Why are "refugees" still having children?

[angelo]

Correct.

"near the Turkish border" - not across the border in Turkey, i.e. still inside Syria

"internally displaced" - i.e. displaced within Syria.

"near the town of Sarmada" - a town in Syria

This story does not prove that staying in Turkey is dangerous, much less that Germany is the only place safe enough.

Strawman.

The story does show that being near the borders in either Turkey or Syria is a very dangerous place, i.e. in or near Syria.

Collectively, with other observations made in the thread, both Germany and Sweden remain among the best places for refugees to go.

Meanwhile, NOT leaving Syria, even remaining in a camp is dangerous.

It does not actually matter where they finally end up or why they ultimately go there; they are defined as "refugees," not for their intended choice of refuge, but for the conditions that caused them to leave their homes in the first place.

Consequently, those people could just as easily hop on a plane to Disneyland and pitch near Splash Mountain; they're still refugees, because they were driven out of their homes by war and chaos. Their choice of refuge may be questionable and inconvenient, but that alone does not change their status from "refugee" to "tourist" or "economic migrant."

Old urban joke: It's only "camping" when you've got a home to go back to.

No one is denying there are genuine refugees seeking refuge. But wouldn't a genuine refugee seek refuge at the nearest port of call? Most of these so-called refugees seem to be country shopping. They're heading to nations with the best social security, like Germany and Sweden and others to then become a huge burden on such nations. Is it any wonder then that the natives become restless and seek out anti immigration politicos?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Most of these so-called refugees seem to be country shopping.

If I was a refugee from really terrible conditions I'd try to get to a much better place than a slightly better place all other things being equal. I mean, I certainly wouldn't want to go to a refugee camp in Iraq or near the border with Turkey ... There are people arguing that putting a third-party involuntarily at "substantial risk" to a "permanently unhappy life" is immoral. So if the refugee camp meets these criteria (which it actually might not), then surely so would Syria but especially so would camps nearby to Syria such as the locations mentioned above.

 

[Derec]

No one is denying there are genuine refugees seeking refuge. But wouldn't a genuine refugee seek refuge at the nearest port of call? Most of these so-called refugees seem to be country shopping. They're heading to nations with the best social security, like Germany and Sweden and others to then become a huge burden on such nations. Is it any wonder then that the natives become restless and seek out anti immigration politicos?

Exactly, "country shopping" is a good term for it.
Austrian right-wing FPÖ won the first round of their presidential elections, and the two mainstream parties (SPÖ and ÖVP) were kicked out of first round altogether. The role of presidency is (like in Germany) mostly ceremonial though. Still, it shows a growing discontent with mainstream parties and their unwillingness to protect Austria in particular and Europe in general.
Faymann quits as Austrian chancellor in wake of bruising election defeat
Meanwhile, far-left protesters are rioting at the Brenner Pass between Austria and Italy, demanding borders be completely open, no matter how many migrants want to go through.
Italian police, demonstrators clash in protest against Austrian fence
Far-left radicals hate Western/European civilization anyway, and would love to see it overrun by third world migrants, most of them Muslims.

- - - Updated - - -

If I was a refugee from really terrible conditions I'd try to get to a much better place than a slightly better place all other things being equal. I mean, I certainly wouldn't want to go to a refugee camp in Iraq or near the border with Turkey ... There are people arguing that putting a third-party involuntarily at "substantial risk" to a "permanently unhappy life" is immoral. So if the refugee camp meets these criteria (which it actually might not), then surely so would Syria but especially so would camps nearby to Syria such as the locations mentioned above.

So everybody who wants to go to Germany or Sweden should be allowed to? Even though Germany alone accepted one million of these migrants in the last year alone?
There are more people who want to go to Europe (or US) than the entire population of these places. "Open borders" is suicide.

 

[Derec]

It does not actually matter where they finally end up or why they ultimately go there; they are defined as "refugees," not for their intended choice of refuge, but for the conditions that caused them to leave their homes in the first place.

That's semantics.
1. Some of those people in Idomeni, and most of those crossing the Mediterranean toward Italy are not refugees by any stretch of the imagination. There is no war in Pakistan, Burma or Nigeria.
2. When they reach a safe camp and still want to go to Germany because it would give them better economic prospects what's wrong with calling them economic migrants at that point? Is there a danger of being bombed in official camps in Turkey or Greece for example?

Consequently, those people could just as easily hop on a plane to Disneyland and pitch near Splash Mountain; they're still refugees, because they were driven out of their homes by war and chaos. Their choice of refuge may be questionable and inconvenient, but that alone does not change their status from "refugee" to "tourist" or "economic migrant."

