EU Immigration Crisis Megathread

[Jacob]

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".

I don't think that's what Tyr or RH mean when they say that, which is why I'm confused.

I reckon there are a number of potentially legitimate concerns that can be argued about when it comes to absorbing a relatively large influx of newcomers, but I'm not how they are relevant to the newcomers being "refugees" rather than any other sort of immigrant.

[dps]

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".

I don't think that's what Tyr or RH mean when they say that, which is why I'm confused.

I reckon there are a number of potentially legitimate concerns that can be argued about when it comes to absorbing a relatively large influx of newcomers, but I'm not how they are relevant to the newcomers being "refugees" rather than any other sort of immigrant.

Oh, well I think the idea there is that there is some sort of obligation to accept refugees that doesn't exist for allowing ordinary, run-of-the-mill immigrants.

EDIT:  when I said "Europeans" in my previous post, I was referring to European opponents of accepting them in general, not necessarily European posters here.  There are some posters here who are religious bigots, but Tyr and Richard aren't among them.  And Marty, who does exhibit some religious bigotry IMO (though not as bad as some people here) has to his credit argued for helping the refugees, regardless of their religious beliefs.

[Monoriu]

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

I don't think that's entirely fair.  Can I just buy a ticket to New York, land there and expect to be allowed to live there?  Of course not and religion has nothing to do with it.  We live in a world of nation states, and part of the idea of nation states is that you have to seek permission before you are let in, and that permission is entirely at the discretion of the state.  How come there is suddenly an obligation on Europe's part to take in millions of illegal immigrants, when said people have already been given refuge in Turkey and other states bordering Syria?

[Jaron]

Europe has a blood debt to pay and the Syrians have come to cash in.

[Monoriu]

Europe has a blood debt to pay and the Syrians have come to cash in.

Yeah, well, speaking of blood debt, Japan also has a blood debt to pay to Hong Kong and China, so I demand my right to live in Tokyo and receive whatever welfare they have over there

[Valmy]

Europe has a blood debt to pay and the Syrians have come to cash in.

That can fly for the big Imperial countries but I don't think Hungary or Croatia feel a particularly big debt.

[Eddie Teach]

Europe has a blood debt to pay and the Syrians have come to cash in.

Yeah, well, speaking of blood debt, Japan also has a blood debt to pay to Hong Kong and China, so I demand my right to live in Tokyo and receive whatever welfare they have over there

Couldn't you be collecting welfare in the UK?

[Monoriu]

Couldn't you be collecting welfare in the UK?

Canada too.  I have never checked what welfare citizens are entitled to in the UK/Canada, or the eligibility criteria.  I just assumed that it is "a lot".  I don't really have any intention of ever collecting the welfare though.  That's not the reason why we got the passports. 

[Admiral Yi]

How come there is suddenly an obligation on Europe's part to take in millions of illegal immigrants, when said people have already been given refuge in Turkey and other states bordering Syria?

They've signed treaties, the refugees' situation in Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon was crap, and they consider being kind to strangers in need an important part of being human.

[mongers]

How come there is suddenly an obligation on Europe's part to take in millions of illegal immigrants, when said people have already been given refuge in Turkey and other states bordering Syria?

They've signed treaties, the refugees' situation in Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon was crap, and they consider being kind to strangers in need an important part of being human.

Good to see someone understands the situation/crisis.

[Richard Hakluyt]

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".

I don't think that's what Tyr or RH mean when they say that, which is why I'm confused.

I reckon there are a number of potentially legitimate concerns that can be argued about when it comes to absorbing a relatively large influx of newcomers, but I'm not how they are relevant to the newcomers being "refugees" rather than any other sort of immigrant.

Some refugees (as opposed to "refugees") have turned up on British soil, at one of our sovereign bases in Cyprus. They have travelled direct from Syria and, imo, should be welcomed as such.

The people travelling to Germany are passing through safe countries and, imo, are therefore not refugees but economic migrants.

It is totally understandable that people from poor countries would want to move to the rich countries of Western Europe and they do have my sympathies. But I think that if we permit immigration of this type then the demand is effectively unlimited.

So I agree with Cameron, we should shell out a lot more cash to help make the camps more acceptable.

I have also seen arguments in the media that the refugees are the elite of Syria's population (partly because they can afford to pay the traffickers) this is promoted as a reason to accept them as we need their labour. If that is true, which is dubious, I think it is even more essential that they return to Syria at some point rather than settle in the West; otherwise that country will just become an irredeemable hellhole.

[Josquius]

I don't buy the "choose to move somewhere else once you're safe->economic immigrant unworthy of care" Thing.

What about those refugees who have family in other countries for example?
And it's really unfair on Greece to force them all to stay there.

As to the brain drain risk- that's not something the UK usually worries about when it imports foreign medical staff en masse.
Easily solved though- don't give them per.an entry residence. Give them say 2 years. To be renewed down the line. We will see based on their personal situation and the Syrian situation whether we should send them back or not- just so long as we are smarter about it than we are with those afghan kids we warehouse. ...

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

I don't think that's entirely fair.  Can I just buy a ticket to New York, land there and expect to be allowed to live there?  Of course not and religion has nothing to do with it.  We live in a world of nation states, and part of the idea of nation states is that you have to seek permission before you are let in, and that permission is entirely at the discretion of the state.  How come there is suddenly an obligation on Europe's part to take in millions of illegal immigrants, when said people have already been given refuge in Turkey and other states bordering Syria?

Nation states are an archaic idea that is really moving beyond its sell by date. International scale issues like this shouldn't be left enirely to petty local governments only looking out for themselves. A lot of the handling of these kind of issues should be left to international organisations that can be more objective and do a much better job at keeping human suffering to a minimum.

[dps]

I don't buy the "choose to move somewhere else once you're safe->economic immigrant unworthy of care" Thing.

What about those refugees who have family in other countries for example?

I don't know about the laws on it in Europe, but in the US, potential (legal) immigrants who already have family here get preferred treatment.

And it's really unfair on Greece to force them all to stay there.

The obvious solution would be that countries that don't want to take in the refugees pay the Greeks to keep them.

As to the brain drain risk- that's not something the UK usually worries about when it imports foreign medical staff en masse.
Easily solved though- don't give them per.an entry residence. Give them say 2 years. To be renewed down the line. We will see based on their personal situation and the Syrian situation whether we should send them back or not- just so long as we are smarter about it than we are with those afghan kids we warehouse. ...

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

I don't think that's entirely fair.  Can I just buy a ticket to New York, land there and expect to be allowed to live there?  Of course not and religion has nothing to do with it.  We live in a world of nation states, and part of the idea of nation states is that you have to seek permission before you are let in, and that permission is entirely at the discretion of the state.  How come there is suddenly an obligation on Europe's part to take in millions of illegal immigrants, when said people have already been given refuge in Turkey and other states bordering Syria?

Nation states are an archaic idea that is really moving beyond its sell by date. International scale issues like this shouldn't be left enirely to petty local governments only looking out for themselves. A lot of the handling of these kind of issues should be left to international organisations that can be more objective and do a much better job at keeping human suffering to a minimum.

While international organizations might be more objective, I don't know there's any evidence that they'd actually do a better job.

[Admiral Yi]

Interntional organizations also don't have any authority to force countries to accept refugees.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I have no faith in the international organisations at all. If a solution is ever achieved it will come from nation-states and will involve taking a hard road.