[Phantom Hoover]

(including my ancestors, we still haven't got any of it back)

not all bad these communists, imho the revolution must march on

[Dragon]

Says a guy from Scotland. The worst thing to happen to you was the English forbidding you from wearing kilts for some time. And even that didn't last. The commies did more damage to Poland in 50 years than the English to Scotland in two centuries.

Even Robin Hood was much better than the reds. He stole from the rich and gave to the poor. He never stole from the poor, nor did he take so much from those rich to make them poor themselves. Now, the commies stole everything from everyone, then declared everything "public property", which affected it similarly as making a toilet public affects it. Now half the country is in ruins and the other half has been sold to foreign companies. This is how wealth redistribution actually works. Before, there were rich and poor. After, there were only the poor (and no, not any richer than before, either. Poorer, actually).

[Phantom Hoover]

I'm personally from Scotland but every previous generation of my family was Irish and Catholic, so forgive me for being unmoved by your ancestors' hardship upon having their castle confiscated.

[Phantom Hoover]

And of course if you actually knew anything about Scotland you'd know about something called the Highland Clearances that happened when some ****ers who inherited a piece of paper from their dad saying "I own this village" weighed up your ideal of sustainable feudal land management on one hand, and making a ****load of money with sheep on the other

[qwadtep]

No. Seizing "excess" wealth from anyone, let alone those fleeing for their lives/livelihoods is never acceptable except as punishment for criminal wrongdoing.

Deny benefits on the basis of a financial means test or assets, fine. Actively seizing personal property from people who are already victims? That's wrong, no matter how you try to parse it.

Devil's advocate: it has become impossible to distinguish between those fleeing for their lives and those seeking to profit from the response. A mass migration of 80% fighting-age males does not fit the profile of a humanitarian crisis.

[DarkBasilisk]

IMO, the whole welfare system in most European countries needs to be redesigned to be less prone to exploits. It should only give you enough to sustain you while you're looking for a job. If you stop looking, you stop getting money (IIRC, Poland does just that). It shouldn't be enough to live too comfortably, or more than one could earn in the crappiest jobs available. Also, criteria for applying for support should be tightened. This apply to regular citizens, not only to refugees.

Honestly, I get some of the motivations behind it, but I think this mentality is a bit dated. We have to sit back and take a deep breath and realize that for the first time in history we really don't even need to have 100% of the eligible population working anymore. And overall, in cases where someone really is either handicapped by something (physical or mental), or just really against working a day to day job, making them do so usually costs society more than it gains in the long run. The people like that don't cause problems directly on the job (laziness/negligence can get really expensive) still grow up to be bitter unhappy people who raise children poorly and/or generally spread their unhappiness onto other functioning areas of society. It's why, I'm not just for unconditional basic income as a support structure so people never have to be worried about emergency costs ending them, I think a vital part of it could be finally keeping people not suited for work away from grinding against other parts of society.

That said, I think it should be still a lower end amount. But without the negative connotations.

[666maslo666]

Probably should have worded my argument better. By seizing excess wealth I meant taking compensation from richer refugees (not the average ones who dont have much) in exchange for services provided.

If refugees do not want to give up their wealth, they should be free to refuse government assistance and live off their wealth instead. Just like with welfare.

Dragon, my ancestors were robbed by the communists, too. Twice they lost almost everything. I have a lot of respect for private property. Which is one reason why I do not believe government assistance funded by taxes should go to wealthier people, no matter if they are welfare recipients or refugees or whatever.

As I said, we may talk about the details of this policy, but the core concept of it is sound and just. Comparisons with both nazis and communists are just wrong and fearmongering.

[Grizzly]

No. Seizing "excess" wealth from anyone, let alone those fleeing for their lives/livelihoods is never acceptable except as punishment for criminal wrongdoing.

Deny benefits on the basis of a financial means test or assets, fine. Actively seizing personal property from people who are already victims? That's wrong, no matter how you try to parse it.

Devil's advocate: it has become impossible to distinguish between those fleeing for their lives and those seeking to profit from the response. A mass migration of 80% fighting-age males does not fit the profile of a humanitarian crisis.

Whatever it may be, it's not an excuse for eradicating the innocent-until-proven-guilty concept that our laws are build upon. Jordan, a country where 1 out of every 3 people is a syrian refugee, does not do anything compared to this. Meanwhile, europe faces a situation where 1 out of every 2000 people is a syrian refugee. We're better then this. We should do better then this.

