Refugees in the EU

[Count Zero]

I think it's naive to believe that Germany won't insist on the Dublin regulations as they have always done before the surprising turnabout two weeks ago. (And that means not having to accept most people that come because they obviously passed through states declared 'safe'.) For a brief moment, we showed what we were capable of but now it's over. And Orban and any other right-wingers are having a field day with it.

The solution to the situation in Munich would have been to send the trains elsewhere and not let them stop in Munich. This should be possible to organise in a country like Germany. I mean, it's possible to divert 1000s of federal cops to the borders now with a day's notice, after all.

Instead, countries like Lebanon and Turkey are expected to pick up the slack. The Minister of the Interior said this was a signal to the people in the camps there. What the EU is doing here is really very cynical. It's a game of NIMBY but on the backs of vulnerable people.

 

[{ Emilia }]

I think it's naive to believe that Germany won't insist on the Dublin regulations as they have always done before the surprising turnabout two weeks ago.

So since you're calling others naive: What do you suggest Germany should do if the other EU countries still refuse to take refugees in serious numbers?
Germany can't do everything alone and last week's influx was really hard to handle. Even if Germany stopped taking refugees now it has still done more than most other countries.

I mean, I've seen what it's like here when I went to donate stuff at the local reception centre.

The solution to the situation in Munich would have been to send the trains elsewhere and not let them stop in Munich. This should be possible to organise in a country like Germany.

I do love when people have an easy solution to major issues. Speaking of naive, eh?
Your expectations are crazy considering the situation. I'm not saying it's too many people but it's probably too many people in too short a time. Refugees have been sent to other cities and towns in Germany but shockingly shit takes a while and capacities are limited.

I totally get your frustration and I also wish Germany hadn't suspended Schengen but your love for hating on Germany is just very... German.

I think by letting them in Germany wanted to send a signal to the countries that are still refusing to help. Germany has tried to find a European solution in the past two weeks but "surprisingly" the other countries' reaction was to lean back and watch.

 

[cultcross]

I think it's naive to believe that Germany won't insist on the Dublin regulations as they have always done before the surprising turnabout two weeks ago.

So since you're calling others naive: What do you suggest Germany should do if the other EU countries still refuse to take refugees in serious numbers?
Germany can't do everything alone and last week's influx was really hard to handle. Even if Germany stopped taking refugees now it has still done more than most other countries.

I mean, I've seen what it's like here when I went to donate stuff at the local reception centre.

Indeed - Germany have already taken more in a week than we are prepared to take over the next 3 years. It would be just as irresponsible for a country to take on more than they can cope with in emergency terms - immediate food, water, shelter, clothing, etc. The rest of Europe need to start picking up the slack, rather than criticising Germany for being somehow two-faced when they've done more than anyone so far. Refugees currently in Europe work out to about 11,000 per EU Member state. That's workable, not 200 to the UK and 300,000 to Germany.

 

[MacLeod]

Well a long term solution might be to change the Dublin Regulations, sure it doesn't address the current crisis but might address future ones. However I have my doubts that the various EU nations will be able to come up with a consensus

 

[cultcross]

Well a long term solution might be to change the Dublin Regulations, sure it doesn't address the current crisis but might address future ones. However I have my doubts that the various EU nations will be able to come up with a consensus

Well yes, they are stupid, and generally a way for the powerful countries, usually found away from the EU's accessible borders, to shift problems onto others. It is a very common sentiment in the British press, after all, that pretty much anyone wanting to come to Britain to claim asylum "could have stayed in France". The regulations are just that sentiment on a larger scale. It would make much more sense for a quota system based on national resources to be used to distribute incoming refugees with perhaps some form of screening for things like existing language skills or settled relatives.

 

[MacLeod]

Well a long term solution might be to change the Dublin Regulations, sure it doesn't address the current crisis but might address future ones. However I have my doubts that the various EU nations will be able to come up with a consensus

Well yes, they are stupid, and generally a way for the powerful countries, usually found away from the EU's accessible borders, to shift problems onto others. It is a very common sentiment in the British press, after all, that pretty much anyone wanting to come to Britain to claim asylum "could have stayed in France". The regulations are just that sentiment on a larger scale. It would make much more sense for a quota system based on national resources to be used to distribute incoming refugees with perhaps some form of screening for things like existing language skills or settled relatives.

