European refugee crisis thread

[The Romulan Republic]

Like what, exactly?

Well, while its obviously not an identical situation, any country that has survived a war for its survival has likely mobilized massive amounts of resources quickly at a considerable cost to its people and its culture. Their's a reason why I compared this crisis, and the sort of effort it calls for, to the World Wars, even though its not a military conflict and should definitely not be addressed by military force.

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.

First of all, the utter catastrophe of the Middle East is tremendously complicated, their are so many parties who share the blame, and while a significant portion of that blame certainly belongs to the US government, I see no reason to put all the blame on it and give a long list of other assholes a pass. Other than flagrant anti-American bias and exploiting this crisis to advance said agenda, of course.

Secondly, you could wash your hands- if you're prepared to build a wall around your country, place the military on the border to stop refugees, deport huge numbers of people to other countries that may not want them or feel able to handle them, or similar draconian approaches. Because refugees are going to keep coming. That's my bloody point.

Its not a choice to deal with this, any more than its a choice to deal with any other great catastrophe. Your only choice is weather you deal with it with courage and compassion, or without.

And finally, using other countries' failures as a shield is a poor excuse. If your neighbour is an asshole, does that give you free reign to behave likewise?

I can accept that at some point Germany may simply not be able to do any more. I cannot accept that other countries' failures provide an excuse to do nothing.

Edit: And by the way, I'm not giving the US and Canada a free pass here. My attitude regarding my own countries' obligations is not all that different than my attitude regarding Germany's obligations, except that we have a choice about weather we're dealing with the refugees or not, which makes failure to involve ourselves an act of cowardice. I have actually argued that the US should be willing take one percent of its population (3 million plus) in refugees and should deploy its navy to assist with search and rescue efforts in the Mediterranean. I know damn well that's not a realistic thing to campaign for, but I just want to be clear I am not trying to hold Germany to a higher standard than I hold my own countries.

[Edi]

You are awfully big on saying you don't accept that things are running up to capacity and soon beyond, and that you don't accept that other countries are passing the buck, but guess what? The reality does not give a fuck about what you accept.

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.

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.

Your comparison to the world wars is also very inapt. Sure, both world wars and their aftermath entailed some forms of population transfer, but the rebuilding and reconstruction and reshaping of the societies that took place dealt with countries whose populations already had an existing social system where the democratic republic form of government was recognized and that had structures in place to handle things. It did not involve wholesale cultural assimilation of foreign populations, which takes a far longer time.

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

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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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

[ray245]

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. 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. 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.

Although when your options are either between Assad, who have zero problems gassing his own people and factions like ISIS, most people generally do not have much of an option. The only faction that can be deemed "moderates" are the kurds, who aren't interested in preserving Syria as a nation. In additional to the fact that there really isn't anything known as a Syrian "nation" any longer, you have a large population of people that could no longer fight for any nation that they believe in.

[Edi]

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. 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. 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.

Although when your options are either between Assad, who have zero problems gassing his own people and factions like ISIS, most people generally do not have much of an option. The only faction that can be deemed "moderates" are the kurds, who aren't interested in preserving Syria as a nation. In additional to the fact that there really isn't anything known as a Syrian "nation" any longer, you have a large population of people that could no longer fight for any nation that they believe in.

True. Which is why I also earlier said that doing anything in the Middle East, including by the populations living there, is a game of "choose the lesser evil".

The only things that could end things with somewhat less bloodshed would be massive population swap transfers to ethnically homogenize regions and a complete redrawing of the old colonial borders along ethnic/tribal lines. Given that e.g. the Kurds are spread out over the territories of Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria and other ethnic groups are living in all kinds of mixed, quilted patterns scattered in different places, and we're also dealing with a bloody large geographical area that was intentionally set up to rule by division and conquest, nobody in the world has a big enough stick to make it stick, much less the capacity to actually apply it.

In that setup, picking a side and backing it to the hilt, as it seems the Russians are now doing with Assad, is the only thing that will even remotely work. Say what you will about Russia, and I have said a lot of uncomplimentary things about it in the past, but in this they at least now seem to be putting down the money for a big bet and calling everyone else's bluff. I'll wait for some more serious confirmation for the rumors in some media (such as Express.co.uk) of Russia gearing to send 150k troops to Syria, but if they do, they are liable to obliterate ISIS, because they won't care about who or how many they kill to reach their objective.

[ray245]

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. 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. 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.

Although when your options are either between Assad, who have zero problems gassing his own people and factions like ISIS, most people generally do not have much of an option. The only faction that can be deemed "moderates" are the kurds, who aren't interested in preserving Syria as a nation. In additional to the fact that there really isn't anything known as a Syrian "nation" any longer, you have a large population of people that could no longer fight for any nation that they believe in.

True. Which is why I also earlier said that doing anything in the Middle East, including by the populations living there, is a game of "choose the lesser evil".

