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 October 10 2015 06:19 LegalLord wrote: Violating property rights is also a pretty serious abuse of power on the part of the government. There is no strict moral obligations of governments to take economic migrants,
Can you stop using right-wing lingo like it actually means something? Every single person who makes it here has the right to apply for asylum, it is their right. They may be rejected or accepted but every single on of them has the right to apply and thus also will be accommodated for at least that time.
They are in fact economic migrants - whether or not you want to take them is a matter of political choice, but don't pretend that they weren't safe 3-4 nations ago on the way to Germany. And that makes the moral obligation to take them rather questionable.
We have had this discussion before, we really don't need it again.You are hung up on technicalities. People who come from Syria are legitimate refugees, saying anything else is incredibly silly when taking a look at the situation there. It is utterly irrelevant that they passed a few countries on their way here to get to one of the countries where the chance of them being sent back to hell is the smallest.
On October 10 2015 06:19 LegalLord wrote: Violating property rights is also a pretty serious abuse of power on the part of the government. There is no strict moral obligations of governments to take economic migrants,
Can you stop using right-wing lingo like it actually means something? Every single person who makes it here has the right to apply for asylum, it is their right. They may be rejected or accepted but every single on of them has the right to apply and thus also will be accommodated for at least that time.
They are in fact economic migrants - whether or not you want to take them is a matter of political choice, but don't pretend that they weren't safe 3-4 nations ago on the way to Germany. And that makes the moral obligation to take them rather questionable.
We have had this discussion before, we really don't need it again.You are hung up on technicalities. People who come from Syria are legitimate refugees, saying anything else is incredibly silly when taking a look at the situation there. It is utterly irrelevant that they passed a few countries on their way here to get to one of the countries where the chance of them being sent back to hell is the smallest.
Hardly a technicality, and hardly a given that most refugees are all Syrian (one of the downsides of not having documents?) and are not really at risk of being sent back into a war zone, but rather to a less desirable end location.
Migrants have in recent weeks been crossing back into Sweden at the Haparanda-Tornio border just an hour's drive south of the Arctic Circle, and Finnish authorities have seen a rise in the number of cancelled asylum applications.
"You can tell the world I hate Finland. It's too cold, there's no tea, no restaurants, no bars, nobody on the streets, only cars," 22-year-old Muhammed told AFP in Tornio, as the mercury struggled to inch above 10 degrees Celsius (50 Fahrenheit) on a recent blustery grey day.
Emotion and "omfgz theyre dying we have to help them" doesn't make for good policy. Take refugees if you want - that's the choice of the head of state - but it's best to do so in a reasonable and disciplined way rather than with the naive optimism that it will work out for the best. If it's already projected to $10 billion annually, expect it to balloon to $30 billion / yr before too long. Not realistic.
On October 10 2015 06:19 LegalLord wrote: Violating property rights is also a pretty serious abuse of power on the part of the government. There is no strict moral obligations of governments to take economic migrants,
Can you stop using right-wing lingo like it actually means something? Every single person who makes it here has the right to apply for asylum, it is their right. They may be rejected or accepted but every single on of them has the right to apply and thus also will be accommodated for at least that time.
They are in fact economic migrants - whether or not you want to take them is a matter of political choice, but don't pretend that they weren't safe 3-4 nations ago on the way to Germany. And that makes the moral obligation to take them rather questionable.
We have had this discussion before, we really don't need it again.You are hung up on technicalities. People who come from Syria are legitimate refugees, saying anything else is incredibly silly when taking a look at the situation there. It is utterly irrelevant that they passed a few countries on their way here to get to one of the countries where the chance of them being sent back to hell is the smallest.
Hardly a technicality, and hardly a given that most refugees are all Syrian (one of the downsides of not having documents?) and are not really at risk of being sent back into a war zone, but rather to a less desirable end location.
Migrants have in recent weeks been crossing back into Sweden at the Haparanda-Tornio border just an hour's drive south of the Arctic Circle, and Finnish authorities have seen a rise in the number of cancelled asylum applications.
