Germany, France, Britain press for EU action on migrants

[webfact]

Germany, France, Britain press for EU action on migrants
By GEIR MOULSON

BERLIN (AP) — Germany, France and Britain pressed Sunday for better processing of migrants arriving in southern Europe and for a European Union-wide list of countries considered safe, and a special meeting of EU interior and justice ministers was called for Sept. 14.

Interior ministers Thomas de Maiziere of Germany, Bernard Cazeneuve of France and Theresa May of Britain stressed the need to set up "hot spots" in Greece and Italy by the year's end to ensure migrants are fingerprinted and registered, allowing authorities to identify quickly those in need of protection.

They called in a statement for a special ministerial meeting in the next two weeks. De Maiziere said the EU couldn't wait until a scheduled gathering in early October and Luxembourg, which holds the rotating EU presidency, announced later Sunday on Twitter that interior and justice ministers will meet in Brussels Sept. 14 to discuss how to "strengthen the European response."

Germany, which has seen many asylum requests this year from Balkan countries, is keen to identify "safe" countries to ease returning rejected asylum applicants.

"So that we can help those in need, we must also tell those who are not in need that they can't stay with us," Chancellor Angela Merkel said at the chancellery in Berlin Sunday during an annual government open day. Those who do need protection should be integrated more quickly "into our life," while those who don't should be sent home quickly, she added.

Authorities expect the number of refugees coming to Germany to reach 800,000 this year, a fourfold increase on last year.

De Maiziere said that the figure would be "too much for Germany" if it remained so high for years, but pushed aside a German state governor's assertion that the figure could reach 1 million in 2015. The current estimate is "seriously predicted," he said.

Berlin wants many other EU countries to do more to share the burden. Merkel said the current situation "is not fair."

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-08-31

[boomerangutang]

"So that we can help those in need, we must also tell those who are not in need that they can't stay with us," Chancellor Angela Merkel said at the chancellery in Berlin Sunday during an annual government open day. Those who do need protection should be integrated more quickly "into our life," while those who don't should be sent home quickly, she added.

I rather like Merkel, and I know she's sincerely trying to do the humanitarian thing. However, this quagmire needs a tougher-minded person at the helm. Bleeding hearts in charge are going to exacerbate the immense migration. Countries closer to problem areas, (Turkey, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Serbia, Macedonia, etc) are bearing the brunt, and they're doing the sensible thing: letting people in on the south and shuttling them out on the north. The further north the emigrants get, the closer the are to richer, better run countries with bleeding heart leaders like Merkel. I won't say there's going to be a saturation point. The saturation point has already been reached. It's inevitable the doors to Europe will get shut tight. Will it be now (that things are bad), or will be it be later when things get really really bad?

[Camelot]

I've listened to reporters and aid officials interviewing migrants and while the Syrians are obviously refugees deserving of asylum, I don't think the same can be said for migrants making the trek from Nigeria, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Myanmar (Burma), Ghana, Senegal and Egypt have also been mentioned as source countries. With the exception of Rohingya, citizens of these countries are generally free of repression and have democratic governments. Change should come from within.

Will these economic immigrants be sent home? Given their numbers and the logistics and human rights issues involved, it's hard to see that happening. Especially as many destroy their documents prior to arrival. A humanitarian attitude is commendable but the EU also needs to face facts.

[arjunadawn]

There is no categorical imperative... no moral certainty... that binds any people to self destruct at the altar of altruism or charity. EU will explode, not implode. The far away war zones of the middle east and cesspools of Africa are not such because of the unique geography. They are crapholes because of the quality of people. The nonsense that every one is a victim is the hallmark of liberal public relations. Ship these people to the EU and it is no surprise that EU becomes the place they just left. This exercise in doubling down on liberal Utopian dreams is destroying western civilization. Indeed, only the blind or liars with too much invested in their liberal debauchery continue to ignore the threat.

http://10news.dk/?p=1698

[Cloggie]

The EU has no time for those important issues, they are all very busy with design of the new logo for their new porcelain plates, coffee cups and golden cutlery.

