The Age of Migration: The EU and the US in Crisis

[The Human Q-Tip]

Here's wikipedia, and you can follow the footnotes to sources.

First: The 2015 European migrant crisis[1][2][3][4][5] orEuropean refugee crisis[6][7][8] arose through the rising number of refugees and migrantscoming to the European Union, across theMediterranean sea or Southeast Europe, and applying for asylum.[9] They come from areas such as the Middle East (Syria, Iraq), Africa(Eritrea, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Gambia), theWestern Balkans (Kosovo, Albania, Serbia,Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia)[10][11][12]and South Asia (Afghanistan, Pakistan,Bangladesh).[13][14][15]

So very clearly, it's not just people fleeing Syria.

Sea and land arrivals to the EU
in 2014 by nationality[43]
Syria79,169
Eritrea34,586
Unspecified sub-Saharan nationals26,341
Afghanistan22,132
Kosovo*22,069
Mali10,575
Albania9,323
Gambia8,730
Nigeria8,715
Somalia7,676
Others54,216
Total 283,532


Second:Most of the migrants are adult men (72%).[16]

But aren't war refugees generally going to be families?? I'd suggest that that high a percentage of adult males are more suggestive of a high percentage of economic migrants looking for work rather than entire families/villages fleeing a war. And if they're really just large numbers of adult men fleeing those wars because they don't want to get involved, I'm with @King Stannis. Let them fight for their own countries.

Third. Why are they heading for Germany? Why Sweden? Why Denmark? Why not hang out in Southern Europe - that's not in the war zone, right? Or why not hang out in other nations in the ME or Africa that are not at war?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

All I'm saying is that people were and are migrating for both reasons (and probably a hell of a lot more)

I agree. Again, my point is that when you see people crowding at border crossings, or in boats, and there's an outcry over the visual human tragedy, the distinction is going to be lost.

Just as rumors of asylum in the U.S. result in a surge of people trying to come here, so to will a belief that wealthy European nations will be opening their doors result in a surge of economic (and other) refugees trying to go there. And if you don't have effective border controls and the willingness to abide by them, , there's no practical way to determine who is who.

That's why Europe's problem is bigger than just war refugees from Syria

 

[Casualties14]

I am mostly unfamiliar with the refugee situation but why do the wealthy countries in the Middle East refuse to accept Syrians?

 

[Sebastian]

I am mostly unfamiliar with the refugee situation but why do the wealthy countries in the Middle East refuse to accept Syrians?

Several reasons, some acceptable, others not:

1) Most of the wealthy Gulf States are rather tiny by population. Kuwait has a population of less than a million Kuwaitis (700,00). Moreover, for every native Kuwaiti, there are two foreign born people who do all the dirty work for them. They don't want to be swamped out by outsiders in their own nations. The same logic applies to Qatar, Dubai etc.

2) Those states are also tiny in size and by and large hot as fuck desert. Not many places to put people in general and even fewer places where camps can be set up where they wouldn't die.

3) Outside of the minor Gulf States, there really is only Saudi Arabia that is wealthy. The reason they aren't letting anyone in: They're dicks.

a. One could argue their lack of compassion is just another manifestation of their cold war with Iran who supports the Assad regime but I don't buy it.

 

[Sebastian]

Third. Why are they heading for Germany? Why Sweden? Why Denmark? Why not hang out in Southern Europe - that's not in the war zone, right? Or why not hang out in other nations in the ME or Africa that are not at war?

The Swedes in particular are very welcoming of refugees, as are the Germans. Eastern and Southern Europe not so much. Most would rather be somewhere they are treated well.

As of the election last year, Denmark has a no-vacancy sign. They are emphatically not welcoming migrants. The Danish people have decided they have enough immigrants for the time being.

 

[Adam]

So the political wind sock that is british PM david cameron has now done a complete 180 thanks to a picture of a dead toddler. Now we plan to take 20,000 syrian refugees in 5 years (up from 260 odd int he last 5 years) but they are cutting the foreign aide budget to support the logistics of it. Their obsession of balancing the economy would be great if they actually ever made a real difference in the deficit like they claim to want to.
Anyway its a relief that we are starting to play our part, we have a lot of space (650,000 empty homes) and although our population density is high our migrant population density is not as high as the nordic countries.

