Migrant Crimes Add Volatile Element to Austria’s Election

[luiz]

Countries aren't houses

So your position is that if all of the poor people in the world decided to move to Europe they should be accepted? Europe should accept 5 billion immigrants?

Because otherwise, you recognize that countries get to choose how many people they let in.

 

[W|M]

Since that won't happen, it's a moot point

 

[Commodore]

Since that won't happen, it's a moot point

It raises a good question though. At what point, in your opinion, is a nation justified in turning people away from its borders/shores?

 

[luiz]

Since that won't happen, it's a moot point

How about you answer the question?

Is there a point over which Europe would have to say "enough" to immigration? Or should everybody who want to move in be allowed to?

 

[Tahuti]

Is there a point over which Europe would have to say "enough" to immigration? Or should everybody who want to move in be allowed to?

Borders are a form of apartheid. States do not have an intrinsic moral right to control what is going in or out and in practice, that can be circumvented with enough effort and luck.

Besides, I don't see why rapists who happen to be Syrian refugees should be treated differently than native European rapists. A rapist is a rapist, whether he (or she?) is Syrian or Austrian.

 

[luiz]

Borders are a form of apartheid. States do not have an intrinsic moral right to control what is going in or out and in practice, that can be circumvented with enough effort and luck.

Besides, I don't see why rapists who happen to be Syrian refugees should be treated differently than native European rapists. A rapist is a rapist, whether he (or she?) is Syrian or Austrian.

Luckily you're not in charge of government policy, as grown-ups understand that without enforcement of borders there are no states and without states we have anarchy and chaos.

Grown-ups don't give a rat's behind over pseudo-philosophical debates about whether or not states have a "moral right" to control what goes in or out. States do that because the alternative is chaos, period. There is no "open borders" state, save for completely failed ones where the people are starving and trying to move to normal, closed borders ones.

 

[Commodore]

Borders are a form of apartheid. States do not have an intrinsic moral right to control what is going in or out and in practice, that can be circumvented with enough effort and luck.

That only becomes workable though if there is some global government that has sovereign authority over the entire planet. Something tells me you wouldn't like such a government to exist though.

 

[Tahuti]

Grown-ups don't give a rat's behind over pseudo-philosophical debates about whether or not states have a "moral right" to control what goes in or out.

I agree. If illegal immigrants get away with it, good for them.

States do that because the alternative is chaos, period. There is no "open borders" state, save for completely failed ones where the people are starving and trying to move to normal, closed borders ones.

Protecting borders against "migrants" is like Space Invaders: No matter how much you stop, they'll overtake you eventually.

Weirdly, whenever those crossing the borders carry guns and do not wear civies, a state's authority tend to be strengthened, not weakened. I wonder how that works.

 

[Yupik]

Borders are a form of apartheid.

Then this apartheid has been going on as long as humans exist. There were always various kinds of borders. Of course in tribal times those borders weren't exact. But when you suddenly had a spear pierced through your throat, it usually meant that you had just crossed the border of another tribe.

 

[El_Machinae]

It raises a good question though. At what point, in your opinion, is a nation justified in turning people away from its borders/shores?

It's an incredibly complicated question. Bangladeshis are a great group to ask this question about.

Sure, I can understand not wanting to allow them to migrate too freely into a Western nation. It's disruptive, to say the least.

But our parents actively stole their shoreline. They stole their shoreline in order to provide us with better lives and to have their own fun. There was certainly some trickle-down, my clothes are a Bangladeshi export. But we forcefully took their shoreline.

When you've taken someone else's property, isn't there at least some moral onus to let them move? The answer cannot be 'zero' migration. It's clearly incorrect.

innonimatu: also seems to correlate their voluntary migration with colonialism. That's clearly a crock. Voting with ones' feet is probably the purest form of democracy there is, given the level of investment by the migrant. Heck, look how little migration there is within free countries with diverse political systems. People will whine about their 'oppressive' governments and not even spend the few grand moving to a state of a province with laws more to their liking. Unlike voting, voting with your feet is probably the most effective way of getting the government you prefer.

Immigrants are one of the greatest source of supply-side charity and supply-side investment to poorer nations. Remittances are earned through elbow-grease, and they're given to where they will be spent with the greatest effort at prudence. People whine about remittances as if they're a bad thing, and usually it's people who're economically self-identifying as right-wing who do so.

 

[REDY]

Austrian media report that Green Party candidate Alexander Van der Bellen won. 50,1% votes.

 

[emzie]

It's an incredibly complicated question. Bangladeshis are a great group to ask this question about.

Sure, I can understand not wanting to allow them to migrate too freely into a Western nation. It's disruptive, to say the least.

