EU Immigration Crisis Megathread

[Tamas]

Meanwhile, Slovenia received 15000 migrants on Sunday alone.

IIRC the record in Hungary, little more than a month ago, was around 8-9 thousand.

It is what RH mentioned: if the EU allows unlimited and unchecked migration, the supply of migrants is practically endless, and the EU's ability to provide the EU level living conditions to them is far from it, let alone the EU population's willingness to provide it.


I think Merkel has a good point in wanting to put the newcomers through a "crash course" of integration, in teaching them German etc. I hope she manages it. Not because OMG MUSSELMEN, but because they need to integrate FAST otherwise such massive numbers will just form their own secluded societies which is horrible for everyone involved.

[Liep]

Meanwhile, Slovenia received 15000 migrants on Sunday alone.

IIRC the record in Hungary, little more than a month ago, was around 8-9 thousand.

I read that Lesbos alone is receiving 7.000+ each day now and almost setting a new record every day.

And it's getting colder and wetter.

[Martinus]

Meanwhile, Slovenia received 15000 migrants on Sunday alone.

IIRC the record in Hungary, little more than a month ago, was around 8-9 thousand.

I read that Lesbos alone is receiving 7.000+ each day now and almost setting a new record every day.

And it's getting colder and wetter.

What you would expect of Lesbos, I guess.

[Liep]

Meanwhile, Slovenia received 15000 migrants on Sunday alone.

IIRC the record in Hungary, little more than a month ago, was around 8-9 thousand.

I read that Lesbos alone is receiving 7.000+ each day now and almost setting a new record every day.

And it's getting colder and wetter.

What you would expect of Lesbos, I guess.

I have been amazed how few innuendos on this journalists have made during the crisis. Maybe the rest of the world has grown up.

[Razgovory]

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.

It does in a way, but not necessarily the way Tamas thinks.  Friedman builds his argument on an incorrect fact, that we had "free immigration" in 1914.  This is simply not true.  The US excluded East Asians because of the "markedly different culture", the same reason Tamas says having these immigrants come into this country.  Distaste for the type of immigrants coming into the country.  It had nothing to do with a "welfare state" and the assumption that inferior peoples are not going to work and take money from the public, it's simply we don't want inferior people here period.  Friedman's argument does sort of touch on this with it being desirable if Mexicans came to the US illegally where they be second class citizens and couldn't execute their rights.

[Eddie Teach]

We should have never let in the Germans.

[Valmy]

It does in a way, but not necessarily the way Tamas thinks.  Friedman builds his argument on an incorrect fact, that we had "free immigration" in 1914.  This is simply not true.  The US excluded East Asians because of the "markedly different culture", the same reason Tamas says having these immigrants come into this country.  Distaste for the type of immigrants coming into the country.  It had nothing to do with a "welfare state" and the assumption that inferior peoples are not going to work and take money from the public, it's simply we don't want inferior people here period.

Well the situation is a little different isn't it? The US is not a nation state. The entire reason for those other country's existance is the preservation and representation of their culture. They have no other reason to exist. There is no ideology behind Hungary. If they get flooded by non-Hungarian immigrants the country will cease to exist in any meaningful way. I do not think necessarily Hungary regards non-Hungarians as inferior but rather threatening to their national existence.

Anyway Friedman was not completely accurate but he is right in the sense that immigration restrictions world wide were absurdly lax in 1914 compared to today.

Friedman's argument does sort of touch on this with it being desirable if Mexicans came to the US illegally where they be second class citizens and couldn't execute their rights.

I don't agree that Mexicans are inferior. But even if they were then how would them coming here illegally be desirable if the goal is to keep inferior people out?

[Valmy]

We should have never let in the Germans.

Hyphenated Americans are disloyal.

[Razgovory]

It does in a way, but not necessarily the way Tamas thinks.  Friedman builds his argument on an incorrect fact, that we had "free immigration" in 1914.  This is simply not true.  The US excluded East Asians because of the "markedly different culture", the same reason Tamas says having these immigrants come into this country.  Distaste for the type of immigrants coming into the country.  It had nothing to do with a "welfare state" and the assumption that inferior peoples are not going to work and take money from the public, it's simply we don't want inferior people here period.

Well the situation is a little different isn't it? The US is not a nation state. The entire reason for those other country's existance is the preservation and representation of their culture. They have no other reason to exist. There is no ideology behind Hungary. If they get flooded by non-Hungarian immigrants the country will cease to exist in any meaningful way. I do not think necessarily Hungary regards non-Hungarians as inferior but rather threatening to their national existence.

Anyway Friedman was not completely accurate but he is right in the sense that immigration restrictions world wide were absurdly lax in 1914 compared to today.

Friedman's argument does sort of touch on this with it being desirable if Mexicans came to the US illegally where they be second class citizens and couldn't execute their rights.

I don't agree that Mexicans are inferior. But even if they were then how would them coming here illegally be desirable if the goal is to keep inferior people out?

