Europe Refugee Crisis

And what do you think would happen if all these refugees were denied entry into EU countries?

I think they would stay outside of EU countries.

Over a million people have now risked their lives to reach Europe, and millions more are on their way. Do you think they would just peacefully turn around and go home?

I guess it would be their choice what to do after they were denied entry into EU countries.

Or do you propose putting them all in refugee camps for the next 50 years ala Palestine 2.0?

whom do you want to treat them the way you described?

Angela Merkel is the one of the few sane and sober politicians in EU right now.

sober ... right now ... I don't know if she drinks

If you're gonna talk about madness, how about ...

I think it's called
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

what's your attempting
 

solarz

Brigadier
I think they would stay outside of EU countries.



I guess it would be their choice what to do after they were denied entry into EU countries.



whom do you want to treat them the way you described?



sober ... right now ... I don't know if she drinks



I think it's called
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

what's your attempting

Like I said, delusions.
 
Like I said, delusions.

from today, from AFP:
Austria turns tougher on migrants
Austria's interior minister signalled Friday a tougher line on migrants, saying that from next weekend it will follow Germany's lead and turn back any new arrivals seeking to claim asylum in Scandinavia.

"Right now on the Austrian-German border only those seeking asylum in Germany are being allowed in. Those who want to go further are being turned back," Johanna Mikl-Leitner said on public radio Oe1.

"We will stop those people directly at our southern border (with Slovenia) from the end of next week," Mikl-Leitner said.

Austria last year became a major transit country for hundreds of thousands of migrants and refugees entering the European Union, with most travelling onwards to reach Germany or Sweden.

But last week Sweden tightened border controls, prompting Denmark to follow suit and Berlin to send back to Austria anyone not seeking asylum in Germany at a rate of 200 to 300 per day, according to Mikl-Leitner.

Austria has already refused entry to 2,568 people entering from Slovenia since late December, according to the Slovenian authorities, because of problems with their identity papers.

German weekly Spiegel reported on its online version this week that Vienna was in talks with Croatia and Slovenia about sending Austrian police to help turn back migrants at their borders.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

solarz

Brigadier
In the end, the Europeans still think the Syrian refugees aren't their problem. Even those who want to help think they're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.

This is the same kind of mentality that led them to support the kind of military adventurism that created this epic humanitarian disaster in the first place. They never believed that the chickens would come home to roost, and apparently, they still don't.

If I might make an analogy, Europe toppling formerly stable regimes in North Africa makes about as much sense as China toppling the North Korean regime.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Solarz, please stop pushing the discussion towards conflict.

That is another version of "war drums," and that is against SD Rules.

Consider this post the warning and that should be the end of it.

Every nation has the right to control its borders as they see fit. No group of people can simply demand that they be allowed entry...or else war. That would be blackmail and the end of sovereignty.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATION
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
I remember that once, someone had suggested that China accept the refugees and put them into all the vacant new cities ("ghost towns") and I immediately thought of this song:
 

Scratch

Captain
The Europeans seem to be operating under two delusions when it comes to Syrian refugees:

1- They don't seem to believe that they need to adapt when a large number of immigrants enter their society in a short amount of time

2- They think they have a choice on whether or not to accept these refugees

There's a very strong practical incentive for Germany to take up the burden of these refugees, and it has nothing to do with humanitarian concerns. The simple reality is that if Germany doesn't take the lead on this, the EU is finished. If Europe doesn't peacefully integrate all these people, they will be creating the world's largest recruiting ground for ISIS and al-Qaida, right on their own door steps.

I really don't agree with your premise of the idea of having political choices available to be delusional.

With a large influx of people with different culture, language and so on, of course there is a requirement to adapt to the situiation in the sense of offering help in integrating into society so as to be able to contribute to the common benefit. But, it is, in my view, of course the new-commers integrating into society, and not the other way round. Only if the new-commers will contribute to our society on our terms is it even worth the investment.

Also, those refugees are not a force of nature to which we shall simply surrender. The "choice" that you lay out here is a either accept to change your way of life to those coming to you from abroad at their will, or be faced to live with terror.
I dare say that borders on attempted blackmail.

It is essentially the first and most basic idea of a state anyway to be able to provide it's citizens with some degree of inner and outer security. Your proposal of unresisted mass migration, in my view, puts in question the existance of the nation state as such.

With the vast majority of EU countries more or less critical on the subject anyway, I also don't see how a much tougher stance on immigration would blow the EU apart.

And again, I will point to the many other arabian / persian / med east states who always complain about the inhuman west not caring for the suffering of their people in conflict and poverty.
Yet, those vastly rich oil producing states don't do a thing to provide "their" people with a new home and perspective. No immigration centers there. Or even immigrants.
Apparently, refugees don't even try to go there. So what could be wrong with the countries that have the same language and similar culture already?

With the "normal" person's intent in mind to look for ones own well being first, if it's their choice to make for Europe, why not demand of them to adapt to the norms and habbits that made their destination so successfull to be their destinations of choice?
 

solarz

Brigadier
It is essentially the first and most basic idea of a state anyway to be able to provide it's citizens with some degree of inner and outer security. Your proposal of unresisted mass migration, in my view, puts in question the existance of the nation state as such.

