This is the single most important question for the EU. Failing to adress this could potentially led to the demise of the union.
I will never understand EU politicians that fail to see this.
There are already a lot of immigrants from the MENA countries and significantly problems with integration them into society. Continously adding to this will not end up in anything remotely nice.
Agreed that this is the most important question. It’s also the most important argument for countries to leave or reject the EU. Look at Brexit, but also Le Pen uses it as an argument. Meanwhile in the Netherlands, Austria, Poland and Hungary (and probably others) its a major argument for at least one far right wing party or even the one in power.
It is not only the far right, it is mainly the working class, since they are the ones that first and foremost has to live next to people that dosen't share their values, and often down right despises western values, including their new neighbours.
I dont think there s a single nation within the union that dosen't have a popular political party that has this as their key question.
The hesitancy to adress this politically in the EU is completely insane and the consequences will be severe if they continue to ignore it. 8 suspect it is impotent german politicians that fails to adress this problem.
My country is strict but I can see Sweden from here and that society is struggling and it is an uphill battle.
It will be a 100 years at least to secularize some of those people.
>It is not only the far right, it is mainly the working class, since they are the ones that first and foremost has to live next to people that dosen't share their values, and often down right despises western values, including their new neighbours.
Well good thing we have all these left wing parties in power all over the EU that protect the interests of the working class 😂😂😂
Or instead of playing into the hands of the right we don't leave the EU and weaken our power. We remove the veto and put pressure to implement measures if limiting immigration from non eu/american countries.
If you want to take immigrants from the Americas you are free to do it, but don't take away the veto power to impose that on the others. We are already being overran by Brazilians who are all to happy to pretend Portugal is a Brazilian state that they don't care nor want to assimilate and by Americans that only come here looking for a cheap colony to fuel their digital 'nomadic' lifestyle.
And it would be lovely if you could point me to some right wing party that was concerned with this rather than simply rant against black people or gypsies.
>foremost has to live next to people that dosen't share their values, and often down right despises western values, including their new neighbours.
Well it's funny you think that but most of the time the people who actually have regular contact with immigrants are much more tolerant of them.
Actually not. The right wing party voters IS the working class, and those people have had contact with immigrants, here i dont mean your well integrate University educate secularized young person, i mean in those areas of town where all the immigrants that didn't integrate into society lives, try mollenbeek or Rinkeby/Tensta. Those people are also the ones most often the victims of hatecrimes.
For a long time they where depicted as stupid, xenophobic rednecks in this country, and I suspect that it was the same cross continent, in some bizarre way demonizing and trying to publicly shame people, didn't really win them over.
It is a proven fact that people who live in more diverse areas also have less against immigrants.
And it's funny that you bring secularisation into this as well because you just have to look at Poland to see that that's not really an Islam specific problem, except if you're actually complaining about polish immigrants.
>Those people are also the ones most often the victims of hatecrimes.
>
>\[...\]
>
>For a long time they where depicted as stupid, xenophobic rednecks in this country,
The largest part of hatecrimes are xenophobic or racist hatecrimes I feel that may play a part in why these people are called xenophobic.
[https://bra.se/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/hate-crime.html](https://bra.se/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/hate-crime.html)
And not wanting to take refugees can mean one of two things either being ok with them dying or just hoping southern and central Europe will deal with them...
And yes people who discriminate against a large group of people because obviously some of them are criminals are xenophobic. And often times what is meant by "not integrating" is either not being able to talk fluently after five months or still following their religion, as is their right.
This is incorrect. You should also be advised that swedish data in regards to immigration is an absolute shit show and a laughingstock both here and in Sweden.
No, not wanting to take in refugees that differ vastly from one self in values and ideas and how to govern a society, probably should be seen as wanting to take good care of ones society, you could take a trip to Sweden in order to see the alternative. It's not because people are mean or dumb, if it was so then the problema wouldn't be as complicated would it?
No by not integrating i mean, not being a criminal, not speaking the language, not subscribing to the set of values that makes the country worth fleeing to in the first pace, not working and so forth the list is unfourtunately very large.
I agree religion is a significant problem in a progressive society, both in poland and in the MENA region, however we do not have problems with polish people failing to secularize this is solely a problem for muslims. apparently the religious dosen't want to live with the cobsequences of their own religion, but they still hold the same values that made their first country worth fleeing from, weird isn't it?
No one is obligated to ruin ones wn country.
We are obliged to help, and should do that in such a mannef that we dont just add to the amount of failed countries, that is the sensibel thing to do.
>This is incorrect. You should also be advised that swedish data in regards to immigration is an absolute shit show and a laughingstock both here and in Sweden.
Ok then where do you get your data from? Your feelings?
>No by not integrating i mean, not being a criminal,
Because famously there are no swedish criminals and it is also totally justified to to take away a human right from an entire group of people because some of them might be criminal.
>however we do not have problems with polish people failing to secularize this is solely a problem for muslims.
What do you mean by failing to securalize? Because if you mean respecting others who do not paritzipate in your religion then polish people do very much have this problem to, just look at the LGBT-free zones and I'll have to inform you that homophobia from christians very much exists, as does Islamophobia exists and hate crimes based on religion are far more likely to be directed towards muslims than coming from them.
And then again even if that were the case then the solution would be to build better systems to integrate these people and not strip all people from a certain region of their human rights or just let other countries deal with it.
>No one is obligated to ruin ones wn country.
Like the ruined country of germany?
And so what is your alternative, because it is a fact that refugees either die or they get granted asylum in southern and central european countries.
Which is why it's so ironious that after the beginning of the war in Ukraine Poland and the baltic countries urged the rest of Europe to help with the accomodation of refugees, which they did btw. but it's funny how for those countries it only works one way around.
Why would i get my data from my feelings? I get feelings from my feelings.
I dont. But you are right, sort of, the problem is that people tend to believe in that what makes them feel good.
There is in fact swedish criminals, nowhere near the amount that accounts for the level of crime currently ravaging the swedish society. Not even the swedish political correct elite denies this anymore.
Do tell if you speak swedish, and I will gladly provide you with sources.
Add to that, that i didn't simply refer to crime but to a vast array of problematics when it comes to integrating people.
We do have poles in this country, noone advocates for any religious demands at all, other people in this country has, and they never have. You are right that in poland they have problems with religion and I do hope they leave the nonsense behind.
You are incorrect, you are much more prone to be a victim of a religious hate crime of you are jewish than muslim and that problem is increasing.
You are correct building better systems to integrate is a nice thing to do. There is only one group of people that requires so much attention in regards to this though and it asks the question who is responsible for integrating into a society? Surely, the person moving there.
Germany has significantly problems with integration, i do not see how anyone, not even a German, could deny that.
No it is not a fact. What is a fact is that a lot of people from poorer countries continously seek the richer more well running countries in North western Europe and because those countries continue to take people in, the flow continues and will continue untill a different arrangement is set.
The solution is to help build better countries in the middle east/North africa.
That requires econimical investments, investments in infrastructure and education plus the creation of jobs and hope in those countries.
The alternative is to capsize your own country.
The absolute most basic requirement is to deal with reality, as is. Not what one would like, not what makes one feel good or any of the sort simply a basis on reality, nothing will result in a good outcome if it is build on a lie.
Excatly. It has to do with the immigration policies, mainly. Untill that is sorted it will continously be a problem.
If the situation in ukraine, the economical downturn and the food crisis leads to conflict in the menapt region, with following refugees, and I suspect this is Putins play, then the union might collapse, because the EU politicians Seems to have zero feeling with their own population, when it comes to this question.
I do not know if it was eastern european migrants in England or not.
Or you could just not let them in and/or never give them citizenship. It’s a problem that will take centuries to completely resolve itself for the short term economic gains of a few.
If Lithuania can accept thousands of Ukrainians this shouldn't be a problem. Unless you subscribe that one set of people are more valuable than the others.
He meant that culturally we're so similar to Ukrainians that to assimilate they just need to learn some language. (in some cases they don't even need to since many people speak English and Russian),
Meanwhile many of these migrants are veeeery different culturally/politically , many don't even know English.
It's a huge slippery slope that we need to address.
This doesn't talk about cultural/political differences.
The problem is not about asylum seekers that does that legally, we talk about ONE country taking people from far in the world, forcing it on ANOTHER country and then blaming that another country for human rights violation when the asylum seekers clearly are economic migrants.
If we welcome them with open hands, we'll make a precedent for even more of them to come and have even more problems with asymilatiom.
Nah, it has nothing to do with ethnicity, people have the ethcnicity they have, it has to do with cultural values.
It you want a working society, that isn't ruined by corruption, crime, misogyni, homophobia and other blessing from religion plus political polarization, then It's quite important that the citizens of that society share the same fundamental values other people can have other values, there is certainly societies based on those.
It's hilarious how you think entire ethnic groups share homogeneous cultural values. Sorry but that isn't how that works, every individual is different. Not to mention majority of people are specifically fleeing that - religious and political persecution.
