[RD] The impact on western nations of allowing in millions of Muslim "refugees"

[TheMeInTeam]

The OP is a wrong question.

The better question is what should a given country use as standards for allowing immigration, and how does it enforce the standards it sets?

I wouldn't be particularly enthused about 300000 people from Tibet showing up and having 20% of them shoot up the place, which is an extreme and ridiculous example. However, regardless of where immigrants originate, the same standard should apply. Maybe we don't want large populations of immigrants with no verifiable background showing up, regardless of origin. Maybe data backs that reasoning, maybe not.

 

[Gigaz]

You do realize the number of people trying to get into Europe increased after she said she wouldn't deport anyone, right?

Greece and Italy were indeed left alone to deal with a constant flow of migrants, which is a shame on the EU. But 2015 was not just another year. The number of people arriving grew exponentially. In the first 2 months of 2015 alone, the number of migrants arriving in Greece totaled 123,000. Compare that to 4,600 in the same 2 months of 2014.

Merkel stated nothing new. Refugees were not deported back from Germany to Greece before the increase in Refugee numbers in summer 2015. It was a minor contribution among many others, for example listed here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...isis-is-happening-now/?utm_term=.a96440f0edcf

See also this:
http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/...-influence-refugees-open-borders-balkan-route
Which shows that the number of Refugees to western Europe increased before Merkel states she wouldn't deport anyone.

 

[warpus]

The lines between war and economic refugees are quite blurred in that region of the world.

Refugees are the people who stop at the first safe country they encounter and set up shop there.

Economic migrants are the people who keep going.

 

[Synobun]

Refugees are the people who stop at the first safe country they encounter and set up shop there.

Economic migrants are the people who keep going.

Reasoning seems suspect. Refugees don't cease having thoughts, preferences, and opinions because they're in danger or don't want to be in danger. I reckon individuals are more than capable of wanting to be free of fear while still wanting to live in, say, France instead of Greece.

 

[BvBPL]

I’m more concerned about the effect of the Muslim refugee migration on displaced women and families. As CavLancer points out, most of the migrants to Europe are young men. In contrast, most the migrants to other Middle Eastern states (a migration that is an order of magnitude greater than those going to Europe) are composed of families. While young men will receive the benefits of Europe, the women and families of Syria will suffer in local refugee camps. The European crisis, such as it is, should not overshadow the more significant humanitarian needs of the refugees who stay in the Middle East.

 

[luiz]

Reasoning seems suspect. Refugees don't cease having thoughts, preferences, and opinions because they're in danger or don't want to be in danger. I reckon individuals are more than capable of wanting to be free of fear while still wanting to live in, say, France instead of Greece.

Sure, people have thoughts. But there is a legal definition of refugee, the kind of people that countries are supposed to shelter. People departing from safe zones and shopping for the most attractive asylum destination do not fall into that definition, and are therefore economic migrants.

Of course, there's nothing wrong in being an economic migrant. It might even be a totally rational choice. But no country is obliged to accept them. That's the key point that was missed during this whole "refugee" crisis.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I’m more concerned about the effect of the Muslim refugee migration on displaced women and families. As CavLancer points out, most of the migrants to Europe are young men. In contrast, most the migrants to other Middle Eastern states (a migration that is an order of magnitude greater than those going to Europe) are composed of families. While young men will receive the benefits of Europe, the women and families of Syria will suffer in local refugee camps. The European crisis, such as it is, should not overshadow the more significant humanitarian needs of the refugees who stay in the Middle East.

? Why would migration of one population directly impact those that migrate elsewhere? Women in the Middle East are not worse off BECAUSE men migrate to Europe.

What would you have Europe do to prevent the need for refugee populations in the Middle East? "Humanitarian needs of refugees" is a cop-out. The problem is that the conditions in some of the region are so bad that large quantities of people are willing to endure darned significant costs (monetary and otherwise) to leave.

It's not like you want to see an outcome where every non-combatant person living in the Middle Eastern war zones leaves them without exception, so what's the end goal here? Also, how do refugees tie into immigration policy? That's an important decision to make per country.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Maybe she should have just done as the 10 previous years, and let Greece and Italy amass the million+ refugees/illegals for the entire Eu.

