European refugee crisis thread

[salm]

It's one thing to say other nations aren't taking enough refugees - true, they aren't, which is deplorable considering the Middle Eastern crisis. It's a totally different thing to suggest the EU citizens should go to other nations. One of the reasons to have the EU passport is to be able to freely travel, freely take up jobs and freely live across the EU. In fact, that's one of the few redeeming features of the whole project in my eyes. For equality and great justice, heh.

I just re-read the thread and I don´t think anyobdy suggested that EU citizens should go to other nations. Did I miss something?

[K. A. Pital]

I think that suggesting other nations share some sort of "burden" when the net immigration is actually not "1 million per year" and most of the net inward and outward migrating people are citizens (well, not your own but citizens of the European confederation)... is a bit strange. Net migration is ~450 000, of them 350 000 EU citizens - which is basically free movement in action. And only the other 100k or so are true immigrants about which you could say that other large nations should also responsibly take similar amounts.

Maybe Thanas did not suggest that, but the way he presented figures for 2013 was a bit misleading. Indeed, I also thought that net immigration is 1,2 million, and assumed that this should be the consequences of the civil wars and crisis in the Middle East (2011-present).

Reality turned out a bit different.

[salm]

Ah, I see.

The estimated number of this years asylum seakers has risen to 800 000. Living space for that number is really tight. I like what the mayor of Tübingen, Boris Palmer, has suggested. The city of Tübingen is in talks with people who own homes - empty, big houses that can fit 70 or so people, each. The city wants to buy or rent from these people but apparently a lot of these home owners are too asocial to let refugees live in their precious homes. Apparently German police law allows to seize empty living space from people in times of high homelessnes. Palmer wants to use this law to temporarily disown home owners and give these living spaces to refugees.

[Simon_Jester]

Holy fuck, how is Germany supposed to take in, shelter, and somehow assimilate that many people?

The US - a much larger country both geographically and demographically - typically only takes in 70,000-80,000 per year, that's ten times the US annual refugee count per year, and nearly twice the 400,000+ legal immigrants to the US each year.

The US is by some measures extremely conservative and reluctant about letting in immigrants.

During the late 19th century, the number of legal immigrants arriving to the US every year was roughly 1% of the US population. Now, it is 0.1%.

The US was not swamped or destroyed culturally by taking in 1% of its population in immigrants per year. So, regardless of any arguments about net migration and European versus non-European migration and so on... I wouldn't be surprised if Germany can handle 1% of its population a year too, at least for a while.

And 1% of the German population is eight hundred thousand people.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Holy fuck, how is Germany supposed to take in, shelter, and somehow assimilate that many people?

The US - a much larger country both geographically and demographically - typically only takes in 70,000-80,000 per year, that's ten times the US annual refugee count per year, and nearly twice the 400,000+ legal immigrants to the US each year.

The US is by some measures extremely conservative and reluctant about letting in immigrants.

During the late 19th century, the number of legal immigrants arriving to the US every year was roughly 1% of the US population. Now, it is 0.1%.

The US was not swamped or destroyed culturally by taking in 1% of its population in immigrants per year. So, regardless of any arguments about net migration and European versus non-European migration and so on... I wouldn't be surprised if Germany can handle 1% of its population a year too, at least for a while.

And 1% of the German population is eight hundred thousand people.

The problem is that we have somewhere to physically put all those immigrants. The US is *huge*, our population is highly distributed, and we have abundant surplus housing.

Germany crams 80 million people into a land area about the size of New Mexico. Even if its bureaucratic apparatus were not swamped by what can only be called a Refugee Shock, they dont have the physical infrastructure to deal with them all. Unlike the US, they dont have the ability to buy up a huge number of recreation vehicles and set up refugee camps in RV parks that are hooked up to water, sewage, and power grids.

[Gandalf]

Man, this pisses me off. They're human fucking beings, not plague-ridden rats, but my country treats them one and the same.

If you want to feel better about the UK, look at what Australia does.

[Broomstick]

Yes, it's not just about percentage of the population, it's also the population density. NO nation in Europe is (when you average things out) as sparsely populated as the US. North America still has enormous territory in which to put people, good territory (we also have a lot of harsh desert and other "wasteland" that isn't terribly suitable for living in).

And while in the past the US has accepted larger quantities of immigrants in relation to the population numbers it would be misleading to think that didn't have significant social effects on the country. Those effects weren't necessarily bad, or even disruptive, but it did cause change and that can be stressful.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, it's not just about percentage of the population, it's also the population density. NO nation in Europe is (when you average things out) as sparsely populated as the US. North America still has enormous territory in which to put people, good territory (we also have a lot of harsh desert and other "wasteland" that isn't terribly suitable for living in).

