Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://news.yahoo.com/austrian-police-least-20-migrants-found-dead-truck-112617678.html

Europe is feeling the strain pretty heavily now with the mass of refugees fleeing the middle east in droves. What does it tell you about how horrible the situation has become if more people are fleeing now then during the 10-12 years of near constant warfare during the US led occupation of Iraq.

Accepting more refugees = you make the situation even worse. Accepting them works straight into the hands of all the smugglers / traffickers getting paid to get people into those boats and trucks.

As rough as it sounds, and most people just don't want to hear it, sending them away is best for the overall situation.

It will be interesting see what the autopsies show. Exposure seems to be the obvious culprit, but when, where and why could give a better picture.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Accepting more refugees = you make the situation even worse. Accepting them works straight into the hands of all the smugglers / traffickers getting paid to get people into those boats and trucks.

As rough as it sounds, and most people just don't want to hear it, sending them away is best for the overall situation.

Sending them away where? They aren't just going to shrug and go 'home'. Creating thousands of increasingly desperate people doesn't sound like it would end any better than the current situation.
At least this way the majority of refugees are still alive even if people are able to exploit the situation for their own gain (which will happen in any given situation).

 plastictrees wrote:
Sending them away where?

To Canada, why not?

Yes take refugees but need control and checks.

Filter out any potential terrorists, serious criminals who may sneaking in. Chances are low as low they are but only takes one to do alot of damage.

Not be insane but just careful and check everyone coming in, also keeps filters in any desises we need to worry about.

Not sure if what i said was misconstrued, but I was pointing out how bad it must be in the middle east not in Europe.

Aye its very bad in syria, Iraq is bad, other countries are facing the coming threat so its not going to end soon.

It's bad, and we have enough nazis to make it even worse. Some of them recently posted propaganda posters near a refugee center warning natives to stay away due to increased levels of "violence against natives, robberies, and rapes". These dimwits also claimed 80% of our population growth is due to immigration - pretty funny for a small country with less than 60K births a year. We usually accept less than 1500 refugees each year.

Before you laugh at them, how many have made it in legally and illegally in the last year?

Well Calais alone was under attack from up to several thousand a month or 2 ago. . every night, hundreds, few got killed trying I believe

The port and tunnel are now heavily fortified and new fences put in but they did not just vanish, there still in Europe.

They where trying to get to UK, we are not open border unlike Europe to non passport holders, by law as it stands they should claim in first safe country, yes refugees are in need of help but again there legal channels then there is trying to breach the tunnel or port.

 Manchu wrote:

 plastictrees wrote:
Sending them away where?

To Canada, why not?

Yeah, Canada is pretty large and empty. Canada should take its responsibilty and accept more refugees.

Sending them away however looks like it is going to be the only real option. Europe can and is willing to accept quite a lot of refugees, but now it has gotten to the point of completely crazy. Thousands and thousands enter Europe every day. It is like the entire Middle East and Africa are migrating.
Europe should be far more strict. All immigrants should be contained in camps at the border. Those refugees coming from an active, heavy war zone (Syria) as well as those who can prove their live is in danger should be relocated to a more permanent and comfortable place to stay. The others, and especially the economic migrants, should be deported immediately. No exceptions, appeals and other delaying tricks, just kick them out. If Europe is that strict, eventually, word will spread Europe is almost impossible to get into and the stream of migrants will decrease. Right now everyone seems to think Europe is some mythical land of milk and honey for anyone that can reach it. The reality is that most migrants never officially get accepted nor deported (thus rendering them illegals and without any kind of support) and even those who are accepted are rarely able to get work or integrate properly. There simply aren't enough jobs in Europe, so most migrants that get here are condemned to a life of poverty in an unfamiliar, foreign country.

Spetulhu wrote:
It's bad, and we have enough nazis to make it even worse. Some of them recently posted propaganda posters near a refugee center warning natives to stay away due to increased levels of "violence against natives, robberies, and rapes". These dimwits also claimed 80% of our population growth is due to immigration - pretty funny for a small country with less than 60K births a year. We usually accept less than 1500 refugees each year.

