Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

The Migration Crisis

981 replies to this topic
GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    DILF in waiting

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Unfunniest Member 2013
    Unfunniest Member 2012

#1

Posted 20 April 2015 - 07:51 PM Edited by GTA_stu, 20 April 2015 - 08:10 PM.

This has been an issue for a while now, but it's becoming more prominent recently due to an increase in attempted crossings with the improving weather and some high profile incidents in the last few days. Tens of thousands of people from various territories in Africa and the Middle East are attempting to get into Europe via the Mediterranean every month. The boats they use are over crowded and incredibly unsafe, and they are usually intercepted by navies and coastguards from EU nations who then bring them ashore where they're processed and given refugee status. 

 

So the question is what should be done to manage this? Should we keep rescuing these people? Should we just ignore them or send them back? Do we have a duty, moral or otherwise, to rescue them? It's a complex issue, and it's been getting a lot of traction in the news recently so I thought it might be interesting to discuss it. 

 

Relevant news article on the recent events and has links to other background info:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-32383126

  • Tyler and Palikari like this

Palikari
  • Palikari

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2012
  • Israel

#2

Posted 20 April 2015 - 09:04 PM Edited by Palikari, 20 April 2015 - 09:07 PM.

My solution:

 

Don't give them refugee status, don't let them stay in Europe. Send them back to Africa immediately. Let them know they have no possibility to stay in Europe, because they have no right to! European nations don't have the duty to let them in. Europe is not a welfare organization, but a continent with many internal problems and own interests. They should be rescued (they should not be left to die of course) and immediately deported back.

 

If they know they have no possibility to stay, then they won't risk their lives and the mafias that take them to Europe will have no business.

  • MobBG, Street Mix, KaRzY6 and 2 others like this

Stephan90
  • Stephan90

    proud "conspiracy theorist"

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2008
  • Germany

#3

Posted 20 April 2015 - 09:07 PM Edited by Stephan90, 21 April 2015 - 02:47 PM.

- patrol the coasts of Africa not Europe

- return these boats to Africa

- chase the people, who make money with organizing these boat trips, and jail them

- build camps for refugees in Africa or at least camps in Africa where it is decided if the people have a right for asylum in Europe in the first place

- kill off Boko Haram and ISIS with all necessary means

- give the African people sex education and condoms to prevent uncontrolled population growth

  • Street Mix, Carbonox, universetwisters and 4 others like this

John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#4

Posted 20 April 2015 - 09:27 PM

I'm not going to type out an essay on this, but I think there needs to be more of a thorough international crackdown on the crooks trafficking these people. I can't imagine the trauma of being stranded in the middle of the sea, not knowing whether your loved ones are anywhere near, let alone alive, but these people are being exploited in the same essence many media commentators are quite rightfully comparing to modern day slave trade.

And before the usual left-wing types in here start smothering me with history, I'm talking about the cash-generating operations of the transportation of these vulnerable refugees, not what said vulnerables are being transported to accommodate.
  • mr quick, Palikari and ten-a-penny like this

GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    DILF in waiting

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Unfunniest Member 2013
    Unfunniest Member 2012

#5

Posted 20 April 2015 - 09:34 PM

My position is the same. Most of these people are economic migrants not refugees. There are plenty of safe countries in Africa and the ME which aren't in a civil war and have relatively stable governments. They want to come to Europe not because it's safe, but because it's prosperous and has a generous welfare system. It's not Europe's responsibility to take care of these people. 

 

Not a single person that attempts these crossings should be given refuge, because it just encourages more crossings and more illegal immigration. Track or find out where these boats came from, and take them back to wherever that is, and destroy the boat. I don't know how easy it will be to break up the trafficking gangs with arrests and prosecutions, considering they operate in completely lawless countries with impunity, but if you make these crossings pointless by not giving these migrants their goal, then that should hopefully deter them from trying it in the first place. 

  • MobBG, Carbonox, KaRzY6 and 2 others like this

John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#6

Posted 20 April 2015 - 09:53 PM

give the African people sex education and condoms to prevent uncntrolled population growth


This is something I've often thought about the past few years. Can anyone tell me why this is such a left field idea?
  • universetwisters likes this

Tyler
  • Tyler

    Legit Tattoo Gun

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • None
  • Best Poem 2014
    Best Story 2014
    Most Talented Writer 2014
    Newcomer of the Year 2010

#7

Posted 20 April 2015 - 10:06 PM

 

give the African people sex education and condoms to prevent uncntrolled population growth


This is something I've often thought about the past few years. Can anyone tell me why this is such a left field idea?

 

 

The thought of spending your tax dollars on foreigners usually doesn't jive with conservative types, hence the general policy of "keep them out unless they work their way in (gradually)." Same concept that would give people the idea to keep borders tight, generally.

  • Niobium and make total destroy like this

Stephan90
  • Stephan90

    proud "conspiracy theorist"

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2008
  • Germany

#8

Posted 20 April 2015 - 10:06 PM Edited by Stephan90, 20 April 2015 - 11:27 PM.

