EU Immigration Crisis Megathread

[crazy canuck]

My shocking position is that we should give asylum to real refugees, not fake refugees.

There you go again.  Somehow a real refugee who voices a concern about being dropped off in the middle of nowhere becomes a non real refugee.   A miraculous transformation indeed.

[The Brain]

My shocking position is that we should give asylum to real refugees, not fake refugees.

There you go again.  Somehow a real refugee who voices a concern about being dropped off in the middle of nowhere becomes a non real refugee.   A miraculous transformation indeed.

My God you're stupid.

[crazy canuck]

My shocking position is that we should give asylum to real refugees, not fake refugees.

There you go again.  Somehow a real refugee who voices a concern about being dropped off in the middle of nowhere becomes a non real refugee.   A miraculous transformation indeed.

My God you're stupid.

I am sorry that I don't understand your theory of transformation of refugees based on not wanting to be dropped off to stay in cabins in the middle of nowhere.  I have asked you to explain this view but you have refused so I will have to suffer in ignorance.

[The Brain]

My shocking position is that we should give asylum to real refugees, not fake refugees.

There you go again.  Somehow a real refugee who voices a concern about being dropped off in the middle of nowhere becomes a non real refugee.   A miraculous transformation indeed.

My God you're stupid.

I am sorry that I don't understand your theory of transformation of refugees based on not wanting to be dropped off to stay in cabins in the middle of nowhere.  I have asked you to explain this view but you have refused so I will have to suffer in ignorance.

This isn't an act, right? You really are retarded, aren't you?

[Berkut]

There is a middle ground here, and it is, as usual, the reasonable middle ground.

The people on the bus have every right to say "Hey, thanks for saving us and all, but we would prefer to get dropped somewhere other than the middle of nowhere".

And the people escorting said bus have the right to say "Hey, we appreciate your input, but the choices are right here, or we can drop you back at the border if you think you can do better somewhere else" and do so.

I think I found the story Brain has been talking about.  It seems the Swedish authorities did find a much more reasonable alternative than simply kicking them out.  They sent someone to give the refugees more information.  Like telling them this was just temporary because other more appropriate accommodation was in short supply.  It appears that no one other than Brain took the position they should accept being in cabins in the middle of nowhere or get out.

http://breaking911.com/refugees-refuse-beds-at-swedish-holiday-park-because-it-was-too-rural/

Well, that is not nearly as interesting.

I wonder how many "problems" in the world can be traced back to sensationalist journalism. Which is apparently the norm now - nobody cares about a story that is just informative anymore.

[crazy canuck]

I wonder how many "problems" in the world can be traced back to sensationalist journalism. Which is apparently the norm now - nobody cares about a story that is just informative anymore.

Yeah, and then added to that the inflammatory characterizations that then get bandied about on the internet.

[Josquius]

There is a middle ground here, and it is, as usual, the reasonable middle ground.

The people on the bus have every right to say "Hey, thanks for saving us and all, but we would prefer to get dropped somewhere other than the middle of nowhere".

And the people escorting said bus have the right to say "Hey, we appreciate your input, but the choices are right here, or we can drop you back at the border if you think you can do better somewhere else" and do so.

That's not the middle ground.
The discussion is not about what should be done about these people, its whether a refugee moaning about where he is placed can possibly be a real refugee or not.

[crazy canuck]

My shocking position is that we should give asylum to real refugees, not fake refugees.

There you go again.  Somehow a real refugee who voices a concern about being dropped off in the middle of nowhere becomes a non real refugee.   A miraculous transformation indeed.

My God you're stupid.

I am sorry that I don't understand your theory of transformation of refugees based on not wanting to be dropped off to stay in cabins in the middle of nowhere.  I have asked you to explain this view but you have refused so I will have to suffer in ignorance.

This isn't an act, right? You really are retarded, aren't you?

retarded = not being an intolerant jackass?

[Zanza]

To just look at the most visible group of people at the moment: Syrians. It's pretty clear that everybody who flees from a camp in Lebanon or Turkey instead of from Syria directly cannot be a refugee in the meaning of fearing for their lifes due to war or persecution. Instead they flee from the despair and desolation of these camps where they have no future. Should we still call those people refugees? I think that this is warranted as fleeing from utter hopelessness may not fulfill the treaty definition of a refugee, but I think the situation in those camps is bad enough to "flee" from it as it may not destroy your physical life, but certainly destroys your spirit and the future of your children. That said, it's just as fair to call them economic migrants - although economy is just one of their motivations - as they certainly seek a better life.

