Europe-Middle East-Africa Refugee Crisis General Thread

[Tender Branson]

...how would that help exactly? I mean in the context of the specific horrifying news of today.

... by preventing future such tragedies.

The people smugglers "won't get it" otherwise if these tough measures are not taken. They will just continue to sh*t on our heads in their quest for profit and as a consequence of that- kill the asylum seekers.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

... by preventing future such tragedies.

How?

[Tender Branson]

... by preventing future such tragedies.

How?

By the measures I have explained above.

Every "educated" people smuggler knows that the current leaders of most of Europe (excl. UK's Torie government) are a bunch of spineless, naive tools who are basically telling the smugglers to keep on sh*tting on our heads and that no further measures will be taken against them. They jump out of their trucks when a police car approaches and disappear into the darkness of the night, leaving 50 (dead) or apathic migrants behind. Do you expect the overweight 55-year old Austrian police officers to try and chase the people smuggler through the darkness ? Nope. And if one gets caught, he'll get 18 months in prison with 12 on probation. WOW ! That's the reality. Unless people smugglers do not get the impression that Europe's leaders actually have a spine and go after them, they will continue to try and truck in people. Don't know why it's so hard for you to understand this ...

These tough measures, coupled with camps at the countries of origin (or nearby) where potential asylum seekers can file their requests without being bused through Europe, would be more effective and prevent future tragedies.

[ag]

...how would that help exactly? I mean in the context of the specific horrifying news of today.

... by preventing future such tragedies from happening in my backyard, thus discomfitting my tender white soul.

Corrected

[ag]

But as I know the politically correct, naive left-leftists Merkel, Faymann and Co.
wtf..

At least, our Austrian friend seems to stop pretending he is not on the far right.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You know what would make today's tragedy much less likely? Removing the strongest incentives for the people smugglers by making it much easier to legally immigrate to the west. The fact that people take such dangerous measures to go to the west is due to the fact that they have no other choice if they want to enter the west (and you are truly the height of naivety if you think the pull of the west to migrants can be wished away).

[politicus]

You know what would make today's tragedy much less likely? Removing the strongest incentives for the people smugglers by making it much easier to legally immigrate to the west. The fact that people take such dangerous measures to go to the west is due to the fact that they have no other choice if they want to enter the west (and you are truly the height of naivety if you think the pull of the west to migrants can be wished away).

Sure, but since European countries do not want African/Arabic immigration, that will not happen. A ban on seeking asylum outside your own continent and increased crackdowns on illegal migrants is the likely outcome.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You know what would make today's tragedy much less likely? Removing the strongest incentives for the people smugglers by making it much easier to legally immigrate to the west. The fact that people take such dangerous measures to go to the west is due to the fact that they have no other choice if they want to enter the west (and you are truly the height of naivety if you think the pull of the west to migrants can be wished away).

Sure, but since European countries do not want African/Arabic immigration, that will not happen. A ban on seeking asylum outside your own continent and increased crackdowns on illegal migrants is the likely outcome.

That is very likely but I was talking about policies that would minimize deaths not possibly increase them.

[BaconBacon96]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34082304

Hundreds feared dead after two boats carrying migrants capsize off of Libya.

It just doesn't stop.

[politicus]

You know what would make today's tragedy much less likely? Removing the strongest incentives for the people smugglers by making it much easier to legally immigrate to the west. The fact that people take such dangerous measures to go to the west is due to the fact that they have no other choice if they want to enter the west (and you are truly the height of naivety if you think the pull of the west to migrants can be wished away).

Sure, but since European countries do not want African/Arabic immigration, that will not happen. A ban on seeking asylum outside your own continent and increased crackdowns on illegal migrants is the likely outcome.

That is very likely but I was talking about policies that would minimize deaths not possibly increase them.

But why talk about fantasies?

Surely the interesting thing is realistic proposals that will minimize deaths.

[ag]

You know what would make today's tragedy much less likely? Removing the strongest incentives for the people smugglers by making it much easier to legally immigrate to the west. The fact that people take such dangerous measures to go to the west is due to the fact that they have no other choice if they want to enter the west (and you are truly the height of naivety if you think the pull of the west to migrants can be wished away).

Sure, but since European countries do not want African/Arabic immigration, that will not happen. A ban on seeking asylum outside your own continent and increased crackdowns on illegal migrants is the likely outcome.

That is very likely but I was talking about policies that would minimize deaths not possibly increase them.

But why talk about fantasies?

