Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Doctors Without Borders doesn't take money from EU anymore

msf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 198 posts

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

#131

Post by jkot »

daleharvey wrote: post #87
peteretep wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe rather than forcing people to cross the sea, we could send money directly in the first place.

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

#132

Post by sorenjan »

dalke wrote: post #120
ThomPete wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 passenge…

> "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.

Refugees fleeing from war are forced to travel through the entire European continent to the northern countries with the most beneficial social security because of how international travel works?

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

> Do you have any references for that statement?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/12123684...

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

#133

Post by blahi »

megalodon wrote: post #109
timtammittee wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Thank you for posting this. I am baffled at how some people just ignore reality and post (and believe in?) lies, even here on HN where most of us work with data. It's amazing that fact checking and critical thinking is so low in this internet age where information is freely available for everyone.

It's funny that you mention crtitical thinking when working with data. this data reports country of origin. Now make that critical thiught work please, and tell me why these refugees insist on goingfrom the safe Turkey to Germany?

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

#134

Post by hewhowhineth »

jlg23 wrote: post #32
curiousgal wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?…

>> 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.

According to first vice-president of the European Commission, citing some internal report from the Frontex (EU border agency), 60% are economic migrants.

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

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

#135

Post by madaxe_again »

sorenjan wrote: post #128
madaxe_again wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What's your take on the camps in France [0] filled with migrants trying to get to Britain? Which wars in France are they fleeing? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calais_Jungle

People are trying to flee to somewhere familiar, be it because of language or brand presence. Additionally, many report they want to join family (cousins etc) already in the uk through legal means. I'm sure there are charlatans among them - but we are enacting collective punishment currently, which was largely abolished centuries ago.

What's your take on the 3000 refugee a year limit the uk is working to? (20,000 by 2020)

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

#136

Post by hayao »

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…

According to the Article 26 of the document I posted above, "each Contracting State shall accord to refugees lawfully in its territory the right to choose their place of residence to move freely within its territory, subject to any regulations applicable to aliens generally in the same circumstances."; according to the second point of the Article 31 of that same document, "the Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country."

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

#137

Post by dalke »

raverbashing wrote: post #89
dalke wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Take has many shades of meaning. "We take AmEx" means "We accept American Express card if you wish to pay that way." It doesn't mean that if I see an AmEx card I grab it.

If it helps, feel free to interpret my use of "taking" as short for "taking in", with meaning of "to admit; receive".

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

#138

Post by hayao »

DominikR wrote: post #123
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…

Once they arrive in Turkey or Greece their lives are not threatened anymore. Where does it say that refugees can pick and choose wherever they'd like to live. Why don't you import them to San Francisco? I guess life is even better there than in some small German town. Or how about Monaco or Disney Land?

According to the Article 26 of the document I posted above, "each Contracting State shall accord to refugees lawfully in its territory the right to choose their place of residence to move freely within its territory, subject to any regulations applicable to aliens generally in the same circumstances."; according to the second point of the Article 31 of that same document, "the Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country."

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

#139

Post by madaxe_again »

DominikR wrote: post #127
madaxe_again wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you think, if dropped into, say, Uzbekistan, you would immediately understand their language and bureaucratic processes? Because that seems to be your expectation of migrants. By any chance, do you support pegida? Or are they too left wing?

I don't even understand what point you are trying to make (aside from telling me that you hate me) as it is totally unrelated to my previous comment. Do you have anything substantial to add? Again, 1.1 million refugees registered, only 467.xxx of them submitted an asylum request and on top of that there's a large number of refugees that are not even registered. Therefore the 60% figure cannot be correct for anyone wh…

My point is that they may not know how or whether to submit an asylum request. Do you know the process?

I don't hate you, I just pity you for having a selfish worldview - I hope you don't one day find yourself in need of help only to find your alter ego going "nope, I don't believe you."

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

#140

Post by GunboatDiplomat »

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.

Well, it seems to me that if a majority of South Africans oppose allowing these people in, they should not be allowed in.
Post reply on HN