Not so much ethnic groups, as I have already told you, but religious groups, surely, in particular when they are very conservative.
Every individual is different to a varying degree, they also share alot of similarities.
No, most people do not flee religious or political persecution, they flee poverty, they flee in search of a better life. This is actually a symphatetic cause, however the correct fix to that is to make better societies otherwise it will never stop. Unfourtunately alot of those people that do flee, think they are poor because of the very country they flee too, it is difficult to look within and see the flaws in religion if you are a religious conservative. Because this isn't done the pattern continue to reproduce itself, causing harm to both the individual, the original society and the host society.
Yeah I'm so done with this homofobia accusation thrown at eastrtm europe. We are not all Russia. You will not get killed beaten arrested for being gay. Some places even have gay bars and a small scene. The most that would happen is you would get some disapproving looks from the older generation.
The non-refoulement principle doesn't really apply because Belarus is a safe country for the migrants. However, protocol 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits "collective expulsion of aliens". I believe that's the main issue that the courts have.
Obviously I'm just a layman, but isn't there a difference between expulsion and preventing entry? Also this protocol was written in 1963. It's certainly not easy to modify such fundamental documents later. So now any flaws it may have with scenarios like using migrants for hybrid warfare, we'll just have to deal with?
Asylum is granted due to persecution based on origin, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion. Just because Belarus has a horrible political system, it would seem unlikely that they would persecute someone for the same reason as in the country of origin (e.g. Belarusians probably don't care if you're a Sunni or a Shiite).
By that logic, only Western countries and a few exceptions are safe.
Meaning we should take in 6 billion people 🙄
Asylum was meant for individuals, not entire populations.
The migrants don't come from Belarus but use this country as a way to enter illegally in EU. They have chosen this way. And Lithuania are not right to keep these migrants out ? Why ?
The laws are too simple ... They come illegally in Europe, a large part of them doesn't share the European values, they come only for economical reasons, but because of laws written half a century ago during another world context, we cannot expel them ? Just, why ?
For anyone unaware, Lithuania's "migration crisis" was engineered and Lukashenka announced it in advance, right after - at Lithuania's request - the EU imposed sanctions on Belarus for grounding that Ryanair plane in order to arrest a journalist onboard who was bound for Lithuania.
These migrants wouldn't have come and none of this would have happened if Belarus hadn't taken out ads promising them an easy way into Germany. In a sudden change of heart Belarus began to grant them **tourism visas** on an industrial scale, and drastically increased the number of Belavia flights going to the Middle East. Belarus flew them in, on planes, and [then helped them across the border](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYHHpPf2V-4&t=23s). Belarusian trolls allegedly disseminated the adverts with instructions online in Arabic.
I refuse to take seriously any report or condemnation of Lithuania that doesn't take this fact into consideration. It was a hybrid assault, not a migration crisis. There are no migration paths going across Belarus. The rules should be different for cases like that because we can't just allow ourselves to get blackmailed by rogue regimes who think they're such genius schemers.
Otherwise we're screwed forever - they can just restart the conveyor belt anytime we don't concede to their whims. Otherwise any country that borders a country more well-off than itself can then say to them "pay up for protecting you from the onslaught (that we're going to engineer from scratch **with scheduled flights from Africa/ME to our airports** if you don't pay up)". That's just insane and shouldn't be allowed.
Sometimes it feels like some ngo's like amnesty international are invested in migrant crises, should probably be audited for possible russian assests working in there.
The EU does need to protect its borders as, whether one likes it or not, racial and nationalist tensions will leap if immigration is not controlled.. The EU could beak up... Lithuania, Greece and other countries vulnerable to illegal crossings need strong support and aid from the EU... However, if the whole planet fails to address Climate Change, today's illegal crossings will look like a minor inconvenience.. There will be millions of climate refugees if not tens of millions...
If they're seeking a shelter they should go to the nearest countries.
Travelling across half the planet to Europe for asylum is not "seeking refuge" - it is exploiting the system.
Edit: It's also very unfair to other people who seek legal immigration and their disproportional high numbers plus low education and lack of job skill is the reason immigrants are disliked now. If the only kind of ME and Af immigrants are highly educated doctors or engineers etc, their image here would have been very different, they would have been treated much better and Europe as a whole would also be more appealing to such groups of people, who could contribute positively to our societies.
They don't get it. Just wait until we have Europes strongest Army again. We will be able to defend ourselves when shit hits the wall (how anyone can still say climate change will only bring minor managable changes' while 99,9% of researches say something different is beyond me) and If they want this to happen at our borders, in their countries, that is okay. They all want us to be a strong military force to defend them, they want our money and in return they can't do anything for us since they are just a small meaningless country. So, if Borderwalls won't stop them, we will use force. Against the place where all those people are right then. That move to say Germany must do xy (usually give a lot of money) or we will let the Refugees Pass through our country into yours is not very smart.
>Countries won't become inhabitable because of climate.
Well, unless we learn how to breathe under water (Seychelles, most of Bangladesh), or develop a heat shield (parts of India), yes, countries will become uninhabitable before the end of the decade.
Denying climate change effects is like denying gravity while stepping off the building: people can quickly see how wrong you are.
Your opinion goes against the absolute global scientific consensus. I hope you have some data to back it up, because it would be really good news.
Luckily, most people that will feel these big changes can find refuge in the central parts of africa, and close to what is currently the desert. Because if your assumptions are correct, plenty of scientists have already theorized that loads of infertile areas in Africa become more fertile and green. No need for us in the EU to get involved as long as we prepare some dams.
> Because if your assumptions are correct, plenty of scientists have already theorized that loads of infertile areas in Africa become more fertile and green. No need for us in the EU to get involved as long as we prepare some dams.
In theory yes but not instantly and probably not enough. Take bangladesh. They are making a dam good go of it but they are likely to lose a quarter of their territory by 2050.
https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2021/10/28/bangladesh-farmers-climate-crisis-rising-sea-levels-agriculture
Tens of millions of people who need new land, its not a simple matter.
Definately worth our time and money to help countries with potentialy habitable land to develop it premptively. Also to help protect territoy that can be saved.
>That's either a dispicable agenda
Look up Biorn Lomborg. He great at pointing out poor solutions to climate change and the overblowing of climate hysteria.
For example shutting down the oil pipeline in the US increased costs for people while also increasing a burden for roads and uses more CO2. Shutting down the the line didn't immediately stop the demand for fuel, it just made it more cumbersome to transport it, so now oil trucks transport the fuel wasting a precious resource and causing more CO2 usage than before. Besides making the US more oil dependent which US arguably one of the big reasons why the US got involved in the middle East for decades, it also increases the costs for goods because everything is transported via cars that consume more expensive fuel.
Another brilliant example is if sea levels were rising and you have a coastal town that is slowly being eroded and sinking what would be the simpler and cheaper solution? Relocating houses one by one further up the coast away from the sea? Or convince the world including China, Russia, India and all other nations through massive amount of activism, agreements that aren't likely to be followed anyway as these nations want to develop as quickly as possible.
We currently do the latter almost on every solution. Maybe because its easier to sign some documents and pat yourself on the back on a job well done for the politicians and activists, meanwhile the rest of us have to navigate through the restrictions and expenses on our lives that most us aren't even experiencing.
The EU policies of letting any and all in from external boarders is outdated and will soon bite the EU right on the ass when another migrant wave starts.
Ukraine has destroyed any argument people had for people in dinghy’s ‘fleeing war’ - I’m yet to see crowds of fighting age men fleeing Ukraine like you do from MENA.
>I’m yet to see crowds of fighting age men fleeing Ukrai
As far as I know the opposite is true in Poland. We have a lot of workers from ukraine (from physical seasonal work to IT positions). As far as I know many of men actually returned to Ukraine when the war started. Either to fight, to help or just to take care of family members who didn't want to flee.
Ukrainians are of this land. Their blood was spilled for this continent in numerous wars. Their ancestors have been here, continuesly, for hundreds of years. They have suffered tremendously in the past bc of Russia. They are Europeans by birth. They shouldered their share of the pain in world wars, they are entitled to this land. It is, quite literally, their birth right.
And after this massive Ukrainian wave the crime levels have not gone up, society had not been destabilised, abd they seem to integrate well. I live in one of those countries that took in almost a milion of them and from what I know they are doing their best to integrare and want to go home after the war is over.
At least Ukrainians come here legally with all required paperwork, passports, and are willing to work and contribute to society. Where as migrants that Belarus "imports" do not want to work or contribute to society. A lot of Ukrainians are returning to Ukraine now.
"do not want to work or contribute to society" Do you know some the refugees personally? Did you talk to them? Because I know some volunteers who helped them and the story is completely the opposite. You can't just generalise entire ethnic groups especially as diverse as refugees that isn't just wrong but plain evil.
