|
This idea that European Union is just too poor to accept a fraction of refugees in the world is a complete fabrication. The idea that European Union accepting one fifth of the refugees that Lebanon has accepted makes it another Lebanon is retarded. The European Union has 230 times the GDP and 127 times the population. The idea that we don't somehow share a responsibility in refugees because we don't happen to border the countries where they come from is ludicrous. The idea that many European (or Western) countries don't have a massive responsibility in creating many of these refugee crisis is ignoring history, and I'm talking about very recent history, not colonial times. The idea that this is the first refugee crisis in the world, and there has never been anything equivalent to it ignores a pretty huge blind spot in history too. EDIT: And the idea that if we start taking care of refugees the all of the poor in the world will migrate to Europe is...I don't know. How can someone say that with a straight face? How is the current crisis, primarily driven by war and oppression, any way indicative of the situation in the vast, vast majority of the poor world? There are 5.9 billion people in the developing world. Most of them seem to be just fine staying where they are. And like previously said, they're taking care of numbers of refugees that make the European situation seem nothing while having a fraction of the resources. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 14:06 on Sep 4, 2015 |
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
Ligur posted:I'm all for people getting to move from place A to place B as long as they are not a burden to place B. If you have a job, money for rent etc. go ahead. However, if you are in a safe place, it's not my "human right" to skip to some other place and have the society provide for me, right? So again, where in any of the international agreements signed by European nations is refugee acceptance and taking care of refugees based on geographic proximity? Is Iran really forced to accept a million refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan because it happens to border two countries where Western powers started two incredibly irresponsible wars that has driven instability in the region for over a decade? Is that fair? Is that how international co-operation should work according to any of the legal framework on the subject? Aren't say, U.S. or Great Britain a little bit more responsible of the refugees in Iran then Iran? Is "welp I guess you're poo poo out of luck since you happen to border that country, maybe if they had touched base somewhere else you'd be fine" really the best way to solve the refugee crisis? What if say something opens in Latakia and Syrians start to swarm to Cyprus - is it Cyprus's turn to take a million Syrians because they are close? How does this work, exactly? DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Sep 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
willemw posted:It's in the Dublin Regulation. Well not literally, but de facto the first country the refugee enters will be Greece or Italy. The Dublin Regulation is not very good :/ Yes but it doesn't say anything about stopping refugees from arriving into EU.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
Yeah, after all these years of Syria being a bloodbath you're going to have a hard time convincing me that it's going to lead to something worse if we just take away the ability to fly from Assad. Post Revolution violence in Libya has nothing compared to when Gaddafi was just murdering everyone who was against him. I'll have bunch of sectarian forces duking it out over a bunch of sectarian forces except one of them has an air force and barrel bombs (well the Kurds kind of have an air force courtesy of U.S.).
DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Sep 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:http://news.yahoo.com/pope-vatican-shelter-2-families-fleeing-war-hunger-113629489.html I hope some of them do. Catholics are pretty big on that, ultimately. Of course what would help to drive the point home would be him housing some in Vatican City.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Two things are funny: That's not how refugees work, which has been said multiple times. The legal definition does not agree with this. Any treaties signed by countries do not agree with this. People hailing from countries which are not dangerous are being sent back every day. I mean you can keep saying that if you want, but you should probably preface it with "By the way this is my opinion substantiated by nothing official whatsoever." Legally and morally people from Syria, Eritrea, Afghanistan and the like are refugees. People from Albania or Kosovo and such aren't, which is why they're being sent back. In addition, everything else aside, it's in no way shape or form acceptable to say to the developing world that this is on them when European/Western countries have had a HUGE hand in causing a lot of this, when an even larger refugee crisis and warzones in Europe were in the past subsidized by the rest of the world whether they wanted it or not, and when the refugees are going to keep coming here nevertheless. quote:Next, someone will say "but hey small and poor countries have more refugees when wealthier EU countries, so that can't be a problem!" Yeah 20% of the people who are within Lebanese borders are foreigners who have rather recently arrived as refugees. They live in tents. In camps. Not in high infra suburbs with organized welfare state benefits in countries so up North they will die of exposure during winter without expensive housing. You can't compare those two things http://syrianrefugees.eu/?page_id=80 http://syrianrefugees.eu/?page_id=87 http://syrianrefugees.eu/?page_id=72 http://www.mercycorps.org/articles/turkey-iraq-jordan-lebanon-syria/quick-facts-what-you-need-know-about-syria-crisi quote:Do all refugees live in camps? quote:Over 1 million Syrians have taken refugee in Turkey since the outbreak of the crisis in March 2011. quote:Approximately 80 percent of Syrian refugees in Jordan live in urban areas in the north of Jordan, while the remaining 20 percent live in the Za’atari, Marjeeb al-Fahood, Cyber City and Al-Azraq camps. quote:there are no refugee camps in Lebanon http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/tu...1&NewsCatID=359 