#refugeeswelcome

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
142

http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php

Refugees are 75% male. None of this indicates that there are a large proportion of ISIS militants among them, as smuggling into Europe has not been part of their M.O up to now.

Home grown militancy has still proven to be the biggest threat. But the fact that 100’s of Thousands are coming from a deeply sectarian conflict means that we need, at the bare minimum, processing for those that are coming.

Legitimate refugees should be housed for the duration of the conflict. However, EU passports are out of the question. Europe is not responsible for the clothing and housing of the world ab infinitum.

Sorry to derail the derail all.

143

[quote]Legalsteel wrote:
http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php

Refugees are 75% male. None of this indicates that there are a large proportion of ISIS militants among them, as smuggling into Europe has not been part of their M.O up to now.

Home grown militancy has still proven to be the biggest threat. But the fact that 100’s of Thousands are coming from a deeply sectarian conflict means that we need, at the bare minimum, processing for those that are coming.

Legitimate refugees should be housed for the duration of the conflict. However, EU passports are out of the question. Europe is not responsible for the clothing and housing of the world ab infinitum.

Sorry to derail the derail all. [/quote]

Here’s an update from Croatia - 1300 migrants entered so far, 80% male, Croatian-Syrian translator on the ground says less than 10% are from Syria.

All local media insists on calling them war refugees, although all the interviews so far were with migrants from Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

They refused to board a train, insisted on buses as they claim they are more comfortable. Buses were immediately provided (!)

Government is clueless, more interested in looking good in front of world media than addressing the issue, they brag how all major international media outlets ran the “we accept refugees” story.

Mass hysteria on social media, 90-95% people for closing the border, but it seems there is some shady government level deal with the Germans that prevents that.

This does not bode well.

144

[quote]loppar wrote:

[quote]Legalsteel wrote:
http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php

Refugees are 75% male. None of this indicates that there are a large proportion of ISIS militants among them, as smuggling into Europe has not been part of their M.O up to now.

Home grown militancy has still proven to be the biggest threat. But the fact that 100’s of Thousands are coming from a deeply sectarian conflict means that we need, at the bare minimum, processing for those that are coming.

Legitimate refugees should be housed for the duration of the conflict. However, EU passports are out of the question. Europe is not responsible for the clothing and housing of the world ab infinitum.

Sorry to derail the derail all. [/quote]

Here’s an update from Croatia - 1300 migrants entered so far, 80% male, Croatian-Syrian translator on the ground says less than 10% are from Syria.

All local media insists on calling them war refugees, although all the interviews so far were with migrants from Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

They refused to board a train, insisted on buses as they claim they are more comfortable. Buses were immediately provided (!)

Government is clueless, more interested in looking good in front of world media than addressing the issue, they brag how all major international media outlets ran the “we accept refugees” story.

Mass hysteria on social media, 90-95% people for closing the border, but it seems there is some shady government level deal with the Germans that prevents that.

This does not bode well.
[/quote]

Well since 2001 the primary regions affected by the “war on terror” have been Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq/Syria. The Taliban push and recruitment has also affected civilians in Bangladesh (note the recent hackings and beheadings by Islamists there)

All those regions have been massively affected and the natural phenomena of people escaping these places is hardly fictitious. Do you not think the west, which played a large part in the destabilisation of the region, has a responsibility to help those seeking refuge from war and those economic immigrants who are seeking a better life after their ability to work and provide was massively affected from the effects of war, insurgency and instability?

Also the west is hardly looking good, we launched wars that has resulting in the displacement of millions and the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the empowering of IS, I think Cameron’s obligation should be greater than accepting a measly 20,000 over 5 years, after being one of the main belligerents in the wars, funding of Al Nusra etc.

145

Also just a note on the German situation. Has anyone seen the economists explaining that the Germans, due to population downturns, very low birthrates, need immigrants to pay into pensions etc. Hence Merkle saying all Syrians welcome to come and settle there. The UK does not need as high a level of immigration and it should be more tight in that regards.

What do people think are fair numbers? How far does responsibility for the current situation extend? Surely America and the UK have some responsibility to take in refugees. How does it look for the main nations responsible for the wars to turn their backs on the people now suffering from the rise of IS and other groups from the power Vacuum?