"You can tell the world I hate Finland. It's too cold, there's no tea, no restaurants, no bars, nobody on the streets, only cars," 22-year-old Muhammed told AFP in Tornio, as the mercury struggled to inch above 10 degrees Celsius (50 Fahrenheit) on a recent blustery grey day.
Emotion and "omfgz theyre dying we have to help them" doesn't make for good policy. Take refugees if you want - that's the choice of the head of state - but it's best to do so in a reasonable and disciplined way rather than with the naive optimism that it will work out for the best. If it's already projected to $10 billion annually, expect it to balloon to $30 billion / yr before too long. Not realistic.
Welcome refuges! Were gonna put you in a tent tho. Gl hf! If Finland was so bad I wonder what he will say about Sweden.
On October 10 2015 06:19 LegalLord wrote: Violating property rights is also a pretty serious abuse of power on the part of the government. There is no strict moral obligations of governments to take economic migrants,
Can you stop using right-wing lingo like it actually means something? Every single person who makes it here has the right to apply for asylum, it is their right. They may be rejected or accepted but every single on of them has the right to apply and thus also will be accommodated for at least that time.
They are in fact economic migrants - whether or not you want to take them is a matter of political choice, but don't pretend that they weren't safe 3-4 nations ago on the way to Germany. And that makes the moral obligation to take them rather questionable.
If you're talking about Syrian refugees, then no, you're utterly wrong. They are not economic migrants, they are refugees, as I explained at length previously. By definition, under international law, the Syrians fleeing the civil war are refugees. Economic migrants are people who leave their home country for economic reasons.
On October 10 2015 06:19 LegalLord wrote: Violating property rights is also a pretty serious abuse of power on the part of the government. There is no strict moral obligations of governments to take economic migrants,
Can you stop using right-wing lingo like it actually means something? Every single person who makes it here has the right to apply for asylum, it is their right. They may be rejected or accepted but every single on of them has the right to apply and thus also will be accommodated for at least that time.
They are in fact economic migrants - whether or not you want to take them is a matter of political choice, but don't pretend that they weren't safe 3-4 nations ago on the way to Germany. And that makes the moral obligation to take them rather questionable.
If you're talking about Syrian refugees, then no, you're utterly wrong. They are not economic migrants, they are refugees, as I explained at length previously. By definition, under international law, the Syrians fleeing the civil war are refugees. Economic migrants are people who leave their home country for economic reasons.
And as I am sure many people have stated previously (and to be the devils advocate), you do not cross 10 countries at peace and declare yourself a refugee.
On October 10 2015 06:19 LegalLord wrote: Violating property rights is also a pretty serious abuse of power on the part of the government. There is no strict moral obligations of governments to take economic migrants,
Can you stop using right-wing lingo like it actually means something? Every single person who makes it here has the right to apply for asylum, it is their right. They may be rejected or accepted but every single on of them has the right to apply and thus also will be accommodated for at least that time.
They are in fact economic migrants - whether or not you want to take them is a matter of political choice, but don't pretend that they weren't safe 3-4 nations ago on the way to Germany. And that makes the moral obligation to take them rather questionable.
If you're talking about Syrian refugees, then no, you're utterly wrong. They are not economic migrants, they are refugees, as I explained at length previously. By definition, under international law, the Syrians fleeing the civil war are refugees. Economic migrants are people who leave their home country for economic reasons.
And as I am sure many people have stated previously (and to be the devils advocate), you do not cross 10 countries at peace and declare yourself a refugee.
Except you do, because of how refugees are defined in international law. Leaving a refugee camp where you lived in terrible conditions outside of the home country that you left because of a civil war is not the same as leaving your home country for economic reasons.
On October 10 2015 06:19 LegalLord wrote: Violating property rights is also a pretty serious abuse of power on the part of the government. There is no strict moral obligations of governments to take economic migrants,
Can you stop using right-wing lingo like it actually means something? Every single person who makes it here has the right to apply for asylum, it is their right. They may be rejected or accepted but every single on of them has the right to apply and thus also will be accommodated for at least that time.
They are in fact economic migrants - whether or not you want to take them is a matter of political choice, but don't pretend that they weren't safe 3-4 nations ago on the way to Germany. And that makes the moral obligation to take them rather questionable.
