Refugee Crisis 2 - a warm welcome in Germany

[polishgenius]

I'm not sure how you got from that to whatever it was you were saying about the evil white man.

[HobbsTuna]

The thing about countries is this: they have a duty to their own citizens, yes. But they also have duties to other nations, to their region, and to the global community. These other duties are also important. If anyone here wants to live in a world where countries owe nothing to anyone other than their own citizens, good luck to you, but that's not a world that I or, I'd suggest, anyone sane wants to live in.

 

It's my experience that the world I live in and the one I would like to live in has comparatively little overlap. I'm afraid I can see very little of your high-minded statements reflected in the foreign policy of anyone, including but not limited to the UK.

 

So I guess I will just have to keep to reality when considering the well being of my own people.

 

 

The IT guru who was the son of a Syrian immigrant isn't Bill Gates but Steve Jobs ;)

 

That said, I agree with you that while there are some short and medium term problems associated with migration, in the long term it is almost always a benefit to the target country.

 

Any sources for this claim? Preferably for countries, that don't practice very targeted immigration like the US, Canada, Singapore and Australia? Because I provided sources that say the contrary, repeatedly.

 

 

I’ve never understood that argument except for the social signalling part.

 

Do you assume immigrants never get old? I simply don’t get it.

 

If you want to argue for immigration because of protecting the welfare system, providing jobs, ideas, etc., then you need to implement the highly selective immigration policies of Canada, the US, Australia, etc. These countries joust about make it in the sense that the unquestionable benefits provided by some of the  immigrant population just about manages to counterbalance the unquestionable problems arising from it. (The data, alas, is mostly tied to demographics. Not even Canada is able to benefit from Somali population, every country benefits from immigration from South East Asia. If we stratified this by IQ, we might find a less racist explanation, which would be great.)

 

Europe currently provides massive data that the European immigration model (where we select on the basis of perceived need instead of quality of human capital) provides mainly adverse effects for the economy. (Not to speak of the consequences of social cohesion etc. I’m rich enough to pretend to myself that don’t care much about wealth, so the economic argument holds little traction for my anyway.)

 

Do you have any links to the data, you mention above?

 

 

Switzerland accepted 700'000 refugees from the Balkans in the 1990es, while having a population of around 7 million. I have yet to see the Swiss economy crumble under the burden, in spite of all the Cassandras.

 

This is some blatant goal post shifting, dude. Or has "benefiting" suddenly become a synonym for "not crumbling"?

 

Also:

 

Yeah, they'll just casually violate the Schengen agreement, causing far more problems and long-term ramifications than dealing with even a lare amount of immigrants. That sounds likely.

 

It does if the German state profits more from ignoring it than following it (Well maybe not. With Merkel, you can never know.) After all everybody and their dog suddenly decided that Dublin II was more like a friendly suggestion than a binding agreement.

 

 

No, I do not think she is happy about it. The point is, I do not think she ever had a choice. I mean, what should she have done? Sink the boats? Make sure they die on the way to Hungary? Or make a standoff at the wall in Hungary? There is just no solution. In addition the left is strong in germany, she probably wanted another course, but they would not allow it. That the german left is also stupid, yeah. Tell me about it.

 

 

Turn the boats around and dump the refugees back on the coast the started from. Combine this with immigration centers in Turkey/Libya, that filter the useful human potential out and give out visa's for flights for them.

 

Merkel would be very much a home among Republicans, where economic policy is concerned. Everything that has insufficient Market in it smells of helping poor people, smells of communism, burn it with fire.

[Ojji]

I'm not sure how you got from that to whatever it was you were saying about the evil white man.

 

I think the video was misunderstood and marketed wrong by the media.
It's also a pretty common in Europe to always assume the worst about the majority when it comes to racism and issues related to it.

So in this case it is normal for people to assume the worst about the Hungarian people, but I would like to stay open minded because we don't have all the facts.

[Tijgy]

Has the difference of trying to aprehend someone trying to get away from you on foot and someone driving away in a car ever ocurred to you?

