Europe-Middle East-Africa Refugee Crisis General Thread

[Tender Branson]

Could the traffickers not just switch to alternative routes through Romania or Croatia?

Yes.

I guess this is exactly what Hungary's government wants ... (of course they would then have to create an even longer fence at their Romanian/Croatian border).

Exactly, so why would they want that?

Because if they somehow manage to secure their border and smugglers are forced to enter Central Europe via Croatia and Slovenia, or Romania/Ukraine/Slovakia - their argument has won. Their border security worked to prevent smuggling through Hungary. Hungary is safe from the mass immigration and people go elsewhere. Of course, there's a long way to go and it's highly hypothetical ...

[DavidB.]

Could the traffickers not just switch to alternative routes through Romania or Croatia?

Isn't that how those trucks carrying migrants travelled?

No, they generally enter Europe in Greece and then travel through Macedonia and Serbia before entering Hungary. Romania and Bulgaria are not yet part of the Schengen area, so the Romanian route wouldn't be of much benefit for them. Apparently, it used to be easier to cross the Serbian-Hungarian border.

Because of the new fence/wall, they might travel either westward to Croatia -> Slovenia (first Schengen country) -> Austria/Italy or eastward to Romania -> Hungary (Schengen), to Romania -> Ukraine -> Hungary (Schengen), to Romania -> Ukraine -> Slovakia (Schengen), or to Romania -> Ukraine -> Poland (Schengen).

[politicus]

Could the traffickers not just switch to alternative routes through Romania or Croatia?

Isn't that how those trucks carrying migrants travelled?

Romania and Bulgaria are not yet part of the Schengen area, so the Romanian route wouldn't be of much benefit for them.

Since Serbia is (obviously) also not Schengen this should not be a factor. Hungary is the gateway to Schengen in both cases.

[DavidB.]

Could the traffickers not just switch to alternative routes through Romania or Croatia?

Isn't that how those trucks carrying migrants travelled?

Romania and Bulgaria are not yet part of the Schengen area, so the Romanian route wouldn't be of much benefit for them.

Since Serbia is (obviously) also not Schengen this should not be a factor. Hungary is the gateway to Schengen in both cases.

I think you misunderstood my point. (Of course Serbia is not in Schengen.) Simfan might have thought (though I'm not saying he did) that Romania is already part of the Schengen zone, which would render it more logical to travel to Romania. Since it's not, this is not an advantage of travelling through Romania.

[politicus]

There are a couple of obvious things the EU could do:

- Establish diplomatic relations with the administration in Tripoli. They are after all the ones dealing with the influx of migrants and we need to cooperate with them (also because of drugs, weapon smugling etc.). We might even be able to make them give refugees the legal right to asylum in return if we recognize them.

- Helping UNHCR finance the aid to refugees in Egypt (sky high unemployment, so they are living almost exclusively of aid and UNHCR has cut that to half recently).

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Xenophobia isn't inherent to "human nature", as Politicus disturbingly seems to believe. Societies can be educated to accept, and even actively promote, multiculturalism, if thier political and cultural leaders make the effort to endorse it, instead of pandering to irrational fears.

They should first explain what multiculturalism is though. Different cultures living side by side or the incorporation of non-native cultures into the dominant one? I.e. forcing people from different cultural backgrounds to accep the basic tenets of our western culture: freedom of speech and religion, gender equality... If it's the latter, I can most certainly sign up to that. The former - not exactly.

I think it's also perfectly acceptable for Danes to feel that their homeland should be the "Land of Danes" rather than the "Land of people who happen to live in Denmark." We tend to bemoan the disappearance of cultures and languages but when it comes to European cultures, efforts to preserve it are somehow frowned upon. Go figure.

How is this any different than saying "Europe for the Europeans" or "Diversity = White Genocide"?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I feel the need to make a contribution to this trainwreck of a thread.

I'm pretty appalled by the moral reasoning expressed in this thread. Has anyone considered that Europe's stance towards refugees is unethical? In my view, this is the central objection to Europe's attitudes towards refugees. Popular sentiment, as expressed in this thread, dictates that some lives are simply worth more than others and polities are responsive to this view. If this means that refugees will be left to drown in the Mediterranean or off-loaded onto states less capable to care for them, so be it! This is acceptable because they are worth less. They are others. They don't get European values or European traditions or democracy or liberalism etc.