Friedman gets it wrong, the purpose of the immigration laws which is to keep people of unwanted races out.  I don't see these laws as "absurdly relaxed".  Keeping Mexican immigrants illegal allows personal tyranny over them.  An employer can make them do whatever he wants and if they resist the employer's wishes they will risk being punished by law.

I have no idea what the purpose of Hungary is.  That's not really something I give a lot of thought to.

[Valmy]

Friedman gets it wrong, the purpose of the immigration laws which is to keep people of unwanted races out.  I don't see these laws as "absurdly relaxed". 

What laws as absurdly relaxed? I am talking about immigration laws in 1914.

Both ideas, that having a welfare state community of the nation and wanting to keep the subhuman scum out are not necessarily exclusive ideas. In fact they strike me as complimentary ideas. Getting everybody to distribute money to the nation is an easier sell than doing it to people they consider foreign.

Keeping Mexican immigrants illegal allows personal tyranny over them.  An employer can make them do whatever he wants and if they resist the employer's wishes they will risk being punished by law.

Yes? So? The Mexicans keep coming and this ends after maybe one or two generations. It is desireable for somebody but certainly not for the people who want to keep the inferior peoples out.

The actual xenophobes who do not want Mexicans here are not known for thinking illegal immigration is desireable.

I have no idea what the purpose of Hungary is.  That's not really something I give a lot of thought to.

Well if you are going to discuss immigration in Europe maybe thinking a bit on the essential and fundamental issues might serve you well.

[Razgovory]

You were the one to talk about the laws being absurdly relaxed!  I disagreed.  The Chinese exclusion act predates welfare so it can't be because of that.  I postulate that current concerns have little to do with welfare and come back from the same xenophobic animosity that inspired the Chinese exclusion act.
I disagree that xenophobes are automatically opposed to having a subservient populace under their control.  History in and out of the US is full of bigoted people happy to have a subservient population.  Again I don't know why Hungary exists.  My guess is that is about as far the political leadership of the country could push the boundaries of their power, the same reason most other countries exist and have their current borders.

[Zanza]

Well the situation is a little different isn't it? The US is not a nation state. The entire reason for those other country's existance is the preservation and representation of their culture. They have no other reason to exist. There is no ideology behind Hungary. If they get flooded by non-Hungarian immigrants the country will cease to exist in any meaningful way. I do not think necessarily Hungary regards non-Hungarians as inferior but rather threatening to their national existence.

Not sure. After National Socialism in Germany ended, we were obviously not particular keen about nationalism anymore. That's why something called "constitutional patriotism" came up in philosophical circles. It means that you have similar constitutional values instead of similar language or ehtnicity. A lot of Germans would say that this is what makes a German these days, me included.

That obviously doesn't say anything about Hungary, but it shows that nation states can move beyond ethnicity as their defining criterion. 

[Richard Hakluyt]

It is less than a century since Hungary was part of a large multi-ethnic empire, an empire that was dismantled after WW1. Every piece of land with Hungarians on it that could possibly be given to someone else, the result being a rump that was free of any minorities apart from Jews and Gypsies. I don't think it requires a massive effort of imagination to see why they might not favour massive immigration.

Not that it matters much re the current problem. The refugees/migrants prefer Germany and Sweden.

[Valmy]

Not sure. After National Socialism in Germany ended, we were obviously not particular keen about nationalism anymore. That's why something called "constitutional patriotism" came up in philosophical circles. It means that you have similar constitutional values instead of similar language or ehtnicity. A lot of Germans would say that this is what makes a German these days, me included.

Interesting. Tell me more.

That obviously doesn't say anything about Hungary, but it shows that nation states can move beyond ethnicity as their defining criterion.

That is the challenge isn't it? The justification for having dozens of sovereign states in such a small area is lost without it.

[Jacob]

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.

Personally, I don't think the Dublin convention is a good measure of whether an asylum seeker is a refugee or a "refugee", so I disagree with you there; but thanks for clarifying.

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.

Yeah, there's something to this - there are some practical implications of mass migration - but I don't think people fleeing their home state descending into anarchy and, once having fled, having and exercising preferences to where they end up are quite the same thing as "people from poor countries wanting to move to rich countries."

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

Personally I think leaving people to languish in camps - even if money is being spent on making them less uncomfortable - is far inferior to having them proceed to people where they can live lives - you know, contribute to the local economy, pursue education, work, and so on. Some may end up staying, some will move back if/ when the situation back home improves.

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.

I don't think this is a particularly convincing counter argument, to be honest. They are people who have fled - I think the decision needs to be made on how to help them in relation to capacity for doing so. Concerns about a brain drain effects on a country in the midst of a multiple party civil war is pretty far down on the list of priorities - it's not like these people are going to go back to Syria right now. If/ when things settle down enough that a return is reasonable, the refugees will IMO be likely to contribute more if they've been active members of a society (the aforementioned working, education, participation in civil society, not to mention connections in the place of refuge) rather than if they've been stuck in a refugee camp for years.