Surely the interesting thing is realistic proposals that will minimize deaths.

Any evidence that the current policy does not minimize deaths given your realism constraint?

[DavidB.]

Surely the interesting thing is realistic proposals that will minimize deaths.

Well, then I'll shamelessly paste in my reply from the other thread.

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. Entering the EU illegally should mean no chance for asylum whatsoever. We must ensure that they will return in Africa safely, which requires coordination with the countries that are actually in tact: Egypt (even though they seldom 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" and in countries that border the EU in the (south-)east. 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.

Pros:
- No more tragedies on the sea (and in lorries)
- Not rewarding people who put their lives at risk anymore -> fewer people will put their lives at risk
- Not rewarding human traffickers anymore
- EU countries will be able to select real refugees while being able to turn down people who just want a better life: these people should be helped indirectly, by helping their countries
- No people will be disappointed because they finally entered Europe and then they'll have to leave because for some reason they're not allowed to stay

Cons:
- Money
- More leverage for states with quasi-problematic governments at the EU border, where the camps will have to be built
- What to do with the people who can't come to Europe?

Still, I think this is the best option there is.

[politicus]

You know what would make today's tragedy much less likely? Removing the strongest incentives for the people smugglers by making it much easier to legally immigrate to the west. The fact that people take such dangerous measures to go to the west is due to the fact that they have no other choice if they want to enter the west (and you are truly the height of naivety if you think the pull of the west to migrants can be wished away).

Sure, but since European countries do not want African/Arabic immigration, that will not happen. A ban on seeking asylum outside your own continent and increased crackdowns on illegal migrants is the likely outcome.

That is very likely but I was talking about policies that would minimize deaths not possibly increase them.

But why talk about fantasies?

Surely the interesting thing is realistic proposals that will minimize deaths.

Any evidence that the current policy does not minimize deaths given your realism constraint?

No, but the current situation is unsustainable - we are in a situation where status quo is not really an option.

I still think that some kind of European/African cooperation on refugee policy based on refugees staying in Africa, but offered jobs, education, start up funds from the West is not totally unrealistic (although it might very well be).

[ag]

You know what would make today's tragedy much less likely? Removing the strongest incentives for the people smugglers by making it much easier to legally immigrate to the west. The fact that people take such dangerous measures to go to the west is due to the fact that they have no other choice if they want to enter the west (and you are truly the height of naivety if you think the pull of the west to migrants can be wished away).

Sure, but since European countries do not want African/Arabic immigration, that will not happen. A ban on seeking asylum outside your own continent and increased crackdowns on illegal migrants is the likely outcome.

That is very likely but I was talking about policies that would minimize deaths not possibly increase them.

But why talk about fantasies?

Surely the interesting thing is realistic proposals that will minimize deaths.

Any evidence that the current policy does not minimize deaths given your realism constraint?

No, but the current situation is unsustainable - we are in a situation where status quo is not really an option.

I still think that some kind of European/African cooperation on refugee policy based on refugees staying in Africa, but offered jobs, education, start up funds from the West is not totally unrealistic (although it might very well be).

What makes the current situation unsustainable, in your view?

[Jacobtm]

What makes the current situation unsustainable, in your view?

Africa has a population of 1 billion, projected to grow to 4 billion by century's end. Wars throughout the Middle East and the subsequent refugees don't seem likely to stop.

Europe's population is about 600 million. There is a practically endless supply of people who would like to leave their countries and come to Europe.

Option one is Europe continues to allow this, and is eventually turned into something resembling the very countries these people are fleeing.

Or, Europeans could actually stop the flow of immigrants and preserve a Europe populated by Europeans.

It is an event not unlike the conquest of the Americas by Europeans in terms of the importance for the future of a people. This Italian political ad sums it up well:

"They allowed immigration, now they live on reservations"



Leftists like you think it's a crime for Europe to want to remain European and not turn into Syria+Somalia.

[ag]

"They allowed immigration, now they live on reservations"

I agree that you should not ever be allowed anywhere in North America. In fact, the very thought that you are within just a few thousand miles from where I live makes me uncomfortable. Would really be happy if you were to remove yourself to wherever your unfortunate ancestors cam from. But, in any case, my question was not to you.

[politicus]

You know what would make today's tragedy much less likely? Removing the strongest incentives for the people smugglers by making it much easier to legally immigrate to the west. The fact that people take such dangerous measures to go to the west is due to the fact that they have no other choice if they want to enter the west (and you are truly the height of naivety if you think the pull of the west to migrants can be wished away).

