Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

The 70s is when it started, the Shah had fled by 79 which is when Khomeini stepped in and declared an Islamic Republic. He was succeeded by Khamenei, who remains in control today.

Just shows that we can't trust middle eastern nationals who claim to want moderate reform. We need to stop trying the peaceful talking option, where we are assured moderate reform will come with our support, and establish moderate reform ourselves.

Is anyone else going to suggest a solution or is the general consensus "we're fucked, why try anything"?

{ And again, you keep shifting the focus: first the problem are economic migrants, then are asylum seekers. }

The focus of this thread has always been the migrant crisis in Europe. That crisis includes an influx of genuine asylum seekers and economic migrants. Failure to separate the two is just one of many key problems plaguing the situation. The "focus" of a problem this widespread with this many factors could never be on just one topic of discussion.

{ Also, you want examples of how it didn’t work? }

& the examples I've given of when it did work? Because it doesn't have a 100% success rate we should abandon the idea completely? We should refuse to try again with modern techniques and parties who are much more willing to compromise?

{ we could theoretically redistribute the refugees across the 28 nations of the Union }

Indefinitely? As hundreds of thousands of more come because the situation in their countries of origin hasn't changed and no one is helping them to change?

{ but it could be a helpful measure until the situation stabilizes and ISIS, Boko Haram & co. are defeated (which would require Shiites and Sunnis to bury the waraxe for once) }

So those groups do need to be defeated, but the first world countries capable of defeating them should definitely not do so, and we should leave the current situation of oppression and tyranny as it is until the religious fundamentalists can sort it out between themselves while we waste money and resources cleaning up the spillage from their mess?

:|

One of these suggestions definitely sounds unrealistic, but I don't think it's mine.

Lisa they have to understand the law or no shelter for them.
Invade the countries of origin of the emigrants is a better idea?

{ Lisa they have to understand the law or no shelter for them. }

They're already breaking laws and already being sheltered.
Your threat carries no weight because they know it's not true.

The asylum seekers also aren't interested in your laws, they're only interested in a place to stay until they can return to their own country. That's the endgoal of asylum seekers. They don't want to be German or British or French, they want to live in their own countries with the same rights Western countries have. Thus invading the region being abandoned in droves and establishing the rights those citizens demand would give them a reason to return.

Invading other countries sound way more expensive than harboring the refugees and increasing police funding.

Invading another country ends the problem for good, thus no more money needs to be spent on it in the future.

Harboring an indefinite amount of refugees for an indefinite amount of time as the situation in their country of origin gets worse and more refugees flee definitely does not save us money in the long-run.

& again, money is only one factor in this situation. How are you going to stop the clashing cultures and ethnicity wars that break out daily in the refugee camps? Are you going to indefinitely segregate everyone by ethnicity because they can't get along? What about the religious needs of the refugees? Do we separate all adult men and women because of the religion of one ethnicity?

I have no idea how to make block quotes.

By 2011, US spent about 3.7 trillion on Iraq and Afghan Which is quite amount of money.

And that's not counting the loss of life and the physical/emotional wound by veterans. The number of refugees nor the time to harbor them are not indefinite. Those countries do not have infinite population and those people will not live forever. Sure maybe millions may flee and they might live until their 100s but they'll go away one way or another. My opinion is that it's not preferable to waste money and lives just to fix their problem on their turf.

As for cultural and ethical clashes, are the Western countries new to different cultures and ethnicity? Americans have a rather diverse population, and European countries are not 100% homogeneous either. If they riot, send in the riot police… Like what governments always do when there's a frigging riot. If some individuals or groups are causing too much trouble, deport them. I didn't follow the entire deal closely, but I doubt 100% of those people are rioting and fighting daily.

As for religious problem, just give them religious freedom, they will separate themselves. If they fight because of religion, they'd fight for other reasons anyways.

{ According to the Freight Transport Association, Operation Stack is costing haulage companies caught up in the chaos £700,000 ($1.1m, €988,000) a day. In June and July of this year it has been used to unprecedented levels due to the migrant crisis, with the M20 closed for 24 out of 40 days. }

{ One major distributor of pharmaceuticals carrying drugs for NHS hospitals had to write off stock worth £2.5m after migrants broke into one of its lorries, according to the FTA. Figures from the Fresh Produce Consortium suggest at least £10m of food imports had to be thrown away in the first six months of the year due to the “contamination risk” posed by stowaways. }

This is just in Britain, where they're dealing with only about 30,000 migrants.
Germany has over 800,000.

These countries may not have an indefinite amount of people, but we do not have an indefinite amount of space and resources either.

Look up some reports if you want to know of the murders and crime taking place among refugees of different cultures being housed in one place. 100% of any demographic is generally not at fault, but 100% don't need to be at fault for there to be serious consequences.

