Europe Refugee Crisis

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Simple answer is the refugees would rather go to Europe than other Middle East countries.... and like you said the neighboring countries knowing this fact would rather seal their borders than to allow any 'temporary' relief to these refugees. A big part of it is also cultural and the national psyche of the population. Muslim or not, I'm going to hazard a guess and presume the average Saudi joe on the street is probably a lot less 'open hearted' than the average Dane or Swede.

That's a slippery slope you are on my friend.

In my view, its never a good idea to make any sort of generalisations about entire peoples like that.

Governments, fair enough, as you can assess their past choices and determine a pattern of behaviour.

But you simply cannot do that with a group as large and diverse as an entire population since everyone is going to have their own views and opinions for different reasons, and those views and opinions are both constantly changing, and untested. People often say one thing, but do something very different when the chips are down.

A perfect example to caution against generalisations would be the reports in the news a little while back of at least some Iraqi refugees who massively regret making the trip to Finland, another Scandinavian country not very dissimilar to Denmark or Sweden.

By and large, from what the refugees have been saying to the press, they want to get to Europe because it is richer, and they often have a far rosier idea of what life is like in Europe than the reality thanks to western "soft power".

The harsh reality has hit many of them hard.

If I was in charge of European security, that would concern me gravely. The shattered dreams and bitter disappointment of displaced, disillusioned and desperate people make the perfect breeding ground for radicalisation.

Shutting our doors and our hearts to these desperate fleeing masses is the worst thing Europe could do. Same with "weeding out" men of military age and keeping them trapped in refugee camps on our boarders where conditions are poor to appalling, and hope and dreams are crushed and destroyed. That is creating a terrorist recruiter's wet dream come true.

What Europe should be doing is welcoming these fleeing masses with open arms and open hearts.

I would have built entire communities for them, to first allow them to feel at ease and safe amongst familiar surroundings, but made integration with society at large a mandatory requirements.

Set up decent, well resourced semi-permanent camps, where the people could live with some dignity and a modest degree of comfort.

Set up schools for children and adults like to help them with language and skills so they could integrate properly once they have been processed and integrated within the wider local society. Organise work gangs from the refugee population to keep them busy and help with the costs by getting them to do as much of the work as possible. That will also help them to develop a sense of community and self worth.

I would also get trusted naturalised citizens of the same or similar ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds to the refugees to go in as community leaders to ensure the "right" attitude and views hold sway.

The best way to weed out the radicals is not with intelligence agents in suits behind computer screens, but a co-operative local population.

Get the masses on your side, and they will out the dangerous elements within their midst far more effectively and comprehensively than the best intelligence analysts could dream of doing.

There will be terrorist sleeper agents and sympathisers amongst the refugees. The best way to weed them out is to make sure you control the refugee camps and the prevailing view in them. That means European governments should be rushing to set up and run refugee camps to the best of their abilities.

Hope, love and kindness are the best weapon against the hatred and prejudice the terrorists preach. But there are far too little of the former and way too much of the latter in how Europe has been handling the refugee crisis thus far.

That is playing into the hands of the terrorists and doing their work for them!
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
It also has a lot to do with the Sunni - Shia conflict. A predominantly Sunni country is not going to take Shia refugees. Same usually holds vice versa.

Having said that, Jordan and Egypt have taken in refugees.
 
one hell of an answer to
... I'd suggest everybody who comments on the
Europe Refugee Crisis
to consider if (s)he would've said the same (whatever it is!) if
ten times more; hundred times more
refugees/migrants/displaced persons had been arriving.
is: "Merkel is right – both morally and legally – on refugees: there should be no upper limit to the human right of asylum." according to The Guardian
Angela Merkel’s stance on refugees means she stands alone against catastrophe
Less than 10 weeks ago, Europe’s front pages were dominated by the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
who drowned as his family attempted to reach the shores of Greece. Once the tears dried, many of those same newspapers went back to their usual ways. The noble words of politicians were not followed by action. “Europe has a duty to help refugees – but not in our country” is
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
among most Europeans.

But one voice has not faltered during Europe’s refugee crisis: Angela Merkel’s. “We will cope,” she insists. As criticism grew louder, her popularity dipped to its lowest levels since 2011. For the first time in a long time, her position as chancellor no longer seemed impregnable. But the beat didn’t change: Wir schaffen das – “We will cope.” To the critics at home, as the number of asylum seekers swelled over the summer, she said
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Otherwise, she argued, it would “not be my country”.

But the chancellor’s resolve didn’t assuage the unease of her own party. Horst Seehofer, leader of the Christian Social Union, the Christian Democratic Union’s Bavarian sister party,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to welcome so many asylum seekers. He even threatened to take legal action. Some commentators ventured so far as to say that the end of the Merkel era was in sight.

They were wrong, again. After weeks of speculation and arguments, Germany’s coalition partners reached an agreement on a refugee policy last week. Like many previous deals struck by Merkel during her 10 years as chancellor, it was a compromise. She dropped
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, a win for the Social Democrats. To placate the right wing of her party, she committed to speeding up procedures for deporting economic migrants, while some refugees will have to wait two years before their family members can enter the country. But these are details. On her most important principle, Merkel stood firm: there will be no upper limit to the number of refugees that Germany can take. Her “refugees are welcome” policy is intact.

