Refugee crisis

[sniper]

Is this topic being discussed somewhere?

What would a fair, sensible stance on this issue sound like?

Of course one side of the story is that Europe and the US c/should have done a lot more a long time ago to help Africa develop itself economically. And long-term I'll be one of many who'd argue that that's still the best solution.
But that awareness won't help ressolve the short-term explosive situations emerging throughout Europe.

 

[Maxiton]

Is this topic being discussed somewhere?

What would a fair, sensible stance on this issue sound like?

Of course one side of the story is that Europe and the US c/should have done a lot more a long time ago to help Africa develop itself economically. And long-term I'll be one of many who'd argue that that's still the best solution.
But that awareness won't help ressolve the short-term explosive situations emerging throughout Europe.

The refuge crisis has thrown the whole future of the EU into doubt. And the crazy thing is, it's not like they couldn't have seen it coming.

It seems to me that the EU has two choices: they can let it break them apart; or, use it as the impetus to move closer together. Maybe a better way of saying it is that if they don't move closer together in order to deal with the crisis, it will break them apart.

I think they need to do several things at once. They need to build temporary housing camps for all the refugees and keep them within those camps as much as possible. The camps need to provide schooling and medical care and counseling. They need to invoke either the Nato charter or the Lisbon treaty and send troops into Northern Africa and Syria, with the goal of making a safe space for refugees and helping rebuild the destroyed countries. They need a rational, coherent, long term plan that includes a definite timeline.

In some ways this situation requires the same careful planning and concerted effort as the Allies exhibited in World War II.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

I don't think there is a refugee crisis. I think there is a racism crisis.
And this crisis is much older than the structural attemps to let people die on there way to Europe.

@Maxinton:
Why on earth would concentration camps for refugees be a good solution?
If every country in the EU plus other European countries not in the EU would take in refugees, noone would even notice he influx...
"But they only want to go to Sweden and Germany!", who'd not if one realised what the opinion about or the treatment of one is like in the other countries...

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

I don't think there is a refugee crisis. I think there is a racism crisis.
And this crisis is much older than the structural attemps to let people die on there way to Europe.

What concrete solutions do you propose?

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

The problem isn't what could rationally be done. It's not a hard problem really. The problem is that we can hardly do something against the rampant racism which stops rational solutions.

The causes of wars and hunger on the other sinde are harder to fix. Taking in a couple of million refugees into the huge EU in principle wouldn't be hard.

The biggist problem in Germany right now for example isn't the number of refugees at all, it's a major logistical *** up. It's not being prepared what anyone who wanted to know knew would happen at some point.

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

The problem isn't what could rationally be done. It's not a hard problem really. The problem is that we can hardly do something against the rampant racism which stops rational solutions.

The causes of wars and hunger on the other sinde are harder to fix. Taking in a couple of million refugees into the huge EU in principle wouldn't be hard.

Thanks for the reply. If the EU were a federal republic, taking in refugees would be easier; but it isn't a federal republic: it's a bunch of separate republics in some kind of treaty-based coalition. When push comes to shove, there is no central authority in the EU to direct the distribution of refugees in a rational manner. Thus the first EU country refugees appear in gets stuck with them, and the other EU countries offer only limited help.

The European Union is not yet well integrated enough to deal with this problem. The only way it can deal with the problem and remain a union is to hasten its integration. Which means, I guess, establishing a federal system.

 

[Maxiton]

Why on earth would concentration camps for refugees be a good solution?

I recognize that the term "concentration camp" is fraught with problems, especially in Europe. But the comparison between World War II, when people were placed in camps against their will; and now, when people are fleeing their own countries in fear for their lives: is no comparison at all. It is qualitatively different; the former is borne of exclusion and racism and authoritarianism, while the latter derives from compassion and pragmatism and a sense of responsibility.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

Well in lack of other terms and becaue I think it's a horrible idea I used concentration camp, since it's actually camps to concentrate people in which you think would be a solution, but I don't think you answered my question. What would concentration camps be good for? There are refugee camps (in Europe as well) out of lack of better options in the moment, but they are already a bad solution for various reasons which I don't think need explanation really. What would the advantages be in your opinion?

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

Well in lack of other terms and becaue I think it's a horrible idea I used concentration camp, since it's actually camps to concentrate people in which you think would be a solution, but I don't think you answered my question. What would concentration camps be good for? There are refugee camps (in Europe as well) out of lack of better options in the moment, but they are already a bad solution for various reasons which I don't think need explanation really. What would the advantages be in your opinion?

