Europe Refugee Crisis

Jeff Head said:

The people making that determination are the elected officials, or those appointed by them.

If the people of a nation feel they are choosing wrong, then they have the opportunity to address it at their elections.

Click to expand...

That is a often used, but entirely flawed answer my friend.

Elections are almost never determined by any single event or issue in reality, and even if the people were so incensed, they would have to wait until the next election to have their say, and with British politics, the incumbent gets to decide when that is with a set maximum duration.

If the British people were firmly against this policy, the PM would likely wait the maximum amount of time allowed, or wait until other events occurred to eclipse the people's feelings about this issue before calling elections.

Either way, it will be years before the people get their say, and with the fickle nature of the people, most would have gotten over, forgotten about it or have other concerns by then.

Thus, unless a referendum is called, the people do not get a say on this, so its unfair to use the assumed consent of the British people to lend this decision credibility.

There have been studies where security professionals have estimated something that up to one in one hundred of the fighting age males could be infiltrators.

Click to expand...

Please! Such studies are a dime a dozen and come up with pretty much the entire range of possible outcomes imaginable. Think tank studies have become a consumer commodity these days, pandering to the tastes and needs of patrons, clients and customers rather than seeking to be accurate and objective.

If you look at the evidence and methodology of that 1 in a 100 study, I would bet you will find the evidence scant and methodology questionable, and it all boiling down to opinion, not facts.

If there was even a shred of truth to that absurd figure, why isn't Western Europe ablaze already? Since apparently ISIS has already infiltrated an army into its boarders?

Heck, in a western society like the UK, Germany, the US, etc. even 100 such individuals (that's now one in a thousand)...if they came in and you did not know who they were...even 100 could cause untold mayhem.

Click to expand...

The blindingly obvious flaw in the British policy is that since when has ISIS been squeamish about using women as weapons and children as pawns and human shields?

Who ever said all sleeper terrorists have to be males? Do you think ISIS would hesitate for a second to send in female attackers with stolen babies to the UK to bypass this "security" measure that is as crude as it is cruel?

A woman with an AK could kill just as effectively as any man with an AK. A woman with AK in hand and a baby strapped to her chest as a human shield...This British policy not only does nothing to stop that, it all but encourages it!

That's why its imperative to embrace the wider, genuine refugee population and engage them to help you root out the real dangerous elements within their midst, male or female.

Locals who grew up and lived all their lives in an area will be able to spot gaps, mistakes and inconsistencies in the cover of sleeper terrorists that even the most knowledgeable and skilled counter-terrorism analysts would miss or simply not know about.

People who spent weeks or months traveling with sleepers are far more likely to spot slip ups and notice oddities than even the most thorough screening process could flag up.

Not only is embracing (but with safeguards and checks like I have suggested) the refugees the right thing to do morally, from a security standpoint, it is also the best thing to do so you can turn the valuable human intelligence resource that the real refugees offer to help you root out the real terrorists, rather than alienate them and make them easy pickings for terrorist recruiters.

To give in to fear, prejudice and hate, to turn from our own humanity and compassion is to give in to the terrorists and play into their hands.

This is not just a war about territory, religion or even security, it is also a war about values and morals, and we the civilized world, should not, can not, give ground on any front my friend.

So, nations make determinations based on what they are willing to risk.

I will not blame a nation whose elected individuals make such determinations based on what they believe is best for their nations. Germany has decided one way...which is their right. the UK has decided something different...which is their right.

Click to expand...

The thing is Jeff, as I have already pointed out, this is a terrible policy not only because of its heartlessness, but more so because it is so obviously and fundamentally flawed from a security stand point.

You can call me a cynic, but I don't think the primary rationale for this policy is security, as it is being claimed, but rather politics.

Sadly, in this day and age, another terrorist outrage is all but inevitable no matter what anyone does. Cameron just wants to cover himself so no one could say he let the attackers in when that next attack does happen.

plawolf said:

Do you have a source for this? Not that I don't trust you, but details matter, and I don't trust the "interpretation" of results by most western news organisations and prefer to make up my own mind from looking at the raw data, or a concise summary of it.

Click to expand...

OK on short notice I have online news reports, not a direct link to a raw data source yet.