146

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
All those regions have been massively affected and the natural phenomena of people escaping these places is hardly fictitious. Do you not think the west, which played a large part in the destabilisation of the region, has a responsibility to help those seeking refuge from war and those economic immigrants who are seeking a better life after their ability to work and provide was massively affected from the effects of war, insurgency and instability?

Also the west is hardly looking good, we launched wars that has resulting in the displacement of millions and the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the empowering of IS, I think Cameron’s obligation should be greater than accepting a measly 20,000 over 5 years, after being one of the main belligerents in the wars, funding of Al Nusra etc.
[/quote]

I have to admit I was on the fence regarding the whole issue until I had the chance to see the phenomenon myself, both in neighboring Serbia and in Croatia.

There is an old proverb “human history on a larger scale is just demographics”, and one local statistical historian described it as a mass migratory movement by a clearly defined ethnic/religious group with the purpose of controlling a specific area.

I know that atheists are beheaded in Bangladesh, that human excrement pretty much covers the streets in Karachi (seen the latter for myself) but their respective populations more than doubled in the last 30 years and narrow minded as it might sound, Europe has no obligation to accept young men who started this trek with the explicit purpose of obtaining welfare support and financing their extended families back home.

What West has fucked up in Syria and Iraq (Afghanistan has been messed up since Alexander the Great) has to be addressed IN the region, where millions of Syrians too poor to travel to the EU are stranded, with increased aid and a swift resolution of the civil war.

Europe is addressing the symptoms, not the cause of the problem. And 23 million Syrians simply cannot move to Europe.

I was a refugee once and was grateful for a warm bed and a shitty Nutella knockoff - I didn’t think about nothing else, especially not about jumping off a Copengahen bound train in Germany upon hearing that Denmark cut unemployment benefits in half.

As far a Germany labor needs are concerned, there are 1,4 million internally displaced persons inside Ukraine, plus 30 or so million of pretty well educated dirt cheap Ukrainians as a potential pool of workers, many with some knowledge of German.

Yet the EU stubbornly refuses to let them travel without visas inside the EU, while migrants cross EU and national borders with impunity.

147

[quote]loppar wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
All those regions have been massively affected and the natural phenomena of people escaping these places is hardly fictitious. Do you not think the west, which played a large part in the destabilisation of the region, has a responsibility to help those seeking refuge from war and those economic immigrants who are seeking a better life after their ability to work and provide was massively affected from the effects of war, insurgency and instability?

Also the west is hardly looking good, we launched wars that has resulting in the displacement of millions and the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the empowering of IS, I think Cameron’s obligation should be greater than accepting a measly 20,000 over 5 years, after being one of the main belligerents in the wars, funding of Al Nusra etc.
[/quote]

I have to admit I was on the fence regarding the whole issue until I had the chance to see the phenomenon myself, both in neighboring Serbia and in Croatia.

There is an old proverb “human history on a larger scale is just demographics”, and one local statistical historian described it as a mass migratory movement by a clearly defined ethnic/religious group with the purpose of controlling a specific area.

I know that atheists are beheaded in Bangladesh, that human excrement pretty much covers the streets in Karachi (seen the latter for myself) but their respective populations more than doubled in the last 30 years and narrow minded as it might sound, Europe has no obligation to accept young men who started this trek with the explicit purpose of obtaining welfare support and financing their extended families back home.

What West has fucked up in Syria and Iraq (Afghanistan has been messed up since Alexander the Great) has to be addressed IN the region, where millions of Syrians too poor to travel to the EU are stranded, with increased aid and a swift resolution of the civil war.

Europe is addressing the symptoms, not the cause of the problem. And 23 million Syrians simply cannot move to Europe.

I was a refugee once and was grateful for a warm bed and a shitty Nutella knockoff - I didn’t think about nothing else, especially not about jumping off a Copengahen bound train in Germany upon hearing that Denmark cut unemployment benefits in half.