Yeah, Finland has it easy.
Germany expects to have to accept over 800.000 immigrants this year alone, and the Netherlands had 180.000 last year, and likely much more this year.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Not sure if what i said was misconstrued, but I was pointing out how bad it must be in the middle east not in Europe.

Some places in the Middle East like Jordania and Lebanon have it even worse than Europe. Lebanon has like 1.5 million on a population of 4 million.

 Manchu wrote:

 plastictrees wrote:
Sending them away where?

To Canada, why not?

That's pretty much the origin of Toronto.

Might not be that the situation is worse. I don't know if this is the case, but the end of the war may have made it so that people actually can move about. Could be they wanted to leave but the war prevented it; now that the war is over things are still terrible, but at least they can get out.

Not necessarily worse, just a different kind of terrible.

 devinple wrote:
Might not be that the situation is worse. I don't know if this is the case, but the end of the war may have made it so that people actually can move about. Could be they wanted to leave but the war prevented it; now that the war is over things are still terrible, but at least they can get out.

Not necessarily worse, just a different kind of terrible.

Lol... wow, sorry mate, but this is just incredibly naive. The majority of the refugees are coming from places like Libya, Syria, and Iraq... all places that are currently dealing with ISIS/ISIL.


Yes, living in Iraq under US occupation may have been "bad" in the sense that, if we had intel, we may kick in the door, search the place and potentially make an "arrest". In which case, depending on the unit, that person who was arrested was usually released back home.

Now, that same person living in a place like Mosul, just got his door kicked in by IS fighters, his wife was raped and probably killed, daughter had the same or was sent off to be sold into slavery, and the guy was either forced to watch and then executed (miserably and in the most excruciating way possible), or forced to join under pain of death. If he had a son, the son was undoubtedly taken for "education" and has had who knows what done to him.

But yeah, it's not necessarily worse, just a different kind of terrible.

So if I understand correctly, the opinion of our European posters is that these immigrants should be deported and that EU border enforcement be improved to prevent immigrants from migrating to the EU?

If they shouldn't be deported, how should they be welcomed into the EU? Should they be provided housing, food, clothing, and/or the same benefits as naturalized EU citizens?

Are there any lessons the US can learn from how the EU is responding to the immigrant crisis that would help the US address its own immigrant challanges.

By the way, 'Merica Number 1!

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1KMZB_enUS591US591&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=immigrant+population+by+country

I second Canada pulling its weight. They have nothing but huge amounts of unused space. Start throwing some cargo haulers over seas and bring them over. Document them and put them in the work force.

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
Are there any lessons the US can learn from how the EU is responding to the immigrant crisis that would help the US address its own immigrant challanges.

No. Unless the US wants lessons in incompetence, indecisiveness and internal division.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
Are there any lessons the US can learn from how the EU is responding to the immigrant crisis that would help the US address its own immigrant challanges.

No. Unless the US wants lessons in incompetence, indecisiveness and internal division.

We got that beat bro...

May I vote for Russia also getting some refugees? Weren't they friends with Syria?

What about Turkey? didn't murica tell us Europeans to let them join the EU? Why would we want those who play their own silly powergame ( Erdogan & co ) instead of the more reasonable thing to do, move over that border and fix the problem?
The south seems to be happy if everybody moves to the north. How should we provide a life of happiness to 2 Continents ( Asia , Africa ). ? Magic?

We do our best to care for those in need , but I am sure this stream of Humans with so many different motivations has to be under control or the good people of Europe are making their own decisions without the rather useless politicians.

We need to do something.

I reckon the UK should be doing more. It currently takes far less refugees per capita than Germany, which is bearing the brunt of this crisis (along with the southern european countries where the migrants are arriving).

Since it was British and American "adventures" in the region that brought on much of this instability, I feel like Britain has a bit of a moral responsibility to step up and do more than it currently is (which is as little as humanly possible.)

I'm sure the 'powerful civilized morally superior' western nations could figure the whole thing out in a weekend if they actually wanted to.

