11–20 of 198 posts
Most natural way of dealing with the issue is to allow those legally escaping a country to seek asylum wherever they're able to do so and/or to them feels like the best place to go.
> sending a message that caring for people forced from their homes is optional So, they're implying that it's mandatory? How come? Admitting foreign citizens, spending resources on them sounds like a definition of charity — how charity can not be optional?
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 tha…
> sending a message that caring for people forced from their homes is optional So, they're implying that it's mandatory? How come? Admitting foreign citizens, spending resources on them sounds like a definition of charity — how charity can not be optional?
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.
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?
> sending a message that caring for people forced from their homes is optional So, they're implying that it's mandatory? How come? Admitting foreign citizens, spending resources on them sounds like a definition of charity — how charity can not be optional?
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 wh…
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
> sending a message that caring for people forced from their homes is optional So, they're implying that it's mandatory? How come? Admitting foreign citizens, spending resources on them sounds like a definition of charity — how charity can not be optional?
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 tha…
> sending a message that caring for people forced from their homes is optional So, they're implying that it's mandatory? How come? Admitting foreign citizens, spending resources on them sounds like a definition of charity — how charity can not be optional?
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 tha…
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.
> sending a message that caring for people forced from their homes is optional So, they're implying that it's mandatory? How come? Admitting foreign citizens, spending resources on them sounds like a definition of charity — how charity can not be optional?
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 tha…
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.
Most people coming to Europe are economic migrantw, not from countries affected by war. Refugees who can not afford $4000 for transport are left without help.
It all started when Turkey asked for humanitarian aid. Merkel would not send money, but open invitation. It is all one big virtue signaling, most people do not really care about some people in Africa or Asia.
> sending a message that caring for people forced from their homes is optional So, they're implying that it's mandatory? How come? Admitting foreign citizens, spending resources on them sounds like a definition of charity — how charity can not be optional?
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.