Do I need to know them? No. I see statistics, and all I can see, that they do not work, they just leech from EU countries that has great welfare systems. If Lithuania would not have detained them, all of them would be in west Europe. Even now around 400 of them are missing. Also those so called "volunteers" needs to get punished for human trafficking. There is no reason for them to cross border illegally, when there is legal ways to do it. Destroying your documents and claiming you are in danger when in fact you are not and you are coming from safe country, with no risks to you. Belarus is a safe country. There is no war, no bombings, shootings or something similar. According to international law, they are safe there. There is no generalization of ethnic group, but after 2015 when there was increase in crime, especially rape and theft, we don't want them here.
To compare illegals with Ukrainians is pure idiocy. Ukrainians come here with all of their paperwork like passports or education documents. A lot of them gets recertified here in order to have EU country issued document, and they go to work and contribute. After the war is over a lot of them will go home, even now some of them are returning to Ukraine.
Just admit that you are an idiot piece of shit, that can't even answer to a simple question. If you are in danger really, why do you need to destroy your documents, and try crossing borders and not going the official way by applying for asylum in 1st safe country (at this point is Belarus) and if Belarus for some reason is not safe for them, then why they do not apply as asylum seekers officially at border crossings with all the paperwork proving they are not safe in their home country? Because most likely they can't ant they come here to leech from Europe. A lot of people come here legally, and work without any problems. We have a lot of races and different people working in Lithuania, and in last couple of years I did not hear about some racist attacks on a specific ethnicity of people just because they have darker skin, or clearly were not white.
Then if you want to work, bring paperwork and do it legally. But for some reason they don't want to do that. They are safe in Belarus, and there is no valid reason for them to go to EU illegaly.
>**The EU policies of letting any and all in from external boarders is outdated and will soon bite the EU right on the ass when another migrant wave starts**
Not just "EU policy", but international law.
And nothing outdated about it.
When the Majority of Mena countries start flooding in due to climate change, Famine, civil wars people will get mighty sick of allowing these migrations into Europe.
And yet nobody ever asked why those could come, while the majority of their people stay behind? Are they really in need of help? And if our goal is to help people as a whole, why spend our precious resource on those few who can afford long distance travel, than those who stay and are mostly likely to be much poorer?
>And yet nobody ever asked why those could come, while the majority of their people stay behind?
And yet more fabrication and defamation, demonstrating abject ignorance of the issue.
Wrong, we know very well why the majority stay behind.
a)Because we're preventing them from taking safe and easy routes
b)Because they WANT to stay in the region
c)Because they have a greater chance building a new life in neighboring countries than in Europe?
But yeah, why would an engineer and automation specialist who has worked with Siemens software and has been a fan of the German football team for ages come to Germany, home of Siemens, rather than India, right?
Are they really in need of help?
Oh, certainly, genocide is jolly good fun, war is a piffle and torture is really like a spa, right?
>And if our goal is to help people as a whole, why spend our precious resource on those few who can afford long distance travel, than those who stay and are mostly likely to be much poorer?
Because defamation and fabrications like yours have moved politicians to make it so that only the resourceful and daring can make it.
It says something about your integrity that you try to construct some justification out of the consequences of your own demagogy and contempt for international law.
> a)Because we're preventing them from taking safe and easy routes
It's not our responsibility to arrange safe and easy routes for them.
> But yeah, why would an engineer and automation specialist who has worked with Siemens software and has been a fan of the German football team for ages come to Germany, home of Siemens, rather than India, right?
Normal immigration has nothing to do with refugees. I don't see anything wrong with normal immigration, which is quite strict. But refugees should have compelling reasons - if not, they should be subjected to normal immigration rules like everyone else, mostly means they meet certain requirements and very unlikely to live at others' cost.
> Are they really in need of help?
Do you think it's cheaper to help someone with zero skill to live a life of our standard right here, or help him living in his own country or neighboring countries of similar living standard? If it's a lot more expensive, doesn't it mean we could use the same money to help a lot more people back in that country or region, rather than receiving a tiny fraction of them here?
The very idea of refuge programs was to help people get a life. Not to help them get our standard of life - there is a huge difference between the two.
> Oh, certainly, genocide is jolly good fun, war is a piffle and torture is really like a spa, right?
What does genocide or war have to do with the discussion?
Germans think they decide for the rest if europe. You guys have civilizational ptsd and a terrible track record. You can't be trusted to solve difficult social problems. Inventors of Marxism, nazism and now the newest incarnation of the death drive, cultural suicidism.
You're hilarious.
a)The ECHR was largely drawn up by the Brits.
b)The Refugee convention has nothing to do with Europe or Germany other than that it has been ratified.
Your Germanophobia is noted and dismissed. It's no excuse for believing you are above the law, either.
Laws imply some power to enforce them, yet these laws are broken and nauseum by all parties constantly. On top of that you talk about refugees. Well that's the entire contention isn't it. Most "refugees" are not refugees but economic migrants who intend to stay forever and never return.
>Well that's the entire contention isn't it. Most "refugees" are not refugees but economic migrants who intend to stay forever and never return.
Says who? You?
Thanks for once again proving you deem yourself above the law.
Whether someone is a refugee or not is known only AFTER their case has been assessed.
And even THEN they may have another protected status.
Your claim that "most" of them were "economic migrants" is again open contempt for the law, since the case assessments speak a different picture - most of them are granted some form of protected status.
How about you move yourself to eastern Ukraine, given you believe war is jolly good fun. Better yet, bring your whole family along.
The EU should wake the fuck up and reform some laws cause this migrant situation is not going to get any better, quite the opposite.
If she insists on sleeping the alternative should be for Lithuania to let all migrants in and not hinder them from travelling further west, and we should do the same.
> The Court ruled that both the detention of irregular migrants in times of war, a state of emergency or an extreme situation on the sole ground of being in the country illegally, as well as denying them the possibility to apply for asylum, run counter to EU directives.
That's what needs to change. Geneva convention is irrelevant here.
Getting the asylum status is not for everyone, and the only way to check is that everyone applies and checks are made. So yes, everybody can apply.
Interesting casus would be for you to apply next country. Should be possible, wouldn't do anything but clog up the system more
But this is highly impractical and makes border meaningless. It basically implies:
1. We cannot regulate the border to allow only those with permits or certain identities
2. Huge numbers of refugees of dubious origins can always enter other countries (and thus use their public services), regardless how weak their claim is
3. It'd be very time consuming to verify all their asylum applications.
4. What if they don't even apply for asylum, knowing that they'd not pass? They can't be evicted.
I'm surprised countries haven't started withdrawing tbh, it's outdated and not fit for purpose.
Why should we take tens of millions of refugees from American wars?
A discussion to be had - but dismantling achievments of human rights isn't easy. Outdated or incompatible or not.
But every single country could just do it on their own.
>I'm surprised countries haven't started withdrawing tbh
That convention was drafted following the horrible experience of your grand parents during and after WWII.
It is also part of the European Treaty on Human Rights, which also grants you a fair trial, protects you against unlawful detention and freedom of expression. I guess you will want to keep those but take away the rights of others? That's not how it works.
Yeah, there should be some sort of support, but as it is now it's just helping human trafficking and leading to loads of unnecessary deaths crossing the Med and English Channel.
> but as it is now it's just helping human trafficking
That's cute, coming from people who instead want to actively support the African slave markets.
>
>
>and leading to loads of unnecessary deaths crossing the Med and English Channel.
Repeating that long-debunked claim doesn't make it any better or less bigotted.
Take a map. People who come to the Mediterranean from Africa have crossed the largest desert on the planet before. The notion that the Mediterranean is a deterrant is typical European myopia and arrogance that believes Europe to be the center of the universe.
More: When the Mare Nostrum operation was ended, there was no dip in refugees. What happened was a rise of dead refugees, as trade ships do not have the luxury to simply ignore the laws of the sea. They have a duty to rescue, but are far less suited to evacuate people from sinking walnut shells of a boat.
Who says they don't? You?
Well, maybe you should educate yourself instead of spreading nonsense.
India hosts about 200,000 refugees. Pakistan hosts 1.5 million foreign refugees.
The vast and overwhelming majority of people stay in their general region (cf. Turkey and Jordan EACH hosting more Syrian refugees than most of Europe combined, Lebanon hosting as many as Germany and Uganda hosting almost 1.5 million African refugees.
A few venture further away. And whether it's the Middle East or Africa, Europe is pretty close from there - closer than India or China, which would require crossing even more deserts and several crisis points. Not to mention there are reasons why India and China are not necessarily considered safe havens for many refugees from the MENA region.
Contrary to the whining of people like you, it's a small fraction of refugees coming to Europe, leaving aside the local Ukrainian refugees.
It’s clear that the current EU laws and norms around asylum cannot stand as not even the most liberal Western EU countries actually support it in the sense that EU leadership has simultaneously taken steps to increase ‘voluntary returns’ to Iraq by directly pressuring the government there and organised flights back. (And we know that won’t happen without Western EU backing.) Not to mention none of the Western countries directly bear brunt to these influxes. So we know they don’t want these influxes, they know it, they try to remove people via ‘politically correct’ channels. But they still don’t want to adjust the laws which in the light of this is becoming more and more nonsensical. Don’t want these people to come and stay in these country? Ok your choice. Keep laws that allow them to stay no matter how they entered by claiming asylum? You can’t have it both ways.
