A New Migration Period

[W!nston]

So, you think the refugees need to be herded in to camps and vetted before allowed entry into the country? Where would these camps be? Hungary? I don't think Hungary is interested in that kinda involvement.

I've watched a lot of video from the Hungarian and Serbian borders and railway tracks being used by the refugees to cross the frontiers. I don't see as many 'families' with women and children as I see young men. Most of the refugees are young men and they look like they could be of the right age for some military action. Lots of young men. Lots of them. With a few women and children here and there. They look strong enough to make the long journey on foot. More so than any women or children would be.

Do you think there is any chance some of those young men might be inclined to have radical leanings? Not all of them to be sure but some few thousands out of the millions. How can you ferret them out?

So let's just let 'em all in and worry about the details later if and when a problem arises.

I remember the Mariel Boatlift. I remember how most of the Cubans who made it ashore in the USA were young men. Violent young men. I remember the refugee camp in Miami. I remember a lot of problems. And this refugee 'trek lift' is like to the 25th power of the size of the Mariel Boatlift.

Sniffit

 

[Stonecold]

I am glad to see Germany being so generous, but soon enough they will be needing to spend a huge some of money on miiltary expenditures. Only 29 percent of the American public wants to keep troops there any more. Although many Germans will cheer the departure, there is no concealing the impact the American pull-out will have on their nation, politically, economically and even psychologically.

 

[tiogilito]

What, pray tell, is a 'genuine refugee'? Someone who is moving because they are facing a shit life for some reason beyond their control I guess? So how is that different to someone facing a shit life because they were born into poverty? Do people choose where to be born or something?

A refugee is a person who has left his home country not because he really wants to leave, but because he has to as otherwise life and limb are in danger. This applies to most but not all people fleeing from Syria and Iraq today, slightly less so to Afghanistan, and in some cases also to Pakistan, for example people who have changed their religion or have been found out to be gay."Facing shit" is not enough, we all do at one point or another of our lives. Your life must be in danger and that is the reason you are on the move.

Once you have reached a place where the specific danger is no longer present you should stay and get help there.

That is not my definition but in fact the law.

A migrant is on the move because he wants to improve his cirstances. Obviously there is nothing wrong with that at all. In fact it shows initiative and ambition.

However if you want to live and work in another country to get a better life, you should follow the rules, bring the right skills and apply via the visa system.

And no, people do not choose where they are born. And if you are born into a relatively wealthy country you are lucky. Does than mean we owe the rest of the world a living? A helping hand sure, one that can make other countries more attractive places to live and work, but if we simply agree to look after anyone who comes then why should in fact ANYONE go to work? If Anjem Chowdry is allowed to live on benefits doing nothing other than recruiting people for ISIS and preaching hate, specially against Jews, why should I go to work? I am worth less than him? He can do all thing on free money from the state, and I have to go to work?

It is time for Europe to get over their collective guilt complex. That is in fact the weapon the migrants use to run rough-shot over our laws and make us subservient to them.

We OWE them something, because of where we were born? We want to give a helping hand, but we are neither mugs nor lackeys.

The reality is people cannot not simply live anywhere they like. That applies to us too... if you wanted to live in, say, Thailand you need to meet certain requirements. Why can ALL countries set such rules but apparently Europe may not?

 

[jazzeven]

My question has always been the same through out this thread, are the rich nations taking in as many people as they can? I don't think we are, and until that changes, I think we need to take in more people.

Right now there is no alternative to taking more of them in than europe would have to under normal cirstances. Simply because they are here and either one welcomes them with salt and bread and this way gets the opportunity to control where they end up, or one tries to keep them out, with the result of them slipping in and forming underground cultures which are out of reach for society.

But on the long sight of course the question how many a country or Europe as a whole can take and which factors allow entrance has to be addressed, as well as the question what to do with the unwanted ones.
When you say "rich nation taking as many people as they can", the "can" is relative and so is the rich. Of course some millionaire can finance a lot for a little tax raise, but the people who will have to deal with the fallout are on the opposite side of the social spectrum: poor people, who will have to compete with the imigrants for the small wage jobs, who will compete with them for cheap housing, who will live in places where the ratio of foreign children is so high that schooling becomes impossible. It is easy to justify any kind of intake with the wealth of the rich, but if letting them in is just taking the easy way out of the imediate problem and those issues don't get addressed soon, the mood will switch.

