U.N. Should Provide for Desperate Refugee on Boats and at Chunnel Crossing (Iran, Iraq)

[jbgusa]

As many people know there is a significant upsurge in desperate people fleeing war and oppression in Africa and the war-torn Islamic State region. This is a humanitarian crisis of terrifying proportions, no question. Below, I have excerpted a few OP's on the subject. Clearly, neither Europe nor the U.S. can be expected to take upwards of one billion people from these troubled regions.

On the other hand, no one has the heart to sink leaky refugee boats on the Mediterranean headed from places such as Libya to Italy or Greece. While the police are playing a game of whack-a-mole trying to prevent refugees from fleeing into the Chunnel from Calais, France to England, no one plans to return them to the regions from which they originate. And quite clearly no European country, not even the U.S. has the resources for all of these people. Similarly the U.S. cannot keep Central American immigrants cooped up in camps. Local communities cannot afford to educate children whose parents pay no taxes.

So here's my suggestion. I had been under the impression that the U.N. was set up to deal with world crises. Why not let the U.N. deal with these problems? After all they are a world body. Their creation was for humanitarian purposes. Presumably they would be better at sorting out good places of refuge in countries in which the refugees would be well-adapted and which would be more comfortable with the refugees. For example, petro-potentate countries such as UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Iran are gushing with oil wealth and opportunity. The U.N. could do far better job than European or U.S. officials in making these people productive, safe and happy.

And the U.N. doesn't lack for money either. If they diverted a small percentage of the funds used for studies, consultants and world travel, Western societies filled with unskilled, uneducated guests would be far more hospitable.

Originally Posted by golimar

The bloody and terrifying war being fought between Muslim terrorists -- from radical groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), al-Qaida-affiliate Al Nusra Front and others -- and the regime of Syrian President Bashir Al-Assad has brought the largest number of refugees and asylum-seekers to the United States in a decade.

Originally Posted by josie13

I haven't been able to look into the crisis in detail, but there's one big question I have. Could someone explain why it is France's responsibility to keep people from leaving France? Why isn't it the UK's responsibility to police their own borders on the other side, if the UK wants to prevent people entering that way? If the UK built impenetrable border controls on their side of the Chunnel, wouldn't that stop people trying to get into the tunnel in Calais?

Originally Posted by dizzybint

ON another note, some UK lorry drivers have packed in their jobs with this Calais disaster as they said not only were they being attacked by the desperate immigrants but also ignored or abused by the French police too.. get the army in... I feel for anyone so desperate to leave their own countries but this is ridiculous and a lot caused by the French.. they have camps set up near port and have been given them food.. probably to get them out quicker to our softies in the UK> what are we thinking.. its time to toughen up a lot..

[TheWiseWino]

There are an estimated 60 million displaced people world wide. I think that it would be more beneficial to resolve the issues in their countries since no one has the resources to absorb that many people.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by TheWiseWino

There are an estimated 60 million displaced people world wide. I think that it would be more beneficial to resolve the issues in their countries since no one has the resources to absorb that many people.

My point is that the U.N. should be front and center resolving these problems. Obviously for the most part the displaced persons should be helped in their own countries. What about the ones already in camps in Libya, Italy, Greece, Calais, and the U.S. Mexican border?

[Goinback2011]

Had the Obama administration not destabilized North Africa and now Syria, this wouldn't be happening.

[Wanderer0101]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

As many people know there is a significant upsurge in desperate people fleeing war and oppression in Africa and the war-torn Islamic State region. This is a humanitarian crisis of terrifying proportions, no question. Below, I have excerpted a few OP's on the subject. Clearly, neither Europe nor the U.S. can be expected to take upwards of one billion people from these troubled regions.

On the other hand, no one has the heart to sink leaky refugee boats on the Mediterranean headed from places such as Libya to Italy or Greece. While the police are playing a game of whack-a-mole trying to prevent refugees from fleeing into the Chunnel from Calais, France to England, no one plans to return them to the regions from which they originate. And quite clearly no European country, not even the U.S. has the resources for all of these people. Similarly the U.S. cannot keep Central American immigrants cooped up in camps. Local communities cannot afford to educate children whose parents pay no taxes.

So here's my suggestion. I had been under the impression that the U.N. was set up to deal with world crises. Why not let the U.N. deal with these problems? After all they are a world body. Their creation was for humanitarian purposes. Presumably they would be better at sorting out good places of refuge in countries in which the refugees would be well-adapted and which would be more comfortable with the refugees. For example, petro-potentate countries such as UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Iran are gushing with oil wealth and opportunity. The U.N. could do far better job than European or U.S. officials in making these people productive, safe and happy.

