A question regarding the flood of migrants and refugees into Europe.

The reality of thousands of migrants flooding into Europe is almost daily news in 2015, both in the mainstream and social media.
Until now it is pretty much the southern European countries close to the coast of Libya who are bearing the brunt of the influx, although even many of the migrants don't want to stay there, and would prefer to move to more prosperous European countries.

Currently there are very divergent views in Europe, and even different classes of migrants and refugees.
Of course, one can totally understand more right-leaning fears about so many people arriving in a human flood that is virtually forcing an open-door policy and a free-for-all, and that criminals or terrorists are amongst the migrants, or that so many people cannot integrate successfully, but will simply bring their religious wars, ideologies and habits to Europe.
To some it seems like an invasion.

Those to the left argue that that because Europe had colonialism and has taken resources from some countries, they owe it to all these people to resettle in Europe as easily as possible.
I don't quite buy that argument, since Europeans never settled in West African countries in significant numbers (they were considered the white mans grave); the oil industry, for example, is providing some jobs in those countries, and Europe did not create the ideologies of waring Islamic sects, nor the greed and corruption of African or Islamic dictators in these regions.

In fact, many countries and ideologies are responsible for these migrants, and many are exploiting Africa (like China economically, or disruptive Jihadist propaganda sponsored by rich Arab states) and should help to pay or have their assets frozen until migrants from their regions or ideologies are self-sufficient in Europe.
Watch the flood stop very quickly, if responsibility is equally shared along with equal rights, and Europe stops enabling misrule.
I'd even say the same from South Africa, where Robert Mugabe should be billed or have his assets stripped until he personally pays for Zimbabwean refugees and their cost to the local taxpayer, especially regarding education or health-care (until they become self-sufficient personal income taxpayers).
In fact, the last thing one wants is the xenophobic violence we've seen in South Africa since 2008, when the local population feels totally overwhelmed.

I recently saw a German documentary on the refugee situation in that country spilling over from Italy.
www.youtube.com...
It described quite a complex situation, and it followed mainly "deserving" migrants with desirable skills (like doctors or engineers) who posed no terror threat, and who would integrate easily.
One was an Afghan man who worked as interpreter for the US during the war, and now faced execution as a spy from the Taliban.
Deserving yes, but why did the US just abandon these people, and Europe must pay?
Send the bill to the USA!
That's a whole issue on it's own, for which mainly the US must take responsibility.

However, I'm more concerned about the highly-skilled workers.
Europe does need certain skills, especially in health-care and engineering.
So goes the left-leaning argument, and if they arrived via legal channels that's quite correct.
Every country allows controlled immigration on that basis.
(Although none of the people in the documentary had their qualifications proven.)

But my question is then, what happens to those countries where skilled people are fleeing from?
Who will rebuild Syria if all the doctors and engineers are gone when their war should ever end?
Isn't that another form of resource theft?

Should one rather say they can stay until it is safe to go home, and then send them back?
That's what happened to Angolan refugees in South Africa when the war ended in that country.
But then many already had local families, and had integrated, and it was inhumane.

I'm not against controlled immigration, but especially for people to just pitch from some countries because they cannot run themselves or their reproductive habits is unacceptable.
In that case such countries should ask for the "white man's burden" and the colonies back, instead of going to Europe because of socialist and Islamist failures (I doubt Europe would oblige in any case).
Simply eventually resettling entire regions in Europe is however just another form of begging for the "white man's burden" back, no matter how one looks at it.

Well, in South Africa it was already an argument a while back that Britain and Europe should stop recruiting all our sorely needed nurses and doctors.
Or should economic pull factors (much higher salaries and better working conditions) decide who gets what skills?

It's probably a catch-22, but the current argument that skilled immigrants are good for Europe is very illiberal towards poor countries who need those skills, and entire war-torn countries that will need reconstruction.

What do others think of the conundrum?
The skilled labor must stay argument - liberal or just further theft of resources?

(Incidentally, I'm sure many of those in the German documentary ended up staying, they just ended up with some temporary discomfort, but hey that's what happens when you just pitch uninvited.)

a reply to: halfoldman

There is no satisfactory solution to the tsunami of war fleeing migrants trying to make their way into Europe right now. IMHO I believe that it will break the economies of many European countries and a full implosion of Europe begins both financially and socially. Europe has been skidding along playing with non existent money for too long and its beginning to fall apart. If a mega recession ensues the first to bear the brunt will be migrants, a fact not lost on ultra right wing groups. Social chaos and no money to pay the police, civil service won't end well.
We are already upon the road.....

a reply to: halfoldman

well you mentiuoned the thoery of getting the high skilled workers with the flood of immigrants coming in but are they not few and far in between?? I mean is that worth getting the waves of the undesirables and criminal element? your right it is a conumdrum.

