Europe-Middle East-Africa Refugee Crisis General Thread

[politicus]

Why not equalize it proportionally among the European Union nations?

Refugees prefer to avoid (most of) Eastern Europe, which has low refugees numbers outside of Hungary (and to some degree Bulgaria). UK is below average and would block an even spread. Spain is as well.

[politicus]

In the German city of Tübingen, the Green mayor Boris Palmer, threatens to confiscate [unused] private property to forcefully house asylum seekers and/or illegals ...

FF

No, that's not an FF move. That is a violation of basic property rights, which is at the core of any liberal understanding of liberty.

"Property rights" are among the most unimportant rights there is, and certainly rank waaaay below the fundamental right to housing.

It will certainly cause a major backlash.

Not even sure how it would be possibly for a Mayor to do such a thing. What is the legal basis for this?

[politicus]

This is obviously not a sustainable state of affairs.

European states can either do nothing and see waves of immigrants keep on coming, or actually spend reasonable amounts of money on defence, act to ensure stability in the source countries, and stem the flow.

European countries have plenty of military force to stop this if that is the way they choose to do it. Lack of defence spending has nothing to do with this.

Not sure how Europe should be able to stabilize either Syria, South Sudan or Eritrea. I think we should try harder, but outside intervention has a tendency to make things worse.

[politicus]

This thread needs to be moderated much harder - or closed.

[politicus]

This thread needs to be moderated much harder - or closed.

It looks like zero posts in this thread have been reported.  There is always the "report to moderator" button to let Afleitch know of any problems here.  Or just PM him.

I guess it is because this is a WTF thread. You do not really know were to start or whether to be bothered at all, but it is a shame we can not discuss this serious issue in a reasonable or even semi-reasonable manner.

[politicus]

But as I know the politically correct, naive left-leftists Merkel, Faymann and Co. I'm sure they will not learn from these tragedies and just keep on doing what they have done until now: talking and leading a comfortable life of elitists with their 10.000€ monthly salary, far removed from the needs of the average German/Austrian citizen and even further away from the lives of the refugees ...

wtf..

[politicus]

You know what would make today's tragedy much less likely? Removing the strongest incentives for the people smugglers by making it much easier to legally immigrate to the west. The fact that people take such dangerous measures to go to the west is due to the fact that they have no other choice if they want to enter the west (and you are truly the height of naivety if you think the pull of the west to migrants can be wished away).

Sure, but since European countries do not want African/Arabic immigration, that will not happen. A ban on seeking asylum outside your own continent and increased crackdowns on illegal migrants is the likely outcome.

[politicus]

You know what would make today's tragedy much less likely? Removing the strongest incentives for the people smugglers by making it much easier to legally immigrate to the west. The fact that people take such dangerous measures to go to the west is due to the fact that they have no other choice if they want to enter the west (and you are truly the height of naivety if you think the pull of the west to migrants can be wished away).

Sure, but since European countries do not want African/Arabic immigration, that will not happen. A ban on seeking asylum outside your own continent and increased crackdowns on illegal migrants is the likely outcome.

That is very likely but I was talking about policies that would minimize deaths not possibly increase them.

But why talk about fantasies?

Surely the interesting thing is realistic proposals that will minimize deaths.

[politicus]

You know what would make today's tragedy much less likely? Removing the strongest incentives for the people smugglers by making it much easier to legally immigrate to the west. The fact that people take such dangerous measures to go to the west is due to the fact that they have no other choice if they want to enter the west (and you are truly the height of naivety if you think the pull of the west to migrants can be wished away).

Sure, but since European countries do not want African/Arabic immigration, that will not happen. A ban on seeking asylum outside your own continent and increased crackdowns on illegal migrants is the likely outcome.

That is very likely but I was talking about policies that would minimize deaths not possibly increase them.

But why talk about fantasies?

Surely the interesting thing is realistic proposals that will minimize deaths.

Any evidence that the current policy does not minimize deaths given your realism constraint?

No, but the current situation is unsustainable - we are in a situation where status quo is not really an option.

I still think that some kind of European/African cooperation on refugee policy based on refugees staying in Africa, but offered jobs, education, start up funds from the West is not totally unrealistic (although it might very well be).

