European refugee crisis thread

[Broomstick]

Despite some very harsh things about the US (like lack of a real social safety net) we don't have problems with roving gangs of disaffected immigrant young men. Not when we took in the initial wave of Hmong in the 1970's, which were almost all men (the women and children came later), nor with the Lost Boys of the Sudan in the early 2000's which were all young men.

Why?

Because, despite its faults, the US does allow for opportunity and prospects, even now. They aren't guaranteed, far from it, but the possibility is really there.

If a European country takes in migrants and those people then have "no prospects" you have to ask why - and look at the host country.

Now, granted, this is a massive wave rolling over Europe right now, and there are going to be some real problems coming out of it, but I think there are better ways than simply warehousing people in camps. Of course, on a temporary basis you might have to do such simply to give people shelter, but there should be a visible-to-the-migrants process for getting them into something more solid in a reasonable time frame.

Also - if they have an objection to being fingerprinted or otherwise formally identified I think they're just going to have to deal with it or go elsewhere. Being a refugee does not mean you get to redefine the rules for the country you wind up in. If everyone else is so identified then the newcomers must be, too, and if it's part of the process of immigrating and has been a long time then it's not personal to them, it's just the process.

[Purple]

Are they going to feel any less wronged if we forcibly keep them out or send them back to Syria?

If I might interject. He newer said what he'd do with them as opposed to taking them in. He presented a problem, not a solution. And than you threw in what you think his solution is and are arguing against it. That's the kind of thing that I was talking about.

If he objects to what he believes are the consequences of letting the refugees come, I think its fair to point out what the alternative is.

Except that this is not the only alternative. There is a third option. That being to actually work out a plan to distribute them (against their will if necessary) across various European countries (again against their will if necessary) so as to bring forth a solution that does not end in disaster. I personally find that one to be superior to both the other options. And it would seem that the leadership in Brussels, or at least its German segment agree with me.

[The Romulan Republic]

Keeping them out, weather by sending them to another European country or sending them back to Syria or wherever else they came from, is the alternative to letting them in. Though one of those alternatives is obviously better than the other.

And yes, we can redistribute them (though doing so, especially by force, is likely to cause a lot of problems too), but to some extent that's just dumping the problem on other countries that will have much the same concerns/objections.

Although for what its worth, I think, as I said, that not just Europe but the US and Canada should be taking their share of refugees.

[Purple]

Keeping them out, weather by sending them to another European country or sending them back to Syria or wherever else they came from, is the alternative to letting them in. Though one of those alternatives is obviously better than the other.

One which if I might add you had not even considered as an option when criticizing him. He did not say what he wanted to do with them, but you still immediately included he wanted to send them back into the loving embrace of ISIS.

And yes, we can redistribute them (though doing so, especially by force, is likely to cause a lot of problems too), but to some extent that's just dumping the problem on other countries that will have much the same concerns/objections.

Realistically speaking a coordinated effort between a number of countries has a much higher chance of providing satisfactory results than just dumping the problem on whom ever has the moral backbone to voluntarily open their doors. And if that coordination takes a bit of persuading so be it. Nobody is saying we should just put these people on cattle trains and dump them in a field somewhere in Poland. Just that if there is any chance at all of this not ending badly for everyone involved there needs to be a unified European solution.

Although for what its worth, I think, as I said, that not just Europe but the US and Canada should be taking their share of refugees.

We all do. Well maybe not all of us. Like I Montaigne Trump might have objections. But all the sane among us.

[Zaune]

Also - if they have an objection to being fingerprinted or otherwise formally identified I think they're just going to have to deal with it or go elsewhere. Being a refugee does not mean you get to redefine the rules for the country you wind up in. If everyone else is so identified then the newcomers must be, too, and if it's part of the process of immigrating and has been a long time then it's not personal to them, it's just the process.

In fairness to the refugees, however, I can understand how someone who's recently fled an authoritarian oligarchy might have a fairly strong emotional reaction to that sort of thing.

[Purple]

In fairness to the refugees, however, I can understand how someone who's recently fled an authoritarian oligarchy might have a fairly strong emotional reaction to that sort of thing.

I think it's just the fear that if they get ID'd and put on record than some time in the future their new hosts might use those lists to round them up and ship them back.

[The Romulan Republic]

One which if I might add you had not even considered as an option when criticizing him. He did not say what he wanted to do with them, but you still immediately included he wanted to send them back into the loving embrace of ISIS.

