Support NeoGAF

[Nicktendo86]

I actually named a solution. If each EU country would take up their share of the responsibility (and it is a responsibility by the way, all those countries signed the according UN charta...) there wouldn't be a "crisis".

And if you consider that Germany took up more than 1 million refugees so far last year I'd say the situation is pretty stable here so far.

So a million get redistributed, then what? Another million come, then another, and so on. Encouraging others to pay their life savings to people smugglers who sell them a false dream. It's nonsense.

 

[Sadist]

Another thing the German stance fucks up is that refugees aren't supposed to be choosing what country they want to go to, and I don't think they're allowed to by EU law? Which is why there are loads camped out in Calais trying to get to the UK and the French aren't allowing them to.

Germany can't just say 'hey come to us' because technically any refugees should be processed where they arrive in Europe (basically Greece) and then sent to a country deemed suitable, not based on personal choice - they're supposed to be fleeing persecution and threat of torture/death, not picking a holiday destination. But that's what it makes it sound like when Merkel makes statements like that

Well yes, technically. Point is Greece is overflowing and are financially in ruins; even if they were healthy I don't think they could have handled the enormous waves of refugees. As for refugees "picking" their destination; it's all about hearsay from friends, family or others; they flee to those countries just because of word of mouth and hoping to get the same treatment as family or friends.

 

[hobblygobbly]

So a million get redistributed, then what? Another million come, then another, and so on. Encouraging others to pay their life savings to people smugglers who sell them a false dream. It's nonsense.

They're refugees, you can't just say "don't apply for asylum and go back to your worn torn country where you're starving and life expectancy has been cut by 20 years".

More refugees will come, and it'll have to be dealt with. They have nowhere to go.

There are 28 member states in the EU. It's a union, which means it needs to operate as such. They need to be distributed among the 28 member states appropriately for what they can handle.

Except majority of the member states don't want anything to do with refugees because some of these member states are also run by racist parties. Poland didn't even want to accept 4500 refugees when quotas were proposed.

It's not a false dream. Distribution in the union is the only viable solution. They're seeking asylum, it's not as simple as turning them away. It's a reality that has to be dealt with. This is the worst refugee crisis since WW2 and that means a lot more countries need to help, not just in the EU, but outside of it too, Jordan for example is also helping immensely. It's a situation that needs to be responded by all, not by a few.

 

[Drazgul]

There are 28 member states in the EU. It's a union, which means it needs to operate as such. They need to be distributed among the 28 member states appropriately for what they can handle.

And when they can't handle anymore and there's millions more coming, what then?

 

[Tak3n]

I actually named a solution. If each EU country would take up their share of the responsibility (and it is a responsibility by the way, all those countries signed the according UN charta...) there wouldn't be a "crisis".

And if you consider that Germany took up more than 1 million refugees so far last year I'd say the situation is pretty stable here so far.



Nice argument. Care to elaborate?

it is not binding (UN) that is my issue.... like getting married, you promise to be faithful and stay together until you die, but that does not happen often either...there should of been a legal binding agreement before the Germany statement, as they are partial responsible for this, telling everyone to come without thinking how they are going to get there was silly at best, criminal at worst.

We all know countries ignore the UN at will

 

[TanookiTom]

So a million get redistributed, then what? Another million come, then another, and so on. Encouraging others to pay their life savings to people smugglers who sell them a false dream. It's nonsense.

Just reread what you just wrote yourself. Why do you think people pay their life savings to people smugglers? Because it's the only hope they have. So you suggest they stay in their destroyed cities without access to basic amenities and in constant fear for their lives? In the end you just suggest that we need to accept that tens and thousands or more will die.

And secondly the number of incoming refugees has already decreased significantly. Europe could easily accommodate a much larger number of refugees if the countries would start cooperating instead of building walls around themselves.

 

[Tak3n]

EU just announced they are sending more money to Greece to help, no solution to the problem, just more money

 

[CyclopsRock]

There would be no such thing as a "refugee crisis" if each EU country would take on their responsibility. Instead you have a few countries bearing 90% of the burden while many others, including large and wealthy countries such as France and especially the UK do literally nothing but building walls.

I'm literally copying this post from one I made a while back but...

