Europe-Middle East-Africa Refugee Crisis General Thread

[DavidB.]

In the German city of Tübingen, the Green mayor Boris Palmer, threatens to confiscate [unused] private property to forcefully house asylum seekers and/or illegals ...

Greens...

[DavidB.]

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...

[DavidB.]

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.

[DavidB.]

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.

[DavidB.]

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.

[DavidB.]

This thread needs to be moderated much harder - or closed.

It looks like zero posts in this thread have been reported.  There is always the "report to moderator" button to let Afleitch know of any problems here.  Or just PM him.

I guess it is because this is a WTF thread. You do not really know were to start or whether to be bothered at all, but it is a shame we can not discuss this serious issue in a reasonable or even semi-reasonable manner.

This thread of yours is much better: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=216547.0. However, I understand that this one should be focused on the refugee crisis in practice while yours is about solving the issue.

[DavidB.]

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

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

1) Should the Western world try to stop countries from falling apart (we have not been very good at it, but what is the alternative? More failed states means ever more refugees).
Yes, the fact that "our" efforts often failed doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try it. Surely there will always be people who consider "Western intervention" (even if the military is not involved) inherently bad, but these people need to understand that a problem in South Sudan is not only a problem for South Sudan. In fact, it's not only a problem with the potential to destabilize the region, it's a problem with the potential to destabilize many countries in region, including Western countries (however you define that word). We should apply new methods and find new angles to help these countries out. The well-being of the people in a country should always be the first priority.

2) Should it be possible to seek asylum in rich countrues by arriving there? Or should application for asylum in the West be handled by the UN in refugee camps in the areas bordering conflict zones?
As it is now we reward traffickers and it becomes a matter of money where you get in - not need. Generally mentally and (severely) psychically ill, disabled, severe torture victims lone women, children,gays/queers should have preference. and 3) Is it possible to make an international distribution based on a quota system, where some countries pay others to take their refugees? If so, this would require a repatriation system where "queu-jumpers will be sent back to refugee camps in near areas if caught.
As to question two, no. This system creates the tragedies on the Mediterranean Sea that we all hate. Everyone who gets in by boat should get out by boat. Entering the EU illegally should mean no chance for asylum whatsoever. We must ensure that they will return in Africa safely, which requires coordination with the countries that are actually in tact: Egypt (even though they seldom depart from there), Tunisia, and Morocco. This will have a price, but applying the Australian model will at least hinder the boats from coming. It will hinder the human traffickers from putting more lives at risk. (Of course, this is not politically viable, since too many people think of the Australian model as "less humane" than the current disaster-prone policy, even though stopping the boats meant an extreme decrease in death toll... Sadly, good European intentions can lead to policies that, in turn, lead to many deaths).

As to question three, what we should do is establish camps at the coast in these "safe North African countries" and in countries that border the EU in the (south-)east. People should be allowed to apply for the status of asylum seeker there. All EU countries should have access to their files, and each country should assess who's welcome. I'm not for establishing quotas, because it should be up to the EU member states how many refugees they take in. The people who don't get accepted, which will probably the vast majority, at least know that "trying it again" doesn't have any chance. They will not put their lives at risk at the sea. Of course, this will cost EU countries a lot of money, but we're the ones who have it, and after all, we want to keep in tact the idea of our countries as nation states, we want to prevent these people from coming, and we don't want these people to die. That has a price, and even though I don't like it, it's necessary to take our responsibility.

3a) What countries would it be possible to resettle large groups of refugees in? Do you think the US could take a substantial part? (if paid a partial compensation by EU, Japan, South Korea and other areas unwilling to accept mass immigration).
That's up to countries themselves, but in general, I think EU countries will, in the end, take in the most refugees. There will inevitably be an imbalance, since I can't see the Netherlands, the UK, Denmark and Eastern European countries take in as many refugees as Sweden and Germany will take in, but that's how it works. I think the U.S. could, theoretically, also help, but since this is simply much less of a problem for them, I can't even imagine the Obama administration being willing to take in some of them -- let alone the next administration, whether Democratic or Republican. So even if the U.S. could take a substantial part, they will not.

