It is. And that is what the fanatics want - the more they can provoke a reaction that affects Muslims in Europe, the more they can sell a clash-of-civilisations, Us v Them narrative to disaffected people.

Possibly so. The thing is though, a major terrorist attack linked to ISIS was a predictable event. It was always probable that something like this would happen sooner rather than later, and when it did it was always likely that this would lead to a major backlash against loose immigration policies. If you're going to invite hundreds of thousands of people to come into Europe in defiance of the wishes of the indigenous populations then it would be sensible to think about how you can make that policy sustainable. As it happens public opinion had already turned sharply against the policy before last night, but if it hadn't then it was always going to once we got the next wave of terror attacks.

Incidentally, I may have spoken too soon about the likelihood of any of the terrorists coming from the wave of recent migrants. A Syrian passport has been found at the scene, presumably linked to one of the attackers although it hasn't been confirmed yet, which was used earlier this year to register for asylum in Greece.

First, I'd like a source for that number (and to know that the fence is really complete and unbreachable. Second, the migrants moved around to Slovenia and are not simply going away. Third, we may be able to stem the tide in places, but if they are on Hungary's border they are already IN Europe and so far don't seem keen on heading back.

It was a figure I read the other day, but I don't recall where I saw it.

Yes, I realise that these people are already in Europe. My point was that if it hadn't been made so easy for them then a substantial number would never have made the attempt. As it was, as soon as Merkel suspended the Dublin conventions and put out a call for all Syrians to head to Germany there was a mass movement of people into the Balkans. Every country on the route simply waved them through or laid on buses to get them to the next border until eventually the Hungarians announced that they'd had enough and started putting up fences instead. Predictably, the Germans have now begun to tighten up their policy again, leaving the problem of all the migrants still en route to be dealt with downstream by the countries who never wanted them in the first place. The likely solution for this is going to be a lot more fences and a lot of desperate people stranded in hostile countries with winter setting in.

It is one argument. But the same applies to legal immigration, or home-grown terrorism. We will always miss people. We don't close all borders or intern all suspicious residents.

When it comes to citizens there's a trade off between security and civil liberties and of course we don't just intern all suspects. These people are citizens and have rights.It doesn't follow that we should have such a laissez faire attitude to non-citizens. There are many reasons why we might wish to restrict the flow of migrants from Islamic countries. Security concerns are just a part of the consideration, but nevertheless this is important. The fact that we can't catch everybody doesn't mean that we shouldn't be trying to stop as many as we can, and if filtering the few bad apples from the mass of non-terrorists is so difficult then maybe we shouldn't be accepting hundreds of thousands of young men from a war zone.

I don't think that is what she was trying to impose. If "impose" is even the right word. When you present a bunch of facts to "prove" it wrong, go ahead.

She unilaterally suspended the Dublin conventions without any consultation with her European partners, triggering an avalanche of migrants (to quote Wolfgang Schauble) who could not be dealt with in any other way than opening up the borders and allowing them through. How is that not imposing open borders ?

I was willing to pass on it at Sass' request, but your haughty demand is detestable. So, no, I won't.

DF, this thread is not specifically about Syria and in fact has almost nothing to do with American policy in the Middle East. Obviously you can't entirely divorce the issue of the European migrant crisis from wider geopolitical issues so there is some kind of relevance, but really there are much more appropriate threads to discuss Obama's foreign policy decisions. This thread has been one of the better ones in recent Redscape history because it's been hotly contested without being partisan in any way. It would be a shame to ruin that.

Sassenach wrote:

I was willing to pass on it at Sass' request, but your haughty demand is detestable. So, no, I won't.

DF, this thread is not specifically about Syria and in fact has almost nothing to do with American policy in the Middle East. Obviously you can't entirely divorce the issue of the European migrant crisis from wider geopolitical issues so there is some kind of relevance, but really there are much more appropriate threads to discuss Obama's foreign policy decisions. This thread has been one of the better ones in recent Redscape history because it's been hotly contested without being partisan in any way. It would be a shame to ruin that.