The higher proportion of fighting age males (not sure if it's that high, but okay, I'll roll with it) has more to do with migration systems in many european countries, that make it much easier for asylum-seekers to bring over their relatives once they already have been processed. In part because the system has no reason to deny entry to people who literally lived in the same place as someone they already approved, and in part because someone who has had their asylum approved already is allowed to work and thus make the money they need to support the parts of the family that still has to come over.

[Mikes]

And some European countries wonder why they have integration issues...

Yes clearly MP-Ryan ...  you recognized a bad thing and this bad thing and little else is THE Reason (TM) why we have integration issues in Europe, you nailed it. Congratulations. If only everyone else would have your insight the whole integration issue would be solved overnight.

[Grizzly]

And some European countries wonder why they have integration issues...

Yes clearly MP-Ryan ...  you recognized a bad thing and this bad thing and little else is THE Reason (TM) why we have integration issues in Europe, you nailed it. Congratulations. If only everyone else would have your insight the whole integration issue would be solved overnight.

The attitudes that have led to this being a thing were in place and were affecting immigration policy since this millenium.

[Bobboau]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/sweden-to-deport-up-to-80000-asylum-seekers/2016/01/28/1707fbb2-c59f-11e5-b933-31c93021392a_story.html
that's happening.

[Mikes]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/sweden-to-deport-up-to-80000-asylum-seekers/2016/01/28/1707fbb2-c59f-11e5-b933-31c93021392a_story.html
that's happening.

And you don't know why? Google Sweden, Immigration, Rape, Muslim.

Sweden has literally been overrun the last years, going by immigration per capita, and they simply can not handle it.

Also ... before someone mentions "Hitler" again, this is happening as well: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/rising-anti-semitism-challenges-swedens-proud-and-tolerant-self-image/2015/03/04/79ac1e4e-c2b0-11e4-a188-8e4971d37a8d_story.html


But of course MP-Ryan just told us "why" (yeah LOL haha, very funny, thanks so much) we have immigration problems.

[Col.Hornet]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/sweden-to-deport-up-to-80000-asylum-seekers/2016/01/28/1707fbb2-c59f-11e5-b933-31c93021392a_story.html
that's happening.

And you don't know why? Google Sweden, Immigration, Rape, Muslim.

Sweden has literally been overrun the last years, going by immigration per capita, and they simply can not handle it.

Which is pretty funny as I heared some voices on this forum that Europe CAN handle so many migrants, lol.

[Mikes]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/sweden-to-deport-up-to-80000-asylum-seekers/2016/01/28/1707fbb2-c59f-11e5-b933-31c93021392a_story.html
that's happening.

And you don't know why? Google Sweden, Immigration, Rape, Muslim.

Sweden has literally been overrun the last years, going by immigration per capita, and they simply can not handle it.

Which is pretty funny as I heared some voices on this forum that Europe CAN handle so many migrants, lol.

Whatever the case may be, Sweden at least can not handle the amount of immigrants they already have right now at all. That's a fact if there ever was one.

I mean what do you do if you notice that instead of immigrant integration you get persistent society disruption?

So yeah, I guess that means Realpolitics will be ugly this year. Or rather the choice is between ugly and even more ugly.


And don't take me wrong ... I don't want to use any of those facts to legitimize what is done in the original post. But i find it just as iditotic to use the issue in the OP to point out "why there are immigration issues".
Immigration is a complex problem and simplifying it down to a single issue like the OP title appears to attempt is downright insulting.

[The E]

Which is pretty funny as I heared some voices on this forum that Europe CAN handle so many migrants, lol.

You do know that Europe is not just Sweden, right

[Bobboau]

One of the advantages that europe has over the US on this issue, is the fact that despite the EU it is still a very loose confederation and countries can do more or less whatever they want. This means we get a diversity of responses to an issue like this and we get to see the effect those decisions have. So one upside to this whole nasty situation is it is generating a lot of data that we might be able to use to make better decisions in the future and while there are sure to be some courses of action that turn out to be worse than others some will be better too.

[Grizzly]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/sweden-to-deport-up-to-80000-asylum-seekers/2016/01/28/1707fbb2-c59f-11e5-b933-31c93021392a_story.html
that's happening.

