EU Immigration Crisis Megathread

[Martinus]

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.

Yes, but as I said, surely there is a certain level of poor conditions, beyond which "not preferred neighbourhood" becomes "unacceptable living conditions" which give the refugees a right to actively protest, right?

[Martinus]

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.

Yes. A refugee is only a "real refugee" in Sweden if he is grateful to his Swedish masters for whatever scraps he is given. Essentially, if you have any dignity left, you are not a "real refugee" and should be kicked out of Sweden.

[Admiral Yi]

In life there are 50 shades of gray; in Languish only 2.

[Martinus]

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

I agree. Many of the refugees are people from middle class backgrounds - they were doctors, lawyers, professionals back home. Being a refugee does not give them a right to a luxury but neither it obliges them to accept any kind of living conditions, no matter how undignified and horrid, only because bombs are no longer falling on their heads. It should give them the right to the accommodation that meets their basic needs, as per the Western civilised standard.

And yes, they have every right to be mistrustful or fidgety or whiny instead of being all grateful or happy, because they have fucking being through hell and we act like that when we get the wrong kind of latte at Starbucks and not when we see our entire life reduced to rubble.

I think it boils down to empathy. Some people don't have it.

[Josquius]

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?

Lebanon isn't quite Iraq but the war has definitely spilled over to there, it isn't a safe place to be.
Turkey isn't quite so bad...but you can't really blame them if they think it is heading that way.

[Berkut]

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

I am not sure I would disagree, but I can at least understand the logic behind the argument.

The moral logic goes something like this:

1. There is no moral demand that Country A take in immigrants in general. The fact that Country B might have a less desirable economic/social/political system does not, in and of itself, create a moral imperative. If you are sailing in a luxury liner, you have no obligation to pick up people sailing in a tramp steamer just because your ship is a lot nicer than theirs.
2. There is a moral demand, however, to take in refugees. These are not people simply looking for a  better life, these are people fleeing gross injustice and usually immediate danger to their lives. You can no more morally tell them no then you can morally refuse to pickup someone in in the water after their ship sank - even if that ship was a shitty ship they wanted to get off anyway.
3. However, if the immediate threat to their life or person has been removed, then there is no longer any moral imperative to act as if that threat still exists, and we are back to them just wanting things to be better. In this case, if you are sailing along in the luxury liner, and the tramp steamer sank, but the survivors were picked up by a kind of crappy cruise ship, you have no moral imperative to allow them to move to your ship - the threat that creates the moral demand for action is now gone.

[Josquius]

They haven't been picked up by a crappy cruise ship though. They're floating around in dinghies. Not going to die right away... but their longer term odds aren't great.

[Berkut]

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

I agree. Many of the refugees are people from middle class backgrounds - they were doctors, lawyers, professionals back home. Being a refugee does not give them a right to a luxury but neither it obliges them to accept any kind of living conditions, no matter how undignified and horrid, only because bombs are no longer falling on their heads. It should give them the right to the accommodation that meets their basic needs, as per the Western civilised standard.

I don't think I agree - I don't think any particular people have a *greater* "right" to accommodation that meets basic western civilixed standards than other people. I don't think it is fair, ethical, or moral to give preference based on proximity, or misfortune of some particular kind rather than another.

The logic should be consistently applied - if some refuge has a right to a Western Middle class life, then some non-refuge has that same right. And that is simply not possible.

I am in fact sympathetic to the idea that "refuge" is a very particular state, and not a description of a person. Once the danger that causes them to be a refuge is removed, then they are just another person who would love to live in Germany rather than somewhere not Germany, and I don't agree that in theory some other person should not be given an equal chance at that life.

And yes, they have every right to be mistrustful or fidgety or whiny instead of being all grateful or happy, because they have fucking being through hell and we act like that when we get the wrong kind of latte at Starbucks and not when we see our entire life reduced to rubble.

I think it boils down to empathy. Some people don't have it.

I think this is an *excellent* example of where empathy has no place in public policy.

[frunk]

Let's say that the kind of crappy cruise ship has taken on way more survivors from the tramp steamer than it can reasonably contain for an extended period of time, and that it is questionable if it will make it to shore without some sort of help.

[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.