Eum, I just don't understand what point you are trying to make? I thought you were talking about the fact they crossed the Hungarian border on foot? No? Are you talking about they fled from Syria, ... on foot? Are you talking about they were running away from the Hungarian police on foot? So maybe you can concretizes your point?

And it depends from what you are fleeing. If you flee from a situation or another person on foot, you are of course quicker in safety if you use a car. And of course it is easier taking a train, ... than if you have to walk.
 

And have they been treated with dignity, in your opinion?

It depends on the situation (and I am using the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights - the highest treaty in Europe which can be enforced) If you are talking about what we know what happens in the camps, you can say they are not in conformity with the standard at first look. We only have 50 seconds of what is happening there. However I must admit it is very suspicious that we don't know what is happening there.

The fact they are detained is in fact not in violation of the EC: while everyone has the right to liberty and no one shall be deprived by his liberty unless to prevent between others an unauthorized entry into the country. They are entering unauthorized Hungary. The refugees have no right of free movement because they are no EU citizens. There are people who give them food, water, ... and there are pictures of throwing that food and water away. In the media there were pictures of some refugees (with a baby laying on the train wreck and some police; there is a video actually showing the man throw his wife and baby on the train wreck.

So while you can say about some acts of the Hungarian authorities, police, ... might be in violation of the "human dignity", you cannot just say all their actions are wrong.
 

So what?
American government has Guantanamo bay, for example. Do you think every country should have one?
 
Does the fact that someone else is doing something wrong make you less guilty for doing the same thing?
 
If a man is brought into court for beating his wife, do you think that he'll get away with it by stating that someone else is doing the same thing?

Of course not. There is just no real country that can say they are respecting the human rights each moment. You have indeed Guatemala, but sometimes this comes in news, but not everyone is saying how bad those Americans. They are voting for a government that is keeping those prisoners in those circumstances.

People who commit crimes because mental problems and who should be placed in institutions, do not receive treatment and their rights are not respected. No one is saying that the entire government is bad and the people voting for the government are evil.

Ireland is very catholic. Abortion is only permitted in certain circumstances. This has consequence that young women are having an abortion in England. Because they could not get decent care when they returned in Ireland, they did have large health problems. The reason why abortion is not permitted, is the fact they are religious, the politicians are just following the will of the Irish population. So are the Irish not making huge moral mistakes?

You can say human rights issues about each country and about each population. No country is perfect. I believe you should indeed raise some questions about the treatment of the refugees in Hungary. It is actually good that it happens, to ensure you will not have things happening again in Europe, ... however I don't think you cannot condemn them before you know yourself objectively all the facts. (And LOL that is actually also a human right)
 

There are a lot of things that "almost everyone knows" and guess what? That's irrelevant.
At one point in time, everyone "knew" the Earth was flat, or that the Sun orbited the Earth, or that black people are supposed to be slaves.
Popular opinions and misgivings are NOT relevant in this discussion.

Are you really meaning this? The media is really giving you a total wrong image of the reality. They are neglecting to mention things. They are misinformed. I actually read a lot of other (non-mainstream) articles who are nuancing more the situation. The mainstream media wants us to believe they are all refugees from Syria. And then there are small articles some of them are throwing their own (non-Syrian) papers away and buying Syrian papers.

I actually put some (Dutch) articles in this thread which are actually claiming this. It might be an eye-opener for you to read that (and use Google translate); in particular http://www.doorbraak.be/nl/nieuws/%E2%80%98op-de-vlucht%E2%80%99-wanneer-journalisten-witte-ridders-worden;from the public broadcast itself http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/opinieblog/opinie/1.2435980.

Actually even the rector from the Catholic University Leuven (which is the biggest university from Belgium) is telling that something about journalist are moral knights, they are showing one side of the opinion: http://trends.knack.be/economie/mensen/journalisten-zijn-even-voorspelbaar-als-vakbonden-en-werkgevers/article-normal-604371.html

And then you have also just the fact that in Belgium at least some newspapers do not want to print everyone's opinion. You have for example Gerard Bodifee , a Flemish philosopher and physist. He had his own column in the Standard, a Flemish newspaper until he wrote an opinion about the fact the climate change is not a consequence of the CO2. Yes, while this idea is controversial, why should you not let it read by the people. The current idea of democracy is not longer the majority wins but the fact that all groups should have a dialogue with their opinions. After that they never asked him to write a column. And at the same time, they have Dyab Abou Jahjah who has his own column in the same newspaper. Maybe some English people know him. He came in the media as a possible good old friend of Jeremy Corbyn.