They also working very hard on how many dust particles are allowed in the air, what kind of motor is allowed in a vacuum cleaner and the how many labels are needed in a T-Shirt.

Don't overload them with migrant issues!

[Berkshire]

"Germany, which has seen many asylum requests this year from Balkan countries, is keen to identify "safe" countries to ease returning rejected asylum applicants."

Interesting concept, "safe countries." I doubt there would be any volunteers for that...unless the EU was prepared to inject some serious cash into said country. This migrant issue is a tough one. Any country who eases restrictions or shows any amount of leniency in allowing migrants to stay will be guaranteed to receive many more. Sad that these migrants had to flee in the first place.

[7by7]

Without a doubt, many of these migrants are economic ones and not genuine refugees.

The problem is sorting out which is which; especially, as said above, many destroy their papers or didn't have any to start with.

Once sorted, those who face no danger at home should be returned there; if their home country will accept them without papers!

I know I'll get slammed by certain members for saying this, but IMHO it is better that 10 economic migrants get to stay than 1 genuine refugee is sent home to face torture or death.

[7by7]

<snip>

The far away war zones of the middle east and cesspools of Africa are not such because of the unique geography. They are crapholes because of the quality of people......

So you believe that these black and brown people are genetically incapable of governing themselves and were better off when they were under white colonial rule?

Of course, it is the historical ties with Europe which prompts many of the genuine refugees to come to Europe!

[7by7]

Whilst many refugees do come to Europe; the vast majority do not.

Most seek refuge in the nearest safe country; many seek refuge in safe places within their own country.

Facts and Figures about Refugees

Number of Refugees

There were 19.5 million refugees worldwide at the end of 2014, 14.4 million under the mandate of UNHCR, around 2.9 million more than in 2013.

The other 5.1 million Palestinian refugees are registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

During the year, conflict and persecution forced an average of 42,500 persons per day to leave their homes and seek protection elsewhere, either within the borders of their countries or in other countries.

Developing countries host over 86% of the worlds refugees, compared to 70% ten years ago. (7by7 emphasis)

In 2014, the country hosting the largest number of refugees was Turkey, with 1.59 million refugees.

Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)

About 38.2 million people were forcibly uprooted people and displaced within their own country and are known as internally displaced people (IDPs).

Asylum-Seekers

At least 1.66 million people submitted applications for asylum in 2014, the highest level ever recorded.

With an estimated 274,700 asylum claims, the Russian Federation became the largest recipient of new individual applications in 2014, followed by Germany (173,100), and the USA (121,200) .

Edited August 31, 2015 by 7by7

[manarak]

Without a doubt, many of these migrants are economic ones and not genuine refugees.

The problem is sorting out which is which; especially, as said above, many destroy their papers or didn't have any to start with.

Once sorted, those who face no danger at home should be returned there; if their home country will accept them without papers!

I know I'll get slammed by certain members for saying this, but IMHO it is better that 10 economic migrants get to stay than 1 genuine refugee is sent home to face torture or death.

I just slam you for underestimating the ratio. I guess 1 to 100 is closer to the truth.

Another thing is how much resources would you agree to spend for provisionally accepting them and then investigate each one to know if they are genuine refugees or not?

The laws on refugees were made at a time (1951) when most refugees were victims of European wars and most fled to neighboring countries or countries that were nearby and they were happy with getting enough food and staying alive. Today, the situation is totally different, the "refugees" don't want to just get food and shelter in a nearby safe country, but they want to go to richer European countries.

In my opinion, this is a problem on UN scale. I would be in favor of establishing UN protectorates, safe zones under UN military protection and police, where people can stay and work.

[arjunadawn]

<snip>

The far away war zones of the middle east and cesspools of Africa are not such because of the unique geography. They are crapholes because of the quality of people......

