US to accept 185,000 refugees over 2 years

[Antonio the Sixth]

Should be more, but that's not bad, especially considering the ridiculous antics European countries are making for having to host a few tenths of thousands.

I would love for Denmark to take the percent of refugees as USA promise to take, through I would find it a little inhumane to have to deport 11/12 of refugees we already take in annual, so we could reach the same level as what USA promise to take.

Europe just voted to share a grand total of 120.000 refugees (between 28 countries with a combined population about 1.5 times bigger than the US's) and this is considered a momentous step. Let's get serious here.

[politicus]

Should be more, but that's not bad, especially considering the ridiculous antics European countries are making for having to host a few tenths of thousands.

I would love for Denmark to take the percent of refugees as USA promise to take, through I would find it a little inhumane to have to deport 11/12 of refugees we already take in annual, so we could reach the same level as what USA promise to take.

Europe just voted to share a grand total of 120.000 refugees (between 28 countries with a combined population about 1.5 times bigger than the US's) and this is considered a momentous step. Let's get serious here.

That is only the number of refugees that will be shared between the countries via  quotas. The number coming to the individual countries is much higher. The 120,000 is a largely irrelevant and symbolic number. The difference between US and EU is, of course, that the large groups of refugees drive, walk etc. into Europe, while the US only gets the ones it agrees to take.

(only talking about the current flow of Middle Eastern and African refugees here)

[Joe Republic]

But my daily commute time will get longer!    This is totally unacceptable.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Should be more, but that's not bad, especially considering the ridiculous antics European countries are making for having to host a few tenths of thousands.

I would love for Denmark to take the percent of refugees as USA promise to take, through I would find it a little inhumane to have to deport 11/12 of refugees we already take in annual, so we could reach the same level as what USA promise to take.

Europe just voted to share a grand total of 120.000 refugees (between 28 countries with a combined population about 1.5 times bigger than the US's) and this is considered a momentous step. Let's get serious here.

That is only the number of refugees that will be shared between the countries via  quotas. The number coming to the individual countries is much higher. The 120,000 is a largely irrelevant and symbolic number. The difference between US and EU is, of course, that the large groups of refugees drive, walk etc. into Europe, while the US only gets the ones it agrees to take.

(only talking about the current flow of Middle Eastern and African refugees here)

The bulk of refugees is arriving through Italy and Greece though, which means that under the current (absurd) EU rules, they can only apply in those countries. That's why a permanent redistribution process is absolutely necessary.

[politicus]

Should be more, but that's not bad, especially considering the ridiculous antics European countries are making for having to host a few tenths of thousands.

I would love for Denmark to take the percent of refugees as USA promise to take, through I would find it a little inhumane to have to deport 11/12 of refugees we already take in annual, so we could reach the same level as what USA promise to take.

Europe just voted to share a grand total of 120.000 refugees (between 28 countries with a combined population about 1.5 times bigger than the US's) and this is considered a momentous step. Let's get serious here.

That is only the number of refugees that will be shared between the countries via  quotas. The number coming to the individual countries is much higher. The 120,000 is a largely irrelevant and symbolic number. The difference between US and EU is, of course, that the large groups of refugees drive, walk etc. into Europe, while the US only gets the ones it agrees to take.

(only talking about the current flow of Middle Eastern and African refugees here)

The bulk of refugees is arriving through Italy and Greece though, which means that under the current (absurd) EU rules, they can only apply in those countries. That's why a permanent redistribution process is absolutely necessary.

Hmm, but that doesn't really relate to the US/EU comparison we were talking about and the fact that the quotas are a small part of the total number of refugees.
The refugees are currently moving through Europe on their own, so countries in Northern Europe like Germany and Sweden gets a lot despite being far away from where the refugees land. The unofficial distribution covers far more people than the quotas, and a far greater number than the US takes.

Distributing re

[Antonio the Sixth]

Should be more, but that's not bad, especially considering the ridiculous antics European countries are making for having to host a few tenths of thousands.

I would love for Denmark to take the percent of refugees as USA promise to take, through I would find it a little inhumane to have to deport 11/12 of refugees we already take in annual, so we could reach the same level as what USA promise to take.

