Let's not help refugees because some may be terorrists

[Loren Pechtel]

Let Saudi Arabia take them in. They have space. They have money. They already have an Islamic culture and they speak Arabic. Also, the climate is closer to what you have in Syria and it's much closer.

Instead, these migrants are hell-bent on colonizing and Islamicizing Europe.

Saudi, the UAE and Qatar have a closed border policy and do not normally accept refugees and migrants of any sort.

But why should Europe accept refugees that their neighbors don't want?

 

[DrZoidberg]

In the rules for who gets refugee status each country has two lines. One in the country itself and one tiny one in the vicinity of the crisis. Those are the rules. They're just following the rules.

It's important to understand that the rules forces refugees to travel across countries illegally. At least if they want some distance between them and the conflict. Which they all do.

The current rules don't force refugees to travel, they merely incentivize illegal immigration. Some of those illegal immigrants taking advantage of the loopholes may happen to be refugees, but most are not.

Word sallad. How about calling a spade a spade

 

[DrZoidberg]

edit: the USA has taken in a couple of thousand Syrian refugees out of an estimated 4 000 000 in need of resettlement. Those 4 000 000 aren't just going to sit there nicely and slowly die.

Let Saudi Arabia take them in. They have space. They have money. They already have an Islamic culture and they speak Arabic. Also, the climate is closer to what you have in Syria and it's much closer.

Instead, these migrants are hell-bent on colonizing and Islamicizing Europe.

But they're not. Yet another attempt to justify doing nothing. The fact that you can find someone who sucks more than you doesn't make you a great person

 

[Jayjay]

The current rules don't force refugees to travel, they merely incentivize illegal immigration. Some of those illegal immigrants taking advantage of the loopholes may happen to be refugees, but most are not.

Word sallad. How about calling a spade a spade

I admit illegal immigrant is not an accurate description. But I'm not sure if there is a term for a person who travels across countries illegally, in order to eventually seek asylum at his destination via legal means (and in case of rejection, may become an actual illegal immigrant). "Illegal passer-through"?

My use for the term refugee however was accurate. Only a very small number of the people who enter Europe via illegal means are actual refugees.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Saudi, the UAE and Qatar have a closed border policy and do not normally accept refugees and migrants of any sort.

But why should Europe accept refugees that their neighbors don't want?

Europe takes in refugees and does not exclude those refused by others.

Some Arab countries such as Jordan and Lebanon do take refugees; more than they can immediately handle. However many do not. I think they fear the potential disruption caused where Sunnis and Shia will start to occupy the same place. (One Arab jokingly put it to me that putting Muslims with Muslims can cause problems).

The influx started more so recently when Merkel started driving them in and where the last of any borders restrictions were lifted by Europe. Coupled with promises of amnesties and false ideas of getting a car (as given to those from Africa) and a job provided many pouring in are economic refugees. In fact given that the majority are now not in war zones they can be classified as such.

In Italy where I worked last year, many refused to give ID but decided to move to Germany, Sweden and the UK where economic conditions are better.

The majority are young men and if married leave the families behind. If things were really bad I would have through they can take the families though travel would be more difficult. However once the men secure residency or asylum their relatives will follow.

Israel has people coming in from Africa and in such cases these are generally economic migrants.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Word sallad. How about calling a spade a spade

I admit illegal immigrant is not an accurate description. But I'm not sure if there is a term for a person who travels across countries illegally, in order to eventually seek asylum at his destination via legal means (and in case of rejection, may become an actual illegal immigrant). "Illegal passer-through"?

My use for the term refugee however was accurate. Only a very small number of the people who enter Europe via illegal means are actual refugees.

Europe used to distinguish between economic migrants and refugees. So economic migrants without citizenship can stay in the host country especially where its own country refuses to take them back.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The current rules don't force refugees to travel, they merely incentivize illegal immigration. Some of those illegal immigrants taking advantage of the loopholes may happen to be refugees, but most are not.

Word sallad. How about calling a spade a spade

The UNHCR article here distinguishes between migrants and refugees.

http://www.unhcr.org/news/latest/2016/7/55df0e556/unhcr-viewpoint-refugee-migrant-right.html
Refugees are persons fleeing armed conflict or persecution. There were 21.3 million of them worldwide at the end of 2015. Their situation is often so perilous and intolerable that they cross national borders to seek safety in nearby countries, and thus become internationally recognized as "refugees" with access to assistance from States, UNHCR, and other organizations. They are so recognized precisely because it is too dangerous for them to return home, and they need sanctuary elsewhere. These are people for whom denial of asylum has potentially deadly consequences.

