How will EU policies on refugees change over the coming year?

[Loki]

So holding dictators to account for their crimes shouldn't be done if the costs are too high? The logic of appeasement has a long history of tragic failure.

Incidentally, the whole anti-appeasement shtick has been disproven time and time again. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. There's no hard and fast rule as to when it does. Are we not appeasing Israel by not punishing it for violating our position on settlements? Aren't we appeasing Egypt by not punishing it for not moving back towards democratic rule? Are we not appeasing Saudi Arabia for a billion different reasons? The list goes on and on. You have to pick your battles, and that means appeasing the groups you're not fighting (militarily or not) at the moment.

And what about situations where the other country sincerely believes it's asking for something reasonable? Should we not appease them (assuming the demand isn't outrageous) out of principle? Even if it would improve relations and resolve other potential conflicts?

[Being]

So holding dictators to account for their crimes shouldn't be done if the costs are too high? The logic of appeasement has a long history of tragic failure.

It's just not something that dictates the upheaval of millions of lives. We could have left it in the thousands.

[RandBlade]

So after Hungary closed their borders blocking migrants paths Croatia initially welcomed them but is now hinting they could try and stop them. Slovenia which would be the next nation in the path if Hungary is to be by-passed are saying they won't be used as a "corridor" to get to Germany.

And STILL Germany has not named a safe or legal route to get to Germany!

Can anyone still obstinately refuse to see how counter-productive, illegal and downright stupid Merkel's comments have been. I repeat that if Germany was offering to take migrants and arranging transport that would be generous. To say you are happy for people to arrive but give no safe or legal passage just encourages people to illegally and dangerously try and get to you. Unsurprisingly.

[GGT]

Rand, it might make you feel better to indict Germany.....but that doesn't change the reality that thousands of refugees are seeking asylum in Europe.

Merkel could have done a better job of coordinating policies with public statements in the EU, sure. But let's face it -- people seeking asylum from their own civil wars don't want to settle in places that have their own internal conflicts (like Hungary, Serbia, Croatia). They want to find their way to "civilized" societies like Germany, France, Sweden, or the UK.

What strikes me is that most refugees from Iraq, Afghanistan, or Syria aren't trying to get to the US or Canada, but Europe.

They don't want to take the 'easier' journey on their own continent....to places like Jordan or Turkey, because those nations have their own problems. So where is Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in this whole mess? Why aren't they taking the majority of refugees?

[RandBlade]

It doesn't make me feel better no, it makes me feel worse that hundreds of thousands are risking their lives in the most dangerous journey they could be making because of Germany.

Until people get their head out of their arses and admit that telling people you are welcome while simultaneously not giving a safe or legal route will mean people will risk their lives dangerously and illegally this is going to continue to get worse.

Its interesting that I don't think anyone has actually attempted to defend this encouragement of people to pay people traffickers and risk their lives travelling thousands of miles, but seem uncomfortable with criticism of it.

[earthJoker]

I'm late to this party, so some general comments. In my view, it's entirely possible that RB and those who disagree with him are both right. I see the following arguments as all persuasive:

It took me also a bit longer to participate here. But I won't catch up as fast as you wiggin. I was away (in beautiful Portugal ).

I also come to the conclusion that RB is partially right. Right in his critics against Germany, wrong in the conclusion that UK has a better solution. But I am used to Rand defending his government in any case, no mater what.

Merkel fucked this one up. She is not responsible alone, but she totally lost control over the issue.

[Hazir]

It took me also a bit longer to participate here. But I won't catch up as fast as you wiggin. I was away (in beautiful Portugal ).

I also come to the conclusion that RB is partially right. Right in his critics against Germany, wrong in the conclusion that UK has a better solution. But I am used to Rand defending his government in any case, no mater what.

Merkel fucked this one up. She is not responsible alone, but she totally lost control over the issue.

Merkel didn't loose control. There wasn't even a semblance of control the moment she decided to opt for an approach that was based in the reality that close to 200.000 asylum seekers were already on the move. INSIDE EU territory.

[earthJoker]

I mostly mean within Germany. She could never solve the problems in Hungary. She created a mess within Germany, now she got Seehofer back on track.

[RandBlade]

But I am used to Rand defending his government in any case, no mater what.

Actually I'm an outspoken opponent of my government on migration. I oppose the government's moves to restrict migration, I think the target of cutting numbers is completely counter-productive and I would in this instance be OK with increasing the volume of refugees we take (so long as we continue to take them directly from the camps and continue to provide the money needed to the camps).

