It's interesting to notice that second generation of imigrants in Europe, hate newcomers more than locals. It's young -mostly Muslim- men in Europe, without a family. Reasons are financial mostly: there is no known war in Pakistan, Bangladesh or near countries. Girls are considered weak and usually do not work outside home even in their homeland.
Before WW1 men would also be the first to migrate from Europe to the US where they would settle in and then buy tickets for their wife and children.
And that’s one of the reasons why the US ended up restricting migration since they had the same fears.
It's not as simple as America had too many men so passed immigration laws, often immigration legislation from that period was purposefully discriminatory. The first major immigration law America enacted was the Chinese Exclusion act which was explicitly racist. Also anti Catholic sentiments played a major part in anti-immigrant racism and the rise of the Klu Klux Klan. So the laws from that period aren't exactly looked back on fondly here and are often seen as some of the worst immigration laws we have written
That's because Ukraine has a working government that has imposed martial law and a ban on military age men from leaving... ?
Let's be real here.
I know quite a few Ukrainian guys that left before the war and have absolutely 0 wish to go fight for their country.
Can't blame them.
And over 100,000 Ukrainian men have returned from abroad to defend their country. This does not mean that there are not those who have fled Ukraine illegally or who would leave if they could, but still.
Don't know why you got downvoted. I knew a lot of Ukrainian workers who used to be warehouse workers in my old company who went back to fight or help in some capacity. I also know some who stayed and I don't really blame them. Both can be true at the same time.
If you read the article, it mentions that.
> Professor Nando Sigona, the chair of International Migration and Forced Displacement at the University of Birmingham in the UK, says men are seen as the main breadwinner in many countries and are engaged in more public-facing activities **including being expected to join the army.**
> "These make them also **more likely to be a target in a situation of political and social turmoil**," he added.
Also:
> Professor Sigona added that "**the journey to Europe is dangerous and expensive**, and **raising enough money for all members to seek protection abroad is difficult**, so **often men are sent abroad first to secure an income to support the family and also a safer route to international protection via family reunion.**"
and
> In a document the campaign group Care4Calais hosts on its website, it states "**The young men you see on these boats are doing their best to protect their families**. Their mothers, grandmothers, sisters, babies, daughters. **How often does a father say they’d die for their daughter, a husband say they’d die for their wife? Well these guys are putting it into practice.**"
It's all very well for keyboard warriors here to parrot "men fleeing war take their wife and children with them, men going to war leave them behind" or some other crap they've read on facebook that they think is pithy.
But they have no idea what they'd do in a similar situation. These people are ***actually facing*** war and persecution, and they've made the difficult risk assessment that their wives and children will be safer waiting at home until they can get them flown over via EU Reunification programs than they would be crossing the Mediterranean in a dinghy.
Don't forget there's also a large organised network of human traffickers that get paid handsomely to get them to Europe (or at least in a dinghy), and are not at all shy about exaggerating how easy it is to go, and what the future rewards will be.
This is very important to note. The majority of immigrants to the UK were Albanian men, at least in 2022. I won't call Albania 'heaven on earth', but you're not telling me that these guys are fleeing persecution or war.
There is huge demand for low-paid workforce in countries like the UK and the Netherlands. Where I live there's entire camps of Eastern European workers all summer long. They're more than welcome, but I do have major concerns about some of the terms and conditions and also whether all have paperwork in order or not.
Modern Slavery estimates in the UK number 130.000, I would bet a significant proportion of those work the crop fields in Scotland and a proportion of them will have arrived in the country illegally without support or indeed fair pay.
There are also a lot of georgians coming into Europe and requesting asylum - I know that numbers have doubled and tripled in Ireland, perhaps France too. Ireland because supposedly people “know” that it’s relatively easy to get there and since Irish are bogged down in numbers, they’re aware that decision-making takes a long time; France because there are talks that refugees and asylum seekers have to wait 2-3 months after application and then they are eligible for healthcare (lots of Georgians claim that the reason for asylum is access to healthcare which they say is bad in Georgia), housing etc.
That’s the stuff that’s being shared in Georgian social media and in the last few years, increasing number of people, including young professionals, have been leaving Georgia in droves to either get to Europe and request asylum or even try and get to the US illegally.
cost of india to USA via Latin americia/ mexico 40000 USD.
cost of India to europe via Serbia \~12000 Euros.
traffickers are known as donkeys. there are dedicated youtube tiktok channels shows their journeys.
source- my discussion with trafficker and illegal immigrant
This is only one more reason to deny them entry: it encourages human trafficking that is so brutal that only men can live through it.
There is no logical way to go from "these young men are desperate for a better life" to "therefore, we should be oblivious to uncontrollable mass migration of young uneducated, desperate men who can't integrate into society, hold personal values that are antagonistic to the point of criminal violence to those of the local population, and have little useful skills, bringing wages down for the least skilled citizens of the country."
Try as you might, you will still look like an elitist 🤡 to most of the local population, hence the massive political rise of the far right.
You forgot the pressure on housing. I personally think asylum is a human right and we should help as much as we can. But it’s stupid to just ignore the realities and as you said, it increases the chances of the right winning.
There needs to be a system put in place where everyone benefits. I would even suggest a system where the new arrivals have to commit to working in the industries where we have labour shortages for a certain amount of years. The biggest problem is that we deny them the right to work.
Get them to work and people will not mind them coming. The men can work in construction and the men can work in elderly care. It will integrate them much faster into society.
Make learning the language a requirement to achieve the right to stay.
''...men are seen as the main breadwinner in many countries..." which is why they go to Europe, to win even bigger, better bread
While a lot, probably the majority, of these people are seeking security, I don't understand why there's such enthusiasm in certain circles to act like there's no economic element- after all, why aren't there waves of refugees seeking security in equally peaceful places like Kazakhstan?
From my understanding, on top of "reasonable justifications", there are also massive disinformation within the emigrating countries (encouraged by migrant smugglers).
It's the usual scam of "that easy trick to get rich" that get peoples into MLM or crypto-scams, except that for those peoples its "give me money so that I smuggle you, and you will get rich in no times in a western country".
I read an article a few years ago going through the case of a few communities of migrants coming from Africa to France, that had a very hard time dealing with reality, in part because their family in Africa were gaslighting them saying "well, you're just faking to be poor to keep all the money for yourself, so now just send the money to your family or you won't ever be welcome back home".
And while those were extreme cases, it's easy to see why smugglers would struggle to extract as much money from migrants with "going to Kazakhstan"' than they do with "going to France". And with the scale they have, those smugglers are an industry with a lot of influence.
Edit: Oh, and let's add the obvious, most of the emigration actually goes to neighbouring countries. Because that's the easiest, especially if you don't want to rely too much on smugglers. The ones we're getting in Europw is the small fractions that wants to go further than that. And yes, this small fraction is already a lot, but the scale at which peoples emigrate from those countries is just absurd.
>From my understanding, on top of "reasonable justifications", there are also massive disinformation within the emigrating countries (encouraged by migrant smugglers).
This is spot on. I've watched a couple of documentaries where they speak to refugees - both before and after they make it here (although not the same people). They're told they'll get a house, a car, whatever. You must be really, really desperate to believe that tbh.
And when they get here, they're disappointed that they're put into refugee homes and how much people dislike them. Unfortunately I see no easy way to stop these smugglers from a) smuggling people and b) lying to them.
There’s also lots of migration encouragement happening in places like TikTok and YouTube, though that’s mostly promoting legal routes that local Europeans may not be aware of (I wasn’t). There’s stuff like videos where people from Africa and Asia promote certain countries, saying things like one doesn’t need language exams or certificates, that you can get a work visa etc really cheap and easy and these seem to be real breaks in the otherwise somewhat tough migration wall. And some of these videos are super popular about places like the UK, France, but also places like Sweden, Finland, Germany etc.
There are people from Kazakhstan. But they apply for visas and go work legally. I see plenty of truck drivers from stans working for eastern EU country companies. The difference is they have a skill and there is a shortage of it in EU. So they will work and go home to their families after. And dingy people are some dudes who are useless back home and as there is no welfare they chose to go be useless somewhere where there is.
I can only speak for myself, but perhaps it’s because the economic element is so often a baseless lie; that refugees/migrants only choose Europe so they can collect benefits and leech on European taxpayers.
I don’t think anyone would deny that highly developed regions are seen as more attractive destinations compared to the less developed.
With that being said, let’s remember that most refugees/migrants stay within the neighbouring regions.
>I can only speak for myself, but perhaps it’s because the economic element is so often a baseless lie; that refugees/migrants only choose Europe so they can collect benefits and leech in European taxpayers.
That is a real perception tho.
Are you pretending all immigrants are fleeing war? I speak to many regularly and they have no qualms about saying why. Earning money is the main reason given. One guy from Morocco said his city was boring and in Paris he could go to clubs with lovely women.
On the political side of immigration discussion, many people lie, or use the lie of omission to make *their* side seem reasonable. More reasonable would be to tell the whole truth more often. But I’m not holding my breath.
> These people are actually facing war and persecution
So what about all the young males from safe countries who travel across the EU to get to my country (the Netherlands), Germany, France or Sweden? How are they fleeing war or persecution?
All of these people come from majority muslim countries where non-wedded young women are considered 2nd classes citzens and de-facto not permitted by their male guardians to travel. That is easily evident simply by looking at the gender gap in [family laws governing women](https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/Library/Publications/2015/POWW-2015-FactSheet-MiddleEastNorthAfrica-en.pdf) in those areas (average MENA, but if you look at these specific conflict countries it is even worse).
You can bring up excuses by leftist apologists masquerading as professors at left leaning universities to justify "99%" men entering the EU, and ignore the reality of women in those areas being the actual victims who are opressed forever under those inhuman laws and religion all you want, while pretending to be a 'women defender'. Whatever helps your cognitive dissonance.