 

[BvBPL]

? Why would migration of one population directly impact those that migrate elsewhere? Women in the Middle East are not worse off BECAUSE men migrate to Europe.

No, they are just worse off.

 

[warpus]

Refugees don't cease having thoughts, preferences, and opinions because they're in danger or don't want to be in danger.

Sure, but as soon as their intent becomes "Get to the best place possible" and not just "I need to get out of this warzone and survive" they become economic migrants.

 

[Synobun]

Sure, but as soon as their intent becomes "Get to the best place possible" and not just "I need to get out of this warzone and survive" they become economic migrants.

In that case, the distinction between the two is worthless.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

You do realize the number of people trying to get into Europe increased after she said she wouldn't deport anyone, right?

How are you going to prove that the number of people trying to get into Europe increased due to something that Merkel said, rather than a million other outside factors that are much more likely, for example the conflict in the middle east reaching its climax or different routes opening up. Not saying these are the reasons, just that yours is incredibly arbitrary.

 

[warpus]

In that case, the distinction between the two is worthless.

I completely disagree. First of all that is the legal and accepted distinction.

Second of all, accommodating economic migrants is a completely different proposition than accommodating refugees fleeing from a war. Refugees fleeing from a war need food, shelter, and security. Give them that until it is safe for them to return home and they will be grateful. Refugees fleeing from war are expected to stay in the first safe country they reach for this reason.

Economic migrants are after a lot more than that. Consider what happened in Poland and in other countries which aren't seen as desirable to live in as Germany. People claiming to be refugees were given shelter, food, and the security to survive until the conflict in their country was over and it was safe to return. The abandoned all that was given to them, fled the country, and made their way to Germany. They aren't after security for their families - they are after a lot more than that.

You need to know who you are dealing with when accepting people into your country. If they are simply refugees, then yeah, they need help. So help them. But if they are economic migrants, they have completely different goals in mind and need to be treated differently. They will not be happy being treated like refugees fleeing from a war.

 

[Synobun]

I completely disagree. First of all that is the legal and accepted distinction.

Second of all, accommodating economic migrants is a completely different proposition than accommodating refugees fleeing from a war. Refugees fleeing from a war need food, shelter, and security. Give them that until it is safe for them to return home and they will be grateful. Refugees fleeing from war are expected to stay in the first safe country they reach for this reason.

Economic migrants are after a lot more than that. Consider what happened in Poland and in other countries which aren't seen as desirable to live in as Germany. People claiming to be refugees were given shelter, food, and the security to survive until the conflict in their country was over and it was safe to return. The abandoned all that was given to them, fled the country, and made their way to Germany. They aren't after security for their families - they are after a lot more than that.

You need to know who you are dealing with when accepting people into your country. If they are simply refugees, then yeah, they need help. So help them. But if they are economic migrants, they have completely different goals in mind and need to be treated differently. They will not be happy being treated like refugees fleeing from a war.

Doesn't sound like a refugee problem to me. In your given example, there is no way to distinguish between those who are taking advantage of the system and those who aren't, as you specifically reference the fact that they leave for greener pastures after they've been cleared to return home. They aren't refugees.

I also don't think it's particularly unreasonable that someone who fled a war-torn country to a western nation may want to remain in the west even after it's safe in their homeland.

 

[warpus]

Doesn't sound like a refugee problem to me. In your given example, there is no way to distinguish between those who are taking advantage of the system and those who aren't, as you specifically reference the fact that they leave for greener pastures after they've been cleared to return home. They aren't refugees.

There is still a war going on in Syria, most of these people can't return there yet. Where did you hear that Syrian refugees have been cleared to start returning home?

It's easy to distinguish between them, like I said earlier. If they stay in the first safe country they reach or are relocated to, they are refugees, and we should help them. If they keep moving, they become economic migrants, and you deal with them in that context.

Each group has different needs and legal rights and need to be accommodated appropriately.

