European refugee crisis thread

[Edi]

You are awfully big on saying you don't accept that things are running up to capacity and soon beyond,

I'm just stating my opinion.

But I very much doubt that Europe has yet reached its capacity. Compared to much of the world, much of Europe is still very wealthy and secure. So this comes across like a rich Republican whining that taxes to help the poor are ruining the country.

There is one significant difference: You can jack up taxes (or lower them) pretty much at the stroke of a pen. Building up mechanisms and infrastructure to deal with a tenfold increase in refugees in matter of weeks and the corresponding increase in need for things like schools with interpreters and all the other stuff required for successful integration is a much harder task. We already had a shortage of qualified interpreters before the refugee crisis hit, where the hell do you think we are now on that score? Never mind all the other stuff.

I accept that their is a theoretical limit beyond which Europe simply can't cope, obviously, but I think that limit is farther than the frightened, the prejudiced, and the self-interested would have us believe.

Then you might look up some numbers to back up your argument, especially for the countries that have now been taking in the most people.

Their may also be a bit of a "boy who cried wolf" thing going on. I've heard enough fear-mongering about immigrants ruining the country in my life that I'm inclined to regard such arguments with a great deal of suspicion.

That I do not have a beef with.

But it [reality] also doesn't give a fuck weather Germany or anyone else is willing or able to take more people. Realistically, they're going to keep coming, so you can either learn how to somehow accommodate them like human beings or you can start jailing or killing people for the "crime" of being foreign and desperate.

Or just summarily deporting them right back wherever they came from. That's also an option that doesn't require killing them and will also only require jailing them until transport is arranged. When things hit capacity limits and start going seriously beyond them, it's that or otherwise there will be social unrest and violence here, which is a less acceptable thing than the mass deportation of refugees.

Thing is, when shit starts running into capacity limits, then societies like Germany, Sweden, Finland and others will start taking measures to protect themselves, and people who are threatening it WILL get the sharp end of the stick in some form, even if the ultimate causes of the refugee crisis are elsewhere. And the response will get more and more draconian the longer things are left to go stagnant at the current rate.

Perhaps.

But again, I question that those limits have been reached. Europe is still very, very well-off compared to much of the world in many ways. So this sounds a lot like a rich man whining that he can't possibly afford to give any more to help the poor because he'd be somewhat less rich and secure.

As Thanas said, Europe in general is nowhere near capacity, but Germany, Sweden and Finland are starting to hit the limits. Take a look at the numbers. In September alone, Finland took in 11,000 refugees (total number this year 18,000), when the average yearly number has been somewhere between 750 and 1,050 plus some more on top of that outside quotas, but less than 2,000 total. We got five times yearly peak maximum inside one month, and by the end of September 18 times more than normal yearly maximum, so how about you pony up some evidence that we aren't in fact running at capacity, since projections are 50k by end of year. The most pessimistic estimate thrown around seriously was 200k, but that was before we instituted the type of border controls that Frontex should have been running at Europes outer borders for years. Took us six days to put that together and two days later there were Frontex delegations coming over to look at what we were doing and how.

Sweden is even worse off, by the end of September they had taken in 73,000 and there are more going there all the time. They have always taken significantly more refugees per year than we have, so they have a larger infra in place, but it's a country of somewhat over 8 million people, so how the fuck do you expect this kind of numbers do not actually put a serious strain on them?

I haven't fresh numbers for Germany, but we have enough German members to supply those in short order. It's places like Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, France, Spain (which has significant structural problems of its own), UK and the rest that still have capacity, but they also have a much harder line on immigration and the refugees don't want to go there, unless the ones with the greatest strain actually start forcibly shoving them out and into these countries.

If that means closing the borders and mass deportations, then that's what's going to happen on some timetable. Let's hope it doesn't require something more drastic.

Exactly what "more drastic" measures are suggesting might be necessary?

