Europe submits voluntarily

[JonA]

Keeping these people in Syria isn't an option.

Why not?

 

[bilby]

Controlling the borders also has the potential to stop perhaps thousands of drownings at sea by people risking their lives using people smugglers to try to get to Europe, or elsewhete. During the Labor years when Labor under Rudd re-opened the borders, 50.000 economic migrants landed in Australia, and over 1000 of them perished at sea. Since Labor realised they made a major blunder and again closed the porous borders, not one death at sea, and the detention centers are almost empty from the thousands that were there previously.

The Australians are actually processing Asylum seekers if they come through border check points and not try to creep in through sea. This has worked.

Buy a map.

There are two ways to get into Australia. Air, or sea. That's it.

Flying is expensive. Very expensive. By definition, asylum seekers arriving by air are far wealthier than those who cannot afford to arrive by air. So they are less in need of assistance.

What kind of twisted morality says we should divide those asking for help into those who really need help, and those who could afford to help themselves; and then we should help the LATTER group?

That's fucking insane. Like an ambulance turning up at the scene of a major road crash with dozens of injured people, and refusing to help anyone who can't get into the ambulance on their own.

That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.

The Australians have managed to stem the tide of economic migrants.

No, just the brown skinned ones. The (larger) wave of white-skinned economic migrants, from Europe and North America, who arrive by plane on tourist visas and then work illegally and overstay their visa - those economic migrants are still here.

The message is clear. Come through proper checkpoints and only then will their claims be entertained. Australia still has a number of racist policies in effect, despite the improvements we have made since the days of the White Australia policy. Whites only, please.

FTFY

This is also an issue of security. If migrants can simply walk in, how many militants could sneak in?

OK, I think you need to try walking to Australia. Go on. I will happily sponsor you for a visa, so you can come in completely lawfully; But I insist that you cross the border on foot; No boat or aircraft is to be used.

let me know how you get on.

 

[fromderinside]

So there are these desperate people in Indonesia who want to escape to Australia. Oh shit. Its only about 130 miles. (200 kilometers from Cape York in Queensland to Papua on New Guinea).

So what are your rationales again?

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's just one ridiculously ignorant statement after another from you.

Nobody 'walks' into Australia across the Timor Sea; the boats are detected up by the Navy, usually before they even reach Australian territorial waters. The idea that militants could sneak through the Naval patrols, land in the far north, and then make their way across the wilderness to Australia's major population centres is just laughable.

- - - Updated - - -

Controlling the borders also has the potential to stop perhaps thousands of drownings at sea by people risking their lives using people smugglers to try to get to Europe, or elsewhete. During the Labor years when Labor under Rudd re-opened the borders, 50.000 economic migrants landed in Australia, and over 1000 of them perished at sea. Since Labor realised they made a major blunder and again closed the porous borders, not one death at sea, and the detention centers are almost empty from the thousands that were there previously.

Calling them economic migrants--something you can;t possibly know--is a scumbag tactic.

The authorities are charged with the responsibility to distinguish between economic migrants and genuine refugees. This is a difficult but necessary task which I am sure can never be entirely free from error.
There is always a chance no matter how remote that militants could seize an opportunity to enter Australia. In security and military warfare, one has to foresee the unforeseeable.
Anyway what happened to Cambodia. Last year it seemed a bit of a flop.
Per the cartoons you enclosed last time, politicians calli t foreign aid not bribes.

Is this true or i sit a joke?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-34483160
Australia asylum: Philippines in talks to take refugees
While nothing even in the s***holes of Caloocan city near just outside the Capital can be as bad as New Delhi, there is very little for migrants to look forward to other than low wages if they get a job. However, there is a Muslim community in the city so Halal products are available.

There are a few Arab traders in the Philippines and they tend to do very well in business and get on with the local population. I have yet to see any reported hostility against any foreigners over there.
Also most Filipinos with ambition seek a life working abroad as pay and conditions are much better. Due to asinine policies of Mrs Aquino, many employers can now only employ someone for six months on a fixed contract then hire someone else. This prevents the employer having to pay pensions or social security.

Of course the payments would not be bribes, they would be overseas aid which may include business expenses. Any more cartoons on that issue.