Much has been made of Merkel’s near obsession with detail and political calculation. A verb – “
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
” – was even coined to describe her perceived indecisiveness. However, behind a decade of compromises there is one common thread that often goes unnoticed: in the end, Merkel gets what she wants and is less compromising on what matters most. This summer, during negotiations between Greece and its European creditors, Merkel was portrayed as the pantomime villain of that particular story. But as two European government officials put it to me after a deal was finally struck: “At the end of the day, if Merkel had agreed with
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, her finance minister, Greece would have left the euro and there wouldn’t have been a deal.”

In July, the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Today, the bigger picture is about how Europe deals with a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in which hundreds of thousands of people have fled conflict and misery in search of refuge. We can have an endless debate about what should be done, or what could have been done, in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
itself. Likewise, focusing aid and help on neighbouring camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Lebanon where there are more than four million Syrian refugees, is a valid and just argument, and should be part of any plan.

However, we cannot turn back time nor can we fast-forward years into the future – and one inescapable fact remains: there are hundreds of thousands of refugees in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. They are here now and they will keep coming. The hundreds of thousands are fleeing war, they leave home to embark on perilous, often fatal, journeys because their home is no more. And no fence, wishful thinking or amount of aid money alone will change this.

The choice is ultimately between doing what is necessary to save lives, or turning away. On this particular decision, Merkel
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Sadly, she stands almost alone.

Let’s imagine for a moment that Merkel loses this argument and is prematurely ousted from power. Germany has received almost
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in Europe this year: 243,721 since January – more than 12 times the number that Britain will take over the next five years. What would happen if Germany suddenly adopted Britain’s approach – or Hungary’s, and started to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
? Or took the position of governments in eastern Europe that want to welcome only Christian refugees? Hundreds of thousands of people would be left stranded in no-man’s land across Europe short of aid, food and shelter. A crisis would rapidly become a catastrophe.

At its very essence, the challenge that Europe faces is about the place that it wants to occupy in a global world. Modern Europe was founded on the ashes of world war and postwar suffering and uncertainty. Not long ago the citizens of many of those same countries that today are shutting their doors were the ones escaping persecution and seeking refuge. Europe was built on principles and values such as freedom of movement, solidarity, peace, prosperity and human dignity; it is meant to be united in diversity, enriched by different cultures, traditions and languages. At the very moment Europe should come together, too many of its member states have become insular and, in pandering to anti-immigrant sentiments, are betraying those founding ideas. In this regard, Merkel is the exception.

The fork in the road in front of Europe’s leaders is about the purpose of their power. In 1957 John F Kennedy, then a senator from Massachusetts, published the pulitzer Prize-winning
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. In it he describes those rare instances when politicians should go against what’s popular and the opinion of their party, and take instead brave action. The politicians profiled in the book all have one thing in common: they put their careers on the line to do what they felt was right.

Politics fixates on the daily twists and turns of polling and approvals, of Twitter trends and digital soundbites. Short-term tactics dominate – and there is rarely the time or space for longer-term vision and boldness. But if we take a longer view and think back through history, at what fills its pages, and at how today’s events will be recounted decades from now, it is not the highs and lows of polling that will be remembered. True leadership is about taking risks when the issue at stake is so great.

The current refugee crisis has been labelled as the largest since the end of the second world war. We have been told it’s the greatest challenge Europe has faced since the cold war. But the response of Europe’s leaders hasn’t matched that impressive billing. Some have argued that it was Merkel’s welcoming approach to refugees that opened the floodgates. That this is a tragedy of her own making. Such an argument is not only wrong, its proponents fail to explain what the alternative is.

Merkel is right – both morally and legally – on refugees: there should be no upper limit to the human right of asylum. On the contrary, her challenge, if anything, is that pretty much every other European leader is wrong. That is the real tragedy.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
That's a slippery slope you are on my friend.

In my view, its never a good idea to make any sort of generalisations about entire peoples like that.

Governments, fair enough, as you can assess their past choices and determine a pattern of behaviour.

But you simply cannot do that with a group as large and diverse as an entire population since everyone is going to have their own views and opinions for different reasons, and those views and opinions are both constantly changing, and untested. People often say one thing, but do something very different when the chips are down.

A perfect example to caution against generalisations would be the reports in the news a little while back of at least some Iraqi refugees who massively regret making the trip to Finland, another Scandinavian country not very dissimilar to Denmark or Sweden.

By and large, from what the refugees have been saying to the press, they want to get to Europe because it is richer, and they often have a far rosier idea of what life is like in Europe than the reality thanks to western "soft power".

The harsh reality has hit many of them hard.

If I was in charge of European security, that would concern me gravely. The shattered dreams and bitter disappointment of displaced, disillusioned and desperate people make the perfect breeding ground for radicalisation.

