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.
No we don't. It is not "our" job to babysit the entire world and solve ALL of its problems. It's high time that these countries that the refugees are coming from solved some of their own problems for a change.
We are one world.
Agreed. Which is why we should all take equal responsibility for the world's problems. Additionally, we need to remember that having our own distinct nationality and identities does not equal isolationism. We can all maintain our own distinct identities and also be part of the global picture.
they are innocents trying to escape a war we've provoked and are actively fighting.
Yes, most of them are. But we can just let them all in at once with no highly efficient program to get them settled, employed, and beneficial to society. Now about the "We started the war" thing. Can you please explain how "we" provoked this train wreck of a disaster?
Agreed. Which is why we should all take equal responsibility for the world's problems.
Inaccurate. While we all have some responsibility, direct or indirect, we canot take equal responsibility because we are in no sense equally responsible. Ordinary citizens are not at all equally responsible to ISIS for the Terrorist attacks. Nor are they equally responsible to CIA for wiretapping everyone.
No we don't. It is not "our" job to babysit the entire world and solve ALL of its problems. It's high time that these countries that the refugees are coming from solved some of their own problems for a change.
Have you even read the link? If NATO is responsible for the whole mess, how is it that you don't owe these people anything? If you wanted them to "solve their own problems" maybe you (using you in the sense of NATO) shouldn't have created them to begin with. What, years of military intervention in the Middle East and you think these are just "their own problems"?
Can you please explain how "we" provoked this train wreck of a disaster?
Are you kidding me?
In Syria, refugees are fleeing because of the greater military powers' intervention (which are the ones that drop bombs there). How do you think that started?
That's not exactly true. A number of factors all come into play here, and the bombs from military intervention are just one part of it. The government's violence and the fighting both caused the deluge as well.
In any case, blame is not tangibly proportioned, violence, death and misery cannot be quantified and split up into various amounts of responsibilities. Intervening countries might "owe" a moral debt in some form but there are a great many things to consider before extending a helping hand. For one, it isn't practical at all to accept such a large number of refugees. The fears of the "natives" are well-founded and shouldn't be ignored.
That's not exactly true. A number of factors all come into play here, and the bombs from military intervention are just one part of it. The government's violence and the fighting both caused the deluge as well.
True, but I talked about the 'intervention' part in response to SportShark's claim "solve their own problems".
For one, it isn't practical at all to accept such a large number of refugees.
I agree to that, but I think that designing and implementing the necessary infrastructure to allow the massive influx of refugees and let them adapt socially and financially with minimal damage should be every European government's priority.
I agree to that, but I think that designing and implementing the necessary infrastructure to allow the massive influx of refugees and let them adapt socially and financially with minimal damage should be every European government's priority.
I disagree, any integration of migrants should and can only be for the short-term. (Although realistically, it does not seem the conflict is going to be solved in the near future) It's not going to be quite a mountain to climb because it's near impossible to not cause massive upheavals in countries that take in hundreds of thousands of migrants. It's not a problem that has a silver bullet to it, and in the long run it's far better to solve the problem in the nub by stabilizing Syria and stamping out ISIS.
You really can't blame nations who cannot take in that many refugees. You'll have to integrate them in and try not to disrupt what is already in place. I think the key problem here is, where can you get that many jobs suddenly? Sooner or later these people would want employment and a return to normal life. Perhaps if the inflow wasn't as rapid and sudden, the governments would be able to take them in at a more sensible and reasonable rate. But as it stands now, there doesn't seem to be a workable integration solution on such a scale. In an ideal world, I think most people would welcome refugees in, or at least feel morally obligated at the base level to help others, but no country is a land of plenty, overflowing with milk and honey.
and in the long run it's far better to solve the problem in the nub by stabilizing Syria and stamping out ISIS.
That is a better solution yes. It is better for the refugees themselves after all, but as you've pointed out in another thread, everyone is waiting to see how it unfolds and making it up along. With that attitude, stabilizing Syria will take far more time and effort.
Perhaps if the inflow wasn't as rapid and sudden, the governments would be able to take them in at a more sensible and reasonable rate.
There are multiple multi-nation organizations that can help that, EU to name the one that comes to mind instantly (even though that's obviously not its primary purpose). Possibly, through the cooperation of the member-nations, even a reasonable "allocation" could be drawn up without getting stuck in between the corroded gears of bureaucracy.
It is better for the refugees themselves after all, but as you've pointed out in another thread, everyone is waiting to see how it unfolds and making it up along. With that attitude, stabilizing Syria will take far more time and effort.
I meant that in the context of Assad being out of power. I think it's clear what the short term goals are though.
Yeah, but even if they attempt some allocation for example, the bare facts are that the resources just aren't there. Nearly a million refugees thus far will dwarf any effort towards integration. Housing has been eased in some countries through the use of old council houses, but I just don't see anyway around job opportunities for one.
Alot of the nations are still reluctant to accept more than a quota or even a quota.
Yeah, but even if they attempt some allocation for example, the bare facts are that the resources just aren't there. Nearly a million refugees thus far will dwarf any effort towards integration. Housing has been eased in some countries through the use of old council houses, but I just don't see anyway around job opportunities for one.
Relief efforts and other temporary solutions can work for the time being. And that's easy, anyone can help with charity events are being organized all around Europe.
Yes, but charity is no long term solution. Spirit is admirable, but everyone's caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. To kick or to welcome? To leave or to stay?
You've mentioned that you see no ways around some major problems with the massive influx of refugees So maybe what we need in fact is a short term solution, to further motivate the politicians to help stabilize the situation in the Middle East.
That is true. It might prove a positive thing that NATO has been more willing to step up military strikes and support troops, but we shall see how it unfolds. Personally I feel that Turkey also needs to be restrained and roped in for its covert support of ISIS and for being a transient route for refugees before solutions can really progress far.
Personally I feel that Turkey also needs to be restrained and roped in for its covert support of ISIS and for being a transient route for refugees before solutions can really progress far.
While, I do think the same, I also think my opinion is far more affected by prejudice than I would want, given the history between my nation and Turkey.
That is true. It might prove a positive thing that NATO has been more willing to step up military strikes and support troops, but we shall see how it unfolds.
Considering that many Syrians flee the violence in their country, it might be a better idea to mediate a truce in the civil war instead of increasing the fights.
Personally I feel that Turkey also needs to be restrained and roped in for its covert support of ISIS and for being a transient route for refugees before solutions can really progress far.
Isn't it a bit too late for the "restrain and rope in", at least in the refugee question, after Turkey and the EU made a deal where Turkey gets money, political concessions and renewed talks about Turkey's entry in the EU?
It would be a mistake imo to accept Turkey in the EU, as this would only compromise the EU. Even without the allegations of oil deals, there are enough other reasons why this would be a bad idea.
Well, I honestly doubt that after four years, a general truce will be much of an option, especially since Assad has been backed up by his allies significantly in recent times.
Nah, not talking about Turkey's acceptance, but international pressure for them to close up the borders more tightly to illegal oil from ISIS. Cutting off their major financial sources should do much good for the cause. But Turkey's not going to do anything soon about that in my opinion.