http://carnegie-mec.org/2014/09/01/refugee-crisis-in-lebanon-and-jordan-need-for-economic-development-spending http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/23099 http://dai.com/news-publications/news/calculating-fiscal-cost-jordan-syrian-refugee-crisis http://www.inss.org.il/index.aspx?id=4538&articleid=6209 http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/why-refugee-influx-threatens-lebanon-jordan-stability http://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/remarks/2014/219388.htm Obviously the other countries are making no financial sacrifices whatsoever. Do you really think if a Syrian comes to a hospital in Jordan, Turkey or Lebanon they're turned away? They didn't just wake up one day and realize that Europe existed when the crisis has been going on for five years. They're flooding here because the countries where they originally flooded are at their breaking point and can't support all refugees anymore, and Syria still has SEVEN MILLION internally displaced people flooding at those countries at a rate that makes what Europe is facing seem absolutely nothing at all in comparison or proportion. You'll notice how the number of refugees in those countries isn't magically going down despite all of this. Unknown Dyne posted:They'd have to get through countries such as Turkey, Greece, Albania, Austria, Hungary, Germany (ooh Germany would be a good choice) to get through to the UK. They'd have to travel through a slew of countries who are not at war, the poor dears. Or maybe they're economic migrants chasing handouts. Sorry, I mean we did participate in the massive upheavals and topplings of untold governments in the region for decades right up to this loving day but LOL not our problem because borders! DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Sep 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:It has? I mean I just literally searched 'Somalia war debunked' and all the results cross out 'debunked' in the results due to lack of them. Do you have something to back this up? http://www.trust.org/spotlight/Somalia-in-turmoil/?tab=briefing http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc11972.doc.htm http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/rape-victims-still-blamed-for-sexual-violence-in-somalia-10229605.html http://www.france24.com/en/20150407-somalia-al-shabaab-adapts-despite-territorial-military-losses http://editorials.voa.gov/content/human-rights-in-somalia-still-suffer/2853020.html Basically its bullshit and like every other right wing talking point is refutable with a minuscule amount of independent research. Somalia is still one of the most dangerous countries in the world. There are still over a million internally displaced people and million on surrounding countries too. No, it's not as bad as Syria but nothing at the moment is. Syria is not a benchmark for whether or not you have cause to be refugee. And as always, the developing world is shouldering the lion's share of refugees in that conflict as well while we cry over a fraction.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I think it's rather difficult to claim that countries have a moral responsibility to prevent the deaths of the citizens of other countries without advocating for full fledged interventionism and "Responsibility to Protect." Is Europe responsible for feeding, sheltering, and clothing every person in their former colonies and every state where a European nation has intervened militarily, or just those who have the wherewithal to get themselves to European shores? European nations have been party to the recent conflicts in Middle East/Afghanistan/Pakistan which have destabilized multiple nations. This without past/current wars and past/current support of awful dictatorships that have contributed to this. In addition, we have signed the same treaties as any other country and our moral - and legal - responsibilities are pretty well outlined there. To act that Europe can't take a fraction of the refugees and developing nations have to shoulder it all is callous and ignores several actual realities that exist (mainly that Europe is immensely more rich and populous), to act like Europe/West has washed its hands of all of this and bears no fault in no way when all of us were alive in Iraq and Afghanistan wars is ludicrous. Not all of Europe, sure. But all the big ones at the least. All the ones in NATO have at least Afghanistan on them. The fact remains that most refugees are in developing countries or the countries of their origin and most refugees will and have throughout the history of the concept of a refugee stayed there, and will continue to do so. Europe whines over mere hundreds of thousands, while Turkey or Iran or Lebanon or Jordan have taken a million and more each in the past few years. How about people stop being such giant pussies about a duty that in comparison to what others shoulder is nothing at all? Not Germany though, Germans are great. That has to be the biggest 180° a country has done in a single lifetime since the Russian Revolution. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Sep 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
wiregrind posted:Refugees in peaceful South American countries protest to be sent to richer european countries. Here refugees have been accepted without question for years and they are never reported as problems, or as "evil" in the media like the first world constantly does, and probably never will be. South Americans were refugees in europe during dictatorships; we're emphathic towards muslims or anyone escaping. Thing is, the refugees aren't interested in our hospitality. That, and a trip across the Atlantic illegally would be logistically impossible / so expensive that no refugee would have money for it...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:So, um, has anybody been kicking around the idea that with a looming demographic crisis in europe's near future as declining birth rates in the latter half of the twentieth century shrink the workforce, bringing in lots of new, young folk might be exactly what's needed to revitalise the economy? I'm a simple gently caress myself, so I don't really know where to start with it, but if anybody's been advancing this hypothesis or something similar I'd love to hear about it. Well you see these new young people are brown! And that's terrible. Because they look different. PerpetualSelf posted:The only hope in the middle east for US/Israel Friendly Stability is secular dictatorship and all secular dictatorships will eventually evolve into sharia democracies or sharia dictatorships. (gently caress you)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