If you're talking about Syrian refugees, then no, you're utterly wrong. They are not economic migrants, they are refugees, as I explained at length previously. By definition, under international law, the Syrians fleeing the civil war are refugees. Economic migrants are people who leave their home country for economic reasons.
If you leave Syria and go to Greece/Turkey ect then yes you are 100% a refugee but f you then cross those countries. and another, and another to end up in north/west europe you are not just fleeing a war, your also looking for economic opportunities.
On October 10 2015 06:19 LegalLord wrote: Violating property rights is also a pretty serious abuse of power on the part of the government. There is no strict moral obligations of governments to take economic migrants,
Can you stop using right-wing lingo like it actually means something? Every single person who makes it here has the right to apply for asylum, it is their right. They may be rejected or accepted but every single on of them has the right to apply and thus also will be accommodated for at least that time.
They are in fact economic migrants - whether or not you want to take them is a matter of political choice, but don't pretend that they weren't safe 3-4 nations ago on the way to Germany. And that makes the moral obligation to take them rather questionable.
If you're talking about Syrian refugees, then no, you're utterly wrong. They are not economic migrants, they are refugees, as I explained at length previously. By definition, under international law, the Syrians fleeing the civil war are refugees. Economic migrants are people who leave their home country for economic reasons.
If you leave Syria and go to Greece/Turkey ect then yes you are 100% a refugee but f you then cross those countries. and another, and another to end up in north/west europe you are not just fleeing a war, your also looking for economic opportunities.
I'll repeat: by definition, if you left your home country because you feared for your life due to a civil war, you are a refugee. It doesn't matter if you cross the entirety of Europe, the Atlantic, the United States and end up in San Francisco. You are a refugee, period. You're not an economic migrant. An economic migrant is someone who left his home country due to economic reasons. That does not characterize Syrian refugees. If you want to bitch about those pesky Syrian refugees who dare cross several countries to find good living conditions, be my guest, but don't deny them their status of refugees.
On October 10 2015 06:19 LegalLord wrote: Violating property rights is also a pretty serious abuse of power on the part of the government. There is no strict moral obligations of governments to take economic migrants,
Can you stop using right-wing lingo like it actually means something? Every single person who makes it here has the right to apply for asylum, it is their right. They may be rejected or accepted but every single on of them has the right to apply and thus also will be accommodated for at least that time.
They are in fact economic migrants - whether or not you want to take them is a matter of political choice, but don't pretend that they weren't safe 3-4 nations ago on the way to Germany. And that makes the moral obligation to take them rather questionable.
If you're talking about Syrian refugees, then no, you're utterly wrong. They are not economic migrants, they are refugees, as I explained at length previously. By definition, under international law, the Syrians fleeing the civil war are refugees. Economic migrants are people who leave their home country for economic reasons.
And as I am sure many people have stated previously (and to be the devils advocate), you do not cross 10 countries at peace and declare yourself a refugee.
Except you do, because of how refugees are defined in international law. Leaving a refugee camp where you lived in terrible conditions outside of the home country that you left because of a civil war is not the same as leaving your home country for economic reasons.
Yeah, but at a certain point I do not really care anymore about international B.S. law. I take a look at energy minimization. If you flee civil war, you do not risk your family's safety and take a boat to get to Europe. That is just absurd. You chill in Turkey/Jordan/Lebanon and go back once Russia will have handled it. Btw, the IS stated that they would send 500k refugees to Europe. So essentially by taking them in, you are supporting IS actions...
On October 10 2015 06:19 LegalLord wrote: Violating property rights is also a pretty serious abuse of power on the part of the government. There is no strict moral obligations of governments to take economic migrants,
Can you stop using right-wing lingo like it actually means something? Every single person who makes it here has the right to apply for asylum, it is their right. They may be rejected or accepted but every single on of them has the right to apply and thus also will be accommodated for at least that time.
They are in fact economic migrants - whether or not you want to take them is a matter of political choice, but don't pretend that they weren't safe 3-4 nations ago on the way to Germany. And that makes the moral obligation to take them rather questionable.
If you're talking about Syrian refugees, then no, you're utterly wrong. They are not economic migrants, they are refugees, as I explained at length previously. By definition, under international law, the Syrians fleeing the civil war are refugees. Economic migrants are people who leave their home country for economic reasons.
