You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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
15

[–] OldBoris 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago  (edited ago)

"we are able to help these people, we can protect them, so why the fuck shouldn't we?"

Because you are bringing your own country down by doing so (according to statistics for Britain and the Netherlands, non-western migrants are a major burden on the welfare state), while on a global scale what you're doing is a drop of water in the ocean. I can very much recommend this video, which is as much true for Europe as it is true for America. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

"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."

And what is your long-term perspective here? Say that you take in one hundred thousand Syrians, Somalis and Eritreans this year. As we know, most of them are grown men or adolescent boys. They settle in German towns, but for some reason don't really mingle with Germans except with teenaged German girls that they try to bed. Then, next year, a hundred thousand more show up. They do the same thing as the first batch. Eventually, entire exclaves of Somalia, Eritrea and Syria arise within Germany. I'm thinking one, two, maybe three decades down the line. All the while, the economy in Germany continues to decline. What's your idea of your country's future?

0
2

[–] Alybad 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Why should a strong country be obligated to accept immigrants? I believe its the opposite.

1
2

[–] Thinchick 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Come back in a few years and we will talk. You know, once your future children are in school with these * refugee's* children. Oh, and once crime over takes your once peaceful and prosperous Germany. Then we will talk.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

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
2

[–] OldBoris 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

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

That's not true. If they refuse to settle in the nearest safe country, and instead move through several safe countries to come to a rich country, then their only possible motive is economic opportunism, because they left their humanitarian refugee motive when leaving the first safe country where their primary needs were met. Let's put it like this: almost all migrants who come to Germany did not leave Syria, Iraq or Somalia to get there. They left Austria, the Czech Republic, maybe Belgium or the Netherlands. Same with the migrants in Calais: they're not fleeing Iraq or Syria by the time they're trying to get to Blighty, they're fleeing France. And before that, they fled Italy, Spain or Greece. And before that, Turkey or Egypt or Niger or whatever.

"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 Greeks are very sick of it already. Not just the economic side, but the social side. They've been forming lynch mobs to go after Pakistanis who raped Greek girls, and like many in Germany they've been attacking asylum seeker centres. If you were to carry out that plan, you should carry it out in what are really the first safe countries these people enter. You see, all who enter Greece have entered it either through Egypt (perfectly safe, except for the Sinai) or Turkey (perfectly safe, except for the southeastern fringe where the Kurdish insurgency has flared up again).

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/