On a personal note, I'm more likely to investigate anti-refugee arguments because I feel like they're underrated. I agree with the sentiment that we should understand that we're dealing with humans here, not numbers; but just like statistics has its weakness in that it can cause us to over-generalize, picking out the stories of individuals can allow a narrative to be crafted that is overfitted away from the whole.
Big picture: most refugees going across the Mediterranean are Syrian, male (like 72% male!), young, and poor.[0] Like unless they have families that they're hoping to have evacuated (why didn't they bring them over in the first place?), we're talking about a recipe for complete stupidity. Language barriers exist, education barriers exist; I don't know how the Europeans intend to get all of these refugee adults up to economic snuff at the same grade of Europeans who were trained in the ways of the West from birth.
This is going to be a demographic shock to countries with more balanced gender ratios, and in the case of Europe, upside-down aging pyramids. Men without solid economic recourse and lack of cultural integration are going to resort to crime. They will upset the local sex market through strong male competition for women (rape town!). Politics in Europe will never be the same as the majority of the young do not carry any of the previous generation's values.
I'm really open to being proved wrong, I really am. But I'm not counting on it.
I saw the data you linked, but I don't see the "poor".
From what I see, they make up a range of demographics and educational levels.
As to why they did not bring their families over in the first place? That is usually because they want to make sure they have somewhere to stay before bringing their families over.
Bigger picture. The population of Europe as a whole is 740 million or so. Even if the entire population of Syrian pitched up in Europe (20 million or so), it would be under 5% of the population. The actual numbers of refugees is around 5 million, so less than 1%. You are trying to suggest that 1% of the population is a "demographic shock"?
The problem arises when the refugees are concentrated in a few countries, and then other nations use the crowding and chaos there as an excuse not to take any.
"Men without solid economic recourse", as per my previous point, these individuals span the entire socio-economic range, and have a wide range of skills. If they are able to gain employment (Many countries do not allow refugees to work) then I do not see why they would not have solid economic recourse.
Migrants won't spread uniformly trough Europe, but will try to build their own communities into the major hub. While 5 million across Europe uniformly is not a big number, spread them in few of the biggest cities that may offer a chance for them to get a job and suddenly you have a problem.
You are ignoring hundred of years of migration data if you think they will spread uniformly across Europe or even within a single city, the likely outcome is that they will try to stick into their own area, building their own neighborhood, much like you have the Chinese, Arab and whatever quarter in all major cities.
Those individuals while skilled will have no connections, no competitive advantage against the local laborers except a sob story and the necessity to work by whatever means. Guess how it will play out?
They will also carry their own culture tradition and overall mindset. We had many cases of attempted integration gone wrong already over previous migrations, with people beating their own wife or imprisoning their daughters because that's the way they grew up and how they learned to cope with family issues. They are not running away from weird green aliens, eh.
I'm all for integration and acceptance, but with the right process - split them up, isolate them from each other, have them spread uniformly, whatever it can be done to avoid the creation of refugee camps. Then you might have a chance to avert a crisis. Leave them on their own and it will only allow them to bring here the same crises they have over there (just look Turkish/Kurdish escalation and how it affected Swiss ill-integrated communities for a recent example)
Why don't you mention the predominant religion of the migrants and culture shock? Islam is a way of life not just a religion. Literally following the Koran is not compatible with life in the West as indeed with the Christian Bible. You soon get arrested in the UK for proclaiming statements from the Bible (on homosexuality for instance). Interestingly, not so if the text is the Koran. But that's another matter.
I am disgusted with the media recently. All western media are portraying this in a A/B approach. Either you accept migrants without hesitation, or you are fascist animal.
Discussion is not allowed and despite growing public dislike of the process of accepting undocumented immigrants from war torn country that is full of ISIS fighters.
Manipulation (majority of pictures show only women, children and few poorly dressed males), public hate towards people asking questions - this is fascist in my opinion.
Unaddressed things like the fact that majority of immigrants are actually safe in Turkey and Lebanon immigrant camps, yet they decide to go to Europe for better life (so its not like they are in danger). Majority of young males getting to Europe (who in their right mind leaves their wifes and kids in war torn country to find a better life if that's the case? Or are they safe in immigration camps?).
Funny thing - leftist parties are actually shooting themselves in the foot as within 5 years we will see huge rise in right wing parties taking over majority of votes. The "right thing to do" took over "right thing to do to our citizens".
IMO this should be handled as follows: immigrants without visas get send to closed immigration camps, where they wait for paper work. If they pass, off they go, if they wont pass they can either stay in the camp or go back to the country of origin. This is how it was decade ago, not sure why all of sudden there was a change. Letting anyone in will cause rise in right wing movements fueled by increased terrorist activism from undocumented immigrants. Anyone saying "hey, this worked before" forgets, that before ALL immigrants were required to apply for proper visa before getting in, not like now, when they get them without any proper check so we dont know who gets in.
> Unaddressed things like the fact that majority of immigrants are actually safe in Turkey and Lebanon immigrant camps, yet they decide to go to Europe for better life (so its not like they are in danger).
This is false and it's easy to confirm, just read a bit about the conditions of these camps, the lack of food, etc, and if you want to see it for yourself, check YouTube, it actually has a lot of in person short docs about most refugee camps. That's what I did when I had that question in my mind, why would they leave those camps to risk their lifes, and it's mostly due to the lack of food, hygiene, healthcare, and over-capacity.
On a side-note, how can someone say something is unaddressed with the amount of information available on the internet? People just need to read a bit when in doubt and stop with false (and dangerous) assumptions.
> On a side-note, how can someone say something is unaddressed with the amount of information available on the internet? People just need to read a bit when in doubt and stop with false (and dangerous) assumptions.
I meant by mainstream media. They ignore majority of issues and keep misinforming people dependent on old age media.
>This is false and it's easy to confirm...
1) Some camps are actually good suited, its easy to make video/picture of bad state of them - depending on angle - but in general they provide survivable environment - good enough if you run away from your country worrying about your life.
2) Those camps receive huge amounts of foreign aid including cash. We are talking here about hundreds of millions dollars. If the camp is in bad state, then organizations so willingly sending money to those camps should finally start checking where they go. Its easy to throw money at problem through ignorant organization (what was happening in Africa since decades through "charities" completely misusing money), but why common folk in Europe should be taken responsible for their inability to account money they send? Why regular taxpayer needs to pay for mistakes of US, UK, France and Italy governments going in to the wars like in Lybia or Syria? Again, this is no A/B situation, there is many ways to deal with it and one currently offered is probably one of the worst as it will fuel right wing parties to promote separation from EU structures.
And videos like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFiumADzwdI are of not help as this shows that immigrants intentions might be way off. Even some old Syrian refugees are against current migration explaining, that the only reason for it is to get on social welfare. People that own properties and are considered wealthy in Syria.
There is a huge difference between seeing an informed documentary and seeing an out of context video. For example, it's quite possible these people were rejecting food and water because they were tired of being beaten and hold up by the Hungarian police/military, as seen in lots of other videos. One should see these videos with an open mind and not with a preconceived idea because that's how it got us to be surprised by a young child drown in the beach when hundreds of others already had had the same fate or when we start saying they should stay on the neighbouring countries when, in fact, they already are, millions of them.