First, look here:



There are graphics in the link, so I suggest to go to the page directly. While in german, I think you will be able to figure it out, if not, I'll do.

Here's the text, though:

Syrian refugees in Germany: Most fleeing Assad - not in front of the IS

By Anna Reimann

From whom the greatest threat comes from Syria? According to a survey among refugees in Germany, the majority does not flee before the IS, but the violence of the Assad regime. Most want to go back again.

Around 200,000 Syrian refugees have the German authorities registered this year - in the last few weeks more and more people have come out of the war-torn country. Is that so? What opportunities are there to end the conflict in Syria? The West debated whether one should talk with Assad or not. But guess what the Syrian refugees themselves? What exactly are they fled? What should the international community do in their opinion in their home? Under what conditions would you return? For the first time there is now an extensive survey to Syrian refugee. Although it is not in the statistical sense representative, but are very much a wide impression.

Democracy activists from Adopt a Revolution, who conducted the interview and were thereby advised by the Social Science Research Center Berlin for Social Research (WZB), interviewed by the end of September to early October almost 900 Syrian refugees before initial reception, registries and refugee centers in Berlin, Hanover, Bremen, Leipzig and Eisenhüttenstadt. The choice of places guaranteed according to the authors a random mix of the respondents in terms of political attitudes and social features, because they are relevant to all refugees.

Escape reasons: More than two-thirds said that they have left their country because of the immediate danger to life. In this context, the refugees called the armed conflict, fear of arrest or kidnapping (three-quarters called The fear of arrest by the Assad regime, 42 percent said they fear abduction by the IS) and barrel bombs as an immediate threat to their lives. Economic factors gave slightly more than 13 percent as the main reason for the flight. Fear of recruitment by the armed forces called around eight percent as a base.

Assad or IS? A large majority of respondents claimed to be fled the violence of the Assad regime or its allies - some 70 percent said that only one third said the IS responsible for the fights, before which they have fled.. Nearly 18 percent said they had fled Syrian Army (FSA) before the violence of the opposition outside. Multiple answers were possible.

Returns: The vast majority of respondents express a desire to return to their homes. Only eight percent said they did not want to return to Syria and want to remain permanently in Germany. However, respondents make a return to Syria to conditions. Slightly more than half said Assad had gone, nearly 44 percent cited a Syria without the IS as a condition. Free elections are crucial for approximately 42 percent. Again, respondents could give multiple answers.

Intervention: the West is struggling as it can end the conflict in Syria and thereby also reduce the number of refugees. When it comes after the refugees people who have a no-fly zone, the greatest impact. Nearly 58 percent cited this instrument as a measure which would have to take the international community so that more people remain in Syria. Just over a third said all arms deliveries would be stopped, a quarter called more humanitarian aid.

Of those surveyed, two-thirds of Syrians have left their homes until this year. 88 percent were men, just under half of the respondents was 16 to 25 years. The largest part, namely more than one-fifth; comes from the province of Aleppo. Another fifth comes from the capital Damascus.

Click to expand...

Also this:

October 7th, 2015, 16:35 Syrian refugees survey They flee because of barrel bombs

A non-representative survey among those who fled from Syria for the first time documented the reasons why people leave their country.

Thus, the fear of violence of the Assad regime plays a much larger role than the government in front of the self-styled Islamic.

Economic reasons cause very few people as motivation - most refugees would like to return to their homes again.

...

Click to expand...

Now after my quick initial post, I in fact do have to concede the survey not to be be properly representative. Yet, whith the scientific advisers stating a large discrepency from reality really unlikely, I myself am quiet certain it is not flawed either.

Scratch said:

OK on short notice I have online news reports, not a direct link to a raw data source yet.

...

Click to expand...

hey Scratch it's not related to the post I'm quoting, sorry, but would you comment on (I don't know the German language so it's google-translated):
"The federal government sends more deterrent signals to refugees: Germany will continue to return asylum seekers back to the Dublin procedure in those EU countries over which they have entered into the European Union, informed the Ministry of the Interior."
comes from yesterday

and it's making news here as I write ...