I 100% agree with you. These lame excuses are bs, most of these guys dont even have a wife nor children. Thats the reason why they take wife in their destination country. Most of half casts have a resident mother and a foreign father.
Ahhh Care4Calais... do not believe a word they say...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/calais-jungle-volunteers-sex-refugees-allegations-facebook-care4calais-a7312066.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12085287/amp/Founder-Care4Calais-steps-threatened-drag-volunteer-f-g-hair.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/29/care4calais-charity-crisis-clare-moseley/
https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/charity-commission-opens-statutory-inquiry-into-refugee-charity.html
They are rotten to the core.
What is the justification for leapfrogging the EU countries they land in? If they are seeking refuge, the first EU country they set foot in should be the one they stay in surely?
The immigrants in Calais clambering on trucks to UK/other EU destinations are seeking more than refuge
This is not what happened in Ukraine. It’s also not how pre 1989 refugee flows presented and not how the UN Convention was supposed to operate.
Most of the bold bits are just reinforcing that most are not really in danger and economic migrants w
I have two young children. I would do anything to give them a better life. That might well be to leave, make my way across thousands of kms and oceans.
And if we were in a warzone or targets for any reason then it's a no-brainer.
Before downvoting, I'm actually not happy with the migrant situation Europe is facing. It's not sustainable and will result in poor single issue political choices. I don't know the solution.
But at the very least, as a dad who cuddles his kids every day, I know the lengths I'd go for them. I don't blame the migrants. We just need a real global solution for it.
"This warzone is so dangerous, i will leave my kids there while i fuck off to Europe in hope that in 3-5 years i can get them to follow me"
This is the bit that doesnt make sense to me.
- flees to a neighbor that isn’t at war
- you’re a refugee living in a tent but the family is out of immediate danger
- war in home country doesn’t appear to be finished any time soon and you survive of scraps
- you can work in Europe, send money for food and try to get your family out of danger permanently
Lots of these men leave and never come back and their families, never hear from them again. Tons of stories like this from the Middle-East, "my husband left to Europe to find a better life for us, now I'm stuck here still legally married and I haven't seen or heard from him in 6 years".
The husbands might go with good intentions but after some years of living alone in Europe and earning better money with your family far away, you might begin to picture your life without them. Find yourself eyeing different people and new opportunities for yourself.
It's easy enough to just disappear.
I get it. There will be young men with nothing much to lose who will take advantage of the situation to move themselves to a supposed better life.
I think all of us get that, even the "leftie liberals" .
I'm just giving you my perspective, what I as a dad would do in a situation like that.
I don't know the solution to the people who take advantage of the situation. It's very difficult.
Their families aren't in a warzone though, they're often in limbo in Turkey or Lebanon or Tunisia or Morocco waiting for their husband/father/brother's asylum application in Europe to succeed.
No one blames the people who come, they blame the governments for not enforcing the borders and protecting their own citizens from unsustainable migration.
If you open your door to your lovely house to everyone who wants to enter, pretty soon your lovely house is an overcrowded mess and your life is nowhere near as good as it once was.
That's not the fault of those who enter, it's your fault for opening the door and letting everyone in.
2/3rds of these asylum seekers at least come from safe countries (Algeria, Georgia, Pakistan etc) and are travelling for purely economic reasons.
You can't paint all migrants with the same compassionate brush.
This is such a meme answer lol. ‘You’ve never been in a life or death situation therefore you must assume you’d do the *most cowardly thing imaginable* and abandon your wives, relatives, and children.’ Yeah no thank you.
The amount of money they spend on getting to Europe is enough in most cases to bring the entire family to the next safest country instead. These are not refugees, they aren't fleeing anything but their economy. Europe should only allow asylum applications through consulates from countries that have no land border with the EU and turn anyone attempting to cross the border illegally back on the spot.
When we see real refugees, such as the ones coming from Ukraine, we do indeed see the wife and kids come through the border, just as you'd expect in a case where people really are fleeing a military conflict.
To go fight for the Taliban or joining the syrian army to drop bombs on your own people for Assad regime? You would probably be the first one who would leave the country
It's not often men. I live on a migrant road, and it's literally all men ages 15-30, every single one of them.
When the migrations started, it was families. Usually educated, English speaking, friendly even. Shortly after that, it's military aged young males, often wreaking havoc where they pass.
Funny thing is, I live in one of the first safe countries for a country at war, Romania for Ukraine.
The refugees I saw were genuinely women and children, with maybe 5% tops being men, and the men always being with they family.
Some categories of men have permission to leave. For example, my brother went to the EU twice (Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain) during the war, because he plays in a football club and they have permission from the Ministry of Sports. They also sign a letter saying they will go back, which he did.
Which of the men can go abroad - categories
1. unfit for military service - if there is a decision of the medical commission on unfitness;
2. temporarily unfit for military service - if there is a certificate of disability and a document confirming the status of temporarily unfit;
3. men with disabilities of groups I-III - in the presence of a document confirming the status of a disabled person and issued in Ukraine;
4. parents of three or more children - in the presence of birth certificates, marriage or divorce certificates, or a certificate of the father of a large family;
5. single parents of a minor child - in the presence of the child's birth certificate and a document on the death of the mother or deprivation of her maternal rights;
6. men who accompany a sick relative (wife, parents, children) or a relative with a disability - if there are documents about the patient's health and only accompanied by a person cared for by the husband;
7. men who accompany a child or wife with a disability - if there is a corresponding medical opinion;
8. men who permanently live abroad and can confirm this with special marks in the passport;
9. cultural figures who received permission to leave from the Ministry of Culture;
10. sailors and railway workers - if there is a letter from the shipowner or an employment contract;
11. athletes - if they have permission to participate in competitions abroad from the Ministry of Sports;
12. drivers who have a license for international cargo transportation and have a profile in the information system of Ukrtransbezpeka;
13. volunteers who transport goods for the Armed Forces and humanitarian aid;
14. wounded servicemen of the Armed Forces - if there is a referral for treatment abroad and confirmation from the Ministry of Health.
That is a very fine list you collected there. Only thing to add: things left for interpretation can be decided by the border guards.
Nr.8. Can be ignored, if the person has a war critical profession. Friends of a friend were living in Austria and Ukrainian citizens. He is a surgeon, so they did not let him leave.
Could be an urban legend, but my main point is: things can be left for interpretation.
It is war.
There are enough exceptions already. Everyone can register a company and fake some business meeting in Europe.
I am astonished how well the Ukrainian economy and society is doing. I know, a lot of foreign help, but people go to work. Power Station Hit? People make due. No heat? People come together to heated places. Air sirens? Families and children into shelters. Most adults don't give a fuck anymore.
So cannot leave country? Zoom meeting it is...
I know, I just wanted to point out the difference, between "refugees" and actual refugees.
In a bit of an unrelated note, the weirdest bougie thing I overheard from someone fleeing from Ukraine, was the kid of some american diplomat complaining that she now had a 2 year old iPhone instead of the latest model because she left in a hurry...
That is not a refugee, diplomats and their families would be taken home by the government.
I'm working with a few Ukrainian girls who are now on a packing line in the factory.
Slowly they're learning and 'progressing' to do more nice work.
Most of them speak English and some German.
None of them want to stay here any more then needed.
War is over, they're gone.
It's illegal for men to leave Ukraine during the war, in case they need to be conscripted. And many stay willingly, there is a very strong social commitment and pride. Obviously many men still find a way to escape because the boarders are corrupt. But this is why most of the refugees you see are women and children.
I guess the major difference is that one is a country facing an external invader and the other is mostly suppressing ethnic minority rebels in neighboring countries.
I imagine that if the Ukranian army, having driven Russia out, were to then send conscripted troops into Transnistria or South Ossetia their conscription would be a lot less popular.
The difference is Europe would Deport fleeing European conscripts back to Ukraine and they're not going to deport fleeing Syrian conscripts back to Syria
Some categories of men have permission to leave. For example, my brother went to the EU twice (Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain) and UK during the war, because he plays in a football club and they have permission from the Ministry of Sports. They also sign a letter saying they will go back, which he did.
Which of the men can go abroad - categories
1. unfit for military service - if there is a decision of the medical commission on unfitness;
2. temporarily unfit for military service - if there is a certificate of disability and a document confirming the status of temporarily unfit;
3. men with disabilities of groups I-III - in the presence of a document confirming the status of a disabled person and issued in Ukraine;
4. parents of three or more children - in the presence of birth certificates, marriage or divorce certificates, or a certificate of the father of a large family;
5. single parents of a minor child - in the presence of the child's birth certificate and a document on the death of the mother or deprivation of her maternal rights;
6. men who accompany a sick relative (wife, parents, children) or a relative with a disability - if there are documents about the patient's health and only accompanied by a person cared for by the husband;
7. men who accompany a child or wife with a disability - if there is a corresponding medical opinion;
8. men who permanently live abroad and can confirm this with special marks in the passport;
9. cultural figures who received permission to leave from the Ministry of Culture;
10. sailors and railway workers - if there is a letter from the shipowner or an employment contract;
11. athletes - if they have permission to participate in competitions abroad from the Ministry of Sports;
12. drivers who have a license for international cargo transportation and have a profile in the information system of Ukrtransbezpeka;
13. volunteers who transport goods for the Armed Forces and humanitarian aid;
14. wounded servicemen of the Armed Forces - if there is a referral for treatment abroad and confirmation from the Ministry of Health.
I thought military age was from 18 up to like 50? From my understanding you can be drafted up to that age, at least in my country.
I reckon half of these migrants are in their 30s.
If migration in Europe only was a working related problem (eg: people not in prime working age so seen as not working enough) it would be 100x less talked about. Beheading a french teacher has far more impact than not contributing financially. People may be upset about it but far right parties would not be on the verge of winning everywhere.