Some interesting numbers: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/04/world/europe/europe-refugee-distribution.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/10/world/europe/scale-of-migrant-crisis-in-europe.html
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Aumanor posted:Ever considered that this might suggest a problem with the immigrants and not with France? Ever taken the slightest look at France's housing, economic and law enforcement policies towards immigrants?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 11:58
|
|
|
my dad posted:Turkey is too close to the conflict for a lot of people to feel comfortable (Also, Erdogan), Hungary's president is going to spontaneously grow a Hitler mustache any day now, Italy is a lot harder to get to, and while I wouldn't call Serbia a shithole, we're a small country, the median salary is just below 300 euros/month, the unemployment rate is almost 20%, we were hit by a devastating flood last year from which we still haven't fully recovered, and we're in no condition to handle a large influx of permanently settled refugees - we're barely able to provide proper care to the ones in transit as is. Not that it stops people like Sarkozy coming up with the brilliant idea of making us handle the brunt of the refugee crisis. LOL well that's what you get for not being in EU/Geographically located closer to the Middle East! - someone who thinks this is perfectly valid and fair way of determining the responsibility over refugees
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It doesn't take much to get Europeans to march around with a pig's head on a staff, does it? Why don't they wear bear skins and pray to the sun while they're at it. We pretty much wear bear skins in Winter and love the Sun more then any god in the North
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Nermal posted:Hundreds of millions, possibly billions of people are much worse off than those in Turkish refugee camps. In fact hundreds of millions, possibly billions of people are not much worse off then Syrians. Most who do not reside in Turkish refugee camps but in the cities towns and villages of Turkey and other countries they are in. Why do developing countries have to shoulder the blame for the refugees of the world? Why isn't Europe, who frankly is more to blame for the current situation then Lebanon or Jordan or Iran, can say "go gently caress yourself" to refugees but the other countries just have to take it in insanely greater numbers then is expected of Europe, while having a fraction of the resources or the population?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Nermal posted:Plenty of people worse off. About 200M people going hungry right now in sub-Saharan Africa, maybe 800-900M worldwide. Are you seeing those people coming here, asking for help? Or are we helping them in other ways? I believe there has been quite concrete and massive efforts worldwide to alleviate world hunger by Western (and other) countries. Again, why does Lebanon or Jordan have to take care of refugees while European countries do not? Nermal posted:Utterly ludicrous to suggest that any country in Europe has 'joined' America in loving up the world. I'll be generous and give the UK and France a 5% share of responsibility. You can start the campaign to pin the rise of ISIS on Hungary or Serbia if you like. What countries invaded Iraq? What countries invaded Afghanistan? Why is Iran going to have to take care of the refugees caused by those countries? Why is it OK for Hungarians to be refugees in living memory, seeking help from other countries, but not for Syrians? And LOL at the European countries not being responsible for whole other long list of poo poo in the Middle East beyond the most recent American excursion. The world wasn't created on 2003. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Sep 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:He's Finnish. He's far far away from the situation and is perfectly happy that way. Umm there are refugees coming into Finland too. I'm Finnish and I disagree with him but let's not pretend this isn't an European problem as a whole, even if it's just like three countries actually picking up the slack.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2015 10:20
|
|
|
Just a reminder what huge honking hypocrites Hungarians are being: http://www.unhcr.org/4523cb392.html
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
hackbunny posted:If this is true and exactly what it appears to be, it's shocking how incompetent European police forces are. If he's such an obvious former combatant that he put it on his freaking Facebook profile, you'd think someone would at least debrief him before he's resettled I suppose its fair to say that none of the border or police forces have anyone experienced with this sort of thing. Hence the economic migrants' abuse of of the refugee flow towards Europe. However people are using this stuff as a justification for just ending European acceptance of refugees in total and I just wonder how their great-grandparents, grandparents or even parents would shake their head. They don't ever really apply this thinking to much else in their life - whether or not criminals breaking law means the whole concept of law must be erased, and such. But NOW, when refugees are coming to Europe in big numbers in recent years, now is the time that the whole system in regards to taking care of refugees to be scrapped. This isn't the first large scale refugee crisis faced by Europe, this isn't even the biggest. Many of the noisiest countries were once themselves huge source of refugees to neighboring countries and to the world (Rest of Europe, Americas and Oceania mostly). And European ones had the massive huge advantage over actual born people in many of the non-Europeans countries thanks to the huge racist systems that were still in place in many of their destinations (in fact many countries accepted ONLY Europeans/White people). I know someone is going to whine "Well we're not responsible for that" well