Obviously these people will behave like any other people would: in a possibly desperate and irrational way. Some would do some things they shouldn't and might end up in jail for it, some will not. It's up to each individual to fight in their own way.
Regarding your first point, you should really read about the United Nations World Food Programme which is the organism in charge of paying for all the food in these camps. From their own page[1]: "The World Food Programme (WFP) is struggling to meet the urgent food needs of close to six million displaced people in Syria and in neighbouring countries. Food operations are severely underfunded, meaning that WFP has been forced to reduce the level of assistance it provides to refugees across the region." More[2]: "1.7m Syrian refugees face food crisis as UN funds dry up". I have never been hungry in my life but it mustn't be what I would call being "good enough". I agree they are not dead though, just hungry.
The easiest way is to try to look for confirmation or a denial of what you just saw. But in the given example all you have is a few minutes of video footage which doesn't give you any context. So in a documentary, you would expect those people rejecting water to explain why they are rejecting it, while in that video all you have is the images without any context. That's obvious, I'd say. Now, given this, you would be surprised by what people might say they are doing what they are doing, as shocking and uncomprehensible as it might seem in a video.
For example, I was having a lot of questions about the situation in Calais, France, why would there be people looking to risk their lifes to go from France to England? Seeing a couple of documentaries on this situations with interviews with some of the people there, I got a completely new insight into what's happening there.
The difference between a few minutes footage and cherrypicked longer footage is just money.
Just because it looks comprehensive doesn't mean it's not trying to spin a certain story.
I'm thoroughly sickened by masd media constantly trying to make it about little girls or shaggy people.
The footage from Hungary might be out of context, but one thing is visible - people there are perfectly fine physically. They are healthy, well fed. This alone should be enough to make one go "Hold on. This is weird"
And if they are rioting because they are being detained until some basic documentation can be set up, then well, fuck them. They come to our home and are already pushing our patience - we were kind enough to not go Saudi Arabia on them. They are not being instantly deported, nor shot.
The overwhelmingly male youth that are immigrating are the reason a bunch of conspiracy theories are afloat on the internet.
The next few years will be interesting. By all accounts Europe is headed for a recession and recessions usually foster xenophobia.[0]
As an Indian living in Europe, I haven't yet noticed any changes but I assume that it will only get worse since behind all the talk about "humanity" most people still have to get 3 meals and when you have thousands such young hungry and tired men who can't get a job, I agree with the parent. Hopefully he and I are proved wrong since this is a real crisis.
Some families send the strongest/healthiest male in the family since the trip to Europe is so dangerous, but the families often come afterwards. It's easier for them to come legally if they already have a family member in the country.
During the first half of 2015, 2000 women and 4500 men came as refugees to Sweden from Syria, but 3100 women and 2000 men came afterwards as asylum searching family members. In total ~5300 women and ~6800 men (including working visas) came to Sweden from Syria.
I wonder, do you think people from non-western countries has a bigger potential of commiting rape? How different do you think the values of these people are compared to "us"?
I think that the extreme cases become more likely for non-Western cultures, even if we assume that the distribution of rapes per ethnicity follows a similar average between populations of West and non-West. Islamic countries are not known for their respect for the sanctity of women, particularly in the Middle Eastern clades of Islam.
(I've had Somalian, Malaysian and Sudanese Muslim friends which were extremely well-adjusted to Western culture and make good claims about women in these countries; but likewise I've had Bangladeshi friends who deplored the situation of women. So I think cultural temperament comes before religious law, but a religion can serve as a strong post-hoc justification for the strongest aspects of that temperament.)
>Like unless they have families that they're hoping to have evacuated (why didn't they bring them over in the first place?),
The reasons I've gathered so far are: The journey is dangerous not just because of the risk of drowning. If I recall correctly, there were stories of rape. There's also a law for family reunification (I don't know the details but at least in the case of minors this means they can bring their family). Lastly, many young Syrian men flee because they could be conscripted by the army.
>I don't know how the Europeans intend to get all of these refugee adults up to economic snuff at the same grade of Europeans who were trained in the ways of the West from birth.
Wow.
You mention immigrant rapists on the way as a valid reason to not bring women..
Yet when you as much as mutter about immigrant rapistz in europe all hell breaks loose, political correctness maelstorm
Where is open discussion about the issues?
Where is data to talk about? I tried to look for any and there are almost none that supports the PC side...
You are going to be massively downvoted, but I am glad to see a dissenting opinion here. It is far too easy for a discussion like this to turn into a "look at our empathy, aren't we great" - alternate opinions are useful.
The demographic 'shock', particularly "upside-down aging pyramids" isn't a problem - it's actually the primary benefit of this migration. "Upside-down aging pyramids" are a problem for us - as the population tends towards older, we have more tax-drains (increasing medical requirements, increasing retirement costs) and less tax-feeders. 18-30yo men, what in another age would have been our definition of eligible conscripts, are exactly the injection required.
Integration is a concern, yes. Language barriers I'm fine with - this is Europe, I don't speak German either - but perhaps the path from temporary to permanent residency needs to be a bit more than paperwork. Some form of (non-military) national service may be ideal.
Germany has a fantastic track-record of vocational / apprenticeship-based education. Perhaps if we can mix such a model with some other requirements (eg, local language), a path could be laid where they not only work for their benefits & contribute back, but also offer a future for them, their family, and a continent that's begging for young blood.
I don't think it's anything to do with "ways of the west", but simply ensuring there's some sort of future ahead of them. Running water stays fresh, standing water grows stagnant.
>I don't know how the Europeans intend to get all of these refugee adults up to economic snuff at the same grade of Europeans who were trained in the ways of the West from birth.
Is anyone really planning on that? It's much nicer to have an underclass under you. The economic argument is often brought up, but there is little backing, seeing how Swedish and German economies are the strongest in Europe and have accepted tons of immigrants in the past decade or two. It is costly for the state to nurse and educate a native citizen.
Your numbers can't be faulted, but the risks might be overstated. Based on purely anecdotal evidence (several young Syrian men who ended up in Belgium) I can say that many of these guys do indeed have families they intend to bring over. Because of the danger and uncertainty of the journey, those who could stash their families somewhere relatively safe for a short while did so. They knew it would be easier for them to reach real safety on their own, and that there will be organisations to help them reunite with their families afterwards. Of course, a negative aspect to this is that the current refugee numbers are lower than they should be, as many of these people will soon account for several more.
The struggle for economic resources might not be as bad as you envision. Countries like Germany have excellent social welfare systems with the capacity of processing refugees as quickly as possible. (OK, "as quickly as possible" isn't very quick, but they'll handle it.) The biggest challenge at the moment is getting these people off welfare and into the job market. Sure, because of cultural and educational differences we're probably not going to see many engineers or neurosurgeons, but the people who collect our garbage and do our cleaning mostly aren't engineers or neurosurgeons either. And language barriers are more fuzzy in the EU than in most other places, we tend to get around them. The jobs won't be fancy, but they'll pay minimum wage and give the refugees a purpose and a sense of self-worth. Also, there's no path to integration as straight and speedy as hanging out with colleagues over breaks.