But our parents actively stole their shoreline. They stole their shoreline in order to provide us with better lives and to have their own fun. There was certainly some trickle-down, my clothes are a Bangladeshi export. But we forcefully took their shoreline.

When you've taken someone else's property, isn't there at least some moral onus to let them move? The answer cannot be 'zero' migration. It's clearly incorrect.

innonimatu: also seems to correlate their voluntary migration with colonialism. That's clearly a crock. Voting with ones' feet is probably the purest form of democracy there is, given the level of investment by the migrant. Heck, look how little migration there is within free countries with diverse political systems. People will whine about their 'oppressive' governments and not even spend the few grand moving to a state of a province with laws more to their liking. Unlike voting, voting with your feet is probably the most effective way of getting the government you prefer.

Immigrants are one of the greatest source of supply-side charity and supply-side investment to poorer nations. Remittances are earned through elbow-grease, and they're given to where they will be spent with the greatest effort at prudence. People whine about remittances as if they're a bad thing, and usually it's people who're economically self-identifying as right-wing who do so.

When I was discussing this with WIM, I had to concede Bangladesh would be a horrible example for my point. I think industrialized countries have a moral obligation to support countries that are vulnerable to climate change. If development programs aren't enough and mass migrations become a thing, I think it's a moral obligation to help the displaced find new homes -- we kinda burnt theirs down. That home doesn't have to be here, however.

 

[luiz]

Austrian media report that Green Party candidate Alexander Van der Bellen won. 50,1% votes.

That's good news, but still shows a country that very nearly elected the far-right. And turnout was very high, so this is not a case of apathy. Half of Austrians really wanted to elect a far-right candidate.

 

[El_Machinae]

When I was discussing this with WIM, I had to concede Bangladesh would be a horrible example for my point. I think industrialized countries have a moral obligation to support countries that are vulnerable to climate change. If development programs aren't enough and mass migrations become a thing, I think it's a moral obligation to help the displaced find new homes -- we kinda burnt theirs down. That home doesn't have to be here, however.

Yeah, for sure Bangladesh is a great example as a case study. And yeah, each country will be different.

The home doesn't have to be here, but it's clear who should pay for the move. I don't need to move into the house of the guy who ruined my farm with fracking. But he has to pay me enough to replace what I've lost.

I think our moral obligation is even bigger. We've allowed our corporations to bribe foreign politicians in order to get better deals. Any location we've imposed less freedom on people in order to get a small reduction in our costs tends to have a moral argument. Not for unmitigated migration. But at least a claim on our wealth.

 

[Tahuti]

That only becomes workable though if there is some global government that has sovereign authority over the entire planet. Something tells me you wouldn't like such a government to exist though.

That's correct. And while it's true that a global government would make open borders workable, it is not necessarily going to happen if that were the case. Nation-states have a distinguished history of restricting movement within their borders. Consider China with its Hukuo system for instance.

Then this apartheid has been going on as long as humans exist. There were always various kinds of borders. Of course in tribal times those borders weren't exact. But when you suddenly had a spear pierced through your throat, it usually meant that you had just crossed the border of another tribe.

No contest.

Anyway, this discussion is a better off as a seperate thread.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Borders are a form of apartheid. States do not have an intrinsic moral right to control what is going in or out and in practice, that can be circumvented with enough effort and luck.

ISIS should be allowed to travel where they want and NOT be stopped or denied entry into any country that they want else that would be a crime against humanity.

Russia should be allowed to send Millions of Russian citizens into Crimea / Baltic nations and other small nations and then overturn the Government via elections each time there is an election on.

Criminals who commit crimes in one country should be free to flee into another country and not be stopped by borders or any government

Contraband and goods of any kind including weapons, as well as ecological invasive species of plants, pest and insets should be allowed free reign. And No government should try and contain or control this spread regardless of any ecological consequences because that would be inhuman.

It would be total chaos

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, it would be chaotic. But that's not to say there's a moral right in creating those laws.

Driving laws prevent chaos. But they're created as a convenience. Not because driving on one side of the road is the moral option.

 

[luiz]

Yes, it would be chaotic. But that's not to say there's a moral right in creating those laws.

Driving laws prevent chaos. But they're created as a convenience. Not because driving on one side of the road is the moral option.

But the chaos that would follow from the abolishing of borders is far more immoral than borders.

And not that this is a real discussion anyway. States don't exist without borders, and well, states exist.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, it's not a real discussion. Borders exist. They'll always exist. We'll all agree that open migration between countries with good governments tends to be a net good. And I think it's okay to titrate those borders based on the level of redistribution your free country provides.

It's certainly multi-factorial regarding how much migration you want to allow, or how much you owe.

