Refugee Crisis

[Myrddin]

• 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

True. Remove "mother" from my statement. It still stands that you can't fault people for resisting their language being overrun by another. This is different from xenophobia. Fearing the "other" is different than fearing losing self or identify (even if it'll never happen in our lifetimes).

 

• Those "refugees" would probably be more accurately called "colonists" or "conquerors" even, which would make the comparison you're trying to make plain wrong.

That's true for some (probably more true for Florida) but not all of the initial settlers in North America. Take the "Mayflower" story. The locals welcomed the pilgrims who were fleeing religious persecution. How'd that turn out for the Iroquois nation?

 

• Cultural change may happen and there is no reason to think of that as a bad thing by default.

I'm not. It will happen. Look at history. Your own region is certainly shaped by migrations. Some good and some bad.

 

I guess I'm looking at both sides here and saying, yes we should open the doors for the refugees, but also acknowledge that there will be a cost to the "native" population, positive and negative. Saying it'll all be good or all bad grossly over simplifys things.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

This thread is really scary some levels. Some of the ideas being presented here look like they were copied straight from the 1930s Germany playbook. I am not exactly sure, if the respective posters have just mindlessly adopted those ideas from a media source, or if they have come up with that awful stuff themselves. 

 

I mean, going into a refugee camp, and select who we want to live. Was the most horrific example I have thus far seen in this thread. 

 

A guy like Orban, whose treatment of the refugees has been atrocious, gets hailed as the only stand up politician. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/03/hungary-train-diverts-refugees-back-to-camp as an example of how awesome Orban is.

 

I mean in all seriousness: We are talking about human beings, who have lost everything on their way to get here. I hope at least one or two people will actually spend a minute or two to think about that, before they come up with new suggestions. 

I will close this moral grand standing post with a quote by Mark Twain:
"Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to."

[Hayyoth]

This thread is really scary some levels. Some of the ideas being presented here look like they were copied straight from the 1930s Germany playbook. I am not exactly sure, if the respective posters have just mindlessly adopted those ideas from a media source, or if they have come up with that awful stuff themselves. 

 

I mean, going into a refugee camp, and select who we want to live. Was the most horrific example I have thus far seen in this thread. 

 

A guy like Orban, whose treatment of the refugees has been atrocious, gets hailed as the only stand up politician. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/03/hungary-train-diverts-refugees-back-to-camp as an example of how awesome Orban is.

 

I mean in all seriousness: We are talking about human beings, who have lost everything on their way to get here. I hope at least one or two people will actually spend a minute or two to think about that, before they come up with new suggestions. 

I will close this moral grand standing post with a quote by Mark Twain:
"Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to."

What the? You equate EU nations looking to stem a massive flood of undocumented migrants with Hitler killing millions of people in concentration camps? You decided to come on the internet and actually write that? For realz?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

I haven't mentioned concentration camps.

The logic provided by Sean F on page 12 is however not that different.

You basically go to a camp and select who gets to live in a safe place, and who is left behind and face starvation and possibly death. You want to go down that road and decide which life is worth saving and has value to society. 

That idea to distinguish between valuable and worthless life is very 1930s Germany. 

So let me ask you one thing. 

If you make that positive list: Why that highly trained engineer should be granted asylum, how do you justify those picks to the people you leave behind, like the ill educated family with three little children? And no, that's not something different. It's just the opposite side of the very same coin. 

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

 

That may be a good idea. I'm not the most historically versed in this subject, I'll admit; I just think that someone (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.

 

 

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.

Saudi Arabia and Co. are rather closely tied to the West. One could at least make an attempt to pressure them into doing something about this refugee situation. They have far better means to do so than any European country, and much higher moral obligation.

 

Also Mormont, are you really insinuating that bombing ISIS is something negative that the West needs to compensate the Middle East for? I won't delve into personal attacks and faux outrage like many posters do in this thread, but really... come on. It is a great service to the Middle East that we help them in fighting ISIS. Bombing them is probably the best thing the West has done for the people in that region in decades.

 

In other news, ISIS has recently come to the conclusion that merely burning people alive like they did with the Jordanian pilot is too quick and merciful. So they've taken to roasting their prisoners to death over open fires like pieces of meat instead. I won't link that shit here, so anyone wanting to see evidence for it has to google it on their own.

 

 

 

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. 

Of course you aren't. There are countries in Europe that have accepted literally a thousand times more Syrian refugees than the US has, as a percentage of population.

 

This thread is really scary some levels. Some of the ideas being presented here look like they were copied straight from the 1930s Germany playbook. I am not exactly sure, if the respective posters have just mindlessly adopted those ideas from a media source, or if they have come up with that awful stuff themselves. 

 

I mean, going into a refugee camp, and select who we want to live. Was the most horrific example I have thus far seen in this thread. 

 

A guy like Orban, whose treatment of the refugees has been atrocious, gets hailed as the only stand up politician. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/03/hungary-train-diverts-refugees-back-to-camp as an example of how awesome Orban is.