I think people are willing to compromise and even to live with a decrease of their life quality, when they get the impression that they help people who under different cirstances would have lived pretty much the same life, well integrated in their own society, had it not been detroyed by war, revolution or other devastating incidents.
However, it is difficult to tell them why they should accept this for people who would in their own country hardly be able to survive.

One can use nice words today, but in the end there have to be harsh decisions, there will have to be a cut-off, people will get send back and this will feel like treating people unfairly.

These days would be the time to discuss those and once more Merkel is one step behind: right now she is trailing the positive wave. Those pictures of her, they would have been a strong signal three months ago. Today, they are simply cashing in on numbers some spin doctors finally came up with. Every fucking c-league celebrity has already send this message, so Merkel making selfies is just one horrible PR stunt, which, if anything, tells, that she does not have the slightest interest in solving the actual problem, but instead is busy milking the outcome.

 

[tiogilito]

My question has always been the same through out this thread, are the rich nations taking in as many people as they can? I don't think we are, and until that changes, I think we need to take in more people.

This question has the underlying assumption that the ONLY compassionate response would be to bring pretty much anyone who wants to into Europe and look after them.

This is not true.

In fact, the opposite is true. By issuing an open invitation we generate more people taking the risk, more people drowning at sea, more dead toddlers on the beaches of Turkey. Surely that is NOT a sensible policy.


Instead we need to help refugees where they are, in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. We could resettle some, but in fact would people not be better of in a country with a similar culture, or even the same same language, as is the case with Lebanon? Why can we not help them to rebuilt their lives there, in a place they would feel more at home?

By bring them to Europe we alienate them from their roots, make them more dependent on the state than they need to me, and for some set them off on a route to radicalisation, as many in the end will find their very high hopes and expectations cannot be met.

I saw a clip on TV yesterday showing a Syrian woman, a lawyer. She spoke some English, and said if she had known how hard the journey would be she would not have tried. Suppose she gets asylum in Germany or Sweden. Then what? Eventually the government will provide a home with basic amenities and a very modest income. She cannot work. Even if she were allowed to, what could she do? She does not speak the language, and German is not easy to learn. She is no longer young. Flipping burgers? She will not even get a job like that without basic German. And that is rather a long way from being a respected lawyer.

So, would it surprise you, if in time she gets very disappointed, bitter even? Wouldn't you? Imagine you suddenly find yourself in a big city in the middle of China. You cannot even read things properly. Nobody to talk to, no chance of a job, no chance of even a lasting friend. People just looking at you, some with suspicion, some with curiosity, and then they ignore you.


So perhaps the whole approach is wrong, and we need a much better one.

 

[Shelter]

This question has the underlying assumption that the ONLY compassionate response would be to bring pretty much anyone who wants to into Europe and look after them.

This is not true.

In fact, the opposite is true. By issuing an open invitation we generate more people taking the risk, more people drowning at sea, more dead toddlers on the beaches of Turkey. Surely that is NOT a sensible policy.


Instead we need to help refugees where they are, in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. We could resettle some, but in fact would people not be better of in a country with a similar culture, or even the same same language, as is the case with Lebanon? Why can we not help them to rebuilt their lives there, in a place they would feel more at home?

By bring them to Europe we alienate them from their roots, make them more dependent on the state than they need to me, and for some set them off on a route to radicalisation, as many in the end will find their very high hopes and expectations cannot be met.

I saw a clip on TV yesterday showing a Syrian woman, a lawyer. She spoke some English, and said if she had known how hard the journey would be she would not have tried. Suppose she gets asylum in Germany or Sweden. Then what? Eventually the government will provide a home with basic amenities and a very modest income. She cannot work. Even if she were allowed to, what could she do? She does not speak the language, and German is not easy to learn. She is no longer young. Flipping burgers? She will not even get a job like that without basic German. And that is rather a long way from being a respected lawyer.

So, would it surprise you, if in time she gets very disappointed, bitter even? Wouldn't you? Imagine you suddenly find yourself in a big city in the middle of China. You cannot even read things properly. Nobody to talk to, no chance of a job, no chance of even a lasting friend. People just looking at you, some with suspicion, some with curiosity, and then they ignore you.


