As a person living in a very, VERY conservative part of Austria, refugees are not really welcome in the minds of many that live here.
Which is on the part of me and my family, not the case. I try to show my support of refugees by baking a cake for the local refugee center, raising my word in town discussions and so on. (Yes I'm 15 but still invited to those discussions / meetings)
So I just wanted to know what you, my dear Armorgames people, think of the whole refugee problematic.
I think that nations should try and provide a form of relief to refugees fleeing from wartorn places because they are in need of help of a most basic kind, sustenance, shelter, etc. I think it's a given that such necessities should be provided.
The problem arises thereafter. Should the European nations affected grant them a stay that would in all probabilities be long term, or if not, permanent? I don't think it's entirely fair to the citizens of the nations refugees are fleeing to, the bear the burden of that responsibility in such high numbers. Perhaps the government can accept a sustainable number of refugees, but if you're talking about almost a million refugees by 2016, then even the most welcoming of hearts will surely balk.
Ultimately the responsibility of a government is to its people, the people who make the country run, who voted them as their representatives, the people who already live there. The citizens have every right to be angered by huge deluges of migrants who threaten that stability, even if the migrants have no say in the matter and ought to be shown compassion. But compassion can only run that far, if it starts to affect job prospects, housing opportunities, education chances. It's not the most politically correct thing to say, but the refugee crisis needs to be solved in some other way apart from just taking in everyone, preferably in the bud. But that is far far easier said then done.
Even the Germans are stirring restlessly, and if there's a people in Europe who have taught themselves to be tolerant because of a horrible tainted past, it's the Germans.
We have the attractive choices of bearing the sudden and large economic and social burden of providing for a sudden influx of people, or leaving them to die. While option one won't be fun, we can't justify option two until we can't do option one at all.
The problem arises thereafter. Should the European nations affected grant them a stay that would in all probabilities be long term, or if not, permanent?
Most refugees do not really have an option to go back, at least not in the near future. We will have to leave our comfort zone and allow them to stay as long as the situation in their home countries is not over.
It would, however, be a lot easier right now if European countries had actually prepared for the situation early enough instead of waiting until the crisis reached its current level and shove the responsibility to others like children. The signs were there; in that aspect I consider the EU to have failed - failed to act responsibly, both towards the refugees and their own citizen.
I don't think it's entirely fair to the citizens of the nations refugees are fleeing to, the bear the burden of that responsibility in such high numbers. Perhaps the government can accept a sustainable number of refugees, but if you're talking about almost a million refugees by 2016, then even the most welcoming of hearts will surely balk.
We Europeans are whining the loudest yet taking in the least amount of refugees. Even Germany has taken in less than 300'000 refugees this year with a population of over 80 millions. France has taken in about a tenth of that (and whines accordingly more). Meanwhile, Lebanon hosts almost 1.2 million refugees, approximately a fifth of its total population. No single European country even makes it into the top 10 refugee host countries. See now why I say that we need to leave our comfort zone?
I really do understand that it is a burden for host countries and I am not proposing that we just let everyone come and settle in. But I consider it our moral duty to take our share of the cake and do what we can to avoid people dying unnecessarily before our front door. And we should really stop listening to the fear-mongering of our conservative and extreme right parties.
@HahiHa I fully understand your point. But refugees often choose to go to a country that is near to them and does better than them. (The EU isn't really near is it) But yes, our countries are passing Refugees on like the hot potato. We here in Austria as a whole are accepting of refugees and willing to take more in (See the elections in Vienna) Only that they more often choose to go to the more well-known Germany. (But we've got quite many too, not that we're not attractive)
The first refugees moved into our town a month ago and they are still coming. And all of them are terribly nice. So the council (which my mother is a part in), decided that there will be 10 more coming. We Austrians are now more attractive for the refugees, it seems and I am looking forward to the next "wave" of sorts of refugees. (In my town, I can't speak for the others)
I think that it is high time that someone asked why it is the western world's responsibility to care for millions of refugees from third world countries. I get the whole sympathy and humanitarianism thing but I very strongly believe that a country's first and foremost alliegence is to its own people and their welfare.
@HahiHa don't play the worn out old fear monger and right wing hate card crap. No one who remotely cares about their society's well being wants an avalanche of refugees with ZERO respect and understanding for their culture and country dumped off in their city. It is wrong of the refugees to mass migrate to another land and expect the country that they show up at to deal with all their problems free of charge at the expense of that country's citizens and government. I know that they don't have a lot of choice, but c'mon. Here's an idea; if you can't feed yourself maybe you should think twice before you have more babies than you can count with your fingers. That is if you can even count at all.
