European Migrant Crisis

[hepcat]

They won't. I didn't say they couldn't be, but they won't be.

Just like socialism could be a great thing. It isn't, and won't be, but it could be in an ideal world.

[TiLT]

Just like socialism could be a great thing. It isn't, and won't be, but it could be in an ideal world.

Yeah, socialism has really ruined Norway. Being one of the richest countries in the world, relatively speaking, is tough. The population has really shown how much they hate socialism by being incredibly happy and content, with no true poverty to speak of.

[/sarcasm]

[hepcat]

One agreement that has been broken, and will be broken by more countries in the days to come, is the one that requires refugees to seek refuge in the first country they register in within Europe. It has proven hopelessly unfair and impractical in the current crisis, and breaking it will help manage the flow by spreading it instead of focusing it on the countries at Europe's border. The reason the Syrians are fleeing from police and swarming across the countryside is because of that exact agreement. They're simply trying to avoid getting registered in the first country they reach, instead hoping to reach one of the other countries further north and west.

I concur that the agreement that refugees should register in the first country they enter after leaving their home country is unfair and should be revisited. Especially when you have countries like Denmark with a far right party letting refugees know in no uncertain terms that they aren't welcome, while Sweden has been far more open to refugees. Thus, refugees are refusing to get off trains in Denmark, or are simply ignoring the registration process in order to avoid being forced to stay in that country.

[noxiousdog]

Let's deal with the proper proportions here. Norway is a tiny country, at least measured in population, compared to almost every other country in the world. The Bosnian immigration consisted of 17,000 individuals, and it was indeed a full-blown crisis (even if they didn't swarm across our borders, for obvious reasons). Norway had roughly 4 million inhabitants at that time, so 17,000 was a large number for us to deal with. We don't have the capacity to deal with hundreds of thousands of them, but we more than fulfill our obligations to the UN, and go above their requirements most of the time. Countries like Germany have enormous populations compared to Norway, and should be able to deal with proportionally larger amounts of immigrants. As Germany has indicated over the last few days, they can handle 800k immigrants now (if my memory serves me right), and 500k every year in the near future. That's a lot of people, but Germany is a huge country.

According to Wiki, you are way mistaken, but it could be Wiki is wrong.

This says the Bosnian population (not immigration, but population) in 2001 was 13,000 and by 2014 it had grown to 17,000. That's nothing. Houston, is about 28% foreign.. Texas is 16%.

[TiLT]

According to Wiki, you are way mistaken, but it could be Wiki is wrong.

Nah, Wiki is most likely correct, and I misinterpreted the numbers. Still, 13,000 is a large amount of immigrants for Norway (we're committed to accepting 8,000 Syrians right now, though it's likely to grow), and the employment rate and salary average I mentioned above is for the full 17,000 Bosnians.

This says the Bosnian population (not immigration, but population) in 2001 was 13,000 and by 2014 it had grown to 17,000. That's nothing. Houston, is about 28% foreign.. Texas is 16%.

You're comparing Bosnians with immigration in general. The latest numbers I could find right now, from 2013 (and gathered by SSB, the official census office in Norway), showed that Norway consisted of 11% immigrants (direct immigrants and their immediate children. Anyone after that are no longer considered immigrants for this purpose). The numbers in Oslo, the capital, are higher. The last census was in 2011, and showed that 14% of Oslo's inhabitants were immigrants or children of two immigrants.

But remember that direct comparisons between European nations and America (as in the continent, not just USA as a country) may be misleading. America is still a young continent as far as western civilization goes. Everyone over there who doesn't come from a Native American background, comes from immigration that was relatively recent in civilized history.

[noxiousdog]

Not that recent.

Anyway, the point being is that immigration is good. Too much immigration has impacts. The line is very fuzzy.

Norway appears to have done a very good job. They kept the numbers low and have been increasing them as they see few impacts. When they see stresses, they'll probably steady or slow the flow.

[Rip]

4M/17K=235 Norway

80M/800K=100 Germany

80M/500K=160/per year.

One is an example of doing controlled immigration properly the other of doing it unwisely. Even if Norway took in 17K ever year they still wouldn't be close to what Germany is doing.

[TiLT]

4M/17K=235 Norway

80M/800K=100 Germany

80M/500K=160/per year.

One is an example of doing controlled immigration properly the other of doing it unwisely. Even if Norway took in 17K ever year they still wouldn't be close to what Germany is doing.

Did you deliberately skip every important point in the replies I gave you, or did you end up focusing on the least important one by accident?

Edit: Also, I'm not sure how your math relates to the conclusion you've drawn. Where's the magic line between "properly" and "unwisely" here? What do the products in your equations even mean?