So you believe that these black and brown people are genetically incapable of governing themselves and were better off when they were under white colonial rule?

Of course, it is the historical ties with Europe which prompts many of the genuine refugees to come to Europe!

Fair inference to an unclear post; but it is not the only inference. No, I do not believe that. I believe all people have the same inherent Natural Rights of life, desire for security, to love and be loved, to eat, drink, and nurture their interior worlds as they see fit. Nearly all people desire to community, in whatever varied forms. However, it is demonstrably true that these multiple cultures that are being fled have never or not recently offered enlightened cultures to their community effort. Most of these people are fleeing crap holes because the collective market of ideas and community are inferior, dont nurture creativity, do not nurture innovation, refined arts, and most importantly, opportunity. This is an indictment of the cultures being fled, not the people themselves.

As stated elsewhere, make the bar so low that simply arriving is the only ingredient and the cultural mores will follow. With virtually no tools of assimilation, indeed no requirement to do so because the Hosts are having to accommodate, and you invite the same morasses that were left behind. Place after place in the US, Denmark, Sweden, France and other locations illustrate this point unfailingly.

Historical ties or not there is a stark reality emerging- Europe cannot survive as a culture in and of itself with these vast numbers unchecked. Others have stated the cultural evolution is the mark of history. This is not cultural evolution, this is cultural oblivion. What results may have traces of prior European culture, but it will only be traces. There is a reason why they are fleeing and if one concludes that significant numbers of these people will be a boon to the West and ease the plight of the former, they are sadly deluding themselves.

[7by7]

Manarak,

Estimates of the ratio between refugees and economic migrants are difficult, nay impossible, to calculate until they have been identified as being in one group or the other.

Europe is supposedly civilised, and whatever resources are necessary should be used to ensure these people do not starve etc.

Unless you subscribe to the view of some expressed in another topic that they should simply be put into camps while Europe sorts out a final solution to the problem (we've heard that in Europe before!).

As for the rest of your post; see mine immediately above yours, posted at the same time as yours.

[manarak]

Manarak,

Estimates of the ratio between refugees and economic migrants are difficult, nay impossible, to calculate until they have been identified as being in one group or the other.

Europe is supposedly civilised, and whatever resources are necessary should be used to ensure these people do not starve etc.

Unless you subscribe to the view of some expressed in another topic that they should simply be put into camps while Europe sorts out a final solution to the problem (we've heard that in Europe before!).

As for the rest of your post; see mine immediately above yours, posted at the same time as yours.

dear 7by7

the argument of "whatever resources necessary" is the same hypocrisy as when saying "a life is priceless". Then look at healthcare budgets. No, everybody cannot get the maximum of healthcare - and no, a life is not priceless, otherwise the government would dedicate all resources to keep people alive. The same is true for refugees, no, they cannot all be accepted.

I do not like that kind of statement, saying "we do everything, whatever necessary", because it is hogwash.

Idealism is ok, but discussing solutions must be done based on facts, not on idealism. "realpolitik" comes to mind, rather than a "final solution"... It suprises me that you became this thread's Godwin award winner.

[Scott]

The UNHCR, in spite of its enormous cost and its huge bureaucracy, has the best and the most resources for dealing with refugees. That have good standards in screening people and once there is a mechanism to start repatriating economic migrants, there is generally a reduction in the number of new arrivals.

Screening of refugees is a quasi legal process and there is an objective test and a subjective test, including credibility of the applicant. They knowledge of the situation in the home country and the ability to work with even the most difficult regimes. They twist arms, ensure safety of returnees and help with setting up re-integration programs for returnees.

The current situation is unsustainable and the ones at the greatest risk are the legitimate refugees. Those who care about them need to support programs to return economic migrants.

[boomerangutang]

I just read an autobiography of a woman 'Adie' who spent a career as a BBC correspondent. There are many photos included in the book. Nearly every photo of her career, past her age of 21, shows her in one of the conflict zones (source of refugees) we're talking about here. As we know, all those regions have had major conflicts since the dawn of civilization.

