Is that a strawman of yours, or can you actually quote a post in this discussion making that claim?
As a descendant of refugees, who fled the Russian Civil War, and who lived in camps in Romania and Palestine, and made it to the US just ahead of the McCarran act, the standard is clear to me.
Could we justify the policy if it applied to Jews fleeing Nazi Germany? No? than it shouldn’t be the policy on refugees.
The city of St Louis took in 60,000 Bosnian refugees in the 90s. They were such a boon to the economy and life of the city that a number of local advocates are asking the U.S. to send Syrian refugees there now. The U.S. can handle many more refugees than we currently take.
It is a moral duty. And in depressed or depopulated areas, especially, a genuine economic boom waiting to happen. Fucking win-win.
Posters here think that these migrants are entitled to go to Germany/UK etc. from Turkey/Greece/Hungary etc.
You are doing it again. Do not tell me what other posters think. Show me what they have stated.
“The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”
Which means, if it’s not clear to you, that for those who are NOT “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1”, such penalties etc. can be imposed.
Absolutely. And yes - that was always clear to me. But it does not change the fact that they are still refugees. In fact the convention does detail when the refugee status ends:
Nothing in there about moving to another country.
And yet the country into which they move can impose penalties on them, including expulsion, if they are not “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1”. So the country is not obligated in any way to accept them as refugees.
Again: I know that. Legally no state is under any obligation to harbor a refugee, if they can send them back to a country where they are safe. I do not think anyone here is fighting you on that. Where you had it wrong was that you kept claiming that any refugee turned into an “economic migrant” as soon as they moved from one country to another. That is simply not true. Changing countries does nothing about their refugee status.
Indeed, and the UN has noted that places like Hungary are in reality avoiding their responsibilities as they also are members of the UN.
I like the Pope’s recent call for each European parish to host a family.
… but I would expand the challenge to every religious congregation and school in the western world. Even Rotarians, Lions and similar groups.
Think of the lessons learned and taught by both parties.
A refugee cannot be expelled back to country he came from. Economic migrant can, and often is.
Well, yes.
People seem to be under the impression that refugee camps are like a slightly dull all expenses paid vacation.
They are not. Refugee camps are not safe places. Policing is extremely limited, if present at all, and hosting police may be corrupt and unlikely to protect refugees. Access to justice systems is spotty.
People live in temporary structures that offer no protection against criminals. There generally is not adequate lighting. The streets are dangerous and the housing is dangerous. Rape and crimes against children are common. Fear is constant.
One has no freedom in a camp. It’s more or less an open air prison. Refugees face sharply restricted movement, sometimes with a system of passes. Often they cannot work, and some countries even ban small enterprises like cutting hair or selling small crafts within the camp to other residents. Gatherings may be banned. Families may not be able to reunite without navigating a long and complex system. Political activity is banned. People are trapped with literally nothing that they are allowed to do, in miserable conditions, and no prospect of it ever being better.
And while an attempt is made in established camps to provide for basic need, it doesn’t always work and resources are always low. Food is limited and often consists of basic grain and little else. Refugees have to stand in Soviet style breadlines of hours and hours several times a week to get these basic provisions. Sanitation may not be adequate to prevent diseases. The shower blocks are notorious for sexual assault. Even things like “getting tampons or pads for your period” are things that don’t always happen. Medical care is limited to the most acute problems (you aren’t getting much care for chronic diseases or mental health) in poor conditions (patients sleeping on the ground, inadequate drug supply, etc.) Kids may not have access to school or even basic things like playgrounds. There is nothing for them to do- no activities, no place to play, nothing. Housing is unsafe, may not adequate protect from the elements, and be dangerous to children (I remember one little girl drowned in Juba because the camps were chronically flooded and people were sleeping in inches of water.)
And remember, you can’t work so you can’t work a little harder to buy more than the five tampons you are issued a month.
Refugee camps work for a few weeks or months while people wait out a limited crisis. But when refugees are detained in camps for years or decades, unable to live a productive life or provide hope of something better for their children, they leave. When a crisis shows no sign of resolving- and Syria is not- the people forced to flee need to become a full part of a different community somewhere. Permanent refugee camps are not a viable life for people.
An economic migrant can be expelled to his *home *country. That is the only country obligated under international law to take him back in. For obvious reasons that option does not exist for refugees.
Countries may expell migrants or refugees to a country other than their home country based on a separate agreement such as the Dublin Regulation but not otherwise.
Why just the Western world? Why not China, India, Japan, S Korea, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, Keyna, Senegal, Israel, Taiwan, Brazil, etc?
I’m thinking of it and my personal conclusion has been that the Scandinavian Welfare state is dead, and have taken steps to ensure my own and my family’s future wellbeing.
Why not an international agreement to halt the war in Syria? This migration will go on as long as the war does. Of course, something has to be done about ISIS. Why doesn’t Egypt (large and well equipped army) get involved?
I know Germany has a hard time getting past WWII but it’s no longer 1943 and the experience from there is about as applicable as those from the Roman republic or Medieval Burgundy. Globalisation has put an end to the old world.
The USA has the largest and best equipped army in the world, and they couldn’t stabilize Afghanistan or Iraq. I doubt the Egyptians would have much success even if they could transport their troops through the couple of countries which separate them.
Yep - we are having a hard time getting past that. And that surprises you?
As far as applicability goes: The plight of refugees then and now is not all that different. And then as now there were countries who said “we cannot help” when they could have done more. The Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees was written under the impression of WW2. It still is the basis for applicable law in many countries. We are not living in a whole new world today. It is still the same old world - globalization or not.
[QUOTE=George Santayana]
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, well the trouble with remembering history is that history knowledge has largely been supplanted with ideology. So few people these days seem to have any real knowledge of history and many are even unaware that history is red in tooth and claw. Besides I come from a country which used to be inhabited by somebody else but we migrated here and kicked the suckers out. Not an experience I wish to have repeated. So yes I remember. (also we’ve been to war with Sweden 2 trillion times, and remembering this we best invest in some serious upgrade to our military capabilities since there’s always a new war with Sweden on the horizon – but in general, the quote is just silly. Like the other one with the victors writing history.)
And then there’s the history which is evident for anyone with the will to open them. With regard to the experience we had with previous immigrations from the same regions. These days a considerable percentage of the Danish GDP goes to support the hundreds of thousands of 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation Middle Eastern and African immigrants which are unable to find work and are practically unemployable and as said before we struggling with the effects of violent crimes, rape, assaults, murders, gang activity, ghettos, etc. Still it’s doing relatively a lot better than for instance France and Sweden.
So this is what we’re repeating now, and as Einstein would have told you only an insane person wold expect the results to be other that more of the same. And there’s a steep price to be paid, now and for generations to come.