In Philadelphia, I lived a few blocks away from the Girard stop on the L train. I would just avoid walking by the station because it was a hang out for homeless people and drug users in the area. Pretty much everywhere within a 10 block radius of the station is built up, there's always people out, and it feels like all of the local businesses in the area are thriving (more recently there's been too many chains opening up which sucks but I digress), there's barely any homelessness or crime with the exception of package thieves (I just bought a $20 box off amazon to put in front of my house and never had a problem) and the occasional car window being smashed.
In NYC, especially Manhattan although the same applies to the outer boroughs, unless you live around a more touristy area then you don't even think about it. In Boston even less so besides downtown.
I don't think trying to contain people to specific areas is a good solution. There's obviously a greater social issue across the US and other developed nations and it's a very hard problem to start solving, but I would guess that most cities continue to ignore it as long as its easy for the majority of the population to ignore it.
Hamsterdam
The rate is 42/10k for non-Hispanic White and 56/10k for all others - a common definition for people of color. So about a third more likely.
To provide some intuition if the numbers aren't clear that increased risk is about the same as:
* driving while having slept 6-7 hours rather than 7+ hours[0] 1.3x
* being a teen driver with a teen friend in the car rather than alone[1] 1.49x
* the increased cardiovascular risk from being highly sedentary vs. being active[2] 1.3x
As a whole, though, 'person of color' seems to be a bad grouping unit here because Asian people are 'people of color' and have a 7/10k rate, while Black people are also 'people of color' and have a 214/10k rate. Therefore, if I were trying to understand if there are subpopulation differences this is not the aggregation unit I would use.
0: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/bulletin/2017/national-police-week...
Similarly, we’ve got a bunch of cases where the law says X, but actually conforming with the law, or proving what you’re doing is legal, also costs money, and is therefore not “free” either. That one catches a bunch of people.
Encampments produce fires, needles, waste, blocked sidewalks, and local crime spikes. Surveys show high mental illness and substance use rates among the homeless. Mild climate plus weak enforcement concentrates the problem beyond local poverty levels. Treating every complaint as coded racism blocks diagnosis.
Unpermitted vendors create safety and fairness issues for taxed businesses. Illegal graffiti is vandalism that costs owners. Oakland fines them. Murals are different.
Pure tolerance by the left produced tent cities. Enforcement and treatment shows recent drops in both homelessness and crime.
People who want orderly streets are not required to absorb the costs. Working neighborhoods take most of the hit.
Hear hear! I have $5 left over this month after rent and food. Where do I donate it to change the world.
/s
The most objectionable thing about his post is that he's calling out gypsies specifically, but also Denmark relatively recently passed sweeping anti-begging laws kind of specifically targeting Roma people...
I'm not a Dane but have spent significant time there and well understand the spectrum of views Danes hold on immigration and Danish politics in general.
I wasn't even passing any kind of judgment, but bringing this up because DHH was discussing a topic that comes up locally (even though he doesn't even live there anymore) but sounds crazy if you don't have the context.
1. believe a statement can be true or false, and false should be called out.
2. believe deportation is morally wrong in certain cases, that is, the law can be selectively broken.
I personally believe laws should always be enforced and followed. That eliminates margin for corruption and lenience. A strong law also creates incentive for the population to care about the letter of the law and reforms, since it becomes a known fact that such law will be followed through.
The worst of both worlds is a situation like in US or EU where immigrants "more or less" can settle, but live under constant pressure knowing there is no legal framework to support them, and deportation may come at any moment.
Except that that author didn't say that at all. They said "deport only the lawbreakers", while expressing dismay at a blogpost which (apparently*) said "deport everyone".
> I personally believe laws should always be enforced and followed.
Quote from TFA: "Any kind of mass deportation plan would have to change [the law], which would be legally tricky to say the least. However, enforcing the existing laws requires no legal action, and could start tomorrow if the relevant executive wanted it to."
*Other comments have argued that the post didn't actually say that.
