European migrant crisis [Megathread]

[Hooked]

If I were elected leader the migrant crises would be over the same day. Well at least within a few days anyways, ordering people around takes time.

[Deleted]

if i were elected leader the migrant crises would be over the same day. Well at least within a few days anyways, ordering people around takes time.

stronk!!!!!!!!

[Hooked]

stronk!!!!!!!!

Simon ese!!!

[Mayhem]

So, you are still wrong - I see.

To quote on of many human rights activists:
"The existence of a right to leave does not entail an automatic right to enter other states."
http://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/ebo...s/GCIM_TP8.pdf

Or why not the court case "Napijalo v Croatia" where the court stated:
"The Court reiterates that the right of freedom of movement as guaranteed by paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 is intended to secure to any person a right to liberty of movement within a territory and to leave that territory, which implies a right to leave for such country of the person's choice to which he may be admitted"

So far you have provided the following evidence to support your statement: <nothing>

How am i supposed to provide evidence for something that never happened?

Again, back to the liechtenstein example, you can´t leave liechtenstein without traveling through switzerland or austria, if both countries deny you entering their territory they are denying you the right to leave your country.

Thanks for the first link, the quote provided by the author links to another author who writes the following:

International Migration and Global Justice by Satvinder Juss

[Hooked]

Make me leader I will solve this illegal alien problem on the first 30 days. Hint: they are all going back.

[nextormento]

You don´t have the human right to enter a specific country, but with the human right to leave your country you also have the right to enter another country.

Going back to the liechtenstein example, if both austria and switzerland denied you entry for no reason other than you being from liechtenstein would be in violation of your right to leave your country, since you are unable to leave your country. This most certainly will never happen.

You can always try and build a rocket and fly vertically to the moon.
I have a right to marry; it doesn't mean the state will secure a way for me to exercise it: I need to actually seek a partner.

[Slant]

How am i supposed to provide evidence for something that never happened?

Again, back to the liechtenstein example, you can´t leave liechtenstein without traveling through switzerland or austria, if both countries deny you entering their territory they are denying you the right to leave your country.

Thanks for the first link, the quote provided by the author links to another author who writes the following:

International Migration and Global Justice by Satvinder Juss

The UDHR isn't binding. And having a right doesn't mean you can exercise it all the time.

[Mayhem]

The UDHR isn't binding. And having a right doesn't mean you can exercise it all the time.

Never said you can exercise it at all time.

- - - Updated - - -

You can always try and build a rocket and fly vertically to the moon.
I have a right to marry; it doesn't mean the state will secure a way for me to exercise it: I need to actually seek a partner.

Not all rights are comparable, for example you have a right to a passport or a comparable document to exercise your right to leave your country.

[Deleted]

Erm.... any country can enforce its borders. The thing is any country can do that WHILE respecting these people rights as humans. That means no shooting, no sinking and shit like that. Process their claims and take appropriate decisions, all of this while treating them as humans.

[Slant]

Erm.... any country can enforce its borders. The thing is any country can do that WHILE respecting these people rights as humans. That means no shooting, no sinking and shit like that. Process their claims and take appropriate decisions, all of this while treating them as humans.

Wait, Djalil, is this why we can't just shoot or sink refugees in the mediterranean? Is this why we have to take them up the shore and identify and feed them before sending them back or sheltering them?

*mind blown*

- - - Updated - - -

Never said you can exercise it at all time.

If that wasn't your point, I don't understand the quote of the UDHR. What was your point?

[Deleted]

Wait, Djalil, is this why we can't just shoot or sink refugees in the mediterranean? Is this why we have to take them up the shore and identify and feed them before sending them back or sheltering them?

*mind blown*

- - - Updated - - -



If that wasn't your point, I don't understand the quote of the UDHR. What was your point?

What a revolutionary way of thinking isn't it. "Treat humans as humans"

[Mayhem]

If that wasn't your point, I don't understand the quote of the UDHR. What was your point?

That there is a right to migration.

[Slant]

That there is a right to migration.

Is this still about countries not letting you expatriate? What's the point of this sub-discussion?

To be a bit more constructive, a right to migration is firstly just that. The general idea that nobody can deny that you have a right to migrate without a proper reason. Now, a border is a pretty good "proper reason". As is the case with most human rights, there are situations in which rights conflict. Even a right to migrate has to respect the right of countries to determine who can enter their territory and who can't. So yes, technically, you have a right to migrate. But in practice, your right to migrate means jack shit.

This is btw one of the reasons why many people just ignore the UDHR, because it's badly phrased and a lot of impractical ideological ideas that clash with the real world. It's a lot of "how it should be" and sometimes not compatible with "how it actually is".

I'm open for discussion about all of that, but to me, the UDHR is a sort of supranational global Earth "could be" collection of rights if everyone played nice. A goal to achieve rather than a representation of current affairs. Know what I mean?

[Mayhem]

Is this still about countries not letting you expatriate? What's the point of this sub-discussion?

To be a bit more constructive, a right to migration is firstly just that. The general idea that nobody can deny that you have a right to migrate without a proper reason. Now, a border is a pretty good "proper reason". As is the case with most human rights, there are situations in which rights conflict. Even a right to migrate has to respect the right of countries to determine who can enter their territory and who can't. So yes, technically, you have a right to migrate. But in practice, your right to migrate means jack shit.