If a random dude from Africa can find one of these gangs, who take money for boat trips to Europe. Then it should be no problem for undercover cops to catch those gang members. They might not catch the leader in the first place but it is a start.

 

This whole problem is significantly affecting Europe. I think Europe has every right to execute the tasks I mentioned above, even if it collides with some sovereign rights if those states if they refuse to collaborate with Europe in any of the tasks. 

 

Nobody can expect from Europe to take in all people who enter Europe, but to ignore the problems in Africa, where the people come from. Otherwise nothing will change in the future.

  • Carbonox and Palikari like this

John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#9

Posted 20 April 2015 - 10:35 PM

give the African people sex education and condoms to prevent uncntrolled population growth


This is something I've often thought about the past few years. Can anyone tell me why this is such a left field idea?
 
The thought of spending your tax dollars on foreigners usually doesn't jive with conservative types, hence the general policy of "keep them out unless they work their way in (gradually)." Same concept that would give people the idea to keep borders tight, generally.
Well whilst I wouldn't agree that tightening immigration is solely to do with letting foreigners 'learn for themselves before they enter', if I think that's what you're getting at(?)- in fact, it's nothing to do with that as far as I'm concerned- I certainly agree that foreign aid should be more focused on education; in this particular instance, sex education and the supply of contraceptives. Perhaps there's a lack of donations in this aspect? Call me a simpleton, maybe I am, but surely the cost of contraceptives to prevent a birth would be less straining on the public purse than trying to feed a human for life, or put them through the miserable process of starvation which pushes them to find solace in the Western world, further causing even more financial strain on countries trying to help their homelands?

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#10

Posted 21 April 2015 - 06:10 AM Edited by Melchior, 21 April 2015 - 06:20 AM.

Alright lads what do we have so far on this BLACK IMMIGRATION CRISIS:

- Give Africans condoms

- Teach Africans how to use condoms

- Destroy people smuggling as an industry

- Ban Africans from getting refugee status

 

We got this. Gonna get my MP on the horn right now. 

  • Otter, Doc Rikowski, Tyler and 6 others like this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#11

Posted 21 April 2015 - 06:16 AM

Jesus christ so many of you are f*cking mugs and you don't even know it 

hey I don't see you doing anything about the BLACK IMMIGRATION CRISIS. Europe can't handle all these black people pouring in, the UN and their 'right to asylum' and 'freedom from discrimination' can go f*ck themselves, these guys are just trying to get on welfare i'm not politically correct I speak my mind

  • Ari Gold, make total destroy and dante財閥 like this

GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    DILF in waiting

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Unfunniest Member 2013
    Unfunniest Member 2012

#12

Posted 21 April 2015 - 06:29 AM

If you can't debate like a grown up and build an actual coherent argument and counter people's points then kindly skip back off to tumblr.  

  • 007_eleven and Carbonox like this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#13

Posted 21 April 2015 - 06:39 AM

If you can't debate like a grown up and build an actual coherent argument and counter people's points then kindly skip back off to tumblr.  

I don't think there is a BLACK IMMIGRATION CRISIS or that resources on any considerable scale should be put towards ending a BLACK IMMIGRATION CRISIS, so I'm not sure what there is to discuss. 

 

But I will point out that if accommodating the SWARMS OF BLACK IMMIGRANTS is too hard, but your solution is wiping out people smuggling in its entirely forever, eliminating overpopulation in Africa (by doing that thing where you put a condom on a Banana, duh) and f*cking banning black people from getting refugee status, then it's pretty clear what your motivations are. Now kindly skip off back to Stormfront.  

  • mr quick, Ari Gold, Niobium and 1 other like this

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#14

Posted 21 April 2015 - 06:45 AM Edited by Irviding, 21 April 2015 - 06:46 AM.

Melchior, I don't think it has to do with whether they are black or not. The issue is whether or not it is proper to be giving refuge status to people from conflict zones in general. We have this problem in the US with Cubans trying to get in all the time and whether or not to give them asylum. 

 

Personally, I feel that it is not necessarily the "duty" of EU nations to help these people out, but it is the right thing to do. As long as these people are locked down and questioned about their intentions for a while before being allowed to fully receive refugee status, I see no issue with helping them out. But you have to remember, apart from Saudi Arabia, a significant portion of ISIS fighters are coming right out of Tunisia and Morocco, both of which have very large Islamist movements, and those are the states where these people are floating in from. So I have no doubt the EU governments will tread very carefully, and should not be afraid to lock these people down and interrogate them very carefully. 

  • Failure, Zook, Carbonox and 2 others like this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#15

Posted 21 April 2015 - 06:51 AM

Personally, I feel that it is not necessarily the "duty" of EU nations to help these people out, but it is the right thing to do. As long as these people are locked down and questioned about their intentions for a while before being allowed to fully receive refugee status, I see no issue with helping them out.

Take it back to tumblr you social justice warrior, probably wanna castrate all men. 

