Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Germany's Refugee Crisis

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by kato View Post
    There's less than 5000 refugees in Cologne, far less percentage-wise than everywhere else in Germany.

    It gets even funnier. Not only is Cologne the capital of homosexuals in Germany, it's also the capital of anti-islam Eurabia mongers.
    there's not refugee in german, just immigrants. Also, the capital of anti-islam just elected an immigrant apologist, who advised women to stay an arm-length away from strangers.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by drhuy View Post
      there's not refugee in german, just immigrants. Also, the capital of anti-islam just elected an immigrant apologist, who advised women to stay an arm-length away from strangers.
      Granted the number of refugees vs economic migrants is disputed, as is the people from actual warn torn countries like Syria vs safer countries; many who are trying to get a free pass to the Western world.

      So do you think there are absolutely no refugees, and every one of them must be kicked out?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by InExile View Post
        Granted the number of refugees vs economic migrants is disputed, as is the people from actual warn torn countries like Syria vs safer countries; many who are trying to get a free pass to the Western world.

        So do you think there are absolutely no refugees, and every one of them must be kicked out?
        they want to live there permanently, Merkel wants the same thing. So yes, they're immigrants. And i never said every one of them must be kicked out.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by drhuy View Post
          they want to live there permanently, Merkel wants the same thing. So yes, they're immigrants.
          If they are fleeing a war torn country, they are by definition refugees. Ofcourse, granting them Permanent residence and the right to work in Europe is a different matter. There is a limit to the number that Europe can absorb and no one has the right to a free pass to a First world country, which appears to be what a lot of them are seeking. But that doesn't make them any less refugees.

          Originally posted by drhuy View Post
          And i never said every one of them must be kicked out.
          I didn't say you did either, I just asked.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by InExile View Post
            If they are fleeing a war torn country, they are by definition refugees. Ofcourse, granting them Permanent residence and the right to work in Europe is a different matter. There is a limit to the number that Europe can absorb and no one has the right to a free pass to a First world country, which appears to be what a lot of them are seeking. But that doesn't make them any less refugees.



            I didn't say you did either, I just asked.
            a refugee is expected to return or to move to a third country, not settle down permanently. And no, they're not fleeing a war torn country. Did they fly from syria to german? No, they came from turkey, greece etc. Are those war torn country?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by drhuy View Post
              a refugee is expected to return or to move to a third country, not settle down permanently. And no, they're not fleeing a war torn country. Did they fly from syria to german? No, they came from turkey, greece etc. Are those war torn country?
              So essentially they can rot in refugee camps in Turkey or Jordan? I find that a heartless position.

              I think there must be something between that and unlimited migration to Europe. I think its unlikely that Syria will be a viable country for probably as long as a generation, if it is ever. A certain number of refugees must be absorbed and allowed to build lives in other countries; and I dont mean just Europe and the West. Will probably be best if they were in culturally similar, neighboring countries for the most but the entire world has a responsibility to help.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by InExile View Post
                So essentially they can rot in refugee camps in Turkey or Jordan? I find that a heartless position.

                I think there must be something between that and unlimited migration to Europe. I think its unlikely that Syria will be a viable country for probably as long as a generation, if it is ever. A certain number of refugees must be absorbed and allowed to build lives in other countries; and I dont mean just Europe and the West. Will probably be best if they were in culturally similar, neighboring countries for the most but the entire world has a responsibility to help.
                again, i didnt say "they can rot in refugee camps in Turkey or Jordan". I just pointed out they're NOT refugees in germany. Why you keep putting word in my mouth?

                besides, refugees are supposed to stay in refugee camps, as "they can stay (not rot) in refugee camps in Turkey or Jordan." So its the matter of improving conditions of those camps.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by drhuy View Post
                  again, i didnt say "they can rot in refugee camps in Turkey or Jordan". I just pointed out they're NOT refugees in germany. Why you keep putting word in my mouth?
                  Again, I simply asked the question. Besides if you want to keep them out of your country and do nothing to help improve the camps (don't tell me about the $3 billion bribe to Turkey), essentially they are going to rot in them whether you are in favor of that or not.

                  Originally posted by drhuy View Post
                  besides, refugees are supposed to stay in refugee camps, as "they can stay (not rot) in refugee camps in Turkey or Jordan." So its the matter of improving conditions of those camps.
                  I think that's a selfish position. There is a limit to what each country can absorb economically or politically, but I think that refugees (to the extent the world can absorb) should have the chance to build a proper life, instead of living in a tent on hand outs for decades if there is no chance they can do that in their home country.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by InExile View Post
                    Again, I simply asked the question. Besides if you want to keep them out of your country and do nothing to help improve the camps (don't tell me about the $3 billion bribe to Turkey), essentially they are going to rot in them whether you are in favor of that or not.