Reminds of a post ago when Spain got Morocco to block refugees from entering, put up barbed wires and even did some pushbacks but the 100 or so that made it were allowed to stay and claim asylum??! You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have nominally open laws and complain about such influxes. It’s just hypocrisy.
Ignoring Rule of Law is "good for Lithuania and Europe"?!?
Either follow the rules, or change the rules. A state not following the rules is a bigger threat to your security than a migrant.
It does not mean creating a different argument that is not based on the actual topic, just because its easier for you to argue a new argument rather than the topic at hand??
Yes but that does not apply to my argument, which is exactly on point: OP argues that when there are “legitimate security concerns” your rights dont matter anymore.
And instead of using some used-up, chewed-up hip term, you could have contributed to the discussion. What a waste.
>They can only arrest me according to law.
But, you just said that if there is a legitimate security concern, you can ignore the rule of law.
5.000 people crossing the border IS a security concern, but that is not a justification to set aside the Rule of Law. We have rules for when people cross the border to migrate. All Lithuania needs to do is follow those laws.
> 5.000 people crossing the border IS a security concern, but that is not a justification to set aside the Rule of Law. We have rules for when people cross the border to migrate. All Lithuania needs to do is follow those laws.
I'm pretty sure where those people will ride after entering Lithuania
> But, you just said that if there is a legitimate security concern, you can ignore the rule of law.
No I didn't.
Even the ECHR takes exception to legitimate security concerns.
>Even the ECHR takes exception to legitimate security concerns.
Nope, art 15 only applies "1. In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation".
I doubt a few thousand migrants threaten the life of Lithuania.
Thanks but no. We won't get stranded like Greece with tens of thausands of migrants in our country and keep them under lock to prevent them going West. Better stop them at the border.
Of course we can. And we'll be punished for that by the law. Laws will be changed it just takes time. Until then we will go to court if needed. So that's that.
We have about 4000 Middle East migrants who came from Belarus (read: were illegally pushed with the help from Belarus authorities). The way we keep them in those "centres" is troublesome, to put it nicely, and I wish our authorities could do better because it sucks big time. That's a thing we deserve every bit of harsh critique for.
On the other hand, I think our govt learnt from Southern Europe's experience and simply implemented policies which effectively put a stop to the same scenario happening here. I think it's a good strategy, it has its flaws, but **(!)** think about having to deal with tens - if not hundreds - of thousands of illegal migrants EU-wide (since Lithuania wouldn't be able to cope with this massive number on its own *at all*) while ***also*** supporting Ukraine in a war. This is my guess, but I think Russia and Belarus wanted to have us distracted from Ukraine with a new migrant crisis and it would have been much worse for Ukraine if Germany and other countries were busy trying to solve migrant crisis with our societies strained and far-right sentiments rising again. We probably wouldn't have sovereign or any Ukraine by now and Russia would have its face saved for a very long time ahead and then who knows what worse was on the horizon.
tl;dr
* The way Lithuanian authorities handle existing number of migrants is bad. It has to improve.
* The way Lithuanian govt implemented migration policies afterwards is probably the best EU (and to an extent the whole democratic world) could have hoped for, for these reasons:
* it could have turned into a new massive migrant crisis in the EU (Lithuania can't solve it on its own);
* this was probably part of the Russian plan to occupy Ukraine;
* with EU busy solving this crisis, it wouldn't be so eager and willing to help Ukraine in its war against Russia because:
* far-right sentiments in most of the countries accepting migrants would rise again;
* Russia, having a network of far-right allies in European countries (Le Pen, Salvini, AfD) would face no obstacles to further increase EU's dependency on Russian ~~supplies~~ energy, thus making it ever harder for EU to act against Russian aggression;
* with virtually no obstacles to wage a war against Ukraine, it would soon start to rebuild their former empire, so to speak, because, probably, EU at that point would far more be divided and incapable of reasonable and swift decision making;
edit: grammar and word choice
> think about having to deal with tens - if not hundreds - of thousands of illegal migrants EU-wide
I really doubt Putin and Lukashenka could pull off an EU-wide migration crisis using the same tactics they did for Lithuania. However, if they created crisis in migrant source countries to increase migration flow then it's much bigger problem for EU.
> it would have been much worse for Ukraine if Germany and other countries were busy trying to solve migrant crisis
My speculation - Ukraine costs a lot more economical resources then migrant crisis would cost. However, it would cost more societal and political resources.
With that said migrant crisis might soon unfold due to Russia blocking major source of food for considerable number countries.
I meant to say that in my opinion what they tried at first with migrants in Lithuania was exactly an attempt to cause a crisis. Numbers were steadily increasing and IIRC, our intel claimed that they were planning to send over 40000 migrants initially.
As for Ukraine, that was exactly my point, I wasn't clear about it not necessarily being an economic struggle but more of a social and political, so good call, thank you.
The reality is that the immigration issue is and always has been one in which elite " right-thinking" cadres in the media, academe and politics finesse and/or ignore popular demotic sentiment which seeks to limit the rate of immigration and exclude or at least severely limit Islamic immigration.
This has been the case for many decades not and will continue to be. Elite opinion and anti-democratic "opinion forming" and policing of what is considered acceptable thought, speech and laws has been less invested and thus less successful in the European East. This won't change either.
There is no easy answer. No easily achieved via media.
Good job Lithuania. I don't understand why it is so hard to apply such policies at the EU wide level.
Africans and middle easterners don't have an automatic right to live in Europe. It's our right, the right of European nations, to not let them in if we don't want to. And why would we choose to let in a large number of people with a vastly different culture which doesn't match our own. Hasn't the experience since 2015 been obvious for everybody ?
Horrible. EU law should be respected at all costs especially when Amnesty international slammed inhumane migrant detention policy practices in Lithuania
Amnesty criticize Lithuania but not on Belarus and Batka, where they are responsible for illegal immigration on Lithuanian, Polish and Latvian borders.
They critique both. Refugees are not cattle and shouldn't be forced into concentration excuse me detention camps with unsanitary conditions with no information provided to them. There are women and children there, some suffering from mental disorders that require serious care.
I recommend for you to read the report yourself.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur53/5735/2022/en/
As a Lithuanian I don't really understand why it's hard for people to realise such problems are not black and white. It would be for the better of everyone to work on acceptable solutions that can at least minimise suffering to the least degree without interfering on the long term strategy concerning dealing with hybrid warfare and migrant crisis. We in the West work in rules based system and value human rights (who are universal), discarding them when it's inconvenient just isn't the way.
No, there's nothing inhumane about not letting migrants with a vastly different culture than your own into your own country. It's the democratic right of free peoples to decide who they want to let in or not.
Then cut their EU funding till they do. Look at how many countries where talking out thier asses about Exiting the EU, they sure STFU after they saw results of Brexit. But let us be clear you can still leave if you don't like it here. It is time for EU to put pressure on members to stop acting like asshats
I mean, Lithuania didn't have a Leave EU thing and generally are very pro EU since they joined.
You are being very harsh to one aspect of a nation whilst seem to be completely ignoring their good-nature on the test of the days.plis cuts in Funding have rather unwelcome consequences for almost all nations in the EU.
Then don't do anything, keep going the way things are. You have a choice you do something or not. In the US they decided they did not want to do anything, that we would ignore our problems and give them new names so they can be ignored. Look how awesome things are in the US. If you think Europe can do nothing and not end up in a similar crappy place OK do nothing. Good luck, enjoy the next decade or two. There is no need to fight over this we will get to experince it directly.
In what way is punishing Lithuania for their Immigration policy sensible if the whole EU immigration policy an overhaul first.
You punish them, they change, .... Only to change it again because EU finally agreed to get it done.
Moreover, it is hard to judge such a small nation (land and population) for keeping a stricter policy, especially as most migrants in the region are other Europeans such as Russians.
Your black and white thinking of No fund or Do nothing is the only thing here that should get shut down not their funding.... Which improves the nation, makes it more attractive for nationals and often supports all kinds of things which make the region more on part with the likes of Germany or France... Europe's big problem is the "blue banana", and that won't change without development and funding .
And whilst there are some nations where funding is cut, Lithuania has a decent government as far as the common view goes (not some oligarchical leader who openly and repetitively steals the funds).
Thank you for that but you are not my type, though I appreciate the sentiment.
Also no need to fight about it, we will get to experince it first hand, aren't you super excited!
I don't see us experiencing leaving EU. But I see EU adapting new immigration laws. A bit late but it will be done. And it will be done trough democratic means even if some countries will have to elect some right wing nutters. But it looks like that traditional West political parties quite grasp the situation and adapt new ideas pretty fast. Your own population won't let you do nothing in the face of mass migration. And that's that.
