Doctors Without Borders doesn't take money from EU anymore | Hacker News Reader

Doctors Without Borders doesn't take money from EU anymore

msf.org

77 pointsTomte191 comments

Why is the EU the only responsible for refugees? Why not other states? Why not Russia, the Gulf states, Japan or the United States? It is getting tiring the bashing against the EU.

The EU is getting refugees at the rate it deems convenient, if some other state is worried about the situation in Syria please take refugees, but please stop labeling the EU as evil.

The EU is the closet first world region. And they are signers to the convention.

Arab world is helping...havent you heard about the huge refugee camps in Jordan?

Being close is no excuse in this globalized world. Also to take refugees there is no need to be a first world country. I should have included China in my previous list.

Completely true, but Jordan is not the only Arab country able to help.

There is also the economic realism that labor will naturally move to where it thinks it can be best off. China is relatively over-populated.

Closeness is an important factor when you realize that there are lots of refugees and that their wealth has been wiped out by war. So while the refugees might have enough money to hike or get a boat or plane ticket, they surely can't afford to fly across the world. And no one should be forced to pay to fly them, either. All they want is the opportunity to build a better life for themselves.

Some parts of the Arab world are helping, others are not only not helping but making things worse.

Anyway, people from as far away as Afghanistan and Pakistan are now seeking asylum in Europe. We're talking about billions of people that can potentially claim asylum for one reason or another. This isn't going to work. The EU cannot be made responsible for sorting out the problems that afflict the entire region of Africa and the Middle and the Far East.

Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Egypt, and Libya together have taken in a total of 6.7 million refugees. The EU has committed to taking on only 120k refugees.

It appears not to be fair to group Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait with the other states you have listed.

while Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt have taken in around 5 million refugees, and boatloads of the destitute are making their way to Europe, the Gulf states have taken only a few hundred refugees, according to data from the UN's refugee agency (UNHCR).

http://www.dw.com/en/arab-monarchies-turn-down-syrian-refuge...

I thought that was because Saudi Arabia doesn't call them refugees but "Arab brothers and sisters in distress". The number of such people is quite contentious, if https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrians_in_Saudi_Arabia is any evidence. There may be 500K such people "in distress."

FWIW, unlike the EU countries, Saudi Arabia isn't signatory to the United Nations Refugee Convention.

Thanks for pointing that out. It's clearly been very heavily politicised.

What? Germany alone got over a million of refugees in 2015 alone.

Correct. Also, let's not forget the Ukraine crisis, which brought ~900.000 refugees to neighboring countries (Poland and Russia mostly).

This is actually a myth. No idea about Russia but last time I checked Poland accepted 3 refuges from Ukraine. Three. Over 400k work visas have been issued in 2015 but its a totally different thing. These ppl get nothing from Polish state, no language lessons, no accommodation, no food. Nothing except for permit to work (and pay taxes). So its very different level of effort than with actual refuges (like ie Germany that's running out of space to shelter new ppl). Ukrainians that applied for asylum where denied on grounds that only part of Ukraine is as war and they can seek shelter in other, safe parts.

If you've ever been to Russia you will understand why people do not want to seek asylum there - they are as likely to be persecuted there as wherever they're coming from. Russians aren't terribly welcoming to non-Slavic peoples, and don't exactly have a wonderful human rights record, with the pogroms and the kulaks and all that.

What about Germany and the Nazis concentration camps?

Russia is a big country with a history of immigration from the soviet days, when people from the different republics where made to move to different areas of the country

Russia is ranked third in the list of countries with the highest immigration behind US and Germany.

Germany moved up to second place in 2015 due to Merkels invite to Africa and the Middle East, the 10 preceding years Russia was always on 2nd place behind US.

So much for Gulags and unwelcoming Russians.

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

Uh, regardless of your stance on the specific topic (refugee handling), isn't this simply a tactical mistake?

Let's say the EU is your enemy. They offer you money. Is it tactically smarter to flatly refuse the money (you are poorer, your enemy is marginally richer, nothing has changed) or rather to accept the money and then use it to fight the donor (you are richer, your enemy is marginally poorer and you are effectively turning its resources against itself)?

It feels a lot like cutting your own nose to spite the wife.

They are hoping that refusing funding will put pressure on the EU to change its harsh stances. I don't think it'll be that effective but that's what they're going for. Yes, in the short term they will suffer for funding.

Say you are a non-profit that helps drug addicts, should you take money from drug dealers?

I think he's saying that, "Yes, you should use that money and you should use it to hire Chuck Norris."

And I'm saying that's a horrible childish responses to a situation like this.

Why not? Often, addiction centers get money from health insurers, who are in effect dealers in opioids, etc.

If you can find a drug dealer dumb enough to give you money, it would be irresponsible to not take it. That said, your situation has practically nothing in common with MSF's.

Untrue. Drug dealers often fund rehabilitation groups; good way to find customers, double profits, identify rats, etc. True rehab centers would never take funds from a dealer, and would be happy to go out of business because there were no more addicts in the world.

Refugees in the EU would not need Doctors Without Borders; in Turkey, refugees will need Doctors Without Borders.

If the EU wants to help Doctors Without Borders' mission, then it needs to take refugees and help them, not make more refugees Doctors Without Borders to help.

I didn't realise you meant "take money and also give them your client list in return". If you're going to add strings like that to your question, the answer will obviously be no.

That's one (perfectly valid) way of looking at it.

An (IMO equally valid) way of looking at it is that the EU is not 'the enemy' but rather someone you hoped was your ally. But now they're acting against your mission, in a way you feel is unacceptable. They've changed and you can no longer stand with them. In that situation, disassociating from them (with no regard for the tactics) is a sign of integrity.

Even so, their view is a bit unrealistic - if the people of the EU don't want to accept refugees, and leaders can't convince them otherwise, why should leaders disobey the people ?

Altough one could critize the way refugees we're handled by the authorities - instead of mixing them with the population and surfacing all kinds of tensions, they should have closed, but safe and decent refugee camps, and seperate refugees from the population(and also solve the issue of economic immigration). but now might be too late.

"Camps" in Europe do exist (for all the bad imagery from the last century of European history that the word evokes), but they're chronically overwhelmed. Authorities don't want to fund them, local population often goes NIMBY for the same reasons they don't want them in the country altogether. Like prison, camps tend to amplify and reinforce bad behaviour from all sides.

> and also solve the issue of economic immigration

Yeah, like that was easy :) most immigrants actually come from failed states like Eritrea, which you just can't "fix" in any easy way. I do agree that economic migrants should be treated differently from war refugees; as in, we should find ways to power economic and social programs that would directly allow economic migrants to return. Pay them to dig holes over there, if necessary. It won't fix the country, but it should stem the flow.

War refugees should be hosted and treated humanly though. Their conflicts are often "our" direct fault and we have an obligation to treat them fairly. US/UK/France are particularly bad in this, constantly getting involved in all sorts of international diatribes while rarely (if ever) actually picking up the tab when things go to hell.

> US/UK/France are particularly bad in this, constantly getting involved in all sorts of international diatribes while rarely (if ever) actually picking up the tab when things go to hell.

To be fair, US got dragged into open conflict in ME and surrounding region because Saddam invaded Saudi. And Afg because of 9/11.

There are other nations that cause troubles outside of their border and don't pick up the tab when things go bad.

-China in Korean War, helping North Korea survive.