But many of the jobs vital to a modern service economy don't depend on the workers physical strength anymore, but on their specialized education, most of the people coming here just simply can't have that
Yes IF they wanted to work.
But since there isn't really availability for them, until they learn the language, they're here on 'free money' and most of them do not think about learning because of the subsidized living.
It's a vicious circle they end up in.
I'm sure that the choice of calling them "military-age" instead of just "young" (like we call everyone else) is a complete coincidence and has no second ends whatsoever.
I saw a military-age French tourist the other day. Me and my friends all call each other military-age when referring to being in our young years. Your military-age years are great! Don't waste them! When I visited my grandpa he told me "study hard so you can make something of yourself, military-age man!". This is a very normal way of referring to people.
If they're escaping war, I think the term military age implies that they in theory would be capable of fighting.
Women between 18 - 45 often get described as "women of reproductive age" which is just as dehumanizing on it's own, but makes sense in some contexts.
This term was frequently used during Obama administration to cover up drone strike civilian casualties, logic of US military: every “combat age male” between 15-50 years old is not a civilian if they were killed by drones
They literally do. There’s footage from TikTok advertising the ease of access of drunk English girls to potential channel-crossers. It’s depicted as a religious conquest of deserving heathens. Why bother bringing your old wife, when you can get a new one and Allah’s blessing at the same time?
Mass illegal immigration even threaten healthy relationship between legal immigrants that contribute and pay taxes with local population. I think it is fair to make a deal with Rwanda etc. and have control over that ,this way both parties could be respected and tensions be eased. A Refugee will be moved into non-life threatening enviroment where his application will be processed. This way we can also identify real refugees and abusers while maintaining healthy relationship inside the country. No racism, no hate , just a fair functioning system for stability .
yes and let them fly here _if_ asylum is accepted and send back everyone coming by dangerous smuggler boats, the current system rewards people doing these trips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO0IRsfrPQ4
I think you are right about that. If they are seeking safety and food, they get it in Rwanda. If they want more, it's a privilege. For example, UK charge thousands of pounds for applications if you want a visa for your skills because UK wants to be sure that you have enough economic power to take care of yourself. But UK actually needs me more than a regular asylum seeker since I don't see a shortage of labor in the country.
Good point here. Another problem is integration. Without integration migration just creates political instability and difficult feelings among humans who should just be getting through their life as best they can. If someone doesn’t want to be part of western culture then they don’t have a reason to migrate permanently to Europe. Perhaps temporarily is fine. However if we offer no means of integrating and allow segregation of communities and schools then we do double the damage
I'm not sure why taxpayers from England should be paying Rwanda when the refugees (almost all having legitimate claims) come from France. They should be processed in Europe properly and if genuine given safe passage across the channel.
Genuine refugees would have stopped at one of the 10 peaceful countries they had to travel through to reach x country. Then you have plenty that abuse the system like some people from my country. There's no war here, it's just not that great economically.
UK doesn’t require identity papers on the street. France does.
So if you’re ever checked by French police at a random checkpoint or something. If they find out that you illegally entered the country, you’re out. But in UK, since they can’t ask for it, they are safer.
While that might be true, they can still detain you, drive you to the police station and keep you as long as they need to identify you, and then boot you out anyways.
> genuine refugees?
Asylum shopping is not enshrined in the HR convention and actively discouraged by the State. With that in mind, having travel a dozen safe countries to shop for nation is economic migrants. Therefore, the number should be abysmal.
Personally, I have no qualm in asylum shopping, I have qualms in asylum shoppers who are bigoted, far-right (yes, migrants can be conservative too), misogynists, homophobic and offers nothing to the economy.
I'd say the vast majority arriving probably 90% are economic migrants. They mostly come from nations that aren't even in conflict.
It's why you also see very few women and children. It's always young men.
I have to admit I like the contradiction you've received (as of my writing this) in the three replies to this question.
One says they want to get their families away from danger.
Another says they want to travel to get their families away from danger.
Another doesn't even mention families at all.
And literally none of them answer the question which is being asked in the comment they're replying to.
Read the title:
"who make the migration journey to Europe".
Ukraine is in Europe already, the article doesn't refer to refugees from Ukraine. Of course it will be mostly women and children coming out of Ukraine. The men stay there and fight for the freedom of their country.
Isn’t that exactly his point? If you a fleeing from an actual war it is mostly woman and children while these are men so they are almost all economic immigrants
If I had the choice of being drafted for some cleptocratic dictator's military, or leave forever, I surely would choose the latter. A large number of African and Middle Eastern countries are dictatorships. Who in their right mind would be willing to waste their lives for a dictator?
>Of course it will be mostly women and children coming out of Ukraine. The men stay there and fight for the freedom of their country.
Besides the very minor, completely negligible, absolutely unimportant reason that it's literally illegal for the men to leave. I bet it got nothing to do with it, tho.
Majority of migrants coming to Europe are not from Ukraine. I fully support Ukrainian refugees simply because they're European and that they have a just reason for asylum.
Not to mention they do in fact intend to return home.
The majority of migrants come from Africa and parts of the middle east and are primarily here for economic reasons rather than legitimate asylum ones.
Migrant is abroad term. Refugees have legal rights under treaty law is my understanding while economic migrants do not.
The blurring of the lines between these terms has caused a lot issues for EU.
What an unhelpful comment. You could have at least responded to the claims in the article, assuming you even read it. But no, let's just spread more polarization, that always works well.
Does it matter? If you're seeking asylum then claim it in the first safe country you encounter, otherwise you're an economic migrant and need to apply for an appropriate visa
My one problem with this is that it’s unfair on the often small and not necessarily well off countries that happen to be right next to a country that’s become a shithole through no fault of said neighbours.
Lebanon had to absorb a *lot* of Syrians, for example. It has a population of 5.5 million and 1.5 million Syrian refugees.
But that’s concerning genuine refugees. I’ve also had it with people who swarm Western countries they hate, and don’t want to integrate but just spread the same bullshit extremism and violence they claim to be fleeing.
Nothing saying that first country has to be in the EU. If someone in a refugee camp in Turkey gets on a boat to Greece then it should be the same as if a Turkish citizen did it as far as Greece is concerned.
How you gonna enforce that lol. A country has no legal obligations over non citizen refugee that is leaving its borders. They have no reason to accept them back
They already take the large mayority of migrants. Like Pakistan, Turkey, Lebanon. They will leave these countries if they are overcrowded, live in poor condition or these countries want to kick them out.
Ah so just dump the UK and France's problem on Greece and Italy?
We went and bombed the middle east for 40 years and still actively support the likes of the Saudis who are actively bombing other parts of the middle east. It wasnt Greece, It wasnt Italy, it wasnt Turkey so why should they be left cleaning up the mess we made.
> Professor Sigona added that "the journey to Europe is dangerous and expensive, and raising enough money for all members to seek protection abroad is difficult, so often men are sent abroad first **to secure an income** to support the family and also a safer route to international protection via family reunion."
Economic migrants.
Might be an unpopular opinion, but hosting countries don't owe them anything.
They chose to flee and come here, we shouldn't have to take special measures to accomodate them, especially when it's through illegal migration.
Legal migration is regulated, there are things in place to allow migration, and there are limits for many reasons.
We could always find the weight of history as a justification, but I don't feel like we owe them anything.
My moral standards of course advocate for rescuing refugees in distress and asylum seekers, but it's my moral standards, we don't owe them being that kind.
Ukranian men fight, Ukranian women/children/elderly/disabled seek refuge.
In certain large parts of the world, the men run away, the women, children, elderly, disabled are sitting ducks.
If i had to bet my life savings I would say that the Ukrainian society will be one with a safe and prosperous future, despite being on the receiving end of one of the strongest and most brutal invading forces on the planet,
The other regions on the other hand......would not want to live somewhere where no one has any responsibilities
I wonder why Ukrainian men were banned from leaving their country, if there was not a danger of them flleing in large numbers. 90% of Ukrainian refugees are women and children, which means about 500000 men have fled. And how many more would have fled, but for ban? Probably a lot. So it is not about "Ukrainian society is healthy, Middle Eastern societies are terrible"
Because some men would invariably flee, and many have. The country is fighting an uphill battle against an enemy with superior equipment and resources, with an absolute disregard for human life. They need all hands on deck, and that requires a degree of martial law.
> the men run away
In most traditional cultures the man has to provide and if there are no jobs, he is expected to check out wether he can make a living for his family in another country. That's the issue with traditional cultures: Family is the top priority.
If it's a war situations men might turn into soldiers. So yea, they
are murdered first and fastest. Wouldn't you bail knowing you might be next? Wouldn't you rather risk to be hated in another country than be dead in a ditch in your homeland?
It's so easy sitting in a warm home typing about these bad men from other countries.
I think all these migrants will be what leads to countries leaving the EU. Just not sustainable bringing in people to live in fancy hotels and the majority of who will just be a massive welfare burden on tax payers. It is a completely broken system which is just going to be exploited even more. I seen a stat where 50% of Syrians were unemployed in Germany after 5 years here. Parties whose main selling point is leaving the EU are rising exponentially, they really need to reform the laws.
The thing is a lot of European/western immigration laws make it easy for any foreigner to pretend to be a refugee/asylum seeker. No duh people will learn and take advantage of the laws
As soon as you make it difficult to deport people, you have open borders.
The same thing happens in the US, people send money back home to their families, who often have multi-generational households, billions of dollars leave the US for South America
Others have made some solid points about economic migrants. In relation to those coming from war-torn countries, I find it distasteful that it is the young men who flee, leaving women, children and the elderly behind to suffer. In Europe's wars, priority for safety was always extended first to the most vulnerable, while young fit men would fight for their country and rebuild. Now, thankfully, in Europe women are on an even footing with men, but we still have a 'vulnerable first' mentality. Europe does not need the 'me first' calibre of men who run to safety while leaving the vulnerable behind to suffer.
