Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

What do you think about the migrants pouring into Europe? Should they be allowed to stay long-term, or should they be barred from entering?

From Danaos:

I think that we shouldn't allow any of them in. Not one. We need to take care of our own problems before we do anything with these people. Personally, I don't care about them. Their problems aren't our problems, and unless we have something to gain from letting then in (we don't), they should not be allowed entry. I'd also like to add that we are not obligated to help any of these people, even if their situation was partly because of us. Their lives suck, but again, they aren't our problem. If we chose to help every group of people that were dealt a bad hand, we would be weakened and spread too thin. 

Oh wait...

Western nations always claim to be united in any adversity, especially when it comes to the possibility war. This shouldn't be any different. Why not create a system to divide the refugees among nations like Germany, France, Spain, Britain, Canada, and the United States. 

This Danaos character faces the common fears that most people have. They fear of losing what little they have or having their lives become harder for them. As a American that comes from a low class family, I can understand why people from my country would want the government to to focus on internal issues.

There are few give a damn about people they don't know who's presence can potentially ruin their lives. With that said, I would vote to let them ALL in. Regardless of whether we turn them away or accept them, there are going to be consequences. Might as well go down doing the right thing. 

 

"Why not create a system to divide the refugees among nations like Germany, France, Spain, Britain, Canada, and the United States. "

I'm fairly certain such a system already exists in the EU. Problem is, not all countries are willing to take in the amounts they are asked too. IIRC, Canada already takes a ton of refugees, though I could be wrong.

Canada has massive amounts of space to take refugees xD European countries are not very big.

90% (more?) of Canada's population is within 100 km of the US border. Not to say that we don't have a lot of space, but I highly doubt the refugees want to head to the Northern Yukon and hang out there.

They are indeed trying to do that. Problem is, one or two countries don't want to cooperate, and bam, the whole idea is gone because no one wants to take them in if not every single country in Europe does the same. That's the big problem with the EU, with anything. Take Greece's monetary problems. No one wanted to say "hey, Greece, you don't have to pay back these loans, because we know you can't" since no other country was doing the same thing. Either everyone, or no one does something. And that doesn't work.

On the other hand, here, in my country (which you forgot to name, by the way) the people have decided to help. Not all, but a lot. They're collecting clothes and shoes and anything the refugee camps tell them to collect. There are people taking them in their houses one by one. You can't say we're an ignorant country. This, now, this wonderful change in my opinion, it pulls the attention closer home. And some are afraid of this, which I completely understand, but refugees don't stop at borders. It is our problem as much as it is theirs. And whether you like it or not, it's true. You could start to complain about why they really had to make it our problem, but we don't fix anything with that. Refugees are refugees and if I as a person had to flee my country I wouldn't want other countries telling me to go home. I am as much of a human as they are which is why they deserve our help, even if it's only a little or bad or if they don't ever turn around to look at us again.

The refugees aren't part of the western nations, so that doesn't apply. Moreover, we agree to stick together because it's mutually beneficial to do so, not because we're just that nice.

There's more risk than reward when letting in a bunch of refugees. There's a reason immigration exists - you're supposed to be selective about who you let into your home.

Um...no you're wrong. I'm not afraid of losing anything, though I AM considering how we have plenty of Americans that we need to get into the work force. We simply cannot afford to take in more people when our nation isn't what you would call stable. As I stated in my PM, we are not obligated to take in these people are help them in anyway. We're allowing 10,000 in at the moment and I think it is a stupid idea.

Let them all in? Are you serious? We're already facing enough problems with accounting for the illegals that are currently in our country and the ones that are still trying to get in. If we allow these refugees in our nation, they will just take up space. I ask you this, what do WE get out of letting them in? We get absolutely nothing from allowing them into our nation, this alone is enough of a reason not to let them in. Honestly, your line of thinking makes no sense to me. There will be no consequences if we choose not to let them in, in fact, we could have more issues by allowing these people in. Not only that, but the "right" thing to do would be whatever benefits this country the most. Unless you can provide an explanation of how we benefit from letting them in.

