Comments 17

控制欧洲难民危机

Apr 10, 2016 George Soros

伦敦—上个月欧盟与土耳其谈判中新提出的避难政策在4月4日生效，202名寻求避难者从希腊驱逐出境。该政策有四个根本缺陷。

·该政策系与土耳其商定，由德国总理默克尔在欧盟施行。

·该政策严重资金不足。

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 20 in all 20 Comments on this article

Bernd Einfeldt Jul 11, 2016

It is worse, an article in "Die Zeit" indicates that European refugee politics is based on a piece of charlatanism;
https://plus.google.com/116010873343713831202/posts/8tSQJePcczx .
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Morgan Apr 30, 2016

Why does everyone avoid the subject of religion? The refugees are Muslims who basically are not welcome in Europe we do not want an Islamification of Europe with mosques and minarets being the main features on the skyline with speakers blaring out Islamic prayers. Refugees and economic migrants into Europe will become the norm as climate change the lack of drinking water and conflict force people to move North in search of a better life or simply life. Yes we in Europe can raise funds but the populace in democratic countries will not tolerate additional taxes to fund refugees. Most people are basically selfish, sad but true.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Doyle Apr 17, 2016

Since the major influence behind all the MENA troubles can be sheeted home to the neocons in Washington. the US should take all the refugees to itself. It has the capacity and it has the moral obligation.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
eusebio manuel Apr 12, 2016

I must say that the refugee problema is political This path has no solution One thing is certain Western and Eastern Europe has sufficient means to ensure security freedom and rights to all refugeees in the World I´m not asking to split the nations I am asking to put an end to the conflict that isolate our unhappy planet
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
TRIQUI AHMED Apr 11, 2016

L'intérêt évident de M.Soros pour l'Europe l'honore. On aurait aimé que M.Soros traita la question à la source, la crise des réfugiés est d'abord le résultat de l'intervention militaire dans les pays du Proche Orient et de l'Afrique du Nord. C'est une demande de stabilité et de paix que souhaitent les peuples de la région , pour vivre sur leur territoire et continuer leur histoire. J'aurais aimé que M.Soros œuvra à l'émergence de la paix en finançant et en organisant par exemple une grande conférence de la Méditerranée. Le contrôle de la crise migratoire européenne passe nécessairement par la consolidation des États du P.O, le respect de leurs frontières, de leurs cultures millénaires et de leurs institutions.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Apr 11, 2016

Aside from taxing hedge billionaires, another approach is to put the "refugees" where they are most wanted and belong. That would be the gated communities and elite enclaves of the EuroReich. In a New York minute, Soros and his ilk will decide that the illegal migrants and an abomination and remove them. Problem solved.
- Louis Stouch Apr 17, 2016
  
  I like your thinking. Refugees for thee, but not for me, is soros mantra.
  why don't you kick in a few billion, gyorgy?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Apr 11, 2016

Here is better way to pay for "refugees" (illegal migrants). Let's tax hedge fund billionaires. After all, if they can use their money to promote the destruction of Europe, why shouldn't they pay for the destruction of Europe?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Apr 11, 2016

This topic has been debated at length on PS. The writer’s suggestions are like prescribing aspirins to a patient with cancer. Exactly like the timing of the release of the “Panama Papers”.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Apr 11, 2016

@ micheal

'living off the fat of the land ... for a couple of centuries'

Like going down the mines, working in the dark satanic mills, working is shipyards or the docks, queueing for work etc etc. What planet have you been living on
- michael CROCKETT Apr 13, 2016
  
  Well Steve,
  
  I've been living mainly in the 20th Century, and now a bit of the 21st. I think you have been singing too much William Blake . For getting on for a couple of centuries, we in the West have been consuming at least 4 times as much per person as the majority of the World population. If that is not living off the fat, then i'd like to know what is. Don't get me wrong. I have been doing it myself and enjoying every minute of it, but it is unsustainable in the future without war.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Apr 11, 2016

This article ignores the following -

Evidence in Germany is that only 1 in 3 refugees has any prospect of employment in the near term. That is the outcome of the Germany industry subsidised migrant take-up project. 2 in 3 have an uncertain future and probable employment problems which will create ongoing costs and likely future social problems.