[politicus]

You know what would make today's tragedy much less likely? Removing the strongest incentives for the people smugglers by making it much easier to legally immigrate to the west. The fact that people take such dangerous measures to go to the west is due to the fact that they have no other choice if they want to enter the west (and you are truly the height of naivety if you think the pull of the west to migrants can be wished away).

Sure, but since European countries do not want African/Arabic immigration, that will not happen. A ban on seeking asylum outside your own continent and increased crackdowns on illegal migrants is the likely outcome.

That is very likely but I was talking about policies that would minimize deaths not possibly increase them.

But why talk about fantasies?

Surely the interesting thing is realistic proposals that will minimize deaths.

Any evidence that the current policy does not minimize deaths given your realism constraint?

No, but the current situation is unsustainable - we are in a situation where status quo is not really an option.

I still think that some kind of European/African cooperation on refugee policy based on refugees staying in Africa, but offered jobs, education, start up funds from the West is not totally unrealistic (although it might very well be).

What makes the current situation unsustainable, in your view?

European electorates will not accept such a massive stream of refugees, they will demand it stopped, this will lead to "tougher" policies and presumably (most likely) a redefinition of the refugee concept (could be a geographical limit of where you could seek asylum or a division between political and non-political refugees). A collapse of the current refugee system seems unavoidable. Population growth, climate change etc. will lead to larger refugee streams, which will again boost the European fear of getting swamped and put pressure on resources like housing, welfare etc. (always unpopular).

The refugee "concept" developed with the dissident in an East Bloc as the arch type (the academic, artist, journalist, union leader etc. who rebelled against the system from a relatively prominent position, with a political motivation based on "Western" values). If you take Iranian refugees in the 80s they still mostly came from  a relatively privileged, highly educated, Westernized segment as well. Since then the typical refugee is increasingly low educated, has non-Western values and is motivated by a much broader variety of motives than the "classic" refugee. What we are seeing now is more akin to the masses from Southern and Eastern Europe fleeing to America to escape oppression and poverty in the late 19th/early 20th century.

(simplifying a lot in the above, but trying to make a point)

This undermines the refugee concept, since voters see them as economic migrants (which most of them also - but not solely - are) and this is increased by the strategic choices of refugees (trying to get to "good countries" instead of seeking asylum in the first safe country they reach). Public support for the current refugees system is bound to drop in Europe and politicians will act accordingly.

Therefore: If there is a solution to this tragedy, it lies in Africa. Not Europe.

I see it as crucial to disentangle the two issues: "Who pays for the refugees?" and "Where are the refugees going to be housed/settled?". Since no other continents are willing to take large streams of African refugees, the best available option for African countries is to get other countries to pay for them and use these resources to boost their economies. Ideally all countries in the world should pay for the worlds refugees according to their share of the global GDP (not going to happen, but we should move in that direction).

[politicus]

The refugee "concept" developed with the dissident in an East Bloc as the arch type (the academic, artist, journalist, union leader etc. who rebelled against the system from a relatively prominent position, with a political motivation based on "Western" values).

Thanks. At least this is something we can be talking about.

First, an obvious historical comment The Refugee Convention was adopted in 1951. The were not thinking of "East Bloc dissidents". Not only these were few, but, in any case, you never needed any international refugee convention to deal with them (for that matter, neither has the US needed a refugee convention to deal with much larger numbers of Cubans). These were the people that were admitted voluntarily by the host countries. You do not need a convention to commit to doing voluntarily what you would be doing anyway.

Nevertheless, they went into trouble of adopting a convention. They were thinking of the horrors of WWII. And, not the least, of the Holocaust. It is true, that already there and then they decided to exclude the largest contemporaneous post-War refugee group: the Palestinians. Then, as now, nobody wanted to accept another waive of refugees. But, still, they were thinking of the "never again" pledge.  And many of the authors remembered their own (or at least, their own countries') shameful behavior just years previously. Of course, they were cognizant of the domestic political reasoning behind it and adopted the convention as the means of commitment to never repeating the horror.

When I say developed I do not mean the basis for the convention, but the mental image of a refugee in the general population. This is what matters politically. How voters view a real refugee.

The first large post-war refugee stream to much of Western Europe came from Hungary in 1956. This stream was disproportionally well educated and politically motivated. And set a standard against which later refugee groups were judged.