 

I mean in all seriousness: We are talking about human beings, who have lost everything on their way to get here. I hope at least one or two people will actually spend a minute or two to think about that, before they come up with new suggestions. 

I will close this moral grand standing post with a quote by Mark Twain:
"Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to."

Yeah, yeah. Everything is nazism.  :dunno:

[mormont]

Also Mormont, are you really insinuating that bombing ISIS is something negative that the West needs to compensate the Middle East for?

 
No. I'm saying it's a peculiar moral logic that says paying for bombs to bomb ISIS is necessary and good, but paying to deal with the refugee crisis ISIS have created is unnecessary and bad.
 

[Eyron]

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.

How I wish the like button was back... Great post.

 

 

 

Things where I am are past debating policies. We now have a very hands on approach with the arrivals from Syria. Loads of people are trying to figure out how best to help, what they can offer both to the ones who have arrived and the masses who are still stuck on the way and living in camps in Syria and the nearby countries.  I'm thinking of what more I can do than I am and so are thousands of others. The projected figure of how many children who arrive alone with no family to my city this year is about 1000 but could well be a lot more. They need homes, guardians etc. As far as I am concerned, I am glad they ended up here, I just hope our resources will be enough.

[Dolorous Gabe]

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.

 

I enjoyed that until I started reading the user comments on it.

 

However dubious some of the opinions being bandied about on here, some of those comments are fucking horrifying.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

 
No. I'm saying it's a peculiar moral logic that says paying for bombs to bomb ISIS is necessary and good, but paying to deal with the refugee crisis ISIS have created is unnecessary and bad.
 

Why is that? Bombing ISIS has no downsides. This does. It is not just a question of money. Most of these people will eventually end up in segregated, crime ridden neighbourhoods with no futures just like the other Middle Easterners here in Europe.

 

Obviously something should be done for people on the run in Syria and other war zones, but simply letting more people in here really is not a working policy.

[Malik Ambar]

Bombing ISIS has achieved nothing. If anything needs rethinking, it's  how the military campaign against ISIS is being carried out.

Also, if the refugees aren't allowed to settle in, what is to be done with them ? Unfortunately for Western Europe it will have to face massive amount of influx from the refugees, even if somehow the Eastern European countries, many of whom are already economically fragile, are convinced to let a decided amount of refugees settle down, because even in this scenario more amount of refugees will have to be resettled in the economically stronger European countries.

[DireWolfSpirit]

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.

Thank You! That was resfreshing to hear. I can assure you there are westerners who get this and also cringe at some of the idiotic xenophobia readily spewed by some of the weaker minds in our societies.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

Bombing ISIS has achieved nothing. If anything needs rethinking, it's  how the military campaign against ISIS is being carried out.

Also, if the refugees aren't allowed to settle in, what is to be done with them ? Unfortunately for Western Europe it will have to face massive amount of influx from the refugees, even if somehow the Eastern European countries, many of whom are already economically fragile, are convinced to let a decided amount of refugees settle down, because even in this scenario more amount of refugees will have to be resettled in the economically stronger European countries.

Yes it has, and you don't know anything about military campaigns in comparison to the generals who have deviced this strategy. Since the Coalition intervention, ISIS has gone from being a force that was steamrolling everything in its sights to being contained and gradually worn down, as the Kurds and Iraqis chip away at their territory and important supply lines bit for bit. If the West hadn't started bombing ISIS, then we would be seeing refugee streams that make the ones we actually have now tiny in comparison.

 

As for the second bit, the ones who are actually Syrian refugees could be given temporary residence status until the fighting in that country has calmed down. This would be different to just taking in people like is done now, and in accordance with international conventions. It has also been discussed even in my country by one of the leading not-anti-immigration parties, so it is hardly an unusual idea.

 

 That said, the global Community (UN) should take a more active role in actually protecting civilians in Syria, both internal refugees and people who still live at their original locations. The vast majority of people in that country hasn't fled and isn't going to. It is better to do something against the causes of a crisis than just trying to cure the symptoms,  and yes, this would require more military intervention. This is what you are looking at if you really want to stop innocents around the world falling victim to wars.

[Malik Ambar]

ISIS is neither winning nor losing, its recruitment and funding remain strong as ever. The current strategy is only going to lead to a long war, which like any long war will have its wins and losses. Air bombings have to be complimented with a strong ground presence, which isn't there.

Also, I didn't know we have a general devising the strategy against ISIS here !

[SeanF]

I haven't mentioned concentration camps.
The logic provided by Sean F on page 12 is however not that different.
You basically go to a camp and select who gets to live in a safe place, and who is left behind and face starvation and possibly death. You want to go down that road and decide which life is worth saving and has value to society. 
That idea to distinguish between valuable and worthless life is very 1930s Germany. 
So let me ask you one thing. 
If you make that positive list: Why that highly trained engineer should be granted asylum, how do you justify those picks to the people you leave behind, like the ill educated family with three little children? And no, that's not something different. It's just the opposite side of the very same coin.

