←back to thread

A filmmaker and a crooked lawyer shattered Denmark's self-image

(www.theguardian.com)
196 points RapperWhoMadeIt | 9 comments | 27 Mar 25 13:01 UTC | HN request time: 2.261s | source | bottom
Show context
itissid ◴[27 Mar 25 14:55 UTC] No.43494328[source]▶
Its just people. People are the same everywhere, and are fundamentally unpredictable systems. How large groups behave does depends to a certain extent on context: by compared to others and your socio-economic situation. How they publicly expressed their values are entirely different from their behavior. This is to the dread of incumbent governments and pollsters.

If you starve a wealthy man for 2 weeks he will be ready to cannibalize. If you create a metric upon which you place a lot of economic-value, soooner or later it will get gamed and corrupted. If you remove checks and balances humans being unpredictable will turn on each other.

One can choose to ignore this fact, but at the cost of endless grief to oneself and those around.

replies(9): >>43494764 #>>43494891 #>>43495004 #>>43495084 #>>43495257 #>>43496037 #>>43496176 #>>43498094 #>>43506489 #
bufferoverflow ◴[27 Mar 25 18:01 UTC] No.43496176[source]▶
> People are the same everywhere

That is absolutely not true. People aren't the same even in adjacent neighborhoods sometimes. Some create great environments, some create hells on earth.

Source: I lived in 3 different countries + an isolated island.

But you don't even need my biased opinion on the matter. We have cultures that throw gay people off the roofs, and cultures that celebrate them.

replies(8): >>43496488 #>>43496512 #>>43496862 #>>43497219 #>>43497674 #>>43497697 #>>43501937 #>>43506213 #
hnhg ◴[27 Mar 25 18:26 UTC] No.43496488[source]▶
Some of those cultures that apparently celebrate gay people were also chemically castrating them not that long ago, and also have a lot of locals who still hate gay people and cannot wait to get back to the old ways.

The rise of the far right in Europe and USA might challenge your idea of fixed regional cultures quite soon.

replies(2): >>43496579 #>>43500004 #
tomp ◴[27 Mar 25 18:33 UTC] No.43496579[source]▶
The main drive of who you call “far right” is precisely to import less people that want to throw gays off roofs.
replies(2): >>43496645 #>>43496762 #
hnhg ◴[27 Mar 25 18:38 UTC] No.43496645[source]▶
Some of them, maybe. Some others are just not tolerant of LGBT lifestyles and equality at all.

Also, I don't think someone who wants limited immigration is necessarily far right.

replies(1): >>43496996 #
FirmwareBurner ◴[27 Mar 25 19:12 UTC] No.43496996[source]▶
*)limiting ILLEGAL immigration, emphasis on the word illegal.

Nobody in Europe has a problem with LEGAL immigration, but the left wing parties and MSM keeps ignoring this and sweeping illegal immigration along the legal immigration banner to drive the narrative that Europeans are racists who hate all immigrants in order to justify (social) media censorship and restrictions on free speech to fight the "right wing extremist nazi" boogie man, which ironically, actually fuels the swing towards the extremist right wing, because the regular public discourse and communication channels for criticizing illegal immigration in public are censored/disabled.

replies(2): >>43497102 #>>43497226 #
decimalenough ◴[27 Mar 25 19:33 UTC] No.43497226[source]▶
A lot of people in Europe absolutely have a problem with legal immigration, with asylum seekers particularly maligned.

Specifically, the rise of far-right parties in Scandinavia, Germany and France is very much a reaction to legal immigration from Arab and African countries. The argument is not "they're stealing our jobs", but "they're abusing our welfare benefits, driving up crime and raping our women".

replies(2): >>43497281 #>>43499418 #
1. absolutelastone ◴[27 Mar 25 23:23 UTC] No.43499418[source]▶
Is an asylum seeker really legal if their claim is a stretch and they are in fact just an economic migrant? Seems like an arguable category that should be treated separately. Though I agree there appear to be plenty of people in Europe who want to restrict legal immigration too. Is this taboo there now too?
replies(1): >>43501099 #
2. rat87 ◴[28 Mar 25 03:09 UTC] No.43501099[source]▶
> Is an asylum seeker really legal

