European Migrant Crisis

[Pete from Boston]

I think it also means not causing trouble when you get here.

Only native-born citizens are allowed to cause trouble!

Like the Cherokee, the Sioux, the Muscogee, etc?

No, silly.  It took us 150 years to let them be citizens.

[AlexandriaVA]

I think it also means not causing trouble when you get here.

Only native-born citizens are allowed to cause trouble!

Like the Cherokee, the Sioux, the Muscogee, etc?

No, silly.  It took us 150 years to let them be citizens.

All of those European immigrants and how they handled the natives. Didn't even learn the local dialects, how rude of them.

The American Indians shouldn't have trusted the European Christians based on the history of their religion, what with the Spanish Inquisition and all.

[Pete from Boston]

I think it also means not causing trouble when you get here.

Only native-born citizens are allowed to cause trouble!

Like the Cherokee, the Sioux, the Muscogee, etc?

No, silly.  It took us 150 years to let them be citizens.

All of those European immigrants and how they handled the natives. Didn't even learn the local dialects, how rude of them.

The American Indians shouldn't have trusted the European Christians based on the history of their religion, what with the Spanish Inquisition and all.

At least in this part of the country, the natives were not unfamiliar with the various European tribes and their scheming, such that making deals with one was better than making deals with none. 

Ultimately, it probably mattered very little which ones they chose to deal with, as the smallpox and greed were already in full swing before the Pilgrims arrived.

[US71]

I think it also means not causing trouble when you get here.

Only native-born citizens are allowed to cause trouble!

Like the Cherokee, the Sioux, the Muscogee, etc?

No, silly.  It took us 150 years to let them be citizens.

You did say "native-born"

[US 41]

Hungary warns migrants to stay away. They have also deployed the army to the Serbian and Croatian border and have authorized the use of rubber bullets, pyrotechnical devices, tear gas grenades or net guns for anyone that illegal tries to cross. Illegally crossing the border is now a crime punishable of 3 years in prison. There's also a video of Hungary's army building the fence.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/22/us-europe-migrants-hungary-law-idUSKCN0RL1K220150922

[Pete from Boston]

Kind of makes one grateful we have achieved the why-isn't-Klinger-consistent level (pinnacle?) of societal development.

[Mr_Northside]

I thought "yearning to breathe free" meant "wanting very much to no longer be subjugated or oppressed." Am I reading Emma Lazarus too literally?

I suppose if one were truly reading it too literally, we'd have to assume that people were coming over for anything from decongestants to needing the Heimlich Maneuver.

[US 41]

More news. The EU passed a plan that will distribute 120,000 refugees across Europe. Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic all voted no the resolution. The EU is now trying to force these countries to take them anyways.

Czech Rep. has announced that they will follow the quota.

Slovakia's PM says that they will sue the EU and if they lose they will accept zero migrants.

Hungary just announced they will be extending their border fence across the Slovenian border. Whether or not Hungary will accept the quota is still unclear.

Austria will accept the quota, but they are sending extras back to Croatia and Slovenia.

Serbia and Croatia have put embargos on each other.

Saudi Arabia still hasn't accepted refugees. What is their quota? And they practice Sharia Law. Western nations allow women to have freedom. Muslim countries don't. My point for they don't believe in western values. Why accept someone into your society that believes more in Sharia Law than your laws?

And to the EU. By the time this mess is over you will have way over 120,000 refugees in your Union. I promise.

[SP Cook]

Western nations allow women to have freedom. Muslim countries don't. My point for they don't believe in western values. Why accept someone into your society that believes more in Sharia Law than your laws?

Exactly.  These economic migrants, and their ancestors, have been trying to impose their (failed) culture on the West for 1500 years.   There is no parallel to this and the great migrations to the Americas, Australasia, etc.  These people need to be returned the where their culture rules, and live with its consequences.  Which are violence, poverty, ignorance, intolerance, suffering, etc. 

