Refugee crisis

[rhubroma]

The crisis is the result of the myopic economic hegemon, in which greed and prepotency dominate, worsened by cultural and political dificiencies on both sides.

Still more reprehensible is the fact that today wars are made to sell arms and there is a lucrative black market in human misery. It's been estimated that this problem will persist for the next 30 years.

 

[jmdirt]

?Rech, what is your solution or plan?

 

[rhubroma]

Well that depends on what you mean by "solution." The crisis demands a communal response, but what we get are a bunch of states in disagreement over responsibility and proceedure.

None of any of the resolutions presented thus far can be considered wholly satisfactory, however. Between the "good will" nations and those openly hostile, the EU needs a central, legally-binding, arbitrator, but such is lacking.

The fascist and racist eastern states, which offer a sollution of walls and police repression, should though have their union funding cut off at the minimum.

It's ironic that in the ruthlessly competitive economic world, which fosters competition between states rather than cooperation, and given the profits generated by war; the plan is to treat the effects and not these causes of mass exodus. Meanwhile we get reactionary calls to save Europe's identity in the name of civilization, by bombing the refugee ships as they leave Africa.

 

[jmdirt]

Re:

Well that depends on what you mean by "solution." The crisis demands a communal response, but what we get are a bunch of states in disagreement over responsibility and proceedure.

None of any of the resolutions presented thus far can be considered wholly satisfactory, however. Between the "good will" nations and those openly hostile, the EU needs a central, legally-binding, arbitrator, but such is lacking.

The fascist and racist eastern states, which offer a sollution of walls and police repression, should though have their union funding cut off at the minimum.

It's ironic that in the ruthlessly competitive economic world, which fosters competition between states rather than cooperation, and given the profits generated by war; the plan is to treat the effects and not these causes of mass exodus. Meanwhile we get reactionary calls to save Europe's identity in the name of civilization, by bombing the refugee ships as they leave Africa.

I want to know what ?Rechschreibfehler's plan is. They have strongly dumped other suggestions and cried racist, but haven't offered a viable solution that leads to a successful integration for refugees and communities.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

Re: Re:

I want to know what ?Rechschreibfehler's plan is. They have strongly dumped other suggestions and cried racist, but haven't offered a viable solution that leads to a successful integration for refugees and communities.

I did say that if they were all spread around Europe noone would even notice them, and I hinted that the boarder policy is part of the problem here, which I thought wasn't so uneasy to understand. As I am rather busy right now I didn't reply in more detail since then. What I did is ask more than just one or two questions, none of which have been answered. Which brings me to another point. I am sick and tired of short thinking and *** on this topic. In all honesty, it's a fun thing to make though experiments, but your China-ghos-town-suggestion made me angry. This isn't fun, this is not an abstract problem at all, some fantasy crap will not help. Sorry for being so blunt, but I don't have the distance you probably have, I actually live in a state that takes in refugees, and that is on the other hand very much also responsible for a lot of the actual problems the humans involved face today. In a time when it doesn't even work to spread the refugees aroung Europe, to come up with nonsense like this China *** isn't engaging in a discussion, it's ignoring the seriousness of the problem.

And the concentration camp stuff is just nonsense that flies in the face of reason and human rights. There is no upshot to them, if you believe there is please try to explain it at least. But the this leads to something else I was wondering about: do you guys have andy clue of what is actually happening in the european countries that take refugees in? I mean about how they are taken in, how they are processed? If you want to talk solutions, looking about some actual things being done might be a good Idea right? Camps, asylum seeker "dorms", rights of accepted refugees? You need to explain why focing people to stay in camps would help, experience shows it wont! And thinking about it for a while will make this clear, even without looking about the effects of this. Besides: you do know that people who are granted asylum have rights? None of you even clarified about whom they are talking, asylum seekers or people who have been granted asylum. And other than that noone actually presented a plan only not very well founded opinions. To ask for one before actually trying to asses the situation - not bringing up stuff from fantasy and prejudice land - is preposterous. All I have head from you and maxinton are unfounded claims, but you would be right if you pointed out that I didn't go into detail about my claims too. I didn't have the time at that moment, and I wanted to stirr a discussion, which did work in a way. My reaction was to ask questions, and try - in maxintons case - to figuere out what he wanted to say, he didn't respond to my questions, so I couldn't respond to his answers. Questions by the way that you could have answered as well, because they concern your position as well. But rather than doing this you ask me for a plan and speculate about Chinese Ghost town solutions.