I don't believe there would be such a massive refugee situation were there someone more sure at the helm. That is fairly evident.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:My prayers go out to France in this terrible terrorist act. I hope that the recent influx of people from the Middle East is not where the terrorists came from.

A terrible cost for a bad decision if that is the case.

Be strong, France

The refugees from Syria are largely fleeing terrorists like this, and the Assad government.

I think it is unlikely they came in as recent refugees. This will have taken some planning and not many have got to France from the most recent wave.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/world/paris-attacks/index.html

Unlikely, but true.

According to reports this morning, France has had about 1400 of its citizens join the fight in Syria. (Mostly on ISIS side) and about 200 have returned.
Its probably from that group, or from returned Belgians or others) that the ring leaders of this plot will be found.
The reason that these terrorist generally give for their acts of terror is retribution for the foreigners participating in the conflict in the Middle East.
If the west increases the war effort acts like this will increase...
If the west walks away, probably ISIS wins, at least in Iraq. In Syria perhaps Assad wins...
The acts of terror will not end until the conflict is resolved or the west walks away and disentangles itself.
The French probably can't now, politically. The US has the populace who thinks that US power can control everything, despite the lessons of Iraq. I think its a long slog ahead... with no clear answers.
And lots more terror.
Shutting out the refugees is not the answer however. You win those people over with generosity. (Although every indication is that they are refugees because they want to escape terror and war. If they are left to molder in camps, those camps will become the source of new terrorists resentful of their treatment by Europeans.

Shutting out the refugees is not the answer however. You win those people over with generosity. (Although every indication is that they are refugees because they want to escape terror and war. If they are left to molder in camps, those camps will become the source of new terrorists resentful of their treatment by Europeans.

Shutting out the refugees is inevitable. It's estimated that somewhere over 1 million migrants will have moved to Germany this year, mostly in the last six months of the year and only a third of whom (at most) having come from Syria. There isn't anywhere to put them so they're mostly being housed in camps anyway, it's just that they're camps in Germany rather than camps in the Middle East. There are no identity checks being carried out on these people, the Germans have had to rush through mass recruitment of brand new immigration officials who are being given 8 days training at most before having to make complex asylum decisions and freelance interpreters are being left alone to decide whether somebody is Syrian or not despite a) most of them not being qualified to do so and b) there not being anywhere enough of them to handle the workload. The German immigration system has entered into a state of abject collapse, just like I predicted it would a few weeks back when you all pooh-poohed the idea and assured me everything would be fine. Meanwhile fences are going up in Hungary, Croatia and Slovenia, border checks have been re-imposed in Sweden and the Schengen agreement is on life support. Oh,and do you know how many of the 160000 migrants who were supposed to have been allocated out through the quota system that was imposed by majority vote in the EU a few weeks back have currently been moved to new countries ? I'll tell you how many, 200.

I don't think you understand just how much of a shambles the open borders policy has become Ricky. It's wholly unsustainable.

sass

Shutting out the refugees is inevitable.

Where do they go and what happens to them if you shut them out of Europe?
There are over 2 million in Turkey. Over a million in Lebanon
650 thousand in Jordan. a quarter million in Iraq. 130,000 in Egypt,
We don't know how many in the KSA. perhaps 250,000 or more.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anhvinh-d ... 75924.html

Politically it was initially difficult to accept refugees until the pictures of dead toddlers washing up on beaches changed it to be politically difficult NOT to accept refugees. Now it is becoming difficult politically again.
Its a classic situation of the moral choice, being difficult and uncomfortable and even dangerous and therefore abandoned. Through history we've often failed (mankind generally but the enlightened west specifically) to respond to humanitarian crisis quickly, efficiently or effectively. And we always swear we'll do better.
And then when the challenge become difficult, the fine words go unremembered.
Whether or not Europe closes its border to refugees, there are enough native born adherents of ISIS in Europe to create more acts of terror equivalent to the 13th in Paris. That's not a reason to shut the refugees out. In fact more refugees will succumb to the lure of ISIL if they and their families suffer for years in camps.
You says its unsustainable to keep accepting refugees.. I think there is no limit to the misery that mankind can level on each other and we have to find the capacity to help. We have in the past, particularly in WWII . Germans know as much as anyone what the plight of the refugee is ...