How are you going to stop the clashing cultures and ethnicity wars that break out daily in the refugee camps? Are you going to indefinitely segregate everyone by ethnicity because they can’t get along? What about the religious needs of the refugees? Do we separate all adult men and women because of the religion of one ethnicity?

Like I said before make them learn the law, sure they will follow after someone gets town out of the country or imprisoned.

lmao how do you make someone learn the law? how do you make them follow it? People are deported and imprisoned all the time.

Here's the latest on the cost of anchor babies, since Trump brought it back into the media spotlight and it's a relevant point.

{ According to Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) legal policy analyst Jon Feere, who testified before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security in April, between 350,000 and 400,000 children are born annually to an illegal-alien mother residing in the United States -- as many as one in ten births nationwide. As of 2010, four out of five children of illegal aliens residing in the U.S. were born here -- some 4 million kids. Reporting that finding, the Pew Research Center noted that, while illegal immigrants make up about 4 percent of the adult population, “because they have high birthrates, their children make up a much larger share of both the newborn population (8 percent) and the child population (7 percent) in this country.”

The cost of this is not negligible. Inflation-adjusted figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture projected that a child born in 2013 would cost his parents $304,480 from birth to his eighteenth birthday. Given that illegal-alien households are normally low-income households (three out of five illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children live at or near the poverty line), one would expect that a significant portion of that cost will fall on the government. And that’s exactly what‘s happening. According to CIS, 71 percent of illegal-alien headed households with children received some sort of welfare in 2009, compared with 39 percent of native-headed houses with children. Illegal immigrants generally access welfare programs through their U.S.-born children, to whom government assistance is guaranteed. Additionally, U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are entitled to American public schools, health care, and more, even though illegal-alien households rarely pay taxes. }

& here's a section from a study of illegal immigrant mothers' hospital costs from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (that's a PDF link) from over a decade ago, so you can imagine what the numbers are like now.

{ In 2003 in Stockton, California, 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in San Joaquin General Hospitalís maternity ward were anchor babies, and 45 percent of Stockton children under age six are Latino (up from 30 percent in 1993). In 1994, 74,987 anchor babies in California hospital maternity units cost $215 million and constituted 36 percent of all Medi-Cal births. Now they account for substantially more than half. }

Ya'll still feeling confident that a war would be more expensive than harboring all these people?

As I said, we're talking about unrealistic shit because apparently we love sterile postmodern rhetoric exercises. The measure would at best be transitory (as I said), and it's extremely unrealistic it would ever be implemented (again, as I said).

The ISIS situation is a different issue, and I didn't want to enter too much in detail, but whatever. I could have spent something more than a paragraph.

What I meant was that, since we've proved to be terrible when we're dealing with the Middle East, we should include the nearby less terrible countries to at least stabilize the situation. Without help from the major players in the area, we're just going to repeat the failure that was the Second Gulf War and that brought us to this point. Since much of their hostility is due to religious differences, that's what I meant by Sunnis an Shiites.
Same goes with the betterment of the economic/social situation, we need the richer Middle Eastern countries to play their part on a international economical development plan, à la Marshall Plan. Utopian? Sure. But still more realistic than "we invade their country and istantly everything starts working because we're the First World and we make things work"

I'm not completely against military intervention, but I don't think we can just do it alone, modern first war paladins coming from the skies in their shining armor.

You, on the other hand, are proposing a permanent invasion of the rest of the world to promote "progress". That is bordering science fiction.

What examples of when it works? You mean the freaking Polinesian isles that the US and UK control? Can I laugh or is it too disrespectful? Of the thirteen unincorporated territories of the US, seven are uninhabitated. Of the others, only Puerto Rico reaches three million people, on a surface of 3515 square miles. Iraq counts 36 million people (estimated) on 169234 square miles, Syria 18 million people on 71479 square miles. The scale isn't even remotely comparable.

Seriously, we've got the whole continent of Africa that has gone to shit after a century of European control, but nope! Let's focus on this tiny Caribbean island with 41% of its people living under the poverty threshold.

Saudi Arabia is the only ally we have in the region willing to truly cooperate with us, and really only because they legitimately fear Iran going nuclear. We don't have help from major players in the area because the major players are totally fine with the way things are. Hence the hundreds of thousands of fleeing regular people. Do we harbor the hundreds of thousands of fleeing regular people and allow tyrannical governments that refuse to respect basic human rights to continue existing on our taxpayer dollars and business? Hey, Iran, you've been doing such a great job lately we're going to lift the sanctions and grant you hundreds of billions of dollars, you deserve it! What a joke.

{ You, on the other hand, are proposing a permanent invasion of the rest of the world to promote “progress”. That is bordering science fiction. }

That is literally how the world's borders were formed. We only stopped invading countries like sixty years ago (the last one was a joint occupation with Britain in 1938), and look where tolerance for tyrants has gotten us.

