European Migrant Crisis Megathread

[Tierra Prime]

Nothing wrong with immigration or accepting those seeking asylum, though it does sometimes have an unfortunate effect of diminishing cultural heritage for both groups. Cultural assimilation and sharing can be great, no doubt about it; but it's a shame when a distinct culture becomes less prominent and meshes into some undistinguished mixture of cultures.

That said, Germany doesn't seem to be at risk of cultural loss anyways.

This seems like a pretty irrelevant concern considering that

1.) Cultural heritage is less important than alleviating human suffering

and

2.) Cultures change all the time anyway

If alleviating human suffering is paramount, why don't more people try to help Africa?

[Republic of Canador]

Nothing wrong with immigration or accepting those seeking asylum, though it does sometimes have an unfortunate effect of diminishing cultural heritage for both groups. Cultural assimilation and sharing can be great, no doubt about it; but it's a shame when a distinct culture becomes less prominent and meshes into some undistinguished mixture of cultures.

That said, Germany doesn't seem to be at risk of cultural loss anyways.

This seems like a pretty irrelevant concern considering that

1.) Cultural heritage is less important than alleviating human suffering

and

2.) Cultures change all the time anyway

I never claimed that it wasn't less important. I fully support their acceptance.

Yes cultures change all the time (but generally very slowly), but we should at least try preserving some aspects of different cultures. Cultural loss and language extinction is becoming a large problem; especially among the Native American tribes. Of course Germany isn't anywhere near to this dramatic of loss, but certainly in the far future we will see even major cultures die out and mesh into one another. Nevertheless I am straying too far from the topic.

[Zoscua]

1.) Culture heritage is an important factor in how well immigrants are going to be received by the nations they enter. Ignoring it is what in part caused Fundamentalism in second generation immigrants across EU.

I'm not ignoring it, I just don't think "they're threatening our values!" or whatever is a good reason to keep people out of your country who are just trying to escape warfare, starvation, and abject poverty.

2.) No they don't, although that's irrelevant.

Culture has been changing continuously since the birth of civilization, and this process of change has been accelerated by the globalization of markets. It's happening whether people like it or not.

Germans aren't going to open themselves up to any old immigrant population because "welp culture is pretty erratic anyway".

I never said they would

[Eol Sha]

What do you think? Tunisia, Algeria, ect. Other Arab countries, preferably friendly ones.

None of those countries can even remotely handle the level of refugees fleeing conflict and oppression. The neighbor countries, not Europe, are receiving the bulk of the refugees already.

One example of refugees who are stuck between a rock and a hard place are Eritreans. A small country that separates Ethiopia from the Red Sea, Eritrea is home to one of the most repressive regimes in the world today. Ethnic targeting by law enforcement is widespread, political freedoms are severely curtailed, and the country is one of the poorest in the world. For those fleeing the repressive Eritrean regime they are surrounded by countries either too poor to care for them (i.e. Ethiopia) or wracked by their own local conflicts and civil wars (Ethiopia, Somalia, Yemen, and the two Sudans).

For those fleeing there are two places they can go and reasonably expect safety. Going south generally means fleeing through Ethiopia and to Kenya or Uganda. Kenya and Uganda are home to some of the largest refugee camps in the world. Its been like that since before the Rwandan Genocide. Going north means going to two places: Europe and Israel, both of which have growing anti-immigrant sentiments. And those are just the ones that can afford to go that far. The majority of Eritrean refugees are stuck in Sudan and Ethiopia. Un able to go further and unable to go home.

It's a terrible situation.

[Eol Sha]

This seems like a pretty irrelevant concern considering that

1.) Cultural heritage is less important than alleviating human suffering

and

2.) Cultures change all the time anyway

If alleviating human suffering is paramount, why don't more people try to help Africa?

They've, wrongly, written Africa off as a lost cause. Meaning that the African nations have decided to turn inward. The growing power of organizations like ECOWAS, ECOMOG, and the African Union are an example of the growing culture of self-reliance that is spreading throughout Africa. Africans, especially younger ones, want to be citizens of nations that aren't considered basket cases, but are considered economic powers.

[Eol Sha]

None of those countries can even remotely handle the level of refugees fleeing conflict and oppression. Especially with them receiving the bulk of the refugees already.

That's not Europe's problem. Refugees should be given temporary accommodation and any medical care they need, and then deported. We don't have a moral or legal obligation to accept them as citizens. The majority of them can't speak our languages and have no skills. Yes, it's terrible they have to flee their homes, but civil wars in foreign countries are not Europe's problem.

Whether or not Europe is obligated to take in and protect refugees isn't my point. My point is that sending the refugees back to the areas they came from is a recipe for the worsening of the global refugee crisis. The millions of refugees who have fled to Lebanon, Sudan, Kenya, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, etc. are destabilizing those countries even further than they already have been. At least in Europe the chance for violence being committed against people fleeing violence and oppression is lower. Plus it's good politics.

