Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't hear liberals screaming that at all. We are screaming "gun control" and "American grown terrorists" and "hate groups."

+1
The Fox News groupies however receive signals from a different universe.

The one that isn't politically correct?

No, the one where they make up their own reality.

Anonymous wrote:There seem to be several posters on here that assert that many (or the majority?) of refugees are actually "economic migrants." I'm curious as to how you know this? Do some of you work for the govt or with NGOs that work directly with this crisis? Or have numbers/percentages been published in a news source that I just haven't seen?

Also, this is probably a dumb question, but how do you distinguish between a "refugee" and "economic migrant"? Say you have two people coming for Syria- one has been driven from their house (or it's been destroyed) while the other still has somewhere to live but has lost their way of living and ability to provide for their family due to the war. Is the former considered a refugee but the latter an economic migrant?

A refugee is defined as one that will be persecuted or killed due to political, religious or sexual orientation reasons. If their ability to provide for their family has been taken away, that is not a refugee, or if it is, they are called "economic refugees" and most countries don't recognize that as a reason.

One can say that the Syrian refugees are religious refugees from ISIS. I know I would be one if ISIS were taking over my country.

Also, there are millions of refugees in Turkey and Lebanon, but their status there is terrible. So, perhaps, many men have left their wives and kids in Lebanon or Turkey while they go to Europe to find a job, then send for them later once they have more money. This is fairly typical.

I saw a picture of a Syrian man in Lebanon, holding his sleeping 4 yr old daughter, and trying to send generic ball point pens on the streets. He had about a half dozen or so in his hands, desperately trying to sell them. It was so sad. Some people around there started a kickstarter campaign for him and his family. I don't know what happened. I just imagine my DH holding my 6 yr old trying to sell a few pens on the street so that we could eat. Heartbreaking.

There seem to be several posters on here that assert that many (or the majority?) of refugees are actually "economic migrants." I'm curious as to how you know this? Do some of you work for the govt or with NGOs that work directly with this crisis? Or have numbers/percentages been published in a news source that I just haven't seen?

Also, this is probably a dumb question, but how do you distinguish between a "refugee" and "economic migrant"? Say you have two people coming for Syria- one has been driven from their house (or it's been destroyed) while the other still has somewhere to live but has lost their way of living and ability to provide for their family due to the war. Is the former considered a refugee but the latter an economic migrant?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That horrifying photo of the little boy who drowned. The family was not fleeing from Syria but was leaving Turkey a relatively peacefull country. The family just wants welfare from western countries. Had they stayed in Turkey, that boy would be alive today.

People have complex reasons for migrating. It's not one or the other. They are war refugees; they also have economic concerns. And Syrians and Turks don't have good relations. Syrians would not be welcome in Turkey and they are traditional enemies. The fact that Turkey is peaceful is not a deciding factor. Again, common sense dictates that they would move on.

This isn't really true- Turkey has taken in more refugees than anyone else - almost 2million. While a dignificant percentage of those are in camps near the border, the rest are dispersed throughout the country. A friend of mine who currently lives in Turkey brought up a really interesting point recently- middle class Syrians who decided to stay in Turkey are often in better shape because they still have money, whereas those that want to get to Europe pretty much have to sell everything they own to the smugglers. If European countries would offer legal ways for the refugees to cross, then there would be many who could help themselves to set up a better life. As of now the smugglers are getting all the money and the migrants are all penniless.

I hope Germany and other countries who take in refugees make a concerted effort to integrate them into society. In places like France Muslims tent to be really isolated- they can't get jobs or good housing. This just breeds discontent and desperation.

Exactly how would you make a concerted effort to integrate them into your home/neighborhood?

Not relegate them to the Paris slums, for starters. Or turn them down for a job simply because they are Muslim. There was a really interesting story on npr about this recently- on average, Muslims tend to be much better integrated in the US than in many European countries. I'll see if I can dig it up.

You mean you have no direct experience of your own? Why do you need to dig up someone else's story? You should have your own story to share about how you helped integrate Muslims into your family. Think about it.

Huh? NP but your argument makes no sense to me. Are refugees infiltrating your town? Nope, mine neither. Assimilation takes the work of both the government, the individuals who migrated, and the community at large, and it will be quite the challenge. Germany at least seems to recognize the challenge to a degree, but whether this experiment will work out for them is anyone's guess.

Anonymous wrote:The question is do immigrants WANT to assimilate into new societies.

Lots of them don't want to, and don't.
Especially those who felt forced to leave.
They're angry. And remain so.

See, e.g. France and certain cities in the U.K. Europe has been so emasculated that it is now...this. Oh well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't hear liberals screaming that at all. We are screaming "gun control" and "American grown terrorists" and "hate groups."

+1
The Fox News groupies however receive signals from a different universe.

The one that isn't politically correct?

The question is do immigrants WANT to assimilate into new societies.

Lots of them don't want to, and don't.
Especially those who felt forced to leave.
They're angry. And remain so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not relegate them to the Paris slums, for starters. Or turn them down for a job simply because they are Muslim. There was a really interesting story on npr about this recently- on average, Muslims tend to be much better integrated in the US than in many European countries. I'll see if I can dig it up.

This is very true. I have friends who had family members end up in Europe and they are way more isolated and religiously conservative.

What are you talking about?