Sure, but since European countries do not want African/Arabic immigration, that will not happen. A ban on seeking asylum outside your own continent and increased crackdowns on illegal migrants is the likely outcome.

That is very likely but I was talking about policies that would minimize deaths not possibly increase them.

But why talk about fantasies?

Surely the interesting thing is realistic proposals that will minimize deaths.

Any evidence that the current policy does not minimize deaths given your realism constraint?

No, but the current situation is unsustainable - we are in a situation where status quo is not really an option.

I still think that some kind of European/African cooperation on refugee policy based on refugees staying in Africa, but offered jobs, education, start up funds from the West is not totally unrealistic (although it might very well be).

What makes the current situation unsustainable, in your view?

European electorates will not accept such a massive stream of refugees, they will demand it stopped, this will lead to "tougher" policies and presumably (most likely) a redefinition of the refugee concept (could be a geographical limit of where you could seek asylum or a division between political and non-political refugees). A collapse of the current refugee system seems unavoidable. Population growth, climate change etc. will lead to larger refugee streams, which will again boost the European fear of getting swamped and put pressure on resources like housing, welfare etc. (always unpopular).

The refugee "concept" developed with the dissident in an East Bloc as the arch type (the academic, artist, journalist, union leader etc. who rebelled against the system from a relatively prominent position, with a political motivation based on "Western" values). If you take Iranian refugees in the 80s they still mostly came from  a relatively privileged, highly educated, Westernized segment as well. Since then the typical refugee is increasingly low educated, has non-Western values and is motivated by a much broader variety of motives than the "classic" refugee. What we are seeing now is more akin to the masses from Southern and Eastern Europe fleeing to America to escape oppression and poverty in the late 19th/early 20th century.

(simplifying a lot in the above, but trying to make a point)

This undermines the refugee concept, since voters see them as economic migrants (which most of them also - but not solely - are) and this is increased by the strategic choices of refugees (trying to get to "good countries" instead of seeking asylum in the first safe country they reach). Public support for the current refugees system is bound to drop in Europe and politicians will act accordingly.

Therefore: If there is a solution to this tragedy, it lies in Africa. Not Europe.

I see it as crucial to disentangle the two issues: "Who pays for the refugees?" and "Where are the refugees going to be housed/settled?". Since no other continents are willing to take large streams of African refugees, the best available option for African countries is to get other countries to pay for them and use these resources to boost their economies. Ideally all countries in the world should pay for the worlds refugees according to their share of the global GDP (not going to happen, but we should move in that direction).

[ag]

The refugee "concept" developed with the dissident in an East Bloc as the arch type (the academic, artist, journalist, union leader etc. who rebelled against the system from a relatively prominent position, with a political motivation based on "Western" values).

Thanks. At least this is something we can be talking about.

First, an obvious historical comment The Refugee Convention was adopted in 1951. The were not thinking of "East Bloc dissidents". Not only these were few, but, in any case, you never needed any international refugee convention to deal with them (for that matter, neither has the US needed a refugee convention to deal with much larger numbers of Cubans). These were the people that were admitted voluntarily by the host countries. You do not need a convention to commit to doing voluntarily what you would be doing anyway.

Nevertheless, they went into trouble of adopting a convention. They were thinking of the horrors of WWII. And, not the least, of the Holocaust. It is true, that already there and then they decided to exclude the largest contemporaneous post-War refugee group: the Palestinians. Then, as now, nobody wanted to accept another waive of refugees. But, still, they were thinking of the "never again" pledge.  And many of the authors remembered their own (or at least, their own countries') shameful behavior just years previously. Of course, they were cognizant of the domestic political reasoning behind it and adopted the convention as the means of commitment to never repeating the horror.

[ag]

Now on the substance.

It would appear from the news that never before were such numbers of refugees seeking admission to the "civilized world". It is not true. For instance (and this is only an example), the US alone took nearly 1.3 mln. Indochinese refugees after 1975, with Canada and Australia - two countries with a combined population of 1/10th of EU - taking another 200 thousand apiece (in contrast, the largest European recipient of that way, France, took around 120 thousand in total, despite having been the colonial power that started all that mess; the combined total for the rest of what is now the EU is even smaller).  I may have been a bit cavalier about our Austrian friend's suggestion about the US not doing its job, but there is a reason for that.

