|
freelancemoth posted:Jesus Christ I'm not sure the nazi analogy really works? Because, like, we didn't arrest the entire wehrmacht after world war 2, we did let a bunch of the scientists who personally developed terror weapons to massacre civilians off on the provision they come work for us instead, and also the second world war stopped and Germany was heavily occupied, so there's no reason why anyone would start fighting again? If you want to take the same approach, you would need to send in massive amounts of troops from a global coalition to occupy everywhere there's fighting going on, work to reconstruct the places which have been damaged by the war, send everyone home, and try people for war crimes only if you can't make any money off them working for you. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Sep 21, 2015 |
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:21 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean you could send him back, but presumably if you did he would then have cause to start fighting again, which seems counterproductive if your goal is to stop people fighting for groups you don't like. They probably couldn't, actually. e: rejecting his application is easy enough, sending him back another matter (although granted I know poo poo loving all about Spanish immigration law/procedures). Cake Smashing Boob fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Sep 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Well that too I guess. I mean it's physically possible but legally awkward.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
I also think that, even if they decide to house every single refugee, European governments have a strong and compelling interest in controlling who crosses their borders and are justified in cracking down on illegal border crossing, and registering and tracking asylum seekers while their cases are being processed. They have a responsibility to make sure that economic migrants and religious militants aren't entering with the refugees. Their primary duty is to ensure the safety and wellbeing of their citizens, not some nebulous global good. Tesseraction posted:I'm not against compensation, but frankly I just believe that the world is more than capable of solving 95% of the problems we're currently facing if people weren't so loving timid of the opinion polls and thought more about leading the country rather than following the chitter-chatter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
freelancemoth posted:You can help the migrants at home and abroad. But this should be subject to each member states ability to help them. (Don't exactly know what you mean by "Europe") This political position doesn't "violate" anything. By Europe, I mean Europe and the countries in it, the vast majority who have benefited from migration, refugee assistance and refugee legislation. EU if you want to limit the discourse on an official entity. If Turkey is deemed to have the ability to help close to two million refugees, Europe sure as poo poo should be able to accomodate less then that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
I'd like to let everyone know that the Dutch are on the case with these tricky refugees guys! Ohno wait i meant that we are mostly ignoring them while we buy some 160 million Euro Rembrandt paintings instead (from the Rothschild family at that!). https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/dutch-aim-buy-two-rembrandts-160-mn-euros-152448196.html This is more money than gets spend on either care for the elderly or the military apparatus apparently.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:By Europe, I mean Europe and the countries in it, the vast majority who have benefited from migration, refugee assistance and refugee legislation. EU if you want to limit the discourse on an official entity. If Turkey is deemed to have the ability to help close to two million refugees, Europe sure as poo poo should be able to accomodate less then that. The European member states can only benefit from immigration if it is done responsibly, i.e.contributing to their host countries. Accepting migrants because of "historical reasons" (Meaning Germany after WW2?) without NO regard to it's consuqences, will hurt both the native population and the immigrants themselves. And also, Turkey didn't choose to accept the refugees and have no ability to accomodate them. Which is why we should be allocating our resources there. Helping 10 genuine refugees in Turkey, is better than 1 economic immigrant in Germany.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
freelancemoth posted:The European member states can only benefit from immigration if it is done responsibly, i.e.contributing to their host countries. Accepting migrants because of "historical reasons" (Meaning Germany after WW2?) without NO regard to it's consuqences, will hurt both the native population and the immigrants themselves. And also, Turkey didn't choose to accept the refugees and have no ability to accomodate them. Which is why we should be allocating our resources there. Helping 10 genuine refugees in Turkey, is better than 1 economic immigrant in Germany. Not historical reasons, international law. The same law that was used for Europeans several times in the past when European refugees fled into other countries. Law based on treaties European countries signed. Again, why should Europe be exempt from following the same law that was used to help European refugees in the past? And also, Turkey did choose to accept the refugees. They're there. They could have been all Hungary about it with