Imagine a city, where there 80% of the people live in slums, and 20% live in a comfortable suburbs. It dawns on the 80% that if they simply hike to the well-off suburbs, the residents there will feel obliged to give them shelter and food. However, in the real world that doesn't happen. The people in the suburbs have locks on their doors and bars on their windows and some have guard dogs and guns. Yet, on the scale of countries, it's a different dynamic, particularly when one country (one block of houses in a suburb, to use the analogy) can just point to the end of the street and say, "keep moving north, the people up there are richer and they'll probably take you in. I can't take you in, but keep moving, and maybe you'll get lucky. bye bye."

Two basic parts of the equation which aren't going to change: People keep making babies (poor, disadvantaged people make 'em at a lot faster clip than well-off people), and nobody's making any new land masses. People require a lot of resources and create a lot of garbage. We're a very trashy species. The chickens are coming home to roost and that's not just an analogy for millions of poor people wanting to get their butts to rich countries.

[7by7]

<snip>

Europe is supposedly civilised, and whatever resources are necessary should be used to ensure these people do not starve etc.

<snip>

the argument of "whatever resources necessary" is the same hypocrisy as when saying "a life is priceless".

So what would you do?

Put them into internment camps and leave them there to starve? (You can invoke Godwin as much as you like; but if the authorities do that and don't feed them, then they will starve!)

Leave them in makeshift shanty camps, like those outside Calais, or to wander the streets homeless where their situation leads many of them to turn to crime in order to feed themselves and their children?

Better, surely, both for them and the local population to take care of and feed them, in camps or elsewhere, until their eventual fate, allowed to remain or sent home, has been decided?

Despite the much needed reform of the CAP, EU farmers are still being encouraged, though no longer paid, not to produce food. Better, surely, to pay them to produce the food to feed these refugees?

Doing so would help farmers, many of whom are forced to sell products to supermarkets at a loss, and feed the refugees.

<snip>

The current situation is unsustainable and the ones at the greatest risk are the legitimate refugees. Those who care about them need to support programs to return economic migrants.

Indeed, and I have not seen any member here who does not support such programmes.

I have seen many simplistic suggestions made in various topics which ignore the complex issues and are based more on ignorance and prejudice than reality.

[manarak]

<snip>

Europe is supposedly civilised, and whatever resources are necessary should be used to ensure these people do not starve etc.

<snip>

the argument of "whatever resources necessary" is the same hypocrisy as when saying "a life is priceless".

So what would you do?

Put them into internment camps and leave them there to starve? (You can invoke Godwin as much as you like; but if the authorities do that and don't feed them, then they will starve!)

Leave them in makeshift shanty camps, like those outside Calais, or to wander the streets homeless where their situation leads many of them to turn to crime in order to feed themselves and their children?

Better, surely, both for them and the local population to take care of and feed them, in camps or elsewhere, until their eventual fate, allowed to remain or sent home, has been decided?

Despite the much needed reform of the CAP, EU farmers are still being encouraged, though no longer paid, not to produce food. Better, surely, to pay them to produce the food to feed these refugees?

Doing so would help farmers, many of whom are forced to sell products to supermarkets at a loss, and feed the refugees.

<snip>

The current situation is unsustainable and the ones at the greatest risk are the legitimate refugees. Those who care about them need to support programs to return economic migrants.

Indeed, and I have not seen any member here who does not support such programmes.

I have seen many simplistic suggestions made in various topics which ignore the complex issues and are based more on ignorance and prejudice than reality.

I don't know why you equate any pragmatic thinking with putting peope in death camps?

I made my proposal already, i.e. use UN military means to establish protectorates where refugees could live and work under UN protection.

As for the food question, I would rather make an effort to collect unsold food rather than to launch yet another planified economy measure that will only encourage surproduction.