 

Seriously though, when obvious racists talk about banning Africans (read: blacks) from getting Asylum seeker status, your first instinct is to go "yeah it's not about the colour of their skin, they're genuinely concerned with how many Asylum seekers a year is practical. It's about logistics!"? These guys support UKIP and never shut up about immigration and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD, I'm supposed to take them seriously when they start talking about how blacks should be excluded from the Asylum seeker process in order to deter the BLACK IMMIGRATION CRISIS?

  • mr quick, Ari Gold, make total destroy and 1 other like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#16

Posted 21 April 2015 - 07:02 AM

The four largest contributors to the crisis in terms of nationalities of migrants are Libya, Somalia, Syria and Eritrea. The former three are active war zones and the latter one if the most oppressive dictatorships in the world. I can say with a pretty reasonable degree of confidence that, given the opportunity to risk your life trying to escape any of these hell-holes, every single person whose posted so far in this thread would do so. The reason the traffickers are staying in business is because a 40% chance drowning off of the cost of Italy is actively preferable for many to remaining in their home countries. Handing out condoms doesn't actually address the real problem here.

International treaties are pretty clear about not sending refugees back to environments where there is a direct threat to their lives. And I for one think that's a pretty sensible policy. Even if it weren't for all that pesky international law, most of the nations here are characterised by their lack of coherent governing authority. Where are you actually going to return refugees? Are you going to return Iraqi Shias and Christians to the Islamic State they're escaping from? Syrian Sunnis to Assad's secret police? Where are you going to return Libyans? The government who hold one single city or the militias that hold the rest of the country. What about Somalis? Give them to AU peacekeepers accused of gang-raping refugees, send me them to Mogadishu which is an overcrowded, fetid slum or send them back to al-Shabaab to meet whatever fate awaits them there? Similarly, I'm of the belief that the notion Europe can't handle a few tens of thousands of refugees is utter sh*te. Sweden takes in twice as many a year as the UK despite having a population about one seventh of ours.

Were we able to crush Islamic State and al-Shabaab, we might be able to reduce the flow of migration. The problem is that's a 10 year counterinsurgency campaign costing trillions of dollars and probably tens of thousands of lives, and the short-medium-term result of such a large military incursion would be displacing even more citizens and producing yet more asylum seekers. Refugee camps in war zones are of limited use; they've been overrun and massacred in Syria and in Libya they actually form part of the infrastructure from which most of the human trafficking organisations operate.

I think many of you actually fail to understand the root causes, and even the basic realities, of this crisis. I also wonder how comments you've made in thus thread might align with statements in others expressing general dislike for foreign aid programmes run by Western nations. Surely the economic elements of migration of this nature can be addressed by promoting growth in these countries through aid and developmental support?
  • Otter, Eutyphro, Moth and 12 others like this

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#17

Posted 21 April 2015 - 07:08 AM Edited by Irviding, 21 April 2015 - 07:08 AM.

 

Personally, I feel that it is not necessarily the "duty" of EU nations to help these people out, but it is the right thing to do. As long as these people are locked down and questioned about their intentions for a while before being allowed to fully receive refugee status, I see no issue with helping them out.

Take it back to tumblr you social justice warrior, probably wanna castrate all men. 

 

Seriously though, when obvious racists talk about banning Africans (read: blacks) from getting Asylum seeker status, your first instinct is to go "yeah it's not about the colour of their skin, they're genuinely concerned with how many Asylum seekers a year is practical. It's about logistics!"? These guys support UKIP and never shut up about immigration and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD, I'm supposed to take them seriously when they start talking about how blacks should be excluded from the Asylum seeker process in order to deter the BLACK IMMIGRATION CRISIS?

 

Yeah but to me it seems like it is an immigration concern to them, not an issue of blacks. They don't want immigrants of any color or creed in general it seems. I really don't know if that is a racial thing and frankly don't care, but as Stu and John and others have demonstrated they don't discriminate really with regard to who can immigrate. They are opposed to it in general for various reasons, some seemingly legit, others not. At least to my knowledge. 


GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    DILF in waiting

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Unfunniest Member 2013
    Unfunniest Member 2012

#18

Posted 21 April 2015 - 08:08 AM

I'm not totally against accepting refugees, I think we should accept some. I'm just against accepting refugees from these sea crossings, because it only encourages them and adds to the problem the EU faces, and it's also going to lead to more of them drowning. These people obviously face a lot of hardships, but we can't act as a world charity and accomodate every person in a desperate situation, nor should we be expected to. I don't hold it against them that they want a better life, but it's not our responsibility to provide everyone with a happy and safe life in a stable prosperous country. We have enough problems giving that to our own citizens.

 

In terms of returning them, I don't see why taking them back to whichever port or jetty they came from is so bad. Virtually none of them will have a "direct threat" against them. Isn't that supposed to mean a specific threat i.e. They're a dissident or activist who will face unlawful execution/torture as a pretty much certainty? These types of human right's laws are a joke, they're just a loophole for claiming asylum. If we take them back they'll be in an unstable country which is unsafe, that's not a direct threat. Mexico has some pretty unsafe, lawless and incredibly dangerous areas but the U.S. isn't expected to accomodate every illegal migrant from there.

