Europe-Middle East-Africa Refugee Crisis General Thread

[dead0man]

You cant bring in 100 k 20 year old single men bursting with testosterone and not expect a ton of rape.

what

HE SAID YOU CAN"T BRING IN A BUNCH OF UNATTACHED YOUNG MEN AND NOT EXPECT SEXUAL ASSAULTS TO GO UP! <and I'll add> Doubly so if they are from a culture that is generally cool with that...and these guys are.  Sure, if you force assimilation down their throats the numbers might go down a bit....but I'm sure it doesn't matter how plush their transportation to Europe is or isn't.

[Omega21]

http://m.oe24.at/oesterreich/chronik/Frau-mit-Eisenstange-getoetet-Festnahme/234320284


Kenyan man stabs and brutally kills 50 year old woman in Public in Vienna.

He applied for Asylum but was denied, there is no clear motive.

[Gunnar Larsson]

It's about time for another excuse from our useful idiots.  Perhaps evergreen or Gunnar can reminds us that if these guys had gotten safer passage they wouldn't have been so rapey when they got here.  Tony thinks that it's his countrymen's fault for not assimilating them better.  

Maybe if we gave them all rides on cruise ships and limos to posh suites in the swanky part of town, they'd rape a little less.  Maybe they'd assimilate a little better if the people that are pro-immigration all took a refugee or 5 into their homes and taught them your peace loving secular ways?  I'm sure your little sister will be fine.

I appreciate your well mannered writing style and general sense of decency..

Obviously people that commit crimes should be sent to prison. Just as obviously people that do not commit crimes should not have to suffer for what some countrymen have done. It would be no problem to find enough horrendous crimes to start a similarly filthy campaign as this thread hos become against any people on this planet. Would it be sensible of me to assume that you will behave like Charles Manson, no.. Is it sensible of you to assume that Syrians etc. are coming to Europe commit rape, no.. Is it sensible to help people that flee from wars, yes.. Would it be sensible if countries such as Saudi-Arabia, Poland and the US took their fair share, yes..

I have lived in immigrant-rich areas for the last 15 years and I am fine thank you. Two of those years I spent sharing a flat with a brother of Hamas health minister (as well as some other people). He is now an atheist. My little sister is indeed fine, and I find it a bit creepy of you to comment on her well-being...  

So dead0man, what are you doing to improve that state of this planet?

Are you aware Sweeden is the rape capital of Europe and that there are 50 newly formed Arab ghetto no go zones in which police/services cant enter?

If your not im happy to provide you with my sources..

And you do have a point, not every Syrian will rape, in fact most will behave well.. but why bring in criminals and ruin your country when you dont have to, women, children and families are an exception.

You cant bring in 100 k 20 year old single men bursting with testosterone and not expect a ton of rape.

Yes, I read the original report (pdf link, with pdf link providing an update) before it got distorted by the far right. I live fairly close to one of those areas mentioned in the original report. They have in general been problem areas since more or less when they were built in the late 60s/early 70s. Not so much to do with the ethnicity of the people living there as the fact the it is where you find cheap housing.

As for being rape capital, have you heard of Julian Assange?

Obviously no country intentionally bring in people that commit crimes into the country. It is not like you can predict who will commit crimes in advance. When people commit crimes you have to handle that as best you can.

Is the fact that some people will commit crimes enough to stop all people fleeing war. No. Successful countries are not built on avoiding challenges. After a (short or longer) time the people will provide a substantial benefit for their destination country. Obviously successful integration requires that the destination country has capacity to handle the people that arrive, which was not the case during the autumn when almost 100 000 people arrived over just two months! If spread over all of EU (as well as other countries) that would not be a problem.

[Gunnar Larsson]

What an odd end to an otherwise pointless post.  You almost seem to be implying that living in an immigrant-rich area is improving the state of the planet.

It makes gentrifying white liberals feeeeel good and signal their virtue.

And isn't that what's reeeaalllly important?

What matters is that you get more value for the money. But not having to have Hyacinth Bucket as your neighbour and being able to be obnoxious towards conservatives and liberals is obviously added bonuses.

[Gunnar Larsson]

What an odd end to an otherwise pointless post.  You almost seem to be implying that living in an immigrant-rich area is improving the state of the planet.