This is pretty ironic, isn't it? Apparently, Europeans don't understand their own values or their rich history of political thought, which gave the world the notion of universal political rights and obligations that transcend tongue, religion and culture. Now, I have my issues with Western political thought and European history but I've never been able to embrace Third Worldist garbage because I understand that Europe, that continent of imperialist oppressors, also bequeathed the very rhetoric used by anti-imperialist revolutionaries to topple their masters. Europe has a dark legacy rooted in its history, one that cannot be escaped; every nation and people is culpable. It also has a beautiful legacy, one that makes me proud of my European ancestry. There's a reason why Benito Juarez invoked the values of the French Revolution when he resisted the French, there's a reason why Toussaint Louverture did the same.


Return to these values or suffer the ignominy that comes with allowing refugees to drown in the seas. The latter cannot be justified by any moral compass that isn't guided by crude/hackneyed utilitarian reasoning.

 I guess you can continue to engage in whataboutery or claim that it simply isn't possible for Europe to handle refugees but the latter pre-supposes that Europeans are truly vile inhuman creatures that are incapable of empathizing with refugees. I don't believe that this is the case. It's very clear that Europe has the resources to accommodate refugees, it's a question of will.

[ingemann]

Xenophobia isn't inherent to "human nature", as Politicus disturbingly seems to believe. Societies can be educated to accept, and even actively promote, multiculturalism, if thier political and cultural leaders make the effort to endorse it, instead of pandering to irrational fears.

They should first explain what multiculturalism is though. Different cultures living side by side or the incorporation of non-native cultures into the dominant one? I.e. forcing people from different cultural backgrounds to accep the basic tenets of our western culture: freedom of speech and religion, gender equality... If it's the latter, I can most certainly sign up to that. The former - not exactly.

I think it's also perfectly acceptable for Danes to feel that their homeland should be the "Land of Danes" rather than the "Land of people who happen to live in Denmark." We tend to bemoan the disappearance of cultures and languages but when it comes to European cultures, efforts to preserve it are somehow frowned upon. Go figure.

How is this any different than saying "Europe for the Europeans" or "Diversity = White Genocide"?

While I suspect you're hopeless cause (based on your post below the one I quotes) I'm going to answer anyway. Saying that a national state should be the home of the nation/people which it's based on, are like saying that children in American school should be taught English, they're free to have classes in other languages, but English should be taught. While saying " "Europe for the Europeans" or "Diversity = White Genocide" " are like saying it should be illegal to have classes in other languages at all.

I know this distinction are likely lost on you, but hope shines eternal.

[MaxQue]

Xenophobia isn't inherent to "human nature", as Politicus disturbingly seems to believe. Societies can be educated to accept, and even actively promote, multiculturalism, if thier political and cultural leaders make the effort to endorse it, instead of pandering to irrational fears.

They should first explain what multiculturalism is though. Different cultures living side by side or the incorporation of non-native cultures into the dominant one? I.e. forcing people from different cultural backgrounds to accep the basic tenets of our western culture: freedom of speech and religion, gender equality... If it's the latter, I can most certainly sign up to that. The former - not exactly.

I think it's also perfectly acceptable for Danes to feel that their homeland should be the "Land of Danes" rather than the "Land of people who happen to live in Denmark." We tend to bemoan the disappearance of cultures and languages but when it comes to European cultures, efforts to preserve it are somehow frowned upon. Go figure.

How is this any different than saying "Europe for the Europeans" or "Diversity = White Genocide"?

While I suspect you're hopeless cause (based on your post below the one I quotes) I'm going to answer anyway. Saying that a national state should be the home of the nation/people which it's based on, are like saying that children in American school should be taught English, they're free to have classes in other languages, but English should be taught. While saying " "Europe for the Europeans" or "Diversity = White Genocide" " are like saying it should be illegal to have classes in other languages at all.

I know this distinction are likely lost on you, but hope shines eternal.

It was the case in French until a few decades ago.

[politicus]

Europe has a dark legacy rooted in its history, one that cannot be escaped; every nation and people is culpable. 

How exactly? If you are talking about imperialism it is hard to see why Albania, Finland, Lithuania, Iceland, Romania and a dozen other countries are "culpable" of anything. It was a Western European great power game with a few smaller countries getting a share.

If it is holocaust that is also limited to certain countries, while Bulgaria and Denmark actively helped safe our Jews and neutral countries were unaffected.

You make the usual American mistake of defining Europe as if it was all the same. It is a pretty diverse place whose peoples have very different historical experiences.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Xenophobia isn't inherent to "human nature", as Politicus disturbingly seems to believe. Societies can be educated to accept, and even actively promote, multiculturalism, if thier political and cultural leaders make the effort to endorse it, instead of pandering to irrational fears.

They should first explain what multiculturalism is though. Different cultures living side by side or the incorporation of non-native cultures into the dominant one? I.e. forcing people from different cultural backgrounds to accep the basic tenets of our western culture: freedom of speech and religion, gender equality... If it's the latter, I can most certainly sign up to that. The former - not exactly.