And as I am sure many people have stated previously (and to be the devils advocate), you do not cross 10 countries at peace and declare yourself a refugee.
Except you do, because of how refugees are defined in international law. Leaving a refugee camp where you lived in terrible conditions outside of the home country that you left because of a civil war is not the same as leaving your home country for economic reasons.
Yeah, but at a certain point I do not really care anymore about international B.S. law. I take a look at energy minimization. If you flee civil war, you do not risk your family's safety and take a boat to get to Europe. That is just absurd. You chill in Turkey/Jordan/Lebanon and go back once Russia will have handled it. Btw, the IS stated that they would send 500k refugees to Europe. So essentially by taking them in, you are supporting IS actions...
you wouldn't take shabby boat to flee the war? History will tell you otherwise. And your 2nd comment is just so hilariously stupid it invalidates any point you might have had.
Perhaps stated badly, but it is a fair question to ask if there are malicious immigrants among the undocumented "refugees" that are here to spread Jihad in Europe like IS said that they intend to do.
I certainly don't blame the refugees for trying to go to Germany, but I also don't think that Germany has any obligation to consider taking them. It becomes a political issue.
Personally not a fan of political zingers, especially when it comes to international politics. That's how you make enemies out of not necessarily hostile leaders.
On October 10 2015 06:19 LegalLord wrote: Violating property rights is also a pretty serious abuse of power on the part of the government. There is no strict moral obligations of governments to take economic migrants,
Can you stop using right-wing lingo like it actually means something? Every single person who makes it here has the right to apply for asylum, it is their right. They may be rejected or accepted but every single on of them has the right to apply and thus also will be accommodated for at least that time.
They are in fact economic migrants - whether or not you want to take them is a matter of political choice, but don't pretend that they weren't safe 3-4 nations ago on the way to Germany. And that makes the moral obligation to take them rather questionable.
If you're talking about Syrian refugees, then no, you're utterly wrong. They are not economic migrants, they are refugees, as I explained at length previously. By definition, under international law, the Syrians fleeing the civil war are refugees. Economic migrants are people who leave their home country for economic reasons.
If you leave Syria and go to Greece/Turkey ect then yes you are 100% a refugee but f you then cross those countries. and another, and another to end up in north/west europe you are not just fleeing a war, your also looking for economic opportunities.
I'll repeat: by definition, if you left your home country because you feared for your life due to a civil war, you are a refugee. It doesn't matter if you cross the entirety of Europe, the Atlantic, the United States and end up in San Francisco. You are a refugee, period. You're not an economic migrant. An economic migrant is someone who left his home country due to economic reasons. That does not characterize Syrian refugees. If you want to bitch about those pesky Syrian refugees who dare cross several countries to find good living conditions, be my guest, but don't deny them their status of refugees.
Nice narration, i like it. How do Syrians that got invited to Poland, given shelter and any help we can provide then leave for Germany and other Western Europe countries fit it?
On October 10 2015 06:19 LegalLord wrote: Violating property rights is also a pretty serious abuse of power on the part of the government. There is no strict moral obligations of governments to take economic migrants,
Can you stop using right-wing lingo like it actually means something? Every single person who makes it here has the right to apply for asylum, it is their right. They may be rejected or accepted but every single on of them has the right to apply and thus also will be accommodated for at least that time.
They are in fact economic migrants - whether or not you want to take them is a matter of political choice, but don't pretend that they weren't safe 3-4 nations ago on the way to Germany. And that makes the moral obligation to take them rather questionable.
If you're talking about Syrian refugees, then no, you're utterly wrong. They are not economic migrants, they are refugees, as I explained at length previously. By definition, under international law, the Syrians fleeing the civil war are refugees. Economic migrants are people who leave their home country for economic reasons.
If you leave Syria and go to Greece/Turkey ect then yes you are 100% a refugee but f you then cross those countries. and another, and another to end up in north/west europe you are not just fleeing a war, your also looking for economic opportunities.