Simple. The refugees are not citizens, they're refugees; people from other countries who need help on a long-term but temporary basis. Since they won't be integrated into the body of citizens on an indefinite basis, but rather need specific, acute help: it makes sense to provide this help to them, until such time as they can return home to their own countries.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

So you think they should be put into contentration camps for an unknown amount of time on the basis that they need help so they have to come to a country in which they are not citizens? The thing is that many of them will stay for a long time, and even if they have to live in camps all of the time, why only keemp them in in there? What's the upshot of that? "They are not citizens so don't treat them with dignity"? That cannot be what you suggest or is it? Refugees are humans, they need to work, they need education if they are children, they need a chance to participate in social life.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

Because it might be of some explanitory value for German policy right now, the offcial translation of the fist artice of German basic law (constitution):

Article 1
[Human dignity – Human rights – Legally binding force of
basic rights]
(1)
Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect
it shall be the duty of all state authority.
(2)
The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and
inalienable human rights as the basis of every community,
of peace and of justice in the world.
(3)
The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the
executive and the judiciary as directly applicable law.

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

So you think they should be put into contentration camps for an unknown amount of time on the basis that they need help so they have to come to a country in which they are not citizens? The thing is that many of them will stay for a long time, and even if they have to live in camps all of the time, why only keemp them in in there? What's the upshot of that? "They are not citizens so don't treat them with dignity"? That cannot be what you suggest or is it? Refugees are humans, they need to work, they need education if they are children, they need a chance to participate in social life.

What would you do with them? They're not citizens. They have no legal claim to becoming citizens. For the most part they have no financial resources. And, likewise for the most part, they would not be there if the decision had been left to them: they're mostly there of necessity. This doesn't mean you can't treat them with dignity; it doesn't mean they can't be provided productive work, or their children education; and it certainly doesn't mean they can't have a social life.

But it also doesn't mean that Germany, or Greece, or Spain, or any other EU country should be saddled with an enormous project it can't sustain. Put aside the ideology and look at the situation pragmatically. There's really no other option.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

I'd really like you to be more specific about this "they are not citizens" buiseness and what this means in your opinion. And how is that position of yours not ideological btw? They are humans they have rights. Most of them will stay for years and a lot of them for ever, that's just the way it is. A pragmatic solution needs to deal with this. I don't see at all how concentration camps are pragmatic, and you seem to be unwilling to really explain it to me. Also you have yet only claimed that forcing them to live in camps, rather than homes, is "treating them with dignity". There is no pricacy, there is nothing to do, there is conflict, there are bad living conditions.
You are right that not all of them have to many resources, but they are not all poor bloody hell. Why would they be? Most of them could come by plane if the EU didn't want them to die or have an extremly hard and dangerous trip to it's borders. If they stay for years they need to be integrated into normal life, and find a job if possible, which they want anyway (a fact of course denied by the masses of racists who claim all refugees are lazy parasites that only want to migrate into "social paradise").

Btw:
That integrating even all the refugees that are comming to the EU right now would be an "enourmous unsustainable project" is just pure nonsense. The projetct is neither unsustainable nor enourmous really. Of course they way it is dealt with right now is *** up, espeacially the way Greece and the Balcan states are forced to deal with an enourmous amount of people compared to their own size and economy.

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

I'd really like you to be more specific about this "they are not citizens" buiseness and what this means in your opinion. And how is that position of yours not ideological btw? They are humans they have rights. Most of them will stay for years and a lot of them for ever, that's just the way it is. A pragmatic solution needs to deal with this. I don't see at all how concentration camps are pragmatic, and you seem to be unwilling to really explain it to me. Also you have yet only claimed that forcing them to live in camps, rather than homes, is "treating them with dignity". There is no pricacy, there is nothing to do, there is conflict, there are bad living conditions.
You are right that not all of them have to many resources, but they are not all poor bloody hell. Why would they be? Most of them could come by plane if the EU didn't want them to die or have an extremly hard and dangerous trip to it's borders. If they stay for years they need to be integrated into normal life, and find a job if possible, which they want anyway (a fact of course denied by the masses of racists who claim all refugees are lazy parasites that only want to migrate into "social paradise").

