1. Let's see how the US deals with 1 million illegal immigrants coming over the course of a single year.

2. I suggest you read up on the roots of the syrian civil war before spouting more bullshit. You might hear about things like agricultural problems in Syria, fears of famine, demands for political freedom... You might hear about Al-Malicki disbanding Iraq's biggest militia of Sunni mercenaries, which would seriously have kicked butt against ISIS.

3. The UK was never happy being part of the EU.

4. Catalonia was never happy being part of Spain.

5. Scotland has threatened the UK with seceding them and JOINING the EU if the UK should leave the EU.

6. If you know what to look for, this "celebration" in Germany you are talking about can easily be traced back to a newly-formed Tea-Party-style Neonazi-movement... happening in a region that has always had a high number of Neonazis.

7. This strong tendency towards isolationism you are talking about... The resistance towards taking in refugees is driven by the governments of 4 eastern-european countries, but polls from those countries show that the people there are in favor of taking in refugees.




Where does this malicious desire to see the EU fail come from???

Huh?

https://www.google.com/#q=eu+poll+refugees&safe=off&tbas=0&tbs=qdr:m


Support for taking in more refugees (and for those already in the EU) is not good, and dropping precipitously, including in liberal, previously welcoming countries like Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Germany, etc., to say nothing of the near emergency-level of problems facing countries like Greece and Italy. The EU itself admits that Schengen itself is under threat of dissolving. This is not just because of complaints by a purported few disgruntled, largely small, eastern European conservative governments (note that Poland only recently elected conservatives after the migrant crisis began, and the prior liberal government's loss was partly attributed to its generous migrant policies).

Sweden is #1, per capita. That's right, tiny Sweden is accepting a shitload of asylum seekers, and it's straining the country's budget to near collapse.

How much has the USA done for refugees, considering how much trouble the USA's military invasions caused?

What does matter is that the democratic voters in Sweden, Germany and elsewhere are angry, and assertions of inherent generosity and liberalism will not save the current liberal governments at the ballot box unless they quickly solve the problems related to the migrant crisis in Europe.

The media in sweden is similar to FOX. Biased, but in the opposite direction, in regards to covering up and shhh-shhusshing the problems caused by the huge influx of immigrants from wildly different cultures. The Nationalist party (Sweden Democrats) is, I believe, the most popular of all political parties, at this time. They gained a huge, quick, boost in just 2 years. Not surprised.

Although, the USA really should be taking in more asylum seekers. I think that it really does make a difference. Why should it all be on Europe?

However, if the question is why doesn't the USA take more migrants from Europe's borders, it would not be unfair to question why Europe doesn't seek to take more migrants from South and Central American and Mexico.

Simply, Europe and the USA both have their own serious and complicated migrant issues and domestic democratic constituencies that must be considered. There's a reason why President Obama and other senior Democrats have been very careful in their comments and suggestion concerning the EU's migrant problems and our obligations, legal, moral or otherwise.

How about we ask the neighboring middle eastern countries (Saudi Arabia, hello?) to take in more migrants?

The thing most americans don't understand, is that people who get into sweden get a lot of welfare money to live here. It's not the same as emigrating to the USA, where you have to work your ass off and learn english, too. We don't have the resources to deal with all these asylum seekers, in addition to all the other unemployed immigrants here in Sweden.

A lot of the social cohesion, prosperity, lower crime, and financial and other benefits in many social democracies exist largely because of cultural homogeneity. Liberal values are challenged when facing culturally different outsiders and more limited resources. If liberal governments cannot adapt and maintain the historical promises to and expectations of their citizens, they will elect representatives on the right who will do so, with an iron hand if necessary.

Additionally, despite the financial benefits to migrating, legal and otherwise, to much of Europe, the USA is still the largest and most attractive migrant destination.

