Hacker News Reader

Comment by candl | Hacker News Reader

It "amazes" me why these "refugees" flock to Germany or Great Britain and not to their very wealthy brethren in countries such as Kuwaii, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Arab Emirates, etc... Same culture, same religion and they are much closer!

It also amazes me why the EU leaders insist for other European countries to accept these "refugees" when the majority of EU countries is not responsible for this situation at all.

Luckily there are some leaders out there that are not afraid of this stupid political correctness and they build fences on their borders because they know what this might lead to.

View on HN

This completely false. Five countries neighboring Syria - Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt - host 97% of the refugees. Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan have taken in 3 million refugees.

Egypt and Iraq have another 200,000 are much poorer than Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan and have taken in 200,000 which is more than all of Europe combined.

Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and UAE refuse to take in refugees in large numbers. They are also known for horrible human rights abuses. It would be foolish to attempt to go to these countries as a refugee.

candl does not talk about neighbouring countries but about the Golf countries, so he is right.

> European countries to accept these "refugees" when the majority of EU countries is not responsible for this situation at all.

I'll pass over the casual xenophobia implicit in your post (just for you info, Lebanon has over 1 million Syrian refugees for a population of ~4.5 million, Jordan has ~600,000 refugees for a population of ~8 million), I just want to mention how the whole Middle East fuck-up is the result of the post-WW1 partitions, for which the UK and France are hugely responsible. I'll also copy-paste this from the wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syr...):

> On 19 September 2013, French President François Hollande hinted that France was ready to begin supplying lethal aid to the Free Syrian Army during a press conference in Bamako in a "controlled framework". Hollande told the conference that "On delivering weapons we have always said that we want to control these supplies so that they do indeed go to the Free Syrian Army ... because they represent the Syrian National Coalition that we recognise as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people and today they are caught between a hammer and an anvil. The hammer is the air strikes and actions of the Syrian regime and the anvil is radical Islam.

Two years later it turns out that the FSA is almost an empty shell (with the partial exception of the southern region around Daraa - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Southern_Syria_offensive), and the forces now fighting Assad in Syria are mostly Islamist, from Al Nusra (the local Al Qaeda branch) to the Islamic Front. So what Hollande was suggesting was something along the lines of "let's bomb Assad and help this other bad guys instead".

> the whole Middle East fuck-up is the result of the post-WW1 partitions

Blaming everything on the Sykes-Picot agreement removes a lot of agency from the inhabitants of the Middle East, especially political movements like the rise of Baathism and pan-arabism. /r/BadHistory had a good post on this recently: https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/3j75b8/sykespic...

> especially political movements like the rise of Baathism and pan-arabism

Pan-arabism was not such a bad idea. It was somehow similar to the "nation-state" idea prevalent in 19th century Europe, which, while true that generated some ugly side-effects (WW1), in the end was responsible for the creation of most European modern states as we know them today.

The same thing could have happened with pan-arabism, i.e. we could have talked right now about a modern Lybia, a modern Egypt or a modern Syria, but instead the Suez Crisis killed this possibility in its infancy and gave guys like Nasser (or Assad in Syria and Gaddafi in Lybia) reason to take even more power in their hands.

Except when they gased kurds. Killed, raped and sold Yezidis.

Yeah, Pan-arabism is awesome.

Then let's blame those specific countries, not the whole Europe. Hungary for example doesn't seem responsible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_W...

Their nearby brethren have already taken in MILLIONS of refugees. It took only a few hundred thousand in Europe for the media circus to begin and for their plight to be put in the spotlight.

Lebanon took a million and a half or thereabouts.

Jordan and Turkey also absorbed massive refugees. But the ones making to Europe are industrious and economically sophisticated, they are in it for more than personal/family safety. If you are educated and industrious why would you accept squalor conditions in refugee camp, if I were them I would do the same. The irony is ISIS's propaganda heavily relies on Europe born second generation Immigrants.