4) It is cheaper to help refugees in poor countries than in rich. Do you think that should be an aspect in refugee policy?
Yes, I think so. We are under the moral obligation to help refugees, but I don't think we are necessarily under the moral obligation to help them in our own countries.

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

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

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

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[DavidB.]

Police stopped the trains at the border because they were heavily overcrowded and a security risk. After checking the papers, some were returned to Budapest - but most were able to travel on.

Wtf? Why on earth?

[DavidB.]

Insightful point! Ashkenazi Jews from Byelorussia had no experience with democracy. Naturally, when they fled the pogroms, they came to the shores of New York City and started weeping, asking themselves "what is democracy? i can't comprehend this," before establishing the monarchy of New York Oblast.

People implicitly claiming that Ashkenazi Jews who fled the pogroms more than a century ago had just the same culture as Syrian Sunni Muslims now Only on Atlas.

Although I actually agree that the 'they don't have any experience with democracy' argument doesn't make sense.

No, MENA nations are not more equipped than France or the UK to handle migrants. They're poorer, they're not all that culturally similar and they're authoritarian. This burden cannot be transferred to Egypt or to Saudi Arabia or to the UAE. That's wish fulfillment. Furthermore, it's deeply immoral wish fulfillment because I'm well-aware that people on this forum know about the manner in which the Gulf States treat migrant workers.

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? By the way, it's not as if these people are used to living in a perfect democracy like Iceland or Finland in the first place.

(To be sure, the fact that Gulf States would treat migrants very badly is obviously an argument for not having too much faith in them, and I agree that Egypt shouldn't be burdened with this problem too much, considering that they have a problem with poverty, overpopulation and political instability even now.)

[DavidB.]

I don't know why you're talking to me, ag, but you're uncalled for.

Insightful point! Ashkenazi Jews from Byelorussia had no experience with democracy. Naturally, when they fled the pogroms, they came to the shores of New York City and started weeping, asking themselves "what is democracy? i can't comprehend this," before establishing the monarchy of New York Oblast.

People implicitly claiming that Ashkenazi Jews who fled the pogroms more than a century ago had just the same culture as Syrian Sunni Muslims now

What is the difference? This is a serious question.

Well, both groups had no real experience with democracy, but that's where the comparison ends. Most Syrian refugees had been a majority within their own country (even though Sunnis didn't/don't control the country politically) and will now, as refugees, have to accomodate to the situation in an entirely different country where they won't be the group that's socially dominant (of course, there are also non-Sunni refugees, but the vast majority are). Ashkenazi Jews, on the other hand, were already a minority used to living in countries where they were not socially dominant.

And then there's the anti-Westernness in general that many (but of course not all) Muslim immigrants have, an attitude Ashkenazi Jews never seemed to have (and which, in the 21st century, isn't the same as in the late 19th century anyway) - on the contrary, that's why most Ashkenazi Jews assimilated. Which is, in my opinion, not something good at all - I'm not saying people should assimilate, they have the absolute right not to, if they don't wish to do so. But the fact that many refugees will probably not assimilate will bring about very different consequences for societies than immigration of Ashkenazi Jews brought about, regardless of one's opinion on assimilation (mine not being too positive).

[DavidB.]

Meanwhile, White House spokesman Josh Earnest stated that Europe needs to solve the refugee problem itself. The US "will be glad to help Europe by giving advise" but will not take in refugees: "Europe has the capacity to solve the problem itself." He also said that European politicians shouldn't forget "that this is about human beings".

I don't think the US is under the obligation to take in refugees, but if they don't, at least I'd like the White House to refrain from taking the moral highground.

[DavidB.]

The nazi attacks on refugees have made it a lot easier for Merkel and her government to frame the issue as a moral issue. If there's one country bent on not making the same mistakes as in the past, it's Germany. This "German exceptionalism" is also the reason that other European countries won't be able to sell this frame as easily/successfully as Merkel.

In the Netherlands, for instance, the refugee debate is much more cynical. We have become such a polarized country, and every low-information, emotional opinion (on both sides of the debate) seems acceptable nowadays.

[DavidB.]

No, you're copy and pasting an unsubstantiated story that sounds familiar to many.

What makes you think it's unsubstantiated?  It did happen, in April.  There are many stories on it.  BBC, CNN, others.  More recently, a couple was murdered in Sicily, but it was likely a robbery gone wrong ('cause that's better somehow) and a refugee in Maine was recently murdered by his fellow refugees for having the audacity to be a Christian.