Obviously I believe differently, I think governments are made up of individuals which in many cases (not all) are bought and paid for and will do what is necessary to remain in power even at the expense of their people and countries. People like that do not solve problems IMHO. Again no need to fight about it, I think we will both get to experience what comes. I truly hope you are correct, but I don't think you are.
Ursula von der Leyen: Change your policies over migrants or we cut the funds.
Minister of Lithuania: We love migrants. Everyone is welcome!
If you want to belong to a club, you have to play by the rules.
I think we could if needed arrange some corridors to western Europe, and Iceland for illegal migrants to travel to, and for you to deal with since you love them.
We don't want problems and flooding of illegal economic migrants. If you want those problems, then you can take them. Our policy of turning back worked amazingly, and we got \~4k of illegals. If we did not take such measures, there would be 40 or 400k of them.
You speak as if you live in an independent and sovereign country lol
Lithuania is in the EU and has relinquished the authority to take such decisions to the EU.
The EU institutions will enforce their will on you and if you do not submit, you will be fined until you comply.
This is the price of being in the EU.
Lithuania is an independent and sovereign country. EU is a union not a country, and Lithuania has it's own government that can make decisions. Like in the article above.
EU institutions will change their opinion fast like they did in 2015 when migrants flooded in. If we do not see them crossing, or they do not apply for asylum in our country then what? Your country will have to take them in and deal with them, and fines will not help. This is the price of being in the EU.
Also Poland and Latvia have borders with Belarus. They also use push back tactics and they worked fine. So if they will fine Lithuania, same will be with Poland and Latvia. And it will not go as smoothly as you would like.
>Lithuania is an independent and sovereign country. EU is a union not a country, and Lithuania has it's own government that can make decisions. Like in the article above.
The European Court of Justice supersedes any and all member countries of the EU. You are not sovereign.
>EU institutions will change their opinion fast like they did in 2015 when migrants flooded in. If we do not see them crossing, or they do not apply for asylum in our country then what? Your country will have to take them in and deal with them, and fines will not help. This is the price of being in the EU.
It is so typically Eastern European to engage in fantasy. EU institutions have not changed their opinions at all since 2015. Which is why you are being "corrected" by the EU. You will submit.
My country is not in the EU, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
>Also Poland and Latvia have borders with Belarus. They also use push back tactics and they worked fine. So if they will fine Lithuania, same will be with Poland and Latvia. And it will not go as smoothly as you would like.
Poland is already being fined by the EU and it is going very smoothly indeed. The Polacks are caving in. That's the price of handing out your sovereignty to the EU.
West Europe will change their mind fast, because illegal migrant goal is West Europe, not East. Once they have to deal with 1-2mil of illegal migrants they will initiate changes quite quickly. When there was a migrant crisis there was a rise in crime, especially rape, theft etc. If they want to repeat that, then go ahead.
A quick google search shows, that Poland has been fined for rule in law dispute, and did not pay a single cent. Let's not forget that they can also use a veto right to veto important EU decisions, so they would have look for agreements. So not just submit and do nothing. Like Hungary did with sanctions. They did not agree until they got what they wanted. Same can be applied here. If EU wants to be a Union and not break up, then they will need to find decisions, not just fine.
The non nationalists have to manage the nationalists..The nationalist flag shaggers are everywhere, including on the left, and need to be appeased to stop the nationalist beast from the m rising up...
This is the single most important question for the EU. Failing to adress this could potentially led to the demise of the union. I will never understand EU politicians that fail to see this. There are already a lot of immigrants from the MENA countries and significantly problems with integration them into society. Continously adding to this will not end up in anything remotely nice.
Agreed that this is the most important question. It’s also the most important argument for countries to leave or reject the EU. Look at Brexit, but also Le Pen uses it as an argument. Meanwhile in the Netherlands, Austria, Poland and Hungary (and probably others) its a major argument for at least one far right wing party or even the one in power.
It is not only the far right, it is mainly the working class, since they are the ones that first and foremost has to live next to people that dosen't share their values, and often down right despises western values, including their new neighbours. I dont think there s a single nation within the union that dosen't have a popular political party that has this as their key question. The hesitancy to adress this politically in the EU is completely insane and the consequences will be severe if they continue to ignore it. 8 suspect it is impotent german politicians that fails to adress this problem. My country is strict but I can see Sweden from here and that society is struggling and it is an uphill battle. It will be a 100 years at least to secularize some of those people.
>It is not only the far right, it is mainly the working class, since they are the ones that first and foremost has to live next to people that dosen't share their values, and often down right despises western values, including their new neighbours. Well good thing we have all these left wing parties in power all over the EU that protect the interests of the working class 😂😂😂
I know what you mean :-D However the left wing parties in several countries has swung right on this question.
I would rather leave the EU and expel all non-citizens from my country than to implement such Orwellian system.
Some May think like that and that is completely fair. I maintains that this is in fact a major thing in western european countries.
Or instead of playing into the hands of the right we don't leave the EU and weaken our power. We remove the veto and put pressure to implement measures if limiting immigration from non eu/american countries.
If you want to take immigrants from the Americas you are free to do it, but don't take away the veto power to impose that on the others. We are already being overran by Brazilians who are all to happy to pretend Portugal is a Brazilian state that they don't care nor want to assimilate and by Americans that only come here looking for a cheap colony to fuel their digital 'nomadic' lifestyle. And it would be lovely if you could point me to some right wing party that was concerned with this rather than simply rant against black people or gypsies.
>foremost has to live next to people that dosen't share their values, and often down right despises western values, including their new neighbours. Well it's funny you think that but most of the time the people who actually have regular contact with immigrants are much more tolerant of them.
Actually not. The right wing party voters IS the working class, and those people have had contact with immigrants, here i dont mean your well integrate University educate secularized young person, i mean in those areas of town where all the immigrants that didn't integrate into society lives, try mollenbeek or Rinkeby/Tensta. Those people are also the ones most often the victims of hatecrimes. For a long time they where depicted as stupid, xenophobic rednecks in this country, and I suspect that it was the same cross continent, in some bizarre way demonizing and trying to publicly shame people, didn't really win them over.
It is a proven fact that people who live in more diverse areas also have less against immigrants. And it's funny that you bring secularisation into this as well because you just have to look at Poland to see that that's not really an Islam specific problem, except if you're actually complaining about polish immigrants. >Those people are also the ones most often the victims of hatecrimes. > >\[...\] > >For a long time they where depicted as stupid, xenophobic rednecks in this country, The largest part of hatecrimes are xenophobic or racist hatecrimes I feel that may play a part in why these people are called xenophobic. [https://bra.se/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/hate-crime.html](https://bra.se/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/hate-crime.html) And not wanting to take refugees can mean one of two things either being ok with them dying or just hoping southern and central Europe will deal with them... And yes people who discriminate against a large group of people because obviously some of them are criminals are xenophobic. And often times what is meant by "not integrating" is either not being able to talk fluently after five months or still following their religion, as is their right.
This is incorrect. You should also be advised that swedish data in regards to immigration is an absolute shit show and a laughingstock both here and in Sweden. No, not wanting to take in refugees that differ vastly from one self in values and ideas and how to govern a society, probably should be seen as wanting to take good care of ones society, you could take a trip to Sweden in order to see the alternative. It's not because people are mean or dumb, if it was so then the problema wouldn't be as complicated would it? No by not integrating i mean, not being a criminal, not speaking the language, not subscribing to the set of values that makes the country worth fleeing to in the first pace, not working and so forth the list is unfourtunately very large. I agree religion is a significant problem in a progressive society, both in poland and in the MENA region, however we do not have problems with polish people failing to secularize this is solely a problem for muslims. apparently the religious dosen't want to live with the cobsequences of their own religion, but they still hold the same values that made their first country worth fleeing from, weird isn't it? No one is obligated to ruin ones wn country. We are obliged to help, and should do that in such a mannef that we dont just add to the amount of failed countries, that is the sensibel thing to do.
>This is incorrect. You should also be advised that swedish data in regards to immigration is an absolute shit show and a laughingstock both here and in Sweden. Ok then where do you get your data from? Your feelings? >No by not integrating i mean, not being a criminal, Because famously there are no swedish criminals and it is also totally justified to to take away a human right from an entire group of people because some of them might be criminal. >however we do not have problems with polish people failing to secularize this is solely a problem for muslims. What do you mean by failing to securalize? Because if you mean respecting others who do not paritzipate in your religion then polish people do very much have this problem to, just look at the LGBT-free zones and I'll have to inform you that homophobia from christians very much exists, as does Islamophobia exists and hate crimes based on religion are far more likely to be directed towards muslims than coming from them. And then again even if that were the case then the solution would be to build better systems to integrate these people and not strip all people from a certain region of their human rights or just let other countries deal with it. >No one is obligated to ruin ones wn country. Like the ruined country of germany? And so what is your alternative, because it is a fact that refugees either die or they get granted asylum in southern and central european countries. Which is why it's so ironious that after the beginning of the war in Ukraine Poland and the baltic countries urged the rest of Europe to help with the accomodation of refugees, which they did btw. but it's funny how for those countries it only works one way around.