But you're right, it's not going to be easy. It's going to take pragmatic and inspired leadership within the EU, and we're in very short supply of that. On the other hand, these people and their children will pay the future taxes that fund my pension and socialised medicine, all I need to do is make sure they're safe and land on their feet now.
I was hoping that it wouldn't come down to that sort of thing - exploiting the refugees as a taxable resource. Because it seems kind of two-faced, to have Janus wear compassion/universalism on one side and to have taxing/demographic sustainability on the other side.
Truth is, most migrants end up benefiting their new country despite a general hostility towards them. It's always been like that, even in XIX century US. So there is no hypocrisy really: we are not letting them in "because they help with taxes", that's a secondary side-effect that we are forced to emphasize in modern debate only because we have to fight naturally-xenophobic elements in our societies.
Can we put (dubious in my opinion) benefits from migrants against girls (including teenage and children) raped by said migrants and weight it up? How much money does one child rape cost?
And this is not unique, in the UK they busted like a dozen of underage brothels any of which had dozens of underage girls abducted, beaten and made prostitute. Brothels of course run by muslim immigrants.
We're all someone's cattle in some greater scheme. The community funds education and healthcare, not because we're nice people, but because there's a net benefit to having a healthy and educated workforce. It's cynical and sad, but also realistic.
> Have some more goddamn kids.
Volunteers for the bordercases EU breeding programme eagerly awaited! :)
A demographic inverse pyramid occurs when parents decide to breed below replacement rate. I intend to have two or more children, preferably around four children, as a way of ensuring that my values exist more strongly over the coming decades. It's a form of game theoretic cooperation with my culture in what resembles a Commons problem.
I would say we had a population bubble. "Inverse pyramid" is a fallout from bubble.
It happened that many people were born and raised, setting all-time population records, and trying to keep this number increase forever and forever is unviable. One may argue that there's still a lot of land for people to live in, but truth is people skip villages and small towns for capitals because they're not needed where they used to live. There's land, but there's no demand.
May I suggest looking up statistics on rape in Norway and Sweden before you formulate your next answer? It has been rather well documented - even though both Norway and Sweden tend to try to hide ethnicity (especially when a non-native is involved, leading to the suspicion that absence of information on ethnicity implies foreign origin of the perpetrator) - that the large majority of rape cases (Sweden: 85%, 2006 [1], Norway 'all reported rape cases committed by non-western immigrants', 2007-2009 [2]) in these countries involve non-western immigrants or their first-generation offspring. This problem will not be solved by looking away. Now that these people seem to be there to stay it is adamant that this problem is solved - not by ignoring it but by acting decisively. Denying a problem does not equal acting upon it. Blaming the victim does not do so either. Trying to mollify the circumstances is counterproductive.
No, the report says nothing like that. It says that immigrants have a 4.5 times higher possibility of being suspscted of rape. This does not mean that 85% of all rape cases are committed by non-western immigrants. This is of course troubling though.
That is what you get when a normal, level-headed discussion on a subject is not allowed. Merely breaching the subject in public invites accusations of racism, xenophobia and discrimination. That is not helpful as it is clear that the problem does exist. That problem needs to be solved, not ignored or hidden under a false blanket of understanding. A crime is a crime, no matter whether the perpetrator is a native-born or immigrant.
'Rape town!' is not normal level headed discussion on the subject. If you want serious debate I'd suggest you can start by not defending the comment that's clearly overstepped the boundary on what constitutes serious debate.
The poster who originally wrote those words, wrote them in context of a much larger post. (That phrase was 0.8% of the entire posts by word count). That post was written in response to a propaganda article [0] that got 130+ upvotes. You can't expect a response to propaganda to not include at least a little rhetoric.
And as far as the quality of discussion, the point it really went downhill was when this responder seized on that one small sentence (0.8% of the post!) and responded with pure empty rhetoric: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10225065
> If you want serious debate I'd suggest you can start by not defending the comment that's clearly overstepped the boundary on what constitutes serious debate.
No. If you want serious debate, don't defend a comment that skimmed a thoughtful contribution to cherry-pick the most potentially objectionable bit of rhetoric and then posture off an out-of-context quote of it. And, don't repeat that same mistake.
TeamCarryology: @Brad, I think you've missed the point entirely. Through this piece, and by using 'carry'as a thread, we're able to bring this 'serious' and dire crisis to the attention of our 130K + readers, in the hope that they may take interest in these people and visit the International Rescue Committee to learn more.
Please stop the FUD. It's true that immigrants are over-represented in crime statistics, but that is both as victims and perpetrators, and it must be understood in the light of their socioeconomic status.
Regardless, >99% of the people who are coming to Europe right now are not future rapists.
Denying a problem does not solve it. Please read up on those statistics before you start wielding terms like 'FUD'. The 'U' in this case in not justified as it is known that non-western immigrants are heavily overrepresented in crime statistics. Neither is the 'D', for the same reasons. The mere fact that a large part of the immigrants will not commit crimes does not mean you should ignore or talk down the crimes perpetrated by those who do. Which leaves the 'F' for fear. That fear is fed for a large part by the fact that discussing these issues immediately leads to outcries of 'FUD', 'Racism', 'Discrimination' and 'Xenophobia'. Not being allowed to discuss something does not make it go away. It makes it grow in the minds of those subjected to the censure. It also does not help in solving these problems since they have to be visible and understood before they can be solved.
Would I have been better off if I just said "(rape!)" (i.e. remove "town")? Just saying "sex market imbalance" felt too P.C. when the real consequence I was trying to emphasize was yeah, guys are going to behave sexually aggressively towards women when they're economically starving and there are more guys than there are women to go around.
I believe "rape!" is nearly as bad as it's still just charged invective. A more neutral construction would be something like, 'leading to an increase in <crimes>' and I would have no objection to that.
Why not call problems by their name?
Does calling rape an increase in sex crimes helps the victim?
No, it waters down the problem so some people can keep living in a fantasy bubble, which could pop when facing pointy, definite words like rape, that just happen to describe the problem
The problem is, 1% of rapists is an awfully high number considering the severity of problem that is rape.
"<1%" suicide terrorists as passengers on your B747 means you're dead.
If a society is not able to reduce this "<1%" to at least strict 0,001% by filtering and background checks, it should probably reject the remaining 99% too. This isn't fair to the rest of immigrants but otherwise it will not be fair to your own citizens.
You speak as if Europe has a choice in accepting refugees. I believe the last few weeks in particular show that this choice does not exist. They will come, and we will have to do the best we can out of the situation.
They do! Germany, the UK and the Scandinavian nations are the only European countries (that I was aware of circa within the week) to be actively accepting Syrian refugees - every other country in between them AND the Mediterranean have had negative responses to incoming refugees and I would expect deportation.
If refugees were just coming in for safety's sake, there are plenty of other Islamic countries that would be more culturally compatible (that argument would fail in the case of Syrian Christians; I don't know the full proportion of real religious denomination to refugee count). There are plenty of European countries that want no business with refugees, like Hungary, who have just declared martial law in the last few days or so wrt refugees.