Yes. A refugee is only a "real refugee" in Sweden if he is grateful to his Swedish masters for whatever scraps he is given. Essentially, if you have any dignity left, you are not a "real refugee" and should be kicked out of Sweden.

A real refugee is a person who is fleeing for his life/similar. That status doesn't change based on how he acts. If I actually thought you guys were lawyers I'd be slightly alarmed.

[Berkut]

They haven't been picked up by a crappy cruise ship though. They're floating around in dinghies. Not going to die right away... but their longer term odds aren't great.

But the immediate threat is gone - if that immediate threat is NOT gone, then fine, they are still refuges. But even so, at SOME point that immediate threat ends, and then the obligation, the no two ways about it, clear moral imperative to save that person who is about to drown otherwise, is gone.

You might want to help them anyway, and bully for you if you do, but that becomes a different argument.

[Berkut]

Let's say that the kind of crappy cruise ship has taken on way more survivors from the tramp steamer than it can reasonably contain for an extended period of time, and that it is questionable if it will make it to shore without some sort of help.

Then if the cruise ships knows that and just drives right on by anyway, they are assholes.

But it isn't quite the same as the people being in actual, imminent danger. The cruise ship has some options on how to reasonably provide assistance.

[Berkut]

I don't really like my definition though - surely a refugee doesn't stop being a refugee once the immediate danger is gone - it was still them feeing danger that was the proximate cause of their status to begin with...

But lets say some person is a refugee, and flees Syria to Germany. They settle in Germany, and live their for a year. After a while, they decide they don't like Germans, and they are going to head to the UK, where they speak a comprehensible language.

Well, clearly they are no longer a refugee, right? They cannot claim that them fleeing Syria a year ago means that the UK must take them in NOW, as if they were a refugee. So their status does change at some point.

The creation of a positive moral imperative is a serious thing, not to be taken lightly. It creates considerable responsibility, and what is more, it is a involuntary responsibility. Going back to our sailing example, the demand on ships to render aid to another ship in distress is a heavy burden - at some point we have to say that there is a difference between providing life saving aid, and just helping someone - and it is very much the case that those who want the help will absolutely claim that their status is such that said help is mandated.

I don't think this is nearly as open and shut from a moral standpoint as it is being painted.

[Josquius]

But lets say some person is a refugee, and flees Syria to Germany. They settle in Germany, and live their for a year. After a while, they decide they don't like Germans, and they are going to head to the UK, where they speak a comprehensible language.

Well, clearly they are no longer a refugee, right? They cannot claim that them fleeing Syria a year ago means that the UK must take them in NOW, as if they were a refugee. So their status does change at some point.

They're still a refugee to an extent. They should still be in Syria but circumstances beyond their control forced them to leave- they then failed to establish themselves in the first place they tried.
Fair play to such a person for at least giving Germany a shot.
Perhaps a status in between a refugee and a normal migrant should be in order here? "Displaced person" or somesuch.

But the immediate threat is gone - if that immediate threat is NOT gone, then fine, they are still refuges. But even so, at SOME point that immediate threat ends, and then the obligation, the no two ways about it, clear moral imperative to save that person who is about to drown otherwise, is gone.

You might want to help them anyway, and bully for you if you do, but that becomes a different argument.

The immediate threat of drowning is gone but the threat of hypothermia, starving to death, etc... hasn't.

[Jacob]

I am in fact sympathetic to the idea that "refuge" is a very particular state, and not a description of a person. Once the danger that causes them to be a refuge is removed, then they are just another person who would love to live in Germany rather than somewhere not Germany, and I don't agree that in theory some other person should not be given an equal chance at that life.

It might be interesting to try to figure out where the transition point is, between being a "refugee" on one hand and "just another person who would love to live in Germany."

Personally, I don't think there's much of a difference with most of the Syrians fleeing currently, whatever their individual intended destinations are; but I do agree that there's a point where a person stops being a refugee.  If, say, you stop over in Vancouver for a few years to finish your masters degree before continuing on to your ideal destination of Germany then yeah - you're not fleeing as a refugee, no doubt. But if you make landfall on Lesbos, I don't think you stop being a refugee even if you try to continue your journey to Germany or some other destination.