Refugee Crisis

[Lyanna Stark]

And I would pick Sweden to go to over Norway anyday, and I'm not ashamed to admit it!

 

Erh why? Norway is far richer and you are far more likely to get a better salary there. Sweden has the fastest growing income disparity in the OECD while the quality of our education system is falling like a rock. If you want good education for your kids, Estonia or Poland would be actual better alternatives.

 

In fact, if I could recommend one country for my kids to emigrate to, it would most likely be Norway. Or Finland (for its strong education results). Sweden is a good export country, but unless our politicians get off their arses, we are going to be sitting ducks in 20 years with failing infrastructure and undereducated populace (unless we can nick well educated immigrants to do the jobs for us).

[ElizabethB.]

Oh Lyanna I didn't expect for you to understand.

Its the fjords.

They freak me out.

[Lyanna Stark]

Oh Lyanna I didn't expect for you to understand.

Its the fjords.

They freak me out.

 

Oh. It's the dead parrot thing, isn't it?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

 

ya, you're right. Although, I think there's a much less pressing need for our countries to implement a collective immigration policy, than countries in the EU. I think we should though.

 

Still, I'm not sure what the original point of (presumably) comparing the EU to the USA (via saying "it's not the united states of europe") was at this point

 

You were wondering why there is no common protocl in place. Because there are 28 different states, with their own national interests, laws and cultures. It is not as close a political union as it is economically. You can see it in all political areas, it's really all over the board.

Here we have the Eastern European EU countries who say, "We don't want any refugees at all. We did not invite them." There's Greece, which would like to help more, but simply cannot and the stream of refugees simply overloading their system. Then we have countries like Germany, who for once have the moral high ground, and says: "Those are people on the run, and we have a moral obligation to help them." Of course at the same time, they are toughening their stance on immigrants from the Balcans, which kinda weakens the moral high ground. And we have the Brits who have a position similar to Eastern European countries. Which basically means "We don't give a fuck. Sincerely David Cameron."

What is really shameful about this whole tragedy: when you look how many emergency meetings and overnight sessions took place, when it came down to Greece and the financial crisis in the Euro zone and then compare it to the number of meetings/summits held by the EU over the refugee crisis happening now. Then there's very little to do, but turn your head in shame.

[Arakan]

Germany has unilaterally decided to operate a generous refugee policy, despite the fact that a majority of other nations in the EU want to be far more restrictive. Merkel is demanding that everone else conform to Germany's lead and accept their 'fair share' of migrants. I'd say how typically German that is but I might be accused of casual racism. Anyway if the Germans were really interested in forming a common approach to deal with this problem they'd conform to what the majority want not try and impose their policy on everyone else.

Hayyoth I am disappointed. I thought you were smarter than that.
What do you actually think? That Merkel started to sing "cumbaya my lord, all refugees come to us"?

I tell you the reality: the people just ARE COMING, by train, by truck, by feet. Sometimes they suffocate on the way, like last week.

The people come Hayyoth, because they are desperate and feel that they have nothing to loose anymore.

Your line of argumentation is 1:1 similar to German neo-nazi style of argumentation.

Start to reflect and think about it.

[Arakan]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/germans-welcome-migrants-refugees-donations-food-clothing-toys-photos-1518028

Those pictures should be preferred over dead toddlers lying on the beach.

God beware that some of the posters here are ever in need of solidarity.

[IheartIheartTesla]

I read somewhere that the US has accepted 1500 Syrian refugees since 2011, and there are calls to increase it 5X. Unfortunately, the state government believes the best way to solve the refugee crisis is to improve the conditions in Syria rather than make drastic overhauls in our refugee policy (and provide aid to neighboring countries taking in refugees).

 

I say we can take in more, the cost per American for doing so will truly be marginal.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Papers reporting this morning that the UK basically shamed into taking more refugees.

[HexMachina]

Papers reporting this morning that the UK basically shamed into taking more refugees.

Here's a BBC article with a little more info (though not really any specifics)
David Cameron: UK to accept 'thousands' more Syrian refugees
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34148913

[Hayyoth]

Here's a BBC article with a little more info (though not really any specifics)
David Cameron: UK to accept 'thousands' more Syrian refugees
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34148913

By accepting more refugees more will come. This year Germany will take in 800,000 next year they'll have 3 million on their doorstep. This all has the added side effect of guaranteeing a massive increase in support for the far right.

[DJDonegal]

David Cameron on Wednesday.

 

David Cameron today.

[SeanF]

Perhaps in turn, other EU countries could match the UK's aid contribution towards Syrian refugees.

[Solmyr]

I concur with IP's post on p. 11.

 

People seem to be conflating the concepts of "providing safe haven for refugees of war" with "taking care of immigrants from a certain ethnicity".

