Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluesharpie | Hacker News Reader

I live in Canada, stories like this one make me happy, but there is a huge difference in how the Canadian Government handled this crisis and how Germany did. I have met a couple of Syrian refugees living in Canada and they were indeed from Syria and their lives were indeed in danger before fleeing their home countries, that is why the results are positive. But in Germany the situation is a complete mess, thousands of economic migrants making it harder for real refugees, many which are a security threat. I have seen both sides of the coin and I don't think someone has to be a xenophobe to be against taking refugees and someone doesn't have to be naive to stand outside holding "refugees welcome" signs

View on HN

It's a lot easier for us in Canada to pick and choose between war-displaced refugees and economic migrants when we have a massive ocean between us and the source of migrants. No one can arrive here without being pre-cleared by the Canadian government. European countries don't have that luxury.

You're right that it's much less water, but euro countries are still choosing to accelerate the situation. Migrants will float their boat up to anything that looks european, sink themselves, because they are often required to bring them onboard and take them to europe, even if they're barely off the coast of wherever they came from.

Even if you want all the migrants you can get, it's a terrible plan because they often accidentally sink themselves near vessels that can't take them onboard and drown, or leave in vessels that aren't seaworthy because they think they'll get picked up, and when they don't they drown.

They don't have that luxury and they don't want it. The purpose of taking in refugees is two fold: One, to save their lives (duh), but also to prevent them from radicalizing.

Europe is vacuuming up anyone who wants to join so that they don't stay in the warzone and possibly turn against them.

Doesn't seem to be working very effectivley.

This will not be tolerated.

Did the refugees go directly from Syria to Canada? If not, wouldn't their status have changed from 'real refugees' to 'economic migrants' when they left the country where their lives were not in danger?

Canada takes it's refugees directly from UN camps, as does the UK. They are well-vetted, they are definitely refugees, and they come as families.

The flood of people into Europe was less than 1/4 Syrians, and those that were were mostly young males and not too many families.

Merkel made a huge mistake by opening the borders.

Disastrous.

It would have been more humane, safe, and cheaper to pluck refugees from the UN camps.

German government could have paid Lufthansa 400 Euros per flight, flown them in from Lebanon right to the spots in Germany. Processed them ahead of time, got them lined up with housing etc. etc..

Instead, many died in transit, it cause political chaos - and terrorists got into the country: the incident this weekend was by a Tunisian, denied status but 'allowed to stay' (meaning he will never leave). No doubt he's angry - as will the 100's of thousands of Tunisians, Pakistanis and others who will not be given status, but 'allowed to stay' and therefore live in a grey zone.

I believe most Syrians, Iraqis and Afghanis will be given status, the rest, not.

Yes, having an ocean in between is an advantage.

An illustrative example is how many refugees Sweden received in 2015, 150 000[1]. Sweden has about 1/3 of the number of inhabitants as Canada.

If Canada were to receive a proportionally large number of refugees that would be about 450 000 refugees. In actuality Canada has received about 35 000. An order of magnitude less.

The Canadian refugee system is/was under no where near the amount of stress that the European states are/were.

(Some European countries like Hungary for example have behaved thoroughly Xenophobic during these events and are frankly embarrassing to be associated with)

[1] http://www.migrationsverket.se/English/About-the-Migration-A...

[2] http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/welcome/milestones.asp

Sweden is actually an example of how not to handle a refugee crisis. Just yesterday I met my friend who lives in Sweden and was at Malmö at the height of migrant crisis. I won't recite what he said and what is current opinion of common swedes themselves, because I would get downvoted to hell as xenophobic bastard.

Where did you explain Sweden is a bad example?

I mean nearly everybody knows that foreigners and xenophobia are correlated.

Just google it, it's not a secret of some kind: https://www.google.com/search?q=sweden+refugee+crisis&ie=utf...

Malmö was a clusterfuck before the migration crisis. It's the garbage bin of the country. My feeling is that the crisis (and rioting a few years ago) just gave the locals a justification to talk more openly about the problems there without feeling racist.

Sweden did an amazing job in the last 30 years picking up the mess that the rest of the WHOLE WORLD keeps making. They have been left alone and now they are struggling. Germany is now reaching a similar status. It can't go on like that.

One thing that would likely help is linking seats on the UN Security Council to refugee quotas. You shouldn't be able to decide what goes on without accepting responsibility for picking up your rubbish.

"One thing that would likely help is linking seats on the UN Security Council to refugee quotas. You shouldn't be able to decide what goes on without accepting responsibility for picking up your rubbish."

Great idea, but it will never pass while certain countries possesses and abuses their veto[0] on pretty much any deal that has some impact on real world.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci...

Do you live in Malmö? I do and it's far from a clusterfuck.

Meanwhile the six wealthy Gulf countries - Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain - have offered to receive exactly zero Syrian refugees. Saudi Arabia has however funded 200 mosques for construction in Germany.

Why are economic migrants considered a lower class than war refuges? Aren't both man-made disasters?

EDIT: This is a genuine question. I might not agree with the answers, but I want to know what makes people make this distinction.

Refugees (in the sense of what asylum laws see as those deserving help) get special treatment because they flee from a high risk of dying, being unfairly persecuted etc: concrete risks to their basic well-being.

The term Economic migrants is used for those that are not in immediate danger, just in search of a better living situation. If the economic situation in your country is so bad there is widespread starvation you'd qualify as a refugee, if I as a european move to the US because tech jobs there pay better I'd still be an economic migrant.

Asylum is an exception to other immigration rules for those that really need it. If you are not in danger, you should follow the normal rules.

Because immigrants are not refugees. If you want to get a job in a country with better jobs, there are legal means (visas, permissions) to do that and one should use it. Crossing country border illegally is akin to breaking into somebody's house -- just because that person might be richer isn't an excuse. Genuine refugees don't have legal ways to achieve safety in their country, so they are forced to flee.

I think it depends on the source of pressure.

The Capital for economic migrants and the State for war refugees.

There's no evidence that "many" of the refugees that gave entered Germany in the last year are a security threat so why do you think that?

Are you serious?

edit: I said economic migrants who lie about being refugees are a security threat, not the actual Syrian refugees.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/20/everything-know-s...

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year's_Eve_sexual_assaults...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com