I really hope you watch the mainstream media with some criticism. I really hope that like I hope everyone does. 

And about people "knowing" the earth was flat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth. It was until Copernicus they believed the Sun orbited the earth. 

 

EDIT: this is also long post.   :)

[mormont]

 

It's my experience that the world I live in and the one I would like to live in has comparatively little overlap. I'm afraid I can see very little of your high-minded statements reflected in the foreign policy of anyone, including but not limited to the UK.

 

So I guess I will just have to keep to reality when considering the well being of my own people.

 

I mean, every penny spent in foreign aid: membership of every international body including NATO, the EU, and the UN: a major part of the justification for every single military action we have engaged in since the Falklands: international treaties including climate change agreements: this is just a selection, off the top of my head, of the foreign policies engaged in by UK governments of all stripes that are at least in part motivated by a perceived duty to the international community and non-citizens of the UK. All of these things also have benefits of some kind for UK citizens, yes - but those benefits accrue as a consequence of fulfilling those duties to the international community.

 

You should keep to reality. And the reality is, no nation exists in a vacuum. That means every nation has duties and obligations to the others, just as everyone in any community does.

[The Iceman of the North]

I actually put some (Dutch) articles in this thread which are actually claiming this. It might be an eye-opener for you to read that (and use Google translate); in particular http://www.doorbraak.be/nl/nieuws/%E2%80%98op-de-vlucht%E2%80%99-wanneer-journalisten-witte-ridders-worden;from the public broadcast itself http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/opinieblog/opinie/1.2435980.

Let's see, her argument in the first is that the press is giving a wrong image of what's going on since they chose to show a picture of Alan Kurdi's dead body, but not his brothers dead body? As for the second article, I failed to get what he was really criticising. He appear to believe that VRT is unbalanced, is that correct?

 

I've seen a lot of non-mainstream stories on Facebook and elsewhere, and what a lot of them have in common is painting the refugees as bad as possible. The coverage of Kurdi's family is a good example. "The father only left Turkey because he wanted a new set of teeth!", "the family lived 'safely' in Turkey for three years before unnecessarily setting out for Europe", "the father was instrumental in the people's smuggling ring!".

[baxus]

Let's see, her argument in the first is that the press is giving a wrong image of what's going on since they chose to show a picture of Alan Kurdi's dead body, but not his brothers dead body? As for the second article, I failed to get what he was really criticising. He appear to believe that VRT is unbalanced, is that correct?

 

I've seen a lot of non-mainstream stories on Facebook and elsewhere, and what a lot of them have in common is painting the refugees as bad as possible. The coverage of Kurdi's family is a good example. "The father only left Turkey because he wanted a new set of teeth!", "the family lived 'safely' in Turkey for three years before unnecessarily setting out for Europe", "the father was instrumental in the people's smuggling ring!".

 

No doubt, now we'll get someone saying that's what free media report and everyone else is manipulative bastard out for website clicks and newspaper copies sold.

[Tijgy]

Let's see, her argument in the first is that the press is giving a wrong image of what's going on since they chose to show a picture of Alan Kurdi's dead body, but not his brothers dead body? As for the second article, I failed to get what he was really criticising. He appear to believe that VRT is unbalanced, is that correct?

 

I've seen a lot of non-mainstream stories on Facebook and elsewhere, and what a lot of them have in common is painting the refugees as bad as possible. The coverage of Kurdi's family is a good example. "The father only left Turkey because he wanted a new set of teeth!", "the family lived 'safely' in Turkey for three years before unnecessarily setting out for Europe", "the father was instrumental in the people's smuggling ring!".

 

In both articles they are saying that the public broadcast is just not showing the facts, they are framing the news to give to the people their own public agenda.

