willemw posted:

It's in the Dublin Regulation. Well not literally, but de facto the first country the refugee enters will be Greece or Italy. The Dublin Regulation is not very good :/

Disco De Soto posted:

Better to be a burden than dead. Quite a few of us "burdens" turn out to be productive members of society.

I think you are focusing on the wrong issue here. There are aid organizations that specifically help refugee children (not babe-seekers) maybe you could donate some time or money to them?

DarkCrawler posted:

So again, where in any of the international agreements signed by European nations is refugee acceptance and taking care of refugees based on geographic proximity? Is Iran really forced to accept a million refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan because it happens to border two countries where Western powers started two incredibly irresponsible wars that has driven instability in the region for over a decade? Is that fair? Is that how international co-operation should work according to any of the legal framework on the subject? Aren't say, U.S. or Great Britain a little bit more responsible of the refugees in Iran then Iran? Is "welp I guess you're poo poo out of luck since you happen to border that country, maybe if they had touched base somewhere else you'd be fine" really the best way to solve the refugee crisis? What if say something opens in Latakia and Syrians start to swarm to Cyprus - is it Cyprus's turn to take a million Syrians because they are close? How does this work, exactly?

DarkCrawler posted:

Yes but it doesn't say anything about stopping refugees from arriving into EU.

Zodium posted:

There are really only three options, and only one isn't terrible:

• Implement comprehensive EU-wide immigration policy funded by a percentage of members' GDP.
  
• Sea mines and barbed wire, shoot on sight.
  
• Try really hard to ignore it.

There's a lot more where this is coming from when climate change really starts setting in, and I can't imagine having millions of poorly integrated refugees feeling unwelcome around is going to be very cost-effective on a 20-30 years time scale to begin with. Have there been any attempts to model the cost of not solving this problem?

Ligur posted:

I said move from a safe place. Are you intentionally not understanding what I'm saying? People in safe countries and in safe camps are not about to die, lest they go to Sweden.

computer parts posted:

I wonder who will be the first person in Europe to use "Welfare Queens" unironically in reference to refugees.

Disco De Soto posted:

I'm saying you are focusing on the wrong issue here. These people are not risking death or worse just because they can't get a job at home, or want to meet Swedish babes.

Yes, some people will use this crisis as an opportunity to move to a better country, but I don't think it's horrible if we also accidentally help them while trying to the refugees.

Blue Star Error posted:

Personally I hope all the money set aside for asylum policy goes towards refugees rather than making middle class west africans a bit happier.

Ligur posted:

I said move from a safe place. Are you intentionally not understanding what I'm saying? People in safe countries and in safe camps are not about to die, lest they go to Sweden.

V. Illych L. posted:

hardly any west africans come to europe outside of france wtf dude

V. Illych L. posted:

hardly any west africans come to europe outside of france wtf dude

Zikan posted:

The top 3 nationalities arriving are Syrian (34%), Afghani (12%), and Eritrea (12%) according to the UNHCR. Eritrea is ruled by a one party dictatorship so bad it's been called Africa's North Korea so they probably are mostly refugees.

Somalis are 5% with 10% of those being unaccompanied and separated children.

Blue Star Error posted:

I'm just struggling with the idea here that economic migrants making asylum claims in the midsts of a horrendous refugee crisis are people to be defended. Which is what the post I replied to was doing.

Disco De Soto posted:

Yeah gently caress those people right? I'm not defending them, if they even exist, I'm saying focusing on them is distracting people from the real issue.

jonnypeh posted:

EU should invade Syria and Eritrea, then set up democratic governments there. That way the refugees can go back to their own country.

I can't possibly envision anything going wrong.

Stereotype posted:

According to wikipedia you are high by a factor of two. And this is talking about an addition to that figure. An addition in mainly unskilled, war ravaged people with zero support structure and probably some deep traumatic issues.

Lascivious Sloth posted:

For someone who claims others are ignorant of refugee policy/facts globally you sure don't have much of a grasp yourself.

" and for Europe to start relief and assistance efforts in the countries bordering Syria."

Europe does contribute quite a lot to relief and assistance efforts in the countries bordering Syria that host refugees, which are Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Turkey. Turkey and Lebanon take the most, which is nothing near what Europe have. This emergency response is run through the UN with orgs such as UNHCR, UNICEF, Save the Children, and many others, as well as local NGOs. EU governments and private and public donors provide grants to relief and assistance efforts in each of these countries acting through the UN emergency response plan, as well as the UNs own central emergency response fund, which is money gathered from all around the world on standby for emergencies.

"in the long term, measures must be taken to pacify the major refugee-generating situation in eurasia and africa, the most prominent of which are Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan and Eritrea. The refugee crisis can only be resolved if the situations producing refugees are resolved.''

