SURVEY: Should EU countries continue to accept refugees and migrants?

[micmichd]

Let alone Hitler's confabulations in "Mein Kampf", one could see a correlation between social polititics (for the "Aryans") and (geopolitical) war efforts in Germany in the 1930's.

One could also say that US social politics in 1968 ff. were based on the Vietnam war.

Guess without a "New Deal" economy will either sacrifice welfare or peace.

Politicians like Angela Merkel are actually pupptes of economy, good for symbolic politics and political semantics. The real decisions are made elsewhere anyway, by "experts". So it would actually make no big difference whether those decisions come in the name of democracy or a military regime. Just sounds better if it's called democracy.

[nontabury]

I am very much ashamed to see so many ignorant and narrow minded people on this website. Of course it's Europe's duty to take ALL refugees coming from Syria or other bombed countries with war and terror. It's called HUMANITY. If we all times point on our culture then it's up to us to support and help. Not by giving them money to stay away from Europe but help them to find a new home. Nobody of these poor people left their home because of economical problems but of fear. Fear for their lives. Everybody with children try to do best for them having a secure future. But those from e.g. Syria they don't have any future if they would stay there.

Another point is that all those countries (no 1 is UK) which deny to take a greater number of those poor refugees forget that our society is getting older fast and WE will have big problems in the nearer future with our pensions and social welfare. The number of retirees is growing but the number of working people is declining. It's unbelievable that Cameron can't see it! But anyway we have to take refugees as a big chance for development of our countries not as intruders or enimies. Meet them with respect and not with hate. Help them but don't kick them out.

By the way, those problems with IS and Syrian war are cuased by wrong American politics.

Oh change the record please, birth rates in the UK have rocketed since the Labour & Tory governments threw the doors open to the world. Any strategy which is not formed with control as a pivotal component is not a strategy at all.

Immigration is no exception, and currently there is not sufficient housing and infrastructure in the UK for the people who live there now, nevermind adding 800,000 to the annual influx of 600,000 per annum (not to mention the many thousands of illegal immigrants). These numbers are ridiculous and unsustainable; how can we be in a position to help others if we do not first ensure we remain strong enough to help - and that means having enough homes, schools, jobs and hospital places for everyone first.

Yes, help the refugees by funding the best help available in the bordering countries - bring the UN to bear and make sure the host countries treat them humanely. Also, with a pool of 4 million refugees to select from, why in 3 years has there been no effort made to train, arm and mobilise a liberation force backed by Western air power & logistics? I'll tell you why, because they don't want that to happen!

Encouraging people to get into the sea and risk thousands of lives is what's morally wrong here.

Germany is taking more than 800000 refugees this year despite housing problems and so called "illegals". Why Germany will do that? Because of their guarantee of giving asylum to EVERYBODY. No other country got that law and right in their constitution.

Of course it's a challenge but ALL European countries are involved but not the cherry picker's country UK?

First we have to take the refugees giving them shelter, food and medical supply, then language lessons/education, last give them a tax paying job: win-win

Good example Sweden: everybody can enter this country. If he finds a tax paying job within 3 months he can stay. For me the best solution.

Actually there is a "GOOD COUNTRY INDEX". I'm proud to say that Ireland is No. 1

How many people per sq mile in Ireland,?

How many economic migrants has Ireland taken in?

how many people per sq mile in England?

How many economic migrants has England taken in?

Plus accepting people from a completely different culture can cause problems in itself,especially when they do not want to integrat. Do we want the Troubles in Europe.

[nontabury]

I am very much ashamed to see so many ignorant and narrow minded people on this website. Of course it's Europe's duty to take ALL refugees coming from Syria or other bombed countries with war and terror. It's called HUMANITY. If we all times point on our culture then it's up to us to support and help. Not by giving them money to stay away from Europe but help them to find a new home. Nobody of these poor people left their home because of economical problems but of fear. Fear for their lives. Everybody with children try to do best for them having a secure future. But those from e.g. Syria they don't have any future if they would stay there.