Not saying this is the only way, or what should be - but it's what it is, selectively breaking the law is ok - "as long as they behave". It implies that immigrants must live in the limbo and under undue psychological pressure, knowing one day their whole life may be uprooted for any transgression (or even none). This to me is some medieval mindset.
In this particular case, they are legal residents.
Do you believe that these laws should be enforced and followed despite most people believing that they are morally wrong?
I (the author) do believe deportation is morally wrong in certain cases. For example, there are laws governing which people can be deported and for what reasons. Deportations that violate those laws are morally wrong. What I spent the whole article arguing against was the idea that people should be deported even when the laws say their deportation is illeagl. (It would be illegal to deport the vast vast majority of Roma in Denmark.) The other thing I argued for in the article is enforcement of the law against people who break it.
The law is huge, complex and can often have conflicting aspects.
This is assumed by some to be "by design". When the law is such that everyone is breaking it, then the power shifts to whoever can bring people in "front of the law".
So, in every case with strong beliefs such as yours, IMMV and it's easy to voice an opinion when you feel "not in target".
Laws are written by imperfect humans. Bad laws exist.
Lenience and mercy are critical components of a system of a just criminal justice system. We have judges issue sentences in large part because we want a human being with good judgement to decide how serious the punishment for an offence should be based on the circumstances.
A person who shoots their partner who has been abusing them for years should probably receive a different punishment than a person who pulls out a gun in traffic and shoots someone for cutting them off. Mercy or "lenience" are not inherently flaws in the justice system, though of course there's always "too much of a good thing."
I read an article some years back that really changed my mind about this. It made the point that society evolves through the imperfect enforcement of laws (those some kinds of imperfection, like selective enforcement, are distinctly harmful). That is empirically true, but for some reason I hadn't realized it until the article pointed it out to me.
I've asked the moderators.
Guidelines:
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle.
(To be clear, I'm not saying I think you did anything wrong)
Personally, I didn't flag the article but I think it might be right to be flagged - just; I think you have discussed the issue calmly, but I find the article to be faux respectful and presenting itself as being neutral where it is not. To me the article reads as posturing and signalling, and using the headline (cancelling Hey) as a thin cover for discussing something else entirely (the blog post, the disagreements with it, and the political disagreement with DHH). Note that HN says anything off-topic should be flagged, and the definition for off-topic starts with: "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime...". If it had been, I'm cancelling Hey.com due to revelations about the owners DHH <link>, its cost me $x and was good and now I'm going to $y then I think it would be on-topic.
That all said; the topic you are really discussing is one that is very hard to have a reasonable conversation with people about. It has been unreasonably politicised, and is aggressively pursued as such; to a degree that distorts the basic facts and denies the real harms and impacts. One of my early roles involved physical security systems, and during it I encountered a large number of people suffering from related issues while the police both didn't have the power to resolve it and were not willing to wield the power they did have. I am deeply concerned about the widespread censoring of these discussions.
"Diversity is our strength" -- what kind of diversity? Within a company, diversity of purpose is not a strength, because you can't have people working at cross-purposes with one another. It's the same for countries, local communities, and families. "Diversity" can easily be used to describe what ultimately is "division", making it contradict the old saying in the USA "United we stand, divided we fall".
Diversity of strengths/weaknesses, personalities, backgrounds (including ethnic), etc. all do make us stronger provided we maintain and prioritize a practical unity in a shared purpose.
Typically I just spend money on software that works the best and suits my needs.
I don't generally research the individual creating it.
We should all know less about eachother!
I don't understand what's so special about legal and medical advice that it's so singled out in certain parts of the world. All kinds of advice people give can be harmful, such as eg cooking and dietary advice. Yet it's ok to tell people how to cook, but for whatever reason it's not ok to tell people to make sure they stay well-hydrated when they have a cold.
[Edit:] But gee does the rest of the article hit hard. The "missing mood" in particular.
To say nothing of whether that person has the necessary - often lengthy - context necessary to provide good advice.