I am not an utter imbecile, nor am I entirely ignorant about this issue. Believe it or not, I was aware of the possibility of sending people to other parts of Europe.

And as a matter of fact, this is what I said initially:

"Are they going to feel any less wronged if we forcibly keep them out or send them back to Syria?" That does not say that I think Syria is the only place to send them or that that was necessarily what was being advocated.

Minor semantics, perhaps, but if you're going to nitpick my language, I'll nitpick right back.

Ironically, and hypocritically, you've been assuming about me.

Realistically speaking a coordinated effort between a number of countries has a much higher chance of providing satisfactory results than just dumping the problem on whom ever has the moral backbone to voluntarily open their doors. And if that coordination takes a bit of persuading so be it. Nobody is saying we should just put these people on cattle trains and dump them in a field somewhere in Poland.

Never said they were, though it wouldn't surprise me if somewhere their are some dumb, scumbag shits who are.

Also, was it your intention to so explicitly evoke the imagery of the Nazis?

Just that if there is any chance at all of this not ending badly for everyone involved there needs to be a unified European solution.

Unity would be ideal, but if some countries won't do their part, then the others must can and must make the best of it and do their duty regardless.

We all do. Well maybe not all of us. Like I Montaigne Trump might have objections. But all the sane among us.

Evidently much of the US government and Canadian government do not.

[Purple]

I am not an utter imbecile, nor am I entirely ignorant about this issue. Believe it or not, I was aware of the possibility of sending people to other parts of Europe.

That's not what I am saying. Do not attempt to put words in my mouth as you did with him.

"Are they going to feel any less wronged if we forcibly keep them out or send them back to Syria?" That does not say that I think Syria is the only place to send them or that that was necessarily what was being advocated.

No it does not. But I newer said that it does. What I said is that your reply to him indicated you had already concluded that out of all the possible option sending them back to Syria was the one he was advocating (even though he did not in fact offer any indication of what his choice would be) and that you would respond to him with that pretense. That's all I said.

Never said they were, though it wouldn't surprise me if somewhere their are some dumb, scumbag shits who are.

Also, was it your intention to so explicitly evoke the imagery of the Nazis?

Yes. In essence I was trying to show you that by demonizing your opposition instead of replying to them you were invoking the very thing cosmicalstorm was complaining about.

Not fine with that? Then you are a nazi.

He presented a very real problem. A problem that has multiple possible solutions, some good and some bad. He did not pick a solution. You picked one, and the worst one at that and criticized it. Than you used that critique to essentially tell him off and dismiss the problem he was talking about. You essentially wound up saying: "Well if you don't think they should all go to Sweden you must want them all sent back to Syria."

Unity would be ideal, but if some countries won't do their part, then the others must can and must make the best of it and do their duty regardless.

This we could argue about separately. And I really don't want to get into those details now. But I will say one thing. Doing your best means doing the best you can to actually help people. And that unfortunately means having to do triage. If you can only save 3 out of 50 you save 3. You don't work on all 50 and end up with all of them worse off than when they came to you.

[mr friendly guy]

So rising standards = legalizing vendettas and transferring beef from other discussions to this one? I ain't seeing it. Like, I ain't a mod and I have not been here for that long. But when I came here it used to be you were supposed to debate the argument and not the person.

Of course, I could be wrong so feel free to correct me. And I might be using this argument we are having now to push a broader point about how your behavior is a general demonstration of just why the term SJW has become a pejorative.

As someone who has mocked SJWs, there is quite a bit of difference between what the board rules permit us to do (and by extension what Comicalstorm opponents are doing) and how SJWs operate (irregardless of which side we take). The only thing we have in common is we both use insults. If that's all it takes to be an SJW in your definition (eg both are calling their opponents racist), then I suggest atheism is now a religion and baldness is a hair colour.

You might want to look back on this thread. Perhaps you might like to explain how mocking Cosmicalstorm IN ADDITION to what else is said invalidates refutations to his arguments, since you believe we are supposed to "debate the argument and not the person" (presumably you mean attack, not debate or else your statement makes no sense).

In case you need a refresher Cosmicalstorm made the following arguments

1. Talking about how people from Africa would be relocated to Europe (page 9) when the thread is about ME refugees. This is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand as has been pointed out. Moreover his claim that about numbers and how this will continue well into the future is unsupported. And I have barely started on how its a rhetorical tactic used by racists to go "insert group" are swamping us to stir up fear and hatred against a particular group.