One of the biggest problems in democracy is that when you put complex issues to the public, it will always get reduced to black vs white, and people fail to grasp even the idea that there could be more to the issue than pro or con.

Where did you see me advocate unresisted mass migration? I'm talking about the need to successfully integrate these refugees, and that entails changes to the host society. No, I'm not talking about adopting the immigrants culture, I'm talking about a more realistic assessment of the security and economic state of the host society in light of such a massive influx of population.

Take the Cologne incident. The German police made the mistake of thinking this year's new year celebration would be the same as previous years.

With the vast majority of EU countries more or less critical on the subject anyway, I also don't see how a much tougher stance on immigration would blow the EU apart.

Because the end result is that the EU countries are punting the problem at each other and leaving countries like Greece with a big problem and no support.

And again, I will point to the many other arabian / persian / med east states who always complain about the inhuman west not caring for the suffering of their people in conflict and poverty.
Yet, those vastly rich oil producing states don't do a thing to provide "their" people with a new home and perspective. No immigration centers there. Or even immigrants.
Apparently, refugees don't even try to go there. So what could be wrong with the countries that have the same language and similar culture already?

With the "normal" person's intent in mind to look for ones own well being first, if it's their choice to make for Europe, why not demand of them to adapt to the norms and habbits that made their destination so successfull to be their destinations of choice?

I dare say 99% of refugees want to adapt to the norms and habits of their country of adoption. The problem is these people don't make the news. It's the 1% of assholes that make the headlines, and we inevitably end up with people deciding to retaliate against other refugees who've done nothing, such as the recent pepper spray attack in Vancouver. This is simply human nature, and there's no point wishing for that to change.
 
...

Where did you see me advocate unresisted mass migration? ...

in
The Europeans ... think they have a choice on whether or not to accept these refugees
...
combined with
... Over a million people have now risked their lives to reach Europe, and millions more are on their way. Do you think they would just peacefully turn around and go home? ...

but I must have misunderstood you, since
Newcomers, new worries
Debt, housing and education are only some of the concerns faced by recent arrivals in Canada – especially for those who arrived before the recent wave.

A planeload of Syrian refugees landed in Canada on Dec. 27. The new arrivals, having fled war in their home and then endured years of hardship in refugee camps, were overwhelmed by the warm reception.

Bilal Alfaloji was on that plane and is now in Vancouver with his wife and three young children, sharing temporary lodging with dozens of other families. “It was a really big surprise, the welcoming from the people,” he said. A metal worker by trade, Mr. Alfaloji is eager to begin a new life: “I’m ready to work.”

Not far away, at an austere apartment in Surrey, two sisters sit on a sofa, framed on each side by their elderly parents. Both their husbands remain overseas. The women do not want to be identified for fear it will put their men in danger.

One sister has a teenage son, fluent in English. The other woman has three school-age children.

The children have not seen their father since they left Syria four years ago.

The families have been in Canada since last spring. The thrift-shop furnishings and empty bookshelves give away their minimal finances, but one of the boys materializes in the living room bearing a tray of Syrian coffee in delicate china cups for their guests.

Starting out with almost nothing in a new country is a daunting task, but the new refugees have a head start compared to those who managed to make it to Canada before the federal Liberals came to power in November.

One key difference is that the newcomers – refugees who arrived on Nov. 4 or later – will not carry thousands of dollars in debt to the government of Canada for their transportation and processing costs. Reunification of families who have been split up in the process of fleeing the war in Syria is now easier, too.

Over coffee, the Surrey sisters share their worries.

The opportunity to bring their husbands to Canada is rapidly closing. They are bewildered, unable to navigate the Canadian immigration system. And looming over them is another deadline: In a few more months, they will be obliged to begin repaying the $11,800 they collectively owe the federal government.

Under Canada’s Immigration Loans Program, the two Surrey sisters were able to borrow to pay for travel to Canada and medical examinations required to determine their admissibility. After the first year, they are required to begin repaying that loan over a six-year period.

The Liberal government has promised to waive those costs for the 25,000 Syrian refugees they have promised to bring in starting on Nov. 4. Last week, Immigration Minister John McCallum said no such relief will be offered to those who came before.

“We were not the government prior to November the 4th,” he said. In the future, he added, it’s possible that the government will cover the cost of flights for all refugees, “but that decision has not been made.”

The debt weighs on the two sisters in Surrey, but for the past eight months, they have pinned their hopes on the arrival of their husbands.

Samy al Aloul, a 32-year-old mechanical engineer from a suburb of Damascus, said anywhere was preferable to eking out a living in Lebanon, where his family rented out an apartment before coming to Canada. His father, mother and younger sister would join them at the end of December after the whole family was sponsored by relatives already living in Alberta’s capital.

“It’s so hard in Lebanon, the Lebanese citizens are [also] struggling there,” he said. “It’s a horrible life there.

“We like the people here [in Edmonton], all the people are nice and they give you a helping hand and it’s a nice society.”