We have use for them. At least, our country has use for them. We need them to do the work we're too cocky to do which is why we asked the Polish and the Ukrainian to come here in the first place. But it's only going to work if other countries are willing to take refugees in, because we're way too small for anything this size. We're already crowded.

I can understand where you're coming from Danaos.  Also, did  you send me a PM? If you did I didn't receive it.

We should let them in, and help them, because we're human.

Us being human has nothing to do with helping them and I'm not sure where you're trying to come from with this statement.

A brother in need is a brother indeed. As a human you should help out other (humans) in need, don't you agree? And yes even if you don't exactly "gain" a "benefit" from helping them.

And yes, I realize some problems that could arise like regulation etc from allowing them asylum. but that doesn't mean we shouldn't help them at all and instead block them out and force them to die or attempt to go back to their wartorn hellhole of a country (and die anyway).

Anyway this is the way I see it, because you know, morality and stuff. Plus, they're practically my brothers (in an Islamic sense, which is why I personally feel a bond with them you might not have.)

 

No, I don't agree. I don't care if we are both humans, we as a country have nothing to do with them. The only reason to help them is if we benefit from it. Period.

Yes, that is exactly what it means. Like I said, they've been dealt a bad hand. That's just too bad for them. They might die, people die all the time, it isn't that big a deal to me. You must realize that by letting them in, we will hurt ourselves, weaken ourselves, and leave ourselves vulnerable. "But who will take them if we don't?" Not our problem.

Yeah, I could never feel that kind of bond nor will I even pretend to understand it. Morality without logic is stupidity. Letting them in may make you feel good inside, but it would be foolish.

Hm, it kind of looks like we've reached an impasse.

> You must realize that by letting them in, we will hurt ourselves, weaken ourselves, and leave ourselves vulnerable. "But who will take them if we don't?" Not our problem.

I don't think helping refugees will completely tear down the West. Some countries like Germany are certainly capable of it. Surely working together is the key yeah? Like I said, the biggest problem is regulating all these people, but surely that isn't going to cause Germany or the EU to crash and burn.

> They might die, people die all the time, it isn't that big a deal to me

Right, but, this whole refugee business is different because we can actually save and help them, unlike an alleyway murder or a school massacre. The refugees have come to us, asking for asylum. And I believe the right thing would be to let them in and aid them, because it's the good thing to do -- even if there are some obstructions in the way. Not helping them will cause their deaths.

So Dan (given you have money), do you not donate to charity because it doesn't matter since "people die all the time"?

> Yeah, I could never feel that kind of bond nor will I even pretend to understand it. Morality without logic is stupidity. Letting them in may make you feel good inside, but it would be foolish.

...I can't imagine turning down so many (Muslim) people that have come seeking a new and peaceful life. I don't see how you can.   By granting them entrance, we are saving lives and helping the (Muslim) people in need. You're right, perhaps there aren't any real benefits -- benefits only come into play if you have morals which encourage aiding those seeking help. Furthermore, it's a little more than just "feeling good inside".

Maybe they won't, but it could certainly put a strain on those countries. A strain that they can't afford to have. Have you not noticed the sizes of the European countries? They aren't big enough to hold all those people coming in at once. But again, we shouldn't take them.

Just because we can doesn't mean that we should. Who will have to provide some sort of housing for these people? We will. Who will feed them? We will. Who will provide all other necessities needed in order for them to survive? We will. This stuff costs money, and it isn't cheap. It's like taking in an old dead beat family member that does nothing but eat, shit, and sleep. They will be a drain and a burden. It doesn't matter if it's the "good" thing to do, it isn't the logical thing to do. And if they die, once again, it isn't our problem. They aren't Americans. Hell, they aren't even from the same part of the world that we are from.

It depends on the charity. I will not donate to a charity that is going overseas. Why? Because I don't care about those people. As cruel as that may sound, I'm just looking after American interests first and foremost. Now, I can't say without a doubt that any money donated isn't going to, say, Africa, but I won't intentionally send it there. I'll donate to US veteran charities or maybe even some charities that will help the youth of America. It basically comes down to the thought "Let me help me before I help you. You must give me a reason to help you that will help me."

You don't have to imagine it, just watch the news and see it happen. So tell me Fazz, what benefits are there to helping these people, from moral grounds? If it isn't just "feeling good inside," what is it?