no poo poo, I'm not responsible for this country being in a financial crisis either. I'm not responsible for the eighteen years of things that went on before I became a voting adult and was expected to pay for the mistakes of the preceding generations as soon as I got a job.Our grandparents hosed WAY too much without condoms and had WAY too many babies and my generation is expected to pay for those babies when they grow old and STAY old for two decades because our grandparents revolutionized medical science and contraceptives too. I had no power over this, nobody asked for my consent to either do this or go to jail, but here we are. But an international law followed for the vast majority of time since its inception by the vast majority of the world, created from scratch to help European refugees is wrong, because "hey, none of this is my fault, why am I expected to pay for this!" even though none of it was the fault of the countries that helped Europeans - on occasion direct relatives of many people - when Europe had a huge refugee crisis. And multiple smaller ones. In fact many of these countries have been taking the equivalents of European refugees from conflicts since before the concept of a refugee even existed, to direct detriment of the people in these countries for literal centuries. For once when we're in the receiving end in a way that actually registers, the international agreement that countries like Turkey or Jordan have been taking without complaint (or nothing equivalent to the whining of say, Hungary at the least) for the past 3-4 years should be killed. There are deficiencies in our border and policing systems because this is new to this generation, so the system is wrong and the law should be dead. If Europe took in a million people it wouldn't have any effect on the living standard of Europeans that would even be comparable to the effect it has had to the rest of the world for the whole history. Much less the effect upholding this international law has had in the rest of the world for its existence. Our financial problems are nothing to the upheavals that taking in new immigrants and yes, actual refugees from Europe that was too busy loving itself over with constant wars caused to say, Native Americans, black South Africans, African Americans, and even earlier European immigrants like Irish Americans before someone blames me of hating whitey or something. Europe was burning for most of its existence. The descendants of Europeans who left because of religious persecution, crippling poverty in their home country, huge wars or civil wars is half a billion. In 1940's a system was created to manage the latest massive outflow of Europeans without a home. This system has lasted until this day, and as always, the rest of the world is actually carrying most of the load with 86% of refugees in there. But hey, Europe is asked to accept say, extra few percentages equivalent to maybe a load of some of the single countries in the rest of the world and its WELL IT WAS GOOD WHILE IT LASTED AND ENORMOUSLY BENEFITED US BUT YOU KNOW I'VE NEVER BEEN A REFUGEE MYSELF SO IT'S NOT MY FAULT GENERATIONAL UPHOLDING OF LAW AND RESPONSIBILITIES CERTAINLY IS NOT A THING THAT EXISTS. How does someone manage to be that much of a pussy and a callous rear end in a top hat at the same time? DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Sep 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
I'm not white. White people elsewhere in the world took in a shitload of Europeans too. Refugees late as the 90's. US for example: http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/america-tonight-blog/2013/10/13/the-5-biggest-refugeegroupsofthelast20years.html European shame is more of an appropriate word then white guilt. People are so entitled. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Sep 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
freelancemoth posted:"Altogether, 438,000 refugees had applied for asylum by the end of July - compared with 571,000 for the whole of last year." Explain to me: why should Europe directly benefit from refugee law in very recent memory, remain a part of UN, sign all the treaties and agreements, crow about human rights and dignities if it itself isn't going to follow the responsibility when it falls on it? Can Jordan, Lebanon or Turkey to throw out all the refugees back to Syria and watch them get barrel bombed, and would you support that decision? Why is it being hugely costly to those countries OK and fine but for far richer, far more populous European nations taking in less refugees isn't? Why does Europe just get to have its cake and eat it too? What special status do you feel they are accorded in order to find that justifiable? Or do you support European nations leaving the United Nations and declaring that their citizens are no longer covered by any refugee treatment laws? Do you see that as a good solution? I'm seriously trying to see where people who say Europe shouldn't take the refugees are coming from. Because if they want to be exempt from refugee laws that's fine, at least they aren't being hypocritical.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
freelancemoth posted:You can help the migrants at home and abroad. But this should be subject to each member states ability to help them. (Don't exactly know what you mean by "Europe") This political position doesn't "violate" anything. By Europe, I mean Europe and the countries in it, the vast majority who have benefited from migration, refugee assistance and refugee legislation. EU if you want to limit the discourse on an official entity. If Turkey is deemed to have the ability to help close to two million refugees, Europe sure as poo poo should be able to accomodate less then that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