You're also making the basic mistake of looking at population numbers, when what you should be looking at is funding per refugee.

[Rip]

4M/17K=235 Norway

80M/800K=100 Germany

80M/500K=160/per year.

One is an example of doing controlled immigration properly the other of doing it unwisely. Even if Norway took in 17K ever year they still wouldn't be close to what Germany is doing.

Did you deliberately skip every important point in the replies I gave you, or did you end up focusing on the least important one by accident?

Edit: Also, I'm not sure how your math relates to the conclusion you've drawn. Where's the magic line between "properly" and "unwisely" here? What do the products in your equations even mean?

You're also making the basic mistake of looking at population numbers, when what you should be looking at is funding per refugee.

Easy Norway took in one for every 235 people of population. One time.

Germany is taking in one for every 100 people of population and will take in another 1 per every 160 people. In otherwords by a ration they are taking in TWICE the ratio of immigrant to existing population.

I would say the ratio you guys took in was about the most you want to do repeatedly. Double that rate is absurd. That would be like the US taking in 24M of them.

[GreenGoo]

At best you can conclude that Germany is taking in more migrants per person than Norway did during their successful integration of Bosnians.

You have your opinion that Germany's ratio is too much, and we have evidence that Norway's ratio wasn't too much. TiLT even asked you where the magic line was for you.

I guess we'll know in a few decades if your doom prediction comes true or not.

[TiLT]

Easy Norway took in one for every 235 people of population. One time.

That's only part of the story, and you know it. Those people were Bosnians only. Norway accepts more than our required share of refugees every single year, from all parts of the world. Bosnians are the 8th most common nationality for immigrants over here. Those Bosnians came in addition to regular refugees for those years.

Germany is taking in one for every 100 people of population and will take in another 1 per every 160 people. In otherwords by a ration they are taking in TWICE the ratio of immigrant to existing population.

I will admit that I haven't done any research on my following statement, so it's mostly conjecture. Not that it makes it any worse than what you're doing with your own arguments.

Germany's statement about those 800k and then 500k yearly is about how many they accept in total. I don't believe it's limited to Syrians, though they will of course get priority.

I would say the ratio you guys took in was about the most you want to do repeatedly. Double that rate is absurd. That would be like the US taking in 24M of them.

Yeah, get back to me when you know the total immigration numbers per year for both Norway and Germany. Until then, your random numbers mean nothing.

[hepcat]

Also, Rip's original assertion was that taking in refugees was bad...period.

They aren't(educated, law-abiding, skilled immigrants) and they won't (avoid forming ethnic or religious ghettos).

He keeps trying to change his message though. Now it's about ratios.

[Isgrimnur]

10k to the US.

The Obama administration said Thursday it is willing to take in at least 10,000 Syrian refugees in the next fiscal year as European countries continue to grapple with the surge of thousands of people from war-torn regions in the Middle East and Africa.

The decision represents a significant increase compared to the 1,500 Syrian refugees expected in the U.S. by the end of this fiscal year, on Sept. 30th.

But it's still far less than many Democrats have been calling on the administration to admit into the U.S.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has cited a Vietnam-era program that let in 14,000 refugees each month. And more than three months ago, 14 Democratic Senators sent a letter to President Obama asking the number be increased to 65,000 in the coming year.
...
There's no plan right now for the kind of expedited process that allowed 50,000 refugees from the Iraq war to come to the U.S., White House press secretary Josh Earnest said on Thursday.

[Rip]

Damn edit instead of quote key got me again, trying to repair.

[Rip]

Also, Rip's original assertion was that taking in refugees was bad...period.

They aren't(educated, law-abiding, skilled immigrants) and they won't (avoid forming ethnic or religious ghettos).

He keeps trying to change his message though. Now it's about ratios.

No it wasn't, my assertion was taking in refugees in this haphazard way is bad. Of course immigration is good, I wouldn't be here otherwise.

[TiLT]

No it wasn't, my assertion was taking in refugees in this haphazard way is bad.

What is your basis for calling this "haphazard"? You do realize that European immigration is highly organized, even during crises, right?

[Rip]

No it wasn't, my assertion was taking in refugees in this haphazard way is bad.

What is your basis for calling this "haphazard"? You do realize that European immigration is highly organized, even during crises, right?

If this is organized I would hate to see what disorganized looks like.

[TiLT]

No it wasn't, my assertion was taking in refugees in this haphazard way is bad.

What is your basis for calling this "haphazard"? You do realize that European immigration is highly organized, even during crises, right?

If this is organized I would hate to see what disorganized looks like.

