IMMIGRATION thread

**Fragony** · 09-22-2015, 20:14

Originally Posted by Husar

Yes, but you were apparently saying that because I am not rich enough to afford a boat to house a migrant, my opinion is not worth as much as yours. Either that or I have no idea what you were saying.

Don't have thar boat anymore, but I shelterted people there as well yes. I justt have litttle patience with people who do absolutily nothing themselve but know exactly what others shoiuld do. I only do it to help, not to feel nice.

**Husar** · 09-22-2015, 21:34

Originally Posted by Fragony

Don't have thar boat anymore, but I shelterted people there as well yes. I justt have litttle patience with people who do absolutily nothing themselve but know exactly what others shoiuld do. I only do it to help, not to feel nice.

When did I try to tell you what you should do? My point was that with Merkel saying people can come and you harboring them you're pretty much supporting what she said, you want to help and so does she, yet here you claim that she made a big blunder?

**HopAlongBunny** · 09-22-2015, 21:52

Germany, and some other EU countries are, in fact, looking on the refugees as economic saviours.

http://www.bloombergview.com/article...comes-refugees

An aging population needs to be supported.

**Greyblades** · 09-22-2015, 22:07

If germany has the jobs to support the refugees and the patience to assimilate them, then more power to them. Just don't come crying to us if you take in more than you can employ and end up swelling the homeless/ criminal population.

**Viking** · 09-23-2015, 14:57

Originally Posted by Husar

Would you care to give us your definition then or are you just against the current one?

I don't have an exact definition I'd like to see be the dominant one, but the current use strikes me as having a tendency of stretching it too far. If a refugee can remain a refugee as long as they don't have legal asylum anywhere and their home country is dangerous, then the term can become rather silly and redundant in many contexts.

Another possible way to look at it is to observe a distinction between a technical/legal version of the term and an informal version, where the the informal version should be reserved for more acute and obvious cases.

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

Germany, and some other EU countries are, in fact, looking on the refugees as economic saviours.

http://www.bloombergview.com/article...comes-refugees

An aging population needs to be supported.

Population growth is not sustainable in the long run; at some point it has to stop (literally, otherwise the Earth would eventually collapse into a degenerate stellar body, and ultimately into a black hole).

It's not unnatural that population growth is followed by population decline, so they might just be pushing an inevitable future further ahead.

**wooly_mammoth** · 09-23-2015, 15:09

I don't understand this part with Germany needing refugees from the middle east to support the economy and aging population. There's already plenty of young people in Europe that could do that. For example, unemployment of young people is a big problem in Romania and as far as I know also in Spain, possibly other countries as well. Why weren't these Europeans good for the same purpose for which the guys from the middle east seem to be?

Edit: and hooray for me for the 137th post!

**Husar** · 09-23-2015, 20:00

Originally Posted by Viking

I don't have an exact definition I'd like to see be the dominant one, but the current use strikes me as having a tendency of stretching it too far. If a refugee can remain a refugee as long as they don't have legal asylum anywhere and their home country is dangerous, then the term can become rather silly and redundant in many contexts.

Isn't a refugee someone forced to seek refuge? And why is that definition silly? If you say it is silly, it would help if you explain why.

Originally Posted by Viking

Another possible way to look at it is to observe a distinction between a technical/legal version of the term and an informal version, where the the informal version should be reserved for more acute and obvious cases.

How would the informal version help with anything if the legal one stays the same?

Originally Posted by Viking

Population growth is not sustainable in the long run; at some point it has to stop (literally, otherwise the Earth would eventually collapse into a degenerate stellar body, and ultimately into a black hole).

It's not unnatural that population growth is followed by population decline, so they might just be pushing an inevitable future further ahead.

You forget that we can expand to New Berlin on Mars.
Population decline would help with a lot of issues though, such as pollution etc.
It's just that noone sees this and many have previously claimed that the planet could house a whole lot more humans.
It also seems counter-productive for any country by itself to reduce the population.

Originally Posted by wooly_mammoth

I don't understand this part with Germany needing refugees from the middle east to support the economy and aging population. There's already plenty of young people in Europe that could do that. For example, unemployment of young people is a big problem in Romania and as far as I know also in Spain, possibly other countries as well. Why weren't these Europeans good for the same purpose for which the guys from the middle east seem to be?

Are you in favor of a new EU law that forces people to move if they can't find work or are you suggesting we spark a civil war in Spain?

**wooly_mammoth** · 09-24-2015, 03:04

Don't be ridiculous. It's just that I didn't hear the "feel free to come & work in Germany if you can't find a job since we need workers and population growth bonus" rhetoric being applied to EU citizens, that's why I was asking.

**Fragony** · 09-22-2015, 22:18

Originally Posted by Husar

When did I try to tell you what you should do? My point was that with Merkel saying people can come and you harboring them you're pretty much supporting what she said, you want to help and so does she, yet here you claim that she made a big blunder?

Yep. She broke the EU-rules at will and causec other member states a lot of trouble. After the everybody is welcome Germany shut down it's borders, after being total idiots these people are now stuck in Hungary and Croatia. Stupid and not to be trusted. What I do myself is up to me, I am not careless so I help someone out when I can. But when I invite too many guests to a party I don't insist they should stay at my neighbours.

I am sure that plumb eastblock farmhorse has a room to spare, I can also think of a mostly empty building in Strasbourg. It's perfect, thousands can stay there.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 09-23-2015, 16:24

Originally Posted by Fragony

Yep. She broke the EU-rules at will and causec other member states a lot of trouble. After the everybody is welcome Germany shut down it's borders, after being total idiots these people are now stuck in Hungary and Croatia. Stupid and not to be trusted. What I do myself is up to me, I am not careless so I help someone out when I can. But when I invite too many guests to a party I don't insist they should stay at my neighbours.

I am sure that plumb eastblock farmhorse has a room to spare, I can also think of a mostly empty building in Strasbourg. It's perfect, thousands can stay there.

Leaving aside the personal slur at the end Frag is broadly correct here - first Germany unilaterally said it would take "all Syrians" and now it wants to force other countries to take them instead - but only 120,000 of the million or so we will have this year, when Husar says 40-50 are considered legitimate refugees by Germany.

I suspect in a few months, possibly weeks, Germany and France will be pushing for another 120,000 to be accepted, and then another, and another.

Meanwhile, any pretext of common ground or common governance has collapsed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34332759

EU hold summit a week too late - Slovakia launching legal challenge to being forced to take refugees.