Of course. Because a camp in Jordan is so safe. A lovely place to raise a family.

And look how that is turning out for them.

Because those countries largely don't accept and accommodate refugees. There are no stigmas in countries like that against being racist or being against immigration like there are in Europe. Hell, those countries won't even take Palestinian refugees even though they will claim that Palestinians are suffering an oppressive occupation.

There is no stigma of being racist and antiimmigration in Europe too. Our whiny SJW are still in infancy.

Implying that they'd fit right in because they're brown and Muslim is some seriously ignorant shit. Remember all the ethnic tensions in Europe, in the Balkans? And religious tensions, even between different sects of Christianity? To imply that doesn't exist in other cultures is to attribute complexities to your own race and deny that they exist elsewhere. Ignorant.

RE: Egypt There are upwards of 130,000 registered Syrian refugees alone in Egypt [0], in addition to those from Sudan and Somalia.

Unofficial estimates place the number much higher [1].

Absolutely no one chooses to become a refugee and its the epitome of privilege to pontificate about where they should go. They go anywhere they can that isn't here and "culture" plays absolutely no part because it isn't a vacation. In fact, geographic proximity and regional support systems are the most important thing [3]. "European" countries don't even clock in top 5.

[0] http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/country.php?id=8 [1] https://egyptianfoundation.wordpress.com/welcome/refugees-in... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_W...

If you are fleeing from ISIS why, for heaven's sake, would you go to Saudi Arabia?

Why cares who's responsible? They're humans. Arn't we all responsible for all humans on the planet?

Why would I be responsible for people I don't even know? If I help somebody it's out of kindness, not responsibility.

Thankyou. That's my point. Who cares? We can still help them out of kindness and unconditionally, not expecting anything back.

There are limits, practical as well as rhetorical. Not everyone wants to be lectured about how unconditional kindness is their duty and responsibility. Not everyone wants to be told that this kindness needs to come at significant expense at a time when (insert fiscal problems here, such as Greece or the UK) are already occurring.

I'm aware, i'm from the uk. No lecture. I wasnt telling anyone what to do.

I don't want to pay extra taxes to help foreigners, I'll gladly donate money to charities. But the second my country started demanding I pay taxes to help refugees, all my income moved over to HK.

And no, I don't have a problem with refugees, I'm glad to help them. I have a problem with the state _forcing_ me to help them.

Yeah I can understand your point. Not nice being told what to do or forced what to do. When did the UK start demanding taxes to help refugees btw? I'm not aware of this.

Allocating tax money for a purpose achieves a very similar end result.

:S. Wait, so you'd rather move your money to HK who can use it for what they want than allow some to be paid to help refugees? You're aware that only 1% of the UK budget goes to foreign aid? So of your money being taxed so like 0.0025% of your money will be going to help? If you knew enough to move your money offshore I would have said you knew enough to know that too, so I presume you had loads of other reasons to move it not just this.

You can be responsible, and it doesn't has to be in the way that allows 'refugees' into your country. People in each country ought to have a choice in that.

True - there's still ways of helping without that.

But what's the fear about letting refugees into the country? Why are people so scared of this? (genuine question =))

It seems to me the only countries whom are scared are the ones who think they're the best, greatest and fear loosing that status. This sounds like idk...country ego? lol.

> But what's the fear about letting refugees into the country? Why are people so scared of this? (genuine question =))

It's the fear of letting people with very, very, different social standards in our countries. And it's warranted.

More than 50% of these refugees believe that whoever leaves the faith of Islam should suffer the death penalty and that adultery should be dealt with stoning to death.

We are not talking about a minority here, we are talking about the majority of them. So, you really shouldn't have to ask why are we afraid of letting them in in such big numbers, the questions should be, how can we do the right thing and still protect the social freedom values we hold dear in the West while doing so.

Source: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religi...

EDIT: It's funny that I'm being downvoted for answering exactly your question and providing evidence about it from a well know and neutral source.