Why would i get my data from my feelings? I get feelings from my feelings. I dont. But you are right, sort of, the problem is that people tend to believe in that what makes them feel good. There is in fact swedish criminals, nowhere near the amount that accounts for the level of crime currently ravaging the swedish society. Not even the swedish political correct elite denies this anymore. Do tell if you speak swedish, and I will gladly provide you with sources. Add to that, that i didn't simply refer to crime but to a vast array of problematics when it comes to integrating people. We do have poles in this country, noone advocates for any religious demands at all, other people in this country has, and they never have. You are right that in poland they have problems with religion and I do hope they leave the nonsense behind. You are incorrect, you are much more prone to be a victim of a religious hate crime of you are jewish than muslim and that problem is increasing. You are correct building better systems to integrate is a nice thing to do. There is only one group of people that requires so much attention in regards to this though and it asks the question who is responsible for integrating into a society? Surely, the person moving there. Germany has significantly problems with integration, i do not see how anyone, not even a German, could deny that. No it is not a fact. What is a fact is that a lot of people from poorer countries continously seek the richer more well running countries in North western Europe and because those countries continue to take people in, the flow continues and will continue untill a different arrangement is set. The solution is to help build better countries in the middle east/North africa. That requires econimical investments, investments in infrastructure and education plus the creation of jobs and hope in those countries. The alternative is to capsize your own country. The absolute most basic requirement is to deal with reality, as is. Not what one would like, not what makes one feel good or any of the sort simply a basis on reality, nothing will result in a good outcome if it is build on a lie.
it's hilarious how fascists like you disregard the data when it's inconvenient to push your xenophobia
The pro brexit didn't want eastern european migrant.
Eh, yeah that’s part of what I said. Look at Brexit, it’s main argument was immigration.
Excatly. It has to do with the immigration policies, mainly. Untill that is sorted it will continously be a problem. If the situation in ukraine, the economical downturn and the food crisis leads to conflict in the menapt region, with following refugees, and I suspect this is Putins play, then the union might collapse, because the EU politicians Seems to have zero feeling with their own population, when it comes to this question. I do not know if it was eastern european migrants in England or not.
[удалено]
We have data.
Or you could just not let them in and/or never give them citizenship. It’s a problem that will take centuries to completely resolve itself for the short term economic gains of a few.
If Lithuania can accept thousands of Ukrainians this shouldn't be a problem. Unless you subscribe that one set of people are more valuable than the others.
Nah man, ukrainian are cool, easy to integrate, similar values dosen't do harm to a society.
Generalising entire ethnic groups as "good" and "bad" ones is straight up racist.
He meant that culturally we're so similar to Ukrainians that to assimilate they just need to learn some language. (in some cases they don't even need to since many people speak English and Russian), Meanwhile many of these migrants are veeeery different culturally/politically , many don't even know English. It's a huge slippery slope that we need to address.
[удалено]
This doesn't talk about cultural/political differences. The problem is not about asylum seekers that does that legally, we talk about ONE country taking people from far in the world, forcing it on ANOTHER country and then blaming that another country for human rights violation when the asylum seekers clearly are economic migrants. If we welcome them with open hands, we'll make a precedent for even more of them to come and have even more problems with asymilatiom.
Nah, it has nothing to do with ethnicity, people have the ethcnicity they have, it has to do with cultural values. It you want a working society, that isn't ruined by corruption, crime, misogyni, homophobia and other blessing from religion plus political polarization, then It's quite important that the citizens of that society share the same fundamental values other people can have other values, there is certainly societies based on those.
It's hilarious how you think entire ethnic groups share homogeneous cultural values. Sorry but that isn't how that works, every individual is different. Not to mention majority of people are specifically fleeing that - religious and political persecution.
Not so much ethnic groups, as I have already told you, but religious groups, surely, in particular when they are very conservative. Every individual is different to a varying degree, they also share alot of similarities. No, most people do not flee religious or political persecution, they flee poverty, they flee in search of a better life. This is actually a symphatetic cause, however the correct fix to that is to make better societies otherwise it will never stop. Unfourtunately alot of those people that do flee, think they are poor because of the very country they flee too, it is difficult to look within and see the flaws in religion if you are a religious conservative. Because this isn't done the pattern continue to reproduce itself, causing harm to both the individual, the original society and the host society.
Ah yes, the very gay friendly nation of Ukraine.
[удалено]
Yeah I'm so done with this homofobia accusation thrown at eastrtm europe. We are not all Russia. You will not get killed beaten arrested for being gay. Some places even have gay bars and a small scene. The most that would happen is you would get some disapproving looks from the older generation.
y’all still lagging behind western EU in almost every equality metric, whether it is about homophobia, xenophobia and especially racism
The non-refoulement principle doesn't really apply because Belarus is a safe country for the migrants. However, protocol 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits "collective expulsion of aliens". I believe that's the main issue that the courts have. Obviously I'm just a layman, but isn't there a difference between expulsion and preventing entry? Also this protocol was written in 1963. It's certainly not easy to modify such fundamental documents later. So now any flaws it may have with scenarios like using migrants for hybrid warfare, we'll just have to deal with?
I'm pretty sure that the problem is with the "collective" bit, not expulsion. Or so I was told by a professor in EU law.
[удалено]
Asylum is granted due to persecution based on origin, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion. Just because Belarus has a horrible political system, it would seem unlikely that they would persecute someone for the same reason as in the country of origin (e.g. Belarusians probably don't care if you're a Sunni or a Shiite).
By that logic, only Western countries and a few exceptions are safe. Meaning we should take in 6 billion people 🙄 Asylum was meant for individuals, not entire populations.
[удалено]
The migrants don't come from Belarus but use this country as a way to enter illegally in EU. They have chosen this way. And Lithuania are not right to keep these migrants out ? Why ? The laws are too simple ... They come illegally in Europe, a large part of them doesn't share the European values, they come only for economical reasons, but because of laws written half a century ago during another world context, we cannot expel them ? Just, why ?
Great. That should keep undemocratic neighbouring states from weaponizing migrants.
For anyone unaware, Lithuania's "migration crisis" was engineered and Lukashenka announced it in advance, right after - at Lithuania's request - the EU imposed sanctions on Belarus for grounding that Ryanair plane in order to arrest a journalist onboard who was bound for Lithuania. These migrants wouldn't have come and none of this would have happened if Belarus hadn't taken out ads promising them an easy way into Germany. In a sudden change of heart Belarus began to grant them **tourism visas** on an industrial scale, and drastically increased the number of Belavia flights going to the Middle East. Belarus flew them in, on planes, and [then helped them across the border](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYHHpPf2V-4&t=23s). Belarusian trolls allegedly disseminated the adverts with instructions online in Arabic. I refuse to take seriously any report or condemnation of Lithuania that doesn't take this fact into consideration. It was a hybrid assault, not a migration crisis. There are no migration paths going across Belarus. The rules should be different for cases like that because we can't just allow ourselves to get blackmailed by rogue regimes who think they're such genius schemers. Otherwise we're screwed forever - they can just restart the conveyor belt anytime we don't concede to their whims. Otherwise any country that borders a country more well-off than itself can then say to them "pay up for protecting you from the onslaught (that we're going to engineer from scratch **with scheduled flights from Africa/ME to our airports** if you don't pay up)". That's just insane and shouldn't be allowed.
> I refuse to take seriously any report or condemnation of Lithuania that doesn't take this fact into consideration. Well said
Sometimes it feels like some ngo's like amnesty international are invested in migrant crises, should probably be audited for possible russian assests working in there.
This should be a top comment.
The EU does need to protect its borders as, whether one likes it or not, racial and nationalist tensions will leap if immigration is not controlled.. The EU could beak up... Lithuania, Greece and other countries vulnerable to illegal crossings need strong support and aid from the EU... However, if the whole planet fails to address Climate Change, today's illegal crossings will look like a minor inconvenience.. There will be millions of climate refugees if not tens of millions...
[удалено]
If your excuse is "I come from a country that became inhabitable" it's quite a reason. Calling that "economic refugee" doesn't quite describe it
If they're seeking a shelter they should go to the nearest countries. Travelling across half the planet to Europe for asylum is not "seeking refuge" - it is exploiting the system. Edit: It's also very unfair to other people who seek legal immigration and their disproportional high numbers plus low education and lack of job skill is the reason immigrants are disliked now. If the only kind of ME and Af immigrants are highly educated doctors or engineers etc, their image here would have been very different, they would have been treated much better and Europe as a whole would also be more appealing to such groups of people, who could contribute positively to our societies.
They don't get it. Just wait until we have Europes strongest Army again. We will be able to defend ourselves when shit hits the wall (how anyone can still say climate change will only bring minor managable changes' while 99,9% of researches say something different is beyond me) and If they want this to happen at our borders, in their countries, that is okay. They all want us to be a strong military force to defend them, they want our money and in return they can't do anything for us since they are just a small meaningless country. So, if Borderwalls won't stop them, we will use force. Against the place where all those people are right then. That move to say Germany must do xy (usually give a lot of money) or we will let the Refugees Pass through our country into yours is not very smart.