-Japan and Korean peninsula. Japan's colonization of Korea in 1910 ultimately led to creation of the monster called North Korea.

-Indonesian invasion of East Timor

-Germany stopped causing trouble internationally only after the entire nation was put under foreign occupation for decades after WW2.

Pretty much any nation is capable of causing trouble internationally. Most just can't do it at the scale of US/UK/France, because they don't have the ability, not because they are somehow better members of international community.

The point is to persuade people. I'm persuaded, because I firmly believe that msf values these redugees strongly and that the only reason they would refuse funds would be if they thought the situation truly dire.

Think of self starvation protests, but at an organizational level.

It is very inefficient to bring people to Germany and other western countries in order to help them. We could help one person in Germany, or another 10 people in Turkey for the same money.

Most people coming to Europe are economic migrantw, not from countries affected by war. Refugees who can not afford $4000 for transport are left without help.

It all started when Turkey asked for humanitarian aid. Merkel would not send money, but open invitation. It is all one big virtue signaling, most people do not really care about some people in Africa or Asia.

>Most people coming to Europe are economic migrantw, not from countries affected by war

Exactly this. The reasonable thing to do would've been to differentiate refugees from others and proceed to help the refugees because there's no question about that.

Edit: Wait, I take it by the downvotes that you think people should not be screened and that everyone who shows up at the borders is a distressed refugee fleeing war? I am a Third World citizen and I know for a fact that no one thinks of Europe as a dreamland so yeah, you're good, refugees are all you've been/will be getting. /s

>> Most people coming to Europe are economic migrantw [sic]

Source for that statement?

> The reasonable thing to do would've been to differentiate refugees from others

This is exactly what we are doing, but this requires actual checks, not just a look at a person's face.

It is reasonable to assume that if you enter Germany/Sweden it is not because you are fearing for your life in Austria/Denmark.

Austrian and Danish people may freely enter Germany under the Schengen Agreement.

If you are referring to refugees who enter through those two countries, you are ignoring that these countries are also not initial ports of entry into the Schengen Area.

But I generally refuse to follow that line of argumentation: Having the initial ports of entry bear the responsibility for all new refugees is only a fair thing when you are not one of them. Neither Greece nor Italy have the capacity and as long as we are playing hardball international politics in the countries refugees come from, we have to take responsibility for the results of our actions.

Ah - so the only countries that should be expected to take refugees should be those immediately sharing a border with them, right?

Of course not. But when you have "refugees" demanding to be allocated in a safe country and not another safe country then you can't help but question their status as a refugee (i.e. someone seeking safety).

http://news.sky.com/story/1557225/refugee-its-germany-or-not...

You say "refugees" but I only saw one such refugee mentioned in your link. I certainly didn't see enough to know if it was 0.1% of the refugees or 10% or some other number.

Now, suppose you are a refugee, a mechanical engineer fluent in Arabic and professionally competent in English.

Would you have a preference for a country like Sweden or Germany where you are more likely to get a job with your skills? Or would you equally accept being told to move to some other "safe country" where there is high unemployment, little demand for mechanical engineering jobs, and few English speakers?

How do you express that preference without your refugee status being questioned?

Anecdote, so place as much weight on this as you wish.

I was working in a Starbucks in North London and sat next to a businessman. He started advising his wife/fiancee's distant family members on the phone who had travelled to Greece.

He gave them detailed instructions to (1) destroy their passports and forms of ID, (2) claim to be Syrian refugees fleeing from a war-zone and spend a couple of days rehearsing their stories.

He also gave them useful advice about the pros and cons of different country's refugee processing systems.

There are obviously many migrants genuinely fleeing war-zones (and it is understandable that many others wish to escape oppression/ poor economic situations) but self reported origins + reasons should be taken with a pinch of salt. Many applicants know that claiming to be from war-torn Syria guarantees a successful asylum application due to the Geneva Convention, whilst admitting being an Afghan economic migrant complicates things.

My partner's father is an immigration lawyer and does similar for people entering from his country of origin. Although many are from regions genuinely affected by war, still more were admitted as refugees because they told a good story.

According to first vice-president of the European Commission, citing some internal report from the Frontex (EU border agency), 60% are economic migrants.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/most-fleeing-to...

It's been 6 months. Have these "new, unpublished, figures" since been published, or otherwise shown to be correct?

In that news article, Timmermans also argued that border closures are not the right solution.

Edit: If https://euobserver.com/migration/132048 is correct, then the 40% refers to the people specifically from Syria. Most of the remaining 60% are from Iraq or Afghanistan. As that link says:

> almost 90 percent the people who arrived by sea in the EU in December came from countries gripped by war or emerged from a wider regional conflict.

I would love to see the actual numbers and how Frontex arrived at them - Frontex' job is NOT to decide on or even investigate in asylum applications at all. They have to refer applicants to relevant national authorities; one becomes an applicant by merely stating the wish to apply for asylum [1].

I furthermore have a severe problem with categorically saying that Moroccans "have no reason whatsoever to ask for refugee status" - the country is not as bad as it once was, but political activists are still far from safe [2].

[1] http://frontex.europa.eu/assets/Publications/Training/Practi...

[2] http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/middle-east-and...

Ah, I see. So you differentiate between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor?

Tell me, how do you tell them apart? Do they wear badges?

Sending money is not a viable long term solution. You must let them move to where they can make money themselves.

You are probably right, people are dying in their thousands to cross the med because they want some more cash ...

Why do you think they're crossing the med instead of staying in Turkey?

Turkey doesnt give out refugee status and has little protection for refugees, including being able to return them to where they are fleeing from, it is completely overloaded with a lack of resources.

While Europe makes it disgustingly hard for refugees to enter the human rights and eu law provided make it a much more realistic place to be stable / settled if you can get in.

Maybe rather than forcing people to cross the sea, we could send money directly in the first place.

Turkey is giving them a true refugee status rather than allowing them to arbitrarily seek asylum, Turkey is actually completely abiding by the UN convention on refugees while the EU are playing by their own rules.

http://www.ibtimes.com/turkish-town-isis-crosshairs-kilis-re...

You say that like money is not a motivator powerful enough for people to risk their life.

It's not "some cash" - it's free lifetime income, healthcare, housing, guaranteed additional income for family members, proper schooling for children etc.

It's not greedy to try to obtain these with some risk and a $5k investment, but just wanting these is not a good enough reason for EU taxpayers to pay for millions of migrants - especially when there are many more needy who cannot afford to travel to Europe.

So they want a life like they had at home, before the war started.

Makes sense to me. I mean, I would prefer that over living in a refugee camp for 15 years and being treated as a second-class citizen, with no future. "To live" is more than just existing.

You'll note that the Syrian refugees are also going to places which don't list all the befits you described, like Brazil. Then again, there aren't many opportunities for them as they don't speak Portuguese.

If you had to flee your country, would you want to go somewhere where you couldn't speak with the locals, or get a job?

Do refugees speak better German and Swedish then Portuguese?

The important question is can refugees communicate better in Germany and Sweden than in Brazil?

One option is German or Swedish. It's very unlikely that a refugee will know either language.

A large percentage of Germans and Swedes know English. If a refugee also knows English, that's one language possibility.

Also, French is another widely spoken second language in Syria, though less common than English. (Remember, Syria was a French Mandate.)

There is an existing minority population in both those countries which speaks Arabic. If a refugee also knows Arabic, that's another possibility.