The culture in question have been infamous for centuries for their value system which is incompatible with most others. Just as it's okay for devout Islamists to find the whole American value system disgusting and want nothing to do with it, it's okay for DHH and other Westerners to find the Roma value system disgusting. It's a belief system they choose, it's not something like skin that people cannot change.
In America there's a lot of ethical ambiguity given how recently most current residents' ancestors arrived. But in Denmark? Did the Roma build that society? (Possible) EU citizenship aside, I find it hard to judge Danes who feel that ethically, they don't have a right to degrade that society with crime and vagrancy. Same as I don't blame English people who don't like certain things going on there.
The article being referred to says "When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them" - it doesn't say "you deport everyone of that race," it's about the people causing problems. If you allow literally any behavior, no matter how antisocial, bad actors will ruin everything for everyone. Only the most obtuse person doesn't recognize the truth of that, deep down.
This is not a defence of DHH, just providing context to his comments.
This plays out with things like US culture being pretty well tolerant of ethnic enclaves (Chinatowns, Little Italies, Solvang, etc) compared to what I've seen in my travels abroad, while preferring to bulldoze those enclaves when a new freeway needs to be built, and foods emblematic of certain areas being Flanderized versions of various foreign cuisines (Take a look at California's burritos, or a Chicago style pizza, or a New York style pizza).
I think the gypsies he's referring to might be a particular set of organised beggar gangs exploiting gypsies from Romania, Bulgaria and generally central Europe in European cities since the early 2000s, and not the usual seasonal workers from these and other gypsy communities. But I haven't been to Copenhagen in a while.
His comparison to them as wolf-like predators (and you shoot wolves), previous posts about mass deportation and forced remigration ... no, most Europeans aren't veering strongly into hard-right territory.
https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/69582/denmark-moves-tow...
No opinion, just statement for your records.
Imagine a scenario that a black family moved into your neighborhood and started causing a bunch of problems. There are no other black people in the neighborhood.
It should take you a picosecond to figure out which one of these is obviously racist and which isn't:
"We need to remove the black people from our neighborhood"
"We need to remove the new family from our neighborhood"
People like "well he has a good point they are causing problems" so technically the set of "black people" and "people who are currently causing problems in our neighborhood" are the same set. This is irrelevant.
I have a friend who tries to get me back on being progressive. Obviously, he lives in a 100% white neighborhood.
Islamic terrorism is pretty much a recurring theme in Germany yet mainstream parties are still utterly baffled how is it possible that AfD is surging. I wonder when things boil over and a developed democracy elects a government that openly implements racist policies in order to improve public safety. Because we can clearly see the public discourse changing - things we are able to say now were unimaginable even 10 years ago.
I see it in Berlin, rise of agressive, smelly begging in U-Bahn (I witnessed a beggar actually attacking passengers, hitting a woman). People walking around having fully shit their pants. This, I presume, is tolerated in the name of individualism, that the individual is free to choose how they present themselves in the public, and walking around with pants fully shat must be some inalienable right.
Area around Kottbusser Tor reeks of urine, and there's junkies fully out of it constantly screaming and fighting. Is somehow pointing this out is shameful and racist?
Homeless people and drug addicts may well be victims of circumstance or victims of society depending on your point view - or even victims of their own choices or actions - but there’s a difference between saying “this race of people is problematic” and “this class of people is problematic”.
I think DHH was trying to refer to junkies and homeless people most of whom happen to be immigrants. The immigration status is the particular attribute that invites usage of the term "gypsies" to signal that the problem with those particular junkies and homeless could be solved via immigration enforcement. At least in his eyes, I presume.
Again, not defending his choice of words, just providing a somewhat plausible explanation as to how one might arrive to this specific terminology.
Second of all, homelessness and drug addiction are not moral failings. As the author says ".. there will be some who are good and some who are bad. This makes people very unlike wolves."
