Europe-Middle East-Africa Refugee Crisis General Thread

[politicus]

Hungary's Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto says to AP, that the Hungarians will close their border to Croatia from midnight today.

[politicus]

Through Ukraine? Would that really be a feasible approach?

No fighting in Western Ukraine and their security forces are stretched thin.

[politicus]

Assassination attempt on Cologne mayoral candidate Henriette Reker. Reker is in surgery. The perpetrator is in police custody, reportedly he claims opposition to current immigration policies as motive. Election is tomorrow and will not be postponed.

Sad news.

Tried googling her. Reker is an indy Green supported by CDU and parts of FDP?

[politicus]

There are always going to be crazy people. I think we should wait before somehow laying the blame at the feet of everyone critical of Merkel's migrant policies. Of course you just know the mainstream parties will pounce on this and declare that all those not in favor of the government's position have blood on their hands.

Kölner Stadt-Anzeigersays says he shouted something about Angela Merkel's refugee policy while attacking, there doesn't seem to be any doubt this was politically motivated.

[politicus]

A former school i Kånna in Småland (southern Sweden), which should have been used as a refugee center, has been torched.

[politicus]

@Old Europe: Population changes are de facto irreversible and given the number of asylum seekers is very large (+ will result in family reunifications) and is unlikely to go down in the foreseeable future (at least according to UNHCR) it is an usual situation, especially with the next election so far out.

The question is if there is a point beyond which it simply isn't fair to consider something a normal political decision? And if you are approaching that point?

Germany doesn't really have constitutional methods for dealing with this situation (other than just pretending it is a normal situation).

A Volksbefragung (people's inquiry) is the only referendum option, and just non-binding plebiscite. So using it would rely on politicians being willing to follow a result.

The German constitution only allows early elections after a vote of no confidence or inability to form a majority government. So not really an option.

Given that there isn't really any realistic options for getting to vote on this monumental decision some strong reaction is unavoidable from the opponents. So far it has actually been milder than one would have expected (Germans are a remarkably disciplined bunch - and so are Swedes). You could hope civil disobedience will be the weapon of choice rather than violence, but continued low level violence with arson against refugee facilities and some direct attacks seems likely.

You would have had attacks from hardcore racists anyway, but the frustration of being unable to influence this is bound to increase the level of violence.

(I will emphasize that what makes it monumental is the cumulated effect of a continued migration - if one believes it is a temporary crisis it becomes a more "normal" crisis, but that seems unrealistic.)

[politicus]

Slovenia has deployed units from its Army to help the police guard their border to Croatia, while Hungary has chosen to reinstate border control towards Croatia.

It seems more and more likely that the alternative route through Romania, Ukraine and Poland will be pursued.

[politicus]

Sorry if I don't sympathize too much with the plight of people who feel entitled to their privileges just because they were born in a certain place and have a certain religion/skin color, and want to deny those privileges to the rest of the world because muh homeland. I, as any decent person, stand with the unprivileged and the downtrodden.

Spreading privileges should come through raising living standards around the world via free trade combined with economic aid for poverty alleviation. Not by massive population swops between continents. The population increase in Africa in the next 35 years will be twice the current population of the EU. There is no way you can solve that by letting those people move to Europe. It isn't a viable solution and pretending it is hurts more people than it benefits. A main reason why there are more refugees than ever before is that there are simply more people in the world than ever before and the societies with the highest population growth are the most unstable (not unrelated of course). The easier it is to get to the West the more will try so you get a never ending stream of migrants.

While I am all for helping the under privileged and downtrodden undermining well functioning societies to do it is just wrong and basically an elitist project. The European working class will get the bad consequences in the form of rising crime, culture clashes, transferred ethnic and religious conflicts, lower minimum wage, higher taxes, housing shortage and less public welfare, while the corporate elite gets cheap labour and a tool for breaking up the welfare state due to "lack of altruism" among tax payers. The elite can choose their own level of taxation and live comfortably in gated communities and country estates. Not so for the rest.

You can help 30-40 refugee families in a year in most of sub-Saharan Africa for the cost it takes to help one refugee in Scandinavia (I think this calculus would be more or less the same for Austria and Germany). Why is it the solidary solution to focus on the ones that somehow can pay a trafficker to get to the West? Why are they the ones we should help? And why use funds to help a lucky few rater than help the masses? A rational and fair refugee policy would pick the most vulnerable groups for resettlement in the West (gays, religious minorities, disabled, single women etc.) and use funds for helping the rest where they are. But this requires a stop for spontaneous asylum seeking in Europe. It is ironic that the left prefers the individualistic "every man for himself" and "you get what you can pay for" approach when it comes to refugees. While I know you would say everyone should be allowed in that just isn't economically or practically feasible, so this de facto becomes a purchasing power based selection.

While we obviously fundamentally disagree about the importance of "muh country" and a people's right to a homeland and your relegation of national identity to religion/skin colour is spurious, I have disregarded those things in the above because a discussion of them will lead nowhere productive.

We agree that the West has been too selfish and not done enough to solve this crisis (although that goes for East Asia and other wealthy regions as well), but our response to this should not be to pursue a course that will undermine social cohesion and our welfare states, but to allocate more resources to help refugees near their country of origin, create safe zones, stabilize failed states and promote growth in Africa and the refugee receiving countries in the Middle East.

It is the structural and cumulative nature of this crisis that is crucial. If it was just about Syria I might agree that we should just distribute the refugees among the rich countries (although still with some scrutinizing because of the security risk posed by extremists), but the experts say this is likely the "new normal" and we need to act accordingly.

[politicus]

@Old Europe: Population changes are de facto irreversible and given the number of asylum seekers is very large (+ will result in family reunifications) and is unlikely to go down in the foreseeable future (at least according to UNHCR) it is an usual situation, especially with the next election so far out.