I'm not suggesting they would be necessary, but you can probably imagine what kind of events would come from starting to organize summary mass deportations and the attendant trouble. Or if things keep spiraling down worse and mobs start taking things into their own hands, which is then going to lead to all sorts of crackdown and other unpleasantness. That kind of things lead to more bad things on more general levels, and I'd very much like to keep the society we have now than have it turn into that.

Perhaps you're arguing that the refugees are incapable of understanding and functioning in a democratic society/are trying to play the old "Muslims will bring Sharia Law" card, in which case I would call you condescending and prejudiced.

Oh, that's cute, trying to play the fearmonger card there. Some of these people have never known anything but a tribal system, some have experience with other systems as well. Certainly they are capable of understanding how a democratic republic works, but whether or not they wish to function in it according to its terms rather than their own depends. I have no problem with anyone who accepts and lives according to the law of the land, but anyone who doesn't, I have no problem putting them on the next plane out.

Certainly, some of the refugees may think that way, but a lot of them are going to be people who came here, at least in part, because they do not like the despotic, theocratic societies they're fleeing. And I assume that most of them, being intelligent human beings, are aware that Europe is democratic and that that is the society they're signing up to live in.

I suggest you look into how things have worked with the German Turks and quite a few other situations before making a sweeping generalization that there is nothing to worry about.

It did not involve wholesale cultural assimilation of foreign populations, which takes a far longer time.

I'm curious as to what you mean by assimilation. Do you meant ensuring that the refugees are, by and large, able to function and support themselves in Germany or wherever? Or do you mean that you demand nothing less than a total abandonment of their culture and beliefs and conforming to mainstream/traditional European culture? Or somewhere in between?

I'm honestly curious.

Able to function, learn the language, follow the laws and integrate into the society as productive members. As long as they do not break laws, they are free to follow their own cultural customs (e.g. at home, or wearing distinctive clothing if they want, follow their own religion etc), but they do not get to try to supplant the existing society with the one from their own country of origin. Those who try that are welcome to go back to the shitholes they came from.

When you have large groups of immigrants from different cultures assimilating into a population, there is a flow of influence both ways and the society that assimilates them will learn to accept some new things that do not threaten the social order. It will also affect language, if more slowly.

I can't understand most of the street slang in my parts of town anymore, because back when I was a kid, Finland was an ethnic monoculture. With Swedish speaking minority in some places, but for all practical purposes, a monoculture. Now we have all kinds of immigrants in numbers that would never have been dreamed of back in the 1980s and their kids are going to school with Finnish kids and they're all happily mixing and learning stuff from each other. When I was in school, everyone knew Finnish, a few might have known Swedish and maybe something else as well, but by and large that. These days classrooms where the kids collectively speak between six and fifteen different languages are not unusual in large population centers. Foreign terms from Arabic and other languages have entered the street slang the kids use between themselves and I'd need a dictionary for a lot of that.

This is not a bad thing, per se, but there is always a rate of change that is possible and if you try to force things beyond its limit quickly, things go to shit. You can assimilate a small number of people quickly, or a larger number slowly, but if you get way past capacity, in numbers large enough to form ethnic monoculture ghettoes, then assimilation stops. And that leads down all kinds of bad paths. Alienation, bigotry, socially dispossessed people, resentment, increased unrest and crime etc.

So if anything, this is going to be a lot harder to do.

I am deeply skeptical of the claim that handling the refugee crisis will be more difficult and costly for Europe than winning and rebuilding from the world wars, even if its a different problem. This sounds like typical apocalyptic anti-immigrant fear-mongering.

Culturally, you fucking dolt! Rebuilding cities from scratch is fucking expensive, yes, and lives lost cannot be replaced, but rebuilding or building infra is a relatively quick matter when done as a mass undertaking. Assimilating a large number of immigrants from a widely different culture (or more than one) takes a lot longer and if you want to pretend otherwise, you're welcome to your delusions.