{ What examples of when it works? }

None of the examples you just listed are examples of taking over a country and making it part of your own. That's why they're called "unincorporated territories". How about the annexation of Hawaii and Texas? How about the Philippines, which we annexed from Spain in 1898 under the manifest destiny argument and turned independent in 1946? Occupying and taking over a country doesn't have to be permanent or a horrible bloodbath, you're cherry picking the worst case scenario.

Our efforts in the middle east have failed because we've tried to work with the "Supreme Leaders" and their fanatic religious governments. How many tries do they get?? How many times do we have to fail in our attempt to be "modern" and "PC" and "civil"? Hundreds of thousands of fleeing people who are risking a decent chance of death to escape governments propped up by our tax dollars doesn't seem very civil to me.

None of the examples you just listed are examples of taking over a country and making it part of your own. That’s why they’re called “unincorporated territories”.

You're the one who brought them up! I said that it is ridiculous to use them as a comparison! What is this, Waiting for Godot?

Are you really using the Philippines as an example of your thesis of peaceful occupation and development? Do you even know anything about the Philippines history? Do you know that the States bought the territory from Spain and then fought a war with the democracy that had already declared its independence? Do you know who Ferdinand Marcos was? Or that their economy is still highly dependent on remittance from Filipinos working overseas? Do you know that politicians there employ literal personal armies to avoid being murdered by rivals? Or that there's an ongoing, decade-long war against a local terrorist group named Abu Sayyaf?

Also, you must be really confused about the Middle Eastern situation. You do know that ISIS and Iran are formally enemies due to their different religious beliefs, right? What about Saudi Arabia being heavily suspected to be funding the terrorists?

And furthermore, how do you plan to invade the whole Middle East and control it afterwards? Where do you find the money to indefinitely maintain an army in a really vast territory? How do you develop their economy so fast that they just want to stay there while you do it? Where do you find the funds to develop their infrastructures? Why do we suddenly win the War on Terror after a decade of fighting it with fairly similar methods and failing? Why do you keep shrugging off half a century of European direct control of Africa like it's some negligible footnote? Why do you think those countries that were part of European empires decided to become indebent in the first place?
You keep avoiding giving an answer to these questions, pretending it's some self-evident fact that it would just happen, but I'm a stubborn idiot so you have to spell them out for me, please.

Another thing, I almost forgot. Will the citizens of the annexed countries be allowed to vote or not? And who governs these overseas territories?

bruh I brought them up as examples of territories we currently own that aren't considered part of the actual USA. They were not examples of military occupations when I brought them up and they are not examples of military occupations now.

Please stop reading summaries of wikipedia pages and pretending to know history. We won the Philippines after the Spanish-American War. The measly $20 mil we paid to Spain was to make up for the infrastructure owned by Spain on the land, not as a purchase price. The "democracy that had already declared its independence" was led by a group of rebels and was not a legitimate government or declaration, hence the following Philippine-American War that brought it down. Working with legitimate government officials, the Philippines were on track to be independent in 1935 (during which woman's rights were established and the economy recovered to its pre-Depression level), but before full independence could be granted Japan occupied the Philippines during WW2. It was after this war that the independent Philippines were established.

Ferdinand Marco was elected by the Philippine people in '65, well after we had left. He and his actions, and the state of the Philippines now, are irrelevant when discussing the Philippines as a US colony.

You know ISIS is not the only terrorist organization in the region, right? Which has nothing to do with Iran and Syria teaming up against the rest of the ME to keep Assad in place.

Rich Saudi Arabians are the largest source of terrorist funding in the world, not the government itself, which is obligated to stop them but does not. Battles must be picked and chosen, right now the Saudi Arabian government is willing to cooperate with us. If there were no large organized terrorist groups to take donations, the Saudi elite would have no one to donate their millions to, so through their cooperation we're attempting to kill two birds with one stone.

The next two questions ask me to become the Commander of the US military forces to answer, which I can not do. This is a discussion of possibilities, not a step-by-step plan of attack to submit to Congress.

The Gulf States are an excellent example of rapidly developed economies whose people stayed on board with them through it all. They're the richest countries in the region because of their natural resources that are now taken advantage of with first world technology and business law. The countries we would occupy have those resources as well, but they're largely ignored or poorly managed. The funds for their infrastructure and development are right there, they just need a boost to get them up and running correctly, plus a legitimate government to regulate everything according to global business standards.

This is not a "war on terror", nor have we taken anything "similar" to this suggested approach in the last 70 years. Economic development and higher standards of living are directly related to the amount of domestic terrorism in every country. It's reasonable to think that stability in the region and a steadily improving economy would discourage the frustrated civilians who become willing to join terror organizations. The Gulf States, again, are rarely brought up at all when discussing terrorism or migrants lately. They're very very slowly becoming more moderate as a society, the same could happen to the ME.