 

It's not tens of thousands either, it was over 200,000 last year alone, and that number will rise this year. These people don't speak English or the native language of European countries, except maybe some French speaking Africans although they probably don't need asylum in any case. They're highly uneducated and completely poor, and have backwards views, cultures and traditions which are completely at odds with Europeans and European culture. They create a whole host of problems for the countries that take them in.

 

We already send billions in aid and charity as people and through our governments. We do a lot for these people, but we can't do everything. We do more than enough as it stands. 

  • Palikari likes this

Doc Rikowski
  • Doc Rikowski

    First Generation Gamer

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 May 2008
  • Mars
  • Best Gang 2013 - D1RTY12
    Best Event 2011 "Turf Wars"

#19

Posted 21 April 2015 - 10:21 AM

Thankfully after a bunch of nonsense and uninformed posts we had the pleasure to read a logical and informed one by sivispacem.  :^:
 
I completely agree with him and subscribe what he wrote.
 
I'll just add a few personal considerations about basic things a lot of people seem to not understand.
 
Each and every human being on this planet has the right to escape from a war and has the right to seek asylum in other countries.
Each country at peace has the duty to give asylum and to receive refugees whenever it is possible.
Europe has the best possible conditions in the area to receive these refugees.
The mere fact we are doing nothing at the moment make us all responsible of the thousands of men, women and children that are drowning daily just because we are worried and scared by immigration.
 
We completely forgot our past as migrants in which we migrated to better countries as dirty, as poor  and as desperate as the people that are crossing the Mediterranean today.
We completely forgot how Europe is directly responsible of the messy situation in which it has left Africa after centuries of colonization.
We completely forget that our weapon dealers and weapon industries profit with the very same wars these people escape from.
 
Whoever in here ignore these simple facts is either blind or ignorant.
Whoever in here thinks that in the same situation wouldn't attempt the exact same thing these people attempt is either an hypocrite or a fool.
Whoever in here says it's not our responsibility to aid these refugees is either delusional or simply immature.
 
To the one that said that returning to Libya is not a direct threat for migrants I suggest you to research a bit the news and see how migrants in there are tortured to extort them more money for the crossing.
Certainly going back is not an option for them otherwise they wouldn't risk their lives in the crossing.
 
And what the hell means "most of these people are economic migrants not refugees"?
Do you really believe there's a difference between the two "definitions"?
Usually a refugee looks for better economic conditions escaping from a desperate local or personal situation.
Wouldn't you do the same?
They are all refugees.
It doesn't matter if they are escaping war, famine, poverty, political persecution.
They are all escaping from something hence they are all refugees.

To be honest I'm shocked by what people posted in here.
Most of the people ain't got a clue about what they are talking about and that's the problem.
  • mr quick, Tyler, Ari Gold and 6 others like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#20

Posted 21 April 2015 - 10:36 AM

I'm just against accepting refugees from these sea crossings, because it only encourages them and adds to the problem the EU faces, and it's also going to lead to more of them drowning.

I agree that we need to deter people from making the dangerous journey but returning them is logistically infeasible for all the reasons I've highlighted. In fact, the measures we've so far undertaken to try and discourage people from making the journey (only patrolling European territorial waters rather than North African ones) has actually made the problem significantly worse.

These people obviously face a lot of hardships, but we can't act as a world charity

Actually we could quite feasibly deal with the current influx as a continent. We just lack the necessary will and commitment to do so. We'd rather keep the problem as far away from our shores as possible, but even that's controversial because the only way of deterring people from making the dangerous journey to Europe is to improve domestic conditions from them in their native countries, which polarises pretty much everyone on the political spectrum in some way or another- those on the left against interventionism as they often see it as a form of neoimperislism (especially in cases where force may be required to restore the rule of law and security", and those on the right outraged that we're spending money on foreigners that we could spend on ourselves. But in reality the problem is the lack of stable security situation across most of the region which, in places like Iraq and Libya is at least partially our fault anyway given the poor post-conflict management we've exhibited. Arguably in others too, due to the support we've given regimes responsible for human rights abuses in economic aid and the like. I'm not against working with despotic regimes- better the devil you know, needs must, et cetera- but do believe we need to atone for that kind of support through being willing to accept victims of regimes we support.

I don't hold it against them that they want a better life, but it's not our responsibility

I think that's open to debate. And still, whatever personal arguments one may have against migrants of this nature, the law is very clear on the subject. You can't return people seeking asylum to war zones or other environments which put them at risk. Believing that they shouldn't be coming to Europe doesn't stop them from coming to Europe and without revoking swathes of the UNHCR Convention relating to the Status of Refugees we usually can't return them:

"No Contracting State shall expel or return ('refouler') a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social or political opinion"
 

In terms of returning them, I don't see why taking them back to whichever port or jetty they came from is so bad.