Now, let's look at other groups, say Eritreans, Iraqis and Afghanis. Is there a real hope that their countries will get better in the next years? Hardly. Do they have to fear for their lifes in their countries? Most likely less so than Syrians. Is it still fair to call them refugees? Probably as their countries are really shitty and it is pretty dangerous to life in them (at least in parts). Is the economic aspect more important as a motivation for them than for Syrians? Probably. So my take is that they are likely often still what we consider refugees, but it's certainly also fair to consider many of them economic migrants in addition.

Another group are those from the Western Balkans or Western Africa. Western Balkans are fairly peaceful, Western Africa is mostly okay. Although there is some discrimination against Roma in the Balkans and likely other ethnic groups in both regions. Do these people have to fear for their lifes? Most likely not. Are they still desperate because their countries are corrupt and fairly hopeless? Yes, of course. But does that make them refugees? I have a problem calling them that in the absence of violence or extreme oppression in their home countries. So they are from my perspective more on the economic migrants side of things.

But in the end the real motivation for all three groups is not that they fear for their lifes, but that their living conditions wherever they are right now are hopeless and they seek a chance for a better life. Why do we treat them differently and accept Syrians, but reject Albanians? It's the threat of violence in their home countries, not their personal fear for their life or their economic situation. That's despite the fact that they all come for the same reasons, namely hopelessness in their home countries and the hope for a better life in Europe. Is that fair on an individual level? I have my doubts. Why should a desperate Syrian be more of a "refugee" than a desperate Albanian? Are the economic chances in some mountain village in Albania or subsistence farming in West Africa really that different than those of a Syrian in a mountain village in Turkey?

In the end it is fairly arbitrary who we take in and who we don't take in and the criterion is not really that they directly flee persecution or war. Once we realize that, we can reduce the level of emotions when discussing who is a "refugee" and who isn't a lot. On an individual level all of these people come here because they seek a better future.

If you accept that this is their motivation, it's understandable why they express a preference for cities as that's most likely where they'll find a future. That said, they come here as a privilege as Tamas said and as guests they have to accept the rules of the host country. Free movement - at least here - is a citizens right, not a human right. If you seek a better future in another country, you have to accept their rules to a certain degree. Do they have to accept everything? Certainly not. But being assigned to accommodation in the countryside is perfectly acceptable and I do not understand a protest against that.


EDIT: Having read the English article on it that was linked above, it sounds more like fear of the unknown than protest by the people staying in the bus. That's totally understandable. I guess a few huts in Swedish forest can looking daunting when you come from some completely different place.

[crazy canuck]

I think there is a clear distinction between people fleeing their homes because their own government is barrel bombing its citizens and economic migrants.

[Jacob]

Personally, I don't think leaving a refugee camp turns you into an economic migrant and not a refugee.

[The Brain]

My shocking position is that we should give asylum to real refugees, not fake refugees.

There you go again.  Somehow a real refugee who voices a concern about being dropped off in the middle of nowhere becomes a non real refugee.   A miraculous transformation indeed.

My God you're stupid.

I am sorry that I don't understand your theory of transformation of refugees based on not wanting to be dropped off to stay in cabins in the middle of nowhere.  I have asked you to explain this view but you have refused so I will have to suffer in ignorance.

This isn't an act, right? You really are retarded, aren't you?

retarded = not being an intolerant jackass?

Retarded = not understanding simple things.

[crazy canuck]

Retarded = not understanding simple things.

I think it is easy to understand your simplistic position.

[The Brain]

Retarded = not understanding simple things.

I think it is easy to understand your simplistic position.

Good for you.

[Martinus]

Er, it's more a case of they heard that Sweden gives good care, not bad care. They haven't said anything about being afraid of neglect, they have said that they don't like the countryside and prefer cities.

And people who prefer cities to the countryside cannot be refugees?

This sounds to me like the next iteration of the idiotic argument that "these people are not broke - they have iPhones!"