-
@mooshld said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@Frank said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
Nick (or other liberals on this board)- aside from the obvious of not meddling in Syria in the first place (thanks Obama and Hillary and Kerry) what would you have done / do about the refugee problem?
-Would you have blocked them in the first place and forced them to go to only Arab countries?
-Set up enclosed refugee camps in countries nearby like Turkey?
-Or let them in wholesale like Merkel has?
-Would you start to deport them now in the wake of these terror attacks?I have asked a bunch of liberals these questions and have yet to hear any concrete plan - except saying tolerance every third word and a sense we owe these people somehow.
Personally, I would never have let them come in because I totally disagree with importing people with massively different belief systems, especially when an unknown proportion are actively despise the West and/or are at least sympathetic to Jihadist causes. On top of that, there are a large proportion that while not ISIS affiliated, are extremely anti-human rights.
Frank, seems odd that you would leave Putin and China off the list of people who meddled in Syria.
I see it as a dammed if you do dammed if you don't situation. You talk about human rights but if you don't give those same rights to the refugees are you any better then the people who would deny yours?
I am not sure how you force Arab countries to take them, without more meddling. Or how you block them, we are talking about a continent here. The border sizes are ridiculous If a wall won't keep Mexicans out of the US how would you block the entire Mediterranean coastline? Not to mention the land borders.
How do you get turkey to let them in over their borders without more meddling? If Turkey don't want anything to do with this, western influence to get them to become the holding ground is hardly going to go down well now is it.
Merkel had 2 choices in my view set up a program to let them in process them begin applications for residency start background checks, feed, cloth and house those in need. Try and root out the nasty buggers and send them back. Or she could let the majority starve at the border while those who could would have found a way in anyway and set themselves up outside the system illegally. She couldn't close every border in Europe any more then she could persuade them all that there was a better life waiting for them in Saudi, which lets be honest there wasn't. Those people were not going to go away after all they had endured to get there.
Would I deport all the syrian refugees in the wake of the attacks? If you are talking about the train attack, the xmas market attack, and Koln Train station assaults? As far as I am aware the train attack was an Afghan the Train station assaults were from mostly illegal immigrants not refugees and mostly not Syrian and the Xmas market is still unknown.
Would I deport a million people on the basis of these incidents. No I would not and I think that leads down a very dark path that the Germans are only too familiar with. Would I deport the perpetrators Hell yes!
In the midst of a massive humanitarian crisis. With 100's of people washing up dead daily on your beaches after trying to enter illegally, I would rather get them safe and legal and sort them out after approach. Is it perfect, Nope its not some will slip through. But I am yet to hear anyone regardless of political leaning come up with a better solution.
Frank where do you live? I find your comment about disagreeing about importing people with massively different belief systems a bit odd. That pretty much describes all of human history.
Anyway thats my take on it I don't have answers but I don't want a million people to starve or drown to death on my door step.
Merkel had many more than 2 choices, the most obvious one was not to invite them into Europe to arrive at her doorstep in the first place.
-
@gollum said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
The important thing to me is to discriminate between refugees & economic migranrts, as Mooshld says, the Train assaults were almost all (all?) north africa economic migrants, usually there illegally. I've lost count the nymber of times they interview a refugee on telly he's actually a Pakistani or Algerian. They can fuck off back in a Hercules. It doesn't even have to land, it can just get low & open the doors. Its a massive failure in Europe that no one is trying to actually vet anyone. It took the press about 3 days to find out a 16 year old "child" let in to the UK was 25.
The vast majority of people desperately fleeing for their lives will do everything then can to fit in. Economic migrants coming over to earn some cash to send home are different.
Re how I'd treat the migrants differently, I'd wave through families with young kids, women, especially with a professional qualification (ie able to contribute), all of Syria's middle class has fled, thats a lot of doctors, engineers etc. Most of whom speak some other language. Women with young kids are what Europe needs. And they very rarely explode.
