"ISIS Sleeper cell was present in Dutch and German refugee camps"

[lonely zergling]

Because it is hard to prevent that physically without harshly controlling borders (which goes against the whole Schengen idea). But, knowing that they do that, it is more reasonable to still redistribute them afterwards without asking their permission (they are fleeing the war, after all, not picking a place for vacation), than just keeping them wherever they have come.

It's illegal to deport people to countries if they are not citizen of that country. . Also Macedonia border fence is very effective.

[nonameelf]

Because it is hard to prevent that physically without harshly controlling borders (which goes against the whole Schengen idea). But, knowing that they do that, it is more reasonable to still redistribute them afterwards without asking their permission (they are fleeing the war, after all, not picking a place for vacation), than just keeping them wherever they have come.

Right, they're fleeing a war. Means after the war is over they go home to rebuild.

[Deleted]

You know why the redistributing of refugees failed within the EU (the ~44k that was agreed on) because not enough refugees wanted to take the risk to land in countries like Romania / Slovenia. Why would you pay 11.000$ and (or) sell your wifes /kids body to smugglers if you could end up in Romania o_O. Safety is not important for this refugees somehow, they need the biggest welfare system to feel home.

Well, it's not just wellfare, even Europeans think South/East European countries are filled with crime and all the evil stuff of this world and if Europeans themselves still think that, then be sure that Arabs think that as well.

[May90]

It's illegal to deport people to countries if they are not citizen of that country. . Also Macedonia border fence is very effective.

But, in case of asylum seekers, different rules apply. Plus, EU is essentially one large country, so it is hardly a deportation.

Right, they're fleeing a war. Means after the war is over they go home to rebuild.

What if the war lasts 30 years?

[Deleted]

Google it. Almost no refugees applied for the redistribution. Yet everyone blames evil east europe for not building homes for nonexistant refugees.

So 36 out of 47 refugees refused to go to Bulgaria, 8 out of 27 for Estonia, 32 of the 67 for Romania, 24 out of 388 for France. The only source I could find via Google was in May;
1,324 people processed as part of the relocation scheme so far (out of 160,000), 191 have dropped out or simply disappeared. Yes, 191 out of 1,324 is "almost" every refugee /s. Excellent maths. You can correct this with an up to date source or talk out of your ass, this is gen OT so I expect the latter.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...#axzz4AsNeKvta
The only thing I could find with your ambiguous post regarding welfare.

[Slant]

They're not letting them "just stream across". The governments on the front line are doing their best to process the refugees and the countries that eventually accept them all, to my knowledge, have vetting processes in place. If they don't, they should put them in place. I don't think anyone is asking or expecting for countries to freely accept any and all refugees without doing any background checks or vetting of them beforehand.

There was a short period of chaos when the stream was too sudden and too big. During that time, refugees were pretty much just waved through to the initial collection camps from where they were redistributed. They have mostly been registered by now, so it's all good. As far as screening goes, it's done as much as it can be done when you have people coming from a warzone. It'll always be slightly unreliable to a point.

[nonameelf]

What if the war lasts 30 years?

They can apply for citizenship in the normal manner according to the laws of the country they're in.

[Slant]

Obviously not doing enough if refugees have ISIS cells.

ISIS recruits from native European population as well. It's not all black and white.

[kingj56]

If you let some of them into your country some of them are statistically likely to be trouble. If you let non of them into your country, ALL of them become likely threats. but look at the guy who turned them in. There are people who hate ISIS and are in ISIS. That guy told on the others because he actually wants to be in a place where he doesnt have to worry about being shot or blown up. A shame people brand others for a handful of fanatics

[Polyxo]

Well when your dead body is found in 7 pieces in a subway somewhere youll be a statistical average as well, eh buddy?

Keep your eye out for those sharknados. You never know.

[Slant]

I get wanting to help people but this whole open boarders thing is self destructive their culture just don't mesh with ours.

A good example would be Africa. We built them up far more then they were ready to be and the second we left it collapsed into a over populated, starving, shithole.

There needs to be strong boarders and maybe if we were being realistic only taking in a couple hundred a year for the EU. The way it is going they are going to start the largest and likely the bloodiest civil war ever seen.

Stop hyperboling. The borders are not open anymore. You can't limit a refugee wave on how many you want to take in, they're refugees. Their number is determined by how many are in danger in their home country. And there's not going to be a civil war over this.. jesus christ, have you guys not got anything better to do than dream up your ideal doom of the world scenario?

