- build camps in North Africa and in safe areas in ME, settle the refugees there, make Saudis and the other rich ARab countries accept refugees or contribute big time....
I repeat: a refugee is someone who feels to the first safe place. The ones crossing safe territories and moving to another part of the world in search for a better life for their families are not refugees, they are economic migrants.
- for the refugees or illegal immigrants already in Europe: set requirements (learn language, behave the way Europeans behave, i.e. in the spirit of the western culture, respect laws...) to meet or will be returned to where they came from (or North Africa and ME)
To come up with the solution that will be in the interest of the Europeans and would somewhat alleviate the problem is the politicians' job, they get big fat salaries for that.
You keep on mentioning Australia: their solution is the similar to what I am suggesting. Australian patrol boats prevent boats with refugees or whoeer they are from landing in Australia. Boats are returned to where they came from. The Australian government has given a clear message to everyone: there will be no illegal entries in Australia. Such a message makes everyone think twice before embarking on a journey to A.
European ships carry everyone to Europe - what message does that give? If I know I am very very likely to be saved, I will take a risk.
Funny how these "humanitarians" want everyone else to take on their burden. When I see Merkel and co. take many refugees into her/their own houses, then maybe I may change my opinion.
Chinese? how many refugees have you received? or are you talking about the ones opening restaurants, which happens everywhere.
Spaniards have to flee from SPain???? Really???
And about my country> it is in crisis but it still has higher standard than yours. Think you should try being less condescending and try to learn how to look through the telescope!
1. there are only 2 million inhabitants in Slovenia, so even 100 refugees is a problem!
2. and what is EU? a supra national extra terrestrial body with limitless finances? Who gives the money for the milk and fruits you have mentioned? The money goes from my and your and other taxpayers' pockets. and this means there is less for those in need that belong to the autoctonous population.
And before you start babbling about humanity or lack of it: during the war in former Yugoslavia, Slovenia accepted thousands of refugees from Bosnia and later Kosovo. We welcomed them as our neighbours and there was no disatisfaction because we were the first safe haven for them.
If your country received many refugees it is the ones from the South, the ones with the very SIMILAR CULTURE....unfortunately NOT HAPPENING IN EUROPE!!!!
As for the financial crisis: I have said before in this thread that Merkel has already started demanding that the Balkan countries take the responsibility of the EU borders and deal with the refugees. I have also added a rhetorical question: how can these countries cope with thousands of foreigners if they cannot feed their own? This is your answer. Yes, the financial crisis in Europe is still going on, the richer countries have coped with it better than the poor ones (Greece, Spain, Portugal, Slovenia...).
Well, Slovenia is not as rich as Germany where they want to go. In this situation it is something to be glad about.
However, we do have social welfare and there immigrants here too. Luckily our immigrantion policy has been tight so far, but unfortunately that is going to change when Merkel gives her order.
What about Mexico? Better than here or you are just guessing? :)
Not really sure what you wanted to say. The comparison with the Indians holds, although you may have misunderstood: it is the Europeans I am comparing with the Indians.
You purposely forget that we are not talking about A crisis which will be solved by accepting refugees who will then return to help build their own countries. A string of such crises has occured, and the numbers now are just not sustainable. Where will these people live? A few days ago I heard a silly politician on Croatian TV saying that there is enough space on numerous Croatian islands. Haha like the refugees will want to live there, build the necessary infrastructure etc. How will they earn their living? Remember how many unemployed there are in Europe.
How many will you accept into your own home? How many will you feed without asking the "state" to do it for you? That would be the way to show your own humanity. How many homeless have you taken in? Helping others is noble WHEN and IF you can without jeoperdizing your own. It is high time we stopped thinking of our "state" as something in a void. Our budgets are not limitless.
That said: we live in the EU, we pay our "dear" politicians and huge numbers of bureaucrats in Brussels to do a job - to work primarily in our interests, but they don't. Something needs to be done now, otherwise it will be too late, just rememeber what happened to the Indians because they could not take control of their own land.
Exactly, these two terms should be kept apart. No one who does not need immediate protection from the war can be regarded as a refugee. Everyone whose aim is to improve their and their family's financial situation is an immigrant. Therefore - none of the people passing through safe areas to get to Europe is a refugee. The obsolete asylum system should be abolished immediately. Originally, asylum was meant for individuals who are under the threat in their countries because of their political orientaiton or activities. Nowadays, asylum is given to everyone for certain countries.
As for the terrorists:
there are some even among refugees picked up by the UN:
Now, I cannot find the article I read a couple of days ago about terrorists from Syria entering Europe via the island of Kos and heading north. The scaries thing in the article was that the intelligence agencies knew exactly where these people are and they just follow their movement without trying to stop them.
Even if there aren't so many terrorists coming this way, even ONE is TOO MANY.