 

Allow me to elaborate. Most of the refugees are [allegedly] from Syria. Can any of you tell apart a Syrian native citizen, who is a refugee of war, from a ethnic Syrian, Lebanese, Jordanian, Iraqi, Egyptian, Libyan, Algerian or Moroccan emigrant, if both of are without documents and claim to be from Syria? By the time they have reached EU borders you truly can't, and this is not even including the opportunists from Kosovo, Albania and other regions, that look nothing like ethnic Syrians (at least most of them).

 

Many of the refugees are definitely from Syria, this is beyond dispute. But a significant number is not. If you accept them all, then you are encouraging more opportunists. If you reject them all, you are being inhumane. There is no feasible way to tell them apart, you'd need devout a huge pool of resources and manpower just for that, which can be instead used to help them.

 

Then comes the second question - why are the refugees who are truly fleeing from war zones going all the way to western Europe and Scandinavia - that's thousands of kilometers beyond the safe borders of southern EU countries, where they initially enter the Union. Why bother travelling that far north, risking injury and death on the way, if you are already in a safe country? As someone, who lives in one of those southern countries I can tell you why - they don't want to stay here. This is not our opinion, it's theirs, I've heard it in interviews from refugees, who've entered the country. They see no opportunity for starting a new life here (can't really blame them), some have outright said that my country is as bad or worse an environment that the one they are fleeing from. They get their EU documents (yes, it's an EU country) and sprint head over heels to our north-western borders.

 

This leaves me with mixed feelings. On the one side we don't get many refugees staying so it doesn't strain our economy. We help them, but they eventually are on their way. At the same time, if people fleeing from war outright refuse to stay here, it makes me wonder whether my country is truly such a shithole (spoiler: it kinda is, but that's offtopic), or are those refugees more opportunistic than they should be? For you see, even genuine war refugees might not want to settle for something, which long term would be worse than their previous life. It is perfectly rational for them, having already undertaken the perilous journey of emigrating, to push the extra mile and go to a place of opportunity, which is what western and northern Europe are. Europeans owe them safe haven, this is indisputable (by my morality code), but do we also owe them the long term opportunity environment that some of the wealthier countries in the EU enjoy? 

[maarsen]

I would absolutely be in favor of providing refuge to migrants for a fixed period of time - be it 5 years even. But as long as they go home at the end of those 5 years,  and their kids go with them.

 

The issue is not that countries don't want to help them during their time of utter desperation. The issue is that those countries are then saddled with them. FOREVER.

 

Hence, the Greeks, Turks, Serbians and all those other "waypoint countries" that assist these people with temporary shelters and allow them to move on aren't really making a big sacrifice. Because these people end up moving on. It is the countries where they settle, and impact the voting patterns 20 years down the line that pay the price.

 

So should migrants be saved when they try and cross the sea on unseaworthy boats? Should they be given temporary shelter and refuge in Europe? Absolutely yes to both questions. But for a period. After which they should be transported back to their countries of origin. This is however impractical, and herein lies the problem.

I imagine this is how the original Americans felt also after Columbus.

[Myrddin]

There has to be a balance.

 

Yes, the people fleeing from IS and places like Darfur should be given aid and shelter.

 

But then there is also the reality that these migrations will change the cultural landscape. A few hundred years ago, tribes identifying themselves as Seminoles lived around my neck of the woods. Refugees called them Indians and we now speak English here, though Spanish is also on the rise again (Florida was a Spanish territory originally, remember). Cultural change will happen, with some embracing it and others preferring their current mother tongue. 

 

The question becomes how do you aid the needy and integrate them into your society, while at the same time maintaining your culture?

 

This isn't a question of race. I know tons of British folk who not Anglo-Saxon (or Celtic, Norman, Scandinavian, etc). But their families have integrated into British society.

[baxus]

I just saw that Czech authorities mark refugees with numbers on their skin.

Had to check it multiple times to see if I ended up on onion website or something similar but it's genuine article on BBC.

Who in their right mind would think of labeling refugees in such a manner?

 

But then there is also the reality that these migrations will change the cultural landscape. A few hundred years ago, tribes identifying themselves as Seminoles lived around my neck of the woods. Refugees called them Indians and we now speak English here, though Spanish is also on the rise again (Florida was a Spanish territory originally, remember). Cultural change will happen, with some embracing it and others preferring their current mother tongue. 

• There is no such thing as "current mother tongue". You can not have one mother tongue today and another one in a few years time.
• Those "refugees" would probably be more accurately called "colonists" or "conquerors" even, which would make the comparison you're trying to make plain wrong.
• Cultural change may happen and there is no reason to think of that as a bad thing by default.

[Rorshach]

 

Erh why? Norway is far richer and you are far more likely to get a better salary there. Sweden has the fastest growing income disparity in the OECD while the quality of our education system is falling like a rock. If you want good education for your kids, Estonia or Poland would be actual better alternatives.