Single males, especially young single males need to be made to jump through a shit-ton of hoops, first of which is to prove who they are and where they are from. And even then they should be on a staggeringly short leash. EG you turn up as a single 25 year old male, once you prove you are Syrian & not say, Pakistani or Saudi or Iranian, great, you now have a 5 day a week job picking up rubbish & on your off days you are learnig German / English.
And obviously, full DNA database for everyone coming in.
Anyone turning up & demanding to go to x country instead can get in the Hercules too.
All the refugees should have stayed in neighboring countries. They were not in danger there, and were in a position to be easily transferred back. The best place for dispossessed people is back in thier own country.
-
@NTA said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@Frank said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
aside from the obvious of not meddling in Syria in the first place (thanks Obama and Hillary and Kerry)
And Bush and Bush Snr and Saddam and KSA and Iran and Israel and ... the fucking list goes on. Not a lot of people look good in this, so don't throw it at the last guy on the throne.
As for an answer: I love your idealism. Sure. Close the borders.
What if they tried to cross the border? Are you going to start shooting them? Call in the military and bomb them? Even if every citizen was 100% behind your actions?
You know those lines on a map aren't electrified flaming pits full of ravenous hellhounds, right? You start using violence on people with nothing to lose, you're going to get a result worse than what they have.
Trying to stop 900,000 people going into Germany - or anywhere in Europe - reeks of ignorance. Or madness. That's more than the standing military of Russia, just for reference. More than 20 times the size of available German Paramilitary resources. Even the German military number less than 200,000.
This is a fucking crisis. The time to avert it and make plans for a peaceful Syria died years ago, so people are doing what they can. Nobody has handled it perfectly, so they're trying to make a plan that returns things to "normal" as soon as possible.
But no, fine. You and Baron and Wairau sit back and relax while the bodies pile up. I'm sure your smug sense of "Not My Problem" and "Islam hates everyone" keeps you warm at night.
I, for one, don't lose any sleep over it. At the same time, I have never been more grateful to live in a geopolitically stable region.
How fucking naive do you ahve to be? They all ended up in Europe why? Sure as shit not because they feared for their lives. What kind of fucked up version of events do you have that you think they were all in mortal danger right up until they got to Europe.
All the ones that that came from Afganistan, Tunisia, Pakistan etc.. there were not safe places along that route? -
@TeWaio said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
Amid the bloody carnage left by hate, Angela Merkel is a beacon of sanity
Anne PerkinsIn her steadfast response to the terror attack in Berlin, the German chancellor reveals herself to be the strongest voice of liberal values in Europe.
Merkel trying had to ephasize the difference between terrorists and refugees.
Is that a satirical article? Or just fake news? It is confused nowdays.
-
@mooshld said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
What I find absurdly naive, is the argument above that those pouring into Europe are all starving Syrians who will die if they don't get to Europe. What complete horseshit.
I am not sure who claimed that, it certainly was not me. There are plenty of other people coming into Europe and certainly there were some that used the Syrian crisis as an opportunity. But you can't deny that given the choice of living in that war zone or doing anything they could to get out. Plenty of people took insane risks to get away and thousands died trying. Most north African economic immigrants that come illegally are not bothering to travel overland through half of Europe though they just get a ferry to Spain.
A working asylum system should find those that have no right to be here and deport them. It will take time though and I am happy to take the cost of that over the alternative of blocking them on the border and setting up a barricade in the med to send back the boats and forcing people to live in a war zone.
I don't expect everyone to agree with my view. I would love to hear how someone could do better, without "Meddling" or passing the buck to some other country.
Yes you did. You said that Merkel had no other option and talked about them "starving to death on your doorstep". And yes there were plenty of other options proposed by other people, you just choose to ignore them.
I don't want to be rude because your idealism is admirable, but I question your grasp on reality. Have you ever talked to someone involved in the asylum/deportation process or even bothered to read about it? Are you aware of the time, money and resources involved in processing and deporting a single person? By hey, I guess you personally won't be involved with that process and you personally won't have to share your neighbourhoods and towns with "starving" young men. Other people can sort out and deal with the consequences while you virtue signal.