fences and police and tear gas but they weren't. Not all of Syria's neighbors did, which is why not all of them have refugees. Turks are taking the refugees, they are paying for them and the Turkish state is not collapsing in flames and the Turks are not whining anywhere close to as much as Europe about it despite doing it with far less resources and people. There are genuine refugees coming into Germany and Europe by every definition of the word refugee as well. The failure of the border agencies and police to be able to determine between them and economic migrants is a failure that demands the reform of those systems, not the scrapping of the entire refugee law now that this generation of Europeans are called up to the task (that previous ones followed the law, in fact created it, and performed quite admirably for the most part). DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Sep 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Not historical reasons, international law. The same law that was used for Europeans several times in the past when European refugees fled into other countries. Law based on treaties European countries signed. Again, why should Europe be exempt from following the same law that was used to help European refugees in the past? Let's assume it's just Syrians coming: when have tens of millions of European refugees fled under the international conventions? Let's actually face the reality that Syrians are a temporary blip and that hundreds of millions of people in Africa and Asia want to enter Europe: when have hundreds of millions of Europeans migrants used the cover of legal conventions to migrate? The treaties have never been used like this, don't try to make out that this is not unprecedented. DarkCrawler posted:There are genuine refugees coming into Germany and Europe by every definition of the word refugee as well. The failure of the border agencies and police to be able to determine between them and economic migrants is a failure that demands the reform of those systems, not the scrapping of the entire refugee law now that this generation of Europeans are called up to the task The reform of those systems to enable what you're asking for would entail: Camps outside continental Europe (Ceuta & Mellila, Lampedusa, Lesbos) Sea and land border controls that picked up and transferred arrivals to those camps Departure from those camps to Europe only when refugee claims had been investigated and validated I can imagine the sort of reception that would get.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Cake Smashing Boob posted:They probably couldn't, actually. Not going to happen. Once he's here, he'll go back of his own free will, or not at all. Our security agencies will just have to monitor him, and hope he doesn't join up with his heart-eating friends.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Nermal posted:Let's assume it's just Syrians coming: when have tens of millions of European refugees fled under the international conventions? The international conventions were created for tens of millions of Europeans on the move. Are hundreds of millions coming right now? Are all refugees of the world picking up and moving here in droves? Or is the actual reality that this is still, by and large shouldered by the developing world and will continue to be, and Europe will never have to accept but a fraction of the total refugees? Why is Europe's collapse imminent when the poorer and smaller countries that have been recieving equivalent (far greater in propotion) refugee flow for years haven't collapsed? When have hundreds of millions of Africans and Asians used the cover of legal conventions (which have not changed much in the past 50 years) to migrate? Don't try to make out your case by basing it on ludicrous unfeasible hyperbole. Nermal posted:The reform of those systems to enable what you're asking for would entail: Better reception then Europe scrapping international refugee laws, relinquishing its responsibilities after having benefited from them, and closing its borders totally. Or the current chaos continuing. This pretense that letting anybody in or letting nobody in are the only options is getting tiring, especially when history shows this is not the case. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Sep 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
lol @ europe getting a jihad enema
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
all the people worth a drat from eurasia already left it 100s of years ago
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
False Flag Rape posted:lol @ europe getting a jihad enema hmmmm....*checks Rap Sheet* Yup. Thought so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Are hundreds of millions coming right now? Are all refugees of the world picking up and moving here in droves? Or is the actual reality that this is still, by and large shouldered by the developing world and will continue to be, and Europe will never have to accept but a fraction of the total refugees? Why is Europe's collapse imminent when the poorer and smaller countries that have been recieving equivalent (far greater in propotion) refugee flow for years haven't collapsed? When have hundreds of millions of Africans and Asians used the cover of legal conventions (which have not changed much in the past 50 years) to migrate?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sn4koQUzHQ
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
 Seriously, go away. You know how many kids I did that to when I was little? Oh, right he's a BROWN kid, and you sure are scared of non-whites.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