The only things that could end things with somewhat less bloodshed would be massive population swap transfers to ethnically homogenize regions and a complete redrawing of the old colonial borders along ethnic/tribal lines. Given that e.g. the Kurds are spread out over the territories of Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria and other ethnic groups are living in all kinds of mixed, quilted patterns scattered in different places, and we're also dealing with a bloody large geographical area that was intentionally set up to rule by division and conquest, nobody in the world has a big enough stick to make it stick, much less the capacity to actually apply it.

Such massive population transfer haven't work out well in many instances, most notably in the case of India and Pakistan. Making regions more homogeneous isn't going to stop factions like ISIS and their ilk in trying to expand and wage war against other ethnicity living in someone else's borders. It's useless to redraw arbitrary lines again because those new lines will be trampled over once again.

Any hope of actually enforcing any kind of peace would require a massive effort in ending ethnic/tribal and jihadist organisations ability to dictate their own goals and policies via violence. It's nearly impossible for any Middle Eastern states to wield effective political control if there are so many organisations that are heavily armed, or could easily seek arms. Many of the states have no ability to monopolise "violence".

[Edi]

No contest on that. Which is why the Middle East is going to keep on being a cauldron of war, death and misery.

[The Romulan Republic]

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.

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.

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.

and that you don't accept that other countries are passing the buck,

Well no, I don't. Inability to do more would be one thing. Refusing to do more and justifying it on the basis of some other country's actions is simply dishonest and cowardly.

but guess what? The reality does not give a fuck about what you accept.

No shit.

But it 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.

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.

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?

Your comparison to the world wars is also very inapt.

I acknowledged the situations aren't identical.

Sure, both world wars and their aftermath entailed some forms of population transfer,

I'm thinking not simply in terms of population transfer, but more generally in terms of the World Wars being massive crises that required large-scale mobilization of resources and a great deal of sacrifice (on both the national and international levels).

Though its certainly true that the Second World War caused a major refugee problem. I've seen it said that the number of refugees now is the highest its been since World War II or thereabouts, so...

but the rebuilding and reconstruction and reshaping of the societies that took place dealt with countries whose populations already had an existing social system where the democratic republic form of government was recognized and that had structures in place to handle things.

While I would not call them a good model to follow, I must point out that a lot of the nations that participated in the world wars, including some of the winning side, were not in any way democratic. You know this of course, so I'm not sure why you're using their having a democratic system.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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 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.

[The Romulan Republic]

Since that last post was long and seemed kind of cluttered (and my apologies for that) and I've gotten caught up in debates with a number of different people in this thread, I've decided, for the sake of clarity, to post a succinct summary of what I feel are the key points of my position on the refugees issue:

1. Whatever difficulties such a large number of refugees poses, we need to remember that they are just as much people as we are, and no less entitled to a decent life. And I dare anyone here to say they wouldn't be doing much the same if they were in these refugees' shoes. A person is a person, whatever nation they originate in.

2. Following on from the above, turning Europe into authoritarian fortress states is not a solution. If human decency does not convince you of that, I would suggest that destroying your countries to prevent refugees from destroying your countries is illogical and a losing proposition.

3. The refugee crisis a problem that is not likely to go away any time soon, because short of turning Europe into a truly wretched place (and fear-mongering about refugees aside, Europe is a long, long way from the kind of horror these refugees are generally fleeing), they are going to keep coming because its better than where they are now.

4. While I recognize that their is a theoretical limit to how many refugees a country can take in a short amount of time, I do not feel that Europe or Germany in particular has yet reached that limit. Perhaps that may sound presumptuous coming from someone who does not live their, but Germany is, by the standards of much of the world, remarkably well-off. Ditto much of Europe.

5. None of this in any way changes my belief that other nations should be doing more to help. As I said, I have actively campaigned for the US and Canada to take more refugees, for all the good its done.

6. If other countries don't do what they should, well, that sucks, but one person's bad behaviour does not excuse another person's bad behaviour.

[ray245]

It's not merely about throwing money and making sure they have enough to survive with basic necessities. It's about ensuring the refugees have enough support to endure they aren't stuck in a vicious loop of ghettoisation and poverty.

I think allowing an entire community to be stuck in that loop is even worse than keeping some refugees out. That has more long term harm.

[K. A. Pital]

I recognize that their is a theoretical limit to how many refugees a country can take in a short amount of time, I do not feel that Europe or Germany in particular has yet reached that limit.

Germany will take, all in all, from 1,5 to 2 million people. How much are they supposed to take "in a short amound of time" to satisfy you, dumbass, 10 million? All while the refugee system has not been designed to cope with such large numbers of people (because the refugees came in much smaller numbers previously, and because Germany is a capitalist country where people don't get guaranteed employment).

