You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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
0

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

The Greeks and Italians are not getting nearly enough funding deal with the immigrants. I mean give them serious money, the same amount we'd otherwise spend on the immigrants over here. With that money they could maintain refugee camps and keep them away from the general population, or stop them before they cross the Mediterranean.

But indeed, almost all so called refugees come to Europe thought other safe countries, and should therefore be denied. This is perfectly possible within the bounds of existing laws (it's actually dictated by them!), and people should not believe the politicians if they say I can't be done, it's against international law, or a human rights violation. Plain and simple, it's unwillingness of the politicians to enforce the law and stop economic immigration.