It's a choice. It's a hard choice, one which tangles several levels of liberal beliefs of tolerance in a democratic state and respecting a country's historical/ethnic heritage, which is why I think there is so much controversy. I personally don't see how any country in Europe is obliged to accept refugees.
> "Germany, the UK and the Scandinavian nations are the only European countries (that I was aware of circa within the week) to be actively accepting Syrian refugees"
You might need to inform yourself a bit better as most European countries have been accepting Syrian refugees[0]. Germany is now leading the effort to give documents to the new arrivals but in the upcoming weeks a part of them will be sent to different locations around Europe. Pretty much all countries' newspapers have been reporting this (in regards to its numbers and locations).
All obligations people have to each other boil down to moral obligations. Barbarism and conquest age societies were much more rational than modernity, with little formalities or attachment of value to human life. So it comes with a territory of living in a civil society.
Europe espouses a particular set of humanitarian values and has to act correspondingly. It is in European law (being UNCHR members for a start), tradition and customs of education. It is what constitutes modern Europe.
Now I personally would rather seen Assad dealt with in timely manner, years ago, instead of drawing stupid red lines in the water. This would have prevented the humanitarian disaster propelling the refugee crisis today, and would have hindered the raise of ISIS to boot. Since we can not change the past though, I'm OK with helping people survive with my tax money.
> Now I personally would rather seen Assad dealt with in timely manner, years ago, instead of drawing stupid red lines in the water. This would have prevented the humanitarian disaster propelling the refugee crisis today, and would have hindered the raise of ISIS to boot. Since we can change the past though, I'm OK with helping people survive with my tax money.
Please don't mess with Syria anymore, and don't try to help with "your tax money". Syria was fine, at least compared to current situation, before West started meddling with the middle east and forcing democracy there.
ISIS started as a response of destroyed country (Iraq) without actual rule, that was brought in such state because of western occupation. Then, it was even armed and supported by the "west" as a "moderate islamistic democratic opposition" to Assad regime. The rest is history, and we didn't learn anything from it.
Just leave the middle east alone, as well as the rest of the world. Don't try to bring your values and way of life to them. Don't try to "help" them. Let them do it themselves on their own pace when they are ready for it. It's obvious right now they lived much better under any dictator that now, with all the "western" support.
> By helping with tax money I meant supporting the refugees, so. No.
And that's fine for me too, as long as your and mine tax money doesn't go into fueling the war instead, like weapon, military training, sanctions, ...
> It wasn't the West who massacred an unarmed protest with an airstrike back in the day.
It was the "west" that financed the opposition in Syria, and wanted Assad taken over for a long time. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it was also the "west" or ISIS (it was called democratic opposition back in the time) that organized this. Wouldn't be the first time. Example: shooting on Maydan square.
> Newsflash: the occupation of Iraq was opposed by most of the "West".
Opposed verbally, as in "I don't want to participate, but I'm fine if you do it, I'll even give you some minor support". And I said "west".
> Rwanda was left alone, oh look how wonderfully that worked.
Rwanda is a place where it went to hell, but I'm pretty sure it would be much worse if "west" intervened. Examples of interventions of "west", and in some cases "east" where local population would be much better if left alone: Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Tunis, Lybia, Iraq, Iran, Georgia, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, China, Korea, Hungary, Poland, Chechoslovakia, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Croatia, Australia, Chile, Panama, Honduras, plus many African and Asian states. In all those places foreign intervention brought much more problems than it solved, and is a direct or indirect cause of millions of dead people.
Similarly, just leave the old-timey American south alone. Don't try to bring your desegregationist or abolitionist values and way of life to the American south, or your anti-apartheid values to South Africa, or your anti-genocide values to Nazi Germany.
Germany declared war on pretty much all of the neighbouring countries and some non-neighbouring ones. But the argument probably holds for the South. Over a million people died gruesome deaths in the war. It is unlikely that they prevented an even larger evil.
We will see about South Africa. It is on a fast track to a failed state status currently. They went from surplus energy production to blackouts. Same with food while the farmers are being systematically pushed out or murdered.
Pssst, don't tell any Syrian friend, but we only pretend to close the borders. We only control the Autobahn-routes, not the smaller streets, and we control miles behind the border, meaning that refugees are already in Germany and can stay.
Germany tries to create pictures to discourage people from coming, while behaving the same to those who come. It is an interesting approach, and I am not sure yet how I feel about it.
Undocumented immigrants in the US who don't want to be discovered and deported are different from documented "refugees" (or actual refugees) in Europe. The latter don't have anywhere near the same reason to fear being deported or banished -- and they can be quite criminal with very few consequences (depending on the country they are in -- one of the reasons why Sweden is so popular at the moment).
Unless I'm missing something, there's no actual data about per capita crime or criminality rates by country of origin or even immigration status in that article. That's the data that would actually be useful.
At this stage, I expect to happen the following: They will adapt. We will adapt. There will be lots of problems. There will be many opportunities and there will be good.
What you're saying, you don't have any control over the situation but you hope that it'll end well.
Кривая вывезет.
It doesn't always turn out right, you know? Holocaust happened as an example where situation has never fixed itself. See also Kosovo, previously populated by Serbs, then they let muslim move in, muslim then drive out serbs by fear and intimidation, take over the region just for themself, and THEN seek refuge as crazy because they don't want to live in the kind of country they created.
Let me take on the easiest part of the argument first. Someone more knowledgeable can deal with the rest.
> Politics in Europe will never be the same as the majority of the young do not carry any of the previous generation's values.
First reaction: boo-hoo. More reasonable reaction: the Eurozone's population is about 330 millions right now, are they really expecting 100millions+ refugee? Yes, right now the refugees are concentrating in just a few countries, but that's because of the EU's attitude and passing-the-ball solution so far. The area as a whole CAN take on the refugees.
The same argument on the scale can easily apply to most of your other objections really. But the most important point is as simple as this: it's a very shitty situation all around, but does the anti-refugee camp have any proposed solution besides "tough shit, they are not my problems"? I mean, I can see people being selfish, and that itself is not a problem, but let's just call a spade a spade? EU citizens are all within their own rights for vote for their Trump-equivalent and build a wall around EU.
it's not just EU's attitude: the immigrants choose the countries themselves, there is no way to keep them e.g. in Hungary if all they want is to go to Germany
You can try and likely ontain at least some erosion. Say you place 10,000 in Hungary and 6,000 end up in Germany anyway -- that's still some relief. These people have travelled for so long and gone through such a huge culture shock, if you try to integrate them quickly they will probably lose the appetite for relocating again.
Unfortunately, the unspoken truth is that Eastern European countries have a huge unaddressed problem of deep racism. They have not gone through the experience of being target for economic mass-migration from other continents yet, unlike most Western European countries have been for more than 50 years now (and still struggle with the issue occasionally, but with much softer undertones). Countries like Hungary will do the bare minimum required to keep their EU funding and will likely not even try to really help these people, which means the quota system might end up being an exercise in futility. We still have to try though, it's the only solution. We must hope our Eastern fellows will eventually find the compassion to change their ways.