Another point is that all those countries (no 1 is UK) which deny to take a greater number of those poor refugees forget that our society is getting older fast and WE will have big problems in the nearer future with our pensions and social welfare. The number of retirees is growing but the number of working people is declining. It's unbelievable that Cameron can't see it! But anyway we have to take refugees as a big chance for development of our countries not as intruders or enimies. Meet them with respect and not with hate. Help them but don't kick them out.

By the way, those problems with IS and Syrian war are cuased by wrong American politics.

One assumes, from your participation on this forum and your choice of poster name, that you live in Thailand. So, to get this clear, you live in a country that has very tight immigration controls, that would take non of these people as refugees and that has no social security handouts for its own people let alone foreigners. Yet you presume to tell the people of Europe that they should take these people in, in the name of humanity, however many may come, and provide for them all the necessities of life from the public purse.

If you actually live, work and pay taxes in Ireland I might be impressed; otherwise you are just another "bleeding-heart, feel-good" hypocrite determined to have your cake and eat it.

In my view no-one who lives in Thailand is justified in lecturing the people of Europe for lack of compassion to the needy. If you don't feel able to lecture the Thais on compassion, don't try telling the people of Europe how they should deal with an almost unprecedented situation.

thailand has a much more open policy towards foreigners than any western country. Over 150,000 Burmese refugees are still in camps today. Many many more are now residing in Thailand, legally or otherwise. Total foreign workers in Thailand is nearly 4.5 million. Thailand benefited enormously in economic sense from these economic migrants.

For those afraid of Muslim influence (which worry I share), i can only say that the richer and better educated a population is, the less likely it will be a religious (extreme) population. So the only way to rid the world of Muslim or any other religion is to improve global wealth and education. Open borders does just that. It allows impoverished people to gain wealth in rich nations and have their kids enjoy a secular upbringing. Open borders also mean many more economic and political migrants only stay temporary and will move back 'home' after a few years.

Would that include those first,second and third generation educated Muslim immigrants who decided to place bombs in London and those doctors in Glasgow who also planed to kill innocent people.

[nontabury]

Another point is that all those countries (no 1 is UK) which deny to take a greater number of those poor refugees forget that our society is getting older fast and WE will have big problems in the nearer future with our pensions and social welfare.

So why then bring in a whole lot of older people who then make your average age even older, who soak up social welfare etc etc. Plus down the line want what everyone else has who has been in the country their whole lives. Oh and by the way poor refugees isnt really gonna cut it either, stop off in saudi arabia why dont they, lots of money there.

This argument seems to have originated from the early days of immigration when it was believed that young immigrants would come and work, pay their taxes, contribute to economic growth, and after a few years return home to their families.

Of course it never worked like that. They came for life, brought their families over, ultimately grew old like the rest of us and became pensioners too. Coupled with the fact that many immigrants came from troubled countries with low rates of literacy and had little in the way of education or skills, the net effect was an increased drain on already overblown social security systems; not a solution to an aging population as originally, and naively, thought.

A very noticeable effect has also been, certainly in the UK, a rocketing increase in population level and essential services (housing, medical services, schools etc) under ever increasing strain.
[/quoteare

Fortunately that is absolutely nonsense. That kind of thinking we had last century.
Fact is that e.g Sweden take immigrants allowing them to stay. Everybody who will find a tax paying job within 3 months time can stay. Expenses for those people are as low as possible. Social welfare NOT necessary because of employment.
So Sweden could be a good examole how to handle the problem/meaning integrating migrants (not refugees!)
Don't forget refugees could be high educated and might be specialists with different skills. Of course we need them in EU. And....illiterate people you'll find in your UK population (stands for many other countries) as well. So where is the difference.....invest in education for refugees and your own folks at the same time.

Can I suggest that you ask some of the many Sweds who are now living in Thailand on restricted and temporary visa, if they are happy with what has happened in their country. Those I have spoken to, do not think it has improved their country.

[cumgranosalum]

Another point is that all those countries (no 1 is UK) which deny to take a greater number of those poor refugees forget that our society is getting older fast and WE will have big problems in the nearer future with our pensions and social welfare.