As far a Germany labor needs are concerned, there are 1,4 million internally displaced persons inside Ukraine, plus 30 or so million of pretty well educated dirt cheap Ukrainians as a potential pool of workers, many with some knowledge of German.

Yet the EU stubbornly refuses to let them travel without visas inside the EU, while migrants cross EU and national borders with impunity.
[/quote]

Refugees by law have freedom of movement. And the difference between Ukrainians and refugees from Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan etc is that we didn’t create the situation in Ukraine. We did create the power vacuum in Iraq and Syria etc. We have no moral obligation to take in Ukrainians, but we do have an obligation to the people our military endeavours impacted.

However I would take in Ukrainians too, I would also as Ann Coulter has touched upon, actually go after employers undercutting native workers with cheap immigrant labour, thus removing one of the main negatives of large scale immigration.

148

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
Also just a note on the German situation. Has anyone seen the economists explaining that the Germans, due to population downturns, very low birthrates, need immigrants to pay into pensions etc. [/quote]

And the righteous shall inherent the earth.

149

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

So what, why do you feel the need to preface every European crime with a “but the Natives did similar stuff” ? Also considering Europeans were at a much higher rate of cultural and technological advancement, do you not think the civilised Christians ought to of behaved better, not as soon as the first foot touched ground, started enslaving and massacring Natives?[/quote]

Do you think we should judge those in the past with standards we hold today?

150

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

So what, why do you feel the need to preface every European crime with a “but the Natives did similar stuff” ? Also considering Europeans were at a much higher rate of cultural and technological advancement, do you not think the civilised Christians ought to of behaved better, not as soon as the first foot touched ground, started enslaving and massacring Natives?[/quote]

Do you think we should judge those in the past with standards we hold today?[/quote]

Well you seem to judge Muhammed by todays standards, People in here want to judge the natives by todays standards. Posters who call out moral relativism and cultural relativism are quick to employ it in regards to Europeans and the Natives and say yes the Europeans might of done some bad stuff but look at the natives! They were bad so talking about European actions (who by the way were far more advanced than fucking nomadic tribesmen) should be framed in that comparative context.

It is basically a chomskyesque tactic. Hey Al Qaeda might have done bad things but American imperialism is bad and they were bad first and were doing bad things before the formation of Al Qaeda so that is the focus!

152

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
How does it look for the main nations responsible for the wars to turn their backs on the people now suffering from the rise of IS and other groups from the power Vacuum? [/quote]

It looks as though civilians always have and always will suffer when wars occur.

So?[/quote]

Well for example, after ww2, the U.S rebuilt Japan. Sent relief aid, allowed Japanese to immigrate to the U.S. Despite the fact the regime was an ultra-nationalist imperialist one that carried out ethnic cleansing and genocide throughout Asia and launched an aggressive war on the U.S, the regime had mass support amongst the Japanese.

The Iraq war was an unjustified, terribly executed war that has lead to anywhere up to a million deaths, the fall of governmental control in hundreds of thousands of miles of territory, now being controlled by IS and AQI. Millions of people lost their homes, their livelihood, they have no access to basic medical care, often not having electricity or access to secure water.

Our funding of AQS and other Syrian rebels who are basically AlQaeda in Syria, this has lead to a staggering amount of death, the rise of IS and Al Nusra, the complete loss of homes, water, electricity and the ability to make a living. This has placed millions of people under direct IS control, the men amongst them having to choose between starving along with their family, working for IS, or fleeing to the west.

So why are we helping the people affected by our wars, less than the nation and people who launched an aggressive war on us and committed genocide throughout their region of operations?

155

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
How does it look for the main nations responsible for the wars to turn their backs on the people now suffering from the rise of IS and other groups from the power Vacuum? [/quote]

It looks as though civilians always have and always will suffer when wars occur.

So?[/quote]

Well for example, after ww2, the U.S rebuilt Japan. Sent relief aid, allowed Japanese to immigrate to the U.S. Despite the fact the regime was an ultra-nationalist imperialist one that carried out ethnic cleansing and genocide throughout Asia and launched an aggressive war on the U.S, the regime had mass support amongst the Japanese.