1944 to 1948: Flight and expulsion of Germans after World War II. Between 13.5 and 16.5 million Germans were expelled, evacuated or fled from Central and Eastern Europe, making this the largest single instance of ethnic cleansing in recorded history. Estimated number of those who died in the process is being debated by historians and estimated between 500,000 and 3,000,000.

Unless you have a better place for the refugees to settle... the West should find them places to live. We aren't prepared to invade Syria and Iraq and occupy the region for a generation. And the US and UK already saw that strategy fail in Iraq... (I think is laughable that some feel that leaving a few thousand US troops in Iraq would have headed this off.... its as if they don't remember the constant bombings, kidnappings and murder that happened during the occupation of Iraq)
So the alternative is either to bar the gates and let the humanitarian disaster occur. Or make the moral choice to help in resettling as many as possible. I don't see much room in between those choices.

The vast majority of the 'refugees' are nothing of the sort. Even of those who were originally from Syria, most had been living in Turkey for some time and were safe. Europe does not have a moral duty to accommodate anybody who wants to come looking for a better life, and more to the point the existing populations of Europe will not tolerate it. You're living in cloud cuckoo land.

Six more months of this will see Schengen completely collapse and fences going up all along the border. Another six months will see Merkel toppled by her own party, Marine Le Pen elected as French president, Britain vote to leave the EU, far right parties gain huge ground in Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Austria and no doubt various other places... It's unsustainable Ricky.

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:My prayers go out to France in this terrible terrorist act. I hope that the recent influx of people from the Middle East is not where the terrorists came from.

A terrible cost for a bad decision if that is the case.

Be strong, France

The refugees from Syria are largely fleeing terrorists like this, and the Assad government.

I think it is unlikely they came in as recent refugees. This will have taken some planning and not many have got to France from the most recent wave.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/world/paris-attacks/index.html

Unlikely, but true.

Not yet proven. The passport is a fake, and there could be more than one copy. There is investigation ongoing as to whether fingerprints match.

At an early stage, a lot of evidence comes out but it may not be reliable - one named suspect turned out to be a victim instead.

I'll wait. Surely we will see, and

As I said before, I hope I am not right.

Well yes, there's now a thriving black market in fake or altered Syrian passports. Why would that be do you think ?

sass

The vast majority of the 'refugees' are nothing of the sort.

What is your source for this? The UNHCR certainly disagrees with you...

There are currently 1.5 million Syrian refugees in Turkey[1], three-quarters of which are women and children. This already exceeds UNHCR planning figures for 2014, which expected the number of Syrian refugees in Turkey to reach 1.3 million by the end of this year, with a projected increase to 1.6 million[2] by December 2015.

sass

Europe does not have a moral duty to accommodate anybody who wants to come looking for a better life, and more to the point the existing populations of Europe will not tolerate it.

Duty? How does one define duty when it comes to moral behavior? A moral obligation is enforced only by the courage of the holders of that morality. If it becomes difficult, if there is a cost to pay, often many will decide that they are not obligated to act. That is abandonment of the moral position. Period. The obligation still exists whether or not one has the courage to act on the obligation.

And you know, this isn't the beginning of the moral argument. Maybe Europe didn't have a moral duty to participate in the invasion of Iraq. Some European nations did and said there was a moral obligation.
Europe didn't have a moral duty to participate in the air defense of the Libyan rebels from Qaddafi. Many did. And morality played a large part in the argument.
Europe didn't have a moral duty to participate in the air war against ISIL... Except many have and do see that moral duty.
It strikes me that many see a moral duty when the cost is low. When the danger limited only to the military. Now that the repercussions of the conflicts and of western involvement in the region are beginning to affect more than just the members of the military and their families.... now the collective morality is less clear.

