Why doesn't Europe just take on every refugee from Turkey?

[jackg]

Just spent some time crunching the numbers and the number of migrants (6 million) is the equivelant of the number of working age people in the UK that were classed as capable of work in 2017 (OK I didn't get the actual number but I took a third of all adults who were out of work which will do). I think Sweden is said to have a 16% migrant population so what's stopping the rest of the west from taking on more?

[1713959717]

1713959717

[1713959717]

1713959717

[1713959717]

1713959717

[1713959717]

1713959717

[1713959717]

1713959717

[Jet Cash]

Because the current government won't let them all come to England.

[varojk]

Because the current government won't let them all come to England.

I'm not sure that is a reason.

Migrants are "working strength". Thay do everything for less money.

[Juggy777]

Just spent some time crunching the numbers and the number of migrants (6 million) is the equivelant of the number of working age people in the UK that were classed as capable of work in 2017 (OK I didn't get the actual number but I took a third of all adults who were out of work which will do). I think Sweden is said to have a 16% migrant population so what's stopping the rest of the west from taking on more?

Because the current government won't let them all come to England.

I'm not sure that is a reason.

Migrants are "working strength". Thay do everything for less money.

@jackg I did some digging and found out that UK is the home to 1% of the world’s refugees, and further each year more and more refugees are applying for their citizenship.

Also it’s not always a bad idea to take in more refugees, because Germany has benefited from allowing refugees to come, and live in their country.

Further @Jet Cash I don’t doubt your words since you live in UK, but can you be more specific as to why you feel, that UK won’t allow refugees to come to UK?.

Lastly each country will have their specific policies on refugees, and it’s not possible to find out about each and every county, but you can always select a particular country, and dig deep inside to understand why they’ll accept, or why they’ll reject refugees coming to their country.

Sources:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/10/qa-whats-the-real-story-behind-recent-uk-refugee-arrivals

https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/germany-welcomed-refugees-reaping-economic-benefits-190617194147334.html

[jackg]

Because the current government won't let them all come to England.

My main point was that Europe should try to unite and make some sort of task force. It's not enough to just take the ones that make it to Greece and claim asylum there or further.

In this circumstance, if the UK took a mere 1 million refugees itd do quite a lot and wouldn't be that expensive for refugees (they are allowed to work and receive half of the unemployment benefits the unemployed receive).

@juggy777, every country (in Europe) has to take refugees if they come within their terratory so the UK already accepts a lot that way. (to be in English terratory, they have to be in the sea from France on the east side of the channel afaik.

I'm not sure that is a reason.

Migrants are "working strength". Thay do everything for less money.

You'd think walking 100s of miles would be proof enough of their working capabilities - not to mention if they've made it to the UK they've managed to travel 2000 miles at least.

[suchmoon]

Most governments have become (or perhaps they always were) a lot like publicly-traded corporations - looking for short-term gains only. Next quarterly report, next election, etc. Not looking at what happens in 50+ years. Mostly it's our own fault for electing them based on the populist-idea-of-the-day and not on what the country would look like for our grandchildren.

Amazingly it's happening not only in Europe but in the US as well, despite it being a largely successful example of a nation of immigrants (some sketchy bits of history along the way of course but still). I think those few countries that are more open to immigration will benefit in the long term at the cost of some pain in the short-to-medium term but it's an impossible idea to sell to the general public.

Having said that, taking on all refugees is more complicated than regular immigration when e.g. the host country would typically pick and choose by setting requirements for age, education, etc. And there is also the fear of encouraging even more migration by making it easier to move to wealthy countries.

[Spendulus]

...taking on all refugees is more complicated than regular immigration when e.g. the host country would typically pick and choose by setting requirements for age, education, etc. ....

Anyone with half a brain would exclude certain medical conditions, such as tuberculosis positive. And criminals of various sorts. "Open borders" seems to have started about two decades ago with a Soros funded think tank. It's related to diminishing power of individual states and strengthening "world government."

There is a theory in economics that one way a government can give away more than it can actually afford to, is to have continued population growth. Then the next generation can pay the overly generous pensions, health care and such to the last.

[Salauddin1994]

Every country including England has closed its borders everyone thinks that they can cause a lot of problems in terms of population. Turkey can no longer accommodate those who became refugees in the Syrian civil war in that case they are trying to send to Europe but Europe will not accept them anymore. The attack has sparked tensions between Syria's allies Russia and Turkey. It is feared that the conflict could spread further in that case its effects could be felt in Europe.

[franky1]

many euro countries do take them. the issue is that that a certain group of migrants decide not to stay in the neighbouring country and move forward to the next country

im not sure where you got your 6mill. but ill roll with it..

alot of people think all migrants walk 3000km from turkey and all (6million) sit at the calais border
sorry but no
less than 1% of the migrants go to calais to try to get to the UK
by that i dont mean there are 60,000 at calais, i mean there are only 600 at calais at any one time and some have been there for a couple years.. so the numbers are actually low

they do stop at different countries and seek refuge. but then in some cases they dont pay the rent. so get evicted and so move onto the next place.
some countries just dont have enough housing so after sleeping a few nights on the streets after being told they had a 5 year waiting list for a house, they decide to try somewhere else

so no the 600 that get to calais didnt come straight from syria
and they dont actually walk the whole 3000 miles either

[Mauser]

Just spent some time crunching the numbers and the number of migrants (6 million) is the equivelant of the number of working age people in the UK that were classed as capable of work in 2017 (OK I didn't get the actual number but I took a third of all adults who were out of work which will do). I think Sweden is said to have a 16% migrant population so what's stopping the rest of the west from taking on more?