It's not purely a compassion thing by any means, don't get me wrong, Eastern European countries by large are racist, but they're also still dealing with the aftermath of previous (forced) migration during the Soviet times.
Families still remember their property being taken away and re-purposed, the (huge, up to one third of population) Russian minorities in the Baltic States by large have not integrated well over many generations now.
Fresh memories of the past and issues still present (understandably) spawn distrust and xenophobia among the locals.
Every time it seems like HN is making a little bit of progress you click on a link and find out they've upvoted something like 'Rape Town!' to the top of a thread.
I downvoted you because yours is a largely content-free comment in which you pretend that 'Rape Town!' is the only content of the top-level comment you are complaining about. (And I realize that my comment adds even more noise, but I prefer to explain my downvotes.)
Sure, it's not going to be easy; there will be a bit more crime and a bit more poverty. But there are a few points to consider. First, the number of refugees would amount to no more a few percent of the local European population. It's not a "demographic shock". Second, the entire Middle East was under European control or various degrees of meddling for a very long time (hell, the entire world), and nobody asked them when Europe came barging in. With power comes responsibility, you reap what you sow etc. etc.. Finally, if compassion didn't have a price, it wouldn't be worth much.
> I don't know how the Europeans intend to get all of these refugee adults up to economic snuff at the same grade of Europeans who were trained in the ways of the West from birth.
they became economic immigrants in the moment they left first safe country after leaving Syria. c'mon, we all know they aren't going to Germany because it's the only place in this world to escape war back home.
I understand that the refugee debate is an emotional one, but let me try and show you another way of thinking about it.
You said earlier that we shouldn't over-generalise especially with the influx of (positive) stories of these refugees, but one can argue that you're doing the same thing but from the other perspective. In fact, before the Aylan tragedy, I remember that there wasn't much coverage about the refugees themselves, but certainly there was a lot of sentiments, mostly fear, from the media and the public on the Internet. Even NYT remarked on the apparently British obsession with refugees: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/europe/calais-migran... .
Personally I welcome the recent positive stories about the plight of the refugees because it brings balance to the debate, and remind us that they are also human beings and merely want to escape from death and poverty. Who wouldn't run? I'm in no way likening you with Stalin but your quote regarding statistics brought back some chilling memories: "One man is a tragedy, a million statistics". We cannot and must not let go of humanity, not after so much tragedies.
I know that it's completely unrealistic to take in all of them, and I think it's nonsense that one can just open up borders without proper checks - the argument that a terrorist might be disguised as refugee is a valid one, I think. But I also think that neighbouring countries should have responsibilities to accommodate as many refugees as they can handle - and that's where the problems come in. Despite the media pandering on the lack of action from neighbouring Arab countries, Jordan, Lebanon and even Turkey have been taking in millions of refugees for years, even decades, see http://www.mercycorps.org/articles/turkey-iraq-jordan-lebano... . However it's starting to take its toll, and it's definitely not sustainable, which the refugees themselves could see. Lower wages, lower standards of living, growing dissent ... and then there's the next neighbour, rich and civilised: Europe. It's easy to see why it looks like the Promised Land!
Sure, people smugglers exploit this ruthlessly and many have even died trying to reach Europe, but for those who are already at your doorstep, is it really necessary to question if you should take them in or not?
We live on the same planet, and it's getting smaller. We used to think that what happens on the other side of the world won't affect us, but clearly globalisation and the Internet have linked us all up in a way more intimate than before. Sometimes I think that the concept of borders and countries are outdated[1]; we have so much more in common than differences that it's hard to feel "us vs them" now. And I think that's the key with the refugee crisis, and it's the same thing with other global issues like climate change: Division of privileges is increasingly becoming irrelevant and we've got to start thinking like global citizens.
---
[1]though I can't see countries getting scrapped in the future, we're way too tribal for that (!)
I'm from Austria. We have thousands of refugees crossing our border from Hungary daily right now, since they are being treated like animals there. [0]
Civil society responded quickly: here in Vienna there are thousands of volunteers providing food, shelter and medicine, even going into the camps in hungary and rescuing people out from there, bringing them (probably illegally, the situation isn't clear) across the border into our country. People who drive there to bring them medicine risk being beaten and arrested by hungarian police.
Or picking them up from the road. The kids have bloody feet from walking and many parents almost breaking down from carrying them and the exhaustion.
Libanon is currently receiving most of the refugees: about 2 Million in a country of 6 million. Imagine that. If a society is capable of this, surely it's possible to distribute another 2 million into 25 EU-states.
In Austria, we have a population of around 8 million. In 1992 we took about 90.000 refugees. Since WW2 we apparently had 2 million refugees, 700.000 stayed here. [1]
We are one of the richest countries in the world. It works.
Germany will have around 1M refugees in 2015 alone. Maybe 1.3M in 2016, maybe 1.7M in 2017? Considering most asylum seekers will bring their families(let's average 2 people more each one) along afterwards. That's only considering Syria.
Now think about Lybia getting worse(it actually is) -> Lybian refugees.
Wars in Eritrea, Iraq, Nigeria, Yemen! -> Other refugees ...
There are also refugees from not-at-war countries whose life is at high risk (Pakistan, Iran, Somalia).
At the same time consider that Greece can't pay its pensioners, Italy, Spain, Portugal are not that crazily better. High unemployment.
Other European countries such as Romania, Hungary, Poland, Croatia,etc are just starting to grow and match EU standards.
There's also a risk of importing their conflicts to EU streets - e.g. Kurds+Turks in Germany/Austria/Switzerland. There's been fights already in the last days in Switzerland and Stockholm.
I believe refugees should be given help and a safe shelter by sponsoring and building communities in borrowed land from Turkey/Lebannon/Jordan. However I'm of the opinion that inviting them to stay in the EU makes everything more complicated and expensive(which doesn't maximize the number of refugees you can help per euro) AND encourages the ones who can afford to pay human smugglers to risk their lives by crossing the sea.
That law basically states that muslim preachers in hospitals or who are teaching at schools or universities have to BE ABLE to speak german, so that the german-only speaking muslims, who exist as well, can understand them. The concept is called "official language of a country".
Right-Wing parties in Turkey are criticizing the law. The muslim organisations inside Austria are supporting it.
The law has nothing to do with the refugee-crisis.
EDITED: the muslim youth-organization in Austria oppose the law. The official organisation isn't happy with some points, for example that the law forbids financing their religious organisations with foreign money, but they state that "It's a compromise, which seems to come close to both sides."
The law definitely isn't perfect, but it's a different topic.
I don't have a strong opinion on the that law, but it's just not true that most muslim organisations in Austria support it. Their official representatives, the IGGÖ are rather critical[1], the muslim youth of Austria strongly opposed it[2]. Both links are in german, sorry.
But you are, of course, right that this law has nothing to do with war refugees entering austria.
Thanks for having shared this. I live in Italy, and in the last years we have get accustomed to news like "four hundred refugees reached Sicily last night", "50 Syrians died yesterday when their boat sank near the coast", etc. Reading this helps in preventing me from thinking of these people as just numbers.