Because the majority of them aren't actually travelling from a country in which they are resident. Even in instances where refugees are returned, they must be returned to the nation of residence; a nation which simply provides the originating point for one segment of their journey cannot be compelled to provide them residency, temporary or otherwise. Quite aside from the legality of returning Sunni Syrians to Assad, it's a bloody difficult and costly thing to do logistically and in a war zone almost impossible.

Virtually none of them will have a "direct threat" against them.

They don't need one; just to be able to reasonably argue that their life or liberty could be threatened due to their beliefs. There's an entire class of international legal discourse on what this constitutes but it's generally accepted that active war zones count as a "threat to life and liberty". Some regions or nations have specific provisions to protect different people which then causes further issues if the destination country interprets the law differently- it's perfectly possible for one nation to see an individual leaving its borders as a legitimate asylum seeker and their destination nation not agree with that categorisation. There's a sad lack of any really objective measures in most ofvthe treaties.

Mexico has some pretty unsafe, lawless and incredibly dangerous areas but the U.S. isn't expected to accomodate every illegal migrant from there.

It's not technically in a state of conflict, whilst some persecution and persecutory violence does take place it's relatively limited in scale and by their own admission most people crossing the US border are economic migrants.

I'm all for suggesting coherent and reasonable responses to the crisis but I don't think ignoring or rewriting international law really counts as one.
  • Doc Rikowski and Melchior like this

Stephan90
  • Stephan90

    proud "conspiracy theorist"

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2008
  • Germany

#21

Posted 21 April 2015 - 11:14 AM Edited by Stephan90, 21 April 2015 - 11:31 AM.

The four largest contributors to the crisis in terms of nationalities of migrants are Libya, Somalia, Syria and Eritrea. The former three are active war zones and the latter one if the most oppressive dictatorships in the world. I can say with a pretty reasonable degree of confidence that, given the opportunity to risk your life trying to escape any of these hell-holes, every single person whose posted so far in this thread would do so. The reason the traffickers are staying in business is because a 40% chance drowning off of the cost of Italy is actively preferable for many to remaining in their home countries. Handing out condoms doesn't actually address the real problem here.

International treaties are pretty clear about not sending refugees back to environments where there is a direct threat to their lives. And I for one think that's a pretty sensible policy. Even if it weren't for all that pesky international law, most of the nations here are characterised by their lack of coherent governing authority. Where are you actually going to return refugees? Are you going to return Iraqi Shias and Christians to the Islamic State they're escaping from? Syrian Sunnis to Assad's secret police? Where are you going to return Libyans? The government who hold one single city or the militias that hold the rest of the country. What about Somalis? Give them to AU peacekeepers accused of gang-raping refugees, send me them to Mogadishu which is an overcrowded, fetid slum or send them back to al-Shabaab to meet whatever fate awaits them there? Similarly, I'm of the belief that the notion Europe can't handle a few tens of thousands of refugees is utter sh*te. Sweden takes in twice as many a year as the UK despite having a population about one seventh of ours.

Were we able to crush Islamic State and al-Shabaab, we might be able to reduce the flow of migration. The problem is that's a 10 year counterinsurgency campaign costing trillions of dollars and probably tens of thousands of lives, and the short-medium-term result of such a large military incursion would be displacing even more citizens and producing yet more asylum seekers. Refugee camps in war zones are of limited use; they've been overrun and massacred in Syria and in Libya they actually form part of the infrastructure from which most of the human trafficking organisations operate.

I think many of you actually fail to understand the root causes, and even the basic realities, of this crisis. I also wonder how comments you've made in thus thread might align with statements in others expressing general dislike for foreign aid programmes run by Western nations. Surely the economic elements of migration of this nature can be addressed by promoting growth in these countries through aid and developmental support?

 

Wait, because it is more expensive to start military operations against the militias in these countries we should choose the alternative to accept a continous inflow of refugees that never ends?! Wrong choice

 

And who says that fighting against militias would displace even more people? You? Nigeria for example doesn't deal with Boko Haram properly, so that other neighbour countries become active. Europe has every right to go there and annihilate Boko Haram. The same goes for ISIS. We don't do enough. It would be an idea to set up an international funds that finances the war against these terror organisations, and every nation has to participate in the frame of its possibilities..

 

Europe can build refugee camps in safe African countries not war zones. We shouldn't care if the local governments don't like that, because we can.

 

The problems of Africa must be solved in Africa not Europe.


Palikari
  • Palikari

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2012
  • Israel

#22

Posted 21 April 2015 - 11:52 AM Edited by Palikari, 21 April 2015 - 12:27 PM.

Each and every human being on this planet has the right to escape from a war and has the right to seek asylum in other countries.
Each country at peace has the duty to give asylum and to receive refugees whenever it is possible.
Europe has the best possible conditions in the area to receive these refugees.
The mere fact we are doing nothing at the moment make us all responsible of the thousands of men, women and children that are drowning daily just because we are worried and scared by immigration.

I agree that everyone has the right to escape and seek asylum, but they have no right to stay in other countries. It's the other countries the ones that decide who has the right to stay in their territory and who doesn't have the right. It's called sovereignty.
 
