Should Europe send refugees to America and the UK?

[Derpleton]

Which is irrelevant, as they would have no way of getting the refugees into the UK. Unless the UK is willing to take them, which they aren't, then your plan is dead in the water, much like the refugees would be.

If the refugee's are all dead that sorta fixes the problem for both sides don't it? lol

[Theodarzna]

Countries can leave the EU if they don't like it. End of story. The Germans have a right to help in the way they can.

Britain voted to leave and the Salt and Butt fury has not ceased'.

[Deleted]

Destabalisation of Syria and Libya? France says 'Bonjour'.

The French are miserable already, no need to put more blame on them.

Which is irrelevant, as they would have no way of getting the refugees into the UK. Unless the UK is willing to take them, which they aren't, then your plan is dead in the water, much like the refugees would be.

We would. You'd just wait and see.

[Theodarzna]

What would America do if refugees were sent to Mexico, and went to America afterwards? Please tell me America would do anything about it after the next election. Please.

And, if they did, it would simply destroy relations between America and Europe, which is Europe's aim since the establishment of the EU. It's a win-win scenario for Europe.

Mexican cartels would likely kill them? Why would Mexico take them in? Even as a transit.

[Derpleton]

What would America do if refugees were sent to Mexico, and went to America afterwards? Please tell me America would do anything about it after the next election. Please.

And, if they did, it would simply destroy relations between America and Europe, which is Europe's aim since the establishment of the EU. It's a win-win scenario for Europe.

The US would build a wall and Putin says Hi

[Cizr]

Why should Europe take them ? Why not Turkey,Saudi Arabia or Israel ?

[Guy4123]

Mexican cartels would likely kill them? Why would Mexico take them in? Even as a transit.

I have a feeling he thinks country are like just some dude you can go have a chat with and have them do things like mass smuggle millions of people through them just because you asked.

He even thinks Canada would do it too. Maybe he's watched too much Hetalia.

[Deleted]

The fact that OP thinks forcing refugees onto countries will solve problems instead of creating more is laughable

[Deleted]

Mexican cartels would likely kill them? Why would Mexico take them in? Even as a transit.

Mexico would get financial aid from Europe, and would simply have no reason not to. Refugees would go to America, so Mexico can do as good as just look away.

[Seranthor]

This is a straightforward question, so do your best to answer it straightforwardly.

Unless one has a brain that has been shutdown for over a decade, he will be aware of the reality that we face today, and he will have no doubt that the reality was sown by the alliance between America and the United Kingdom. For us in Europe, it is a great tragedy that we face division and calamity, and have to witness people suffer both amongst our own kind and amongst those who are in need of help, all due to the aforementioned alliance and its nefarious military and geopolitical agenda.

It is not humane in any imaginable world that refugees in dire need are not offered help at the very least until they can return home safely. But, mind you, there is a little carved area on the atlas where two unfortunately influential countries happen to disagree with the statement. To them, such a world exists, and to them, our world should be seen as one such world. To them, not accepting refugees is not seen as a rejection of a humane act, but a deflection of a most severe threat.

Certainly there is risk in accepting refugees, for by accepting refugees, we do it in a bundle where they are only a part of the whole, and the whole being migrants, and many of them not coming for a necessary cause, but bonuses and, in some cases, evil intentions. However, what we must not forget is that from the utilitarian perspective, more good is done than harm in the short term. Moreover, because of the fact that the United States and the United Kingdom have caused and facilitated this entire scenario, they, of all other countries and regions, must be those who handle the consequences. They need to deal with the possible reality which would be that the refugees cannot leave once they arrive in their new places, for one reason or another. Such a scenario cannot and should not be handled by the entirety of the EU or rest of Europe, a region mostly innocent in this whole matter.