Attempts to create employment for refugees by specific preferential funding when EU youth unemployment will create a social backlash

The trend for youth unemployment in the West decade on decade has been upward indicating an employment issue, particularly when this is occurring against a demographic of an aging population whcih should be needing more not less youth engagement in work. Until native youth unemployment falls there is no case for declaring extra labour is needed.

50% of the inflow are economic migrants and should be deported. Failure to deal with economic migration which is the case to date in the EU simply encourages people to game the system

Refugees have no right to elect where they want to reside. They have a right to claim asylum and are supposed to do it at the first safe country. Furthermore coming from a country with war is not an automatic asylum right, it is the location within the country and life being in jeopardy. The granting of automatic right to asylum to all Syrians is not a good policy. It encourages future migration expectations in other countries

Wealthy muslim coutries nearer than Europe appear to be making no effort whatsoever to take refugees

Once a mechanism into perpetuity is set up it will encourage movement and application and expectation. If this occurs the idea it can be stablised at 300K or 400K or 500K persons is a joke. The population of Africa alone is set to exceed China in a matter of decades and reach 1.4 billion. Social unrest is highly likely in that region creating more refugees

The EU facilities referred to are loan facilities not grant facilities and cannot be simply redirected

There is no limit to the ingenuity of Wolfgang Schauble to attempt to spread the cost away from Germany whilst Germany at the same time claims migrants are a good thing economically. Both cannot be the case. Furthermore WS is simply one voice in the EU and even Germany has rejected his proposals

If the EU fails it is not because of the migrant crisis. It is ridiculous to suggest a million or so migrants, 50% of whom are economic migrants and have no right to access can make a 500 million population bloc fail. If it fails it is because it is not fit for purpose. Its prime failure is likely to be the Eurozone and Germany, the main beneficary of the EZ

First and foremost the EU has to deal with practicalities, ensure border control, proper and prompt assessment of genuine asylum seekers and removal of failed or faux applicants

Proponents of open borders please note that this G Soros article recognises the need for process control and restrictions on movement

The objective has to be to provide sanctuary to genuine asylum seekers under international law
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
michael CROCKETT Apr 11, 2016

Living off the fat of the world has been good for Western populations for a couple of centuries. Whilst it was possible to balance up inequalities between the Caribbean and the Pacific by building the Panama canal, trying to build a system to filter down the number of poor people who want to aspire to living better simply will not work. Ever since the communications revolution gave the internet to tribal villages in the Congo, the secret of our immense comfort has been blown. Their are many, many millions, even billions of human beings who want to live like we do. It is sad to see a country of fat, wealthy people like UK, fascinated by the fact that some people are even richer than others, whilst most of the world lives in gross poverty.

If you consider the existence of the human race to be insignificant in the general run of things, then it is all a joke. If, as it seems so many do, you think our survival is of some importance, then a form of global equality is the only solution. That means that the fat ones will have to get thinner, and they don't usually agree to do that without war.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Fritz Mustermann Apr 11, 2016

>>The new tax revenue could come from a variety of sources, including the EU-wide value-added tax, which already provides revenue; a special tax on petrol<<

Yes, let the plebs foot up the bill. Always a good idea, while the organized money is hiding their wealth in shady account.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
george sos Apr 11, 2016