Sure that could be step two.

But the argument the British press use which you highlight above goes something along the lines of why are you caliming asylum in the UK when you have passed through several safe countries. You are therefore an economic migrant rather than someone seeking asylum for whatever reason. Sure you can argue that the Dublin regulations are flawed but I think at the heart of them it was too determine which are genuine refugees fleeing persecution and seeking asylum from economic migrants. But as is the case with a lot of EU legislation the various EU countrires they look at what is best for their country and vote accordingly.

 

[cultcross]

Well a long term solution might be to change the Dublin Regulations, sure it doesn't address the current crisis but might address future ones. However I have my doubts that the various EU nations will be able to come up with a consensus

Well yes, they are stupid, and generally a way for the powerful countries, usually found away from the EU's accessible borders, to shift problems onto others. It is a very common sentiment in the British press, after all, that pretty much anyone wanting to come to Britain to claim asylum "could have stayed in France". The regulations are just that sentiment on a larger scale. It would make much more sense for a quota system based on national resources to be used to distribute incoming refugees with perhaps some form of screening for things like existing language skills or settled relatives.

Sure that could be step two.

But the argument the British press use which you highlight above goes something along the lines of why are you caliming asylum in the UK when you have passed through several safe countries. You are therefore an economic migrant rather than someone seeking asylum for whatever reason. Sure you can argue that the Dublin regulations are flawed but I think at the heart of them it was too determine which are genuine refugees fleeing persecution and seeking asylum from economic migrants. But as is the case with a lot of EU legislation the various EU countrires they look at what is best for their country and vote accordingly.

I don't particularly fall out with a system to sort out who is a genuine refugee and who is an economic migrant. Although I am ideologically a 'no borders' type, I also see that the inequality between nations needs tackling to a much greater degree than it is before that is an economically feasible model. I just reject the notion that passing through safe countries to reach a particular destination makes you less feasible as a 'genuine refugee'.

If I needed to flee Britain to somewhere I thought I could make a life for myself, by the logic of the treaty, France should be my destination. Amount of French I speak: enough to buy stuff in shops. Chance of me getting a job and being able to sustain my family, let alone use any of my professional experience: slim to none. I think I'd make tracks for an Anglophone nation first of all, regardless of how many 'safe' countries I passed through on the way. Not to mention that if something like IS were happening in the UK (calm down Nigel, I said 'if'), I think I'd want to be as far away as possible, and one or two land borders, lines on maps, wouldn't make me feel a whole lot safer.

Besides, the arguments for the Dublin rules are based on individuals. When we are dealing with tens of thousands, they simply aren't feasible. 'First safe country' then has to include whether or not that country can feasibly absorb that volume of refugees.

 

[MacLeod]

Well yes, they are stupid, and generally a way for the powerful countries, usually found away from the EU's accessible borders, to shift problems onto others. It is a very common sentiment in the British press, after all, that pretty much anyone wanting to come to Britain to claim asylum "could have stayed in France". The regulations are just that sentiment on a larger scale. It would make much more sense for a quota system based on national resources to be used to distribute incoming refugees with perhaps some form of screening for things like existing language skills or settled relatives.

Sure that could be step two.

But the argument the British press use which you highlight above goes something along the lines of why are you caliming asylum in the UK when you have passed through several safe countries. You are therefore an economic migrant rather than someone seeking asylum for whatever reason. Sure you can argue that the Dublin regulations are flawed but I think at the heart of them it was too determine which are genuine refugees fleeing persecution and seeking asylum from economic migrants. But as is the case with a lot of EU legislation the various EU countrires they look at what is best for their country and vote accordingly.

I don't particularly fall out with a system to sort out who is a genuine refugee and who is an economic migrant. Although I am ideologically a 'no borders' type, I also see that the inequality between nations needs tackling to a much greater degree than it is before that is an economically feasible model. I just reject the notion that passing through safe countries to reach a particular destination makes you less feasible as a 'genuine refugee'.

If I needed to flee Britain to somewhere I thought I could make a life for myself, by the logic of the treaty, France should be my destination. Amount of French I speak: enough to buy stuff in shops. Chance of me getting a job and being able to sustain my family, let alone use any of my professional experience: slim to none. I think I'd make tracks for an Anglophone nation first of all, regardless of how many 'safe' countries I passed through on the way. Not to mention that if something like IS were happening in the UK (calm down Nigel, I said 'if'), I think I'd want to be as far away as possible, and one or two land borders, lines on maps, wouldn't make me feel a whole lot safer.