I think it's also perfectly acceptable for Danes to feel that their homeland should be the "Land of Danes" rather than the "Land of people who happen to live in Denmark." We tend to bemoan the disappearance of cultures and languages but when it comes to European cultures, efforts to preserve it are somehow frowned upon. Go figure.

How is this any different than saying "Europe for the Europeans" or "Diversity = White Genocide"?

While I suspect you're hopeless cause (based on your post below the one I quotes) I'm going to answer anyway. Saying that a national state should be the home of the nation/people which it's based on, are like saying that children in American school should be taught English, they're free to have classes in other languages, but English should be taught. While saying " "Europe for the Europeans" or "Diversity = White Genocide" " are like saying it should be illegal to have classes in other languages at all.

I know this distinction are likely lost on you, but hope shines eternal.

lol classic salty ingemann

I fully understand this logic. I don't see why I should approve of it. After all, I understand European history. Isn't this logic the reason why millions were displaced from their homes after World War 2? Isn't this logic why millions died during World War 2?

Nationalism is a romantic myth, an invented tradition and it's a very destructive one at that. The common tongues, national traditions and customs that are tied to states were forged by public policy for the purpose of state-making. There are alternative models that can bolster state-making and alternative national models. The Americas have a rich tradition of nationalism rooted in civic values rather than cultural affectations.

As for the incomprehensible metaphor, I have no idea what you're saying so I can't comment on it.

[politicus]

It's very clear that Europe has the resources to accommodate refugees, it's a question of will.

Agreed, but there are very good reasons why this will is lacking and it is unlikely to suddenly materialize.

You can not ignore the basic dilemma: Europeans do not want (further) mass immigration and since refugees can not be repatriated they are de facto immigrants. If there were a real possibility of repatriation later on there would be little resistance to taking refugees, but we know from experience this is not so. Even countries with IDPs are rarely able to "repatriate" them (see Colombia for an example).

With the population growth Africa has and the conflict  potential there is on the continent (incl. failed states) no other part of the world will be willing to take the refugee flows we will see in the coming decades. That is why we need to separate payment and hosting and accept that hosting will be on the continent itself (which also has a lot less population density and more potential for growth than Europe).

Solving the problem in Africa for Western (and ideally also East Asian) money would also help more people - including those that can not afford to pay traffickers (women, children, elderly and disabled over represented among them) in the long run.

It might be cynical to view the refugee crisis in such calculated terms, but when the numbers gets this big and the countries of origin are as "problematic", it is unavoidable.

[politicus]

Nationalism is a romantic myth, an invented tradition and it's a very destructive one at that. The common tongues, national traditions and customs that are tied to states were forged by public policy for the purpose of state-making.

1) That is in itself a bit of a myth, or rather an exaggeration. There are strong elements of proto-nationalism dating back to high medieval times in several countries.

2) It does not in itself make them any less real or easier to absolve.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

It's very clear that Europe has the resources to accommodate refugees, it's a question of will.

Agreed, but there are very good reasons why this will is lacking and it is unlikely to suddenly materialize.

You can not ignore the basic dilemma: Europeans do not want (further) mass immigration and since refugees can not be repatriated they are de facto immigrants. If there were a real possibility of repatriation later on there would be little resistance to taking refugees, but we know from experience this is not so. Even countries with IDPs are rarely able to "repatriate" them (see Colombia for an example).

With the population growth Africa has and the conflict  potential there is on the continent (incl. failed states) no other part of the world will be willing to take the refugee flows we will see in the coming decades. That is why we need to separate payment and hosting and accept that hosting will be on the continent itself (which also has a lot less population density and more potential for growth than Europe).

Solving the problem in Africa for Western (and ideally also East Asian) money would also help more people - including those that can not afford to pay traffickers (women, children, elderly and disabled over represented among them) in the long run.

It might be cynical to view the refugee crisis in such calculated terms, but when the numbers gets this big and the countries of origin are as "problematic", it is unavoidable.

I'm making a moral claim, not a prudential claim. I think it's unethical/petulant that Europeans are opposed to "mass immigration". I think it's bad behavior. The causes that explain this sentiment are manifold and I might be inclined to agree that European political constraints necessitate alternatives to housing refugees in Europe itself.

That said, I'm going to condemn the average European for opposing mass immigration. It's unethical that Europeans would rather dump MENA refugees into relatively stable yet still poverty-stricken countries. It's unethical that Europeans, who love to boast about their WESTERN VALUES, would rather dump MENA refugees on authoritarian regimes. These are moral claims.