And the U.N. doesn't lack for money either. If they diverted a small percentage of the funds used for studies, consultants and world travel, Western societies filled with unskilled, uneducated guests would be far more hospitable.

You obviously don't know much about the UN. UN officials concentrate on living the high life and having sex with under age kids. They don't give a hoot about these refugees other than as a revenue source.

[Old Gringo]

Those UN boats should deliver the "refugees" right back to the cost of Libya/Algeria/Morocco.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by Wanderer0101

You obviously don't know much about the UN. UN officials concentrate on living the high life and having sex with under age kids. They don't give a hoot about these refugees other than as a revenue source.

You nailed it! I meant that post as sarcasm and satire. Of course I know that the U.N. is up to no good. I periodically start threads advocating that the U.S., Canada, U.K., Japan and other democracies should leave the U.N. and invite the U.N. out of New York City.

[pigeonhole]

I've seen on TV (on French, British , German channels) a lot of "glitzy people" (artists, writers, clerics, teachers, tycoons,politicians, etc) hosted on tv shows advocate the complete opening of borders to the "refugees" from the Middle East and Africa who are arriving in droves.
What I don't understand is that if they feel so strongly about it, why do they default their own responsibility , as people of means and power, on the european taxpayer ? why don't they welcome the migrants home? I think next time I hear those pampered bleeding hearts on tv, I will research their address , publish it on the net, and invite the dear migrants to ring at the door of their mansions...

[Blondebaerde]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

As many people know there is a significant upsurge in desperate people fleeing war and oppression in Africa and the war-torn Islamic State region. This is a humanitarian crisis of terrifying proportions, no question. Below, I have excerpted a few OP's on the subject. Clearly, neither Europe nor the U.S. can be expected to take upwards of one billion people from these troubled regions.

On the other hand, no one has the heart to sink leaky refugee boats on the Mediterranean headed from places such as Libya to Italy or Greece. While the police are playing a game of whack-a-mole trying to prevent refugees from fleeing into the Chunnel from Calais, France to England, no one plans to return them to the regions from which they originate. And quite clearly no European country, not even the U.S. has the resources for all of these people. Similarly the U.S. cannot keep Central American immigrants cooped up in camps. Local communities cannot afford to educate children whose parents pay no taxes.

Careful with the phrase "no one." Should read, "no one at-current". Swarming invaders have usually been dealt-with rather unpleasantly, sooner or later, by other countries throughout the long arc of human history.

It may take twenty years, it may take more (future predictions are rather notorious for inaccuracy), but to my mind "somewhat obviously" industrialized countries will need to harden up to "refugees" fleeing from God knows where into their borders. Example:

In today's headlines, if a bankrupt country like Greece is being overwhelmed by refugees from whatever bombed-out crater of the Earth, the Greek police and (eventually) populace will start lashing out. Got nothing? Check. Anticipating more crushing austerity? Check. Being invaded by tens of thousands with less than nothing, "demanding" you help them? Yep, check that box too. Solution? Elect fringe parties like Syriza (far Left) or Golden Dawn (neo-Nazis). Should be pretty obvious where such movements start, and end up: desperate times breed desperate measures. It's where they end up that becomes quite distasteful indeed. We can guess the rest.

The obvious outcome of such influxes, left unchecked, is reducing the recipient countries to what I'd call a Malthusian level of misery equal to that the refugees fled. If political unrest, war, overpopulation, and lack of opportunity caused the problem to begin with, why would anyone think the root causes of-same won't manifest somewhere else as-well?

Citizens of said-industrialized countries will, eventually, wise up and resist being reduced to Malthusian hellholes of overpopulation and misery. "Misery" being the default state of mankind, per various historians and philosophers of human history. Sooner or later, it usually comes down to insurrection, when the citizenry cannot vote one more buck to be borrowed, beg one more cent from the populace who actually owns and produces stuff (the economic engine).

So closer to home, no: I personally don't want to see the United States reduced to a cesspool, though such steps always occur via death by a thousand cuts. There are "reasonable" limits to immigration, and "reasonable" controls to limit such invasions. Society's views on what is "reasonable" do change over time, in my country in-particular.

Food for thought, no particular easy answers here.

[joeymags]

I feel awful about these crises, but these people need some personal responsibility. I was watching 60 minutes about the refugees in Syria....some of these woman had nine kids. People should not be bringing children into this world in such terrible conditions. The fertility rates in Africa will lead to crises of unmatched portions.