I ask you to question whether the people who are "...walking around having fully shit their pants" should be deported, or treated for the conditions that ail them. The people aren't to be protected on some basis of "individualism", but on the basis that they are human people. Not animals.
comparing them to animals and repeatedly declaring how we shoot those animals is probably also not great.
And once you look at the problems you mention without taking the easy way out ("They're aliens and should just be excluded from our society"), the question is not so much whether they have the right to do this, but how we, as a society, can provide care to those people.
Also, I can't understand your presumption that "This is tolerated in the name of individualism". The situation your are describing is a public health issue, not a question of lawfulness.
DHH = david heinemeier hansson (ruby on rails creator)
> large gathering of perfectly normal, peaceful Brits
Let's just say that when a Tommy Robinson crowd walk into a pub, the perfectly normal, peaceful Brits look for the exits.
> They're still reeling from the Pakistani rape gangs that were left free to terrorize cities like Rotherham and Rochdale for years on end with horror-movie-like scenes of the most despicable, depraved abuse of British girls.
I can see if you feel this was fabricated by the author, you'd have the negative reaction you're having. But this is much-reported, much-discussed fact. Maybe HN needs to read news sources besides HN.
2. Literally the only place the word deport is used in the post is here: “ When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them”
Please quote where he says to deport all Roma/gypsies.
The comment is deleted now, so I don't have any way to prove this, but it didn't say that when I read it. Maybe it did earlier and it had been edited by the time I had read it.
> Please quote where he says to deport all Roma/gypsies
You want me to quote the exact sentence you already quoted? There's only one antecedent of the pronoun "them" that makes sense in that sentence, and it's not "public spaces". If you want to pretend that the intentional repeated use of a slur and years of similar opinions are somehow immaterial to trying to understand what that sentence means, you're free to do that, but that's not what libel means.
Granted, I already have a dim view of Ruby and Ruby on Rails, and have never used any of DHH's software products, so my comment is a moral denouncement that carries no weight. Still, the dog whistling in this blog post is so loud I hear barking from the next door down. I don't exactly have on-the-ground knowledge of the exact situation in Copenhagen, but even just from what DHH describes, I'm pretty sure the solution can be solved through means less invasive than deporting homeless people.
And just to be clear, I'm using the phrase "homeless people" rather than Europe's N-word because the problem is not where the people came from. Unless you want to pretend like Danish-born homeless are somehow way better, which would be a level of propagandistic bullshittery I don't even think Trump would stoop to. I also shouldn't have to explain why the actions to fix homelessness should not be identical or even analogous to the actions taken to manage an invasive wolf population.
There is an actual problem DHH is vaguely grasping at: western countries have an exceptionally low state capacity despite their status on the world stage. The West is run by people who believe their job is to merely manage the decline of their terminally-ill trade empires until the pieces get inevitably packaged up and sold to ancap-esque autocrats of trade. And the social and economic structures undergirding the west, especially in Europe, have ossified to the point where there is not only no place for immigrants of any stripe, but even our own young can't fit in.
But the answer to this problem that always gets attention is the people who want to burn that remaining state capacity on incredibly vengeful, petty, and stupid acts of bullying. "I don't care how poor I am as long as I have someone else's neck below my boot" is just a recipe for mass impoverishment.
Find needles on the beach multiple times, and you simple stop caring about reasons and want action.
Far right is a label being used for normal things like secure borders and safe cities.
While every wolf may be a predator - that does not necessarily mean they are they are dangerous to all potential types of prey.
If you honestly believe what you're saying you're going to have a REALLY BAD TIME in the wild.
Outside of fiction, wolves are not ravenous beasts that hunt everything and anything in sight.
Predators do tend to go for the weak/sick, older or younger/inexperienced targets - they aren't stupid.
Prey is whatever is at risk of being consumed. I have made no attempt at classifying wolves behavior in my comment.
Edit: I do take the prey/predator relationship very seriously, I wrote about what I do here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46462101
But that 5,000 foot view of mine is more related to the original blog author using predator/prey as an analogy - it breaks down quickly when applied to humans.