European control of Africa is an entirely different issue we could get into if you want, but it'd have to be in another thread because it's completely irrelevant to this issue. It started under completely different circumstances in a completely different century, and during a time when completely different tactics were considered the most reasonable option, not to mention the fact that compromise wasn't even a concept. Why do you think we'd repeat Europe's mistakes that are now so obvious to us?

edit to address your second post: a large European country/group or the UN (tho that's definitely not my first pick) would handle the governing process of the occupied territories. The people would not be allowed to vote because the goal is not to take the region and declare it "Middle Eastern Germany" or whatever, it's to get them stable and productive before handing the already developed and running country over to a legitimate government of moderates who only have to keep things going the way they are. When we've handed countries over to puppet governments before actually establishing reform and developments, well, we all know how that goes.

Why do you throw ten thousand questions at me instead of offering your own criticisms or ideas and support for them, from your own head, your own thought process? Answering questions is great to understand my thought process, but you've essentially played interviewer throughout this whole conversation.

Then what are you discussing? We could theoretically colonize space, and send everybody there, but that's not feasible. We could theoretically unite the whole world under the UN flag, but that's not feasible. We could theoretically destroy every single ship existing in Northern Africa, but that's not feasible. Hence why nobody discusses those possibilities while having a serious political debate.

That's like if you wanted to have a scientific discussion about moving something faster than light. As far as we know it's phisically impossible, but you can discuss on how to make particles travelling faster than light in a scientific manner. However, if you completely disregard the questions about how to do it, but only the consequences of it, you're not doing research, you're just speculating.

Call it what want, but this shit is taking me too much patience and time and I am done with this farce.

Good luck and have fun.

Exactly, we're discussing it in theory. That's how you share ideas, and on a forum like this where people live in different places and have different viewpoints you might look at something from a POV you didn't previously and your opinion might evolve. That's what a discussion is for, that's why I make these threads, I like discussing my opinions and possibly seeing issues in a different light. I'm not here to research hard science, I'm here for a bit of Socratic dialogue. It probably wouldn't be so stressful if you weren't so hellbent on proving an opinion "wrong".

You do not intervene in the middle east at all. They are beyond help. All you should do is contain them as best you can. Patrol the boarder, deport illegal migrants, accept no refugees, make it clear to those who might think about going to Europe that it is futile and they will be treated badly.

A country is responsible for its people, and by extension its culture. Leaders who do otherwise so that they can "sleep well at night" are shirking their responsibilities and should be impeached.

Certain first world countries have legal obligations to accept refugees. Unfortunately for all of you part of the UN, you have no say about where they drop thousands of migrants at a time. Unfortunately for us, our government does the exact same thing. :| There are protests akin to those in Germany here in small towns in low-populated areas because that's where the Feds have decided to "disperse" tens of thousands of migrants at a time, so as to not make a fuss that could grab media attention in big cities.

& some news updates jff.

Federal appeals court declares the 2nd Amendment applies to illegal immigrants

3 Bulgarians and 1 Afghani detained in trafficking case where more than 70 migrant bodies were found in the back of one truck

Record 3,241 migrants entered Hungary in one day

{ In a further sign that Budapest is clamping down on migrants, police chief Karoly Papp announced more than 2,000 so-called 'border hunter' patrols with dogs, horses, and helicopters would be sent to the frontier from September as reinforcements to the already heavy security presence.

The ruling Fidesz party said it was considering deploying the army to help stem the influx, after unrest erupted at a refugee registration centre at Roszke, with police firing tear gas at migrants. }

Just ignore the UN. Seriously. What is the UN going to do when the very members which give it some scrap of legitimacy turn their backs on it? Nothing. They won't do anything because they can't. They shouldn't be signing such binding international treaties of their free will anyways.

I would agree, but it's a bit late to regret that decision now lmao. I really wish they would though, nothing would make me happier than the dismantling of the UN.

Another point to add to my first statement, the refugees these countries are obligated to take in are also obligated to be refugees. Economic/illegal migrants are not refugees.

So you're solution is to invade a country, essentially create an entirely new "state" of the United States, and have it populated by 100% immigrants? Because that's essentially what you're proposing, making this territory part of your government, taking on its national debts, its defense budgets, its boarder patrols, its police force, its schools, its infrastructure, it's hospitals, it's roadways, it's power grid, and managing the importation of food and water, as well as trade in general, all the shit necessary for a state to function within a country, only with the added benefit of having to go halfway across the planet to do so.

And that ends the problem "for good"? How does that stop you from harboring "an indifinte amount of refugees for an indifinite amount of time" when all you've done is turned their host country into a state that harbors the indifinite amount of people living there for an indifinite amount of time.

Unless your plan involves killing everyone within that new state to make sure no one can breed in it, thus turning the indinifite amount of humans into a definite amount, you're plans not gonna work.

And that's a terrible plan to enact in the first place.