The unsold food could complement what refugess would produce themselves in the protectorates.

The protectorates are also a good occasion to make them acquainted for the first time with a civil society without the burdens and restrictions of having them within one of the existing European welfare frameworks.

[cookee68]

Well if Germany and France and many other countries had a border control they would not have as many illegal migrants, we choose to control our borders and there for do not want them here, where is the danger they talk about, as soon as they are out of their country the danger they escaped from is no longer there, it is drilled into their head to try and make it to the UK, if we did not have some kind of border control we would have more migrants than Germany, it is only our borders that is keeping the numbers down, it is now becoming a joke,

[cookee68]

I've listened to reporters and aid officials interviewing migrants and while the Syrians are obviously refugees deserving of asylum, I don't think the same can be said for migrants making the trek from Nigeria, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Myanmar (Burma), Ghana, Senegal and Egypt have also been mentioned as source countries. With the exception of Rohingya, citizens of these countries are generally free of repression and have democratic governments. Change should come from within.

Will these economic immigrants be sent home? Given their numbers and the logistics and human rights issues involved, it's hard to see that happening. Especially as many destroy their documents prior to arrival. A humanitarian attitude is commendable but the EU also needs to face facts.

It is now a one for all, and they all use the same excuse, and destroy their documents, so as not to be sent back, no documents no entry simple, all the do gooders what them here, then why dont they support them, once they are here, most, and i mean most end up bad people, only a hand full do good,

[Chicog]

I know I'll get slammed by certain members for saying this, but IMHO it is better that 10 economic migrants get to stay than 1 genuine refugee is sent home to face torture or death.

Better for all of them, detrimental to the countries in which they end up.

[arjunadawn]

Whilst many refugees do come to Europe; the vast majority do not.

Most seek refuge in the nearest safe country; many seek refuge in safe places within their own country.

Facts and Figures about Refugees

Number of Refugees

There were 19.5 million refugees worldwide at the end of 2014, 14.4 million under the mandate of UNHCR, around 2.9 million more than in 2013.

The other 5.1 million Palestinian refugees are registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

During the year, conflict and persecution forced an average of 42,500 persons per day to leave their homes and seek protection elsewhere, either within the borders of their countries or in other countries.

Developing countries host over 86% of the worlds refugees, compared to 70% ten years ago. (7by7 emphasis)

In 2014, the country hosting the largest number of refugees was Turkey, with 1.59 million refugees.

Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)

About 38.2 million people were forcibly uprooted people and displaced within their own country and are known as internally displaced people (IDPs).

Asylum-Seekers

At least 1.66 million people submitted applications for asylum in 2014, the highest level ever recorded.

With an estimated 274,700 asylum claims, the Russian Federation became the largest recipient of new individual applications in 2014, followed by Germany (173,100), and the USA (121,200) .

You seem to have a level headed approach to this, though I differ on the better ten stay conclusion. However, while the information above may be unassailable i do not hold that it broadly applies. The majority of these people are not refugees in the sense of the traditional definition and exclusion of the term. Most of these people are economic illegal migrants.

[Exsexyman]

This refugee crisis is rapidly getting out of hand, and unless some of the leaders of Western governments take their collective heads out of the sand and address the elephant in the room this can only get worse. They, and more importantly the citizens who elect them, should be forced to acknowledge the laws of 'cause and effect'. A good start would be quite simple. The countries who started the Iraq war, destroying the country which facilitated it's take over by ISIS and their ilk, none of whom had a presence there pre invasion, should be made to take refugees from Iraq, those who assisted in the overthrow of Col Ghaddafi, resulting in the same scenario, despite all warnings that this current crisis would be the result of their actions, should be made to take those coming through Libya. Those countries who supported, trained and armed "rebels" in Syria who have transformed into ISIS and other assorted extremists should take those from Syria.Etc etc. After all, fairs fair! Our leaders can't say it is all unforeseen circumstances can they, because anyone who had any knowledge about Middle East and North African affairs warned them this would be the inevitable result of their actions. Cause and effect, "you break it, you own it'. Like it or not, the two hardest places for Islamic extremists to flourish were Iraq under Saddam Hussain and Libya under Ghaddafi. Yet in just a few short years the extremists have been handed these two countries on a silver platter, courtesy of the actions of the West. Syria next. Is nobody else worried that NATO countries have never done so much in favour of Islamic extremism, and in such a short period of time?