[Pete from Boston]

Western nations allow women to have freedom. Muslim countries don't. My point for they don't believe in western values. Why accept someone into your society that believes more in Sharia Law than your laws?

Exactly.  These economic migrants, and their ancestors, have been trying to impose their (failed) culture on the West for 1500 years.   There is no parallel to this and the great migrations to the Americas, Australasia, etc.  These people need to be returned the where their culture rules, and live with its consequences.  Which are violence, poverty, ignorance, intolerance, suffering, etc.

Can we just call this a de facto instance of Godwin's Law?

[Rothman]

Western nations allow women to have freedom. Muslim countries don't. My point for they don't believe in western values. Why accept someone into your society that believes more in Sharia Law than your laws?

Exactly.  These economic migrants, and their ancestors, have been trying to impose their (failed) culture on the West for 1500 years.   There is no parallel to this and the great migrations to the Americas, Australasia, etc.  These people need to be returned the where their culture rules, and live with its consequences.  Which are violence, poverty, ignorance, intolerance, suffering, etc.

Can we just call this a de facto instance of Godwin's Law?

Yes.

[english si]

The EU passed a plan that will distribute 120,000 refugees across Europe.

Which is contrary to the fundamental pillar of free-movement of people within the EU. And the Schengen treaty's borderless area. You can have quotas, or you can have free-movement within the external borders. You cannot have both.

The aim of the quotas is as Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc know that without it, they would bare the brunt of the migration population, given their economies aren't tanking like Greece and Italy's (which are cruel victims of the 'the Euro must be saved at whatever cost' policy) and there's the general trend northwestwards within the EU. The quotas, so fundamentally against the principles of Schengen, are designed to keep Schengen alive by keeping the North Sea countries in it (seemingly they don't care about Central Europe leaving it).

Slovakia's PM says that they will sue the EU and if they lose they will accept zero migrants.

Good, about time the EU falls apart.

Wasn't the EU about peace and harmony and so on? Seems to be about pitting member states against one another and against it.

Hungary just announced they will be extending their border fence across the Slovenian border.

Ouch Slovenia is Schengen. Of course, the issue of a shared external border is that there needs to be a shared external policy and Slovenia won't bother with a fence on its Croatian border, nor actually do it's legal requirement of processing migrants entering Schengen...

Serbia and Croatia have put embargos on each other.

Serbo-Croat relations have a lot more issues than migration. And Croatia cannot actually put embargoes on people due to being EU members (we'll let them off that mistake as they are new to the club. The UK keeps doing trade missions to China, India, the US, etc without realising that they are mostly futile while our trade policy comes from Brussels and it has been a member for over 40 years).

Saudi Arabia still hasn't accepted refugees.

They'll only kill them like they do the pilgrims on Hajj.

And they practice Sharia Law.

Which the refugees are fleeing - while it is rude of the Saudis to not open their border to refugees, the refugees wouldn't be entering a country that would be safe for them.

Why accept someone into your society that believes more in Sharia Law than your laws?

Four facepalms - four reasons
1) You were talking about Saudi Arabia and then jumped to the assumption that those fleeing Saudi-style Wahhabi Sharia law in ISIS-controlled Syria want Sharia law.
2) You are talking about the EU, where rule of law is openly flaunted and obeying it come-what-may is actively discouraged (as Hungary is finding out and as the quota plan also shows). The big issue about those who want Sharia law for Eurocrats is not the content of said law, but that those wanting it believe in rule of law, rather than rule of diktat.
3) You were attacking the Saudis for not taking Shiite Muslims, Druze, Christians, etc in, praising Israel for not taking them in (in a previous post) and condemning Europe for taking them in because of their different religion. Saudi Arabia is Sunni Muslim (with nothing else allowed, with the exception of Western migrant workers and their families provided that they never actually speak to a native) and the refugees are not.
4) You were talking about Saudi Arabia and then jumped to the assumption that those fleeing Saudi-style Wahhabi Sharia law in ISIS-controlled Syria want Sharia law. (this one deserves a second facepalm as not only is it the height of stupidity, but I'd trashed this nonsense in a previous post)

And to the EU. By the time this mess is over you will have way over 120,000 refugees in your Union. I promise.