Migrants choose to move not because of a direct threat of persecution or death, but mainly to improve their lives by finding work, or in some cases for education, family reunion, or other reasons. Unlike refugees who cannot safely return home, migrants face no such impediment to return. If they choose to return home, they will continue to receive the protection of their government.

I can recall individual examples where Somalis who after asylum was approved, go back on holiday each year.

Here is one article

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/60...ountries-they-fled-from-Tory-MP-Adam-Holloway


However the article is scant and does not provide specifics of people who do go on holiday once they attain asylum.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Word sallad. How about calling a spade a spade

I admit illegal immigrant is not an accurate description. But I'm not sure if there is a term for a person who travels across countries illegally, in order to eventually seek asylum at his destination via legal means (and in case of rejection, may become an actual illegal immigrant). "Illegal passer-through"?

My use for the term refugee however was accurate. Only a very small number of the people who enter Europe via illegal means are actual refugees.

It's also often a matter of technicality. Afghan refugees are often labelled as not being refugees because Afghanistan is at peace. But Afghanistan is still highly unstable. If a full blown war would break out there again I doubt much would change for the population. People are leaving because they've lost hope (for good reason). And then a big thing is being made how these people are completely different from Syrian refugees (no, they're not) how these are economic migrants and not fleeing from war (yes they are).

The way I see it, if a person is willing to leave everything and flee, we probably shouldn't be too quick to judge. Perhaps ask some questions before accepting the labels blindly.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In Italy where I worked last year, many refused to give ID but decided to move to Germany, Sweden and the UK where economic conditions are better.

It doesn't only have to be only economic reasons. Italy has had so many refugees lately, and their economy is shaky, that it has led to a culture where illegal immigrants are being badly mistreated and basically robbed. When I was a volonteer in a homeless shelter last year I talk a lot to African's who had moved to Italy (legally) had residency there, but still chose to come and live in the streets of Sweden (in the winter). They had some pretty horrific stories of systematic anti-African racism. I know, they might have been lying to me, and I have no way of verifying any of it. But some of the stories I could verify. I think if a country is swamped with refugees a culture emerges of targeting them and taking advantage of them. Yet, another reason to spread them out.

 

[whichphilosophy]

In Italy where I worked last year, many refused to give ID but decided to move to Germany, Sweden and the UK where economic conditions are better.

It doesn't only have to be only economic reasons. Italy has had so many refugees lately, and their economy is shaky, that it has led to a culture where illegal immigrants are being badly mistreated and basically robbed. When I was a volonteer in a homeless shelter last year I talk a lot to African's who had moved to Italy (legally) had residency there, but still chose to come and live in the streets of Sweden (in the winter). They had some pretty horrific stories of systematic anti-African racism. I know, they might have been lying to me, and I have no way of verifying any of it. But some of the stories I could verify. I think if a country is swamped with refugees a culture emerges of targeting them and taking advantage of them. Yet, another reason to spread them out.

Italy is a poor country and the provisions for migrants are very low with a tiny monthly allowance. Sweden, the UK and Germany are considered better choices economically. I am sure anti-African racism exists but this is in every country.

I would do the same in their position.

- - - Updated - - -

 

[DrZoidberg]

It doesn't only have to be only economic reasons. Italy has had so many refugees lately, and their economy is shaky, that it has led to a culture where illegal immigrants are being badly mistreated and basically robbed. When I was a volonteer in a homeless shelter last year I talk a lot to African's who had moved to Italy (legally) had residency there, but still chose to come and live in the streets of Sweden (in the winter). They had some pretty horrific stories of systematic anti-African racism. I know, they might have been lying to me, and I have no way of verifying any of it. But some of the stories I could verify. I think if a country is swamped with refugees a culture emerges of targeting them and taking advantage of them. Yet, another reason to spread them out.

Italy is a poor country and the provisions for migrants are very low with a tiny monthly allowance. Sweden, the UK and Germany are considered better choices economically. I am sure anti-African racism exists but this is in every country.

I would do the same in their position.

So why are we criticising economic migrants and refugees for country shopping? Who wouldn't do that? If you had to leave your country, wouldn't you try to go somewhere where your life is the most likely to succeed? Why are we at all criticizing people for doing what normal people would do?

 

[Tigers!]

Last time I looked the country where you eventually end up is under no obligation to accept your claim of refugee status at face value. They are allowed to , and indeed should, have a from of vetting. If you pass through many countries, where you will be safe, on the way to your country of choice it is harder to maintain that you are a refugee. It begins to look like country shopping.