If they follow "Disneyland or bust" doctrine and pay smugglers to move them from a safe place of refuge to Disneyland then their status should be questioned. Also, California would be within their rights (but fat chance getting illegal-loving Governor Moonbeam to do anything!) to deport them to the safe country they came from.

Old urban joke: It's only "camping" when you've got a home to go back to.

Speaking of "urban outdoorsmen": "Beggars can't be choosers" should apply to the refugees as well.

 

[Derec]

The story does show that being near the borders in either Turkey or Syria is a very dangerous place, i.e. in or near Syria.

No, the story shows that being in Syria is a dangerous place. It does nothing to show that refugees in Turkey are in any danger. It certainly doesn't show that refugees in Greece are in any danger. Thus there is no need for them to go to Germany and Sweden.

Collectively, with other observations made in the thread, both Germany and Sweden remain among the best places for refugees to go.

So? Is there any obligation to settle refugees in the absolute best place no matter their numbers?

Meanwhile, NOT leaving Syria, even remaining in a camp is dangerous.

Big difference between not leaving Syria and demanding to go to Germany when one is already in a very safe place (and within EU too!)

 

[angelo]

Exactly, "country shopping" is a good term for it.
Austrian right-wing FPÖ won the first round of their presidential elections, and the two mainstream parties (SPÖ and ÖVP) were kicked out of first round altogether. The role of presidency is (like in Germany) mostly ceremonial though. Still, it shows a growing discontent with mainstream parties and their unwillingness to protect Austria in particular and Europe in general.
Faymann quits as Austrian chancellor in wake of bruising election defeat
Meanwhile, far-left protesters are rioting at the Brenner Pass between Austria and Italy, demanding borders be completely open, no matter how many migrants want to go through.
Italian police, demonstrators clash in protest against Austrian fence
Far-left radicals hate Western/European civilization anyway, and would love to see it overrun by third world migrants, most of them Muslims.

- - - Updated - - -

If I was a refugee from really terrible conditions I'd try to get to a much better place than a slightly better place all other things being equal. I mean, I certainly wouldn't want to go to a refugee camp in Iraq or near the border with Turkey ... There are people arguing that putting a third-party involuntarily at "substantial risk" to a "permanently unhappy life" is immoral. So if the refugee camp meets these criteria (which it actually might not), then surely so would Syria but especially so would camps nearby to Syria such as the locations mentioned above.

So everybody who wants to go to Germany or Sweden should be allowed to? Even though Germany alone accepted one million of these migrants in the last year alone?
There are more people who want to go to Europe (or US) than the entire population of these places. "Open borders" is suicide.

But that's exactly what these left wing, self loathing progressives want. Destruction of Western capitalist society.

 

[RavenSky]

I have seen a clip of an interview with a man camping at Idomeni who sounded just like Apu from the Simpsons. So he was either from India or Pakistan. There is no war on there.

So let me see if I understand you correctly.

You are basing your claim that "many" refugees are really "economic migrants" because one guy you saw being interviewed sounded a lot like a cartoon character from the Simpsons? And so from the pretend nationality of a cartoon character, you are claiming as a fact that the real man in the interview came from India or Pakistan?

 

[fromderinside]

I have seen a clip of an interview with a man camping at Idomeni who sounded just like Apu from the Simpsons. So he was either from India or Pakistan. There is no war on there.

So let me see if I understand you correctly.

You are basing your claim that "many" refugees are really "economic migrants" because one guy you saw being interviewed sounded a lot like a cartoon character from the Simpsons? And so from the pretend nationality of a cartoon character, you are claiming as a fact that the real man in the interview came from India or Pakistan?

^^^^^^

Heyyoh

 

[Derec]

You are basing your claim that "many" refugees are really "economic migrants" because one guy you saw being interviewed sounded a lot like a cartoon character from the Simpsons? And so from the pretend nationality of a cartoon character, you are claiming as a fact that the real man in the interview came from India or Pakistan?

No I am basing it on reports that significant number of migrants come from countries with no war on, such as Pakistan. Having a Pakistani (Apu's accent is pretty spot on Indian/Pakistani and nothing like Arabic) interviewed merely confirms that with a concrete case.
Another illegal camper in Idomeni from Pakistan.
Btw, only about half of recent migrants are Syrian.

 

[RavenSky]

You are basing your claim that "many" refugees are really "economic migrants" because one guy you saw being interviewed sounded a lot like a cartoon character from the Simpsons? And so from the pretend nationality of a cartoon character, you are claiming as a fact that the real man in the interview came from India or Pakistan?

