You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

3
52

[–] Lumidaub 3 points 52 points (+55|-3) ago 

German here, my generation is absolutely done with being ashamed for what some douches did a billion years ago and we're generally very vocal about not wanting to be shamed into doing anything we don't want, just because our grandparents were idiots.

But honestly, we're fucking rich as a country. I'm not saying we should take everybody, but definitely any refugees. (And this is coming from someone struggling from paycheck to paycheck, without any worthwhile job qualification, but lots of debt from university.)

"Free homes" my ass. One street over there's an Asylantenheim. It's fuckugly and I don't think anybody would WANT to live there.

0
21

[–] OldBoris 0 points 21 points (+21|-0) ago 

From a practical point of view, why would you take more migrants? They're a net burden to the welfare state, their presence in any significant numbers undermines social cohesion (as a recent study by a team at the University of Copenhagen has shown), and the rate at which poor people in dangerous parts of Africa and the Middle East breed is much higher than the rate at which Europe can even provide them with shelter.

On a sidenote, none of them are refugees. Under international law, a refugee is only one who comes from a conflict zone and takes shelter in the nearest safe country where his primary needs can be met. For the Syrians, that's Turkey, Jordan, maybe Lebanon - but not Greece, and certainly not Germany or Sweden. The only refugees in Europe now are the Ukrainians from the east of the Ukraine who have been forced to relocate to the west of the Ukraine, or the Russians from the east of the Ukraine who have been forced to relocate to Russia. In fact, if we want to get formal, a refugee is only one who has been designated as such by the UNHCR.

2
12

[–] Lumidaub 2 points 12 points (+14|-2) ago  (edited ago)

If that's what a refugee is, then that's stupid. As I said, we're rich, we're a peaceful country, nobody has to starve here, we are able to help these people, we can protect them, so why the fuck shouldn't we? It's just a no brainer to me. As a global community we can't put that burden (and yes, I'm aware it's a burden) on just the neighbouring countries, wtf kind of rule is that anyway...

I'm not saying we need to take more migrants, I'm saying every wealthy country has an obligation to take as many people who are in danger in their own country as it can. Yes, it's a burden, but I think we can take it. Might be the filthy socialist in me talking who believes in the solidarity system we have going in Germany where the well-off support the not-so-well-off (in principle...).

0
4

[–] 1F4A9 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

They can be both humanitarian refugees and economic opportunist migrants at the same time.

The laws you are referring too are not about the nearest country, but first safe country they enter. Since Germany is surrounded by safe countries, the only way for it to be the first safe country is if the asylum seeker arrives on a airplane from a dangerous place. That's only the case for a handful each year.

If Western European countries would strictly enforce these laws, they are justified to decline 99% of asylum requests. Most of these prospective migrants start off by breaking the law of their new guest countries by not applying for asylum in the first safe country, but instead opt for trying to lie their way into a more prosperous country.

Now before people get all uppity about it being inhumane to deny people from real dangerous places: help them in safe but less rich countries. For every immigrant that costs thousands each month in Germany, you can help many more in safe but poorer countries, and by doing so you make economic reasons less of an incentive for the migrants. If we as rich countries completely outsource refugee relief to countries like Greece, it might boost their economies, and we'd be able to do good for more people.

The full benefits of the German welfare state are not a human right!

0
1

[–] TerryB 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

And maybe you were lied to about what was really done in WW2. Check out this video if you can. Not sure what is 'legal' in Germany. http://thegreateststorynevertold.tv/

[–] [deleted] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

1
0

[–] Lumidaub 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

... uh. Germany? I think I'm missing the joke here.

0
0

[–] rigzilla 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Why do you think refugees should't have the right to come to Germany? Everybody should be able to live a live without the fear of an imminent death. Of course Germany should only accept political refugees and not people who just want to find work. But just being born in a rich country doesn't make you any better than any refugee. Just try to imagine things from their point of view.

0
1

[–] Lumidaub 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I don't think that was meant for me :)

1
0

[–] crusade 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

 >refugees

You mean welfare tourists