EU Immigration Crisis Megathread

[PDH]

Let's not bring facts into a debate, please.

[Eddie Teach]

Let's not bring facts into a debate, please.

You can't handle the facts!

[grumbler]

Heh. If anything I'd say Europeans will be reinforced in the belief that promoting instability by toppling regimes willy-nilly is a bad idea.

This implies that Europeans needed to be reinforced in the belief that promoting instability by toppling regimes willy-nilly is a bad idea.  Why on earth would there ever have been any doubt about that? Who on earth believes that promoting instability by toppling regimes willy-nilly is anything but a bad idea?

[Razgovory]

If there weren't hope of asylum in Germany/Scandinavia/etc, the migrants would still be in the camps in Turkey. A little barb wire on the Hungarian border isn't the same as the EU shutting people out.

Note, I'm not saying they *should* follow this course.

People hoping to get of Germany is not the same as Europe opening the border.  Countries like Greece, Austria, Bulgaria etc have set up fences.  They just haven't worked well.

I hasten to remind you that there are something like 10 million illegal immigrants in our country, and they haven't really been "let in".

[Eddie Teach]

People hoping to get of Germany is not the same as Europe opening the border.  Countries like Greece, Austria, Bulgaria etc have set up fences.  They just haven't worked well.

I hasten to remind you that there are something like 10 million illegal immigrants in our country, and they haven't really been "let in".

No, Germany has actually invited them. The EU policy as a whole is to try to process the immigrants, not to keep them out.

US policy, at least unofficially, seems to be to allow a certain number of illegals in, to prop up sectors of the economy that can't pay minimum wage. If we wanted to get tougher on illegal immigration, we'd be deporting a lot more people.

[Razgovory]

That's a weak line or argument and you know it.

[Eddie Teach]

That's a weak line or argument and you know it.

Not as weak as this line of non-argument.

And no, any policy that lets people stay once they get here, no matter how many border agents are employed or how much fence is put up, is not going to be effective at stopping people from getting in. You're right about that. Stopping them at the border AND removing the ones who get past it won't completely eradicate illegal immigration, but it will greatly reduce it. As I said before, Europe hasn't been employing this strategy, at least in regards to the Syrians.

[LaCroix]

And no, any policy that lets people stay once they get here, no matter how many border agents are employed or how much fence is put up, is not going to be effective at stopping people from getting in. You're right about that. Stopping them at the border AND removing the ones who get past it won't completely eradicate illegal immigration, but it will greatly reduce it. As I said before, Europe hasn't been employing this strategy, at least in regards to the Syrians.

do you think this policy of wide scale deportation would be a good thing? i.e., the government makes it a top priority to deport every illegal immigrant.

[Eddie Teach]

do you think this policy of wide scale deportation would be a good thing? i.e., the government makes it a top priority to deport every illegal immigrant.

No. My argument with Raz is that this policy hasn't been pursued, not that it should be.

Well, that's my position for the US anyway. Europe probably needs to start deporting a lot of people, as their governments suggest is imminent(most of the non-Syrians seeking asylum), otherwise the flood will keep coming.

[LaCroix]

No. My argument with Raz is that this policy hasn't been pursued, not that it should be.

i know, was just wondering whether you thought such a policy should be implemented

(edit) wait, didn't read the last part of your post. why do you think there's any difference between US and europe re: implementing a policy such as this. why exactly do you think it's not a good idea to implement this policy...

[Eddie Teach]

(edit) wait, didn't read the last part of your post. why do you think there's any difference between US and europe re: implementing a policy such as this. why exactly do you think it's not a good idea to implement this policy...

Because Europe more or less gave up on controlling the migration at the border last year. America can handle integrating the numbers that get through our borders; Europe can't. Also consider how few Latin Americans there are compared to Africans and Asians and how they're generally richer. Europe could potentially have millions of people walk in every year, if they aren't doing anything to dissuade them.

[LaCroix]

Europe could potentially have millions of people walk in every year

this is either a worthless statement or you're overestimating the number of migrants (likely migrants) to an extremely high degree. it's possible for every mexican to move to the US. it's possible for every asian to move to the US.

if they aren't doing anything to dissuade them.

europe has zero border protection? what about those italian ships that stop people every now and then? I once saw a documentary on how hash gets into spain from morroco - there was definitely border protection in those scenes.

[LaCroix]

also, if a million syrians appeared in europe, spread out among the european nations based on population sizes. so what? what harm is done? is it really just the temporary $? the cost isn't that high at all given the overall economic boost immigrants (incl. illegal immigrants) provide.

plz note this question isn't directed at the Xenophobe Crowd (brain, crazy ivan, duque, grallon)

[Eddie Teach]

Europe can absorb the population of Syria. They can't absorb the population of the rest of Eurasia. If they didn't deport anyone at all as you seem to be suggesting, what keeps the non-Syrians from coming in?

The collapse in European border integrity is a new development. Last year's wave are the early adapters. If their experience is primarily positive, their friends and family are likely to follow suit. OTOH, if they spend 6 months sitting in a camp and then get rejected for asylum and flown home... numbers will decrease. Future numbers are highly contingent on what Europe chooses to do with the current group.

[LaCroix]

Europe can absorb the population of Syria. They can't absorb the population of the rest of Eurasia. If they didn't deport anyone at all as you seem to be suggesting, what keeps the non-Syrians from coming in?

The collapse in European border integrity is a new development. Last year's wave are the early adapters. If their experience is primarily positive, their friends and family are likely to follow suit. OTOH, if they spend 6 months sitting in a camp and then get rejected for asylum and flown home... numbers will decrease. Future numbers are highly contingent on what Europe chooses to do with the current group.

there weren't problems with all of eurasia migrating over to europe before, so why would it happen now / post-syria. it's very hard to migrate, both emotionally and physically. mass migrations only occur in extreme situations. the syrian refugee "crisis" isn't even a mass migration. for one, it's like 10% of syria's total population, and look at the extreme factors required to get to that low number. and syria is pretty freaking close to europe. south sudan's refugees are around 2%, and aren't the conditions there much worse?

do you have a link that evidences europe no longer has border control? I haven't heard this before.