Yes, the EU can do more, and it will do more, because Germany and some of the other countries who are now bearing the brunt of the crisis are going to pull the velvet glove off the iron fist soon enough if others don't start pulling their weight. Problem there being that those things happen more slowly than the events are moving. But regardless, you should not confuse a theoretical obligation to help with some utopia where Europe just needs to passively accept the current state of affairs.

Passively accepting the current state of affairs would hardly constitute a utopia. The question is not weather we should accept the status quo, but how we should try to change it.

I'm not talking about a utopia (nice straw man). And I'm not talking about accepting the status quo. I'm talking about accepting the simple fact that, short of turning Europe into a hell hole, more refugees will probably come, for the near future at least. And accepting the fact that these refugees are no less human and no less deserving of help than the people of Europe. That is the heart of the issue.

Then how about you present some actual fucking suggestions on how to do that rather than post moralizing handwaving bullshit without substance like you usually do? Nobody likes the status quo, but an unrestricted flood of refugees will turn things into a hellhole. Right now there are talks of EU funding refugee camps in Turkey if Turkey keeps its borders controlled and restricts the refugees from Europe. Whether Turkey will go along with that is a different thing and at least it will require political concessions such as waiving visa requirements for Turks, but is one way the status quo is being changed.

What I am saying, in short, is that Europe is far from a utopia, that it is in a very difficult situation, and that it has to find a good way to deal with it, with courage and decency. Its their, its not going away, and saying "we've had enough" won't make it go away. So Europe has to act, but the question is, should that action take the form of making some hard sacrifices to accommodate millions of desperate human beings, or clamping down like a good old fashioned xenophobic police state? I know which one I prefer.

It's going to be a combination of both. Sacrifices yes, to accommodate those who actually need asylum, and a harsh clampdown on everyone else. If you think all of these refugees are legit asylum seekers, I have ocean front to sell you in Afghanistan.

We have a very long history of killing each other on this continent for sometimes very trivial reasons and nobody wants to go back to that. It still doesn't mean that the other options are necessarily pleasant ones for those at the pointy end of the stick, and that's just how it is.

They're going to keep coming. That's just how it is.

And rather than risk turning on each other, you prefer to turn on the refugees? That hardly seems much better. People are still getting fucked over.

Guess what? If it comes down to the choice between turning our society against itself and tear itself apart, and turning on the refugees, I will turn on them every single time. The first obligations of a nation are to its own citizens. Humans are tribal creatures, though tribalism is not a good thing for society at large. We've managed to do away with a lot of that in the west, but it still exists and pretending otherwise is idiocy. At some point it will rear its head and then things will get ugly.

As I said before, the mess in the Middle East isn't going to sort itself out by dithering, or by the people who should be fighting for their own running away and then whining about how the food they are getting in emergency shelters somehow isn't good enough (when it's good enough for the school children of the recipient countries) and all this other bullshit that is being seen.

Wow.

Ah, victim blaming. Its the fault of those cowardly whiney refugees for running away.

Here's a thought: if you're not prepared to sign up to go fight in the Middle East yourself, why not stop judging others (many of them civilians and even children) who have left because they don't want to be their either?

And this sounds so much like the rich Republicans in the US who rant about how the poor are hurting them and ruining the country by taking all their money.

I don't have a stake in that fight. If the Russian army came over the eastern border of Finland tomorrow, I would have a stake in that fight and I wouldn't be looking for the first boat or plane out. So you can take your strawman and shove it right up your voluminous ass.

Anyone with that attitude can fuck off right back into the frontlines between the ISIS and whoever is fighting them and if they die there, good riddance.

More callous, vicious victim blaming. You fear what the refugees may do to your country, so you turn on them and tell yourself that they're cowards who deserve death.

Shame on you.

If you want to argue that it is necessary to treat refugees like shit, at least have the decency to argue that it is a painful necessary evil, not pretend that the victims have it coming.

