Refugee Crisis

[The King in Black]

 

Well yeah, that's kinda my whole point. The framing of it as "leaches" or "moochers" is bullshit but that doesn't mean people don't want to get to a country they see as prosperous and wealthy and full of opportunity and support. Like, who wouldn't?

 

The attempt to reframe said desire as a vice is sickening bullshit, though pretty standard bullshit you see all the time directed towards people who are from said countries.

 

Again, here Europe's lack of asylum program is hurting it, although practically implementing a standard protocol across the EU is going to be very difficult

[ElizabethB.]

[quote name="The King In Black" post="7322110" timestamp="1441358758"
 
Firstly, why doesn't there exist a common asylum protocol in Europe ? An asylum system in every EU state would operate to the same  standards, give refugees the same level of benefits and grant the same length of residency. A common policy would also ensure that refugees were distributed proportionally throughout the EU. Oh right, it would cost points at Home,...
[/quote]

Europe is not the United States of Europe, okay.
There's no common protocol on anything, because we are talking about a load of independent, sovereign nation states.
Only thing that seems to be standard in Europe is the strive to kill other Europeans. Do you have any idea how much that costs points at Home?

[Crixus]

What about refugees going to Turkey and Lebanon? Those aren't 'Western' countries so wtf are some posting here as if ALL the people fleeing Syria/other war zones are targeting Europe? 

 

I suspect that along with 'wealthy country yay!' people also look at shit like 'can I speak the language' and 'do I have any friends or family there'. You know, shit that can make the difference between life and death if you DO manage to arrive somewhere in one piece. 

 

And at the end of it all, even having an economically and socially restricted life in your country is better than leaving absolutely everything behind and fleeing in terror, so framing it as if people are eagerly piling onto boats with greedy eyes fixed on Europe is a gross mischaracterisation. Do you think these refugees are looking forward to being treated like pariahs in foreign countries? This seems to be the basic human factor some are completely missing or ignoring. What a fucking shock. 

 

As for crap like equating 'living in my own country' to 'refugees are ruining MY CULTURE': Ha fucking ha. 

[IamMe90]

Europe is not the United States of Europe, okay.
There's no common protocol on anything, because we are talking about a load of independent, sovereign nation states.
Only thing that seems to be standard in Europe is the strive to kill other Europeans. Do you have any idea how much that costs points at Home?

 

Strive is not a noun, and regardless, what tKiB is suggesting is that there should be a common protocol, so you pointing out that there isn't, isn't particularly compelling. If they did have a common protocol, no one would have to suggest that they adopt one in the first place. 

[mormont]

Let's put it this way:

 

I strongly doubt that any of us posting here, if we and our families were refugees fleeing persecution, would simply sit placidly in a refugee camp in a country where we have no job, no connections, probably no ability to speak the language, no prospects, and have poor shelter and facilities, just because it's what we're 'supposed' to do. Indeed, I think that attitude would be roundly condemned as indolence or failing your family. In fact, many of us are probably descended from people who fled persecution - and went to a wealthy country to start a new life. Even in the last few generations. (WWII ring any bells?)

 

I try not to condemn people for doing what I would do in their place.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

 

Strive is not a noun, and regardless, what tKiB is suggesting is that there should be a common protocol, so you pointing out that there isn't, isn't particularly compelling. If they did have a common protocol, no one would have to suggest that they adopt one in the first place. 

If we are discussing hypotheticals, the really fair thing to do would be for the Saudi Arabians, Omani and the UAE to take in most of these spare refugees. These countries are just as wealthy as Western nations are, they are very similar ethnically, culturally and socially to Syrians (meaning that the refugees in question ought to be able to integrate quite easily) they have played a very critical part in why ISIS and these other Jihadi groups exist, and they have to date taken in pretty much zero refugees from any conflict around the world. Saudi Arabia and Oman are also fairly large countries with lots of capacity to spare.

[ElizabethB.]

Let's put it this way:
 
I strongly doubt that any of us posting here, if we and our families were refugees fleeing persecution, would simply sit placidly in a refugee camp in a country where we have no job, no connections, probably no ability to speak the language, no prospects, and have poor shelter and facilities, just because it's what we're 'supposed' to do. Indeed, I think that attitude would be roundly condemned as indolence or failing your family. In fact, many of us are probably descended from people who fled persecution - and went to a wealthy country to start a new life. Even in the last few generations. (WWII ring any bells?)
 
