[hrothgar]

 Winstonm, on 2015-September-05, 13:01, said:

Why can't they be relocated to different countries, the percentage depending on the size of the host country? I would imagine that it would cost of hell of a lot less to relocate 1 million of these people to the U.S. than it cost to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for a single year.

I know that Germany and France have proposed something similar (allocating refugees based on a combination of GDP size)

As I understand matters, a lot of countries from the former East block are opposed to this, citing religion as their concern.

Then of course, there's Britain...

[hrothgar]

On the bright side, this will be good practice for the mass migrations that will be accompanying climate change.

[cherdano]

 hrothgar, on 2015-September-05, 13:41, said:

FWIW, I knew what you were trying to say. With this said and done, Arend's point is more than reasonable.

The distance between Damascus and Riyadh is about 2,000 km (Pretty much the same as between London and Rome)

Of course, the real point is that Vampyr draws attention to rich but authoritarian states 2000km or more away, instead of the poor countries who are actually neighbours of Syria. One might wonder whether she does so in order to give an excuse for the UK's despicable response to the refugee crisis...

[Aberlour10]

 hrothgar, on 2015-September-05, 13:47, said:

I know that Germany and France have proposed something similar (allocating refugees based on a combination of GDP size)

As I understand matters, a lot of countries from the former East block are opposed to this, citing religion as their concern.

Then of course, there's Britain...

there are hopeless differences about all these issues in the EU, practically no chance for compromise that would really work.

Poland declared to take 2000 refugees 2016-2017, 1000 a year. So many came today in Germany during the lunch breaks.

Cameron is willing to take 5000, nice, but more came today to Munich at one afternoon.

These are simple examples how the refugee policy works in the EU these days...

[mike777]

I read reports of roughly 300-400 thousand headed to central and western Europe today. There are an estimated 10-20 million in Asia and Africa behind them waiting to see what happens to this first big wave.

I hope the USA takes many in.

Given Russian long term involvement in Syria and that they have the space I hope they can take some in.

[kenberg]

Perhaps you will forgive a really dumb question: These 4 million Syrian refugees are fleeing from whom? ISIS? Assad? Other rebel groups? I don't know just what difference it makes, but I am curious. The population of Syria is listed as 22.85 million so 4 million is quite a chunk of it.

[cherdano]

 kenberg, on 2015-September-05, 16:24, said:

Perhaps you will forgive a really dumb question: These 4 million Syrian refugees are fleeing from whom? ISIS? Assad? Other rebel groups?

How about - all of them? War is never a good place to be in, and this one seems particularly terrible for civilians.

http://www.vox.com/2...-refugee-charts

[Aberlour10]

 kenberg, on 2015-September-05, 16:24, said:

Perhaps you will forgive a really dumb question: These 4 million Syrian refugees are fleeing from whom? ISIS? Assad? Other rebel groups? I don't know just what difference it makes, but I am curious. The population of Syria is listed as 22.85 million so 4 million is quite a chunk of it.

Syrians in Germany report constantly, they fled from all of them, they fled the war.

[Aberlour10]

 mike777, on 2015-September-05, 16:06, said:

I hope the USA takes many in.

hmm, I have read these days, Obama said this is an european problem only.

[Vampyr]

 Aberlour10, on 2015-September-06, 02:01, said:

hmm, I have read these days, Obama said this is an european problem only.

Well, I believe that refugees have the right to apply for asylum only in the first country they arrive in where they are free from the danger they are fleeing. Of course, this is not what is happening.

But anyway it is a shame that a country that is bigger than Europe but with fewer people does not feel a moral duty to help these people, and just because it is harder for them to get there.

[1eyedjack]

 hrothgar, on 2015-September-05, 13:49, said:

On the bright side, this will be good practice for the mass migrations that will be accompanying climate change.

Hmm, a few million migrating over the course of a hundred years or so is likely to apply different pressures.

[kenberg]

 Aberlour10, on 2015-September-05, 17:29, said:

Syrians in Germany report constantly, they fled from all of them, they fled the war.

Cherdano says the same and it seems reasonable. Also it seems ominous. No doubt the population of Syria is dropping and will continue to drop. I can easily imagine that just about everyone wants out. A very understandable wish.