 

[abradley]

There is a solution to the refugee problem, and a humane one:

The Saudi Solution
Accommodations are plentiful in the kingdom for Sunni Muslim migrants
by Daniel Pipes
Washington Times
May 18, 2016
http://www.danielpipes.org/16678/saudi-solution-for-sunni-muslims

http://www.danielpipes.org/pics/new/large/3428.jpg
Some of the 100,000 fiberglass tents in Mina, Saudi Arabia.

As European governments slam the gates shut on illegal Middle Eastern immigrants, where can Syrians and others go, not far from their homelands, for safety and employment? The answer is obvious but surprisingly neglected: to Saudi Arabia and the other rich Arab sheikhdoms.

The more than 1 million migrants who boated, trained, bussed and walked to northern Europe in the past year overwhelmed the continent's capabilities and good will. Those large numbers were then exacerbated by crime and disease, an unwillingness to assimilate, a drive to impose Islamic laws, and such outrages as the Cologne taharrush (mass sexual assault) and the attacks in Paris and Brussels.

In reaction, populist and fascist parties (such as, respectively, the National Front in France and Jobbik in Hungary) gained strength. The European mood has so deeply shifted — as shown by the March elections in Germany — that much reduced numbers of illegals are likely to get in, no matter what new routes they try, such as via Italy.

This leaves huge numbers of would-be migrants wanting to enter Europe. A European Union (EU) commissioner, Johannes Hahn, counts "20 million refugees waiting at the doorstep of Europe. Ten to 12 million in Syria, 5 million Palestinians, 2 million Ukrainians and about 1 million in the southern Caucasus." Yes, but that's just a start; I also add vast numbers of Libyans, Egyptians, Yemenis, Iraqis, Iranians, Afghans and Pakistanis — and not just political refugees but also economic migrants. In all, the numbers of Muslim peoples ready to emigrate could potentially match the 510 million EU residents.

To where, then, are they to go? One nearby, desirable alternative to Europe exists; indeed, it's a destination so attractive that foreigners already constitute half the population: That would be the six Gulf Cooperation Council states of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Let's focus on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the largest of them in land size, population and economy.

Saudi Arabia has many unique attractions for Sunni Muslims. To begin with, it has 100,000 high-quality, empty fiberglass tents that can house about 3 million people in Mina, just east of Mecca. Fireproof and air-conditioned, complete with toilets and kitchens, this unique resource is occupied a mere five days a year by pilgrims on the hajj.

Comparing Saudi Arabia to the states of northern Europe shows its many other advantages:

• Geography: Much closer.

• Climate: Hot.

• Language: Arabic.

• Economics: An insatiable need for labor.

• Legal system: Reassuringly familiar.

• Religion: Islam, Islam, Islam.

Culturally, many Sunnis find Saudi's severe strictures more congenial than the West's secular environment. In the kingdom, Muslims can exult in a society that permits polygamy, child marriages, wife-beating, female genital mutilation and beheadings, while only lightly punishing slaveholding and honor killings.

Saudi Arabia also permits Muslims effortlessly to avoid such haram (forbidden) features as pet dogs; pork and alcohol; interest payments on loans; lotteries and casinos; Valentine's Day, women in revealing clothes, dating and gentlemen's clubs; gay bars and gay marriage; the drug subculture; and the public expression of anti-Islamic views.

The Persian Gulf countries have been berated for not taking in "a single" Syrian refugee.

Yet the Saudi authorities claim to have taken in 2.5 million Syrians. How to explain this discrepancy?

In part, the Saudis are lying. But also, in part, the Gulf Cooperation Council and other Arabic-speaking states such as Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria never signed the 1951 Refugee Convention (because they reject the convention's goal of resettlement as applied to Palestinians). Accordingly, they avoid using the term refugee, with its implication of permanence, and refer instead to guests, who stay only temporarily until they return home.

How many Syrians have been allowed into Saudi Arabia? One study, by Lori Plotkin Boghardt of the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy, estimates they number in the "low hundreds of thousands," say 150,000. That's a small fraction of the over 4 million in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan — and just 5 percent of the migrants who could be housed just in Mina's splendid tents.

That wealthy Arab states are so miserly in opening their arms to Sunni Muslims in stress reveals currents of selfishness and hypocrisy. Their unhelpfulness should not be rewarded; it's high time that governments and refugee organizations stop focusing on Europe and instead turn to those Arab countries capable, with relative ease, to take in, house and employ their desperate brethren.

• Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum.

IIRC There was a stingyness by Saudi and the Gulf Arabs during the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, some said it was because Islam sez natural disasters are Allah's retribution for unIslamic life styles. Giving aid would be thwarting Allahs retribution.

Are Civil wars Allah's retribution?