But well, I don't want to say nothing about this plan issue.
(1.) The up untill now unwilling EU states and others should take in refugees.
(2.) The so called free worl needs to stop raping everyone they can for it's own wealth.
Sound's realistic? No it doens't, which is why this crying for a "plan" that tries to come up with ideal solutions is nonsense to start with. The reasons why both wont work are very complex, and as I have already put out in the open, do have to do with racism in my opinion. Let's take the Federal Republic of Germany as an example. The lifes of noone but the refugees themselves and of those who help them have actually been touched in any way the apocalyptic hystiria suggest. The "Crisis" we have exits in the heads of people with fear. Fear of things that are not there, have never been ther, and probably will not ever be there. If anything about those fears would be legit, we'd have to kick Saxony out of the Federation, burn it to the ground, and recivilise it. If you don't know what I mean, feel free to goole Bautzen, Clausnitz and Freital. Google burning refugee asylums in Germany. If you don't know what I am getting at with this: nonsensical generalisation based on the place you come from. If you believe what happend there is understandable, reasonable and the refugees fault I am of the opinion that you are a racist. If you wonder why, I am happy to explain it to you.

We can talk about what actual strategies could be after that. Strategies for the near futere and larger scale solutins a aim at, everything else is nonsens, as we do not know what the future will bring.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

<snip>My reaction was to ask questions, and try - in maxintons case - to figuere out what he wanted to say, he didn't respond to my questions, so I couldn't respond to his answers.<snip>

I actually answered each of your questions in considerable detail. If you go back and read all my postings here, I think you will find that to be the case. However, if you find a question I did not answer, I will be happy to try to address myself to it.

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

I want to know what ?Rechschreibfehler's plan is. They have strongly dumped other suggestions and cried racist, but haven't offered a viable solution that leads to a successful integration for refugees and communities.

I did say that if they were all spread around Europe noone would even notice them, and I hinted that the boarder policy is part of the problem here, which I thought wasn't so uneasy to understand. As I am rather busy right now I didn't reply in more detail since then. What I did is ask more than just one or two questions, none of which have been answered. Which brings me to another point. I am sick and tired of short thinking and poop on this topic. In all honesty, it's a fun thing to make though experiments, but your China-ghos-town-suggestion made me angry. This isn't fun, this is not an abstract problem at all, some fantasy crap will not help. Sorry for being so blunt, but I don't have the distance you probably have, I actually live in a state that takes in refugees, and that is on the other hand very much also responsible for a lot of the actual problems the humans involved face today. In a time when it doesn't even work to spread the refugees aroung Europe, to come up with nonsense like this China poop isn't engaging in a discussion, it's ignoring the seriousness of the problem.

And the concentration camp stuff is just nonsense that flies in the face of reason and human rights. There is no upshot to them, if you believe there is please try to explain it at least. But the this leads to something else I was wondering about: do you guys have andy clue of what is actually happening in the european countries that take refugees in? I mean about how they are taken in, how they are processed? If you want to talk solutions, looking about some actual things being done might be a good Idea right? Camps, asylum seeker "dorms", rights of accepted refugees? You need to explain why focing people to stay in camps would help, experience shows it wont! And thinking about it for a while will make this clear, even without looking about the effects of this. Besides: you do know that people who are granted asylum have rights? None of you even clarified about whom they are talking, asylum seekers or people who have been granted asylum. And other than that noone actually presented a plan only not very well founded opinions. To ask for one before actually trying to asses the situation - not bringing up stuff from fantasy and prejudice land - is preposterous. All I have head from you and maxinton are unfounded claims, but you would be right if you pointed out that I didn't go into detail about my claims too. I didn't have the time at that moment, and I wanted to stirr a discussion, which did work in a way. My reaction was to ask questions, and try - in maxintons case - to figuere out what he wanted to say, he didn't respond to my questions, so I couldn't respond to his answers. Questions by the way that you could have answered as well, because they concern your position as well. But rather than doing this you ask me for a plan and speculate about Chinese Ghost town solutions.

