Root cause of the refugees/migrants crisis in Europe

Parent Cafe
241

Interesting that you put these two things go together, as if they go together; no, they are distinctly different, and do not go in concert. Putting them in concert is only your opinion.

If people come to my home (in this case, country), they have a duty to assimilate and to respect my values that maintain stability and order; there is no need or requirement for me to adopt any of their values, as their values could be opposite mine, and be destructive to my civic order. They came to my country, lest they forgot whose house they entered.

Now, if a group of different people end up in an area by traveling there and decide to form a nation state, then I agree that acculturation is proper in said situation because there are no established values, laws, traditions, and civic structure in place which to assimilate, and people should develop a system that all can work with. Furthermore, if later on a new group arrives, the now nation state has no requirement to disrupt its civil structure to accommodate the new arrivals - the new arrivals should assimilate and maintain the order and respect the established values.

Cart before the horse thinking.

The problem lies in the fact that, historically, these specific groups have proved not to want to be part of the societies which they enter, and they create more havoc than good.

Actual assimilation to the host country’s civic structure and values is why we do not see such calls hurled at immigrants from India, Asia, or many other parts of the world. Those other groups come and join the society in its civic structure. They do not show up, for example, and tell the host country’s judicial system that they function under Sharia law, not the host country’s laws. I posit Muslims would not have this problem if they have, in the past, shown to assimilate and respect the values in the countries, which they chose to enter.

When I lived in Europe I was amazed of how the Muslims set up huge areas and lived completely different lives than the French, with their own street signs etc. (Well, dumb for the French to allow that in the first place). Cannot blame Hungary and other Western countries for not wanting the same within their borders.

242

Or a large number aren’t actually refugees, they’re economic migrants.

Men don’t really abandon women and children in dangerous places while they get to safety, do they? I bet not in such large numbers.

243

Yes, but I have known this all along, so it was not a surprise to me it is mainly young men and very few older men as well. It has been like this for these immigration waves, for decades.

What I was responding to (I should have been more clear) is I recall earlier the discussion of these people being poor that is why they go on boats and take the risks at sea. In reality, they take the risk at sea and land because those travel modes afford document-less travel and instant refugee status claims.

244

Yes, the demographics make it look like only young men are at risk.

245

Agreed.

However, unlike what many posts in this thread have alluded to, because people are running for their own safety does not mean that other stable countries should risk their safety, read as risk their own social and political stability, to help fleers who do not wish to assimilate.

It may be as simple as one cannot be humane in all the circumstances where one would like. Humane is one thing; national suicide is another. Not a hard choice to make when faced with that equation.

246

Missing word - “[Specific] people” is the accurate term.

Pretty sure, Hungarians are fine with others who assimilate. Met many other nationalities, while there and they got along fine with native Hungarians.

Not all cultures are compatible, therefore, I do not buy into the generalization of just saying “people.” And it is wise to keep out people and cultures that do not believe and foster the same societal goals, as the host country. Governing is hard enough as it is, so no need to invite known disunity.

247

Yes, I do believe this is the case. But the key is document-less travel allows for the refugee claim, which is mainly a farce at this point, for many of these men.

248

@awcntdb, well, I know that Hungary ethnically cleaned out a lot of ethnic Germans after WWII. And the Germans did that to the Jews before that.
Were they not assimilated enough.

@zoosermom, depends on where the women and children are. A refugee camp is still safer than crossing the ocean on those rickety boats.

249

US to take at least 10,000 more Syrian refugees:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/politics/u-s-take-10000-syrian-refugees/index.html

250

So how many is Saudi Arabia taking?

251

I may be too paranoid. I would care more about how we could make sure there are not any potential ISIS members or ISIS sympathizers from these 10,000+ people than how many Saudi Arabia is taking. (The former is a tough job; the latter has an easy answer: none or very few.) This could be a “golden opportunity” for some terrorist group to sneak some of their members into our country.

252

It will take up to 2 years to process 10,000 refugees.

253

If KSA takes them, then maybe we don’t have to.

254

Just curious: How many refugees have we taken in because of the Vietnam War (or because of our guilt of screwing it there and/or “humanity” reasons)? I guess we might have taken more for that war.

We kind of screwed up for our second Gulf War also. Not sure whether we feel we need to take in some refugees because of our involvement (stirring up the hornet nest) or purely because of humanity reasons. BTW, do you still remember who in our government said “this war could pay for it by itself?”, and "we do not need to send in too many foot soldiers into Iraq?)

255

@GMTplus7, er, doesn’t work like that. 10K is a drop in the bucket compared to the total number of refugees already living in camps and elsewhere outside Syria.

256

I’m not aware of any Vietnamese immigrants waging jihad.

ISIS has already declared that it plans to exploit the migrant crisis.

257

Maybe people in the world should have a joint effort to set up two kinds of refugee camps: one for the refugees who are there not because of economic reasons, and the other for the “economical refugees”. Then all countries financially contribute to the cost for setting up and maintaining these two kinds of camps on the long term basis – there will be ongoing need for such camps.

For a country like us where many do not like a “welfare” state, we may in the long run be quite stingy to sponsor the camps whose refugees are there for economic reasons.

258

The root of current crisis is obvious and the reason that nobody mentions it is because it is politically incorrect to do so. The fact that no Arabic countries are taking their "brothers’, as well as Russia, Hungary,…etc. is that they know who they are. Saudis and others around them are awash in money and the greed is not the reason for not helping. The reason is that governments that care first and foremost about safety of their own citizens (the prime function of government, the reason why governments were created), do not take refugees, which unavoidably created current crisis in Europe where these refugees do not belong by any measure, the reason for that is that it is very well known to these governments who the refugees are and what kind of thread they bring to each country. While economic side is very important, the safety and well being of citizens should always be a #1 concern. It SHOULD, but it is not!

259

@mcat2 - we took in many people after the Vietnam War. Remember the “boat people”? That started several years after the war ended due to harsh “reeducation” policies of the new regime. We took more than half of those people, which seems more than proper to me.

Seems awfully familiar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_boat_people

260

Perhaps taking in only families, and those with Syrian-American sponsors here, would be a prudent way to help the refugees but also screen against potential threats.