It seems only about 4 refugees were actually settled in Cambodia. I don’t have any figures beyond October 2015.(So may million dollars each. Did the Cambodian policitians simply take the money and run).

- - - Updated - - -

Keeping these people in Syria isn't an option.

Why not?

Let the US and its poodles in Europe take them in as reparations for the bloodbath it created in trying to determine which regimes control which vassal state.

 

[bilby]

It's just one ridiculously ignorant statement after another from you.

Nobody 'walks' into Australia across the Timor Sea; the boats are detected up by the Navy, usually before they even reach Australian territorial waters. The idea that militants could sneak through the Naval patrols, land in the far north, and then make their way across the wilderness to Australia's major population centres is just laughable.

- - - Updated - - -



Calling them economic migrants--something you can;t possibly know--is a scumbag tactic.

The authorities are charged with the responsibility to distinguish between economic migrants and genuine refugees. This is a difficult but necessary task which I am sure can never be entirely free from error.
There is always a chance no matter how remote that militants could seize an opportunity to enter Australia. In security and military warfare, one has to foresee the unforeseeable.
...

HOW? Never mind 'unforeseeable'; Militants entering Australia on foot is FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE.

Entering by boat is also impossible; Boat arrivals don't land in Australia, they are picked up by the navy once they enter our territorial waters, usually off Ashmore Reef - 320km from the mainland. If they did manage to evade the navy, and land on the north coast, then they would need to walk thousands of kilometers through crocodile infested swamp, with little food or potable water available, to reach a population centre - where they would promptly be arrested (and probably hospitalised).

The only way to arrive by boat without running that gauntlet would be to land at a proper sea-port - and be processed by customs and immigration; Or to come by plane, and be processed by customs and immigration.

The idea that we need to worry about militants arriving illegally is FUCKING INSANE.

If militants want to come to Australia, they will fly in on commercial jets. Or they will 'sneak in' by being born here.

And if they get here, what are they going to do? It would take an army to subdue our country; a few yahoos might kill a handful of people before being killed themselves - why should a country as large as ours be scared by such a threat? We are more at risk from snakes, crocodiles, jellyfish, lightning, toasters... Fuck, it's hard to think of anything that is LESS of a threat in Australia than 'Militants'. Why would a sane person be scared by this?

The idea that boat people should be regarded as a security threat to our country is the most despicable of propaganda; It is an outright lie, and the possibility - even accounting for the woo-woo claim that "In security and military warfare, one has to foresee the unforeseeable." - of this being a security threat of any kind is NIL.

The ONLY reason why anyone would suggest otherwise is to advance their agenda by stoking the paranoid fears of the stupider members of our population. Spreading such vile propaganda is disgusting, and you need to stop doing it.

 

[angelo]

It's just one ridiculously ignorant statement after another from you.

Nobody 'walks' into Australia across the Timor Sea; the boats are detected up by the Navy, usually before they even reach Australian territorial waters. The idea that militants could sneak through the Naval patrols, land in the far north, and then make their way across the wilderness to Australia's major population centres is just laughable.

- - - Updated - - -

Controlling the borders also has the potential to stop perhaps thousands of drownings at sea by people risking their lives using people smugglers to try to get to Europe, or elsewhete. During the Labor years when Labor under Rudd re-opened the borders, 50.000 economic migrants landed in Australia, and over 1000 of them perished at sea. Since Labor realised they made a major blunder and again closed the porous borders, not one death at sea, and the detention centers are almost empty from the thousands that were there previously.

Calling them economic migrants--something you can;t possibly know--is a scumbag tactic.

Is that so. Only the very naive would think otherwise. These people can pay the people smugglers thousands of dollars insome cases. They throw away their papers, and they are mostly males between 18-35 years old, and fit and healthy. Why don't they stay home and help fight the rebels!

 

[DrZoidberg]

Keeping these people in Syria isn't an option.

Why not?

You must be the last person on the planet to learn there's a war in Syria.

 

[angelo]

Because there's a war in Syria the West has to accept all comers from there? Most escapees are men between 18-35. Why don't they stay and fight?

 

[bigfield]

Because there's a war in Syria the West has to accept all comers from there? Most escapees are men between 18-35. Why don't they stay and fight?