But well, I don't want to say nothing about this plan issue.
(1.) The up untill now unwilling EU states and others should take in refugees.
(2.) The so called free worl needs to stop raping everyone they can for it's own wealth.
Sound's realistic? No it doens't, which is why this crying for a "plan" that tries to come up with ideal solutions is nonsense to start with. The reasons why both wont work are very complex, and as I have already put out in the open, do have to do with racism in my opinion. Let's take the Federal Republic of Germany as an example. The lifes of noone but the refugees themselves and of those who help them have actually been touched in any way the apocalyptic hystiria suggest. The "Crisis" we have exits in the heads of people with fear. Fear of things that are not there, have never been ther, and probably will not ever be there. If anything about those fears would be legit, we'd have to kick Saxony out of the Federation, burn it to the ground, and recivilise it. If you don't know what I mean, feel free to goole Bautzen, Clausnitz and Freital. Google burning refugee asylums in Germany. If you don't know what I am getting at with this: nonsensical generalisation based on the place you come from. If you believe what happend there is understandable, reasonable and the refugees fault I am of the opinion that you are a racist. If you wonder why, I am happy to explain it to you.

We can talk about what actual strategies could be after that. Strategies for the near futere and larger scale solutins a aim at, everything else is nonsens, as we do not know what the future will bring.

Since you started out with a front of compassion, I thought that you were concerned for the refugees when in reality you want "no one to notice them". You are crying racist so that we don't notice that you are the racist.

People thrive in communities and fail in isolation. Spreading them out so that no one notices them will ensure their failure.

Transition communities will provide the opportunity for refugees to succeed. Since that isn't your goal, you try to create a vision of cement barracks and barbed wire so that you can encourage refugee dispersal. I offered the Chinese ghost cities to counter your vision of horror because transition communities could be beautiful cities like the empty ones in China. Getting refugees to China would be a logistical nightmare, and likely limit their opportunities to return to their country if things improve, but that is a better than what you offer. There are Arab countries, if I'm not mistaken, who also have ghost cities that would be logistically easier to access.

Dismissing anything but your own agenda as nonsense is classic politics that leads to a lose-lose solution.

EDIT: The problem is probably too big to completely address in a orderly way. Is there something that can be done in boarder areas that would be good for all?

 

[jmdirt]

I did not fact check this, but if it is accurate, its an amazing and horrifying way to visualize what is happening.

http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/10/28/map-that-shows-how-huge-europes-refugee-crisis-really-is

 

[sniper]

Re:

I did not fact check this, but if it is accurate, its an amazing and horrifying way to visualize what is happening.

http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/10/28/map-that-shows-how-huge-europes-refugee-crisis-really-is

great link jmdirt, thanks.

 

[Maxiton]

You'd think a few others might want to chime in on this topic.

 

[SafeBet]

I work in a centre housing around 50 asylum seekers and refugees in Milano. I help them with documents, legal procedures, general understanding of the italian bureaucratic system and in some cases we offer job experiences.

First of all, you should understand that the people we call refugees come from very different countries that they escape from for very different reasons. You can't compare a family fleeing the bombs in Sirya with a young man leaving Senegal or Nigeria because of a general lack of opportunities.
Each country has specific problems that require a different approach to be solved. And in most cases there isn't much we can do about it (unless making war is an option). So I'll just focus on what we can do here in Europe.