Heck along with Canada and Russia, the U.S. is filled with completely unused or forgotten land. Bring them over, give them a how to class on the foster nation's laws and culture. Put them them in the work force and pump power into industry.

Or something like that....I don't run countries so I'm just spit balling here...but there has to be some solution.

Maybe if the EU was not a total bankrupt corupt pit of fail we might be able to do somthing.

As it stands the EU is useless, it cannot even control its own borders....

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
Are there any lessons the US can learn from how the EU is responding to the immigrant crisis that would help the US address its own immigrant challanges.

No. Unless the US wants lessons in incompetence, indecisiveness and internal division.

Also, completely unrelated reasons for immigration.

BrotherGecko wrote:I'm sure the 'powerful civilized morally superior' western nations could figure the whole thing out in a weekend if they actually wanted to.

Heck along with Canada and Russia, the U.S. is filled with completely unused or forgotten land. Bring them over, give them a how to class on the foster nation's laws and culture. Put them them in the work force and pump power into industry.

Or something like that....I don't run countries so I'm just spit balling here...but there has to be some solution.

It is not as simple as that, unfortenately.
Space is not the issue with the immigrants, there is plenty of empty spaces they could go. But you can't just drop people into an empty land, the land has to be able to actually sustain those people. They need infrastructure (which is very expensive), social support (which may be even more expensive) and jobs (of which there aren't enough for native Europeans, let alone immigrants) to sustain themselves. Europe is pretty much full, even if there is plenty of physical space left.

Secondly, you assume that the immigrants will actually accept their foster nation's culture. The reality is that many simply refuse to adapt. They will also need to be fluent in their host nation's language before they can participate in society, and learning a new language is not done in just a few lessons, especially not if it is a language from a completely unrelated linguistic group.

There may be solutions, but those either cost more than European countries want to afford or require a degree of harshness that most are not willing to show. In the meanwhile, the problem grows bigger by the day.
It is really interesting to watch this develop, but also a little scary.

 Da Boss wrote:
We need to do something.

I reckon the UK should be doing more. It currently takes far less refugees per capita than Germany, which is bearing the brunt of this crisis (along with the southern european countries where the migrants are arriving).

Since it was British and American "adventures" in the region that brought on much of this instability, I feel like Britain has a bit of a moral responsibility to step up and do more than it currently is (which is as little as humanly possible.)

It's funny how illegal immigrants manage to get all the way across Europe and then pile up at Calais. They're just being passed around because for all their talk all European countries are fed up and want to move them on.

The UK might get criticised for not taking enough refugees, but we have high migration from European countries that's putting strain on our housing, education, healthcare and social systems. This year we had net migration of 300,000 in the first three months. The problem is that people arrive in Europe, get citizenship and then move here freely under EU rules.

Asylum seekers should apply at the first country they reach not cross multiple countries trying to get to ones the like more. Secondly, genuine asylum cases should be handled on a humanitarian basis which I support, but there's getting to be a bad taste for all immigration in the UK due to the constant high flow of all migration we can't seem, or be allowed, to control. And that's the fault of our politicians and Europe.

My understanding is that people in Germany feel similarly, but there's even more handwringing about taking strong action against immigration due to worries about appearing racist given the shadow of naziism.

The UK is not "suffering" any more than any other place from immigration, this is merely the perception fed by the right wing UK press.

Emigration is actually much nastier for a country, too, so perhaps a bit of perspective is in order.

The problem is we need a pan-European approach to this problem rather than plonking all the work on the countries which happen to be the closest to the war torn areas to our south and east.

Germans don't really feel similarly - there's a bit of tension like in most countries, and there are movements like Pegida, but they are usually outnumbered 20 to 1 by counter demonstrations in favour of immigration. The mood in certain areas, such as Duisburg in the west which has a particularly high concentration of immigrants and low funds, or the Eastern cities where (frankly) racism is a bit more accepted/common is more anti-immigrant, but it's not the mainstream opinion here. It bears repeating again and again that Germany is taking far more asylum seekers than any other country in Europe, by population only Sweden is in the same league, and there is very little complaining or debating about freedom of movement within Europe here.