What's wrong with country shopping? You do it when you do your grocery shopping? Do you go to stores with the most expensive food or the better value food? if you can answer that then you'll have your answer. And expecting refugees to do it any other way is having double standards. It's expecting refugees to behave differently than all other humans for no reason other than that you think so.

If you have to raise an analogy between grocery shopping and country shopping then your argument is weaker than I thought.

When I go grocery shopping it is my time, my money, my choice as to what I buy, where I go etc. When you go country shopping you are expecting others to take you in at their expense. You can certainly attempt but do not be surprised if your putative hosts may not agree with you.

Also Dr. I am a firm believer in practice what you preach. How many refugees from the Middle East are you putting up in your house at the moment?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Italy is a poor country and the provisions for migrants are very low with a tiny monthly allowance. Sweden, the UK and Germany are considered better choices economically. I am sure anti-African racism exists but this is in every country.

I would do the same in their position.

So why are we criticising economic migrants and refugees for country shopping? Who wouldn't do that? If you had to leave your country, wouldn't you try to go somewhere where your life is the most likely to succeed? Why are we at all criticizing people for doing what normal people would do?

This is human nature but that does not mean that European countries remove their borders and as Mrs Merkel did, drive them in. Those who drive in migrants are the ones at fault.

In China migrants from the provinces to Beijing and Shanghai need a special visa or it would end up with 100 million or so pouring in from the country side looking for construction work restaurant and other jobs as they flood the cities. China has also vastly improved the lot of its poor people in the rural areas but they will still look for better opportunities.

 

[Jayjay]

Italy is a poor country and the provisions for migrants are very low with a tiny monthly allowance. Sweden, the UK and Germany are considered better choices economically. I am sure anti-African racism exists but this is in every country.

I would do the same in their position.

So why are we criticising economic migrants and refugees for country shopping? Who wouldn't do that? If you had to leave your country, wouldn't you try to go somewhere where your life is the most likely to succeed? Why are we at all criticizing people for doing what normal people would do?

I for one am not criticizing the people who do it, but governments who incentivize it. After all, these people (and the ecosystem of people smugglers) are just responding to incentives. If all countries in Europe would just ship these welfare shoppers to a real refugee camp either outside or inside EU rther than promising them free stuff, then their numbers would dwindle to a trickle.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What's wrong with country shopping? You do it when you do your grocery shopping? Do you go to stores with the most expensive food or the better value food? if you can answer that then you'll have your answer. And expecting refugees to do it any other way is having double standards. It's expecting refugees to behave differently than all other humans for no reason other than that you think so.

If you have to raise an analogy between grocery shopping and country shopping then your argument is weaker than I thought.

When I go grocery shopping it is my time, my money, my choice as to what I buy, where I go etc. When you go country shopping you are expecting others to take you in at their expense. You can certainly attempt but do not be surprised if your putative hosts may not agree with you.

Ehe... what? So it's all your personal work that keeps your country from being at war? Boy, you're one important and influential guy. All I hear from you are lame excuses to not help people.

Also Dr. I am a firm believer in practice what you preach. How many refugees from the Middle East are you putting up in your house at the moment?

As a member of a country with a democratic system I use my vote to influence my government to help refugees. I pay taxes. So I think I am practicing what I preach.

Your argument is as ridiculous as criticizing libertarians for being on the very same welfare they're paying for. As if people with more generous ideological ideals should blaze the way paying for it with their own money, before there's a civic agreement.

Would you also be cool with a person who is for free immigration to just themselves smuggle people across the border and themselves give the new immigrants valid passports in your country? You just said we should all practice what we preach. There's a community. We need to have respect for the fact that other people in our community have other ideas of how it should be run.

 

[Bomb#20]

So why are we criticising economic migrants and refugees for country shopping? Who wouldn't do that? If you had to leave your country, wouldn't you try to go somewhere where your life is the most likely to succeed? Why are we at all criticizing people for doing what normal people would do?

Pointing out that a person is a country shopping economic migrant does not mean you are criticizing him for being a country shopping economic migrant. It means you are pointing out that the reasons a country has for taking in a war refugee are not reasons that country has for taking in a country shopping economic migrant.

There appear to be an awful lot of folks who are under the impression that "Is he a bad person?" and "Should my country allow him to immigrate?" are the same question. They are not the same question. Treating them as the same question is fallacious reasoning. Just because a person isn't doing anything wrong in trying to get into Sweden does not imply Sweden is doing anything wrong in trying to keep him out of Sweden. Sweden's government's job is to do what's good for Swedes. If its ruling parties forget that, and choose to sacrifice the good of Swedes for the sake of the good of foreigners, then if the Swedes know what's good for them they'll vote those parties out of power.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So why are we criticising economic migrants and refugees for country shopping? Who wouldn't do that? If you had to leave your country, wouldn't you try to go somewhere where your life is the most likely to succeed? Why are we at all criticizing people for doing what normal people would do?