If there would be a unity within Europe to spread out the refugees to all countries across Europe it would be much more easy to find a solution. But there is no unity. We have countries in Europe that didn't take any refugees since 2015 and the EU has no mechanism to deal with these countries. To find a real solution to immigration and for the refugees we would need to change the EU laws but for that you need a 100% majority which is never going to happen.

[KingScorpio]

Just spent some time crunching the numbers and the number of migrants (6 million) is the equivelant of the number of working age people in the UK that were classed as capable of work in 2017 (OK I didn't get the actual number but I took a third of all adults who were out of work which will do). I think Sweden is said to have a 16% migrant population so what's stopping the rest of the west from taking on more?

Since when are europeans slaves to the lazyness and greed of thrird world countries they have shown their humanity but they are going to far.

These migrant/refugees are not hig skilled communists or christians they are often lazy racist or nazis etc. They join antifa in the west and try to rob the locals like blm did

[BADecker]

Why doesn't Europe just take on every refugee from Turkey?


Yeah. Put them all into slave-labor camps and live high on the hog off their work.

[squatz1]

Most governments have become (or perhaps they always were) a lot like publicly-traded corporations - looking for short-term gains only. Next quarterly report, next election, etc. Not looking at what happens in 50+ years. Mostly it's our own fault for electing them based on the populist-idea-of-the-day and not on what the country would look like for our grandchildren.

Amazingly it's happening not only in Europe but in the US as well, despite it being a largely successful example of a nation of immigrants (some sketchy bits of history along the way of course but still). I think those few countries that are more open to immigration will benefit in the long term at the cost of some pain in the short-to-medium term but it's an impossible idea to sell to the general public.

Having said that, taking on all refugees is more complicated than regular immigration when e.g. the host country would typically pick and choose by setting requirements for age, education, etc. And there is also the fear of encouraging even more migration by making it easier to move to wealthy countries.

In the age of news being 24/7 and always BREAKING NEWS, politicans have to ensure that everytime their consituents see them in the news the optics of what their talking about must be good.

Planning for the future and reigning in on debt is not something that people care about. They want swift change that is far reaching and fixes all their problems. They love people who can talk the talk, but they never get anyone into office who truly cares about them.

Short and medium term immigration does truly hurt some nations who are already facing issues in regards to wage increase issues (as more supply into the labor market is going to bring wages down) and then there's some thoughts about the safety net programs and if they're allowed to be utilized by immigrants (that's a country to country issue)

But long term, yes, immigration is good. Most people don't really look at the long term though, they're just looking at if they can pay their own bills. Much easier to sell people a dream then a society that'll work in the long term, lol.

[jackg]

But there is no unity. We have countries in Europe that didn't take any refugees since 2015 and the EU has no mechanism to deal with these countries.

Hmmm the lack of unity is weird since that was one of the founding ideas of the EU? I mean it really didn't work but it was a good plan - and like most plans the execution kinda failed it.

It's one of the big problems with the EU as a system in general, the west view it as them paying money to strengthen the east and as them offering jobs to citizens of poorer eastern countries, the east probably view it as either a protection against explotation of jobs (i've seen eastern workers mock the EU because of low minimum wages but 'we at least have contracts and rights' - in a bit of a sarky tone).

Any economic block bigger than about 15 million in population IMO is destined for failure and division.

Short and medium term immigration does truly hurt some nations who are already facing issues in regards to wage increase issues (as more supply into the labor market is going to bring wages down) and then there's some thoughts about the safety net programs and if they're allowed to be utilized by immigrants (that's a country to country issue)

The poverty line in the uk is $150 a week, if the only way to go about taking in a large number (say 1 million) refugees is by getting them just above that line then I think it's not too harsh a price to pay - if they're not paying for housing then that'd be more than enough to live off.

In a similar context, I wouldn't be fully against the idea that we could just make a new country within the EU that is governed by EU law and seeks to produce a stable economy for them - although the EU and europe as a whole is pretty tiny...

Yeah. Put them all into slave-labor camps and live high on the hog off their work.

Ummmmm? Government teaching of anything without supplementation from external sources will always fail - pretty much every school system in the world is awful and outdated.

Since when are europeans slaves to the lazyness and greed of thrird world countries they have shown their humanity but they are going to far.

The UK and France caused a lot of the problem by not restoring curdistan back to it's original independent country and not putting in any effort to try to produce some sort of democracy.