freelancemoth posted:The European member states can only benefit from immigration if it is done responsibly, i.e.contributing to their host countries. Accepting migrants because of "historical reasons" (Meaning Germany after WW2?) without NO regard to it's consuqences, will hurt both the native population and the immigrants themselves. And also, Turkey didn't choose to accept the refugees and have no ability to accomodate them. Which is why we should be allocating our resources there. Helping 10 genuine refugees in Turkey, is better than 1 economic immigrant in Germany. Not historical reasons, international law. The same law that was used for Europeans several times in the past when European refugees fled into other countries. Law based on treaties European countries signed. Again, why should Europe be exempt from following the same law that was used to help European refugees in the past? And also, Turkey did choose to accept the refugees. They're there. They could have been all Hungary about it with fences and police and tear gas but they weren't. Not all of Syria's neighbors did, which is why not all of them have refugees. Turks are taking the refugees, they are paying for them and the Turkish state is not collapsing in flames and the Turks are not whining anywhere close to as much as Europe about it despite doing it with far less resources and people. There are genuine refugees coming into Germany and Europe by every definition of the word refugee as well. The failure of the border agencies and police to be able to determine between them and economic migrants is a failure that demands the reform of those systems, not the scrapping of the entire refugee law now that this generation of Europeans are called up to the task (that previous ones followed the law, in fact created it, and performed quite admirably for the most part). DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Sep 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Nermal posted:Let's assume it's just Syrians coming: when have tens of millions of European refugees fled under the international conventions? The international conventions were created for tens of millions of Europeans on the move. Are hundreds of millions coming right now? Are all refugees of the world picking up and moving here in droves? Or is the actual reality that this is still, by and large shouldered by the developing world and will continue to be, and Europe will never have to accept but a fraction of the total refugees? Why is Europe's collapse imminent when the poorer and smaller countries that have been recieving equivalent (far greater in propotion) refugee flow for years haven't collapsed? When have hundreds of millions of Africans and Asians used the cover of legal conventions (which have not changed much in the past 50 years) to migrate? Don't try to make out your case by basing it on ludicrous unfeasible hyperbole. Nermal posted:The reform of those systems to enable what you're asking for would entail: Better reception then Europe scrapping international refugee laws, relinquishing its responsibilities after having benefited from them, and closing its borders totally. Or the current chaos continuing. This pretense that letting anybody in or letting nobody in are the only options is getting tiring, especially when history shows this is not the case. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Sep 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:A lot of countries outside of Europe are perfectly OK with keeping refugees as a permanent underclass that will never enjoy citizenship, so it is not really a valid comparison, since no one making it wants Europe to do the same. Also population densities are higher and migration is easier than ever before. A lot of countries is not "all countries except European ones" and lot of countries have also bestowed citizenship on refugees on a scale unseen almost anywhere in Europe. And a lot of these countries are so poor that they have underclasses of their own right to start with. And migration was almost always ridiculously easy if you were an European. Nobody is expecting Europe to give blanket citizenship to these refugees either, so again, try to make your point without ridiculous hyperbole. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 11:30 on Sep 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2015 10:07
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Perhaps you should change your name to Mr.Law McTreaty de Internazionale? Suits you sir! It has truly become your obsession. Now acknowledging that something exists and that countries have been following it for years is obsessing with it. OK. Ligur posted:Unfortunately, you have completely lost the plot when you compare a WW2 that wrecked the entire continent with everyone involved with far off internal conflicts in places like Iraq and Syria. Repeating the word "law" ain't gonna change that. (I have somehow not noticed the other migration/asylum law seeker waves you speak of, apart from the Yugo -war, and that peaked for a year or two and was over). WW2 was a refugee crisis of unmatched scale, yes. It is why refugee laws were created in the first place. And developing countries helped there too - not out of their free will in most cases because by and large they were still colonies - but they helped. For refugee waves under refugee law that are not WWII, there is Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Jewish refugees to Israel, Greeks, Yugoslavia and most recently Ukraine off the top of my head. For unwanted migration waves regardless of laws or not, European one lasted for hundreds of years until the last few decades, really, to all over the world so they've taken their share there too. Ligur posted:Unfortunately EU is not following the laws they signed, and which you summon to support I-don't-even-know-what-argument-anymore. EU didn't follow the no bailout -treaty, EU doesn't give a poo poo when it's members break set economical limits, and now they haven't been following the Dublin agreement. Dublin agreement says an asylum seeker must start the asylum process in the first EU country he arrives in. How long ago do you think it is anyone gave a poo poo about this law treaty agreement law international lebanon? The countries that hold most refugees seem to give a lot of poo poo about it since they are not throwing all refugees out or stopping them from coming to their countries by fences and tear gas. EU is free to ignore or change its own internal laws as it sees fit, though I think you will find that some countries have been obeying them quite well and some countries aren't. I think you will also find that the Greek "bailout" was a "loan" so its perfectly within law for us to subsidize German and French banks for their mistakes. If EU doesn't want to follow international refugee laws it should leave them and remove its citizens from under its protection. I don't believe some people should be exempt from following