Though they arrived well into the clemency period for travel loans, Mr. Al Aloul says he still doesn’t know whether he and his family have government debt.

“Nobody tells us.”

Mr. Al Aloul’s cousin Maya Zaitoun, who arrived in Edmonton five months earlier with her older brother and parents, said her family was shocked when they received the government’s first request for payment on the $1,465 each of them owed for travel to Canada, as well as the medical exams required to determine their admissibility.

“At first, they told us they want $80 every month for every person, but we told them we can’t because just my brother works now,” she says.

The family was able to negotiate one monthly payment of $100 until they are able to pay more, she said.

Ghada Al-Adhami said her in-laws – five adults and two children – are having no problem paying the small monthly installments for the flights that led them to Edmonton and away from three years of purgatory in Lebanon.

That’s in part because her husband and a friend were able to get one brother-in-law a job painting and another work as a janitor.

She admits that without a network of friends and family to lean on, refugees without English skills “cannot find work with English people.”

“But if they know someone Arabic and they speak Arabic, they can work with them and everything is good,” she said.

Jenny Kwan, the New Democratic Party critic for immigration and refugees, cannot offer the women reassurances. In a meeting with them, she collects the information and promises to follow up back in Ottawa. The policy change around family reunification has made it easier for families to come together in Canada provided the proper paperwork is done within a year. But the sisters, who have done the paperwork for their husbands, don’t know whether they qualify for the new program, and the one-year window is running out. They’ve heard nothing back from immigration officials and are losing hope.

One sister asks: “What will happen if he doesn’t get in within one year – will he never come?”

There are other challenges facing refugees now that will only grow as thousands of new arrivals land. Cutbacks to education programs in recent years have created long waiting lists for those who need to learn English, although the province recently announced new funding to provide language training for certain high-demand trades.

Chris Friesen is heading up the Syrian resettlement program in Metro Vancouver for the Immigrant Services Society of B.C. He said the patchwork of policies and shortages of services reflect poor planning.

“Nothing impacts this country as immigration will in the coming decades and I don’t believe we have a long-term vision or plan,” he said. “What is our immigration level for 2016? We don’t even have a plan yet for this year.”

In the short term, however, Mr. Friesen would like to see the government abandon its pursuit of debts from refugees for the cost of travel.

“There is a significant disconnect here,” he said. “Since 2002, we have been selecting refugees on the basis of vulnerability. Saddling families with interest-bearing loans of as much as $10,000 does not align with the humanitarian objectives of the program.”

And, he said, the shortage of English-language classes is going to become critical as thousands of refugees arrive in the coming weeks and months.

After listening to the sisters and their neighbours, Ms. Kwan gives vent to her frustration. She does not want to undermine the government’s efforts to resettle these traumatized and vulnerable families who have fled a war zone and come to Canada for a better life. But she sees the inequities, the glitches and the lag time in getting this ambitious project moving as unnecessary burdens.

“We made them welcome, now we need to follow through,” she said. “We need to make sure the resettlement services are in place so that they can build their home in Canada.”

Mr. McCallum tacitly acknowledges the difficulties. “We have now demonstrated, I think, an ability to get the machine up and to deliver the refugees to Canada,” she said. “The next phase – and it won’t be easy, it won’t always be totally smooth – is to welcome all of these individuals to Canada, to ensure that they get a good welcome, to ensure that they find a place to live and get services that they require.”

...
... etc., size-limit reached; source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Scratch

Captain
Where did you see me advocate unresisted mass migration?

As Jura already layed out, in the parts were you implied the people of Europe don't have a choice on wether to accept them or not and that the refugees would simply not turn away peacefully if not accepted. In my understanding you say that nothing can be done anyway without risking serious, violent conflict, so it shouldn't even be attempted.
Maybe I misread you there, but then I didn't get the message of those statements

I'm talking about the need to successfully integrate these refugees, and that entails changes to the host society. No, I'm not talking about adopting the immigrants culture, I'm talking about a more realistic assessment of the security and economic state of the host society in light of such a massive influx of population.

Ok, so then we're probably closer on the subject than I thought, but that's part of my points wich I believed you refused. A comprehensive assement of the new situation would then entail that there are, among many other issues, challanges to public security that come with the influx and that require considerable resources to be relocated to cope with them.
If you imply the host society will now have to live, among many other things, with continuously increased levels of public disorder, mass sexual assault in the case you bring up, without the choice of an alternative, that's pretty fatalistic.
Even if it's just a small minority, if it has the capacity to cause such large consequences and bind so many of our public resources, people should of course be given the choice of an alternative.

Because the end result is that the EU countries are punting the problem at each other and leaving countries like Greece with a big problem and no support.

You certainly have a point here. And I am very critical of german leading political figures having heavily critizied Italy and Greece a year ago for not keeping all the refugees to themeselves but letting them move onward. Yet also having citicized those same countries for being tough on border control producing not so nice pictures.
And I am very in favour of putting the resources we now need in security, health, education, living and so on into providig EU border countries with the means to tightly control those borders.
 
Top