Another chickenhawk...

 

[whichphilosophy]

The Australians are actually processing Asylum seekers if they come through border check points and not try to creep in through sea. This has worked.

Buy a map.

There are two ways to get into Australia. Air, or sea. That's it.

Flying is expensive. Very expensive. By definition, asylum seekers arriving by air are far wealthier than those who cannot afford to arrive by air. So they are less in need of assistance.

What kind of twisted morality says we should divide those asking for help into those who really need help, and those who could afford to help themselves; and then we should help the LATTER group?

That's fucking insane. Like an ambulance turning up at the scene of a major road crash with dozens of injured people, and refusing to help anyone who can't get into the ambulance on their own.

That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.

The Australians have managed to stem the tide of economic migrants.

No, just the brown skinned ones. The (larger) wave of white-skinned economic migrants, from Europe and North America, who arrive by plane on tourist visas and then work illegally and overstay their visa - those economic migrants are still here.

The message is clear. Come through proper checkpoints and only then will their claims be entertained. Australia still has a number of racist policies in effect, despite the improvements we have made since the days of the White Australia policy. Whites only, please.

FTFY

This is also an issue of security. If migrants can simply walk in, how many militants could sneak in?

OK, I think you need to try walking to Australia. Go on. I will happily sponsor you for a visa, so you can come in completely lawfully; But I insist that you cross the border on foot; No boat or aircraft is to be used.

let me know how you get on.

Actually illegals are paying a lot more to get to Australia than the cost of an air ticket. Some migrants have money with them. The problem with people in Australia legally but overstay or perhaps as tourists take up employment or run a business is also a problem. Not all the Europeans coming in by air are necessarily WHITE skinned as some are 2nd 3rd or even 4th generation immigrants.

The problem is not legal immigrants but illegal (economic) immigrants. We can include your point regarding overstayers who come legally then stay illegally. The Economic migrants can't do that because they would get a visa, hence would not be allowed to board the plane.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Because there's a war in Syria the West has to accept all comers from there?

Actually, yes. Because those are by definition refugees. Any nation that have signed the UN charter on refugees has to. That includes Sweden and Australia.

Most escapees are men between 18-35. Why don't they stay and fight?

Maybe they just don't support any of the sides. Maybe the side they support don't actually stand a chance. Maybe the side that they have been fighting for has lost and now it's time to skedaddle. Maybe they just don't want to. Maybe they're traumatised in some way and have to get out for their own sanities sake. Maybe they don't have any skills remotely valuable for war and they have no wish to get killed. Maybe they're just not the type of people willing to die for causes. Maybe their home village/city is destroyed and they have nothing to stay for. Maybe all their brothers have been killed and they've promised their mother, who wishes to have a surviving son to get out while he can.

There was an interview with a guy living in Raqqa. Although he did not support ISIS he had a family and a business there and it was complicated to leave. So he stayed. He worked in advertising and ran one of the more successful businesses in Raqqa. One day ISIS showed up and ordered him to start making propaganda for ISIS. He had zero wishes to do this. ISIS weren't giving him a choice. He knew that people who refused to work for ISIS would get killed and their wives and daughters turned over to fighters. So that night he took his whole family and went over the border into Turkey. And now they're living in USA. That's just one example of a refugee with excellent motivations. Motivations I can sympathise with. According to NPR his story is pretty standard.

There's a lot of reasonable reasons why a person wishes to leave a war-zone. Also, it's a well known psychological fact that it's impossible imagining being in a war-zone unless you actually have been in one yourself and nobody knows how they will actually react to bullets flying by their heads until it's actually happened. So don't judge.

 

[bilby]

Because there's a war in Syria the West has to accept all comers from there? Most escapees are men between 18-35. Why don't they stay and fight?

From Facebook:

So a lot of British people seem to be wondering why refugees don't stay in their own countries and take up arms to defend themselves ("...like the British did during the Second World War!"). Don't get me wrong, I find it quite endearing that your Average Joe thinks he and his mates from Tuesday night five-a-side could put together a viable army, but maybe joining a thirteen-year-old civil war is a bit more complicated than an Inbetweeners movie. Let me explain.