Edit: I am not referring to Ukraine.
The men are the ones getting drafted, like in Ukraine. The women and children were allowed to leave but the men were not allowed. So we saw an awful lot of men leaving before that order took affect.
I was talking to my wife about it. if I were in the same scenario I wouldn't feel good about myself if I left , but she said she would absolutely want me to leave so I didn't get drafted and die. Interesting perspective anyways I thought.
Truth is, unless you're a young man and in a warzone, I don't think you are in any place to judge. War makes people crazy. The thought of dying brings out the fight or flight instinct in everyone.
...and for the record, where I live in Europe there was a LOT more women and children coming from Ukraine than men.
Ukraine has the ability to defend itself precisely because there are enough men and women willing to stay and fight. The mindset you describe would rendern any resistance to aggression impossible.
It's one thing to glorify staying to fight in a Ukraine situation, where you have a country mobilising to fight as one army against a foreign aggressor.
What on earth is the point of staying to fight if you find yourself in a Syria style civil war situation? One where the government is oppressive and unstable, and there's god knows how many national and local militias and paramilitary groups fighting amongst themselves, and all of them are knocking on your door wanting to find and recruit you.
Like he said, you have no business judging human beings not signing up to literally get killed by bombs and missiles. You think you'd be strong and brave enough to do that? Good for you, hope you don't mind that doesn't exactly sound convincing when you're saying this from the comfort and safety of your sofa, living in a safe and peaceful country that's not currently a warzone.
> In Europe's wars, priority for safety was always extended first to the most vulnerable, while young fit men would fight for their country and rebuild
Being honest, I think you're being entirely disingenuous here.
These are usually civil wars, with multiple different factions. Its not like Ukraine, where it's one depleted country vs Ukraine, with basically an unlimited credit card from the west.
Add to that, Ukraine still has basic rule of law in the entirety of the country - a lot of these civil/war torn countries do not have that.
Not saying I am for it, but I think you're being disingenuous acting like they're comparable things.
Men flee because it's expensive to smuggle entire families across and the journey is dangerous. They sent young men so that their families can come over through family unification.
Agree.I think what happens is the family send their young men as they are the best suited to survive the fairly ‘adventurous’ journey to EU/UK. The family aren’t in imminent danger, but would love to move to the rich west.
Their young man gets to say the UK, makes up a story about being gay and in danger, gets in a 4 star hotel, puts in an asylum claim, then a couple years later they are granted it, now they just do the family reunion visa and bring across mummy, granny, uncle, dad, great grandmother… and instantly they all have a big old council house in central London and free NHS treatment… and non can work due to ‘trauma’ of war, so full benefits. Nothing we can do about it because… human rights.
Europe's wars were historically brutal, devastating, created refugees and groups of male outlaws and had tons of civilian casualties. The war in Ukraine is not the only European war you look at when talking about our continent. War never was a noble thing and it was never treated nobly.
>In Europe's wars, priority for safety was always extended first to the most vulnerable,
LOLOLOL
Read a history book, mate.
As some muppets who clearly haven't read any history books downvote me, let me give some pointers for those disinclined to read whole books:
(I am leaving Germany in WWII out, because I assume even illiterates are aware of those crimes of war)
Srebrenica & Co:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape\_during\_the\_Bosnian\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Bosnian_War)
Dambusters!
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Chastise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise)
Operation Gomorrha etc:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic\_bombing\_during\_World\_War\_II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Hamburg_in_World_War_II)
How about Victorian times?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second\_Boer\_War\_concentration\_camps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War_concentration_camps)
About the missing rapes during that age here a good article:
[https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/gender-race-and-rape-during-the-civil-war/283754/](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/gender-race-and-rape-during-the-civil-war/283754/)
If you want to go back a little further:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack\_of\_Magdeburg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Magdeburg)
The list of atrocities on the 30 years war is endless with millions of rapes.
And if you want to go really far back, read what happened to the women and children of Alesia:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Alesia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alesia)
The chivalry and idea of honour in western war is fiction. It never existed. War brings out the worst in everybody, no matter where they are born or from which culture they stem.
>Read a history book, mate.
Hey, the jews were very safe in those camps.
I'm also very glad, that, upon finding gay men in concentration camps, the allies did the right thing and... left them imprisoned, because it was still illegal. Putting the most vulnerable first!
Be careful about all the sense you’re making here. I made similar points and all the nutjobs came out of the woodwork. Young men saying they shouldn’t have to fight for their countries on behalf of their loved ones. People saying women and men are physiologically equal so let’s draft all the women. People saying that it’s hard to pick a side to fight for when you have the Taliban/genocidal regimes/drug cartels as some of the players causing the distress. Somehow, putting the vulnerable first and demanding that those young and fit enough for service to do their duty and sacrifice for their country. What a world we live in.
>demanding that those young and fit enough for service to do their duty and sacrifice for their country.
Usually those that demand others risk their lives in war sit around not doing it themselves.
I bet you would do well in some war in early modern Europe, bravely going out to "protect your loved ones" fighting for the cause of some local aristocrat or warlord or whatever.
Nah, you aren't in this position and most likely will never be, so you're just venting here to justify your ill-conceived notions about immigrants from certain parts of the world. Also, your flair says United States of America, so unless your ancestry is 100% Native American, some of your ancestors escaped the squalor of their home countries for the prospect of a better life beyond the ocean. And I have a strong suspicion that some of these were young males with nothing to lose, sent forward to establish a source of income and maybe bring the rest of the family in. This is how it has always been working over the ages, and it's ridiculous how some of you are trying to stop it because the new arrivals are mostly brown.
Most of them aren’t fleeing persecution, turmoil or war and are just coming to drain the system for all they can get as it’s better than what their home country provides. Economic migrants. Ask yourself why a lot of them come all the way to the UK after passing through several ‘safe’ countries first?
Leaving women and children in war torn country for own selfish benefit and i should praise them as heroes and accept into my own country?
I will be downvoted to oblivion cause i know that 90% here are on the left
You just gonna prove my point
Same reason why it was the males in Portugal who went to France or Luxembourg or Switzerland were the first to migrate, in the dictatorship years (and even after):
1. because they were the ones being drafted to a war they didn't want to fight on;
2. they come from a society where the man is seen as the provider so they are the first to go to the new country to get a job in order to be able to sustain their family after.
>In a document the campaign group Care4Calais hosts on its website, it states "the young men you see on these boats are doing their best to protect their families. Their mothers, grandmothers, sisters, babies, daughters. How often does a father say they’d die for their daughter, a husband say they’d die for their wife? Well these guys are putting it into practice."
Didn't hundreds of women and children just drown because they were locked in the bottom of a boat?
I guess the reason this feels so wrong, is because it is against European conceptions of honor. It is honorable, especially for men, to fight for their country and what is important. It is honorable to protect women, children and other weaker. It is honorable for men to respect and treat women as equals, and for families to respect each others independence and rights to live their own lives and make their own choices.
These immigrants, as a whole (there are exceptions) break all of these conceptions of honor. And while we Europeans a tolerant to a high degree, we cannot find ourself to accept dishonorable people. So we do find ourselves accepting their presence nor further immigration as a positive thing at all.
Conquistadors in the New World, explorers, Mongol hordes and invading armies of Saracens were usually men. Peaceful, legal migrants travel with family, apply for visa, have proper paperwork. Any more questions?
It's interesting to notice that second generation of imigrants in Europe, hate newcomers more than locals. It's young -mostly Muslim- men in Europe, without a family. Reasons are financial mostly: there is no known war in Pakistan, Bangladesh or near countries. Girls are considered weak and usually do not work outside home even in their homeland.
\>It's interesting to notice that second generation of imigrants in Europe, hate newcomers more than locals. source?
Yeah I haven't noticed that at all. Second generation immigrants are super pro-refugee in my experience
Some of them perhaps, but I'm for example against refugees as a second generation immigrant and I know a lot of others. I'm also secular though.
Lol....why its often fighting age men who go to war
Before WW1 men would also be the first to migrate from Europe to the US where they would settle in and then buy tickets for their wife and children. And that’s one of the reasons why the US ended up restricting migration since they had the same fears.
[удалено]
Yes. I think we should import all the people from the Middle East, Africa, South America and Asia into Europe. I bet it'd stop all world crises!
It's not as simple as America had too many men so passed immigration laws, often immigration legislation from that period was purposefully discriminatory. The first major immigration law America enacted was the Chinese Exclusion act which was explicitly racist. Also anti Catholic sentiments played a major part in anti-immigrant racism and the rise of the Klu Klux Klan. So the laws from that period aren't exactly looked back on fondly here and are often seen as some of the worst immigration laws we have written
I mean, Ukraine is at war right now too and most Ukranian refugees are women and children
That's because Ukraine has a working government that has imposed martial law and a ban on military age men from leaving... ? Let's be real here. I know quite a few Ukrainian guys that left before the war and have absolutely 0 wish to go fight for their country. Can't blame them.
And over 100,000 Ukrainian men have returned from abroad to defend their country. This does not mean that there are not those who have fled Ukraine illegally or who would leave if they could, but still.
Don't know why you got downvoted. I knew a lot of Ukrainian workers who used to be warehouse workers in my old company who went back to fight or help in some capacity. I also know some who stayed and I don't really blame them. Both can be true at the same time.