I wasn't aware that I was advocating the Final Solution.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

ISIS is neither winning nor losing, its recruitment and funding remain strong as ever. The current strategy is only going to lead to a long war, which like any long war will have its wins and losses. Air bombings have to be complimented with a strong ground presence, which isn't there.

Also, I didn't know we have a general devising the strategy against ISIS here !

ISIS has lost 30% of its territory in Iraq since the start of the intervention, and in Syria their entire land border against Turkey has been taken over by the Kurds except for a small gap, which Turkey as of yet has refused to let the Kurds close. Unless they stubbornly refuse to do so forever, ISIS will soon be surrounded by enemies on all sides and have no safe way of selling their gasoline for money, getting weapons and explosives transported to them, or fighters smuggled in. Contrast this with how it looked before the intervention, when there was nothing stopping them.  There is a ground precense as well. "Strong" is a matter of definition but it is capable of gradually taking back territory from them.

 

I am not a general, but it doesn't take one to see that you have no idea what you are talking about, and that you shouldn't criticize a strategy deviced by people who actually do. Have you ever even put on a military uniform, by the way?

[Malik Ambar]

ISIS has lost 30% of its territory in Iraq since the start of the intervention, and in Syria their entire land border against Turkey has been taken over by the Kurds except for a small gap, which Turkey as of yet has refused to let the Kurds close. Unless they stubbornly refuse to do so forever, ISIS will soon be surrounded by enemies on all sides and have no safe way of selling their gasoline for money, getting weapons and explosives transported to them, or fighters smuggled in. Contrast this with how it looked before the intervention, when there was nothing stopping them.  There is a ground precense as well. "Strong" is a matter of definition but it is capable of gradually taking back territory from them.
 
I am not a general, but it doesn't take one to see that you have no idea what you are talking about, and that you shouldn't criticize a strategy deviced by people who actually do. Have you ever even put on a military uniform, by the way?

I did actually. I've also baked a cake once but that didn't go so well....
Also read what I posted in its entirety. I said these are merely half measures, they're bound to drag on and eventually become a long war. In every long war there are wins and losses, until one side's tally increases. There is no ground presence there's only random armed tribal groups and whatever remains of Syrian and Iraqi army. There is no concrete strategy at work here. If you think ISIS is going down so easily think again.

Also, dumb attempts to provoke poop flinging are dumb

[Shryke]

ISIS is neither winning nor losing, its recruitment and funding remain strong as ever. The current strategy is only going to lead to a long war, which like any long war will have its wins and losses. Air bombings have to be complimented with a strong ground presence, which isn't there.

Also, I didn't know we have a general devising the strategy against ISIS here !

 

There is no strategy here that WON'T lead to a long war. You seriously think a strong ground presence would stop this? Afghanistan and Iraq say hello.

 

Which is part of why a solution to the refugee/migrant issue needs to be found. Cause it ain't going away any time soon.

[VarysTheSpider]

I wasn't aware that I was advocating the Final Solution.

 

Yeah, working with NGOs and the like in the region to get thousands of people from a refugee camp on the edge of a war zone to a safe haven and a chance to rebuild is one of the rarer behaviours I've seen attributed to the Nazis.

[Malik Ambar]

There is no strategy here that WON'T lead to a long war. You seriously think a strong ground presence would stop this? Afghanistan and Iraq say hello.
 
Which is part of why a solution to the refugee/migrant issue needs to be found. Cause it ain't going away any time soon.

I wasn't the one suggesting military intervention as a solution to the refugee crisis anyway. It all began with (judging by his tone ) a grand master in military strategies telling us how ISIS is losing and The West is winning all thanks to the bombing strategies.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

I did actually. I've also baked a cake once but that didn't go so well....
Also read what I posted in its entirety. I said these are merely half measures, they're bound to drag on and eventually become a long war. In every long war there are wins and losses, until one side's tally increases. There is no ground presence there's only random armed tribal groups and whatever remains of Syrian and Iraqi army. There is no concrete strategy at work here. If you think ISIS is going down so easily think again.

Also, dumb attempts to provoke poop flinging are dumb

You know, I understand that it is a bit cold hearted by me to not want to just let in tonnes of refugees without conditions any longer, because I am concerned about the social problems and other issues they cause. But, it really is quite unfair to just classify the people who fight against ISIS as "random tribal groups". They aren't particularly well equipped or trained or organized, but neither is any other force in the Middle East including ISIS. The Kurds especially are doing a great job fighting against what is possibly the most evil group of our age, and they do so while remaining relatively civil to prisoners and enemy civilians in the process. And, they actually are pushing them back, regardless of what you might think. ISIS might well survive in some fashion for many years, because even if they are defeated on the battlefield they might go undercover and start doing classical terrorist actions like they did before this war. In which case they would be hard to root out completely. That said, again, look how their situation appeared just one year ago. There has been a lot of progress.