On the other hand, in Brazil, fewer people know English (5% says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-s... , compared to 64% for Germany and 86% for Sweden).

And far fewer Brazilians know Arabic, or refugees know Portuguese. (I don't know the mutual overlap in French.)

In any case, you can see it's much more likely that a refugee from Syria can communicate in either Germany or Sweden than in Brazil, even without knowing German or Swedish.

You can make this argument foc any country in the world that has decent English level among population. Given the fact that Sweden has a lot of Arabic speakers, do you think that they should get even more or that maybe effort should be distributed more evenly?

Yes, I can. English is the modern lingua franca.

That's why I think your question was poorly posed, and why I think it's obvious why a refugee, when given any sort of choice or allowed to express a preference, would have a bias towards German or Sweden over Brazil.

Do you not agree?

As for Sweden, I think we should accept more refugees and refugees should be accepted more evenly across the EU.

There's plenty of room. We accepted 160,000 asylum seekers last year, for a country with fewer than 10M people. The EU is 508M people, or 50 bigger than Sweden. 160K*50 = 8 million, while there are only 5M displaced Syrians outside of Syria. Many of those don't want to flee to the EU, while on the other hand there are about an equal number of displaced people from Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, what's the point of your question again?

>Do you not agree?

Yes and no. It's a rational choice for a refuge but not for language reasons, let's be honest here.

>As for Sweden, I think we should accept more refugees and refugees should be accepted more evenly across the EU.

I agree that there is more place in Europe however Sweden seems to be out of capacity now. Last year new people where put into tents. There are no jobs, SFI is overcrowded (and always was kinda bad). Food for thought. I'm leaving Sweden after my SO finishes her PhD in a few months but boy that country has changed. I hope its for the better for old and new Swedes. Rapid immigration and big changes in fabric of society seem to have generated big party of right-wing crypto-nazis which is damn scary.

> It's not "some cash" - it's free lifetime income, healthcare, housing, guaranteed additional income for family members, proper schooling for children etc.

None of those (aside healthcare) are the rights of someone given asylum, while you are waiting for support you 'may' be given housing and financial support. There is no "free lifetime income"

> None of those (aside healthcare) are the rights of someone given asylum, while you are waiting for support you 'may' be given housing and financial support. There is no "free lifetime income"

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. In Austria, where I live, as well as in Germany, asylum gets you access to the country's welfare system, which equates at least €827 monthly for single people (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedarfsorientierte_Mindestsich...) and includes healthcare and additional benefits like I wrote. Once granted asylum, people are allowed to work, but due to extremely poor education and language barriers, most cannot or will not find jobs and end up in the welfare system forever. Typically, they are granted citizenship after 6 years (https://www.help.gv.at/Portal.Node/hlpd/public/content/26/Se...).

My main issue with this is not the fact that these are given to people with asylum (even though they get preferential treatment compared to EU citizens from other countries, who need to work for 12 months before having access to the welfare system), but that asylum was granted to far too many people who didn't deserve it. War refugees are "displaced people" and would normally receive temporary asylum-like status and return to their countries after the war. Civil war is not a reason for being granted asylum according to the Geneva Convention. Besides that, 2/3 of the refugees coming to Austria are not from war zones.

> Most people coming to Europe are economic migrantw, not from countries affected by war.

Where do you get this information.

If you talk about asylum seekers (The majority of the current inbound traffic), you can look up the numbers yourself they are published as datasets by the UNHCR [1]

Looking at the top 5 origin states of asylum seekers for 2015 and 2016 reveals:

Syrian Arab Rep. 30.5% Afghanistan 18.1% Iraq 11.9% Serbia and Kosovo 3.5% Pakistan 2.9%

So more then 60% of the 2.7M asylum seekers are from Syria, Afganistan or Iraq all of which are currently in a state of conflict.

[1] http://popstats.unhcr.org/en/asylum_seekers_monthly

It's not that simple.

Fleeing to a nearby country is one thing.

Being able to move all the way to Germany, Denmark or Sweden isn't exactly being fleeing war anymore.

The irony is that it's those with most money who can afford to move the furthest away from the refugee camps and many of those who do are men, leaving their family behind hoping to be able to get them to the country they end up in.

https://www.rt.com/news/330284-economic-migrants-eu-refugees...

Thank you for posting this. I am baffled at how some people just ignore reality and post (and believe in?) lies, even here on HN where most of us work with data.

It's amazing that fact checking and critical thinking is so low in this internet age where information is freely available for everyone.

It's funny that you mention crtitical thinking when working with data. this data reports country of origin. Now make that critical thiught work please, and tell me why these refugees insist on goingfrom the safe Turkey to Germany?

Sure, here's two articles [1, 2] that describe the situation. Most of the refugees do stay in Turkey (including 1.9M Syrians acc. [1]).

[1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/09/29/why-dont-syrians-stay-tu...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/20/amnesty-report...

This data is incomplete. For Germany it says that they had 440.000 asylum applications in 2015 even though Merkel herself said that they took in over a million in 2015.

Apparently it was 1.1 million registered refugees for Germany alone in 2015. Of these only 476.649 submitted a formal asylum request. Edit: And you can bet that there's a large number of migrants that didn't even register, the minister of interior in Germany even said that there's an issue with a large number of refugees of whom no one knows who they are, where they are and what they are doing here.

Who knows what the rest of them is doing here if they do not even bother to submit an asylum request.

So please don't tell me how 60% of asylum seekers are real refugees, the majority doesn't even try because they are probably smart enough to know that there's no chance that they'll be accepted.

Source: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/fluechtlingskrise/deutsch... (German, sorry - but this is one of the largest pro government online media)

So, you think, if dropped into, say, Uzbekistan, you would immediately understand their language and bureaucratic processes? Because that seems to be your expectation of migrants.

By any chance, do you support pegida? Or are they too left wing?

I don't even understand what point you are trying to make (aside from telling me that you hate me) as it is totally unrelated to my previous comment.

Do you have anything substantial to add? Again, 1.1 million refugees registered, only 467.xxx of them submitted an asylum request and on top of that there's a large number of refugees that are not even registered.

Therefore the 60% figure cannot be correct for anyone who is able to calculate properly.

Edit: Sorry can't create a comment to reply, that's why I'll reply here again to madaxe_again:

There is no need for you to appeal to my emotions, I'm interested in facts here. And yes, the default should be and always is "I don't believe you" because you have to prove that you are really a refugee whose life is under threat in his home country.

Right wing and nationalistic parties are on the rise in Europe precisely because the current governments are waving these kinds of statistics around that clearly give a false impression of the situation instead of telling the truth.

They wilfully ignore our own laws and not just enforce an open border policy but even invite everyone who'd like to come like Merkel did in 2015 with the rationale that it is not possible to stop this migration, while Hungary and Macedonia were perfectly capable to do it by constructing a fence and controlling the border.

And then they also had the gut to tell us that these migrants are comparable or in case of Syrians even better educated than our population and that's why we'll prosper from these migrants. After a year statistics then showed that the majority couldn't even read. This must be a sick joke, who comes up with this stuff?

I don't like getting lied to. As long as this lying doesn't stop the right wing will continue to rise and at some point the EU will collapse.

My point is that they may not know how or whether to submit an asylum request. Do you know the process?

I don't hate you, I just pity you for having a selfish worldview - I hope you don't one day find yourself in need of help only to find your alter ego going "nope, I don't believe you."

I admit that these numbers do not include people who did not apply for asylum.

But in your own source theres a chart showing the distribution of all 1.0919M registered entries.

39.2% Syrian 14.1% Afganistan 11.1% Irak

I'd say even though not all of the 1.1M register as asylum seekers (or have not yet registered). Their distribution is quite similar to that of the people who registered.

Most applicants from Afghanistan are not granted asylum at the moment. The problem is that Afghanistan isn't willing to take them back.

Also it isn't like everyone from Iraq is given asylum.

Oh and btw - NGOs in Europe are actively teaching prospective asylum seekers to say they are from Syria. Most of them do not even speak Arabic.

Edit: reply to comment below:

Please see this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=11928413

"More than half of those fleeing to Europe from the Middle East and Africa are economic migrants and not asylum seekers fleeing the horrors of war in Iraq or Syria, according to first vice-president of the European Commission, Frans Timmermans.

In the Frontex Western Balkans Annual Risk Analysis 2016 Frontex investigated Nationality swapping and they found:

"In 2015, 173 042 migrants who claimed Syrian nationality were screened; of which 85.8% were assumed by screeners to be Syrian nationals. As regards the rest, 8.6% were assumed to be Iraqi; 2.5% Palestinian, 1% Moroccan, and 2.1% were assumed to be of other nationality."

So yes, 14.2% of the people who claimed to be from Syria really originated somewhere else. But, if we again sum up those who come from a country who is currently in a state of conflict (I included Palestine), we gain 97%.

Edit: Also, you should note that people are screened again during the process of applying for asylum. So I guess the number of wrongly assigned nationalities is neglectable.

Quoting what he said were new, unpublished, figures from the EU border agency, Frontex, Mr Timmermans said: “More than half of the people now coming to Europe come from countries where you can assume they have no reason whatsoever to ask for refugee status … more than half, 60 percent.”

Those 60 percent were predominantly from north Africa, mainly Moroccans or Tunisians who were leaving their own countries for “economic reasons” and attempting to travel to Europe through Turkey, the former Netherlands foreign minister told the Dutch national broadcaster, NOS."

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/most-fleeing-to...

Yes, but do consider that "economic reasons" can include "militias keep burning my crops, it is too unstable to make a living".

You can draw the line wherever you like, just remember that one day someone may draw a line that affects you, and you may not like it.

Me, I'm some kind of idiot that believes in being good to your fellow man.

No, unless you think that every south american who crosses into the US some is somehow deserving of a refugee status.

The refugee status is a very specific legal term and it comes with allot of requirements both on the person seeking refuge (different from seeking asylum, asylum seekers are not the same thing as refugees) and the country taking them in, a refugee is responsible to contact the authorities and register in the first safe country which is signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and the "safe" part is a critical issue here, this is about not being shot and have to duck bombs not about financial opportunity and quality of life.

The migrants coming into Europe are not refugees as they've crossed multiple countries which while unpleasant are not currently in conflict, countries which are signatory to the UN convention and in which the UN operates refugee centers. Once they skip those countries and continue moving to greener grounds legally they are defined as migrants not refugees.

Now asylum seekers are a completely different legal group, they are individuals that are not considered as refugees and they can seek asylum in any country the wish however the rules regarding asylum vary considerably and they are not uniformly protected by the 1951 convention on refugees.

Refugees are people escaping natural or man made disasters that while do not target them individually, no longer allow them to reside safely in their original homes, asylum seekers are running from very specific human made threats due often to their political, social, racial or religious background.

I am saying that because they are very specific in what country they apply for asylum. Only tiny fraction of people who pass through Greece applied for asylum here. Not even Hungaria and Austria(!) are good enough. Most people want to Germany, Sweden or similar country.

And somehow Turkey is not considered safe country. But Ukraine with actual war is just fine and EU does not take refugees from there.

>It is very inefficient to bring people to Germany and other western countries in order to help them. We could help one person in Germany, or another 10 people in Turkey for the same money.

So let's start doing that, then close the borders

A lot of the rapid shift in migration policy has been caused by the increasing prevalence of the view that a lot of refugees will never fit into "polite society". Reference the various sexual assaults across European countries by roving gangs of young men used to very different cultural mores who aren't assimilating culturally.

If the choice comes down to protecting refugees or protecting your own society and the more vulnerable people within it, and that's what it's looking like to a lot of people, then your choice becomes obvious.

The vast majority of refugees aren't committing sexual assault. If you care about reducing sexual assault, supporting domestic violence shelters and education (e.g. programs like http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/prevent...) would be much more effective than reducing immigration. Most sexual assault occurs between people who already know one another, not random foreign strangers.

> The vast majority of refugees...

Having met many refugees I can say this is absolutely true. The vast majority are lovely people.

No, but the attitudes of males from Islamic culture towards women tend to be very much at odds with what we expect in modern Western society. This is a burgeoning problem as we admit more refugees from Islamic states. See for example http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35353310

Be that as it may, my explanation of the prevailing politics and perceptions of the situation is accurate. "If we let them come here they'll rape our daughters" is working as political rhetoric, and is a chief motivation behind these changes.

I do not wish harm for any innocent people. If they want they can get what we have in their own country, they need to make that possible though, if needed with our help. (I think there should be more focus on taking care of refugees and the like in the region... or at least more in countries that support their culture) Only when really necessary we need to take refugees into europe for protection, usually those are political refugees. We make something good for our children and we -have- to share it with the whole world in our house?

>> "We make something good for our children and we -have- to share it with the whole world in our house?"

You mean you got lucky to be born somewhere that isn't currently at war and now you feel entitled to what you were born into?

Yes, because it is my heritage. My family history made it happen, and many families around us. I am a child of my mother and not a random baby thrown on a random spot on earth, I carry the burden of maintaining or improving the quality of life for my kids. - Doesn't mean that I do not wish that everyone in this world can have what I have, and I support helping others. - There are ways to come here and join our culture, enrich yourself etc. It does require work though, and if you are not willing to do that then what are you really doing for yourself?

You're stopping just short of claiming genetic superiority here.

I read it as a preference for one's own cultural heritage, rather than anything to do with genetics or race.

"Cultural heritage" is so often these days used as a dog whistle for, well, race, allowing people to make all kinds of exclusionary and divisive statements then do the ol' "What? Racism? Nothing I said had anything to do with race..."

And the only reason you are part of that family is luck. A Syrian refugee didn't choose to be born in Syria at a time when they would have to face civil war at some stage in their life. I think if the tables were turned are you had to flee to Syria your opinion would be vastly different.

We don't choose where we are born, nor do our parents generally. We do choose how where we are born looks. Are you saying we need to move all the people on earth away from every civil war and feel responsible for that? Are we preventing civil war in our own country by bringing aggressors in? - And also not all these people being rescued are victims of civil war, many actually just have economic reasons. Many act as economic anchor for the rest of their family (they get in then later the whole family can come in).

Now, China is not in war, but, unluckily, as a Chinese, I have a lower living standard than a European, do I automatically get a chance to be let in Europe and enjoy whatever benefit the Europeans have? Since when has economics stopped working in Euroupe?

Why explain his heritage through luck? It's not like there's a repository of souls that's randomly drawn upon everytime someone has a baby. Luck doesn't describe a causal world with a bit of noise.

It's because of the historical, and thus causal nature of the distribution of opportunity that we might have concern over the distribution.

But if we re-rolled the dice, it's not like the asian couple from around the world is suddenly going to have a caucasian baby. You being born where you were was a confluence of factors operating in a causal framework with some noise. A re-roll isn't going to make you a Hilton family baby.

Also, what a person is entitled to is a matter for society to determine. Society creates a construct that it feels is a wholesome lens or boundary, then it creates the structures to enforce it. There is no natural right to anything, including property, life, or even death (some states forbid you to choose your death). Society determines that property is useful, creates a structure to enforce it, and voila, you are now entitled to property.

The problem I see is that by invoking heritage/past, there's the thorny issue of Europe's sordid history of going to other cultures and exploiting them. Perhaps this gives 'us' even more responsibility to accept people into our culture.

I don't necessarily agree with that logic myself, but then I also don't feel that I'm entitled to what my 'heritage' brought me.

Personally my main concern with this whole issue is practicality. I'm concerned that a too-large influx of refugees (or economic migrants) might cause severe destabilization and further increase the growing right-wing sentiment.

Coffe is arabic, Potatoes from Peru, Tomatoes from South America, your canned tuna fish is from Ethiopia and other fishes from Chile. When you sip your Tea you take advantage of the work of Asian people and the glass that contains this tea is probably an Egyptian invention. Your books are made of paper developped by first time in China. Your weapons are useless without powder, developped by China. Oranges and Lemons are from Asia. Sweet corn and Chocolate is from Mexico. The first agriculture systems and production of bread was developped in Irak. Your eggs and fried chicken came from the asian rainforests.

And you claim that "My family history made it happen" and "I do not wish that everyone in this world can have what I have"?

Wow.

You must have a really interesting family tree.

You could say literally the same thing about wealth. Are you saying people are not entitled to their wealth just because they happened to be born into it?

Personally I don't think they are entitled to it but my point was that the reason they have it is through luck of being born into it.

I think that is pretty obviously what he is saying.

I (me) am not a soul that was that "lucky enough" to be "born into" a body in a decent environment. I am the product of my ancestors. There is no luck or unfair process involved. I can't even really address the other part because it's so outrageous. Accusing someone of feeling entitled to the fruits of their labour and their parents' labour and their grandparents' labour? Repulsive.

Will you let a homeless stranger sleep in your bed if one comes knocking on your door? Assuming you don't, why not? Just because you were lucky enough to be born in a situation where you can afford a house and not end up with a drug addiction, you feel like you are entitled to such luxuries?

My old neighbor died some time ago. He was bedridden for several years and his wife dedicated all her time and money to provide care at home. When she had to get him to the hospital for a routine checkup, she had to call an ambulance because there was no other way to get him there. The ambulance drivers couldn't guarantee her that she wouldn't have to pay the bills for his transport. Two people who paid taxes their whole life, two people who paid health insurance their whole life.

Meanwhile ten thousands of refugees get these transports for free plus the state pays for interpreters during their hospital visit... tell me how this is fair without using your wishy washy talk about "entitledness" and "winning the birth lottery".

The fact that an apparently civilised country can't work out how to provide free ambulances is completely orthogonal from whether or not we should meet our international obligations to care for and protect refugees.

We don't have to pay for ambulance services in the UK. Charging for that is insane. That's the part that isn't fair in your scenario.

> If they want they can get what we have in their own country, they need to make that possible though.

Oh trust me, they're trying. Western imperialism and colonialism has a habit of getting in the way though.

The west is not guilt-free, but it is not at fault for everything. If that were the case we would have seen great improvement after the western colonies didn't get in their way. (or are we in the way of their great victory in killing all others?)

I do agree that we're not at fault for everything. But expecting a post-colonial society to just do well after a long period of colonial abuse is a bit like expecting a person who is depressed or severely insecure as a result of childhood abuse/bullying/whatever to 'just get over it'. This is not how humans or societies work.

Their infighting does not help either. If they were united as a people it wouldn't be so easy to outsiders to meddle in their affairs.

I agree. The more Syrian migrants we let in, the more our countries become like Syria due to Syrian cultural impact. I don't really want to live in New Syria, so I'd rather they stay out.

Or to put it another way, I have no desire whatsoever to see Islamic cultures take root in my country any more than they already have done, with their built-in homophobia and misogyny, and other such problems. We've worked hard to build a more equal society, and letting in those whose culture disregards that is a threat.

We can, and should, help them in their own country. But we have to do so while protecting our own too.

(Throwaway account because complaining about cultural incompatibility tends to be regarded as 'racist', even though it has nothing to do with race.)

South Africa has received a huge influx of refugees overs the years from Zimbabwe, Mozambique & Nigeria. Even though the "people" have protested this and asked for the foreigners to be deported (Legal/Illegal) the government has not done that to humans. How a 3rd (2nd?) world country is able to accommodate people of such numbers while 1st world countries in Europe complain is beyond me.

And Jordan.

It might be because richer people can take more time out of their daily routine to complain, but I'm not actually sure it is fair to say that the situation in South Africa is stable. I've read about lots of lynchings, forced deportations and other difficulties for refugees, many of which are not officially recognised.

Syrians who make it to Western Europe and achieve refugee status can probably expect to be treated very well.

But there are also far fewer of them than South Africa has had to accommodate.

There are no easy comparisons.

So the government should ignore the concerns and wishes of the people (or "people" as you refer to them), because they know what is just better than anyone. When, for instance, the government decides to engage in war despite lacking public support, you would of course approve of that. Or should they only concern themselves with democratic principles when you disagree with their decision?

Well, it seems to me that if a majority of South Africans oppose allowing these people in, they should not be allowed in.

Yeah, given a choice between liberal values and democracy always pick liberal values. We know what's best, not the plebeians.

> sending a message that caring for people forced from their homes is optional

So, they're implying that it's mandatory? How come? Admitting foreign citizens, spending resources on them sounds like a definition of charity — how charity can not be optional?

Pretty much this

I understand the refugees are in a difficult position, but there is a limit to the help that can be given (which should be obvious)

If MSF doesn't want the money that's fine.

There are "limits" and there are "limits".

If the receiving country has no room, is broke, and its citizenry are on the edge of starvation, then that's one limit.

Somehow I don't think that's the limit you are talking about, but that's the only obvious one I can think of.

What do you think is the limit, and why do you think the EU countries already past or even near to that limit?

The limit is the receiving countries not becoming what they're fleeing from, obviously

If you disagree, my suggestion is that you take in your house as many refugees as the number of people that currently live in it.

> If the receiving country has no room, is broke, and its citizenry are on the edge of starvation, then that's one limit.

Oh of course, let's destroy whole countries otherwise people like you will think they're racist and petty. Genius.

Boo-hoo. I live in Sweden. We have taken in huge numbers of people. I will gladly pay extra in taxes to help them out.

Sweden is also far from becoming like Syria.

If Sweden's policy is the limit, then most of the other EU countries fall far short of the limit you are concerned about.

> Boo-hoo. I live in Sweden. We have taken in huge numbers of people.

The difference between being charitable and naive is a thin one.

> Sweden is also far from becoming like Syria.

Let's hope so. And while I agree most of the "news" on the Internet about Sweden are crap, Sweden has an important gender imbalance and increasing problems with violence

Also nobody speaks anything and pretends it doesn't happen because "it's racist". Like: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/11/swedish-police...

> then most of the other EU countries fall far short of the limit you are concerned about

Portugal and Spain are looking for more people but it doesn't seem anybody wants to go there.