(WWII is largely irrelevant in this context because it was seen an exceptional occurrence by ordinary people).

[politicus]

Now on the substance.

It would appear from the news that never before were such numbers of refugees seeking admission to the "civilized world". It is not true. For instance (and this is only an example), the US alone took nearly 1.3 mln. Indochinese refugees after 1975, with Canada and Australia - two countries with a combined population of 1/10th of EU - taking another 200 thousand apiece (in contrast, the largest European recipient of that way, France, took around 120 thousand in total, despite having been the colonial power that started all that mess; the combined total for the rest of what is now the EU is even smaller).  I may have been a bit cavalier about our Austrian friend's suggestion about the US not doing its job, but there is a reason for that.

Admittedly, the major difference now is that, unlike the Vietnamese and the Hmong of yesteryear, the current refugees are not sitting in camps far away, waiting for organized resettlement, but are coming directly into Europe. The difference, of course, is geographic: there was no way available for the Indochinese to take their fate into their own hands - Syria, though, is a lot closer to Europe. The fall of dictatorships around the Mediterrainean has opened the gates, which Europeans find they are unable to close without violating their own self-view of "humane, civilized people".

To continue.

Three factors:

1) The refugee stream being uncontrollable and likely to continue for the foreseeable future makes a big difference. This is a very important aspect.

2) You can not meaningfully compare Europe to Canada, Australia, USA because those countries are not defined as national homes for a particular ethnicity. Comparing with Japan, Korea etc. makes a lot more sense.

3) The refugees are mostly coming from the groups Europeans dislike the most 1) Muslim Arabs 2) Black African Muslims and have negative experiences trying to integrate. Without a realistic chance to later repatriate these groups Europeans do not want them in (Afghans/Pakistanis may be as unpopular as Black Muslims).

(lots of Indochinese came to Europe by being boat refugees picked up by European ships - so they did have some means to affect their situation)

[politicus]

An aside.

Now, one thing to remember is that, historically, of course, it is Europe that has been the major source of undesirable migration flows. And, indeed, European "tired and poor" were frequently received less than with open arms. Mexico, the country I now consider mine, has had some very shameful pages of its own history here. For instance, Mexico deliberately closed itself to Jews from the early 1930s - and never really seriously considered reopening the doors till too late in the War.  And, of course, despite the national myth about it being a safe heaven for Spanish Republicans, it was far from open to them either. Most true refugees have it too hard to be very nice people. The archetypal midcentury Spaniard for a Mexican is the "gachupín de la esquina" - the owner of a small dirty corner shop, cheating his customers and charging far too much, while displacing, through some sort of "desloyal competition" good Mexican shopkeeper.

Still, despite everything, many thousands of European refugees landed here. Frequently, they would not even know where they came - boarded a ship somewhere in Europe, disembarked in some uknown port, not able to speak the local language they would take weeks to learn they are in Mexico. Of course, the Spaniards did not suffer from that handicap - but they were still very foreign. Over the last 100 years many more Spaniards moved to Latin America than Latin Americans who went the other way. Whether Spanish-speaking or not, they changed the look of this country a lot (and of some other American countries even more), to the disgust of many a local. Their grandchildren, of course, are quite Mexican today (even to the point of going to Houston to give birth - the true "anchor babies").

True, but irrelevant to modern politics. People do not vote or act based on such things.

[politicus]

The refugee "concept" developed with the dissident in an East Bloc as the arch type (the academic, artist, journalist, union leader etc. who rebelled against the system from a relatively prominent position, with a political motivation based on "Western" values).

Thanks. At least this is something we can be talking about.

First, an obvious historical comment The Refugee Convention was adopted in 1951. The were not thinking of "East Bloc dissidents". Not only these were few, but, in any case, you never needed any international refugee convention to deal with them (for that matter, neither has the US needed a refugee convention to deal with much larger numbers of Cubans). These were the people that were admitted voluntarily by the host countries. You do not need a convention to commit to doing voluntarily what you would be doing anyway.

Nevertheless, they went into trouble of adopting a convention. They were thinking of the horrors of WWII. And, not the least, of the Holocaust. It is true, that already there and then they decided to exclude the largest contemporaneous post-War refugee group: the Palestinians. Then, as now, nobody wanted to accept another waive of refugees. But, still, they were thinking of the "never again" pledge.  And many of the authors remembered their own (or at least, their own countries') shameful behavior just years previously. Of course, they were cognizant of the domestic political reasoning behind it and adopted the convention as the means of commitment to never repeating the horror.