http://beta.theweek.in/columns/ajish-p-joy/mediterranean-mayhem.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/233238/Colonel-Gaddafi-Immigrants-will-invade-Europe

[boomerangutang]

I don't know why you equate any pragmatic thinking with putting people in death camps?

I made my proposal already, i.e. use UN military means to establish protectorates where refugees could live and work under UN protection

Protectorates where? In your back yard? Are there some nice rolling tree-dotted green hills somewhere where we can start a village of, let's say, 45,000 destitute people? They'll need water, electricity, roads, garbage collection, cops, schools, living quarters, jobs, and offices they can go to - to apply for welfare pay-outs. Do you know of several nice areas like that in Europe with vacancies for hundreds of thousands of destitute people to reside?

This refugee crisis is rapidly getting out of hand, and unless some of the leaders of Western governments take their collective heads out of the sand and address the elephant in the room this can only get worse. They, and more importantly the citizens who elect them, should be forced to acknowledge the laws of 'cause and effect'. A good start would be quite simple. The countries who started the Iraq war, destroying the country which facilitated it's take over by ISIS and their ilk, none of whom had a presence there pre invasion, should be made to take refugees from Iraq, those who assisted in the overthrow of Col Ghaddafi, resulting in the same scenario, despite all warnings that this current crisis would be the result of their actions, should be made to take those coming through Libya. Those countries who supported, trained and armed "rebels" in Syria who have transformed into ISIS and other assorted extremists should take those from Syria.Etc etc. After all, fairs fair! Our leaders can't say it is all unforeseen circumstances can they, because anyone who had any knowledge about Middle East and North African affairs warned them this would be the inevitable result of their actions. Cause and effect, "you break it, you own it'. Like it or not, the two hardest places for Islamic extremists to flourish were Iraq under Saddam Hussain and Libya under Ghaddafi. Yet in just a few short years the extremists have been handed these two countries on a silver platter, courtesy of the actions of the West. Syria next. Is nobody else worried that NATO countries have never done so much in favour of Islamic extremism, and in such a short period of time?

The countries who went to war - did so because they thought they had good reasons for doing so. Example: US going to fight the Taliban because of 9-11 attacks. They're not responsible for providing welfare for all the people affected by the war, whether the war went as planned or not. Is a surgeon responsible for providing sustenance for a surgery patient? Is a firefighter supposed to support the family of the house he saved from burning up?

[boomerangutang]

Europeans have been devoting hundreds of years to developing communities and functioning cities. Granted, there have been many mistakes along the way, and have been horrible wars, but they generally move onward. The average European has a somewhat comfortable life with schools, hospitals, parks, concerts, bridges, taxes- paid, pensions, democratic governments, police, courts, civic organizations, libraries, and the myriad other things that a somewhat functional society has. They and their ancestors have put a whole lot of concerted effort in to establishing functioning communities, democracy and a somewhat-fair judicial system.

Now along come over a million people from disfunctional places - where there are a dearth of the trappings of a decent society. Heck, in Beirut, they can't even get garbage collected. In most of those countries, a 20-year old girl can't even walk down the street unescorted, or she might get gang raped by roaming bands of young men calling themselves 'Religious Police.' Most of the source countries for refugees aren't functional even when they don't have armed conflicts going on. And all those people want to just walk in to Europe and gain all the advantages which Europe has carefully developed for hundreds of years. They want to walk in, be provided housing and spending money. What's wrong with this picture?