And even if Europe isn't obligated to take in refugees, allowing asylum seekers and refugees into your country is a way to limit the damage already done to the countries they've fled from and traversed through.

[Geilinor]

None of those countries can even remotely handle the level of refugees fleeing conflict and oppression. Especially with them receiving the bulk of the refugees already.

That's not Europe's problem. Refugees should be given temporary accommodation and any medical care they need, and then deported. We don't have a moral or legal obligation to accept them as citizens. The majority of them can't speak our languages and have no skills. Yes, it's terrible they have to flee their homes, but civil wars in foreign countries are not Europe's problem.

According to the Refugee Convention, there is a legal obligation to accept certain refugees.

[Tierra Prime]

That's not Europe's problem. Refugees should be given temporary accommodation and any medical care they need, and then deported. We don't have a moral or legal obligation to accept them as citizens. The majority of them can't speak our languages and have no skills. Yes, it's terrible they have to flee their homes, but civil wars in foreign countries are not Europe's problem.

According to the Refugee Convention, there is a legal obligation to accept certain refugees.

I wasn't aware of that, but there was never a problem with accepting small numbers of people. When they start coming in the hundreds of thousands, that's different.

[Tierra Prime]

That's not Europe's problem. Refugees should be given temporary accommodation and any medical care they need, and then deported. We don't have a moral or legal obligation to accept them as citizens. The majority of them can't speak our languages and have no skills. Yes, it's terrible they have to flee their homes, but civil wars in foreign countries are not Europe's problem.

Whether or not Europe is obligated to take in and protect refugees isn't my point. My point is that sending the refugees back to the areas they came from is a recipe for the worsening of the global refugee crisis. The millions of refugees who have fled to Lebanon, Sudan, Kenya, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, etc. are destabilizing those countries even further than they already have been. At least in Europe the chance for violence being committed against people fleeing violence and oppression is lower. Plus it's good politics.

And even if Europe isn't obligated to take in refugees, allowing asylum seekers and refugees into your country is a way to limit the damage already done to the countries they've fled from and traversed through.

I don't care if it's good politics or if the refugees cause trouble in other Arab counties. So long as they don't cause trouble here, I don't really care what happens.

[Geilinor]

According to the Refugee Convention, there is a legal obligation to accept certain refugees.

I wasn't aware of that, but there was never a problem with accepting small numbers of people. When they start coming in the hundreds of thousands, that's different.

That's true, but it isn't safe to send most of the refugees back.

[Sebtopiaris]

God damn that's too many people

[Tierra Prime]

I wasn't aware of that, but there was never a problem with accepting small numbers of people. When they start coming in the hundreds of thousands, that's different.

That's true, but it isn't safe to send most of the refugees back.

Not back to Syria, but they can go to Turkey or Algeria (Well, not the Kurds, but then they should have their own country).

[Eol Sha]

Whether or not Europe is obligated to take in and protect refugees isn't my point. My point is that sending the refugees back to the areas they came from is a recipe for the worsening of the global refugee crisis. The millions of refugees who have fled to Lebanon, Sudan, Kenya, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, etc. are destabilizing those countries even further than they already have been. At least in Europe the chance for violence being committed against people fleeing violence and oppression is lower. Plus it's good politics.

And even if Europe isn't obligated to take in refugees, allowing asylum seekers and refugees into your country is a way to limit the damage already done to the countries they've fled from and traversed through.

I don't care if it's good politics or if the refugees cause trouble in other Arab counties. So long as they don't cause trouble here, I don't really care what happens.

Except its a cycle. The more refugees that get sent back will destabilize the countries they're stuck in even further, leading to increased social and demographic pressures in said countries. This'll cause more people to flee and around and around we go. Lebanon, for example, is teetering on the edge of sectarian civil war. One of the major reasons is due to the influx of Syrian refugees. If Lebanon collapses then that just means more refugees. Many of whom will try to flee to Europe like those before.

[Tierra Prime]

I don't care if it's good politics or if the refugees cause trouble in other Arab counties. So long as they don't cause trouble here, I don't really care what happens.

Except its a cycle. The more refugees that get sent back will destabilize the countries they're stuck in even further, leading to increased social and demographic pressures in said countries. This'll cause more people to flee and around and around we go. Lebanon, for example, is teetering on the edge of sectarian civil war. One of the major reasons is due to the influx of Syrian refugees. If Lebanon collapses then that just means more refugees. Many of whom will try to flee to Europe like those before.

The EU is not the world police, we can't fix all of the problems in those countries, and we shouldn't be expected to.

