Because the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which the EU countries are signatory, gives special status to refugees. This status is not the same as simply "admitting foreign citizens."

For example:

> The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules.

Why don't the countries responsible for the refugee situation take care of the consequences instead? Like, who has been destabilizing the Middle-East for like dozens of years now ?

But the British are part of the EU as well...

Exactly, and more importantly this is the most natural and health way to deal with issues of asylum seekers.

Very concerning topic and one the could easily get much worse; aka ship all asylum seekers or for the matter "unwanted" to somewhere willing to take them.

I read that most refugees pouring into the EU are there for economical reasons, and states argue that as such they don't have to admit them. Cannot find that article right now.

"Many" as in absolute values like "more than 1,000"? I can believe that.

Or "many" as in relative values like "more than 30%"? I have difficulties believing that. If so, it's amazing how coincidental the timing is between the start of the ongoing civil war in Syria and the start of the refugee crisis.

It's also amazing how the UN "has identified 13.5 million Syrians requiring humanitarian assistance, of which 6.6 million are internally displaced within Syria, and over 4.8 million are refugees outside of Syria." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_W... . Are the ones you mentioned in addition to those numbers?

Those number seem unbelievably high, given there are less than 18 million Syrians total.

Umm, that's why there's a crisis.

Do you think the numbers are wrong? Why, and by how much do you think they are wrong?

It's not credible that 75% of Syrians have left the country.

They haven't. The quote I gave is the total displaced population, "... of which 6.6 million are internally displaced within Syria, and over 4.8 million are refugees outside of Syria."

Only 5 million/18 million = 28% of the population has left the country.

This is an almost arbitrary distinction. These people are looking for a better life, one without violence but hopefully, yes, also one where they're not stuck in poverty. Maslow's pyramid and all that.

They should let only wealthy refugees in then right ?

The question isn't whether being rich/poor affects somebody's potential status as a refugee for non-economic reasons (e.g. persecution in their home country), it's whether enconomic reasons alone are enough to justify "refugee" status. Which side you come down on regarding this is subjective, but either way your comment isn't relevant.

Didn't know that, now it actually makes sense. Thanks.

Are they really refugees though?

They are specifically talking about "sending a message that caring is optional". Not quite the same thing.

Going on your second question, there are good arguments on why not being charitable, solidaric, or however you want to call it is immoral and shortsighted.

The strongest for me are 1) if you accept human dignity as an inalienable right (one of the tenets of humanism) then you have already created an ethics in which you either care or are immmoral 2) more pragmatically, by not being charitable and solidarity, you imply a) that the world has winners and losers,b)with the winners having the right to treat the losers poorly,c)that you are a winner and always will be. That to me is delusional and suboptimal, since at any point a blood clot could render you helpless.

> on why not being charitable, solidaric, or however you want to call it is immoral and shortsighted

Which is a very nice strawman

> if you accept human dignity as an inalienable right (one of the tenets of humanism) then you have already created an ethics in which you either care or are immmoral

Nice way in making people guilty and only seeing black and white. You are as intolerant as ISIS, you're just not killing people for it

> a) that the world has winners and losers,b)with the winners having the right to treat the losers poorly,c)that you are a winner and always will be

Again, you see the world in pure black and white.

> That to me is delusional and suboptimal

Yes, see the above point

> Which is a very nice strawman

I'm curious as to what is a strawman in that statement? You are arguing charity should be optional, he said "not being charitable". Where in that sentence is he misrepresenting the position he is claiming is immoral and shortsighted? Is the word solidaric that much of a sticking point?

I've found quite a few arguments against allowing the influx of migrants from the middle east to continue unabated to be at the very least reasonable (I have family in Greece that are seeing it first hand), but none of them start and end with "black and white", with the middle filled with comparisons to ISIS.

If you have something to say about the actual issue, I'd love to hear it.

My opinion on the issue is in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11927994

I don't see your point. Maybe not exactly a strawman, but certainly a false dichotomy

I also believe that those who think not being charitable is immoral and shortsighted should be actually helping instead of commenting on news items

Being immoral and being unlwful are different things though.

How about Europe taking responsibility for their interventionist policies in the Middle East and their support for the US military agenda in the Middle East which created most of these problems in the first place?

First of all, Europe is not one country. To hold the entirely of Europe responsible for what some countries do is just as absurd as holding all of Asia responsible for what China does.

Secondly, many countries inside Europe have opposed US military actions in the Middle East.

> First of all, Europe is not one country. To hold the entirely of Europe responsible for what some countries do is just as absurd as holding all of Asia responsible for what China does.

Germany, France and the UK (which actively supported interventions in the Middle East) contribute ~50% of the EU budget - it's silly to even suggest that these laws are being passed without their support.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#E...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syr...