So perhaps the whole approach is wrong, and we need a much better one.

Tiogilito this is by far the very best post with by far the very best example I've ever read here in this thread. And so true!:agree::agree::agree::agree:

 

[ritsuka]

Western countries do have an obligation to take in refugees after they destabilized these countries, flooded them with weapons, and provoked civil wars by arming belligerent assholes. If you're really concerned about the pennies, then take it out of the military budgets of Nato, the U.K., and U.S military, and maybe then those organizations will think harder next time before they go murdering and pillaging their way through Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria. These people are so desperate that they had to flee for their lives, they had no other option other then death. The number of refugees is equals less then 0.5 percent of the total European population, it's just a drop in the bucket, not a giant crisis, and perfectly affordable.

 

[tiogilito]

nobody denies that there are problems and everyone is entitled to his opinion.

but the last messages are nothing else but a mop of racism based on personal perception. and as those they are ignoble for someone who wants to be looked at as a civilised person.

but as I said, everyone is entitled to his opinions ...


and this will be my last contribution here ...

I see, so your final answer is anyone who disagrees with you is a racist. A most excellent rebuttal to any argument. In effect you are trying to deny others freedom of speech by throwing around insult. Don't even try to get all the information, who needs them or even think for a second when you can simply call other people names in the hope they simply go away disgusted. Then you claim you were right in everything.

You pay hypocritical lip service to free speech while at the same time using bully tactics to shut people up.

What would you really like to do to terrible "racists" like me? A concentration camp? A tatoo on the forehead?

BTW are you aware that of all the people in the world, Arabs are the most racist, statistically? For example this is officially law in Saudi Arabia: If you murder someone you may offer to pay "blood money" to the family to avoid any punishment. How much you must offer is fixed by law. And here is the amazing bit: A Muslim MAN is worth twice that of woman or a Christian man. There is a distinct scale, with Arab Male Muslims at the top, all the way down to Hindu women who are worth 1/20 of an Arab man. Europeans are somewhere in the middle. Racism is enshrined in law.

So call me all the names you like, it says more about you than about me.

 

[W!nston]

Speaking of obligations... it seems disingenuous to say the West owes something to countries dominated by a religious cult like Islam that is diametrically opposed to the religious cults like Christianity and Judaism that dominates Western countries. Maybe it's the Jews, Christians and Muslims who owe them something. They owe the poor people of the West hundreds of trillions of tax-dollars they have been exempt from. They owe for all the wars waged in the name of one cult or another. Religions should be dismantled piece by piece and sold at auction to the highest bidder. That money could save the world. After they are rendered powerless the people of the world will be able to work together. Judaism, Christianity and the newcomer Islam are all blood thirsty, greedy, power-crazed villains. I say take all of them and lock them in an enormous prison state and let them commit all of the heinous acts they want on each other then feed to survivors to the dogs.

Just sayin'...

 

[tiogilito]

Western countries do have an obligation to take in refugees after they destabilized these countries, flooded them with weapons, and provoked civil wars by arming belligerent assholes. If you're really concerned about the pennies, then take it out of the military budgets of Nato, the U.K., and U.S military, and maybe then those organizations will think harder next time before they go murdering and pillaging their way through Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria. These people are so desperate that they had to flee for their lives, they had no other option other then death. The number of refugees is equals less then 0.5 percent of the total European population, it's just a drop in the bucket, not a giant crisis, and perfectly affordable.

While I agree that we have a moral obligation to help refugees, I cannot not accept the reason you gave. In the middle east has not been really peace for 1400 years. If "we" don't sell them weapons then someone else will. People make wars, not weapons. There are a great many reasons for the unrest in the middle east, and it does not alll have to do with foreign intervention.

Also, why do you simply place the WHOLE of the blame on Europe? Surely you know that most of the Gulf states finance and arm ISIS, and Iraq trades with them?

 

[takeitall456]

Gentlemen,

Please note that this discussion seems to be getting a bit "out of hand" with some making statements which could be considered ethnic or racial and if the discussion cannot be courteous and intelligent, the thread will be closed.

Thanks for your understanding.