...Having a Pakistani (Apu's accent is pretty spot on Indian/Pakistani and nothing like Arabic) interviewed merely confirms that with a concrete case...

So when you said "no" you actually meant that "yes" you are basing your "facts" on your opinion of a cartoon character's accent.

OK

 

[Derec]

So when you said "no" you actually meant that "yes" you are basing your "facts" on your opinion of a cartoon character's accent.

Whatever you think of Apu's accent, the fact is that there are Pakistanis and those from other not form war-torn countries camping (they even fulfill Crazy Eddie's definition of camping as they have a home to go back to) in Idomeni.
You are really an expert in getting hung up on tangential issues.

 

[bilby]

So when you said "no" you actually meant that "yes" you are basing your "facts" on your opinion of a cartoon character's accent.

Whatever you think of Apu's accent, the fact is that there are Pakistanis and other not form war-torn countries camping (they even fulfill Crazy Eddie's definition of camping as they have a home to go back to) in Idomeni.
You are really an expert in getting hung up on tangential issues.

That's not a fact; it's your unsubstantiated assertion.

Your only support for it is a (literally) cartoonish description of one person's accent, which you have decided is Pakistani. But all of this is guessing on your part - you can't tell where someone was living recently from their accent - if the person in question grew up in Pakistan and moved to Syria a decade ago, would that imply that when the bombs are falling he must tell his neighbors 'Save yourselves! I can't flee with you, for I am originally Pakistani, and if I come along, some moron on a discussion board will denigrate all of the refugees!'

Of course, Pakistan borders Afghanistan (where there is a war on); and your doubtlessly nuanced grasp of accents in The Simpsons may not be quite as valuable a linguistic guide as you hope, when it comes to differentiating between accents a few miles either side of an historically porus and flexible border.

Perhaps I am missing something here - maybe if I were to study more closely the way Mr Burns lengthens his vowels, I would find therein something that rules out either of those alternative hypotheses. But right now there seems to be zero justification for your conclusion that there are Pakistanis in Idomeni. It is one of many possibilities, and you are deciding that it is the only one only because it suits your biases to do so.

 

[Derec]

Presence of Pakistanis and others is quite well documented. For example: Greeks clear border of refugees

Asylum-seekers began getting stuck in Idomeni after several Balkan states implemented tighter border controls, which allowed only refugees from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan to pass through borders on their way to northern Europe. The result left many Iranians, Pakistanis and people from African nations stranded in cold temperatures since the rule was introduced on Nov. 18.

But no, let's pretend they are all Syrians.

 

[beero1000]

Lol, an ethnically Greek guy from Queens does the Apu voice and the accent is supposed to be Indian, not Pakistani, and is this really the new goalpost?

 

[Derec]

Lol, an ethnically Greek guy from Queens does the Apu voice and the accent is supposed to be Indian, not Pakistani, and is this really the new goalpost?

I know it's supposed to be Indian, but Indians and Pakistanis are pretty close. Certainly closer than Syrians.

 

[beero1000]

Lol, an ethnically Greek guy from Queens does the Apu voice and the accent is supposed to be Indian, not Pakistani, and is this really the new goalpost?

I know it's supposed to be Indian, but Indians and Pakistanis are pretty close. Certainly closer than Syrians.

I guess we have to deport Hank Azaria now. He talks like a terrorist, after all...

 

[bilby]

Lol, an ethnically Greek guy from Queens does the Apu voice and the accent is supposed to be Indian, not Pakistani, and is this really the new goalpost?

I think it may be the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Nahasapeemapetilonum.

 

[Derec]

I think it may be the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Nahasapeemapetilonum.

It's the logical fallacy of nitpicking tangential points in order to keep pretending that all the Idomeni campers are refugees.

 

[fromderinside]

Presence of Pakistanis and others is quite well documented. For example:

Greeks clear border of refugees

Asylum-seekers began getting stuck in Idomeni after several Balkan states implemented tighter border controls, which allowed only refugees from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan to pass through borders on their way to northern Europe. The result left many Iranians, Pakistanis and people from African nations stranded in cold temperatures since the rule was introduced on Nov. 18.

But no, let's pretend they are all Syrians.

Wow. Wave hard the hands of that one.

I guess you missed the part where afghans were also permitted; that with the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan being both disputed Taliban tribal region also under attack by both Pakistan and Afghanistan, signals me your whole argument just went up in a puff of smoke like that which brought forth the gen.

 

[fromderinside]

I think it may be the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Nahasapeemapetilonum.

It's the logical fallacy of nitpicking tangential points in order to keep pretending that all the Idomeni campers are refugees.

Its a whole lot better than you pearl two-ing to suggest they aren't refugees.