You're a fucking idiot, but that was never in doubt. I do not begrudge giving refugees food and shelter. They aren't being given moldy scraps of bread and rotten meat or anything of the kind. We've arranged housing, food and other basic necessities, and then we get whiny complaints about how the rice wasn't like they were used to and whatnot and how some of these people who had their food provided for them did not get as much money as some others in other centers who had to buy their own food. That sort of complaints are a dead giveaway that the people making them are NOT in fact legit asylum seekers, but economic fortune seekers, and they need to be slapped down hard.

Also another fun fact: Of the refugees we have received here in Finland, more than 75% are Iraqis. A very large number of them from Baghdad and from other points not currently under threat and word in Iraq is that Finland is a good place to come to because we go much more lenient on Iraqi asylum applications than Sweden and we don't have a treaty to enable returning people there with the Iraqi government (a massive oversight on the part of the Finnish government, as all the other Nordic countries have such a treaty in place).

You're making more generalizations about things you know nothing about and haven't bothered to look into, but that is again surprising to no one.

If you are going somewhere to get help, it pays not to bite the hand that (literally) feeds you, because if you do, that hand is liable to reach for a stick and beat the living fuck out of you in the worst case.

Yeah, Europe's going to beat the fuck out of those disgusting refugees. What a big tough man you are.

See above about those coming over here just after a better standard of living. I don't have a problem tossing such people right the hell out and if they want to piss off the population of the host country (like these Iraqi clowns up north did), then they deserve to deal with the fallout they get. The bigger problem is, these assholes just made things a lot harder for all other asylum seekers as well, not just themselves. Let's just ignore that elephant in the room, shall we?

At its heart, it is a military conflict for supremacy and the only way it is going to be solved is by whoever is going to be the biggest dog in the yard killing enough of the other, weaker dogs that they won't get challenged again. Or a number of regional big dogs killing enough of their regional rivals and then establishing territorial borders that keep them from butting heads all the time.

Just to be clear, I trust you are referring to the fighting in the Middle East and not the refugee crisis as "...a military conflict for supremacy..." that can only be solved by killing?

If you read my post in context, as well as my replies to ray245, you would have no trouble understanding that it is a reference to the Syrian civil war and the conflicts being fought in the Middle East. Not the refugees.

Outside interference can alter that equation somewhat, but the only way it will have any lasting effect is if the outsiders pick sides from viable winning candidates, then stick to them and then get serious about the business of killing the other guy dead so that the low level conflict boil comes to an end and settles down.

I thought you weren't a fan of Middle East intervention?

Also, if you consider fucking Syria low level, I'd hate to see what you think qualifies as a real, serious war.

Not much of a student of 20th century history, are you? Take a look at the numbers for the forces fighting each other and what they have accomplished vs what happened when actual well trained armies went to war with each other. Or well trained armies vs untrained armies. The last time my country was involved in a war, we lost some 125,000 men vs between 800,000 and 1 million on the other side. Or what happened in Central Europe or Russia, or Korea, Vietnam, Iran/Iraq war etc.

The current forces in Syria have managed to create a lot of rubble and a whole hell of a lot of refugees, but that's about it. It's pushing and pulling in different directions, but more or less the situation stays at a low boil. If anyone is going to seriously interfere rather than just funding different factions enough to retain the status quo, then it needs to be done by the numbers and without diddling around or it will just be a catastrophe.

And as we saw of the American handling of Iraq 12 years ago, there is no reason to expect any kind of competence from those who actually have the muscle to pull it off. My cats would have done a better job of that. So yeah, not much of a fan of western interventionism given the track record of the recent past.

As long as it's "humanitarian intervention" with limited engagement etc, you might as well not bother.

What are you suggesting?

A full-scale, possibly decades-long ground deployment? Some sort of total war where we throw niceties like human rights out the window?

Either stay out and bottle it in until they have fought it out, or seriously back some faction that is a viable winning candidate, smash its enemies and then leave it on top of the rubble heap when done.

