Oregon shooting

[Gravekeeper]

um, not quite.(as in, Germany being the only ones to show humanity)- it's just that Germany declared they'd let in something like 100,000 refugees that had alreadymade it to Europe.

Name a European country that isn't on some level currently being an asshole to refugees aside from Germany. It's surprisingly difficult, trust me. I tried. >.>

The UK was only originally going to allow a few hundred. But pressure and backlash has made them up the number to 20,000. Over five years. And they don't get aslyum. They can apply for it at the end of the five years.

And that's probably the warmest response from a country aside from Germany. There's a reason the UN and Amnesty International are breathing down the EU's collective necks.

However, they are NOT being turned away just for not being from Syria.

After Syrians, the next largest group of aslyum seekers in Germany are from the Balkins. The attitude towards them is the complete opposite. Even ones that were literally born in Germany during the war their parents fled from are being deported now as minors.

[Canarr]

Isis doesn't "admit" anything. They will claim responsibility for attacks they weren't even involved in and most attacks outside of their realm of influence are only inspired by them so to speak ( Twitter ) with the attackers simply claiming they did what they did for Isis. PR is part of their MO.

There has not been a single attack in Canada, France, Australia or the US that was actually planned or directed by Isis. Not one. Seriously. Go check. All of the attacks that Isis has actually executed itself have been within countries that Isis has declared as part of their territory. There has not been a single attack planned and executed by Isis in any western country.

And stop saying we're dismissing them. That is not the argument. The argument is that the US response has been disproportionate to the actual threat presented ( which was the whole point of said terrorism to begin with. You gave them precisely what they wanted and more. ).

No one is saying we should do absolutely nothing about terrorists.

This. Absolutely this.

There has not been a single legitimate case of a terrorist slipping in as a refugee. I also assume you mean asylum, not amnesty. Amnesty is something different altogether. And who is granting automatic asylum to everyone without any proper checks? Have you not seen the deplorable situation in Europe? Do you think Germany is just letting everyone in without so much as a question?

I mean, Germany is about the only one even showing any humanity over there and even they are quietly throwing out refugees from the "wrong" places as they take in Syrian ones.

Exactly. There's lot of panicmongering about the idea that we could be allowing truckloads of sleepers into our country, but surprisingly little evidence of this actually happening.

And thanks for the good PR, but we're not exactly without blame in this whole clusterfuck. Germany has been at the forefront of the EU countries working against a reformation of the Dublin contract - the one specifying that refugees must request asylum in the first EU country they enter - because that's been a convenient way of leaning back and letting the burden be shouldered by Italy, Spain and Greece, mostly. Basically, if you're not travelling by plane, Germany is never going to be the first EU country you enter, so we haven't exactly had a lot of incentive towards change here.

And basically all refugees from the Balkan are being sent back - because our asylum laws specifically exclude poverty as a reason for seeking asylum in Germany. Unless people are actively trying to kill you in your home country, you're not getting in, sorry. Less than half a percent of asylum requests from the Balkan states are being granted every year, and those are mostly Roma. who do get murdered at home.

um, not quite.(as in, Germany being the only ones to show humanity)- it's just that Germany declared they'd let in something like 100,000 refugees that had alreadymade it to Europe. The UK said it would take refugees straight from the refugee camps- the argument isn't over taking refugees- as such, there ARE arguments about how many- the argument is how to take them so as not to enrich people-smugglers at the same time. The criticism of Germany taking refugees was more-or-less that they would encourage people to use people-smugglers- in those unsafe, overloaded rickety boats that seem to sink more often than they actually make it- instead of taking them from the camps, and presumably flying them straight to their new country in a far safer- not to mention likely both cheaper and more comfortable- way.

Sorry, but that's an asinine argument. Or do you really believe that, if the UK takes a measly 20.000 refugees directly from Syria, or maybe Jordan (where 1.5 million Syrian refugees currently live in camps), then the rest will just stop trying to get to Europe on their own? There are, I believe, around eight million Syrians running away right now, because they're afraid of being killed. What kind of thought process do you think would start here? "Oh, hey! The UK took two out of every thousand out of here by plane! I guess we'll stop running and wait here until they get around to collecting a few more! What could possibly go wrong with that?"

The claim, "If Germany would stop letting them in, then they would stop coming!" is wrong and stupid. These people are running for their lives, because they can't imagine anything worse than what they had at home. If every EU country built a wall around their borders, they'd still keep coming.

They're just that desperate.

[s_stabeler]

please reread my argument. At no point did I say that it would end the flow of refugees. My argument was that, if you let in thousands of people who reach your shores, but do nothing about the people who are in the camps, then that will just encourage those in the camps to hire people-smugglers. My preferred solution would be for flying the refugees to a new home to not just be a one-off. Allow a mechanism for a refugee to indicate they want to settle in another country while in the camp, and then, when a decision has been made, they can be flown to their new home.

[Gravekeeper]

My argument was that, if you let in thousands of people who reach your shores, but do nothing about the people who are in the camps, then that will just encourage those in the camps to hire people-smugglers. My preferred solution would be for flying the refugees to a new home to not just be a one-off. Allow a mechanism for a refugee to indicate they want to settle in another country while in the camp, and then, when a decision has been made, they can be flown to their new home.

Well, here's the problem: Would you rather wait for said decision ( which could take months or years ) in the safety of a stable European country or would you rather wait for the decision in a shit hovel refugee camp with your children ( over half the refugees are children )? Where organized crime is rampant, people are looking to recruit your kids as child soldiers and lord help you if you have a vagina. All while living in something you cobbled together out of rocks and tarps along side 100,000 other people.

People are literally paying just to get out of the camps. Never mind be smuggled to Europe.

The problem is too logistically immense. Whether its camps or smuggling or trying to cross oceans to get to Europe. There are just too many people fleeing for their lives. Near 8 million are internally displaced and a good 2 million at least are on the move. The outcome is shitty regardless of whether its people smuggling or living in the camps.

There is no solution for this that doesn't involve the rest of the world giving its head a shake and getting its shit together to help.