These migrant/refugees are not high skilled communists or christians they are often lazy racist or nazis etc. They join antifa in the west and try to rob the locals like blm did

Is this from first hand knowledge? Also wasn't the nazi party Christian (they got voted in in one of the most Christian countries in Europe and were anti Jewish)?

The high skilled ones aren't the ones who fuel the economy, more low skilled workers mean high skilled workers are paid more - relative to lower skilled onew - in their wake as money either becomes more scarce or more available.

Also some England councils are happy to elect our own terrorists to office?

[squatz1]

Snip

Totally not trying to be rude at all or anything, I'm just not sure if you fully understand what I'm trying to say.

If all of these countries took in the refugees they'd totally be able to make their lives better. Can't disagree there, you'd be entering a society that has jobs that you can work in and live a normal life. Totally nothing to disagree with.

But here's the problem for people who already have jobs in the areas where refugees would flood in -- there would be a lot more workers competing for the same amount of jobs, at least initially. So with the same amount of jobs present and tons of more people who want those jobs, employers are beyond happy -- they're able to pay the workers less and less as there is more supply for the same amount of demand. Employees are not happy though, as they're being paid less for the same amount of work b/c of supply and demand.

That's one of the reasons that people oppose this large scale refugee acceptance. I know certain countries, like Germany, did really need the people as they were going to fall into a population related issues (see Japan) if people didn't come there and start growing their families in Germany.

[Gyfts]

Japan is a very homogeneous (racially and ethnically) society and they haven't taken hardly any immigrants or refugees. South Korea is the same way. These Asian countries don't seem to face the same backlash as European countries and the U.S. get for essentially having a restrictive immigration policy.

Merit based immigration is the only system that's feasible. You can't reasonably expect nations to have an influx of unskilled immigrants and expect them to foot the bill of any related expenses.

[jackg]

But here's the problem for people who already have jobs in the areas where refugees would flood in -- there would be a lot more workers competing for the same amount of jobs, at least initially. So with the same amount of jobs present and tons of more people who want those jobs, employers are beyond happy -- they're able to pay the workers less and less as there is more supply for the same amount of demand. Employees are not happy though, as they're being paid less for the same amount of work b/c of supply and demand.

I meant capping refugees from that area to working a shorter amount of time every week the $150 would be something like them receiving the normal £30 stipend refugees get a week with 2 or 3 days of work.

So employers who need staff for a whole week will still employ full citizens and there may be less competition from refugees but I get there'd still be some demand gap.

Realistically this would have been intended for a time when there were more jobs than people to fill them, doing something like this during a recession would worsen the lives of your population.

I think taking in an extra amount of people wouldn't reduce the quality of life the affected people are already facing more than it would affect the quality for the refugees though maybe that's too far of a statement to make...

[eddie13]

Europe is already gone.. Get thrown in jail for saying such things as “trans men are not women”...

Might as well just let all the “refugees” in and in a generation or 2 they can just vote to implement sharia law..

The problem with letting many refugees in is that they do not hold the same values as the host country..
In the US this is especially a problem because we true Americans value such things as freedom of speech, liberty, and firearm rights.. All of these immigrants will vote those values of ours right out the window in exchange for free stuff and letting more of their family in..

Our values made us the greatest and most powerful countries that we are, but immigrants these days don’t understand that and will just vote for what benefits them rather than what is actually good for the nation as a whole and it’s future.. The future of freedom and individualism..

[jackg]

Europe is already gone.. Get thrown in jail for saying such things as “trans men are not women”...

But they're not?

Thatd be illegal to say in the US too - freedom of speech only goes so far as to not incite violence doesn't it in the US?

Male and female are biological sexes. Men and women are genders - gender is considered more of a bimodal system rather than there being two camps. It's been caused by overcategorisation although for some reason we replaced 2 categories with 58 rather than just having 1...

[eddie13]

Thatd be illegal to say in the US too - freedom of speech only goes so far as to not incite violence doesn't it in the US?

No.. I can say “trans men are NOT women” all I want 100% legally, and I do..
Because trans men are not women.. But that’s besides the point..

In the US you can say you hate white people, or Asians, call them crackers or gooks or bug people or even say nigger all you want legally as long as you don’t CALL for violence..
And that’s the way it should be..

“Xxx racial slur people are disgusting and I hope they all die in a fire” - perfectly legal
“Xxx people should be punched in the face” - bordering on not legal..
“We should beat xxx people whenever we see them” - not legal
“You should throw rocks at xxx people” - not legal
“Those terrible xxx racial slur people all stink and should go back to where they came from” - legal

Unless you say it about white people, then I guess the laws don’t apply, seemingly.. Or even your favorite tech giant codes of conduct like twitter and reddit..
Like “kill all white people” seems to be perfectly acceptable just about everywhere..


You can even like, question the history of the Holocaust, and even fly a Nazi flag in front of your house if you want to.. If you want to.. If you believe such things or simply just want to piss people off for the lolz..

You can even go around in public in a kkk hood.. The kkk even have public demonstrations because they have the right to speak and gather just like everyone else..

Freedom is pretty nifty


1st amendment.. Freedom of speech..
It’s 1st for a reason.. Very important..