That's not at all what I was proposing, if you actually read the thread and conversation in its entirety.

Read my post on this page that starts with: bruh I brought them up as examples of territories we currently own…blahblahblah.

edit actually you know what I'll just copy and past the most relevant paragraph tho you should still read the whole thing for context.

{ edit to address your second post: a large European country/group or the UN (tho that’s definitely not my first pick) would handle the governing process of the occupied territories. The people would not be allowed to vote because the goal is not to take the region and declare it “Middle Eastern Germany” or whatever, it’s to get them stable and productive before handing the already developed and running country over to a legitimate government of moderates who only have to keep things going the way they are. When we’ve handed countries over to puppet governments before actually establishing reform and developments, well, we all know how that goes. }

That is literally the worst plan I've ever heard. How many times are you gonna try and make a puppet government you realize it doesn't work? And don't give me any bullshit about it, that's exactly what you're doing. You're taking over a country, removing its leadership, dismantling the process by which the people have any autonomy, and then installing a system into power that is under your control, a puppet string government.

You're gonna fail if anyone tries that, I hope you realize that. Like, the second you stop giving that false regime you put in place support, its gonna get torn apart by everyone in that country, regardless of their political, religious, or philosophical alignments. You'll be creating a unified foreign agent they can all transplant their grievances against, with the ultimate reason to hate it. Because it was imposed on them, because having it in place is a sign of slavery of their entire people. Because people don't like being treated like subhumans and puppets.

Just imagine trying to do something like this in your home country, and ask yourself how many people would fight against it? How many people would do whatever the fuck it took to dismantle this imposed government that declared them unable to vote, and told them that they don't matter two squirts of piss in their own country, because some people hundreds to thousands of miles away didn't like what you thought and what you believed.

Try thinking of this happening to the USA in order for the "Western World" to correct the Barbarism of the Second Amendment and Non-Parliamentary System of Governance, and think of how many people would never allow it to happen, and would rather go down swinging then let it make any positive changes.

uuhh either my phone is deeply confused or somebody be deletin their posts up in here.

^ I explained in the same paragraph why it wouldn't be establishing a puppet government as we've tried before. The majority of refugees are fleeing Syria, where their civil war was brought on by citizens protesting for moderate reform and change. The US would fight against someone coming in to defeat the Constitution because we all agree with the Constitution. The people of Syria no longer agree that Syria should remain as it is, that's why they started protesting, that's why they're fleeing.

Assad and Iran have massacred over 200k regular citizens since their civil war began in the beginning of 2011. What did the West do when the citizens of a Middle Eastern country were ready to embrace change, mid-late 2011? The leaders of the West working under the Obama Administration's commands pulled out their troops, pulled out their support, and left the moderate protesters for dead. We told those people we would be there for them when they were ready to change, and then we abandoned them once they told us they were, a big empty void quickly filled by ISIS.

Migrant Crisis updates:

FIVE ISIS terrorists posing as refugees arrested at the Bulgarian-Macedonian border after trying to bribe a border guard with money. The guard searched them instead and found Islamic State propaganda, specific Jihadists prayers, and decapitation videos on their phones.

Ivory Coast asylum seeker in Italy arrested for breaking into an apartment and slitting throat of the 68 year old owner and his wife. He was arrested after police searched his bag and found the victims bloody clothes when he returned to the migrant housing facility.

ICE arrests 244 illegal immigrants in south California who have earned at least one felony conviction after being in the USA { Among the people captured, 191 were from Mexico and the rest were from 21 other countries including France, Ghana, Peru and Thailand, the agency said. A majority of them had convictions for violent felonies or weapons or sex abuse charges.

Originally formed to locate immigrants who had failed to comply with a judge's deportation order, the program is increasingly being used to find immigrants with criminal convictions who have recently been let out of jail. Of the more than 27,000 people whom ICE arrested nationwide last fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, 2014, about 78% had criminal convictions, according to ICE data. }

quiet chanting heard in the distance

(this has spawned a globally trending hashtag btw)

{ The boy is believed to be one of at least 12 Syrian migrants who died trying to reach Greece when their boats sank in Turkish waters.

Dogan said most of the refugees were from the Syrian Kurdish town of Kobane who fled to Turkey last year to escape violence by Islamic State (IS) extremists.

Over the last week, there has been a dramatic spike in the numbers of migrants -- mainly from Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Africa -- seeking to leave Turkey by sea for Greece in the hope of finding new lives in the European Union. }

This is what everyone is talking about. They fled to Turkey as refugees and were living there peacefully for a year, but they've lost hope that they can ever go back to their homes and become illegal economic immigrants trying to get to the EU. If their home showed promise of changing they would have gone back, they weren't trying to start new lives in Turkey, they were just looking for somewhere to go until things settled.