Perhaps you're being downvoted because your source does not once refer to immigrants, refugees or migrants. You've presented no evidence which suggests that migrants (a particularly self-selecting group) are a uniform sampling of the population of the countries that they hail from. You've made quite an assumption there. If your polls showed the opinions of Muslims already in Western European countries, then maybe we could start to talk about the ramifications of culture clashes. As it stands now, you're looking for what you want to see: "Muslims are scary!".

I'd venture to say that people, in general, that are willing to move (east to west, or west to east) are probably more inclined to adapt to the place where they are going than the ones that stay in their country of origin.

> Seems like you have no interest in providing a source that proves what you're saying? What do Muslims in Western countries actually believe? The concept of cultural assimilation is not a new one, but maybe it is to you.

No, it seems you have no interest in being coherent. How is a newly arrived refugee/migrant a Muslim from a Western country?

Also, the data VERY CLEARLY states than more than 2/3 of the Muslims living in the European countries in the sample believe that the Sharia should be applied to the Muslims living there (the ones that actually live there, so, the culturally integrated ones according to you).

Care to explain where is your cultural assimilation now?

Ah, so no source. Great!

Let me simplify it for you:

1. Above, you are lamenting the fact that Western countries allow Muslims in. (I shed a single tear for your cause.)

2. You suggest that "we" (presumably Western Christians) should be afraid of Muslims because the majority believe that "non-believers" should be stoned, etc.

3. You present "evidence" that shows that the majority of Muslims that currently live in particular Middle Eastern countries subscribe to those beliefs.

4. My retort: where is the evidence that Muslims refugees from those same countries to Western countries, actually believe those things at the same rate?

If you give me a poll of Muslim refugees in the USA/Germany/Sweden etc. with results that are similar to the link you've already posted, then maybe you have half a leg to stand on. Until then, enjoy your miserliness.

EDIT: It's called a reply button. I've made no claims regarding the European countries in your example. Save for Russia, those are majority Muslim countries. Islam in Russia is a special case, with certain regions having dense pockets of Muslims. [1] Cultural assimilation would suggest that immigrants will tend towards whatever mainstream beliefs prevail there, in this case Islam. The same cannot be said for most Western European countries, where irreligiousness or Christian social mores prevail. Are you suggesting that Muslim countries kick their own Muslims out? Do you know anything about those countries?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Islam_in_Russia.png

Yes, yes, if you nitpick enough you can bypass all obstacles, like:

1-The fact these are people just arriving Europe, they aren't westernised by any means.

2-The fact that the vast majority of Muslims living in other European countries shown in the study do believe in following the Sharia law.

3-The fact that you claim that these people are in some way different than the majority of the people in their countries, just because you want too.

Perfect, you managed to find that the 1% of the African people that suits your alternate reality are the only refugees/migrants that are arriving in Europe. Well done.

EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_Kingdom#Sh...

P.S. - 36% of Muslims living in UK believe if a Muslim converts to another religion they should be punished by death. But I'm sure you will find some way to nitpick out of this and tell me that these Muslims don't count. Right?

You have no interest in pursuing a genuine argument. I am not "bypassing those obstacles". This isn't nitpicking, this is logic over xenophobia.

1. They are not westernized when they arrive, but they can and do become westernized over time. [1]

2. Those are Muslim European countries, not "your" type of countries. Your comparison is meaningless, and is different than the one you originally made.

3. They are not different than the majority. I am asking you to prove that they are a representative sample of that country's population. (Still waiting!)