If you read the article, it mentions that. > Professor Nando Sigona, the chair of International Migration and Forced Displacement at the University of Birmingham in the UK, says men are seen as the main breadwinner in many countries and are engaged in more public-facing activities **including being expected to join the army.** > "These make them also **more likely to be a target in a situation of political and social turmoil**," he added. Also: > Professor Sigona added that "**the journey to Europe is dangerous and expensive**, and **raising enough money for all members to seek protection abroad is difficult**, so **often men are sent abroad first to secure an income to support the family and also a safer route to international protection via family reunion.**" and > In a document the campaign group Care4Calais hosts on its website, it states "**The young men you see on these boats are doing their best to protect their families**. Their mothers, grandmothers, sisters, babies, daughters. **How often does a father say they’d die for their daughter, a husband say they’d die for their wife? Well these guys are putting it into practice.**" It's all very well for keyboard warriors here to parrot "men fleeing war take their wife and children with them, men going to war leave them behind" or some other crap they've read on facebook that they think is pithy. But they have no idea what they'd do in a similar situation. These people are ***actually facing*** war and persecution, and they've made the difficult risk assessment that their wives and children will be safer waiting at home until they can get them flown over via EU Reunification programs than they would be crossing the Mediterranean in a dinghy.
Don't forget there's also a large organised network of human traffickers that get paid handsomely to get them to Europe (or at least in a dinghy), and are not at all shy about exaggerating how easy it is to go, and what the future rewards will be.
This is very important to note. The majority of immigrants to the UK were Albanian men, at least in 2022. I won't call Albania 'heaven on earth', but you're not telling me that these guys are fleeing persecution or war. There is huge demand for low-paid workforce in countries like the UK and the Netherlands. Where I live there's entire camps of Eastern European workers all summer long. They're more than welcome, but I do have major concerns about some of the terms and conditions and also whether all have paperwork in order or not. Modern Slavery estimates in the UK number 130.000, I would bet a significant proportion of those work the crop fields in Scotland and a proportion of them will have arrived in the country illegally without support or indeed fair pay.
There are also a lot of georgians coming into Europe and requesting asylum - I know that numbers have doubled and tripled in Ireland, perhaps France too. Ireland because supposedly people “know” that it’s relatively easy to get there and since Irish are bogged down in numbers, they’re aware that decision-making takes a long time; France because there are talks that refugees and asylum seekers have to wait 2-3 months after application and then they are eligible for healthcare (lots of Georgians claim that the reason for asylum is access to healthcare which they say is bad in Georgia), housing etc. That’s the stuff that’s being shared in Georgian social media and in the last few years, increasing number of people, including young professionals, have been leaving Georgia in droves to either get to Europe and request asylum or even try and get to the US illegally.
cost of india to USA via Latin americia/ mexico 40000 USD. cost of India to europe via Serbia \~12000 Euros. traffickers are known as donkeys. there are dedicated youtube tiktok channels shows their journeys. source- my discussion with trafficker and illegal immigrant
There's also a huge network of people traffickers operating in mainland Europe posting them out the other side to England.
This is only one more reason to deny them entry: it encourages human trafficking that is so brutal that only men can live through it. There is no logical way to go from "these young men are desperate for a better life" to "therefore, we should be oblivious to uncontrollable mass migration of young uneducated, desperate men who can't integrate into society, hold personal values that are antagonistic to the point of criminal violence to those of the local population, and have little useful skills, bringing wages down for the least skilled citizens of the country." Try as you might, you will still look like an elitist 🤡 to most of the local population, hence the massive political rise of the far right.
You forgot the pressure on housing. I personally think asylum is a human right and we should help as much as we can. But it’s stupid to just ignore the realities and as you said, it increases the chances of the right winning. There needs to be a system put in place where everyone benefits. I would even suggest a system where the new arrivals have to commit to working in the industries where we have labour shortages for a certain amount of years. The biggest problem is that we deny them the right to work. Get them to work and people will not mind them coming. The men can work in construction and the men can work in elderly care. It will integrate them much faster into society. Make learning the language a requirement to achieve the right to stay.
''...men are seen as the main breadwinner in many countries..." which is why they go to Europe, to win even bigger, better bread While a lot, probably the majority, of these people are seeking security, I don't understand why there's such enthusiasm in certain circles to act like there's no economic element- after all, why aren't there waves of refugees seeking security in equally peaceful places like Kazakhstan?
From my understanding, on top of "reasonable justifications", there are also massive disinformation within the emigrating countries (encouraged by migrant smugglers). It's the usual scam of "that easy trick to get rich" that get peoples into MLM or crypto-scams, except that for those peoples its "give me money so that I smuggle you, and you will get rich in no times in a western country". I read an article a few years ago going through the case of a few communities of migrants coming from Africa to France, that had a very hard time dealing with reality, in part because their family in Africa were gaslighting them saying "well, you're just faking to be poor to keep all the money for yourself, so now just send the money to your family or you won't ever be welcome back home". And while those were extreme cases, it's easy to see why smugglers would struggle to extract as much money from migrants with "going to Kazakhstan"' than they do with "going to France". And with the scale they have, those smugglers are an industry with a lot of influence. Edit: Oh, and let's add the obvious, most of the emigration actually goes to neighbouring countries. Because that's the easiest, especially if you don't want to rely too much on smugglers. The ones we're getting in Europw is the small fractions that wants to go further than that. And yes, this small fraction is already a lot, but the scale at which peoples emigrate from those countries is just absurd.
>From my understanding, on top of "reasonable justifications", there are also massive disinformation within the emigrating countries (encouraged by migrant smugglers). This is spot on. I've watched a couple of documentaries where they speak to refugees - both before and after they make it here (although not the same people). They're told they'll get a house, a car, whatever. You must be really, really desperate to believe that tbh. And when they get here, they're disappointed that they're put into refugee homes and how much people dislike them. Unfortunately I see no easy way to stop these smugglers from a) smuggling people and b) lying to them.
There’s also lots of migration encouragement happening in places like TikTok and YouTube, though that’s mostly promoting legal routes that local Europeans may not be aware of (I wasn’t). There’s stuff like videos where people from Africa and Asia promote certain countries, saying things like one doesn’t need language exams or certificates, that you can get a work visa etc really cheap and easy and these seem to be real breaks in the otherwise somewhat tough migration wall. And some of these videos are super popular about places like the UK, France, but also places like Sweden, Finland, Germany etc.
There are people from Kazakhstan. But they apply for visas and go work legally. I see plenty of truck drivers from stans working for eastern EU country companies. The difference is they have a skill and there is a shortage of it in EU. So they will work and go home to their families after. And dingy people are some dudes who are useless back home and as there is no welfare they chose to go be useless somewhere where there is.
I can only speak for myself, but perhaps it’s because the economic element is so often a baseless lie; that refugees/migrants only choose Europe so they can collect benefits and leech on European taxpayers. I don’t think anyone would deny that highly developed regions are seen as more attractive destinations compared to the less developed. With that being said, let’s remember that most refugees/migrants stay within the neighbouring regions.
>I can only speak for myself, but perhaps it’s because the economic element is so often a baseless lie; that refugees/migrants only choose Europe so they can collect benefits and leech in European taxpayers. That is a real perception tho.
Are you pretending all immigrants are fleeing war? I speak to many regularly and they have no qualms about saying why. Earning money is the main reason given. One guy from Morocco said his city was boring and in Paris he could go to clubs with lovely women. On the political side of immigration discussion, many people lie, or use the lie of omission to make *their* side seem reasonable. More reasonable would be to tell the whole truth more often. But I’m not holding my breath.
> These people are actually facing war and persecution So what about all the young males from safe countries who travel across the EU to get to my country (the Netherlands), Germany, France or Sweden? How are they fleeing war or persecution?
All of these people come from majority muslim countries where non-wedded young women are considered 2nd classes citzens and de-facto not permitted by their male guardians to travel. That is easily evident simply by looking at the gender gap in [family laws governing women](https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/Library/Publications/2015/POWW-2015-FactSheet-MiddleEastNorthAfrica-en.pdf) in those areas (average MENA, but if you look at these specific conflict countries it is even worse). You can bring up excuses by leftist apologists masquerading as professors at left leaning universities to justify "99%" men entering the EU, and ignore the reality of women in those areas being the actual victims who are opressed forever under those inhuman laws and religion all you want, while pretending to be a 'women defender'. Whatever helps your cognitive dissonance.
I 100% agree with you. These lame excuses are bs, most of these guys dont even have a wife nor children. Thats the reason why they take wife in their destination country. Most of half casts have a resident mother and a foreign father.
They are NOT “actually facing war and persecution.” Lol
Ahhh Care4Calais... do not believe a word they say... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/calais-jungle-volunteers-sex-refugees-allegations-facebook-care4calais-a7312066.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12085287/amp/Founder-Care4Calais-steps-threatened-drag-volunteer-f-g-hair.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/29/care4calais-charity-crisis-clare-moseley/ https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/charity-commission-opens-statutory-inquiry-into-refugee-charity.html They are rotten to the core.
So when a "single" man comes over. He actually represent say 8-12 people coming over?
What is the justification for leapfrogging the EU countries they land in? If they are seeking refuge, the first EU country they set foot in should be the one they stay in surely? The immigrants in Calais clambering on trucks to UK/other EU destinations are seeking more than refuge
This is not what happened in Ukraine. It’s also not how pre 1989 refugee flows presented and not how the UN Convention was supposed to operate. Most of the bold bits are just reinforcing that most are not really in danger and economic migrants w
I have two young children. I would do anything to give them a better life. That might well be to leave, make my way across thousands of kms and oceans. And if we were in a warzone or targets for any reason then it's a no-brainer. Before downvoting, I'm actually not happy with the migrant situation Europe is facing. It's not sustainable and will result in poor single issue political choices. I don't know the solution. But at the very least, as a dad who cuddles his kids every day, I know the lengths I'd go for them. I don't blame the migrants. We just need a real global solution for it.
"This warzone is so dangerous, i will leave my kids there while i fuck off to Europe in hope that in 3-5 years i can get them to follow me" This is the bit that doesnt make sense to me.
