|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On September 12 2015 03:25 Ghostcom wrote:@Acrofales: I have already answered all of those points in this very thread, its getting very tiresome to be honest. No European country is going to send the refugees back as they are all bound by the non-refoulment principle. Heck, even half of those who get denied asylum because they are classified as economic immigrants still get to stay in Europe. The very first hit on Google would have told you this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34190359I'm not surprised in the least that the refugees when they are done fleeing from the war decide to turn immigrants to better their lot in life. Heck, who wouldn't? But to say that EU has any obligation to simply accept them when they turn immigrants is wrong. EU has no such obligation - legally or morally.
I don't think anybody is arguing about the current policy (in which they would not get sent back, as the bbc clearly shows), but you, and others are arguing for a future policy in which they do get sent back. Or dumped in Greece/Italy in a great show of European solidarity by the Danes.
|
On September 12 2015 03:37 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 03:25 Ghostcom wrote:@Acrofales: I have already answered all of those points in this very thread, its getting very tiresome to be honest. No European country is going to send the refugees back as they are all bound by the non-refoulment principle. Heck, even half of those who get denied asylum because they are classified as economic immigrants still get to stay in Europe. The very first hit on Google would have told you this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34190359I'm not surprised in the least that the refugees when they are done fleeing from the war decide to turn immigrants to better their lot in life. Heck, who wouldn't? But to say that EU has any obligation to simply accept them when they turn immigrants is wrong. EU has no such obligation - legally or morally. I don't think anybody is arguing about the current policy (in which they would not get sent back, as the bbc clearly shows), but you, and others are arguing for a future policy in which they do get sent back. Or dumped in Greece/Italy in a great show of European solidarity by the Danes.
No I'm not. Not even close.
EDIT: You have no clue about the solidarity of the Danes (we might have the most open and brutally honest debate concerning immigrants - its a cultural thing - but we are really one of the better kids in the block when it comes to living up to international obligations) and as a Brazilian who has repeatedly exhibited a lack of knowledge concerning the situation you should probably quit before you dig your hole any deeper.
|
On September 12 2015 03:54 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 03:37 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 03:25 Ghostcom wrote:@Acrofales: I have already answered all of those points in this very thread, its getting very tiresome to be honest. No European country is going to send the refugees back as they are all bound by the non-refoulment principle. Heck, even half of those who get denied asylum because they are classified as economic immigrants still get to stay in Europe. The very first hit on Google would have told you this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34190359I'm not surprised in the least that the refugees when they are done fleeing from the war decide to turn immigrants to better their lot in life. Heck, who wouldn't? But to say that EU has any obligation to simply accept them when they turn immigrants is wrong. EU has no such obligation - legally or morally. I don't think anybody is arguing about the current policy (in which they would not get sent back, as the bbc clearly shows), but you, and others are arguing for a future policy in which they do get sent back. Or dumped in Greece/Italy in a great show of European solidarity by the Danes. No I'm not. Not even close. That is the difference then. There are couple folks in this thread that seem bent on proving that the refugees from Syria are a huge threat to EU culture and safety.
|
On September 12 2015 04:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 03:54 Ghostcom wrote:On September 12 2015 03:37 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 03:25 Ghostcom wrote:@Acrofales: I have already answered all of those points in this very thread, its getting very tiresome to be honest. No European country is going to send the refugees back as they are all bound by the non-refoulment principle. Heck, even half of those who get denied asylum because they are classified as economic immigrants still get to stay in Europe. The very first hit on Google would have told you this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34190359I'm not surprised in the least that the refugees when they are done fleeing from the war decide to turn immigrants to better their lot in life. Heck, who wouldn't? But to say that EU has any obligation to simply accept them when they turn immigrants is wrong. EU has no such obligation - legally or morally. I don't think anybody is arguing about the current policy (in which they would not get sent back, as the bbc clearly shows), but you, and others are arguing for a future policy in which they do get sent back. Or dumped in Greece/Italy in a great show of European solidarity by the Danes. No I'm not. Not even close. That is the difference then. There are couple folks in this thread that seem bent on proving that the refugees from Syria are a huge threat to EU culture and safety.