You guys should just make me the official KYM political controversy pundit, literally everything I post gets turned into a front page entry three days later. tbh it's kind of making me mad that I'm making forum posts instead of entries

Just make the entries Lisa, nobody will stop you.

They yell at me in the site comments whenever I make them so I just stopped doing it. Let the admins do it, they always change stuff around before they front page it anyway.

I just bumped this 'cause I figured somebody might want to actually talk to me about it now

Lisa just do it, if it's worth being a good submission or not is up to the mods or admins.

Let's get back on topic of the thread before Loli, randomman or Bob locks this.

Merkel said a few days ago that Germany will be receiving only the refugees with right to receive
Asylum and rest must go.

Edit :I almost forgot that the foto with the kid could made James Cameron change is stance on receiving refugees since he was shocked by it he dodged that question if was going to change or not

yeah yeah no fun allowed in srs debate I know

Hungary's PM took a stand:

{ "All countries have a right to decide whether they want to live with large numbers of Muslims in their countries. If they want to, they can. We don't want to, and we have a right to decide we do not want a large number of Muslim people in our country.

We do not like the consequences of having large numbers of Muslim communities that we see in other countries, and I see no reason for anyone to force us to create ways of living together." }

In regard to the picture, it's a pretty blatant media propaganda push. Little kids and families have been washing up on shore all year, but only about 2,500 and in every single case they went through human traffickers.

That's not what it looks like when you go further into the EU. The women and children who were allowed to come with the men in the first place generally stay put as actual refugees. This is what the internal countries are facing:

look at all those poor women and childr---- oh wait. :|

In the Portuguese news some reporters said that they published the foto to shock people.

Hungary gives up, opens the border, promises buses to Austrian border to move migrants through country

{ After a day of defiance by increasingly desperate refugees, the government of Hungary metaphorically threw up its hands Friday and offered to bus thousands of migrants to the Austrian border, sending the crisis spinning closer to the heart of the Continent.

It was not clear what the government planned for the thousands already being held in reception centers around the country, nor what the Austrian government would do when confronted with thousands of refugees at its borders. }

lol wakarimasen

No seriously, I don't understand this at all.

Shouldn't Europe be putting pressure on the Gulf countries to take in more refugees? It would be a much better fit. They are Islamic Levant countries. Surely, they would be much more comfortable there.

They don't want to be under Islamic rule anymore. That's the whole reason the Syrian civil war started in the first place.

Lisa the Syrian civil war started after some Arab spring protests, that means they wanted democracy on Syria, basar al-assad out. Syria is not under Islamic rules.

On a side note :Was the Arab spring protests a complete failure? All the countries where the protests happened had some problems like some Islamic radicals trying to install sharia law in Tunisia, Libia and Egypt. Tunisia manged to turn it around with the radicals backing off and not install the sharia law after some more protests. Libia,sharia was installed but some problems with a general made Libia be at war again. Egypt, Morsi was starting to get authoritarian and install sharia, gets thrown out of the the presidency my the military,now general al-sisi is the president after winning the elections,there are some accusations of him being authoritarian but no protests. Syria protests happened gets repressed by police, some militias start appearing, war starts between the army and militias and some Islamic radicals started appearing to also fight the army, in the middle of this ISIS takes over almost half of Syria for himself.
None of these countries were in sharia law before, ben-ali (Tunisia),khadafi (Libia) mubarak (Egypt) were authoritarian, khadafi even being more dictator than the three of them helped the west against terrorism in Libia.what did got as thank you? Internacional support to the militias against him, even not being at war the Tunisian and egyptian protesters also got some support.
I am not supporting the dictators I am just pointing out how the countries were better before America, France and other countries helped to get the dictators out.They just decided that they don't like them anymore and helps the protesters getting the dictators out and don't stick around to help the more unstable countries like Libia and Egypt to avoid being at war or to radicals take over.

???? what?

{ Article 3 of the 1973 Syrian constitution declares Islamic jurisprudence one of Syria's main sources of legislation. The Personal Status Law 59 of 1953 (amended by Law 34 of 1975) is essentially a codified Sharia law. }

Libya had been under Sharia since the 50s, which got stricter in the early 70s, and now the one democratically elected government is trying to fend off two varying intensities of Islamic government "parties" and ISIS.

Tunisia, while arguably in the better state of all Arab countries pre-2011, has since turned democratic and last year voted for a new constitution that rejects Islam in the government and is now considered the most progressive constitution of the Arab world.

Egypt has gone a similar route as Tunisia, approving a more secular constitution last year, though Islam still plays a role and the military has more power than anything.

None of them were in better condition pre-2011, while a few are slowly becoming more moderate now. The countries whose governments are not willing to compromise (where Egypt and Tunisia have shown the ability) are the countries millions are currently fleeing instead of standing up for the change they want to see and fighting. ISIS is 50k-100k strong depending on which world leader you ask, over a million refugees have abandoned the country this year alone. Why should they flee instead of taking back their home? They outnumber the radicals by far. If they were fighting, we would have even less of a reason to not, but they fled and our resources instead go into housing them in our own countries while the radical powers (the governments, not just terrorists) grow in the ME.