In any case, when both the US and its allies and Russia are involved in Syria, they're likely going to be cancelling each other out, escalating the fighting, and risking the whole thing blowing up into World War III. So someone needs to back the fuck off for their to be any solution.

The US and Russia are not going to go to war over Syria. If you believe that, I still have some of that Afghanistan ocean front for sale.

The unfortunate side effect of that is that a lot of people are going to get dead in the process, but that is a given no matter what option is chosen.

Maybe so, but their is nonetheless a moral obligation to minimize the number of people killed as much as possible. I hope you can agree with that.

Yes, I can agree with that. As I said before, the Middle East is nothing but an exercise in choosing the lesser evil, no matter what you do.

I would very much prefer for there to be as peaceable a solution to things as possible, and as swiftly as possible, but that is going to require a lot of things. In Syria, militarily, it is going to require a clear winner in the civil war with enough muscle to enforce some kind of order. With the refugee problem, it's going to require a lot more European solidarity than has been seen so far. Bearing the brunt of everything are Germany (biggest destination), Greece and Italy (biggest entry points), followed closely by Sweden, Austria, Finland and then the biggest transit countries. Many others are just sitting on the sidelines waving their hands.

The Schengen and Dublin treaties are going to be more or less dead letters after this and if Germany needs to use its economic power to strongarm some of the countries currently sitting things out, the political fallout in the EU will be ugly. Things are not intolerable yet, but on their current trajectory, they will be and the timeframe depends on just how tightly the outside borders can be sealed as well as the other political solutions. But Germany, Sweden and Finland will not take much longer to run out of patience, which will then kick things into the next phase of development. Many paths out of this mess will get a lot worse before things start getting better. Some paths lead down ways that will not get better, period, though they are not very likely.

[Ace Pace]

I think, speaking in very broad terms, that Germany, and a lot of other European nations, may have to consider some major changes. Changes to the law (as discussed previously in this thread), higher taxes, more infrastructure and resources devoted to refugees. I'll concede that the political will may not be their for it, but that's a human failing, a matter of choice, not a theoretical lack of capability. It may be hard, but as long as you can keep your internal radicals/bigots under control, you'll at least be avoiding retreading the path of the despot, and be helping people who honestly are much worse off than Germans on average.

I want to focus on this, because this might bring to light your opinion on balancing differing goals.
The European Union as a whole is not precisely a healthy economy. Growth rates aren't amazing. Unemployment isn't exactly low and the social services aren't precisely flush with money. Adding taxation with the result of assimilating more complex population won't help them retain their standard of living nor will it help the long term prospects of the economy except as an amorphous "new people are generally helpful for the economy."

So till what point is the EU supposed to change it's policies to help others?

[Thanas]

I haven't yet finished reading the article you just recommended, so I will partially reserve judgement on this point. If it does not provide specific numbers that demonstrate this, however, then I will ask you to prove that Germany or any other nation has reached the limits of its ability. With specific numbers, not vague claims that its too much.

Oh FFS. Everybody in the government and even the left-wing media is stating that we have too much. Even our President - who is pretty much a bleeding heart - said it is too much. Our interior ministers all report it is too much. Our mayors complain. WTF do you want me to do?

I suppose you could also just threaten to walk away from the EU, but that seems rather drastic and counter productive. Basically the nuclear option, so to speak.

Nobody is going to sacrifice the EU over this. We are not going to return to a Europe of nation states that has created two world wars. Are you mental?

That said frightened, prejudiced, and self-interested people are obviously biased, that their are always a lot of people quick to fear monger about immigrants and that they are generally wrong, and more specifically that despite everything much of Europe is still way, way better off than a lot of the world (a point I already more or less made).

K, now show how the politicians are wrong and that there are actually empty quarters for migrants in Germany. Go on. Should be easy pickings for somebody who has that strong of an opinion.

Also, I cannot help but suspect that you took a shot at the US because you know I am an American, that you were trying to insult me and/or discredit me and my argument by attacking my nationality. If so, it is quite pathetic.