You need to get off your high horse, and remember for a second that Germany itself is no fucking paradise: most of the population does not own a house and keeps renting, the housing shortage has been a major problem since neoliberal assholes wrecked the government-funded prefab construction programs - and ghettos are a fact of life here, and no matter whether you think that it is easy to integrate millions of people in a short amount of time, in reality integrating smaller numbers of people over longer periods of time has not been a complete success; I have no idea why you think this time will be different.

Moreover, by doing everything it can (and Germany is doing all it can and more) and absorbing all the refugees, Germany would give the US a signal: go on, bomb the hell out of the Middle East, drown the region in blood, we'll take all the refugees anyway. Because you are our American buddies all right, we will always cover your ass. That's a wrong signal to send. It means Europe will always clean up the bloody mess the US makes from far away over the ocean.

[The Romulan Republic]

I recognize that their is a theoretical limit to how many refugees a country can take in a short amount of time, I do not feel that Europe or Germany in particular has yet reached that limit.

Germany will take, all in all, from 1,5 to 2 million people. How much are they supposed to take "in a short amound of time" to satisfy you, dumbass, 10 million?

Ideally they shouldn't have to take in 2 million. Other countries should be helping more.

But guess what? If push comes to shove I'd rather they go to Germany than have nowhere to go at all. Because they are people too and I consider their lives and well being no less important than those of Germans, or Americans or Canadians for that matter.

All while the refugee system has not been designed to cope with such large numbers of people (because the refugees came in much smaller numbers previously, and because Germany is a capitalist country where people don't get guaranteed employment).

Perhaps Germany needs to reform its laws on those subjects, though I am not familiar enough with German politics to say weather this would be practical. Would any German members of this forum care to weigh in on changes to German law that would make Germany better able to accommodate the refugees (as opposed to changes that would better enable Germany to turn itself into a fortress against them)?

You need to get off your high horse,

I'm sorry if I seem arrogant. I certainly don't think I'm inherently better than anyone else. That's kind of the point.

I do think I have more sympathy for the refugees than some people here. If that's arrogant, then I guess I'm arrogant.

and remember for a second that Germany itself is no fucking paradise: most of the population does not own a house and keeps renting, the housing shortage has been a major problem since neoliberal assholes wrecked the government-funded prefab construction programs - and ghettos are a fact of life here,

I never said Germany was perfect, or that it doesn't have difficulties. But frankly, Germany almost is a paradise compared to much of the world. I can look up GDP and life expectance stats. and post them here if you like, but it shouldn't be necessary to prove the obvious. So I can't shake the feeling that this is like a rich (well, middle class at any rate) man complaining that his taxes are too high because of those damn poor people.

and no matter whether you think that it is easy to integrate millions of people in a short amount of time, in reality integrating smaller numbers of people over longer periods of time has not been a complete success; I have no idea why you think this time will be different.

I don't know if it will succeed. I don't presume to predict the outcome. But what I'm saying is: it has to be done or someone else has to be willing to take the refugees, so Germany better find a way to achieve one or the other, fast. It isn't about what's fair. Its the way it is.

Moreover, by doing everything it can (and Germany is doing all it can and more) and absorbing all the refugees, Germany would give the US a signal: go on, bomb the hell out of the Middle East, drown the region in blood, we'll take all the refugees anyway. Because you are our American buddies all right, we will always cover your ass. That's a wrong signal to send. It means Europe will always clean up the bloody mess the US makes from far away over the ocean.

So you support sacrificing the well-being, and potentially the lives, of large numbers of refugees to make a point about how much you think the US sucks?

Forgive me if I think that people should not be punished for someone else's actions, or reduced to a political tool. You can call that naive if you want. I'd rather err on the side of idealism and empathy than callousness.

[Purple]

Forgive me if I think that people should not be punished for someone else's actions, or reduced to a political tool. You can call that naive if you want. I'd rather err on the side of idealism and empathy than callousness.

That is indeed extremely naive to the point of being too sad to laugh at. People and indeed entire countries are routinely used and discarded as tools by political economic and other interests.

[Thanas]

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.

Oh excuse me, of course your opinion trumps everything including statistics, past experiences and about every expert in the damn field.

But I very much doubt that Europe has yet reached its capacity.

Europe has not. But the countries who are willing to take them in have.

How do you suppose the (minority) of countries who is willing to help in a meaningful way is supposed to force the majority of countries to help? Asking nicely? Tried that. What other option is there?

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.

And you base this on what?

But it 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.

Guess what? We might turn into the US.

But again, I question that those limits have been reached.

Your persistent refusal to accept reality astounds me.

I acknowledged the situations aren't identical.

"Nevertheless I am going to insist that this can somehow be fixed because my gut tells me so"

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.

And you base this on....what? Most of them have never even visited a school in their life. 70% can't even read or write.

I can accept that at some point Germany may simply not be able to do any more.

That is funny because you deny exactly this happening.

I don't know if it will succeed. I don't presume to predict the outcome. But what I'm saying is: it has to be done or someone else has to be willing to take the refugees, so Germany better find a way to achieve one or the other, fast. It isn't about what's fair. Its the way it is.