- - - Updated - - -

If you let some of them into your country some of them are statistically likely to be trouble. If you let non of them into your country, ALL of them become likely threats. but look at the guy who turned them in. There are people who hate ISIS and are in ISIS. That guy told on the others because he actually wants to be in a place where he doesnt have to worry about being shot or blown up. A shame people brand others for a handful of fanatics

This is incidentally a very good news. It shows that fanaticism can't hold forever against simply being exposed to western values.

[Zoibert the Bear]

So? There were 365 days last year. Over 3300 people died in cars in France in 2014 (I don't have 2015 statistics). That's 250/month. You're still at least 2.5 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist. There were over 18000 deaths from heart disease, that's over ~1500/month. So you're 15 times more likely to die from heart disease than terrorists.

So until you can actually demonstrate that terrorists are more dangerous than the day-to-day French lifestyle, I will continue to be immune to your BS fearmongering.

You are statistically right, but this is just bullshit. Both those reasons are of either natural or accidental nature. The other one is not. That's reason enough for a lot of people.

[Lucky Fable]

Stop hyperboling. The borders are not open anymore. You can't limit a refugee wave on how many you want to take in, they're refugees. Their number is determined by how many are in danger in their home country. And there's not going to be a civil war over this.. jesus christ, have you guys not got anything better to do than dream up your ideal doom of the world scenario?

- - - Updated - - -



This is incidentally a very good news. It shows that fanaticism can't hold forever against simply being exposed to western values.

Why can't you limit how many you take in again? Why have a boarder if people can just walk across it on a whim?

[Detritivores]

Well, a terrorist attack is the government failing to properly defend their citizens and a car collision is an accident(usually). But no, you're right, they're totally the same and the government should do nothing.

This wins the award for silliest thing I've read all day, and I spent at least 30 minutes on The Onion...

How this sentiment can be expressed outside of satire is a mystery to me.

[Deleted]

You're saying that out of millions of people, a dozen were bad? Gee, that's almost like, statistically average.

Gee, we should allow them here, endangering everyone and then maybe find them afterwards before they can do damage?

How about no. You want to be the big internet saint and feel-gooder? Go to Syria and help yourself.

[Slant]

Why can't you limit how many you take in again? Why have a boarder if people can just walk across it on a whim?

Because they're fleeing from war. War usually doesn't care about who it displaces, it just happens. And then you have millions of people on the move all of a sudden. Or would you like us to write IS a letter going "Dear IS, please halt your current advance on Assad's troops, we really cannot cope with the refugees you produce. We'll let you know when it's okay again to further wage your war. Sincerely yours, the citizens of Western Europe."

That is why you can't limit the numbers you take in. That is something everyone knew when they signed the Geneva convention. You take as many in as you need to. Simple as that.

[Lucky Fable]

Sorry had a second though here...

How many refugee centers does Germany have to lite up a week before it is a civil war? They average what now four to five?

[Slant]

Sorry had a second though here...

How many refugee centers does Germany have to lite up a week before it is a civil war? They average what now four to five?

There is no civil war. There will be no civil war. You're a bit hung up on that idea, aren't you?

[Lucky Fable]

Because they're fleeing from war. War usually doesn't care about who it displaces, it just happens. And then you have millions of people on the move all of a sudden. Or would you like us to write IS a letter going "Dear IS, please halt your current advance on Assad's troops, we really cannot cope with the refugees you produce. We'll let you know when it's okay again to further wage your war. Sincerely yours, the citizens of Western Europe."

That is why you can't limit the numbers you take in. That is something everyone knew when they signed the Geneva convention. You take as many in as you need to. Simple as that.

Or crazy thought..

The millions of refugees could fight for their homes no?

Nothing good comes from mass charity you can look at Africa for a example of that. I am pretty left leaning on a lot of things but destroying your country in order to virtue signal isn't something I can get behind.

[Deleted]

Gee, we should allow them here, endangering everyone and then maybe find them afterwards before they can do damage?

How about no. You want to be the big internet saint and feel-gooder? Go to Syria and help yourself.

He doesn't have to go to Syria, the people are already here. It's not a case of feels, it's a case of not being a deranged idiot and pissing all over a bunch of people that need help, because newsflash, more will take up arms if they're not helped as even more would see us as an enemy. Excellent job driving more people into the hands of ISIS, just out of convenience for ourselves.