I think it's a shame that governments (ours in Australia especially) play on xenophobia for political point scoring rather than encouraging the population to welcome new arrivals. We focus on differences like clothing, language and religion more than we emphasise common ground such as support for our children, love of food, sport, etc.
There's a food/cooking show in Australia called Food Safari in which each episode focuses on a different cuisine. It's a great insight into the food traditions each culture has brought with them. I often wish it was compulsory viewing or at least broadcast on a more mainstream channel as cooking and eating together is something we can all identify with.
I think we only increase the chances of ghettoes and other issues when we react negatively rather than welcoming people. We push people to wall themselves in, harden their cultural lines, we make it harder for them to get jobs, etc.
"Play on X for a political point" carries no information as anything can be construable as a political point. One is just as liable to hear pro-refugee stances be used as a "political-point" for the sake of votes as anti-refugee stances.
All such policy decisions should be dissolved away from a political party's frame of reference, and what should remain are guesses as to what the consequences of a policy might be and whether or not it's good for the nation.
Two ids (passport and driver's licence), some cash and two debit cards from two different countries, because the world is already globalized and modern, you like it or not. At least this is what I took intuitively when the 25th April earthquake struck my room in Kathmandu. All other my possessions were of least importance.
What followed? Did you have family who were affected alongside you?
I've been spending a lot of time lately reflecting on all the things I've taken for granted through my life, and the lack or loss of a safe and secure home is one of the things I would never wish upon anyone.
I'm risking getting downvoted to oblivion here, but as an EU citizen I strongly believe that the core reason we have this crisis in the first place (as opposed to something controlled) is nonexistent border protection from southern countries like Italy, Greece. Never have I heard of them employing border patrols to veer off illegal boats.
I am by no means denying the need for help for actual war victims, if I could say that, but current situation not only allows for, but actually encourages everyone seeking "better life" (and having financial means to do that) to come over. We call those [economic] immigrants and have rules. Now its wild west. And in the news reports I usually see people toying with iPhone 5/6 and wearing [designer] jeans/jackets. These may not even be the majority and quite probably a lot of those people are with a pair of shoes, some clothing and a mobile phone and food for a week is not included in the list of possessions.
I am all for growing a pair and actually declaring what is a war zone. Working with UN/NATO to establish a peace there. We (EU first, UN later) can and should establish "refugee camps" and TEMPORARILY accept people fleeing from previously declared war zones. After the conflict has been resolved, the very same refugees should be helped to get back to their homes. For everyone else we have rather clear rules on how immigration works. Because unless we do that fast we are sending the signal that EU is accepting everyone, giving homes and income. And in several years the crisis will be unmanageable. Oh, and do not think that USA is the other end of the world - you are already struggling with illegal immigrants from the south. Now just imagine the effect if whole countries decided it was worth a shot at least attempting to "find better life"?
"Temporary" can mean decades. How many wars have had a predictable timeframe?
As a child of refugees and having hung around quite a lot of immigrants, I think the biggest impediment to building a new life is the idea that you're going back. I hear this story all the time, from some kid whose parents insist they learn the old language and act like people from the old country, because in just a few years they'll be moving back there. Of course the "kid" will be in his 20s, having grown up in prosperous Scandinavia.
At the same time, you piss off the natives if you act like you are not sincerely trying to integrate. I don't think it happens a lot, but every time you hear a story about some foreigner taking advantage of the system, it makes it harder for all of them. Eg a friend of mine was translating for some newcomers from some Russian-speaking country. They were basically shopping for a free house, discussing whether they could get a better place, and openly planning their next trip home to old country, from which they were ostensibly fleeing.
The smartest thing to do as an immigrant is to immediately learn the language and try to find something to do. Get new friends who are local, and don't long for the old country.
Having millions of people living in temporary camps is a waste of millions of lives.
Now I do think there's a lot of pressure on the border countries, since they're taking a disproportionate amount of people. What should be done is once the UN decides a country is a war zone, everyone from there should be able to enter a lottery to be resettled elsewhere. They have to make a commitment to learn the new language, and not to come back for a long time.
You are right that conflicts may last decades. But that does not mean we can accept anyone, give them housing and leave it to magical integration. We absolutely need a "staging environment" where these people can stay safe, warm and fed and more importantly show willingness to both work and integrate. I'm not against accepting fleeing people that are willing to settle and accept new culture. But I think it is a bad idea to just take all these people, dump somewhere inside EU with documents and call it a day.
Currently the problem is scale - current measures are not designed for such a scale and will fail
I have a nice phone and clothes, but if my family were in danger, I would do whatever I could to get them to a safer place, including somewhere far from where they were currently in danger. I empathise with anyone fleeing danger, whatever model of phone they have.
Sirens go off, soldiers with tanks arrive at the main road of your town. You have to leave your home NOW. What device would you take with you to reconnect with your friends and family somewhere else, later, in safety? Do you really think middle class people in other countries still communicate with bush drums? Smart Guy.
> I'm risking getting downvoted to oblivion here, but as an EU citizen I strongly believe that the core reason we have this crisis in the first place (as opposed to something controlled) is nonexistent border protection from southern countries like Italy, Greece. Never have I heard of them employing border patrols to veer off illegal boats.
AFAIK this is actually the opposite of truth, assuming the migrant/refugee crisis is our fault (and it wouldn't have just happened anyway because of war) it's because we have too much border protection.
You see, the way this works, most of those smugglers just take the migrants/refugees all the way to the middle of the ocean, drop them on a raft, launch an SOS and head back to their origin port.
Merchant and military marine that picks up the SOS is then required (by maritime law and, possibly, by human decency?) to go check it out and salvage the people there.
Veering off boats is not an option because the boat usually veers off long before anyone gets there.
Over the past two years most of those migrants/refugees have been rescued by a special military operation of border control that has used the names Operation Mare Nostrum, Operation Frontex Plus and currently goes as Operation Triton. This costs 2.9M€/mo.
Arguably if we had less border control more brown people would die on rafts and maybe disincentivize the whole enterprise. Whether this is an acceptable solution I will leave for you to decide.
By "nonexistent border protection" I meant something more like "once you step on EU land, you are free to go anywhere". The very first signs of the bubble should have been indicators that it was time to do something different to "disincentivize the whole enterprise".
Maybe fish them out of the water and transport back as soon as possible? It is not sustainable, but better than nothing to buy some time to prepare
>By "nonexistent border protection" I meant something more like "once you step on EU land, you are free to go anywhere".
The whole point of the EU and the Schengen treaty was to have less border protection between member states. Is your opinion that the European Union is detrimental?
>Maybe fish them out of the water and transport back as soon as possible?
We can't deport the refugees back to war zones because of the european court of human rights (and possibly human decency) and we can't deport migrants until they have been identified because sending them to a random country would be human trafficking (and of course it is in migrants best interest to render themselves hard to identify).