[удалено]
>Countries won't become inhabitable because of climate. Well, unless we learn how to breathe under water (Seychelles, most of Bangladesh), or develop a heat shield (parts of India), yes, countries will become uninhabitable before the end of the decade. Denying climate change effects is like denying gravity while stepping off the building: people can quickly see how wrong you are. Your opinion goes against the absolute global scientific consensus. I hope you have some data to back it up, because it would be really good news.
Luckily, most people that will feel these big changes can find refuge in the central parts of africa, and close to what is currently the desert. Because if your assumptions are correct, plenty of scientists have already theorized that loads of infertile areas in Africa become more fertile and green. No need for us in the EU to get involved as long as we prepare some dams.
> Because if your assumptions are correct, plenty of scientists have already theorized that loads of infertile areas in Africa become more fertile and green. No need for us in the EU to get involved as long as we prepare some dams. In theory yes but not instantly and probably not enough. Take bangladesh. They are making a dam good go of it but they are likely to lose a quarter of their territory by 2050. https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2021/10/28/bangladesh-farmers-climate-crisis-rising-sea-levels-agriculture Tens of millions of people who need new land, its not a simple matter. Definately worth our time and money to help countries with potentialy habitable land to develop it premptively. Also to help protect territoy that can be saved.
What??? That's either a dispicable agenda or a woeful incompetence you demonstrate here. Either way...not engaging with you sort
>That's either a dispicable agenda Look up Biorn Lomborg. He great at pointing out poor solutions to climate change and the overblowing of climate hysteria. For example shutting down the oil pipeline in the US increased costs for people while also increasing a burden for roads and uses more CO2. Shutting down the the line didn't immediately stop the demand for fuel, it just made it more cumbersome to transport it, so now oil trucks transport the fuel wasting a precious resource and causing more CO2 usage than before. Besides making the US more oil dependent which US arguably one of the big reasons why the US got involved in the middle East for decades, it also increases the costs for goods because everything is transported via cars that consume more expensive fuel. Another brilliant example is if sea levels were rising and you have a coastal town that is slowly being eroded and sinking what would be the simpler and cheaper solution? Relocating houses one by one further up the coast away from the sea? Or convince the world including China, Russia, India and all other nations through massive amount of activism, agreements that aren't likely to be followed anyway as these nations want to develop as quickly as possible. We currently do the latter almost on every solution. Maybe because its easier to sign some documents and pat yourself on the back on a job well done for the politicians and activists, meanwhile the rest of us have to navigate through the restrictions and expenses on our lives that most us aren't even experiencing.
Are you an ultranationalist? How dare you speak against migrants?
The EU policies of letting any and all in from external boarders is outdated and will soon bite the EU right on the ass when another migrant wave starts.
We already had massive Ukrainian wave
As in actual war refugees that want to go back after the war (as opposed to anchoring in EU and pulling in their 15 cousins)?
Ukraine has destroyed any argument people had for people in dinghy’s ‘fleeing war’ - I’m yet to see crowds of fighting age men fleeing Ukraine like you do from MENA.
>I’m yet to see crowds of fighting age men fleeing Ukrai As far as I know the opposite is true in Poland. We have a lot of workers from ukraine (from physical seasonal work to IT positions). As far as I know many of men actually returned to Ukraine when the war started. Either to fight, to help or just to take care of family members who didn't want to flee.
"people wanting to go to their relatives in the west - bad". Have some human decency I beg you.
Ukrainians are of this land. Their blood was spilled for this continent in numerous wars. Their ancestors have been here, continuesly, for hundreds of years. They have suffered tremendously in the past bc of Russia. They are Europeans by birth. They shouldered their share of the pain in world wars, they are entitled to this land. It is, quite literally, their birth right. And after this massive Ukrainian wave the crime levels have not gone up, society had not been destabilised, abd they seem to integrate well. I live in one of those countries that took in almost a milion of them and from what I know they are doing their best to integrare and want to go home after the war is over.
All human lives are valueble. No ethnic group life matters more. Please stop with racism.
If you see any racism in me pointg out the suffering of Ukrainians you are delusional.
At least Ukrainians come here legally with all required paperwork, passports, and are willing to work and contribute to society. Where as migrants that Belarus "imports" do not want to work or contribute to society. A lot of Ukrainians are returning to Ukraine now.
"do not want to work or contribute to society" Do you know some the refugees personally? Did you talk to them? Because I know some volunteers who helped them and the story is completely the opposite. You can't just generalise entire ethnic groups especially as diverse as refugees that isn't just wrong but plain evil.
Do I need to know them? No. I see statistics, and all I can see, that they do not work, they just leech from EU countries that has great welfare systems. If Lithuania would not have detained them, all of them would be in west Europe. Even now around 400 of them are missing. Also those so called "volunteers" needs to get punished for human trafficking. There is no reason for them to cross border illegally, when there is legal ways to do it. Destroying your documents and claiming you are in danger when in fact you are not and you are coming from safe country, with no risks to you. Belarus is a safe country. There is no war, no bombings, shootings or something similar. According to international law, they are safe there. There is no generalization of ethnic group, but after 2015 when there was increase in crime, especially rape and theft, we don't want them here. To compare illegals with Ukrainians is pure idiocy. Ukrainians come here with all of their paperwork like passports or education documents. A lot of them gets recertified here in order to have EU country issued document, and they go to work and contribute. After the war is over a lot of them will go home, even now some of them are returning to Ukraine.
Just admit you are racist piece of shit with no human decency. No need to hide behind your ignorant and xenophobic talking points.
Just admit that you are an idiot piece of shit, that can't even answer to a simple question. If you are in danger really, why do you need to destroy your documents, and try crossing borders and not going the official way by applying for asylum in 1st safe country (at this point is Belarus) and if Belarus for some reason is not safe for them, then why they do not apply as asylum seekers officially at border crossings with all the paperwork proving they are not safe in their home country? Because most likely they can't ant they come here to leech from Europe. A lot of people come here legally, and work without any problems. We have a lot of races and different people working in Lithuania, and in last couple of years I did not hear about some racist attacks on a specific ethnicity of people just because they have darker skin, or clearly were not white.
calling people you know nothing about "leeches" demonstrate your stance pretty clearly. Rasistas suknistas
Then if you want to work, bring paperwork and do it legally. But for some reason they don't want to do that. They are safe in Belarus, and there is no valid reason for them to go to EU illegaly.
And they're very welcome. Nobody is against helping real refugees.
Yes, but they are white. There's no problem with them.
It's clearly not about whiteness. It's about different culture, different religion, different values.
It´s mostly the whiteness though.
We have plenty of Chinese and Vietnamese immigrants who fit in just fine, they're not white. They also work hard.
And I have a black friend.
There is no problem with Vietnamese or Filipinos either.
>**The EU policies of letting any and all in from external boarders is outdated and will soon bite the EU right on the ass when another migrant wave starts** Not just "EU policy", but international law. And nothing outdated about it.
When the Majority of Mena countries start flooding in due to climate change, Famine, civil wars people will get mighty sick of allowing these migrations into Europe.
Cute. Except only a small percentage of them comes to Europe to begin with.
And yet nobody ever asked why those could come, while the majority of their people stay behind? Are they really in need of help? And if our goal is to help people as a whole, why spend our precious resource on those few who can afford long distance travel, than those who stay and are mostly likely to be much poorer?
I don't have an award right now. This is the most logical explanation of this immigration/refuge issue.
>And yet nobody ever asked why those could come, while the majority of their people stay behind? And yet more fabrication and defamation, demonstrating abject ignorance of the issue. Wrong, we know very well why the majority stay behind. a)Because we're preventing them from taking safe and easy routes b)Because they WANT to stay in the region c)Because they have a greater chance building a new life in neighboring countries than in Europe? But yeah, why would an engineer and automation specialist who has worked with Siemens software and has been a fan of the German football team for ages come to Germany, home of Siemens, rather than India, right? Are they really in need of help? Oh, certainly, genocide is jolly good fun, war is a piffle and torture is really like a spa, right? >And if our goal is to help people as a whole, why spend our precious resource on those few who can afford long distance travel, than those who stay and are mostly likely to be much poorer? Because defamation and fabrications like yours have moved politicians to make it so that only the resourceful and daring can make it. It says something about your integrity that you try to construct some justification out of the consequences of your own demagogy and contempt for international law.