I think it's worth pointing out, amidst the accusations of heartlessness or selfishness, that the UK sends significantly more than any other European country to support the welfare and living conditions of those Syrian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan etc. There's an entirely reasonable argument that states that it's better to keep those fleeing Syria as close to the region as possible to make it as likely as possible that they'll be able to go back when possible, and the money the UK's spending goes towards furthering this goal. Personally I don't think this is the best way to do it, as the situation is dragging on so long as these refugees end up living in a sort of limbo land where they cannot get proper jobs or fend for themselves etc, but this is a "fact" that's only becoming obvious as time goes on. I don't think, then, that it's reasonable to say that the UK is "doing literally nothing but building walls" because he chose Option A over Option B, even if you think B is better. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[YourMaster]

yeah, just let them rot in their patch of earth while we complain about gettin fatter...
your villinification of merkel is hilarious, she never was the reason all this shit went down, did the humanitarian thing and now gets shit on for that.

how would you have handled the situation?

It is not humanitarian to cause people to drown in the Mediterranean. She indeed is the greatest villain of our time, a person that doubles down on past mistakes causing countless to suffer in order to not lose face.

Right now the focus is on the problems the migrants cause in Europe, but you might remember that before that there was already a huge increase smugglers sending over people in small boats across the Mediterranean, with some of them flipping over and either drowning or needing rescue. This was already partially caused by EU policy to cripple the Italians from doing any proper border control.
The proper response to this was copying the Australian policy, where people don't drown on their way to Australia anymore: Tow everybody back and advertise that fact so that they know there's no point in risking their lives.
Instead, Merkel made a speech stating that we'll accept everybody that comes, luring many people that were safe and sound, killing more people and making it more difficult to provide proper conditions to people fleeing from the horrors of IS. At the same time the EU has done nothing to stop Turkey from supporting IS.
Had she pushed for towing back people coming with boats and communicated clearly that the agreed upon policy of returning everybody to the EU country where they entered Europe would be in a completely different position now and the hundreds of people that drowned (many not from IS territory) would still be alive.

As for Syria and Irak, that is where you need to invest, this is where Europe needs to show that we're not some soft, lazy, rich kids who don't know how the world works but a powerful player that will not tolerate genocide, slavery, mass rape and torture on our doorstep. Here's were we should have mobilized a large part of our armed forces and fix the problem at its origin. This will cost us both in money and lives lost, but it is our moral obligation and the costs will pail in comparison on the long term costs of the current policies.

 

[nOoblet16]

And when they can't handle anymore and there's millions more coming, what then?

People don't grow on trees. Telling refugees to go back to their war torn country is not an option, especially when the west is still involved in the war or the cause of the war even if indirectly.

Also if you are willing to take the best that a union gives you then you should be prepared to take the worst it can give you as well. You cannot enjoy the benefits but run away when you have to take responsibility. It is all or nothing.

 

[nOoblet16]

It is not humanitarian to cause people to drown in the Mediterranean. She indeed is the greatest villain of our time, a person that doubles down on past mistakes causing countless to suffer in order to not lose face.

Right now the focus is on the problems the migrants cause in Europe, but you might remember that before that there was already a huge increase smugglers sending over people in small boats across the Mediterranean, with some of them flipping over and either drowning or needing rescue. This was already partially caused by EU policy to cripple the Italians from doing any proper border control.
The proper response to this was copying the Australian policy, where people don't drown on their way to Australia anymore: Tow everybody back and advertise that fact so that they know there's no point in risking their lives.
Instead, Merkel made a speech stating that we'll accept everybody that comes, luring many people that were safe and sound, killing more people and making it more difficult to provide proper conditions to people fleeing from the horrors of IS. At the same time the EU has done nothing to stop Turkey from supporting IS.
Had she pushed for towing back people coming with boats and communicated clearly that the agreed upon policy of returning everybody to the EU country where they entered Europe would be in a completely different position now and the hundreds of people that drowned (many not from IS territory) would still be alive.

As for Syria and Irak, that is where you need to invest, this is where Europe needs to show that we're not some soft, lazy, rich kids who don't know how the world works but a powerful player that will not tolerate genocide, slavery, mass rape and torture on our doorstep. Here's were we should have mobilized a large part of our armed forces and fix the problem at its origin. This will cost us both in money and lives lost, but it is our moral obligation and the costs will pail in comparison on the long term costs of the current policies.