The biggest problem is the huge difference of treatment refugees get in each european country. You see countries where 50% of the asylum requests are accepted and countries where the percentage drops to 1%. Countries where asylum seekers get a home, language schools, job offers, family care, doctors, etc and countries where they're put in a mass camp and forgotten for months. So you shouldn't be surprised these men and women aim to get in some specific countries rather than others. Solution: refugee laws and everything related to it should be the same in every EU country. You don't agree, get the *** out of EU (this actually applies to a lot of issues. Many countries only get the benefits of being inside the EU without fuflfilling the basic requirements of equity and freedom asked by the EU, see Italy on the same sex marriage issue). The whole process of requesting asylum should be clear, quick and simple. You get a positive reply, you stay. You don't, we put you in a plane and go back to your country. Right now people are trapped in these legal procedures for months, sometimes for years. Their lives are blocked. And I know I shouldn't say it because I'm the one benefitting from it, but european citizens pay a lot of money for this.

Second, stop the brutal human being traffic in the Mediterranean sea. How? Well, this is debatable. Libya is now a very volatile country and this is mostly a european fault. One solution I've been thinking about: european countries should issue temporary visas for people coming from Sahel and Eirtrea/Somalia (which are the vast majority of the ones travelling by boat from Libya) and Pakistan/Afghanistan (boat from Greece) so they would have the chance to travel by plane to Europe. A bit like the working holiday visas we can get to Australia or Canada to put it simple. This would benefit everybody:

- those who really have problems in their country can ask for asylum as soon as they reach the european soil, while those who are mostly interested in a job can focus on what they actually want without all the legal hassle;
- european countries get the working force they obviously need (for positions most of us would never cover);
- the journey becomes much safer;
- people coming in are clearly identified and (if needed) monitored.

Remember that in most cases a journey by car through the desert + boat from Libya costs a lot more than a return flight from Dakar or Lagos or Islamabad.

Third, have some hot spots in strategic places where poeple can ask for asylum before coming to Europe. If your request is accepted you come to Europe safely, otherwise bye bye.

Fourth, why the *** are we even considering having Turkey in the EU? It's a fascist country killing minorities, with no respect for human rights and for different sexual preferences. I mean, seriously. The role of Turkey is this whole refugee crisis is clearly huge. Europe should take a very clear stance on this. I have no idea how cause I'm no politician but find a way.

 

[rhubroma]

Thanks Safe-Bet for your insider's insight. At the same time, we are dealing with the crisis as a therapy that treats the effects of a disease, but not its causes. I realize though that the macro economics and the business of arms, which are related to the regional dichotomies between the haves and the have-nots and between the preditors and the prey, are two huge monsters that nobody seems willing to tackle. This is also because the status quo is way too convenient for some. And this is not only in the West.

Turkey is the US's biggest Nato partner in the region. This fact should pretty much answer why the fascist regime, sustained by a religious establishment, that's killing people is regarded so benevolently.

 

[SafeBet]

Re:

Thanks Safe-Bet for your insider's insight. At the same time, we are dealing with the crisis as a therapy that treats the effects of a disease, but not its causes. I realize though that the macro economics and the business of arms, which are related to the regional dichotomies between the haves and the have-nots and between the preditors and the prey, are two huge monsters that nobody seems willing to tackle. This is also because the status quo is way too convenient for some. And this is not only in the West.

The refugee crisis has also disclosed how weak the bonds among the different european countries are. We like to picture ourselves as heralds of common values and principles, we enjoy showing our common roots and traditions, but ultimately we don't like being european citizens. The rise of no euro movements and extreme right parties is a very clear sign in this sense.

We could use this whole thing as an opportunity: become Europe, a political, cultural and economic entity with common policies and relations with foreign countries.

What we are doing is the opposite: strengthen the borders, focus on local issues and consider the EU as a distant super power enforcing measures we don't understand.

 

[Echoes]

I don't like being a European Citizen and I don't believe we have common roots, values and principles. I mean if our values is the destruction of Lybia, I certainly don't believe in it. Besides, in Estonia, they are celebrating the Waffen SS every year (because Nazi Germany "liberated" the country from Bolshevik rule). That's not really my value, to be honest. I don't see why my country should share a common destiny with Malta or Cyprus and not with the Congo. Belgians have a lot more cultural ties with the Congo then with Slovakia. The French have a lot more cultural ties with Algeria than with Croatia. The Portuguese have a lot more cultural ties with Mozambique than with Finland. Why should we all separate ourselves from the rest of the world? Is that not a continental scale Apartheid? We are all white-skinned peoples in our majority, so let's get together. I mean I still have this EU promotional clip in mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XClSrpvLN1o