Yes. You answered your own question. A person who is her legally is here legally. If their claim is denied (and I'd argue in many cases the bias would be towards denying valid claims then the other way around) and they refused to leave then they'd be an unathorized immigrant without legal right to stay in the country. But before then they are explicitly there legally.

replies(1): >>43501348 #
3. absolutelastone ◴[28 Mar 25 03:48 UTC] No.43501348[source]▶
Taking words out of context generally never forms the basis of a good argument. For example here you cropped out the commission of immigration fraud, which leads me to doubt you accurately answered my question. In the US at least, such behavior can lead to punishments well beyond denial of the application. Are you saying in Europe it is fair play? Either way of course the point relevant to the thread is whether people are justifiable in viewing such applicants as illegal vs legal.
replies(1): >>43508345 #
4. rat87 ◴[28 Mar 25 18:05 UTC] No.43508345{3}[source]▶
Fraud is lying

Having your amnesty application rejected (whether the court judged fairly or too harshly) is not in any way or shape fraud. Law is complex and many refugees and asylum seekers don't fully understand the law. Even hoping it applies to you optimistically would not be fraud. Fraud is only when you purposely lie to try to gain the right to stay here. Such things happen but not nearly as often as anti immigrant people claim. Something that seems to happen more often is anti immigrant politicians lying and trying to break the law in order to restrict immigration such as by withdrawing TPS by claiming unsafe countries are now safe(so people can be deported)

replies(1): >>43508972 #
5. absolutelastone ◴[28 Mar 25 19:11 UTC] No.43508972{4}[source]▶
Indeed fraud certainly is lying. And sure they might also be rejected for other reasons like being a convicted criminal. In the US we also have "willful misrepresentation", which I will count with fraud informally. But my comment, again, specified economic migrants. They know they are economic migrants. The fraud is to claim otherwise on one's application in the name of "hoping optimistically" that this other story will suffice. It sure is hard to maintain focus on this point.
replies(1): >>43509735 #
6. rat87 ◴[28 Mar 25 20:55 UTC] No.43509735{5}[source]▶
The vast majority of cases are not declined for fraud/wilful misrepresentation. They're declined because they don't meet standards for asylum (or at times because the judges are being pushed to deny regardless of what the law says or means) or because they didn't have proper representation or enough time to prepare and have to face a broken immigration system. Hell we don't even have enough interpreters. Many of those claiming asylum speak less common languages like Mayan languages
replies(1): >>43511414 #
7. absolutelastone ◴[29 Mar 25 00:15 UTC] No.43511414{6}[source]▶
Funny how you don't often hear this kind of argument made for estimating the prevalence of tax fraud. And there the risk vs reward calculation is much worse. I would trust more common sense arguments. People who respond to economic incentives are economically motivated.
replies(1): >>43521141 #
8. rat87 ◴[30 Mar 25 03:47 UTC] No.43521141{7}[source]▶
You're getting this backwards. Claiming most asylum refusals are due to fraud without anyevidence is the opposite of common sense

Also having an economic as well as other reaspns to immigrate does not mean someone isnt a qualified refuge or or not facing persecution or are committing fraud.

Taxes are complicated just like our immigration system. Many people make innocent mistakes every year, most people don't want IRS to come down as hard as they can on every innocent mistake by treating it as fraud without any proof. They expect corrections and if necessary small fines.aw

replies(1): >>43524456 #
9. absolutelastone ◴[30 Mar 25 14:24 UTC] No.43524456{8}[source]▶
"Any evidence" is a low bar. Obviously there's evidence of many kinds. The point here regarding common sense is the evidence of human nature when it comes to lopsided risks versus rewards, and widespread knowledge of this imbalance. Legally proving fraud is obviously difficult in a world where there is almost no paperwork to go on (save what the applicant chooses to provide), and hardly worth the effort when the government can just stop investigating when it looks doubtful and reject the application for the same practical result. In the US most applicants are rejected and aside from obviously-suspicious ones who skip their hearing, the most common reason is literally that their fear isn't found to be credible. Also, a person who has multiple motivations but only lists the ones that would benefit them has lied by omission.