So why then bring in a whole lot of older people who then make your average age even older, who soak up social welfare etc etc. Plus down the line want what everyone else has who has been in the country their whole lives. Oh and by the way poor refugees isnt really gonna cut it either, stop off in saudi arabia why dont they, lots of money there.

This argument seems to have originated from the early days of immigration when it was believed that young immigrants would come and work, pay their taxes, contribute to economic growth, and after a few years return home to their families.

Of course it never worked like that. They came for life, brought their families over, ultimately grew old like the rest of us and became pensioners too. Coupled with the fact that many immigrants came from troubled countries with low rates of literacy and had little in the way of education or skills, the net effect was an increased drain on already overblown social security systems; not a solution to an aging population as originally, and naively, thought.

A very noticeable effect has also been, certainly in the UK, a rocketing increase in population level and essential services (housing, medical services, schools etc) under ever increasing strain.

[/quoteare

Fortunately that is absolutely nonsense. That kind of thinking we had last century.

Fact is that e.g Sweden take immigrants allowing them to stay. Everybody who will find a tax paying job within 3 months time can stay. Expenses for those people are as low as possible. Social welfare NOT necessary because of employment.

So Sweden could be a good examole how to handle the problem/meaning integrating migrants (not refugees!)

Don't forget refugees could be high educated and might be specialists with different skills. Of course we need them in EU. And....illiterate people you'll find in your UK population (stands for many other countries) as well. So where is the difference.....invest in education for refugees and your own folks at the same time.

Can I suggest that you ask some of the many Sweds who are now living in Thailand on restricted and temporary visa, if they are happy with what has happened in their country. Those I have spoken to, do not think it has improved their country.

Silly man - populations don't maintain the same number of old people - uK needs a lot of younger immigrants to do all sorts of jobs from cleaning toilets to brain surgery...." western" an older developed countries now have a huger percentage of older people - (refugees in general are not old) - these old people are a drain on our welfare resources and we need to increase the proportion of younger people to pay the taxes to support them....Japan is the prime example of the problems created by an ever increasing elderly population - many European countries are on the way to joining them - unless we get an injection of young blood - i.e. immigrants.

[MartinL]

How many people per sq mile in Ireland,?

How many economic migrants has Ireland taken in?

how many people per sq mile in England?

How many economic migrants has England taken in?

How many people per sq mile in Ireland,? 67/sq. km.

How many economic migrants has Ireland taken in? 11,670

how many people per sq mile in England? 261/sq. km. (UK rather than England only)

How many economic migrants has England taken in? 177,549 (UK rather than England only)

Ref. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/

Population Density England ONLY 413/sq. km.

Ref. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/compendiums/compendium-of-uk-statistics/population-and-migration/index.html

[newnative]

Why would you let in people who are set on destroying you and your way of life?

[micmichd]

@newnative:

Good question.

I'm German, and the Germans tried to destroy me and my way of life. Also my Thai gf's way of life.

Why should I hesitate to destroy Germans?

Edited September 10, 2015 by micmichd

[allanos]

The scope of the migration problem is immense, and not about to diminish any time soon. Clearly, present agreements within the EU are piece-meal, and may
not be solvable going forward. I would opine that it is opening a can of worms, with the future in mind.

Given the strength of the Euro currency versus the "softness" of the currencies of many other nations, there could possibly be a financially-based resolution
of the migration problem, by reaching agreement with poorer nations to re-settle the migrants (a la Australia-Cambodia arrangement) there.

I believe that the European Union make a grant of an agreed initial capital sum for each migrant with the new destination country, and sustainably support those
individuals for, say, 20 years, until the youngest was fully-integrated into the society of the new country into which they had been re-settled.

My feeling is that this would be more cost-efficient for the European Union as a whole, then taking in these migrants and letting them be a drain on the social security services of the member countries.

[MartinL]

Germany is taking more than 800000 refugees this year despite housing problems and so called "illegals". Why Germany will do that? Because of their guarantee of giving asylum to EVERYBODY. No other country got that law and right in their constitution.