Europe just voted to share a grand total of 120.000 refugees (between 28 countries with a combined population about 1.5 times bigger than the US's) and this is considered a momentous step. Let's get serious here.

That is only the number of refugees that will be shared between the countries via  quotas. The number coming to the individual countries is much higher. The 120,000 is a largely irrelevant and symbolic number. The difference between US and EU is, of course, that the large groups of refugees drive, walk etc. into Europe, while the US only gets the ones it agrees to take.

(only talking about the current flow of Middle Eastern and African refugees here)

The bulk of refugees is arriving through Italy and Greece though, which means that under the current (absurd) EU rules, they can only apply in those countries. That's why a permanent redistribution process is absolutely necessary.

Hmm, but that doesn't really relate to the US/EU comparison we were talking about and the fact that the quotas are a small part of the total number of refugees.
The refugees are currently moving through Europe on their own, so countries in Northern Europe like Germany and Sweden gets a lot despite being far away from where the refugees land. The unofficial distribution covers far more people than the quotas, and a far greater number than the US takes.

But the two issues are sides of the same coin. Theoretically, this sort of "moving" through Europe would violate the treaties as they are. The reason it occurs is because Greece and Italy are overwhelmed and don't have the means (as well as refuse) to deal with these refugees on their own.

It's definitely a good thing that Germany and other countries have recognized this situation and accepted this unofficial distribution, but we need a mechanism to make it permanent.

[politicus]

Should be more, but that's not bad, especially considering the ridiculous antics European countries are making for having to host a few tenths of thousands.

I would love for Denmark to take the percent of refugees as USA promise to take, through I would find it a little inhumane to have to deport 11/12 of refugees we already take in annual, so we could reach the same level as what USA promise to take.

Europe just voted to share a grand total of 120.000 refugees (between 28 countries with a combined population about 1.5 times bigger than the US's) and this is considered a momentous step. Let's get serious here.

That is only the number of refugees that will be shared between the countries via  quotas. The number coming to the individual countries is much higher. The 120,000 is a largely irrelevant and symbolic number. The difference between US and EU is, of course, that the large groups of refugees drive, walk etc. into Europe, while the US only gets the ones it agrees to take.

(only talking about the current flow of Middle Eastern and African refugees here)

The bulk of refugees is arriving through Italy and Greece though, which means that under the current (absurd) EU rules, they can only apply in those countries. That's why a permanent redistribution process is absolutely necessary.

Hmm, but that doesn't really relate to the US/EU comparison we were talking about and the fact that the quotas are a small part of the total number of refugees.
The refugees are currently moving through Europe on their own, so countries in Northern Europe like Germany and Sweden gets a lot despite being far away from where the refugees land. The unofficial distribution covers far more people than the quotas, and a far greater number than the US takes.

But the two issues are sides of the same coin. Theoretically, this sort of "moving" through Europe would violate the treaties as they are. The reason it occurs is because Greece and Italy are overwhelmed and don't have the means (as well as refuse) to deal with these refugees on their own.

It's definitely a good thing that Germany and other countries have recognized this situation and accepted this unofficial distribution, but we need a mechanism to make it permanent.

Its a different topic and a derail. My point was that the 120,000 is an irrelevant number when comparing the US and EU. Since it is a small part of the overall number of refugees.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Of course that's a small portion of the refugees, and I sure as hell hope the US will welcome more of them in the upcoming year. Nonetheless, Europe needs to get its act together and have a permanent mechanism to deal with this sort of issues. Otherwise, any country could decide to close its borders at any point (as some already have).

[ingemann]

Should be more, but that's not bad, especially considering the ridiculous antics European countries are making for having to host a few tenths of thousands.

I would love for Denmark to take the percent of refugees as USA promise to take, through I would find it a little inhumane to have to deport 11/12 of refugees we already take in annual, so we could reach the same level as what USA promise to take.

Europe just voted to share a grand total of 120.000 refugees (between 28 countries with a combined population about 1.5 times bigger than the US's) and this is considered a momentous step. Let's get serious here.

Denmark took in 19000 refugees in 2014 if we scale that up to USA scale, it would be like USA took in  750-800 000 refugees. Of course in 2014 USA took in 80 000 people or less than Sweden alone (Sweden would take in 3 million refugees if they was the size of USA).