Nice comment! (I used to hunt - but not as intimately as your experience - you have a very skilled and serious background)
Facts alone won't get you to answers about what you should do about something.
Whether your personal view is that the solution to low income migrants entering your country should be outright genocide, deportation, societal integration, welfare, or something else - it's not going to be based on a statement of fact.
A fact is that the elderly who have retired from the workfrorce are no longer contributing to the national wealth, they're also using the public health system more than any other demographic. Clearly we should...
The author argues in favor of "individuated enforcement" wherein deportation is conditioned on the degree to which a migrant has contributed positively to the country.
It’s not difficult. It’s beyond yikes territory: it’s his now typical xenophobia and bigotry.
Now we know how the 1930s felt, I guess. Wealthy fair-haired motorsport brat edgelords were the leading edge of fascism then too.
I maintain a self-hosted whitelist-only email account for sensitive work but email for other purposes just isn't tenable anymore.
If someone else comes along with a better product maybe I'll consider it.
Wolves are also pretty important, by the way. Hopefully we all know that by now?
The benefit of the doubt only exists as long as there is doubt. Once there's an overwhelming body of evidence that removes any of it, continuing to give it is pretty suspicious, like you mention.
Who doesn't want a people to live? Where do they say that?
Chad seems to be arguing: 1. DHH thinks all gypsies are bad, therefor 2. DHH does not see Roma as individual people, therefor 3. DHH is a bad person.
I read DHH's blog as: 1. It should still be illegal to camp in parks, therefor 2. People who do camp in parks should be housed, therefor 3. Foreigners who refuse housing should be deported.
Then there's also mentally ill people who operate in the grey zone of law — clearly too mentally ill to be prosecuted for their crimes (or haven't committed any crimes yet), can't be held in prison, but also too unstable and violent to be admitted to shelters with other, mostly normal disadvantaged people.
One example of such case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Eina_Kwon
If you're very literal like me, you take that to mean wolves, the mammal; a predatory animal living within a food web, fulfilling a particular role at its trophic level which is ultimately beneficial to the system it's a part of.
Wolves don't independently get 'out of control' such that they need to be shot. This has been demonstrated across North America and Europe. The perception of wolves being out of control is largely subjective and misguided, and the result of 1. humans encroaching on wild land, 2. human activity limiting wolves' access to food, and 3. humans fearing wolves and wanting there to be fewer of them.
Through this lens, comparing immigrants to wolves is absurd. It becomes clear that DHH is discarding a lot of context in order to weave a fearful narrative which uses invalid, fictional mechanisms to make his point.
The use of the terms gypsies and sheep also comes with issues. It's a poor piece of writing, lacks any compelling substance (assuming you aren't swayed by him), and largely demonstrates that he's not particularly thoughtful about this while lacking the self-awareness and comprehension to notice how weak his position is.
It's okay to want reduced immigration. It's okay to want to preserve certain things in your society. It's not necessary or reasonable to do so through this lens, however. There are plenty of compelling arguments to make for regulating these systems in local, regional, and national government. It's okay to want that. When you start describing immigrants as dangerous animals, you've gone many steps too far off of a sensible path.
I also understand the use of fables to communicate moral and ethical stories, which seems to be a component in his narrative. However, he steps out of that bound when he talks about literal wolves (and the need to shoot them). Yet fables are a coarse tool, not an intricate one, and they're far too reductive to support an argument against immigration across a continent. It's an absurd position to argue from, and in terms of narrative, it makes DHH seem either obtuse or very hateful and disingenuous. I've never read anything of his since this piece.
The wolf population development has been known to exceed every prediction in Western Europe, and while it's fairly inoffensive for humans the economic consequences are much higher than most anticipated, for economic/ecologic benefits that are hard to defend. And the wolf population are still fairly low.
In my opinion maybe the money spent protecting wolves (hundreds of millions per year in Europe) would be better spent on homeless shelters and similar policies.