I dont mean to be a spoil spot but anyone realises that there is a global problem ,that there will soon be millions of immigrants running towards europe (the promised land ).
Unless the west finds ways to redistribute for real wealth with those who suffered from exploitation by the west(well not by the western citizens,mostly it was the few rich who did that and now it is on our heads,when those who created this mess are having holidays in Barbados with the stolen wealth secure in some paradise ... .
Lets be realistic.Only way to stop this is war.And war will be.The hungry will not any more stay and die.They know now where is the salvation for them (or where they imagine it to be).(blame the internet ):):)And they will not stop ,even if you shoot them.they dont have anything to lose .We took everything.So they are coming.
Watch turkey getting free visa and all Turks who can move to europe in a year(those who are not fundamentalist islamist erdogan's associates or idiotic religious blind beings,that were left uneducated for that reason (to support the likes of erdogan.)
In all Greece will have a big problem (already we are having a mess and since our gov is left and respects human rights of immigrants but not ours,we will find ways to escape to europe ourselves leaving greece in the hands of the islamic plague.
It is not about human rights any more.It is about cheap workforce for the plans of the global corporations who are used in earning money our of other peoples work.If we want to keep existing as humanity we need to stop this madness of the greedy.
As for majorities and wanting to stay in europe,yes that is true.But which europe is the question.Those who use this argument are taking our feelings of unity to be acceptance for the economic monster they created.
We want another europe ,and we will have it.By hook or by crook we will....
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Apr 11, 2016

The "refugee" (illegal migrant is the correct term) crisis can be stopped immediately at essentially zero cost by stopping phony asylum seekers before they reach Europe and immediately deporting them if they get in anyway. Israel and Australia have shown that illegal migrants can be stopped cold at almost no cost by just saying "no". Once the fake refugees understand that money paid to smugglers is money lost, they will stop trying to sneak into Europe.

"No" is the only approach that actually works and the cost is minimal. The alternative is Bataclan, Charlie Hebdo, banlieues, tournantes, Cologne, Molenbeek, Rosengård, etc. forever. "Open Europe" is a paradise for the cheap labor exploiters who live in gated communities. It is Cologne for everyone else. Let's put some of those "migrants" into Soros's gated community. Within ten minutes he will be telling us about the wonders of barbed wire.
- Ray Small Jul 10, 2016
  
  In reply to MM: Correction! You cannot call someone you invited into your GERMAN home a trespasser.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- M M Apr 12, 2016
  
  Peter, you cannot call someone whom you invited into your home, a “Trespasser”.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Apr 11, 2016

"There are established techniques for the voluntary matching of supply and demand in other fields, such as matching students to schools and medical interns to hospitals."

That's not a bad idea, in terms of mechanism of distribution of refugees (sounds like a pretty cold, inhuman process, eh?). I'm sure upon further thought there will be significant issues with this, but worth further discussion.

The other questions: hard and fundamental.

The fundamental, cause of the problem: - how can the powers who have influence over international relations change their behavior, in a way that reduces destabilization and destruction in the countries from which the refugees come? (hint: early retirement for NeoCon's, and advocates of benevolent regime change).

The hard question: Now that the big mistakes are already made and the disaster must be cleaned up while the mistakes are hopefully reversed -- how to determine quotas? Are quotas even compatible with national sovereignty and democracy in the first place? A negotiation between the EU and individual countries seems inevitable... Wouldn't it be better to do it in the open and under a democratic system?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Wim Nusselder Apr 10, 2016

Interesting approach to the refugee issue!
Is the EU in mortal danger because of it?? That doesn't seem to square well with the belief in a majority (however silent) wanting to preserve the EU. European politicians can't be that incompetent not to be able to turn such a majority, if it exists, into preservation of the EU, if they collect the political will to do so.

How does setting a target of welcoming 300,000-500,000 refugees square with asylum rights as enshrined in international law? Can rich countries legitimately buy off their responsibility to grant asylum rights in the proposed way, shifting the political and social burden (if not the financial burden) to poorer countries burdening the refugee sources? Is maintaining stability of the global economic and political system a proper legitimation if that system primarily serves the rich and otherwise privileged?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/1ztZTGT/zh;

控制欧洲难民危机

To continue reading, subscribe now.

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

No Country for Palestinians

The New-Old Globalization

How to Beat a Populist

Financial Prey for the Populists

China’s Decade of Sweeping Economic Change

Springtime for Nationalism?

Mobilizing Young People Against Anti-Vaxxers

Elizabeth Warren’s Big Ideas on Big Tech

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register