Ferguson was mocked as its residents burning it down 'over nothing'. The refugee homes burned in Germany were 'sad' but to be expected when the government ignores racist white wishes apparently.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Ferguson was mocked as its residents burning it down 'over nothing'. The refugee homes burned in Germany were 'sad' but to be expected when the government ignores racist white wishes. You can't ignore economic effects when you look at what the Germans did. To chalk it up to some pinks neanderthaling-out because it's 'in their nature' is to miss a huge part of what's going on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Narciss posted:You can't ignore economic effects when you look at what the Germans did. To chalk it up to some pinks neanderthaling-out because it's 'in their nature' is to miss a huge part of what's going on. Surely you have some supporting evidence outside of your usual wet farts that you call evidence? Please share.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
LOL it must suck to be you, terrified of actual children.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
Why is Narciss allowed to post in this thread exactly? If anyone wants to read his opinion, they can just read youtube comments. No need to get a double dose of it by polluting this thread with RT talking points and racist nonsense. In poo poo that matters, the US has pledged to take in an additional 10k Syrian refugees immediately, targeting specifically the most at risk people. quote:The 10,000 refugees are set to be admitted in the fiscal year that begins on October 1. They will number among the 70,000 refugees that the United States accepts from around the world each year at a cost of about $16,000 per new arrival. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/09/opening-door-thousands-syrians-150913092418353.html Give us your tired. Your poor. Your Assyrian Christians.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Why is Narciss allowed to post in this thread exactly? If anyone wants to read his opinion, they can just read youtube comments. No need to get a double dose of it by polluting this thread with RT talking points and racist nonsense. Volkerball posted:In poo poo that matters, the US has pledged to take in an additional 10k Syrian refugees immediately, targeting specifically the most at risk people. How racist, they should know that the proper way to aid refugees is to shovel money to everyone who manages to buy their way in while ignoring the people left behind. It's like reality tv but sadly there are no cameras.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Humans Among Us posted:I'd like to let everyone know that the Dutch are on the case with these tricky refugees guys! Ohno wait i meant that we are mostly ignoring them while we buy some 160 million Euro Rembrandt paintings instead (from the Rothschild family at that!). Complete and utter nonsense. This years' defense budget is 7.3 billion euro, the specific budget for the elderly is 8.5 billion euro. Last year the government spent 860 million euro on hosting and providing medical care and education for asylum seekers. The Netherlands is at this moment host to roughly 35,000 asylum seekers and the organization responsible has been scrambling to find thousands of additional places for them to stay to cope with the increased inflow. You would have to be living in la-la land to think that we're 'ignoring these tricky refugees'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 07:33
|
|
|
Puistokemisti posted:Wrongthink detected, mods???? Mods????
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:Complete and utter nonsense. This years' defense budget is 7.3 billion euro, the specific budget for the elderly is 8.5 billion euro. Last year the government spent 860 million euro on hosting and providing medical care and education for asylum seekers. The Netherlands is at this moment host to roughly 35,000 asylum seekers and the organization responsible has been scrambling to find thousands of additional places for them to stay to cope with the increased inflow. You would have to be living in la-la land to think that we're 'ignoring these tricky refugees'. Also, preserving tangible national cultural heritage seems like a pretty good use of taxpayer money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
Nermal posted:Camps outside continental Europe (Ceuta & Mellila, Lampedusa, Lesbos) I forget if I already said this, but camps on Lampedusa are not happening. I've been there on vacation: the place is tiny, remote and expensive, due to the fact that everything has to be shipped in, including gas and IIRC fresh water. Not to mention how loving hot and arid it is. Also, half the island is taken up by military installations, including a radar post and part of an (obsolete?) navigation system
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
God drat, this has meaning to you doesn't it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
