The Global Refugee Wave and Migrant Crisis

I'm usually not one for conspiracy theories.

But don't you guys find it weird that, after the special agreement that was recently signed between the EU and Turkey on the, Turkey then decides to do this? I mean, I don't want to imagine that the EU had an indirect hand in the shooting of refugees, but I do wonder if the EU gave some sort of carte blanche to Turkey for them to do as they please, as long as the objectives of the agreement are fulfilled [namely, to help handling the flow of migration into Europe] or if Turkey decided to use whatever dirty means necessary to fulfill those objectives, without the EU knowing about said means.

EDIT: I really didn't want this to become a pagetopper...

edited 1st Apr '16 6:17:08 PM by Quag15

I suspect that it's much more simple and brutal then that, Turkey reached a deal where it would have refugees sent back to it, so it's decided that if refugees will come (back) from the west they'll reduce the total number of refugees by killing the ones coming from the south.

That or someone in the Turkish government decided that the best way to get the EU to quit the deal would be to act like a monster, then the EU will have to quit the deal and take all the refugees.

This assumes that what's happening is being ordered by the Turkish government itself, and isn't simply local elements (possibly with ISIS connections) deciding to act out and having a blind eye turned their way.

Or the Deep State pulling the trigger.

<sigh> Byzantine politics still courses in the veins of Anatolia.

I'm going to have to find other sources until I can pass judgement.

The people in Greece have the option to ask for asylum in Greece if they are afraid of being send back to Turkey (and Greece IS a safe country...a poor one, but also a safe one). Or they can go back to their homeland, if they are not from Syria (and if they are, they can get asylum in Greece). In the end, the whole deal will most likely pressure those people to take what they can get instead of insisting to go to their favourite countries.

edited 2nd Apr '16 2:53:30 AM by Swanpride

Greece is safe for now, but they are going to need more resources to handle the influx of refugees. Austerity, EU red tape and xenophobia by other EU countries (See the Visegrad Four) is not about to help with that.

And depending on how that plays out, the far right may be empowered or feel empowered enough to start... disturbances, be it by baiting them or direct action.

Precisely.

So Greece merely being safe doesn't matter if they can't handle the inflow, which one could argue Turkey could if not for its many many many problems. Other countries, particularly to the east, must handle some of the flow.

Iran, Russia and India?

Also Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan.

I suspect Shinra may have meant Eastern Europe, but honestly everyone needs to chip in.

Indeed.

That said, given the sectarian nature of the fight, I doubt many Sunni refugees would go to Iran. Wouldn't be surprised if Syrian Shiites had fled there though. As for the Russians, they've taken a few thousand. Not at the scale of Germany, but Moscow does more than the supposedly more civilized Eastern European countries. India's a wee bit out of the way. Would be like asking Argentina to take in refugees. Sure, but that'd take a lot more effort.

I think I read somewhere that Brazil is taking refugees, but Germany is chipping in financially....

Well if it can be made to work, it should be done.

Canada has taken in tens of thousands and plans to bring in more (we're just slowing down to get the logistics right), and during the middle of economic downturn. The US has also brought in some but (as usual) our favorite group of reactionaries are trying to block further efforts. So geography really isn't a reason for the Western hemisphere to not chip in, but I'm not sure which nations in South/Central America are in good enough shape to take in a few thousand people.

Unbelievable....the fire in Bingen, with the Swastika signs on the walls? Turns out that a Syrer is responsible. He did it because he felt that he had no perspective and that he didn't have enough room there. As if we don't have enough trouble already without people like this making it even more difficult.

You mean a Syrian. And yeah, what a dick.

I hope this guy will be charged for attempted murder just as any neonazi would be.

Also, migrants with little chance of asylum are turning on Syrians.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/09/world/europe/fates-diverging-afghan-and-syrian-migrants-clash-in-greece.html?_r=0

Damn...

So, uh, I'm in a Sociology class debate this Wednesday, and I figure this is the more relevant thread to ask for advice (Also BTW, it is okay to ask for advice here, right? :/).
The debate topic is "Should refugees be refused as citizens in the US until the ISIL problem is resolved?"

I got put on the Yes team. :| I have seen the Last Week Tonight episode on it, and am currently looking for sources and things to print off; not really sure where to look, as mostly I can only find articles that seem to be mostly invalid and/or potentially outdated.

So far, only ideas for angles are:

• Conditions aren't that great for arriving refugees anyway (supposedly 90% of them are on food stamps (according to this article on jewishjournal.com that is kind of the closest thing I have to a source so far))
• They're better off in the other countries that are accepting them, such as France and Germany (general gist of things, but also Last Week Tonight)
  • There are countries to whom a population boost would be helpful (Last Week Tonight)
• We can help in other ways, supporting existing camps for them in Turkey and Jordan (the article again)

Teammate is covering detrimental effects on the economy from refugees/immigrants. ...Last Week Tonight seemed to suggest there are only benefits. She suggested I cover possible terrorist threats from the refugees, but hell, from what I've read so far that's not a very strong position (keeping in mind I am exactly that much an ignoramus; I don't really know much of the details on the Paris attacks, or if there has been evidence for this tack since the stuff I've come across was written).

Potential of harm coming to them from white supremacists/channers/Stormtrumpers/idiots?

Although I have no clue on how to deliver that without sounding like a mafia cliche.

EDIT: Also, if you read some earlier posts in this thread, German education has a massive Continuity Lockout that effectively prevents most refugees from getting something other than a menial job. As to France, well, the banlieues have been around long before the refugee crisis, and will continue to be a major source of grief for French politicans long after the end of the refugee crisis.

edited 11th Apr '16 7:54:43 PM by Krieger22

Menial jobs which barely exists anymore and if they are along the line of serving food aso, those jobs are very popular with students who work beside University.

Not sure if this is the right place for it but...

How do you guys respond to claims about Muslim immigrants being unable to integrate because of their Values Dissonance? It comes up a lot, and they like to claim taking in Syrians makes the country unsafe or something. A big part is Islamophobia, but they aren't going to admit that. And people see the New Year's Cologne attacks and believe them. How do you stop that?

You don't attempt to stop it. It makes the situation worse, as they start thinking that the government is now working against the interests of their own people. Rather, you let it die down and address false information as it comes up. If there's incitement of racial hatred (or other criminal activity) you arrest the central figures.

However, this isn't called a crisis for nothing. In regards to integration, some do, some don't. We've mostly gotten young male Iraqis though.

edited 16th Apr '16 4:12:53 AM by TerminusEst

No, I mean how do you argue against it. Sorry if that was unclear.

Stick to the facts. But remember, irrational people do not listen to rational arguments.