 

[gorgik9]

Western countries do have an obligation to take in refugees after they destabilized these countries, flooded them with weapons, and provoked civil wars by arming belligerent assholes. If you're really concerned about the pennies, then take it out of the military budgets of Nato, the U.K., and U.S military, and maybe then those organizations will think harder next time before they go murdering and pillaging their way through Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria. These people are so desperate that they had to flee for their lives, they had no other option other then death. The number of refugees is equals less then 0.5 percent of the total European population, it's just a drop in the bucket, not a giant crisis, and perfectly affordable.

Of course there are details in ritsuka's post to disagree with, but that's details. I definitely agree with ritsuka on the big picture.

 

[tiogilito]

and maybe then those organizations will think harder next time before they go murdering and pillaging their way through Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria.

And was there no reason at all for any interventions? In hindsight, sure, we can see mistakes were made, quite a few, including some horrible ones. But few leaders with the information they had at the time would in reality have done much differently.

And somehow you forgot to mention that little thing that started all that mess... the 9/11 incident... So, when people start getting aggressive, it is difficult to predict where it ends. You punch a big guy on the nose, he may break your legs or worse...

In reality, if you look at the middle east, apart from Israel, few countries are really stable... and those who are have one thing in common: they are organised on tribal lines, like Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman or the UAE. A place like Libya was created at the end of the colonial period without much thought or knowledge of how Arab societies function. Tribal identity is hugely important. Libya needs to be broken up on tribal lines and made into smaller countries to have a chance to be a nice place to live in. The same applies to Syria. In the Middle east, if the government is no good, only in Israel is it simply voted out. Everywhere else leaders cannot resign or leave. If they do, they die. That is why Assat does not throw in the towel. He knows exactly what to expect if he were to do that... He and his family would share Gadaffi's fate. OK, some may say he deserves that, and I would not argue with you about that, but if you were in his shoes, you would do the same, and try to hang on as long as possible.

I wonder how all the guys here proposing completely open borders would feel if one day Assat or even Al Baghdadi knocked on Mutti Merkel's door...Open for them too?


So maybe some good will come out of all that fighting in Iraq and Syria, and by the end the place will be divided up on natural lines, and peace returns. Well, we are allowed to dream a little...

 

[jazzeven]

Western countries do have an obligation to take in refugees after they destabilized these countries, flooded them with weapons, and provoked civil wars by arming belligerent assholes.

Hmm, it is interesting how Russia and China are never mentioned in that context. One big factor which kept pretty much the whole third world out of balance was the Cold War. And to say that the USA and Europe or the Nato have the sole responsibility ignores that China and Russia had great interest in installing their puppet regimes in those countries whenever they managed to get the Western puppet regimes out of office.
While I don't think the immediate help should be based on playing the blame game, you should at least consider all facts.

 

[W!nston]

Well it's so easy for me to sit at my keyboard and type words about this tragedy. Too easy to be honest.

I'm not the innocent victim of war who's only crime was to be born in a country had so many problems and who is now on the trail to an unknown future. I empathize with the millions who are displaced by war. It's not important who is fighting who or what they are fighting over. The disregard for civilian life is what matters. Those fleeing their homes looking for safe harbor need help.

The logistics of such a crisis are unfathomable to me.

Also, I'm certain there are, hidden among the throngs, many violent men with violent intentions slipping into unsuspecting civilian populations in Europe.

We'll have to wait and see ... as we sit on the sidelines of this human tragedy.

 

[gb2000ie]

Just me two cents on who owes who what.

It's my firm belief that every human being is born equal, and should have equal opportunity to make something of their life.

When we live in a world with such staggering inequality, it's clear we are totally failing at giving everyone an equal shot.

Those lucky enough to have more than average should be happy to help those who did not have the same opportunities they did.

It's not about hand-outs, it's about giving everyone a chance.

If you truly believe all people are born equal, you can't be against economic migration without being a hypocrite.

B.

 

[tiogilito]

It's my firm belief that every human being is born equal, and should have equal opportunity to make something of their life.

I am not not sure we really are all born equal. We are are are born different, every single one of us. We each one have our own strengths and weaknesses. I can play Chopin's minute waltz in 55 seconds, but I cannot even do basic DIY, not that I don't try, it just always goes wrong... I speak several languages fluently and some more at least basically, and I am good at maths too, but I am the crappiest footballer who ever lived in the planet, and my singing turns the milk sour. As to my painting, well, ehm, more van Goat than van Gogh. I also have problems saying no to people so as a result I have ended up in quite silly situations.