We tried. It failed. Now what?

[Zaune]

Meanwhile in England...

This is what we're up against on legal immigration.

And this is a rebuttal in the same newspaper.

Yes, that is the Daily Telegraph criticising a Conservative government from the left, or at least the centre.

[Thanas]

Link to a more thorough article. Maybe you will read that, RomulanRepublic and rethink your position.

[The Romulan Republic]

Forgive me if I think that people should not be punished for someone else's actions, or reduced to a political tool. You can call that naive if you want. I'd rather err on the side of idealism and empathy than callousness.

That is indeed extremely naive to the point of being too sad to laugh at.

Its good to know what brazen contempt you have for the revolutionary notion that human beings matter as more than tools.

People and indeed entire countries are routinely used and discarded as tools by political economic and other interests.

Perhaps you misunderstand me. I don't deny that people are used as political tools. That would be self-evidently false and idiotic. That doesn't mean that I cannot disagree with it on principle. Their are a great many things that are commonplace in this world that are nonetheless terribly wrong.

I was stating how I believe people should be treated, not how I believe they always are treated. This is, frankly, obvious.

Tell me: If I said, for example, "People shouldn't be discriminated against on the basis of race", would you say that was "too sad to laugh at" for believing that because racism does still exist?

Edit: To everyone else here, I apologize if I don't get around to addressing your posts promptly. I am, after all, being addressed by at least three or four different people here.

[Hillary]

And our delightful Home Secretary has just been holding court on the subject - delivering a "we don't need no steenking immigrants" speech http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34450887

Home Secretary Theresa May has unveiled a reform of the UK's asylum rules during an uncompromising speech to the Conservative Party conference.

Mrs May pledged to reduce the numbers claiming in Britain while taking in the "most vulnerable" refugees from conflict zones around the world. She also said high migration made a "cohesive society" impossible.

Her speech was criticised by business groups, with the Institute of Directors attacking its "irresponsible rhetoric".

Net migration into the UK currently stands at a record high, reaching 330,000 in the year to March.

The Home Secretary told the Conservative Party conference Britain "does not need" net migration at current levels, saying the net economic effect was "close to zero" at best.

BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith said Mrs May's comments on immigration were "extraordinarily tough" and "utterly uncompromising".

Beforehand, Prime Minister David Cameron had said he agreed with what she was to say.

'British approach'
Addressing the party conference in Manchester, she said the main way of claiming asylum - by people already in the country - had failed, and rewarded "wealthiest, the luckiest and the strongest".

The UK would not adopt a common EU policy "in a thousand years" she said, promising a "new British approach", including tougher treatment for people who have travelled to the UK from other safe countries.

People who have "spurned the chance to seek protection elsewhere" will not have an automatic right to stay in the UK, she said.

Instead, priority will be given to "helping the most vulnerable people in the world's most dangerous places", she pledged.

The first ever "annual asylum strategy" will be published next year, along with a register of people and organisations able to accommodate refugees.

The overhaul also includes a new system of "safe return reviews" so asylum seekers can be returned home when their country is assessed as being safe, and the use of alternative ID documents to remove failed asylum seekers who do not have their own passports.

Mrs May also said refugees should not be "conflated" with economic migrants.

The "desire for a better life is perfectly understandable" she said, but "there is a limit to the amount of immigration any country can and should take".

Controls are needed, she said: "Because when immigration is too high, when the pace of change is too fast, it's impossible to build a cohesive society. It's difficult for schools and hospitals and core infrastructure like housing and transport to cope."

Wages are also forced down and some people "forced out of work altogether", she added: "But even if we could manage all the consequences of mass immigration, Britain does not need net migration in the hundreds of thousands every year."

Mrs May said immigrants could fill skills gaps, but said "not every person coming to Britain right now is a skilled electrician, engineer or doctor".

She said evidence showed that "at best the net economic and fiscal effect of high immigration is close to zero" and that there was "no case, in the national interest, for immigration of the scale we have experienced over the last decade".

The home secretary hit back at critics of her planned crackdown on student visas, saying "too many" students were not returning when their visas run out.

"So I don't care what the university lobbyists say: the rules must be enforced. Students, yes. Over-stayers, no. And the universities must make this happen."

Institute of Directors director general Simon Walker said he was "astonished" by the home secretary's "irresponsible rhetoric and pandering to anti-immigration sentiment".

"It is yet another example of the home secretary turning away the world's best and brightest, putting internal party politics ahead of the country, and helping our competitor economies instead of our own," he said, adding that "the myth of the job-stealing-immigrant is nonsense".

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's The World at One, John Cridland, of the CBI, said the government was ending up penalising skilled workers who "add hugely to the collective economic strength of the economy".