In the second article the author says it is problematic because it is done by the public broadcast and that they should be very wary to engage in the political debate. 

 

And to clarify more both writers are people on the left side of the politics. The first one is still however written for a (internet)newspaper who is in favor for more Flemish independence, ... (if it does matter who they are)

[Enguerrand]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/swedens-ugly-immigration-problem/article26338254/

 

"Sweden has the most welcoming asylum policies and most generous welfare programs in the European Union. One typical refugee, Natanael Haile, barely escaped drowning in the Mediterranean in 2013. But the folks back home in Eritrea don’t want to know about the perils of his journey. As he told The New York Times, they want to know about “his secondhand car, the government allowances he receives and his plans to find work as a welder once he finishes a two year language course.” As a registered refugee, he receives a monthly living allowance of more than $700 (U.S.).

Sweden’s generous immigration policies are essential to the image of a country that (like Canada) prides itself as a moral superpower. For the past 40 years, most of Sweden’s immigration has involved refugees and family reunification, so much so that the words “immigrant” and “refugee” are synonymous there (unlike in Canada).

Sweden takes in more refugees per capita than any other European country, and immigrants – mainly from the Middle East and Africa – now make up about 16 per cent of the population.

 

So how are things working out in the most immigration-friendly country on the planet?

Not so well, says Tino Sanandaji. Mr. Sanandaji is himself an immigrant, a Kurdish-Swedish economist who was born in Iran and moved to Sweden when he was 10. He has a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago and specializes in immigration issues. This week I spoke with him by Skype.

“There has been a lack of integration among non-European refugees,” he told me. Forty-eight per cent of immigrants of working age don’t work, he said. Even after 15 years in Sweden, their employment rates reach only about 60 per cent. Sweden has the biggest employment gap in Europe between natives and non-natives.

In Sweden, where equality is revered, inequality is now entrenched. Forty-two per cent of the long-term unemployed are immigrants, Mr. Sanandaji said. Fifty-eight per cent of welfare payments go to immigrants. Forty-five per cent of children with low test scores are immigrants. Immigrants on average earn less than 40 per cent of Swedes. The majority of people charged with murder, rape and robbery are either first- or second-generation immigrants. “Since the 1980s, Sweden has had the largest increase in inequality of any country in the OECD,” Mr. Sanandaji said.

It’s not for lack of trying. Sweden is tops in Europe for its immigration efforts. Nor is it the newcomers’ fault. Sweden’s labour market is highly skills-intensive, and even low-skilled Swedes can’t get work. “So what chance is there for a 40-year-old woman from Africa?” Mr. Sandaji wondered.

Sweden’s fantasy is that if you socialize the children of immigrants and refugees correctly, they’ll grow up to be just like native Swedes. But it hasn’t worked out that way. Much of the second generation lives in nice Swedish welfare ghettos. The social strains – white flight, a general decline in trust – are growing worse. The immigrant-heavy city of Malmo, just across the bridge from Denmark, is an economic and social basket case.

Sweden’s generosity costs a fortune, at a time when economic growth is stagnant. The country now spends about $4-billion a year on settling new refugees – up from $1-billion a few years ago, Mr. Sanandaji said. And they keep coming. Sweden automatically accepts unaccompanied minors. “We used to take in 500 unaccompanied minors a year,” he said. “This year we are expecting 12,000.”

 

It’s really very simple, Mr. Sanandaji explained. You can’t combine open borders with a welfare state. “If you’re offering generous welfare benefits to every citizen, and anyone can come and use these benefits, then a very large number of people will try to do that. And it’s just mathematically impossible for a small country like Sweden to fund those benefits.”"

[The guy from the Vale]

 

It's my experience that the world I live in and the one I would like to live in has comparatively little overlap. I'm afraid I can see very little of your high-minded statements reflected in the foreign policy of anyone, including but not limited to the UK.

 

So I guess I will just have to keep to reality when considering the well being of my own people.

 

 

Any sources for this claim? Preferably for countries, that don't practice very targeted immigration like the US, Canada, Singapore and Australia? Because I provided sources that say the contrary, repeatedly.