I totally get that people coming from a shithole will want to get to a better country (or one offering heaps of free shit). Shit, if I was a young man from these places I might even try in on myself. But, that does not mean that Europe has an obligation to throw open it's borders to everyone wanting to come and then "figure it out from there". That's farking insane.
-
The all religions are fucked argument is 100% true. All religions are fucked. But you just cannot ignore that some are more fucked than others. In 2016 Islam is, by a country fucking mile, the worst of the religions. That is due to A. the sheer number of Muslims and B. the religion has had no reformation in its history, so all of the teachings are based on what was seen as OK 1000s of years ago.
Even if you take out all of the terrorist attacks, the sheer number of human rights atrocities that are committed in Muslim countries in the name of Islam dwarfs all other religions. That doesn't make any other religion superior, they're all shit, but to ignore the biggest offender by claiming they are all bad while ignoring statistical evidence is head in the sand bullshit.
The "peaceful" Muslims argument is a load of shit. If a woman lives under the thumb of her husband, is not allowed out of the house without him, is beaten if she steps out of line, regularly raped and is consigned to a life in the kitchen/house are they "peaceful" because the husband has not strapped a bomb to his chest in a crowded area? Or do we not care about those aspects of Islam as long as we can say "oh the majority of them don't commit acts of terror so there's nothing inherently wrong with Islam!".
That sort of stuff is common practice in Muslim countries. Which is fucking insane. Which is why Islam is the worst religion of the lot.
When you take the above into account, then it's not hard to see why mass immigration from Muslim countries to the West is causing serious fucking problems. Yes any immigration has the issue of integration, but the difference in culture between Muslim countries and Western countries is absolutely huge, far greater then any other cultures.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
How fucking naive do you ahve to be? They all ended up in Europe why? Sure as shit not because they feared for their lives. What kind of fucked up version of events do you have that you think they were all in mortal danger right up until they got to Europe.
All the ones that that came from Afganistan, Tunisia, Pakistan etc.. there were not safe places along that route?I'm not sure if you're idealistic about how this whole crisis works, or just fucking ignorant.
The other countries passed them on. Same as asylum seekers that come to Australia go through half a dozen places that don't fucking want them. Even if they'd taken their fair share, there was no political or community desire for them. Those fleeing the conflict weren't welcomed or even tolerated anywhere else. Greece had the arse out of its pants, Hungary wasn't much better in terms of being able to settle for even a short time and find temporary employment, welfare support, or humanitarian aid.
Its the same problem Germany realised when a million people start clamouring on the doorstep.
You honestly think Turkey was going to take everyone? With a war on its doorstep and a coup around the corner every so often? Fuck who is the naive one?
-
@NTA said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
How fucking naive do you ahve to be? They all ended up in Europe why? Sure as shit not because they feared for their lives. What kind of fucked up version of events do you have that you think they were all in mortal danger right up until they got to Europe.
All the ones that that came from Afganistan, Tunisia, Pakistan etc.. there were not safe places along that route?I'm not sure if you're idealistic about how this whole crisis works, or just fucking ignorant.
The other countries passed them on. Same as asylum seekers that come to Australia go through half a dozen places that don't fucking want them. Even if they'd taken their fair share, there was no political or community desire for them. Those fleeing the conflict weren't welcomed or even tolerated anywhere else. Greece had the arse out of its pants, Hungary wasn't much better in terms of being able to settle for even a short time and find temporary employment, welfare support, or humanitarian aid.
Its the same problem Germany realised when a million people start clamouring on the doorstep.
You honestly think Turkey was going to take everyone? With a war on its doorstep and a coup around the corner every so often? Fuck who is the naive one?
Other countries passed them on? No shit really? wow.... thanks for your continued insight.
Turkey has made a deal to hold on to the refugees, so actually they are tolerated, stop talking out of your ass. The refugees left safe places to move to Europe, that is a simple fact. Wether that was Turkey, Lebanon or Jordan. And why did they leave those safe places..? because Merkel said they could and would be welcomed in Europe, some of us said it was a retarded move at the time.
The reality is that the refugees could and should have stayed in the countries neighboring the war zone. That would have allowed proper processing and assessment.
Not the shit flow Merkel invited form all over the Islamic world. -
@No-Quarter said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
The all religions are fucked argument is 100% true. All religions are fucked. But you just cannot ignore that some are more fucked than others. In 2016 Islam is, by a country fucking mile, the worst of the religions. That is due to A. the sheer number of Muslims and B. the religion has had no reformation in its history, so all of the teachings are based on what was seen as OK 1000s of years ago.
Even if you take out all of the terrorist attacks, the sheer number of human rights atrocities that are committed in Muslim countries in the name of Islam dwarfs all other religions. That doesn't make any other religion superior, they're all shit, but to ignore the biggest offender by claiming they are all bad while ignoring statistical evidence is head in the sand bullshit.
The "peaceful" Muslims argument is a load of shit. If a woman lives under the thumb of her husband, is not allowed out of the house without him, is beaten if she steps out of line, regularly raped and is consigned to a life in the kitchen/house are they "peaceful" because the husband has not strapped a bomb to his chest in a crowded area? Or do we not care about those aspects of Islam as long as we can say "oh the majority of them don't commit acts of terror so there's nothing inherently wrong with Islam!".
That sort of stuff is common practice in Muslim countries. Which is fucking insane. Which is why Islam is the worst religion of the lot.
When you take the above into account, then it's not hard to see why mass immigration from Muslim countries to the West is causing serious fucking problems. Yes any immigration has the issue of integration, but the difference in culture between Muslim countries and Western countries is absolutely huge, far greater then any other cultures.
The argument that all religions are fucked therefore they are all equally fucked is just mental midgetry,
-
@NTA said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
How fucking naive do you ahve to be? They all ended up in Europe why? Sure as shit not because they feared for their lives. What kind of fucked up version of events do you have that you think they were all in mortal danger right up until they got to Europe.
All the ones that that came from Afganistan, Tunisia, Pakistan etc.. there were not safe places along that route?I'm not sure if you're idealistic about how this whole crisis works, or just fucking ignorant.
The other countries passed them on. Same as asylum seekers that come to Australia go through half a dozen places that don't fucking want them. Even if they'd taken their fair share, there was no political or community desire for them. Those fleeing the conflict weren't welcomed or even tolerated anywhere else. Greece had the arse out of its pants, Hungary wasn't much better in terms of being able to settle for even a short time and find temporary employment, welfare support, or humanitarian aid.
Its the same problem Germany realised when a million people start clamouring on the doorstep.
You honestly think Turkey was going to take everyone? With a war on its doorstep and a coup around the corner every so often? Fuck who is the naive one?
Don't fucking want them? They don't want to stay there either. This isn't a case of finding a safe haven, its about getting to the land of milk and honey. You think those coming to Australia are only doing it because they travelled to and were spat out of every country along the way?
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
Yes Nick, it was so much better when we spent billions more for the RAN to operate as a shuttle service for the people smuggling industry. You honestly want to go back to those times?
You've clearly missed something.
If an RAN ship happens to intercept a boat, it is required by the frameworks of international maritime law to render assistance. That part has not changed. They are required to render the same assistance today that they were before Operation Sovereign Borders was established. Captains who fail to follow the group of laws dealing with these situations may face prosecution.
So this "shuttle service" you are talking about is not actually a thing. The cost of running the RAN remains about the same. Similarly, Maritime surveillance carried out by the RAAF is unchanged.
Using a range of government agencies, including any part of the ADF, Border Force, Bureau of Met, etc. the intercept process is coordinated and appropriate measures - set down by Australian and International Maritime law - are followed. This includes coordination with Indonesia, where they decide to follow it. Indonesia's (sporadic) involvement is probably the only place where we've reduced some costs.