Btw:
That integrating even all the refugees that are comming to the EU right now would be an "enourmous unsustainable project" is just pure nonsense. The projetct is neither unsustainable nor enourmous really. Of course they way it is dealt with right now is **** up, espeacially the way Greece and the Balcan states are forced to deal with an enourmous amount of people compared to their own size and economy.

Alright, fine, no worries. We'll invite them all to live in your house and your neighborhood. Satisfied? I hope so. I don't really want to hear about it if it doesn't work out.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

Re: Re:

Alright, fine, no worries. We'll invite them all to live in your house and your neighborhood. Satisfied? I hope so. I don't really want to hear about it if it doesn't work out.

Come on, try to argue at least!
It does work out in almost all cases by the way, and a considerable number of people invite them to their house. Actually I am planning to bring up the topic of taking someone in at the next housemate meeting, if you planned to make this a ad hominem.
You seem to want to imply that refugees in neighbourhoods will naturally cause trouble? Is that your line of reasoning? Let me tell you out of experience that this just isn't the case.
If you disagree, why don't you go into any detailed argument about it? I am open to discussion, you just don't seem to be willing to discuss. I even asked you rather specific questions, why not respond to them? You seem to be very sure of your reasons, why not argue for them.

 

[the delgados]

Re: Re:

Alright, fine, no worries. We'll invite them all to live in your house and your neighborhood. Satisfied? I hope so. I don't really want to hear about it if it doesn't work out.

Come on, try to argue at least!
It does work out in almost all cases by the way, and a considerable number of people invite them to their house. Actually I am planning to bring up the topic of taking someone in at the next housemate meeting, if you planned to make this a ad hominem.
You seem to want to imply that refugees in neighbourhoods will naturally cause trouble? Is that your line of reasoning? Let me tell you out of experience that this just isn't the case.
If you disagree, why don't you go into any detailed argument about it? I am open to discussion, you just don't seem to be willing to discuss. I even asked you rather specific questions, why not respond to them? You seem to be very sure of your reasons, why not argue for them.

Not to put words in Maxiton's mouth, but I interpreted the comment in a different manner.
When the refugee crisis blew up into monumental proportions, our Canadian Prime Minister (during an election) promised to accept 25,000 refugees by the end of 2015. Thankfully, he was elected in part because those who paid attention cared about the plight of Syrian refugees; as would anyone who cares about others. I was happy to see plane loads of refugees greeted at the airport and given passports by the PM himself. Great, right?
Well,so far it doesn't seem to be turning out so well. Seems the promises the government-to-be weren't clearly thought out, and a lot of refugees are already lamenting their decision to come here. Reasons vary from broken promises made by the government, to living in squalid conditions, and empty promises that the Toronto Maple Leafs were an entertaining team to watch (I kid).

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

Alright, fine, no worries. We'll invite them all to live in your house and your neighborhood. Satisfied? I hope so. I don't really want to hear about it if it doesn't work out.

Come on, try to argue at least!
It does work out in almost all cases by the way, and a considerable number of people invite them to their house. Actually I am planning to bring up the topic of taking someone in at the next housemate meeting, if you planned to make this a ad hominem.
You seem to want to imply that refugees in neighbourhoods will naturally cause trouble? Is that your line of reasoning? Let me tell you out of experience that this just isn't the case.
If you disagree, why don't you go into any detailed argument about it? I am open to discussion, you just don't seem to be willing to discuss. I even asked you rather specific questions, why not respond to them? You seem to be very sure of your reasons, why not argue for them.

Not to put words in Maxiton's mouth, but I interpreted the comment in a different manner.
When the refugee crisis blew up into monumental proportions, our Canadian Prime Minister (during an election) promised to accept 25,000 refugees by the end of 2015. Thankfully, he was elected in part because those who paid attention cared about the plight of Syrian refugees; as would anyone who cares about others. I was happy to see plane loads of refugees greeted at the airport and given passports by the PM himself. Great, right?
Well,so far it doesn't seem to be turning out so well. Seems the promises the government-to-be weren't clearly thought out, and a lot of refugees are already lamenting their decision to come here. Reasons vary from broken promises made by the government, to living in squalid conditions, and empty promises that the Toronto Maple Leafs were an entertaining team to watch (I kid).

Thank you. You hit the nail on the head (especially about the hockey team). It isn't fair to the country and its people - and especially unfair to the refugees - to respond to them in such a slapdash, haphazard manner: oh, we'll just throw you into our communities more or less at random. Shouldn't be a problem. What could possibly go wrong?