The Iraq war was an unjustified, terribly executed war that has lead to anywhere up to a million deaths, the fall of governmental control in hundreds of thousands of miles of territory, now being controlled by IS and AQI. Millions of people lost their homes, their livelihood, they have no access to basic medical care, often not having electricity or access to secure water.

Our funding of AQS and other Syrian rebels who are basically AlQaeda in Syria, this has lead to a staggering amount of death, the rise of IS and Al Nusra, the complete loss of homes, water, electricity and the ability to make a living. This has placed millions of people under direct IS control, the men amongst them having to choose between starving along with their family, working for IS, or fleeing to the west.

So why are we helping the people affected by our wars, less than the nation and people who launched an aggressive war on us and committed genocide throughout their region of operations?

[/quote]

Because it was in our self-interest.

This isn’t some board game or sporting event with rules and fouls and “fair play.”[/quote]

It isn’t in our interest to let people fleeing IS, who otherwise would be forced to join IS (in IS areas IS are the only source of income for most fighting age men) come and live here and not join IS or Al Nusra or Islamic Jihad ?

IS hate the fact these people are leaving, it is in the wests interests to give these people refuge, it is also their moral obligation considering we created the vacuum and in many cases funded these groups when they were on the verge of being crushed in Syria.

156

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
How does it look for the main nations responsible for the wars to turn their backs on the people now suffering from the rise of IS and other groups from the power Vacuum? [/quote]

It looks as though civilians always have and always will suffer when wars occur.

So?[/quote]

Well for example, after ww2, the U.S rebuilt Japan. Sent relief aid, allowed Japanese to immigrate to the U.S. Despite the fact the regime was an ultra-nationalist imperialist one that carried out ethnic cleansing and genocide throughout Asia and launched an aggressive war on the U.S, the regime had mass support amongst the Japanese.

The Iraq war was an unjustified, terribly executed war that has lead to anywhere up to a million deaths, the fall of governmental control in hundreds of thousands of miles of territory, now being controlled by IS and AQI. Millions of people lost their homes, their livelihood, they have no access to basic medical care, often not having electricity or access to secure water.

Our funding of AQS and other Syrian rebels who are basically AlQaeda in Syria, this has lead to a staggering amount of death, the rise of IS and Al Nusra, the complete loss of homes, water, electricity and the ability to make a living. This has placed millions of people under direct IS control, the men amongst them having to choose between starving along with their family, working for IS, or fleeing to the west.

So why are we helping the people affected by our wars, less than the nation and people who launched an aggressive war on us and committed genocide throughout their region of operations?

[/quote]

Because it was in our self-interest.

This isn’t some board game or sporting event with rules and fouls and “fair play.”[/quote]

It isn’t in our interest to let people fleeing IS, who otherwise would be forced to join IS (in IS areas IS are the only source of income for most fighting age men) come and live here and not join IS or Al Nusra or Islamic Jihad ?

IS hate the fact these people are leaving, it is in the wests interests to give these people refuge, it is also their moral obligation considering we created the vacuum and in many cases funded these groups when they were on the verge of being crushed in Syria.[/quote]

You realise our own peoples are leaving to join Isis in the hundreds? Them being here =/= them avoiding radicalisation, even assuming they have avoided it already.

We have a rather dissafected Muslim diaspora in Europe as it is. No need to add to it because of guilt over foreing policy.

157

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
Also just a note on the German situation. Has anyone seen the economists explaining that the Germans, due to population downturns, very low birthrates, need immigrants to pay into pensions etc. Hence Merkle saying all Syrians welcome to come and settle there. The UK does not need as high a level of immigration and it should be more tight in that regards.

What do people think are fair numbers? How far does responsibility for the current situation extend? Surely America and the UK have some responsibility to take in refugees. How does it look for the main nations responsible for the wars to turn their backs on the people now suffering from the rise of IS and other groups from the power Vacuum? [/quote]

I think fair numbers is an irrelevant question. These people need to be processed first, then we can decide on fair numbers.

158

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
[/quote]

Refugees by law have freedom of movement. And the difference between Ukrainians and refugees from Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan etc is that we didn’t create the situation in Ukraine. We did create the power vacuum in Iraq and Syria etc. We have no moral obligation to take in Ukrainians, but we do have an obligation to the people our military endeavours impacted.