Of course it's a challenge but ALL European countries are involved but not the cherry picker's country UK?

First we have to take the refugees giving them shelter, food and medical supply, then language lessons/education, last give them a tax paying job: win-win

Good example Sweden: everybody can enter this country. If he finds a tax paying job within 3 months he can stay. For me the best solution.

Actually there is a "GOOD COUNTRY INDEX". I'm proud to say that Ireland is No. 1

In this "Good Country Index" ( http://www.goodcountry.org/overall ) :-

Ireland is No. 1,

Sweden is No. 6,

Germany is No. 13.

UK, the 'cherry pickers' country' is No. 7.

Destroys your argument a little, doesn't it.

As for Germany's " ... guarantee of giving asylum to EVERYBODY. No other country got that law and right in their constitution ... ", more fool them, if that's true.

[overherebc]

Another point is that all those countries (no 1 is UK) which deny to take a greater number of those poor refugees forget that our society is getting older fast and WE will have big problems in the nearer future with our pensions and social welfare.

So why then bring in a whole lot of older people who then make your average age even older, who soak up social welfare etc etc. Plus down the line want what everyone else has who has been in the country their whole lives. Oh and by the way poor refugees isnt really gonna cut it either, stop off in saudi arabia why dont they, lots of money there.

This argument seems to have originated from the early days of immigration when it was believed that young immigrants would come and work, pay their taxes, contribute to economic growth, and after a few years return home to their families.

Of course it never worked like that. They came for life, brought their families over, ultimately grew old like the rest of us and became pensioners too. Coupled with the fact that many immigrants came from troubled countries with low rates of literacy and had little in the way of education or skills, the net effect was an increased drain on already overblown social security systems; not a solution to an aging population as originally, and naively, thought.

A very noticeable effect has also been, certainly in the UK, a rocketing increase in population level and essential services (housing, medical services, schools etc) under ever increasing strain.

[/quoteare

Fortunately that is absolutely nonsense. That kind of thinking we had last century.

Fact is that e.g Sweden take immigrants allowing them to stay. Everybody who will find a tax paying job within 3 months time can stay. Expenses for those people are as low as possible. Social welfare NOT necessary because of employment.

So Sweden could be a good examole how to handle the problem/meaning integrating migrants (not refugees!)

Don't forget refugees could be high educated and might be specialists with different skills. Of course we need them in EU. And....illiterate people you'll find in your UK population (stands for many other countries) as well. So where is the difference.....invest in education for refugees and your own folks at the same time.

Can I suggest that you ask some of the many Sweds who are now living in Thailand on restricted and temporary visa, if they are happy with what has happened in their country. Those I have spoken to, do not think it has improved their country.

Silly man - populations don't maintain the same number of old people - uK needs a lot of younger immigrants to do all sorts of jobs from cleaning toilets to brain surgery...." western" an older developed countries now have a huger percentage of older people - (refugees in general are not old) - these old people are a drain on our welfare resources and we need to increase the proportion of younger people to pay the taxes to support them....Japan is the prime example of the problems created by an ever increasing elderly population - many European countries are on the way to joining them - unless we get an injection of young blood - i.e. immigrants.

I strongly disagree with your choice of words. "these older people are a drain on resources" These older people people paid into the system all their working lives and fully deserve every penny they get, why should someone who has never paid in be getting more per month than they do.

If they are genuine refugees they should be held in areas where they are clothed and fed with a small cash sum every month, and I mean small and then returned to their own country when the time is right and I mean when the host country decides the time is right. Some could even be educated where they are held with skills that could help when they get back.

[MartinL]

Germany is taking more than 800000 refugees this year despite housing problems and so called "illegals". Why Germany will do that? Because of their guarantee of giving asylum to EVERYBODY. No other country got that law and right in their constitution.

Of course it's a challenge but ALL European countries are involved but not the cherry picker's country UK?