 

 

Do you have any links to the data, you mention above?

 

 

This is some blatant goal post shifting, dude. Or has "benefiting" suddenly become a synonym for "not crumbling"?

 

 

It does if the German state profits more from ignoring it than following it (Well maybe not. With Merkel, you can never know.) After all everybody and their dog suddenly decided that Dublin II was more like a friendly suggestion than a binding agreement.

 

 

 

Turn the boats around and dump the refugees back on the coast the started from. Combine this with immigration centers in Turkey/Libya, that filter the useful human potential out and give out visa's for flights for the

 

Merkel would be very much a home among Republicans, where economic policy is concerned. Everything that has insufficient Market in it smells of helping poor people, smells of communism, burn it with fire.

 

While The US nowadays has rather strict immigration laws, for centuries it did not. Germans and Irishmen came to the US in the 19th century in droves, without any hand picking of who could or couldn't enter. In the early 20th century, Italians and Eastern Europeans followed suit. Do you really want to argue that those migrants were a net negative for the USA? Many of them fled from starvation, war or political oppression.

Similarly, Germany had large immigration waves that also benefitted the country in the long run. The French Huguenot refugees that were accepted by Prussia in the 18th century were beneficial for the country. In the late 19th century, millions of Poles migrated to the Ruhrgebiet, fueling the economic boom there. Similarly, in the 1950ies, many Italians came to Germany, helping make the Wirtschaftswunder possible. Do I need to go on? Because if I wanted to, I absolutely could. For example, there would be no Swiss watch manufacturing any more if it weren't for a family of Lebanese immigrants.

 

As for the "not crumbling" comment, judging by some people here, it should have, considering these same people also consider the stream of refugees to Germany the nail in the coffin of the Decline of the West. I think demonstrating, first, that far larger relative numbers of refugees didn't hurt an economy 25 years in, and then pointing out that the longer this goes on, the smaller any potential problems become, isn't an unreasonable proposition. Basically, the further we shift our focus to migration in the past, the easier it becomes for us to see the migration from back then as a net positive. This really isn't a radical statement, I thought. 

[Enguerrand]

 

While The US nowadays has rather strict immigration laws, for centuries it did not. Germans and Irishmen came to the US in the 19th century in droves, without any hand picking of who could or couldn't enter. In the early 20th century, Italians and Eastern Europeans followed suit. Do you really want to argue that those migrants were a net negative for the USA? Many of them fled from starvation, war or political oppression.

 

Well the Americans at the time, certainly thought so. I take it you are unfamiliar with ithe US immigration act of 1924, Which established quotas for different ethnicities as function of racial biology. This was designed to reduce the number of immigrants from Southern Europe, Eastern Europe and Russia, exclude Asian immigrants altogether, and favor immigration from Britian. Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Norway.

 

A s president Coolidge said who signed the act: "Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend. The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides."

 

"In the 10 years following 1900, about 200,000 Italians immigrated annually. With the imposition of the 1924 quota, 4,000 per year were allowed. By contrast, the annual quota for Germany after the passage of the Act was over 57,000. Some 86% of the 155,000 permitted to enter under the Act were from Northern European countries, with Germany (including Poles; see: Partitions of Poland), Britain, and Ireland having the highest quotas. The new quotas for immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe[where?] were so restrictive that in 1924 there were more Italians, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Greeks, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Portuguese, Romanians, Spaniards, Jews, Chinese, and Japanese that left the United States than those who arrived as immigrants.[18]"

The quotas remained in place with minor alterations until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

[Enguerrand]

Stumbled on this article from 2012,  pretty funny. "EU should 'undermine national homogeneity' says UN migration chief" http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18519395
 
"Mr Sutherland, who is non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, heads the Global Forum on Migration and Development, which brings together representatives of 160 nations to share policy ideas.
He told the House of Lords committee migration was a "crucial dynamic for economic growth" in some EU nations "however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states".