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/9/8161259/-migrants-destinations-map

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/top-25-destination-countries-global-migrants-over-time

That could be true, that everyone says they want to move to the USA. That is how it should be, since the USA based its whole concept on being a beacon for immigrants.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/12/31/sweden-accepted-more-refugees-per-capita-than-any-other-eu-country-now-its-tightening-borders/

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/dec/02/sweden-oecds-highest-per-capita-asylum-seekers-syria

You're not kidding. But please make that "far left conspiracy theory." Nobody like me thinks at all like that.

A lib.

By only allowing families, women and children in, and in controlled numbers. But making cheap virtue points was apparently more important to some politicians than the welfare of their own citizens.

the right would prefer zero refugees and Muslim immigrants to even a 'controlled' number.

If Germany and Sweden had done so things would be much better for them and their citizens (though many of their more liberal citizens seemed and seem to be quite welcoming of the refugees) but not for the refugees themselves nor for Greece where most of them enter Europe and would have stayed if not for Germany and Sweden.

I did not realize that Germany allowed in the refugees just to make "cheap virtue points" and Germans were not sincere in what they were doing to help refugees. Isn't that an argument the right would make about misguided liberal 'political correctness' triumphing over 'law-and-order'?

is now largely irrelevant.

Even if their intentions were purely altruistic and entirely legal, both debatable, the fact of the matter is that they allowed many hundreds of thousands of largely young single men from very different cultures into their countries with virtually no vetting and without the required preparation or resource allocation. To the surprise of no one, this has created a host of significant domestic, EU and international problems, and the affected voters are not happy at all.

These decisions have empowered the political right across Europe beyond their wildest expectations and with virtually no effort on their part. Complaining about how the right would have been happier with stricter migrant policies only expresses solidarity with the left, but it doesn't prove that the right was not correct about many of their concerns.

More importantly, the political missteps, mistakes, and outright incompetence of many liberals in leadership positions in the EU and its member governments may result in the right winning election after election. If this occurs, not only will the right get their preferred migrant policies, but will additionally dismantle other liberal achievements, including the diminishment of the EU itself as Schengen is dismantled.

tp their beliefs.

If and when they make mistakes, as everyone does, they need to learn from their mistakes and correct the policy. In a democracy, they may pay the price for their mistakes. I agree that a victory for the right will damage much more than just a refugee/immigration policy for the worse.

We've amicably discussed this issue many times. There is no doubt that Germany's and others' unilateral open invitation to migrants drastically aggravated an already very bad situation in Europe, both within members states and for the EU as a whole The right (and many others) warned about what would happen, and they were correct. It doesn't matter that they don't like or want immigrants on principle, for their concerns proved prescient in this instance.

I've also really yet to see many of these liberal governments actually admit they royally screwed-up. They're afraid of providing political fodder for their adversaries, but as a result, have lost the trust and respect of many of their voting citizens and it's making needed changes at all levels all the more difficult. It's hard to argue these governments don't truly deserve to be punished at the ballot box.

Simply, it's easy to talk about generosity and other liberal values and intentions, but if liberal governance fails to address the legitimate concerns of the citizenry, the voters will judge us harshly at the ballot box. Results matter far more than good intentions, and leaders are elected to represent the best interests of their own citizens, not anyone else.

You don't get to discriminate on the basis of sex. Nor, for that matter, marital status. You can't send refugees back to a war zone on the grounds that they're male and single.

This is not voluntary immigration, in which a country is allowed to make up categories of who'd they'd like to come. They're war refugees. Once they're out of the country they're fleeing, they have to end up somewhere. And not many countries feel like locking them up if they haven't broken any laws, if they want to carry on to another country (and if you do want all the single males imprisoned without trial, say so, and say how you think that can be achieved legally).

Allowing in large numbers of young, single, military-aged males from places where religulous fundamentalism is rampant and women have the same social status as animals is a pretty FUBAR idea, and a gilt-edged invitation to trouble beyond words.

Are you glad you weren't trapped in a war zone by your gender and the international system you'd now like to inflict on a couple of million innocent people?