But with any country and maybe this is wehre my perspective is failing because your thinking of the whole of Europe with a EU frame of mind. You can probablly tell what mind set of country I am coing from.

But in thinking about the question that you asked. you have to frame what is best for the country will this piolicy help the country or hurt the country as a whole does it do more damge??

a reply to: halfoldman

You have a valid point, but when all is said and done, these are flesh and blood human beings. They are not just calculations, or numbers. They weep, bleed,and toil for everything everyone else does, the right to exist. Where should they go? What country is opening the door to them? Who will sustain them and give them succor without taking advantage? How many are lost at sea trying to escape to other lands? There is no pity. No one wants to foot the bill, or engage in a workable solution. Until then they will continue to flow to wherever they can, they seek sanctuary. Can and should these countries be shutting their borders? Until human life becomes again the most valuable asset to any country, these people will have no hope.

a reply to: American-philosopher
I don't think we know yet what is good for the country.
It's a game of poker with the future really.

I'm more intrigued of the right/left approaches.
OK, the extreme is right is "fortress Europe" and probably less complicated.
Yeah, the left would say but we have a declining birth rate coupled with a higher life expectancy and an aging population, and we need labor and immigrants to pay taxes for our elderly.
However this argument is rarely explored in depth.
Japan has similar trends of declining birth rates and an aging population, but they do not even consider mass immigration from wholly foreign culture as much of an option.

The right would say mass immigration would also include the unemployable (who don't even speak English or the native European language), and they'd be a further drain on resources.
Furthermore, they will create further parallel societies that become ungovernable mini-states, with more terrorism, bullying of local children who become minorities in some schools, and so forth.

Interesting though how the debate on immigration in Europe was first about bringing in people who do jobs that locals were apparently too prosperous to do.
In other words, bringing in unskilled labor to clean toilets and so forth

Now it's all about the skilled labor, and their presence should allow everyone to come in (that seems to be the crux of it).
The left seems to say let's not stereotype and generalize, some might be highly skilled, and the rest somehow "gifted" in surprising ways.

But still, that "skilled labor" is also a selfish argument, considering that other countries may soon need them more.
Unless they expect Europeans to go and rebuild Syria when only uneducated people remain who study their cult material and nothing else.
It wouldn't surprise me.

a reply to: Chansi3
Normally yes, refugees and migrants seek sanctuary.
In a controlled form one can make those choices on a country-by-country and individual basis.
With a flood kicking down the door it is harder to say.

Just like in South Africa, there are divergent arguments on foreigners from mainly African countries.
Yes, many have integrated, and contributed to the local economy.
But it's also undeniable that many have come for nefarious purposes, like crime, and there are terror fears.

Both peoples have rights these days - the migrants and the natives of the countries.
Ultimately officials and intellectuals can say what they like, if the the local population feels threatened there will be xenophobia, or even uprisings.
This has happened in South Africa, and it's something that Europe must also avoid, as long as extremist groups still remain on the periphery.

European countries are already borrowing money from international lenders to keep their social security systems going. They have to raise taxes to pay the interest on these loans. Many countries also have problems with unemployment with their existing populations. And those local areas with high unemployment like the inner city suburbs are the ones where these migrants are moved to. The cultural differences usually end up with the locals leaving. That means they can't integrate because there isn't anyone to integrate with.

That isn't any good for the UK, where there is already is a housing shortage of 250,000 homes/year. 20 years ago that was 120,000 homes/year. Many European countries also have the highest population densities in the world. Landing at Schipol airport in Amsterdam and you would think you were in Hong Kong.

This is only to going to end up with European countries breaking off from the EU or even splitting up themselves.

a reply to: stormcell
Indeed, Europe is not geographically big.
Some once called it "Asia's insignificant little peninsula" (I think Nietzsche coined that one).

For the sake of contemporary consistency, I'm also wondering if indigenous Europeans should get reservations where only they may live?
Of course, because of intellectual double-standards that will never happen, but it would be consistent.
Perhaps so many native Europeans would flee to such reservations, that these would be quickly overcrowded, and for sure, even here the migrants would crawl over the fences eventually when they turned everything else into their way of doing things.

Perhaps a better option would be to address the source countries of the migrants, even if it means military intervention, the removal of dictators, and large-scale ass-kicking mixed with more foreign aid, and the repatriation of especially skilled migrants under safer conditions.
In that case human rights will have to take a bit of a back-seat.

