|
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 March 02 2016 02:16 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2016 01:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Speaking on public television on Sunday, Chancellor Angela Merkel said Germany's borders would remain open to refugees. Merkel dismissed a "rigid limit," saying that "there is no point in believing that I can solve the problem through the unilateral closure of borders."
"I have no plan B," Merkel said, adding that she is convinced she is on the right track with efforts to redistribute refugees within Europe and addressing the problems causing mass displacement: "I am fighting for this approach."
Merkel sought to reassure viewers by insisting that her government's strategy is the only "logical" one - and came about after much thought.
The chancellor said she was concerned about disputes over migrants within the EU, and added that a breakdown of the European Union must be avoided. Source I'm actually quite impressed by Merkel. I'm pretty sure any normal politician would have abandoned that position some serious time ago already, but she keeps on fighting despite her gaining nothing from this.
I don't know, I think she could lose a lot if she stated that she changed her mind now. A lot of people still support taking in refugees, they just want it to be done in a less chaotic way. As long as Merkel maintains her position and somehow fixes the problems in Germany (or just waits until Balkan states seal their borders with Greece completely) she should be fine.
Imagine if she did admit that Germany made a mistake. Would it help? I don't think so. Would it help her enemies? Definitely.
|
On March 02 2016 02:45 Nyxisto wrote:
The solution to the Syrian war is ending the Syrian war. As long as that isn't happening Merkel isn't going to say random shit to make the plebs happy. That's actually one of her redeeming qualities
Even if the war ended today the country of Syria is done for in terms of the next couple of decades it is in ruins, occupied by three foreign armies(Russian, Lebanese, and Iranian) who will want something in return and they are not leaving anytime soon, hundreds of thousands of dead and many more wounded that will have to be taken care of, Agriculture is pretty much nill, disease is rampant in parts of the country. Assad has a country of ashes.
The war ending won't stop the crisis.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
^the end of hte conflict means europe can 'lawfully' send people back. it's not going to solve problems for the people but for fat liberals in western europe sure
|
The war ending will probably mean that a lot of people go back voluntarily. The whole welfare leeching thing is a silly stereotype. When the Yugoslav wars ended 70% of the refugees that came to Germany went back.
|
On March 02 2016 04:28 Nyxisto wrote:
The war ending will probably mean that a lot of people go back voluntarily. The whole welfare leeching thing is a silly stereotype. When the Yugoslav wars ended 70% of the refugees that came to Germany went back.
The legitimate refugees would probably (hopefully) largely go back. Too bad they make up a minority of those that have arrived. And even the legitimate refugees are going to be a burden on the social services until they return home to Syria or end up converting to immigrants and become productive members of society (which might not happen until 2.nd or 3.rd generation and there are plenty statistics showing that historically it has taken even longer when it comes to ME-people).
|
The current distribution by country of origin looks like this for Jan. 2016: imgur.com, and has looked very similar for roughly half a year. To say that legitimate ones are a minority is untrue. I also don't know about the second or third generation stuff. When it comes to Turkish immigrants everybody is always complaining about the third generation and applauding the first. People just seem to argue whatever fits their narrative at the moment.
|
On March 02 2016 05:58 Nyxisto wrote:The current distribution by country of origin looks like this for Jan. 2016: imgur.com, and has looked very similar for roughly half a year. To say that legitimate ones are a minority is untrue. I also don't know about the second or third generation stuff. When it comes to Turkish immigrants everybody is always complaining about the third generation and applauding the first. People just seem to argue whatever fits their narrative at the moment.
Would you mind providing an actual source for those numbers? Because it looks like it is where they claim to come from, and not where they are actually from when you consider that both Tusk and Frontex have stated that 60+% are non-syrians (sources for both statements have been linked repeatedly in this thread).
I mean, people really do seem to argue whatever fits their narrative at the moment - and are pretty intellectually dishonest along the way.
|
Would you mind providing an actual source for those numbers? Because it looks like it is where they claim to come from, and not where they are actually from when you consider that both Tusk and Frontex have stated that 60+% are non-syrians (sources for both statements have been linked repeatedly in this thread).
The graph literally says nothing. At all. I have no idea why it's posted, and what someone would try arguing with it.
Reason being: that's applications. Not actual people. It's not proven country of origins either, it's claimed country of origins (obviously, it's rather hard to prove someone is lying there - but going by Frontex etc, should be a rather clear picture that in that regard that chart is pointless, too).
And then to confidently go ahead, claiming "this is the current distribution by country of origin, and looked very similar" is trump-level of arguing, sorry.
Claimed syrians (not proven), in 2015, are not the minority. They're around 23% between january and september. And again, that's only for applications, not for the people. There's a big disparity between people and applications for asylum. As in, around a million people arrived in germany 2015, but there's only 476674 applications for the same amount of time.
As i said, that graph literally has nothing to say or back itself up.
|
|
|
What we know for certain is that around 60% of the 1.2M migrants are not coming from Syria or any other country at war, but mostly from Maghreb. I'm sure this graph about 50k people is accurate, but it's not representing much in the grand scheme of things.