So further escalate the war with full western involvement? Like they always do, what of the responsibility that comes after?
You know that would cause even more broken homes and more refugees.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Might aswell not have any moral values if you're not willing to live up to them.

This is the problem:

Is this whats left of european ideals and values? Asking why we should help people in need?

It is nice to have moral values and I never said I am against taking in people who need help, but you can't take in everyone. It is just impossible. Of course opinions about where that line is are greatly divided.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Merkel greatest villain of our time, now I've read everything...

 

[liquidtmd]

All those who suggest Merkel is wrong for "having invited" are basically suggesting the refugees should have just stayed in places like Turkey, Lebanon or even Syria and you should be ashamed of yourself

I'm not ashamed - she is wrong. You should not give an open message that whoever wants to should come without having the infrastructure or an integration plan. It sounds great but having been done in the way it is, you are now seeing the ideological lurch to the far right as a result when it could have been avoided.

The UK and France are offering support. Is it enough? Maybe not. But frankly, as a man on a street, I work 50 hours a week. I contribute and volunteer some time to charity causes, helping the Homeless and a 'Share Shop' being one of them. I work hard to support my family. I feel lucky for what I have but I put the effort in. When I sit down at the end of the day to read about the Europe issue in the papers or the net and GAF, I see angry, absolute statements with similar messages to yours - that we should let in more and more and more without restriction, that we're doing nothing, that everyone should be able to get the house, services and small comforts that I get without necessarily needing to work, access to a support structure that I pay towards.

ld love everyone to have a level playing field in life. The problem is the more I get told that I individually or as a nation need to 'Do more' without any tangible limitation, or I should feel ashamed, or guilty in relation to the quality of life I have...I just end up being less engaged to those on that side of the argument.

 

[Charles Brandon]

I've said it before but my solution to this whole mess is for EU nations to pay other EU nations to take refugees. Fag-packet idea is that if your nation doesn't want them, fine, but you will have to pay someone else to take your share. I'm not sure whether that price should be on a tender basis or pegged to living standards of the prospective host but there should be some method of compensation. Maybe that would encourage some of the more reticent eastern nations to engage with the asylum process. I don't suppose it would encourage the UK but at least we would have to contribute monetarily (which, tbf, we do already do although I'm not sure if we contribute enough given our pathetic attitude to taking asylum seekers so far).

I recognise that the reticence is about more than just money, but money does help.

 

[YourMaster]

So further escalate the war with full western involvement? Like they always do, what of the responsibility that comes after?
You know that would cause even more broken homes and more refugees.

So the alternative is to just stand by and let IS wipe entire peoples out, taking many thousands of sex slaves so we can keep the current peaceful conditions?
Yes, you can't half ass it like some of the wars you're referring to, and yes the costs will be massive. You'll have to build an infrastructure for people to live, work and be save while the war is going on, a place for refugees to go to. And you can only leave when a proper power structure is in place, so either colonize it or find somebody to take over with enough local support to be the next dictator. And don't make the same mistake again in believing that democracy can work in the middle east.

 

[Charles Brandon]

This thread is incredible. All those people bitching about Merkel smh

There would be no such thing as a "refugee crisis" if each EU country would take on their responsibility. Instead you have a few countries bearing 90% of the burden while many others, including large and wealthy countries such as France and especially the UK do literally nothing but building walls.

All those who suggest Merkel is wrong for "having invited" are basically suggesting the refugees should have just stayed in places like Turkey, Lebanon or even Syria and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Absolute bollocks. People have died in their thousands crossing the sea. Some of those deaths are on Merkel's hands. I'm not saying that she didn't have the best of intentions but you know what they say about the road to hell...

It's not Merkel's fault that a proper, organised asylum distribution system wasn't and still hasn't been put in place but she has made the situation worse. People have died, borders have been closed, attitudes have hardened and the hard right has been galvanised and she has to bear at least some of the responsibility for that.

 

[kruis]

While she doesn't deserve to be called an idiot for doing the right thing, I do admit it wouldn't hurt to impose some type of structure on this issue.