The question is if there is a point beyond which it simply isn't fair to consider something a normal political decision? And if you are approaching that point?

Germany doesn't really have constitutional methods for dealing with this situation (other than just pretending it is a normal situation).

A Volksbefragung (people's inquiry) is the only referendum option, and just non-binding plebiscite. So using it would rely on politicians being willing to follow a result.

The German constitution only allows early elections after a vote of no confidence or inability to form a majority government. So not really an option.

Given that there isn't really any realistic options for getting to vote on this monumental decision some strong reaction is unavoidable from the opponents. So far it has actually been milder than one would have expected (Germans are a remarkably disciplined bunch - and so are Swedes). You could hope civil disobedience will be the weapon of choice rather than violence, but continued low level violence with arson against refugee facilities and some direct attacks seems likely.

You would have had attacks from hardcore racists anyway, but the frustration of being unable to influence this is bound to increase the level of violence.

(I will emphasize that what makes it monumental is the cumulated effect of a continued migration - if one believes it is a temporary crisis it becomes a more "normal" crisis, but that seems unrealistic.)

I don't see the necessity for a referendum.

Well, didn't figure you would, but the narrative that Merkel is ignoring "the will of the people" and that this allows "extraordinary measures" will continue otherwise.

[politicus]

They are entitled to these privileges because they worked hard to establish these welfare systems, contrary to the millions who are now lining up at the border and want to enjoy these goodies too.

Oh, I see, so Middle Easterners are just lazy freeloaders and that's why their countries don't look like Austria. Thanks for proving my point about racism.

Welfare states are a form of collective insurance. You pay into them with your taxes when you are working and you (or your children) can use them when studying, sick, unemployed, retired etc. It does create bad will when people who haven't paid the "insurance premium" gets ahead in the queue (so to speak) to fx housing or hospital treatment or too many non-payers use the systems and fx hospital waiting lists go up. You may find this selfish, but its a natural sentiment.

Tender didn't say anything about why most Middle Eastern countries malfunction (which is a complex issue).

[politicus]

They are entitled to these privileges because they worked hard to establish these welfare systems, contrary to the millions who are now lining up at the border and want to enjoy these goodies too.

Oh, I see, so Middle Easterners are just lazy freeloaders and that's why their countries don't look like Austria. Thanks for proving my point about racism.

Welfare states are a form of collective insurance. You pay into them with your taxes when you are working and you (or your children) can use them when studying, sick, unemployed, retired etc. It does create bad will when people who haven't paid the "insurance premium" gets ahead in the queue (so to speak) to fx housing or hospital treatment or too many non-payers use the systems and fx hospital waiting lists go up. You may find this selfish, but its a natural sentiment.

Tender didn't say anything about why most Middle Eastern countries malfunction (which is a complex issue).

Non-citizens generally pay taxes in the countries they reside in, and that goes for migrants and refugees as well. Why shouldn't they get access to the same services and benefits other taxpayers receive?

Well, they pay taxes when and if they enter the labour market. They haven't done so on arrival. Plus their labour market participation is low in many countries - especially those with high minimum wages, which are the same ones that have an extensive welfare state.

All I am saying is that this is a natural and unavoidable sentiment - you need an altruistic view of the world not to see it that way. Most people haven't got that, or only to a certain extent.

[politicus]

Do you think we should have two threads, one for news on the crisis and the other to bicker about economic migration?

No, "bickering" comes and goes in the thread. It is primarily a news thread - once in a while someone tries to discuss something and then we once again find out we can't discuss this issue and things move along.

[politicus]

They are entitled to these privileges because they worked hard to establish these welfare systems, contrary to the millions who are now lining up at the border and want to enjoy these goodies too.

Oh, I see, so Middle Easterners are just lazy freeloaders and that's why their countries don't look like Austria. Thanks for proving my point about racism.

Welfare states are a form of collective insurance. You pay into them with your taxes when you are working and you (or your children) can use them when studying, sick, unemployed, retired etc. It does create bad will when people who haven't paid the "insurance premium" gets ahead in the queue (so to speak) to fx housing or hospital treatment or too many non-payers use the systems and fx hospital waiting lists go up. You may find this selfish, but its a natural sentiment.

Tender didn't say anything about why most Middle Eastern countries malfunction (which is a complex issue).

Non-citizens generally pay taxes in the countries they reside in, and that goes for migrants and refugees as well. Why shouldn't they get access to the same services and benefits other taxpayers receive?

Well, they pay taxes when and if they enter the labour market. They haven't done so on arrival. Plus their labour market participation is low in many countries - especially those with high minimum wages, which are the same ones that have an extensive welfare state.

Most unemployed people, whether native or immigrant, are looking for jobs. If they don't get them, that's probably due to economic circumstances that can be reversed through appropriate stimulus policies. But either way, the native unemployed person is in the same situation as the immigrant one. Why would you blame the latter more than the former?

I am not blaming anyone, I am trying to explain how people think.

If the you is not meant to include me, but is a generalized "you", then the answer is that most unemployed people are former taxpayers or related to taxpayers. Even if not so they are mostly part of a group other tax payers feel solidary with given that they have a shared ethnicity. This is (much) less so than it used to be, but the "we are paying to our own" factor is still important.

There is a classic 2001 US of why America doesn't have a welfare state by three Harvard professors, that pointed out that one main reason was that an America lacked the ethnic and social homogeneity of Western Europe and a large welfare state would mean massive redistribution across ethnic and racial groups. The second most important factor being the relatively equal distribution of political power.

Extensive welfare states were established in countries with a high degree of ethnic homogeneity, because most people are willing to pay higher taxes to help their own group than "foreigners".