They won't.

For a start, by the time the mess is over, at least one country (the UK, which will have a big quota) will have left the EU. If not other countries too, the rate Brussels' disdain for everyone who doesn't agree with them is going.

And secondly, the quotas are about migrants. Yet again the actual refugees are ignored as migrants are confused with being refugees. Refugees is a legal status, whereas the EU doesn't want member states processing them (see the abuse Hungary is getting) in order to confer that status. And the EU's plan is to take them from the borders of Europe - continuing to encourage people to pay illegal traffickers for the privilege of drowning in the Med - rather than from the refugee camps. What a horrible plan!

[Duke87]

Slovakia's PM says that they will sue the EU and if they lose they will accept zero migrants.

Good, about time the EU falls apart.

Wasn't the EU about peace and harmony and so on? Seems to be about pitting member states against one another and against it.

What this crisis seems to be exposing is how half-assed Schengen as it currently stands is. People can freely travel between nations but the nations involved have not agreed to make their customs and immigration policies uniform in terms of what the rules are and how well they are enforced.

When nothing was wrong no one noticed, but throw a wave of refugees at Europe and all of a sudden everyone's fighting with each other over who has to deal with them, because no one thought to plan for this sort of scenario ahead of time and agree on what to do in the event of it.

Seems to me that two things should happen:
1) In the short term, let Schengen nations put their money where their mouth is on open borders and allow the refugees to hang out wherever within the zone they like. If Schengen citizens can travel, live, and work in whatever Schengen nation they want, the same standard should apply to non-citizens living within the zone.
2) In the long term, centralize customs and immigration for all of the EU under one roof, so that everyone has the same rules and enforcement of them won't be lax in countries where they otherwise would be.

[US 41]

I think the best thing for European Union nations would be to close the borders, reintroduce customs, and let each individual country determine their immigration laws. Keep the EU, but make it a lot less powerful than it currently is. The EU should have the leaders of all the countries meet once a month, keep free trade, keep the Euro, and keep visa-free (passport required however) between the countries. 

I know that (almost) none of the above will happen, but it would be the best for all those countries and their sovereignty. I strongly believe that in 5 years Europe will be a lot different than it is now, and I don't think it will be for the better.

[SP Cook]

As to the EU, if "Europe" is a country, then "France" is a state or province.  If "France" is a country, then "Europe" is a continent. 

The EU needs to return to being what it was.  The "Common Market", a way to cut taxes (always a good thing) by eliminating tariffs and duties.  And forget about all this who-ha about pretending to legislate about issues for which there can be no commonality between places far more different that different parts of the USA are from one another.   

As to immigration policy, all Western places need the same one.   Those who refuse to accept Western values, stay out. 

[Pete from Boston]

As to immigration policy, all Western places need the same one.   Those who refuse to accept Western values, stay out.

Paradoxically, this statement would put you first on a list for deportation under such a regime.


iPhone

[english si]

Paradoxically, this statement would put you first on a list for deportation under such a regime.

Would it? or would it put people who refused to accept the xenophobia of that policy?

[Pete from Boston]

Paradoxically, this statement would put you first on a list for deportation under such a regime.

Would it? or would it put people who refused to accept the xenophobia of that policy?

The statement runs counter to accepted standards of "Western values."


iPhone

[english si]

What this crisis seems to be exposing is how half-assed Schengen as it currently stands is.

No, it's exposing how many places in Europe don't give a shit about the rules that exist.

the nations involved have not agreed to make their customs and immigration policies uniform in terms of what the rules are and how well they are enforced.

The rules are there. The issue is enforcement levels. The same issue as seen with border patrols in certain states just north of Mexico.