First we have to take the refugees giving them shelter, food and medical supply, then language lessons/education, last give them a tax paying job: win-win

Good example Sweden: everybody can enter this country. If he finds a tax paying job within 3 months he can stay. For me the best solution.

Actually there is a "GOOD COUNTRY INDEX". I'm proud to say that Ireland is No. 1

In this "Good Country Index" ( http://www.goodcountry.org/overall ) :-

Ireland is No. 1,

Sweden is No. 6,

Germany is No. 13.

UK, the 'cherry pickers' country' is No. 7.

Destroys your argument a little, doesn't it.

As for Germany's " ... guarantee of giving asylum to EVERYBODY. No other country got that law and right in their constitution ... ", more fool them, if that's true.

I had a bit more to say but couldn't find my info. Remedied that now.

UK is NOT the only 'cherry pickers' country' - there are 3 countries that had the foresight to opt out of the EU's migrant quota scheme.

Those countries are UK, Denmark & .................................................... IRELAND.

Edited September 11, 2015 by MartinL

[micmichd]

Please don't confuse refugees and immigrants.

Today's refugees can be tomorrow's immigrants, and I would give them all a work permit.

If they work, they will contribute to the social security system.

I have also worked for my pension, it's all on my personal pension account. But it's short-sighted to believe the pension funds saved it all up for me. In fact, today's pensions are paid from today's contributions to the system, ie from today's labour. Being aware of this, it's in my personal interest that as many people as possible should get good jobs as soon as possible. And many refugees are really qualified.

The humanitarian aspect is of course the danger of a 'brain drain' if the qualified people from "Third world" countries remain in Europe. Most of them probably miss their families back home. Guess it makes economic sense to get their home countries pacified and then grant them some incentives to go back.

Some will still prefer to stay in Europe and work there. That also makes sense, for the reasons mentioned above.

The real losers might be the (somehow numb) native Farang unemployed. Immigrants are usually quite good in improvisation and create their own jobs if the labour market gets tough.

I don't think Germany has a real problem with foreigners. It has a motivation problem with the natives.

[sawadee1947]

Allow them to go to the countries whose foreign policies are responsible for the mess.

Agreed! So that would be Russia, USA and the EU countries....

How far do you want to go back? I'd say the UK is in that mix too. Drawing middle east countries with borders that make no sense ... this mess is endless.

Last time I checked the UK was stil an EU country... Although some ignorants would love to change that.

It always amazes me that many foreigners who settled in Thailand and complain the hardest about how difficult immigration here makes it for them, are the same ones who'd love to throw out all immigrants out of their home country, while at the same time whining about why it is so hard for their Thai wife or girlfriend to get a visa. Bigots, the lot of them.

You either want open borders for everyone, meaning you can live where you want, and so can anyone else, or you are in favor of closed borders, and everyone stays in their country of birth, no exception.

By the way, ALL significant economics agree that complete open border would increase wealth worldwide on a massive scale, with the poorest countries gaining around 300% in GDP and the richest countries will see an increase of 20% GDP.

Last time I checked the UK was stil an EU country... Although some ignorants would love to change that.

Well, do you know UK took 143 !! refugees from Syria last year ???? And Cameron considers to increase this figure?

This is only to complete your quote. Last evening I followed a documentary (from Farance) about UK and relation to EU: The reporter asked if there are any products of UK which are famous and worldwide sold? None. So the reporter asked what benefits people would have when staying in EU? None.. I will not comment that interview. Actually they asked 200 people in London only but it gave a good impression I think.

[overherebc]

To GulfSailor,

The expats who are in Thailand don't take over areas of their host country and make them no-go areas with threats of violence. Nor do they have mass prayer meetings in the streets holding up and blocking traffic. There are more serious issues but I won't bring them up here.

I will be happy staying here for my last days because I can go where I like when I like unlike some areas in my home country. The situation will only get worse in Europe. Some may integrate but they will be in the minority.

I have friends here who are talking around the subject of not planning anymore holidays in Mainland Europe, one who says the last time he was home it was difficult to find a waiter in a restaurant that could speak his native language.

Better stop now.