Perhaps we're horrible people for bringing it up.  I'm sure it's nothing and once everybody gets where they want to go, tensions will calm down and you won't keep seeing stories like this.  Or maybe if we do, it will be because Europeans kept the refugees from integrating with society, but surely the children of the refugees will be more integrated and less likely to do horrible things in the name of their religion.  That's worked well with the ones already in Europe right?  The second and third generations are much calmer than their father's, yes?

Nailed it.

I thought this NYT article was interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/04/world/europe/europe-refugee-distribution.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0.

I'm not really down with the fact that the Netherlands is the country that takes in most asylum seekers after Sweden, Germany, and Italy (and presumably Austria): this is just disproportional. At the same time, I can only commend Eastern European countries for their sensible approach.

[DavidB.]

While Hungary is trying to block migrants from entering the EU, Germany is encouraging everyone to try it. Can't Merkel just send airplanes to Syria already to pick up these people?

[DavidB.]

Last year 3,600 asylum seekers arrived in Finland. The estimate for this year is up to 30,000 asylum seekers. That's an eightfold increase to the previous year. The flood gates are open, and Finland is set to become the new Sweden.

In a populist move to gather political points among those naive enough to support the wave of asylum seekers (and perhaps to deliberately annoy his coalition partner, the Finns Party), our Prime Minister Juha Sipilä (Centre Party) has decided to offer his own house in Kempele, Northern Finland, as an accomodation for circa 20 asylum seekers.

With the news of this spreading internationally, I can only guess that his decision will lead to an influx of thousands more.

http://yle.fi/uutiset/pm_sipila_pledges_oulu_home_to_refugees/8282824

I am amazed by Finland doing this, the Nordic country that could have saved itself. Why don't politicians see what's happening to Sweden? I'd surely feel f**ked if I would have voted for the Finns Party.

[DavidB.]

Didn't know that Soini was such an egotistical guy. Not that I'm really surprised, he's not the first new-right leader to be like that.

Anyhow, I'll start filming the new hit series "Finland Is The New Sweden" already. Car bombs, rape, and gays being beaten up are involved. Coming to your neighborhood soon! Stay tuned, don't leave this channel!

This is all so sad.

Don't worry, they are seeing it. But they are leading Europe into the abyss with their eyes wide open. In their quest to transform Europe into an impoverished wasteland like Syria and Africa ...

Unfortunately, you are right on the money.

[DavidB.]

Sibboleth's replies are pretty illustrative for the tactics on the emotional side of the debate. If one doesn't think it is good for Germany to take in a whopping 800,000 immigrants, 1% of its population, then one must be a nazi. I, for one, don't think Helsinkian or Tender said unreasonable things, and your remark to Helsinkian regarding Europeans being white is a strawman, for he never argued along the lines of "race".

If nationalism is on the rise, I will be seen as a foreigner too. Many nationalists don't want me to be in Europe either, and I see enough disgusting Facebook pages to prove this over and over again. So it's not at all the case that I'm in bed with the extremist loudmouths, whom I absolutely loathe. However, it is simply not unreasonable for people to have second thoughts about taking in massive numbers of refugees and "refugees" (because no, an IT worker from Lahore is not a real refugee). Yes, we are all looking for happiness and a better life, but taking in tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people from countries with a radically different culture will inevitably have negative consequences. Emotional photos might make people forget about reality, and there might be a window of opportunity for politicians to push forward ill-advised policies just to look "humane", but eventually people will have to live with the results of these policies - and these results might not be that positive for Europe, rendering our societies even more polarized.

[DavidB.]

but I'll humor you. Why do I think your claim is ironic? I think it's ironic because the contemporary movements of Jews from France to Israel are oftentimes framed as refugees moving to Israel. Now, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with this narrative but I think that the categorization of people between "migrants" and "refugees" necessitates the utmost caution. It's not an easy distinction and I'd argue that it would be far better to be liberal when categorizing people as refugees or migrants.

I don't think I have ever said that Jews from France should be considered refugees (even though I think they might be), so you literally brought up this topic yourself and I'm not sure why you are attacking me on that.