Sass, if a refugee knows that among his number a fellow refugee is actually an ISIL terrorist, would he have a moral obligation to tell the police in his region of that person?
Now imagine that refugee is one of those held in a "temporary" concentration center for months on end...
It is not just moral to help the refugees resettle. It will heal the cancer that creates terrorist sympathizers and terrorists.
In the US you often hear that the President's first duty is to keep citizens safe. If this is true, in Europe the safety of Europeans for decades will be greatly increased if refugees are dealt with generously. (And other countries have to step up and do their share as well.... The US, Canada, Japan etc.... have been shamefully absent from the required work.)

Sassenach wrote:Well yes, there's now a thriving black market in fake or altered Syrian passports. Why would that be do you think ?

This is THE question.

We "know" the answer, but some are unwilling to admit it.

Not just in the U.S., but any nation. It is the responsibility of the leader of ANY nation to protect it's people.

If people are coming from other nations and performing acts of terrorism, is it the responsibility of the leader to try to stop these people from entering. That would be protection. Note that I said IF. If the people are all French citizens, then this point is moot.

What is your source for this? The UNHCR certainly disagrees with you..

I was clearly referring to those currently in Europe.The last Eurostat report on this, which came out a few weeks ago, put the figure for Syrians at about 20% this year. It may have grown since, but there again that could easily be an overestimate. The Bulgarian police intercepted a consignment of 10000 fake Syrian passports this week which were destined for Germany. It's known that fake Syrian passports are changing hands for up to $1500 a pop right now. It's also been acknowledged that the German authorities are not even carrying out basic identity checks on the flood of migrants who have crossed their borders, and it's very doubtful that these will have been carried out at any of the other ports of call since the only priority has been to make sure they transit through to Germany as quickly as possible (and since migrants are reluctant to be processed in any other countries). It could quite easily be the case that the number of Syrians is much lower even than the 20% estimate.

This is the reality of the situation, something you'd do well to acquaint yourself with.

Duty? How does one define duty when it comes to moral behavior? A moral obligation is enforced only by the courage of the holders of that morality. If it becomes difficult, if there is a cost to pay, often many will decide that they are not obligated to act. That is abandonment of the moral position. Period. The obligation still exists whether or not one has the courage to act on the obligation.

With all due respect Ricky, this is waffle. You're not just saying that Europe has a responsibility to 'act', you're saying that it has a responsibility to offer an open-ended commitment to accept, house, feed and provide full access to the welfare state anybody claiming to be Syrian. You're saying that this is the moral position without any attempt to explain why. Perhaps you'd like to take this opportunity to clarify your point. Why is it that the only moral response to the Syrian crisis is to open our borders to the entire third world ? After you've answered that question, perhaps you can answer another one. Do we also have the same moral responsibility to the people of Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ghana, Eritrea, Iran, Afghanistan, Nepal... The reality of the situation is that 80% of the migrants who have arrived this year are from these countries or other non-Syrian countries like them with low GDP per capita. Do we have a duty to give all of these people a better life too ? Or to put it another way, who do we not have an obligation to house, feed, clothe, heal and educate at taxpayers expense ?

Sass, if a refugee knows that among his number a fellow refugee is actually an ISIL terrorist, would he have a moral obligation to tell the police in his region of that person?
Now imagine that refugee is one of those held in a "temporary" concentration center for months on end...
It is not just moral to help the refugees resettle. It will heal the cancer that creates terrorist sympathizers and terrorists.
In the US you often hear that the President's first duty is to keep citizens safe. If this is true, in Europe the safety of Europeans for decades will be greatly increased if refugees are dealt with generously. (And other countries have to step up and do their share as well.... The US, Canada, Japan etc.... have been shamefully absent from the required work.)

Oh I see. So first we have to take in everybody who wants to come here and then we have to be really nice to them because otherwise they might want to kill us. Must say you're not really selling this open borders thing very well here....