I mean when you look at Cologne perpetrators, only 3 were actual war refugees, the rest were economic refugees entered at the same time from Maroc or Algeria, which are peaceful countries that actually get a lot of european tourists. This is the real problem here, I have nothing against sheltering actual war refugees, but our generosity is being abused because Merkel needs cheap labor and Germany has a bad birthrate. But you won't solve that problem like this, all you do is make your population angry and fuel the far right groups with actual, factual arguments so they'll gain support.
Did you know that since the big migration started, the crime rate in Casablanca plummeted ? Yeah, this is really not good...
|
Which is why I have always advocated for verification at the EU border before we let them in. Work together to build refugee camps at the border, process them and those who are genuine refugees get distributed throughout Europe. When you let the bad in your to late already because you cannot send them back anymore. Much better to not let them in the first place.
But it would require Europe to work together and that seems to be impossible.
|
i found this awesome thing, refugee related, with quotas, refugee numbers/1mil pop., political reactions/statements per country and so on.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/specials/eu_response_to_migrants/
- obviously there are some confusing things: why does Estonia has to receive 846 refugees per 1mil pop.?, based on what?. it has the highest imposed EU quota.
- do those quotas account for a country's economical or/and population needs?.
+ Show Spoiler +basically, give me the formula for i want to judge things!
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
big part of why no camps at borders is it is not up to the standard needed by eu human rights commission i forgot the name of the thing. basically prospective asylum seekers are accorded procedural and substantive rights during the application process
|
On March 02 2016 19:43 Gorsameth wrote:
Which is why I have always advocated for verification at the EU border before we let them in. Work together to build refugee camps at the border, process them and those who are genuine refugees get distributed throughout Europe. When you let the bad in your to late already because you cannot send them back anymore. Much better to not let them in the first place.
But it would require Europe to work together and that seems to be impossible.
EU countries working together? That would require something to force them to work together, but if the EU slightly threatens countries that don't want to work with other EU countries, everyone goes like "OMG EU TAKING AWAY MY COUNTRY'S FREEDOM"
|
that's a useless statement made from a position of power; like who's going to threaten France and/or take away its freedoms...
also, some from EU threaten others from EU while all belonging to the same EU ... i don't even; talk countries, show if, when and why they share <xyz> common values and so on.
the thing is when you talk realities, there is no EU(especially on this refugee crisis): Denmark is putting refugees in camps pushing for repatriation not integration and then robs them(not necessarily in that order), France is burning their camps, Austria plans to deport 50.000 refugees offering 500E to those who leave by themselves, Sweden plans to expel 80.000 refugees, Germany is crying inside while making drastic social welfare cuts and drafting new asylum laws but sure, shit on the easterners because why the fuck not?; there be the savages, the uneducated, the racist, the xenophobes, woman haters, gay haters + Show Spoiler + etcetcetcetc.
|
Perhaps it's possible that East Europe has offered the most resistance to taking refugees because they have the most experience with Muslim populations?
But it's easier to just cry, "racist! racist! racist!" than to admit this entire thing has been a horrible mess from the start.
|
i can't speak for the whole E-EU but Romania doesn't have the most experience with Muslim populations. we have in Dobruja a community of about 60k muslims (0.3% of pop.) but it's not at all relevant and today's romanians can't really relate with turkish or tatar occupations from half a century ago.
i could compare the situation with romas(gypsies) but it would be a stretch i think.
people labeling is a neo-lib. meta with no actual purpose.
|
On March 02 2016 19:59 xM(Z wrote:i found this awesome thing, refugee related, with quotas, refugee numbers/1mil pop., political reactions/statements per country and so on. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/specials/eu_response_to_migrants/ - obviously there are some confusing things: why does Estonia has to receive 846 refugees per 1mil pop.?, based on what?. it has the highest imposed EU quota. - do those quotas account for a country's economical or/and population needs?. + Show Spoiler +basically, give me the formula for i want to judge things!
Estonia is taking as many refugees as they want. I'm not sure but I think distribution of refugees is not in EU's competences so any cooperation in that regard is voluntary. That's why Slovakian PM threatened to sue EU if it tried to impose larger quota on his country (don't know if he actually did it but probably it doesn't matter since the quotas aren't implemented anyway).
Looking at that map I wonder if it would be smarter for Eastern leaders to stay silent about this issue and just follow whatever UK, Denmark and Ireland do.
On March 02 2016 23:36 LegalLord wrote:
Perhaps it's possible that East Europe has offered the most resistance to taking refugees because they have the most experience with Muslim populations?
But it's easier to just cry, "racist! racist! racist!" than to admit this entire thing has been a horrible mess from the start.
You might be right about Southern Balkan countries and Eastern Eastern Europe but Central Eastern and Baltic states have tiny Muslim populations. See: "kebab free zone" meme.
|
Eastern european stances on immigration is being proven more and more correct for every passing month. And western countries are closing in or in many cases going beyond their measures. Im disgusted by swedish media and politicians throwing shit on hungary and then imposing even stricter border controlls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Islam_in_Europe-2010.svg)