And I am fine with ALL the costs relating to surveillance and interception. That is a standard part of border patrolling. People who get towed back to Indonesia get towed back. The SAR zone we have is huge, but there are other ports and navies in that zone, and we can access them.
What is left sits in offshore detention centres, to the tune of $200K per person (maybe higher). Nauru has an average annual income of under $35K per year. PNG average salary is $46K. Even with overheads, spending 4-5 times the average salary per person seems a bit steep, and furthermore that is money that could be going to Australian industry to construct camps and process asylum seekers. The results would be the same, just that we wouldn't need to pay foreign governments for the privilege.
Its a good thing the other areas of Sovereign Borders, like buying off people smugglers, have worked so well to reduce the number of boat people.
Otherwise we'd be paying even bigger bribes to foreign governments.
-
@Frank said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
Personally, I would never have let them come in because I totally disagree with importing people with massively different belief systems,
You'd have been soooo fucked in the 30's if you're name was Frankenstein
I agree with Nick - there is no way we are in a World War - or even at war with Islam.
There a too many fucktards preaching jihad against the west but the overwhelming majority of muslims are still as abhorred by this as anyone on this board.
Add in the fact that most of ISIS' violence is directed at Shiites despite all the anti-western rhetoric
As for state sponsored terrorism - where to stop. All the permanent members of the Security Council have /do indulge all of the middle east lots of Europe
Too many absolutes on this thread.
I do agree with Frank that his difficult questions are just that - hard to answer.
Easy to say what should have been done - because you'll never be judged on the results of those hypothetical actions
-
@NTA said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
Yes Nick, it was so much better when we spent billions more for the RAN to operate as a shuttle service for the people smuggling industry. You honestly want to go back to those times?
You've clearly missed something.
If an RAN ship happens to intercept a boat, it is required by the frameworks of international maritime law to render assistance. That part has not changed. They are required to render the same assistance today that they were before Operation Sovereign Borders was established. Captains who fail to follow the group of laws dealing with these situations may face prosecution.
So this "shuttle service" you are talking about is not actually a thing. The cost of running the RAN remains about the same. Similarly, Maritime surveillance carried out by the RAAF is unchanged.
Using a range of government agencies, including any part of the ADF, Border Force, Bureau of Met, etc. the intercept process is coordinated and appropriate measures - set down by Australian and International Maritime law - are followed. This includes coordination with Indonesia, where they decide to follow it. Indonesia's (sporadic) involvement is probably the only place where we've reduced some costs.
And I am fine with ALL the costs relating to surveillance and interception. That is a standard part of border patrolling. People who get towed back to Indonesia get towed back. The SAR zone we have is huge, but there are other ports and navies in that zone, and we can access them.
What is left sits in offshore detention centres, to the tune of $200K per person (maybe higher). Nauru has an average annual income of under $35K per year. PNG average salary is $46K. Even with overheads, spending 4-5 times the average salary per person seems a bit steep, and furthermore that is money that could be going to Australian industry to construct camps and process asylum seekers. The results would be the same, just that we wouldn't need to pay foreign governments for the privilege.
Its a good thing the other areas of Sovereign Borders, like buying off people smugglers, have worked so well to reduce the number of boat people.
Otherwise we'd be paying even bigger bribes.
Give me a break Nick. Did the period from 2008 to 2013 not occur in your universe? Are you honestly advocating a return to that policy whereby Australia picks up everyone trying to get here and then brings them in for processing on the mainland? And yes the RAN was acting as a shuttle service and the poor fuckers on board had to dredge up the bodies. But that's fine for you Nick, because you're not out there and you can feel a good and wonderful inside.
As for cost. What do you think it will cost when people smugglers find out that Aus is open to business again? What do you think it will cost to process the 10s of thousands or more who will come here? If cost is your problem then you should prefer the current system, but I suspect you don't actually give a shit about the cost.