Please don't clarify your vague answers with more vague answers. What is disorganized about what's happening right now? When these immigrants reach their target countries, they register and get dealt with properly. I already explained to you why there's chaos at the border countries, but it makes no difference to the organization at the end points, which is the only thing that matters for whatever argument it seems you're trying to pull off here (and unsuccessfully at that).

[Rip]

No it wasn't, my assertion was taking in refugees in this haphazard way is bad.

What is your basis for calling this "haphazard"? You do realize that European immigration is highly organized, even during crises, right?

If this is organized I would hate to see what disorganized looks like.

Please don't clarify your vague answers with more vague answers. What is disorganized about what's happening right now? When these immigrants reach their target countries, they register and get dealt with properly. I already explained to you why there's chaos at the border countries, but it makes no difference to the organization at the end points, which is the only thing that matters for whatever argument it seems you're trying to pull off here (and unsuccessfully at that).

This for example is the very definition of disorganized.

https://news.vice.com/article/france-an ... ion-crisis

The European Union's Dublin Regulation requires immigrants to make their applications for asylum in their first country of entry. The regulation means Italy, which saw 171,000 immigrants arrive in 2014, or Greece, will receive the overwhelming majority of applications for asylum. The Italian Prime Minister considers it unfair that his country should have to shoulder the burden of the immigrants alone, and would prefer that Italy be primarily an entrance for most immigrants to reach other countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, or even Sweden.

According to Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, the Dublin Convention should be "modified," but Bernard Cazeneuve, the French Minister of the Interior, does not share the same sentiments. Cazeneuve said on Monday morning on BFM TV that "It is necessary to respect the Dublin rules." She proposed, however, opening "hotspots" in Italy — centers where illegal immigrants or asylum-seekers could be differentiated from one another. With the population organized accordingly, Cazeneuve claims to be interested in distributing immigrants among the member states of the EU, "because we certainly favor doing so, in terms of solidarity."

Critics say this is just Cazeneuve's way of saying she is in favor of distribution, as long as she knows that it's only of legal immigrants.

A preliminary meeting is scheduled for this Tuesday, ahead of a summit of European leaders on June 25, to discuss distributing immigrants eligible for refugee status. Around 24,000 immigrants would be affected by this distribution, a number so low that Matteo Renzi considers it "almost a provocation," because his country will welcome about 200,000 immigrants in 2015. The Italian minister of the interior, Angelino Alfano, spoke on Sky TG24 this Sunday and warned the European community: "We will not accept a selfish Europe."

[hepcat]

Also, Rip's original assertion was that taking in refugees was bad...period.

They aren't(educated, law-abiding, skilled immigrants) and they won't (avoid forming ethnic or religious ghettos).

He keeps trying to change his message though. Now it's about ratios.

No it wasn't, my assertion was taking in refugees in this haphazard way is bad. Of course immigration is good, I wouldn't be here otherwise.

Which I pointed out to you earlier in those very words.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Writing for The Mail on Sunday, Christopher Hitchens' younger brother addressed what I believe Rip was driving at.

PETER HITCHENS: We won't save refugees by destroying our own country:

Actually we can’t do what we like with this country. We inherited it from our parents and grandparents and we have a duty to hand it on to our children and grandchildren, preferably improved and certainly undamaged.

It is one of the heaviest responsibilities we will ever have. We cannot just give it away to complete strangers on an impulse because it makes us feel good about ourselves.

Every one of the posturing notables simpering ‘refugees welcome’ should be asked if he or she will take a refugee family into his or her home for an indefinite period, and pay for their food, medical treatment and education.

If so, they mean it. If not, they are merely demanding that others pay and make room so that they can experience a self-righteous glow. No doubt the same people are also sentimental enthusiasts for the ‘living wage’, and ‘social housing’, when in fact open borders are steadily pushing wages down and housing costs up.

As William Blake rightly said: ‘He who would do good to another must do it in minute particulars. General good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite and flatterer.’

Britain is a desirable place to live mainly because it is an island, which most people can’t get to. Most of the really successful civilisations survived because they were protected from invasion by mountains, sea, deserts or a combination of these things. Ask the Russians or the Poles what it’s like to live without the shield of the sea. There is no positive word for ‘safety’ in Russian. Their word for security is ‘bezopasnost’ – ‘without danger’.

Thanks to a thousand years of uninvaded peace, we have developed astonishing levels of trust, safety and freedom. I have visited nearly 60 countries and lived in the USSR, Russia and the USA, and I have never experienced anything as good as what we have. Only in the Anglosphere countries – the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – is there anything comparable. I am amazed at how relaxed we are about giving this away.