When I say developed I do not mean the basis for the convention, but the mental image of a refugee in the general population. This is what matters politically. How voters view a real refugee.

The first large post-war refugee stream to much of Western Europe came from Hungary in 1956. This stream was disproportionally well educated and politically motivated. And set a standard against which later refugee groups were judged.

(WWII is largely irrelevant in this because it was seen an exceptional occurrence).

You do not need a convention to admit such refugees. It is like you do not need "freedom of speech" written into constitution or a human rights bill to protect pleasant non-controversial speech.

WWII is a lot more typical of European history than the peace that followed it. It was only about 20 years between WWI and WWII, and even before that Europe was hardly a peaceful paradise. Much of the Americas is populated by the offspring of those who were forced to flee Europe in the 75 years before WWII.

You are ignoring my point about the popular image of a real refugee and the changes in the composition of the refugees causing delegitimization of the refugee system.

The historical facts you mention does not affect modern politics.

[politicus]

Ok, I was planning to go slower and softer, but, it seems, everything, in any case, is being reduced by you to the general dislike of the "Europeans "towards the "blacks". That may well be the case. But, unfortunately, that is something that can hardly engender sympathy on my part. To a large extent it is the previous migration waives from the East that, to a non-insignificant degree were responsible for the appeal of the likes of Hitler in the interwar Europe. There are things I am capable of understanding, but not willing to forgive.

Not "blacks"/people of colour in general. Some specific groups. One of the tragedies in the modern refugee system is that we do not try to coordinate which refugee groups go where - and distribute them to places there they have the best chance of getting integrated and received well.

Syrians have historically done well in Latin America (mainly Christian Syrians, but still) and Syrians may get a better reception in Indonesia and Malaysia than Europe, whereas, say, Burmese refugees might be better received in Europe.

Filipinos are the largest immigrant group on Iceland and well liked, Pakistanis are one of the largest immigrant groups in Norway and disliked. Are Norwegians more racist than their Icelandic neighbors? Hardly. But cultural fit matters and if the UN coordinated refugee distribution this sensitive issue might be dealt with in a smarter way.

...
I am not trying to get your sympathy. You as a person are completely irrelevant in this discussion. I am trying to explain the political realities in Europe and what I think will happen.

[politicus]

The refugee "concept" developed with the dissident in an East Bloc as the arch type (the academic, artist, journalist, union leader etc. who rebelled against the system from a relatively prominent position, with a political motivation based on "Western" values).

Thanks. At least this is something we can be talking about.

First, an obvious historical comment The Refugee Convention was adopted in 1951. The were not thinking of "East Bloc dissidents". Not only these were few, but, in any case, you never needed any international refugee convention to deal with them (for that matter, neither has the US needed a refugee convention to deal with much larger numbers of Cubans). These were the people that were admitted voluntarily by the host countries. You do not need a convention to commit to doing voluntarily what you would be doing anyway.

Nevertheless, they went into trouble of adopting a convention. They were thinking of the horrors of WWII. And, not the least, of the Holocaust. It is true, that already there and then they decided to exclude the largest contemporaneous post-War refugee group: the Palestinians. Then, as now, nobody wanted to accept another waive of refugees. But, still, they were thinking of the "never again" pledge.  And many of the authors remembered their own (or at least, their own countries') shameful behavior just years previously. Of course, they were cognizant of the domestic political reasoning behind it and adopted the convention as the means of commitment to never repeating the horror.

When I say developed I do not mean the basis for the convention, but the mental image of a refugee in the general population. This is what matters politically. How voters view a real refugee.

The first large post-war refugee stream to much of Western Europe came from Hungary in 1956. This stream was disproportionally well educated and politically motivated. And set a standard against which later refugee groups were judged.

(WWII is largely irrelevant in this because it was seen an exceptional occurrence).

You do not need a convention to admit such refugees. It is like you do not need "freedom of speech" written into constitution or a human rights bill to protect pleasant non-controversial speech.