Shutting our doors and our hearts to these desperate fleeing masses is the worst thing Europe could do. Same with "weeding out" men of military age and keeping them trapped in refugee camps on our boarders where conditions are poor to appalling, and hope and dreams are crushed and destroyed. That is creating a terrorist recruiter's wet dream come true.

What Europe should be doing is welcoming these fleeing masses with open arms and open hearts.

I would have built entire communities for them, to first allow them to feel at ease and safe amongst familiar surroundings, but made integration with society at large a mandatory requirements.

Set up decent, well resourced semi-permanent camps, where the people could live with some dignity and a modest degree of comfort.

Set up schools for children and adults like to help them with language and skills so they could integrate properly once they have been processed and integrated within the wider local society. Organise work gangs from the refugee population to keep them busy and help with the costs by getting them to do as much of the work as possible. That will also help them to develop a sense of community and self worth.

I would also get trusted naturalised citizens of the same or similar ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds to the refugees to go in as community leaders to ensure the "right" attitude and views hold sway.

The best way to weed out the radicals is not with intelligence agents in suits behind computer screens, but a co-operative local population.

Get the masses on your side, and they will out the dangerous elements within their midst far more effectively and comprehensively than the best intelligence analysts could dream of doing.

There will be terrorist sleeper agents and sympathisers amongst the refugees. The best way to weed them out is to make sure you control the refugee camps and the prevailing view in them. That means European governments should be rushing to set up and run refugee camps to the best of their abilities.

Hope, love and kindness are the best weapon against the hatred and prejudice the terrorists preach. But there are far too little of the former and way too much of the latter in how Europe has been handling the refugee crisis thus far.

That is playing into the hands of the terrorists and doing their work for them!

I certainly understand where you're coming from and trust me I wish this world is like how you described it unfortunately it isn't. I was merely responding to the earlier question on the 'whys' and gave my personal opinion.

There are obviously many factors and complicated issues affecting the reluctance of neighboring Arab countries taking in refugees but again I think one of those reason is due to the reasons I already mentioned.

Just to add, my town may potentially take in 10K Syrians and have taken in similar amount in the 90s and early 2000 of Bosnians (also Muslims) affected by the war. I know a few of them personally. Obviously the scale is much smaller than the current crisis in Syria however the fundementals are not too different.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Just a question, in a much smaller scope, much closer to a person's life. How many of us are willing to give up part of their own yard, living room, bed room to a total stranger permanently?
Leave aside religion, politics, morals etc, just pure personal life and family interest.
A country/community is just a bigger sized family. Anyone has watched the movie "The Road" from 2009? Today's crisis is not the end of world like the movie, but people and countries are acting and thinking in the same way.
 

Scratch

Captain
"Merkel is right – both morally and legally – on refugees: there should be no upper limit to the human right of asylum." according to The Guardian
Angela Merkel’s stance on refugees means she stands alone against catastrophe

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I faintly remember an article I read month ago on the legal implications.

Some time after WW II when a massive amount of german refugees left eastern europe / soviet controlled eastern Germany for West Germany, I think there was a legal consensus, including the constitutional court, that practical limits on the amount of people do exist and restrictions are rightful.

While the Chancellor declares there's no open boarders policy, but just a current state of open boaders, by now I'm certain she's not correct here. The current state is a policy and practically controll over imigration and the registration & distribution of those refugees has been relinquished.

I do, however, believe in rather strict control on who can stay and who cannot based on how those people are willing to interact and integrate with the state, it's people, customs and laws / security organs. That is also not happening.

Funnily (and worringly) enough, contrary to what is so often alleged here, a survey showed that the vast majority declares the regime of Assad as their main reasong for fleeing, not the IS.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

no_name

Colonel
Hopefully this will make western European countries more wary of advocating for colour revolutions and the like, just like they are now more wary of directly supporting for regime toppling wars.

There may be people on the other side of the Atlantic who may feel that this will not really affect them that much.

Too many people are ideologues divorced from realities on the ground. They are easy to be swayed by politicians.
 

Brumby

Major
one hell of an answer to

is: "Merkel is right – both morally and legally – on refugees: there should be no upper limit to the human right of asylum." according to The Guardian
Is there an upper limit? The moral issue of this in my view falls into the subject of normative ethics and more specifically the idea of consequentialism. Broadly speaking, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. A good outcome requires a balance between the state (its citizens) and the refugees. Logic dictates there is a limit to state resources and individual capacity to accommodate balance against doing good.
 

broadsword

Brigadier
one hell of an answer to

is: "Merkel is right – both morally and legally – on refugees: there should be no upper limit to the human right of asylum." according to The Guardian

Jura,

Is Czechoslovakia spared from the onslaught of refugees so far? Your country is very beautiful, for its architecture as well as its natural scenery.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
Is there an upper limit? The moral issue of this in my view falls into the subject of normative ethics and more specifically the idea of consequentialism. Broadly speaking, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. A good outcome requires a balance between the state (its citizens) and the refugees. Logic dictates there is a limit to state resources and individual capacity to accommodate balance against doing good.

I agreed with your logic, but morally acts or doing good suppose to be money blind.
 
Top