No country has the duty to receive refugees or immigrants. When you say "best possible conditions" you mean the best insane welfare system paid by all European taxpayers, right?
 
What??? Are you saying that all Europeans are responsible for this? The mafias and the illegals themselves are responsible, not Europeans citizens. This is nonsensical bullsh*t.
 

We completely forgot our past as migrants in which we migrated to better countries as dirty, as poor  and as desperate as the people that are crossing the Mediterranean today.
We completely forgot how Europe is directly responsible of the messy situation in which it has left Africa after centuries of colonization.
We completely forget that our weapon dealers and weapon industries profit with the very same wars these people escape from.

 
I don't think Italians who emigrated to the US did it like African illegals: storming a border and injuring its border guards. It's common these illegals burn up their own clothes and then throw them out to the Spanish officers. The illegal immigrants also spit, urinate and defecate on the Spanish officers, claiming they have Ebola, while cracking up. They also have (and use) weapons against the Spanish guards, such as knives and long sticks. As for the illegals with boats heading to Lampedusa (Italy), the Muslim illegals, emigrating to non-Muslim nations, are throwing the non-Muslims overboard (this appeared on the news a few days ago). Are you saying that Europe has the duty to take these psychopats??? You can't be serious. Also, many ISIS terrorists could be posing as illegals.
 

Whoever in here ignore these simple facts is either blind or ignorant.
Whoever in here thinks that in the same situation wouldn't attempt the exact same thing these people attempt is either an hypocrite or a fool.
Whoever in here says it's not our responsibility to aid these refugees is either delusional or simply immature.

 
Please don't insult other people. No one has insulted you. Respect is a two-way street.
 
What would I do if I were in the same situation? I don't know. If they were European (or Israeli) they would think exactly like most Europeans do, and if they were Spanish border guards they would prevent illegals from entering European territory. The fact that we don't choose where we born is not an excuse not to be responsible and/or to turn the world into chaos.
 
I think you're the only immature here. You're living in the cloud cuckoo land. Doy you think Europe can take 1000 million Africans? Do you really think that would solve anything? That would destroy Europe!!!
 

To the one that said that returning to Libya is not a direct threat for migrants I suggest you to research a bit the news and see how migrants in there are tortured to extort them more money for the crossing.
Certainly going back is not an option for them otherwise they wouldn't risk their lives in the crossing.

 
They are willing to pay for the crossing. If the immigration mafias exist, it's due to the fact that there are millions of illegals who are willing (and able) to pay for the crossing into Europe. There's no supply without demand. This is business!
 

And what the hell means "most of these people are economic migrants not refugees"?
Do you really believe there's a difference between the two "definitions"?

 
Yes, there is a difference. And it's obvious!
 
Do I really have to explain this to you?
 

To be honest I'm shocked by what people posted in here.

 
Boo-hoo. Cry a sea then! I am shocked by people like you who are willing to destroy their country and civilization. Thankfully, the people who think like you are minority.
 
If you love "refugees" some much, then why don't you take them to your home and pay for all their needs? Why don't you practise what you preach? I think you (and all "progressives") should start putting your money where your mouth is. It's very easy to write in an internet forum and then do nothing.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#23

Posted 21 April 2015 - 11:55 AM

Wait, because it is more expensive to start military operations against the militias in these countries we should choose the alternative to accept a continous inflow of refugees that never ends?!

Personally I'm of the view that ten years and thousands of lives is quite a high price to pay for a result that's by no means certain. I think there are probably more effective solutions to restoring security and the rule of law than lengthy military incursions against irregular foes with a penchant for causing the maximum possible collateral damage, never mind the knock-on impacts of such a campaign in fermenting anti-Western sentiment amongst citizens of those countries who aren't traditionally aligned with radical Islsmism but may become so through overt foreign interventionism.
 

And who says that fighting against militias would displace even more people? You?

Er, history. And common sense. Whenever conflicts escalate, the amount of refugees increases. Islamic State, Libya, Nigeria...escalations in violence are almost universally met with increases in people fleeing the nation.

Nigeria for example doesn't deal with Boko Haram properly, so that other neighbour countries become active.

Nigeria struggles to deal with Boko Haram not because their military is poorly trained or underfunded but because it's corrupt, riddled with sectarianism and tribal disputes and lacks legitimacy and authority in much of the rural heartland. These are exactly the same problems that a foreign force in Nigeria would face, just multiplied.

Europe has every right to go there and annihilate Boko Haram.

ERM, given that the Nigerian government is actually legitimately representative of the Nigerian population, foreign forces could legally only intervene by their invitation. Something they're not keen on because of the myriad of reasons I've already outlined.

Laughable.

The problems of Africa must be solved in Africa not Europe.

Even when many of them are directly or indirectly a product of our actions?

Boo-hoo. Cry a sea then! I am shocked by people like you who are willing to destroy their country and civilization.

Thankfully, the people who think like you are minority.

Whatever valid points you may think you're raising are utterly decimated by this kind of ridiculous rhetoric.

