Still think we shouldn't accept refugees?

Actually, I believe it was Norway. They deported 7000 muslims who had their refugee status rejected and violent crime went down 31% for the entire country with rapes being the biggest drop. Yeah, careful what you wish for 14.

Not a fan of Islam or the German Immigration policy, but this is wrong on many levels. Most refugees from Syria are middle-class citizens who flee from ISIS and Assads' bombs. And most of them are quite secular and educated. Syria was not an islamist shithole before the war. Of course Germany will get problems because of the sheer numbers of refugees. And the German problem is that they also accept thousands of immigrants from the Balkans (Kosovo, Bosnia) who just seek a better life. Many Germans still feel historical guilt and their immigration policy is a little bit naive. However, accepting refugees from Syria is certainly not a bad thing to do. These Syrian refugees will not start bombing train stations. Germany has far more problems with second or third generation immigrants who live in poor areas and become islamists. Their grandparents or parents who got there to find work don't cause much problems, au contraire. And many of the dangerous islamists are ethnical Germans and convertites, btw...

Ffs, I detest Islam because it is a primitive cult and I am often attacked because of my islamophobia, but every European country should accept a certain number of Syrian refugees, be it christians or muslims.

http://www.christianaction.org/news/2015/4/21/researcher-80-of-muslims-in-west-live-on-welfare

Not the best source but the study itself looks sound. About 80% of all the muslims in the EU are on welfare. So, yes, they most certainly are attracted by benefits and it seems the main reason they prefer to go there instead of safe neighboring countries.

Yeah, I agree with all that. Europe has found that the "born again" Muslims who buy books like "Islam for Idiots" are the real troublemakers, and Syria worked as a state because 90+ percent of the people just wanted to do what everyone else in the world does, which is run a business or work a job and raise a family in a stable, secular environment. But even if that percentage is unchanged by all the atrocities on both sides, that still means that Europe is getting a boatload of very dangerous and unstable nutcases along with the overwhelming number of sweet, normal people. What they should be doing is using the migrants' knowledge and antennae (very highly tuned over the past few years of paranoia and fear) to separate the good guys from the bad guys. The migrants who make the other migrants nervous are the wolves. Those need to be tracked much more closely than the moms and dads with big pleading eyes.

I am the last one to say that there are no problems with muslims in Europe. Many of them are uneducated and do not want to adapt in any way. But not all muslims are the same. There is a huge difference between an uneducated desert dweller and islamist from Pakistan who came to Sweden just to be a leech and enjoy the benefits of the idiotic and naive swedish immigration policy, or a family father from Aleppo who worked as an electrician and wants to save his family from torture and death. BTW: There is a middle ground between the Swedes who even accept islamists because of "tolerance" and throw welfare money down their throats, and the Hungarians who consider everybody with another skin color or religion to be lesser beings.

Before the war Syria had a decent literacy rate of 80% (only 73% for women) but remember that most schools have been closed for the last six years so there are 18 year olds who javen't had any education beyond 6th grade. A very large number.

They are not going to be as educated and skilled as you think. That is still going to be better than the completely uneducated Afghans, Somalis, and Eritreans but not by much.

Remember, most of them, as soon as they get in will try to bring over their entire extended families. So Germany by itself will probably get around 800,000 this year, that will quickly turn into 4-5 millions via family coming over and that is just one year's worth.

Yep. That pretty much says it all.

As I have mentioned in my reply to gturner, I see these problems, too. It is absolutely impossible to integrate such huge numbers into the economy, even if a lot of the refugees have usable skills. Germany for example has lots of unemployed, well-educated natives who still can't find a job. And all these refugees will not only need food and shelter, but also medical aid, etc... Germany has lots of problems with decaying infrastructure, bad schools, etc... We have lots of Germans here in Switzerland, doctors, nurses, nurses for the elderly, skilled craftsmen... Their pay in Germany is a shame, this is why many of them immigrate to Switzerland.