Appart from "muh feels" you didn't try to discredit these folks with informations, news, statistics. Just high moral ground.
|
On September 12 2015 03:54 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 03:37 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 03:25 Ghostcom wrote:@Acrofales: I have already answered all of those points in this very thread, its getting very tiresome to be honest. No European country is going to send the refugees back as they are all bound by the non-refoulment principle. Heck, even half of those who get denied asylum because they are classified as economic immigrants still get to stay in Europe. The very first hit on Google would have told you this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34190359I'm not surprised in the least that the refugees when they are done fleeing from the war decide to turn immigrants to better their lot in life. Heck, who wouldn't? But to say that EU has any obligation to simply accept them when they turn immigrants is wrong. EU has no such obligation - legally or morally. I don't think anybody is arguing about the current policy (in which they would not get sent back, as the bbc clearly shows), but you, and others are arguing for a future policy in which they do get sent back. Or dumped in Greece/Italy in a great show of European solidarity by the Danes. No I'm not. Not even close. EDIT: You have no clue about the solidarity of the Danes (we might have the most open and brutally honest debate concerning immigrants - its a cultural thing - but we are really one of the better kids in the block when it comes to living up to international obligations) and as a Brazilian who has repeatedly exhibited a lack of knowledge concerning the situation you should probably quit before you dig your hole any deeper.
He's dutch, if I recall correctly, he's definitely said it at least once before (maybe you weren't here then, but it was not so long ago).
|
On September 12 2015 03:54 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 03:37 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 03:25 Ghostcom wrote:@Acrofales: I have already answered all of those points in this very thread, its getting very tiresome to be honest. No European country is going to send the refugees back as they are all bound by the non-refoulment principle. Heck, even half of those who get denied asylum because they are classified as economic immigrants still get to stay in Europe. The very first hit on Google would have told you this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34190359I'm not surprised in the least that the refugees when they are done fleeing from the war decide to turn immigrants to better their lot in life. Heck, who wouldn't? But to say that EU has any obligation to simply accept them when they turn immigrants is wrong. EU has no such obligation - legally or morally. I don't think anybody is arguing about the current policy (in which they would not get sent back, as the bbc clearly shows), but you, and others are arguing for a future policy in which they do get sent back. Or dumped in Greece/Italy in a great show of European solidarity by the Danes. No I'm not. Not even close. EDIT: You have no clue about the solidarity of the Danes (we might have the most open and brutally honest debate concerning immigrants - its a cultural thing - but we are really one of the better kids in the block when it comes to living up to international obligations) and as a Brazilian who has repeatedly exhibited a lack of knowledge concerning the situation you should probably quit before you dig your hole any deeper.
Well, then I apologize. You seemed to be arguing that, with the others like Faust<numbers>, Yuljan and some others.
I'm Dutch and read enough Dutch news to know there are plenty of people whose favourite solution would be to deport them all.
I actually really like what Rutte is proposing and hope the EU supports it. It seems like a good solution, although it needs more details on the implementation side to convince me that it is actually workable in practice.
|
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers.
|
On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers.
What do you want to do with them ? Send them back to Syria ? At some point we must acknowledge those people are there and we must take care of them.
|
On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers.
Some of those folks might be going to family members, people they know or because they speak the language. Them wanting to go to a place where they might have a network of support and contacts isn't the worst thing. And it will be possible to deal with those who are just trying to immigrate illegally.
On September 12 2015 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers. What do you want to do with them ? Send them back to Syria ? At some point we must acknowledge those people are there and we must take care of them.
Exactly. Nothing above is a reason not to act. Just sort through it and help those who need it and try to find a way to get them to the best place possible.
|
You should have listened more carefully to Rutte then, because you are consistently doing what he warned against: Failing to differentiate between immigrants and refugees.
|
On September 12 2015 04:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers. Some of those folks might be going to family members, people they know or because they speak the language. Them wanting to go to a place where they might have a network of support and contacts isn't the worst thing. And it will be possible to deal with those who are just trying to immigrate illegally.
