Migrant Rape Fears Spread Across Europe

The Guardian and the Daily Mail certainly understand the xenophobia and nativisim of the American right, and pander to it skillfully.

 

Keeping 95% of the refugees in just 5 countries means keeping them in evacuation centers, which means they're unable to work and contribute to society.. but instead remain completely dependent on foreign aid. As is the UN has only collected 40% of the necessary funds to take care of the people in these refugee centers. Many of the people being sent to the US and Europe are being sent from these 5 middle eastern countries

Now I'm not saying the number being sent to Europe needs to be larger than what is currently planned, but more European countries need to help with the refugee crisis. We're talking about 50 different countries in Europe who could be helping. If these countries were to evenly distribute the refugees stationed to Europe, you bet your ass this would be a more affordable solution than continuously paying to keep these refugees in evacuation centers. When you send a large number of people to a single country you're not as likely to be able to find work for all of them, this applies to countries in Europe and the middle east.


The US is one I do believe needs to take in more refugees, having some responsibility for why there's a refugee crisis to begin with, and being a country that is more able to take in a large number.

 

And if we get them to the west, they'll be kept in refugee housing here instead, unemployed and unable to contribute. I've told you, we do not, economically speaking, need them here.

yes indeed, and they get even less money because countries like Sweden take money from their foreign aid budget to pay for asylum immigration in Sweden. As i've said, we have limited funds to help people, and and immigration comes at the cost of helping in the middle east. That's exactly what e.g. Sweden has done, and what other countries will do if they do what Sweden has done, taking in so many. That the UN doesn't have enough money isn't an argument for immigration, it's an argument against it.

yes, and the cost for helping those people is lower over there, and more expensive over here. The same people can more cheaply be helped if they stay. if they move, we are simply helping less people with more money instead of of helping more people with less money. inefficiency.

I'd actually bet my ass on this. it would not be more affordable. Europe would spend X money helping Y people, when they could've spent X money to help 20Y people. I suppose Europe could do it, but why should we? We'd help much more people if we spend our money on helping them in the middle east. it's just inefficient. however, they shouldn't stay in refugee camps forever. We should help them get into society, but in the middle east, not here.

Do tell, where in europe is there a severe shortage of unskilled labour? By all means send them there, but the truth is that europe doesn't have any need for most of them. educated refugees is another matter of course, but that doesn't justify taking them in en masse as we are doing now. yes, yes, they should not all come to one country, but i'd rather they were dispersed in the middle east rather than in europe. we have enough trouble with muslims as it is. We certainly don't need more poor and traumatised muslims right now.

Obama's foreign policy in the middle east has been very stupid, i'll agree with that. But again, if the US really wants to help, the best thing they can do is to help the refugees in the middle east, and ask the countries there to help them, while they are in the long run looking for a way to achieve peace in syria so they can return home soon. The US did have part in causing this mess, but that doesn't mean the american people should have to put themselves at risk by letting in people they can't trust. Anyone who comes to europe and the west can't be a threat, and making sure they're not takes a lot of time and resources. There's no way we could let in many people in a short time and still be able to check them all thoroughly. I don't accept putting ourselves at risk, so therefore, we can't let in so many people so quickly. That's why the solution has to be with having them in the middle east.

 

I don't get what you're not understanding, I'm not talking about increasing the number of refugees being brought to Europe, I am talking about divvying up the ones already being sent to Europe among the European countries. Of course this would be more feasible and affordable than sending them to a select few countries. Furthermore, people in many European countries are dying at a higher rate than birth, so immigration is actually in their best interest. If you divide the refugees across more countries, they will be more likely to find work and contribute to society.. that's not really something that is up for debate, if more countries contribute then no one else will be put in the situation of having to take in an excessive number of refugees (like going to a double digit percentage increase in population)

In short, I am saying what is currently being done needs to be done, except the number needs to be divided between more countries. If what you were suggesting was more affordable and feasible, that's what we would be doing.. but right now, the countries that are refusing to take in any aren't making the situation any better

 

I have said that it is pointless and ineffective if your goal is to help people, which I assume is the goal. Why should we bother taking in Y people to europe which will cost X money when we could help 10Y people with the same amount of money? We shouldn't have taken those who've already come, we shouldn't let in anmore in the future, and quite frankly many of those already here should get sent back. I don't want to help them here, even those already here, because that is inefficient. Everything is more expensive in europe. Housing cost more, there heating during winter, they have to get paid allowances, bus cards, eventually various benefits. Plus we take on all welfare costs associated with low skill immigrants. it's much cheaper in the middle east.