Puistokemisti posted:How racist, they should know that the proper way to aid refugees is to shovel money to everyone who manages to buy their way in while ignoring the people left behind. It's like reality tv but sadly there are no cameras. Just to make sure, you are criticising Europe for not bringing in enough refugees here, yes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Just to make sure, you are criticising Europe for not bringing in enough refugees here, yes? I'm criticizing them for not sending a drone fleet to film their trip and make it into new reality tv series. We could then vote who get to continue on to Germany/UK/Scandinavia and who will be cast out and have to stay in Ukraine. In other news, after police force and army presence at swedish border proved not effective enough, we are now starting to irradiate it. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:A lot of countries outside of Europe are perfectly OK with keeping refugees as a permanent underclass that will never enjoy citizenship, so it is not really a valid comparison, since no one making it wants Europe to do the same. Also population densities are higher and migration is easier than ever before. A lot of countries is not "all countries except European ones" and lot of countries have also bestowed citizenship on refugees on a scale unseen almost anywhere in Europe. And a lot of these countries are so poor that they have underclasses of their own right to start with. And migration was almost always ridiculously easy if you were an European. Nobody is expecting Europe to give blanket citizenship to these refugees either, so again, try to make your point without ridiculous hyperbole. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 11:30 on Sep 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 10:07
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:My opinion is that European countries should make an effort to help the refugees, but if they conclude that there is a practical limit on how many they can take, this is not a moral failing on their part, even if they choose not to expend every possible political and financial resource on this particular problem. OK well this makes sense, obviously Europe shouldn't expend every possible resource on refugees (whatever that means, melt down the Eiffel Tower into I-beams for refugee apartments I guess?). But Europeans are choosing to take in hundreds of thousands of refugees over the objections of the fringe right who don't want Arabs around, so what's your issue? Sounds like everything going just how you want, it's not as if middle-class educated Syrians with the cash to get on a boat at 1500€ a head are going to be some kind of lifelong welfare dependents anyway. This is also an argument for other developed countries in the Americas and Oceania to shoulder some of the load of this humanitarian crisis, not to send people fleeing a war back to be massacred. Dead Reckoning posted:People may die because European governments didn't spend more resources to give them a place to live, but people will also die because European governments didn't spend more resources curing infectious disease. If we're talking about macro level problems, it's silly to insist that a death has greater weight because it was physically closer. Yeah this isn't how government spending works. They're not taking money from the "curing disease" bucket to pay for temporary housing. Few things are cheaper than feeding and housing people in your own country, so it's not likely there's something out there with a better lives-to-Euro ratio that we could be doing and even if there were there are better ways to get the money than sending war refugees back to be killed: that disease-curing money could come from taxes or military budgets for example. But I suppose we'll just have to wait until Jobbik releases their report and recommendations for solving the world's humanitarian problems as economically as possible, that's their goal here right? Dead Reckoning posted:I also think that, even if they decide to house every single refugee, European governments have a strong and compelling interest in controlling who crosses their borders and are justified in cracking down on illegal border crossing, and registering and tracking asylum seekers while their cases are being processed. They have a responsibility to make sure that economic migrants and religious militants aren't entering with the refugees. Their primary duty is to ensure the safety and wellbeing of their citizens, not some nebulous global good. Of course! You realize this is an argument in favor of a large organized effort to admit and process refugees so people can get in that way instead of wrecking on the shores of the Mediterranean and getting in illegally without registration and tracking yeah?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 11:19
|
|
|
FINGERBLASTER69 posted:People in this thread believe that al Nusra members are refugees. Narciss is scared of blacks and Muslims. And you have yet to prove that man's guilt outside of Narciss' link.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 11:26
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:My opinion is that European countries should make an effort to help the refugees, but if they conclude that there is a practical limit on how many they can take, this is not a moral failing on their part, even if they choose not to expend every possible political and financial resource on this particular problem. People may die because European governments didn't spend more resources to give them a place to live, but people will also die because European governments didn't spend more resources curing infectious disease. If we're talking about macro level problems, it's silly to insist that a death has greater weight because it was physically closer. Except the well being of their citizens is threatened if they don't accept the refugees because enabling radicalization by forcing these people to die or be sent back will make them a large threat to the Euro Citizenry. Also as it's been said before most of the refugee's coming in are middle class and well educated so.....