The major-generating situation in eurasia and africa is a badly worded sentence, but I assume you mean "Where most refugees arriving in Europe come from" which are currently, in order; Syria, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Pakistan and Serbia. So you got a few, but South Sudanese do not go by boat or land to Europe, generally. They are mostly Internally Displaced People in South Sudan or refugees in neighboring countries. I'd say that's because they are landlocked and extremely poor so can't afford to travel to Europe.

CSPAN Caller posted:

While it is nice to tell refugees that Germany, Sweden, and other countries are open to refugees, this doesn't seem to solve the problem of people dying en-route. Are there any plans for Europe, Turkey, etc to directly facilitate refugee transport or are they just going to implicitly condone smugglers? Do they think that a huge coast guard response is sufficient to save all the people whose ships sink?

jonnypeh posted:

EU should invade Syria and Eritrea, then set up democratic governments there. That way the refugees can go back to their own country.

I can't possibly envision anything going wrong.

V. Illych L. posted:

yes we're doing things, we are not doing enough and what we're doing is in large part half-arsed. we need to have a long-term plan, is what i'm saying, not just emergency measures, because this civil war isn't going anywhere, and living for years in refugee camps is a recipe for any number of disasters. atm we're funding refugee camps and provisional solutions. this is not sustainable in the medium or long term.

for your other point, those were the major refugee hotspots i recalled off the top of my head, so it's obviously incomplete. refugee crises of this sort are obviously not isolated to europe, and if this current crisis is telling us anything it's that the world is increasingly interconnected - another country i left out is Colombia, where millions are fleeing the civil war between the government and FARC, for instance - i also deliberately did not mention the perennial palestinian crisis because the post you responded to was in the Mid-East NO I/P DISCUSSION thread. regardless, this is nitpicking, and far from as devestating to the central point that you seem to imagine it is.

you're also conflating actual refugees with mainly economic migrants from the balkans, and assuming that i'm discussing purely european problems, which is reading quite a lot into my post which is not actually there. my position is that every major refugee crisis is a global problem, though obviously american problems are more convenient for other parties to help with.

XMNN posted:

He's right kids have been dying every day in the same way for months but because there weren't photos plastered everywhere people could just push it to the back of their minds. He probably intends it in a "So we shouldn't care" way, rather than "We are disgusting for not caring before" way, though.

Literally the only reason David Cameron cares about this is because it is absolutely awful publicity for him. In the morning he was all ready to stick to his "gently caress 'em" line, but as it became readily apparent over the course of yesterday that even other Tories thought he was being a heartless bastard and it was not playing well his hand was forced and he had to agree to take more refugees. Which is a good thing, but it's really bad that that is what it took for him to pretend to be a human being.

Nonsense posted:

How common are deaths like the large group found in Austria? That incident sounds like what some immigrants traversing through Mexico have dealt with via "coyotes" who steal their cash and ditch the locked cargo vehicle in the Chihuahua desert.

Zodium posted:

Which is what? The lack of sufficient immediate relief, our historical role in engendering the things people flee from, the EU's general incapacity for rapid adaptive response, the lack of even a hypothetical long-term viable immigration policy, or the clusterfuck of crisscrossing political preferences that make any one of these virtually impossible to solve in practice?

The 'real' issue is that there is no single real issue. It's context all the way down, and nobody seems to agree on where to start, let alone what to do. We can't pay or vote our way out of it because no one has a solution we can pay or vote for. This was a foreseeable, even mechanical problem. Best case, we can't control everything in the world, so eventually we were going to have to deal with a migration based on people fleeing bad conditions, for whatever reason. We failed to prepare for a predictable event, and now we're failing to deal with that predictable event. That's the only thing that matters. It's not a crisis of conscience, it's a crisis of competence.

Ligur posted:

Sharkie posted:

Who cares if some dude who just wants a better life gets saved as long as it means people fleeing hell on earth also get saved?

Ernie Muppari posted:

yes

incompetence

surely there's no way there could be people, much less those in positions of privilege and power who could directly influence state policy on matters like this, who stood to benefit from the deleterious effects of western imperialism on the rest of the world while also being callous enough to scapegoat the people harmed by it

and it's even less likely that there're everyday people in the imperial core who, in spite of the fact that they're harmed by this hypothetical policy of brutal oppression and exploitation, also buy into the fascist mythos promoted by the western elite

and the idea that there could be well educated, ostensibly cynical and humanist citizens of the imperial core who uncritically accept pro-imperialist propaganda is just right out

Zodium posted:

So, what, the real solution is actually locked away deep under Brussels and no-one can independently produce it because ... ? Makes sense, let's spend many hours operating under this assumption.

Torrannor posted:

Last year, 75% percent of all migrants (as in "people moving from one country to another", regardless if they are refugees or economic immigrants) that died on their route died in the Mediterranean Sean.

Ernie Muppari posted:

no i agree with you

everyone's just dumb