Besides, the arguments for the Dublin rules are based on individuals. When we are dealing with tens of thousands, they simply aren't feasible. 'First safe country' then has to include whether or not that country can feasibly absorb that volume of refugees.

As you highlight tackling the route causes of migraton (economics, war & religious persecution to name three) could help reduce the need for people to migrate. Unfortunatly there is no simple solution

 

[cultcross]

Oh it would, definitely. That should be part of our long term efforts through international aid. However, it isn't a very useful approach in an emergency such as this, and is being used by the Tories as a get out clause, saying we are 'helping' by trying to make Syria safe instead.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Vice chancellor Sigmar Gabriel has announced that Germany is expecting one million refugees this year.

Meanwhile the Syrian refugees in the UK still fit in a single London tube train.

 

[DimesDan]

Vice chancellor Sigmar Gabriel has announced that Germany is expecting one million refugees this year.

That's brilliant.

Meanwhile the Syrian refugees in the UK still fit in a single London tube train.

That, that is just utterly disgusting on our behalf. Not that it means much, I sure as hell didn't vote for the Government we have in place and if it was upto me and not my mother, I would let a family live in my Grandmothers house which is lying empty right now in Kent.

 

[{ Emilia }]

And please don't get me wrong. I don't mean to imply that Brits are bad people. I'm sure many of you would love to help and take in more refugees. But the situation is so messed up right now (not just in the UK) and that's frustrating.

 

[SPCTRE]

It's inhumane, is what it is.

And I'm not just talking about the extreme right-wing outliers in the EU such as Hungary. There is a silent majority of EU member nations right now that's simply sitting back and collectively crossing their arms while a humanitarian crisis is unfolding in our midst.

 

[DimesDan]

^No offence taken and I completely agree, it is frustrating that we're doing the square route of fuckall really to help in this situation compared to other nations. And other than donating old clothes and going on a march to show solidarity with the refugees, I'm not in a position to really help.

Hopefully the meeting between interior ministers will force the less than generous nations (like ourselves) into helping more.

 

[Amaris]

The U.S. is opening its borders to take in about 10,000 more Syrian refugees, which I'm glad we are, but at the same time I wonder at the practicality of it. If I lived in Syria, and I was trying to get away from the violence, I'd hightail it to the nearest safe country, and while the U.S. would be safe, we're WAY over here on the other side of the hemisphere. I'm not sure how much good it will do them. Still, as long as we help get them out of that hellhole, that is good. We could do so much more, though.

 

[stardream]

The U.S. is opening its borders to take in about 10,000 more Syrian refugees, which I'm glad we are, but at the same time I wonder at the practicality of it. If I lived in Syria, and I was trying to get away from the violence, I'd hightail it to the nearest safe country, and while the U.S. would be safe, we're WAY over here on the other side of the hemisphere. I'm not sure how much good it will do them. Still, as long as we help get them out of that hellhole, that is good. We could do so much more, though.

I agree. Plus despite all the multi cultural talk that goes around immigrants assimilate into the greater culture much more easily here. Its what happens because we are an 'immigrant culture'. Yes parts of the native culture are retained but your children/grandchildren will be Americans. If you don't want that to happen...don't come here.

Having said that as far as I'm concerned immigrants only make our country stronger. Yes there are rough patches in the beginning with any new group but in the end it usually works out for the best. People go on and on about the criminal element that might be let in but they also bring in what's best about themselves as well.

Or maybe I'm just an optimist.

 

[{ Emilia }]

The U.S. is opening its borders to take in about 10,000 more Syrian refugees, which I'm glad we are, but at the same time I wonder at the practicality of it. If I lived in Syria, and I was trying to get away from the violence, I'd hightail it to the nearest safe country, and while the U.S. would be safe, we're WAY over here on the other side of the hemisphere.

The closest safe countries can't deal with millions of refugees so they'll have to be spread out over many countries. It doesn't really matter a whole lot if they end up in Belgium or the US.
The US really needs to take in way more than what they've promised so far. It's a disgrace for a superpower to be so conveniently absent during a major refugee crisis.