Final point:
People who don't want a tidal wave of third world refugees on the their doorstep are not hateful right wing fear mongers. They are just normal people that don't want a HUGE increase in violent crime in their town/city, they don't want to be taxed even more to death to pay for the food, healthcare, and housing for millions of people, they don't want to be treated like garbage by the very people they saved just because they are white Europeans, etc etc etc...
So I guess they are kind of afraid, who wouldn't be? What if these migrants riot and plan to rob or pillage. How many cops will it take to control it?
don't play the worn out old fear monger and right wing hate card crap.
You say this, and then have the guts to go on fear mongering about supposed avalanches of brainless criminals? Pretty much none of what you just said actually applies to the average refugee. They're people like you and me, not criminals. They're educated or trained in a profession, being able to work and merit their place. They want to start a new life away from the war, not pillage our villages or whatnot.
It is wrong of the refugees to mass migrate to another land and expect the country that they show up at to deal with all their problems free of charge at the expense of that country's citizens and government. I know that they don't have a lot of choice, but c'mon.
Where do you get the idea that they expect all this, or any of it? The small children might, but small children have irrational expectations no matter where they're situated. When people are fleeing for their lives, it's usually a sign that their problems are beyond dealing with.
Here's an idea; if you can't feed yourself maybe you should think twice before you have more babies than you can count with your fingers. That is if you can even count at all.
Or, better yet, have no children. After all, if your nation looks like it might come into future turmoil, you may as well end your lineage now and save yourself the trouble. There's literally no downside!
People who don't want a tidal wave of third world refugees on the their doorstep are not hateful right wing fear mongers.
Very probably, but it shouldn't surprise you that hateful right wing fear mongers do have a tendency to not want tidal waves of third world refugees on the their doorsteps.
They are just normal people that don't want a HUGE increase in violent crime in their town/city, [...]
Right, so they shouldn't relegate immigrants to dead-end minimum wage jobs with no benefits and no security.
[...] they don't want to be treated like garbage by the very people they saved just because they are white Europeans, etc etc etc...
1 Treating people like garbage is not the exclusive right of early settlers. Don't expect the people you view as stupid wastrels to regard you as sainted royalty.
2 Why do they have to be "white" Europeans? What does that have to do with anything? You are aware that not all Europeans are caucasian, right?
What if these migrants riot and plan to rob or pillage.
What if a crowd of home-grown European citizens did the same? Statistically speaking, this would be a far more prevalent danger.
I understand and empathize with the need and duty to help those in such dire straits, but naturally people are going to fear such a deluge (even if its small compared to what other nations like turkey are going through). Even if the vast majority of them are simply people like the average Joe, law abiding people, ultimately they're still going to add more strain on nations that struggle to cope with the needs of their own people.
Then again, I come from a nation that is absolutely tiny in terms of land size and resources, so if such a thing ever did happen here, the locals wouldn't exactly be very happy. I'm all for at the very least helping them out with basic necessities in the short run, but I'm not very clear on what I feel next to do. Compassion tugs at my heart, but a fear of pragmatic related troubles works on my mind for this issue.
But yes, I definitely do agree with the need to stop fear mongering.
if you can't feed yourself maybe you should think twice before you have more babies than you can count with your fingers. That is if you can even count at all.
Well, the majority of the refugees are from Syria, they really don't have a choice.
Right, so they shouldn't relegate immigrants to dead-end minimum wage jobs with no benefits and no security.
I don't think that they should not be allowed to achieve better jobs/whatever but at the same time they should not be given an excessive amount of handouts or appointed to higher places just because they act needy.
Well, the majority of the refugees are from Syria, they really don't have a choice.
What! How is this even an excuse? How does coming from Syria make it OK to make more babies than they can feed.
Or, better yet, have no children. After all, if your nation looks like it might come into future turmoil, you may as well end your lineage now and save yourself the trouble. There's literally no downside!
A very stupid retort. I am saying that if you are in a situation where resources are scarce and you are experiencing tough times you should not complicate things by having kids. On the other hand, there is zero unrest where I am. Why then should I refrain from having a big needy family if I can support them? Because there just might be unrest years and years from now? No one lives like that. This has gone kind of off topic.
2 Why do they have to be "white" Europeans? What does that have to do with anything? You are aware that not all Europeans are caucasian, right?
What I should have said is civilized Europeans, not white.
