Should Europe continue to allow migrants from the Middle East and Africa?
Debate Rounds (3)
Regarding Islam and the potential danger that many people think that could bring, I am not sure how to feel about this, but I do think that a certain danger does exist. Sharia law is already being implemented in some areas of London, for example. It is a fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, of course, but it is also a fact that most terrorists are Muslims. And yes, there is always the danger of radicalization. But in any case, even if there was no controversy surrounding this, hundreds of thousands of people illegally coming in, contributing nothing and costing much would still be an issue, REGARDLESS OF RACE OR RELIGION.
What do I believe should happen, then? I believe that, despite what I have just said, that this is a humanitarian crisis, and that there should be an effort to rescue the migrants from drowning, preferably through a UN mission or similar operation. However, I am then in favor of there being a process to determine who is a refugee and who is an economic migrant, with the latter being deported once they reach the coast without exception. I am not a nationalist who thinks Europe is for Europeans only, or any of that stuff. I am not a racist who thinks that white people are superior and therefore should be the majority in Europe. Heck, I don't care what the migrants' skin pigments or nationalities are. But what we are currently doing is too little. We can not let these people just come into Europe whenever they want and let them do whatever they want. It just isn't a sustainable solution, and the line needs to be drawn somewhere.
Just imagine, for a second, that you were the owner of a hotel. You see a person outside, homeless and starving. It would be a great deed to let that person in, right? And I, and I'm sure many of you, would, or at least try and get them some help. But now imagine if you have hundreds of these people outside of your door, and half of them aren't homeless or starving at all- they just want to go to your hotel because their houses aren't as nice.
Think about that. Europeans should help others, but also help themselves.
First of all so the goverments are indeed I accept this: they are spending loads of money getting these people in. But is this a problem?
Remember the reason they are being taken in is for their own safety. Or at least that's the way I see it.
The Mediterranean (or any ocean really) isn't really a safe place for humans to be. On these journeys many people are dying falling off the boat due to how many people are being smuggled here not to mention many injuries are taking place.
I personally believe that if we were not to spend this money the people on the boats would be in danger. For as long as they are out at sea the longer they will be in cautious environments. They need to get to land as soon as possible. Only then will the danger the waters have put them in come to an end.
So while it may not be intentional I think by spending the money they do the Government are making these people safer. So the cost should continue.
Of course these people could just stop coming here. I mean sure as long as they dont sail on the waters in the first place they arent in danger right?
Your right. But. These people are always going to be sailing on the oceans. In all the situations throughout the Migration Crisis the boats are on the seas sailing towards mainland Europe. As long as these people are on oceans they are in danger and must come to land as soon as they can. So the government pay is necessary.
The alternative is not getting these people here thus they stay on the oceans and are at risk of drowning.
They are indeed causing hatred, violence, right wing party success and I do agree. This *is* a problem. But as I have explained the alternative is not helping them in and thus putting them in danger. So in this case we really have to choose between option one: letting these people stay on the waters putting them in caution option two: taking them in despite the negative impact they will bring to our country. Of course the problems they are causing are not good but I think it would be worse if we just let these people be in danger.
Yup. These people will find it hard to fit into our society. Absolutely I agree. This is a problem on their behalf remember not ours.
But whats better for them? Being in their country where they are struggling because of war and bad conditions or being in another country where they are safe but dont blend in very well?
Now yes some of these people are coming here for finnancial reasons and of course its better for them to stay at home. But they have made a stupid decision and have decided to sail here.
Not to mention one tactic used by economical migrants is to be in a smugglers boat and which is then sailed across the sea to find a navy ship. Once nearby a navy ship the boat is drowned by the smuggling sailors. It is the law of the sea for navies to rescue all people they know of that are drowning. So the navies have no other option but to pick them up. Then of course naturally the people on the navy boats take them to the nearest land which in most cases is some area of Europe.
Choice one is letting them into our country despite the fact they won't merge with society well. Choice two is letting them drown.
Both choices are bad but one is better then the other. We can't get everything we want in life.
Thoose are the objections I can tackle. I'm afraid the others such as Islam and coexisting cultures are quite difficult. I will probably need time to think of an argument for them.
And like I said before- take them in only temporarily, and use the UN's money to provide humanitarian aid, but then DEPORT THEM BACK. It will deter them from coming further, and I see this as the only way as, like I said before, there simply aren't any jobs/funds to support the number we are letting in. We have let over 100 000 in last month alone.
But if we only save them and provided temporary aid, it would save their lives BUT also cost a lot less. In the case of refugees, they could potentially live in Europe longer-term, but economic migrants? No.
As I said before, Option 3: Save them and deport them back. Everyone wins to some extent. And in the cases of the economic migrants, aren't they putting THEMSELVES in danger by attempting to make the illegal journey?
About the not fitting into society being an issue on their behalf- well it's important for us, as well, as since they want to move into a new country, they need to integrate, learn the language and social customs of the area. And that's not easy to do with 100 000 people coming in each month.
Yes, genuine refugees should be allowed to stay for a longer period of time. It's our duty as those who have the means to save people from whatever danger they might be in. But not the economic migrants. We should have no responsibility over them- it's just like the hotel analogy. We can't simply let in anyone who wants to live in Europe. And yes, many of them ARE economic migrants, as that explains the large number of them moving to countries with generous social security such as the UK and Germany.
It seems you don't get that there is a third choice- to save them, but deport them back. If this happens, we can help people and not have innocent blood on our hands. However it will also eventually deter them from coming back. Because right now, what we are doing is sending a message of encouragement to more economic migrants, who might increase our current problems many more times over.
If we had some sort of "test" to see if they were economic or refugee I would take your side but we do not.
We can either send ALL of them back or keep ALL of them in. Keeping some shoving out others is not an option unless we know whether they really need help or just want somewhere better to live.
If we send them all back we could be sending people who are for example in Syria on the verge of IS. Yes we'd be sending economics back but there is no doubt refugees will be also if we take that option.
However, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Because we cannot just let in everyone who sets their mind to it. And yes, I agree, we shouldn't have to deport any genuine refugees to any war-torn areas. Unfortunately, the EU has not drawn such a line separating the two, yet, and some criteria NEEDS to be met. For reasons I stated above.
I do think that now, some methods can be devised, such as judging by which country they came from, but that has the potential to be very inaccurate. But the issue I have is not with them being saved and housed in camps, the issue is hundreds of thousands of them are spreading across Europe, breaking asylum law, costing large amounts of money ect.
So for this reason I don't support permanent relocation en masse.
And also, we need to find a method to determine if the refugees are genuine. I briefly thought of not allowing in anyone without identification, but that would effectively harm refugees, as well.
Still, the EU is still letting in thousands of people who it knows aren't fleeing any war or conflict. And that has to be stopped, Europe simply can not handle it.
Letting them all in will allow many economics inside our country, where as refugees will be safe.
Getting them all out will be sending many refugees back to their home country which are war torn and needs to be fixed.
I guess the agreement we can come to on this debate is that we need a method of process to determine if these people are economic or refugee. Once this process is established I will take your side and say no economics can be let in the country.
But until that day it is best to be safe then sorry.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.