Rather than expecting communities (and refugees) to bear this burden - for which they are completely unprepared - and then wringing your hands when they can't, it makes much more sense for all concerned to respond to the refugees' plight in a rational, organized way.

And if indeed some or all of them are to stay permanently, then all the more reason to provide them the aide required to do so successfully. That means housing, medical care, counseling, education, job placement, acculturation, and money to spend in the meantime.

 

[Echoes]

The OP shocks me.

Europe & the US should give Financial aid to Africa? What? Africa should always be dépendent on our aid? Why?

Africans are well-capable adults and the African continent is currently in economic growth unlike what is commonly claimed. Stop this paternalistic tone that is a reminiscence of the dark days of the Colonial Empires! (the Colonies were a left-wing undertaking by the way; we should bring Progress and Civilization to the inferior races, blablabla)

Financial aid to Africa has been going on for decades and the gap between North & South had widened in the meantime because the aid was a poisonous gift that went back North x10. We simply should NEVER have aided these countries and most of all, European nations at first, and the USA now are still plundering their ressources (see the Rwandan case in which the USA & Israel, etc used Kagame as proxy to plunder the rich natural ressources of neighbouring Congo).

The Left-wing hypocrisy around this migrant crisis makes me sick. Here in the Francophony, we see left-wing pseudo-Intellectuals such as Bernard-Henri Lévy making us a cry a river about the poor kid who died on that Turkish beach but once these migrants have arrived in Europe, they turncoat and start pointing the finger at them because they had the bad idea of being Muslim !!! The immigrationist BHL is also the first to support the veil ban everywhere in public places. It seems that the aim is a civil war/religious war between the different communities in Europe. Migrants are brought here but then the same people who helped them come in are constantly putting oïl on fire. And of course, they would say "yes but you may criticize religions such as Islam and not their Arabic background, so our attacks are legitimate" blabla. Some say that Left-wingers are schizo but I don't think so. I think it's all pretty consistent.

I am in favour of immigration control BUT I respect Islam. And I am not looking for trouble with the Muslim communities here in my cities, I'm in frequent contact with them. However, the last Autumn crisis was most definitely organized by the US and Turkey in order to put Europe in uproar and those migrants should never have been allowed in, not out of xenophobia/racism/fascism or whatever adhominem's you can think of but because their country was at war and those migrants who are predominantly young adult males had to fight against terrorists. It's not Europe's mission to welcome deserters.

This does not mean that I stand against immigration per se. Controlling immigration does not mean that we kick off every migrant, control means control. In the sixties those migrants came to work in our mines and I am the first to claim that they contributed to the wealth of our nation. But now, there aren't jobs anymore and thousands of homeless people in our cities. But the governments would never lift a pinky for them. The EU commission has found 5M € for the migrants. Why is it that the 2,600 homeless people in Brussels never could benefit from these 5M€ ???

 

[jmdirt]

You can't just throw people into a completely different culture, likely with language barriers, and expect them to succeed. In a large scale situation like this, it will mostly be a negative result for the the refugees and the area they are placed in. Concentration camps arouse horrendous images, but transition facilities are the best way to integrate people so that they can become successful. Don't visualize barracks, think apartment buildings with community education centers that prepare inhabitants for a successful future.

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

You can't just throw people into a completely different culture, likely with language barriers, and expect them to succeed. In a large scale situation like this, it will mostly be a negative result for the the refugees and the area they are placed in. Concentration camps arouse horrendous images, but transition facilities are the best way to integrate people so that they can become successful. Don't visualize barracks, think apartment buildings with community education centers that prepare inhabitants for a successful future.

Exactly right, IMO. But governments have to have the vision, will, and determination to budget the money and planning required for refugees. This is even more important if the refugees are to stay indefinitely. Properly dealt with they can be a social asset; otherwise they are a huge social problem.

 

[sniper]

The OP shocks me.

Europe & the US should give Financial aid to Africa? What? Africa should always be dépendent on our aid? Why?

Africans are well-capable adults and the African continent is currently in economic growth unlike what is commonly claimed. Stop this paternalistic tone that is a reminiscence of the dark days of the Colonial Empires! (the Colonies were a left-wing undertaking by the way; we should bring Progress and Civilization to the inferior races, blablabla)

Financial aid to Africa has been going on for decades and the gap between North & South had widened in the meantime because the aid was a poisonous gift that went back North x10. We simply should NEVER have aided these countries and most of all, European nations at first, and the USA now are still plundering their ressources (see the Rwandan case in which the USA & Israel, etc used Kagame as proxy to plunder the rich natural ressources of neighbouring Congo).

