European refugee crisis thread

[Broomstick]

Well, at least no one has suggested a Vlad Tepes "solution".

[Zaune]

Well, at least no one has suggested a Vlad Tepes "solution".

Yet.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Well, at least no one has suggested a Vlad Tepes "solution".

Hey. They used to have Gaddafi do whatever it was to stop people from crossing the Mediterranean. I have no idea what he did, but I doubt it was nice.

[cosmicalstorm]

The Gulf states have accepted roughly zero immigrants from Syria.

As the crisis brews over Syrian refugees trying to enter European countries, questions have been raised over why they are not heading to wealthy Gulf states closer to home.

Although those fleeing the Syrian crisis have for several years been crossing into Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey in huge numbers, entering other Arab states - especially in the Gulf - is far less straightforward.

Officially, Syrians can apply for a tourist visa or work permit in order to enter a Gulf state.

But the process is costly, and there is a widespread perception that many Gulf states have unwritten restrictions in place that make it hard for Syrians to be granted a visa in practice.
Syrian refugees standing next to tents at the UN-run Zaatari refugee camp, north east of the Jordanian capital AmmanImage copyright Getty Images Image caption Syrians have flooded into the UN-run Zaatari refugee camp, north-east of the Jordanian capital Amman
Most successful cases are Syrians already in Gulf states extending their stays, or those entering because they have family there.




For those with limited means, there is the added matter of the sheer physical distance between Syria and the Gulf.

Not welcome?

This comes as part of wider obstacles facing Syrians, who are required to obtain rarely granted visas to enter almost all Arab countries.

Without a visa, Syrians are not currently allowed to enter Arab countries except for Algeria, Mauritania, Sudan and Yemen.

The relative wealth and proximity to Syria of the states has led many - in both social and as well as traditional media - to question whether these states have more of a duty than Europe towards Syrians suffering from over four years of conflict and the emergence of jihadist groups in the country.
Some of the photos being circulated on the Arabic hashtag #Welcoming_Syria's_refugees_is_a_Gulf_dutyImage copyright Twitter Image caption Some of the photos being circulated on the Arabic hashtag #Welcoming_Syria's_refugees_is_a_Gulf_duty
The Arabic hashtag #Welcoming_Syria's_refugees_is_a_Gulf_duty has been used more than 33,000 times on Twitter in the past week.

Users have posted powerful images to illustrate the plight of Syrian refugees, with photos of people drowned at sea, children being carried over barbed wire, or families sleeping rough.

A Facebook page called The Syrian Community in Denmark has shared a video showing migrants being allowed to enter Austria from Hungary, prompting one user to ask: "How did we flee from the region of our Muslim brethren, which should take more responsibility for us than a country they describe as infidels?"

Another user replied: "I swear to the Almighty God, it's the Arabs who are the infidels."

'Let them in!'

The story has also attracted the attention of regional press and political actors.
Cartoon originally published in Saudi Makkah newspaper, seen here on TwitterImage copyright Twitter Image caption This cartoon was published in Saudi Makkah newspaper
The Saudi daily Makkah Newspaper published a cartoon - widely shared on social media - that showed a man in traditional Gulf clothing looking out of a door with barbed wire around it and pointing at door with the EU flag on it.

"Why don't you let them in, you discourteous people?!" he says.

The commander of the opposition Free Syrian Army (FSA), Riyad al-Asaad, retweeted an image of refugees posted by a former Kuwaiti MP, Faisal al-Muslim, who had added the comment: "Oh countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, these are innocent people and I swear they are most deserving of billions in aid and donations."

But despite the appeals from social media, Gulf states' position seems unlikely to shift in favour of Syrian refugees.
The Cayan tower (C), the world's tallest twisted tower stands at Dubai's MarinaImage copyright Getty Images Image caption The trend in most Gulf states is towards relying on migrant workers from South-East Asia and the Indian subcontinent, particularly for unskilled labour
In terms of employment, the trend in most Gulf states, such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE is towards relying on migrant workers from South-East Asia and the Indian subcontinent, particularly for unskilled labour.

While non-Gulf Arabs do occupy positions in skilled mid-ranking jobs, for example in education and health, they are up against a "nationalisation" drive whereby the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments in particular are seeking to prioritise the employment of locals.

Non-native residents may also struggle to create stable lives in these countries as it is near impossible to gain nationality.

In 2012, Kuwait even announced an official strategy to reduce the number of foreign workers in the emirate by a million over 10 years.

BBC Monitoring reports and analyses news from TV, radio, web and print media around the world. You can follow BBC Monitoring on Twitter and Facebook.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34132308

[Zaune]

New Statesman

he UK press has united in urging the government to soften its stance on the record numbers of people migrating to Europe. The reason? A series of distressing photos of the body of a three-year-old Syrian boy, face down in the sand on the Turkish coast.

Most papers decided to run one or more of these pictures on their front pages, accompanying headlines entreating David Cameron to take notice. While your mole wholeheartedly supports this message, it can't help noticing the sudden u-turn executed by certain newspapers on the subject of the refugee crisis.