But there's more to that fact than just the refugee crisis. I've realised that after the 2005 referendums in France and in the Netherlands (when I started being "politically aware", I was quite young at that time). Peoples were getting more and more eurosceptic because of the libertarian economic policies of the European Union, much more than out of a supposed xenophobia. I mean just the article 63 of the TFEU about the freedom of capital movement among member states or between member states and third countries is enough to repulse anybody with a decent social conscience (if only people read those treaties!).

And don't tell me we can change this Europe from within. In order to change the treaty, you need the unanimity of all 28 governments. It's impossible to have 28 governments agreeing on one common policy. Every nation has their own interest and second, the traditional ideologies between countries are too different for that. Finland is traditionally very liberal, while France has a more "social" tradition.

I think my country should get out of that mess. Article 50 of the TFEU entitle any country to exit the EU and that's what we should do. Good borders make good neighbours. We may understand each other better if we all recover our sovereignties. The Genius of Europe is its division, not its unity. Every time there had been a huge empire over Europe, the peoples suffered.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

I mean just the article 63 of the TFEU about the freedom of capital movement among member states or between member states and third countries is enough to repulse anybody with a decent social conscience (if only people read those treaties!).

What's so bad about freedom of capital movement?

 

[Brullnux]

I mean just the article 63 of the TFEU about the freedom of capital movement among member states or between member states and third countries is enough to repulse anybody with a decent social conscience (if only people read those treaties!).

What's so bad about freedom of capital movement?

Echoes is a protectionist.

 

[Echoes]

Label me the way you want but you just confirmed what I’ve always thought about the political Left-wing, namely they are impostors who pretended to defend the laboring class while the logical consequences of their policies are high unemployment in the West, exploitation of cheap labour overseas and over-consumption, all of it is in favour of the Great Capital … You cannot build anything social without a measure of protectionism because without protections and boundaries, we’re in competition with Bangladeshi or Pakistani production and we cannot compete against them. You want us to live up to their standards, let me disagree.

Freedom of Capital movement (art. 63 of the TFEU) means that the member states of the EU can no longer oppose to the relocation of our industry in low cost countries if it goes against its interests. Likewise, if a Qatari billionair wants to build a tower in London or buy out a Spanish football club or a French vineyard, nobody can stop him because with art.63 of the TFEU it’s forbidden to forbid.

Until the Maastricht Treaty (1992), the member states of the EU had in their finance ministry a department called the control of capital movement and if a company wished to relocate part of their production overseas in developing countries, they needed to send a file to that department and the bureaucrats there decided to give a green light or not. They often said no but not all the time. By 1959 Peugeot relocated part of their production in Iran (the Shah’s Iran) and it was accepted (because in those days, the French also controlled their imports and no low-cost Iranian Peugeot was tolerated), same for Renault in Colombia by the early seventies, I think. Same thing in the other direction, a foreign company who wished to invest in a European country had to pass by the Finance Ministry.

These days, we can no longer control anything. It does not mean we should oppose any foreign investment in any direction but we have to say “Amen” to anything because of the European Treaty. By the way, in order to get back on topic, it’s the same with immigration. Our democratically elected governments have no say on immigration anymore either. Legally speaking, the Commission has the upper hand on the issue. Articles 77 to 80 of the TFEU determine our policy. So whether we elect a right-wing government proposing strict control of immigration or a left-wing government who’d be less strict about it, it does not change anything because our democratically elected governments have lost the reality of power.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Likewise, if a Qatari billionair wants to build a tower in London or buy out a Spanish football club or a French vineyard, nobody can stop him because with art.63 of the TFEU it’s forbidden to forbid.

And in your hypothetical scenarios, the influx of Qatari money into the British/Spanish/French economy is a problem because...?

 

[Echoes]

We are losing our heritage to them. Not talking about the fact they are financing terrorism.