Some of us are cleverer than others, some better looking, some are good at some sports, some are artistic, others good at business... We all have talents but all are different. And none of these make you superior to anyone else, that much I would agree with you.

So what about equal opportunities? Do we have equal opportunities? If you are born in to the UK royal family are your opportunities the same as if you were born the son of a plumber?


Would it not better if all did not have the exact same opportunities, but instead all the opportunities needed to make the best of our talents?

We ourselves do not have equal opportunities for all, we only have a system where your efforts and your education CAN at times make a difference to the way your life pans out.

So how can we give something to others we do not have ourselves?

And does equal opportunity mean because we live in Europe, everybody in the world must also be allowed to simply turn up and live here?

I mean, could you and I simply clear off and live in the US, Australia, Thailand, Indonesia, China Saudi Arabia... simply turn up and expect to get everything we need? Well, we can't, so it is not surprising that others, at least in theory cannot do that either.

So, helping refugees is one thing, and surely we must, but not in the way it is happening now. Allowing uncontrolled influx of people in another.

 

[gb2000ie]

I am not not sure we really are all born equal. We are are are born different, every single one of us. We each one have our own strengths and weaknesses

I did not say we were all born identical!

The concept of equality is that we should all have the same opportunities, and we should all be treated equally.

No silver spoons allowing the privileged to succeed despite their failure to actually meet the appropriate standards, and no buying justice. Everyone gets to eat, drink, have a roof, get an education, and get access to unbiased justice.

As the founding principle of the largest democracy on earth, I thought that went without saying. My bad.

B.

 

[tiogilito]

I did not say we were all born identical!

The concept of equality is that we should all have the same opportunities, and we should all be treated equally.

No silver spoons allowing the privileged to succeed despite their failure to actually meet the appropriate standards, and no buying justice. Everyone gets to eat, drink, have a roof, get an education, and get access to unbiased justice.

As the founding principle of the largest democracy on earth, I thought that went without saying. My bad.

B.

Hi,

I see. It seems you maybe mean ECONOMICALLY equal. Equal to whom? Can I go to see the Archduke of Liechtenstein and demand half of his 5 billion pounds? Obviously not, that would be absurd, wouldn't it. He should give me his money purely because he has a lot more than me?

Does economical equality not simply mean we all have to be equally poor? If everybody always has exactly the same income, why work at all?

Or perhaps you are just talking about opportunity. That is a tricky one. I had parents who were very caring and encouraged me to study a lot. They taught me to read when I was 3. Can you force parents to do all they did? Or should it work the other way round, we should all have the same opportunities of the least lucky person, and my parents should be punished for doing such things?

When you mean equal opportunities, equal TO WHOM to you mean? Do we not also sometimes create our own opportunities? If you go on a date, for example, you open a lot of opportunities, and also some potential dangers. In fact everything we do creates more opportunities to do something else. So how on earth can we have all the same opportunities?

The way I look at that is like this: we all have different talents and different life chances. Those of us who have been luckier than others should try to help, but nobody has a right to my past or future or anything I worked for. What I give, should be up to me, but the more I have the more of a moral obligation I should feel.

There is also the age old Buddhist wisdom: Happiness does not come from wishes fulfilled, as these only make more wishes and more discontent, happiness come from not having any wishes in the first place.

Does your iphone and yoru car really make you happy? I know a kid from rather remote island in Indonesia who is profoundly happy, and neither needs nor wants any of things we presume we all need. In fact apart from the clothes he stands up in he has very little. I once offered to get him a new pair of shoes, and he put me to shame by saying the money would be better spent on a rice cooker for his mother. Then she can open a food stall and she can get him shoes with money she earned.

As to equality before the law, well that seems to be only of these equalities which is relatively easy to establish.

Taking about that equality... if you or I went to walk on the motorway in Hungary, we get arrested and fined. So it seems, as always, some are still more equal than others.

 

[gb2000ie]

Hi,

I see. It seems you maybe mean ECONOMICALLY equal.

No - I really was VERY clear - I said equality of OPPORTUNITY, and EQUAL JUSTICE.

I did not even hint at communism.

To even ask 'equal to whom' implies you have no idea what equality means. It's a nonsense question!

B.