Europe-Middle East-Africa Refugee Crisis General Thread

[ag]

I think steps will be taken to rescind some of the international conventions on asylum. 'Europe or bust' is getting potentially dangerous.

I see what you want to do about the refugee treaties. Have harder time seeing what you want to do about the refugees.

[ag]

It seems every refugee-related thread goes its own way (I myself, of course, am substantially to blaim). In the other one we went into Yiddish immitations, here it is property rights and eminent domain. Nobody really cares about the refugees, I am afraid.

[ag]

In other countries, like Germany etc., asylum centers and homes are already burning down to the ground ...

What?

There have been a number of arson attacks around Germany recently, in which proposed asylum seeker homes have been destroyed - prior to the asylum seekers arriving there.

I didn't know that, but I would hardly call it "burning homes to the ground". Not a single person was injured or killed, of course that doesn't mean that it's not despicable.

Bavaria last week:

People are literally resisting invasions of their ancestral homelands.

Justified as any other resistance to invasion.

Would you mind changing your name here? "Eichmann", for instance, would admirably fit your personality.

[ag]

Can we ban this worthless piece of trash already?

Leftists always want to silence voices they don't agree with. I don't honestly think I've seen a comment of yours that was more than a sentence in length. It's pretty good evidence that you live in a bubble where you think everyone agrees with you and your beliefs need no explanation or justification, so you snark against those who don't agree with you and don't seem to be bothered to ever explain anything.

It is literally an invasion that is happening in Europe. Not by an organized army or a state, but an invasion of foreigners displacing people from their own home country. There are terrorist attacks in Europe regularly, and African and Mid-Eastern foreigners now commit an excessive amount of crime in their new European homes, far out of proportion to their share of the population.

Europeans are resisting. If I'm banned, whatever, you will still see the same thing. Some people don't want Germany to become Turkey, Syria, Libya, or Somalia.

Herr Eichmann, I am only asking you to stop profaning the alias you are currently using.

[ag]

Actually, it's not Seinfeld but ag who is most similar to Adolf Eichmann. After all, I haven't seen Seinfeld stating he's okay with European Jews being attacked yet...

Unlike you, I have never called for Jews to be sent to Auschwitz. It is you, who wants a repeat of Holocaust, not me. For some reason you think you will be staying on the outside this time. I do not suffer from that delusion.

[ag]

Actually, it's not Seinfeld but ag who is most similar to Adolf Eichmann. After all, I haven't seen Seinfeld stating he's okay with European Jews being attacked yet...

Unlike you, I have never called for Jews to be sent to Auschwitz. It is you, who wants a repeat of Holocaust, not me. For some reason you think you will be staying on the outside this time. I do not suffer from that delusion.

You're implying you're really Jewish now? Hahahaha. You're more like the Kapo guy. And no, I don't think I would be staying outside if you were the one in charge. I think you would lead in real, proud Jews like me first.

I, of course, have never had any any doubt you would be happily standing guard as I would be ushered into a gas chamber. You are very much an SS type. At least, I do not have gold teeth: so you would be out of luck there.

[ag]

Actually, it's not Seinfeld but ag who is most similar to Adolf Eichmann. After all, I haven't seen Seinfeld stating he's okay with European Jews being attacked yet...

Unlike you, I have never called for Jews to be sent to Auschwitz. It is you, who wants a repeat of Holocaust, not me. For some reason you think you will be staying on the outside this time. I do not suffer from that delusion.

You're implying you're really Jewish now? Hahahaha. You're more like the Kapo guy. And no, I don't think I would be staying outside if you were the one in charge. I think you would lead in real, proud Jews like me first.

I, of course, have never had any any doubt you would be happily standing guard as I would be ushered into a gas chamber. You are very much an SS type. At least, I do not have gold teeth: so you would be out of luck there.

You seem think very lowly of yourself, and rightly so. But even for an HP like you, life imprisonment would suffice. I'm rich enough not to care about your teeth; even your organs I would keep in tact. But maybe I'd like to take some of your totally non-Jewish blood, to make matzot for my Jewish children. By doing so, I'll render useful even something as worthless as you. We call it recycling

I think it much more likely that you will push your own children into the gas chamber with me: why would you keep any Jews alive? Unless, of course, you first cook them in their own mother's milk and eat them.

[ag]

Actually, it's not Seinfeld but ag who is most similar to Adolf Eichmann. After all, I haven't seen Seinfeld stating he's okay with European Jews being attacked yet...