Pointing out that a person is a country shopping economic migrant does not mean you are criticizing him for being a country shopping economic migrant. It means you are pointing out that the reasons a country has for taking in a war refugee are not reasons that country has for taking in a country shopping economic migrant.

There appear to be an awful lot of folks who are under the impression that "Is he a bad person?" and "Should my country allow him to immigrate?" are the same question. They are not the same question. Treating them as the same question is fallacious reasoning. Just because a person isn't doing anything wrong in trying to get into Sweden does not imply Sweden is doing anything wrong in trying to keep him out of Sweden. Sweden's government's job is to do what's good for Swedes. If its ruling parties forget that, and choose to sacrifice the good of Swedes for the sake of the good of foreigners, then if the Swedes know what's good for them they'll vote those parties out of power.

I'd argue that what is good for the peace of the planet, is good for Sweden, in the long run. Peace and stability tends to be the winning ticket. Everybody loses in war, even the people who aren't participating.

So this purely selfish attitude might be rational on one level, it's also irrational on another. It's the tragedy of the commons. We're all better off if the refugee is handled by the world somehow. I think we all agree on that. And it's important for everybody to show that they're doing something. But also, everybody is hoping that someone else will do all the heave lifting. As a result the measures put in place to mitigate the refugee crisis, as a whole, isn't good enough. And instead we get a bunch of lame excuses. I think those lame excuses are actually getting in the way, preventing us from actually helping.

 

[Bomb#20]

Remember that the refugees are people. They're losing years of their lives. We don't want them to just sit around doing nothing.

Your choices for the vast majority are sitting around doing nothing, dying for lack of anyone helping them, and becoming criminals. If you save one from losing years of his life and cause twenty-nine to die or become criminals, way to go.

It's better for everybody if we integrate these in functioning economies.

Then do something to end the war in Syria so they can go create a functioning economy there.

Then it makes sense to spread them out. Even if it is higher costs, we will get that money back (if these people are put to work).

It's not better for everyone if you integrate them into Sweden's functioning economy. You really need to lose the self-deception on that point. It's worse for the low-skilled Swedes they'll compete with for unskilled jobs. Remember that the low-skilled Swedes are people. They'll lose years of their lives. And they won't just sit around doing nothing. They'll vote. They'll vote for the SD. So your ruling parties, not wanting Swedes to vote for the SD, will not put the newcomers to work.

And at that point I'm thinking more like a doctor than a politician.

Then you need to stop thinking like a doctor and start thinking like a triage nurse. While you're spending an hour doing your best for the patient lucky enough to get that hour, there are thirty patients who could be saved with two minutes of your work dying because the patient you saw was better off with an hour of your time than two minutes.

That's uncool on so many levels.

Creating ghettos of angry unemployed people is more uncool.

That's just out of sight out of mind. How will these angry unemployed people be easier to manage when in refugee camps in the Middle-East? I'd say a better solution is to NOT concentrate them. Better spread them out.

Did you miss the most important take-away from Penn's video? Sweden is a nation of atheists. Those unemployed people you're bringing in spent their formative years being taught to hate atheists. It's human nature that those unemployed people will on average be a lot angrier when the richer folks all around them giving them alms are the hated atheists than if they're their fellow Muslims.

Also, remember that the west economic dominance is mostly just down to dumb luck. Random events in history coalesced. If we can get lucky. We can also get unlucky.

All the more reason to dig your nails into the lucky break you got, hang onto it with all your might since it may well be the last lucky break you're going to see in your lifetime, and not fritter it away on a luxury you can't afford -- the luxury of patting yourself on the back about how "humanitarian superpower" it is to let twenty-nine refugees in Turkey go hungry while you give a Swedish standard of living to one.

 

[Malintent]

What is China doing in the way of aide to people that do not wish to stay in their country of birth?
What is Japan doing?
What is Russia doing?
What is England doing?
What is Indonesia doing?
What the FUCK are we doing and why the FUCK are we the ones doing it???

 

[Elixir]

What is China doing in the way of aide to people that do not wish to stay in their country of birth?
What is Japan doing?
What is Russia doing?
What is England doing?
What is Indonesia doing?

Who the fuck cares?

What the FUCK are we doing

We're taking in (some - only 10k from Syria as of August) refugees.

and why the FUCK are we the ones doing it???

Because, America.
Note that coconuts have killed more Americans than have those refugees ... WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE DOING ABOUT COCONUTS, AND WHY ARE WE DOING IT???