First, they used to call them "foreigners" and "migrants" (a term that has rapidly lost its neutrality in the reporting of the crisis) who were flooding Europe and on the way to "swarm" the UK. Now they've discovered that these people are victims and refugees who need saving.









Photos: Twitter/suttonnick


The Sun went so far as to run a column by Katie Hopkins five months ago in which she referred to them as "cockroaches" and "feral humans". She wrote:

Show me pictures of coffins, show me bodies floating in water, play violins and show me skinny people looking sad. I still don't care. Because in the next minute you'll show me pictures of aggressive young men at Calais, spreading like norovirus on a cruise ship. Make no mistake, these migrants are like cockroaches.

Photo: Twitter

Now the same paper is urging the government not to "flinch" from taking in "desperate people", those in a "life-and-death struggle not of their own making":


Photo: Twitter/@Yorkskillerby


And the Daily Mail still seems confused:

https://vine.co/v/eTii6hrpFwV

It's not really the time for media navel-gazing, but perhaps the papers that have only just realised the refugees' plight can look closer at the language they've been using. It may have contributed to the "dehumanising" effect for which Cameron and co are now being condemned.

At least that poor boy didn't die in vain.

[K. A. Pital]

Well, at least no one has suggested a Vlad Tepes "solution".

Hey. They used to have Gaddafi do whatever it was to stop people from crossing the Mediterranean. I have no idea what he did, but I doubt it was nice.

Maintained border controls? I mean, in his authoritarian state people had to apply for visas to get out, not just pay smugglers to board a vessel in lawless zones.

[cosmicalstorm]

That boy is hot stuff on social media right now. Someone claimed that they had lived 3 years in Turkey but wanted to move to Greece to get dental care for the father. Were they forced onto that boat at gunpoint?

[The Romulan Republic]

That boy is hot stuff on social media right now.

Could you be any more tasteless or callous, or your apathy and contempt towards the lives of foreigners more transparent?

Someone claimed that they had lived 3 years in Turkey but wanted to move to Greece to get dental care for the father. Were they forced onto that boat at gunpoint?

Any evidence at all as a basis for this line of speculation?

[Thanas]

Well, at least no one has suggested a Vlad Tepes "solution".

Hey. They used to have Gaddafi do whatever it was to stop people from crossing the Mediterranean. I have no idea what he did, but I doubt it was nice.

Maintained border controls? I mean, in his authoritarian state people had to apply for visas to get out, not just pay smugglers to board a vessel in lawless zones.

He also did things like drop them off in the middle of the desert without any water.

[His Divine Shadow]

That boy is hot stuff on social media right now. Someone claimed that they had lived 3 years in Turkey but wanted to move to Greece to get dental care for the father. Were they forced onto that boat at gunpoint?

I hope all your efforts at life extension fail miserably.

[cosmicalstorm]

Here is the press conference where the fathers relative explains his motives for jumping on a boat, including the part about him having bad dental health. Hardly rumors:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZUuoaq1MLM

[LaCroix]

Trouble with this is that Hungary is not alone. Good chunk of Eastern Europe doesn't want to have anything to do with them, because, Muslims.

And unimportant things like ~30% unemployment, the rest working for ~400$ a month wages, and the states close to being bankrupt.

The refugees take one look around in hungary and see that it's poor. They don't want to stay. Heck, not even the Hungarians want to stay here- most try to move to Germany or Austria, too! They have to guard the refugee centers because they sneak out and try to move on to Austria. People tell them to please get into busses and trains towards the refugeee centers, so everything can be dealt with in a coordinated fashion (including paperwork to send them on to Germany or Austria), but they simply refuse to leave, and state they will only board trains that take them to Germany or Austria! The whole area around the Budapest main trainstation is a huge refugee camp, with people sitting around everywhere - it's almost impossible to even feed them properly under these circumstances.

Right now, there basically are no more trains leaving Budapest westwards, because the refugees will board all these trains en masse and have to be removed. We'd happily send them off, and even give them a lunchbag and some money on the way just to be rid of them, but we aren't allowed to.

The situation is almost as bad as in Greece and Italy with the boat people, and the EU is leaving Hungary to dry, but are eager to point their fingers when the sitation predictably escalates.

Scapegoating.

[Dartzap]

Scapegoating.

Yep. Who needs UKIP to cause dissent when the EU manages to aggravate vast swathes of its own population?

It'll cause ructions in domestic politics for years to come, and the people most desperate will yet again suffer.

[Dartzap]

Perhaps we need to change the name of this thread to 'European refugee crisis'? I strongly suspect that this thread has evolved well past the problems just facing Germany, and into the issues faced by all the EU and others.

[Thanas]

Good idea, will get right on it.

[Dartzap]

Beeb

The UK is to provide resettlement to "thousands" more Syrian refugees in response to the worsening humanitarian crisis, David Cameron has announced.

He said the extra refugees would come from UN camps bordering Syria, and not from among people already in Europe.
Britain would act with its "head and heart", he said, as he pledged to find long-term solutions to the crisis.

No specific figure has been given but the UN refugee agency said the UK would take a further 4,000 Syrian refugees.
Earlier this week, the prime minister said accepting more people was not the simple answer to the situation, described by some as the worst humanitarian crisis since World War Two.