Ministers have admitted missing their target to reduce net migration below 100,000, blaming the scale of migration from within the EU.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Cameron said he agreed with Mrs May's comments on the subject, saying integrating new arrivals was "more difficult if you have excessive levels of migration".

The PM also said he was "incredibly proud" the UK had built one of the "most successful multi-racial, multi-ethnic democracies anywhere in the world".

Part appeal to UKIP voters, part grandstanding on the EU. I think it is massively unlikely we'll see any sizeable numbers of refugees being taken in here until after the EU referendum.

[Purple]

Its good to know what brazen contempt you have for the revolutionary notion that human beings matter as more than tools.

On the contrary, nothing in this world would make me happier than for this notion to be true. I am just resigned to the fact that it is not, newer has been and barring some radical change in the nature of human beings and their interaction newer will be. So when ever I see someone not yet resigned to this immutable fact I shake my head slowly and sigh much like you would if you met someone who has not yet resigned him self to the law of gravity. It is not contempt for you that makes me do so but pity for both of us. And the soul crushing injustice that is the unchangeable reality of the human condition.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its good to know what brazen contempt you have for the revolutionary notion that human beings matter as more than tools.

On the contrary, nothing in this world would make me happier than for this notion to be true. I am just resigned to the fact that it is not, newer has been and barring some radical change in the nature of human beings and their interaction newer will be. So when ever I see someone not yet resigned to this immutable fact I shake my head slowly and sigh much like you would if you met someone who has not yet resigned him self to the law of gravity.

I suppose that's a somewhat understandable position, though I feel its too simplistically one-sided and bleak. However, I also feel that such cynicism and defeatism are rather pointless.

Barring some great change like you mentioned, I imagine their will always be bastards who use other people. However, I prefer to act on the assumption that at least some fundamental improvements can be made rather than accept that they cannot. Resignation accomplishes nothing (other than to justify inaction and let one feel smarter than those naive idealists who still haven't figured it out).

This is, however, straying rather off the topic of refugees into a more general discussion of personal philosophy, so I'll drop it now.

[Broomstick]

But I very much doubt that Europe has yet reached its capacity.

Europe has not. But the countries who are willing to take them in have.

I'd also like to point out that what an outsider thinks is an acceptable number of immigrants and an acceptable economic and social stress on the larger society may be quite different than what someone living in that country would consider acceptable numbers or stress.

It's easy to impose shit on someone half a world away if you don't have to live with the consequences.

How do you suppose the (minority) of countries who is willing to help in a meaningful way is supposed to force the majority of countries to help? Asking nicely? Tried that. What other option is there?

Well, there's force... but there are negatives consequences to that, whatever form of coercion you use.

There are no longer any truly good answers for this problem.

But it 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.

Guess what? We might turn into the US.

There's a disturbing thought....

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.

And you base this on....what? Most of them have never even visited a school in their life. 70% can't even read or write.

Based on US experience, illiterate and uneducated immigrants are harder to integrate into a society. That doesn't mean impossible - if you're talking about children or teens, an adaptable demographic, they can potentially do quite well. Full adults, however, find it a much harder struggle and are unlikely to become literate. Most of these newcomers are adults. If you have a million new people and 70% are illiterate in any language that is definitely a problem.

I don't know if it will succeed. I don't presume to predict the outcome. But what I'm saying is: it has to be done or someone else has to be willing to take the refugees, so Germany better find a way to achieve one or the other, fast. It isn't about what's fair. Its the way it is.

We tried. It failed. Now what?

Now people start to die in large numbers.

It's not a matter of "Germany can't take in any more, no one else wants them, so Germany will just have to suck it up". It's "Germany can't take more, no one else wants them, then they will die." They might die of starvation, or freeze to death in winter in a field somewhere, or drown in the Mediterranean.... It doesn't mean they'll be lined up along a wall and shot, death can be less obvious than that. They'll die on the journey, and they'll die when they reach a barrier they can't breach, be that natural or man-made. The causes may be various, and they may not even be human violence but rather starvation and exposure. Make no mistake, though, things could get much, much uglier.

Either someone takes them in, or they will die. I fully defend Germany closing the doors at some point because if they don't then their society will collapse or become stressed enough to generate refugees in turn, if not a worse situation. If no one else is willing to accept them, though... well. They die. A lot of them. Mass death.

I have fully accepted that this is a possible outcome of the current situation. I am still hoping that some solution will be advanced, other nations (including my own) will take in some of these people, and so forth but I am not naively assuming there will be a happy ending here. I think too many people are doing just that.

A definite tangent:
You know, in the past we have discussed potential disasters like, say, the Yellowstone supervolcano blowing up. We've talked a lot about physical effects like ashfall, but pretty much glossed over the consequences of millions of people fleeing the disaster and becoming desperate refugees. If the world can't handle 5 million Syrians, they sure as hell can't handle the outcome of a major meteor strike, supervolcano, or other large-scale refugee-generating disaster. Will definitely have to make note of that in future such discussions. At least, I hope such scenarios remain discussions and not reality.