The disagreement is a matter of volume rather than a matter of practice though. Merkel's madness is a matter of volume being nice in theory but the practice has completely failed.

[Being]

US is doing its part? http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ker...ukz?li=AAa0dzB

[earthJoker]

The United States will take in 15,000 more refugees from around the world next year, increasing the current level to 85,000, and to 100,000 in 2017, U.S.

Laughable, Germany is expecting a 800K to 1 million this year.

[RandBlade]

Laughable, Germany is expecting a 800K to 1 million this year.

Comparing apples with oranges. One is the US taking people from source, while the other is people marching into Germany on their own volition, paying people smugglers to get them there. Please provide a like-for-like source for how Germany taking from source if you want to have a real comparison rather than a laughable one.

[Aimless]

Remember, taking people from the source is at least eight times better and more expensive than just letting people who're already here stay studies show

[RandBlade]

At least yes. Closer to infinitely better than getting people to pay people smugglers instead don't you agree?

Or do you think not taking anyone other than those who've paid people smugglers to get to you is better? Drop the sarcasm, which is it?

[Flixy]

I don't think it's wrong to say it would be better that way, but if hundreds of thousands are willing to risk their lives 15k won't make a dent in that number so it won't reduce the number of people risking their lives either (and probably the same for the UK's low numbers).

[RandBlade]

Well it makes a dent to the volume of 15k risking their lives. If Germany is taking zero (I don't know, nobody can confirm) from source then that is zero dent in the numbers risking their lives. 15k is infinitely better than zero.

Plus of course the 15k may be the most needy refugees rather than those fit, healthy and relatively wealthy who can afford to pay thousands to smugglers and trek thousands of miles.

Though I must say if it wasn't so serious it would be kind of hilarious seeing Aimless and others attempt to justify a laissez-faire free market approach to dealing with refugees. Get your government to do nothing and let the smugglers and refugees deal with migration by themselves in a competitive market environment.

[earthJoker]

Plus of course the 15k may be the most needy refugees rather than those fit, healthy and relatively wealthy who can afford to pay thousands to smugglers and trek thousands of miles.

May, or may not. How to you prove that? How do you define that anyway. Most likely they will provide asylum to people who register at an official place like an embassy.

The number of 15k next to millions of such a small number that you won't be able to have any fairness at all. You just pick a few lucky ones.

[RandBlade]

Still better than zero.

[earthJoker]

I'm not interested in holier-than-thou discussions. I did compare it to the numbers the Germans expect, not to say that the Germans are better, but to show what numbers are to be expected.

15k be it better or not that zero is simply not solving the problem, ease the problem to a significant amount.

[RandBlade]

Maybe if Germany took some numbers instead of zero it would ease the problem. Comparing how many arrive versus how many are taken is comparing apples with oranges as I said.

If Germany etc continues to take zero (since nobody is saying otherwise despite repeatedly asking) then what is happening to those too poor, weak, old, young, sick or disabled who can't trek thousands of miles and afford to pay the people smugglers? As opposed to the primarily healthy young men who are making the journey at the moment.

[earthJoker]

If Germany etc continues to take zero (since nobody is saying otherwise despite repeatedly asking) then what is happening to those too poor, weak, old, young, sick or disabled who can't trek thousands of miles and afford to pay the people smugglers? As opposed to the primarily healthy young men who are making the journey at the moment.

They get support from those who made it. Immigration has always worked like this. The strongest member of the family migrates to send back support.

Edit:
That said, even if you get the people from the countries themselves, the families will most likely send out the strongest member. Even if the travel is easy, the strongest member is more likely to be most successful in the new country.

[RandBlade]

I thought financial support was irrelevant? I think that was what I was told about four pages ago.

[earthJoker]

I haven't made a single post on the front page. Are you blind or stupid?

[GGT]

Rand, enough Germany/Merkel bashing already! It wouldn't be an issue if the EU was acting on coordinated policies to begin with. That would have meant giving more attention (and aid) to Turkey years ago....long before they became the "gateway" for terrorists traveling to Syria or Iraq, while simultaneously being a "refuge" for people fleeing Syria or Iraq.

You're right that most refugees want to stay "close to home" while they wait out the devastation and destruction of civil wars and tyrannical rulers....but what you're missing in the Blame Game is that their immediate neighbors (like Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey) have been overwhelmed.