No, that's only the strongest argument for why they shouldn't take in refugees. We already have demographic problems, with the immigrant populations set to dramatically increase in relative size, even without further immigration. taking in many refugees with high birth rates would just make it worse. yes, a society needs people, but in my view, but more importantly it needs cohesion. We simply cannot assimilate these people. We haven't assimilated those who are already here, and we've had serious problems with refugees already.

As I've said, most of them have low education, and there is no need for that in europe. Sure, let well educated people come, but then we are not talking about refugee immigration anymore, since they are let in because they are useful, not fleeing. You simply cannot argue that it is in the economic interest to let in many low educated people from distant cultures with which there is already significant assimilation problems.

People've come to europe because of Germany and Sweden. I don't think other countries have any responsibility to suffer the consequences of our stupid choices. The great number of people fleeing to europe didn't do so for genuine safety concerns. They passed through turkey for heaven's sake, and there's peace there. They passed through the balkans on their way to germany and Sweden. They are obviously doing it for economic reasos, so we have no moral obligation to care for that. if we hadn't lured them with our open doors, there wouldn't have been any great migrant crisis right now, because they would've stayed in the parts of the middle east where they are safe. If Europe had been very clear and had a restrictive immigration policy, this wouldn't have happened.

 

You're creating an alternate reality to make your notion sound feasible

No, keeping 95% of the refugees in 5 countries does not require less money, and as long as we're keeping them in evacuation centers, fewer will have the ability to provide for themselves. They need to be divided among nations, and that's not really something that is up for debate

 

I don't want to play any role in this. The chances of a terrorist attack far outweigh whatever "decency" we would be doing. The Middle East and the West is forever intolerable with no chance of reconciliation. The moment we understand this, is the moment we can finally appropriate an effective strategy.

And that strategy is along the lines of what Mr.Swedish is suggesting: Fund assistance in these areas, reach a diplomatic settlement between Assad and the rebels. Aim at an immediate ceasefire. But we do not have the kind of intelligence(even O'Malley admitted as much) to enable Liberal charity in this regard.

We're at war. We need to start acting like it.

 

Do you actually know that or is it just speculation? because there are many parties and even national governments which agree with me on this one, namely that it is cheaper to help them over there, rather than here.

 

Yes I do know that, because as long as they are flooded in these select countries they must remain in evacuation centers. As long as they are in evacuation centers they must have all food and shelter provider for them, where as if they are integrated into a society they can pay their own rent and purchase their own food

 

That is not necessarily true. They could be integrated into middle eastern countries, which btw would be much easier than in western countries due to cultural closeness. The middle east would integrate them if they got help from us to cover some of the temporary expenses. Also, it is not true that evacuation centers are more expensive. If they come to e.g. Sweden, they will have to be housed, and our housing is VERY expensive and we have a shortage already. Plus, they are entitled to many kinds of benefits. and they would likely not get any jobs either. If they come to europe, they're going to have to live in some kind of evacuation centers too. We already have such in Sweden, large areas with only tents. The only difference is that i'd be much more expensive. it's much cheaper to just pay for their tents, food and other stuff down in the middle east, than to bring them here, where things cost more and tehy are also entitled to benefits. There are no jobs here waiting for them. They would be unemployed if they come here. They have no better chance of getting a job here than they do in the middle east.

 

it isn't cheaper to keep them in evacuation centers.. that's not even debatable

The idea of a country taking in refugees is to integrate them into society, meaning they work and pay their bills like everyone else. Furthermore, no matter where they are stationed, we cannot maintain 95% of them in just 5 countries. These countries are taking on a double digit percentage population increase, imagine for a second if there was any expectation for a European country to take on a double digit population increase. It wouldn't be feasible, yet a more economically prosperous country would be more capable than one that is less prosperous

I assure you what you are proposing will not be done, and it will not be done because it isn't feasible

 

It is very debatable. IF they could integrate and get jobs, yes, that would be cheaper. But the thing is, they can't. What will happen is that they will just be unemployed, and be entitled to many benefits, which will cost a thousand times more than keeping them in refugee camps in the middle east.

 

But they can integrate and get jobs, the story of refugees in the UK proves this. I was treated by a second generation refugee last week who fitted a stent in my artery.

 

Even if some are employed and some are unemployed, that is a scenario where they are living less dependent than in the refugee centers.

 

As if all of them are doctors. I am all for letting educated people we actually need, but now we are talking refugee immigration and not immigration tailored to our economic needs. Most have low education, which we dont need.

No, because housing is more expensive here and they can claim many benefits. Its not cheaper. And as i have said, they can go get jobs in the middle east instead of here.

 

They're not finding jobs if they're remaining in evacuation centers, again refugees who are in these camps aren't integrated into their society... but even if they weren't in these camps, keeping 95% of the refugees in just 5 countries would make employment that much harder to find for them. We can't realistically expect to keep 95% of the refugees in these 5 countries