Role of the Western world in the refugee crisis i

[politicus]

I will return to this later. But my point of departure is:

So why is it that these Eritrean or Somalian asylum seekers insist on claiming asylum only in Central or Northern Europe? There are dozens of other countries in between. The answer, of course, is that these are for the large part economic migrants, not actual refugees fleeing from personal persecution.

"Most of them are both, which is part of the problem. The UN refugee convention was created to take care of political dissidents from the Eastern bloc (mainly), whereas modern refugee streams from conflict areas have more in common with, say, Eastern European Jews fleeing to America in the late 1800s. They were both persecuted in their hellish homelands and in search of a better future for the children. The problem is we do not have another America to fill. We are in dire need of a total rethinking of the global refugee system, but there is no one to take charge of it.The UN is hopelessly inefficient.

IMO the distribution of refugees should not depend on what countries they were able to reach by paying large sums to traffickers, but be allocated on a need basis."

There are certain dilemmas:

1) Should the Western world try to stop countries from falling apart (we have not been very good at it, but what is the alternative? More failed states means ever more refugees).

2) Should it be possible to seek asylum in rich countrues by arriving there? Or should application for asylum in the West be handled by the UN in refugee camps in the areas bordering conflict zones?

As it is now we reward traffickers and it becomes a matter of money where you get in - not need. Generally mentally and (severely) psychically ill, disabled, severe torture victims  lone women, children,gays/queers should have preference.

3) Is it possible to make an international distribution based on a quota system, where some countries pay others to take their refugees?

If so, this would require a repatriation system where "queu-jumpers will be sent back to refugee camps in near areas if caught.

3a) What countries would it be possible to resettle large groups of refugees in? Do you think the US could take a substantial part? (if paid a partial compensation by EU, Japan, South Korea and other areas unwilling to accept mass immigration).

4) It is cheaper to help refugees in poor countries than in rich. Do you think that should be an aspect in refugee policy?

[mencken]

1) Should the Western world try to stop countries from falling apart (we have not been very good at it, but what is the alternative? More failed states means ever more refugees).

I do not see how this is actually possible in practice. You cannot make a first-world nation out of third-world human capital.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They should only be allowed asylum in rich countries if they would otherwise qualify for permanent residency. If they do not qualify, refugees can take asylum in overseas territories (e.g. St. Helena, Reunion, Diego Garcia, ...)

[Indy Texas]

1) Should the Western world try to stop countries from falling apart (we have not been very good at it, but what is the alternative? More failed states means ever more refugees).

I do not see how this is actually possible in practice. You cannot make a first-world nation out of third-world human capital.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They should only be allowed asylum in rich countries if they would otherwise qualify for permanent residency. If they do not qualify, refugees can take asylum in overseas territories (e.g. St. Helena, Reunion, Diego Garcia, ...)

You want them to be treated the same way as Napoleon?

[The Mikado]

OK, thought experiment. You're an Eritrean refugee following the UN's rule that you reach the first safe country you can and file for asylum. You flee Eritrea into Ethiopia, a country with long-standing tensions with your homeland and humanitarian crises of its own. You proceed north into South Sudan, which is in a state of anarchic state collapse and civil war. You proceed north into Sudan, a country run by an indicted war criminal wanted by the ICC with a history of genocide in within the past decade. You continue north into either Libya, which is in a state of anarchy and civil war, or Egypt, which has undergone two revolutions in the past four years. You get on a boat and end up in...Italy? That would be your stopping point, but Italy is a Schengen country, so once you're there, why not move to some place where you can actually find work?

[politicus]

OK, thought experiment. You're an Eritrean refugee following the UN's rule that you reach the first safe country you can and file for asylum. You flee Eritrea into Ethiopia, a country with long-standing tensions with your homeland and humanitarian crises of its own. You proceed north into South Sudan, which is in a state of anarchic state collapse and civil war. You proceed north into Sudan, a country run by an indicted war criminal wanted by the ICC with a history of genocide in within the past decade. You continue north into either Libya, which is in a state of anarchy and civil war, or Egypt, which has undergone two revolutions in the past four years. You get on a boat and end up in...Italy? That would be your stopping point, but Italy is a Schengen country, so once you're there, why not move to some place where you can actually find work?

All that is well known and if unchanged will in all likelyhood lead to most European countries abandoning the refugee convention in the next couple of decades. So what is your point? That the concept of refugee status is inevitable doomed and all refugees will be treated as illegal immigrants in the future?

I was more interested in if any of you thought there was a chance to save the concept of refugee status and solve the current crisis through some kind of international cooperation.

[The Last Northerner]

The best cure is prevention; if the 'West' stops bombing their home countries, many of them would be less dangerous and less prone to refugee disasters.

/shameless insert

Here are a few (over optimistic) ideas:

- If X country/countries (usually 'Western') attacks Y country, the former should take in refugees from the latter since you know - their homeland was destroyed by the former. For example, NATO countries that bombed Libya should take in their refugees. If they did not take a role, they are exempt. This has 2 positive aspects - governments will be less trigger happy since they know it would trigger immediate immigration to thier country and its political consequences (1) and refugees now have a safe place to go (2). I don't see the United States being less imperialistic from this but other countries will adapt.