The notion that the influx of refugees from North Africa is destroying European civilisations is utterly laughable and completely untenable. It would be hilarious if you weren't so bloody serious in your belief in this utter sh*t.
  • Doc Rikowski, Tyler, Ari Gold and 1 other like this

Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#24

Posted 21 April 2015 - 01:18 PM

So to defend our European civilisation, we must destroy African civilisation?  Man, I did not realise it had come to this.  What a shame.

 

Considering the crisis (plural) in Africa and the Middle East are more or less the West's doing, I do believe Europe is definitely responsible for this refugee crisis.  Extending European might seems like stupid idea.  Foreign aid is a good way for Europe to extend its ideals and prosperity to foreign countries, creating stable countries beyond our borders.  But people are short-sighted.  Foreign aid is a far cheaper option than waiting for the crisis to arrive at our borders and shores, or when intervention becomes necessary.  Both economically and in human terms.

 

I don't mean to pretend that all the world's problems are Europe's, but Europe is definitely not innocent.  We cannot and should not escape our past, even the dark parts, particularly when we are talking about 'preserving European civilisation'.

 

As for the current mess we've put ourselves in, Europe needs to be serious about helping Italy to control the Med.  Sweden's approach to refugees is not the answer, but neither is a walled Europe.

  • mr quick, Doc Rikowski, Tyler and 3 others like this

Stephan90
  • Stephan90

    proud "conspiracy theorist"

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2008
  • Germany

#25

Posted 21 April 2015 - 01:34 PM Edited by Stephan90, 21 April 2015 - 01:38 PM.

Boko Haram is the "African civilisation"? Cool story bro...

 

If an honest African government is not capable of defending themselves against militias, then build up their forces. If they are too corupt, go there and do it yourself because the militias constantly produce new refugees.

 

I don't think a dead Boko Haram fighter can displace more people than a living Boko Haram fighter, who can do what he wants. Common sense, you know?!

 

I really don't give a damn if the governments don't want foreign military there as long as their countries are a persistent source of refugees, because they are not able or willing to defend their own people.

  • Palikari likes this

Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#26

Posted 21 April 2015 - 01:42 PM

Your arguments are assume there are no side effects of a European intervention into Nigeria beyond destroying Boko Haram.  Boko Haram are not African civilisation, but they will sure speed up any progress of destroying artefacts if the Europeans intervened.  But more than that, as we've experienced in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, fighting any terrorist organisation or government forces like this becomes a drawn out process with few or no prospects for the local citizens.  Moreover, it becomes a huge burden for ourselves, as these organisations are not easy to simply to destroy by conventional means.  They are not interested in international law and conventions.

 

And the consequences tend to be that something worse will rise in their place.  You would simply give Boko Haram's successors an even stronger argument than simply fighting Nigeria; fighting the West.

  • Tyler and sivispacem like this

Doc Rikowski
  • Doc Rikowski

    First Generation Gamer

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 May 2008
  • Mars
  • Best Gang 2013 - D1RTY12
    Best Event 2011 "Turf Wars"

#27

Posted 21 April 2015 - 02:17 PM

Pali, I guess sivi already explained to you how why some of your replies are so incredibly... rubbish?
Anyway I will still try to reply to your post with a few quick answers:

- Yes, countries have a duty to receive refugees if they signed the UNHCR Convention and yes, they should be helped to be integrated in the economical system, in the welfare system and in society cause you know, they're like us and with the same basic human rights.
- Yes, Europe is historically, politically and economically co-responsible for this situation. If you don't understand basic history then I guess it's because you don't want to or you simply choose to ignore it.
- Italians who emigrated to the US worked hard and built for them a better future but some of them also built the American Mafia and prospered within a large criminal organization by extorting, trafficking, corrupting and murdering. Every migration wave in history brings the good and the bad. You can't cherry pick migrants. That's a naive way of looking at things. Still, most of the migrants are good, hard working and honest people looking for a better future.
- I do practice what I preach but it ain't your business how I do it cause it's personal. I also pay my taxes and I do expect and hope that my taxes are used to help people in need here and there rather than spent on bombs that brought us situations like the current Libyan one. I would also back any government support program or tax directed to help refugees and I would indeed have them under my roof if there was a shared society effort or government program in which each citizen was required to give assistance to a refugee or more according to each citizen's economical possibilities. And that's cause I'm a migrant myself, a lucky one indeed, a citizen of the world.
What about you? I guess you'd just build a wall...
Funny though, all this anti-immigration bias coming from someone that comes from a people that has been migrating everywhere throughout its entire history and faced persecutions, hardships and poverty due to its migrant status.


