migrants:What to do...Europe needs to decide.

[ThePaganMafia]

Re: migrants:What to do...Europe needs to decide.

America the noble protector of the world is a bit of a farce. All of the recent wars are little more than Imperialistic power grabs and maneuvering.

America was ready to let Europe burn to the ground until her own interest were affected.

[DanieMarie]

Re: migrants:What to do...Europe needs to decide.

The only reason that the U.S. has "problems" is because too many Americans have bought the idea that rich people paying less in taxes is stimulates the economy, that everyone on "welfare" must be there because they are lazy (a program, I might add, that hasn't been around for quite some time), and that immigrants today are some how of less quality as people than their own ancestors. Also that immigrants are going to "take their jobs". All of which are based on a shoddy understanding of history and current events. I mean, look at what happened to crops in Alabama a few years ago....Americans literally can't do the job that immigrants and migrant workers do. Its funny that, for a country built by immigrants (because they stole the land from native inhabitants) and proud of its diversity, that we have such a strong history of hating immigrants and pissing on things that would make us diverse.

This.

Also, the US is by no means "full." I'm not saying that all countries should be as densely populated as Europe (Europe is pretty full), but the US still has a lot of living room and natural resources to go around. Europe also has immigrants coming in from the entire world. To many people in many different countries, European countries are the goal, not the US. Germany in particular is a desirable country for immigrants. Plus, due to free movement from the EU, we still have TONS of people coming in from EU countries that were hard hit by the crisis. Loads of people (especially young people who never managed to get a foothold into a job before the crisis) come in from Spain, Greece, Italy, and even Ireland (though there aren't that many Irish people to go around, so they're not that noticeable). Then there are the migrant workers from less prosperous EU countries like Romania and Bulgaria. They come here in droves. Then we have economic migrants from all over the world. Then, the boatloads of hipsters from first world countries who want to hang out here because it's "cool" (there are a LOT of them in Berlin, and unlike most other immigrants, they actually -do- sometimes steal our jobs).

Add hundreds of thousands of refugees and there are a LOT of people coming in here. We are not a big country geographically, and there are a lot more people living per square kilometer. Our population is dropping pretty quickly and our workforce is dwindling, so we definitely have room for a lot of them, but not -all- of them. Plus, our infrastructure isn't set up to deal with so many people at once. The government is trying to change that and to also reform the Dublin Regulation, which dictates that asylum seekers must register in the country where they first land (so, southern and eastern Europe which totally can't handle it right now). But, it's not easy, because a lot of that not only involves cooperation from the German parliament (the current government coalition ranges from the center-left SPD to the strictly conservative Bavarian CSU party, which is about as accepting of refugees as you'd think), but also other EU countries. The EU has trouble agreeing on -anything-, let alone something that is a highly divisive issue like this is.

So, we need some help.

Also, regarding the whole "why not just send them to Canada" comment, I've been saying throughout this thread that Canada needs to take in a lot more refugees. As a Canadian citizen, I find Canada's position on this issue repulsive.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: migrants:What to do...Europe needs to decide.

Eh. I think we 'helped' our friends right after someone pissed on our Harbor. We kinda suck as friends.

That's very true. Pearl Harbour happened right at the end of 1941. For the UK the war began in 1939. And in parts of Europe much earlier.

The UK let its allies down badly. It promised help to the Poles which never materialised. It bombed the French navy (yes, at a time when the French were our ALLIES) when France fell, in order to stop its ships being 'used against us.' Thousands of French sailors were killed.

The US sat on the fence while all this was going on. It 'loaned' us equipment - at a pretty hefty rate of interest. It took almost 60 years to repay, and we had to pay double the amount that was borrowed.

The US waited until it felt sufficiently under threat itself before doing anything. In fact, the Bush family were helping fund the Nazi party - http://www.theguardian.com/world/200...secondworldwar

In fact there is an old saying : WW2 was won with American money and Russian blood.

But - and this is in case the mods feel I have strayed too far from the original topic. After WW2 there was a massive refugee crisis. People ended up all over the place. Europe is 10.18 square km. The US is 9.8 square km. Canada is fractionally bigger. Yet Europe contains considerably more people thans the other in terms of population density.

In other words, there is room. It's just that the political will is lacking.
And the wealthy elite don't want to lose a penny of their wealth. It's easier to make the poor in the US, Canada and Europe believe there just isn't money or room.

[Medusa]

Re: migrants:What to do...Europe needs to decide.

I'd just like to add..if you do send them here...and you know with all our resources..send them here with water. Because in California we are literally running out. K thanks.

[DanieMarie]

Re: migrants:What to do...Europe needs to decide.

I'd just like to add..if you do send them here...and you know with all our resources..send them here with water. Because in California we are literally running out. K thanks.

The US is a big country. They could totally go to Minnesota or something like that.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: migrants:What to do...Europe needs to decide.

The US is a big country. They could totally go to Minnesota or something like that.

MO prolly knows better about this than I do, but I don't think the federal government can dictate to states on this, anymore than Germany can dictate to Greece.

We have a thing called "state's rights" that limits what the Feds can do in individual states.

[callmeclemens]

Re: migrants:What to do...Europe needs to decide.

That's very true. Pearl Harbour happened right at the end of 1941. For the UK the war began in 1939. And in parts of Europe much earlier.

The UK let its allies down badly. It promised help to the Poles which never materialised. It bombed the French navy (yes, at a time when the French were our ALLIES) when France fell, in order to stop its ships being 'used against us.' Thousands of French sailors were killed.

The US sat on the fence while all this was going on. It 'loaned' us equipment - at a pretty hefty rate of interest. It took almost 60 years to repay, and we had to pay double the amount that was borrowed.