Admittedly, the major difference now is that, unlike the Vietnamese and the Hmong of yesteryear, the current refugees are not sitting in camps far away, waiting for organized resettlement, but are coming directly into Europe. The difference, of course, is geographic: there was no way available for the Indochinese to take their fate into their own hands - Syria, though, is a lot closer to Europe. The fall of dictatorships around the Mediterrainean has opened the gates, which Europeans find they are unable to close without violating their own self-view of "humane, civilized people".

To continue.

[politicus]

The refugee "concept" developed with the dissident in an East Bloc as the arch type (the academic, artist, journalist, union leader etc. who rebelled against the system from a relatively prominent position, with a political motivation based on "Western" values).

Thanks. At least this is something we can be talking about.

First, an obvious historical comment The Refugee Convention was adopted in 1951. The were not thinking of "East Bloc dissidents". Not only these were few, but, in any case, you never needed any international refugee convention to deal with them (for that matter, neither has the US needed a refugee convention to deal with much larger numbers of Cubans). These were the people that were admitted voluntarily by the host countries. You do not need a convention to commit to doing voluntarily what you would be doing anyway.

Nevertheless, they went into trouble of adopting a convention. They were thinking of the horrors of WWII. And, not the least, of the Holocaust. It is true, that already there and then they decided to exclude the largest contemporaneous post-War refugee group: the Palestinians. Then, as now, nobody wanted to accept another waive of refugees. But, still, they were thinking of the "never again" pledge.  And many of the authors remembered their own (or at least, their own countries') shameful behavior just years previously. Of course, they were cognizant of the domestic political reasoning behind it and adopted the convention as the means of commitment to never repeating the horror.

When I say developed I do not mean the basis for the convention, but the mental image of a refugee in the general population. This is what matters politically. How voters view a real refugee.

The first large post-war refugee stream to much of Western Europe came from Hungary in 1956. This stream was disproportionally well educated and politically motivated. And set a standard against which later refugee groups were judged.

(WWII is largely irrelevant in this context because it was seen an exceptional occurrence by ordinary people).

[politicus]

Now on the substance.

It would appear from the news that never before were such numbers of refugees seeking admission to the "civilized world". It is not true. For instance (and this is only an example), the US alone took nearly 1.3 mln. Indochinese refugees after 1975, with Canada and Australia - two countries with a combined population of 1/10th of EU - taking another 200 thousand apiece (in contrast, the largest European recipient of that way, France, took around 120 thousand in total, despite having been the colonial power that started all that mess; the combined total for the rest of what is now the EU is even smaller).  I may have been a bit cavalier about our Austrian friend's suggestion about the US not doing its job, but there is a reason for that.

Admittedly, the major difference now is that, unlike the Vietnamese and the Hmong of yesteryear, the current refugees are not sitting in camps far away, waiting for organized resettlement, but are coming directly into Europe. The difference, of course, is geographic: there was no way available for the Indochinese to take their fate into their own hands - Syria, though, is a lot closer to Europe. The fall of dictatorships around the Mediterrainean has opened the gates, which Europeans find they are unable to close without violating their own self-view of "humane, civilized people".

To continue.

Three factors:

1) The refugee stream being uncontrollable and likely to continue for the foreseeable future makes a big difference. This is a very important aspect.

2) You can not meaningfully compare Europe to Canada, Australia, USA because those countries are not defined as national homes for a particular ethnicity. Comparing with Japan, Korea etc. makes a lot more sense.

3) The refugees are mostly coming from the groups Europeans dislike the most 1) Muslim Arabs 2) Black African Muslims and have negative experiences trying to integrate. Without a realistic chance to later repatriate these groups Europeans do not want them in (Afghans/Pakistanis may be as unpopular as Black Muslims).

(lots of Indochinese came to Europe by being boat refugees picked up by European ships - so they did have some means to affect their situation)

[ag]

An aside.

Now, one thing to remember is that, historically, of course, it is Europe that has been the major source of undesirable migration flows. And, indeed, European "tired and poor" were frequently received less than with open arms. Mexico, the country I now consider mine, has had some very shameful pages of its own history here. For instance, Mexico deliberately closed itself to Jews from the early 1930s - and never really seriously considered reopening the doors till too late in the War.  And, of course, despite the national myth about it being a safe heaven for Spanish Republicans, it was far from open to them either. Most true refugees have it too hard to be very nice people. The archetypal midcentury Spaniard for a Mexican is the "gachupín de la esquina" - the owner of a small dirty corner shop, cheating his customers and charging far too much, while displacing, through some sort of "desloyal competition" good Mexican shopkeeper.