[1] For example, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01419870903318169

EDIT: You suggest that I am the one cherry picking, but you're the one failing to comprehend an important qualifier on the 36%, namely it is only 16 to 24 year olds, and you are ignoring the rest of the (positive) statistics in that paragraph:

"On religious issues a poll reported that 36% of 16–24 year olds believe if a Muslim converts to another religion they should be punished by death, compared to 19% of 55+ year old Muslims"

"However around 83% of Muslims are proud to be a British citizen, compared to 79% of the general public, 77% of Muslims strongly identify with Britain while only 50% of the wider population do, 86.4% of Muslims feel they belong in Britain, slightly more than the 85.9% of Christians, 82% of Muslims want to live in diverse and mixed neighbourhoods compared to 63% of non-Muslim Britons"

"A poll reported that 59% of Muslims would prefer to live under British law, compared to 28% who would prefer to live under sharia law."

Frankly, I'm not going to bitch too loudly if I think Muslims should cut themselves some slack regarding converts. What is the threat to you, so long as no action is taken on anyone, if one British Muslim wants to think a British ex-Muslim should be stoned for conversion? Regardless, by no means is the belief you are parading about a "majority" belief. You are shifting the goalposts.

> I'd venture to say that people, in general, that are willing to move (east to west, or west to east) are probably more inclined to adapt to the place where they are going than the ones that stay in their country of origin.

Also, so, know you are telling us that these people choose to migrate West, they are not really forced to do so? It's quite an incoherent sentence from someone defending (as I do actually) that most of these people have no choice but to leave their country because of the war.

But well, we all know coherence and politics don't really go well together with most of the people.

Is it that hard to fathom that there's multiple variables at play in deciding when one decides to leave their homeland for greener pastures? Cultural factors, economic factors, social factors, the presence of war/peace are all things that play into an individual's decision to pack up and move. Different people have difference tolerance for different things.

As a thought experiment: someone with a higher tolerance for different cultures and a lower tolerance for violence is more likely to move sooner than someone with an equivalent tolerance for violence and a lower tolerance for different cultures, no?

> But well, we all know coherence and politics don't really go well together with most of the people.

Mhmm, I can definitely see that. Make better arguments than "Muslims are scary!" and you wouldn't have to resort to underhandedness.

So, migrants are not a good sample of the population of the country they originate from. They are special in some way and by taking a 3000 Km journey trough Africa they are already Westernised even before setting foot in Europe.

Makes perfect sense... I mean, makes perfect sense to try and deny reality in such an obvious way.

Seems like you have no interest in providing a source that proves what you're saying? What do Muslims in Western countries actually believe?

The concept of cultural assimilation is not a new one, but maybe it is to you.

Turkish Muslims (the majority of Muslims in Germany) were polled on the following:

1. Islam is the only true religion: 72% YES 2. There should be a Muslim majority in Germany: 46% YES 3. Want only Muslims as neighbours: 62% YES

> http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article108659406/Tuer...

Fair enough, they have strong religious beliefs. So do lots of people. Why does that mean Muslims shouldn't be allowed into a given country? Why should Islam be singled out?

Also, apparently from the same survey:

"Furthermore, the willingness of Turkish migrants and their descendents to integrate into German society remains high and is climbing. Whereas 70 percent said in 2010 that they want to "absolutely and without reservations integrate into German society," the new survey found that 78 percent of respondents agreed. Similarly, whereas 59 percent said two years ago that they wanted to belong to German society, 75 percent say so now. Fully 95 percent say that all children with Turkish backgrounds should go to day care facilities so as to learn German prior to entering school."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/survey-turks-in-...

Why does religiosity matter if the desire to integrate is there?

Seriously, the complete hypocrisy of your comment is too big to actually be true.

So, we are a bunch of xenophobes because we are concerned about people that clearly have social norms that are against our most basic principles of freedom are entering our countries.

But when 62% of Muslims already living in Germany say they want to live only next to other Muslims then, you don't see a problem there and claim they are perfectly integrated.

Seriously, you took hypocrisy to an all new level with that comment.

If we say: We want to live only next to other people that share the basics of European culture = we are a bunch of racist pigs. If they say: We want to live only next to Muslims = nothing to see here, just perfectly integrated and westernised Muslims.