Well that is pretty much what you wrote, in the non-creepy part of your post.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

It says a lot about the current state of the European Union that an influx of ~1-1.5 million refugees, by all accounts a rather tiny proportion of the European population, has created a traumatic political crisis that's devouring the system. The United States managed to handle the Vietnamese and the Cuban refugees wave, which were on a somewhat similar scale relative to the proportion of the population, with relative ease in the past. Similarly, refugee crises in the past were handled admirably by Europe, of interest to this thread ought to be Greece's response to the influx of Albanian migrants in the 90s, the response to Somali refugees etc.

Sure, this latest wave is very substantial but it's not so substantial that it totally dwarfs refugee waves of the past. The issue is that there has been an utter breakdown of political capacity and will to do anything about the crisis. The response from the West has been inchoate, inconsistent and there has been little attempt to effectively coordinate to handle the crisis. Europe/the United States, for instance, could have forwarded a payment system to Jordan or Lebanon from the beginning or they could have set up a system to allocate refugees etc. None of this would have been easy but I don't think it would have been all that difficult either. In the past, there was effective coordination. In the present, it appears that the "Western" nation-states that once commanded great authority and respect could be plagued by crippling anxiety attacks if three fishermen on a boat were washed up on the shores of Cape Cod or Sicily, which the media would cover as a MIGRANT CRISIS.

I blame Merkel for all of this. These are the costs of destroying the EU's legitimacy time and time again by crippling the democratic process. It's also the cost of economic stagnation/decline. When social trust was much higher and there was more faith in "the powers that be", migrant crises were easy to deal with. Now that this isn't so, the specter of a dank kebab cart is "triggers" those in the European safe space.

edit: for all of my bluster, I am actually pretty sympathetic to those working class Europeans who are angry about the migrant crisis. In previous times, when things were much better, they resented migrants but did not lash out by joining fascist parties, which tells me that they are not inherently evil or malignant. They're simply angry and justifiably so.

As far as the sensational crime stories go, yes, out of a population that is over one million, there will be plenty of rapists and thieves and murderers. There's no justification for this behavior, of course. However, there are obvious issues when attempting to compile crime data on these populations and comparing them to the domestic population at large: there are going to be obvious reporting discrepancies that are accounted for by differing cultural norms surrounding crime and how it is conducted and done, more particularly surrounding rape/sexual assault.

[Famous Mortimer]

As far as the sensational crime stories go, yes, out of a population that is over one million, there will be plenty of rapists and thieves and murderers. There's no justification for this behavior, of course. However, there are obvious issues when attempting to compile crime data on these populations and comparing them to the domestic population at large: there are going to be obvious reporting discrepancies that are accounted for by differing cultural norms surrounding crime and how it is conducted and done, more particularly surrounding rape/sexual assault.

What dependencies? Can you be more specific? Non-consentual sex is non-consentual regardless of your ethnic background.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

As far as the sensational crime stories go, yes, out of a population that is over one million, there will be plenty of rapists and thieves and murderers. There's no justification for this behavior, of course. However, there are obvious issues when attempting to compile crime data on these populations and comparing them to the domestic population at large: there are going to be obvious reporting discrepancies that are accounted for by differing cultural norms surrounding crime and how it is conducted and done, more particularly surrounding rape/sexual assault.

What dependencies? Can you be more specific? Non-consentual sex is non-consentual regardless of your ethnic background.

Sweden has significantly altered its sex crimes laws over the past thirty years to the point that they're the most stringent in the world.  The immigration theory is quite hard to prove or disprove for the lack of sufficient data on them, but the statistics will appear inflated (compared to most other countries, certainly) because repeat offenses are counted separately and they stay in the records even if they go uncharged.

Victims are much likelier to report that they've been raped in Sweden because of those laws, and culture, and a widened definition of rape that distinguishes itself from other sex-related crimes.

[ingemann]

It says a lot about the current state of the European Union that an influx of ~1-1.5 million refugees, by all accounts a rather tiny proportion of the European population, has created a traumatic political crisis that's devouring the system. The United States managed to handle the Vietnamese and the Cuban refugees wave, which were on a somewhat similar scale relative to the proportion of the population, with relative ease in the past. Similarly, refugee crises in the past were handled admirably by Europe, of interest to this thread ought to be Greece's response to the influx of Albanian migrants in the 90s, the response to Somali refugees etc.

First of all both the Vietnamese and Cubans arrived in smaller number over a longer periode than the amount of refugees Germany alone received in 2015. Sweden have received more refugee than USA did in the Mariel boatlift, and it's a country with 1/30 of the American population. It's why we see the significant political crisis in those two countries over this, and moreso in Sweden than Germany.