Still this article should remind every European of the Nazis comparing the Jewish diaspora dispersal with the historical dissemination of black and brown rats.
I totally agree about your last point. This type of rhetoric is dangerous and it’s highly precedented. There’s often a reason people lean on it for leverage.
I think DHH can take a stance that overly lax immigration policy has led to issues, if that is what he believes. That may be true, I don’t know, and I have no issues with policy debate around that, but directly comparing a specific race of emigrant people as wolves preying on native peoples, sheep is pretty gross.
Once again, it's projection.
Strong people raise others up.
Weak people seek to cut others down.
Look in the mirror. What do you see? Jpeg at imgbb.com
My reading is that he used those examples deliberately to raise a broader issue: some people are tired of being told to ignore problems they can see and experience, whether that means feeling unsafe while walking through a city or attending a Pride parade (assume that are the “wolfs”), or being frustrated that nearly every item at Target is locked up (“gypsies”).
To be clear, I am not expressing an opinion on whether his argument is right or wrong.
I don't have to agree with everyone on everything, not even people I do business with. But I do try to limit supporting people who have actively advocated for things that harm my family. Say what you will about Apple (where I transitioned), but they're the "least evil" option from my perspective.
Others are of course welcome to their own perspectives and choices.
Which is: If someone comes illegally to your country and ends up sleeping in parks, they should be deported.
I don’t know if I agree with that but the post seems to take it for granted that any reasonable person cannot.
To me this is more a fashion statement than an argument. Advocating deportations is automatically bad, using the word “gypsy” is automatically offensive. It’s silly. Pretty much everyone has some line of behavior at which they advocate deportation, and can anyone here who is upset actually explain why “Roma” is less offensive than “Gypsy”? There are PhDs in Eastern European history who can’t do that.
That doesn't enrage me, in fact I agree with it. But no one in this story came illegally to Denmark. I'm not sure what gave you that impression. And I read DHH to be saying that more people than just the specific ones sleeping in parks should be deported.
The former European Community core states are too small and cannot handle the influx of millions from the East and the South.
The core states should leave the EU and reestablish the former European Community, which would help the populations as opposed to multinational locust companies.
It isn't fair that the whole world (mind you, including rich foreigners) buys up apartments, takes jobs and displaces the original population.
Hence the blog post.
Which is fine. But there is significant hypocrisy in presenting as though you aren't doing exactly that.
"Hence" means, "therefore", as in "I didn't want to shout and shame, therefore I wrote this blog post"
Cloudflare, in contrast, actively works with the CCP which is doing actual ethnic cleansing in Tibet and Xinjiang. But they are harder to cancel aren’t they.
I’m a pragmatist. I’m not going to drive myself crazy interrogating the opinions of every service provider I use. I don’t know about the Fastmail founder or CEO’s beliefs and don’t want to.
Further, DHH isn't calling for the deportation of illegal immigrants in parks. He's calling for the deportation of all people tagged with a specific label with no discrimination. The blog post talks about exactly that difference.
I agree that we live in an ecosystem where, in some industries, all options are terrible. That doesn't mean that, among those bad options, you can't exercise discernment and good judgment. I'm similarly a pragmatist from a different angle - I do believe the marginal dollar value I add to a company's bottom line doesn't change much of anything, and that voting with your wallet only works with collective action to be more than theater - but I also think that makes OP's conscientiousness admirable. Pragmatism isn't apathy or agnosticism, and shouldn't be conflated as such.
He nowhere says they are illegal immigrants.
No, that's what this article is calling for. The complain they have is that DHH called for deporting the entire ethnic group independent of whether they're sleeping in parks.
>> When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them.
Looks like some of the controversy is whether "them" refers to "the gypsies" or "the gypsies who take over public spaces".
It sounds genuinely ambiguous to me. Example A) "When wolves eat too many sheep, you shoot them." seems to advocate for shooting all wolves. Example B) "When adults abuse minors, you imprison them." presumably only refers to those that abuse minors.