This crisis is not limited to the so-called islamisation of Europe, or the possible threat which comes from terrorists who may hide among the refugees, or if there will be a clash of cultures or other ideological questions. It's also a matter of boring, unspectacular economic realities. Even if all these refugees were from Canada, the problem would still be huge. There are not enough jobs for let's say three million Canadians. Many of them would have to be supported by the state for years until they can earn a living. People tend to forget that in Southern Europe, many young people with an bachelor or master degree have no chance to find a job. Hundreds of thousands, even millions.

A considerable part of the German population just ignores these problems because they see the suffering of the refugees and just want to help. I can understand this, but in the long run, these well-meaning Germans must understand that a huge part of the refugees will have to leave again. They are refugees, not immigrants. It may sound brutal, however. .. On the the other hand, there are lots of Germans on the other side of the spectrum. People who don't want to accept a single refugee. Refugee homes are attacked with Molotov Cocktails, etc...

It is important that the EU finds a solution and that every EU country (Switzerland too, btw) takes its fair share of refugees. As I've said, the Germans are a little bit naive and feel historical responsibility. But they can't handle these numbers alone. Nevertheless, letting people drown in the Adria or letting them suffer in camps in xenophopic countries in Eastern Europe is not an option.

Of course, the refugees in camps in Lebanon or Turkey are not in danger of getting killed any more. However, if I lived in such a camp where the circumstances are far from pleasant, I would try reaching Europe too.

In the end, the Problem can only be solved in Syria and Iraq. This will happen in a few decades or so...

So 14th Doctor got it right. We must punish the Syrian refugees to teach Turkey and Egypt a lesson. Nice.

Note how in this thread, the lying troll gturner is straining to keep up, yet the bigotry flows naturally from Dinner. When gturner has to flail and sputter to try to look like more of a piece of shit, it might be time to rethink a position.

One of the very few "positive" aspects of this crisis is that many people on both sides of the political landscape rethink their position and are humble enough to question their beloved ideologies. Some leftist idealists always considered immigration a human right and national borders a relict from times long gone. Now they realize that refugees from a war zone have to be privileged to people who come from poor, but safe countries like Kosovo. A few months ago, only mentioning such a thought would have been considered a thought crime. And many stout rightwingers realize that building walls, using NATO barbwire and letting people die while saying "not our problem" may not be the decent thing to do.

There are no easy or even correct and fair solutions for this crisis. At least I never heard of such a thing or can think of one myself. Extremists on both sides of the isle will disagree of course, but I am glad to observe that the discussions in the media and the political discourse are becoming less and less ideological, but more and more rational. At least this is my impression. It was different only a few weeks ago.

We have arranged food and shelter for them in a safe place. Where we fundamentally disagree is you think not allowing all of them to immigrate and sign up for welfare is "punishing" them and I do not. We have already helped them by setting up safe camps and giving them food, clothing, and shelter. That is where the moral responsibility ends and they are not entitled to squat in another man's house just because they think it is nicer than what they have.

There will always be extremists, but the only way to get a real handle on this situation is by seeking a practical solution. Any mass movement of peoples will be highly disruptive. Usual disagreements reside in the question of what level is disruptive. In the case of a refugee crisis, the lens is focused by the juxtaposition of obvious and extreme need with numbers that are clearly disruptive. We don't need to argue on need or disruption, because both are obvious in such an extreme circumstance. So what do we do?

I recommend safe but temporary settlement camps. We cannot integrate these refugees in to the host nations' social fabric. But we cannot turn them away, either. Long term, camps are not a solution either (see Palestine), but for the moment, it is the best option.

@Dinner, where are these safe havens? And not once have I said that refugees should receive permanent settlement options. Drop the strawmen.

Primarily Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan as those are neighboring countries out of harms way where they can be registered as refugees and cared for by the UN and charities in an orderly and systematic manner. The west is practically paying the whole tab for these camps already.