Also right now USA take in 70 000 refugees annual. Which is why the American moral high ground on this point is built on hot air. In fact the numbers of Cuban and Vietnamese refugees USA have taken in are 300 000 and 800 000. As comparison Denmark received 7500 refugees in 2013 and 14700 in 2014 of which around half get asylum (3900 and 6100). Denmark have 1/60 the population of USA. When you make than calculation, it means that as percent of the population Denmark took around 25% more refugees (compared to populatio  size) in one year (before the refugee crisis) than USA have taken in Cubans over 50 years or 45% of the amount of Vietnamese USA have taken in.

...and here' the fun part Denmark are nowhere near Germany, Sweden or Austria in the amount of refugees these countries have taken.

Of course compared to the past Europe doesn't take many refugees. But it's because our treatment of those refugees in the past was cheaper and their future was clearer.. As example Denmark took in 250 000 Germany refugees in 1945 from Prussia (mostly women and children). They was placed in camps until they could be repatriated (which they mostly was by 1950).
Germany of course took in many more refugees, of course those refugees happened to be mostly Germans.

If we could place the refugees in permanent camps and be sure they could be repatriated in a few years (or at least leave Europe). Most European countries could take many more, but that's not what we're asked

[Meclazine for Israel]

Would it be sensible if countries such as Saudi-Arabia, Poland and the US took their fair share, yes.

This is the thing that is bemusing.

Countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen, Egypt are simply not coming to the party.

Sweden and Belgium are ideologically so different for these people, even the weather. The only thing they are after is economic advantage.

The other issue with rich countries like Sweden and Germany is will they send Syrians back after the war settles down? That is, the leader is deposed.

[rob in cal]

   I'm intrigued by the 250,000 euro fine being proposed for countries that won't take their quota of migrants. Its 250,000 per migrant not taken.  This seems to imply that there are costs associated with taking migrants, but what about the arguments that taking in migrants is an economic plus?  This seems to be implying that its not, and those countries which are missing out on this demographic gold rush need to pay for the privilege of missing out on the fun.
   If the fine was much lower, say about 10,000 euros per migrant, I could see where it makes sense, but 250k?  If the fines were on the lower side, perhaps the poorer countries could set up go fund me accounts, and launch big national fundraising drives to raise their fine money, but at this price it will likely face huge national resistance from different countries.  I could just imagine national celebrities getting on the act, maybe benefit concerts to raise the money, a soccer star donates a month salary, perhaps Donald Trump sends in a nice little check, things like that.

[Tender Branson]

Hundreds of anarcho-leftists battled with police forces at the Austrian-Italian Brenner border crossing today, because of the coming border controls there:









http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-border-brenner-idUSKCN0XY07Y

[Derpist]

It says a lot about the current state of the European Union that an influx of ~1-1.5 million refugees, by all accounts a rather tiny proportion of the European population, has created a traumatic political crisis that's devouring the system. The United States managed to handle the Vietnamese and the Cuban refugees wave, which were on a somewhat similar scale relative to the proportion of the population, with relative ease in the past. Similarly, refugee crises in the past were handled admirably by Europe, of interest to this thread ought to be Greece's response to the influx of Albanian migrants in the 90s, the response to Somali refugees etc.

First of all both the Vietnamese and Cubans arrived in smaller number over a longer periode than the amount of refugees Germany alone received in 2015. Sweden have received more refugee than USA did in the Mariel boatlift, and it's a country with 1/30 of the American population. It's why we see the significant political crisis in those two countries over this, and moreso in Sweden than Germany.

Also right now USA take in 70 000 refugees annual. Which is why the American moral high ground on this point is built on hot air. In fact the numbers of Cuban and Vietnamese refugees USA have taken in are 300 000 and 800 000. As comparison Denmark received 7500 refugees in 2013 and 14700 in 2014 of which around half get asylum (3900 and 6100). Denmark have 1/60 the population of USA. When you make than calculation, it means that as percent of the population Denmark took around 25% more refugees (compared to populatio  size) in one year (before the refugee crisis) than USA have taken in Cubans over 50 years or 45% of the amount of Vietnamese USA have taken in.

Plus, doesn't Germany have a moderate number of Vietnamese, many who came over in refugee-like situations. Of course, many of them were apparently deported because the poitical powers that be have no interest in aiding non-Muslims, but the ones that were able to stay seemed to have integrated into German society very well. It's almost as if the problem was with Muslim migrants, not German/Danish/Swedish/etc. society.