Jura said:

hey Scratch it's not related to the post I'm quoting, sorry, but would you comment on (I don't know the German language so it's google-translated):
"The federal government sends more deterrent signals to refugees: Germany will continue to return asylum seekers back to the Dublin procedure in those EU countries over which they have entered into the European Union, informed the Ministry of the Interior."
comes from yesterday

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and it's making news here as I write ...

Click to expand...

I assume you're familiar with the "Dublin accord". The state through wich a refugee first enters the EU is responsible for the respective asylum request.
Now, several weeks back in August, when the crises was at it's height in Hungary, the GER government suspended that accord on syrian and some other nationalities.
That of course ment the door was now wide open, massive uncontrolled immigration took place and ever more people were encouraged to follow.

Considerable parts of the population and the conservative party, but others as well, were genuinely unhappy with this and public mood started to tip over. Espacially visible in approval ratings for the conservative party (and, almost unseen with pretty much any other issue in the past, the Chancellor personally).
Since about three weeks the Dublin accord is "back on", meaning every single case will be reviewed if the refugee entered via another state (which, if you don't come by plane, will always be the case). The respective person will then of course be sent back to that state.

Now there's one exception to this. Refugees entering the EU through Greece. Due to the poor economical state of that country and the large number of refugees already there.
And therein lies the issue. Pretty much all the refugees coming from the MedEast enter through Greece. And to my understanding, those refugees will also not be sent back to the state through wich they moved after leaving Greece.

So initially, I think not much will change practically. At first it's a political sign to the home audiance. We do something. The capacity of security organs is already at it's limits. There can't be any additional registering. It's probably also ment to be a sign abroad. Hopefully, refugees will realize the new hurdles and stop coming. Now of course in reality, it'll take time if it reduces the tide at all.

Austria already welcomed this as a method of reducing the enormous attraction this policy had on refugees, also hoping to reduce the flow.

There is speculation on how much this was really decided within the government as a hole, or a meassure of the Interiour Minister alone, which to some extent seems to be the case.

solarz said:

This is a flawed analogy. A home is a personal, private space, a country is not. Space is not the issue here, culture is. The reluctance to accept refugees, or even immigrants for that matter, boils down to a fear of having to accept a different culture and a fear of economic competition with the newcomers.

Click to expand...

I agree with you in this particular case (European crisis), you are right.

But not everywhere. It depends on how country is interpreted in different culture/history. In some culture country is merely a cooperation Ltd. In some other culture, country is a bigger sized family with people being blood related (figuratively or realistically) , the concept in Sino sphere is called "国家", literally means State/Country (国) and Family(家).

This may be away from this particular case (Europe), but as many of us are from different part of the world, and this refugee subject is about ordinary people's mind, I think it worth to keep in mind of the difference.

Let's get back to Europe.

plawolf said:

That is a often used, but entirely flawed answer my friend.

Click to expand...

That is your opinion. Wolf.

But the fact is, the elected officials are put there by the people...and of course it is for a multitude of reasons...and the people get to vote again and again.

If things rise to the point where the people are impacted and it is important to them...and they can rise to that point...then the people get to choose.

Some folks may not like that. Some folks think they know better and can do better.

Maybe they can, maybe they can't...my advise to such is to throw their hat in the ring.

plawolf said:

Who ever said all sleeper terrorists have to be males?

Click to expand...

Nobody did.

But when you realistically look at the numbers of fighters, and the numbers of attacks, the vast majority are male.

plawolf said:

To give in to fear, prejudice and hate, to turn from our own humanity and compassion is to give in to the terrorists and play into their hands.

Click to expand...

Nothing was said about prejudice or hate.

What was said had regard to national security concerns and the potential threat of terrorism...a potential that is based on the open threats to take advantage of the situation.

You clearly do not agree with those decisions some make...and that is your right.

But that does not mean the decisions are based on the type of rhetoric you are throwing out either.

plawolf said:

The thing is Jeff, as I have already pointed out, this is a terrible policy not only because of its heartlessness, but more so because it is so obviously and fundamentally flawed from a security stand point..

Click to expand...

Again, that is your opinion...and your are welcome to it and have every right to have it and express it.

But the people making the decision have to consider a lot of other conditions and circumstances, and then base their decision on those things as representatives of their people.