Rant over

[nontabury]

Germany is taking more than 800000 refugees this year despite housing problems and so called "illegals". Why Germany will do that? Because of their guarantee of giving asylum to EVERYBODY. No other country got that law and right in their constitution.

Of course it's a challenge but ALL European countries are involved but not the cherry picker's country UK?

First we have to take the refugees giving them shelter, food and medical supply, then language lessons/education, last give them a tax paying job: win-win

Good example Sweden: everybody can enter this country. If he finds a tax paying job within 3 months he can stay. For me the best solution.

Actually there is a "GOOD COUNTRY INDEX". I'm proud to say that Ireland is No. 1

In this "Good Country Index" ( http://www.goodcountry.org/overall ) :-

Ireland is No. 1,

Sweden is No. 6,

Germany is No. 13.

UK, the 'cherry pickers' country' is No. 7.

Destroys your argument a little, doesn't it.

As for Germany's " ... guarantee of giving asylum to EVERYBODY. No other country got that law and right in their constitution ... ", more fool them, if that's true.

It might have been more informative if he had mentioned who exactly compiled and financed this list.

[thaibeachlovers]

Is there any Muslim Countries Taking any Refugees besides Turkey ??. In my opinion, Europe is in for big problems ahead

Just another example of how profoundly ignorant some people are on this whole topic..........

Syrian Refugee Camp, Jordan....

Try showing a photo like that from Saudi, Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan or Iran..................................I bet you can't.

Edited September 11, 2015 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

Agreed! So that would be Russia, USA and the EU countries....

How far do you want to go back? I'd say the UK is in that mix too. Drawing middle east countries with borders that make no sense ... this mess is endless.

Last time I checked the UK was stil an EU country... Although some ignorants would love to change that.

It always amazes me that many foreigners who settled in Thailand and complain the hardest about how difficult immigration here makes it for them, are the same ones who'd love to throw out all immigrants out of their home country, while at the same time whining about why it is so hard for their Thai wife or girlfriend to get a visa. Bigots, the lot of them.

You either want open borders for everyone, meaning you can live where you want, and so can anyone else, or you are in favor of closed borders, and everyone stays in their country of birth, no exception.

By the way, ALL significant economics agree that complete open border would increase wealth worldwide on a massive scale, with the poorest countries gaining around 300% in GDP and the richest countries will see an increase of 20% GDP.

Last time I checked the UK was stil an EU country... Although some ignorants would love to change that.

Well, do you know UK took 143 !! refugees from Syria last year ???? And Cameron considers to increase this figure?

This is only to complete your quote. Last evening I followed a documentary (from Farance) about UK and relation to EU: The reporter asked if there are any products of UK which are famous and worldwide sold? None. So the reporter asked what benefits people would have when staying in EU? None.. I will not comment that interview. Actually they asked 200 people in London only but it gave a good impression I think.

So? All that proves is that the UK has had better sense that the other EU countries. Hopefully he will stand firm.

Bit cheeky of them to send ships to the Med to shuttle illegal economic migrants to Italy though.

[thaibeachlovers]

This argument seems to have originated from the early days of immigration when it was believed that young immigrants would come and work, pay their taxes, contribute to economic growth, and after a few years return home to their families.

Of course it never worked like that. They came for life, brought their families over, ultimately grew old like the rest of us and became pensioners too. Coupled with the fact that many immigrants came from troubled countries with low rates of literacy and had little in the way of education or skills, the net effect was an increased drain on already overblown social security systems; not a solution to an aging population as originally, and naively, thought.

A very noticeable effect has also been, certainly in the UK, a rocketing increase in population level and essential services (housing, medical services, schools etc) under ever increasing strain.

[/quoteare

Fortunately that is absolutely nonsense. That kind of thinking we had last century.

Fact is that e.g Sweden take immigrants allowing them to stay. Everybody who will find a tax paying job within 3 months time can stay. Expenses for those people are as low as possible. Social welfare NOT necessary because of employment.

So Sweden could be a good examole how to handle the problem/meaning integrating migrants (not refugees!)