Now if maybe we would decide on a united foreign policy to support stability in syria we might be able to prevent the country ripping itself apart and becoming nomadic

 

[Maximus]

It's all obamas fault...

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

It's all obamas fault...

You can make the case that our handling of the Syrian situation has done nothing other than prolong the war. We were anti-Assad early on, but didn't provide much help to the moderate opposition. That left the opening for ISIL.

And now, because we don't want either Assad or ISIL to win, the lack of a viable third option means that our short/medium term efforts amounts to maintaining a strategic stalemate.

Realistically, our options haven't changed. Let Assad win, or at least come to some kind of negotiated arrangement, let ISIL win, or have this drag on for at least a few more years.

 

[Sebastian]

It's all obamas fault...

It is.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

It is.

The blame always go first to the primary actors - Assad, ISIL, and whatever moderate Syrians didn't have the guts to fight for their country. Then Iran

I don't think Obama is responsible for the problem, but he certainly made the situation they created worse instead of better.

 

[Sebastian]

The blame always go first to the primary actors - Assad, ISIL, and whatever moderate Syrians didn't have the guts to fight for their country. Then Iran

I don't think Obama is responsible for the problem, but he certainly made the situation they created worse instead of better.

I was going to write a lengthy missive on the faults of Obama's "foreign policy" but, suffice to say that the Obama Doctrine is one of poor analysis, purely reactive solutions and wishful thinking.

Coupled with a lack of urgency, a lack of fortitude and a lack of understanding of how the real world works. Obama was completely unprepared to be President with regard to foreign policy and his lack of experience is highlighted by the terrible advice he receives from whichever idiots he surrounds himself with. His lack of interest is both baffling and sad considering he has little else to do, with the GOP cock-blocking him at every turn and all.

I think it is high time that we either decide to go all in and place our own regime in Damascus, and crush ISIL ourselves, or realize that Syria's only real chance at a long-term peace is through a government victory, Assad or not. Only a secular Syria can prosper as the alternative is endless sectarian violence. I think, perhaps, the US is not as opposed to Russian intervention as it says it is....

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I was going to write a lengthy missive on the faults of Obama's "foreign policy" but, suffice to say that the Obama Doctrine is one of poor analysis, purely reactive solutions and wishful thinking.

Coupled with a lack of urgency, a lack of fortitude and a lack of understanding of how the real world works. Obama was completely unprepared to be President with regard to foreign policy and his lack of experience is highlighted by the terrible advice he receives from whichever idiots he surrounds himself with. His lack of interest is both baffling and sad considering he has little else to do, with the GOP cock-blocking him at every turn and all.

I think it is high time that we either decide to go all in and place our own regime in Damascus, and crush ISIL ourselves, or realize that Syria's only real chance at a long-term peace is through a government victory, Assad or not. Only a secular Syria can prosper as the alternative is endless sectarian violence. I think, perhaps, the US is not as opposed to Russian intervention as it says it is....

The only thing I'd add to that us that whatever idiots surround him were selected by him deliberately, likely because they share his worldview.

Ultimately, I think your point about "wishful thinking" is exactly right. And I think that wishful thinking is a direct consequence of his worldview, in particular his negative view of the role the U.S. has played in the world. I think he believes that our retreat from the world actually makes it a better place.

 

[Sebastian]

The only thing I'd add to that us that whatever idiots surround him were selected by him deliberately, likely because they share his worldview.

Ultimately, I think your point about "wishful thinking" is exactly right. And I think that wishful thinking is a direct consequence of his worldview, in particular his negative view of the role the U.S. has played in the world. I think he believes that our retreat from the world actually makes it a better place.

I don't disagree. By temperament I vote more Democrat than Republican (Was a Republican, GOP marched Right past me) these days but I have always thought Obama wasn't prepared for the job and was too dogmatic to really be pragmatic on the world stage. He simply has lived a sheltered life. He views life through a lens of social justice. That isn't a bad thing and is a credit in many ways. However, a national leader must be a realist and understand that life and death often has no time for justice.