I'll repeat: by definition, if you left your home country because you feared for your life due to a civil war, you are a refugee. It doesn't matter if you cross the entirety of Europe, the Atlantic, the United States and end up in San Francisco. You are a refugee, period. You're not an economic migrant. An economic migrant is someone who left his home country due to economic reasons. That does not characterize Syrian refugees. If you want to bitch about those pesky Syrian refugees who dare cross several countries to find good living conditions, be my guest, but don't deny them their status of refugees.
Nice narration, i like it. How do Syrians that got invited to Poland, given shelter and any help we can provide then leave for Germany and other Western Europe countries fit it?
Under his interpretation of international law (may be correct) when you leave your home country due to a set of reasons you permanently hold refugee status until you return to your homeland when it is in a peaceful state.
This situation is actually exposing how much international law is totally worthless in the real world, and is totally incapable of being meaningfully enforced when countries have disparate interests. I would say all treaties aside from trade pacts are a nullity in the view of an intelligent international observer.
On October 10 2015 06:19 LegalLord wrote: Violating property rights is also a pretty serious abuse of power on the part of the government. There is no strict moral obligations of governments to take economic migrants,
Can you stop using right-wing lingo like it actually means something? Every single person who makes it here has the right to apply for asylum, it is their right. They may be rejected or accepted but every single on of them has the right to apply and thus also will be accommodated for at least that time.
They are in fact economic migrants - whether or not you want to take them is a matter of political choice, but don't pretend that they weren't safe 3-4 nations ago on the way to Germany. And that makes the moral obligation to take them rather questionable.
If you're talking about Syrian refugees, then no, you're utterly wrong. They are not economic migrants, they are refugees, as I explained at length previously. By definition, under international law, the Syrians fleeing the civil war are refugees. Economic migrants are people who leave their home country for economic reasons.
If you leave Syria and go to Greece/Turkey ect then yes you are 100% a refugee but f you then cross those countries. and another, and another to end up in north/west europe you are not just fleeing a war, your also looking for economic opportunities.
I'll repeat: by definition, if you left your home country because you feared for your life due to a civil war, you are a refugee. It doesn't matter if you cross the entirety of Europe, the Atlantic, the United States and end up in San Francisco. You are a refugee, period. You're not an economic migrant. An economic migrant is someone who left his home country due to economic reasons. That does not characterize Syrian refugees. If you want to bitch about those pesky Syrian refugees who dare cross several countries to find good living conditions, be my guest, but don't deny them their status of refugees.
Nice narration, i like it. How do Syrians that got invited to Poland, given shelter and any help we can provide then leave for Germany and other Western Europe countries fit it?
If they left Syria because they feared for their lives due to the civil war, they are refugees.
On October 10 2015 06:19 LegalLord wrote: Violating property rights is also a pretty serious abuse of power on the part of the government. There is no strict moral obligations of governments to take economic migrants,
Can you stop using right-wing lingo like it actually means something? Every single person who makes it here has the right to apply for asylum, it is their right. They may be rejected or accepted but every single on of them has the right to apply and thus also will be accommodated for at least that time.
They are in fact economic migrants - whether or not you want to take them is a matter of political choice, but don't pretend that they weren't safe 3-4 nations ago on the way to Germany. And that makes the moral obligation to take them rather questionable.
If you're talking about Syrian refugees, then no, you're utterly wrong. They are not economic migrants, they are refugees, as I explained at length previously. By definition, under international law, the Syrians fleeing the civil war are refugees. Economic migrants are people who leave their home country for economic reasons.
If you leave Syria and go to Greece/Turkey ect then yes you are 100% a refugee but f you then cross those countries. and another, and another to end up in north/west europe you are not just fleeing a war, your also looking for economic opportunities.
I'll repeat: by definition, if you left your home country because you feared for your life due to a civil war, you are a refugee. It doesn't matter if you cross the entirety of Europe, the Atlantic, the United States and end up in San Francisco. You are a refugee, period. You're not an economic migrant. An economic migrant is someone who left his home country due to economic reasons. That does not characterize Syrian refugees. If you want to bitch about those pesky Syrian refugees who dare cross several countries to find good living conditions, be my guest, but don't deny them their status of refugees.
Nice narration, i like it. How do Syrians that got invited to Poland, given shelter and any help we can provide then leave for Germany and other Western Europe countries fit it?