So you agree that most of the EU countries are not near the limits that you are worried about, yes?

Then why aren't they taking more refugees?

> Then why aren't they taking more refugees?

I know it's a matter of wording, but no country "takes", but has people apply for asylum either before going or when there. Though Canada provided transportation to those approved.

It can be said that countries might need to facilitate/advertise this more (and not only in Europe). Some South American countries took some people as well (not as much as Europe though)

Oh and Poland received a lot of refugees from Ukraine (some say around 1Mi)

Take has many shades of meaning. "We take AmEx" means "We accept American Express card if you wish to pay that way." It doesn't mean that if I see an AmEx card I grab it.

If it helps, feel free to interpret my use of "taking" as short for "taking in", with meaning of "to admit; receive".

So, by following your reasoning, a sound-economy country, should receive aliens until such receiving country has no room, is broke, and everybody are on the edge of starvation?

No.

Everyone agrees that there are material limits to what a country can provide. It is indeed obvious that there is a limit to the amount of help that a country can provide.

But raverbashing used a bait-and-switch argument, to say that because there are limits, we (people who live in the EU), can now prevent refugees from entering the EU countries.

What I asked is clarification of what those limits are, and how they were determined.

One limit is "tolerance for foreigners." That's certainly a limit. Is that the limit that raverbashing is talking about?

Another limit is "there is no place to put them." Sweden has problems with that.

I can think of other limits. But none are the sort of existential limits that everyone agrees exists.

I'm guessing the perceived limit is that NIMBYs feel too uncomfortable to handle more refugees? It doesn't seem like a real limit to me.

How about Europe taking responsibility for their interventionist policies in the Middle East and their support for the US military agenda in the Middle East which created most of these problems in the first place?

First of all, Europe is not one country. To hold the entirely of Europe responsible for what some countries do is just as absurd as holding all of Asia responsible for what China does.

Secondly, many countries inside Europe have opposed US military actions in the Middle East.

> First of all, Europe is not one country. To hold the entirely of Europe responsible for what some countries do is just as absurd as holding all of Asia responsible for what China does.

Germany, France and the UK (which actively supported interventions in the Middle East) contribute ~50% of the EU budget - it's silly to even suggest that these laws are being passed without their support.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#E...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syr...

EU != Europe.

I live in Europe yet I'm not part of the European Union. Also, measuring by "budget", what's up with that? At least use population number or something that's semi reasonable.

It's roughly the same as thinking that the US == Continent America, and that Canada, Argentina and Mexico should be responsible for the actions of the US.

Yes, France opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2002. What do they get? Several terrorist actions in one year.

France also has a very bad track record in the Maghreb and lots of people who lived under French rule or lost people in their parents' generation are still alive. Given that France did not do much to make up for that, it is understandable that there still is a lot of hatred and they thus are an easy target. Concentrating a large, poor and badly educated 1st and 2nd generation of immigrants from those countries in neglected suburbs also did not help....

That's no justification for acts of terrorism. The fault is with the individual terrorists, not the French en masse.

I'm not trying to justify terrorism but highlight motivations for it.

Who is "Europe" in this case? I can tell you it was not idea of the European population to follow the US into a war based on wrongful information. So who should be taking responsibility?

How about you accept that people in the Middle East have their own agency, and are not merely pawns for other countries on a giant chess board?

There are many cases where helping others is legally mandatory. For instance, if you find somebody stranded at sea.

But we are talking about countries here, so legality is not the issue. The issue is, in my opinion, that for years, the EU have sold itself as an humanist endeavour.

There is also the issue that we, Europeans, are responsible for a lot of what this people is running away.

There is also the practical issue that hide one's head in the sand it's not going to solve the problem.

Oh, and there are ethics, of course. But that is a boring unfashionable issue, so we will forget about it.

They are specifically talking about "sending a message that caring is optional". Not quite the same thing.

Going on your second question, there are good arguments on why not being charitable, solidaric, or however you want to call it is immoral and shortsighted.

The strongest for me are 1) if you accept human dignity as an inalienable right (one of the tenets of humanism) then you have already created an ethics in which you either care or are immmoral 2) more pragmatically, by not being charitable and solidarity, you imply a) that the world has winners and losers,b)with the winners having the right to treat the losers poorly,c)that you are a winner and always will be. That to me is delusional and suboptimal, since at any point a blood clot could render you helpless.

> on why not being charitable, solidaric, or however you want to call it is immoral and shortsighted

Which is a very nice strawman

> if you accept human dignity as an inalienable right (one of the tenets of humanism) then you have already created an ethics in which you either care or are immmoral

Nice way in making people guilty and only seeing black and white. You are as intolerant as ISIS, you're just not killing people for it

> a) that the world has winners and losers,b)with the winners having the right to treat the losers poorly,c)that you are a winner and always will be

Again, you see the world in pure black and white.

> That to me is delusional and suboptimal

Yes, see the above point

> Which is a very nice strawman

I'm curious as to what is a strawman in that statement? You are arguing charity should be optional, he said "not being charitable". Where in that sentence is he misrepresenting the position he is claiming is immoral and shortsighted? Is the word solidaric that much of a sticking point?

I've found quite a few arguments against allowing the influx of migrants from the middle east to continue unabated to be at the very least reasonable (I have family in Greece that are seeing it first hand), but none of them start and end with "black and white", with the middle filled with comparisons to ISIS.

If you have something to say about the actual issue, I'd love to hear it.

My opinion on the issue is in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11927994

I don't see your point. Maybe not exactly a strawman, but certainly a false dichotomy

I also believe that those who think not being charitable is immoral and shortsighted should be actually helping instead of commenting on news items

Being immoral and being unlwful are different things though.

Because the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which the EU countries are signatory, gives special status to refugees. This status is not the same as simply "admitting foreign citizens."

For example:

> The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules.

I read that most refugees pouring into the EU are there for economical reasons, and states argue that as such they don't have to admit them. Cannot find that article right now.

They should let only wealthy refugees in then right ?

The question isn't whether being rich/poor affects somebody's potential status as a refugee for non-economic reasons (e.g. persecution in their home country), it's whether enconomic reasons alone are enough to justify "refugee" status. Which side you come down on regarding this is subjective, but either way your comment isn't relevant.

"Many" as in absolute values like "more than 1,000"? I can believe that.

Or "many" as in relative values like "more than 30%"? I have difficulties believing that. If so, it's amazing how coincidental the timing is between the start of the ongoing civil war in Syria and the start of the refugee crisis.

It's also amazing how the UN "has identified 13.5 million Syrians requiring humanitarian assistance, of which 6.6 million are internally displaced within Syria, and over 4.8 million are refugees outside of Syria." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_W... . Are the ones you mentioned in addition to those numbers?

Those number seem unbelievably high, given there are less than 18 million Syrians total.

Umm, that's why there's a crisis.

Do you think the numbers are wrong? Why, and by how much do you think they are wrong?

It's not credible that 75% of Syrians have left the country.

They haven't. The quote I gave is the total displaced population, "... of which 6.6 million are internally displaced within Syria, and over 4.8 million are refugees outside of Syria."

Only 5 million/18 million = 28% of the population has left the country.

This is an almost arbitrary distinction. These people are looking for a better life, one without violence but hopefully, yes, also one where they're not stuck in poverty. Maslow's pyramid and all that.

Why don't the countries responsible for the refugee situation take care of the consequences instead? Like, who has been destabilizing the Middle-East for like dozens of years now ?