Have you ever been in a pub when a group of drunk guys starts going berserk, drinking everyone's drinks and punching people in the face? The rest of the patrons come together, over-power and restrain the troublemakers; the police are called and they are taken away to face the music. That's World War II: everyone in the pub is on the same side and there is a clear set of bad guys ruining the 1940s for everyone else (incidentally, there's also a guy who offers to hold everyone's coats and money when the fight breaks out, and when it stops he won't give them back - that guy is Switzerland).

Now, consider Syria. You're sitting in the pub with your family having Sunday lunch when suddenly you hear someone at the bar say they've been short changed. In response, the bar staff open fire with automatic weapons and kill sixteen people. You're horrified - in all the years you've been coming to this pub, knowing they've been short changing people, you never imagined they'd do something like this. You manage to barricade yourself behind an upturned table in the corner, and just when you think things can't get any worse, a bunch of thugs from the rough pub next door hear there's some trouble and decide to use the opportunity to take over the pub and make it as lawless as the one they've come from (where people have been brawling non-stop for the best part of a decade). There are bullets flying past your little shelter and blood and bodies litter the floor.

Whose side do you join? The bar staff who started the whole thing by killing the people they were supposed to serve, or the thugs from next door who want to hold you all hostage and make you join a death cult? LESSON NUMBER ONE: NOT EVERY WAR HAS A SIDE WORTH JOINING.

So you start your own army, right? This is an excellent idea - well done for taking the initiative! But exactly how do you start an army anyway? First, you find some like-minded people. So you turn to the guy next to you who's barricaded himself and his family under a table and ask if he has any weapons.
"I've got my car keys and a bottle opener from a Christmas cracker," he says. "The thing is, I was only planning a pub lunch with my family, I didn't realise we'd get caught up in a gun fight, otherwise I suppose I would have been training and stockpiling guns for years."
LESSON NUMBER TWO: STARTING AN ARMY IS REALLY, REALLY HARD.

This is tricky. Very tricky. You decide to try and phone the other pubs in the area to ask for help, but they don't know who you are, and ever since they helped a bunch of patrons in the 80s who ended up flying planes into pubs, they're pretty reluctant to help random groups they've never heard of.

So you just sit it out and wait for everything to blow over, right? After all, you've heard of other pub fights where the bar staff were beaten in minutes (The Sphinx & Pharaoh, the Crazy Colonel), but it gradually becomes clear that this one won't burn out so quickly. You could crawl out and grab a gun, but that leaves your family completely exposed with nobody to defend them. With every minute that passes, the situation gets more terrifying. Maybe you could chisel a pretty cool spear out of a table leg if you had a few weeks, but right now your children are screaming with terror, begging you to stop the banging and the sounds of people screaming, but you can't. There's nothing you can do.

Suddenly, across a sea of broken glass and empty shell cases, you see the door to the street swing open. There isn't even time to think: you grab your children, the most precious things you have in the world, and you run for the exit.

You stumble into the street, where a crowd has gathered to gawp at the carnage through the windows. As you get to the exit they try to push you and your children back into the pub.
"Go back where you came from!" they say. "You're one of those thugs from the rough pub and you want to bring your violence out here into the street! Shame on you for dragging your children through all that broken glass!"

You manage to get through the crowd to the Queen Elizabeth pub down the road, which you've heard is a really safe, family-friendly pub where the staff treat their patrons with respect. But when you get to the Queen Elizabeth, you're told by a security guard that there's nowhere to sit because there are too many people already, even though it's clear that the only reason there's nowhere to sit is that the people who own the pub haven't provided enough chairs. There are also loads of coats that have been put on chairs by older people who want to supplement their wine consumption by making youngsters buy them a drink in exchange for somewhere to sit.
Finally, with the help of some sympathetic staff, you find a chair in the corner by the toilets, and you put the kids on the chair while you lean against the wall, exhausted. People start accusing you of ruining the pub for everyone else, even though they were short of chairs long before you arrived. That's when some guy with a big sweaty face who's never been in a pub shooting, never feared for his children's lives, never even seen a gun or a hand grenade, comes up to you and asks why you're not in the other pub sorting out the massacre you've just fled from.
And that's when you finally break down and cry.

IN TODAY'S EPISODE WE LEARNT...
In Britain, we tend to think of every war as a two-sided battle between good and evil, with an established system on the side of good which is able to organise and direct an army. As a nation, we have no easy frame of reference for wars with many factions, or wars where the government is fighting the people, or civil wars where the enemy is present not just in the air, but on the ground too. Contrary to popular belief, Britain DID produce a flood of refugees during World War II: 3.5 million British refugees fled their homes, but because the war was an international war, with no successful invasion, no enemy boots on the ground and aerial bombardment focused on cities, the vast majority of those refugees went to the British countryside. Had the Germans invaded and started killing Britons on the ground, it's likely we would have seen an even greater exodus to countries like Australia and Canada than the one we did see: not because fleeing from genocide is cowardly, but because self preservation is deeply ingrained in human nature. Risking your life by crossing a treacherous sea to escape a war that is not of your doing is infinitely more heroic than selling out your principles to fight for a mad dictator or a death cult; and unless you've ever fled a tangled civil war yourself, it might be wise to put a little less effort into judgement and a little more into understanding.

 

[whichphilosophy]

From Facebook:

So a lot of British people seem to be wondering why refugees don't stay in their own countries and take up arms to defend themselves ("...like the British did during the Second World War!"). Don't get me wrong, I find it quite endearing that your Average Joe thinks he and his mates from Tuesday night five-a-side could put together a viable army, but maybe joining a thirteen-year-old civil war is a bit more complicated than an Inbetweeners movie. Let me explain.

Have you ever been in a pub when a group of drunk guys starts going berserk, drinking everyone's drinks and punching people in the face? The rest of the patrons come together, over-power and restrain the troublemakers; the police are called and they are taken away to face the music. That's World War II: everyone in the pub is on the same side and there is a clear set of bad guys ruining the 1940s for everyone else (incidentally, there's also a guy who offers to hold everyone's coats and money when the fight breaks out, and when it stops he won't give them back - that guy is Switzerland).

Now, consider Syria. You're sitting in the pub with your family having Sunday lunch when suddenly you hear someone at the bar say they've been short changed. In response, the bar staff open fire with automatic weapons and kill sixteen people. You're horrified - in all the years you've been coming to this pub, knowing they've been short changing people, you never imagined they'd do something like this. You manage to barricade yourself behind an upturned table in the corner, and just when you think things can't get any worse, a bunch of thugs from the rough pub next door hear there's some trouble and decide to use the opportunity to take over the pub and make it as lawless as the one they've come from (where people have been brawling non-stop for the best part of a decade). There are bullets flying past your little shelter and blood and bodies litter the floor.

Whose side do you join? The bar staff who started the whole thing by killing the people they were supposed to serve, or the thugs from next door who want to hold you all hostage and make you join a death cult? LESSON NUMBER ONE: NOT EVERY WAR HAS A SIDE WORTH JOINING.

So you start your own army, right? This is an excellent idea - well done for taking the initiative! But exactly how do you start an army anyway? First, you find some like-minded people. So you turn to the guy next to you who's barricaded himself and his family under a table and ask if he has any weapons.
"I've got my car keys and a bottle opener from a Christmas cracker," he says. "The thing is, I was only planning a pub lunch with my family, I didn't realise we'd get caught up in a gun fight, otherwise I suppose I would have been training and stockpiling guns for years."
LESSON NUMBER TWO: STARTING AN ARMY IS REALLY, REALLY HARD.

This is tricky. Very tricky. You decide to try and phone the other pubs in the area to ask for help, but they don't know who you are, and ever since they helped a bunch of patrons in the 80s who ended up flying planes into pubs, they're pretty reluctant to help random groups they've never heard of.

So you just sit it out and wait for everything to blow over, right? After all, you've heard of other pub fights where the bar staff were beaten in minutes (The Sphinx & Pharaoh, the Crazy Colonel), but it gradually becomes clear that this one won't burn out so quickly. You could crawl out and grab a gun, but that leaves your family completely exposed with nobody to defend them. With every minute that passes, the situation gets more terrifying. Maybe you could chisel a pretty cool spear out of a table leg if you had a few weeks, but right now your children are screaming with terror, begging you to stop the banging and the sounds of people screaming, but you can't. There's nothing you can do.

