. If this was about the crossing, why would they be sending back the “refugees” currently in Europe? Because they don’t want the scum that’s there now, since most of them are precisely the sort of people who are a) not escaping any war zone and b) mostly criminals

3) Men who leave their wives and kids in the war zone, are “refugees”? How am I supposed to understand why 80% of them are single men? Where are their families? LOL, oh they are escaping being recruited in the army?

Yeah, they are called “military aged men” because they have the physical strength, and lack of brains, to cross the Mediterranean on dinghies to try and get some of that sweet German welfare (and whatever else they can get their hands on).

I know you’re gullible Nathan. Its not your fault. Here in America you simply can’t comprehend what depravities people are capable of, and what shenanigans they are willing to go through to take advantage of gullible Westerners like you.

Fortunately for you, I’m from Eastern Europe. My countrymen used to do this sort of s**t regularly to Western Europeans. I’ve heard all the tricks in the book. And I know 100% of the people from my old country who got political asylum or refugee status into Western Europe, were lying and fabricating things. But rest assured, only 20% of them turned out to be thieves, murderers and rapists.

But hey, thanks for taking them of our hands!

93 Horhe March 21, 2016 at 3:53 pm

I always figured you for a yank with a fetish for insurance. What country, if you don’t mind my asking? I’m Romanian.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: