2015-11-16, 06:43 PM
Malthe Wrote:I mean you make it painfully clear that you know absolutely nothing about the situation some european countries are in. Denmark is already far over capacity, so is sweden, infact sweden is trying to reallocate a lot of the refugees they have already taken in. And only more are coming.
We cannot support any more refugees and the security regarding letting the refugees into europe are atm a pineappleing joke.
So why exactly should my country continue to burden itself when we've already taken in a pomegranateload of refugees? We simply can't help more people. I mean i can't really put this nicely but refugees are overall a resource sink, they cost countries a LOT of money to take in and take care of, Denmark is not a huge country with a massive economy to support a super high number of refugees. There's a reason denmark as a country has been making it harder and harder to get into denmark and cut further and further back on the support immigrants and refugees get, because we simply can't afford helping people the way we used to.
So yes, i'm taking an 'us first' approach, i want denmark to focus on itself, i want denmark to focus on its own citizens and the refugees we have ALREADY taken in. I want my country to not collapse because we took in refugees we couldn't realistically support.
I don't think this should be hard to understand.
I don't pretend to know a lot about Denmark or Europe in general and I genuinely wish my country were accepting more than a criminally small number of refugees. I won't point to any specific European nation and call them selfish or negligent nor has that ever been my intent. The economic complications and strains from what can only be described as an overwhelming number of refugees are important and ultimately must pose limitations on the number of people that can realistically be accepted. I will instead ask that you reexamine your first post.
"The economy is in major problems and now our own capitals aren't safe for our own citizens."
Why are these two problems linked in your mind (or at least in this statement)? Do you think that the acceptance of refugees has somehow jeopardized your safety? What do you propose to do about the refugees instead?
"And i doubt that the response this will cause which will likely wipe out ISIS will stop the terror, a new group will simply take their place and more extremists will keep doing this pomegranate."
Does the importance of fighting evil diminish because of it's difficulty? Would it be better to give up trying at all? Would ignoring ISIS as a regional problem allow them to consolidate their power and ultimately create a greater threat to foreign nations?
"As if the cultural tensions in europe weren't in a bad enough spot already, i'm genuinely afraid of what this will result in if it keeps up."
Are cultural tensions solely the fault of immigrants and refugees? Do you fear riots and violence and if so, from which group?
I ask these questions instead of trying to make "corrections" because there are multiple possible answers and some that probably can't be answered. This is an emotional time for all of us and particularly those in Europe who feel an even greater sense of kinship with France than other Western nations. I read that in your response, but I also see what may be a knee jerk reaction and what I hope is an unconscious association of the attacks and refugees which are probably more closely linked in time than cause which must be traced back to the Middle East. I merely wish to remind that the refugees are victims too.
[MENTION=7678]ShinkuDragon[/MENTION]; He has made it rather clear in both post that he's in favor of denying entry to refugees which are by definition a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster. Does this not represent adequate need? I'm not talking about economic immigrants (nor is he in his first post by my interpretation) which merely seek better financial situations. He seems to reference both in his second post making my points relevant. You're projecting your more moderate opinion onto his post (unless he disagrees with one of these interpretations).
I took issue with Malthe's use of "more pressing concerns". It is shortsighted and naive not see the refugee crisis and the terrorist attacks have related causes which must be addressed with both long and short term solutions. The refugees are going to keep coming because they perceive the long march (reference intended) because the possible prospect of entry to Europe is preferable to what they consider certain death at home. Yes there will be those of lesser need and even some who try to take advantage of the situation. I don't think that means we should deny entry and watch them die outside the front door.
Again the economic argument is valid, but I found the data here instructive. The funding (and gap) is enormous. At the end of the day 700,000 Syrians have applied for refugee status in Europe. Remember that over 3 MILLION are displaced in countries surrounding Syria and another 3.5 MILLION are displaced within Syria. Only 10% have fled towards Europe. Based on this data, it certainly appears true that Sweden and Denmark among others have accepted disproportionately large numbers of refugees. You should be commended for that. I simply look at some nations (especially my own) and wonder if we could do more.
To borrow Shinku's metaphor, one person might fall and drown trying to pull someone out of the river, but many working together can succeed where one would fail.