I'm happy to discuss policy choices but I'm not going to empathize with petulant/racist children, I'm going to shake my head and hope that mass murder, whether indirect or direct, is avoided.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Nationalism is a romantic myth, an invented tradition and it's a very destructive one at that. The common tongues, national traditions and customs that are tied to states were forged by public policy for the purpose of state-making.

1) That is in itself a bit of a myth, or rather an exaggeration. There are strong elements of proto-nationalism dating back to high medieval times in several countries.

2) It does not in itself make them any less real or easier to absolve.

1. "in several countries"; in otherwords this is non-generalizable whereas my point is somewhat generalizable (all national identities were forged by the state).

2. sure but the attachment to the ethnic nation-state is despicable when it's understood that it's at the root of ethnic cleansing, mass population displacement and refugee crises. i can understand that it's difficult to deal with the detritus of history and weep at the same time.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I think America is partially to blame for this situation. I applaud European leaders for attempting to take on this necessary burden but America has the capacity to take a few million refugees. We've refused to do anything.

ftr, i mourn the moral failure of america as well and recognize that this is a problem of a poor distribution of refugees that could be shouldered by the nation of immigrants. oh well.

[DavidB.]

It's very clear that Europe has the resources to accommodate refugees, it's a question of will.

You can not ignore the basic dilemma: Europeans do not want (further) mass immigration and since refugees can not be repatriated they are de facto immigrants.

The point is that many Americans on this board think European opposition to mass immigration is neither relevant nor acceptable, since Europeans are by definition blood-thirsty imperialists who adhere to a racist 19th-century ideology called nationalism. Europeans should just accept these major changes to their societies, because the world belongs to everyone. These immigrants will of course immediately adhere to the "civic values" of their new countries - oh wait, no, because imposing anything on immigrants is racist, so skip this part. [/end hyperbolical rant]

The thing is: I even understand where these Americans are coming from. That's because one factor is often ignored (in this thread as well), and this factor is Islam. In the U.S., Muslims tend to be much higher educated and come from better backgrounds than in Europe. By contrast, the (Western) European experience with mass immigration has largely been shaped by lower educated Muslims from underdeveloped areas in their home countries. When Americans think of immigration, they think of Mexicans, and historically, they think of Irish, of Cubans, and of Jews. When Europeans think of immigration, they think of Islam and of Muslims. Opposition to immigration in the U.S. is often either related to people being afraid of their jobs or to people not wanting to live too close to people with a different skin color. Of course, I'm generalizing right now, but essentially, this is true. And since the first argument against immigration is generally untrue and the second one is morally problematic on so many levels, Americans tend to think opposition to (mass) immigration generally looks as ugly as this, and I totally understand why.

But when it comes to Europe, they are wrong, and that's because of the Islam factor. Obviously, this doesn't mean that truly racist people even remotely have a point (and these sadly also exist in Europe), but the prominence of Islam in Western European countries has had some side effects that are extremely influential in terms of defining the boundaries of our freedom. Even though I disagree with people on the board of Charlie Hebdo, and with Theo van Gogh, and with whatever artist, they should have the fundamental right to say what they want to say and they should have felt perfectly safe doing so. However, freedom of speech has become something extremely relative in Europe, and I don't think an open society can afford to be tolerant to people who are fundamentally intolerant, a paradox many liberal Americans don't understand because the U.S. simply doesn't have to address these issues when accommodating Mexican immigrants. This is only one example out of many, and given the rapid growth of Europe's Muslim population, this raises concerns about the future.

The relationship between Islam and the West will continue to shape the future between "native" Europeans and immigrants, for better or for worse. Let us at least acknowledge the fact that some of the concerns Europeans have with mass immigration of Muslims and, accordingly, with the societal changes this will imply, are actually based on legitimate grounds. Given the fact that many posters think it's problematic to impose anything on these immigrants, they are essentially advocating a tolerant attitude to people of whom we know that a significant amount of them will actually have views that "we Europeans" would consider intolerant. That's a logical position, but then you're essentially advocating the end of European freedoms as well. I would like people to realize that European opposition to immigration isn't just about people being "dark" or "having funny clothes" (reasons I, as part of a religious minority adhering to customs many natives also frown upon, also don't have any tolerance for) when advocating that Europeans accept all immigrants - it is also about essential freedoms and our future.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thank God DFB is here. He's the only one who's making any sense in this discussion.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/reporters-notebook/migrants/serbia-belgrade?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

[Beezer]

How is this any different than saying "Europe for the Europeans" or "Diversity = White Genocide"?