The solution to this is simple: We send refugees to the UK and America, and let the people be in safety in the countries that caused their grief and loss. To those who disagree that it would work, all you have to ask yourself is whether or not those countries would actually go on to return them once they arrived. They wouldn't. If they did, it would be a permanent damage dealt to the relations between the cross-Atlantic alliance (US, UK) and Europe. Do we risk such a damage by sending refugees in the first place? Perhaps. But, that is in our interests. It is not in the interests of the US and the UK.

The result is that Europe and the refugees are better off.

Share your thoughts.

Which refugees are you referring to? How exactly (be specific) are the US and the UK responsible? When you (the EU) invite someone in then YOU become responsible for them, you cant all of a sudden decide that you cant handle it and then pass your responsibility off on someone else.

[Deleted]

The fact that OP thinks forcing refugees onto countries will solve problems instead of creating more is laughable

It won't create more problems for refugees, only between the regions/countries involved. That's in the interests of Europe, hence we ought to do it.

[Seranthor]

I don't care. The UK is responsible for this, and must deal with the consequences. There's no time for Europe to ponder over whether or not the UK is capable of handling so many people. The UK didn't care what their affairs would do to millions of people and Europe in its entirety - and neither should we care what happens when we send refugees to them.

- - - Updated - - -


The most obvious possible "flaw" has been dealt with in the end of the post. What do you see?

you continue to claim the UK is responsible... HOW, be specific.

[Kalis]

The French are miserable already, no need to put more blame on them.

I am not blaming them, you just conveniently forgot their military involvement.

And that of the Italian military. Though that is understandable.

We would. You'd just wait and see.

Your plan relies on the UK having a conscience. However we had the biggest Empire the world has ever seen and do not give a shit about the problems that caused, so as I said earlier, I see a slight flaw in your plan.

[Deleted]

Which refugees are you referring to? How exactly (be specific) are the US and the UK responsible? When you (the EU) invite someone in then YOU become responsible for them, you cant all of a sudden decide that you cant handle it and then pass your responsibility off on someone else.

Refugees from the Middle East who are refugees because of America's and Britain's wars.

Refugees exist regardless of whether or not they are invited to any country. This is so simple to understand... So, once you understand, realize that Europe should help by transporting them to America and the UK (directly and indirectly, but mostly indirectly).

[Mugly]

I don't mind refugees coming to live in the UK. Any who didn't marry/have children born in the UK should return to rebuild their homeland once the conflict is over and it's safe to return. But I don't see that happening.

[Deleted]

Your plan relies on the UK having a conscience. However we had the biggest Empire the world has ever seen and do not give a shit about the problems that caused, so as I said earlier, I see a slight flaw in your plan.

Because it's in the past. This is present, and even psychopaths will open their hearts up when they see people in need arrive at their doorsteps.

[Flatspriest]

So much ignorance here... wow.

Why put "refugees" in quotation marks? You actually doubt that a great portion of those coming to Europe are actually people in dire need? You can't for a second in your life imagine what they go through and as a result seek help? Wow.

You say so much ignorance? Are you talking about your own posts as they are what appears the most ignorant. You have NO RIGHT to force anyone else to do anything. Don't act like you do. The US did NOT cause the refugee problem and is not going to fix it for you. Let those that caused the problem fix it themselves.

[Seranthor]

Europe and Russia should send refugees to America through Alaska, Canada, and Mexico. Imagine if Hillary wins their election, does not close the borders, and suddenly you not only have Mexicans coming, but Middle Easterners as well.

Sounds like you support Trump and are wanting to stir up fear and more loathing in the populace and drive them to the polls.

[vindicatorx]

Share your thoughts.

You aren't the brightest crayon in the box if you think you can just send refugees anywhere.

[Deleted]

You say so much ignorance? Are you talking about your own posts as they are what appears the most ignorant. You have NO RIGHT to force anyone else to do anything. Don't act like you do. The US did NOT cause the refugee problem and is not going to fix it for you. Let those that caused the problem fix it themselves.

This is pathetic. I can't believe someone today has Internet and thinks America isn't to be blamed...

I shall go off for a while.