I mean it's their choice of course, who they want to live in their village or community. Just a shame they have to pay money for this very basic liberty.
I mean it's their choice of course, who they want to live in their village or community. Just a shame they have to pay money for this very basic liberty.
$290k is not even enough to buy a house in Switzerland, while 10 refugees would probably need more than 1 house, among other expenses... Seems like a win to me.
Well, if they disagree with EU policies, they are always free to quit. If they want to get the benefits EU provides, while not following the treaties they signed... then yeah, gotta pay!
I think people are confusing apples and oranges here. Refugee != Economy Tourists.
You have the people who are, how to say politely - useless to a community and just want benefits - and then you've got the people fleeing for legit reasons.
The first group is usually a problem, the second group are usually educated and when they aren't, they don't come to cause problems.
They should take more of them. Those refugees deserve to be treated much better than they are now.
Yes, but sending them in a small village with 300 millionaires in it doesn't sound like a good idea. Why not send them in, say, Geneva, where, considering the size of the population, it won't affect anything much?
Ah, okay, I see. I didn't know villages there had this level of autonomy.
That's a pittance compared to the cost of a fertilizer bomb with nails going off and leveling half your townhall/courthouse
Um, why?
I get we're talking about a village here, but it IS, in every conceivable context, a person's right to decide whether or not they allow someone to live in their home or, to decide if they spend their money housing someone else (or not, as the case may be).
I don't think this is reasonable, and certainly not laudable. Use some of that money to sift through the refugees for a few that are very willing to integrate, or are not hardcore Muslim.
Some of these people still legitimately need help.