> Maybe they won't, but it could certainly put a strain on those countries. A strain that they can't afford to have

But it won't kill them, and as for "can't afford to have" perhaps that pertains to a minority ie Greece, Hungary, etc. Yes it will be a burden, but a burden that may be overcome through teamwork and working together. However for many of the EU it isn't something "they can't afford to have". Unless you have source which proves otherwise? (That accepting refugees will collapse the EU?)

> It depends on the charity. I will not donate to a charity that is going overseas. Why? Because I don't care about those people. As cruel as that may sound, I'm just looking after American interests first and foremost

I get that, but thing is America is okay, and it's pretty much flawless when you compare it to countries in the Middle East and Africa. So imo America is pretty OP and it's time to start looking after everyone else, or at least not entirely blocking them off. And no matter how much you look after American interests first, deciding to forget about everyone else in the world still makes you preeeety selfish.

> Just because we can doesn't mean that we should. Who will have to provide some sort of housing for these people? We will. Who will feed them? We will. Who will provide all other necessities needed in order for them to survive? We will

That's the point.

> So tell me Fazz, what benefits are there to helping these people, from moral grounds

Because you're granting them a peaceful, better life. You're protecting them from the danger they ran to escape from in the first place. That and Allah is satisfied by your choice to save the Muslim brethren (or a non-Muslim.) Anyway even if you aren't religious, you know we live in an age where our morals are basically "help others, less violence". We aren't territorial savages where we only care about ourselves -- we have to consider the rest of the world, like the UN or America does. I get looking after our interests first, but you can't just block out everyone else.

> it isn't just "feeling good inside," what is it?

My point is, you're forgetting the people saved; imagine how they feel, knowing they are protected and they can finally have a chance to rebuild and live in general temporary peace.

I never said that it would collapse them, just that it would put a strain on them that isn't needed. The EU isn't taking them out of the kindness of their heart. No one actually wants them. The EU has to deal with them because they're coming en masse and they aren't stopping any time soon. We have the option to reject them and save ourselves the trouble. Let's take it.

Once again, we aren't obligated to help them. I see no reason for us to suddenly cast ourselves in this role. I'm not forgetting about them, I just want something to gain. It isn't selfish. I consider it to be business.

Indeed. You seem to have missed the point that we can't just start providing all this stuff for them (EDIT: By can't, I mean shouldn't). America needs to stop shouldering the problems of the world when it doesn't even involve us. Building relations is one thing, but needlessly sticking your neck out is something else.

Are you suggesting that they stay? Because from what I've heard, we don't even plan on keeping the 10,000 that are coming here. If anything, Syria just needs to be stabilized (which should have already been done). But again, we shouldn't carry this load of refugees.

> No one actually wants them

How do you know that? If that's true why didn't the EU just make it loud and clear they weren't accepting refugees instead of doing the opposite: making it clear they were welcome (Germany among other countries,) and tolerating them. I mean yeah I get it, a "continuous stream of refugees" but if you can't stop refugees from entering the country, something is definitely not kosher.

> I'm not forgetting about them, I just want something to gain. It isn't selfish. I consider it to be business.

Yes, focusing on your country and ignoring everyone else is pretty selfish dude :P Anyway, if you're not willing to help those in need because you aren't personally gaining any benefitd, that does make you selfish by our sense of morality.

> Are you suggesting that they stay

Once their own crisis is fixed, they should return.

... Like I keep saying, this is about morality.

Actually, Merkel pretty much told the other EU countries that they should be accepted.

Problem is, they won't want to leave. Life in Europe usually trumps that of in the Middle East.

I would agree with you. As a boy scout, I have learned to help those in need, so if the migrants need help and they come to D.C. then I will be more then happy to give to them, they have suffered enough.

Someone said it's alright to give them housing and stuff until their country settles down or they go back.

The problem is refugees don't go back thus making the entire statement silly and hilarious xD

I'm not in Europe, but if I was I'd say keep em out.

"We should let them in, and help them, because we're human."

QFT.

I'll never understand people whose empathy is limited to those born in the same country as them. It just seems so arbitrary.

It's a natural feeling. 

