Future of the European Union

[Montmorency]

Most 'refugees' are simply welfare tourists, almost all are young men who should be building up their own countries instead. Human traffickers must be stopped, not aided. NGO's even give the boats back to them. It has become better now but there is still a lot to be improved, Eurpean countries aren't to be held responsible for their breeding. Liking has nothing to do with it, I don't dislike them, but I don't welcome them either they do not belong here. I only care for real refugees and screening is way of. It is getting better though but huge mistakes have been made. I am nota coldhearted person, quite the contrary, I actually enjoy the diversity, but allowing immigration on such a scale is a mistake

Virtually all of that is false, I'm afraid. You have the wrong information.

How can you tell they are not real refugees? How did you determine the people you helped out were real refugees? Maybe they weren't real refugees? If you say you could personally screen them reliably but the government can't (you trust blogs more than institutions, but do you trust blogs as a substitute for your own eyes and ears?), then it would be irresponsible to reject all others in principle without screening them. Go find some of these "fake refugees" and apply your proficient methods to assign them a firmer designation.

And while the claims are being processed (which, given the amount of immigrants and red tape speed, is likely to take months) you are ready to have them camped in your backyard? With no job, no food, no medical care?

The government should hire more judges and lawyers to process the log.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement, among other agencies, is equipped to provide services, and can easily be expanded in scope and funding (currently under a billion $) if the government were inclined.

Concentrating the asylees 'in a backyard' would constrain their ability to integrate, find work, and access many services (including legal). They should be dispersed throughout the country on their own recognizance so that they can be assisted by community and civil groups. Currently asylum seekers are required to wait 150 days into the process before being permitted to look for work, which is a disadvantage.

Let's all remember that this is not Andorra we're talking about, but the United States anticipating maybe a couple thousand persons arriving on foot at the border sometime in Winter '19. To fearmonger around this influx would be the basest kind of self-imposed delusion. If we were serious about preparing our countries for the coming influxes of refugees (in the millions), then we would be mobilizing collectively to change our way of life and not raving about Jewish-conspiracy financed jihadi marauders bringing leprosy, smallpox, and miscegenation to White America (literally all charges Trump and the Republicans have advanced to the public).

Anyone who wishes for martial law, for suspension of habeas corpus and other civil rights, and for the military to receive (and follow) illegal orders to massacre noncombatants as a response to news that a modest number of foreigners may eventually arrive at the southern border who are prepared to meticulously comply with border regulations and law of asylum is an enemy of humanity and the United States, plain and simple.

Then it would be enough for them to have crossed into Mexico. But they are crusading northwards wishing not abstract safety and food, but American safety and food.

That is the critical bit that so often seems to be overlooked - one is supposed to seek asylum in the first country which is safe.

1. No, one need not.
2. Most of them get discouraged and stay in Mexico anyway, besides all those who aim for Mexico as their final destination. This will of course, given the continuing lack of effective US foreign policy, contribute to Mexico's (ongoing) destabilization.
3. Under what circumstances will (the individual or family leaving due to lack of food or job or personal security) moving to a foreign country with even heavier gang activity, a hostile government that is stingy at the best of times towards even citizens, and no connections on which to rely, substantially improve one's security? Not often. Do you think along the lines of 'those Latin people are all the same, so one country or another shouldn't make a difference to them'?

In Merkel's case just ignored. It isn't our fault that the childless mutti is barren, who would fuck that anyway. She isn't just stupid she's evil, an ex stasi her codename was Erica, I wonder how many got killed because of her

Do you prefer that she would have demanded the refugees stay in Italy and Greece (mostly Greece at the time)? What if they claimed to be overwhelmed and refused to participate? Should the German EU military have closed their borders and advanced to occupy key positions in those countries until they agreed to take full responsibility for all refugees without EU assistance?

As with other things, you have an irrational view of Merkel.