Our advantages depend very much on our shared past, our inherited traditions, habits and memories. Newcomers can learn them, but only if they come in small enough numbers. Mass immigration means we adapt to them, when they should be adapting to us.

So now, on the basis of an emotional spasm, dressed up as civilisation and generosity, are we going to say that we abandon this legacy and decline our obligation to pass it on, like the enfeebled, wastrel heirs of an ancient inheritance letting the great house and the estate go to ruin?

Having seen more than my share of real corpses, and watched children starving to death in a Somali famine, I am not unmoved by pictures of a dead child on a Turkish beach. But I am not going to pretend to be more upset than anyone else. Nor am I going to suddenly stop thinking, as so many people in the media and politics appear to have done.

The child is not dead because advanced countries have immigration laws. The child is dead because criminal traffickers cynically risked the lives of their victims in pursuit of money.

I’ll go further. The use of words such as ‘desperate’ is quite wrong in this case. The child’s family were safe in Turkey. Turkey (for all its many faults) is a member of Nato, officially classified as free and democratic. Many British people actually pay good money to go on holiday to the very beach where the child’s body was washed up.

It may not be ideal, but the definition of a refugee is that he is fleeing from danger, not fleeing towards a higher standard of living.

[LawBeefaroni]

Thanks to a thousand years of uninvaded peace, we have developed astonishing levels of trust, safety and freedom.

What? Is it 2067 already? Even granting him fairly generous rounding, it's still questionable. And I've always felt that fortress Britain was fairly isolationist and distrustful as countries on the other side of the pond go (notice I can't say European countries since that apparently doesn't include Britain).



Incidentally, my wife's grandfather is from the Isle of Wight. He claims Norman and Saxon heritage. He had a tantrum and called the entire field of genetics into question when a test revealed that he had a middling amount (~10%) of Iberian ancestry. He still can't bear it. Never mind that Iberians were basically next door neighbors to the Normans and probably have a stronger historical claim to that part of Europe. Gets fun at Thanksgiving dinner.

Ethnicity and culture is a funny thing.

[Isgrimnur]

Personal identity and self-delusion are as well.

[hepcat]

If that's what Rip really was trying to say, I'm even less fond of his opinion on the subject.

[Kraken]

Just like socialism could be a great thing. It isn't, and won't be, but it could be in an ideal world.

Yeah, socialism has really ruined Norway. Being one of the richest countries in the world, relatively speaking, is tough. The population has really shown how much they hate socialism by being incredibly happy and content, with no true poverty to speak of.

[/sarcasm]

Rip has been reluctantly evolving since he realized that his ISP is a successful socialist endeavor. Give him time.

[Carpet_pissr]

The whole premise seems to be based on the fact that accepting refugees = destroying the country.

Maybe this guy should read up on what social scientists who study these effects for a living have found.

This country was founded on and made greater by an open arms approach.

If anything, his stingy and selfish attitude is more likely to 'destroy' the country, or at least its soul and spirit, than a handful of refugees that need help.

[LawBeefaroni]

The whole premise seems to be based on the fact that accepting refugees = destroying the country.

Maybe this guy should read up on what social scientists who study these effects for a living have found.

This country was founded on and made greater by an open arms approach.

If anything, his stingy and selfish attitude is more likely to 'destroy' the country, or at least its soul and spirit, than a handful of refugees that need help.

Look, at the rate they're going in 20 years no one will like orange marmalade, OK? That's unthinkable.






Or in American, the "Press 1 for English???!?!?!?!?!?!!!!" or "Salsa sells more than ketchup!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!" tropes.

[Rip]

Just like socialism could be a great thing. It isn't, and won't be, but it could be in an ideal world.

Yeah, socialism has really ruined Norway. Being one of the richest countries in the world, relatively speaking, is tough. The population has really shown how much they hate socialism by being incredibly happy and content, with no true poverty to speak of.

[/sarcasm]

Rip has been reluctantly evolving since he realized that his ISP is a successful socialist endeavor. Give him time.

If it was socialist they wouldn't be sending bills. The rich people should be paying for it.

[hepcat]

So you think socialism has rich people?

[Rip]

So you think socialism has rich people?

Of course.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

From China on down every one of them has or had rich people.

Wealth equality is an illusion.

[hepcat]

Well...a victim of corruption, at least.

[Anonymous Bosch]

This does not bode well:

16.17

German customs have seized packages of Syrian passports being sent in the post, the finance ministry said on Friday, writes Justin Huggler in Berlin.

