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

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

#111

Post by DominikR » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 12:51 PM UTC

timtammittee wrote: post #81

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…

This data is incomplete. For Germany it says that they had 440.000 asylum applications in 2015 even though Merkel herself said that they took in over a million in 2015.

Apparently it was 1.1 million registered refugees for Germany alone in 2015. Of these only 476.649 submitted a formal asylum request. Edit: And you can bet that there's a large number of migrants that didn't even register, the minister of interior in Germany even said that there's an issue with a large number of refugees of whom no one knows who they are, where they are and what they are doing here.

Who knows what the rest of them is doing here if they do not even bother to submit an asylum request.

So please don't tell me how 60% of asylum seekers are real refugees, the majority doesn't even try because they are probably smart enough to know that there's no chance that they'll be accepted.

Source: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/fluechtlingskrise/deutsch... (German, sorry - but this is one of the largest pro government online media)

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

#112

Post by caoilte » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 12:52 PM UTC

dalke wrote: post #99

caoilte wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-r…

I thought that was because Saudi Arabia doesn't call them refugees but "Arab brothers and sisters in distress". The number of such people is quite contentious, if https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrians_in_Saudi_Arabia is any evidence. There may be 500K such people "in distress." FWIW, unlike the EU countries, Saudi Arabia isn't signatory to the United Nations Refugee Convention.

Thanks for pointing that out. It's clearly been very heavily politicised.

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

#113

Post by dracht » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 12:53 PM UTC

hacksonx wrote: post #79

South Africa has received a huge influx of refugees overs the years from Zimbabwe, Mozambique & Nigeria. Even though the "people" have protested this and asked for the foreigners to be deported (Legal/Illegal) the government has not done that to humans. How a 3rd (2nd?) world country is able to accommodate people of such numbers while 1st world countries in Europe complain is beyond me.

So the government should ignore the concerns and wishes of the people (or "people" as you refer to them), because they know what is just better than anyone. When, for instance, the government decides to engage in war despite lacking public support, you would of course approve of that. Or should they only concern themselves with democratic principles when you disagree with their decision?

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

#114

Post by echaozh » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 12:57 PM UTC

k-mcgrady wrote: post #62

Freestyler_3 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because it is my heritage. My family history made it happen, and many families around us. I am a child of my mother and not a random baby thrown on a random spot on earth, I carry the burden of maintaining or improving the quality of life for my kids. - Doesn't mean that I do not wish that everyone in this world can have what I have, and I support helping others. - There are ways to come here and join our cultur…

And the only reason you are part of that family is luck. A Syrian refugee didn't choose to be born in Syria at a time when they would have to face civil war at some stage in their life. I think if the tables were turned are you had to flee to Syria your opinion would be vastly different.

Now, China is not in war, but, unluckily, as a Chinese, I have a lower living standard than a European, do I automatically get a chance to be let in Europe and enjoy whatever benefit the Europeans have? Since when has economics stopped working in Euroupe?

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

#115

Post by dalke » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 12:57 PM UTC

curiousgal wrote: post #68

ris wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah - so the only countries that should be expected to take refugees should be those immediately sharing a border with them, right?

Of course not. But when you have "refugees" demanding to be allocated in a safe country and not another safe country then you can't help but question their status as a refugee (i.e. someone seeking safety). http://news.sky.com/story/1557225/refugee-its-germany-or-not...

You say "refugees" but I only saw one such refugee mentioned in your link. I certainly didn't see enough to know if it was 0.1% of the refugees or 10% or some other number.

Now, suppose you are a refugee, a mechanical engineer fluent in Arabic and professionally competent in English.

Would you have a preference for a country like Sweden or Germany where you are more likely to get a job with your skills? Or would you equally accept being told to move to some other "safe country" where there is high unemployment, little demand for mechanical engineering jobs, and few English speakers?

How do you express that preference without your refugee status being questioned?

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

#116

Post by thesimon » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 12:58 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #108

hayao wrote: post #84

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 s…

It's not that simple. Fleeing to a nearby country is one thing. Being able to move all the way to Germany, Denmark or Sweden isn't exactly being fleeing war anymore. The irony is that it's those with most money who can afford to move the furthest away from the refugee camps and many of those who do are men, leaving their family behind hoping to be able to get them to the country they end up in 60% according to some a…

>60% according to some are migrants not refugees.

"according to some"

Wow, I was never convinced more.

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

#117

Post by madaxe_again » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 12:58 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #108

hayao wrote: post #84

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 s…

It's not that simple. Fleeing to a nearby country is one thing. Being able to move all the way to Germany, Denmark or Sweden isn't exactly being fleeing war anymore. The irony is that it's those with most money who can afford to move the furthest away from the refugee camps and many of those who do are men, leaving their family behind hoping to be able to get them to the country they end up in 60% according to some a…

You buy the propaganda line then? Are the other 40% IS in your book?

By your argument we should just let them all sleep in a ditch next to the border of the country they fled, because that's good enough? That is more or less what is happening now.

Tell me. If Britain were engaged in a shooting war, would you consider the Isle of Man safe? Or would you go further?

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

#118

Post by thesimon » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 1:04 PM UTC

DominikR wrote: post #102

What is constantly ignored by the media is the fact that most people coming to the EU illegally at the moment are not refugees but migrants that come because their countries economy is in bad shape. For example in Austria only about 20% of refugees are given asylum status, the others are simply found to be illegal immigrants. Though I can understand the motivation for these people to come we can't take in everyone fr…

>For example in Austria only about 20% of refugees are given asylum status, the others are simply found to be illegal immigrants.

[citation needed]

Official stats of May [0] saying 75% of the applications for asylum are granted.

[0]: http://www.bmi.gv.at/cms/BMI_Asylwesen/statistik/files/2016/...

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

#119

Post by hewhowhineth » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 1:04 PM UTC

timtammittee wrote: post #81

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…

"More than half of those fleeing to Europe from the Middle East and Africa are economic migrants and not asylum seekers fleeing the horrors of war in Iraq or Syria, according to first vice-president of the European Commission, Frans Timmermans.

Quoting what he said were new, unpublished, figures from the EU border agency, Frontex, Mr Timmermans said: “More than half of the people now coming to Europe come from countries where you can assume they have no reason whatsoever to ask for refugee status … more than half, 60 percent.”

Those 60 percent were predominantly from north Africa, mainly Moroccans or Tunisians who were leaving their own countries for “economic reasons” and attempting to travel to Europe through Turkey, the former Netherlands foreign minister told the Dutch national broadcaster, NOS."

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/most-fleeing-to...

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

#120

Post by dalke » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 1:04 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #108

hayao wrote: post #84

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 s…

It's not that simple. Fleeing to a nearby country is one thing. Being able to move all the way to Germany, Denmark or Sweden isn't exactly being fleeing war anymore. The irony is that it's those with most money who can afford to move the furthest away from the refugee camps and many of those who do are men, leaving their family behind hoping to be able to get them to the country they end up in 60% according to some a…

"Being able to move all the way to Germany, Denmark or Sweden isn't exactly being fleeing war anymore."

That is because of how international travel works. Many of those people would love to hop on a plane, land in country X, and request refugee status. But the flight system is set up to prevent that. Only those with a visa (or visa waiver) are allowed on the plane.

It used to be that refugees could travel by passenger ship. Look at the refugees from Germany who came to the US because of the second world war. Including the MS St. Louis where the refugees were denied entry to Cuba, Canada, and the United States.

We have no real passenger fleets, so that is no longer possible.

The only option left is to travel by land.

"60% according to some are migrants not refugees."

Do you have any references for that statement? Even if true, millions of people are refugees.