-
@Frank unfortunately, most of it is taken up by a salt water pool. And they've probably seen enough salt water for now
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
As for cost. What do you think it will cost when people smugglers find out that Aus is open to business again? What do you think it will cost to process the 10s of thousands or more who will come here? If cost is your problem then you should prefer the current system, but I suspect you don't actually give a shit about the cost.
You've missed the bit where I applauded the government's measures in Indonesia - particularly buying off people smugglers. They also advertised among local communities to report smugglers and departures. They went in and actually paid people off, bought decrepit boats off them to prevent departure, and got a semi-working arrangement with Indonesia to help stop the bullshit. That was actually the most cost-effective part of the plan. Should have put more money into it.
It has reduced the numbers turning up. That is a good thing if it prevents deaths at sea, and makes a few countries take on more of their obligations.
But they've pissed away that reduced interception cost by paying Nauru and PNG to host them at the tune of billions per year. I just googled it and estimates say about $400K per person. Pretty choice if you're the foreign government official on the end of that. The Indonesians must be angry they only got a few million for the info campaign. Cambodia will be laughing at them.
And the result is the same as if they're processed onshore: repatriation, resettlement in Australia for the worthy, or resettlement elsewhere. The promise of "you'll never reach Australia" has stopped a lot of them, but by definition the people in Manus or Nauru have actually gotten to Australia.
-
@NTA said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@Frank unfortunately, most of it is taken up by a salt water pool. And they've probably seen enough salt water for now
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
As for cost. What do you think it will cost when people smugglers find out that Aus is open to business again? What do you think it will cost to process the 10s of thousands or more who will come here? If cost is your problem then you should prefer the current system, but I suspect you don't actually give a shit about the cost.
You've missed the bit where I applauded the government's measures in Indonesia - particularly buying off people smugglers. They also advertised among local communities to report smugglers and departures. They went in and actually paid people off, bought decrepit boats off them to prevent departure, and got a semi-working arrangement with Indonesia to help stop the bullshit. That was actually the most cost-effective part of the plan. Should have put more money into it.
It has reduced the numbers turning up. That is a good thing if it prevents deaths at sea, and makes a few countries take on more of their obligations.
But they've pissed away that reduced interception cost by paying Nauru and PNG to host them at the tune of billions per year. I just googled it and estimates say about $400K per person. Pretty choice if you're the foreign government official on the end of that. The Indonesians must be angry they only got a few million for the info campaign. Cambodia will be laughing at them.
And the result is the same as if they're processed onshore: repatriation, resettlement in Australia for the worthy, or resettlement elsewhere. The promise of "you'll never reach Australia" has stopped a lot of them, but by definition the people in Manus or Nauru have actually gotten to Australia.
Nick that last part is complete bollocks. You close Nauru and Manus and the floodgates will open again. There is actually a point to offshore processing.
Your argument is eerily similar to Rudd in 2008. Too expensive, unnecessary cost etc. Well that worked out well didn't it.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
All the refugees should have stayed in neighboring countries. They were not in danger there, and were in a position to be easily transferred back. The best place for dispossessed people is back in thier own country.
As I said.. somewhere else, that has been what has happened till recently, but with 1.5m in Lebanon - a country of 6.5m people it can't cope. There is already Cholora & Typhoid breaking out in camps there & the camps themselves are, well, exactly what you would expect when 1.5m turn up in a tiny country with no cash... while Lebanon is always right on the edge of civil war anyway.
If a million Aussie refugees turned up in NZ could we cope? Could we fuck. We struggled to get shitroll to tourists in Kaikora. And then when another million arrive?
A lot of the "solutions" only work if you completely ignore the actual world. Not just the politics, logistics & economics but the geography too.
The borders of Syria are Turkey - taken 2.5m already, Lebanon (1.5m) Jordan (millionish) Iraq, fucking war zone but still taken a lot. And also the Iraq side is 90% desert, infact you have to cross miles of ISIS controlled desert to get to the Iraqi desert. And of course Israel. Who probably are not that keen...