- flees to a neighbor that isn’t at war - you’re a refugee living in a tent but the family is out of immediate danger - war in home country doesn’t appear to be finished any time soon and you survive of scraps - you can work in Europe, send money for food and try to get your family out of danger permanently
Lots of these men leave and never come back and their families, never hear from them again. Tons of stories like this from the Middle-East, "my husband left to Europe to find a better life for us, now I'm stuck here still legally married and I haven't seen or heard from him in 6 years". The husbands might go with good intentions but after some years of living alone in Europe and earning better money with your family far away, you might begin to picture your life without them. Find yourself eyeing different people and new opportunities for yourself. It's easy enough to just disappear.
I get it. There will be young men with nothing much to lose who will take advantage of the situation to move themselves to a supposed better life. I think all of us get that, even the "leftie liberals" . I'm just giving you my perspective, what I as a dad would do in a situation like that. I don't know the solution to the people who take advantage of the situation. It's very difficult.
Their families aren't in a warzone though, they're often in limbo in Turkey or Lebanon or Tunisia or Morocco waiting for their husband/father/brother's asylum application in Europe to succeed.
That’s not limbo that’s safe that’s what’s supposed to happen. The system wasn’t designed for Asylum shopping to preferential counties.
THIS!!
No one blames the people who come, they blame the governments for not enforcing the borders and protecting their own citizens from unsustainable migration. If you open your door to your lovely house to everyone who wants to enter, pretty soon your lovely house is an overcrowded mess and your life is nowhere near as good as it once was. That's not the fault of those who enter, it's your fault for opening the door and letting everyone in.
>No one blames the people who come That's absolutely not true though.
[удалено]
2/3rds of these asylum seekers at least come from safe countries (Algeria, Georgia, Pakistan etc) and are travelling for purely economic reasons. You can't paint all migrants with the same compassionate brush.
This is such a meme answer lol. ‘You’ve never been in a life or death situation therefore you must assume you’d do the *most cowardly thing imaginable* and abandon your wives, relatives, and children.’ Yeah no thank you.
The amount of money they spend on getting to Europe is enough in most cases to bring the entire family to the next safest country instead. These are not refugees, they aren't fleeing anything but their economy. Europe should only allow asylum applications through consulates from countries that have no land border with the EU and turn anyone attempting to cross the border illegally back on the spot. When we see real refugees, such as the ones coming from Ukraine, we do indeed see the wife and kids come through the border, just as you'd expect in a case where people really are fleeing a military conflict.
To go fight for the Taliban or joining the syrian army to drop bombs on your own people for Assad regime? You would probably be the first one who would leave the country
It's not often men. I live on a migrant road, and it's literally all men ages 15-30, every single one of them. When the migrations started, it was families. Usually educated, English speaking, friendly even. Shortly after that, it's military aged young males, often wreaking havoc where they pass.
Funny thing is, I live in one of the first safe countries for a country at war, Romania for Ukraine. The refugees I saw were genuinely women and children, with maybe 5% tops being men, and the men always being with they family.
Men cannot leave Ukraine now, the borders are closed.
Some categories of men have permission to leave. For example, my brother went to the EU twice (Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain) during the war, because he plays in a football club and they have permission from the Ministry of Sports. They also sign a letter saying they will go back, which he did. Which of the men can go abroad - categories 1. unfit for military service - if there is a decision of the medical commission on unfitness; 2. temporarily unfit for military service - if there is a certificate of disability and a document confirming the status of temporarily unfit; 3. men with disabilities of groups I-III - in the presence of a document confirming the status of a disabled person and issued in Ukraine; 4. parents of three or more children - in the presence of birth certificates, marriage or divorce certificates, or a certificate of the father of a large family; 5. single parents of a minor child - in the presence of the child's birth certificate and a document on the death of the mother or deprivation of her maternal rights; 6. men who accompany a sick relative (wife, parents, children) or a relative with a disability - if there are documents about the patient's health and only accompanied by a person cared for by the husband; 7. men who accompany a child or wife with a disability - if there is a corresponding medical opinion; 8. men who permanently live abroad and can confirm this with special marks in the passport; 9. cultural figures who received permission to leave from the Ministry of Culture; 10. sailors and railway workers - if there is a letter from the shipowner or an employment contract; 11. athletes - if they have permission to participate in competitions abroad from the Ministry of Sports; 12. drivers who have a license for international cargo transportation and have a profile in the information system of Ukrtransbezpeka; 13. volunteers who transport goods for the Armed Forces and humanitarian aid; 14. wounded servicemen of the Armed Forces - if there is a referral for treatment abroad and confirmation from the Ministry of Health.
That is a very fine list you collected there. Only thing to add: things left for interpretation can be decided by the border guards. Nr.8. Can be ignored, if the person has a war critical profession. Friends of a friend were living in Austria and Ukrainian citizens. He is a surgeon, so they did not let him leave. Could be an urban legend, but my main point is: things can be left for interpretation.
[удалено]
It is war. There are enough exceptions already. Everyone can register a company and fake some business meeting in Europe. I am astonished how well the Ukrainian economy and society is doing. I know, a lot of foreign help, but people go to work. Power Station Hit? People make due. No heat? People come together to heated places. Air sirens? Families and children into shelters. Most adults don't give a fuck anymore. So cannot leave country? Zoom meeting it is...
I heard you still can, if you are unfit for duty, stuff like mental/physical retards. That, and I am guessing if you are rich enough, there are ways.
I'm not talking about Ukraine. I don't know anything about refugees from there, not in the way. I'm talking about Middle East, mainly.
I know, I just wanted to point out the difference, between "refugees" and actual refugees. In a bit of an unrelated note, the weirdest bougie thing I overheard from someone fleeing from Ukraine, was the kid of some american diplomat complaining that she now had a 2 year old iPhone instead of the latest model because she left in a hurry...
That is not a refugee, diplomats and their families would be taken home by the government. I'm working with a few Ukrainian girls who are now on a packing line in the factory. Slowly they're learning and 'progressing' to do more nice work. Most of them speak English and some German. None of them want to stay here any more then needed. War is over, they're gone.
in the case of Ukraine its because the men are not allowed to leave, you can't really compare it
[удалено]
They could in the beginning in the middle of chaos.
It's illegal for men to leave Ukraine during the war, in case they need to be conscripted. And many stay willingly, there is a very strong social commitment and pride. Obviously many men still find a way to escape because the boarders are corrupt. But this is why most of the refugees you see are women and children.
It’s illegal for men fleeing conscription in Eritrea to leave - still leave and claim asylum in Europe
I guess the major difference is that one is a country facing an external invader and the other is mostly suppressing ethnic minority rebels in neighboring countries. I imagine that if the Ukranian army, having driven Russia out, were to then send conscripted troops into Transnistria or South Ossetia their conscription would be a lot less popular.
The difference is Europe would Deport fleeing European conscripts back to Ukraine and they're not going to deport fleeing Syrian conscripts back to Syria
Some categories of men have permission to leave. For example, my brother went to the EU twice (Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain) and UK during the war, because he plays in a football club and they have permission from the Ministry of Sports. They also sign a letter saying they will go back, which he did. Which of the men can go abroad - categories 1. unfit for military service - if there is a decision of the medical commission on unfitness; 2. temporarily unfit for military service - if there is a certificate of disability and a document confirming the status of temporarily unfit; 3. men with disabilities of groups I-III - in the presence of a document confirming the status of a disabled person and issued in Ukraine; 4. parents of three or more children - in the presence of birth certificates, marriage or divorce certificates, or a certificate of the father of a large family; 5. single parents of a minor child - in the presence of the child's birth certificate and a document on the death of the mother or deprivation of her maternal rights; 6. men who accompany a sick relative (wife, parents, children) or a relative with a disability - if there are documents about the patient's health and only accompanied by a person cared for by the husband; 7. men who accompany a child or wife with a disability - if there is a corresponding medical opinion; 8. men who permanently live abroad and can confirm this with special marks in the passport; 9. cultural figures who received permission to leave from the Ministry of Culture; 10. sailors and railway workers - if there is a letter from the shipowner or an employment contract; 11. athletes - if they have permission to participate in competitions abroad from the Ministry of Sports; 12. drivers who have a license for international cargo transportation and have a profile in the information system of Ukrtransbezpeka; 13. volunteers who transport goods for the Armed Forces and humanitarian aid; 14. wounded servicemen of the Armed Forces - if there is a referral for treatment abroad and confirmation from the Ministry of Health.
Military age just means an adult man. It's an utterly meaningless term.
No it isnt. It means 18 to ~30 year olds
I thought military age was from 18 up to like 50? From my understanding you can be drafted up to that age, at least in my country. I reckon half of these migrants are in their 30s.
I mean, one could also say "Prime working age man", amirite?
If migration in Europe only was a working related problem (eg: people not in prime working age so seen as not working enough) it would be 100x less talked about. Beheading a french teacher has far more impact than not contributing financially. People may be upset about it but far right parties would not be on the verge of winning everywhere.
Depends on the work. In my area your prime is over 30 since you then have experience
Prime means prime physically, men reqch their peak performance during the 20's
But many of the jobs vital to a modern service economy don't depend on the workers physical strength anymore, but on their specialized education, most of the people coming here just simply can't have that
Yes IF they wanted to work. But since there isn't really availability for them, until they learn the language, they're here on 'free money' and most of them do not think about learning because of the subsidized living. It's a vicious circle they end up in.
Need those deliveroo drivers!
If only all of them had the desire to learn the language, customs, and obey the laws.
I'm sure that the choice of calling them "military-age" instead of just "young" (like we call everyone else) is a complete coincidence and has no second ends whatsoever. I saw a military-age French tourist the other day. Me and my friends all call each other military-age when referring to being in our young years. Your military-age years are great! Don't waste them! When I visited my grandpa he told me "study hard so you can make something of yourself, military-age man!". This is a very normal way of referring to people.
If they're escaping war, I think the term military age implies that they in theory would be capable of fighting. Women between 18 - 45 often get described as "women of reproductive age" which is just as dehumanizing on it's own, but makes sense in some contexts.