[ray245]

Based on US experience, illiterate and uneducated immigrants are harder to integrate into a society. That doesn't mean impossible - if you're talking about children or teens, an adaptable demographic, they can potentially do quite well. Full adults, however, find it a much harder struggle and are unlikely to become literate. Most of these newcomers are adults. If you have a million new people and 70% are illiterate in any language that is definitely a problem.

It becomes a much bigger problem when refugees themselves do not understand how to integrate into a rather different society. Although assimilate is probably the better term because host societies would usually prefer assimilation over integration anyway. It's tricky enough to help legal, well-educated migrants assimilate into a new host society, I can't imagine anyone being able to come up with a whole new way to assimilate such a massive amount of illiterate people with rather different cultural customs and beliefs.

How many refugees and migrants are willingly to entirely reject most of their custom and adopt the custom of their new host society as adults?

You know, in the past we have discussed potential disasters like, say, the Yellowstone supervolcano blowing up. We've talked a lot about physical effects like ashfall, but pretty much glossed over the consequences of millions of people fleeing the disaster and becoming desperate refugees. If the world can't handle 5 million Syrians, they sure as hell can't handle the outcome of a major meteor strike, supervolcano, or other large-scale refugee-generating disaster. Will definitely have to make note of that in future such discussions. At least, I hope such scenarios remain discussions and not reality.

One major key here has less to do with whether the world can absorb so many refugees at once, but whether there are enough countries that are culturally similar enough to absorb those refugees.

For example, Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan are more than willingly to house MILLIONS of Syrian refugees compared to Europe. Vast number of people made suddenly homeless by natural disaster such as Fukisima and boxing day Tsunami were resettled in other areas without much less problem.

I think we won't be having such a big issue with housing the refugees if UNHCR were adequately funded to handle such crisis in the first place, or the rest of the gulf states was willingly to be more welcoming of refugees.

[Broomstick]

Based on US experience, illiterate and uneducated immigrants are harder to integrate into a society. That doesn't mean impossible - if you're talking about children or teens, an adaptable demographic, they can potentially do quite well. Full adults, however, find it a much harder struggle and are unlikely to become literate. Most of these newcomers are adults. If you have a million new people and 70% are illiterate in any language that is definitely a problem.

It becomes a much bigger problem when refugees themselves do not understand how to integrate into a rather different society. Although assimilate is probably the better term because host societies would usually prefer assimilation over integration anyway.

It's that language thing again - both "integrate" and "assimilate" can be tricky terms.

It's tricky enough to help legal, well-educated migrants assimilate into a new host society, I can't imagine anyone being able to come up with a whole new way to assimilate such a massive amount of illiterate people with rather different cultural customs and beliefs.

There are cultural issues on both sides.

How many refugees and migrants are willingly to entirely reject most of their custom and adopt the custom of their new host society as adults?

This is going to vary enormously. Some cultures are more willing to adapt and change and borrow than others.

Based on Middle Eastern immigrants I've known here in the US I suspect these folks are more adaptable than some people give them credit for. On the other hand, it is also possible US society is more tolerant of them keeping more of their own customs and continuing to look and sound different.

For example, Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan are more than willingly to house MILLIONS of Syrian refugees compared to Europe.

Are they more willing, or did they simply deal with the sudden arrival of millions whether they wanted them there or not?

[Thanas]

Given how Turkey effectively bars any refugee from finding work for several years, if not indefinitely, I cannot say that they house them by choice.

[ray245]

Thought this article might show us some scale of the problems Germany is currently facing.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur ... 24148.html

Arduous wait for refugees in overwhelmed Germany

A refugee boy sleeps outside the Berlin Office of Health and Social Affairs [Fabrizio Bensch/Reuters]
Berlin, Germany - Just before 9am, hundreds of refugees have made their way towards the Senate Department for Health and Social Affairs office, known as LaGeSo, to register upon arrival in Germany.

But the authorities are struggling to organise so many people coming into the country fleeing war and persecution in places such as Iraq and Syria.

Some new arrivals pull themselves up off the cold sidewalk after sleeping outside all night, collect their meagre belongings, and head to the office. Others come in from refugee centres by train or bus.

According to LaGeSo, nearly 30,000 people have arrived in recent months. Accurate figures, however, are difficult to determine because many are not yet registered.

A single screen displays call numbers outside the LaGeSo building. When new numbers appear, those with matching tickets hustle through the crowd to obtain their registration paperwork. The process has been slow, and many refugees have waited weeks to receive documentation.

Abdullah, a 21-year-old Syrian refugee from Latakia, has been in Germany for two months. Like other Syrians quoted in this story, he requested his surname be withheld to protect family members back home.

Having already received his registration papers, Abdullah was summoned to the office to receive a monetary stipend as he works through the asylum process. Yet he and his friend Muhammad were denied entry by private security guards.

