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

151–160 of 198 posts

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

#151

Post by lottin »

madaxe_again wrote: post #107

They're not called refugees over here - they're "migrants". The press and our governments insist that most of them are economic migrants, here to make a quick buck, take your job, claim your benefits, rape your wife and daughter. The rest are apparently IS fighters. In the uk we now have people so filled with hate and fear of immigration that they're murdering politicians. Many will argue that this isn't the case, mo…

Many people have legitimate concerns over mass migration. It's not all a bunch of xenophobes.

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

#152

Post by madaxe_again »

lottin wrote: post #151
madaxe_again wrote: post #107

They're not called refugees over here - they're "migrants". The press and our governments insist that most of them are economic migrants, here to make a quick buck, take your job, claim your benefits, rape your wife and daughter. The rest are apparently IS fighters. In the uk we now have people so filled with hate and fear of immigration that they're murdering politicians. Many will argue that this isn't the case, mo…

Many people have legitimate concerns over mass migration. It's not all a bunch of xenophobes.

What are those legitimate concerns? Income depression? Housing scarcity? Migration hasn't done that, decades of broken robber-baron policy has.

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

#153

Post by dalke »

GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #147
dalke wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 mil…

Those number seem unbelievably high, given there are less than 18 million Syrians total.

Umm, that's why there's a crisis.

Do you think the numbers are wrong? Why, and by how much do you think they are wrong?

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

#154

Post by jlg23 »

hewhowhineth wrote: post #134
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.

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...

I would love to see the actual numbers and how Frontex arrived at them - Frontex' job is NOT to decide on or even investigate in asylum applications at all. They have to refer applicants to relevant national authorities; one becomes an applicant by merely stating the wish to apply for asylum [1].

I furthermore have a severe problem with categorically saying that Moroccans "have no reason whatsoever to ask for refugee status" - the country is not as bad as it once was, but political activists are still far from safe [2].

[1] http://frontex.europa.eu/assets/Publications/Training/Practi...

[2] http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/middle-east-and...

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

#155

Post by Intermernet »

madaxe_again wrote: post #107

They're not called refugees over here - they're "migrants". The press and our governments insist that most of them are economic migrants, here to make a quick buck, take your job, claim your benefits, rape your wife and daughter. The rest are apparently IS fighters. In the uk we now have people so filled with hate and fear of immigration that they're murdering politicians. Many will argue that this isn't the case, mo…

I just spent a month in Europe (coming from Australia). 2 weeks in Germany, then 2 weeks in England and Wales.

It was interesting seeing the difference in opinion in these countries on both treatment of refugees, and the whole "Brexit" situation.

Germans (that I spoke to) see Brexit as a purely racist / nationalist debate and don't really understand why it's being argued as an economic debate. They run the numbers and shake their heads. From an immigration point of view, they bring up, for example, the Spanish situation (~100k spanish people living in the UK, ~500k UK people living in Spain) and wonder why Britain think that leaving the EU is going to be good for "jobs and population" when this imbalance exists in many other european nations as well.

In the UK I saw "Leave" posters everywhere, and occasionally an EU flag or "Remain" poster. Speaking to people it seemed obvious that this debate was primarily about racism / nationalism and the economic questions were secondary to the general population.

I have a feeling that this may be a perfect case-study in how governments disguise contentious and emotive issues (that the general populous have strong opinions on) as economic issues (that are easily mired in layers of complexity) to make the debate seem more palatable to outside observers.

The horrific killing of Jo Cox occurred while I was on the flight back to Australia. It will be interesting to see how, despite the terrible circumstances, this event changes the tone of the debate. After all, it's hard to stomach that someone would kill someone else over the effects of trade policy, but the effects of "migrants" taking jobs are historically contentious. You only need to look at the Trump campaign (And Australia's disastrous immigration policy) to see how passionate these issues can make people.

I think MSF are making the right decision here (from a logical and moral viewpoint) but I hope they don't shoot themselves in the foot with this precedent. After all, it won't take too many further changes before they can't, by the same justification, accept money from the US, Australia, and any other country that seems bent on pushing a nationalist, rather than a humanitarian agenda.

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

#156

Post by lottin »

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #55
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.

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?

Some parts of the Arab world are helping, others are not only not helping but making things worse.

Anyway, people from as far away as Afghanistan and Pakistan are now seeking asylum in Europe. We're talking about billions of people that can potentially claim asylum for one reason or another. This isn't going to work. The EU cannot be made responsible for sorting out the problems that afflict the entire region of Africa and the Middle and the Far East.