Germany has plenty of land that is rural, semi-rural, or suburban. The population density is about 232 people per square kilometer, roughly equal to that of the state of Maryland.

Now, I've spent most of my life in Maryland, so I can tell you confidently that Maryland hasn't run out of places to put people. In the LONG term, increasing the population density a few percent further would put strain on the state's infrastructure, but it's not a question of "oh my god we have no room."

In the SHORT term, of course, the logistics would be a good deal more problematic.

And while in the past the US has accepted larger quantities of immigrants in relation to the population numbers it would be misleading to think that didn't have significant social effects on the country. Those effects weren't necessarily bad, or even disruptive, but it did cause change and that can be stressful.

Not disputing this.

[Gandalf]

I feel that their is a moral obligation for prosperous nations to help refugees as much as they are able to do so, though I'll credit Germany for doing as much as it has.

And it is a shame if other countries are not bearing their share of the burden. While Europe is, geographically, a more obvious choice for refugees fleeing the Middle East and Africa, I would like to see my own countries of Canada and America do more to help refugees. We are allies of Germany, after all.

Indeed. And on top of that, countries like Australia and the US should be doing more because of continued shitty security theatre (or realpolitik) against whomever is the enemy this week.

Though on top of this is the sad humour of colonial nations declaring that nobody else is allowed in, but that's to be expected at all times.

[Thanas]

I think that suggesting other nations share some sort of "burden" when the net immigration is actually not "1 million per year" and most of the net inward and outward migrating people are citizens (well, not your own but citizens of the European confederation)... is a bit stranget.

This is your failure to read the thread, I only talked about burden in the context of refugees and in fact explicitly said that we need the normal amount of immigration anyway.

Germany has plenty of land that is rural, semi-rural, or suburban. The population density is about 232 people per square kilometer, roughly equal to that of the state of Maryland.

Now, I've spent most of my life in Maryland, so I can tell you confidently that Maryland hasn't run out of places to put people. In the LONG term, increasing the population density a few percent further would put strain on the state's infrastructure, but it's not a question of "oh my god we have no room."

You mistake population density with "available housing".

[salm]

Housing demand seems to be so high that waiting times for living containers are half a year. This is bad because because sooner or later winter is comming.

[Welf]

The US is by some measures extremely conservative and reluctant about letting in immigrants.

During the late 19th century, the number of legal immigrants arriving to the US every year was roughly 1% of the US population. Now, it is 0.1%.

The US was not swamped or destroyed culturally by taking in 1% of its population in immigrants per year. So, regardless of any arguments about net migration and European versus non-European migration and so on... I wouldn't be surprised if Germany can handle 1% of its population a year too, at least for a while.

And 1% of the German population is eight hundred thousand people.

The USA in the 19th century could absorb all those immigrants because they didn't have public housing or health care, and because they displaced native Americans.

[Elheru Aran]

The US is by some measures extremely conservative and reluctant about letting in immigrants.

During the late 19th century, the number of legal immigrants arriving to the US every year was roughly 1% of the US population. Now, it is 0.1%.

The US was not swamped or destroyed culturally by taking in 1% of its population in immigrants per year. So, regardless of any arguments about net migration and European versus non-European migration and so on... I wouldn't be surprised if Germany can handle 1% of its population a year too, at least for a while.

And 1% of the German population is eight hundred thousand people.

The USA in the 19th century could absorb all those immigrants because they didn't have public housing or health care, and because they displaced native Americans.

...it could be argued very realistically that the US doesn't have public housing or health care right now, either. Frankly, both (as well as public higher education, public transportation, and so much more) could easily be achieved with the current budgets. All it takes is a little shifting of priorities.

[LaCroix]

Also, in that time, you could still move somewhere, claim the land as your farm and just build a hut there. (Actually, I think you can still do that in some states.)
There isn't a single unowned square meter to be found in Germany, outside of natural reserves (which are, of course not available for housing)

[Elheru Aran]

Also, in that time, you could still move somewhere, claim the land as your farm and just build a hut there. (Actually, I think you can still do that in some states.)
There isn't a single unowned square meter to be found in Germany, outside of natural reserves (which are, of course not available for housing)

Not that many, actually. You're thinking of the Homestead Acts, but those ended in the 70s. There are a number of municipalities which do offer free land for residential use in states like Kansas, Alaska, Iowa, and so forth, but you have to fill an application out or some other process (varies by state). Fees and such apply. Try this anywhere else, and you ARE gonna get picked up and prosecuted for squatting. The Bureau of Land Management could be contacted for further information and an individual arrangement could be worked out, but in general, no.