Good point. I have nothing against temporary accepting people coming from dangerous places, regardless of their financial status. However not all of them come from war zones. Some come from relatively safe places like Turkey (I do have friends in Turkey who chose to live there and while the average income there may be in fact lower than in EU, people do normally live there, have jobs, families, houses etc.). And many are not interested in staying in poorer European countries like Greece or Hungary but they say it openly: "we want to Germany". In these cases, standard immigration rules should apply.
The point is, however, that a phone is not a luxury item. This article[1], in Dutch, explains that in order to get anywhere a phone is a necessity. Maps, GPS and communication. And not just texts (SMS), but photos and WhatsApp-groups to organize shelter, food. Translation-device.
A smartphone, maybe. An iPhone? Never. That is - whether you like it or not - a luxury device, priced as such. If it is phone, GPS, maps and translation you want you can just get whatever Android is on sale - for a sixth to a tenth of the price of the luxury iPhone.
> nonexistent border protection from southern countries like Italy, Greece. Never have I heard of them employing border patrols to veer off illegal boats
Big fallacy here: Italy is forced to take on all migrants that even come close to Italian soil. We cannot respond with force (of course) and we cannot catch them all. We also are forced to evaluate all their asylum request fairly and we have to deal with loads of them that just refuse self identification making the process long and costly.
> I am by no means denying the need for help for actual war victims
'War victims' is used by every single one of them because it's the only way in. Problem is, how do you grant asylum and which resource do you use for it? Current international agreements afaik puts all the costs on the landing nation. Problem is, they want southern country to have higher safety and better controls and all that, but noone wants to pay for it.
I've said it before - eco-migrants should be taken care similarly to warzone migrants. I wouldn't say that dying slowly - "living" a low quality of life in poverty is much better than dying in a war...
It is a natural human behavior to seek a better life and it is a good thing. The movement/relocation is a basic human right.
The problem is what happens when economic migration intersects with modern democracy and welfare states. Because of the state, migrants (who should be a net positive due to comparative advantage) suddenly become an economic drain and can harm the people in the society they enter. This happens both by taking resources from workers via the welfare state and by voting for harmful policies (though this last part usually happens much later).
The best solution to this is of course ending the welfare state and permanent disenfranchisement, not threatening migrants and their potential employers with violence. But far too many people are more about their pet political ideals than about refugees.
That's been done in late 19th-century America, and the result was mass exploitation of immigrants and increased violence. In fact, regulation in the US (unlike in Europe) started as a response to what happened then (the US population cried for more regulation to save them from the Robber Barons). Of course, it was also a time of great economic growth but also third-world-like inequality.
So what you're suggesting isn't a "solution" but merely one approach that may result in an outcome that would be good for some and bad for others -- just like most approaches -- and is based on some values and not others.
I think that most people in the West prefer the current, perhaps more subdued reality than the constant struggles of the Gilded Age.
Meanwhile the people not in the west get to suffer dire poverty and war. But I guess those folks don't count.
I think that most white people in the south also preferred the current, perhaps more subdued reality of segregation to the constant struggles of integration and economic competition with "those people". Is that a valid argument against eliminating mandatory discrimination?
No. But what does helping poor countries have to do with regulation?
> Is that a valid argument against eliminating mandatory discrimination?
No. As usual you're attributing to me arguments I've never made.
I would argue, though, that a person or a group of people have a higher moral responsibility towards a person or a group they've somehow helped reach their current condition. The US as a whole was responsible for slavery in the south, and Europe is at least partially responsible for the condition in the Middle East, especially as their meddling was for their own sake. I think they have a moral imperative to help, either in their own countries to refugees or directly in the ME.
I don't support the GP's position of non-intervention. But in either case, your "solution" is completely orthogonal.
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to argue. I interpreted your post above as somehow opposing free trade in labor since "most people in the west prefer..." economic protectionism.
If you were not, my mistake.
As usual you're attributing to me arguments I've never made
Why bring up "most people in $GROUP prefer" if that is not a valid argument in favor of a policy? I truly have no idea what you are trying to claim.
I responded to your statement that "the best solution to this is of course ending the welfare state", and said that's been tried (in late 19th-century America) and wasn't too great for immigrants. In fact, the American welfare state (or at least regulation) started as a response to what happened then.
I used "most people prefer" when it comes to valuing free-market vs. regulation, that are two competing controversial values (at least in the US). Regardless of that, when you contribute to someone's harm (as the entire US did to the slaves or as Europe did to large portions of the world), you should assist them. That, too, is a value judgement, but orthogonal to the free-market question, and, I think, a far less controversial one.
Immigration plus no welfare state was vastly better than the alternative of starving in ireland. It's also vastly better than being beheaded by ISIS or being paid 200rs/day in India.
But again, those folks don't seem to count.
I'm also confused by the collective responsibility you seem to allude to. How do you determine which groups this responsibility adheres to? Can "the Jews" rather than "Europe" also be collectively responsible for things?
> Immigration plus no welfare state was vastly better than the alternative of starving in ireland. It's also vastly better than being beheaded by ISIS or being paid 200rs/day in India.
Sure, but so does immigration with a welfare state. What does the welfare state have to do with that? If you'd say that the welfare state increases the cost of accepting immigrants, that may be true, but people living in a welfare state are usually willing to pay that price for what they believe is a more pleasant society. I don't think free-market people are any more willing to accept immigrants for their own free-market reasons (e.g. they're willing to settle for less so they lower the wages overall, and most people are employees rather than employers).
> I'm also confused by the collective responsibility you seem to allude to. How do you determine which groups this responsibility adheres to? Can "the Jews" rather than "Europe" also be collectively responsible for things?
That's a very good question that is the subject of much debate in ethics. But the first thing to note that in this case there is no legal responsibility or any sort of coercion, so the philosophical burden is lifted a bit. If there's no obligation we can resolve the matter with a simple feeling. If you feel responsible -- act; if not -- don't.
But if we were to discuss the matter more on principle, then you can try to answer the question in general (see [1]), but I prefer a more pragmatic approach if "philosophical shortcuts" can be made, and I believe that in this case they can be made, due to these two (particular) factors:
1. The cost of the action is collective (i.e. tax money). While it may affect individuals personally (those harmed by increased crime), that is not any more so than any collective action, like zoning, taxation etc. (contrast that with collective responsibility of the kind that exacts a direct personal price like bombing civilians).
2. The benefit from the harm inflicted is still felt. Most Europeans today benefit (personally, though perhaps indirectly) from their respective countries having looted the rest of the world.
(also, of course, unlike with "the Jews", there really was collective action involved in subjugating the rest of the world)
The extenuating circumstances in this case -- namely that European states were not democracies at the time most of the meddling took place is offset, IMO, by point 2, which makes everything easier. If you possess stolen property that you inherited, you still have to return yet (that's a big generalization and there can be special circumstances, but as a general rule, this is a relatively easy moral call).
So I think that in this particular case, these two factors make it easy to assign collective responsibility, even without resolving the question of collective responsibility in general. BTW, My personal view is that collective responsibility can only exist in particular cases that are very dependent on circumstance. It is certainly more rare than personal responsibility, but it exists because much of human endeavor is done as groups that are more than just a sum of individuals (as we know that group dynamics is a very different beast from personal dynamics). If you reject the notion of collective responsibility in all circumstances, you exclude a large part of human action from moral judgement (I don't believe ethics is by any means an absolute, but as a human construct it is meant to apply to most human actions).