No, I was actually commenting on how the western state most responsible for the mess is doing nothing meaningful to help deal with the consequences of its actions and how it would do us no favours if we continue cleaning up the mess without getting anything in return.

Are you seriously arguing that the average refugee doesn't know that Europe is democratic?

Besides a vague notion of "people vote for their leaders over there" and "everybody there is rich" I very much doubt most do know a lot, yes. I mean, you yourself obviously don't know how Germany works by your statements in this thread. You probably don't even know the housing shortage in Germany. Or how local elections are held. If you don't know, then how the fuck do you expect people who are not even able to read or write know about foreign countries?

Fact is most people, even those who are literate, do know jackshit about how other nations work and what it would take to successfully live there. If you claim that this is different, go ask a fellow American on the street how the French elect their president.

I think it is rather soon to say that Germany can't take any more refugees.

Well, we can't. Not if they start pulling in their family members. Germany is a nation of 88 million people. You want us to take in up to 12 million new citizens? Do you even understand the scale of the problem?

I think, speaking in very broad terms, that Germany, and a lot of other European nations, may have to consider some major changes. Changes to the law (as discussed previously in this thread), higher taxes, more infrastructure and resources devoted to refugees.

The tax burden is already much higher than in the USA. If we hike up taxes, we will lose even more ground to the USA. Many EU nations already have double the unemployment percentage of the US, even triple in some cases. How the fuck are we supposed to hike taxes when we can't even provide our own people with jobs?

[K. A. Pital]

Tax burden in Germany higher than in the US, Thanas? For whom, for physical persons? I think not. Other than that you are right, of course: the family reunification laws will have much more than the initial number of immigrants coming. Without a plan this is bound to cause trouble, no matter how tolerant the society in question is.

People in the US like to pride in their history of immigration, but they've let the market decide on its whim as to whether the immigrants shall die or live, and many died digging canals and building railways. The Irish, the Chinese...

Today Europe cannot offer them the "hospitality" of XIX century America, of a social-darwinist purgatory that they will have to pass to become members of society, with many dying along the way or being condemned to intergenerational poverty. But being what it is, a confederation of capitalist nations, Europe cannot offer everyone a decent job. It is already a much better place than the US, because we have guaranteed educational opportunities - free! - that everyone, migrants included, can pursue, although only after naturalizing, and universal healthcare.

But there is a limit to the efficiency of these systems, which are being rapidly strained, especially the integration courses, and neoliberal hacks from America want to dismantle welfare alltogether anyway - they have been quite successful in their onslaught on European social rights and freedoms, these "friends" across the ocean.

What is true: Northern Europe and Germany will deal with the coming refugees, and most likely will offer them a more dignified existence than fucking America ever could. But in the meantime they will be endlessly berated by Americans sitting on their high horse of vainglorious pride.

[Thanas]

Tax burden in Germany higher than in the US, Thanas?

Yes. In Germany, total tax revenue as percentage of gross domestic product is 40.6%. In the United states, it is 26.9%.

[K. A. Pital]

Oh, I was thinking more about the tax burden for physical persons (workers); that the US has a lower tax for corporations, making it quite the TNC haven, I do know.

[Thanas]

Oh, I was thinking more about the tax burden for physical persons (workers); that the US has a lower tax for corporations, making it quite the TNC haven, I do know.

Even that is higher:


Payroll tax (most directly affecting workers): GER 41%, USA 15.3% max
VAT: GER 19% USA 11.75%
Individual tax minimum: GER 14%, USA 0%
Tax maximum: GER: 45.0%, USA 55.9%

[K. A. Pital]

41% payroll tax? What I do know is that the Lohnsteuer is around ~14%, the rest is pension insurance and medical insurance. There's no payroll tax at 41%.