legislation while having been benefiting from them. What a shocking viewpoint. Ligur posted:Yeah yeah I know it's unfair. We can't expect Greece and Italy to handle the load but we hosed up a long time ago. The current crisis could have been prevented. Investment on border control, processing camps, the works could have been established and would have probably cost a fraction of what is spent now on processing, housing and subventing the asylum seekers already here and arriving. If Sweden really spends 26 billion € annually on immigrants think of how many border officers and camps only that money would have bought? If Finland receives the estimated 30k asylum seekers this year, they only will cost about 500 million. This circus is expensive. The money would be much more efficiently spent elsewhere. No country has had to accept any immigrants against it's will in the past. It has nothing to do with the current 30k asylum seekers does not mean all of those are genuine asylum seekers. Ligur posted:Also Lebanon and Turkey have not collapsed so obviously Sweden could take a further 2 million asylum seekers and Finland could take, let's say 1 million to compare with Lebanon. That would surely just dent a bit. Mostly it would just annoy racists but housing and feeding and educating and providing healthcare and jobs and following all the rights and benefits our internal law entitles for everyone wouldn't be a more than a bit of a fuss. It would surely not collapse the state or anything, because the bill would be a mere 160 billion (for the first year)... No obviously not, that is not what I am saying and that is not what anyone is proposing. Let's say that there is a refugee quota. How many do you think Finland or Sweden would, in propotion to their population and GDP? Because according to the recent quota calculations, it's less then two percent for Finland. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affair...on_annex_en.pdf So for a million refugees in the EU it would be 17,200. Stop with the hyperbolic hyperventilating and take a deep breath. If you don't think the other countries who host refugees aren't providing say, healthcare or food to them and they are all just dying on the streets in thousands that's a bit far-fetched. Turkey has paid six billion, of its own money, and it has GDP lower then the Netherlands. Most of them are providing to them to the best of their ability, just as we should provide for them to the best of our ability. They are still proportionally paying as much, and in actual impact way the gently caress more because they have and will always have way the gently caress more refugees. Ligur posted:Yeah I know that isn't exactly what you are suggesting but you see, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey are not comparable to Nordic welfare states by any parameter, manner, yoga or jedi mind trick or acrobatic somersault of the brain. No, compared to EU they're only immensely more poor, have immensely more internal problems and are immensely less populous. So obviously they need to shoulder it all. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Sep 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2015 13:33
|
|
|
Ligur posted:No, I'm making fun of the fact that anyone who has even cursory peeked at this thread knows your stance is law, international law, European law and possibly treaty. It's just that about every other post you make is amusing to read, because you keep repeating these words, over and over, like a mystic repeats a mantra that let's him fall into a deep state of meditation. So now its back to insults. Just because you don't have an argument against it that isn't based on ignorance, entitlement and hypocrisy doesn't mean it's wrong. I'm going to repeat it until you or anyone else can actually provide me with one  EDIT: Arguments based on childlike hyperbolic hysteria aren't valid either I'm sorry DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Sep 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
Riso posted:I have a crazy idea! Excellent idea. All the Gulf States could easily house pretty much all the Syrian refugees if they wanted, considering their vast amount of wealth and need for a constant low-paid workforce that numbers in dozens of millions. The reason they don't do this because they're xenophobic monarchist kleptocrats, who don't adhere to pretty much any human rights agreements or laws, and realize that it's a lot harder to deny citizenship to fellow Arabs then it is to Indians or Bangladeshis. Since there are no actual means to force anyone to accept refugees, we, the countries who pretty much founded and have constantly preached about human rights (except Eastern Europe) for the past 70 loving years shouldn't stoop to the level of such luminaries like Saudi-Arabia or Qatar. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Sep 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Saudi Arabia has over 500k refugees, so if you're not in Germany, you've got a climb ahead of you to stoop to their level. Huh. I'm having hard time finding sources for that. Apparently they also aren't signatories to the refugee laws. At least they aren't hypocrites, even if morally they're absolutely responsible for refugees, having been funding countless Syrian armed groups who all aren't exactly prone to avoiding civilian casualties.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Isn't Japan like 99% ethnic Japanese or something crazy like that Basically if you're asking "why isn't country x taking in any refugees" the answer is always that they're xenophobic as hell.