I've never said anything about anyone being racist, so forget the playing the victim card a la "bunch of racist pigs."

Being afraid of outsiders is pretty much the definition of "xenophobia," so yes, you are seemingly a xenophobe. [1] And, self-describedly, an Islamophobe. ("So, you really shouldn't have to ask why are we afraid of letting them in in such big numbers")

I've never claimed perfect integration, I'm claiming that I don't think that letting Muslims into Western countries is going to cause the social fabric to crumble as you seem to think. I would hope that both sides could be a little more accommodating: Western countries allowing disadvantaged refugees safe harbor, and Muslim immigrant communities willing to adapt somewhat to Western standards. There is actual research done on integration in these communities, above and beyond this single poll that you've been hanging on to. [2] Despite what you insist on believing, immigrants do actually adapt to their environments.

Lastly, you seem to want to paint the issue as cut and dry: put special restrictions on entry for Muslims, and social conflict won't arise between people who have differing values. That doesn't solve any issues! What do you do about disaffected Muslim communities already in Western countries? What is the best way to ensure a harmonious society? I think the answer lies somewhere between your claims of "don't let them in" and "let them all in and Sharia law will come to the West." Instead of castigating existing Islamic communities and placing restrictions on them, why not give them a fair shake and see what happens? A "fair shake" meaning one that doesn't single them out for their religious beliefs. (Hey, isn't that one of those "social freedom values" you were talking about?)

[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/xenophobia

[2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012....

Man, way to put words into someones mouth.

Source is here for instance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_Kingdom#Sh...

36% of Muslims living in UK believe if a Muslim converts to another religion they should be punished by death. But I'm sure you will find some way to nitpick out of this and tell me that these Muslims don't count. Right?

Also, in case you intellectual honesty doesn't allow you to figure out, these are that Muslims that in their great majority are supposed to be already westernised since they actually lived for a long time (or were even born) in the West.

Take off the hate goggles and maybe you'll see that your sarcasm is actually true:

"these are that Muslims that in their great majority are supposed to be already westernised" == "86.4% of Muslims feel they belong in Britain, slightly more than the 85.9% of Christians"

86.4% sounds like a "great majority" (whatever that means), to me.

Oh yes, they are westernised into 36% of them (the young ones, the ones that mostly were already born here) thinking that whoever leaves the religion of Islam should be killed.

Geez, I seriously wonder what is your concept of NOT westernised? 50%, 70%, 100% of them believing in murder in the name of their religion or what? Please let us know if you actually have a number or if anything fits into your version of "westernised"

rmxt I don't think there's much point debating with this guy. He's not interested in learning and sharing his understanding. Only interested in proving he's right and I'm not even sure he knows what he's trying to prove right anymore. He's finding anything he can to backup his argument, not sharing sources that he used to formulate his opinions.

How many destitute people do you house in your own home? Why only that number and not more? If zero, why is that? What percentage of your income are you donating to support refugees? Why is that percentage not higher?

Ooo, there's a hefty underlying assumption in your post.

I have previously taken people off the street, three times. I do not currently have anyone living in my home because I have moved back to my disabled Mums which is a 3 bedroom house already with 5 people living there.

Why am I living at my Mums?

I give 100% of my time to helping others and i'm in the process of starting a social enterprise to develop technology to help others in a variety of situations. We've already designed and nearly finish an app to help women in domestic violence situations, tools to help kids with dyslexia, tools for autism. Every penny will go back into creating more tools and technologies to help.

Then I can buy an Island. Yep, i'm not even kidding that's my ambition.

"What percentage of your income are you donating to support refugees? Why is that percentage not higher?" - I currently give no funds to refugees because I put all of my funds into creating other projects to help others in different domains. I feel that investing in these which will generate more income will give more income to help more people.

> Why cares who's responsible? They're humans. Arn't we all responsible for all humans on the planet?

How many homeless people do you let crash at your place each night?