Whatever the case, one simply can't supplant one population into the home of another in a long-standing post-colonial world.
It will merely shift the problems from one place to another.
Especially if there's no end in sight, or an indication of when the flood will stop.
If the message that it's a free for all spreads, it will create a domino effect, and people in their huts and squatter camps in countries that never thought about it will come too.
Opportunities for some, and free stuff for others - always an attraction.
It will spread to sub-Saharan Africa.
Heck, I might come that way too - saves me the high cost of renewing a passport, and I can row the distance from North Africa to Europe in my own boat.

The whole world in Europe?
Some deluded liberals will love the idea (but not the reality of having migrants used to squat-toilets and honor killings in their living rooms).
But uh, nobody wants to talk about the "unskilled" migrants.

OK, the last few lines are a bit sarcastic, but I think people get my point.

a reply to: stormcell

Incidentally, I'm glad you mentioned some of the social problems in Europe, like unemployment.
Even in Germany I've seen reports of indigenous people eating out of dumpsters, people living in poverty and squalor, and homelessness.
The lower classes and social problems in the "richer" European countries are rarely discussed, even by their own media.

Now imagine people who experience and know about fellow citizens like that, and then they see foreigners getting pocket money and housing support, and so forth.
Although it's not comparable to poverty here large-scale, it is present, and it must leave local people seething.
Especially as the lower class forms the first buffer zone to where migrant homes and centers are put.

I'm just thinking on how quickly Germany was cleaned up after World War II.
OK, there was some US organization and funding, but it was mostly women, and literally little old ladies who cleaned up the rubble.
And there was a lot of ruins and rubble!

Then one sees countries with long periods of peace, and the rubble is still laying there.
Or they haven't done much since colonialism, when they lived in grass huts.

Call me prejudiced, but those people must rather stay in their own countries.

I saw reports of what it looks like in some of the detention/processing centers for foreigners in Austria and Germany, and those people could well clean up after themselves.

Then I saw an episode of Hotel Hell, or something like that, and an elderly German couple who were paying customers cleaned up the entire floor of the building, when it was too dirty.

Maybe not everyone has the same culture or values, and that's fine, just don't impose it on others these days.
It's a generalization, and there's also people from all countries who are sparkling clean, but don't show me a mess and I must feel sorry for the particular people who live in it.

As Gordon Ramsey might say when he sees a filthy kitchen and hears the excuses: "It's your kitchen; now clean it!"

a reply to: halfoldmanit doesn't help when we in the west use our military might to remove dictators in the process removing any leadership, infrastructure and access to work. We are always happy to start these things but never have plans for post military intervention so we leave these people not much choice to move somewhere they can provide futures for their families. If out side forces targeted our leadership and infrastructure and left us with an U functioning society we would probably look to move elsewhere for a future and better prospects. Maybe if we had plans for these countries after we Bomb their nations and remove any leadership or governments things wouldn't be so bad

I don't have a firm opinion on all this, I am just observing still.

I work in a hospital, and the majority of the doctors they have are immigrants from northern Africa. Because they will work for less pay than the french doctors.

In south france, we are getting flooded with these immigrants coming over on boats, into Italy and on our borders. Something I always notice when you see the boats come in, or get rescued, is that you never see any women or children! They are crowds of young men!

So... does that mean that their homelands are becoming mostly women and children left to be run over by hostile forces?

Campbell points out that while political elites in the West were quick to celebrate the intervention in Libya as a success, the NATO campaign caused many civilian deaths and destroyed the nation’s infrastructure. Furthermore, the instability it unleashed in the forms of militias and terrorist groups have only begun to be reckoned with, as the United States learned when its embassy was attacked and personnel, including the ambassador, were killed. Campbell’s lucid study is essential reading for anyone seeking to understand this complex and weighty course of events.

monthlyreview.org...

a reply to: woodwardjnr
That sounds feasible for Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, most of these countries were not bombed by the US or the West.

In fact, some like Ethiopia/Eritrea weren't even really colonized by the West.

The West is also not responsible for civil war between Sunni and Shia factions in Syria.
Islamic countries should take responsibility for that.

are a reply to: halfoldman they are coming from those countries through Libya. Libya is where the boats are leaving from and where the deals for human trafficking are done

a reply to: Bluesma
That's another interesting issue.

Migrants are firstly men, who must send money home, and only then try to bring in the families.

Even from the clips one can see it is mostly black African men.

Yeah, so one can indeed ask, how does this affect gender politics in their native villages and towns?

How will it affect men's rights, women's rights and homophobia in Europe?