Maybe that wasn't clear enough: I have Muslim friends who immigrated to the U.S., but had family members immigrate to Europe. Their family members who immigrated to Europe are very religiously conservative and more isolated/apart from the society they immigrated to than my American immigrant friends are.

So who wanted to assimilate, and who didn't?

I think it is much more difficult to assimilate in Europe than in the US. Despite the liberalism of northern Europe, they are still a very traditional and closed society. You just cannot compare the US and Europe.

It would be interesting if they did a study to see if the US or Europe tended to attract the more conservative or liberal immigrants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do the Mexican immigrants overwhelming come only to the US? Why aren't other countries offering to take them too. I totally understand the need for all countries to take in the Syrian refugees, but I wonder why the same isn't true for those from Mexico.

Because they can. Because there is no strong resistance. Because there is no consequence. Because it is all upside.

Mexico is not in a war!

Anonymous wrote:I think the question is, if these are truly mostly refugees from war and not economic migrants, then wouldn't there be more women and kids? Yes, economic migrants tend to be men first.

For example, if you look at some of the old pictures of Vietnamese refugees, or in any war, you see a lot of women and children, too.

In the recent case in Europe, it does appear, based on pictures of crowds, that you see more men than any other group. Where are families of these men? Are most of these men single?

In the Muslim world, men are not single, especially when they are over 16 yo. They have wives and children back home and will send for them when they have settled in whichever country. Angela Merkel is crazy. Anybody consider SECURITY letting anybody stay in Germany when they reach it? What if they are ISIL members?

The word is out that Europe offers extended financial assistance. The Syrians and Eritreans are in a terrible situation at home and deserve to be helped. Many others are joining in for economic reasons. The current chaos is the best opportunity for the latter group.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not relegate them to the Paris slums, for starters. Or turn them down for a job simply because they are Muslim. There was a really interesting story on npr about this recently- on average, Muslims tend to be much better integrated in the US than in many European countries. I'll see if I can dig it up.

This is very true. I have friends who had family members end up in Europe and they are way more isolated and religiously conservative.

What are you talking about?

Maybe that wasn't clear enough: I have Muslim friends who immigrated to the U.S., but had family members immigrate to Europe. Their family members who immigrated to Europe are very religiously conservative and more isolated/apart from the society they immigrated to than my American immigrant friends are.

So who wanted to assimilate, and who didn't?

Several said because they did not want to be conscripted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This problem will overwhelm Europe and change it forever. I suspect an increasing number of them are economic migrants and not refugees, but they'll all claim to be victims of wartime persecution and torture. And no one will have papers. What will Europe do? I think Germany needs to quickly determine who are Not refugees and send them home very publicly to try and prompt a pause in this. It's so telling that they all want to go to the wealthiest nations and not just a safe place. The U.S. Needs to pay attention and our citizens need to be vocal about what we will and will not accept as a nation. I think Trump is a loon but this European migrant crisis plays right into his campaign.

that is IS's plan. This is stealth Jihad. I'm sure probably 99.9% of the refugees are just seeking safety for themselves and their families and have no idea they are being used as pawns by IS. It's so so sad. I don't know of a solution though, and the influx of immigrants is going to change the host countries. More needs to be done to convince (or demand) that othe Muslim nations take on these refugees. The most wealthy Muslim countries are refusing, saying it's a security risk for their country. Don't you think it's even more of a "security risk" for the western countries taking in the refugees?

I agree.

Yes.

Xenophobic nonsense. IS is run by 23 year olds who have no "plan" beyond the middle east version of flashing " bling" and blowing things up and , if their "plan" is to dilute the " Christian nature of Europe" , it seems that , at least in your case, there is little real Christianity left ( at least that Christ would recognize)

Here are the facts:

1) Why mostly men, so few children ? : In any war, 50% of the casualties are children under the age of 5. This is because their head to body surface area makes them more vulnerable to brain blunt force trauma and their abdomen is more vulnerable to shock force trauma. Drop a bomb on a house, that is who dies. Add to that that , in Syria, Assad has been using cluster bombs and chemical weapons, which dissproportionally affect children due to their airway being more vulnerable to gas and their tendency to pick up ordinance unknowingly. As Syria has been at war for 4 years and those dying in greater numbers have been children under the age of 5 AND the birth rate has gone down ( malnourished women don't ovulate) that should answer your question. . Those who were 5 at start of conflict are now 9 and are likely out there trying to earn enough to feed their family, but too young to travel alone to the EU.

2) Old people just want to die in their homes in their own land and won't budge

3) In middle east culture, young women take care of their parents ( the old people) , unless they have a young child they are trying to get to safety ( I think you may have seen a few in photos)

4) why are the men leaving / why don't they stay and fight ? ( this statement is amazingly uninformed)
The learning curve is pretty steep at this point, but here is a link: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/12/syrias-war-80-in-poverty-life-expectancy-cut-by-20-years-200bn-lost

In short, they have ben fighting, and fighting and fighting with , it seems, weapons we supplied or that we manufactured her at home in the US and allowed weapons traders to sell on the open market. Yes, lots of US weapons dealers making a fortune gleefully in Syria and Iraq right now.

These people are refugees, their country needs to be stabilized or this is just the tip of the ice berg


Syria has been at war for 4 years, 80% of its population has lost its only means to obtain food and clean drinking water. Its economy is non-existant. Its President has been bombing its peopel for 4 years and only Iraq for 10 and Afghanistan for 12 . 14 years ago, Europe removed its national borders.