It is suspected they may be used by economic migrants to pose as refugees fleeing the civil war in Syria. Both genuine and fake Syrian passports are believed to have been found in the packages that were intercepted.

A spokesman for the ministry told reporters police were currently investigating the documents, but would not comment on how many were found.

There is believed to be a market for Syrian documents as European countries tighten the rules to make sure only those in genuine need are admitted as asylum-seekers.

Germany has unilaterally suspended EU rules for Syrian refugees, and said it will process their asylum claims regardless of where they entered the EU.

But Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, is trying to change the country's asylum system to deter economic migrants from safe countries like the Balkans, by making it easier for them to be deported.

"A lot of people enter Turkey with fake Syrian papers, because they know that they'll get asylum in the EU more easily," Fabrice Leggeri, the head of Frontex, the EU's border agency, told French radio.

[Holman]

Incidentally, my wife's grandfather is from the Isle of Wight. He claims Norman and Saxon heritage. He had a tantrum and called the entire field of genetics into question when a test revealed that he had a middling amount (~10%) of Iberian ancestry. He still can't bear it. Never mind that Iberians were basically next door neighbors to the Normans and probably have a stronger historical claim to that part of Europe. Gets fun at Thanksgiving dinner.

"Would you like more cranberry sauce, Grandpa, and did you know that you're ultimately from Africa?"

[Anonymous Bosch]

Europe shuts up shop: Hungary blocks main crossing point from Serbia used by migrants as Austria, Slovakia and Netherlands ALL follow Germany's lead to impose border controls:

• A record 5,809 migrants entered Hungary in a new surge on Sunday, smashing the previous day's record of 4,330
• Increase came ahead of laws coming into force tomorrow under which those entering Hungary illegally can be jailed
• Reports that Serbia will 'push through' as many as 30,000 migrants on Monday before tough new laws are rolled out
• Germany's Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel said today that the country may take in up to a million refugees this year

Hungary has blocked the main crossing point from Serbia used by migrants as Austria, Slovakia and the Netherlands all followed Germany's lead to impose border controls this afternoon.

Police were seen closing off a gap in the razor-wire barrier along the Hungary-Serbia border as other officers former a human shield to block off the railway tracks.

The move comes after it emerged that Hungary was bracing itself for a massive surge of up to 30,000 migrants in just one day as Serbia attempts a huge 'push through' before its neighbour introduces tough new border rules.

A record 5,809 migrants entered Hungary in a new surge on Sunday, smashing the previous day's record of 4,330, Hungarian police have revealed.

The sharp increase came ahead of laws coming into force tomorrow under which people entering the EU country illegally can be jailed.

[Isgrimnur]

They can't support them in camps, but the jails are supposed to handle the influx?

[Moliere]

The Arab Press Reacts to the European Refugee Crisis

"We are a nauseating nation," wrote the Saudi journalist 'Ali Sa'd Al-Moussa in Al-Watan on September 5, in reaction to images of Syrians and other refugees fleeing to Europe. The "nation" he was angrily condemning was not only Saudi Arabia, but the greater Arab world. It is a world, he lamented, "that kills people for their opinions or affiliation. Compare [this] to the parallel image: in the central train station in Munich, dozens of German citizens gather to welcome the first train arriving from Budapest carrying hundreds of immigrants...

"We should feel some sense of shame for being victims of an education [based on] curses, which has been adopted by all the circles, schools, speeches and platforms—from the pan-Arabists and the Nasserites to the Ba'thists and the Islamic extremists. After all these curses and inculcation of hatred, we discover that the [norms of] tolerance and acceptance [that characterize] European society have become a goal worth risking our lives for[.] Europe is now home to 11 million Arab immigrants... who have attained rights and have a prospect of receiving citizenship, equality and justice under the law—all the things whose absence drove them to flee their Arab countries of origin..."

"Stop talking about the hypocrisy of [Western] morals and values, because reality exposes nothing but our own ugly countenance."

[LawBeefaroni]

They can't support them in camps, but the jails are supposed to handle the influx?

I think the threat of being jailed is supposed to be a deterrent, not an alternative. I guess how well that works depends on how bad someone wants to get out of Syria.

[Isgrimnur]

Death from extremists or three squares and a cot. Where's my cell, boss?

[hepcat]

The Arab Press Reacts to the European Refugee Crisis

Fantastic piece of brutal honesty that will, unfortunately, result in the journalist's death or incarceration most likely.

[Drazzil]

The Arab Press Reacts to the European Refugee Crisis

Fantastic piece of brutal honesty that will, unfortunately, result in the journalist's death or incarceration most likely.

Every time I read something like that my opinion of the middle east as a whole raises a hair.