It is interesting to note that even the Bible, which normally places a strong emphasis on personal responsibility, certainly acknowledges cases of collective responsibility (and sometimes punishment).
Ignoring the crisis wouldn't make it go away. Maybe it is possible to keep the refugees out, but that doesn't help them. The whole world has an obligation to help these people.
well if whole world has this obligation, I please our US friends to accept a mere million or two of these refugees. just for next 20 years. surely a drop in the ocean, especially since all this mess is directly caused by US war failures in neighboring Iraq, and refusing to wipe off ISIS to oblivion
> I'm risking getting downvoted to oblivion here, but as an EU citizen I strongly believe that the core reason we have this crisis in the first place (as opposed to something controlled) is nonexistent border protection from southern countries like Italy, Greece. Never have I heard of them employing border patrols to veer off illegal boats.
Did you ever look for any kind of information on the matter, or you just saw a commentary of some tv-persona who spends for breakfast a month's worth salary? Because if you did, you would have find very compelling answers.
Why don't you come here and try to fend off 4.5 million people. What exactly would you have us do, shoot them on spot? Even to jail requires money and we're busy paying taxes (~70% of income is taxes in Greece right now).
Greece and Italy are dealing with immigration waves for at least 15 years. You just had a GLANCE and went berserk before they even reached your country's borders. Did you give a sht until now, or you woke up today saw the TV news and got interested?
Why don't to take a look at the news. See how Germany and Nordic countries dealt with Greek/Italian immigration problems all these years... See if you can spot some patterns there.
> We call those [economic] immigrants and have rules. Now its wild west. And in the news reports I usually see people toying with iPhone 5/6 and wearing [designer] jeans/jackets.
I'll will assume - given your views it's far-fetched, I know* - that you're not retarded. If you see iPhones en masse in immigrant pictures than you're looking at the wrong pictures. Let me help you[1].
> I am all for growing a pair and actually declaring what is a war zone. Working with UN/NATO to establish a peace there.
Where? Do you think the EU (well Germany and the UK, the others don't count anyway) has a say in US vs Russian war? Because that's what this is all about. The way Germany treats Greece, is the exact way the US treats Germany. Less stunts, but the baseline is exactly the same, humiliations one after another (Snowden scandal, "fuck the EU" by Nuland and so forth). So, in the real world, there's little if anything the EU can do about this, except form picking up the pieces.
I said this before, after the German-Greek showdown the EU is a finished project. It is a failure at so many levels that it's scary. I fear that first will come the break-up and then probably some sort of war... And it will be worse than the other two.
> Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
I would say that face to face to someone that makes such statements while being clearly on the rich side of the table, but that doesn't make my way right. Thanks for reminding me the guidelines, I'll try to behave :-)
The bit that disturbs me is how the police in many of these "first landing" countries have no qualms about knifing a rubber boat filled with people including small children that can't swim. That's murder. This kind of thing is going on all over the world. Refugees from Burma for example are also getting the same treatment but the Thai's.
We in the west are niaeve. We think we can incite revolutions and civil wars to overthrow the regimes that don't conform to our expectations of democracy, without appreciating that those actions have long term and negative effects upon ourselves. We have reeped what we sowed. Now we need to take responsibility for our actions.
The real refugees should be given the opportunity to integrate properly. We do not need cultural enclaves in our own cities. They lead to isolation and foster extremism in those immigrants that only feel hatred from their begrudging host countries' native populations. They need training and education, especially so that they can speak the language of their host country. For refugees moving to Germany that will be a challenge in itself. The language is hard. I've been here as an internal EU immigrant for nearly ten years and I still struggle with it.
The economic migrants, like those from Western Balkans, the near East and African countries that are peaceful need to weeded out and sent back.
it's not the police who is making cuts in the boat, it's the immigrants themselves when they see a coast guard boat - they do it so that they can't be sent back
I strongly believe most refugees should get help where they come from but making sure they are treated like humans when they arrive can only help I think.
Just people from Syria are in the photos. I guess the authors spend really hard time to find the ones from Syria, as the number of those is very very small comparing to those illegal migrants from Pakistan, Iran, etc... Please stop using word refugees. It has real meaning which in this situation 99 times of 100 does not apply.
Europe is a continent of diasporas[1], that should make it much easier to accept refugees but sadly people don't seem to think much about it. Also, most people in Europe will know someone or someone's family member who had to leave the country due to wars and persecutions. For example, my grandfather was tortured by it's own country's state police back in the 60s. Most people in Europe know stories like his.
I'm surprised to not see any food or water at all. While most food is heavy to carry and it is easily restockable in most places, i imagine that you many times would have to cross into remote areas to avoid border patrols, just having some snacks to last a day takes you a long way. Maybe it was all eaten already.
It looks like most people took pills with them, while the pharmacist did not. I'm a pharmacist and I would not take any. Maybe the sample size is too small for me to say this, but it seems that laymen overestimate the power of medicine.
The pharmacist's bag was very small, and n size=1 here is very irrelevant. Medicines such as antibiotics can make the difference between life and death if you get an infection.
United States, Canada, Germany, Denmark, Britain, France and most vassal European Countries should shoulder most refugees since the "American led coalition" supports the head-cutting terrorists. See what happened in Libya with the US supported Arab Spring(what a joke!).
By the way, most refugees are male at a very young age. If there are from Syria, why don't they stay and fight for their country? The article did not mention that most refugees have latest technology smart phones and they take selfies when they cross the borders? Is this what a refugee is like?
Most refugees are going to work for peanuts so the capitalists will get richer. Say goodbye to worker rights since someone who needs money to live and is given government dough will never think to unionize.
TO AMERICANS AND WHITE EUROPEANS: Stop supporting the terrorists!! Stop f#$king up this world! There would not be any refugees if the United States and its vassal states did not bomb the countries!!
There would not have been any refugees if some of the Arab states (e.g. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt) would have intervened in Syria either.
It's not just "the west": no country made a serious effort to prevent the escalation there. You could argue that any attempt at a serious effort was thwarted at the UN level by the apathetic attitude of Russia and China, but in that case your complaint against Americans and white Europeans is misdirected.
Big picture: most refugees going across the Mediterranean are Syrian, male (like 72% male!), young, and poor.[0] Like unless they have families that they're hoping to have evacuated (why didn't they bring them over in the first place?), we're talking about a recipe for complete stupidity. Language barriers exist, education barriers exist; I don't know how the Europeans intend to get all of these refugee adults up to economic snuff at the same grade of Europeans who were trained in the ways of the West from birth.
This is going to be a demographic shock to countries with more balanced gender ratios, and in the case of Europe, upside-down aging pyramids. Men without solid economic recourse and lack of cultural integration are going to resort to crime. They will upset the local sex market through strong male competition for women (rape town!). Politics in Europe will never be the same as the majority of the young do not carry any of the previous generation's values.
I'm really open to being proved wrong, I really am. But I'm not counting on it.
[0] http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php