@ISIDEWITHQuestionsimmigrationStarted 8yrs agoActive 2mos ago

Should the EU impose a quota of migrants per country?

+
Expand
+ Settings x  Pirate Party

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 453 Pirate Party voters.

39%
Yes
61%
No
39%
Yes
61%
No

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 453 Pirate Party voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 453 Pirate Party voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Pirate Party voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9ZFWZ3Fanswered…2mos2MO

Reduction on the amount of migrants that are accepted until the current immigrants have been properly integrated into Society.

 @9CL9FLWanswered…2yrs2Y

Yes, its necessary to balance out high migrant pressure in countries like Italy and Greece while other countries take in no immigrants. This is more humanitarian and efficient option.

 @952R2DSanswered…2yrs2Y

Sweden will benefit from immigration. The question is more a matter of what will benefit both Sweden and the immigrants themselves and seek the balance the moves Sweden forward.

 @94B7KBGanswered…2yrs2Y

States should choose themselves

 @92LTN7Ganswered…3yrs3Y

No, the EU should not decide how many migrants a country should or shouldn’t take.

 @8XPWNCQanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but add education level, or employment history, as a separate criteria/quota.

 @8RZ8XRYanswered…4yrs4Y

Sweden should decide immigration to Sweden

 @8QQQLJBanswered…4yrs4Y

Countries should decide for themselves and the EU should keep out of how many migrants come to each member state.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3 days3D

Supreme Court Clears The Way For Trump Sentencing

Donald Trump will face sentencing over his New York “hush money” conviction on Friday, after the US Supreme Court declined to grant him a last-minute reprieve.The decision will force the president-elect to face public proceedings in the criminal case that he has fought strenuously to avoid. His lawyers had appealed to the high court on Wednesday to postpone the proceeding, claiming that allowing it to go ahead days before his inauguration would create a “constitutionally intolerable risk of disruption to national security” and interfere with his efforts to get his 34 felony convictions overturned.In a 5-4 decision handed down just hours before the sentencing was set to go ahead in a state court in lower Manhattan, a majority of the justices declined to do so, saying “the burden that sentencing will impose on the president-elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial” especially as Trump was unlikely to face any prison time. They added that any issues with the evidence presented at trial — some of which Trump’s lawyers have claimed was inadmissible — “can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal”.Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberals on the bench in refusing to grant Trump’s appeal.Trump said in a post on Truth Social that he appreciated the Supreme Court’s time but vowed to continue fighting the case. “For the sake and sanctity of the Presidency, I will be appealing this case, and am confident that JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL,” he said.Lawyers representing Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Trump’s sentencing was repeatedly postponed while he mounted his third campaign for the White House and pursued various appeals against his conviction. Last week Judge Juan Merchan, who oversaw the “hush money” trial in New York earlier this year, finally set a firm date, in order to bring what he called “finality to this matter”.Trump will probably not face any punishment when he is sentenced, however, as the judge previously indicated he would not impose a fine or condemn Trump to prison time.

▲  1618 replies

Active 3 days ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2mos2MO

Trump’s Unlikely Victory Among Arab Americans and Right-Wing Jews

It is an extraordinary new coalition. Along the way to his decisive victory over Vice President Kamala Harris, Mr. Trump drew at least some Arab American and Muslim voters who are outraged by the Biden administration’s support for Israel in the war in Gaza. He managed to do so without alienating the right-leaning American Jews who see Mr. Trump as Israel’s strongest champion.Even in an election marked by a reordering of the country’s traditional political teams, these strange bedfellows stand out. The two groups hold sharply divergent expectations for the president-elect. And both strongly pro-Israel Trump voters and some of Mr. Trump’s Arab American backers are skeptical that his ascent this week is the start of a durable cross-ideological, interfaith coalition.But in Dearborn, Mich., a majority-Arab city, Ms. Harris won just 36 percent of the vote, according to unofficial results, a roughly 34-percentage-point drop from Mr. Biden’s share of the 2020 vote in similar results released after that election. Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate to the left of Ms. Harris, picked up 18 percent of the vote. But Mr. Trump’s support also jumped — to 42 percent of the vote from less than 30 percent four years ago, though turnout was lower.But in interviews throughout the campaign, Arab American and Muslim supporters said they were ready to take a chance on him anyway.Some were already aligned with the socially conservative views of the Republican Party. Many were nostalgic for the relative quiet of 2019.They also noted his efforts to campaign in Dearborn and the time spent in the area by his surrogates, especially Massad Boulos, a Lebanese American businessman and an in-law of Mr. Trump’s, and Richard Grenell, Mr. Trump’s former ambassador to Germany and acting intelligence chief.By contrast, they said, they saw Ms. Harris as inaccessible to the community.

▲  1710 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3 days3D

Trump Gets No Jail Time for Felony

Donald Trump was not punished for his criminal conviction in the Manhattan hush money case, bringing a lackluster end to the legal saga that will make him the country’s first felon-turned-president.At a sentencing hearing on Friday, a New York judge declined to sentence the president-elect to prison time or impose fines after a jury found him guilty of 34 felony counts of business fraud in connection with a $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels in the final days of the 2016 presidential election.“This court has determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction without encroachment on the highest office of the land is a sentence of unconditional discharge,” Justice Juan Merchan told Trump.While acknowledging the “extraordinary legal protections” Trump is set to enjoy as president, Merchan emphasized that “they do not reduce the seriousness of the crime or justify its commission in any way.”Friday’s sentencing, however inconsequential in terms of punishment, caps a remarkable chapter in Trump’s tangles with the justice system. At one point battling four simultaneous criminal indictments, he emerged with a single conviction last May that didn’t obstruct his path to reelection and will likely linger as little more than a stigma.Though Trump’s felony conviction allowed Justice Juan Merchan to send Trump to prison for up to four years or impose other penalties, the judge said in court papers prior to the sentencing that he wouldn’t do so, writing that incarceration was not “practicable” given Trump’s imminent return to the White House.Instead, Merchan imposed the sentence of “unconditional discharge” on Trump, which carries no punishment. The president-elect appeared virtually from Florida, his image presented via a video feed on large monitors in the Manhattan courtroom as the judge announced his decision. Prosecutors from the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, as well as Bragg himself, attended in person.

▲  1915 replies1 agree