She is an idiot if she couldn't foresee the consequences of her statement. The number of both actual refugees and economic immigrants is so enormous that almost every EU country has gone into crisis mode in order to stop the flow. It's an logistical nightmare and financial burden - and the latter will get worse and worse if these refugees/migrants stay and are allowed to bring their family. Judging by the past, most immigrants from these regions will remain unemployed for decades to come and it's very doubtful whether they will integrate smoothly.

 

[linsivvi]

Merkel greatest villain of our time, now I've read everything...

Yeah it's so ridiculous.

I also find it funny some people think the US had nothing to do with Syria. Bush and his cronies started everything by destabilizing the region, including within Syria, then their fail policies in Iraq got the ball rolling.

If anyone is the greatest villain of our time, it's Bush. You know, that "president I would like to have a beer with".

 

[mrklaw]

Well yes, technically. Point is Greece is overflowing and are financially in ruins; even if they were healthy I don't think they could have handled the enormous waves of refugees. As for refugees "picking" their destination; it's all about hearsay from friends, family or others; they flee to those countries just because of word of mouth and hoping to get the same treatment as family or friends.

but that hearsay also drives economic migrants which shouldn't be encouraged. Fundamentally, a genuine refugee shouldn't care where they go, and arguably shouldn't have the right to settle where they want (within reason - they should try and be accommodated so families etc aren't split up).

If, instead of Merkel going 'come in everyone, the water's lovely' - it was simply 'if you are fleeing persecution and fear for your life, we will provide shelter, but you may end up in Finland', then I think you'd see some drop in the numbers coming over the border.

Also, is this supposed to be a temporary thing? I don't know how this works with refugees but I assume there isn't any requirement or expectation that they'll return to their home country if/when the environment improves? Or does that just happen naturally in part, as most people don't actually want to be away from their home country?

 

[Funky Papa]

People arguing for redistribution are not wrong (as a matter of fact, it must happen), but they need to take a long look at a map. Because once you get past the biggest European members, you are left with a bunch of relatively small states that are simply uncapable of accepting huge numbers of migrants like the ones we are currently seeing.

Germany, France, UK, Italy and Spain are the five largest union states per population. Italy is already facing significant troubles after the crisis played a number on its economy, and while Spain is only taking a small fraction of refugees, we are talking about a country that barely avoided a complete meltdown a few years ago and is currently fighting youth unemployment rates that go over 50%. Sending there hundreds of thousands of young people should be out of the question. So where exactly should those refugees go? Poland? Romania?

None of them are capable of taking huge loads of refugees, which basically leaves Germany, France and the UK to take the brunt of it, and Merkel to blame for a well meaning but completely disastrous policy. Merkel, the same politician who didn't have second thoughts when she laid waste to Greece's economy in order to save German banks from their piss poor investments in a deeply corrupt state, and that one more time is putting an already decrepit country against the ropes with her less than thoughtful decisions. History books won't be kind to her.

 

[Evolution of Metal]

If, instead of Merkel going 'come in everyone, the water's lovely' - it was simply 'if you are fleeing persecution and fear for your life, we will provide shelter, but you may end up in Finland', then I think you'd see some drop in the numbers coming over the border.

Finland? Finland is a great country in Europe, try marketing Poland, Baltics, Hungary or Romania.

300 Euros a month and cold winters. Welfare benefits in UK/Sweden/Germany dwarfs the minimum salary in the Eastern Europe.

 

[Charles Brandon]

but that hearsay also drives economic migrants which shouldn't be encouraged. Fundamentally, a genuine refugee shouldn't care where they go, and arguably shouldn't have the right to settle where they want (within reason - they should try and be accommodated so families etc aren't split up).

If, instead of Merkel going 'come in everyone, the water's lovely' - it was simply 'if you are fleeing persecution and fear for your life, we will provide shelter, but you may end up in Finland', then I think you'd see some drop in the numbers coming over the border.

Also, is this supposed to be a temporary thing? I don't know how this works with refugees but I assume there isn't any requirement or expectation that they'll return to their home country if/when the environment improves? Or does that just happen naturally in part, as most people don't actually want to be away from their home country?