Caseysoftware - i've had exactly three people crash at my house who were homeless strangers. Only for a few nights each.

I have also got chatting to a homeless dude who turned out to be an artist. He carried on a pen drive pictures he'd created over the last few years but he had no computer access and no way to get them. I said i'd take a look and the next day went into a shop and printed every single picture, paid for it and gave it to him.

I have no problem giving to strangers and not getting anything in return. I get something back naturally, I feel happier that they are happier.

Hence i'm in the process of starting a social enterprise =).

Sounds like a great start. When are you going fulltime with it?

"It" being letting homeless people crash at your house all the time.

It's intellectually dishonest to presuppose that the only way to support destitute people is to personally let them into your home.

It's intellectually dishonest to suggest that people let the destitute into their own homes, but not for people to suggest the same for your home?

It's easy to suggest how someone else's resources (time, money, and effort) should be handled but it's something else to do it yourself.

Yes, it is intellectually dishonest. The submission/posted website does suggest inviting refugees into one's own home, but you are the one who suggested that we should compare "fear of refugees on a national level" (ashleyp's post "But what's the fear about letting refugees into the country?") to "fear of letting a stranger into one's home" (your post "How many homeless people do you let crash at your place each night?") That's not a sound comparison. Nowhere has anyone stated that you (the impersonal you) should take refugees in, while I don't.

I am not suggesting that any individual be mandated to keep refugees (or anyone that they don't want) in their home. I am suggesting that pooled resources (taxes, which aren't "someone else's resources") go towards maximizing the benefit for the most number of people, inclusive of immigrants.

I won't be for a long time. I've just moved back into my disabled Mum's house which has 3 small bedrooms and 5 people. Cramped conditions but I work as much as possible on a social enterprise.

In a few years time I dream i'll be able to provide much more housing than space on my couch. There are alternatives to just giving housing.

Why do you state this like it's a truth?

You don't think they're Humans?

That we are responsible for them.

They are responsible for themselves, they understand that, that's why they go to the most generous countries.

I take it you've spoken to loads of refuges then and that's exactly what they said then? "Our childrens lives are at risk, but we fancy risking them more to come to a generous country".

I think you misunderstood my point and took it too literally: who cares who's responsible. We can still help people unconditionally without expecting anything in return but within reason.

"Hey man, you're going through a really hard time at the moment. It's not my fault what has happened to you and it's not your fault this has happened to you either. But I would be happy to help you regardless."

Now, wouldn't that be an amazing place to be? Well done Germany, Iceland and the others.

--- Slightly off topic There's videos of locals all going up and greeting refuges and offering toys, food, donations. I can't imagine how amazing it must feel after years of hardship and death on your door to see happy faces greeting you with open arms. That right there would give me hope and a strong feeling of wanting to do everything possibly to repay the people who helped me in my desperate time of need.

P.s I wasn't a refugee, but I did grow up in refuges as a child and I met and spoke to refugees. This was going back 18 years ago now, much has changed but I met the most incredible and inspirational people there.

Whether we should be is up for debate, but no, I'm pretty sure we're not.

Who says we're not?

The legal codes we're subject to, whether we are or we aren't.

I believe in most locales people are responsible for their own children, but - and correct me if I'm wrong, happy to learn something - I don't think there's anything in there that makes anyone responsible for random strangers on the other side of the planet.

Again, this doesn't have anything to do with whether we should be responsible for random strangers on the other side of the planet.

Hello :)

So in my perspective, no one can make us =).

But - we can choose to be. Or choose not to be. I.e we, individually say if we are or are not. It is our choice.

I choose to be (as much as I can, and I may not be able to do much in these circumstances but I try in others of my life as much as possible and I dedicate most of my time to others).

I choose to be because I believe this builds a better planet and it encourages help rather than a "I'm not helping i'm not responsible. Find the person to blame and make them pay". But how do we ever find the person to blame?