Suddenly, across a sea of broken glass and empty shell cases, you see the door to the street swing open. There isn't even time to think: you grab your children, the most precious things you have in the world, and you run for the exit.

You stumble into the street, where a crowd has gathered to gawp at the carnage through the windows. As you get to the exit they try to push you and your children back into the pub.
"Go back where you came from!" they say. "You're one of those thugs from the rough pub and you want to bring your violence out here into the street! Shame on you for dragging your children through all that broken glass!"

You manage to get through the crowd to the Queen Elizabeth pub down the road, which you've heard is a really safe, family-friendly pub where the staff treat their patrons with respect. But when you get to the Queen Elizabeth, you're told by a security guard that there's nowhere to sit because there are too many people already, even though it's clear that the only reason there's nowhere to sit is that the people who own the pub haven't provided enough chairs. There are also loads of coats that have been put on chairs by older people who want to supplement their wine consumption by making youngsters buy them a drink in exchange for somewhere to sit.
Finally, with the help of some sympathetic staff, you find a chair in the corner by the toilets, and you put the kids on the chair while you lean against the wall, exhausted. People start accusing you of ruining the pub for everyone else, even though they were short of chairs long before you arrived. That's when some guy with a big sweaty face who's never been in a pub shooting, never feared for his children's lives, never even seen a gun or a hand grenade, comes up to you and asks why you're not in the other pub sorting out the massacre you've just fled from.
And that's when you finally break down and cry.

IN TODAY'S EPISODE WE LEARNT...
In Britain, we tend to think of every war as a two-sided battle between good and evil, with an established system on the side of good which is able to organise and direct an army. As a nation, we have no easy frame of reference for wars with many factions, or wars where the government is fighting the people, or civil wars where the enemy is present not just in the air, but on the ground too. Contrary to popular belief, Britain DID produce a flood of refugees during World War II: 3.5 million British refugees fled their homes, but because the war was an international war, with no successful invasion, no enemy boots on the ground and aerial bombardment focused on cities, the vast majority of those refugees went to the British countryside. Had the Germans invaded and started killing Britons on the ground, it's likely we would have seen an even greater exodus to countries like Australia and Canada than the one we did see: not because fleeing from genocide is cowardly, but because self preservation is deeply ingrained in human nature. Risking your life by crossing a treacherous sea to escape a war that is not of your doing is infinitely more heroic than selling out your principles to fight for a mad dictator or a death cult; and unless you've ever fled a tangled civil war yourself, it might be wise to put a little less effort into judgement and a little more into understanding.

Few are disputing the acceptance of genuine refugees. At the same time not all the relatives left behind believe that just men between 18 to 45 should have left Syria so not all are exactly grabbing their families and running. So as in the analagy not everyone grabbed their family and ran (out of the pub).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8n-eo5fDYU
This aside the statistics of men from 18 to 45 from economic migrants may be higher than for Syrians.
It does not detract from the fact that we distinguish genuine refugees from economic migrants.

 

[bilby]

From Facebook:

Few are disputing the acceptance of genuine refugees. At the same time not all the relatives left behind believe that just men between 18 to 45 should have left Syria so not all are exactly grabbing their families and running. So as in the analagy not everyone grabbed their family and ran (out of the pub).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8n-eo5fDYU
This aside the statistics of men from 18 to 45 from economic migrants may be higher than for Syrians.
It does not detract from the fact that we distinguish genuine refugees from economic migrants.

YOU do. WE do not.

I don't think it's somehow more important to prevent a child from dying due to a stray bullet than it is to save the same child from dying of hunger.

I also don't know how you can live with yourself having made that distinction; Much less how you can laud yourself for having done so.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Few are disputing the acceptance of genuine refugees. At the same time not all the relatives left behind believe that just men between 18 to 45 should have left Syria so not all are exactly grabbing their families and running. So as in the analagy not everyone grabbed their family and ran (out of the pub).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8n-eo5fDYU
This aside the statistics of men from 18 to 45 from economic migrants may be higher than for Syrians.
It does not detract from the fact that we distinguish genuine refugees from economic migrants.

YOU do. WE do not.

I don't think it's somehow more important to prevent a child from dying due to a stray bullet than it is to save the same child from dying of hunger.