The stance you advocate seems to abdicate responsibility for the destabilising wars engaged in by the UK in the regions where the refugees are coming from. The UK cannot destablise these regions, walk away, and then expect others to take on the human cost of it's military misadventures. I find that attitude contemptible.

I should say though that my compatriots in Ireland are little better, also "opting out" of taking some of the burden, but at least they do not bear as much responsibility for the current instability as the UK. I am happy to live in Germany which is leading the way and showing compassion on this issue.

One last point: The reason that Germans are sympathetic isn't (entirely) from fear of Nazism accusations. Germany has experienced mass displacement of people twice in living memory- the huge numbers of ethnic Germans fleeing Poland etc in 1945 and then those who fled from the GDR later. My fianceé's mother and aunt have vivid memories of fleeing Poland as little girls and later being smuggled out of East Germany to the west, and the hardships and negative attitudes they faced. Empathy, rather than guilt, drives much of this sentiment. As it should be.

 Da Boss wrote:


The stance you advocate seems to abdicate responsibility for the destabilising wars engaged in by the UK in the regions where the refugees are coming from. The UK cannot destablise these regions, walk away, and then expect others to take on the human cost of it's military misadventures. I find that attitude contemptible.

I'm not sure that I buy we're responsible for 'refugees' in a general sense due to 'destabilisation'. Iraq perhaps, but by that standard we should be taking two for every hundred America takes. Libya? It fell to pieces on its own accord. Syria? The same. Somalia? We're not militarily involved there. Afghanistan? There were six million refugees (globally) from there in 1991 alone, long before our little excursions, and that's a trend that's been the case before and after. Congo? Never touched it. Eritrea? Not us. Mali, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Sudan? Same again.

I can understand arguments from humanity, but I refuse to feel personally responsible (and to accept responsibility on the behalf of my nation) for the domestic chaos across most of the Middle-East and Africa. Those regions have been sending streams of refugees north for a long time now, and their domestic politics usually plays a far greater role in 'destabilising' their countries than the input we've had. I can just about accept Iraq, and a tenuous role in Afghanistan at a stretch, but the rest of it ain't our fault.

I would blame you guys (along with the French) for quite a lot of the problems in the Middle East, including Libya.

I would argue the destabilisation of Syria is also a direct result of the destabilisation of Iraq, and that the wars increased the recruitment for Islamic terrorist groups and contributed to a hardening of their stance and further radicalisation.

I think your perspective is fairly limited and I do believe (as do many others) that Britain, and the US, have a lot to answer for in the Middle East.

 Da Boss wrote:
I would blame you guys (along with the French) for quite a lot of the problems in the Middle East, including Libya.

I would argue the destabilisation of Syria is also a direct result of the destabilisation of Iraq, and that the wars increased the recruitment for Islamic terrorist groups and contributed to a hardening of their stance and further radicalisation.

I think your perspective is fairly limited and I do believe (as do many others) that Britain, and the US, have a lot to answer for in the Middle East.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. You can throw around phrases like 'limited perspective', but looking at things from a more holistic historical and cultural perspective, British influence on the Middle-East as a whole in recent years is nowhere near as extreme as you're making it out to be. Such a view also condescends to the people who live there with a considerable amount of Western paternalistic arrogance, in which our influence supposedly plays such a vast role in their internal affairs and cultural makeup as to absolve them of responsibility for their own actions, and place it on Britain.

I repeat, Iraq I can buy. Afganistan at a stretch. Syria? The country was suffering under a dictatorial, repressive regime, and the economic/social/religious factors that have led to it's collapse have their roots far, far more in domestic politics and culture than they do in what happened a decade beforehand next door. I won't deny that it was most likely affected in some small way (nothing exists in a bubble), but only as much as they will also have been affected by Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Western cultural creep, and so forth. In other words, in a minimal, immeasurable amount. Same again for Libya.