"These people are members of my tribe and I only care about them" is completely natural. Extending empathy to anyone outside of your immediate social circle is... kind of a cultural brain hack, IMHO. And a good one! I just think it's well past time to extend it to everyone.

I'm not one of those people. The concept of empathy is very much beyond me. So much that I have abandoned trying to understand it.

Anyway, my point isn't that we shouldn't help them at all. My point is that we should help them if it is mutually beneficial. Is that so wrong?

IMO kinda. I don't think you should have to gain anything to help someone -- the thought of helping another human being(s) is enough.

Also, you clearly stated you care only of America and everyone else could burn :P

I would be content watching America burn as well, just so you know,

Still, I stated that I only care about America's interests. I want something to benefit us. That is all.

Empathy can be viewed as a tool to use to achieve a certain response. It's like imagining what another person is going through, and then thinking about what you personally would like in that sort of situation. Such as life being harsh, you might need someone you can talk easily to. If you can do that, then it's easier to be friendly to someone, and more approachable. In turn, the person you've been empathetic with will be more open to suggestion, and perhaps have a better attitude about help you with something.

The UN should just send in peacekeepers and create safe zones within Syria and/or Iraq. Then the migrants don't have to go to Europe and everyone's happy.

There is nowhere safe in Syria, and all the refugees can't fit into those two countries anyway. That and I suppose Assad and ISIS will just leave this places alone?

The way I see it, there's two things we can do for the refugees: a) accept them into out own countries b) let them die .

I choose the second one. How many are there? 500,000? That isn't that much. Besides, I'm sure we could use it as an excuse to put the screws to Syria. Everyone wins!

20 million people can fit into the Seoul area. I'm sure a couple hundred thousand can do the same.

ISIS or Assad aren't stupid enough to attack US troops.

Yes, if all those people were packed and crammed. Not given their own homes, water supply, privacy, food, space, air, etc.

Last sentence is stupid.

One word: Apartments.

How?

Sorry it just won't work.

-_- Because Coins, first of all Assad wants Syria and control over Syria, and he's going to fuck with anyone he needs to in order to get that. He clearly doesn't care about violating UN rights. And the Daesh hate the West, but if the Americans show up on their turf that opens up several oppurtunities: if they manage to defeat the Americans they get access to gear and weaponry, of course like previously stated Daesh hate Americans so they're going to be pretty happy when the fight's brought to them, and last Daesh revolve around an Islamic prophecy wherein the Muslim army would defeat the army of Rome / the West (back then "the west" was rome; today it is America) and Jesus would be resurrected and aid them in battle, or something like that. Anyway, what better opportunity to fulfill the prophecy when "Rome" brings the fight to them?

They're not going to attack because the US will destroy them. ISIS only has about 10,000 fighters.

Knowing Daesh, they won't give two cares about how many soldiers the US has. The opportunity to finally strike at the Amerikan Kafrs will be too good to pass up.

And anyway the Amerikans are on their turf, they wouldn't like that.

Do you actually believe that? That if the US placed troops in Syria, I.S would just pack up and go home? Doubtful. If anything, they'll go the way of Al Qaeda and the Taliban and resort to guerrilla tactics.
Also, their numbers range from 20,000 to 200,000 fighters.

I can't even believe what I am reading! I agree with Fazz. Don't make the same mistake people made before. Let them in, help them, and eventually they will help you. I can't believe that people still think this way in the 21st century.

And yes, I'm Canadian.

How are you "not going to accept them" exactly?

Are you going to send them back to a war zone?

Of course you can't help everyone, especially when you don't know anything about them but things ain't that simply.

I say they should be let in. I agree with Fazz on humans helping humans, it just makes sense. Britain should take in a lot too, there was a march today in London so that should put some pressure on the government to actually do something.

I'd advocate for something like the Berlin Conference if the EU could get spheres of influence instead of total conquering, but that'd probably upset a lot of people.  That, and Europe has a penchant for tossing moderacy out the window, likewise with the Middle East.

My question is : how the fuck do you get a sane person onto a seat of power without putting him in the crosshairs of the next Muhammed pretender thinking his wholesale violence is better than the most recent regime's?