You can turn the whole thing around though. Those who have a legitimate reason to want to be in country x rather than country y can make a claim to be sent there instead after the situation is under control rather than having hundreds of thousands of people traipse around Europe. Seems way more reasonable and less prone to abuse.
|
On September 12 2015 04:24 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 04:21 Plansix wrote:On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers. Some of those folks might be going to family members, people they know or because they speak the language. Them wanting to go to a place where they might have a network of support and contacts isn't the worst thing. And it will be possible to deal with those who are just trying to immigrate illegally. You can turn the whole thing around though. Those who have a legitimate reason to want to be in country x rather than country y can make a claim to be sent there instead after the situation is under control rather than having hundreds of thousands of people traipse around Europe. Seems way more reasonable and less prone to abuse.
So where the fuck do all the Syrians go while they wait?
|
On September 12 2015 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers. What do you want to do with them ? Send them back to Syria ? At some point we must acknowledge those people are there and we must take care of them.
No, I want to help them in the first safe country they arrive at. I want to spend the money where it does the most good and not only help 6% of the Syrian refugees. Sending them back to the first safe country in which they arrive also ensures that people are not encouraged to take the trip across the Mediterranean in flimsy boats. I want EU (and the world) to start actually supporting the neighbouring countries which are being overrun because they don't have the resources to handle all the refugees on their own.
EDIT: I figured you were asking about the refugees, not the immigrants. The immigrants should be send back - or rather, they should never have come in the first place before being granted a visa.
|
On September 12 2015 04:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 04:24 dismiss wrote:On September 12 2015 04:21 Plansix wrote:On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers. Some of those folks might be going to family members, people they know or because they speak the language. Them wanting to go to a place where they might have a network of support and contacts isn't the worst thing. And it will be possible to deal with those who are just trying to immigrate illegally. You can turn the whole thing around though. Those who have a legitimate reason to want to be in country x rather than country y can make a claim to be sent there instead after the situation is under control rather than having hundreds of thousands of people traipse around Europe. Seems way more reasonable and less prone to abuse. So where the fuck do all the Syrians go while they wait?
Y'know spread out across Europe like they would be in either scenario.
|
On September 12 2015 04:21 Ghostcom wrote:
You should have listened more carefully to Rutte then, because you are consistently doing what he warned against: Failing to differentiate between immigrants and refugees.
Huh? I am talking specifically about refugees. Mainly Syrians, but Eritreans, Afghani and Pakistani refugees as well. They don't suddenly become economical immigrants because they managed to cross the border from Turkey to Greece (or further)
|
On September 12 2015 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers. What do you want to do with them ? Send them back to Syria ? At some point we must acknowledge those people are there and we must take care of them.
Of course we should deal with the one already there. The current quotas are really low for everybody so it won't be really a pain in the ass for anyone (except maybe keeping them to flee in Germany). 130K migrants is nothing, but 1M3 become a problem.
But what we should also do is stopping the insentive of them coming to Europe because it's a supposed paradise. We should also reenforce the European borders, sending aid to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Create safe zones in Syria.
That's the only "good" thing to do, not letting migrants into their illusions of grandeur.
On September 12 2015 04:28 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 04:21 Ghostcom wrote:
You should have listened more carefully to Rutte then, because you are consistently doing what he warned against: Failing to differentiate between immigrants and refugees. Huh? I am talking specifically about refugees. Mainly Syrians, but Eritreans, Afghani and Pakistani refugees as well. They don't suddenly become economical immigrants because they managed to cross the border from Turkey to Greece (or further)
Actually yes they do becomes economical migrants once they leave the first safe country they reached.
|
On September 12 2015 03:08 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +I do not care what you label yourself, or the classification you give to your thoughts. If you allow a certain principle to be the basis of your argument, it must be a principle to which you too would submit. Mohammad the Prophet has been more read, studied and regurgitated than Marx and Tocqueville combined, yet one suspects you would find this inadequate proof of his credentials as a thinker and "prophet." You yourself would not bow to the force of a man's popularity, so why should I? Listen, you misunderstood me. My point was that you are ignorant about Marx, most likely you've barely ever read anything from him, and that, since you are subject to outside influence, you discard his work out of ignorance.
How do you know? Of course I am ignorant about Marx; I am not convinced however that I am more ignorant about Marx than you are. Even presuming this to be the case, why does it matter? Why the defensiveness about Marx? Why the sneering at Tocqueville? Where are the erudite arguments to support your alleged insights? If you don't have any arguments, why bother?
