Europe-Middle East-Africa Refugee Crisis General Thread

[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?

[Zanas]

Since when do people have a right to live in democracies? These people are (mostly) no political refugees, they are war refugees. Why would the authoritarian character of some states diminish their capacities to deal with migrants from the same region?

Would you happen to have heard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ? Ok, it's unbinding, but it's supposed to be an ideal towards which we should all tend. I guess everyone has forgotten that nowadays...

I'll just make a few remarks since this thread gives me nausea.

I've read a few posters talk about "we should put these refugees here, and those refugees there". Hint : you don't get to put people wherever the hell you want. They're not livestock. They're people. I guess that also seems lost on a number of people nowadays.

Also, of course these people are fleeing appalling countries and situations, and of course, once they do, they don't just stop one mile after the border. Once you flee, you ask yourself : "where could I get the best opportunity to start a new life and potentially help my relatives who've stayed at home?" So they keep on travelling until they get to financially healthy(-ish) countries such as Germany, France, the UK or Sweden. It's not that difficult to understand really. Each and every one of you would do the same, cast under the same circumstances.

Now, we European people can whine as much as we like : those people are coming, and are gonna keep on coming more and more in the coming years. There's really nothing we can do to completely stop them. So we're gonna have to deal with it, one way or another.

And finally, I'm against forced emigration. I feel that nobody should be forced to emigrate to a strange foreign country because there are no opportunities at home. Do y'all really think that a rural Tchad or Eritrea farmer is excited about making a 3000 miles trip to go live in a grim suburb of London, Paris, Hamburg, in tiny hounsing and promiscuity, working nights and day fearing detention and repatriation by the local police each waking hour ? DO YOU THINK THEY DO THIS FOR FUN ? Don't you think this Tchad or Eritrea farmer would be happier staying with his family, his friends, people who speak his language, who have the same culture, traditions ? But if he can't farm without getting in the way of dictatorship and war, or without starving, well then, yes, he's gonna say his goodbyes and reach for Europe to try and live better. A little better at least.

The whole debate here is really between a few altruists and utter egocentrics, and ultimately between a preference for hope or for fear.

[Zanas]

I've read a few posters talk about "we should put these refugees here, and those refugees there". Hint : you don't get to put people wherever the hell you want. They're not livestock. They're people. I guess that also seems lost on a number of people nowadays.

They don't get to come wherever the hell they want. States have the right to control their borders and decide who gets in and who gets to stay. A state that has lost control of its borders is essentially a failed state.

I was speaking in terms of countries : "we should put 1,500 in Austria and 500 in Iceland" doesn't make sense if they are not willing to immigrate to these countries and rather immigrate to other ones. They will simply settle in for a small time and move on.

You say "they don't get to come wherever the hell they want". Ok. But, evidently, they get to choose whatever country they hope to immigrate to and stick to it. Doesn't mean they are entitled to enter this particular country, but they will still keep on trying nonetheless.

Also, of course these people are fleeing appalling countries and situations, and of course, once they do, they don't just stop one mile after the border. Once you flee, you ask yourself : "where could I get the best opportunity to start a new life and potentially help my relatives who've stayed at home?" So they keep on travelling until they get to financially healthy(-ish) countries such as Germany, France, the UK or Sweden.

These people are not refugees. They are economic migrants. And, as has been stated, they are not even the most vulnerable ones nor the poorest: those who can afford to travel to Europe are the relatively well-off people compared to their poorer countrymen who remain either in their native country or in camps in neighbouring countries.

With one billion euros we could either give a comfortable life to a thousand middle-class Syrians in Europe or we could vastly improve the lives of 10,000-20,000 poor Syrians living in Lebanon and Turkey or displaced within Syria. Which is preferable?

Mass immigration to Western countries is the least effective way of ridding the world of of suffering and poverty.

My point exactly, we actually agree on that. Codevelopment and a stop to corporate and agro-alimentary imperialism are the way to go. But right now we get that flow coming in. I'd rather react to it humanely than inhumanely. Not saying you, Helsinkian, are doing that, but others in this thread clearly are.