What I also do know is that the difference between net wage in the US and net wage in Germany (when all insurance, tax and other payments are taken into account) is almost nonexistent in the lower wages (I've received wages in both nations, so this is purely personal experience) - and in fact the results do favor Germany. Maybe the difference becomes more obvious at higher income levels, but my concern is always primarily the working class.

The US has no federal VAT, to my knowledge, so I'm not sure what exactly you are comparing here to what. Prices in the US do seem to be lower than in Germany (but then, so are incomes). Comparing the sales taxes between the different states to produce an average and then the German VAT, perhaps?

Quite a digression, though, so maybe this discussion is best held elsewhere.

[Thanas]

41% payroll tax? What I do know is that the Lohnsteuer is around ~14%, the rest is pension insurance and medical insurance. There's no payroll tax at 41%.

The 41 percent is the insurance and medical insurance added to the payroll tax, which apparently is the method by which the total tax on payroll is calculated.

The US has no federal VAT, to my knowledge, so I'm not sure what exactly you are comparing here to what. Prices in the US do seem to be lower than in Germany (but then, so are incomes). Comparing the sales taxes between the different states to produce an average and then the German VAT, perhaps?

I am taking the highest state tax in the USA as comparison, I did not have time to create a medium so I am taking the highest to make sure I favor Germany as little as possible here.

[K. A. Pital]

In this case you certainly miscalculated something for the USA - a "15% max" payroll tax does not encompass any insurance deductions. It's only federal tax (no social security, no Medicare) that stands at 13% for the USA, which is quite similar for the German Lohnsteuer at 14%. I compared similar wages for Germany and the US.

[Thanas]

Ah, ok - then what is the amount of money the state charges for things like that? Have you got any figures for that?

[Thanas]

Meanwhile, whoever claimed that people would not attempt channel crossings needs to read this.

[Broomstick]

If you're referring to US states there's no one answer for that - US states range from no state income tax at all to Alaska, which gives money to state residents (part of the oil profits, if I recall) to states that have substantial state income tax. As an example, Indiana state tax is a flat 3.4% of what you declare your income to be on your Federal forms. Michigan, where I have also lived and paid taxes, is 4.25%. Illinois is 6.25 percent. The highest I could find was California at 12%... for the highest bracket. Yep, some states have a flat state income tax, some have a progressive one.

Then we get sales taxes at state, county, and city levels. They're all over the place, too.

At one point, thanks to living in one state and working in another, I was paying taxes to TWO US states.

I'm not sure if we have a greater tax burden so much as a greater burden in finding out just what exactly we're supposed to be paying, and to whom.

[ray245]

I think, speaking in very broad terms, that Germany, and a lot of other European nations, may have to consider some major changes. Changes to the law (as discussed previously in this thread), higher taxes, more infrastructure and resources devoted to refugees. I'll concede that the political will may not be their for it, but that's a human failing, a matter of choice, not a theoretical lack of capability. It may be hard, but as long as you can keep your internal radicals/bigots under control, you'll at least be avoiding retreading the path of the despot, and be helping people who honestly are much worse off than Germans on average.

I want to focus on this, because this might bring to light your opinion on balancing differing goals.
The European Union as a whole is not precisely a healthy economy. Growth rates aren't amazing. Unemployment isn't exactly low and the social services aren't precisely flush with money. Adding taxation with the result of assimilating more complex population won't help them retain their standard of living nor will it help the long term prospects of the economy except as an amorphous "new people are generally helpful for the economy."

So till what point is the EU supposed to change it's policies to help others?

Let's not forget the relative cost of living in EU is different from other regions. It cost more to house/feed/educate a refugee in Germany compared to a country like Turkey. Sure it will help if Europe and the rest of the developed world can help in taking in more refugees, but that does not necessarily equates to saving MORE refugees.

A policy of funding refugee programs in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt would do more to save lives than taking everyone into Europe.

[K. A. Pital]

I used ADP net pay calculator (it is the largest payroll processor and the tool seems to be quite efficient), and the net pay was between 75 and 70 percent of gross pay in most cases. I was looking at wages between 40000 usd and 50000 usd per year.