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

#157

Post by ferbivore »

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?

If you can find a drug dealer dumb enough to give you money, it would be irresponsible to not take it. That said, your situation has practically nothing in common with MSF's.

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

#158

Post by timtammittee »

DominikR wrote: post #130
timtammittee wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I admit that these numbers do not include people who did not apply for asylum. But in your own source theres a chart showing the distribution of all 1.0919M registered entries. 39.2% Syrian 14.1% Afganistan 11.1% Irak I'd say even though not all of the 1.1M register as asylum seekers (or have not yet registered). Their distribution is quite similar to that of the people who registered.

Most applicants from Afghanistan are not granted asylum at the moment. The problem is that Afghanistan isn't willing to take them back. Also it isn't like everyone from Iraq is given asylum. Oh and btw - NGOs in Europe are actively teaching prospective asylum seekers to say they are from Syria. Most of them do not even speak Arabic. Edit: reply to comment below: Please see this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/r…

In the Frontex Western Balkans Annual Risk Analysis 2016 Frontex investigated Nationality swapping and they found:

"In 2015, 173 042 migrants who claimed Syrian nationality were screened; of which 85.8% were assumed by screeners to be Syrian nationals. As regards the rest, 8.6% were assumed to be Iraqi; 2.5% Palestinian, 1% Moroccan, and 2.1% were assumed to be of other nationality."

So yes, 14.2% of the people who claimed to be from Syria really originated somewhere else. But, if we again sum up those who come from a country who is currently in a state of conflict (I included Palestine), we gain 97%.

Edit: Also, you should note that people are screened again during the process of applying for asylum. So I guess the number of wrongly assigned nationalities is neglectable.

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

#159

Post by dba7dba »

madaxe_again wrote: post #107

They're not called refugees over here - they're "migrants". The press and our governments insist that most of them are economic migrants, here to make a quick buck, take your job, claim your benefits, rape your wife and daughter. The rest are apparently IS fighters. In the uk we now have people so filled with hate and fear of immigration that they're murdering politicians. Many will argue that this isn't the case, mo…

1) Racial superiority or tribal instinct aside, my question is, how is it going to be paid for?

Helping the refugees/migrants integrate will cost a lot of money. Legal representation for them initially. Initial housing. Schooling. Essentially everything has to be paid for by govt until they get some low paying job that will barely pay for their expenses. And most likely they will end up needing govt assistance for the rest of their life because they don't have the skills needed in the local economy. And this life of depending on govt assistance will very possibly be the life of their offsprings too, because they couldn't get the necessary education due to their parents inability to deal with the new society.

2) The people creating the legal standard for dealing with refugees in 1950s and 1960s couldn't possibly have foreseen what's happening today. Certainly not the scale. With smartphone and social media, the scale is something no one expected.

3) Some limit has to be set on how many refugees/migrants are allowed in. Otherwise, the region of Syria/Afg/Iraq will be empty of people except for the warlords and their underlings. Now where do you draw the line?

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

#160

Post by dba7dba »

toyg wrote: post #124
petra wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even so, their view is a bit unrealistic - if the people of the EU don't want to accept refugees, and leaders can't convince them otherwise, why should leaders disobey the people ? Altough one could critize the way refugees we're handled by the authorities - instead of mixing them with the population and surfacing all kinds of tensions, they should have closed, but safe and decent refugee camps, and seperate refugees…

"Camps" in Europe do exist (for all the bad imagery from the last century of European history that the word evokes), but they're chronically overwhelmed. Authorities don't want to fund them, local population often goes NIMBY for the same reasons they don't want them in the country altogether. Like prison, camps tend to amplify and reinforce bad behaviour from all sides. > and also solve the issue of economic immigrat…

> US/UK/France are particularly bad in this, constantly getting involved in all sorts of international diatribes while rarely (if ever) actually picking up the tab when things go to hell.

To be fair, US got dragged into open conflict in ME and surrounding region because Saddam invaded Saudi. And Afg because of 9/11.

There are other nations that cause troubles outside of their border and don't pick up the tab when things go bad.

-China in Korean War, helping North Korea survive.

-Japan and Korean peninsula. Japan's colonization of Korea in 1910 ultimately led to creation of the monster called North Korea.

-Indonesian invasion of East Timor

-Germany stopped causing trouble internationally only after the entire nation was put under foreign occupation for decades after WW2.

Pretty much any nation is capable of causing trouble internationally. Most just can't do it at the scale of US/UK/France, because they don't have the ability, not because they are somehow better members of international community.

Post reply on HN