Unlike you, I have never called for Jews to be sent to Auschwitz. It is you, who wants a repeat of Holocaust, not me. For some reason you think you will be staying on the outside this time. I do not suffer from that delusion.

You're implying you're really Jewish now? Hahahaha. You're more like the Kapo guy. And no, I don't think I would be staying outside if you were the one in charge. I think you would lead in real, proud Jews like me first.

I, of course, have never had any any doubt you would be happily standing guard as I would be ushered into a gas chamber. You are very much an SS type. At least, I do not have gold teeth: so you would be out of luck there.

You seem think very lowly of yourself, and rightly so. But even for an HP like you, life imprisonment would suffice. I'm rich enough not to care about your teeth; even your organs I would keep in tact. But maybe I'd like to take some of your totally non-Jewish blood, to make matzot for my Jewish children. By doing so, I'll render useful even something as worthless as you. We call it recycling

I think it much more likely that you will push your own children into the gas chamber with me: why would you keep any Jews alive? Unless, of course, you first cook them in their own mother's milk and eat them.

Actually, you are the one who wants to kill all Israelis and all European Jews because you don't like Jews. By contrast, as a true, proud Jew, I want all my fellow Jews to be living in peace and safety, wherever they are. Not sure why you are constantly thinking about Jews in gas chambers, but it's pretty disturbing, even though I'm not really surprised because it's you. And I want you behind bars because you're an anti-Semite, sympathizing with dangerous movements that seek to end the existence of my people. We Jews, by the way, don't cook animals in their mothers' milk. That would even apply to dirty creatures like you, but rest assured, that's not because we would like you.

It is you who consistently advocates policies that will result in Jews being killed. And you are doing it with so much gusto, that there can be little doubt that you imagine yourself doing the killing. I do not know why: probably, it is simple sadism. And do not say "we Jews": you are not a Jew, but a Nazi.

[ag]

Oh wow.

Maybe its time to consider at least temporarily stepping away from your keyboards gentlemen?

Off to eat some choice Chinese pork

[ag]

Oh wow.

Maybe its time to consider at least temporarily stepping away from your keyboards gentlemen?

Probably the best idea. Arguing with nazis never really seemed to work anyway.

You cannot argue with people who want to kill you.

[ag]

The stupidity in this thread could power an entire nuclear plant!!!

Refugee homes are being burnt, and I am simply hyperventilating, of course.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[ag]

The main reason for the "uncontrolable flow", as you put it, that the key "controllers" have been taken out or weakened. You have been happily relying on Oriental dictators to hold the flow. The qaddafis and the assads obliged. Without them you feel suddenly defenseless and propose to reestablish something similar. Oh, no, you are not talking of installing new bloody dictatorships - but, sorry to break it to you, you effectively imply it.  And that, perhaps, would be the best - least violent - outcome of your proposals. In quite a few cases you are offering to move civil wars from one country to the next. Witness Lebanon.

You talk as if those other - non-European - countries did not have politics of their own. It is only you, civilized Europeans, who are allowed to have dislikes of the "blacks", who do not "assimilate". All those "Africans" are the same - and indistinguishable from the Afghans, I know.

[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.

You are ignoring my point about the popular image of a real refugee and the changes in the composition of the refugees causing delegitimization of the refugee system.

The historical facts you mention does not affect modern politics.

I am perfectly aware of the fact that for a lot of people most real refugees are illegitimate, since they are not of the same race as themselves. And I am aware of European politics. May I open your eyes to the fact that politics exists also outside of Europe?

[ag]

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.

The idea that Australia in the 1970s did not see it self as being for a particular ethnicity is a misreading of history. Granted the "White Australia" policy was on its last legs then, but it wasn't quite yet gone. Even in Canada and the US, our immigration policies had not foreseen the vast increase in Asian immigration that happened.

Actually, yep. I have missed that whoopsie. Australia has, probably, had the biggest ethnic and racial change over the last 50 years than any other country that did not go through a major ethnic-cleansing-accompanied war.

But, you know, for a Dane there is no politics outside Europe

[ag]

Finally, I am, of course, aware of the fact that Denmark has chosen to colonize, mostly, sparsely-populated ice deserts without land borders. But, you know, it is in Europe that you are Danish. Elsewhere, you are a European - not easily distinguishable from, say, a Belgian. Or a Brit. Or a Frenchman. Or even a German.

Now, modern Africa is largely shaped by European colonizers. Its borders, its conflicts, its problems. Even, not infrequently, its dictators are all European iheritance. I know, you guys would prefer not to take the responsibility for the sins of your grandfathers. Belgians definitely do not like talking of King Leopold. But, you know what...