                    I think that's a selfish position. There is a limit to what each country can absorb economically or politically, but I think that refugees (to the extent the world can absorb) should have the chance to build a proper life, instead of living in a tent on hand outs for decades if there is no chance they can do that in their home country.
                    i'm not german. and nothing selfish about "refugee stay in refugess camps", that international law. like i said, they will either return or move on to the third countries.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by drhuy View Post
                      i'm not german. and nothing selfish about "refugee stay in refugess camps", that international law. like i said, they will either return or move on to the third countries.
                      International Law does not say that refugees have to stay in camps, nor does it say that refugees have to stay in the 'first safe country' they reach. Most countries recognize the right of refugees to claim asylum (claim asylum, not a right to asylum itself). Each country has its own laws about the number of refugees it might accept and under what circumstances and what rights, if any they might be granted in that country.
                      Last edited by InExile; 07 Jan 16,, 07:21.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by InExile View Post
                        International Law does not say that refugees have to stay in camps, nor does it say that refugees have to stay in the 'first safe country' they reach. Most countries recognize the right of refugees to claim asylum (claim asylum, not a right to asylum itself). Each country has its own laws about the number of refugees it might accept and under what circumstances and what rights, if any they might be granted in that country.
                        and which law saying putting refugees in refugees camps is "selfish"? Thats the way it always works. I don't care about "first safety country". The point is if they plan to settle down permanently in germany, then they can not be called refugees, they are immigrants.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by drhuy View Post
                          and which law saying putting refugees in refugees camps is "selfish"?
                          None, that's my opinion.

                          Originally posted by drhuy View Post
                          Thats the way it always works.
                          No, many countries have absorbed a large number of refugees at various times in recent history. Just off the top of my head, the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese by the US, the tens of thousands of Hungarians by Canada in the 1950s. Lebanon has taken in 1.2 million Syrians (20% of the population); who for the most are allowed to live freely in the country, not in camps (though not to work).

                          Originally posted by drhuy View Post
                          I don't care about "first safety country". The point is if they plan to settle down permanently in germany, then they can not be called refugees, they are immigrants.
                          You can choose not to take any refugees in your country, that's your prerogative. However, it doesn't matter if they plan to settle permanently in Germany, as long as they are unable to return to their home country due to war or any other reason, they are refugees by international law, with the right to claim asylum. But again, Germany has no obligation to grant Permanent residence to any more refugees than it chooses to.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by InExile View Post
                            None, that's my opinion.



                            No, many countries have absorbed a large number of refugees at various times in recent history. Just off the top of my head, the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese by the US, the tens of thousands of Hungarians by Canada in the 1950s. Lebanon has taken in 1.2 million Syrians (20% of the population); who for the most are allowed to live freely in the country, not in camps (though not to work).



                            You can choose not to take any refugees in your country, that's your prerogative. However, it doesn't matter if they plan to settle permanently in Germany, as long as they are unable to return to their home country due to war or any other reason, they are refugees by international law, with the right to claim asylum. But again, Germany has no obligation to grant Permanent residence to any more refugees than it chooses to.

                            Again, I’m not interested in discussing how countries choose to do with refugees, I never raised such issues. My point in this thread is very simple: the recent influx in Germany is not refugees, but immigrants.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by drhuy View Post
                              Again, I’m not interested in discussing how countries choose to do with refugees, I never raised such issues. My point in this thread is very simple: the recent influx in Germany is not refugees, but immigrants.
                              Which isn't correct, they are refugees, atleast the people coming from Syria and perhaps Afghanistan too, by International conventions and treaties. It does not matter that they passed through other safe countries between Syria and Germany. Besides Germany has no obligation to grant them permanent residence, simply to process their claim for asylum. If anything, it is the choice of the Germany to allow them to stay permanently that might make them 'immigrants' in a sense

                              Illegal Immigrants, from countries which are at peace, on the other hand have no right to asylum.
                              Last edited by InExile; 07 Jan 16,, 10:18.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by InExile View Post
                                Which isn't correct, they are refugees, atleast the people coming from Syria and perhaps Afghanistan too, by International conventions and treaties. It does not matter that they passed through other safe countries between Syria and Germany.

                                Immigrants on the other hand have no right to asylum.
                                can't you read?

                                I don't care about "first safety country". The point is if they plan to settle down permanently in germany, then they can not be called refugees, they are immigrants.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X