Anyway it's just one aspect of the problem. The truth is the whole and art.63 of the TFEU is an article that anybody with social awareness should opposed to.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

We are losing our heritage to them.

What? Foreign investment from other countries helps fuel our economy and is therefore good for our workers.

 

[Brullnux]

Label me the way you want but you just confirmed what I’ve always thought about the political Left-wing, namely they are impostors who pretended to defend the laboring class while the logical consequences of their policies are high unemployment in the West, exploitation of cheap labour overseas and over-consumption, all of it is in favour of the Great Capital …

I never said being a protectionist is a good or bad thing, just that you are one. I agree that protectionism is necessary sometimes. What is happening in London right now is that super-rich Russians are buying homes for way more than they are worth, so pushing up the prices of all the houses in the area. It gets worse if they buy-to-let it, because they then rent it out for more than £4000pcm, when it should be worth £1500pcm. The only party even saying they are opposed to this is Labour. UKIP like this sort of immigration you see, as they aren't poor Poles "stealing our jobs", rather super-rich Russians stealing our houses. Difference is for UKIP is that these Russians/Qataris etc. bring in money to spend apparently, so it is OK.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

I never said being a protectionist is a good or bad thing, just that you are one. I agree that protectionism is necessary sometimes. What is happening in London right now is that super-rich Russians are buying homes for way more than they are worth, so pushing up the prices of all the houses in the area.

This very real problem has little to do with protectionism (or the lack of it). It's about the failure of British authorities to prevent real estate in London from being used for money laundering.

If you live in the UK, you might have seen the documentary "From Russia With Cash". If not, someone's uploaded it to YouTube here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=attzGI1Jgmc

 

[Echoes]

What fuels the economy is production, labour. Money is not a material wealth as such. Qataris and Chinese have bought 57% of all the vineyards around Bordeaux. Very soon the French would have no more fabrics, no more goods, no more properties. They cannot get the benefits of their production. How is that healthy for their economy? If I were French, I’d be p*ssed. Qataris are not starting companies in our countries, they are buying out. Again, with the pre-1992 control of capital movement, we were not foreign investment proof. Only our government were meant to study the case according to our best interest.

What is happening in London right now is that super-rich Russians are buying homes for way more than they are worth, so pushing up the prices of all the houses in the area. It gets worse if they buy-to-let it, because they then rent it out for more than £4000pcm, when it should be worth £1500pcm. The only party even saying they are opposed to this is Labour. UKIP like this sort of immigration you see, as they aren't poor Poles "stealing our jobs", rather super-rich Russians stealing our houses. Difference is for UKIP is that these Russians/Qataris etc. bring in money to spend apparently, so it is OK.

It’s very interesting. Only thing I have to say, the key is not who is opposing to what but how they intend to do it. Opposing to the buyout of houses by Russian oligarchs imposes rejecting the article 63 of the TFEU, which means the whole TFEU, which means exiting the EU. Of course Labour does not say that, far from. When they were in power they were fervent advocates of the Maastricht Treaty and hence of the freedom of capital movement. Hence they are not to be trusted. I don’t identify with UKIP. If anything, because I’m not a Brit. What interests me in the British general elections is which party wants out of the EU, period.

Sorry for the off-topic but I think it was important. Out of respect I thereby say it would be my last contribution to this discussion. If I ever come back to this thread, it would be to discuss the refugee crisis.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Qataris and Chinese have bought 57% of all the vineyards around Bordeaux.

Bringing loads of cash into the French economy that the former owners of those vineyards can now invest in some other line of business.

 

[Christian]

The United States has pledged to accept 10,000 Syrian refugees, out of an estimated total of 4,6 million current refugees. This is less than 1/4 of 1%, or 10 times less than the acceptable amount of wood pulp in your parmesan cheese. Of those 10,000 only about 2,000 have actually been resettled to the United States.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5y70oKbAKY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgfL8PRTLns

Luxembourg currently hosts 3,000 refugees.

http://www.wort.lu/fr/politique/3-000-refugies-au-luxembourg-jean-asselborn-voit-le-modele-europeen-en-danger-56dfecd61bea9dff8fa742a3