Still, despite everything, many thousands of European refugees landed here. Frequently, they would not even know where they came - boarded a ship somewhere in Europe, disembarked in some uknown port, not able to speak the local language they would take weeks to learn they are in Mexico. Of course, the Spaniards did not suffer from that handicap - but they were still very foreign. Over the last 100 years many more Spaniards moved to Latin America than Latin Americans who went the other way. Whether Spanish-speaking or not, they changed the look of this country a lot (and of some other American countries even more), to the disgust of many a local. Their grandchildren, of course, are quite Mexican today (even to the point of going to Houston to give birth - the true "anchor babies").

[ag]

The refugee "concept" developed with the dissident in an East Bloc as the arch type (the academic, artist, journalist, union leader etc. who rebelled against the system from a relatively prominent position, with a political motivation based on "Western" values).

Thanks. At least this is something we can be talking about.

First, an obvious historical comment The Refugee Convention was adopted in 1951. The were not thinking of "East Bloc dissidents". Not only these were few, but, in any case, you never needed any international refugee convention to deal with them (for that matter, neither has the US needed a refugee convention to deal with much larger numbers of Cubans). These were the people that were admitted voluntarily by the host countries. You do not need a convention to commit to doing voluntarily what you would be doing anyway.

Nevertheless, they went into trouble of adopting a convention. They were thinking of the horrors of WWII. And, not the least, of the Holocaust. It is true, that already there and then they decided to exclude the largest contemporaneous post-War refugee group: the Palestinians. Then, as now, nobody wanted to accept another waive of refugees. But, still, they were thinking of the "never again" pledge.  And many of the authors remembered their own (or at least, their own countries') shameful behavior just years previously. Of course, they were cognizant of the domestic political reasoning behind it and adopted the convention as the means of commitment to never repeating the horror.

When I say developed I do not mean the basis for the convention, but the mental image of a refugee in the general population. This is what matters politically. How voters view a real refugee.

The first large post-war refugee stream to much of Western Europe came from Hungary in 1956. This stream was disproportionally well educated and politically motivated. And set a standard against which later refugee groups were judged.

(WWII is largely irrelevant in this because it was seen an exceptional occurrence).

You do not need a convention to admit such refugees. It is like you do not need "freedom of speech" written into constitution or a human rights bill to protect pleasant non-controversial speech.

WWII is a lot more typical of European history than the peace that followed it. It was only about 20 years between WWI and WWII, and even before that Europe was hardly a peaceful paradise. Much of the Americas is populated by the offspring of those who were forced to flee Europe in the 75 years before WWII.

[ag]

Ok, I was planning to go slower and softer, but, it seems, everything, in any case, is being reduced by you to the general dislike of the "Europeans "towards the "blacks". That may well be the case. But, unfortunately, that is something that can hardly engender sympathy on my part. To a large extent it is the previous migration waives from the East that, to a non-insignificant degree were responsible for the appeal of the likes of Hitler in the interwar Europe. There are things I am capable of understanding, but not willing to forgive.

[politicus]

An aside.

Now, one thing to remember is that, historically, of course, it is Europe that has been the major source of undesirable migration flows. And, indeed, European "tired and poor" were frequently received less than with open arms. Mexico, the country I now consider mine, has had some very shameful pages of its own history here. For instance, Mexico deliberately closed itself to Jews from the early 1930s - and never really seriously considered reopening the doors till too late in the War.  And, of course, despite the national myth about it being a safe heaven for Spanish Republicans, it was far from open to them either. Most true refugees have it too hard to be very nice people. The archetypal midcentury Spaniard for a Mexican is the "gachupín de la esquina" - the owner of a small dirty corner shop, cheating his customers and charging far too much, while displacing, through some sort of "desloyal competition" good Mexican shopkeeper.

Still, despite everything, many thousands of European refugees landed here. Frequently, they would not even know where they came - boarded a ship somewhere in Europe, disembarked in some uknown port, not able to speak the local language they would take weeks to learn they are in Mexico. Of course, the Spaniards did not suffer from that handicap - but they were still very foreign. Over the last 100 years many more Spaniards moved to Latin America than Latin Americans who went the other way. Whether Spanish-speaking or not, they changed the look of this country a lot (and of some other American countries even more), to the disgust of many a local. Their grandchildren, of course, are quite Mexican today (even to the point of going to Houston to give birth - the true "anchor babies").

True, but irrelevant to modern politics. People do not vote or act based on such things.