Austria has reached its limit on the agreed number they can take in, yet many are still en route and to Macedonia as a transit country. How can they stop people entering and who will pay for all of this? The cost of taking care of thousands of people and not for a a while, but indefinitely, plus the cultural impact will mean cuts in domestic spending. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...n-army-rise-volunteers-police-border-Slovenia Even if they stop them, where do they go? They don't want to stay in Turkey, so what happens then? It will come to it soon when countries will say no more.
I think that as long as there is conflict in countries where refugees come from, they will never stop risking their lives in dangerous waters just to get away from their war-torn countries. The problem though is that it's also the local residents who suffer in countries where they are taken in. Some of their taxes would have to be spent for the aide of the refugees. Maybe governments should think of ways on managing the refugee influx in their countries without having to compromise the welfare of their local people too.
They need to be sent back to where they came from, given help to rebuild that place, and stop those who attacked them and forced them out of where they call home. The people who should pay are people like Angela Merkel who deliberately tried to sacrifice the entire country of Germany to appease people who did not belong there. She knew that they would not be comfortable, welcomed, or able to adapt. She knew that there would be murders, rapes, and disgusting things in addition to outright clashes of culture and irreconcileable differences. She did it anyway, and so did Obama and others. It should be them who pay...not the people. Not the refugees, either. They said "yes" to something which should not have been offered the way it did, and responded and did what was inevitable once they were to arrive, even if unknown to them how it would be wrong. Should they be punished for doing wrong? Certainly. Expecting them to pay when they have no money or resources isn't possible or even to be expected. It should be the politicians of every kind who empowered this to happen that should reasonably pay and do their part to fix what they have done to the peoples and the nations where they permitted this to happen.
I don't know that is a really tough question. I think each country that has an influx of refugees need to set up some kind of renumeration program, where the costs of caring for the refugees is divided up over time and paid back. I think doing some research on what happened to the Bosnian refugees is in order. I remember back in the day hearing about all the refugeses from Kosovo, as far as sending the Syrians back,people are starving in Syria..there is literally nothing to go back to, but death.
A lot of industrialized countries are being overwhelmed by immigration. At the rate the US is going at, by about 2025 to 2030, we will have doubled our population with only immigrants and will have reached an unsustainable population total. Up until the 1990s, the rate of immigration was sustainable, but at that point it increased exponentially. This is why immigration has become such a hot topic recently, because no point in history have we seen such a dangerously high number of immigrants coming in such a short period of time When people argue that our country was founded on immigrants, they fail to realize the rate of immigration was extremely low compared to what it is now. People came to this country to start a life, find work, and be a part of society. There was plenty of land to go around for the small amount of people coming. By about the year 2040, the population should be around 250 million if we continue with the immigration that has happened before the 1990s. At the rate we are going at now, the population will be close to 450 million or more. To answer your question, we simply don't let them in anymore. If somebody wants to pay for them, they can pay for them themselves and leave the rest of us out of it. When they realize how expensive it is and how unsustainable it is, they will come crying that they have no money left
My question is why should it be any other societies bill to pay at all? It is time for the countries of the world to clean up their own mess and stop demanding others bail them out. Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with the refugees who are escaping war zones. That is a hard hand to be dealt, to be sure, and a solution must be found. I'd also add the US has always had very icy relations with Syria, so we're under no obligation to intervene in their internal issues.
The idea is that they will (or should return) go back to their own country after the conflict, however many refuse to go back. Countries should be free and not pressured into taking more refugees than they can cope with. The problem with Merkel opening Germany's doors, is that it opened a door to all EU countries a the same time. It's like Idaho taking in refugees, there is nothing to stop them going to live in the next state once they have their paperwork sorted. If the UN will coerce countries into taking refugees then they should help fund it, and not pull the humanitarian card. How fair is it on the poor and who are on welfare in countries when they see others treated better than themselves?
It's pretty crazy that they're all coming in in huge droves. That worries me. I don't know what kimd of system they have in place but I'm skeptical to see how this goes.
That's such a tough issue to talk about. I do understand the plight of the refugees especially those from countries like Syria or Iraq. It can be quite terrible to live everyday with uncertainty. I know they just want a better life for their families. I think in times like this, there really should be a fund for refugees. Of course, coming from a third world country, such funds might be limited. Maybe there should be an organisation that will be able to handle all the donations for the refugees and give them to places where they seek refuge.
If we are talking about Syria we have to look at who started it. When this ´revolution´ first started, it was mainly the UK hiring mercenaries. Later the US starting ´supporting´ the revolutionaries.. The problem is, there were never Syrians and still are not Syrians who are fighting against Asad. You now have a bunch of different mercenary groups supported by the UK, France and USA, fighting against a Russian funded army for Asad. We wanted the Arab Spring to continue, and unfortunately Asad didn´t topple as fast as the others. And to make matters worse, ISIS then went in and just bought our mercenaries away from us. The reason ISIS is always shown fighting with US weapons and supplies is because those are the same people we had hired to fight Asad. It is no different to the military in Iraq that we armed and trained, and then watched them just switch sides with all our equipment. The refugee crisis will end in Syria when the west stops supporting the mercenary groups that are left, and lets Asad kill them off. The war will end and the people will go back. Asad is like Saddam, they are both a-holes and tyrants, but they keep their country secure. When did we ever hear of Asad besides after this started? Sure, he was being mean to his people, but he didn´t have any issues with Turkey, Lebanon or even Iraq. Syria and Iraq were completely different than Egypt and Tunasia where there was a real revolution. Syria is an invasion (and defense) by surrogates.