But the British are part of the EU as well...

Exactly, and more importantly this is the most natural and health way to deal with issues of asylum seekers.

Very concerning topic and one the could easily get much worse; aka ship all asylum seekers or for the matter "unwanted" to somewhere willing to take them.

Are they really refugees though?

Didn't know that, now it actually makes sense. Thanks.

So by the same logic they won't be taking money from the US, Australia and so on?

What is constantly ignored by the media is the fact that most people coming to the EU illegally at the moment are not refugees but migrants that come because their countries economy is in bad shape.

For example in Austria only about 20% of refugees are given asylum status, the others are simply found to be illegal immigrants.

Though I can understand the motivation for these people to come we can't take in everyone from Africa or the Middle East that would like to come.

On top of that their cultural values are incompatible with ours and this leads to major issues between immigrants and the local population.

That's why I really don't care for this kind of activism by Doctors without Borders. We have borders and laws that should be enforced, our politicians can't just ignore our laws because they personally don't like them or have a different view.

EDIT: Sorry I can't reply to thesimon below in a comment, that's why I'll put my reply in here:

See my comment regarding Germany: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11928358

This data again doesn't reflect the situation. It says that we had 20.000 submitted asylum requests in 2015, even though we had 90.000 registered refugees (who didn't formally seek asylum)

Everyone is free to guess why the other 70.000 did not submit an asylum request.

>For example in Austria only about 20% of refugees are given asylum status, the others are simply found to be illegal immigrants.

[citation needed]

Official stats of May [0] saying 75% of the applications for asylum are granted.

[0]: http://www.bmi.gv.at/cms/BMI_Asylwesen/statistik/files/2016/...

They're not called refugees over here - they're "migrants". The press and our governments insist that most of them are economic migrants, here to make a quick buck, take your job, claim your benefits, rape your wife and daughter. The rest are apparently IS fighters.

In the uk we now have people so filled with hate and fear of immigration that they're murdering politicians. Many will argue that this isn't the case, mostly those who believe the above paragraph - I don't know but "death to traitors, freedom for Britain" when shooting an mp who is pro migrant rights probably means something.

If there's a future to look back from, this period will be looked upon with shame.

Or more likely just written out of history, and anyone who talks about it is called a revisionist or terror apologist.

Many people have legitimate concerns over mass migration. It's not all a bunch of xenophobes.

What are those legitimate concerns? Income depression? Housing scarcity? Migration hasn't done that, decades of broken robber-baron policy has.

Well, concern for the atheists is influx of deeply religious and conservative people. Do you know what happens to atheists in societies where many of people are coming from? Same for LGBT, woman rights etc.

I just spent a month in Europe (coming from Australia). 2 weeks in Germany, then 2 weeks in England and Wales.

It was interesting seeing the difference in opinion in these countries on both treatment of refugees, and the whole "Brexit" situation.

Germans (that I spoke to) see Brexit as a purely racist / nationalist debate and don't really understand why it's being argued as an economic debate. They run the numbers and shake their heads. From an immigration point of view, they bring up, for example, the Spanish situation (~100k spanish people living in the UK, ~500k UK people living in Spain) and wonder why Britain think that leaving the EU is going to be good for "jobs and population" when this imbalance exists in many other european nations as well.

In the UK I saw "Leave" posters everywhere, and occasionally an EU flag or "Remain" poster. Speaking to people it seemed obvious that this debate was primarily about racism / nationalism and the economic questions were secondary to the general population.

I have a feeling that this may be a perfect case-study in how governments disguise contentious and emotive issues (that the general populous have strong opinions on) as economic issues (that are easily mired in layers of complexity) to make the debate seem more palatable to outside observers.

The horrific killing of Jo Cox occurred while I was on the flight back to Australia. It will be interesting to see how, despite the terrible circumstances, this event changes the tone of the debate. After all, it's hard to stomach that someone would kill someone else over the effects of trade policy, but the effects of "migrants" taking jobs are historically contentious. You only need to look at the Trump campaign (And Australia's disastrous immigration policy) to see how passionate these issues can make people.

I think MSF are making the right decision here (from a logical and moral viewpoint) but I hope they don't shoot themselves in the foot with this precedent. After all, it won't take too many further changes before they can't, by the same justification, accept money from the US, Australia, and any other country that seems bent on pushing a nationalist, rather than a humanitarian agenda.

1) Racial superiority or tribal instinct aside, my question is, how is it going to be paid for?

Helping the refugees/migrants integrate will cost a lot of money. Legal representation for them initially. Initial housing. Schooling. Essentially everything has to be paid for by govt until they get some low paying job that will barely pay for their expenses. And most likely they will end up needing govt assistance for the rest of their life because they don't have the skills needed in the local economy. And this life of depending on govt assistance will very possibly be the life of their offsprings too, because they couldn't get the necessary education due to their parents inability to deal with the new society.

2) The people creating the legal standard for dealing with refugees in 1950s and 1960s couldn't possibly have foreseen what's happening today. Certainly not the scale. With smartphone and social media, the scale is something no one expected.

3) Some limit has to be set on how many refugees/migrants are allowed in. Otherwise, the region of Syria/Afg/Iraq will be empty of people except for the warlords and their underlings. Now where do you draw the line?

Didn't the US attack a MSF hospital in Afghanistan a couple of months ago?

Are they still taking US money?

I'm fully in favour of MSF's stance, asylum seekers must have their rights recognised. These people are fleeing war and, adding to be forced to remain in overcrowded camps in dire conditions, they're even deprived of legal representation. It's a country's duty to receive refugees, according to the 1951 Refugee Convention and to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[1]. EU's action gives the precedence for other states to refuse refugees access to their own safety.

[1] - http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf

It's not that simple.

Fleeing to a nearby country is one thing.

Being able to move all the way to Germany, Denmark or Sweden isn't exactly being fleeing war anymore.

60% according to some are migrants not refugees.

The problem is that the outer borders doesn't work and so once you are inside it's very easy to move around as there have been practically no border control inside the EU.

This is changing now.

>60% according to some are migrants not refugees.

"according to some"

Wow, I was never convinced more.

https://www.rt.com/news/330284-economic-migrants-eu-refugees...

You buy the propaganda line then? Are the other 40% IS in your book?

By your argument we should just let them all sleep in a ditch next to the border of the country they fled, because that's good enough? That is more or less what is happening now.

Tell me. If Britain were engaged in a shooting war, would you consider the Isle of Man safe? Or would you go further?

What's your take on the camps in France [0] filled with migrants trying to get to Britain? Which wars in France are they fleeing?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calais_Jungle

People are trying to flee to somewhere familiar, be it because of language or brand presence. Additionally, many report they want to join family (cousins etc) already in the uk through legal means. I'm sure there are charlatans among them - but we are enacting collective punishment currently, which was largely abolished centuries ago.

What's your take on the 3000 refugee a year limit the uk is working to? (20,000 by 2020)

Somewhere familiar? How is Denmark or Sweden or Germany familiar to Syria?

If you flee because of war you don't care where you go, you just want to get away from the war. Moving to Denmark or UK or Sweden is a completely different operation.

Keep in mind that most people are left in the refugee camps near the conflict. For every person we have to take into our welfare system we are basically not able to provide for 10 if not hundreds of others in the actual area of the conflict.

The idea with being an actual refugee is that you are supposed to go back once the conflict is over and rebuild your own country. Thats not the plan of those who move so far away.