The main reason homesteading ended was because it was costing the states/government too much. People were moving, claiming land, and there was a requirement that they be self-sufficient, which meant working or agriculture. But often they were shit at farming (and this was one large reason why the Dust Bowl happened-- way too many amateur farmer homesteaders ruining the land), and ended up needing to be bailed out one way or another.

You can still buy land, but usually only from private owners, and frequently it's a pain in the ass when you find a nice patch and then you have to figure out who owns it and then work on them to sell it to you... Trust me, there's a reason why the majority of immigrants stuck to the cities rather than trying to strike out on their own in the boondocks.

[Simon_Jester]

Germany has plenty of land that is rural, semi-rural, or suburban. The population density is about 232 people per square kilometer, roughly equal to that of the state of Maryland.

Now, I've spent most of my life in Maryland, so I can tell you confidently that Maryland hasn't run out of places to put people. In the LONG term, increasing the population density a few percent further would put strain on the state's infrastructure, but it's not a question of "oh my god we have no room."

You mistake population density with "available housing".

I actually don't, but I did not address available housing in a manner you find satisfactory, so I will say more, to clarify what I think.

There are two separate issues here. One is whether, in the short run, space is available to physically place the immigrant population. The other is whether, in the long run, the nation can physically accommodate the immigrants without "running out of space" and becoming painfully overpopulated.

Germany has enough land, and a low enough population density, that (at least for a few years) it can bring in three quarters of a million immigrants a month, without facing long-term overpopulation.

This does not mean Germany has housing for three quarters of a million people just standing empty waiting to be occupied. Or that it will automatically have an equal number of housing units available for next year's refugees. In the short term, it is certainly true that 750000 immigrants a year can place very serious stresses on a national government.

My analogy to the US is not, in my opinion, undermined by this.

The US did not have vast amounts of surplus available housing during the nineteenth century, either, after all. The housing had to be built, and at the entry ports where most immigrants arrived in the US, the immigrants tended to bunch up and create very high-density enclaves of slums and extensively subdivided tenements.

My point was simply that Germany is not so overcrowded that it has run out of places to build new housing developments, if the political will to do so is mobilized.

Note that in NO way am I claiming that Germany should have to take on more refugees than it is taking now. In no way am I claiming that other nations are taking enough. I am simply observing that Germany, specifically, can probably absorb this rate of immigration for several years and eventually construct enough adequate housing and infrastructure to support its swelled population.

[Broomstick]

A difference between the US housing 3/4 of a million immigrants and Germany doing so is that, with the US being of much larger geographic extent there is more room and more existing housing stock in which to put those immigrants.

[Purple]

Since everyone here is so focused on housing I feel the need to point out that it's only one of and not the only problem. In fact it probably is not even the largest problem. Unless you intent to ship them back in a few years or accept a permanent population of squatters in refugee camps you also have to provide them with work and integrate them into your economy in some way. For america it was easy as during most of your history the job of "farmer" was readily available and most of the migrants coming in were somewhat competent in it. They could just stake out a bit of land and they would instantly be integrated into the economy and self sustaining. That is not so easy to do today in most of the EU.

[salm]

Since everyone here is so focused on housing I feel the need to point out that it's only one of and not the only problem. In fact it probably is not even the largest problem. Unless you intent to ship them back in a few years or accept a permanent population of squatters in refugee camps you also have to provide them with work and integrate them into your economy in some way. For america it was easy as during most of your history the job of "farmer" was readily available and most of the migrants coming in were somewhat competent in it. They could just stake out a bit of land and they would instantly be integrated into the economy and self sustaining. That is not so easy to do today in most of the EU.

Housing is the most pressing challenge at the moment and this challenge is going to get worse with even more people and with winter.
A lot of the Syrian refugees for example are middle class with a decent education. These are actually people that Germany requires. There are a lot of open jobs for educated people here. It is extremely important to get these people from the status of asylum seaker to person granted asylum because asylum seakers are not allowed to work at all. But the mills of beurocracy are slow and it can take up to a year in which refugees remain in limbo. That´s really frustrating.

[Purple]

Housing is the most pressing challenge at the moment and this challenge is going to get worse with even more people and with winter.