Well, I actually do think I know why: because you want to be provocative. This is just trolling, and that makes me unwilling to discuss the rest of your post, because I think it's a bit low to try and play that game with me. And I won't reply to the people that show up just to say that Jews are totally safe/privileged in Europe either. Ain't got time for that bull.

[DavidB.]

The point is that I would have had the exact same opinion regarding the refugee issue if I weren't Jewish. Playing the argument the way you did makes this a discussion about what Jews "ought to think" rather than a discussion about the real refugee issue. And the reality is that Jews have the right to take every position in this debate, just like other people. Just before shabbat, a well-known Jewish Labour member argued that the Netherlands should take in 160,000 refugees, equivalent to Germany's 800,000. He fully has the right to take that position, even though I think it's nonsensical and potentially dangerous. And immediately there are nasty people from the ultra-right who say he takes this position because he's Jewish and he wants to destroy Dutch culture because of WWII, and whatever. On the other hand, if you're more on the right of the debate, like I am, the left will accuse you of being heartless and forgetting your own history et cetera (some people on Atlas are doing this, too). Both arguments are inherently problematic and the problem is that someone's Jewishness is deemed relevant for their position in the debate, while it doesn't necessarily have to be. To the extent that my Jewishness influences my views on the refugee issue (for reasons ingemann very well described - even though I don't see my future in Europe regardless of the refugee issue), I try to make that clear for myself and I try not to let it influence the way I look at the world when I try to be objective (even though I will never be objective - no one is).

(Here I go again, replying to something I probably shouldn't reply to because we won't agree/I'll be trolled/people saying disgusting things about Jews, etc....)

I fully agree that someone from Lahore, Pakistan can be a "real refugee" (and I agree that a debate about this can be legitimate). Tender didn't make this up, the example came from the NYT article. The mocking replies about that might have been inappropriate indeed, at least without knowing the details. I am all for taking in persecuted Pakistani Christians and gays, for instance. However, it is also true that there are many people travelling to Europe who aren't necessarily persecuted or from war-ridden countries. And while I despise the Dutch term gelukszoekers (these days it's even used by serious politicians to indicate that many refugees aren't "real refugees" - it roughly translates to "happiness seekers": we all seek happiness), I don't think the whole world can be welcomed in Europe. You say you don't think 800,000 people going to Germany (what, exactly, is ironic about that?) should be a problem, but how about, for instance, 8,000,000? There are many more people who would love to live in Europe (for very conceivable reasons) who are currently living in countries that are not the nicest places to be. But we can't possibly take them all in and sustain our way of life, while I think a balance should be found: on the one hand we need to help refugees, but on the other hand Europeans have a right to their way of life. The debate should be about the limit. But I get the impression that many US posters don't even understand that there is such a limit.

Regarding the emotional pictures: I surely pity children drowning in the Mediterranean (normal; has a heart; etc.). But many media are deliberately showing these in order to gain support for an open-borders policy, just as pictures with happy refugees using their iPhones are used to gain support for letting no one in. And people believe that stuff. Of course, I think we should implement policies that end the tragedies on the Mediterranean Sea and in Europe, and in this thread, I have posted a proposal for a policy that should do so (but nobody seemed interested in replying to that). But my point is that it simply doesn't make sense to derive the conclusion from these heartbreaking pictures that Europe should open its borders to anyone approaching.

But European Jews, their communities mostly lies in the major cities, if they want to take daily part in their communities, they needto some degree to live in the major cities, often in areas where some of the least integrated Muslims also live. They're among the people who are hit the hardest by this, also the majority begin to not take claim about antisemitism serious anymore, because all of them are now blamed on Muslims. So Jews both have to deal with living among a very anti-Jewish minority group, while at the same time antisemitism among the majority have become hidden, because the majority can no longer see it.

You are so right and I'm genuinely glad that there seem to be people who understand this

[DavidB.]

In the LOL category: the supposedly 17-year old refugee from Iraqi Kurdistan who appeared in an emotional television interview with Finnish Prime Minister Juha Sipilä - leading Sipilä to open one of his houses for refugees - turns out to be 20 years old in reality. What's more, he's been in jail in the past and is posting hateful comments toward Finns on his Facebook page.

I rest my case...