Why not take Saudi Arabia (and the UAE, etc.) to task instead? They could have taken the overflow easily since they have plenty of land and money to do so. If refugees would rather PAY human smugglers to get on flimsy inflatable rafts (often without life preservers), and then WALK hundreds of miles to get to Germany or the UK or Sweden....maybe it's because Saudi Arabia (and the UAE, etc.) aren't living up to their regional, moral obligations?

[RandBlade]

I haven't made a single post on the front page. Are you blind or stupid?

Not you no but I never said you said that, I said 'I think that was what I was told' ie others have said that. Are you disagreeing with them? I could have easier used the word you if I meant you.

Rand, enough Germany/Merkel bashing already!

If people will stop bringing up Germany like they're some shining beacon of doing the right thing then I'll stop having a go. The only thing worse than the fact that Germany is being utterly moronic and rather evil here is that they're being held up as being good. Encouraging people to pay people smugglers while doing fuck all to help is evil and I will not stand idly by while people suggest they are doing anything right here. Nobody has yet named a single good thing they're actively doing other than accepting those who've paid people smugglers and made their own way in a Darwinian survival of the fittest - big deal.

It wouldn't be an issue if the EU was acting on coordinated policies to begin with.

How do you figure that? If the EU was acting co-ordinated would make zero difference whatsoever unless they were being co-ordinated doing the right thing. Being co-ordinated doing the wrong thing would make things worse not better.

That would have meant giving more attention (and aid) to Turkey years ago....long before they became the "gateway" for terrorists traveling to Syria or Iraq, while simultaneously being a "refuge" for people fleeing Syria or Iraq.

Like we were doing and like I've pointed out that Germany etc have been slacking on? They committed to doing that over ad ecade ago.

Why not take Saudi Arabia (and the UAE, etc.) to task instead? They could have taken the overflow easily since they have plenty of land and money to do so. If refugees would rather PAY human smugglers to get on flimsy inflatable rafts (often without life preservers), and then WALK hundreds of miles to get to Germany or the UK or Sweden....maybe it's because Saudi Arabia (and the UAE, etc.) aren't living up to their regional, moral obligations?

That's true.

[Loki]

I'm sorry, but are you two talking about Saudi Arabia and moral obligations in the same sentence? Really? Why not call for Donald Trump to house each of the refugees in his personal villas?

[GGT]

If people will stop bringing up Germany like they're some shining beacon of doing the right thing then I'll stop having a go. The only thing worse than the fact that Germany is being utterly moronic and rather evil here is that they're being held up as being good. Encouraging people to pay people smugglers while doing fuck all to help is evil and I will not stand idly by while people suggest they are doing anything right here.

Nobody has yet named a single good thing they're actively doing other than accepting those who've paid people smugglers and made their own way in a Darwinian survival of the fittest - big deal.

Apparently, it IS a big deal to accept around 800,000 refugees (which is less than 1% of their total population) because other EU nations won't/can't do the same thing.

How do you figure that? If the EU was acting co-ordinated would make zero difference whatsoever unless they were being co-ordinated doing the right thing. Being co-ordinated doing the wrong thing would make things worse not better.

The EU "experiment" was based on more than a common currency. It was based on policies that were coordinated between its members. I get what you're saying, though....since you weren't a fan of England being an EU member in the first place.

I'm sorry, but are you two talking about Saudi Arabia and moral obligations in the same sentence? Really? Why not call for Donald Trump to house each of the refugees in his personal villas?

Yeah, I'm calling out the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for its lack of response to the growing humanitarian crisis in their own region. But I'm also questioning why the hell the US considers SA an "ally"?

[Loki]

Clearly not because of its humanitarianism.

[RandBlade]

Apparently, it IS a big deal to accept around 800,000 refugees (which is less than 1% of their total population) because other EU nations won't/can't do the same thing.

If they were taking 800k then it would be a big deal. But they're not.

The EU "experiment" was based on more than a common currency. It was based on policies that were coordinated between its members. I get what you're saying, though....since you weren't a fan of England being an EU member in the first place.

That's just not true.

[GGT]

If they were taking 800k then it would be a big deal. But they're not.

Didn't Germany say they'd accept 800,000 refugees over the next ten years? And isn't that less than 1% of their total population?

That's just not true.

Well then, what IS true? As a Brit you'd be more amenable to the EU experiment...if XYZ policies were more favorable to the UK?