'Go back to Syria'

"They told us to go home, they [were] Egyptian and they were cursing at us that we should go home and fight. We're supposed to be able to go straight in and not have to wait in line," Abdullah told Al Jazeera, pointing out there are not separate lines for those already registered and those who are not.

Monika Hebbinghaus, a spokeswoman for LaGeSo, said German authorities are overwhelmed by the heavy workload that includes a multiple-stage registration process.

"By mid-October we are planning to open a second registration site at a former federal bank, which will only be for first-time arrivals," she told Al Jazeera, adding the move was implemented to "help lessen the pressure on the LaGeSo office".

Hebbinghaus explained when refugees come in on trains from neighbouring countries they are often placed in various refugee centres and each day are bussed together to smaller registration facilities.

But many of those standing outside the LaGeSo office were refugees who came into Germany through means other than government-coordinated trains, and who may be at different stages in the process.

Wasim, a 30-year-old teacher from the southern Syrian city of Deraa, recalled encountering the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant group on his way out of the country. The fighters detained and interrogated him overnight - asking him questions about his family - before eventually allowing him to continue his journey to Turkey.

From Turkey, Wasim risked the perilous journey by boat to Greece. Once in Europe, he took buses and walked many parts of the journey across Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia and Austria before eventually arriving in Germany.

Every day for the last three weeks, he has come to LaGeSo with the hopes of his number being called. "It is almost better to go back to Syria," he said.

Growing frustration

Moussa, 29, has made the trek to the LaGeSo office each day for the last two weeks, despite having a broken foot from a car accident.

"If I wasn't injured, it would be easier to wait, but people keep hitting my foot," he said as the Iraqi refugee waited outside with crutches under his arms.

Another Syrian refugee, Samir, 47, who was a lawyer back in Deir az Zor, recalled putting his wife and children on a bus to Damascus before he took off. He hopes to bring his family to Germany once he obtains asylum, but said he's worried it could take almost a year.

He's grateful to Germany for opening its doors, Samir said, but frustrated it has taken so long to get settled.

The government-sponsored refugee camps are equally chaotic. In the Wilmersdorf district of Berlin, more than 800 people, including 200 children, are being hosted in an ageing, 1930s government building that had long been empty before their arrival.

Local authorities have outsourced the administration of the camp to Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund, a non-profit organisation. Covering the costs of the facility itself, the services the group provides for refugees - clothing, food, sanitary provisions, childcare, and German language courses - are only made possible because of nearly 3,000 volunteers.

While some problems, such as clashes over sectarian divides, have occurred in some refugee centres, ASB's Patricia Ehred said their facility has been calm. "We have a house where people can go out and come in [without] feeling like they are in a prison," she told Al Jazeera.

But that does not mean meeting the daily needs of their residents has been easy. While the building is equipped with toilets and sinks, it does not have showers. Residents have to use portable shower units provided by volunteers.

Although appreciative, Dia, an 18-year-old Damascus native, said he is frustrated that he still has not received identification papers. "The police took my passport and made me sign a piece of paper that says they own my passport unless I decide to refuse asylum."

1.5 million refugees?

Speaking to Al Jazeera, the Federal Office of Migration and Refugees explained it is filling 1,000 new jobs to help process all the new applications. In 2014, asylum seekers on average waited seven months before receiving an answer.

The German government expects an estimated one million refugees to enter the country before the end of the year, however, it could receive up to 1.5 million asylum-seekers by the end of 2015, according to a newspaper quoting a confidential document with estimates far higher than official figures.

Discouraged by having to endure a lengthy wait after their dangerous trips, many refugees said they may continue on to Scandinavian countries if they are unable to be registered soon.

It's that language thing again - both "integrate" and "assimilate" can be tricky terms.

Well, generally integration accepts multiculturalism while assimilation does not. One main source of tension we see more and more people arguing against the notion of someone can merely become Syrian-British, but to become British entirely.

There are cultural issues on both sides.

True, I am just saying as adults, it is extremely difficult for someone to eagerly abandon his/her previous cultural heritage, no matter how keen the person is on migrating elsewhere.

This is going to vary enormously. Some cultures are more willing to adapt and change and borrow than others.

Based on Middle Eastern immigrants I've known here in the US I suspect these folks are more adaptable than some people give them credit for. On the other hand, it is also possible US society is more tolerant of them keeping more of their own customs and continuing to look and sound different.

That I think is the major aspect we cannot afford to ignore. Europe and the US aren't the same, which has a lot to do with their own historical myth in my opinion. The US is fundamentally a nation that actively celebrate its heritage as a migrant nation, while the same cannot be said for most European nations. You are talking about a place where certain regions have the same family living in the same area for several centuries.

A few Chinese students I've met have said that they would prefer US over Europe because they generally find US culture to be more welcoming towards foreigners that doesn't speak the local language well.