 

[Synobun]

There is still a war going on in Syria, most of these people can't return there yet. Where did you hear that Syrian refugees have been cleared to start returning home?

I wasn't talking about Syria. You brought up Poland and that is what I responded to. You specifically stated that those who could return home chose not to and moved to Germany, making them "economic refugees". My counterargument is that if the reason for being a refugee is no longer applicable, they are not a refugee anymore. Them dropping everything in Poland and sauntering on over to Germany isn't a refugee problem, it's an illegal immigration problem and should be treated as such.

If they can't go home, I don't see how someone moving further west makes them remarkably different from those who simply settle down in the first immediate nation they find themselves in. They're all just finding a place to belong and feel valued. Spreading the burden reduces the strain on everyone.

 

[luiz]

How are you going to prove that the number of people trying to get into Europe increased due to something that Merkel said, rather than a million other outside factors that are much more likely, for example the conflict in the middle east reaching its climax or different routes opening up. Not saying these are the reasons, just that yours is incredibly arbitrary.

The effect is of course very difficult to measure, but her words definitely created a perception that Germany was wide open - we know this from the testimonial of many migrants themselves. I read an interview with a Moroccan migrant who said half his village left for Germany when word reached that some guys from the village had made it there and said the country was accepting everybody.

I would assume that her attitude had an impact above all on the migrants who are not coming from war zones. There was a massive spike in arrivals from the likes of Morocco, Algeria and Pakistan. Why? It's not like these countries are in war, or got much worse in 2015. No, people decided to leave because they saw an opportunity.

But note that I'm not saying that Merkel's words and actions were the cause of the refugee crisis. That would be absurd, as the crisis was already enormous before she did anything. Clearly the root cause was the worsening of the situation in Syria, Libya and parts of Iraq. But Merkel made things worse.

 

[warpus]

I wasn't talking about Syria. You brought up Poland and that is what I responded to. You specifically stated that those who could return home chose not to and moved to Germany, making them "economic refugees". My counterargument is that if the reason for being a refugee is no longer applicable, they are not a refugee anymore. Them dropping everything in Poland and sauntering on over to Germany isn't a refugee problem, it's an illegal immigration problem and should be treated as such.

If they can't go home, I don't see how someone moving further west makes them remarkably different from those who simply settle down in the first immediate nation they find themselves in. They're all just finding a place to belong and feel valued. Spreading the burden reduces the strain on everyone.

You misunderstand. The Ukrainian refugees in Poland are staying there and are being looked after (in Poland) while the homes in their home country are not safe to return to. They are not fleeing Poland, they fled their country, and stopped at the first safe country they encountered. Had they continued fleeing to Germany that would then make them economic migrants. But as far as I know none of them are doing that or at least the vast majority of them aren't.

The migrants who fled Poland were.. well, who knows where they were from. They were re-settled to Poland and the country tried to look after them as refugees, but they all fled to Germany and elsewhere, looking for a better deal. That's when they became economic migrants.

Them dropping everything in Poland and sauntering on over to Germany isn't a refugee problem, it's an illegal immigration problem and should be treated as such.

Exactly, that's why we have the distinction (legal and otherwise) between refugees and economic migrants. Each group is after very different goals and needs to be dealt with differently because of that.

 

[Arwon]

Refugees are the people who stop at the first safe country they encounter and set up shop there.

Economic migrants are the people who keep going.

I've always found this to be a pretty facile distinction. Possibly because the first thousand times I heard it, it was solely in service of justifying Australia's unconscionably brutal permanent rightsless imprisonment of Tamil, Afghan, Iraqi and Iranian asylum seekers. It's a very handy line to deploy in the service of dehumanisation.

 

[Silurian]

? Why would migration of one population directly impact those that migrate elsewhere? Women in the Middle East are not worse off BECAUSE men migrate to Europe.

Many of the young men who have come to Europe from Syria and the like have been given significant parts of their families wealth so that they can get to Europe. If they stay in a refugee camp in Lebanon etc the family wealth will be slowly disappearing. If they use the wealth before it is gone they hope that the young man can get a job and send money back to support the family.