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
Puistokemisti posted:Wrongthink detected, mods???? Mods???? I'm afraid of a hand gesture a literal child made and now people think I'm a dumb idiot. Could it get any more Orwellian? Stay safe, everyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 12:50
|
|
|
Orwell fought in the Spanish civil war against Franco... clearly such a dangerous terrorist (did you know he was born in India??) had no place in the UK to write a book calling out totalitarianism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 13:00
|
|
|
Finland is deploying military to the Swedish border tomorrow and conscripts are already helping border officials and the police. Hooray! Perhaps the multicultural paradise is finally here! Also, thanks Sweden!  DarkCrawler posted:international law...the same law... law based on treaties European countries signed... following the same law... entire refugee law... followed the law... law... jordan... lebanon... law... turkey law, law!! LAW LL͇̗̙͇͟A̺͘W̮̹ L̛̪̠͉̱͜A̱A̵̛̻̤̩̱̯̬͚̗̕A̡͙̖͔͟W͎͎̗̥W̦̪W̴̟͚͎̘͡ Perhaps you should change your name to Mr.Law McTreaty de Internazionale? Suits you sir! It has truly become your obsession. Unfortunately, you have completely lost the plot when you compare a WW2 that wrecked the entire continent with everyone involved with far off internal conflicts in places like Iraq and Syria. Repeating the word "law" ain't gonna change that. (I have somehow not noticed the other migration/asylum law seeker waves you speak of, apart from the Yugo -war, and that peaked for a year or two and was over). Unfortunately EU is not following the laws they signed, and which you summon to support I-don't-even-know-what-argument-anymore. EU didn't follow the no bailout -treaty, EU doesn't give a poo poo when it's members break set economical limits, and now they haven't been following the Dublin agreement. Dublin agreement says an asylum seeker must start the asylum process in the first EU country he arrives in. How long ago do you think it is anyone gave a poo poo about this law treaty agreement law international lebanon? Yeah yeah I know it's unfair. We can't expect Greece and Italy to handle the load but we hosed up a long time ago. The current crisis could have been prevented. Investment on border control, processing camps, the works could have been established and would have probably cost a fraction of what is spent now on processing, housing and subventing the asylum seekers already here and arriving. If Sweden really spends 26 billion € annually on immigrants think of how many border officers and camps only that money would have bought? If Finland receives the estimated 30k asylum seekers this year, they only will cost about 500 million. This circus is expensive. The money would be much more efficiently spent elsewhere. Also Lebanon and Turkey have not collapsed so obviously Sweden could take a further 2 million asylum seekers and Finland could take, let's say 1 million to compare with Lebanon. That would surely just dent a bit. Mostly it would just annoy racists but housing and feeding and educating and providing healthcare and jobs and following all the rights and benefits our internal law entitles for everyone wouldn't be a more than a bit of a fuss. It would surely not collapse the state or anything, because the bill would be a mere 160 billion (for the first year)... Yeah I know that isn't exactly what you are suggesting but you see, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey are not comparable to Nordic welfare states by any parameter, manner, yoga or jedi mind trick or acrobatic somersault of the brain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
Sweden is actually sending less money as aid because of increased migration costs nationally. It's literally the same pool of money. Helping people here means helping less people over there the way things are working, and it is not a secret that the refugee camps are getting less money this year than last.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Finland is deploying military to the Swedish border tomorrow and conscripts are already helping border officials and the police. Hooray! Perhaps the multicultural paradise is finally here! Also, thanks Sweden! I love how someone earlier in the thread was trying to argue with me that there was no refugee crisis, and the hubbub was manufactured by far-right wing news outlets. Regardless of what someone thinks should be done with the refugees, I like to think we can agree that it's a full-blown crisis now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:21 |
|
|