I also don't know how you can live with yourself having made that distinction; Much less how you can laud yourself for having done so.

Those who are not asylum seekers can afford the extortionist rates for rickety boats to dump them in Europe. Since by implication those who are starving cannot afford to eat properly, it follows they could not afford the snake head fees for the boats.

So those with money and frequently seen with cellphones wil sometimes need to pay for trucks and food enroute. Those who are starving cannot.

 

[DrZoidberg]

A couple of years ago (before the Syrian war had started) a Swedish comedian who was big (the biggest) in the 90'ies had a retrospective of his life and said how ashamed he was of him doing nothing for the Bosnian refugees. He had the public eye and could have done a lot to swing public opinion. He explained how he made up bullshit excuses not to help the Bosnians. It was the zeitgeist. And history did show that the rest of the world did too little too late. That whole entire mess could have been avoided entirely.

I just realized how his description of his behaviour during that crisis is directly analogous to how the people against taking in refugees are reasoning. It's all just pathetically transparent excuses. People not wanting to sacrifice even the merest amount of comfort in order to help save people from dying. It's pretty pathetic.

(If you are against taking in refugees) just keep making your excuses and I hope you can live with yourself later. I wouldn't be able to.

 

[whichphilosophy]

A couple of years ago (before the Syrian war had started) a Swedish comedian who was big (the biggest) in the 90'ies had a retrospective of his life and said how ashamed he was of him doing nothing for the Bosnian refugees. He had the public eye and could have done a lot to swing public opinion. He explained how he made up bullshit excuses not to help the Bosnians. It was the zeitgeist. And history did show that the rest of the world did too little too late. That whole entire mess could have been avoided entirely.

I just realized how his description of his behaviour during that crisis is directly analogous to how the people against taking in refugees are reasoning. It's all just pathetically transparent excuses. People not wanting to sacrifice even the merest amount of comfort in order to help save people from dying. It's pretty pathetic.

(If you are against taking in refugees) just keep making your excuses and I hope you can live with yourself later. I wouldn't be able to.

If you are distinguishing between refugees and economic migrants there is no problem with most people taking in actual refugees.

 

[DrZoidberg]

A couple of years ago (before the Syrian war had started) a Swedish comedian who was big (the biggest) in the 90'ies had a retrospective of his life and said how ashamed he was of him doing nothing for the Bosnian refugees. He had the public eye and could have done a lot to swing public opinion. He explained how he made up bullshit excuses not to help the Bosnians. It was the zeitgeist. And history did show that the rest of the world did too little too late. That whole entire mess could have been avoided entirely.

I just realized how his description of his behaviour during that crisis is directly analogous to how the people against taking in refugees are reasoning. It's all just pathetically transparent excuses. People not wanting to sacrifice even the merest amount of comfort in order to help save people from dying. It's pretty pathetic.

(If you are against taking in refugees) just keep making your excuses and I hope you can live with yourself later. I wouldn't be able to.

If you are distinguishing between refugees and economic migrants there is no problem with most people taking in actual refugees.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Using the economic migrants as an excuse not to help the refugees. I think it's just a cowards excuse.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If you are distinguishing between refugees and economic migrants there is no problem with most people taking in actual refugees.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Using the economic migrants as an excuse not to help the refugees. I think it's just a cowards excuse.

The point is to help genuine refugees and filter off the economic migrants.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Using the economic migrants as an excuse not to help the refugees. I think it's just a cowards excuse.

The point is to help genuine refugees and filter off the economic migrants.

And how do you propose we do that? We've already established that demanding papers is just another way to try to stop genuine refugees. Is there any other way then letting them all in and then sorting out who is who after they've entered?

We're doing fuck all to help refugees travel to countries in Europe. The extent of our helpfulness is to allow them refugee status if and when they manage to somehow get across multiple closed borders illegally. That's not helping. We should be taking ships down to Turkey and Lebanon and help move refugees and distribute them around Europe and beyond. Then we'd have initiative and separating migrants from refugees would be easy. But we're not. We're just sitting on our asses twiddling our thumbs, letting them come to us and feel all generous about it. Whoop-de-fucking-do. I hope you feel proud?