There has been some chat about them going back when the crisis is over but in reality, for most asylum seekers, that doesn't happen. They build lives in their host country, kids are in school, they get settled. Someone will go back to rebuild but most will stay.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Germany, France, UK, Italy and Spain are the five largest union states per population. Italy is already facing significant troubles after the crisis played on its economy, and while Spain is only taking a small fraction of refugees, we are talking about a country that barely avoided a complete meltdown a few years ago and is currently fighting youth unemployment rates that go over 50%. Where exactly should those refugees go? Poland? Romania?

People seem to think that "Europe" is one big, rich entity, while that isn't the case. Germany can handle a decent amount of people, the UK could also. France is dealing with 10% unemployment and a slowing economy, and considering their problems with Muslim extremists aren't that happy to take in a lot of new people from that region. Southern Europe is basically broke. Eastern Europe doesn't have very strong or rich economies. Sweden is already doing more then they could be expected to, and Holland and Belgium take in a decent amount of people.

I really don't know how you could again take in over a million people this year and not run into major problems with both capacity and funds. And that is not getting into the long term costs of the whole thing and pressure on the social programs most European countries have running and are already cutting where they can.

 

[Charles Brandon]

That's why the smaller, poorer nations should be PAID to take refugees

 

[Enosh]

I actually named a solution. If each EU country would take up their share of the responsibility (and it is a responsibility by the way, all those countries signed the according UN charta...) there wouldn't be a "crisis".

And if you consider that Germany took up more than 1 million refugees so far last year I'd say the situation is pretty stable here so far.

Germany invited them Germany can keep them, I'm going to vote here against any party that agrees to any kind of resettlement deal

not like they would want to stay here anyway so just skipping a lot of paperwork

 

[ClosingADoor]

That's why the smaller, poorer nations should be PAID to take refugees

Try getting that past the UK with their EU referendum coming up.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Germany invited them Germany can keep them, I'm going to vote here against any party that agrees to any kind of resettlement deal

not like they would want to stay here anyway so just skipping a lot of paperwork

because they've only been coming since then...

 

[Charles Brandon]

Try getting that past the UK with their EU referendum coming up.

heh. Fair point.

 

[Daffy Duck]

I can see this being the perfect storm for the UK public to vote out of the EU.

 

[Onlinehero]

Maybe but things like rural community's growing seems untrue to me, maybe because that's were we can find vacant buildings but I don't see this changing things in the long run at all. And I was under the impression that almost everyone feels like we're doing a poor job at integration with jobs and segregation so humming along nicely seems off? I have no idea about the refuges work skills so maybe that's true still a bit unsure on the language competence part and the use of it?

for myself I'd probably be a bit more positive if I didn't feel like this was a great opportunity for some political parties to further devalue my line of job as a sub nurse, but as you said time will tell..

It all makes sense once you realize that refugees won't go away because you close your borders. Rural communities are growing, not only because of new people being placed there but also because these people are having children. Since we have in place that everyone has a right to be educated in their native language (so as to not lose it), that means these children grow up to be multi-lingual. The largest issue right now, since this huge wave of refugees is recent, is that the people who want to help lack the required languages. Both within the NGO:s where I work, and in my workplace, we're scrambling to recruit people with "rare" language proficiencies.

The "doing a poor job with integration" is a relative issue, poor job compared to what? We've recently established that the distribution of refugees shouldn't be up to which community wants to contribute, but that the distribution is equal. NGO:s and the government is working hard to work together with the groups they want to integrate, and working hard to cooperate. We're not stuck in our ways, we're dealing with the issues that arrive and we're changing our methods when they prove not to be working. I think it's a fine job, given the situation, but it can always improve. It's "humming along" since we're not stuck in our ways when it comes to making changes and improvements, and there are a lot of volunteers around the country contributing. From that angle, it's quite a beautiful thing. Brown shirts tend to miss that part since they're not lifting a finger either way.

When working with new arrivals, one part is having them learn Swedish, another is giving them the chance to use Swedish, another is to give them necessary information about society so that they can take control of their lives. Language cafés, community gatherings, government jobs in administration and whatnot, they're popping up more and more all over the place.