Don't forget refugees could be high educated and might be specialists with different skills. Of course we need them in EU. And....illiterate people you'll find in your UK population (stands for many other countries) as well. So where is the difference.....invest in education for refugees and your own folks at the same time.

Can I suggest that you ask some of the many Sweds who are now living in Thailand on restricted and temporary visa, if they are happy with what has happened in their country. Those I have spoken to, do not think it has improved their country.

Silly man - populations don't maintain the same number of old people - uK needs a lot of younger immigrants to do all sorts of jobs from cleaning toilets to brain surgery...." western" an older developed countries now have a huger percentage of older people - (refugees in general are not old) - these old people are a drain on our welfare resources and we need to increase the proportion of younger people to pay the taxes to support them....Japan is the prime example of the problems created by an ever increasing elderly population - many European countries are on the way to joining them - unless we get an injection of young blood - i.e. immigrants.

I strongly disagree with your choice of words. "these older people are a drain on resources" These older people people paid into the system all their working lives and fully deserve every penny they get, why should someone who has never paid in be getting more per month than they do.

If they are genuine refugees they should be held in areas where they are clothed and fed with a small cash sum every month, and I mean small and then returned to their own country when the time is right and I mean when the host country decides the time is right. Some could even be educated where they are held with skills that could help when they get back.

In fact, many older people of pensionable age could work, but the government of my country penalises any that do by reducing their pension if they earn over a low limit. Self inflicted by the government that doesn't care that older people have a lot of skills to use and pass on- just consign us to the rubbish heap and hope we die soon.

[sawadee1947]

@newnative:

Good question.

I'm German, and the Germans tried to destroy me and my way of life. Also my Thai gf's way of life.

Why should I hesitate to destroy Germans?

How you mean it? You bought a machine gun already?

[simple1]

@Thaibeachlovers.

Pakistan around 1.5 million refugees, Iran approx 1 million

As an example of a Pakistani refugee camp...

Edited September 11, 2015 by simple1

[micmichd]

@newnative:

Good question.

I'm German, and the Germans tried to destroy me and my way of life. Also my Thai gf's way of life.

Why should I hesitate to destroy Germans?

How you mean it? You bought a machine gun already?

When I came back from Thailand in January 2013 and just had to work another 9 months before I could finally emigrate, I had already acquired Thai attitudes - and was forced for re-education and attitude adjustment (in detention). After making me pay for their "services" (neither wanted nor needed), German authorities generously "allowed" me to go to Thailand.

My Thai gf got impersonated, too, really insulting.

Much of my property is still in Germany. A machine-gun would be of no use to get it, even if I would walk back to Germany. I've got other ways to make them pay back.

Edited September 11, 2015 by micmichd

[thaibeachlovers]

@Thaibeachlovers.

Pakistan around 1.5 million refugees, Iran approx 1 million

As an example of a Pakistani refugee camp...

Pakistan refugee camp.jpg

Thanks for that.

[MadBum]

Yeah that'll work.

The UK and much of Europe looked much like that during/after WW2

Did the inhabitants flee?

Some did. Most stayed and rebuilt.

I don't want my tax dollars supporting anymore dead weight.

[micmichd]

Millions of inhabitants died in WW2, plus 6 mio. Jewish inhabitants that were slaughtered by the Nazis. The ERP (Marshall plan) was mostly financed by USA, without USA Germany would certainly not be the rich country it is today.

I don't hope Europe expects US taxpayers to pay again. Should be enough if US withdraw their military material from Middle East.

[simple1]

Yeah that'll work.

The UK and much of Europe looked much like that during/after WW2

Did the inhabitants flee?

Some did. Most stayed and rebuilt.

I don't want my tax dollars supporting anymore dead weight.

During WW11 in Europe basically nowhere to flee to escape from the Nazis, in any case the majority of the destruction of property in Europe was caused by the Allies. Europe was rebuilt after peace was achieved, with the assistance from the Marshall Plan. Trying to compare WW11 in Europe and the aftermath to Syria is a nonsense.