If I did something wrong, our US members can correct me.

This is not factoring in the health insurance; working class qualify for neither Medicare nor Medicaid with such an income. Medicare costs are very low, but it is a pensioneer thing, for people aged above 65. In Germany, unversal state-mandated medical insurance is part of the withheld sum.

[Thanas]

That would make a huge difference though, AFAIK the healthcare in the USA is insanely expensive.

[Elheru Aran]

Indeed, and US pay doesn't really correlate much to the cost of US healthcare as it's basically expected that insurance will cover most of the costs. If you don't have insurance, you're fucked. Much less so in Germany and other countries where healthcare is publicly funded (IIRC). I'm sure it's still expensive if you don't have insurance... but not to the point of putting you into severe debt for years.

[Thanas]

Situation becoming increasingly more violent in German refugee shelters.

[Block]

It depends a lot on your employer. My premium is about 120 per month, and that's taken out of gross pay so my taxes are calculated without that, and my employer pays the rest. I then have a copay of $25 for a doctor's visit. Medication is no more than $35 per prescription, although I need none. It gets more complex when you're married with kids, etc. but cost really mostly varies on employer contribution.

[K. A. Pital]

Indeed, and US pay doesn't really correlate much to the cost of US healthcare as it's basically expected that insurance will cover most of the costs. If you don't have insurance, you're fucked. Much less so in Germany and other countries where healthcare is publicly funded (IIRC). I'm sure it's still expensive if you don't have insurance... but not to the point of putting you into severe debt for years.

You cannot be uninsured in Germany, though. At least not as a worker. Eveyone is insured. There are no doctor co-payments for a visit; this cost is also covered by mandatory insurance. Worker contribution stands at 7,5% of gross wage and is withheld automatically.

[LaCroix]

And all medication that is prescribed will be paid. No cap, but maybe a tiny copay.

[jwl]

Meanwhile, whoever claimed that people would not attempt channel crossings needs to read this.

I never said nobody would try. I said they would fail if they did try. And guess what? They failed.

Anyway, that was an attempt to stow away on a boat that would go through customs, not an attempt to go in a boat and land illegally.

[LaCroix]

Bavaria is putting forth a motion to close the borders to "regulate the stream of refugees", tomorrow.

Austrian minister of interior is claiming that if Germany really closes the border, Austria must do as well, to regulate, too.

Meanwhile, the phrase most used is "secure the outer borders", which just means "not letting any refugees into eu, at all". For which, of course, states will condemn the 'outer' eu states...

[Edi]

Depends on what you do and how. Finland hasn't had that return treaty with Iraq before, but we established a processing center up north where most of the refugees are coming from through Sweden and now that they are being immediately processed and things laid out for them, all of a sudden the influx has fallen by half and the Iraqi social media is alive with stories that Finland is no longer an easy place to come to so many are not even attempting it any more. The Iraqi embassy here also ran out of passports yesterday because there were so many purported refugees who wanted to return home. Some because of deaths in the family and having a responsibility to take care of parents or whatnot, but if it was that precarious to begin with so that they would be needed so swiftly, what are they doing here in the first place?

Establishing well functioning, efficient and thorough border controls at the outer edges is going to be a deterrent to at least the economic fortune seekers. Especially if the more robust return policy for those denied asylum is put in place. If you can cut out the bullshitters from the real refugees just by actually doing competent border control, registration and processing will pull some of the strain off the system and make it easier to deal with the real humanitarian needs. If there is a substantial risk that paying thousands of dollars to human smugglers just means an arduous trip and a swift return with no money, anyone not in real distress is going to stay put where they are.

[cosmicalstorm]

The political One Ring To Rule Them All alliance that was formed between all proimmigration parties has failed today. Sweden may hold a reelection soon.

Today the army provided a couple of hundred tents but that wont go far with 2000+ arriving every day. Matresses are literally out in some areas.