- The gap between the 'West' and rest of the world is closing so I don't see Europe being a target for immigration forever. Neighbors could sign regional agreements (ASEAN and such) to take each other's refugees. It is more of stop gap solution for the current refugees but will become more important for future generations.

- Poorer countries can be somewhat stabalized through trade agreements (Cambodia). Is it perfect? Far from it but it is far less violent than the alternatives. Domestic policies like removal of subsidies and tariffs can help bring economic growth.

My responses don't directly answer your points but hey.

[Famous Mortimer]

Countries can be messed up and produce refugees without any help from the West. Look at previously mentioned Eritrea.

[Zezano]

Part of the problem is the US and it's allies meddling in mideast affairs creating a refugee crisis. However a lot of these new migrants from subsuhharan Africa are not fleeing war and are just economic migrants. Europe needs to do what best for it's own people and not take on other countries problems. It's just pure lunacy to take in all these refugees.

[mencken]

OK, thought experiment. You're an Eritrean refugee following the UN's rule that you reach the first safe country you can and file for asylum. You flee Eritrea into Ethiopia, a country with long-standing tensions with your homeland and humanitarian crises of its own. You proceed north into South Sudan, which is in a state of anarchic state collapse and civil war. You proceed north into Sudan, a country run by an indicted war criminal wanted by the ICC with a history of genocide in within the past decade. You continue north into either Libya, which is in a state of anarchy and civil war, or Egypt, which has undergone two revolutions in the past four years. You get on a boat and end up in...Italy? That would be your stopping point, but Italy is a Schengen country, so once you're there, why not move to some place where you can actually find work?

Switzerland should make its policies for the benefit of the Swiss, not for the benefit of random Eritrean refugees.

[Jacobtm]

Role of the Western World in the refugee crisis:

Defend their borders with walls, military, whatever means needed.

Treat people entering your country illegally as invaders.

Physically remove illegal immigrants.

Leave other countries alone to figure things out for themselves. Destroying Libya's government directly led to Europe's current "boat people" crisis. Leave stable governments be.

[DavidB.]

This is an interesting thread. My thoughts on your dilemmas:

1) Should the Western world try to stop countries from falling apart (we have not been very good at it, but what is the alternative? More failed states means ever more refugees).
Yes, the fact that "our" efforts often failed doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try it. Surely there will always be people who consider "Western intervention" (even if the military is not involved) inherently bad, but these people need to understand that a problem in South Sudan is not only a problem for South Sudan. In fact, it's not only a problem with the potential to destabilize the region, it's a problem with the potential to destabilize many countries in region, including Western countries (however you define that word). We should apply new methods and find new angles to help these countries out. The well-being of the people in a country should always be the first priority.

2) Should it be possible to seek asylum in rich countrues by arriving there? Or should application for asylum in the West be handled by the UN in refugee camps in the areas bordering conflict zones?
As it is now we reward traffickers and it becomes a matter of money where you get in - not need. Generally mentally and (severely) psychically ill, disabled, severe torture victims lone women, children,gays/queers should have preference. and 3) Is it possible to make an international distribution based on a quota system, where some countries pay others to take their refugees? If so, this would require a repatriation system where "queu-jumpers will be sent back to refugee camps in near areas if caught.
As to question two, no. This system creates the tragedies on the Mediterranean Sea that we all hate. Everyone who gets in by boat should get out by boat. We must ensure that they will arrive in Africa safely, which requires coordination with the countries that are actually in tact: Egypt (even though they seldomly depart from there), Tunisia, and Morocco. This will have a price, but applying the Australian model will at least hinder the boats from coming. It will hinder the human traffickers from putting more lives at risk. (Of course, this is not politically viable, since too many people think of the Australian model as "less humane" than the current disaster-prone policy, even though stopping the boats meant an extreme decrease in death toll... Sadly, good European intentions can lead to policies that, in turn, lead to many deaths).

As to question three, what we should do is establish camps at the coast in these "safe North African countries". People should be allowed to apply for the status of asylum seeker there. All EU countries should have access to their files, and each country should assess who's welcome. I'm not for establishing quotas, because it should be up to the EU member states how many refugees they take in. The people who don't get accepted, which will probably the vast majority, at least know that "trying it again" doesn't have any chance. They will not put their lives at risk at the sea. Of course, this will cost EU countries a lot of money, but we're the ones who have it, and after all, we want to keep in tact the idea of our countries as nation states, we want to prevent these people from coming, and we don't want these people to die. That has a price, and even though I don't like it, it's necessary to take our responsibility.

3a) What countries would it be possible to resettle large groups of refugees in? Do you think the US could take a substantial part? (if paid a partial compensation by EU, Japan, South Korea and other areas unwilling to accept mass immigration).
That's up to countries themselves, but in general, I think EU countries will, in the end, take in the most refugees. There will inevitably be an imbalance, since I can't see the Netherlands, the UK, Denmark and Eastern European countries take in as many refugees as Sweden and Germany will take in, but that's how it works. I think the U.S. could, theoretically, also help, but since this is simply much less of a problem for them, I can't even imagine the Obama administration being willing to take in some of them -- let alone the next administration, whether Democratic or Republican. So even if the U.S. could take a substantial part, they will not.

4) It is cheaper to help refugees in poor countries than in rich. Do you think that should be an aspect in refugee policy?
Yes, I think so. We are under the moral obligation to help refugees, but I don't think we are necessarily under the moral obligation to help them in our own countries.