As for permanent resettlement, you are fooling yourself, once they are in they are in and they will never willingly leave. That is not a strawman argument, that is a fact.

So you think countries very likely to be in the conflict zone is the best place? I'm not surprised that the refugees disagree with your point of view.

That's a federal failure style fact, as in not a fact at all. You have an opinion about the future, please don't pretend it is factual data.

Except they are not in the conflict zone. Not even remotely. They are located in a safe place out of harms way and are getting their basic needs met.

What do you suppose the deportation rates are for "refugees" who have had their claims rejected? Give me a ballpark here.

Then we can see how far out in lalaland you are.

@gul

You don't seem to want to anwser that question so I will give you a few hints.

http://m.spiegel.de/international/europe/a-926939.html

EU wide about 2/3rds of refugee claims get rejected as being untrue or lacking in merit because they aren't actually refugees and are instead economic migrants. That ranges quite widely though with France rejecting 90% of applicants and Germany accepting around 80% of applicants (which is why all the economic migrants all aim for Germany).

It takes an average of 20 months to process an application and have a court review it during that time they get free housing, free food, pocket money, and free education at the taxpayers expense. Now, 20 months passes and 2 out of 3, on average, get their cases rejected because the courts determines they are not refugees but economic migrants and so are not entitled to refugee protwctions... What percentage of that 2/3rds actually gets deported? Make a guess, dude.

When you get the anwser you will understand why I said once they are in, they are in, and we will never be rid of them. They are there for life.

You want me to quote rates on deportation before there is a viable settlement option?

We are talking about existing rates of people whose claims have been rejected and they have been ordered deported. What is the rate for them actually getting deported?

You said they could just be there temperarilly and later sent back so it becomes a key question to see what percentage of folks actually get sent back and what percentage stay even after the courts have rejected them and ordered them deported. Don't you think?

Hint: It is abysmally low in the single digits. Shit, The Netherlands is currently debating a bill which would cut welfare and public housing off to migrants who's refugee claim was rejected and who were ordered deported by the courts, a sensible move, yet it is getting held up by the usual race baiting and threats of violence by Islamists and their bleeding heart supporters. We are talking about people who had their day in court and we're found to not be legally entitled yet instead of being deported were still getting all the freebies and refusing to leave.

I'm sure they'll just line up to return to Homs, Aleppo, al Raqqah, and other bombed out areas. In fact, I'll bet millions of Europeans will flock there as well.




A new coat of paint and it's all good. Way better than Berlin or Stockholm.

They have safe U.N. camps where they can live and have their basic needs met. They are not in reasonable fear for their lives so they are not legally entitled to refugee status in the west. They are economic migrants plain and simple. Economic migrants have no legal right to immigrate just because they want to.

How many have you taken in? How much time have you donated? How much money have you donated?

None of course is the answer to all, you just want other people to do the heavy lifting so you can feel good.

And this is how you signal you've lost the argument. Can't win on words so just throw out an emotional picture.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/opinions/moghul-refugee-response-muslim-countries/index.html

An article on CNN about how muslim countries are doing virtually nothing and how most of the Arab world's problems are due to poor governance.

But Muslims in other countries already fast during Ramadan to show solidarity with the poor and starving. What more would you have them do, fast longer?

I don't doubt that. So, let's let them die? Or do we address the immediate crisis now, unfortunately with Western resources, then work for a longer term fix?

So you've determined somehow that 14thDoctor doesn't pay taxes?

http://www.ibtimes.com/europe-refug...ants-not-welcome-angela-merkel-german-2079894

At least one major German party still has some common sense saying economic migrants should not be allowed in. Meanwhile NPR has a report that from Baghdad to Egypt economic migrants have all heard Merkel's speeches about welcoming migrants so they are all lining up to flood in. They are waving German flags and think they now how a green light to the easy life.