WWII is a lot more typical of European history than the peace that followed it. It was only about 20 years between WWI and WWII, and even before that Europe was hardly a peaceful paradise. Much of the Americas is populated by the offspring of those who were forced to flee Europe in the 75 years before WWII.

You are ignoring my point about the popular image of a real refugee and the changes in the composition of the refugees causing delegitimization of the refugee system.

The historical facts you mention does not affect modern politics.

I am perfectly aware of the fact that for a lot of people most real refugees are illegitimate, since they are not of the same race as themselves. And I am aware of European politics. May I open your eyes to the fact that politics exists also outside of Europe?

Now you are just trolling. It is the move from political refugees to a more broadly defined group where economic motives mix with general oppression and ethnic persecution that is central, not race. (See the flight to America comparison).

Your second comment is unwarranted. Fx. I know a lot more about African politics than you. But the change in the refugee system will be initiated in Europe. Only European countries have an incentive to stop this, so the initiatives will come from Europe (hopefully we will then be able to work with African countries to solve this).

[politicus]

Finally, I am, of course, aware of the fact that Denmark has chosen to colonize, mostly, sparsely-populated ice deserts without land borders. But, you know, it is in Europe that you are Danish. Elsewhere, you are a European - not easily distinguishable from, say, a Belgian. Or a Brit. Or a Frenchman. Or even a German.

Now, modern Africa is largely shaped by European colonizers. Its borders, its conflicts, its problems. Even, not infrequently, its dictators are all European iheritance. I know, you guys would prefer not to take the responsibility for the sins of your grandfathers. Belgians definitely do not like talking of King Leopold. But, you know what...

Pure trolling. I will try once more to give a serious reply, but please try not to stray so much from the topic.  

1) it is irrelevant how, say, Danes are seen outside Denmark when debating how they react politically. In this context only self identity matters.

2) Old history does not generally determine how people think and act towards a current crisis (there are many notable exceptions, but Western Europeans are not among them. The Eastern Europeans (and some WE nations) never participated in colonization in the first place.

3) The African elite is increasingly ditching the post-colonial explanations and moving on. Zambia recently celebrated the end of its post-colonial era (50 years after independence). The "everything bad is due to evil colonialism" line is seen as outdated and something old dictators use to excuse their own fallacies.

[politicus]

Now you are just trolling. It is the move from political refugees to a more broadly defined group where economic motives mix with general oppression and ethnic persecution that is central, not race. (See the flight to America comparison).

It is, of course, very important to distinguish between racial and ethnic persecution, because.... Sorry, haven´t been able to figure out the continuation.

Cmon. That is besides the point. I refuse to believe you do not get my argument here.

[politicus]

I am not trying to get your sympathy. You as a person are completely irrelevant in this discussion. I am trying to explain the political realities in Europe and what I think will happen.

I will tell you what will happen. WWIII will happen. And sooner than you expect. Pandering to racial resentment rarely ends well.

BS

[politicus]

2) You can not meaningfully compare Europe to Canada, Australia, USA because those countries are not defined as national homes for a particular ethnicity. Comparing with Japan, Korea etc. makes a lot more sense.

The idea that Australia in the 1970s did not see it self as being for a particular ethnicity is a misreading of history. Granted the "White Australia" policy was on its last legs then, but it wasn't quite yet gone. Even in Canada and the US, our immigration policies had not foreseen the vast increase in Asian immigration that happened.

Actually, yep. I have missed that whoopsie. Australia has, probably, had the biggest ethnic and racial change over the last 50 years than any other country that did not go through a major ethnic-cleansing-accompanied war.

But, you know, for a Dane there is no politics outside Europe

Of course there is, but settler societies were able to make that transformation without losing their core identity (for some partly because they were still in the later stages of an ongoing nation building phase when it happened). Australia had already made the transformation from being Anglo-Celtic to being all-round "White" before the Asian immigration started and was obviously never considered the national home/core territory of the British nation. Populate or perish was a more decisive moment because it redefined what Australia was supposed to be (and even then Australia incorporated many different groups).

Another factor is that Australia, Canada, USA are large continental countries that are natural entities in many ways (large enough to encompass diverse economies and form the basis of strong states) , whereas European countries today exists to house a particular people and their culture (even if many have old historical roots). There is no need for a Hungary if not to act as the home land of Hungarians and to act as base for Hungarian culture and language. Just as there is no need for a Samoa if not to act as the home land for Samoans and a for the Samoan culture and way of life.