Adding some stuff to my earlier report. (Source)

Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel said on Monday that up to a million refugees could arrive in Germany in 2015 – a huge step up from current official estimates of 800,000 asylum applications.

Gabriel's comments came on the same day that Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble repeated his insistence that Germany could and must manage the crisis in an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

"Of course we won't solve the problems of the seven billion people in the world here at home in central Europe," Schäuble said. "But we won't turn away people who come to Europe because of terrible need. And we can't allow them to drown in the Mediterranean."

Schäuble added that "the more Germany does its part to solve the problem of refugees, the more other countries will be prepared to do the same".

But in Bavaria – which has been the front line of the refugee crisis for the country, with thousands arriving by train at Munich main station from Hungary in recent weeks – leaders insisted that help must come immediately from Germany's European neighbours.

And the Free State leader called on Germany's federal government to at least double the money available for helping refugees and to improve the sharing-out of new arrivals among the country's federal states.

Seehofer added that "we remain a humane and helping state" which only needed a breather from new arrivals "to bring order back to the whole system" of refugee uptake.

Border controls were likely to remain in force for several weeks, Bavarian interior Minister Joachim Hermann said on Monday, adding that the stricter controls were necessary to block arrivals who were not genuine refugees.

"Border controls don't mean that no more refugees are coming to Germany... but the thousands and tens of thousands moving through central Europe... could no longer be accepted," he said.

Herrmann and federal Transport Minister Alexander Dobrindt added that in future, special trains would be laid on to bring refugees to Germany to better manage the flows of people.

"This gives us the chance to manage the trains and also control where they arrive," Dobrindt said, adding that it would make the police's job easier.

So yeah, looks like we were right: Germany isn't really closing its borders. It's just trying to organize shit and cope with the influx while still taking in more people. They're trying to manage the flow of refugees by using special trains.

Actual refugees (from Syria and other countries) are still going to arrive. The problem was that the open borders also made a lot of people from the Balkans arrive who have no chance of being granted asylum because they're not really refugees but economic migrants.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Sorry about the double-post but this is kinda cool: http://www.refugees-welcome.net/

Are you unhappy with the way refugees are treated in your country and are interested in helping refugees settle easier? Do you have a free room in your shared flat?

We are convinced that refugees should not be stigmatized and excluded by being housed in mass accommodations. Instead, we should offer them a warm welcome. We believe we can establish a more humane culture of welcoming refugees!

How it works:
1) You sign up with your (shared) flat. We simply need some information on your housing situation.

2) Through a refugee organisation, we will put you in touch with a person who fled to your city.

3) We can help you find ways to finance the rent. You don't have to pay the rent yourself.

4) Your new flatmate will move in! Of course we will continue to support you.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=4&v=Gdwzh8fuWqs[/yt]

 

[SPCTRE]

Sorry about the double-post but this is kinda cool: http://www.refugees-welcome.net/

Are you unhappy with the way refugees are treated in your country and are interested in helping refugees settle easier? Do you have a free room in your shared flat?

We are convinced that refugees should not be stigmatized and excluded by being housed in mass accommodations. Instead, we should offer them a warm welcome. We believe we can establish a more humane culture of welcoming refugees!

How it works:
1) You sign up with your (shared) flat. We simply need some information on your housing situation.

2) Through a refugee organisation, we will put you in touch with a person who fled to your city.

3) We can help you find ways to finance the rent. You don't have to pay the rent yourself.

4) Your new flatmate will move in! Of course we will continue to support you.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=4&v=Gdwzh8fuWqs[/yt]

That is so cool - and pragmatic!

 

[Kilana2]

The lack of subsidized housing is going to be a big problem. There are the Eastern German "Plattenbauten". Conversely there are more fugitives in cities like Munich, Hamburg and so on, where even local people have difficulties to find affordable accommodations.

Living in tents is questionable, it's getting colder already. According to the German law for Asylum seekers they have to live in communal accommodations.

They receive medical help, but only rudimentary. And they need certificates of illness every time they want to go to a doctor, given by the social welfare office/welfare agency.

So, alternative forms of living are possible, but not that early in their asylum procedure. Keeping families together, putting young people into shared flats..... many challenges...

In Saxony-Anhalt there are many empty Plattenbauten, but they are too shabby and have to be refurbished.......