You are trying to turn something with a lot of gray areas into som black/white moral thing were the only right thing to do is help.

Sweden said just come everyone everyone warned them. Now they have closed the borders and is sending 80.000 back.

This is because they didn't realize that Denmark did which is you can't just take people in large quantity with such different cultures without it undermining the country they are migrating to.

It's easy to play the good person when you don't have responsibility for a country.

What propaganda? There are many refugee camps near the actual conflict areas.

It's not cheap to get to Denmark, so only those with most money can do it, which means the rest are left in the actual refugee camps near the area they fled from.

All you need to do is go and check out the refugee camps in ex. Denmark and you will find it to be mostly men, many of them married which mean they left their wife and or children behind. Think about that for a moment.

"Being able to move all the way to Germany, Denmark or Sweden isn't exactly being fleeing war anymore."

That is because of how international travel works. Many of those people would love to hop on a plane, land in country X, and request refugee status. But the flight system is set up to prevent that. Only those with a visa (or visa waiver) are allowed on the plane.

It used to be that refugees could travel by passenger ship. Look at the refugees from Germany who came to the US because of the second world war. Including the MS St. Louis where the refugees were denied entry to Cuba, Canada, and the United States.

We have no real passenger fleets, so that is no longer possible.

The only option left is to travel by land.

"60% according to some are migrants not refugees."

Do you have any references for that statement? Even if true, millions of people are refugees.

> "Being able to move all the way to Germany, Denmark or Sweden isn't exactly being fleeing war anymore."

> That is because of how international travel works.

Refugees fleeing from war are forced to travel through the entire European continent to the northern countries with the most beneficial social security because of how international travel works?

> "60% according to some are migrants not refugees."

> Do you have any references for that statement?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/12123684...

That's one person, who in January referenced an internal report. Has that report since been published? Was he correct in that statement?

That one report has been repeated many times, but repetition isn't verification.

If I read https://euobserver.com/migration/132048 correctly, the 40% number refers specifically Syrian refugees. Quoting from it:

> Iraqis and Afghans, it says, each represent around 24 percent of the mix, or just under 50 percent together.

> In other words, almost 90 percent the people who arrived by sea in the EU in December came from countries gripped by war or emerged from a wider regional conflict.

As to your other comment, when people flee they want to move some place where they have a future. Few want a future living in a refugee camp. Few want a future living as if they are second-class citizens and subject to xenophobia.

I'm sure many would choose to go to the US even though the US does not offer "the most beneficial social security". Many have gone to Brazil.

There is nothing besides wanting to get to a better place (rather than fleeing from war) that makes people go all the way to Denmark.

The fact is that the second you are in the nearest country where there is no conflict you are a refugee from the war, but the second you move further you are not more an actual refugee of war but rather a migrant.

Now there are all sorts of reasons why we still accepts people as refugees rather than migrants but thats only because they didn't declare themselves refugees in some of the countries they came trough.

They don't have to because of Schengen which allow for people to move freely within the EU. The out borders don't work, so as soon as you get in you can move quite freely. This is what is being changed now that many european countries are putting up border patrol forcing them further and further back to where they originated from.

It's totally understandably why people want to move to a better place, just as it's perfectly understandable that countries don't want to let everyone in. Especially not the European wellfare systems which are quite lucrative.

https://www.rt.com/news/330284-economic-migrants-eu-refugees...

Yes, we're between a rock and a hard place.

When experience says the Dublin Agreement starts to break own under high stress, who should suffer the most? The refugees? The border countries?

I certainly have no answers, but I can empathize better with the refugees more than I can those who insist that refugees are stuck in the first place they arrive.

Of course you can empathize better with the refugees, most of us can. And so it's the job of the politicians to make sure a balance is struck.

But you are doing it again. Assuming the problem is mostly a refugee problem. It's not it's a migration problem, thats the one thats hard to solve and which can't be solved by doing what sweden and germany did.

Furthermore and as mentioned elsewhere. Many of these people are those with most resources, otherwise they wouldn't be able to actually make it so far. The real refugees, those who can't get away, them we are leaving with less resources because we end up spending money on those who come to the various european countries.

According to the Article 26 of the document I posted above, "each Contracting State shall accord to refugees lawfully in its territory the right to choose their place of residence to move freely within its territory, subject to any regulations applicable to aliens generally in the same circumstances."; according to the second point of the Article 31 of that same document, "the Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country."

Yes which is all based on the premise that the outer borders works, which they don't. This is why several countries now have border patrols again.

Once they arrive in Turkey or Greece their lives are not threatened anymore. Where does it say that refugees can pick and choose wherever they'd like to live.

Why don't you import them to San Francisco? I guess life is even better there than in some small German town. Or how about Monaco or Disney Land?

I support Doctors Without Borders choice and strongly disagree with how the EU is dealing the issue; and for that matter not dealing with the related issues.

Most natural way of dealing with the issue is to allow those legally escaping a country to seek asylum wherever they're able to do so and/or to them feels like the best place to go.

>> "Most natural way of dealing with the issue is to allow those legally escaping a country to seek asylum wherever they're able to do so and/or to them feels like the best place to go."

The problem with that is that the first countries they tend to arrive in are poorer European countries that don't have the necessary resources to process them. Allowing them to choose which country they want to go to will end up burdening the richer European countries as they will undoubtedly be the final destination for most migrants.

I disagree with how it's being handled too but I don't think your solution would work.

I think if we had some sort of EU organisation that works in border countries and deals with processing and then distributes migrants fairly throughout the continent it would be best. Processing takes so long though that it's still going to either burden border countries or refugees will be kept in detention centres throughout processing which is unethical in my view.

> Allowing them to choose which country they want to go to will end up burdening the richer European countries as they will undoubtedly be the final destination for most migrants.

Fortunately those richer countries are better equipped to handle that burden (because they are rich).

This is a complex problem and I really do not have any 5 minute solutions (I wish), but processing taking long seems to me a problem that is mostly caused by the receiving countries, not by the refugees.

>> "Fortunately those richer countries are better equipped to handle that burden (because they are rich)."

I agree, but if you let people choose where they want to go and they mostly pick one of the rich countries it'll become unsustainable for them too which is why I think an even spread across the EU with countries taking in a share based on their wealth would work best.

>> "processing taking long seems to me a problem that is mostly caused by the receiving countries, not by the refugees."

True, I think the bureaucracy around it is a big issue. Refugees are probably lacking in a lot of documentation though (for obvious reasons) which can't help. That seems like something that should be common and obvious enough to authorities though that they can find other ways to verify identity etc.

You're missing the point of how refugees naturally select the country that's best able to deal with the issue.

Germany has an army, Greece does not. Turkey had an army, but the outcome of Turkey using it's army to end the war is not the one the refugees want. Point is to make refugees a natural point of pain as quickly as possible so that those impacted deal with the issue, not allow it to go on and on and on.

Even worse, if allowing countries to send refugees for a fee to another country becomes a thing, it might quickly turn into sending any unwanted individuals to a secured location in another country; which clearly is a horrible solution.

You know all the empty cities that China has built to keep people busy and their economy from collapsing?

I keep thinking the EU and middle-eastern countries should pay China to house immigrants there.

Better than a horrible refuge camp?

This is a perfect example of the rise of our civil society. Awesome!!

And yet MSF was founded in France.

Oh the irony. It hurts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com