2. Demonising a a person as an economic migrant for "dental services," and linking to an article which talks about no such thing (page 10). Which was pointed out by his opponents. I am not sure how this can even be considered like how SJWs behave.

3. Posting links in Swedish without a translation to support his alarmist views (especially when he knows most people here do not speak Swedish), and then having Swedish readers point out he added extra words in his description of said article, which just so happened to make it more alarmist (page 24).

4. We might have to confiscate homes from people to make way for refugees (page 24). This is just weasel words. If it doesn't happen he just says he said "might," and not definite. However it does serve a rhetorical purpose. I am sure you can figure out how.

I am sure he has made other retarded arguments over the last few months in N & P, and I am not going to chase them all down. But I don't see how pointing out he has used bullshit arguments makes it a "vendetta." I thought the board's rules warning against vendettas describe people following another poster into threads and hijacking it to continue the feud with them. There is no evidence that it is happening here.

[Simon_Jester]

Heh, just a month ago Cosmical Ali posted links to "news" that falsely claimed refugees from the Middle East were increasing crime rates across Germany by deliberately mistranslating a german magazine article (which was about one specific city and about one part of it that was neglected by the city's administration and also not about middle eastern refugees). He also posted deliberately misinterpreted statistics about growth rates in Africa and acted like that was some sort of huge demographic threat to Europe that everyone needed to be fearful about. His agenda is more than clear, he's a hateful xenophobic racist who wants to make the world a shittier place by inflaming hate and mistrust between people by posting lies and misinformation.

That he isn't getting away with it like on some other boards shows that the standards have fallen...upwards.

So rising standards = legalizing vendettas and transferring beef from other discussions to this one? I ain't seeing it. Like, I ain't a mod and I have not been here for that long. But when I came here it used to be you were supposed to debate the argument and not the person.

If the same person has a history of lying, of digging up extremely shaky, low-quality evidence and presenting it as truth, and of persistently exaggerating the 'dangers' associated with, well... pretty much everyone you'd expect a Swedish xenophobe to fear and hate...

At some point calling the guy out on his xenophobia is warranted.

You can't keep presenting biased or deeply flawed arguments forever without someone noticing and criticizing you for it. And if you keep doing it, it will reduce your credibility.

Of course, I could be wrong so feel free to correct me. And I might be using this argument we are having now to push a broader point about how your behavior is a general demonstration of just why the term SJW has become a pejorative.

By and large, "social justice warrior" has become a pejorative in the eyes of people who think we should have more of a license to be stupid, xenophobic, sexist, racist, or otherwise inferior and arrogant.

I disagree.

[Broomstick]

In fairness to the refugees, however, I can understand how someone who's recently fled an authoritarian oligarchy might have a fairly strong emotional reaction to that sort of thing.

I think it's just the fear that if they get ID'd and put on record than some time in the future their new hosts might use those lists to round them up and ship them back.

Well, sure - that's one reason why so many Americans go ballistic at the notion of national ID cards and things like that. So many of us are either refugees from authoritarian governments, or immediate descendants of the same.

Nonetheless, those who are refugees are not in position to argue very much. Yes, it sucks to be in that position.

[Tanasinn]

The expected number of migrants for Germany in 2015 has alleged been revised from 800k to up to 1.5 million.

Link.

[His Divine Shadow]

Some kind of article
http://www.lrb.co.uk/2015/09/09/slavoj- ... -of-norway

[K. A. Pital]

Some kind of article
http://www.lrb.co.uk/2015/09/09/slavoj- ... -of-norway

I often find Zizek saying what I am thinking. This is no exception. Thanks for sharing!

[Edi]

Yes, that was a smart article, well worth reading.

[Thanas]

From the Reuters report:

German authorities expect up to 1.5 million asylum seekers to arrive in Germany this year, the Bild daily said in a report to be published on Monday, up from a previous estimate of 800,000 to 1 million.

“Migratory pressures will increase further. We now expect seven to ten thousand illegal border crossings every day in the fourth quarter,” Bild cited the report as saying.

“This high number of asylum seekers runs the risk of becoming an extreme burden for the states and municipalities,” the report said.

The authorities’ report also cited concerns that those who are granted asylum will bring their families over to Germany too, Bild said.