However I would take in Ukrainians too, I would also as Ann Coulter has touched upon, actually go after employers undercutting native workers with cheap immigrant labour, thus removing one of the main negatives of large scale immigration.

[/quote]

No. Refugees do not fall under the free movement of peoples until they are decided to be bona fide refugees. Pre-decision refugess can, therefore, by definition not fall under these rules.

Even asssuming this wasn’t the case. There are directive protections that any member state can choose to exercise.

Article 3 (1) of the Dublin Regulation (Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013) requires that EU Member States examine any application for international protection lodged by a third-country national or a stateless person and that such application be examined by one single Member State. The EU asylum acquis only applies from the moment an individual has arrived at the border, including territorial waters and transit zones.

Article 43 of the Asylum Procedures Directive permits the processing of asylum
applications at the border. There, decisions can be taken on the inadmissibility of the application. Decisions can also be taken on its substance in circumstances in which accelerated procedures may be used in accordance with Article 31 (8) of the directive.

Under the ECHR, there is no right to asylum as such.

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights expressly guarantees the right to asylum.
Although the ECHR does not guarantee the right to obtain asylum, the expelling state may be required to refrain from removing an individual who risks death or ill-treatment In the receiving state (see Section 2.2).
â?¢ Under EU law, asylum seekers have a right to remain in the territory of the host state while they await a final decision on their asylum application and must be given identity documents (see Section 2.1).

â?¢ Under the ECHR, the asylum seeker needs, in principle, to corroborate his or her claim, and it is frequently necessary to give them the benefit of the doubt when assessing the credibility of their statements. However, where substantiation is lacking or when information is presented which gives strong reason to question the
veracity of the asylum seekerâ??s submissions, the individual must provide a satisfactory
explanation for this (see Section 3.1.3).
â?¢ An individual may risk treatment prohibited by EU law or the ECHR in the receiving state, even if this does not always emanate from the receiving state itself but rather from non-state actors, an illness or humanitarian conditions in that country (see Section 3.1.2).
â?¢ An individual, who would risk treatment prohibited by EU law or the ECHR if returned to his home area in the receiving country, may be safe in another part of the country (internal protection) (see Section 3.1.5). Alternatively, the receiving state may be able to protect him against such a risk (sufficiency of protection). In these cases, the expelling state may conclude that he or she is not in need of international protection
(see Section 3.1.4)

All obtained from the above handbook. The important point is, that refugess do not have free movement simpliciter in any place other than the host country, and even that is after they have had their application ruled upon.

Edited.

159

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

All those regions have been massively affected and the natural phenomena of people escaping these places is hardly fictitious. Do you not think the west, which played a large part in the destabilisation of the region, has a responsibility to help those seeking refuge from war and those economic immigrants who are seeking a better life after their ability to work and provide was massively affected from the effects of war, insurgency and instability?

Also the west is hardly looking good, we launched wars that has resulting in the displacement of millions and the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the empowering of IS, I think Cameron’s obligation should be greater than accepting a measly 20,000 over 5 years, after being one of the main belligerents in the wars, funding of Al Nusra etc.
[/quote]

The anwer to you first paragraph is no. The people of Europe are not compelled to open their borders by the fact that certain countries were involved in the destabilisation. Nor should Europe be expected to be the first port of call for Syrian refugees. There are stable countries bordering Syria on all sides.

As for the 20000 number, no Cameron should not be expected to do more than that, he has no mandate to do so.

Furthermore, if we want to start apportioning refugees based on % of responsibility, where would the House of Saud, Iran, Russia and Turkey fall on this list?

All of whom sponsor terror and are part of this destabilisation.

160

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
do you not think the civilised Christians ought to of behaved better, [/quote]

Should the Europeans who first encountered Native Americans be considered more civilized than the Turks who conquered and sacked Constantinople and thus somehow held to a higher standard? We’re talking about people with the same mindset regardless of the advancement of their technology.

Maybe the Turks should have behaved better also.