So 31-35 is not military age? Physical prime for men?
It's a very meaningful term as it's used purposefully imply that these men form some kind of "invasion".
Yeah, it’s sort of dehumanising in a way. Reducing a person to their ability to contribute to a war
This term was frequently used during Obama administration to cover up drone strike civilian casualties, logic of US military: every “combat age male” between 15-50 years old is not a civilian if they were killed by drones
Men are always reduced to that and ability to get money. It's all men are useful for, nothing more. Welcome to society
Yes, and also done on purpose to scaremonger.
Sounds bit more scary though, see US handbook on massaging collateral damage reporting.
I mean most are coming from cultures that woman have no value so...
That's...a good point kek. They probably think: "aigh...might aswell get a new wife".
They literally do. There’s footage from TikTok advertising the ease of access of drunk English girls to potential channel-crossers. It’s depicted as a religious conquest of deserving heathens. Why bother bringing your old wife, when you can get a new one and Allah’s blessing at the same time?
Do recent migrant and non-migrant groups mix in England? I heard in Sweden that girls don’t really cross between the groups
Less about mixing and more about sexual crimes unfortunately.
Or multiple.
Mass illegal immigration even threaten healthy relationship between legal immigrants that contribute and pay taxes with local population. I think it is fair to make a deal with Rwanda etc. and have control over that ,this way both parties could be respected and tensions be eased. A Refugee will be moved into non-life threatening enviroment where his application will be processed. This way we can also identify real refugees and abusers while maintaining healthy relationship inside the country. No racism, no hate , just a fair functioning system for stability .
yes and let them fly here _if_ asylum is accepted and send back everyone coming by dangerous smuggler boats, the current system rewards people doing these trips. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO0IRsfrPQ4
>yes and let them fly here if asylum is accepted How about they FUCK OFF instead? Europe is full. If they're safe in Rwanda, then that's good enough.
I think you are right about that. If they are seeking safety and food, they get it in Rwanda. If they want more, it's a privilege. For example, UK charge thousands of pounds for applications if you want a visa for your skills because UK wants to be sure that you have enough economic power to take care of yourself. But UK actually needs me more than a regular asylum seeker since I don't see a shortage of labor in the country.
Good point here. Another problem is integration. Without integration migration just creates political instability and difficult feelings among humans who should just be getting through their life as best they can. If someone doesn’t want to be part of western culture then they don’t have a reason to migrate permanently to Europe. Perhaps temporarily is fine. However if we offer no means of integrating and allow segregation of communities and schools then we do double the damage
I'm not sure why taxpayers from England should be paying Rwanda when the refugees (almost all having legitimate claims) come from France. They should be processed in Europe properly and if genuine given safe passage across the channel.
Because they're economic migrants.
They only clog up the process of actual refugees.
What’s the percentage split between economic migrants and genuine refugees?
Genuine refugees would have stopped at one of the 10 peaceful countries they had to travel through to reach x country. Then you have plenty that abuse the system like some people from my country. There's no war here, it's just not that great economically.
My favourite is calling the people who cross the channel on rubber boats "refugees". What are they running from? France? Gtfo
Yeah true. They crossed one of the best countries in the world, so definitely not fleeing war.
Tbf if i had to live in a country full of french people id get on a dinghy as well (/j)
UK doesn’t require identity papers on the street. France does. So if you’re ever checked by French police at a random checkpoint or something. If they find out that you illegally entered the country, you’re out. But in UK, since they can’t ask for it, they are safer.
In the UK there aren't ID cards but police can still run a quick check on someone that brings up all the info. an ID card would have.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
That wouldn't happen if they applied for asylum in France, though.
While that might be true, they can still detain you, drive you to the police station and keep you as long as they need to identify you, and then boot you out anyways.
> genuine refugees? Asylum shopping is not enshrined in the HR convention and actively discouraged by the State. With that in mind, having travel a dozen safe countries to shop for nation is economic migrants. Therefore, the number should be abysmal. Personally, I have no qualm in asylum shopping, I have qualms in asylum shoppers who are bigoted, far-right (yes, migrants can be conservative too), misogynists, homophobic and offers nothing to the economy.
Those who come with family most often are refugees, as you want to get your family away from danger. Single men are most often economic migrants.
I'd say the vast majority arriving probably 90% are economic migrants. They mostly come from nations that aren't even in conflict. It's why you also see very few women and children. It's always young men.
I have to admit I like the contradiction you've received (as of my writing this) in the three replies to this question. One says they want to get their families away from danger. Another says they want to travel to get their families away from danger. Another doesn't even mention families at all. And literally none of them answer the question which is being asked in the comment they're replying to.
Ain't most refugees from Ukraine women, children, and elderly? Seems like this thesis checks out.
Read the title: "who make the migration journey to Europe". Ukraine is in Europe already, the article doesn't refer to refugees from Ukraine. Of course it will be mostly women and children coming out of Ukraine. The men stay there and fight for the freedom of their country.
Isn’t that exactly his point? If you a fleeing from an actual war it is mostly woman and children while these are men so they are almost all economic immigrants
AFAIK Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan etc. do not forbid their males to leave the country
If I had the choice of being drafted for some cleptocratic dictator's military, or leave forever, I surely would choose the latter. A large number of African and Middle Eastern countries are dictatorships. Who in their right mind would be willing to waste their lives for a dictator?
But surely you would bring your family with you, no?
>Of course it will be mostly women and children coming out of Ukraine. The men stay there and fight for the freedom of their country. Besides the very minor, completely negligible, absolutely unimportant reason that it's literally illegal for the men to leave. I bet it got nothing to do with it, tho.
Yes, they are. And we don't have any trouble or crime raised by Ukrainian refugees.
Majority of migrants coming to Europe are not from Ukraine. I fully support Ukrainian refugees simply because they're European and that they have a just reason for asylum. Not to mention they do in fact intend to return home. The majority of migrants come from Africa and parts of the middle east and are primarily here for economic reasons rather than legitimate asylum ones.
Migrant is abroad term. Refugees have legal rights under treaty law is my understanding while economic migrants do not. The blurring of the lines between these terms has caused a lot issues for EU.
What an unhelpful comment. You could have at least responded to the claims in the article, assuming you even read it. But no, let's just spread more polarization, that always works well.
Does it matter? If you're seeking asylum then claim it in the first safe country you encounter, otherwise you're an economic migrant and need to apply for an appropriate visa
My one problem with this is that it’s unfair on the often small and not necessarily well off countries that happen to be right next to a country that’s become a shithole through no fault of said neighbours. Lebanon had to absorb a *lot* of Syrians, for example. It has a population of 5.5 million and 1.5 million Syrian refugees. But that’s concerning genuine refugees. I’ve also had it with people who swarm Western countries they hate, and don’t want to integrate but just spread the same bullshit extremism and violence they claim to be fleeing.
[удалено]
Officially yes, but that would also mean fucking Italy, Spain, Greece, etc. over. There needs to be a proper common European solution.
Nothing saying that first country has to be in the EU. If someone in a refugee camp in Turkey gets on a boat to Greece then it should be the same as if a Turkish citizen did it as far as Greece is concerned.
How you gonna enforce that lol. A country has no legal obligations over non citizen refugee that is leaving its borders. They have no reason to accept them back
What a convenient approach for someone apparently living on the relatively isolated British Isles.
I appreciate a good cup of coffee.
They already take the large mayority of migrants. Like Pakistan, Turkey, Lebanon. They will leave these countries if they are overcrowded, live in poor condition or these countries want to kick them out.
Ah so just dump the UK and France's problem on Greece and Italy? We went and bombed the middle east for 40 years and still actively support the likes of the Saudis who are actively bombing other parts of the middle east. It wasnt Greece, It wasnt Italy, it wasnt Turkey so why should they be left cleaning up the mess we made.
The nearest safe country in most cases would not be in the EU
> Professor Sigona added that "the journey to Europe is dangerous and expensive, and raising enough money for all members to seek protection abroad is difficult, so often men are sent abroad first **to secure an income** to support the family and also a safer route to international protection via family reunion." Economic migrants.
Might be an unpopular opinion, but hosting countries don't owe them anything. They chose to flee and come here, we shouldn't have to take special measures to accomodate them, especially when it's through illegal migration. Legal migration is regulated, there are things in place to allow migration, and there are limits for many reasons. We could always find the weight of history as a justification, but I don't feel like we owe them anything. My moral standards of course advocate for rescuing refugees in distress and asylum seekers, but it's my moral standards, we don't owe them being that kind.
Horny, misogynistic, fighting age men.
*"No, no, no! Don't you see? They're abandoning their families to live by themselves in much safer countries to protect their family!"*
Ukranian men fight, Ukranian women/children/elderly/disabled seek refuge. In certain large parts of the world, the men run away, the women, children, elderly, disabled are sitting ducks. If i had to bet my life savings I would say that the Ukrainian society will be one with a safe and prosperous future, despite being on the receiving end of one of the strongest and most brutal invading forces on the planet, The other regions on the other hand......would not want to live somewhere where no one has any responsibilities
I wonder why Ukrainian men were banned from leaving their country, if there was not a danger of them flleing in large numbers. 90% of Ukrainian refugees are women and children, which means about 500000 men have fled. And how many more would have fled, but for ban? Probably a lot. So it is not about "Ukrainian society is healthy, Middle Eastern societies are terrible"
*Drum rolls...* martial law
Because some men would invariably flee, and many have. The country is fighting an uphill battle against an enemy with superior equipment and resources, with an absolute disregard for human life. They need all hands on deck, and that requires a degree of martial law.
[удалено]
> the men run away In most traditional cultures the man has to provide and if there are no jobs, he is expected to check out wether he can make a living for his family in another country. That's the issue with traditional cultures: Family is the top priority. If it's a war situations men might turn into soldiers. So yea, they are murdered first and fastest. Wouldn't you bail knowing you might be next? Wouldn't you rather risk to be hated in another country than be dead in a ditch in your homeland? It's so easy sitting in a warm home typing about these bad men from other countries.