Given family structures in the Middle East, this would mean each individual from that region who is granted asylum bringing an average of four to eight family members over to Germany in due course, Bild quoted the report as saying.

There is no way we will be able to handle 6-12 million new, non-German speaking migrants. Either there will be bigger redistribution or we will simply have to send the vast majority of them back.

And how are we going to do that? Jail them now so that they don't get away from unlocked facilities? This is going to be very hard.

Granted, given that this is Bild there is a high chance of this being BS, but it is quite alarming nonetheless.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't think it can be stopped, not without acts of true evil that no crisis could justify, at any rate.

These refugees are desperate people, they're fleeing what's basically hell on Earth, the war in Syria and Iraq isn't letting up, and so they are going to keep coming. Send them back and they'll come again, or go somewhere else that may not want them.

So again, I don't think it can be stopped, short of putting the military at the border with orders to use lethal force or placing people in concentration camps. Unless Germany is prepared to turn back the clock to the Nazis... well, you have to accept it, whatever damage it does to your country, however hard and painful it is, unless your allies decide to help more.

Its not fair, but since when is history or politics fair? You face the reality fate deals you, and pick the best option you can (hopefully), and if you get lucky things don't go too catastrophically.

I'm not blaming Germany here (unless, God forbid, the xenophobes do win out in the end). I actually feel sorry for you (though not nearly as sorry as I do for the refugees).

Edit: I'm aware this is a rather bleak outlook, but that's how I'm inclined to see it. And I want to be very clear, though it should be obvious, that I'm not advocating Nazi-esque measures to address the refugee crisis. What I'm saying is: its going to suck and there's nothing you can do about it without doing something that would suck even more, so we're all just going to have to accept this new world where millions of people are fleeing to Germany and the West in general.

[Thanas]

I don't think it can be stopped, not without acts of true evil that no crisis could justify, at any rate.

The Hungarians seem to have done a good job of stopping them so far.

And if the choice is between deporting them (which does not consitute Nazi-esque methods) or destroying our society, it is an obvious one. Our constiutional tradition and history of being an open society is too precious. We did not become a non-militaristic and tolerant society only to have an influx of migrants mix that up.

[Zaune]

Given what you'd be deporting them back to, though... There isn't really a good answer to this, is there? Not unless the rest of Europe steps up.

[Elheru Aran]

Well, sure - that's one reason why so many Americans go ballistic at the notion of national ID cards and things like that. So many of us are either refugees from authoritarian governments, or immediate descendants of the same.

A fair element of Americans in the religious right also believe such a thing is a harbringer of the literal 'Mark of the Beast'. I wish I was fucking kidding...

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't think it can be stopped, not without acts of true evil that no crisis could justify, at any rate.

The Hungarians seem to have done a good job of stopping them so far.

Perhaps because, from what I've heard, a lot of them aren't actually wanting to stay in Hungary and have other routes to get where they want to go.

And unless you want to come off as an authoritarian xenophobe, I wouldn't use fucking Hungary as a model, even though they obviously aren't at Nazi levels yet.

And if the choice is between deporting them (which does not consitute Nazi-esque methods)

Of course not. But look at the US illegal immigration issue- we deport lots of people, but it doesn't stop more people from coming, and often sneaking in illegally. So then we get assholes like Trump talking about deporting millions of people and building a wall on the southern border.

If other options are cut off, people will keep coming weather they are welcome or not, and they will sneak in unless you're prepared to wall your damn country up.

or destroying our society, it is an obvious one. Our constiutional tradition and history of being an open society is too precious. We did not become a non-militaristic and tolerant society only to have an influx of migrants mix that up.

Why would these refugees destroy that tradition? Are you assuming that they will generally be hostile to it? Or are you concerned that a backlash against refugees will lead to Germany being a less tolerant and more militaristic country? Because I certainly am worried about that last point, but locking up and deporting refugees to prevent it seems rather self-defeating to me.

And whatever sympathy I have for Germany, it is far outweighed by the sympathy I have for the refugees. Germany has a long, long way to fall before it would be even close to comparable to the horror the refugees are fleeing.

This is not to say that I think Germany should have to bear the burden while others do far less than they could. I think it is shameful that certain other nations are not doing more. This isn't just empty words from me either- I have contacted the White House, my Congressman, the Sanders campaign, and leader of the Canadian Green Party on this issue, for all the fucking good its done.