> When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them.
I think based on his choice of parallelism we can fairly guess he means it the wolf way. There's not a single sentence in his post that supports the other interpretation.
Daniel Berntsson, a co-founder and co-owner of Mullvad, made a massive personal donation of 5 million Swedish Krona (roughly $500,000 USD) to the Örebro Party.
Proton is Swiss, not Swedish.
People draw lines in different places, and what you are doing here is implying that it is unreasonable for people to take that level of issue with DHH's "gypsy" comment. I disagree. I think its completely reasonable to view that as unacceptable and to disassociate from that person.
/s I left Migadu for Hey.
> You do not need to deport all of them to deport the ones who "take over public spaces".
And continues to assume that DHH is talking about mass deportation. He's not. He says:
> When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them.
He's not saying we should deport _all_ gypsies just because one group is taking over public space.
There once were angry submissions (or comments?) here about how hard it is to cancel NYT.
I was expecting the Hey-version of that, instead I got long-winded prose that sounds like a bunch of college boys trying to sound smart.
No thanks.
I guess the E-mail-service is still overpriced due to them believing in non-existent value of their web client.
If that's the point of the article, sorry, I didn't make it far enough.
Guess my language limits got me there.
Still very hard to understand and I find hard to say it would be worth reading. Apart from the Gemini-like looking template.
But to cancel a subscription for another service entirely, because someone used a blog platform of the same provider to publish something you were repulsed by – this seems like a really bizarre way of managing your emotion. By this logic I should feel compelled to delete my HN account, delete all my social media and cancel all press subscriptions…
This is a strawman interpretation of anti-immigration arguments. Non-strawman anti-immigration positions are that immigrants are a problem even if they are all "good".
If you care about getting rid of "bad" people, then you have to evenhandedly apply the rule, even to those who have ethnic roots in the country going back a hundred generation: take those "bad" people too and strip them of citizenship.
Where in the world is immigration driven by "good" or "bad"; I mean, where do documents like visitor visas and residency permits lapse due to badness rather than the mere passage of time, whereby the individual not able to extent has to go, whether they are "good" or "bad"?
What is "bad"? Does "bad" have to be armed robbery? Or is someone also "bad" if they settle in Japan, and then demand that schools remove pork from school lunch?
Unwanted immigration can simply be the raw numbers: 500 immigrants not being a problem, but 500,000 being a problem, all else being held equal, including "goodness".
You can be deemed undesirable not because who you are but entirely because you're part of a group with 499,999 others. From the individual's point of view, it is unfair; that is true, and it isn't meant to be.
> Cancelling "Hey"
> I definitely don't believe in trying to change people's minds by shouting at them or shaming them
> I definitely don't believe in trying to change people's minds by shouting at them or shaming them
seems to me like they want to make a (polite) argument instead of explicitly calling them “heretic” to quote the article.
They also quite obviously seem to refer to cancellling the subscription here and not trying to invoke "cancel culture". The first few paragraphs make this quite clear.
Normal working families with kids live next to these parks and rely on them as open space, it is part of the Danish socialist welfare system and care for the working man. Defacation and open cooking plus thrash by not your own weak but foreigners has real cost to those that can’t afford to move.
The article made it pretty clear that they're not arguing against deporting people who are camping in parks though, and just arguing against generalizing the issue as being about the entire ethnic group. Are you claiming that somehow having a communal kin based socialist society makes it impossible to have, using the term in the article, "individuated enforcement"?
The group talked about here came in through mass migration and are in group conflict with working peoples interest in having safe communal open spaces, while being a net negative contributor to public pools of resources used to help the average man and disproportionately contributing to theft.
From a Scandinavian perspective you choose group solidarity with your own working man over the stranger that did not come in through high skill merit.
It’s our country and we have no obligation to let anyone in, especially a group that culturally conflict with ours in ways that violate our social contract and ability to provide basic standards of living to our own kin.