But speaking in Lisbon after talks with his Portuguese counterpart, Mr Cameron said the UK had a "moral responsibility" to help those displaced by the four-year conflict in Syria, adding that more details would be set out next week following discussions with organisations working in the region.


'Deeply moved'

Calls for the UK to take in more refugees have intensified after the publication of a picture of the body of a drowned three-year-old Syrian boy, Alan Kurdi, washed up a Turkish beach.

Speaking to the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme, the boy's aunt, Tima Kurdi, said his and his brother's death should be "a wake-up call for the whole world".

Mr Cameron has previously argued that the solution was not to take in more people but the government's approach to the crisis came under pressure from public and political figures, including:

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has written to Mr Cameron calling for the UK to accept more refugees and said Scotland would take in 1,000 "as a starting point"

Former Labour Home Secretary David Blunkett said the UK should take in 25,000 over the next six months while Bristol's mayor urged residents of the city to use their spare rooms to help

A petition calling on the UK to accept more refugees has got more than three times the 100,000 signatures needed for it to be eligible for a possible debate in Parliament

Some small solace in that not all us Brits lack empathy.

[Thanas]

4000 only? Insulting.

[Dartzap]

It'll go up further and further as the weeks progress. Cameron completely misjudged the situation (shocking, I know) 300k for it to be debated in the Commons means that they'll be pushed into accepting 10's of thousands. When even the Mail is backtracking, you know the games up.

[Thanas]

A fair number the UK should accept is around 500k at the very minimum.

[Dartzap]

I'd agree in principle, but unlike other EU countries, there is a quite a large housing shortage as it is, as well as the steady stream of inner eu migrants (300k last year I think?)

We'll take in a decent number, but it will be governed by the availability of resources. It's probably emotionally cold, but that's how things run here as we know.

[Crazedwraith]

A fair number the UK should accept is around 500k at the very minimum.

How did you determine that figure?

[madd0ct0r]

I'd agree in principle, but unlike other EU countries, there is a quite a large housing shortage as it is, as well as the steady stream of inner eu migrants (300k last year I think?)

We'll take in a decent number, but it will be governed by the availability of resources. It's probably emotionally cold, but that's how things run here as we know.

sell it to the mail as driving up house prices.

[cmdrjones]

Well, at least no one has suggested a Vlad Tepes "solution".

Hey. They used to have Gaddafi do whatever it was to stop people from crossing the Mediterranean. I have no idea what he did, but I doubt it was nice.

probably THIS, but MOAR.... since it would be under the color of law and state security rather than in a revolutionary situation:

http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/20 ... cleansing/
http://www.ibtimes.com/libyan-revolt-un ... ans-307338
http://www.equaltimes.org/racism-and-re ... ht?lang=en
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/91078/l ... phen-brown


So, does Europe let them (all?) in and risk collapse or leave them to the tender mercies of various rebel/islamist groups?

To me there is no GOOD solution. well, not in this world anyway.

[Iroscato]

I am confused as to how exactly Europe will be 'risking collapse' by taking in the refugees.

[cmdrjones]

I am confused as to how exactly Europe will be 'risking collapse' by taking in the refugees.

Ok since germany has stated that they will allow syrian refugees who arrive there to apply for asylum there rather than deport them back to the EU nation of first entry then I would say that makes it highly attractive for large numbers of refugees, yes?

Now, it's a no limits fallacy to state that germany can take unlimited refugees, just as it would be to state that anyone in the world from a wartorn state who COULD qualify f or political asylum in the west WILL end up in germany, (I believe the figure was estimated at 800 million, which is crazy since it includes the threatened populations of every war zone on earth... BUT, with the ISIS war having no end in sight, and Germany's declaration being a de facto call for refugees to come there (i.e. we will treat you better than anyone else at the moment (see UK, for example, taking 4,000 only upthread)) then I think it is not out of the realm of possibility to begin to ask ourselves: Ok, if this crisis continues and the stream of refugees continues for th forseable future, how many Refugees can Europe handle before any o fthe following occurs (in no particular order): #1 the costs cause an even further erosion of European lifestyles to the point that the Europeans find them unacceptable #2 the costs and/or social ramifications cause a political crisis that brings a far right reactionary government into power that effectively ends the modern liberal lifestyle of the Europeans in that state or neighboring states #3 Greece, no shit leaves the Euro #4 same for any other nation with a large number of refugees #5 any Calais type crisis that results in a number of European dead that is significant enough that is cannot be ignored by the national and international media, say 50+?
and so on.... I'm sure we can come up with nightmare scenarios all day.
Now you can say: The likelihood of any of those are vanishingly small and here's why....
But you can't say: Those things are all impossible! Those things might happen anyway!
without first admitting that: while they may happen WITHOUT a refugee crisis they A: become more likely and B: wouldn;'t happen at BECAUSE of a refugee crisis, if the refugees were never allowed entry in the first place.

Europeans have rejected the latter option as morally unthinkable, but what they should do is be honest and recognize the option was there to begin with.