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I'm not happy with my prospects where I'm now either. Guess I'm just gonna go live in the NYC or maybe Geneva now. Otherwise I won't be happy about my circumstances. If you're a European/American/Westerner with even a decent amount of starting money, you can pretty much move, study and work anywhere in the world if you want. It takes some effort, of course but you're not going to be blocked. It's even easier if you are in the EU because bang, there is 27 other countries wide open for you. We don't do it as much because we don't really have to in order to massively benefit our lives but people do it all the time with few, if any true difficulties. You'll get housing and support too because you would be a legal immigrant. There are millions and millions of poorer EU citizens moving into wealthier ones. Poles in UK is probably the most common example of that but most are going into Germany. And people are whining just as much about that. It is the same inside countries too - not so much in rich Western ones but in places like China - in regards to people moving from rural ares to the city. City people complain because they have more wealth and have been there longer. kikkelivelho posted:Won't the EU quotas stop the refugees from picking and choosing which country they want to go to? It should. I await seeing details on the proposal. EU should really approach this as one supranational entity, with the money to support refugees coming from a common EU budget, and everyone getting the same amount of aid (adjusted for the general price levels in the country ofc) instead of it being left to each individual state's social support system. That way the refugees in say, Bulgaria or Finland would at least get the same level of income (unless they get a job) even if they have to hang out with surly Slavs and Ugrics instead of the happy Germans. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Sep 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
kikkelivelho posted:My question was made under the assumption that the EU will not complete and hilariously botch the entire quota system (this will probably happen). I mean how hard it is to just create some form of EU refugee residence permit/identification that shows which country they were assigned to? If they love Germany so much that they will then move there and live illegally outside the system, they won't be having any benefits paid to them so what is the issue?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
kikkelivelho posted:Obviously if the system is well designed and implemented it will have measures in place to stop people from picking countries. I just think that the system probably won't be that well designed. Oh, me too, as long as countries like Hungary or Slovakia are determined to bitch every step of the way. It's just that some of these measures seem self-evident. We have insanely specific numbers of people crossing borders down to individual borders inside EU so clearly keeping track of them is not the problem. EDIT: Worry not, the European Commission has sent several angry letters to disobedient countries! http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5699_en.htm Is Common European Asylum System now the official term? One letter away from CEASE, come on! DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Sep 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Here are the EC proposals too, which I at the least have completely missed. I don't find anything objectionable at first glance. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5596_en.htm
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:The reason for this is because most of the 'humanist' side of the argument on SA has an unbelievable hard-on for the ideas of Racism, Xenophobia and the new hot-ticket item: Islamaphobia. Nobody is saying there aren't consequences and the thread has had pages and pages of discussion about the methods and means of accomplishing this, the solutions and propositions debated by the EU, and the difficulties involved, including this page. There's plenty news, facts, links and other factual information posted here that can be addressed. It's just that the 90% of the time other side usually starts the debate from the position "it can't be done" or "it isn't worth doing" or "we don't actually have any responsibility to do anything" or "we have to take all the refugees in the world if we take these!" which are all positions not based in reality and are thus complete non-starters because it is kind of bad to have a discussion where the other side is operating on a fantasy. Don't engage people who automatically call you racist. I mean I do when I 'm called a jihadist or having white guilt or whatever because its really really funny and really really easy to debate those people, but you don't actually have to address everyone if you don't want to. Certainly not the cheap shots. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Sep 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
If anyone born in Finland experienced the same kind of trauma as your average refugee they would be in intensive counseling for years and wouldn't be expected to hold a job for years or would at the very least get a very long break from it. Like if someone bombed my house or shot my family I'd be still giving touching interviews to tabloids five years later. So expecting them to just "get an education" or "get a job" is a bit rich considering that, as is blaming the country they're in for that. We're also talking about cultures and countries where women rarely hold jobs to the same degree as men so that's an instant 50% cut on employment. Finland has had problems integrating refugees, sure. Still has in most parts of the country. They were the first generation of really different immigrants in Finland and we had zero experience with any sort of visible minorities, so racism certainly played a part. In general it is can be hard for people in general to integrate to Finnish society because its very homogeneous and inclusive (I'm born here, my mother is Finnish but I'm black and grew up in the boonies and there were lot of people who just couldn't accept that I am Finnish). Also not everyone is willing to integrate, this is fact as well. Lot of these people are conservative Muslims and integration, acceptance and multiculturalism just aren't in their vocabulary any more then it is for our homegrown conservative Christians. Starshark posted:LOL, how long do you think Iraq was a "war torn hellscape" for? People in Iraq have an education just like anywhere else. I'm less familiar with Somalia, but considering they've been in Finland since the 90's, I'm sure they could get an education within that time. Griffen posted:Let's see, Persian Gulf War II (not even counting the first one), started in 2003. So let's say 12 years of social instability and bloodshed. So someone who is 25 now only had up until 13 years old to have a good, stable education. How many middle schoolers out there are ready to get a job? What skills do they have? Somalia? Been a clusterfuck since the early 90's. So aside from old sages, they have nearly no chance for a stable education. As for your comment about having education just like anywhere else, most of the people coming are young men, so they are the ones most likely to have had their opportunities cut short by insurgency, bombs, and death. For those in Finland since the 90's, they could have been people from the First Gulf War, and I'm not expert on PTSD, but I've heard that it has long-lasting impact on your ability to hold a job. Something about Vietnam/Iraq vets having a really hard time getting back on their feet even with all the structures in place for them.... hmm.... how could anyone who has been through terrible war and death not be just fine 5 minutes later... I dunno... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War 35 years of social instability and bloodshed is more like it. First Gulf War was a blip for Iraqis as far as suffering is concerned, it was preceded and followed by far worse conflicts. Starshark posted:We're talking decades and not every Somalian has PTSD. You're going to have to face the facts sooner or later and understand that the reason Somalians are over represented in Finnish unemployment figures is because of race. No, it really isn't or I wouldn't have a job. It is because refugees who don't speak the language or in many cases can't read and write (only one in three Somalian adults can) are generally really bad employment material for anything but manual labor because of the lack of education. Their children or the ones who came here as a child are much better employed as well. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Sep 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Starshark posted:Yes, and it's a poo poo one. Or maybe you have no knowledge about the topic whatsoever and aren't willing to listen anything contrary to your pre-concieved opinions about refugees in Finland.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Starshark posted:You got me! According to all the available evidence I did. You've been given multiple posts with multiple paragraphs from actual people from this country, white AND black and you keep repeating the same mantra over and over again. Somalis don't make for very good employees in a modern 21st century economy. That's what you get when you take in a group of people who by and large can't read, can't write, don't have even the most basic education as it is understood by a first world country and don't speak the language. A random hobo I'd take from the street would meet all four standards. The relatively high degree of bureaucracy and standards that it takes to start a business in this country (we have a ministry for everything) makes it very hard for them to do things that poor immigrant groups usually employ themselves with, restaurants for example. You can't just start a street kitchen in Finland even if I'm sure the food would be great. None of that's is the fault of first generation of Somalis, or Iraqis, doesn't make them lesser people, but that's just how it is. If we had the same conditions and industries as say, U.S. in the 1950's they would be just fine because you need very little education to work in a factory. Some of them get past this, and that's why one in five are in fact employed. I have at least three Somali workmates and two Iraqis I know of. But they all came here as children, and were educated by the Finnish school system. However refugee status shouldn't be determined by how productive you are to the country you're in. If we took in refugees who had a guaranteed job here that would be few hundred people at best and I'd be stretching it. So it's not really relevant to the discussion about refugees either way. Starshark posted:Edit: The crux of Ligur's argument is that Finland can't take refugees because they'll be unemployed forever (never mind that Somalis and Iraqis are 15% unemployed compared to a 9% national unemployment rate. So it's not like none of them will get jobs - they're just overrepresented). I contend that with education they will be contributing members of society. Plus, their very presence will be useful for the economy because even refugees need goods and services. So feel free to explain to me what it is about refugees that they'll stay unemployed forever (the 15% of them that is) which isn't race. It's 15% (well 20 according to the latest statistics I can find) employed. More if you take just men but still way, way below the average. That's uhh a pretty basic fact you have to grasp to contribute to the discussion so maybe you shouldn't be so self-righteous. And I have already explained it to you. Twice now. The number is probably bigger if you take all the other explanations. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Sep 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Starshark posted:The question remains: Are they going to be unemployed forever if they get educated? And if so, why? No, they're not. But the problem is that it will take them a shitload of time to get educated to the degree that they can do anything beyond menial jobs. Your average Finn goes through 12 years of formal education and tests to get into an university and there is a pretty good chance they have learnt to read and write before they even enter first grade. Then add in the time one has to dealing with mental trauma and the stress of being in a completely alien country, the years it takes you to learn to read and write (especially if they want to do it for both Arabic and Finland) and the years it takes to learn the language to enough fluency to even start your basic education, much less high school or university education. That's if you're not a woman, who probably has a shitload of kids to take care of and whose culture generally isn't really big about women learning. Those who came here as children and those who were born here don't have the same issue. They're generally not unemployed as much as a result.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
Starshark posted:Do you really think that refugees will need 12 years of education before they're university-ready? Those who can't even read and write before they get here, yes. You realize that is the requirement for regular Finns to be university ready? You realize every Finn, no matter if they go to uni or not have nine years of formal education?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2015 19:24
|
|