The rest of your post, I'm sorry to tell you, doesn't deserve an answer cause it's just sensationalist incoherent rambling.
  • sivispacem and ten-a-penny like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#28

Posted 21 April 2015 - 02:20 PM

Stephan- the "honest" government of Libya post-elections was unable to resist aggression from the various militias despite significant support from the West. Ditto Yemen. Ditto Mali until France intervened at the invitation of the government. Ditto a myriad of other nations. The West simply cannot justify direct intervention in every crisis in Africa and the Middle East, especially for a reason as utterly pathetic as limiting asylum seekers. It's completely baffling, your interpretation of international law and the rights and behavioural norms of states. I don't want to be so blunt as to use the word "stupid' to describe your reasoning but I'm struggling to think of a word more apt.
  • Doc Rikowski, Irviding, Tyler and 2 others like this

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#29

Posted 21 April 2015 - 03:22 PM

I don't know what the solution is, but when it comes down to this frustrating concept of responsibility - it seems that any country signed to the conventions outlined by Sivi above has a direct responsibility to both accept and be prepared for these refugees. I don't understand how that can be debated.

So we can nip the bud of any stupid 'responsibility' arguments right there.

As for Boko Haram - direct military involvement may only exacerbate the problem. There seems to be a mentality among some that getting in there and destroying the group would be easy - or, if that's a brusque characterization, perhaps I take more issue with the idea that it's even possible. As if, were this even possible, killing everyone hoisting the flag would magically reverse the situation which gave rise to the group.

When, pray tell, has such a military action ever proved fruitful? Especially without exponentially increasing the rate of refugees? The ignorant notion that you can solve a state of social unrest by killing all the right people is a military fantasy.
  • Doc Rikowski, Tyler, sivispacem and 4 others like this

Palikari
  • Palikari

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2012
  • Israel

#30

Posted 21 April 2015 - 04:12 PM

- Yes, countries have a duty to receive refugees if they signed the UNHCR Convention and yes, they should be helped to be integrated in the economical system, in the welfare system and in society cause you know, they're like us and with the same basic human rights.

 
Yes, but these guys are not refugees, but illegal economic migrants. Refugees tend to be women and children, these people you call "refugees" are mostly young men.
 
"they're like us and with the same basic human rights"
 
In what way are they like me? Yes, we are all humans and so on, but I don't think I share many things with them.
 
How much do these "basic human rights" cost from the pockets of the Europeans? That's the problem, leftists. For you guys anything is a "basic human right", you turn anything you support into a "right" in order to braiwash the people. Sorry, but to ilegally and violently storm another state, stay in this state, and then live off taxpayers' money is not a "basic human right". To be an economic burden in another country is not a human right at all. They deserve human rights, of course, but REAL human rights, and in their countries, not the leftist phony idea of "human rights".

 

I am not opposed to immigration, but I think it should be limited, nationals should be first at jobs and illegals should be immediately deported. Law and order should not be broken, and only givers (not takers) should be allowed. Countries are not welfare organizations.
 

Yes, Europe is historically, politically and economically co-responsible for this situation. If you don't understand basic history then I guess it's because you don't want to or you simply choose to ignore it.

 
Europe left Africa a lot of decades ago.
 
The Europeans of today have not done anything to Africa, and the illegals of today have not suffered colonization.

 

So Europeans should not feel guilty at all and owe Africans nothing.
 

Italians who emigrated to the US worked hard and built for them a better future but some of them also built the American Mafia and prospered within a large criminal organization by extorting, trafficking, corrupting and murdering. Every migration wave in history brings the good and the bad. You can't cherry pick migrants.

 
Yes, but you can expel the scum among them and let the good ones stay. But according to the progressives, that's "racist", because it's "discrimination".
 
"Still, most of the migrants are good, hard working and honest people looking for a better future."
 
I won't deny it, but I won't buy it, either. I guess you have statistics to back your claims, don't you?
 

I do practice what I preach but it ain't your business how I do it cause it's personal.

 
Oh, really? :rol:
 

I also pay my taxes and I do expect and hope that my taxes are used to help people in need here and there rather than spent on bombs that brought us situations like the current Libyan one. I would also back any government support program or tax directed to help refugees and I would indeed have them under my roof if there was a shared society effort or government program in which each citizen was required to give assistance to a refugee or more according to each citizen's economical possibilities.

 
So you want to turn your country into a welfare organization for illegals and infiltrators. You also want to steal the citizens' money (and lives) and give it to the illegals. As I said before, thank G-d people like you are minority.
 
You progressives think you occupy a high moral ground and know what's best for everyone. You guys regard yourselves as the sole arbiters of what people should and shouldn’t be allowed to think and do with their own money and lives. You think you have the right to lead each others' lives! Who gave you this right, progressives?

 

Actually, this gives me the creeps.
 

And that's cause I'm a migrant myself, a lucky one indeed, a citizen of the world.

 
Good for you.
 

What about you? I guess you'd just build a wall...

 
What about me? Mmm... I don't know why should I tell you about my life.
 
What's wrong with building walls?
 

Funny though, all this anti-immigration bias coming from someone that comes from a people that has been migrating everywhere throughout its entire history and faced persecutions, hardships and poverty due to its migrant status.

 
The world only likes Jews when we are poor and oppressed and in trains heading to Auschwitz, not when we are a free people in our land and defend ourselves and our State. That's why many people can't stand a Jew giving a politically incorrect opinion.
 
Is this your case? Just asking. Many people is like this, I just want to know if you're like them.

  • Street Mix likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users