What if a crowd of home-grown European citizens did the same? Statistically speaking, this would be a far more prevalent danger.
Aside from the Greeks, who else has in recent memory. Why would they? They will have a reason though if their money is taken from them by the government who takes it to spend it on the invaders. Still, the average suppressed European is far less violent and offensive than someone who comes from a war torn riotvile where people get bombed, shot, and machetted to death on the street on a daily basis. Who wants people like that standing next to them in line.
Where do you get the idea that they expect all this, or any of it? The small children might, but small children have irrational expectations no matter where they're situated. When people are fleeing for their lives, it's usually a sign that their problems are beyond dealing with
Of course they expect it: if they could handle themselves they wouldn't be showing up at various countries borders with no way to procure any of what I listed, asking to be given asylum. Unless they are somehow able be of use to society, how else are they going to pay for their mess and needs?
What! How is this even an excuse? How does coming from Syria make it OK to make more babies than they can feed.
My point was that the majority are attempting to migrate to Europe because of the war in Syria. It's not because they have more babies than they can feed, which I think is just a minor reason that doesn't properly cover the issue. We didn't exactly see a huge number of migrants before the civil war - the war is the driving force. It's of no fault of theirs, and help should be extended.
I don't think that they should not be allowed to achieve better jobs/whatever but at the same time they should not be given an excessive amount of handouts or appointed to higher places just because they act needy.
Which is not happening so why mention it?
A very stupid retort. I am saying that if you are in a situation where resources are scarce and you are experiencing tough times you should not complicate things by having kids. On the other hand, there is zero unrest where I am. Why then should I refrain from having a big needy family if I can support them? Because there just might be unrest years and years from now? No one lives like that. This has gone kind of off topic.
It had nothing to do with the topic to begin with...
What I should have said is civilized Europeans, not white.
Maybe just 'European' is enough. And it isn't happening either so again, why mention it?
Of course they expect it: if they could handle themselves they wouldn't be showing up at various countries borders with no way to procure any of what I listed, asking to be given asylum. Unless they are somehow able be of use to society, how else are they going to pay for their mess and needs?
As I said before, refugees are usually educated or trained in a job; they had an employment before they had to flee, so they can handle themselves in another country if given the opportunity as well.
Aside from the Greeks, who else has in recent memory. Why would they? They will have a reason though if their money is taken from them by the government who takes it to spend it on the invaders. Still, the average suppressed European is far less violent and offensive than someone who comes from a war torn riotvile where people get bombed, shot, and machetted to death on the street on a daily basis. Who wants people like that standing next to them in line.
They are refugees, not invaders. We are definitely not being suppressed by them. People with war traumas can and need to be treated in order to avoid complications; as for violent behaviour, what about those Europeans burning down shelters and lodgings? Besides, criminality has not risen as one would expect according to the way you portray refugees.
A very stupid retort. I am saying that if you are in a situation where resources are scarce and you are experiencing tough times you should not complicate things by having kids. On the other hand, there is zero unrest where I am. Why then should I refrain from having a big needy family if I can support them? Because there just might be unrest years and years from now? No one lives like that.
Still, the average suppressed European is far less violent and offensive than someone who comes from a war torn riotvile where people get bombed, shot, and machetted to death on the street on a daily basis.
No, they aren't.
Of course they expect it: if they could handle themselves they wouldn't be showing up at various countries borders with no way to procure any of what I listed, asking to be given asylum.
Which is exactly why they don't expect it. When a problem is insurmountable, you abandon it; you don't pawn it off onto someone else. In their case, the problem was nationwide, so they fled.
Unless they are somehow able be of use to society, how else are they going to pay for their mess and needs?
my personal view is very divided...
of course i understand their need for safety. and of course i think we should provide this to them. however, once they got safety, they start making demands... this is where the problems start. some of these people have just been send to shelters here locally. the day after they got in, finally safe and a view on a future again, they started to demand that they all get a home for themselves... and the reason behind it was that they can't take a girl to their home. if they do that all 400 of them would **** her...
personally i do not want to help people with such mindset.. they are just scum.
also.. the ease that we take all those people in concerns me. it is very easy for isis to infiltrate europe incognito..
For me there are no two options here, it is just one. Accept them and offer them all we can provide. Yes, it is dangerous, yes there will be some cases of individuals asking for more than we can provide, but the destruction and brutality of war knows no bounds. The day we deny the refugees their means of escape from the horrors of war is the day sacrifice our humanity for our perceived safety. And that day everything changes. How can we call ourselves 'human' after that?