That's the difference.

and I'm sure you wouldn't want to allow officials to send people to war zones based on if they have a gut feeling that they'd do something bad. Remember, you're the one broadbrushing all single males as 'not respectful of women, unless they're me'.

And the too big to fail. The rest of us are left to have respect for each other, the others are too busy fighting stupid wars and giving lip service to the 'sanctity of human life'. AS IF anyone past a certain age would believe that.

Big difference. I do believe in the end common sense and we that have compassion and can use critical thinking skills will win. We have the evolutionary edge imo.

Cultures take forever to change for the better, just look how long it has taken for America to change.

countries. Young men trapped in war zones are typically conscripted or shot for not having enlisted. Untold millions of young men have died in war zones because of their gender, I grew up praying that I would not be one of them....

Sometimes these Bernie fans indeed sound like the European far right. That statement could be a statement of Le Pen in France. Keep all those savages at home where they belong. Don't let them into our own wonderful world. Don't you see that the reason why they are fleeing is because they DON'T want to live in a war zone where religious fundamentalism is rampant.

I don't agree on that post either. Only the far-right in Sweden would use cultural differences as an excuse for not welcoming people on the run. The same people would also tell you that those coming are not really refugees, but people just seeking economical benefits. Just like the 80s during the Iran-Irak war many of those seeking asylum are able military-aged men who are sick and tired of the war and don't want to enter it on any side. In the 70s we even got a large number of American men that came for very similar reasons. In fact, the guy that once introduced me to mathematics in kindergarten was one of them. Most likely, only about 1/3 of those seeking asylum in Sweden will be able to stay, because they have legitimate reasons. However, as long as their applications haven't been processed, we cannot deport them. If we would do that we wouldn't honor the UN Refugee Convention from 1951, even if a lot of countries today find new innovative ways of interpreting that convention.

are effective economic migrants, are not entitled to asylum, and can be deported to such country. That is part of the the EU's Dublin Regulation and other domestic and international laws, and the reason why Greece is on the verge of being cut-off from Schengen.

Moreover, countries do indeed have every right to determine who and how many can enter and may certainly consider cultural backgrounds if they so choose. Given the current polling and panic among EU leaders and more liberal national member governments, it's also apparent that these considerations are now very important to voting citizens well outside the typical confines of the far right.

to anyone who may be fleeing a warzone, no less economic migrants.

If governments cannot control the flow of who and how many enter their countries, they will just close their borders, and there's little anyone can do about as the EU is quickly learning.

Europe is not breaking up, whatever the OP thinks. But if the rest of Europe had told Greece the refugees were its problem and no-one else's, then it would have cracked under the pressure - you'd have all of them in one small corner of Europe, already in financial distress, rather than spread out over an area with 40 times the population.



That's the EU, with countries drawn with an area proportional to their population.

that much of the problem is indeed Greece's fault and discussing cutting-off the country entirely from Schengen?

Greece, both intentionally and due to other issues like limited resources, didn't want the migrants and didn't comply with the Dublin Regulations. Particularly given Greece's previous unpopularity due to the Euro crisis, many Europeans would be more than happy to cut-off Greece like a gangrenous limb if it meant at least partially solving the migrant crisis, and EU leaders are now readily voicing these sentiments.

https://euobserver.com/migration/132416

You ought to comment on the Greek blog the OP is from, using that terminology. It doesn't make your position OK just because you can find some Europeans who agree with you.

quite accurately describes the stark political situation between the EU and Greece.

Even the most cursory Google News search reveals that quite a bit more than "some" Europeans, particularly actual EU and national leadership, are very quickly losing patience with Greece. That is the current reality, regardless of whether you or I like it or not.

The voting public overwhelmingly wants the current migrant crisis solved yesterday, and most are quite willing to sacrifice Greece to save the Schengen Zone and EU, with leaders far more worried about satisfying their domestic democratic constituencies than the problems facing Greece.

If the US, Saudi Arabia and their friends didn't foment civil war in Syria and Libya and arm terrorist groups.

But once the toothpaste is out of the tube, some common sense is called for.