The Left-wing hypocrisy around this migrant crisis makes me sick. Here in the Francophony, we see left-wing pseudo-Intellectuals such as Bernard-Henri Lévy making us a cry a river about the poor kid who died on that Turkish beach but once these migrants have arrived in Europe, they turncoat and start pointing the finger at them because they had the bad idea of being Muslim !!! The immigrationist BHL is also the first to support the veil ban everywhere in public places. It seems that the aim is a civil war/religious war between the different communities in Europe. Migrants are brought here but then the same people who helped them come in are constantly putting oïl on fire. And of course, they would say "yes but you may criticize religions such as Islam and not their Arabic background, so our attacks are legitimate" blabla. Some say that Left-wingers are schizo but I don't think so. I think it's all pretty consistent.

I am in favour of immigration control BUT I respect Islam. And I am not looking for trouble with the Muslim communities here in my cities, I'm in frequent contact with them. However, the last Autumn crisis was most definitely organized by the US and Turkey in order to put Europe in uproar and those migrants should never have been allowed in, not out of xenophobia/racism/fascism or whatever adhominem's you can think of but because their country was at war and those migrants who are predominantly young adult males had to fight against terrorists. It's not Europe's mission to welcome deserters.

This does not mean that I stand against immigration per se. Controlling immigration does not mean that we kick off every migrant, control means control. In the sixties those migrants came to work in our mines and I am the first to claim that they contributed to the wealth of our nation. But now, there aren't jobs anymore and thousands of homeless people in our cities. But the governments would never lift a pinky for them. The EU commission has found 5M € for the migrants. Why is it that the 2,600 homeless people in Brussels never could benefit from these 5M€ ???

your first two paragraphs: I never said anything of the sort.
If you think I meant to say that "Africa should always be dependent on our aid", then you missed -- and basically reversed -- my point. My point being that for decades the commercial strategy of the US and EU has been aimed at keeping Africa dependent, rather than letting them develop independently.

I think it's uncontroversial that Europe&US have done very little to ensure Africa get their fair share of global trade agreements and commercial treaties. On the contrary, Europe/US have consistently driven a commercial agenda focused on strengthening their own markets and keeping African economies at bay.
My point is that this agenda now comes back to bite Europe.

Sorry, I lack the time right now to craft a better / more eloquent argument.

 

[jmdirt]

If China would get on board, they could develop refugees transition centers in their ghost cities.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-19/photographs-surreal-uncanny-emptiness-chinas-ghost-cities

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

If China would get on board, they could develop refugees transition centers in their ghost cities.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-19/photographs-surreal-uncanny-emptiness-chinas-ghost-cities

That's a great link. I liked this comment at the linked article.

Future anthropologists are going to be pulling their *** hair out trying to figure out why all this *** ever existed in the first place. They'll turn to the usual stuff that explains empty cities- famine, disease, war.... but some future . . . tinfoil hat-wearing sharpie will be screaming "Nobody ever lived in these places! They were economic mausoleums!" He will be shunned, ridiculed and mocked, of course.

Anyway, I doubt the Chinese would give their ghost cities to the refugees. Even though it should be a very good idea, they'd be rightfully worried about an ISIS Trojan horse.

 

[the delgados]

I don't buy into the Trojan Horse analogy.
Extremism/terrorism knows no boundaries and could happen anywhere, regardless of nationality.
I'm assuming countries who invite refugees have a vetting process, and are aware that the vast majority are trying to escape conflict, not create one.
I'd venture to guess that anyone intent on killing others (e.g. Paris attacks) would prefer to buy a plane ticket or hitch a ride rather than endure spending months in a refugee camp.

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

I don't buy into the Trojan Horse analogy.
Extremism/terrorism knows no boundaries and could happen anywhere, regardless of nationality.
I'm assuming countries who invite refugees have a vetting process, and are aware that the vast majority are trying to escape conflict, not create one.
I'd venture to guess that anyone intent on killing others (e.g. Paris attacks) would prefer to buy a plane ticket or hitch a ride rather than endure spending months in a refugee camp.

I agree with you, but don't preclude the possibility of state actors in sheep's clothing.
The Chinese certainly wouldn't. Machiavelli 101.