We at least seem to agree the West is obligated to take a more hands-on military approach.

Syrian ISIS smuggler says at least 4,000 ISIS gunmen are awaiting orders in Europe

{ The Syrian operative claimed more than 4,000 covert ISIS gunmen had been smuggled into western nations – hidden amongst innocent refugees.

The ISIS smuggler, who is in his 30s with a trimmed jet-black beard, revealed the ongoing clandestine operation is a complete success.

"Just wait," he smiled.

The operative said the undercover infiltration was the beginning of a larger plot to carry out revenge attacks in the West in retaliation for the US-led coalition airstrikes.

Islamic State extremists are taking advantage of developed nation's generosity towards refugees to infiltrate Europe, he said.

The lethal ISIS gunmen use local smugglers to blend in and travel amongst a huge tide of illegal migrants flooding Europe.

Two Turkish refugee-smugglers backed up the claims made by the ISIS Syrian operative.

One admitted to helping more than ten trained ISIS rebels infiltrate Europe under the guise of asylum seekers.

The Syrian said he had been granted permission to give the interview by his superior in ISIS -- a radical referred to by members of the group as an "emir."

"There are some things I’m allowed to tell you and some things I’m not," he said.

The revelation comes just days after a spokesperson for Islamic State called on Muslims in the West to carry out terror attacks.

The jihadist told Western followers if they had the opportunity to "shed a drop of blood" in Western countries – then they should do so.

Spokesman Abu Mohammed al-Adnani also praised the recent terror attacks in Australia, Belgium and France.

"We repeat our call to Muslims in Europe, the infidel West, and everywhere to target the Crusaders in their home countries and wherever they find them," he said. }

:| :| :|

This is gonna get a lot messier before the end comes.

I honestly think that being friendly to the migrants is the only solution. Shoving them away or mocking them will only make problems. This has also become a problem with with the US-Mexican border. I just see their border security as a sign of hate against the mexicans and it will only make more problems in the long run.

>Keeping your boarders secure is and making sure that all those who enter the United States are properly accounted for is a "sign of hate".

u fukin wot mate?

Good fences make good neighbors, if Mexico didn't want to be the subject of many American ire they would do their part to make sure their boarders are secure as well. Its not like it isn't in their interests, gun and drug smugglers who are tearing that country apart cross over it everyday.

And what are the refugees going to do if Europe decided enough is enough and stop accepting migrants? Attacks by them will only increase anti-immigrant sentiment.

I agree. The world needs to be flexible towards whatever problems pop up. Closing borders only seals their fate and military intervention will only lead to further destabilisation.

{ Closing borders only seals their fate and military intervention will only lead to further destabilisation. }

How could Syria get any more unstable, exactly?

Germany is now expected to take in one million migrants before the end of the year.

Reminder that Germany is smaller than Montana.

{ In recent years two successive German foreign ministers have warned against engagement in Syria and against arming moderate parts of the opposition. The results were predictable: While Mr. Assad has been propped up by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, and while the Islamic State has seen radical Islamists from Europe and elsewhere rallying to its flag, the moderate forces, which should have been natural allies of the West, have been crushed.

Berlin has repeatedly argued that Western intervention of any kind would just make the situation worse. But Germany and the United States failed to understand that not acting was itself a form of action, and that it has led directly to the battlefield escalation and refugee outflows that the West tried to avoid. }

{ Hungary closed one of the main routes Tuesday that migrants are using to reach the European Union -- plugging the final hole in its border fence with Serbia, implementing harsh new rules for anyone attempting to enter illegally and leaving hundreds massed on its border.

A railway carriage fortified with razor-wire was wheeled in to block the remaining gap in the fence with neighboring Serbia, closing a route that tens of thousands of refugees have used to escape bombings and terrorism in their homelands.

Hungarian authorities took action after an unprecedented influx of migrants entering from Serbia.

A record 9,380 migrants made the crossing Monday, Hungarian police said, nearly double the previous record of 5,809 migrants set a day earlier.

U.N. workers and Serbian authorities encouraged people to relocate to a camp about 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) from the border, but few took them up on the offer in case they missed a temporary opening of the border. }

Refugees go to UN camps where aid and relief is provided.
Economic migrants taking advantage of the crisis refuse that aid in case they miss their chance to get across a border.

"How could Syria get any more unstable, exactly?" ~ lisalombs

He's not talking about Syria. He's talking about Europe and why it's bad for them to close their borders.

{  Closing borders only seals their fate and military intervention will only lead to further destabilisation. }

I think he was talking about both? "Don't close the borders and don't intervene" doesn't really help tho, that's what we've been doing.

