EU Immigration Crisis Megathread

[mongers]

While I would generally agree with you, Tamas' video answers Raz' question perfectly. With an appeal to authority to be fair, but then Raz asked for the "classical liberal stance", so why not let one of its best known advocates speak.

Oh that's a pity as I can't use them on this computer anyway, not that I watch youtube videos anyway. Maybe I need to employ an video description service or just ask you who's it of and what do they say? 

[The Brain]

Never mind the idiotic text at the end but this is what pisses me off about the "refugees". Namely they are not refugees.

They encounter the authorities in Austria, which, excuse me, is safe and civilised by any kind of standards, and this is what happens:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceRO094TGGk

How is that video evidence that they are not refugees?

Seems to me that letting in the refugees is consistent with the classical liberal stance.  Using the power of the state to limit movement and settlement is contrary to it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C52TlPCVDio

Like I've said before the one good thing that this mass immigration might bring is the end of the welfare state.

[Zanza]

It's Milton Friedman. His argument is that free immigration and a social state are mutually exclusive.

[mongers]

It's Milton Friedman. His argument is that free immigration and a social state are mutually exclusive.

Thanks for that. 

[Richard Hakluyt]

Yes, immigration was more or less unrestricted into Victorian Britain. The immigrant was then free to starve or freeze and deal with discrimination and contempt for his religion, skin colour and language.

Not a situation one would like to return to, hence the restrictions on immigration.

[Josquius]

Yes, immigration was more or less unrestricted into Victorian Britain. The immigrant was then free to starve or freeze and deal with discrimination and contempt for his religion, skin colour and language.

Not a situation one would like to return to, hence the restrictions on immigration.

The choice being presented however is one of let some immigrants in and look after them as fellow humans or keep them all out.
Neither are parituclarly classical liberal.

[Richard Hakluyt]

@Tyr The UK is currently allowing 650,000 immigrants a year into the country and sends about 320,000 emigrants out, outside of UKIP and points right this is an accepted level. Of course we don't look after the likes of immigrants like Tamas, we make him work for a living and charge him £700 a month to live in a cupboard  . It is a system that works, one reason I'm against accepting large numbers of "refugees" is that it subverts that system and......imo..............will lead to a backlash from the host community.

[Tamas]

While I may be a classic liberal I do not evaluate current issues based on how they should work in the ideal society I envision.

And in this real world, letting unrestricted numbers of migrants in, from markedly different cultures, without any regard of keeping it within the confines of law, or without any kind of visible long term planning is a horrible idea.

And in a big part because it can end up very badly for the migrants themselves.

Issues with the welfare state crumbling under them aside, we just have to face it: a HUGE portion of Europe is simply not ready to coexist with such different cultures. You may hate that. I hate that. But it is the truth.

Hungary is touted as the black sheep in this manner but the fact is, it has been the state there which acted hostile. While in Germany you have the CIViLIAN POPULATION, or at least noticable parts of it, acting hostile.

As i said, these societies are simply not ready to handle this, and there are huge risks coming from this. If nothing else, then giving over leadership to far right parties, and thus opening the door for the real nastiness.

[Valmy]

Yes, immigration was more or less unrestricted into Victorian Britain. The immigrant was then free to starve or freeze and deal with discrimination and contempt for his religion, skin colour and language.

Same in the US...yet they kept coming anyway. I guess having all that land stolen from the Native Americans gave them someplace to go.

[Jacob]

@Tyr The UK is currently allowing 650,000 immigrants a year into the country and sends about 320,000 emigrants out, outside of UKIP and points right this is an accepted level. Of course we don't look after the likes of immigrants like Tamas, we make him work for a living and charge him £700 a month to live in a cupboard  . It is a system that works, one reason I'm against accepting large numbers of "refugees" is that it subverts that system and......imo..............will lead to a backlash from the host community.

Is there any reason "refugees" in general can't work for a living?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Issues with the welfare state crumbling under them aside, we just have to face it: a HUGE portion of Europe is simply not ready to coexist with such different cultures.

and lets be honest: certain of these cultures are just as unwilling to coexist with european cultures themselves

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Poland, a couple of times. In case you were thinking that losing control over a states borders only happens with mass migrations, which obviously it doesn't. Maintaining the borders is what a state has to do at all times, in all circumstances. No borders, no state.

No one questions e.g. Germany's territorial sovereignity though. You can't compare that with the divisions of Poland in the late 18th century where sovereignity went from the Polish state to other states.

which is fancy words for saying that Poland couldn't guard  its borders (and thus the rest of the country) against being removed of the map as a state.

[Josquius]

@Tyr The UK is currently allowing 650,000 immigrants a year into the country and sends about 320,000 emigrants out, outside of UKIP and points right this is an accepted level. Of course we don't look after the likes of immigrants like Tamas, we make him work for a living and charge him £700 a month to live in a cupboard  . It is a system that works, one reason I'm against accepting large numbers of "refugees" is that it subverts that system and......imo..............will lead to a backlash from the host community.

That's why nobody is suggesting accepting "refugees". We should however be doing a lot more to help real refugees.

[Jacob]

That's why nobody is suggesting accepting "refugees". We should however be doing a lot more to help real refugees.

I feel like I'm missing something here... what do you guys mean when you say "refugees"?

Do you mean "they're not really fleeing wars, they just want to go to a place where they have a chance at a better life and are just using war and persecution as an excuse"?

Do you mean "they may or may not be fleeing actual wars, but once they get here all they want to do is enjoy our services and welfare without contributing anything"?

Or do you mean, "they may or may not be fleeing actual wars, and they may or may not contribute to society in some way, but once they're here they are going to engage in weird cultural practices and refuse to assimilate with an appropriate speed and fashion"?

Who are these "refugees" and what is it they do that means you shouldn't let them in?

[dps]

That's why nobody is suggesting accepting "refugees". We should however be doing a lot more to help real refugees.

I feel like I'm missing something here... what do you guys mean when you say "refugees"?

Do you mean "they're not really fleeing wars, they just want to go to a place where they have a chance at a better life and are just using war and persecution as an excuse"?

Do you mean "they may or may not be fleeing actual wars, but once they get here all they want to do is enjoy our services and welfare without contributing anything"?

Or do you mean, "they may or may not be fleeing actual wars, and they may or may not contribute to society in some way, but once they're here they are going to engage in weird cultural practices and refuse to assimilate with an appropriate speed and fashion"?

Who are these "refugees" and what is it they do that means you shouldn't let them in?

If it were the US they were coming to in large numbers, my concern would be that some of them, at least, are not legitimate refugees but just people who want to immigrate for the standard economic reasons.  I guess that would be your first suggested meaning.  Of course, in theory, you screen them to only allow in the actual refugees, but in practice the large numbers might mean screening is not something that can be done properly in a reasonable time frame.

What Europeans who object to letting them in actually mean, of course, is "We don't want no stinking Moslems here".