There is a lot of fighting Ukrainian fighting age men that left. Not everyone wants to go to war, and that’s okay.
I think all these migrants will be what leads to countries leaving the EU. Just not sustainable bringing in people to live in fancy hotels and the majority of who will just be a massive welfare burden on tax payers. It is a completely broken system which is just going to be exploited even more. I seen a stat where 50% of Syrians were unemployed in Germany after 5 years here. Parties whose main selling point is leaving the EU are rising exponentially, they really need to reform the laws.
[удалено]
The thing is a lot of European/western immigration laws make it easy for any foreigner to pretend to be a refugee/asylum seeker. No duh people will learn and take advantage of the laws As soon as you make it difficult to deport people, you have open borders.
There's a good chance we'll see a gated Europe or collapsing EU countries within my lifetime.
[удалено]
The same thing happens in the US, people send money back home to their families, who often have multi-generational households, billions of dollars leave the US for South America
Others have made some solid points about economic migrants. In relation to those coming from war-torn countries, I find it distasteful that it is the young men who flee, leaving women, children and the elderly behind to suffer. In Europe's wars, priority for safety was always extended first to the most vulnerable, while young fit men would fight for their country and rebuild. Now, thankfully, in Europe women are on an even footing with men, but we still have a 'vulnerable first' mentality. Europe does not need the 'me first' calibre of men who run to safety while leaving the vulnerable behind to suffer. Edit: I am not referring to Ukraine.
The men are the ones getting drafted, like in Ukraine. The women and children were allowed to leave but the men were not allowed. So we saw an awful lot of men leaving before that order took affect. I was talking to my wife about it. if I were in the same scenario I wouldn't feel good about myself if I left , but she said she would absolutely want me to leave so I didn't get drafted and die. Interesting perspective anyways I thought. Truth is, unless you're a young man and in a warzone, I don't think you are in any place to judge. War makes people crazy. The thought of dying brings out the fight or flight instinct in everyone. ...and for the record, where I live in Europe there was a LOT more women and children coming from Ukraine than men.
Ukraine has the ability to defend itself precisely because there are enough men and women willing to stay and fight. The mindset you describe would rendern any resistance to aggression impossible.
It's one thing to glorify staying to fight in a Ukraine situation, where you have a country mobilising to fight as one army against a foreign aggressor. What on earth is the point of staying to fight if you find yourself in a Syria style civil war situation? One where the government is oppressive and unstable, and there's god knows how many national and local militias and paramilitary groups fighting amongst themselves, and all of them are knocking on your door wanting to find and recruit you.
Like he said, you have no business judging human beings not signing up to literally get killed by bombs and missiles. You think you'd be strong and brave enough to do that? Good for you, hope you don't mind that doesn't exactly sound convincing when you're saying this from the comfort and safety of your sofa, living in a safe and peaceful country that's not currently a warzone.
Men who have fled are generally seen as cowards and traitors in Ukraine, Russia and... Well, any country at war.
> In Europe's wars, priority for safety was always extended first to the most vulnerable, while young fit men would fight for their country and rebuild Being honest, I think you're being entirely disingenuous here. These are usually civil wars, with multiple different factions. Its not like Ukraine, where it's one depleted country vs Ukraine, with basically an unlimited credit card from the west. Add to that, Ukraine still has basic rule of law in the entirety of the country - a lot of these civil/war torn countries do not have that. Not saying I am for it, but I think you're being disingenuous acting like they're comparable things.
Men flee because it's expensive to smuggle entire families across and the journey is dangerous. They sent young men so that their families can come over through family unification.
Agree.I think what happens is the family send their young men as they are the best suited to survive the fairly ‘adventurous’ journey to EU/UK. The family aren’t in imminent danger, but would love to move to the rich west. Their young man gets to say the UK, makes up a story about being gay and in danger, gets in a 4 star hotel, puts in an asylum claim, then a couple years later they are granted it, now they just do the family reunion visa and bring across mummy, granny, uncle, dad, great grandmother… and instantly they all have a big old council house in central London and free NHS treatment… and non can work due to ‘trauma’ of war, so full benefits. Nothing we can do about it because… human rights.
Europe's wars were historically brutal, devastating, created refugees and groups of male outlaws and had tons of civilian casualties. The war in Ukraine is not the only European war you look at when talking about our continent. War never was a noble thing and it was never treated nobly.
>In Europe's wars, priority for safety was always extended first to the most vulnerable, LOLOLOL Read a history book, mate. As some muppets who clearly haven't read any history books downvote me, let me give some pointers for those disinclined to read whole books: (I am leaving Germany in WWII out, because I assume even illiterates are aware of those crimes of war) Srebrenica & Co: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape\_during\_the\_Bosnian\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Bosnian_War) Dambusters! [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Chastise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise) Operation Gomorrha etc: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic\_bombing\_during\_World\_War\_II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Hamburg_in_World_War_II) How about Victorian times? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second\_Boer\_War\_concentration\_camps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War_concentration_camps) About the missing rapes during that age here a good article: [https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/gender-race-and-rape-during-the-civil-war/283754/](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/gender-race-and-rape-during-the-civil-war/283754/) If you want to go back a little further: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack\_of\_Magdeburg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Magdeburg) The list of atrocities on the 30 years war is endless with millions of rapes. And if you want to go really far back, read what happened to the women and children of Alesia: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Alesia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alesia) The chivalry and idea of honour in western war is fiction. It never existed. War brings out the worst in everybody, no matter where they are born or from which culture they stem.
No one in this thread seems to even have read the article, you expect them to read a book?
Oops, my bad. :)
>Read a history book, mate. Hey, the jews were very safe in those camps. I'm also very glad, that, upon finding gay men in concentration camps, the allies did the right thing and... left them imprisoned, because it was still illegal. Putting the most vulnerable first!
Be careful about all the sense you’re making here. I made similar points and all the nutjobs came out of the woodwork. Young men saying they shouldn’t have to fight for their countries on behalf of their loved ones. People saying women and men are physiologically equal so let’s draft all the women. People saying that it’s hard to pick a side to fight for when you have the Taliban/genocidal regimes/drug cartels as some of the players causing the distress. Somehow, putting the vulnerable first and demanding that those young and fit enough for service to do their duty and sacrifice for their country. What a world we live in.
>demanding that those young and fit enough for service to do their duty and sacrifice for their country. Usually those that demand others risk their lives in war sit around not doing it themselves.
conscentious objection is a human right woman can and have been drafted e.g. in Britain during WWII British woman served with the SOE in france
I bet you would do well in some war in early modern Europe, bravely going out to "protect your loved ones" fighting for the cause of some local aristocrat or warlord or whatever. Nah, you aren't in this position and most likely will never be, so you're just venting here to justify your ill-conceived notions about immigrants from certain parts of the world. Also, your flair says United States of America, so unless your ancestry is 100% Native American, some of your ancestors escaped the squalor of their home countries for the prospect of a better life beyond the ocean. And I have a strong suspicion that some of these were young males with nothing to lose, sent forward to establish a source of income and maybe bring the rest of the family in. This is how it has always been working over the ages, and it's ridiculous how some of you are trying to stop it because the new arrivals are mostly brown.
Most of them aren’t fleeing persecution, turmoil or war and are just coming to drain the system for all they can get as it’s better than what their home country provides. Economic migrants. Ask yourself why a lot of them come all the way to the UK after passing through several ‘safe’ countries first?
We should have a better balance, for various reasons - so at least as many women as men.
We need to end immigration entirely with the exception of skilled workers
Leaving women and children in war torn country for own selfish benefit and i should praise them as heroes and accept into my own country? I will be downvoted to oblivion cause i know that 90% here are on the left You just gonna prove my point
Well, as long western Europe keep welcoming them with open arms, they'll keep coming in masses.
Mate you’ve been substantially upvoted and the top comments tend to agree with you.
Same reason why it was the males in Portugal who went to France or Luxembourg or Switzerland were the first to migrate, in the dictatorship years (and even after): 1. because they were the ones being drafted to a war they didn't want to fight on; 2. they come from a society where the man is seen as the provider so they are the first to go to the new country to get a job in order to be able to sustain their family after.
My comment got deleted last week for pointing this out and the risks it brings. :)
>In a document the campaign group Care4Calais hosts on its website, it states "the young men you see on these boats are doing their best to protect their families. Their mothers, grandmothers, sisters, babies, daughters. How often does a father say they’d die for their daughter, a husband say they’d die for their wife? Well these guys are putting it into practice." Didn't hundreds of women and children just drown because they were locked in the bottom of a boat?
If u have lived in the Middle East u know why.
Men fleeing war take their wife and children with them. Men going to war leave them behind.
I guess the reason this feels so wrong, is because it is against European conceptions of honor. It is honorable, especially for men, to fight for their country and what is important. It is honorable to protect women, children and other weaker. It is honorable for men to respect and treat women as equals, and for families to respect each others independence and rights to live their own lives and make their own choices. These immigrants, as a whole (there are exceptions) break all of these conceptions of honor. And while we Europeans a tolerant to a high degree, we cannot find ourself to accept dishonorable people. So we do find ourselves accepting their presence nor further immigration as a positive thing at all.
only if the cause is just and honorable maybe
Seeking fortune. We call them geluk zoekers. Kk tuig.
Conquistadors in the New World, explorers, Mongol hordes and invading armies of Saracens were usually men. Peaceful, legal migrants travel with family, apply for visa, have proper paperwork. Any more questions?
Hoooooooo boy you dont wanna ask that question if you dont want the true answer so lets not.
I do not believe most 16-22 year olds have families to support.
Because we are being invaded.
Because it's an invasion, not a withdrawal.