The US waited until it felt sufficiently under threat itself before doing anything. In fact, the Bush family were helping fund the Nazi party - http://www.theguardian.com/world/200...secondworldwar

In fact there is an old saying : WW2 was won with American money and Russian blood.

But - and this is in case the mods feel I have strayed too far from the original topic. After WW2 there was a massive refugee crisis. People ended up all over the place. Europe is 10.18 square km. The US is 9.8 square km. Canada is fractionally bigger. Yet Europe contains considerably more people thans the other in terms of population density.

In other words, there is room. It's just that the political will is lacking.
And the wealthy elite don't want to lose a penny of their wealth. It's easier to make the poor in the US, Canada and Europe believe there just isn't money or room.

If that was truly the case why then did we not just take our fight to the Pacific theater?

The loss the world suffered in war was unfathomable, but nearly half a million Americans died, many of those in countries occupied by forces that didn't "piss on our harbor".

I've only weighed in because I felt in some cases this thread like some others in the Path has taken a wreck less anti American turn. I should resign myself from this one and just wait until the next one comes along, probably about how they way we take in migrants will be all wrong.

[anunitu]

Re: migrants:What to do...Europe needs to decide.

The reason was the Axis was Germany AND Japan...Japan attacked us,so then Germany declared war on us because they were allied with Japan..We started just to supply England,BUT German subs sank our supply ships..It got complicated pretty fast.

[DanieMarie]

Re: migrants:What to do...Europe needs to decide.

MO prolly knows better about this than I do, but I don't think the federal government can dictate to states on this, anymore than Germany can dictate to Greece.

We have a thing called "state's rights" that limits what the Feds can do in individual states.

This is true. I understand it's complicated...it is in the EU too, but the EU is actually trying to do just this. The current plan is a quota system that distributes refugees throughout the EU based on how much resources and work those countries have. Some countries (the UK and Denmark) have opt-outs based on previous agreements. Some others do not have opt-outs on such directives, but are disputing it anyway.

Since immigration and asylum are a federal issues, could the federal government agree to accept a certain amount and then each state could chime in and volunteer how much they are able to accept? Or how does it work there? Also, since there is freedom of movement for legal residents of the US, couldn't the federal government sort of just advise them on where to go? I know it's not possible to say "don't go to California", but isn't it possible to say "We don't recommend that you go to California"?

[anunitu]

Re: migrants:What to do...Europe needs to decide.

One thing you can never do,legislate morality and caring. People are still the normal greedy and selfish beings they always were. Law changes nothing but punishing people for being "Not nice"

[DanieMarie]

Re: migrants:What to do...Europe needs to decide.

One thing you can never do,legislate morality and caring. People are still the normal greedy and selfish beings they always were. Law changes nothing but punishing people for being "Not nice"

As much as that's true, you -can- say "you agreed to be part of this union and when we set up this deal, we all agreed that we would deal with issues like this collectively"...or at least that's the case with the EU. No one made any of the EU members join. When they joined, they all got specific benefits such as funding transfers and the freedom of their citizens to move and seek work in more prosperous areas. They don't just get to opt out when things get tough.

[callmeclemens]

Re: migrants:What to do...Europe needs to decide.

As much as that's true, you -can- say "you agreed to be part of this union and when we set up this deal, we all agreed that we would deal with issues like this collectively"...or at least that's the case with the EU. No one made any of the EU members join. When they joined, they all got specific benefits such as funding transfers and the freedom of their citizens to move and seek work in more prosperous areas. They don't just get to opt out when things get tough.

Unless the money runs out.

[monsno_leedra]

Re: migrants:What to do...Europe needs to decide.

I think the issue is more a matter of it's up to the US citizens to say whether we have space or not, not for someone else to say if we have more than enough space. Just as it is up to our citizens to make demands upon our government as to who and what we shall aid with.

Each European country reserves that right for its citizens and national needs. Then gets really pissed if the US or other countries "Advise" them on what they should be doing. Ask yourselves why they are coming to Europe and not heading into Russia, more easterly areas and such. Why? Probably more of that give an inch and they take a mile in return. The others refuse to give even that inch or open up the flood gates to massively receive. Lets not even really look at the ease of crossing borders with the EU formation that existed prior to this.

Lets not even look at the historical continuation than ran right from WWI into creating WWII. The likes of Chamberlain as Prime Minister and his appeasement to Hitler.

[DanieMarie]

Re: migrants:What to do...Europe needs to decide.

Unless the money runs out.

Well the rub is that most of the strongest economies in Europe (not just Germany...Sweden and France have also voiced a lot of support, for example) are for liberal asylum seeker policies. And they're even willing to take in more refugees than other countries. As in, a lot more. Germany has committed to accepting 500,000 refugees and may even commit to more. It only expects countries like Poland and Hungary to take in 10,000 each.

Also, as to why they're coming to Europe and not Russia or places like that, just think about it for a second. If you're fleeing your war zone country, you want to go somewhere pretty stable, prosperous, and pretty free of corruption. The EU is a pretty attractive place in that regard, whereas Russia is definitely not. Russia is not a place that most people picture when they think "If I could live anywhere in the world..." That being said, when refugees are interviewed, they often say their dream destination is Canada. A lot want to be able to get into Canada at some point.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: migrants:What to do...Europe needs to decide.

Since immigration and asylum are a federal issues, could the federal government agree to accept a certain amount and then each state could chime in and volunteer how much they are able to accept? Or how does it work there? Also, since there is freedom of movement for legal residents of the US, couldn't the federal government sort of just advise them on where to go? I know it's not possible to say "don't go to California", but isn't it possible to say "We don't recommend that you go to California"?

I honestly don't know. You'd need a lawyer with experience in the area to know...