[The Last Northerner]

To play lawyer, the Indochinese Refugee Crisis was also of a different cultural context; many of the boat people were upper-middle class anti-Communist refugees - many were also ethnic or religious minorities in their home country and had prior political/economic connections to the the US or France. This would have provided some non-insignificant cultural capital and an easier intergration process. I'd imagine that the current wave of refugees are of Sunni-Arab background and the process is... different.

[palandio]

Plus, doesn't Germany have a moderate number of Vietnamese, many who came over in refugee-like situations. Of course, many of them were apparently deported because the poitical powers that be have no interest in aiding non-Muslims, but the ones that were able to stay seemed to have integrated into German society very well. It's almost as if the problem was with Muslim migrants, not German/Danish/Swedish/etc. society.

There are several groups of people of Vietnamese origin in Germany:
- Contingent refugees from the post-Vietnam War period (about 33.000 by the end of the 80s). They were granted asylum when still in South-East Asia and contrarily to what you allege, none of them have been deported after having been admitted to Germany.
- Contract workers in Eastern Germany (60.000 in 1990). After German reunification the German government tried to "repatriate" Eastern German Vietnamese contract workers, which resulted in some of them returning to Vietnam and many being displaced to other countries like the Czech Republic. At the same time former contract workers from other Eastern European countries arrived.
- Recent immigration, both legal and illegal.

Many Vietnamese contingent refugees are ridiculously affirmative of the German society, quite hard to themselves and very supportive of their children's education. Their children are under most aspects Germans with Asian faces. At the same time Germany treated them from the begin on under the assumption that they would remain in Germany forever and did everything to integrate them.
Many contract workers on the other hand had a hard time both before and after the fall of the Wall. Many faced impoverishment, discrimination and the "older" generations often still have problems with the language, but at the same time the cliché about ambitious Asian parents and succesful Asian children still holds.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

As far as the sensational crime stories go, yes, out of a population that is over one million, there will be plenty of rapists and thieves and murderers. There's no justification for this behavior, of course. However, there are obvious issues when attempting to compile crime data on these populations and comparing them to the domestic population at large: there are going to be obvious reporting discrepancies that are accounted for by differing cultural norms surrounding crime and how it is conducted and done, more particularly surrounding rape/sexual assault.

What dependencies? Can you be more specific? Non-consentual sex is non-consentual regardless of your ethnic background.

Many, if not most, victims of rape/sexual assault are victims of rape/sexual assault that comes from acquaintances, long-time partners and the like. These crimes are oftentimes not reported. Considering that rapists tend to be serial rapists, it stands to reason that those migrants who are rapists would stick out like a sore thumb considering that they come from places with different cultural norms surrounding their behavior and also know no one in the country they are migrating to, increasing the likelihood of the rape/sexual assault being reported.

Very easy to doubt that a woman's claim that she was raped by a long-time community member, it's downright hard to doubt that she was raped by a refugee, especially when that's a trope. This is pretty obvious imo. Obviously, it does not matter who is committing the vile act nor is there any justification for not taking action but there can never and will never be any clear-cut evidence on this subject. These issues are, well, difficult to collect accurate data on!

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

It says a lot about the current state of the European Union that an influx of ~1-1.5 million refugees, by all accounts a rather tiny proportion of the European population, has created a traumatic political crisis that's devouring the system. The United States managed to handle the Vietnamese and the Cuban refugees wave, which were on a somewhat similar scale relative to the proportion of the population, with relative ease in the past. Similarly, refugee crises in the past were handled admirably by Europe, of interest to this thread ought to be Greece's response to the influx of Albanian migrants in the 90s, the response to Somali refugees etc.

First of all both the Vietnamese and Cubans arrived in smaller number over a longer periode than the amount of refugees Germany alone received in 2015. Sweden have received more refugee than USA did in the Mariel boatlift, and it's a country with 1/30 of the American population. It's why we see the significant political crisis in those two countries over this, and moreso in Sweden than Germany.

Also right now USA take in 70 000 refugees annual. Which is why the American moral high ground on this point is built on hot air. In fact the numbers of Cuban and Vietnamese refugees USA have taken in are 300 000 and 800 000. As comparison Denmark received 7500 refugees in 2013 and 14700 in 2014 of which around half get asylum (3900 and 6100). Denmark have 1/60 the population of USA. When you make than calculation, it means that as percent of the population Denmark took around 25% more refugees (compared to populatio  size) in one year (before the refugee crisis) than USA have taken in Cubans over 50 years or 45% of the amount of Vietnamese USA have taken in.