[The guy from the Vale]

 

Well the Americans at the time, certainly thought so. I take it you are unfamiliar with ithe US immigration act of 1924, Which established quotas for different ethnicities as function of racial biology. This was designed to reduce the number of immigrants from Southern Europe, Eastern Europe and Russia, exclude Asian immigrants altogether, and favor immigration from Britian. Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Norway.

 

A s president Coolidge said who signed the act: "Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend. The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides."

 

"In the 10 years following 1900, about 200,000 Italians immigrated annually. With the imposition of the 1924 quota, 4,000 per year were allowed. By contrast, the annual quota for Germany after the passage of the Act was over 57,000. Some 86% of the 155,000 permitted to enter under the Act were from Northern European countries, with Germany (including Poles; see: Partitions of Poland), Britain, and Ireland having the highest quotas. The new quotas for immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe[where?] were so restrictive that in 1924 there were more Italians, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Greeks, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Portuguese, Romanians, Spaniards, Jews, Chinese, and Japanese that left the United States than those who arrived as immigrants.[18]"

The quotas remained in place with minor alterations until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

 

Yes. These people thought, as people are thinking now, that the immigration they were experiencing at the time was a problem. But my point was, and still is, that in the long term (as opposed to the short or medium term) it is almost always a net positive, not just for those who immigrated, but also those who have been there before. Xenophobia is not a new thing, but it is, most of the time, unwarranted.

[Shryke]

The Hungarian people take offense, yes. And it is nobody's place to judge wether Hungarian people 'have the right' or not to take offense over the media bashing them, their country and their policemen who are ordinary people, friends, family. Hungary doesn't ask anybody to agree with them, support them or not criticize them (especially when there's a lot of room for criticism), it only asks to be given the same respect and objectivity granted to Slovakia and the Czech Republic or the UK. Which is as it turns out too much to ask, apparently.

 

If Hungary was treated with objectivity and respect the press would have been a hell of alot more negative over the past like 5 years, given the shit been going down there. Hungary is already getting treated with kid gloves. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

Ojji, on 12 Sept 2015 - 07:24 AM, said:
But hey I'm not allowed to be open minded when it comes to the evil white man.

Hmmm....methinks you be floating in a very peculiar way-
http://youtu.be/AFks9A9TCF0

I'd like to give the people of Hungary the benefit of a doubt instead of calling them racist - which is what many people on the social media is already stating,

Yeah....except noone had even mentioned racists in this thread till you injected it. I think your trolling.

[DireWolfSpirit]

I get the impression that folks believe refugees/immigrants will be a strain on the social safety nets. If you believe that is so (I may of thought so at one time as well) i encourage you to do a little more research before closing your mind on the subject. Immigrants into mature demograph societies (W.Europe,,U.S.,Japan,ect) mean growth. It ultimately means shoreing up things like pension, soc.sec. health and welfare funds and so forth.
You first have to get over the knee jerk xenophobia that whatever so called "outgroup" is coming to rape and pillage your way of life (the stage the refugee crisis seems currently mired in). And think what an injection of younger families into a demo group represents, what growth does to an economy.

More schools, more hospitals, more infrastructure, more consumer demand, more business opportunities, more building trades, more utility workers, more teachers, more healthcare workers , more small business owners, more transportation industry, more proffessional services from accounting to xerox repairman. Its literally endless. Immigration can be a recipe for an explosion of compounding growth. This is opportunity not burden.

[Enguerrand]

 

Yes. These people thought, as people are thinking now, that the immigration they were experiencing at the time was a problem. But my point was, and still is, that in the long term (as opposed to the short or medium term) it is almost always a net positive, not just for those who immigrated, but also those who have been there before. Xenophobia is not a new thing, but it is, most of the time, unwarranted.

 

This is pure nonsense. Large scale immigration are almost always a threat to the present residents. There are many multicultural empires that's been successful throughout history for a time, Usually with one dominant ethnic group keeping order with able fair and harsh rulers. The trouble is that they are fragile constructs and when things fall apart these territories dissolve into their ethnic and religious parts and endless conflicts. These issues are the core behind almost every war in human history. Hitler justification for starting his wars was the mistreatment of ethnic germans in other countries. Ukrainians are killed while we speak because the Russian 20th century migration and colonisation of Ukraine gives Putin an excuse to "protect them".

