Forum:Refugee Crisis

< Index | Politics discussion

Hey everyone, I was wondering if anyone had a good place to get unbiased information about the Refugee crisis, because at this point there is so much false information floating around its hard for me to know what to believe. Every comment section seems to be flooded with anti-refugee sentiment, even on liberal publications, claiming that anything defending refugees is a lie and that they are actually economic migrants. I was hoping someone had an unbiased source of info, I've been using the UNHCR data for a while, but its hard to draw conclusions from. -Nabirius

Trump Turkey wants to build a wall buffer zone to prevent them from coming in to turkey, and Europe would like to as well, if it weren't for the fact that the zone would be in syria and the syrian authorities are proving uncooperative in this matter. 02:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I heard something similar to that as well, I had also heard that Germany was quietly supportive of the move. However would this constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention and the rights that it ensures to refugees, or does the fact that they aren't being specifically targeted make them not defined as refugees? I also wanted to ask about to what degree the refugee population is skewed male, and how many are purely economic migrants. -Nabirius

The only people who support "refugees" (99% of whom are economic migrants and are not real refugees) flooding European countries are champagne socialists like Benedict Cumberbatch. Note though none of these people will want the refugees anywhere near their millionaire mansions (can you image Cumberbatch letting Calais migrants in one of his homes?).OldSword (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to support that claim? -Nabirius

Old Sword won't give you that info since he has a bias view on Muslims.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC) 04:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

<asshole> Why do the refugees want to go to Europe? No, not why THEY want to go to Europe, but why they want to go TO Europe? It's because Europeans MADE Europe the relative paradise that it is. You think that Europe has anything special about it? It's not swimming in oil, its easy to reach resources have been long gone. It's the blood and sweat of European ancestors that made it what it is. So the refugees want to come to the EU? Let them bleed for it like our grandparents did, and my grandparents weren't even European. Let them sweat. Let them toil. And let them tear.

What am I suggesting? 4 options to all refugees. If they have incredibly useful skills, no not mechanics and machinists that will just depress wages for Europeans, but engineers and scientists and artists, then in. If not, join the military and earn citizenship through battle; the actual meaning of blood thicker than water is that your fellow soldiers are your blood brothers versus the water of the womb. Those that are neither highly talented nor willing to earn a place? Sent back. Fourth option is, well, it ain't pretty.</asshole>StickySock (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Nabirius, if you support "refugees" - will you let them sleep in your home? This is the hypocrisy - the liberal/left wing "luvvies" who claim to be for open-borders will not have the "refugees" anywhere near their homes.OldSword (talk) 11:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

As the refugee are biologically the same with the locals, and just lack some schooling, why not to educate them to become competent citizens like the locals? Why can people originally lived the European region come to the American continent and take their land, but can't people originally lived the Syria peacefully come to EU to get a small place to live?--Scientist (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The Economist

Good coverage, very close to unbiased. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 04:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you I will check it out. -Nabirius

Close, but not really. Although it's a pro-refugee bias, so if you read the horrid comment section, it will balance out. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

What SHOULD have been done

It's too late to do much now, but what they should have done is created a way to make sure they are getting refugees and not economic migrants. Basically, if they're coming from Syria or Yemen, they're a refugee. North Africa? Not so much. That would solve most of the problems, except the die hard racists.

If they wanted to let economic migrants in anyway, the key has to be integration. You could put a hard quota on economic migrants, but a more humane solution would be to split them up and make sure they distribute around the country more or less evenly. If you have thousands of people all going into one ghetto, they'll never integrate.

Since it's only a matter of time before the rapes come up, the way to avoid those is to make it easier for the men who come over to get the visas for their families approved. Many of them are married men, or older sons, who are trying to get family visas approved. You won't have problems if the excess of single men goes away.

If I was in charge of, say, Germany, I would have set a hard quota at 100,000 a year, absolute preference to war refugees, and have a special government bureau to get them decent housing while they look for employment. The bureau will also be able to make sure they spread out, and have to interact with the locals and integrate. Free German classes for those who need it.

A lot of you may say hard quotas are harsh, but you have the current mess because large numbers of people are living in refugee camps and whatnot, many of whom do not speak the native language and have little chance of employment. The state could correct all of those issues, with resources, but not for unchecked numbers. 100,000 people a year who will need government housing assistance and language programs is probably unrealistic as it is, but successful integration is more important that taking as many as possible. We've seen how that turns out. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

So Libyans, Algerians, and Egyptians are economic migrants?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC) 04:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of the sitaution in Libya, but wasn't aware of a civil war to the extant of Syria going on in Algeria or Egypt. I'm defining refugees as people who's life are in danger, such as the in the Syrian conflict which has killed about 100,000 civilians and displaced about 8 million. Coups and regime changes in North Africa, violent as they may be, don't come close. Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

They may not come close in size, but its likely that they do cause a not insubstantial amount of displacement. Also UNHRC statistics show that ~87% of refugees come from a combonation of Syria, Afganistan, and Iraq (although it doesn't show the Turkey-Hungary land route, I would imagine it similarly dominated by Syrians) (http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php). I don't know how you would define and find economic migrants either, I don't have any good statistics of how many there are. -Nabirius

Last time I checked Algeria and Egypt were repressive regimes.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC) 05:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Along with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Israel if you're Palestinian, etc. Shall you invite them all? Those fleeing violence should be allowed in, the rest, as space allows. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

What should have happened is the UN should have stepped in a stopped it from getting to this stage instead picking sides and arming people. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)