The Germans had very little if anything to do with that.

with a flood of humanity, all a consequence of wars and imperial policies of the West (incl. USA).

And they seem to be most affected by a blight they did nothing to cause.

the favorite destinations once they are in. Economic benefits, presence of large minorities already, relatively friendly people. That's changing though.

If you do, they will vote for someone who WILL listen to them.

It's not the union that is the problem, but the current right-wing governments in many of its member states. You should support the idea of a union rather than loosely characterising it as a corrupted empire. The left in Europe see the union as a vehicle to solve all the problems that can only be solved if nations collaborate, such as environmental problems and global peace. And the refugee crisis.

You should also remember the numbers of refugees we are talking about. Here in Sweden we welcomed 160'000 last year and if you consider the size of the country that would be equivalent to 5.3 million refugees in America in one year. Don't you think that if America accepted that many refugees people would have start grumbling? I'm surprised we haven't seen more violence that we have. Even if the far-right has grown in size, the vast majority of people welcome the refugees, as long as their home countries are still in chaos.

The numbers Obama and others in America have been talking about are just ludicrous in comparison.

agreed to permit over 5 million refugees into the country, no less mostly young single men from the Middle East and North Africa with little vetting, it would be immediate political suicide and never be permitted.

The issue is not what would be the political fallout for such a circumstance, but why elected leaders in Germany, Sweden and elsewhere allowed it to happen in the first instance.

Moreover, whether you like it or not, those right wing government in member states were democratically elected, and the EU is not actually a superstate that can just overrule national foreign policy about migrants. Many countries like Germany and Sweden acted unilaterally in their invitation to migrants, and to no one's surprise, other nations are not eager to import their own migrants problems in solidarity against the wishes of their own voters who elected them. The leaders' obligations are not to the EU, but rather to their own constituents.

Nevertheless, there may indeed soon be a more unified EU response. As Schengen's free movement of people disintegrates, the response may be to close the EU borders to migrants and expedite the deportation of many who have already arrived. A unified EU is not a guarantee of a liberal EU if it goes against the wishes of their actual citizens to the benefit of outsiders.

Why elected leaders allowed it to happen in the first instance? The refugees come regardless of whether we want it to not. They can only be stopped from entering by introducing walls around the country, as well as around Europe as a whole. If someone enters the country and are to be considered as refugees according to UNs definition, they cannot be deported while waiting for asylum.

Those responsible for the steady stream of refugees from Syria are primarily the presidents of Syria and Russia. Of course, the west are also to be blamed, but they could have done little to prevent the bloodshed, at least not without entering Syria with troops, something that could potentially create an even worse nightmare. Putin plays it real well. The more chaos he creates in Syria, the more refugees flood Europe and the weaker all liberal governments will become. Those that are growing are the pro-Russian right-wing parties like Front National in France.

If the migrants are permitted entry in such large numbers and with little vetting against the wishes of the voting citizens, walls will be but a first step of right wing governments to rectify the situation among many other very unpleasant possibilities. Complaints by officials from the United Nations will be irrelevant.

Human nature is what it is. And what amount to invasions of large numbers of people who share virtually no cultural norms with the host countries and have no desire to acclimate to the norms of their new country is a recipe for disaster.

geographical position, Italy and Greece, not so much. I agree with the rest of it.

but rather economic migrants, and both very large groups have been motivated, and the existing problems aggravated, by the open invitations extended by Germany, Sweden and other liberal governments.

As I indicated earlier, the USA certainly has its own complicated, very controversial and vexatious migrant issues, except they are people largely from South and Central America and Mexico. Let's recall all the children at the border not too long ago or the comments by people like Trump and Cruz. Luckily, these cultures are far more compatible with American culture (and security), which itself is generally far more diverse than many European countries and much better at assimilating immigrants.

The EU and Britain's financial role in it is the only thing that stands between London and being yet another post-industrial wasteland.

Cheap labor streaming in from every corner of eastern Europe.