 

In fact, if I could recommend one country for my kids to emigrate to, it would most likely be Norway. Or Finland (for its strong education results). Sweden is a good export country, but unless our politicians get off their arses, we are going to be sitting ducks in 20 years with failing infrastructure and undereducated populace (unless we can nick well educated immigrants to do the jobs for us).

We are richer and all that, true, but Sweden gives you better odds of coming in. We're so rich, we really can't afford to accept too many asylum seekers and refugees.

[Northernmonkey]

But then there is also the reality that these migrations will change the cultural landscape. 

 

But the cultural landscape is changing rapidly anyway, thanks to the internet, technology, globalisation, climate change and any number of different things. I've noticed a real pattern that when people say they're 'trying to protect British culture from immigration' they can't even define what they mean by 'British culture'. It tends to be a meaningless argument used by old people who don't like change.

[Hayyoth]

I concur with IP's post on p. 11.

 

People seem to be conflating the concepts of "providing safe haven for refugees of war" with "taking care of immigrants from a certain ethnicity".

 

Allow me to elaborate. Most of the refugees are [allegedly] from Syria. Can any of you tell apart a Syrian native citizen, who is a refugee of war, from a ethnic Syrian, Lebanese, Jordanian, Iraqi, Egyptian, Libyan, Algerian or Moroccan emigrant, if both of are without documents and claim to be from Syria? By the time they have reached EU borders you truly can't, and this is not even including the opportunists from Kosovo, Albania and other regions, that look nothing like ethnic Syrians (at least most of them).

 

Many of the refugees are definitely from Syria, this is beyond dispute. But a significant number is not. If you accept them all, then you are encouraging more opportunists. If you reject them all, you are being inhumane. There is no feasible way to tell them apart, you'd need devout a huge pool of resources and manpower just for that, which can be instead used to help them.

 

Then comes the second question - why are the refugees who are truly fleeing from war zones going all the way to western Europe and Scandinavia - that's thousands of kilometers beyond the safe borders of southern EU countries, where they initially enter the Union. Why bother travelling that far north, risking injury and death on the way, if you are already in a safe country? As someone, who lives in one of those southern countries I can tell you why - they don't want to stay here. This is not our opinion, it's theirs, I've heard it in interviews from refugees, who've entered the country. They see no opportunity for starting a new life here (can't really blame them), some have outright said that my country is as bad or worse an environment that the one they are fleeing from. They get their EU documents (yes, it's an EU country) and sprint head over heels to our north-western borders.

 

This leaves me with mixed feelings. On the one side we don't get many refugees staying so it doesn't strain our economy. We help them, but they eventually are on their way. At the same time, if people fleeing from war outright refuse to stay here, it makes me wonder whether my country is truly such a shithole (spoiler: it kinda is, but that's offtopic), or are those refugees more opportunistic than they should be? For you see, even genuine war refugees might not want to settle for something, which long term would be worse than their previous life. It is perfectly rational for them, having already undertaken the perilous journey of emigrating, to push the extra mile and go to a place of opportunity, which is what western and northern Europe are. Europeans owe them safe haven, this is indisputable (by my morality code), but do we also owe them the long term opportunity environment that some of the wealthier countries in the EU enjoy? 

Yeah, as has been said the refugee convention allows for people fleeing warzones or at risk of persecution due to their political or religious beliefs etc to seek safe haven in signatory nations. However it's not just the signatories who are obligated the refugees are as well. Primarily they're expected to seek santuary at the nearest country that will provide refuge. They also have absolutely no right to permanent settlement in the host country. The people fleeing Syria are not refugees under the UN convention, they're migrants. They have left camps in Turkey and Lebanon, where they were already safe. I don't blame them for that, I don't think anyone does, but there is no obligation under treaty for any nation in Europe to accept a single one of them.

 

Anyway what's next? It seems settled that the EU will give asylum status to all of these people, even the ones coming from Sub Saharan Africa and non conflict zones in the MENA region. So when the inevitable next, and far larger, wave of migrants arrives what then? And the one after that? Is there a limit to how many millions the EU can absorb or does feelz trump realz among the compassionate? This is a disastrous development for Europe by any measure and I still can't believe how short sighted and stupid the political leadership over there are behaving.

[IheartIheartTesla]

I can assure everyone that at least in the US (dont know about Europe), we are not even close to the tipping point of where refugees from Syria would have a noticable effect on the cultural zeitgeist.

 

We've also been in this situation before,  I wont bore everyone by mentioning the Irish again, but two examples that come to mind are the Iranian exodus after the revolution, and the Vietnamese 'boat people' mass migration, both in the 70s. The more things change, the more they remain the same.