I try not to condemn people for doing what I would do in their place.

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

[baxus]

Wow. Some of the smug xenophobic posturing on here is revolting. People who actually believe millions are fleeing their homes to take advantage of 'wealthier' lifestyles in the West are ignorant bigots IMO. 

 

See, I live in Pakistan (OMG! Muslim/ISIL/Fanatic/Insertbigotedtermofyourchoice) and fleeing my home country would be a fucking measure of last resort, preferable only to death. I know, what a fucking shocker! It's true though. Like millions of non Westerners across the globe, I actually have work, a family and friends where I live. Also, again like millions, I happen to be attached to my country, language, culture and personal history. So no, I wouldn't jump at the chance to leave everything behind and travel thousands of miles in a fucking boat to end up as a refugee somewhere. I have a funny feeling others would share this sentiment. Apart from a small %, I'd even guess the majority of refugees are like me: they had normal, mundane functional lives before the shit hit the fan. 

 

So all those posters on here panicking and getting nightmares about the horrid Muslims/Arabs flooding their pristine shores, I'd request you put on your human hat for a second and put yourselves in their place, instead of screeching on about how they will destroy your country blah. 

 

Hilarious really, considering the fact that the West has fucked around in the Middle East for centuries. Shameless, much? 

 

Also, before someone trots out that laughable homeless analogy, Pakistan plays host to possibly the largest number of refugees anywhere (Afghans) and has done for decades. I have personally spent time with many, and weirdly enough Pakistan is one of the highest charity giving countries around the globe. So I can actually say 'yes' to those ludicrous questions about 'how many homeless people blah' some individuals were throwing around. My cousin also adopted an Afghan girl. There! Do I qualify now? /sarcasm

 

Oh, and before you start typing away furiously about how Pakistan had better take in refugees after the havoc it created in Afghanistan, I'll invite you to check on how many Afghan refugees live in the former USSR and/or the US.

 

Sickening, this. Accident of birth=insufferable arrogance.

 

:agree:

 

 

Refugees have a reponsibility to claim asylum in the first safe country they come to. Clearly that's not the case here so yes they're migrants. The refugee convention was not written to give persecuted people a shot at a better life in a rich country, it was written so folks wouldn't die.

 

You still fail to see the point.

Quite a few of these refugees don't have anyone in neighbouring countries, while they have friends and/or family in Western Europe who have migrated there over the past years/decades.

If you had to flee UK, would you just get over the Channel and stay at Calais or would you try to reach friends and family members living in, for example, Germany who could help you get your shit together?

 

Also, your comment on Syrian refugees being paler than you (I suppose it was deleted since someone quoted it, but I can't find it now) is a prime example of racism.

Don't fool yourself on that account.

[IamMe90]

If we are discussing hypotheticals, the really fair thing to do would be for the Saudi Arabians, Omani and the UAE to take in most of these spare refugees. These countries are just as wealthy as Western nations are, they are very similar ethnically, culturally and socially to Syrians (meaning that the refugees in question ought to be able to integrate quite easily) they have played a very critical part in why ISIS and these other Jihadi groups exist, and they have to date taken in pretty much zero refugees from any conflict around the world. Saudi Arabi and Oman are also fairly large countries with lots of room to spare, so to say.

 

That may be a good idea. I'm not the most historically versed in this subject, I'll admit; I just think that [i]someone[/i] (or rather, many countries, especially those invovled firsthand in the plight of the countries of which we are speaking) need to do their part. If the areas you suggest can afford to shoulder some of the burden, are in part responsible for the plight of the refugees to begin with, and are ethnically similar, as you say, I don't see the issue in sending a good portion of the refugees there. But I don't think that excludes EU countries (as well as the US) from taking their fair share.

[SeanF]

The King in Black

 

European countries have different ways of assessing whether someone qualifies for asylum, then what benefits they should be entitled to, the terms on which they can work, whether they qualify for citizenship etc.  I doubt if would be possible to agree a common system.  Either countries like Germany and Sweden would have to agree a tougher system, or other countries would have to agree a weaker one.