But if, hypothetically, it was a choice between all those people coming to Germany or being deported to live in poverty or die elsewhere while your nation remained safe and pristine at their expense, would you be okay with that? I think that's a question everyone in every western nation needs to answer.

It shouldn't be a choice between those two things, it doesn't need to be, and I hope it won't be. But I am curious nonetheless. How far heavily does ones' concern for ones' own nation weigh against common humanity?

[Thanas]

Why would these refugees destroy that tradition? Are you assuming that they will generally be hostile to it? Or are you concerned that a backlash against refugees will lead to Germany being a less tolerant and more militaristic country? Because I certainly am worried about that last point, but locking up and deporting refugees to prevent it seems rather self-defeating to me.

Almost none speak the language and German is historically hard to learn. 70% of them are unable to read and write. Almost all of them have no job prospects without extensive retraining. Almost all of them come from societies that are deeply hostile to liberal traditions like gay rights, women rights and confessional rights.

All those things would not be a problem in manageable numbers. We can dedicate the resources and money. But in the numbers they are coming we cannot take them in. Capacities are not there and won't be in the coming years.

So either we sent them off or we accept the possibility that up to 10% of the population will be in permanent dependance upon the state, never integrating and most likely becoming more resentful of the nation over time - while getting more resentment themselves. This of course coupled with the current 5% of the population who are already in need of such assistance....

How far heavily does ones' concern for ones' own nation weigh against common humanity?

Nobody is requested to sacrifice himself for the sake of somebody in danger when one did not cause that danger.

[The Romulan Republic]

It may not be obligatory to risk oneself, but one can certainly argue that its the more moral course of action, unless risking oneself would be futile or endanger others, at least (and even then, you'd have to weigh the risks to oneself and others caused by helping against the risk to those you could help if you refuse to do so).

As to the difficulty in integrating and supporting so many people, I certainly understand that their are challenges. I hesitate to use the word impossible, however, because nations have risen to comparably monumental challenges in the past. And I think that, realistically, you're going to have to rise to this one, or be broken by it. The refugees are likely to keep coming. You can try to send them back, to preserve your comfort and security by dooming foreigners to misery and death because you feel its not your obligation to help them, but if they don't have a better option than Germany they're going to keep coming.

I see this as perhaps the great moral and logistical test of our time, as World War Two was for our parents or grandparents and World War One was for their parents. Not in the sense that the refugees are an invading enemy, but in the sense that it is a monumental problem that will require major national mobilizations of effort and significant sacrifice over a period of years or decades to address. Its not a question of weather we should have to bear that burden. We shouldn't. In a perfect world, none of this would be happening. But is.

[Thanas]

It may not be obligatory to risk oneself, but one can certainly argue that its the more moral course of action, unless risking oneself would be futile or endanger others, at least (and even then, you'd have to weigh the risks to oneself and others caused by helping against the risk to those you could help if you refuse to do so).

As to the difficulty in integrating and supporting so many people, I certainly understand that their are challenges. I hesitate to use the word impossible, however, because nations have risen to comparably monumental challenges in the past.

Like what, exactly?

And I think that, realistically, you're going to have to rise to this one, or be broken by it.

Well, if necessary we can always do like the USA and totally wash our hands. It would even be more moral because we didn't break the country.

[ray245]

It may not be obligatory to risk oneself, but one can certainly argue that its the more moral course of action, unless risking oneself would be futile or endanger others, at least (and even then, you'd have to weigh the risks to oneself and others caused by helping against the risk to those you could help if you refuse to do so).

What about the risk of utterly damaging any goodwill left towards any refugee in the near future and seriously undermining the progressive movement worldwide that aims to help more people?

As to the difficulty in integrating and supporting so many people, I certainly understand that their are challenges. I hesitate to use the word impossible, however, because nations have risen to comparably monumental challenges in the past. And I think that, realistically, you're going to have to rise to this one, or be broken by it. The refugees are likely to keep coming. You can try to send them back, to preserve your comfort and security by dooming foreigners to misery and death because you feel its not your obligation to help them, but if they don't have a better option than Germany they're going to keep coming.

How often has there been a case of such massive amount of refugees being successfully integrated? Note, even the Vietnamese boat people who were spread throughout the entire world numbered less than a million. Right now we are facing the problem of not having a concrete solution towards integrating all the refugees in any part of the world at all. Sure, we need to help them, but simply accepting everyone in isn't going to help anyone at all.