Germany and Austria have suspended the Schengen free movement area after it has become clear to German officials that the migrants they are processing are not refugees from Syria.

Hungary has declared a state of emergency as migrants at the border are rioting, climbing on top of buildings and hurling rocks/water bottles/food/whatever they can throw at border police. They've brought out water cannons and tear gas against ~1500 migrants who are chanting "OPEN! OPEN!" and "Allah Hu Akbar". According to Hungarian news reports, there appears to be a ringleader leading the chanting and rioting with a megaphone.

The UN's stats on the crisis now admit that over 70% of the migrants are men. Hungarian news reporters reluctantly reported this fact, hastily adding "there are families too!!"

To be honest, I was talking about Europe and Syria. I just don't see any benefits to occupying another country.

Maybe it's just me, but when a bunch of European countries start erecting up barb wire fences and telling a bunch of minority people to go to camps via trains, I get a bit nervous for what they plan to do to them.

How dare they enforce their borders. They're clearly Hitler.

They're supposed to be going to the refugee centers they claim to be desperate to reach, where UN officials and volunteers are providing aid and relief. That's not where they actually want to go though, hence they're rioting at the border instead.

PASSPORT TO TERROR: MailOnline reporter buys Syrian papers being sold to ISIS fighters sneaking into Europe hidden among refugees

{ Reporter bought $2,000 Syrian passport, ID card and driving licence in Turkey under the name of a real man who was killed in the conflict

Forger boasted that ISIS fighters are using documents to travel to Europe to start terror sleeper cells or live under false name free of past crimes

The genuine documents were stolen from Syria when they were blank. The forger added our reporter's picture and gave him the identity of a Syrian man from Aleppo killed last year. }

German police kill Islamic extremist after knife attack

{ German police shot and killed a known Islamic extremist after he threatened passers-by and attacked an officer with a knife on the streets of Berlin, officials said Thursday.

Security officials confirmed to The Associated Press that the attacker was Rafik Mohamad Yousef, who was convicted seven years ago of belonging to an al-Qaida-linked terror group. }

Reuters press release from last weekend

{ Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri called on young Muslim men in the United States and other Western countries to carry out attacks inside those countries in an audio recording posted online on Sunday.

"I call on all Muslims who can harm the countries of the crusader coalition not to hesitate," Zawahri said referring to Western nations.

"We must now focus on moving the war to the heart of the homes and cities of the crusader West and specifically America." }

Newly released EU figures expose only 1 in 5 migrants is actually from Syria

{ The EU logged 213,000 arrivals in April, May and June but only 44,000 of them were fleeing the Syrian civil war.

Campaigners and left-wing MPs have suggested the vast majority of migrants are from the war-torn state, accusing the Government of doing too little to help them.

'This exposes the lie peddled in some quarters that vast numbers of those reaching Europe are from Syria,' said David Davies, Tory MP for Monmouth. 'Most people who are escaping the war will go to camps in Lebanon or Jordan.

'Many of those who have opted to risk their lives to come to Europe have done so for economic reasons.'

Half a million migrants have arrived in Europe so far this year, with 156,000 coming in August alone. Rather than claiming asylum in the first safe EU country they reach, most head on toward wealthy northern states. The human cost of the crisis has been paid by the estimated 3,000 migrants who have drowned after putting their lives in the hands of people smugglers for the perilous crossing of the Mediterranean. }

{ German Chancellor Angela Merkel fuelled the chaos last month by declaring that any Syrian who reached the country could claim asylum.

When the numbers became uncontrollable Berlin shut its borders, throwing Austria, Hungary and other EU countries into turmoil.

Croatia has received 14,000 migrants in the past two days and was last night moving some to the Hungarian border.

Hungary is laying razor wire on the border having done the same on its border with Serbia.

Croatia has closed seven of eight road crossings to Serbia and ordered its border guards to redirect migrants to Hungary and Slovenia. The Hungarian government described this as 'totally unacceptable'.

Violence broke out yesterday between Syrian and Afghan migrants fighting to board trains across Croatia. }

Can't wait until you guys start acting like real first world humanitarians and offer these poor illegal immigrants (who are immigrating out of an act of love) the welcome goodie bags and driver's licenses and amnesty (so they can vote in the next election) that all illegal immigrants 'residents without legal permission' truly deserve, as is the exemplary solution we show off here in the States.

There is an article about Puerto Rican families taking in Syrian refugee children after President Obama announced that he would let in ten thousand refugees in the next fiscal year. Article is in Spanish.

Now, Puerto Rico is going through one of the worst economical crisis it has ever faced. If we can't take care of ourselves, how are we supposed to take care of others?

The USA takes 20% of the world's total migrants already, the next highest country doesn't even take 5%. Why should we start harboring even 10,000 "Syrian refugees" when no other countries are willing to take in any of our 11 million "Central American refugees"?