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?
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.
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?
Do you think the numbers are wrong? Why, and by how much do you think they are wrong?
Only 5 million/18 million = 28% of the population has left the country.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Secondly, many countries inside Europe have opposed US military actions in the Middle East.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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)
If it helps, feel free to interpret my use of "taking" as short for "taking in", with meaning of "to admit; receive".
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.