Is it the refugee coming over in hope with their family for a better life? Is it the people fighting in the war? The people who started the war?

Who should pay the price?

In my studies of humanity and cultures the place that most inspired me was an island where every child was taken care of by every family on that island. There were no barriers, parents treated every kid as their own.

So, forgive my post if it has come across as convincing people they should take responsibility that was not the case. I was asking a genuine question in the sense, why can we not help? Why does responsibility matter really?

I don't think we can be. Sadly.

That is a view usually held from people that are separated by geography, class or income from a lot of the humans they feel responsible for.

We could all end up being dependent on the solidarity of others ourselves - it's all about love and understanding :) ️

I don't think any country has to be responsible for anything in order to accept refugees, do you? If you are fleeing from war, then you should be able to apply for asylum/refugee status everywhere. Doesn't mean that every country should accept them,but the implication that EU countries are not responsible for the conflict so they shouldn't help out is.....weird.

Maybe EU shouldn't be sending help to people affected by tsunamis, or earthquakes too? In the end, we are not responsible for it, so why should my tax money be going to some poor people in a country I've never been to or plan to go to?

"Luckily there are some leaders out there that are not afraid of this stupid political correctness"

I am pretty sure some people said the same thing about Hitler calling out Jews, not being afraid of political correctness, exposing them for what they were! Everyone knew what letting jews sprawl might lead to!

THANKYOU for articulating what I was REALLY struggling to do!

>>> It "amazes" me why these "refugees" flock to Germany or Great Britain and not to their very wealthy brethren in countries such as Kuwaii, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Arab Emirates, etc... Same culture, same religion and they are much closer!

Some of the "alternative" countries you mention are direct supporters of the forces who have caused or are themselves involved in wars in countries from where refugees come. And despite "same" culture, "same" religion and proximity, I assume, these countries don't want to import social and financial problems.

>>> It also amazes me why the EU leaders insist for other European countries to accept these "refugees" when the majority of EU countries is not responsible for this situation at all.

As for EU countries not being responsible: UK, France and Germany (and other EU and non-EU NATO member countries in their tow) are very well directly involved and responsible. Political destabilization, intelligence services involvement, boots on the ground, flying aeroplanes and drones (and dropping bombs) over their heads, supporting local "rebel" forces. In Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen - they are all over the place. So, it's "natural" that the "weapons of mass immigration" are heading towards EU.

>>> Luckily there are some leaders out there that are not afraid of this stupid political correctness and they build fences on their borders because they know what this might lead to.

No, European "leaders" are not stupid for building fences. OK, they are... because by building fences they are dealing with the effect and not solving the cause. They are stupid for making themselves marionettes to the Oligarchy. For letting their countries become vassal states. Especially funny, all ex Warsaw-bloc countries, in pursuit of "freedom", have flocked in the arms of another tyrant (instead of trying being truly independent). Last but not least, they are stupid for not building good trans Atlantic ships and sending the refugees to the Oligarchy.

Hint: civil liberties plays a part.

> It "amazes" me why these "refugees" flock to Germany or Great Britain and not to their very wealthy brethren in countries such as Kuwaii, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Arab Emirates, etc...

Out of these countries, only Egypt is even a signatory to the Refugee Convention and its Protocol. All of these countries range from "questionable human rights status" to "fascist theocracy".

More importantly, most Syrian refugees are in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq, all of which are already overflowing (Turkey alone has close to two million refugees). They are fleeing to closer countries, but these countries are already operating beyond capacity.

> Same culture, same religion and they are much closer!

Watch this video of Damascus college students before the war: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbM4trP42NY&sns=em

How much do you think they have in common with the culture of Saudi Arabia?

> It also amazes me why the EU leaders insist for other European countries to accept these "refugees" when the majority of EU countries is not responsible for this situation at all.

The underlying reason here is Dublin III. According to the Dublin Regulation, asylum seekers are to be processed in the country where they enter the EU [1]. Right now, this means that Greece, Hungary, Italy, and Spain. You see the problem?