Europe has got to take a hard-line stance - and not allow refugees to flood in. Added to they myriad other problems, there is the migrants' mean-spirited belief system which they are compelled to inflict on others. There is a tough-love expression: "You make your bed, now you got to sleep it." Life is not a bed of roses. Life can be tough, and Europeans have to be able to allow it to be tough for some unfortunates. To do otherwise, is to turn much of Europe in to a giant slum run by roving punks.

[manarak]

I don't know why you equate any pragmatic thinking with putting people in death camps?

I made my proposal already, i.e. use UN military means to establish protectorates where refugees could live and work under UN protection

Protectorates where? In your back yard? Are there some nice rolling tree-dotted green hills somewhere where we can start a village of, let's say, 45,000 destitute people? They'll need water, electricity, roads, garbage collection, cops, schools, living quarters, jobs, and offices they can go to - to apply for welfare pay-outs. Do you know of several nice areas like that in Europe with vacancies for hundreds of thousands of destitute people to reside?

Best to make the areas close to where the refugees come from:

Northern Irak

Somalia

Mali

[Grouse]

I don't understand the apparant half assed approach against ISIS.

If Europe got together and roiled them up, a secular state could be set up where the refugees could return

What's the problem. Is a Great Game" being played out?

Maybe we should apply some colonial ideas. Give Libya to Italy. Let them set up a client state there

Just a thought?

[7by7]

I don't know why you equate any pragmatic thinking with putting people in death camps?

I made my proposal already, i.e. use UN military means to establish protectorates where refugees could live and work under UN protection

Protectorates where? In your back yard? Are there some nice rolling tree-dotted green hills somewhere where we can start a village of, let's say, 45,000 destitute people? They'll need water, electricity, roads, garbage collection, cops, schools, living quarters, jobs, and offices they can go to - to apply for welfare pay-outs. Do you know of several nice areas like that in Europe with vacancies for hundreds of thousands of destitute people to reside?

Best to make the areas close to where the refugees come from:

Northern Irak

Somalia

Mali

If you read the UNHCR report I linked to earlier, you will know that the vast majority of refugees are either still in their home country or in neighbouring ones.

Although the numbers already in Europe, and those still coming, are high, they are a fraction of the total.

[manarak]

I don't know why you equate any pragmatic thinking with putting people in death camps?

I made my proposal already, i.e. use UN military means to establish protectorates where refugees could live and work under UN protection

Protectorates where? In your back yard? Are there some nice rolling tree-dotted green hills somewhere where we can start a village of, let's say, 45,000 destitute people? They'll need water, electricity, roads, garbage collection, cops, schools, living quarters, jobs, and offices they can go to - to apply for welfare pay-outs. Do you know of several nice areas like that in Europe with vacancies for hundreds of thousands of destitute people to reside?

Best to make the areas close to where the refugees come from:

Northern Irak

Somalia

Mali

If you read the UNHCR report I linked to earlier, you will know that the vast majority of refugees are either still in their home country or in neighbouring ones.

Although the numbers already in Europe, and those still coming, are high, they are a fraction of the total.

so, why can't that fraction stay with the majority?

[boomerangutang]

I admit, if I was a young guy growing up in one of those miserable source regions, I'd be trying my darndest to get out to a better place. I'd do it away from crowds. I'd drop that belief system also, but it's hard to become clear when growing up in such a stifling rote-learning environment.

I just read that Hungary has closed its biggest train station (in Budapest) and won't allow anyone to travel west to Europe without a passport. SOURCE Expect a whole lot more as the weeks roll by, including riots, and bunches more ugly stuff (like the truckful of suffocated migrants).

[boomerangutang]

If you read the UNHCR report I linked to earlier, you will know that the vast majority of refugees are either still in their home country or in neighbouring ones.

Although the numbers already in Europe, and those still coming, are high, they are a fraction of the total.

so, why can't that fraction stay with the majority?

Too miserable.