But still, you continue into misrepresenting my arguments and what I was discussing. You are not saying that the people that welcome refugee have compassion towards refugee : what you were saying is that there is an assymetry in compassion. Understand : that the german are more compassionate people that other european. I responded to you that a vulgar materialism - and again I stress on the vulgar (that I stole from Zizek) - could help going away from those kind of analysis that always put european people against each other from a cultural standpoint (which is a form of cultural racism). It is indeed easier for german to show their compassionate side when it also goes hand in hand with their own interests.
But I understand full well that you don't desire to respond to that specific argument mainly because you are yourself very biased in your point of view : I remember your old post and the common point is that you always take the same side and support your claim on a partial vision of history.
Except I clarified that the asymmetry I was discussion was not German vs. Polish, but generic Western idealism vs. Third World realities. Such "cultural racism" is not the impression of a trained line of discourse. Some of us have actually lived in vastly different kinds of societies, and have a developed awareness of different kinds of humanity, and some of the psychological, ethical and social tendencies unique to a specific cultural climate. I am not interested in pursuing an alternative theoretical dialectic so long as my obligation is to the truth as I have seen and experienced it, and not to arbitrary philosophical fads.
PS : Describing me as a germanophobic is a good way to discard my arguments. Maybe tell me that I'm a communist, an anarchist or a racist and a facist, I'm used to it : most people who can't stand a good argument usually comes to that.
You are free to explain why you thought it was such an important point to raise in any terms you wish. Since the argument had no objective content, we are all interested in hearing its subjective origins.
|
On September 12 2015 04:27 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers. What do you want to do with them ? Send them back to Syria ? At some point we must acknowledge those people are there and we must take care of them. No, I want to help them in the first safe country they arrive at. I want to spend the money where it does the most good and not only help 6% of the Syrian refugees. Sending them back to the first safe country in which they arrive also ensures that people are not encouraged to take the trip across the Mediterranean in flimsy boats. I want EU (and the world) to start actually supporting the neighbouring countries which are being overrun because they don't have the resources to handle all the refugees on their own.
Agreed. But that doesn't solve, at all the short term problem, which is that Turkey and Lebanon cannot deal with the extreme influx of refugees, circumstances are subhuman and all those who possibly can are paying human traffickers to send them across the sea to Europe. It is going to take a while to change that, and the only humane way of dealing with those who HAVE made it to Europe is by letting them stay while we do indeed help out Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey with the gigantic problem of finding a safe and stable solution for the refugees flooding across their borders.
It would also be great if we could put some effective pressure on other Arabic nations to step the fuck up and do their part.
|
Can you folks take your argument about Marxism to PM?
|
On September 12 2015 04:30 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers. What do you want to do with them ? Send them back to Syria ? At some point we must acknowledge those people are there and we must take care of them. Of course we should deal with the one already there. The current quotas are really low for everybody so it won't be really a pain in the ass for anyone (except maybe keeping them to flee in Germany). 130K migrants is nothing, but 1M3 become a problem. But what we should also do is stopping the insentive of them coming to Europe because it's a supposed paradise. We should also reenforce the European borders, sending aid to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Create safe zones in Syria. That's the only "good" thing to do, not letting migrants into their illusions of grandeur. Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 04:28 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:21 Ghostcom wrote:
You should have listened more carefully to Rutte then, because you are consistently doing what he warned against: Failing to differentiate between immigrants and refugees. Huh? I am talking specifically about refugees. Mainly Syrians, but Eritreans, Afghani and Pakistani refugees as well. They don't suddenly become economical immigrants because they managed to cross the border from Turkey to Greece (or further) Actually yes they do becomes economical migrants once they leave the first safe country they reached.
Reinforcing the borders is fucking stupid. As if an extra border patrol is going to stop people willing to get into leaky rafts that can barely float, and then cross the Mediterranean.
We should accept that people WILL be fleeing into Europe and treat them as human beings, giving them a place to live, while simultaneously fixing the problem at the source, so less people will actually be willing to get into leaky shitboats and hazard a sea crossing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