I would say all treaties aside from trade pacts are a nullity in the view of an intelligent international observer.
On October 10 2015 06:19 LegalLord wrote: Violating property rights is also a pretty serious abuse of power on the part of the government. There is no strict moral obligations of governments to take economic migrants,
Can you stop using right-wing lingo like it actually means something? Every single person who makes it here has the right to apply for asylum, it is their right. They may be rejected or accepted but every single on of them has the right to apply and thus also will be accommodated for at least that time.
They are in fact economic migrants - whether or not you want to take them is a matter of political choice, but don't pretend that they weren't safe 3-4 nations ago on the way to Germany. And that makes the moral obligation to take them rather questionable.
If you're talking about Syrian refugees, then no, you're utterly wrong. They are not economic migrants, they are refugees, as I explained at length previously. By definition, under international law, the Syrians fleeing the civil war are refugees. Economic migrants are people who leave their home country for economic reasons.
If you leave Syria and go to Greece/Turkey ect then yes you are 100% a refugee but f you then cross those countries. and another, and another to end up in north/west europe you are not just fleeing a war, your also looking for economic opportunities.
I'll repeat: by definition, if you left your home country because you feared for your life due to a civil war, you are a refugee. It doesn't matter if you cross the entirety of Europe, the Atlantic, the United States and end up in San Francisco. You are a refugee, period. You're not an economic migrant. An economic migrant is someone who left his home country due to economic reasons. That does not characterize Syrian refugees. If you want to bitch about those pesky Syrian refugees who dare cross several countries to find good living conditions, be my guest, but don't deny them their status of refugees.
Nice narration, i like it. How do Syrians that got invited to Poland, given shelter and any help we can provide then leave for Germany and other Western Europe countries fit it?
If they left Syria because they feared for their lives due to the civil war, they are refugees.
On October 10 2015 06:19 LegalLord wrote: Violating property rights is also a pretty serious abuse of power on the part of the government. There is no strict moral obligations of governments to take economic migrants,
Can you stop using right-wing lingo like it actually means something? Every single person who makes it here has the right to apply for asylum, it is their right. They may be rejected or accepted but every single on of them has the right to apply and thus also will be accommodated for at least that time.
They are in fact economic migrants - whether or not you want to take them is a matter of political choice, but don't pretend that they weren't safe 3-4 nations ago on the way to Germany. And that makes the moral obligation to take them rather questionable.
If you're talking about Syrian refugees, then no, you're utterly wrong. They are not economic migrants, they are refugees, as I explained at length previously. By definition, under international law, the Syrians fleeing the civil war are refugees. Economic migrants are people who leave their home country for economic reasons.
If you leave Syria and go to Greece/Turkey ect then yes you are 100% a refugee but f you then cross those countries. and another, and another to end up in north/west europe you are not just fleeing a war, your also looking for economic opportunities.
I'll repeat: by definition, if you left your home country because you feared for your life due to a civil war, you are a refugee. It doesn't matter if you cross the entirety of Europe, the Atlantic, the United States and end up in San Francisco. You are a refugee, period. You're not an economic migrant. An economic migrant is someone who left his home country due to economic reasons. That does not characterize Syrian refugees. If you want to bitch about those pesky Syrian refugees who dare cross several countries to find good living conditions, be my guest, but don't deny them their status of refugees.
Nice narration, i like it. How do Syrians that got invited to Poland, given shelter and any help we can provide then leave for Germany and other Western Europe countries fit it?
I would say all treaties aside from trade pacts are a nullity in the view of an intelligent international observer.
That's not even remotely the case.
I'd like to add that it is literally not possible for a person to abuse their refugee status or the on-going events to obtain refugee status in countries where it's better to be a refugee.
I guess very relevant, from an article in the Independent today:
The majority of Syrians who have fled to Europe think President Bashar al-Assad is a greater threat than than Isis, a survey shows.
The survey, conducted by researchers from the Berlin Social Science Center, asked 889 Syrian refugees living in Germany various questions, such as why they left Syria, what it would take for them to return, and what the international community should do.
It is reportedly the first survey of Syrian refugees in Europe.
...