...and here' the fun part Denmark are nowhere near Germany, Sweden or Austria in the amount of refugees these countries have taken.

Of course compared to the past Europe doesn't take many refugees. But it's because our treatment of those refugees in the past was cheaper and their future was clearer.. As example Denmark took in 250 000 Germany refugees in 1945 from Prussia (mostly women and children). They was placed in camps until they could be repatriated (which they mostly was by 1950).
Germany of course took in many more refugees, of course those refugees happened to be mostly Germans.

If we could place the refugees in permanent camps and be sure they could be repatriated in a few years (or at least leave Europe). Most European countries could take many more, but that's not what we're asked

Well, yes, that's my point. It's very unreasonable to expect Germany or Sweden or Austria to handle the amount of refugees that they've been receiving. However, the European Union was an attempt to, well, forge some sort of consensus on these matters and, as such, is clearly not functional nor purposeful if it cannot handle this kind of a "crisis" and distribute/share refugees in an equitable fashion. After all, it is a kind of state and there cannot be a common labor market with something approaching open borders without common agreement on refugee issues. That's all that I'm saying. I have no moral high ground, of course,  I'm just pointing out the obvious here, I suppose.

However, it is equally foolish to expect Saudi Arabia or Qatar to be able to handle the number of refugees that many far-right idiots expect them to handle. For one, I do not understand why the so-called advocates of "Western values" want to push refugees into the clutches of despicable states ruled by barbaric despots. Secondly, it would almost certainly be a disaster: why would pushing refugees into slum-like camps in Saudi Arabia or Qatar or the UAE where they'd be treated as third-class citizens and probably pushed into slave-labor result in anything good? In all likelihood, that would create further instability in the Middle East and could plunge the region into chaos, especially if the imams/clerics decided to break with the House of Saud, which could happen with recent economic proposals of the upstart princes. That would be no good at all!

[Beezer]

What some people apparently still don't get is that sharing the burden of sheltering refugees is completely pointless when most of them want to go to Germany, Sweden and the UK. Any sort of pan-European agreement would fall apart immediately.

See e.g.:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Tender Branson]

Of course they don't want to go to Portugal, Poland etc.

Portugal and Co. are not offering them the generous welfare goodies that for example Vienna offers this Afghan family of 11 - who are getting 6.000€ a month in welfare payments and who now want the state to pay them for a 10th child via IVF:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3554065/Afghan-couple-want-IVF-Austria-tenth-child.html

[Famous Mortimer]

Of course they don't want to go to Portugal, Poland etc.

Portugal and Co. are not offering them the generous welfare goodies that for example Vienna offers this Afghan family of 11 - who are getting 6.000€ a month in welfare payments and who now want the state to pay them for a 10th child via IVF:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3554065/Afghan-couple-want-IVF-Austria-tenth-child.html

Exactly and you can't evenly spread out the migrants while you have visa free travel between EU countries. Unless you want to have visa free travel but ONLY for non-migrants. I don't think the left would like this. They propose it now because they know it would never happen, Poland and Slovakia and Hungary would block it. But if it actually did happen, they would complain about it making migrants second class. It's a Moderate Hero position that no one actually likes. The real choice is still between, opening the EU and letting everyone in Africa and the Middle East move to Berlin and Vienna or closing the EU.

[ingemann]

Of course they don't want to go to Portugal, Poland etc.

Portugal and Co. are not offering them the generous welfare goodies that for example Vienna offers this Afghan family of 11 - who are getting 6.000€ a month in welfare payments and who now want the state to pay them for a 10th child via IVF:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3554065/Afghan-couple-want-IVF-Austria-tenth-child.html

Exactly and you can't evenly spread out the migrants while you have visa free travel between EU countries. Unless you want to have visa free travel but ONLY for non-migrants. I don't think the left would like this. They propose it now because they know it would never happen, Poland and Slovakia and Hungary would block it. But if it actually did happen, they would complain about it making migrants second class. It's a Moderate Hero position that no one actually likes. The real choice is still between, opening the EU and letting everyone in Africa and the Middle East move to Berlin and Vienna or closing the EU.

We shouldn't make them worse than they are. Because those limitations already exist.