Well, if you move beyond the incendiary rhetoric, you will see that it's perfectly acceptable to make the case that Europe has every right to protect its culture, just as any other country/region does. This can be achieved by either limiting immigration from certain parts of the globe whose inhabitants have proven to be difficult to integrate or essentially forcing all migrants to accept some basic cultural tenets. So for me it's not about keeping "Europe for Europeans" but rather protecting basic civil liberties such as freedom of speech, gender equality or rights for sexual minorities against a tide of cultural conservatism. David B. illustrated quite well that many Americans don't really seem to understand what kind of transformation Europe has undergone over the past few decades with one dominant non-western immigrant group entering the continent. Let's just remember that Mexicans aren't threatening to kill folks like Rush Limbaugh for anti-Hispanic remarks.

[politicus]

There are five elements in this:

- update about the current situation/what is being done
- short term solutions for the current refugees
- long term structural solutions to the growing amount of refugees in the region/changes in the international refugee system
- whether Europe has a historical guilt that needs to be repaid - and therefore a special responsibility for helping those in need
- whether Europe has a right to try to retain a fairly homogeneous population/culture, or that is racist

The last two themes are easy to discuss, but ultimately not that productive (both sides find the other side's arguments preposterous - no real dialogue is likely). The third is hard to debate, but potentially the most interesting. The first two naturally belongs in the thread. Maybe we could separate the last three and move them to Political Debate? And then focus this thread on the first two.

I know afleitch is a hands-off mod, so I don't expect him to disentangle this mess, but perhaps we could agree to limit this ourselves?

[Beezer]

30km traffic jam between Hungary and Austria as latter checks cars and trucks for refugees: http://bbj.hu/politics/report-road-controls-in-austria-cause-traffic-jam-in-hungary_103226.

In other news:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[DavidB.]

30km traffic jam between Hungary and Austria as latter checks cars and trucks for refugees: http://bbj.hu/politics/report-road-controls-in-austria-cause-traffic-jam-in-hungary_103226.

In other news:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is not really new, VVD and Labour have reached a compromise on this in May (VVD wanted to cut aid for failed asylum seekers entirely, Labour wanted to keep the status-quo).

The two important changes are firstly that after a certain amount of time (which has not been defined yet), if the "failed" asylum seeker still doesn't want to go back to his home country, no help will be given anymore at the government facilities. Secondly, the national centers will be solely placed in five big cities (and in one rural place in the north of the country): "asylum seeker centrums" in rural areas have recently caused lots of trouble in (and media attention for) villages because of cases of violence, theft etc.

However, some other (mostly left-wing) cities already declared that they will keep helping these "failed" asylum seekers anyway, even if they don't want to leave the country: they will do so out of their own budget.

[Zanas]

Banners welcoming refugees were deployed in a number of football stadiums in Germany this weekend.

No, immigrants/refugees do not come in Europe to take away the inhabitants' freedoms. Not more so than all other immigration waves did in the past. They come to live a decent life, and we can afford that. There's money, oh yes, and people who don't deserve it.

No, Islam is not a problem per se. The problem with Islam is a worldwide problem where it has replaced Communism as the new practical big-tent enemy of the self-righteous Western world. Therefore, any movement the Islamic world makes is considred a threat.

Plus, if you put all of the refugees out of Syria and Eritrea in France, they would still account for a small percentage of the whole population. There is no threat except a panic fear.

Yes, some immigrants tend to try and act in Western Europe as they acted whence they come from. That is not threatening in itself. Portuguese communities grill sardinhas. Jews go to the synagogue. Italian people go honking in the streets when the Juve wins a game. If any of these communities commit criminal offenses, they should be prosecuted. That's all. The key to all that is the law. But we shouldn't imagine the worst by advance.

I would gladly deport half the French Parliament and every Cac40 CEO in exchange for taking a million Syrians, who are a delightful people, or Eritrean, or any other blokes. And I would have them live in my neighborhood. Granted, a small limit to that : I may not be saying this as confidently if I were a woman and I would get frowned upon each time I get out lightly dressed. But then again, we don't really need Muslim immigrants for this particular problem, do we?

[DavidB.]

No, Islam is not a problem per se. The problem with Islam is a worldwide problem where it has replaced Communism as the new practical big-tent enemy of the self-righteous Western world. Therefore, any movement the Islamic world makes is considred a threat.

I'm quite gobsmacked to see people still deny the real problems with Islam(ism) in 2015. I mean, it takes quite some cognitive dissonance to act like, for example, 9/11, the killing of Theo van Gogh, the London public transport bombings, the Madrid train bombings, the Charlie Hebdo attack, and the surge of ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood never happened... Then again, for so many True Leftists everything wrong in the world is the West's fault