What is central Europe supposed to do in the current migrant crisis?

I think the best course of action for the European countries at this time would be for them to close their borders.

As for stopping the war in Syria I'm afraid the Syrians will have to do that themselves.

 

So this may sound dumb but it's been playing on my mind for the last week or so, why now?
Why are we only seeing such numbers in the last few weeks, whats changed?

It's not like the war in Syria is a recent thing so have things suddenly become much worse.

Sorry if I'm showing my ignorance it's just media reports don't seem to be covering the "why now" question.

 

Picture of three-year old drowned on beach has suddenly made the public media aware.

Humanitarian tragedies of international proportions are difficult for people to get their heads around. Usually it takes one iconic picture (Kim Phúc in Bang Trang, or that picture of a starving child watched by a vulture in Southern Sudan) to distil a situation for the public consciousness. That's what has happened here.

The idea that refugees should not be treated like immigrants makes no sense. Refugees got to eat; they got to live somewhere and rebuild and get on with their lives and their children need to go to school and stuff. After all it is very uncertain when they'll be able to go back, and what they'll be able to go back to, and you can't expect them to live in some sort of limbo until that happens. So yes, they are immigrants. Yes, they will gravitate towards a stable economy that looks most able to offer them a job and a means for existence and a future for their children. Would we be any different? I think not.

 

Ah, that youthful innocence and sense of immortality... such irrational states of mind.

I love that logic! Women don't think like men, except the ones who do!

Men and women have somewhat different thinking styles, but they cannot be split along rational/emotional lines and are not as divergent as people like to think. The reality is (as always) more subtle and complex. Men and women are both mainly emotional and somewhat rational; just in slightly different ways. To hold any other ideas is... irrational.

 

I think it's retarded to say that young people fight wars because of their sense of immortality, or anything like that.

People ordering them off to war are not the young.

For the terrorist and rebel groups out there, I doubt very much that it's because they're young. More because they want the country to suit their ideologies or beliefs - For whatever reason.

 

Welcome back Nexxo.

Youthful innocence hardly qualifies as irrational.

That brings me back to context again, you have women who think more like men, just like you have men who think more like women.

What I've been talking about applies to say ~95% of the male and female population respectively, Ok, so around ~5% of men and women do not exhibit these gender based differences, cool, however; that does not disprove or challenge the remaining ~95% a.k.a the norm.

Namely; Men being more logical, rational and pragmatic. Females being more emotional.


I bet if I told you that men get turned on visually and women emotionally you would bring up the ~5% that didn't then proceed to tell us; oh but it's more complex than that and....

Which by the way, would bring me back to this statement; " There is no secret though Nexxo that we men think with three different parts of our bodies whereas for women it is all connected. But this also makes it possible for us to separate "


Edit.

Yes you are right thanks for catching it and pointing it out, I was dead tired last night. I have repped you buddy.

 

I understand that's what brought it into the public consciousness, what I don't understand is why we're seeing the numbers we're seeing now?

Over the W/E something like 800,000 refugees arrived in Germany and other countries saw large increases in numbers, basically in the space of a few months it seems to have gone from hundreds of refugees to thousands.

 

I understand the map is simplifed but if you had to settle in Europe where would you go? The self proclaimed master or somewhere like Greece which is on the brink of collapse and Spain and Italy supposedly aren't fearing too well, maybe Ukrane who was invaded by Russia sounds good. How about another eastern country boarding an aggressive Russia who are having sanctions piled on them?
What about some of those newly formed countries in the 90's where there are still tensions?
If the Money is in the "west" then Germany, France, Netherlands, Austria and the UK are your best bets. Why stop in the kings courtyard when his chambers and treasure room are a few more steps away?

 

Putting myself in their position, I don't blame the refugees for wanting to settle somewhere where they and their families have the best chance to prosper.

I heard one German chap on the news suggest that the refugees may actually help Germany economically. Once settled, working and paying taxes, the influx of younger (on average) refugees will help Germany support its top-heavy, ageing population. It makes a lot more sense to let them stay, work & contribute to a soceity than to just "accommodate" them for a while before deporting them.

 

Yet a week ago, at Monday, a bit more than 3600 people entered Austria, 10 claimed asylum in Austriam, everyone else continued to Germany. On Saturday, after Austria reopened their borders, fro 11k refugees 101 asked for asylum in Austria. And even all who arrive to Germany aren't satisfied, some were caught in Denmark trying to get to Sweden.

 

So everyone complaining about them going to Germany, or trying to get the 'best' of a bad situation.

What do you think we should do? Build a massive fence and tell them to sod off? I'm seeing lots of whining about the situation and absolutely zero solutions.

 

I heard that too and supposedly the attitude if they're fit and successful in getting that far they're the cream of the crop so to speak.

Again I would go as far as I could. Several hundreds of thoisabds are all heading in one direction people will settle and stop. You might as well keep going and hope the rest stop before you. Nothing worse than getting to a new land to find several other country worth of people taking any free job or space available. Again Germany is the kings house, why stop in the courtyard of Austria?

 

If the issue here is an aging German population German women will have to bear more children (of course that requires a society that's more family orientated and family friendly) importing foreigners to counter low German birth rates is not a solution since foreigners will get old too. Also, generally speaking; it is a moral question, what right do we have to plunder the developing countries of their expertise?

Isn't it enough we have "plundered" them of resources in the past? Today China is busy doing this in Africa for instance.

 

They'd better get a move on.

 

I don't know how bad it is to be honest what I do know however is that aging populations are often used as an argument for mass immigration, which makes no sense since immigration isn't a solution to the problem to begin with.

 

Top heavy, ageing populations are a real problem, and not unique to Germany. No matter how automated and efficient a workforce, you need people of working age to produce the wealth needed to offset the demands an aging population places on a country's economy (pensions, healthcare, welfare payments etc).

 

The reason it's used in arguments is because it's true.

 

What part are you referring to?

Replacing the German population with foreigners isn't a solution to low German birth rates. That's not the solution for any peoples. As I said, foreigners gets old too and as they get old you have to import more foreigners, were does it end?


It may prop up the economy short term though.

 

It's not replacing them. That's nationalist feartalk.