[politicus]

I just want to be clear. I am perfectly aware of the fact that my personal preferences about migration are not very representative, to say the least. I am, in fact, perfectly aware of the fact that most people dislike foreigners. And, of course, I am more than aware of the European and US politics involved. I am, in fact, perfectly willing to discuss political implications: who wins, who looses, how Mr. Wump exploits this and how the Worrik party plays that: this is all good fun.

And, of course, I am always willing to talk about how one can implement policies that would result in improvement of human welfare. A discussion of how the current situation can be reformed to avoid people drowining in the sea and suffocating on buses is, most definitely, in order. And political constraints are very much valid constraints that any policy-maker has to take into account.

But... Is it that hard to understand why I start screaming?

Can't you do it elsewhere instead of ruining immigration threads on Atlas?

And you are wasting my time when you refuse to acknowledge things like the influence of the different composition of refugees groups over time (a pretty basic and important fact) and instead keep sprouting out bits of old history or deliberately misunderstanding what I write.

Also, I probably write more about African and other non-European politics than any other poster here (although Simfan might be catching up), so the can not see beyond Europe line is a low blow.

I normally ignore you on this subject (and will do so from now on again), but you got me wasting a couple of hours of sleep. So congrats on succesful trolling, but I think this topic is too important for trolling. It is complex and includes a wide range of dilemmas and I hope the mods start being harder on trolling in these threads so we can start having these factual debates.

[politicus]

I find the notion that ag is ruining any thread incredible.

Why?

[politicus]

so we can start having these factual debates.

Factual debates about what? What is it exactly that you would like to debate? I have asked you that very question. I hoped that the answer would be "what can we do to minimize death and suffering among the migrants?". Perhaps, subject to realistic political constraints - no problem there. But I hoped that it is minimizing death and suffering that would be the subject you would want to discuss. Ufortunately, that is, in fact, something you want to avoid discussing.

No, I have tried repeatedly to move this discussion towards some of the changes in the international refugee system that will help it survive and function in the future. And help as many as possible - not just those that can pay a human trafficker.

(and I have also done so in my thread about the role of the West in the refugee crisis on Political Debate, where I have presented some basic dilemmas)

But a realistic debate must start with accepting the premise the European countries are not interested in mass immigration. So other solutions needs to be crafted - incl. safe areas/new towns in Africa (and a development plan for them), a detachment of payment for refugees and taking refugees, an internationally coordinated distribution of refugees with a view to where different groups of refugees have a chance of being integrated and possibly also internationally enforced regime changes in places like Eritrea with stabilization/rebuilding efforts afterwards.

You seems only to be interested in blaming Europeans for not wanting immigration using all sorts of more or less far fetched historical arguments. This blame game leads us nowhere.

Answering this with "I want open borders" is like replying to a thread about income equality with arguing for the workers taking over the means of production. You can have that principled opinion, but it has little relevance IRL.

[politicus]

I find the notion that ag is ruining any thread incredible.

Why?

Because it seems to be Xahar's learned opinion that Europeans have nothing to contribute on any subject unless it is perfect concordance with the wishes of those of, ah, entirely or partially non-European heritage, whatever those wishes might be. He's made this rather clear on numerous occasions, and, I guess, he's entitled to that view.

I know that, but even if you agree 100% with ag I fail to see how you can enjoy his wild detours and deliberate misunderstandings of opposing arguments and facts. It is a style that forces his opponents to keep repeating arguments over and over again, which ruins any meaningful exchange of ideas. He is generally among the least funny and most tiresome trolls here (so even if you enjoy "funny" in this tragic context, which I do not, there is little to gain).

[politicus]

The short term solutions for the refugees already in Europe deals with the same kind of issues: A disentangling of payment and hosting combined with a solidary distribution of expenses, so countries do not speculate in passing on the burden to their neighbors + a more even distribution that moves refugees from countries with a high refugee pressure to countries with (relatively) few asylum seekers. Many of these are also in Eastern Europe with lower costs of living, which will make the over all financial burden lower.

We also need a program for vulnerable groups such as gays, single women with children, torture victims and Christian converts (to name a few) securing them an easier path to integration and moving them out of camps.