[Geilinor]

Except its a cycle. The more refugees that get sent back will destabilize the countries they're stuck in even further, leading to increased social and demographic pressures in said countries. This'll cause more people to flee and around and around we go. Lebanon, for example, is teetering on the edge of sectarian civil war. One of the major reasons is due to the influx of Syrian refugees. If Lebanon collapses then that just means more refugees. Many of whom will try to flee to Europe like those before.

The EU is not the world police, we can't fix all of the problems in those countries, and we shouldn't be expected to.

If you want the refugee flow to stop, the only way is to help those countries. I don't think the EU has to do it alone, other stable countries have to help.

[Tierra Prime]

The EU is not the world police, we can't fix all of the problems in those countries, and we shouldn't be expected to.

If you want the refugee flow to stop, the only way is to help those countries. I don't think the EU has to do it alone, other stable countries have to help.

Other countries can help, but they don't have to help. We can continue to accept educated refugees, but their dregs will bring nothing but trouble.

[Eol Sha]

That's true, but it isn't safe to send most of the refugees back.

Not back to Syria, but they can go to Turkey or Algeria (Well, not the Kurds, but then they should have their own country).

I don't know about Turkey, which has the largest population of Syrian refugees already, but Algeria can't handle such an influx of refugees. It would probably stretch their resources so far that it could fall apart as well. Algeria, after all, isn't a completely united country. Rebel groups in the south have been fighting the central government for years.

[Eol Sha]

Except its a cycle. The more refugees that get sent back will destabilize the countries they're stuck in even further, leading to increased social and demographic pressures in said countries. This'll cause more people to flee and around and around we go. Lebanon, for example, is teetering on the edge of sectarian civil war. One of the major reasons is due to the influx of Syrian refugees. If Lebanon collapses then that just means more refugees. Many of whom will try to flee to Europe like those before.

The EU is not the world police, we can't fix all of the problems in those countries, and we shouldn't be expected to.

I'm no saying it can, but taking in refugees is part of the solution.

[Tierra Prime]

Not back to Syria, but they can go to Turkey or Algeria (Well, not the Kurds, but then they should have their own country).

I don't know about Turkey, which has the largest population of Syrian refugees already, but Algeria can't handle such an influx of refugees. It would probably stretch their resources so far that it could fall apart as well. Algeria, after all, isn't a completely united country. Rebel groups in the south have been fighting the central government for years.

If Algeria's out, there are still other options. Morocco and Egypt are quite big countries, for example.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

I don't know about Turkey, which has the largest population of Syrian refugees already, but Algeria can't handle such an influx of refugees. It would probably stretch their resources so far that it could fall apart as well. Algeria, after all, isn't a completely united country. Rebel groups in the south have been fighting the central government for years.

If Algeria's out, there are still other options. Morocco and Egypt are quite big countries, for example.

So, we are to move them from the frying pan...into another frying pan of slightly less intense heat?

[Tierra Prime]

If Algeria's out, there are still other options. Morocco and Egypt are quite big countries, for example.

So, we are to move them from the frying pan...into another frying pan of slightly less intense heat?

Neither of those countries appear to be in a civil war.

[Geilinor]

I don't know about Turkey, which has the largest population of Syrian refugees already, but Algeria can't handle such an influx of refugees. It would probably stretch their resources so far that it could fall apart as well. Algeria, after all, isn't a completely united country. Rebel groups in the south have been fighting the central government for years.

If Algeria's out, there are still other options. Morocco and Egypt are quite big countries, for example.

Egypt has been executing hundreds of political prisoners and if the refugee is Christian (some of them are), they're fucked.

[Tierra Prime]

If Algeria's out, there are still other options. Morocco and Egypt are quite big countries, for example.

Egypt has been executing hundreds of political prisoners and if the refugee is Christian (some of them are), they're fucked.

The end result then is that I don't know where exactly they would go. Ideally, it would be a country culturally similar to the one they came from, but whatever.

[Eol Sha]

I don't know about Turkey, which has the largest population of Syrian refugees already, but Algeria can't handle such an influx of refugees. It would probably stretch their resources so far that it could fall apart as well. Algeria, after all, isn't a completely united country. Rebel groups in the south have been fighting the central government for years.

If Algeria's out, there are still other options. Morocco and Egypt are quite big countries, for example.

Morocco may be the only place in all of North Africa that can host any sizable amount of refugees. Of course, not to the degree of any European nation. That may also not be true since many of the refugees entering Europe through Spain and Portugal are moving through Morocco. I wouldn't be surprised if Moroccan police mistreat refugees trying move through, or even stay in, Morocco.

I doubt Egypt could. It's political structure isn't firm enough to handle an influx of hundreds of thousands of refugees.

[Eol Sha]

Egypt has been executing hundreds of political prisoners and if the refugee is Christian (some of them are), they're fucked.

The end result then is that I don't know where exactly they would go. Ideally, it would be a country culturally similar to the one they came from, but whatever.

Similar countries are ones also experiencing ethnoreligious violence and state oppression.