In 2012 Statistics Norway (SSB) presented a report showing that all forms of importing labor in the long run lead to minus in society accounts. The Brochman Committee presented its report which showed that large groups of immigrants contributed little and used welfare budget more than most Norwegians.
So, SSB report concludes that all imports of labor in the long run give minus and the reason is the generous Norwegian welfare system.
The same must apply to other European countries with a strong welfare system.
What do you mean they are coming and we cannot do anything about it? The politicians do NOT WANT to do anything about it. The only solution is to to return them at the border of the EU, help build more decent camps in Turkey and North Africa.
Look, the state is not something outside us, we are its taxpayers and it exists because of us and for us. If you looked at the state the same way you look at your own house, you would act differently. If you had a house for say 5 peoplem and the 3 of you live in it, you wouldn't share it with another 20 people.
As for your comment on how horrible the Eastern EU countries are, you named Slovakia: everyone has the right t let whoever they want into their house.
Just to remind you that it is the rich that give to charity, the poor cannot afford it.
I said earlier: the west is not to blame for what is going on there. Contribute is not the same as start, at least not to me. This is what I mean: the locals started the mess, the Americans and the Europeans contributed to it by giving weapons to the rebells or by actively participating in fighting. As it turned out the rebels themselves are not someone you want to support, the same thing happened in Afghanistan but we never learned anything from it. Therefore, it is best not to side with anyone there. That would be the best, that would have been the best, unfortunatelly, the western politicians were stupid.
As for bombing IS: the way it has been done so far is useless, if there was a serious attempt at eradicating those monsters there, there would have been tangible results. The other reason for the lack of results may lie in the fact that IS does have the support of the people there.
What I am saying is that in a perfect world: if the people there are not the driving force of the rebellion against IS, any dictator or any rotten regime (e.g. in SA), any intervention from outside could be perceived as negative. So, the west made a mistake when they interfered in the first place, I admit that now it may be too late to stay out as IS presents a threat to us. Personally, I think they should be carpet bombed NOW.
I think you meant me here, as you used parts of my post.
Before accusing someone of ignorance, read the whole post or maybe more posts of the same person. I was talking about the western contribution to the mess in overthrowing the regimes in Syria and Lybia, and I am convinced that as bad as the two dictators were, they were better than we have there now.
The other person was talking about the west having created the whole mess.
I don't think so. Look what has been going on there and how the locals always react to the interference of the West, it always comes to the west being cursed if they do something and also if they don't. I am not saying the West shouldn't help, but eventually when things start going in the right direction, not form the beginning (like the Americans did in WW2).
Seeing what Arab countries are fighting against IS, I am not sure that the situation will get any better if they succeed, just look at what happened in Syria before - it seems that everyone is equally bad. This makes me believe even more that some people just need a strong hand, a dictator. And by saying this I am not trying to be condescending, I also think deomcracy does not work in my part of the world (the Balkans)
What sort of an argument is it that they do not WANT to go to the Arab countries? Since when do you get to choose where will you go if you are in a real danger? BS. And of course they do not want to go there as there is no social welfare they will get, even though SA, Qatar etc. can afford it, but they do not provide it to their own people.
Well, you are oversimplifying. Yes, the Americans and the rest contributed to the mess, but the mess itself belongs entirely to the people there. Instead of going from a conflict to a conflict they should sort out their countries, take the responsiblity for themselves not act as if they were in the 6th century. They are the ones who should make their own countries functioning properly, or at least a little better.
Why should the rich Arab countries contribute???? They are part of the problem, they share the same culture and values with the refugees.
Seems like you are very quick blaming everyone else and turning ME into a complete victim.
p.s. Countries "falling" - I am 100% sure you just pretend you did not understand what I meant, scroll up a bit and see what I said in my previous post about Merkel twisting hands of Balkan states.
Capricorn143 Forum Posts (1,115)
RE: Germany: Sympathetic to all Syrian Refugees
As I said before:- build camps in North Africa and in safe areas in ME, settle the refugees there, make Saudis and the other rich ARab countries accept refugees or contribute big time....
I repeat: a refugee is someone who feels to the first safe place. The ones crossing safe territories and moving to another part of the world in search for a better life for their families are not refugees, they are economic migrants.
- for the refugees or illegal immigrants already in Europe: set requirements (learn language, behave the way Europeans behave, i.e. in the spirit of the western culture, respect laws...) to meet or will be returned to where they came from (or North Africa and ME)
To come up with the solution that will be in the interest of the Europeans and would somewhat alleviate the problem is the politicians' job, they get big fat salaries for that.
You keep on mentioning Australia: their solution is the similar to what I am suggesting. Australian patrol boats prevent boats with refugees or whoeer they are from landing in Australia. Boats are returned to where they came from. The Australian government has given a clear message to everyone: there will be no illegal entries in Australia. Such a message makes everyone think twice before embarking on a journey to A.
European ships carry everyone to Europe - what message does that give? If I know I am very very likely to be saved, I will take a risk.