They also have every right to do so, irrespective of what blokes like you and I may think of their decisions.

Some are choosing one way, others are choosing another.

And they have every right to do so...and in the end, it is their people who will decide if they stay in office and in a position to make those decision...not you or I, either way.

That's my whole point. I am not going to presume to tell Merkel she is wrong, and I am not going to presume to tell Cameron he is wrong either...whetehr I happen to agree with one or the other.

They have been elected into those positions by majorities of their people...millions and millions of their people...and their people will decide whether or not they feel those decisions are in their own best interests.

That's how it works, whatever we may think of it.

taxiya said:

I agree with you in this particular case (European crisis), you are right.

But not everywhere. It depends on how country is interpreted in different culture/history. In some culture country is merely a cooperation Ltd. In some other culture, country is a bigger sized family with people being blood related (figuratively or realistically) , the concept in Sino sphere is called "国家", literally means State/Country (国) and Family(家).

This may be away from this particular case (Europe), but as many of us are from different part of the world, and this refugee subject is about ordinary people's mind, I think it worth to keep in mind of the difference.

Let's get back to Europe.

Click to expand...

The thing is, the Confucian family that the term 家 in 国家 is pretty specific and pretty different from what we normally think of a family today. To be accurate, the family model referred to here is one where the Patriarch of the family has absolute say over other family members, and this indeed pretty closely resembles the imperial model of a State.

Thing is, in such a model, it's pretty much what the Patriarch says that goes. If the Patriarch wants to get a new concubine and bring in new servants to the household, nobody else really gets a say. What I'm getting at is that when the Confucian philosophy refers to the State as an extension of the Family, it is referring to a rigid, law based model, so personal feelings don't really matter.

solarz said:

The thing is, the Confucian family that the term 家 in 国家 is pretty specific and pretty different from what we normally think of a family today. To be accurate, the family model referred to here is one where the Patriarch of the family has absolute say over other family members, and this indeed pretty closely resembles the imperial model of a State.

Thing is, in such a model, it's pretty much what the Patriarch says that goes. If the Patriarch wants to get a new concubine and bring in new servants to the household, nobody else really gets a say. What I'm getting at is that when the Confucian philosophy refers to the State as an extension of the Family, it is referring to a rigid, law based model, so personal feelings don't really matter.

Click to expand...

hehe, that extended family has had more than 24 violent revolutions in which the not-listening Patriarch and his personal family/clan got almost wiped out. It's called loosing the mandate which in reality is just people's will. Every such Patriarch had to listen and when they did, they survive.
I am not saying the past Confucian model is still around every bit, but it is pretty much around in its essence, in Chinese subconscious.
Now, I think this is going to get too far away from the thread. So I stop here. If you want, you are welcome to PM me. It is an interesting subject.
Cheers.

Jeff Head said:

If things rise to the point where the people are impacted and it is important to them...and they can rise to that point...then the people get to choose.

Click to expand...

The problem is, the people most affected by this decision don't get a vote.

Even if they did have a vote, hundreds or thousands more of them could be dead before any such vote could be cast.

Western democracy is not a direct democracy, the people do not get a vote on every decision. They vote for proxies to make decisions for them. The choices made are those of the proxy and not the people. Thus the proxy cannot go an drag the people out to take the blame for choices he made for them.

You do not magically become infallible when you get elected into office, and it is frankly, a major logical trap to whip "democracy" out as the counter to any criticisms of polities enacted by democratic governments.

Do you not see the terrible irony in using "democracy" to silence any criticism of government policy and choices by the people?

Yes, the British public voted Cameron and the conservatives into power, but they did not vote for him because he promised them that he would pass this "security" measure, nor did the British people to a direct vote on this issue. That choice was made by Cameron, not the British people, so you cannot automatically assume he has the backing of the British people on this to lend his choice more legitimacy.

But when you realistically look at the numbers of fighters, and the numbers of attacks, the vast majority are male.

Click to expand...

Problem with looking at past behaviour to predict future events is that you are making the implicit assumption that nothing will change.

Any good policy should also take into account possible and probably changes in behaviour and whether it could also account for that. This policy does not do that.