The same reason the Baltic states are so worried about  their large russian minorities. it leaves them vulnerable to Russian demands and with potential enemies in their midst. Syria Iraq, Afghanistan are all these culturally ethnically and religious enriched melting pots yet it seems to bring them nothing but dysfunctional government, atrocities and misery.

You can see the same thing the USA, whenever central control falls apart and you have riots in the streets, like Los Angeles or New Orleans people forget nationality and fall back on more natural divides, language, ethnicity, religion.if government control couldn't be re-established the divides would quickly become permanent.

[The Iceman of the North]

But we're not really talking about large scale migration here. Even if every single Syrian who have left their home end up in Europe, which is hardly likely, the change in population would hardly be felt.

[The guy from the Vale]

Yep. If every single Syrian moved to the EU, the EU's population would rise by about 5%. The number of migrants is very large in absolute terms, but it is small relative to the population already around.

[Enguerrand]

I get the impression that folks believe refugees/immigrants will be a strain on the social safety nets. If you believe that is so (I may of thought so at one time as well) i encourage you to do a little more research before closing your mind on the subject. Immigrants into mature demograph societies (W.Europe,,U.S.,Japan,ect) mean growth. It ultimately means shoreing up things like pension, soc.sec. health and welfare funds and so forth.
You first have to get over the knee jerk xenophobia that whatever so called "outgroup" is coming to rape and pillage your way of life (the stage the refugee crisis seems currently mired in). And think what an injection of younger families into a demo group represents, what growth does to an economy.

 

You sure it's not you who are ignorant?

 

From my post above about Sweden. Tino Sanadaji

 

"Forty-eight per cent of immigrants of working age don’t work, he said. Even after 15 years in Sweden, their employment rates reach only about 60 per cent. Sweden has the biggest employment gap in Europe between natives and non-natives. In Sweden, where equality is revered, inequality is now entrenched. Forty-two per cent of the long-term unemployed are immigrants, Mr. Sanandaji said. Fifty-eight per cent of welfare payments go to immigrants. Forty-five per cent of children with low test scores are immigrants. Immigrants on average earn less than 40 per cent of Swedes. The majority of people charged with murder, rape and robbery are either first- or second-generation immigrants. “Since the 1980s, Sweden has had the largest increase in inequality of any country in the OECD,” Mr. Sanandaji said. It’s not for lack of trying. Sweden is tops in Europe for its immigration efforts. Nor is it the newcomers’ fault. Sweden’s labour market is highly skills-intensive, and even low-skilled Swedes can’t get work. “So what chance is there for a 40-year-old woman from Africa?” Mr. Sandaji wondered.

Sweden’s fantasy is that if you socialize the children of immigrants and refugees correctly, they’ll grow up to be just like native Swedes. But it hasn’t worked out that way. Much of the second generation lives in nice Swedish welfare ghettos. The social strains – white flight, a general decline in trust – are growing worse. Sweden’s generosity costs a fortune, at a time when economic growth is stagnant. The country now spends about $4-billion a year on settling new refugees – up from $1-billion a few years ago, Mr. Sanandaji said. And they keep coming. Sweden automatically accepts unaccompanied minors. “We used to take in 500 unaccompanied minors a year,” he said. “This year we are expecting 12,000.”

 

It’s really very simple, Mr. Sanandaji explained. You can’t combine open borders with a welfare state. “If you’re offering generous welfare benefits to every citizen, and anyone can come and use these benefits, then a very large number of people will try to do that. And it’s just mathematically impossible for a small country like Sweden to fund those benefits.”"

 

 

More schools, more hospitals, more infrastructure, more consumer demand, more business opportunities, more building trades, more utility workers, more teachers, more healthcare workers , more small business owners, more transportation industry, more proffessional services from accounting to xerox repairman. Its literally endless. Immigration can be a recipe for an explosion of compounding growth. This is opportunity not burden.

 

 

So I guess Greece economic woes will be history shortly with these immigrant waves. Maybe the already rich countries of Northern Europe should send some back to help them out further.