Yes, it is the most pressing one at the moment. No contest there. What I was getting at is that when we are talking about these sort of migratory movements we can not only focus on the moment. Certainly not if we are going to be forging foreign politics.

A lot of the Syrian refugees for example are middle class with a decent education. These are actually people that Germany requires. There are a lot of open jobs for educated people here. It is extremely important to get these people from the status of asylum seaker to person granted asylum because asylum seakers are not allowed to work at all. But the mills of beurocracy are slow and it can take up to a year in which refugees remain in limbo. That´s really frustrating.

That's not the kind of complications I expected would be happening to be honest. Although Germany has largely escaped the crisis in comparison to a lot of other EU nations like Greece. Makes sense.

[Simon_Jester]

A difference between the US housing 3/4 of a million immigrants and Germany doing so is that, with the US being of much larger geographic extent there is more room and more existing housing stock in which to put those immigrants.

Unless the immigrants are coming in during a period of protracted economic decline during which housing units are standing empty in great numbers...

...I would expect that to matter more because of the US having four times the population, than just because the US has more land. And the one thing I am accounting for is the population size, which is why I'm talking about the immigration as a percentage of the total population.

The point I'm making is that, in proportionate terms, accommodating roughly 750000 refugees for Germany would be roughly on par with accommodating roughly 55000 refugees for the comparably densely inhabited state of Maryland. And that WOULD be hard in a number of ways, it WOULD impose major strains on infrastructure in the main areas you settle them, it WOULD be tough to find jobs for them all, it WOULD be a struggle to construct housing for them, and so on.

But it's not like there's literally no place where they could be put, given application of political will and money. The state has not simply run out of physical room for future growth.

[madd0ct0r]

Housing is the most pressing challenge at the moment and this challenge is going to get worse with even more people and with winter.

Yes, it is the most pressing one at the moment. No contest there. What I was getting at is that when we are talking about these sort of migratory movements we can not only focus on the moment. Certainly not if we are going to be forging foreign politics.

A lot of the Syrian refugees for example are middle class with a decent education. These are actually people that Germany requires. There are a lot of open jobs for educated people here. It is extremely important to get these people from the status of asylum seaker to person granted asylum because asylum seakers are not allowed to work at all. But the mills of beurocracy are slow and it can take up to a year in which refugees remain in limbo. That´s really frustrating.

That's not the kind of complications I expected would be happening to be honest. Although Germany has largely escaped the crisis in comparison to a lot of other EU nations like Greece. Makes sense.

About quarter the British Somalia population were sailors, the rest were middle. Class. Their accountancy. Or nursing degrees may not be worth anything here, but at the very least you can expect their kids to go to university.

Same for r the iraqis and kurds I've met. It's not the poor who can afford the routes

[Thanas]

But it's not like there's literally no place where they could be put, given application of political will and money. The state has not simply run out of physical room for future growth.

I just love how you go from multiple sources stating "housing is not available" to "there is enough physical room". It takes time and money to put up housing. It is very hard to see it being finished before winter.

And Maryland is a bad example, because due to the problem of city flight there are enough buildings around. Over here we have simply largely run out of buildings.

And BTW: Maryland was built much more spacier than most of the cities of Germany have. I can't see them being comparable.

[Simon_Jester]

I just love how you go from multiple sources stating "housing is not available" to "there is enough physical room". It takes time and money to put up housing. It is very hard to see it being finished before winter.

And Maryland is a bad example, because due to the problem of city flight there are enough buildings around. Over here we have simply largely run out of buildings.

And BTW: Maryland was built much more spacier than most of the cities of Germany have. I can't see them being comparable.

The population density is still more or less the same on average- in terms of 'people per square kilometer.' In Maryland there is presumably a lot more suburban sprawl.

I think the problem here is that when you hear "there is enough physical room," you're... it's like, you go back and forth between thinking I think "enough room" means "enough buildings" and thinking it means "enough places to put buildings."

There are NOT enough buildings. There ARE enough places to put buildings.

The lack of enough buildings means there will be a short term crisis. I did not intend to come across as denying this.

The presence of places to put buildings means that in the long term, assuming no new disasters, it is possible for Germany to assimilate immigrants at the needed rate, at least for several years. It is not as though Germany is being 'swamped' demographically, in other words.

I was mostly attempting to address the 'how do you assimilate that' concern, not so much the 'how do you feed and house them in the short term' concern.

[Thanas]

How would you define getting swamped?