Also, while we are looking at the numbers, isn't it also true that the bulk of the attacks in the west were carried out by home grown radicals rather than foreign infiltrators?

Nothing was said about prejudice or hate.

What was said had regard to national security concerns and the potential threat of terrorism...a potential that is based on the open threats to take advantage of the situation.

Click to expand...

Nothing hides prejudice and legitimises hatred better than citing "national security".

They also have every right to do so, irrespective of what blokes like you and I may think of their decisions.

Click to expand...

Who ever said Cameron doesn't have the right to do what he did? As PM, not only is it his right to make such calls, it is his job.

But whether someone has a right to make a choice is entirely unrelated to whether he is making the right choice.

And they have every right to do so...and in the end, it is their people who will decide if they stay in office and in a position to make those decision...not you or I, either way.

That's my whole point. I am not going to presume to tell Merkel she is wrong, and I am not going to presume to tell Cameron he is wrong either...whetehr I happen to agree with one or the other.

They have been elected into those positions by majorities of their people...millions and millions of their people...and their people will decide whether or not they feel those decisions are in their own best interests.

That's how it works, whatever we may think of it.

Click to expand...

Firstly, just because the people agrees does not make a choice the right choice. The American people cheered their troops into Iraq after 9/11, please don't tell me that was the right thing to do.

Leaders are elected to lead, and sometimes that means making the brave, unpopular call because it is the right thing to do.

A good leader should not be fixated with the pole numbers, but rather the actual merits of the issue, the confidential intelligence reports and policy recommendations of experts in the relevant field (and no, his campaign advisors don't count).

My problem with this policy is not, and has never been, that it's unpopular, to be frank, that never actually crossed my mind. But now that I think of it, I think it will probably be very popular with the voters. But that is entirely beside the point.

My problem with that policy has always been that it is the entirely wrong approach, it is morally abhorrent, and most importantly, it just won't work.

If ISIS really was determined to attack the UK, it could bypass this policy entirely with female suicide attackers or UK home grown Jihadists.

It is odd that while you seem to be passionately opposed to my position, you have never once tried to address or counter the actual and specific issues I have with this policy, and instead keep going back to democracy.

It almost feels like you are trying to counter the specific moral and conceptual flaws I see in this policy with an argument that pretty much boils down to "well democracy!", which is very out of character for you my friend.

plawolf said:

It almost feels like you are trying to counter the specific moral and conceptual flaws I see in this policy with an argument that pretty much boils down to "well democracy!", which is very out of character for you my friend.

Click to expand...

No...not at all.

I am simply pointing out the unambiguous fact that the people who are elected by these people in these nations have been empowered to make these decisions.

And they are making them.

Some one way, and others another.

Those people have the interests and security of their own nations to consider, whether some people want to believe it or not. Dismissing it by saying that the easiest avenue to racism or prejudice is through national security is pure rhetoric and does not change the fact that national security is still a critical consideration.

And those leaders have a LOT more information at their disposal than we do.

I will not naysay, or try and say I know better than they do regarding the decisions they are making. IN addition, I can understand the reasoning on both sides of the issue.

The only real avenue the people of those nations have, if they decide in fact they do not like the decisions that have been made, is to effect change at the ballot box.

I guess my points regarding this boils down to these:

1) Decisions are being made by the elected officials in these nations regarding the refugees.
2) Their decisions are based on reasoning, and it is highly unlikely that it is based on racism.
3) The apparatus for change if people do not like the decisions is the election process.

Now, there are all sorts of ways to help publicize and inform voters in that process...which will all be employed by both sides of the issue in the upcoming votes.

Finally, Wolf, I am not passionately opposed to you. I am simply making observations about decisions that are being made.

My own personal belief is that any nation MUST be very careful in such circumstances. There is a very real threat/vulnerability that they must consider and try and vet or look into as they bring peoples into their country.

Having a policy for helping dissidents, or taking in people who are seeking asylum for ideological reasons is a hugely different than bringing in hundreds of thousands or millions of people who cannot be vetted from a war torn country.

Each nation is going to have to decide themselves how they go about it...and what policies they inact to control the level of threat or vulnerability.

That's all/