This is btw one of the reasons why many people just ignore the UDHR, because it's badly phrased and a lot of impractical ideological ideas that clash with the real world. It's a lot of "how it should be" and sometimes not compatible with "how it actually is".

It started with this:

Migration is not a human right.

and somehow went on to forogil lecturing me on the differences between the UDHR and 4 freedoms of the EU.

I'm open for discussion about all of that, but to me, the UDHR is a sort of supranational global Earth "could be" collection of rights if everyone played nice. A goal to achieve rather than a representation of current affairs. Know what I mean?

Well yes and no, mostly no though. ^^

[Slant]

It started with this:


and somehow went on to forogil lecturing me on the differences between the UDHR and 4 freedoms of the EU.

Hum, as much as I hate to admit it, he's right in that everyone ignores the UDHR. So no, it's not a human right. The next logical step is to look at what each country guarantees, and you'll probably find vast differences between them. I'd be surprised if you find any country that has "migration" as a human right, this is opposed to "free movement" (within that country), which I know of at least one country that deems it a human right.

[Mayhem]

Hum, as much as I hate to admit it, he's right in that everyone ignores the UDHR. So no, it's not a human right. The next logical step is to look at what each country guarantees, and you'll probably find vast differences between them. I'd be surprised if you find any country that has "migration" as a human right, this is opposed to "free movement" (within that country), which I know of at least one country that deems it a human right.

It´s a human right that´s mostly ignored because it rarely comes up, it´s still a human right. I doubt there´s even one country that doesn´t 'break' at least one human right.

[Slant]

It´s a human right that´s mostly ignored because it rarely comes up, it´s still a human right. I doubt there´s even one country that doesn´t 'break' at least one human right.

Something isn't a human right, because the UN thinks it is. Many countries had their human rights established long before the UN even existed. The UN declaration is a bit of a latecomer to the whole human rights movement. It's certainly not a valid reference. So no, countries aren't "breaking" human rights if they don't follow the UN declaration. Mostly because there isn't a human right anchored in nature. It's much a human concept as it is artificial. That's why we need to make these declarations, because it's not the normal state of things. And some declarations (national) are binding law while others (UN declaration) are wishful thinking. That doesn't mean anyone's breaking any human rights.

You've now entered a philosophical discussion on what things should be human rights, btw. And as such, this is your (valid) opinion against others, but at the very least, it's disconnected from a pragmatic discussion about how the world actually works.

[Deleted]

UDHR was not created to handle the situation we are in right now.

UDHR is actually getting somewhat ABUSED by refugeess, because instead of just goin to a place where they are safe, they now go to the place where they have the biggest financial benefit, and thats not what the UDHR was designed for. Thats mostly the fault of germanys policy, and a huge business for facilitators.

And the pro refugee people in our countrys are cheap, shortsighted and dump people. Only a small number of somewhat privileged refugees even have the chance to come to europe. With the sae money we waste here in central europe on refugees, we could take care about 20 times as much of them if we invest into refugee camps in the region where they come from. But those are far away, no one cares about them, but for the railway-station-clappers and welcome cryers, that doesnt matter. All that matters for those people is, that they can clap themselves on the sholder in the evening, say "i m such a good person".....because at the moment its the hipster trend nr. 1 to be pro refugees.

[Mayhem]

Something isn't a human right, because the UN thinks it is. Many countries had their human rights established long before the UN even existed. The UN declaration is a bit of a latecomer to the whole human rights movement. It's certainly not a valid reference. So no, countries aren't "breaking" human rights if they don't follow the UN declaration. Mostly because there isn't a human right anchored in nature. It's much a human concept as it is artificial. That's why we need to make these declarations, because it's not the normal state of things. And some declarations (national) are binding law while others (UN declaration) are wishful thinking. That doesn't mean anyone's breaking any human rights.

You've now entered a philosophical discussion on what things should be human rights, btw. And as such, this is your (valid) opinion against others, but at the very least, it's disconnected from a pragmatic discussion about how the world actually works.

People use this and that is not a human right as justification for their ideas or actions. I merely pointed out that he´s wrong by saying that, not that countries have to follow, do follow or will follow human rights. Still there are cases where the article we were talking about was upheld in court, but as i already said, there is more to it than just "wrong and right".

- - - Updated - - -

UDHR was not created to handle the situation we are in right now.

UDHR is actually getting somewhat ABUSED by refugeess, because instead of just goin to a place where they are safe, they now go to the place where they have the biggest financial benefit, and thats not what the UDHR was designed for. Thats mostly the fault of germanys policy, and a huge business for facilitators.

And the pro refugee people in our countrys are cheap, shortsighted and dump people. Only a small number of somewhat privileged refugees even have the chance to come to europe. With the sae money we waste here in central europe on refugees, we could take care about 20 times as much of them if we invest into refugee camps in the region where they come from. But those are far away, no one cares about them, but for the railway-station-clappers and welcome cryers, that doesnt matter. All that matters for those people is, that they can clap themselves on the sholder in the evening, say "i m such a good person".....because at the moment its the hipster trend nr. 1 to be pro refugees.

The same old argument, don´t you people get bored of it?

[Nitro Fun]

Actually there is - On virtually any metric you chose you are better of homogenous rather than not.

That's a lie. Racial or ethnical diversity is no different than a homogeneous population. There aren no benefits to having a homogeneous racial or ethnical population and there are no negatives to racial or ethnical diversity.