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

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

#81

Post by timtammittee » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 12:32 PM 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.

Where do you get this information.

If you talk about asylum seekers (The majority of the current inbound traffic), you can look up the numbers yourself they are published as datasets by the UNHCR [1]

Looking at the top 5 origin states of asylum seekers for 2015 and 2016 reveals:

Syrian Arab Rep. 30.5% Afghanistan 18.1% Iraq 11.9% Serbia and Kosovo 3.5% Pakistan 2.9%

So more then 60% of the 2.7M asylum seekers are from Syria, Afganistan or Iraq all of which are currently in a state of conflict.

[1] http://popstats.unhcr.org/en/asylum_seekers_monthly

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

#82

Post by cjhpufe » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 12:33 PM UTC

oli5679 wrote: post #63

jlg23 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Most people coming to Europe are economic migrantw [sic] Source for that statement? > The reasonable thing to do would've been to differentiate refugees from others This is exactly what we are doing, but this requires actual checks, not just a look at a person's face.

Anecdote, so place as much weight on this as you wish. I was working in a Starbucks in North London and sat next to a businessman. He started advising his wife/fiancee's distant family members on the phone who had travelled to Greece. He gave them detailed instructions to (1) destroy their passports and forms of ID, (2) claim to be Syrian refugees fleeing from a war-zone and spend a couple of days rehearsing their st…

My partner's father is an immigration lawyer and does similar for people entering from his country of origin. Although many are from regions genuinely affected by war, still more were admitted as refugees because they told a good story.

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

#83

Post by caoilte » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 12:33 PM UTC

InclinedPlane wrote: post #69

dzaragozar wrote: post #46

Why is the EU the only responsible for refugees? Why not other states? Why not Russia, the Gulf states, Japan or the United States? It is getting tiring the bashing against the EU. The EU is getting refugees at the rate it deems convenient, if some other state is worried about the situation in Syria please take refugees, but please stop labeling the EU as evil.

Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Egypt, and Libya together have taken in a total of 6.7 million refugees. The EU has committed to taking on only 120k refugees.

It appears not to be fair to group Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait with the other states you have listed.

while Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt have taken in around 5 million refugees, and boatloads of the destitute are making their way to Europe, the Gulf states have taken only a few hundred refugees, according to data from the UN's refugee agency (UNHCR).

http://www.dw.com/en/arab-monarchies-turn-down-syrian-refuge...

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

#84

Post by hayao » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 12:33 PM UTC

I'm fully in favour of MSF's stance, asylum seekers must have their rights recognised. These people are fleeing war and, adding to be forced to remain in overcrowded camps in dire conditions, they're even deprived of legal representation. It's a country's duty to receive refugees, according to the 1951 Refugee Convention and to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[1]. EU's action gives the precedence for other states to refuse refugees access to their own safety.

[1] - http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf

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

#85

Post by dalke » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 12:34 PM UTC

lucio wrote: post #36

dalke wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

So, by following your reasoning, a sound-economy country, should receive aliens until such receiving country has no room, is broke, and everybody are on the edge of starvation?

No.

Everyone agrees that there are material limits to what a country can provide. It is indeed obvious that there is a limit to the amount of help that a country can provide.

But raverbashing used a bait-and-switch argument, to say that because there are limits, we (people who live in the EU), can now prevent refugees from entering the EU countries.

What I asked is clarification of what those limits are, and how they were determined.

One limit is "tolerance for foreigners." That's certainly a limit. Is that the limit that raverbashing is talking about?

Another limit is "there is no place to put them." Sweden has problems with that.

I can think of other limits. But none are the sort of existential limits that everyone agrees exists.

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

#86

Post by caoilte » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 12:35 PM UTC

nxzero wrote: post #39

toyg wrote: post #34

Uh, regardless of your stance on the specific topic (refugee handling), isn't this simply a tactical mistake? Let's say the EU is your enemy. They offer you money. Is it tactically smarter to flatly refuse the money (you are poorer, your enemy is marginally richer, nothing has changed) or rather to accept the money and then use it to fight the donor (you are richer, your enemy is marginally poorer and you are effecti…

Say you are a non-profit that helps drug addicts, should you take money from drug dealers?

I think he's saying that, "Yes, you should use that money and you should use it to hire Chuck Norris."

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

#87

Post by daleharvey » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 12:36 PM UTC

peteretep wrote: post #71

daleharvey wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are probably right, people are dying in their thousands to cross the med because they want some more cash ...

Why do you think they're crossing the med instead of staying in Turkey?

Turkey doesnt give out refugee status and has little protection for refugees, including being able to return them to where they are fleeing from, it is completely overloaded with a lack of resources.

While Europe makes it disgustingly hard for refugees to enter the human rights and eu law provided make it a much more realistic place to be stable / settled if you can get in.

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

#88

Post by em3rgent0rdr » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 12:36 PM UTC

dzaragozar wrote: post #73

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU is the closet first world region. And they are signers to the convention. Arab world is helping...havent you heard about the huge refugee camps in Jordan?

Being close is no excuse in this globalized world. Also to take refugees there is no need to be a first world country. I should have included China in my previous list. Completely true, but Jordan is not the only Arab country able to help.

There is also the economic realism that labor will naturally move to where it thinks it can be best off. China is relatively over-populated.

Closeness is an important factor when you realize that there are lots of refugees and that their wealth has been wiped out by war. So while the refugees might have enough money to hike or get a boat or plane ticket, they surely can't afford to fly across the world. And no one should be forced to pay to fly them, either. All they want is the opportunity to build a better life for themselves.

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

#89

Post by raverbashing » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 12:36 PM UTC

dalke wrote: post #67

raverbashing wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Boo-hoo. I live in Sweden. We have taken in huge numbers of people. The difference between being charitable and naive is a thin one. > Sweden is also far from becoming like Syria. Let's hope so. And while I agree most of the "news" on the Internet about Sweden are crap, Sweden has an important gender imbalance and increasing problems with violence Also nobody speaks anything and pretends it doesn't happen because "…

So you agree that most of the EU countries are not near the limits that you are worried about, yes? Then why aren't they taking more refugees?

> Then why aren't they taking more refugees?

I know it's a matter of wording, but no country "takes", but has people apply for asylum either before going or when there. Though Canada provided transportation to those approved.

It can be said that countries might need to facilitate/advertise this more (and not only in Europe). Some South American countries took some people as well (not as much as Europe though)

Oh and Poland received a lot of refugees from Ukraine (some say around 1Mi)

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

#90

Post by CydeWeys » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 12:36 PM UTC

panic wrote: post #45

CydeWeys wrote: post #42

A lot of the rapid shift in migration policy has been caused by the increasing prevalence of the view that a lot of refugees will never fit into "polite society". Reference the various sexual assaults across European countries by roving gangs of young men used to very different cultural mores who aren't assimilating culturally. If the choice comes down to protecting refugees or protecting your own society and the mor…

The vast majority of refugees aren't committing sexual assault. If you care about reducing sexual assault, supporting domestic violence shelters and education (e.g. programs like http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/prevent... ) would be much more effective than reducing immigration. Most sexual assault occurs between people who already know one another, not random foreign strangers.

Be that as it may, my explanation of the prevailing politics and perceptions of the situation is accurate. "If we let them come here they'll rape our daughters" is working as political rhetoric, and is a chief motivation behind these changes.