The Schengen Agreement is in fact only for "nationals". So if you have gotten asylum in for example Portugal you don't have a right to go to Germany. Also the Schengen Agreement only allow the free movement of labour. So if you're a Portuguese national you can't just move to Sweden and receive welfare payment. You can move to Sweden and work and it's only after you have worked in a country you have right to welfare in the country in question.

[ingemann]

It says a lot about the current state of the European Union that an influx of ~1-1.5 million refugees, by all accounts a rather tiny proportion of the European population, has created a traumatic political crisis that's devouring the system. The United States managed to handle the Vietnamese and the Cuban refugees wave, which were on a somewhat similar scale relative to the proportion of the population, with relative ease in the past. Similarly, refugee crises in the past were handled admirably by Europe, of interest to this thread ought to be Greece's response to the influx of Albanian migrants in the 90s, the response to Somali refugees etc.

First of all both the Vietnamese and Cubans arrived in smaller number over a longer periode than the amount of refugees Germany alone received in 2015. Sweden have received more refugee than USA did in the Mariel boatlift, and it's a country with 1/30 of the American population. It's why we see the significant political crisis in those two countries over this, and moreso in Sweden than Germany.

Also right now USA take in 70 000 refugees annual. Which is why the American moral high ground on this point is built on hot air. In fact the numbers of Cuban and Vietnamese refugees USA have taken in are 300 000 and 800 000. As comparison Denmark received 7500 refugees in 2013 and 14700 in 2014 of which around half get asylum (3900 and 6100). Denmark have 1/60 the population of USA. When you make than calculation, it means that as percent of the population Denmark took around 25% more refugees (compared to populatio  size) in one year (before the refugee crisis) than USA have taken in Cubans over 50 years or 45% of the amount of Vietnamese USA have taken in.

...and here' the fun part Denmark are nowhere near Germany, Sweden or Austria in the amount of refugees these countries have taken.

Of course compared to the past Europe doesn't take many refugees. But it's because our treatment of those refugees in the past was cheaper and their future was clearer.. As example Denmark took in 250 000 Germany refugees in 1945 from Prussia (mostly women and children). They was placed in camps until they could be repatriated (which they mostly was by 1950).
Germany of course took in many more refugees, of course those refugees happened to be mostly Germans.

If we could place the refugees in permanent camps and be sure they could be repatriated in a few years (or at least leave Europe). Most European countries could take many more, but that's not what we're asked

Well, yes, that's my point. It's very unreasonable to expect Germany or Sweden or Austria to handle the amount of refugees that they've been receiving. However, the European Union was an attempt to, well, forge some sort of consensus on these matters and, as such, is clearly not functional nor purposeful if it cannot handle this kind of a "crisis" and distribute/share refugees in an equitable fashion. After all, it is a kind of state and there cannot be a common labor market with something approaching open borders without common agreement on refugee issues. That's all that I'm saying. I have no moral high ground, of course,  I'm just pointing out the obvious here, I suppose.

However, it is equally foolish to expect Saudi Arabia or Qatar to be able to handle the number of refugees that many far-right idiots expect them to handle. For one, I do not understand why the so-called advocates of "Western values" want to push refugees into the clutches of despicable states ruled by barbaric despots. Secondly, it would almost certainly be a disaster: why would pushing refugees into slum-like camps in Saudi Arabia or Qatar or the UAE where they'd be treated as third-class citizens and probably pushed into slave-labor result in anything good? In all likelihood, that would create further instability in the Middle East and could plunge the region into chaos, especially if the imams/clerics decided to break with the House of Saud, which could happen with recent economic proposals of the upstart princes. That would be no good at all!

"Western values" are just a buzz words which really means a lot of different things to different people. So let me translate.

It means; "we're not interested in making our societies worse to help a bunch of people, who we don't really have any reason to like".

If these refugees came across as more likable, the opposition to let these in would be a lot smaller. There was not the same opposition to take in refugees under the Cold War, and the reason we see opposition now and specific with Muslims, is because decades of interaction with these people have lead to contempt and disgust.

[The Last Northerner]

The Dalai Lama raised some eyebrows by saying Europe was being too generous with refugees.

[Pingvin]

http://www.thelocal.de/20160602/isis-duesseldorf-terrorism-attack-arrests-france

"...arrived in Germany through the Balkan route from Turkey in 2015, and entered under Merkel's open borders policy."

[dead0man]

If only they had a better boat to get to Europe on!