His immense distrust of the military (which really stems from mutual misunderstanding) has led him to be a disastrous Commander-in-Chief. Bush wasn't well liked but I have never heard so much dissatisfaction from even more liberal (subjective term) officers like myself, or so little will to win conflicts on his part. Either, way, the next President will do much to repair the damage he wrought, whether it be Clinton, Bush or Biden. At least they see the world for what it is.

He is great in small things and small in great things. Syria, Iraq and Libya bleed as a result.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

@King Stannis

Looks like Merkel has reconsidered a bit. Germans have stopped all trains from Austria and suspended Schengen Agreement.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-say-Munich-brink-humanitarian-disaster.html

I'm not sure what she expected. You have literally millions of people who'd probably go to Germany if they could, which is far beyond what they said they'd accept. Open borders clearly could not resolve that contradiction

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Article from the Spectator, published yesterday:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/feature...efugees-will-lead-to-many-more-deaths-at-sea/

Merkel’s grandstanding on Syrian refugees will lead to many more deaths at sea
The incentive is greater for people to risk the perilous journey to Europe

Of all the irresponsible decisions taken in recent years by European politicians, few will cause as much human misery as Angela Merkel’s plan to welcome Syrian refugees to Germany. Hailed as enlightened moral leadership, it is in fact the result of panic and muddled thinking. Her pronouncements will lure thousands more into the hands of unscrupulous people-traffickers. Her insistence that the rest of the continent should share the burden will add political instability to the mix. Merkel has made a dire situation worse.

On Tuesday last week, Germany declared that any Syrian who reaches the country can claim asylum there. In the days that followed, 25,000 arrived at Munich central station and that number is growing fast. Some trains from Austria have been diverted to other German cities to ease the pressure. Merkel now wants to use her clout to distribute these refugees around Europe — arguing that EU plans to resettle 160,000 may not be sufficient.

The current wave of migration started about 15 years ago, an unforeseen side-effect of globalisation. It has been vastly intensified by the chaos which followed the Arab Spring, and particularly the civil war in Syria. The EU’s responsibility is laid out in the Dublin Convention of 1990, which decrees that refugees must claim asylum in the first European Union country that they reach. This crucial safeguard was torn up by Merkel when her government declared that it will be ‘responsible’ for processing the claims of Syrians. The Dublin rules were made for a reason: to save lives, as well as to protect Europe’s borders. German panic has imperilled both priorities.

The welcome that has been given to refugees in Germany is remarkable. But encouraging these people to continue their journey is risky. The 71 refugees found dead in a lorry on an Austrian motorway last month might still be alive today had they ended their journey in Budapest. Some 7,000 refugees are estimated to have passed through Vienna during one day this week, but fewer than 100 claimed asylum there, choosing instead to head on north. Austria is rich, but Merkel’s promise exerts such a pull that people don’t want to stop until they reach Germany.

The distinction between refugee and economic migrant is also being elided. Many of the Syrians making this journey are fleeing war, but many others are fleeing camps in neighbouring Jordan or Turkey. The incentive to do this is growing, because life there is becoming harsher. As Michael Moller, the head of the UN’s Geneva office, warned this week, these millions will ‘get up and leave and come to Europe’ unless conditions in the camps improve. Iraqis are also joining in; extra flights are being laid on from Baghdad to Turkey as people go on the move in the belief that Merkel has created a window of migration opportunity that may not last. It is at this point that the distinction between refugee and immigrant, on which European law is based, breaks down.

The economic pull is exacerbated because, unlike in previous times, the residents of the refugee camps have access to mobile phones and information. They know that Germany has said it expects to accept 800,000 asylum-seekers this year (a figure greater than the population of some EU members). They will have heard about — or seen — the welcome being given to refugees arriving there, the reception committees and the politicians holding placards saying ‘refugees welcome’. All of this will encourage many more to embark on the perilous journey to Europe.

The European Union’s energies would be far better spent improving life in the camps and finding ways to allow people to work there, as Professor Paul Collier suggested in these pages last month....