[mormont]

If we are discussing hypotheticals, the really fair thing to do would be for the Saudi Arabians, Omani and the UAE to take in most of these spare refugees. These countries are just as wealthy as Western nations are, they are very similar ethnically, culturally and socially to Syrians (meaning that the refugees in question ought to be able to integrate quite easily) they have played a very critical part in why ISIS and these other Jihadi groups exist, and they have to date taken in pretty much zero refugees from any conflict around the world. Saudi Arabia and Oman are also fairly large countries with lots of capacity to spare.

 

Oh, absolutely agreed. But that said: the moral failings of the House of Saud etc. don't excuse the moral duties of the rest of us. And if we care about the situation in Syria enough to spend money bombing it, we should at least match that funding in dealing with the fallout. It's a peculiar moral calculus that is willing to spend money on bombing but not refugees.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

 

Is it any different then turning Europe into a storage facility? There is a reason people are applying to Europe for asylum and not the countries I mentioned.  People have a right to live somewhere that's not a warzone, but they don't have a right to live in Europe, many people would love to be citizens of an EU country me included. Resettling them somewhere  else removes the economic incentives and keeps it purely  a human rights issue.

Ju

 

I know Astana and Almaty are pretty nice but outside of those two Kazakhstan looks more like this http://aboutkazakhstan.com/images/south-kazakhstan-region-village-scenery.jpgKyrgyzstan might work, but sending people to Uzbekistan would be out of the frying pan and into the fire in many cases.

 

You still don't see how turning a lesser country. Into some storage facility for refugees is a somewhat outrageous idea? I hope you are simply ignorant to what you actually say/imply here. First you are making a distinction, between good/important countries, and bad/unimportant countries. Let's put the refugees there. I mean who cares about Kazakhstan, right? Ok, maybe the Kazakhs will disagree, but who cares? And second you are aware refugees are human beings and not some commodity or piece of furniture you can put into a warehouse? 

 

Refugees have a reponsibility to claim asylum in the first safe country they come to. Clearly that's not the case here so yes they're migrants. The refugee convention was not written to give persecuted people a shot at a better life in a rich country, it was written so folks wouldn't die.

 

I feel like I have already commented on that notion in my first post in this thread. But I will repeat myself here. That is a very conveniant stance to take, if you are from the UK or the US. Afterall the US and the UK have no common border with Syria or the Iraq or those other places they helped screwing up big time. Out of sight out of mind. It's now the problem of Greece, Jordan, the Lebanon and all other places, where this huge numbers of refugees arrive. 

[IamMe90]

The King in Black

 

European countries have different ways of assessing whether someone qualifies for asylum, then what benefits they should be entitled to, the terms on which they can work, whether they qualify for citizenship etc.  I doubt if would be possible to agree a common system.  Either countries like Germany and Sweden would have to agree a tougher system, or other countries would have to agree a weaker one.

 

Again, I don't see how saying what should be done (ie, agreeing to a common system; whether countries like Germany and Sweden agreeing to a tougher system, or other countries agreeing to a weaker one, or, more reasonably - some compromise! - ) is an indictment of the fact that it should be done.

[ElizabethB.]

Strive is not a noun, and regardless, what tKiB is suggesting is that there should be a common protocol, so you pointing out that there isn't, isn't particularly compelling. If they did have a common protocol, no one would have to suggest that they adopt one in the first place.

How come America doesn't have a common protocol then?
I think they should have one to make things easier.
From Chile to Canada.

[IamMe90]

How come America doesn't have a common protocol then?
I think they should have one to make things easier.
From Chile to Canada.

 

Uh, what? I think that our immigration policy is far from perfect (in fact, it needs a great amount of reform) but how is it not "common?" 

[ElizabethB.]

Uh, what? I think that our immigration policy is far from perfect (in fact, it needs a great amount of reform) but how is it not "common?"

I would draw you a picture but I'm so stupid I keap eating my crayons.

[IamMe90]

I would draw you a picture but I'm so stupid I keap eating my crayons.

 

I asked you a question, if you would rather not deign to answer it, then consider it done.

 

ETA: didn't ask you to draw a picture. 

[3CityApache]

America as a continent, not US. She did specify (from  Chile to Canada), didn't she?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

I think Lizzy B is talking about the continent America, while you are talking about the USA. And the US definately have no common protocol with Chile and Canada. 

[IamMe90]

I think Lizzy B is talking about the continent America, while you are talking about the USA. And the US definately have no common protocol with Chile and Canada. 

 

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