EU != Europe.

I live in Europe yet I'm not part of the European Union. Also, measuring by "budget", what's up with that? At least use population number or something that's semi reasonable.

It's roughly the same as thinking that the US == Continent America, and that Canada, Argentina and Mexico should be responsible for the actions of the US.

Yes, France opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2002. What do they get? Several terrorist actions in one year.

France also has a very bad track record in the Maghreb and lots of people who lived under French rule or lost people in their parents' generation are still alive. Given that France did not do much to make up for that, it is understandable that there still is a lot of hatred and they thus are an easy target. Concentrating a large, poor and badly educated 1st and 2nd generation of immigrants from those countries in neglected suburbs also did not help....

That's no justification for acts of terrorism. The fault is with the individual terrorists, not the French en masse.

I'm not trying to justify terrorism but highlight motivations for it.

Who is "Europe" in this case? I can tell you it was not idea of the European population to follow the US into a war based on wrongful information. So who should be taking responsibility?

How about you accept that people in the Middle East have their own agency, and are not merely pawns for other countries on a giant chess board?

There are many cases where helping others is legally mandatory. For instance, if you find somebody stranded at sea.

But we are talking about countries here, so legality is not the issue. The issue is, in my opinion, that for years, the EU have sold itself as an humanist endeavour.

There is also the issue that we, Europeans, are responsible for a lot of what this people is running away.

There is also the practical issue that hide one's head in the sand it's not going to solve the problem.

Oh, and there are ethics, of course. But that is a boring unfashionable issue, so we will forget about it.

Pretty much this

I understand the refugees are in a difficult position, but there is a limit to the help that can be given (which should be obvious)

If MSF doesn't want the money that's fine.

There are "limits" and there are "limits".

If the receiving country has no room, is broke, and its citizenry are on the edge of starvation, then that's one limit.

Somehow I don't think that's the limit you are talking about, but that's the only obvious one I can think of.

What do you think is the limit, and why do you think the EU countries already past or even near to that limit?

So, by following your reasoning, a sound-economy country, should receive aliens until such receiving country has no room, is broke, and everybody are on the edge of starvation?

No.

Everyone agrees that there are material limits to what a country can provide. It is indeed obvious that there is a limit to the amount of help that a country can provide.

But raverbashing used a bait-and-switch argument, to say that because there are limits, we (people who live in the EU), can now prevent refugees from entering the EU countries.

What I asked is clarification of what those limits are, and how they were determined.

One limit is "tolerance for foreigners." That's certainly a limit. Is that the limit that raverbashing is talking about?

Another limit is "there is no place to put them." Sweden has problems with that.

I can think of other limits. But none are the sort of existential limits that everyone agrees exists.

The limit is the receiving countries not becoming what they're fleeing from, obviously

If you disagree, my suggestion is that you take in your house as many refugees as the number of people that currently live in it.

> If the receiving country has no room, is broke, and its citizenry are on the edge of starvation, then that's one limit.

Oh of course, let's destroy whole countries otherwise people like you will think they're racist and petty. Genius.

Boo-hoo. I live in Sweden. We have taken in huge numbers of people. I will gladly pay extra in taxes to help them out.

Sweden is also far from becoming like Syria.

If Sweden's policy is the limit, then most of the other EU countries fall far short of the limit you are concerned about.

> Boo-hoo. I live in Sweden. We have taken in huge numbers of people.

The difference between being charitable and naive is a thin one.

> Sweden is also far from becoming like Syria.

Let's hope so. And while I agree most of the "news" on the Internet about Sweden are crap, Sweden has an important gender imbalance and increasing problems with violence

Also nobody speaks anything and pretends it doesn't happen because "it's racist". Like: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/11/swedish-police...

> then most of the other EU countries fall far short of the limit you are concerned about

Portugal and Spain are looking for more people but it doesn't seem anybody wants to go there.

So you agree that most of the EU countries are not near the limits that you are worried about, yes?

Then why aren't they taking more refugees?

> Then why aren't they taking more refugees?

I know it's a matter of wording, but no country "takes", but has people apply for asylum either before going or when there. Though Canada provided transportation to those approved.

It can be said that countries might need to facilitate/advertise this more (and not only in Europe). Some South American countries took some people as well (not as much as Europe though)

Oh and Poland received a lot of refugees from Ukraine (some say around 1Mi)

Take has many shades of meaning. "We take AmEx" means "We accept American Express card if you wish to pay that way." It doesn't mean that if I see an AmEx card I grab it.

If it helps, feel free to interpret my use of "taking" as short for "taking in", with meaning of "to admit; receive".

I'm guessing the perceived limit is that NIMBYs feel too uncomfortable to handle more refugees? It doesn't seem like a real limit to me.