And you don't know why? Google Sweden, Immigration, Rape, Muslim.

Sweden has literally been overrun the last years, going by immigration per capita, and they simply can not handle it.

Which is pretty funny as I heared some voices on this forum that Europe CAN handle so many migrants, lol.

We can. We totally can. The problem is not one of financial resources, as we have plenty. The problem is not one of culture: In the Netherlands, Iraqi refugees commit less crimes then the native dutch do (when accounting for economic status). The problem is not the sheer number of refugees: Many countries surrounding syria are actually overrun with migrants, and they made do untill the donations to the various UN funds and countries that managed the population declined. Lybia managed to do their job, and they have 1 refugee for every 3 nationals. We face 1 for every 2000.

The problem is that we rubbish it. The various EU countries could have seen the problem from miles away:

There has been an increased movement into Europe from Africa, from Asia, but slowly growing, and all of a sudden we had this massive increase in the first months of this year. Why? I think there are three reasons, two long-term ones and the trigger. The long-term ones, in relation to Syrians, is that hope is less and less clear for people. I mean, they look at their own country and they don't see much hope to go back home, because there is no political solution, so there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Second, the living conditions of the Syrians in the neighboring countries have been deteriorating. We just had research with the World Bank, and 87 percent of the Syrians in Jordan and 93 percent of the Syrians in Lebanon live below the national poverty lines. Only half of the children go to school, which means that people are living very badly. Not only are they refugees, out of home, not only have they suffered what they have suffered, but they are living in very, very dramatic conditions.

And then the trigger was when all of a sudden, international aid decreased. The World Food Programme was forced, for lack of resources, to cut by 30 percent food support to the Syrian refugees. They're not allowed to work, so they are totally dependent on international support, and they felt, "The world is abandoning us." And that, in my opinion, was the trigger. All of a sudden, there was a rush, and people started to move in large numbers and, to be absolutely honest, if I had been in the same situation and I would have been brave enough to do it, I think I would have done the same.

(You should really watch or read that entire talk linked above, it's good).

But the problem got worse because it was not properly managed. Because the various divided nations of the EU would rather run away from their responsibilities rather then face them, and now the responsibilities are catching up to them. I'm not asking that EU should suck it up and take it: I'm asking that the EU would do it's job properly, and organize itself just like all the other countries which never asked for this were just as capable of doing.

[Bobboau]

when you say 'responsibilities' are you referring to EU law (like the Schengen stuff), or more of general moral issues?

[Luis Dias]

I assume he's being general, and rightly so. You can't be legalistic in crisis like these, you have to stand up to the challenges and work hard to find solutions. Legally, the EU can probably just murder everyone trying to cross its borders. Perhaps that's what PEGIDA would find as being the "responsible thing to do", I mean, borders still mean something right? Countries do have territories. But the problem is just too obvious to overcome: we are all humans and cannot deal with this stuff in psychopathic terms.

So, if we cannot do that, we might as well start, as one of my teachers once said, "hold the bull in the horns and deal with it". Do the best you can. Have a sense of proportion, always.

Crisis are always moments of opportunities. I hope Europe can mostly take advantage of them and strenghten itself out with it. They failed their test in the Grexit crisis with a F ****ing minus, let's see how they fare now.

[Mika]

The problem is not one of financial resources, as we have plenty.

Speak for your own behalf, that's not the case here. Facing 8 % unemployment rates with around 500 000 people unemployed - and yes, I'm aware the official number is lower, that's because they don't count those "practising for work" to be officially unemployed, those 30 000 "refugee" dudes are going to cost us quite a lot. Starting from building their apartments that cost around 200 k€ / apartment around the Helsinki region. Not to mention the government has finally started to cut the spending, albeit the cuts are not directed to right places if you ask me. These factors really put some pressure on the immigration policy and really do pit the "refugees" against unemployed. It is no wonder to see rising tensions, especially as it appears that the only way to get the norms of the Finnish society through the "refugees" skulls is apparently by beating the crap out of them.

Now that Russian economy is crashing down and their immigrant workers are looking for better places and jobs (and ooh yes, there's hundreds of thousands of them), it makes me wonder whether Finland should pull the Greeks, ignore the Schengen and Dublin treaties and start selling trips to Central Europe. You can say what you will about that but hey, there's no denying that we are learning the EU way fast.