Contrary to many newspaper headlines, most Syrians entering Europe are refugees fleeing war, rather than migrants looking for better economic conditions.
Though I guess this doesn't matter for those who do the crossed-two-countries=economic migrant line anyhow, but still interesting and relevant
On October 10 2015 06:19 LegalLord wrote: Violating property rights is also a pretty serious abuse of power on the part of the government. There is no strict moral obligations of governments to take economic migrants,
Can you stop using right-wing lingo like it actually means something? Every single person who makes it here has the right to apply for asylum, it is their right. They may be rejected or accepted but every single on of them has the right to apply and thus also will be accommodated for at least that time.
They are in fact economic migrants - whether or not you want to take them is a matter of political choice, but don't pretend that they weren't safe 3-4 nations ago on the way to Germany. And that makes the moral obligation to take them rather questionable.
If you're talking about Syrian refugees, then no, you're utterly wrong. They are not economic migrants, they are refugees, as I explained at length previously. By definition, under international law, the Syrians fleeing the civil war are refugees. Economic migrants are people who leave their home country for economic reasons.
If you leave Syria and go to Greece/Turkey ect then yes you are 100% a refugee but f you then cross those countries. and another, and another to end up in north/west europe you are not just fleeing a war, your also looking for economic opportunities.
I'll repeat: by definition, if you left your home country because you feared for your life due to a civil war, you are a refugee. It doesn't matter if you cross the entirety of Europe, the Atlantic, the United States and end up in San Francisco. You are a refugee, period. You're not an economic migrant. An economic migrant is someone who left his home country due to economic reasons. That does not characterize Syrian refugees. If you want to bitch about those pesky Syrian refugees who dare cross several countries to find good living conditions, be my guest, but don't deny them their status of refugees.
Nice narration, i like it. How do Syrians that got invited to Poland, given shelter and any help we can provide then leave for Germany and other Western Europe countries fit it?
If they left Syria because they feared for their lives due to the civil war, they are refugees.
On October 10 2015 06:19 LegalLord wrote: Violating property rights is also a pretty serious abuse of power on the part of the government. There is no strict moral obligations of governments to take economic migrants,
Can you stop using right-wing lingo like it actually means something? Every single person who makes it here has the right to apply for asylum, it is their right. They may be rejected or accepted but every single on of them has the right to apply and thus also will be accommodated for at least that time.
They are in fact economic migrants - whether or not you want to take them is a matter of political choice, but don't pretend that they weren't safe 3-4 nations ago on the way to Germany. And that makes the moral obligation to take them rather questionable.
If you're talking about Syrian refugees, then no, you're utterly wrong. They are not economic migrants, they are refugees, as I explained at length previously. By definition, under international law, the Syrians fleeing the civil war are refugees. Economic migrants are people who leave their home country for economic reasons.
If you leave Syria and go to Greece/Turkey ect then yes you are 100% a refugee but f you then cross those countries. and another, and another to end up in north/west europe you are not just fleeing a war, your also looking for economic opportunities.
I'll repeat: by definition, if you left your home country because you feared for your life due to a civil war, you are a refugee. It doesn't matter if you cross the entirety of Europe, the Atlantic, the United States and end up in San Francisco. You are a refugee, period. You're not an economic migrant. An economic migrant is someone who left his home country due to economic reasons. That does not characterize Syrian refugees. If you want to bitch about those pesky Syrian refugees who dare cross several countries to find good living conditions, be my guest, but don't deny them their status of refugees.
Nice narration, i like it. How do Syrians that got invited to Poland, given shelter and any help we can provide then leave for Germany and other Western Europe countries fit it?
I would say all treaties aside from trade pacts are a nullity in the view of an intelligent international observer.
That's not even remotely the case.
As dozens of international laws are violated by signatories as we speak. But your right, totally not a nullity.
A run of the mill secular dictator worse than a group that is interested in systematically dismantling every culture that disagrees with it? Whether or not it's accurate (polls are neither reliable nor newsworthy), they are straight up wrong.
Edit: Someone really believes they wouldn't lie on the polls about their reasons for seeking asylum when that reason affects their chance of being accepted? This is what makes "poll stories" useless.
EPT
