What Refugees Bring When They Run for Their Lives

I understand that the refugee debate is an emotional one, but let me try and show you another way of thinking about it.

You said earlier that we shouldn't over-generalise especially with the influx of (positive) stories of these refugees, but one can argue that you're doing the same thing but from the other perspective. In fact, before the Aylan tragedy, I remember that there wasn't much coverage about the refugees themselves, but certainly there was a lot of sentiments, mostly fear, from the media and the public on the Internet. Even NYT remarked on the apparently British obsession with refugees: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/europe/calais-migran... .

Personally I welcome the recent positive stories about the plight of the refugees because it brings balance to the debate, and remind us that they are also human beings and merely want to escape from death and poverty. Who wouldn't run? I'm in no way likening you with Stalin but your quote regarding statistics brought back some chilling memories: "One man is a tragedy, a million statistics". We cannot and must not let go of humanity, not after so much tragedies.

I know that it's completely unrealistic to take in all of them, and I think it's nonsense that one can just open up borders without proper checks - the argument that a terrorist might be disguised as refugee is a valid one, I think. But I also think that neighbouring countries should have responsibilities to accommodate as many refugees as they can handle - and that's where the problems come in. Despite the media pandering on the lack of action from neighbouring Arab countries, Jordan, Lebanon and even Turkey have been taking in millions of refugees for years, even decades, see http://www.mercycorps.org/articles/turkey-iraq-jordan-lebano... . However it's starting to take its toll, and it's definitely not sustainable, which the refugees themselves could see. Lower wages, lower standards of living, growing dissent ... and then there's the next neighbour, rich and civilised: Europe. It's easy to see why it looks like the Promised Land!

Sure, people smugglers exploit this ruthlessly and many have even died trying to reach Europe, but for those who are already at your doorstep, is it really necessary to question if you should take them in or not?

We live on the same planet, and it's getting smaller. We used to think that what happens on the other side of the world won't affect us, but clearly globalisation and the Internet have linked us all up in a way more intimate than before. Sometimes I think that the concept of borders and countries are outdated[1]; we have so much more in common than differences that it's hard to feel "us vs them" now. And I think that's the key with the refugee crisis, and it's the same thing with other global issues like climate change: Division of privileges is increasingly becoming irrelevant and we've got to start thinking like global citizens.

--- [1]though I can't see countries getting scrapped in the future, we're way too tribal for that (!)

That's been done in late 19th-century America, and the result was mass exploitation of immigrants and increased violence. In fact, regulation in the US (unlike in Europe) started as a response to what happened then (the US population cried for more regulation to save them from the Robber Barons). Of course, it was also a time of great economic growth but also third-world-like inequality.

So what you're suggesting isn't a "solution" but merely one approach that may result in an outcome that would be good for some and bad for others -- just like most approaches -- and is based on some values and not others.

I think that most people in the West prefer the current, perhaps more subdued reality than the constant struggles of the Gilded Age.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age

>By "nonexistent border protection" I meant something more like "once you step on EU land, you are free to go anywhere".

The whole point of the EU and the Schengen treaty was to have less border protection between member states. Is your opinion that the European Union is detrimental?

>Maybe fish them out of the water and transport back as soon as possible?

We can't deport the refugees back to war zones because of the european court of human rights (and possibly human decency) and we can't deport migrants until they have been identified because sending them to a random country would be human trafficking (and of course it is in migrants best interest to render themselves hard to identify).

Sources were Turkish, so they are no doubt biased, but this was what I was thinking of:

http://www.euronews.com/2015/08/14/turkish-fisherman-claims-...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3225321/Pirate-rogue...

Here's a Thai accusation: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/23/thai-army-attac...

I am disgusted with the media recently. All western media are portraying this in a A/B approach. Either you accept migrants without hesitation, or you are fascist animal.

Discussion is not allowed and despite growing public dislike of the process of accepting undocumented immigrants from war torn country that is full of ISIS fighters.

Manipulation (majority of pictures show only women, children and few poorly dressed males), public hate towards people asking questions - this is fascist in my opinion.

Unaddressed things like the fact that majority of immigrants are actually safe in Turkey and Lebanon immigrant camps, yet they decide to go to Europe for better life (so its not like they are in danger). Majority of young males getting to Europe (who in their right mind leaves their wifes and kids in war torn country to find a better life if that's the case? Or are they safe in immigration camps?).

Funny thing - leftist parties are actually shooting themselves in the foot as within 5 years we will see huge rise in right wing parties taking over majority of votes. The "right thing to do" took over "right thing to do to our citizens".

IMO this should be handled as follows: immigrants without visas get send to closed immigration camps, where they wait for paper work. If they pass, off they go, if they wont pass they can either stay in the camp or go back to the country of origin. This is how it was decade ago, not sure why all of sudden there was a change. Letting anyone in will cause rise in right wing movements fueled by increased terrorist activism from undocumented immigrants. Anyone saying "hey, this worked before" forgets, that before ALL immigrants were required to apply for proper visa before getting in, not like now, when they get them without any proper check so we dont know who gets in.