Also, customs has nothing to do with the crisis, nor with Schengen.

When nothing was wrong no one noticed, but throw a wave of refugees at Europe and all of a sudden everyone's fighting with each other over who has to deal with them, because no one thought to plan for this sort of scenario ahead of time and agree on what to do in the event of it.

There is a plan. Greece and Italy are struggling to afford it as they are being sacrificed on the altar of Ever Closer Union. Hungary is being condemned for trying to do the plan.

Seems to me that two things should happen:
1) In the short term, let Schengen nations put their money where their mouth is on open borders and allow the refugees to hang out wherever within the zone they like.

That is the case.

If Schengen citizens can travel, live, and work in whatever Schengen nation they want, the same standard should apply to non-citizens living within the zone.

It does, once granted status of what, in US terms, would be "resident alien". Of course, they need to be granted that status, which means being processed - which is what Hungary is trying to do. Plus the Schengen nations are doing a really bad job of explaining this free movement thing to the migrants.

2) In the long term, centralize customs and immigration for all of the EU under one roof, so that everyone has the same rules and enforcement of them won't be lax in countries where they otherwise would be.

1) Customs is centralised. The EU is a Customs Union (definitely not a trade block).
2) Schengen have the same rules, and then chose, as a body, not to enforce them.
3) Schengen is closely linked, but not part of the EU. In fact, it was (before it went tits up just now (deliberate much?)) a brilliant example of how an anti-democratic superstate wasn't needed for intergovernmental co-operation in Europe.

I think the best thing for European Union nations would be to close the borders,

The internal ones? They aren't the issue - the external Schengen one is.

reintroduce customs,

That's the end of the EU, which is a Customs Union.

and let each individual country determine their immigration laws.

Also EU heresy against Ever-Closer Union (which is why Catalonia will get a lot of flack from European leaders over the coming months, which was why Scotland was told that if they voted for independence they wouldn't be given EU membership, etc).

Keep the EU,

You've just robbed the EU about what it is really about: what you have is EFTA - a much better organisation!

but make it a lot less powerful than it currently is.

I'm ALL for this, especially as the EU is exacerbating the issues in Schengen, both by being a third party that is spouting off and being the forum for Schengen nations to express their grievances. However, I'm with Churchill that tying Germany and France, together with some other countries (Benelux, Italy, Austria, etc) is pretty essential for European harmony. The issue is that the EU is too big - the Franco-Germanic desire to challenge the US and China made it bigger, the UK's desire to trade more widely (due to the perennial British EUphilic misinterpretation of the EU as a trade block) and Central/Eastern Europe's desire to reunite with the West post-Cold War meant that the union that should have been small and deepening became wider than it ought, making the deepening harder but still inevitable (as the EU is about that deepening)

The EU should have the leaders of all the countries meet once a month,

That's more than now!

keep free trade,

What free trade? Common Market isn't the same thing. Common Market is just pan-European rules and a protectionist boundary making it hard for outsiders (ie those who aren't European - like the US) to enter that market.

If the EU was in any way about free trade, it wouldn't have taken 40 years for the UK to get a decent trade agreement with Canada back!

keep the Euro,

Ditch Schengen as it's not working, but keep the Euro? 

and keep visa-free (passport required however) between the countries.

Won't this keep the issues that already exist of different efforts put into border control. On entering Schengen via ferry, I have never had my passport checked (have done by train and plane). Pre-9/11 security theatre stopped it about 2005, internal Common Travel Area (UK, Ireland, Crown Dependencies) flights only needed photo id and I think it's still the case for internal Schengen ones.

And then there's the pre-Schengen travel areas - the Nordic Union, Benelux, etc. Are these not allowed to keep their open internal borders? Likewise the non-Schengen Common Travel Area? Would I, under your proposal, really need a passport to travel to Derry from some of it's exburbs (Muff, Buncara, etc) just a few miles away? That will be fun, given the local's dislike of there being an international border between them and their place of work!