[newnative]

Comparing the current situation to the aftermath of World War 2 is not nonsense. And, what is needed now is a new Marshall Plan spearheaded by the UN and the migrants returned to rebuild their own countries. But, the migrants don't want that--sounds like a lot of hard work. And, who would choose to live in Syria when there is a soft, ripe Europe to invade. I feel sad for Germany, with its lingering WW2 guilt, allowing this invasion 800,000 strong just this year alone. And, not only allowing it but paying for it! I suspect at some point down the road Germany will wake up faced with having a Muslim majority, and wondering how that happened. And, that's fine if you don't mind having a Muslim president like Malaysia's, who stated recently that he will place Muslim law over civil law. Goodbye human rights and hello stoning. The only smart country in this mess in my opinion is Saudi Arabia, which has stated it will take no migrants but will pay for 200 mosques to be built in Germany. Wow, that's big of them! No invading army of migrants for Saudi, and looks like Germany will need all those mosques and then some.

[cumgranosalum]

Yeah that'll work.

The UK and much of Europe looked much like that during/after WW2

Did the inhabitants flee?

Some did. Most stayed and rebuilt.

I don't want my tax dollars supporting anymore dead weight.

"Did the inhabitants flee?" - Yes they did - you seem completely unaware of the numbers - after WW2 thee were in excess of 60 million refugees and that number almost again in terms of "internally displaced people...these figures continued in the 1950s. - The last WW2 refugee camps in Europe were closed in 1960

the situation is now approaching those numbers.

I simply can't understand why people make such ridiculously inaccurate statements that appear to be based purely on their own prejudices or ignorance - why not get a little information on a topic before blurting out totally erroneous nonsense like Madbum just has?

Edited September 12, 2015 by cumgranosalum

[simple1]

Comparing the current situation to the aftermath of World War 2 is not nonsense. And, what is needed now is a new Marshall Plan spearheaded by the UN and the migrants returned to rebuild their own countries. But, the migrants don't want that--sounds like a lot of hard work. And, who would choose to live in Syria when there is a soft, ripe Europe to invade. I feel sad for Germany, with its lingering WW2 guilt, allowing this invasion 800,000 strong just this year alone. And, not only allowing it but paying for it! I suspect at some point down the road Germany will wake up faced with having a Muslim majority, and wondering how that happened. And, that's fine if you don't mind having a Muslim president like Malaysia's, who stated recently that he will place Muslim law over civil law. Goodbye human rights and hello stoning. The only smart country in this mess in my opinion is Saudi Arabia, which has stated it will take no migrants but will pay for 200 mosques to be built in Germany. Wow, that's big of them! No invading army of migrants for Saudi, and looks like Germany will need all those mosques and then some.

Putting aside your rant have a read of the content at the URL on the facts on how the refugee crisis at the cessation of hostilities in Europe was dealt with.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/refugees_01.shtml

[cumgranosalum]

Comparing the current situation to the aftermath of World War 2 is not nonsense. And, what is needed now is a new Marshall Plan spearheaded by the UN and the migrants returned to rebuild their own countries. But, the migrants don't want that--sounds like a lot of hard work. And, who would choose to live in Syria when there is a soft, ripe Europe to invade. I feel sad for Germany, with its lingering WW2 guilt, allowing this invasion 800,000 strong just this year alone. And, not only allowing it but paying for it! I suspect at some point down the road Germany will wake up faced with having a Muslim majority, and wondering how that happened. And, that's fine if you don't mind having a Muslim president like Malaysia's, who stated recently that he will place Muslim law over civil law. Goodbye human rights and hello stoning. The only smart country in this mess in my opinion is Saudi Arabia, which has stated it will take no migrants but will pay for 200 mosques to be built in Germany. Wow, that's big of them! No invading army of migrants for Saudi, and looks like Germany will need all those mosques and then some.

"And, that's fine if you don't mind having a Muslim president like Malaysia's," - kind of difficult to respect anyone's opinion who thinks that this is a valid argument?

Edited September 12, 2015 by cumgranosalum