Now, Sweden, Austria, and Germany are helping out despite Dublin.

Finally, it doesn't matter who is responsible. The EU member states are bound by treaty and customary international law to deal with refugees on its territory; the principle of non-refoulement prevents them from sending refugees back into danger.

And yes, it would still be nice if the countries that helped create that mess also helped out with the refugees. As it pertains to Syria and Iraq, that would be in particular the members of the "coalition of the willing"; Daesh arose out of the ashes of Saddam's military [2].

> Luckily there are some leaders out there that are not afraid of this stupid political correctness and they build fences on their borders because they know what this might lead to.

It's pretty hard to build a fence in the middle of the sea.

[1] The Dublin Regulation also is intended to support the countries of entry through various means, but was designed for a much smaller number of asylum seekers.

[2] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/iraq-war-on-terror/r...

Nobody is lucky to have xenophobic and bigoted leaders.

We (Europeans) never bothered about cultural and religious closeness when we were occupying, colonizing and sucking goods from them, did we?

You know, at least Europeans are consistent in their moral grandstanding.

For sure mass immigration from illiberal non-Western societies will cause damage to the cultural fabric of Europe and cause strain on the welfare systems, but at least you consistently apply your moral standards to yourself and not just America and Israel when it's convenient. That is admirable.

> mass immigration from illiberal non-Western societies will cause damage to the cultural fabric of Europe ....

That's not necessarily truth. In fact, most of immigrants are escaping from those illiberal societies. They want to have an European lifestyle. Become musicians, artists, engineers, etc... These kind of fresh workforce, who know what is it to live in poverty are actually much better at work and contribute more to the welfare system.

And if you go back far enough you can also talk about the crusades, the Romans invading Africa, the Greeks invading the middle east... and well, I don't know, you can certainly come up with more ideas.

Looks like we still have about 2000 more years of self deprecation here in Europe fellas, so that we can finally atone for the things our ancestors did.

But only we, cause all the crap that African empires and Islamic empires did in the past are obviously of no concern. They should automatically be forgiven and forgotten... we don't, obviously, we have to pay trough all eternity.

What Europeans? Do you mean UK and France?

Pretty much every European country:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_European_coloni...

I think you meant some Western European countries. Because I don't see Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Poland, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and probably others on that list. And I definitely don't see Switzerland. Europe doesn't mean the European Union (founders).

It would help your comparison if half of those countries existed as independent entities before World War I.

The Baltic States and Ukraine were part of Russia when it went through its imperialistic/colonization phase, reaching into Alaska and Mongolia, and Fort Ross as noted on the linked page.

The German Empire is conveniently listed as Germany on that page, which leaves out the fact that the German Empire consisted of land that is now part of the Czech Republic, Poland, and Lithuania.

Of course, these modern day countries were some times subjugated much in the same way that true colonies were subjugated. That being said, I don't think it's fair to say that Western Europe is solely to blame for world wide colonization.

Let me help you. Baltic States, Czech, Poland were the colonies.

Norway: Greenland and Vinland (New Foundland).

The thought of those vikings sucking the fertile soil of Greenland dry fills me with guilt.

Sadly, I am not amazed at all by your reaction.

They're often not the same culture, and not the same religion.

Actually Europe is very much responsible, only a small percentage flees to our countries and the reason is clear: People at least think that life in Europe is much better and in some cases they are correct. Please learn about the situation and not just judge it.

Why is Europe very much responsible? Also, please define Europe to avoid any confusion with the European Union or Western Europe.

They want free stuff so they travel to the places that give them the most free stuff.

Life in Europe is better for now. Flood European countries with millions of "refugees" and it won't be for long.

On the other hand, I sometimes say "If immigration is so great, why don't you take a foreign lodger into your house?" At least these "Refugees welcome" people are putting their flats where their mouths are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com