Are they more willing, or did they simply deal with the sudden arrival of millions whether they wanted them there or not?

Given how Turkey effectively bars any refugee from finding work for several years, if not indefinitely, I cannot say that they house them by choice.

Considering that countries like Jordan or even Turkey is still saying they are willingly to take in/back some refugees providing they can secure funding from EU and other nations, I think there is a greater willingness to do so. Even if they did bar them from work, Turkey isn't trying to lock up their border with Syria to prevent refugees from coming in.

I think there is some level of bias when it comes to accepting refugees or even migrants from very similar cultures.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh excuse me, of course your opinion trumps everything including statistics, past experiences and about every expert in the damn field.

Of course not.

I state my opinion and then we both try to argue/provide evidence for our positions, and others can judge for themselves which one has more merit.

But in hindsight, maybe I should have cut that line. I admit that it sounds kind of dumb.

Europe has not. But the countries who are willing to take them in have.

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.

How do you suppose the (minority) of countries who is willing to help in a meaningful way is supposed to force the majority of countries to help? Asking nicely? Tried that. What other option is there?

Look, I don't believe I have ever claimed that I know what the solution is. I don't, at least not in great detail, though I wish I did.

My position is more "This is the problem, its not going away, so like it or not, you're going to have to find a solution if nothing else resolves it."

However, I would think Germany must have some means of persuading other EU members. You'd probably know more about it than I do, but surely you must have some political and economic leverage you can use.

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.

And you base this on what?

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).

Guess what? We might turn into the US.

A cheap shot at the US from Thanas. How original.

And as I've said before, another country doing wrong (even if the US was as bad as you make it out to be), is not an excuse for your country to do the same.

Moreover, if you think the US is so awful, why do you want Germany to follow a path that you seem to think might lead to the same place?

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.

Lastly, I note that you have not commented on the possibility of Germany killing refugees to keep them out. Why is that?

Your persistent refusal to accept reality astounds me.

You mean the "reality" that Germany cannot take more refugees? Not merely, given the context, that it may reach its limits in the future, but that it already has?

If I see hard numbers from a credible source that show that Germany is incapable of supporting the current number of refugees it contains despite the fact that it is a reasonably peaceful and well-off first world nation, I will concede on this point.

None of that will change the fact that refugees will probably keep coming in vast numbers, however, and that in the short term, nothing you can do short of outright despotic measures (which is itself a means of national ruination) will change that.

"Nevertheless I am going to insist that this can somehow be fixed because my gut tells me so"

The fact that the World Wars are obviously not a perfect equivalent to the situation today does not disprove that the refugee crisis can be "fixed" (though I do not presume to claim that any solution will be quick, easy, or cost-free, and never have so far as I recall).

In any case, the World Wars serve as an example of nations overcoming monumental challenges through a large-scale mobilization of resources and sacrifice.

And you base this on....what? Most of them have never even visited a school in their life. 70% can't even read or write.

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

I mean, maybe, but that would suggest basically no awareness of the world at all outside their own borders. The Middle East may be a miserable ruin these days, but it isn't fucking North Korea.

It is hard for me to consider anything you say terribly credible when you say things that indicate serious prejudice against the refugees.

That is funny because you deny exactly this happening.

When did I deny that?

I said it could happen eventually. What I question is that it has already happened or is about to happen.

We tried. It failed. Now what?

I think it is rather soon to say that Germany can't take any more refugees. Relative to much of the world your country is still very well-off, as I'm sure you are aware. Though I suppose I can understand not wanting to risk losing that advantage. But this is pretty much rehashing old points.

Anyway, I don't have a detailed refugee policy proposal for you. But I simply don't see an alternative to accepting the refugees that isn't truly horrible.

And I could fairly ask you what alternative you have beyond what amounts to just "Keep them out". You've been a little scant on details yourself, and I wonder if that's because you have no solid solution either, or because you know that the alternatives would be hard for any decent person to stomach.

You don't like my ideas? Let's here yours'. It is, after all, your country we're primarily talking about.

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 sincerely wish I could do more to help you.

But turning your nation into a fortress is not a solution. That's simply another disaster, and in my opinion potential a far worse one.

Oh, and Broomstick, I'd like to address something you said that jumped out at me.

While it is true that an outsider may have a different perspective on how many refugees should be taken, I object to the implication that I wish to "impose" anything on Germany because I don't have to deal with it. I would like to point out that I have contacted US politicians and stated that I believe we should be willing to take upwards of three million refugees (even though I know its a pipe dream), and I'd up that number if necessary. I'd also mention that the US currently has 11 million illegal immigrants or so and that I oppose deporting them. I'm not trying to boast or say I'm better than anyone else- I'm simply pointing out that I hold my own nation to a high standard in this regard.

Edit: Also, I apologize for the length. But there's a lot to address and whatever you may think of the quality of the my arguments, I wanted to provide more than snarky one liners.