I know that (almost) none of the above will happen,

Yep

but it would be the best for all those countries and their sovereignty.

You've not listened to your EU propaganda: national sovereignty is the cause of all wars. Belgium should have just let the Kaiser's army walk across it raping and pillaging to get to France, and Britain shouldn't have intervened on Belgium's behalf creating WW1.

And the Slovenes, Croats, Bosniacs, Macedonians (not the ones in northern Greece), Montenegrins and Kosovars should have accepted a Serbian dictator ruling them rather than fight wars of independence to create nation states - I mean the EU has had to suspend democracy in its territory the sovereign state of Bosnia and Herzegovina a couple of times because a party that wants a break up of the union of autonomous provinces won some seats: they had to be ousted, lest BiH becomes several viable and (with time) friendly neighbours, rather than an unviable state full of bad housemates needing EU oversight!

Man I strongly believe that in 5 years Europe will be a lot different than it is now, and I don't think it will be for the better.

(Hopefully happening) Brexit in 2017 will hopefully create some internal reflection in Brussels, and show an alternative way for those countries like Hungary that would be much happier with a Norwegian/Swiss/Icelandic type relationship with the EU.

As to the EU, if "Europe" is a country, then "France" is a state or province.  If "France" is a country, then "Europe" is a continent.

1) EU is not Europe - the two are totally different things (one political, one geographic).
2) It's complicated. France is a sovereign state that has delegated, and increasingly is delegating (as part of EU tenant 1: ever-closer union), sovereign functions to the EU.

The EU needs to return to being what it was.

A plan to create a United States of Europe? That's what it always has been: from before the Coal and Steel Pact, from before WW2 even. Or do you mean turning back the clock on the core tenant of 'Ever-Closer Union' so things are more apart? The latter would be seen as treason.

The "Common Market", a way to cut taxes (always a good thing) by eliminating tariffs and duties.

Which is why the UK suddenly gained tariffs and duties when trading with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc on 01-01-1973 (the day it joined the EC)? BTW, it had tariff-free trade with the EC before that date, as part of EFTA.

The Common Market isn't about eliminating tariffs and duties - it's about pan-EU regulations on business and a protectionist Common External Tariff designed to stop the outside world from being competitive (and also to make countries less dependent on the outside world and more on the EU). Oh, and Common Fisheries Policy and Common Agricultural Policy that have caused untold environmental damage in the sea, and poverty in Africa respectively, due to free movement of goods supposedly making such things essential.

And the Common Market meaning they get 29 voices at the WTO (as every country has delegated their policy to the EU, and the EU has a non-voting seat). OK, given their bonkers policy to replace 2 Permanent UN Security Council seats, and usually 1, if not 2, temporary ones with a single seat - its clear that they don't want to dominate the WTO, just deny their members' a sovereign say.

And, to bring it back to the topic of this thread, the Common Immigration Policy they are talking about (what, the crisis might have been steered in a way to make such a thing the most obvious solution? Just as the Euro crisis was met with calls for Fiscal Union?) that is 'essential' due to free-movement of people.

And forget about all this who-ha about pretending to legislate about issues for which there can be no commonality between places far more different that different parts of the USA are from one another.

Such differences are the cause of all wars: they must be abolished! Resistance is Futile.

I'm with you here. Creating a demos out of the 13 Colonies was very very hard (the common enemy of the British Army helped), and they were all mostly of a very similar cultural and religious background. You have a far more diverse grouping, far less shared history, and a lot of tension between subdivisions. Given that many European countries (Spain, France, UK, Italy, Belgium) all have succession movements and almost every other country in Europe is a the product of a successful succession movement from the last 100 years (most within the last 25), then I find it hard to even get Benelux to reach the EU's end goal.

The statement runs counter to accepted standards of "Western values."

I would argue that, should such a policy be enacted, then it would be a "western value" to hate the other...