Ligur posted:Perhaps you should change your name to Mr.Law McTreaty de Internazionale? Suits you sir! It has truly become your obsession. Now acknowledging that something exists and that countries have been following it for years is obsessing with it. OK. Ligur posted:Unfortunately, you have completely lost the plot when you compare a WW2 that wrecked the entire continent with everyone involved with far off internal conflicts in places like Iraq and Syria. Repeating the word "law" ain't gonna change that. (I have somehow not noticed the other migration/asylum law seeker waves you speak of, apart from the Yugo -war, and that peaked for a year or two and was over). WW2 was a refugee crisis of unmatched scale, yes. It is why refugee laws were created in the first place. And developing countries helped there too - not out of their free will in most cases because by and large they were still colonies - but they helped. For refugee waves under refugee law that are not WWII, there is Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Jewish refugees to Israel, Greeks, Yugoslavia and most recently Ukraine off the top of my head. For unwanted migration waves regardless of laws or not, European one lasted for hundreds of years until the last few decades, really, to all over the world so they've taken their share there too. Ligur posted:Unfortunately EU is not following the laws they signed, and which you summon to support I-don't-even-know-what-argument-anymore. EU didn't follow the no bailout -treaty, EU doesn't give a poo poo when it's members break set economical limits, and now they haven't been following the Dublin agreement. Dublin agreement says an asylum seeker must start the asylum process in the first EU country he arrives in. How long ago do you think it is anyone gave a poo poo about this law treaty agreement law international lebanon? The countries that hold most refugees seem to give a lot of poo poo about it since they are not throwing all refugees out or stopping them from coming to their countries by fences and tear gas. EU is free to ignore or change its own internal laws as it sees fit, though I think you will find that some countries have been obeying them quite well and some countries aren't. I think you will also find that the Greek "bailout" was a "loan" so its perfectly within law for us to subsidize German and French banks for their mistakes. If EU doesn't want to follow international refugee laws it should leave them and remove its citizens from under its protection. I don't believe some people should be exempt from following legislation while having been benefiting from them. What a shocking viewpoint. Ligur posted:Yeah yeah I know it's unfair. We can't expect Greece and Italy to handle the load but we hosed up a long time ago. The current crisis could have been prevented. Investment on border control, processing camps, the works could have been established and would have probably cost a fraction of what is spent now on processing, housing and subventing the asylum seekers already here and arriving. If Sweden really spends 26 billion € annually on immigrants think of how many border officers and camps only that money would have bought? If Finland receives the estimated 30k asylum seekers this year, they only will cost about 500 million. This circus is expensive. The money would be much more efficiently spent elsewhere. No country has had to accept any immigrants against it's will in the past. It has nothing to do with the current 30k asylum seekers does not mean all of those are genuine asylum seekers. Ligur posted:Also Lebanon and Turkey have not collapsed so obviously Sweden could take a further 2 million asylum seekers and Finland could take, let's say 1 million to compare with Lebanon. That would surely just dent a bit. Mostly it would just annoy racists but housing and feeding and educating and providing healthcare and jobs and following all the rights and benefits our internal law entitles for everyone wouldn't be a more than a bit of a fuss. It would surely not collapse the state or anything, because the bill would be a mere 160 billion (for the first year)... No obviously not, that is not what I am saying and that is not what anyone is proposing. Let's say that there is a refugee quota. How many do you think Finland or Sweden would, in propotion to their population and GDP? Because according to the recent quota calculations, it's less then two percent for Finland. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affair...on_annex_en.pdf So for a million refugees in the EU it would be 17,200. Stop with the hyperbolic hyperventilating and take a deep breath. If you don't think the other countries who host refugees aren't providing say, healthcare or food to them and they are all just dying on the streets in thousands that's a bit far-fetched. Turkey has paid six billion, of its own money, and it has GDP lower then the Netherlands. Most of them are providing to them to the best of their ability, just as we should provide for them to the best of our ability. They are still proportionally paying as much, and in actual impact way the gently caress more because they have and will always have way the gently caress more refugees. Ligur posted:Yeah I know that isn't exactly what you are suggesting but you see, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey are not comparable to Nordic welfare states by any parameter, manner, yoga or jedi mind trick or acrobatic somersault of the brain. No, compared to EU they're only immensely more poor, have immensely more internal problems and are immensely less populous. So obviously they need to shoulder it all. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Sep 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 13:33
|
|