Doctors Without Borders doesn't take money from EU anymore • Hacker News Board

Re: Doctors Without Borders doesn't take money from EU anymore

#21

Post by curiousgal » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 11:43 AM UTC

dalke wrote: post #10

golergka wrote: post #2

> 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…

Are they really refugees though?

Re: Doctors Without Borders doesn't take money from EU anymore

#22

Post by raverbashing » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 11:44 AM UTC

dalke wrote: post #13

raverbashing wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are "limits" and there are "limits". 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?

The limit is the receiving countries not becoming what they're fleeing from, obviously

If you disagree, my suggestion is that you take in your house as many refugees as the number of people that currently live in it.

> If the receiving country has no room, is broke, and its citizenry are on the edge of starvation, then that's one limit.

Oh of course, let's destroy whole countries otherwise people like you will think they're racist and petty. Genius.

Re: Doctors Without Borders doesn't take money from EU anymore

#23

Post by johncolanduoni » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 11:47 AM UTC

raverbashing wrote: post #14

igk wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> on why not being charitable, solidaric, or however you want to call it is immoral and shortsighted 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 p…

> Which is a very nice strawman

I'm curious as to what is a strawman in that statement? You are arguing charity should be optional, he said "not being charitable". Where in that sentence is he misrepresenting the position he is claiming is immoral and shortsighted? Is the word solidaric that much of a sticking point?

I've found quite a few arguments against allowing the influx of migrants from the middle east to continue unabated to be at the very least reasonable (I have family in Greece that are seeing it first hand), but none of them start and end with "black and white", with the middle filled with comparisons to ISIS.

If you have something to say about the actual issue, I'd love to hear it.

Re: Doctors Without Borders doesn't take money from EU anymore

#24

Post by dalke » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 11:47 AM UTC

manmal wrote: post #12

dalke wrote: post #10

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.

"Many" as in absolute values like "more than 1,000"? I can believe that.

Or "many" as in relative values like "more than 30%"? I have difficulties believing that. If so, it's amazing how coincidental the timing is between the start of the ongoing civil war in Syria and the start of the refugee crisis.

It's also amazing how the UN "has identified 13.5 million Syrians requiring humanitarian assistance, of which 6.6 million are internally displaced within Syria, and over 4.8 million are refugees outside of Syria." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_W... . Are the ones you mentioned in addition to those numbers?

Re: Doctors Without Borders doesn't take money from EU anymore

#25

Post by stdbrouw » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 11:47 AM UTC

manmal wrote: post #12

dalke wrote: post #10

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.

This is an almost arbitrary distinction. These people are looking for a better life, one without violence but hopefully, yes, also one where they're not stuck in poverty. Maslow's pyramid and all that.

Re: Doctors Without Borders doesn't take money from EU anymore

#26

Post by curiousgal » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 11:47 AM UTC

jkot wrote: post #19

It is very inefficient to bring people to Germany and other western countries in order to help them. We could help one person in Germany, or another 10 people in Turkey for the same money. 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…

>Most people coming to Europe are economic migrantw, not from countries affected by war

Exactly this. The reasonable thing to do would've been to differentiate refugees from others and proceed to help the refugees because there's no question about that.

Edit: Wait, I take it by the downvotes that you think people should not be screened and that everyone who shows up at the borders is a distressed refugee fleeing war? I am a Third World citizen and I know for a fact that no one thinks of Europe as a dreamland so yeah, you're good, refugees are all you've been/will be getting. /s

Re: Doctors Without Borders doesn't take money from EU anymore

#27

Post by Freestyler_3 » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 11:48 AM UTC

I do not wish harm for any innocent people. If they want they can get what we have in their own country, they need to make that possible though, if needed with our help. (I think there should be more focus on taking care of refugees and the like in the region... or at least more in countries that support their culture) Only when really necessary we need to take refugees into europe for protection, usually those are political refugees. We make something good for our children and we -have- to share it with the whole world in our house?

Re: Doctors Without Borders doesn't take money from EU anymore

#28

Post by corin_ » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 11:48 AM UTC

zyngaro wrote: post #17

manmal wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They should let only wealthy refugees in then right ?

The question isn't whether being rich/poor affects somebody's potential status as a refugee for non-economic reasons (e.g. persecution in their home country), it's whether enconomic reasons alone are enough to justify "refugee" status. Which side you come down on regarding this is subjective, but either way your comment isn't relevant.

Re: Doctors Without Borders doesn't take money from EU anymore

#29

Post by golergka » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 11:48 AM UTC

dalke wrote: post #10

golergka wrote: post #2

> 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…

Didn't know that, now it actually makes sense. Thanks.

Re: Doctors Without Borders doesn't take money from EU anymore

#30

Post by k-mcgrady » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 11:49 AM UTC

nxzero wrote: post #11

I support Doctors Without Borders choice and strongly disagree with how the EU is dealing the issue; and for that matter not dealing with the related issues. 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.

>> "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."

The problem with that is that the first countries they tend to arrive in are poorer European countries that don't have the necessary resources to process them. Allowing them to choose which country they want to go to will end up burdening the richer European countries as they will undoubtedly be the final destination for most migrants.

I disagree with how it's being handled too but I don't think your solution would work.

I think if we had some sort of EU organisation that works in border countries and deals with processing and then distributes migrants fairly throughout the continent it would be best. Processing takes so long though that it's still going to either burden border countries or refugees will be kept in detention centres throughout processing which is unethical in my view.