I have a lot of contact with children who've arrived at a young age, or are second generation immigrants. These children have language skills that most sectors are screaming for right now, and within a few years a lot of them will be of working age. Then these people will work with integration, education, within health and with coaching, which will aid the effort tremendously. Language will be a very valuable asset in the future if, as I said earlier, you accept the fact that there will always be refugees in need of aid.

And yeah, I'm not for lowering wages either, but that feels like a separate issue as well (as that line has always been driven). But I do see how it can be exploited, but that's why we have unions!

 

[patapuf]

People arguing for redistribution are not wrong (as a matter of fact, it must happen), but they need to take a long look at a map. Because once you get past the biggest European members, you are left with a bunch of relatively small states that are simply uncapable of accepting huge numbers of migrants like the ones we are currently seeing.

Germany, France, UK, Italy and Spain are the five largest union states per population. Italy is already facing significant troubles after the crisis played a number on its economy, and while Spain is only taking a small fraction of refugees, we are talking about a country that barely avoided a complete meltdown a few years ago and is currently fighting youth unemployment rates that go over 50%. Sending there hundreds of thousands of young people should be out of the question. So where exactly should those refugees go? Poland? Romania?

None of them are capable of taking huge loads of refugees, which basically leaves Germany, France and the UK to take the brunt of it, and Merkel to blame for a well meaning but completely disastrous policy. Merkel, the same politician who didn't have second thoughts when she laid waste to Greece's economy in order to save German banks from their piss poor investments in a deeply corrupt state, and that one more time is putting an already decrepit country against the ropes with her less than thoughtful decisions. History books won't be kind to her.

Jep, i don't think Merkel is evil, but people bemonaning the lack of solidartiy of the union have to realise that it's a two way street. Merkel can't unilaterally decide what the course of action for the EU is, even when it's "the right thing to do". That's not how a union works.

And as long as proper democratic structures don't exist for the EU to make governing descisions, the cycle will repeat itself for every crisis.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

I can see this being the perfect storm for the UK public to vote out of the EU.

I think Dave and the Remain camp will absolutely need to avoid mentioning:
i) the UK paying more to the EU; and / or
ii) the UK accepting more migrants / refugees
in the next four months to stand any chance.

 

[dolemite]

That's why the smaller, poorer nations should be PAID to take refugees

If money handout get involved, the system will get abused at the expense of human suffering. Turkey is already hinting that the EU should send a lot more euros their way to help with the migrants.

 

[Tak3n]

I can see this being the perfect storm for the UK public to vote out of the EU.

if the EU gets swamped, then yes...people here in the UK will of course react, the problem is what happens now, if Merkel says no more migrants there will be violence as people wont stop coming

 

[Charles Brandon]

If money handout get involved, the system will get abused at the expense of human suffering. Turkey is already hinting that the EU should send a lot more euros their way to help with the migrants.

Turkey probably has a point but yeah I guess you're right, it would be exploited by some nations.

 

[dolemite]

It seems that Europe is pretty much destined to have its population recycled through migrations over and over again. It started with the modern humans overrunning the local neanderthals and never stopped from that point on. Must be the geography or something.

 

[Charles Brandon]

Europe is a naturally habitable place. Generally, it's not too hot or too cold. It's not dry. It has resources.

 

[G.ZZZ]

Europe is a naturally habitable place. Generally, it's not too hot or too cold. It's not dry. It has resources.

?????

Does not compute. Resources? Europe? Habitable? Sure more than a desert, but it's a far cry from places like india, china , south east asia etc... It's no wonder Europe has always been a scarcely habitated place compared to the rest of the world.

 

[mrklaw]

Finland? Finland is a great country in Europe, try marketing Poland, Baltics, Hungary or Romania.

300 Euros a month and cold winters. Welfare benefits in UK/Sweden/Germany dwarfs the minimum salary in the Eastern Europe.

I love Finland. Used to be there a lot for work. I mainly picked it as wasn't there a report last week about some refugees/economic migrants going back home from Finland because they didn't like it?

 

[Charles Brandon]

?????

Does not compute. Resources? Europe? Habitable? Sure more than a desert, but it's a far cry from places like india, china , south east asia etc... It's no wonder Europe has always been a scarcely habitated place compared to the rest of the world.