So which neighboring countries would you put them in?
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@mooshld said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
What I find absurdly naive, is the argument above that those pouring into Europe are all starving Syrians who will die if they don't get to Europe. What complete horseshit.
I am not sure who claimed that, it certainly was not me. There are plenty of other people coming into Europe and certainly there were some that used the Syrian crisis as an opportunity. But you can't deny that given the choice of living in that war zone or doing anything they could to get out. Plenty of people took insane risks to get away and thousands died trying. Most north African economic immigrants that come illegally are not bothering to travel overland through half of Europe though they just get a ferry to Spain.
A working asylum system should find those that have no right to be here and deport them. It will take time though and I am happy to take the cost of that over the alternative of blocking them on the border and setting up a barricade in the med to send back the boats and forcing people to live in a war zone.
I don't expect everyone to agree with my view. I would love to hear how someone could do better, without "Meddling" or passing the buck to some other country.
Yes you did. You said that Merkel had no other option and talked about them "starving to death on your doorstep". And yes there were plenty of other options proposed by other people, you just choose to ignore them.
I don't want to be rude because your idealism is admirable, but I question your grasp on reality. Have you ever talked to someone involved in the asylum/deportation process or even bothered to read about it? Are you aware of the time, money and resources involved in processing and deporting a single person? By hey, I guess you personally won't be involved with that process and you personally won't have to share your neighbourhoods and towns with "starving" young men. Other people can sort out and deal with the consequences while you virtue signal.
I totally get that people coming from a shithole will want to get to a better country (or one offering heaps of free shit). Shit, if I was a young man from these places I might even try in on myself. But, that does not mean that Europe has an obligation to throw open it's borders to everyone wanting to come and then "figure it out from there". That's farking insane.
I m sorry you are wrong if you re-read what I wrote it was in response to Franks very specific question about how would a "liberal" handle the syrian refugee crisis. I answered with my ideas something that no one else has done regardless of their political persuasion. I did not say let everyone in the world in and let them sort it out later. i said let the refugees in and sort it out later. They were a very specific group in a very specific location at the time.
Before you start throwing around accusations about what my involvement with this process is I think its only fair that you disclose yours? Assuming you live in mainland Europe as I do then we will probably be relatively equally affected by the costs of this decision.
I have met several refugees and several Syrian ones at that I am acutely aware of the processes they have to go through. My town does have social housing available for refugees and is currently in the process of building more as mandated by the government. Though only a small percentage will actually be used for refugees. As the majority is earmarked for low income French families. I won't devolve what I have done personally as I am not some grandstanding prick.
-
@gollum said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Failed policy of Multiculturalism:
All the refugees should have stayed in neighboring countries. They were not in danger there, and were in a position to be easily transferred back. The best place for dispossessed people is back in thier own country.
As I said.. somewhere else, that has been what has happened till recently, but with 1.5m in Lebanon - a country of 6.5m people it can't cope. There is already Cholora & Typhoid breaking out in camps there & the camps themselves are, well, exactly what you would expect when 1.5m turn up in a tiny country with no cash... while Lebanon is always right on the edge of civil war anyway.
If a million Aussie refugees turned up in NZ could we cope? Could we fuck. We struggled to get shitroll to tourists in Kaikora. And then when another million arrive?
A lot of the "solutions" only work if you completely ignore the actual world. Not just the politics, logistics & economics but the geography too.
The borders of Syria are Turkey - taken 2.5m already, Lebanon (1.5m) Jordan (millionish) Iraq, fucking war zone but still taken a lot. And also the Iraq side is 90% desert, infact you have to cross miles of ISIS controlled desert to get to the Iraqi desert. And of course Israel. Who probably are not that keen...
So which neighboring countries would you put them in?
Is I don't really care as long as they don't come here an option?
The Failed policy of Multiculturalism