I put Syria Population into Google.
https://en.wikipedia...aphics_of_Syria
says roughly 23 million in 2011

Further down we see

"17,951,639 in 2014, a massive decrease due to nearly 4 million refugees leaving the country because of the Syrian Civil War and furthermore because of the death in war. This is a drop of 9.7% from the previous year."

And that's 2014, no doubt it is lower now.

Maybe these figures are from different sources, counting differently. Still, the country is hemorrhaging.

Ideally, but I gather not even remotely realistically, we would re-settle most refugees in their own country but away from the violence or at least away from the worst of the violence. But, while I do not really know, this thought appears to be a pipe dream.

i hope that the US can play some sort of useful role in this. But I don't think we can, or at least I don't think we will, move everyone in Syria to Montana.

[hrothgar]

 Vampyr, on 2015-September-06, 02:59, said:

But anyway it is a shame that a country that is bigger than Europe but with fewer people does not feel a moral duty to help these people, and just because it is harder for them to get there.

I agree. However, here's the difference between us: I actually believe this. You're just trying to score a cheap rhetorical point.

[Vampyr]

 hrothgar, on 2015-September-06, 08:35, said:

I agree. However, here's the difference between us: I actually believe this. You're just trying to score a cheap rhetorical point.

Please do not tell me what I am trying to do. I believe what I wrote.

But there is a difference between us, in that you are a waste of space and I am not.

[Trinidad]

So, you will be working for the UK to accept more refugees? After all, you have more power to change something in the UK than in the USA.

Rik

[Vampyr]

 Trinidad, on 2015-September-06, 23:57, said:

So, you will be working for the UK to accept more refugees? After all, you have more power to change something in the UK than in the USA.

Rik

Who, me? Actually I am not involved in politics at all; I think that most people here are just expressing their opinions.

[Trinidad]

 Vampyr, on 2015-September-07, 02:49, said:

Who, me? Actually I am not involved in politics at all; I think that most people here are just expressing their opinions.

There is no need to enter politics or to start a revolution. But the least you can do is spread the word: tell the people that you talk to in the pub, at work, while grocery shopping, or at the bridge club, that the UK should take more refugees and that you don't subscribe to the "Why should we care? Our country is full and it's not our problem." view.

Rik

[Vampyr]

 Trinidad, on 2015-September-07, 05:14, said:

There is no need to enter politics or to start a revolution. But the least you can do is spread the word: tell the people that you talk to in the pub, at work, while grocery shopping, or at the bridge club, that the UK should take more refugees and that you don't subscribe to the "Why should we care? Our country is full and it's not our problem." view.

Rik

I wouldn't say that this country is "full", but we are very densely populated and have a severe housing shortage (at least in the Southwest, and that is where everyone who comes wants to be). So while the UK should take in refugees, I am not sure how many this "more" you are talking about is. In any case I have no particular desire to spread your views; come here and do it yourself.

The refugees are everyone's problem, and all of the world's wealthier nations should take some responsibility. Obviously the ultimate goal is to make the places where they come from safe. Right now I feel that this is just a dream.

[y66]

From The Guardian's live blog on the refugee crisis:

Quote

Britain is to resettle up to 20,000 refugees from Syria over the next four and a half years, David Cameron has told the commons. He said Britain would take in vulnerable refugees only from camps in the region, and not those who have crossed the Mediterranean into Europe.

He told MPs: “We will continue to show the world that this country is a country of extraordinary compassion, always standing up for our values and helping those in need.”

The acting Labour leader, Harriet Harman, asked Cameron if the pledge to take 20,000 Syrian refugees over the course of this parliament meant just 4,000 this year?

[Zelandakh]

 blackshoe, on 2015-August-07, 10:18, said:

My comment about the criminal element was not a statistical one. Some of the "illegals" coming from south of the border are criminals. Some of them are very violent. Some of them are associated with the drug trade, and with foreign drug cartels.

If I had to take my chances between a random Mexican immigrant to the USA and a random member of the Tea Party movement, I might well be inclined to go for the former. With one notable exception, all of the Mexicans I have ever known have been more than reasonable and easy to get along with.