I disagree with this on a number of levels but I'm not really interested in derailing this thread to debate it.

 

[Khoryos]

?????

Does not compute. Resources? Europe? Habitable? Sure more than a desert, but it's a far cry from places like india, china , south east asia etc... It's no wonder Europe has always been a scarcely habitated place compared to the rest of the world.

Doesn't that actually work the opposite way? The more benign the environment, the fewer children people have?

From humans, I thought you saw r-selection behaviours is dangerous environments and K-selection in friendly ones - but I could be way off-base.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

?????

Does not compute. Resources? Europe? Habitable? Sure more than a desert, but it's a far cry from places like india, china , south east asia etc... It's no wonder Europe has always been a scarcely habitated place compared to the rest of the world.

Uh... what?

 

[Tacitus_]

I love Finland. Used to be there a lot for work. I mainly picked it as wasn't there a report last week about some refugees/economic migrants going back home from Finland because they didn't like it?

They went home because it's cold here and the food is bad. Must've been some real shit they were running away from.

 

[Lead]

While we do take our share of refugees (my country is above the average) I'm extremely thankful that we have sovereignty on immigration policies.

We're already taking a beating right now, if he had to take even more it would be a bloodbath.

Do people flee from war? Sure, but we just can't help everybody, it will compromise our very ability of being helpful countries in the first place.

Is refused refugees going to live very shitty lives or even die? Yes, but this is nothing new and we can't change that fact unless we're willing to let go of everything we've build for hundreds if not thousands of years.

If you ask me, no I'm not willing to radically change our political system, our welfare system, everything we've build to help refugees that come from over 4000 kilometers away with vastly different culture and values.

The world is not fair on so many levels, and it's not going to be fair to these refugees.

 

[J2d]

It all makes sense once you realize that refugees won't go away because you close your borders. Rural communities are growing, not only because of new people being placed there but also because these people are having children. Since we have in place that everyone has a right to be educated in their native language (so as to not lose it), that means these children grow up to be multi-lingual. The largest issue right now, since this huge wave of refugees is recent, is that the people who want to help lack the required languages. Both within the NGO:s where I work, and in my workplace, we're scrambling to recruit people with "rare" language proficiencies.

The "doing a poor job with integration" is a relative issue, poor job compared to what? We've recently established that the distribution of refugees shouldn't be up to which community wants to contribute, but that the distribution is equal. NGO:s and the government is working hard to work together with the groups they want to integrate, and working hard to cooperate. We're not stuck in our ways, we're dealing with the issues that arrive and we're changing our methods when they prove not to be working. I think it's a fine job, given the situation, but it can always improve. It's "humming along" since we're not stuck in our ways when it comes to making changes and improvements, and there are a lot of volunteers around the country contributing. From that angle, it's quite a beautiful thing. Brown shirts tend to miss that part since they're not lifting a finger either way.

When working with new arrivals, one part is having them learn Swedish, another is giving them the chance to use Swedish, another is to give them necessary information about society so that they can take control of their lives. Language cafés, community gatherings, government jobs in administration and whatnot, they're popping up more and more all over the place.

I have a lot of contact with children who've arrived at a young age, or are second generation immigrants. These children have language skills that most sectors are screaming for right now, and within a few years a lot of them will be of working age. Then these people will work with integration, education, within health and with coaching, which will aid the effort tremendously. Language will be a very valuable asset in the future if, as I said earlier, you accept the fact that there will always be refugees in need of aid.

And yeah, I'm not for lowering wages either, but that feels like a separate issue as well (as that line has always been driven). But I do see how it can be exploited, but that's why we have unions!

They might not go away but as seen by most of the world they sure won't get in(unless you meant the people already living here). Since Sweden has been moving away from those rural communities I don't see how that changes anything in the long run unless you expect them to become farmers or somehow start up new companies that somehow can compete. We probably have a different view of these rural communities, myself being from the north at least don't see any future in it =/

I'll continue the negativity by questioning the language issue. We've had some problem were I work with lack of interpreters so I do acknowledge the problem but it sounds like we need people with these language skills to teach and help with the others that are gonna come here and I don't see what of "value" that will bring us? I could see it being useful for business relations with the middle east but, and I'm ignorant as fuck on that issue, that doesn't really seem like a booming market?

And as a member of kommunal I would just like to say that we are fucked.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

I'm not surprised. That said I don't agree with everyone saying that Merkle letting thousands of at risk immigrants was the right thing to do. I think she and Germany made a humanitarian effort that should be applauded.

I would say however, that the immigrant crisis exposes some of the problems at the core of the EU.

1. How we handled Greece. - Greece will not recover for at least another three to five generations. And considering the current rate of economical increase, it will still be behind most countries, when it does reach our current level. The EU is taxing the Greek government to the extreme. To the point it actually can't function properly. People wonder why the Greeks are angry, thee essentially don't have a government. What should have happened is a massive investment into the Greek economy. The important note here would be not to hand the money over, but instead fund local businesses and companies, leave the Greek Government to it's own devices.

2. The EU is too isolationist. That or we have nothing in the way of a unified response to international politics. The EU if you look at the stats, is a Super Power, on par with the US in most places and passing it in others, but the bureaucracy is impossible to manager and we are still acting like independent nations within a trade federation, than one unified nation. The moment things were looking to go bad in Syria, we should have stepped in. The full economical/political and if it came to it, military might of the EU, should have forced a resolution. Instead we let the situation evolve to humanitarian nightmare it is.


I don't know how we solve it now, but I do know these two points need to be addressed before the EU can actually become a nation.

 

[Charles Brandon]

I'm not surprised. That said I don't agree with everyone saying that Merkle letting thousands of at risk immigrants was the right thing to do. I think she and Germany made a humanitarian effort that should be applauded.

I would say however, that the immigrant crisis exposes some of the problems at the core of the EU.

1. How we handled Greece. - Greece will not recover for at least another three to five generations. And considering the current rate of economical increase, it will still be behind most countries, when it does reach our current level. The EU is taxing the Greek government to the extreme. To the point it actually can't function properly. People wonder why the Greeks are angry, thee essentially don't have a government. What should have happened is a massive investment into the Greek economy. The important note here would be not to hand the money over, but instead fund local businesses and companies, leave the Greek Government to it's own devices.

2. The EU is too isolationist. That or we have nothing in the way of a unified response to international politics. The EU if you look at the stats, is a Super Power, on par with the US in most places and passing it in others, but the bureaucracy is impossible to manager and we are still acting like independent nations within a trade federation, than one unified nation. The moment things were looking to go bad in Syria, we should have stepped in. The full economical/political and if it came to it, military might of the EU, should have forced a resolution. Instead we let the situation evolve to humanitarian nightmare it is.


I don't know how we solve it now, but I do know these two points need to be addressed before the EU can actually become a nation.

We are independent nations within a trade federation though. The EU is not one unified nation and, for a lot of people, that's the way it should stay. The UK just secured an exemption from this exact principle.

 

[Coriolanus]

1. How we handled Greece. - Greece will not recover for at least another three to five generations. And considering the current rate of economical increase, it will still be behind most countries, when it does reach our current level. The EU is taxing the Greek government to the extreme. To the point it actually can't function properly. People wonder why the Greeks are angry, thee essentially don't have a government. What should have happened is a massive investment into the Greek economy. The important note here would be not to hand the money over, but instead fund local businesses and companies, leave the Greek Government to it's own devices.

And then you factor that the IMF came out and directly stated allathat before the latest deal was settled. Ah well. Gon get a lot worse before it gets better.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

2. The EU is too isolationist. That or we have nothing in the way of a unified response to international politics. The EU if you look at the stats, is a Super Power, on par with the US in most places and passing it in others, but the bureaucracy is impossible to manager and we are still acting like independent nations within a trade federation, than one unified nation. The moment things were looking to go bad in Syria, we should have stepped in. The full economical/political and if it came to it, military might of the EU, should have forced a resolution. Instead we let the situation evolve to humanitarian nightmare it is.


I don't know how we solve it now, but I do know these two points need to be addressed before the EU can actually become a nation.

Ehhh, which stats? Sure the EU has a big GDP, but I thought one of the requirements of a superpower was power projection. I don't think the EU in its current form really has this.