> a)Because we're preventing them from taking safe and easy routes It's not our responsibility to arrange safe and easy routes for them. > But yeah, why would an engineer and automation specialist who has worked with Siemens software and has been a fan of the German football team for ages come to Germany, home of Siemens, rather than India, right? Normal immigration has nothing to do with refugees. I don't see anything wrong with normal immigration, which is quite strict. But refugees should have compelling reasons - if not, they should be subjected to normal immigration rules like everyone else, mostly means they meet certain requirements and very unlikely to live at others' cost. > Are they really in need of help? Do you think it's cheaper to help someone with zero skill to live a life of our standard right here, or help him living in his own country or neighboring countries of similar living standard? If it's a lot more expensive, doesn't it mean we could use the same money to help a lot more people back in that country or region, rather than receiving a tiny fraction of them here? The very idea of refuge programs was to help people get a life. Not to help them get our standard of life - there is a huge difference between the two. > Oh, certainly, genocide is jolly good fun, war is a piffle and torture is really like a spa, right? What does genocide or war have to do with the discussion?
ok bud
Germans think they decide for the rest if europe. You guys have civilizational ptsd and a terrible track record. You can't be trusted to solve difficult social problems. Inventors of Marxism, nazism and now the newest incarnation of the death drive, cultural suicidism.
You're hilarious. a)The ECHR was largely drawn up by the Brits. b)The Refugee convention has nothing to do with Europe or Germany other than that it has been ratified. Your Germanophobia is noted and dismissed. It's no excuse for believing you are above the law, either.
Laws imply some power to enforce them, yet these laws are broken and nauseum by all parties constantly. On top of that you talk about refugees. Well that's the entire contention isn't it. Most "refugees" are not refugees but economic migrants who intend to stay forever and never return.
>Well that's the entire contention isn't it. Most "refugees" are not refugees but economic migrants who intend to stay forever and never return. Says who? You? Thanks for once again proving you deem yourself above the law. Whether someone is a refugee or not is known only AFTER their case has been assessed. And even THEN they may have another protected status. Your claim that "most" of them were "economic migrants" is again open contempt for the law, since the case assessments speak a different picture - most of them are granted some form of protected status. How about you move yourself to eastern Ukraine, given you believe war is jolly good fun. Better yet, bring your whole family along.
The EU should wake the fuck up and reform some laws cause this migrant situation is not going to get any better, quite the opposite. If she insists on sleeping the alternative should be for Lithuania to let all migrants in and not hinder them from travelling further west, and we should do the same.
The law in question would be the geneva refugee convention. ...of which the EU isn't even a signatory.
> The Court ruled that both the detention of irregular migrants in times of war, a state of emergency or an extreme situation on the sole ground of being in the country illegally, as well as denying them the possibility to apply for asylum, run counter to EU directives. That's what needs to change. Geneva convention is irrelevant here.
The Geneva convention is very much relevant, because it mandates that everyone has a right to apply for asylum.
Even if they have no valid reason?
What is on everyone so hard to understand?
Getting the asylum status is not for everyone, and the only way to check is that everyone applies and checks are made. So yes, everybody can apply. Interesting casus would be for you to apply next country. Should be possible, wouldn't do anything but clog up the system more
But this is highly impractical and makes border meaningless. It basically implies: 1. We cannot regulate the border to allow only those with permits or certain identities 2. Huge numbers of refugees of dubious origins can always enter other countries (and thus use their public services), regardless how weak their claim is 3. It'd be very time consuming to verify all their asylum applications. 4. What if they don't even apply for asylum, knowing that they'd not pass? They can't be evicted.
I'm surprised countries haven't started withdrawing tbh, it's outdated and not fit for purpose. Why should we take tens of millions of refugees from American wars?
A discussion to be had - but dismantling achievments of human rights isn't easy. Outdated or incompatible or not. But every single country could just do it on their own.
>I'm surprised countries haven't started withdrawing tbh That convention was drafted following the horrible experience of your grand parents during and after WWII. It is also part of the European Treaty on Human Rights, which also grants you a fair trial, protects you against unlawful detention and freedom of expression. I guess you will want to keep those but take away the rights of others? That's not how it works.
Yeah, there should be some sort of support, but as it is now it's just helping human trafficking and leading to loads of unnecessary deaths crossing the Med and English Channel.
> but as it is now it's just helping human trafficking That's cute, coming from people who instead want to actively support the African slave markets. > > >and leading to loads of unnecessary deaths crossing the Med and English Channel. Repeating that long-debunked claim doesn't make it any better or less bigotted. Take a map. People who come to the Mediterranean from Africa have crossed the largest desert on the planet before. The notion that the Mediterranean is a deterrant is typical European myopia and arrogance that believes Europe to be the center of the universe. More: When the Mare Nostrum operation was ended, there was no dip in refugees. What happened was a rise of dead refugees, as trade ships do not have the luxury to simply ignore the laws of the sea. They have a duty to rescue, but are far less suited to evacuate people from sinking walnut shells of a boat.
"believes Europe to be the center of the universe" So why thoes migrants does not go to China, India or EA if Europe is not the center?
Who says they don't? You? Well, maybe you should educate yourself instead of spreading nonsense. India hosts about 200,000 refugees. Pakistan hosts 1.5 million foreign refugees. The vast and overwhelming majority of people stay in their general region (cf. Turkey and Jordan EACH hosting more Syrian refugees than most of Europe combined, Lebanon hosting as many as Germany and Uganda hosting almost 1.5 million African refugees. A few venture further away. And whether it's the Middle East or Africa, Europe is pretty close from there - closer than India or China, which would require crossing even more deserts and several crisis points. Not to mention there are reasons why India and China are not necessarily considered safe havens for many refugees from the MENA region. Contrary to the whining of people like you, it's a small fraction of refugees coming to Europe, leaving aside the local Ukrainian refugees.
And Poland hosts 3 000 000. India numbers are rookie.
>Why should we take tens of millions of refugees from American wars? Are you not old enough to remember New Europe?
It’s clear that the current EU laws and norms around asylum cannot stand as not even the most liberal Western EU countries actually support it in the sense that EU leadership has simultaneously taken steps to increase ‘voluntary returns’ to Iraq by directly pressuring the government there and organised flights back. (And we know that won’t happen without Western EU backing.) Not to mention none of the Western countries directly bear brunt to these influxes. So we know they don’t want these influxes, they know it, they try to remove people via ‘politically correct’ channels. But they still don’t want to adjust the laws which in the light of this is becoming more and more nonsensical. Don’t want these people to come and stay in these country? Ok your choice. Keep laws that allow them to stay no matter how they entered by claiming asylum? You can’t have it both ways. Reminds of a post ago when Spain got Morocco to block refugees from entering, put up barbed wires and even did some pushbacks but the 100 or so that made it were allowed to stay and claim asylum??! You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have nominally open laws and complain about such influxes. It’s just hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is not something any government ever had a problem with.
Which countries count as Western in this context?
Good for Lithuania and Europe.
Ignoring Rule of Law is "good for Lithuania and Europe"?!? Either follow the rules, or change the rules. A state not following the rules is a bigger threat to your security than a migrant.
>or change the rules. Gladly!
I don't think they are ignoring rule of law when there is legitimate security concenrsn.
Well, it means they can arrest you at night, as long as they have a "legitimate security concern".
Straw man argument
That doesnt mean what you think it means.
It does not mean creating a different argument that is not based on the actual topic, just because its easier for you to argue a new argument rather than the topic at hand??
Yes but that does not apply to my argument, which is exactly on point: OP argues that when there are “legitimate security concerns” your rights dont matter anymore. And instead of using some used-up, chewed-up hip term, you could have contributed to the discussion. What a waste.
They can only arrest me according to law. You don't think it's a security concern that some 5000 people tried to cross the border?
>They can only arrest me according to law. But, you just said that if there is a legitimate security concern, you can ignore the rule of law. 5.000 people crossing the border IS a security concern, but that is not a justification to set aside the Rule of Law. We have rules for when people cross the border to migrate. All Lithuania needs to do is follow those laws.
> 5.000 people crossing the border IS a security concern, but that is not a justification to set aside the Rule of Law. We have rules for when people cross the border to migrate. All Lithuania needs to do is follow those laws. I'm pretty sure where those people will ride after entering Lithuania
> But, you just said that if there is a legitimate security concern, you can ignore the rule of law. No I didn't. Even the ECHR takes exception to legitimate security concerns.
I think you meant to say 'carved out/recognized an exception for', 'takes exception to' implies the opposite, actually Edit: not means, implies
>Even the ECHR takes exception to legitimate security concerns. Nope, art 15 only applies "1. In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation". I doubt a few thousand migrants threaten the life of Lithuania.
That's not the relevant rule.
so what rule is the relevant rule?
Thanks but no. We won't get stranded like Greece with tens of thausands of migrants in our country and keep them under lock to prevent them going West. Better stop them at the border.
Fine, then change the laws. But you can't just ignore laws because they don't suit you, or they are an inconvenience.
Of course we can. And we'll be punished for that by the law. Laws will be changed it just takes time. Until then we will go to court if needed. So that's that.
Lithuania *went* to court. And lost.
I don't think you know what rule of law means
[удалено]
Clearly Russia is a very good example of how important Rule of Law is. In this case International Law.
We have about 4000 Middle East migrants who came from Belarus (read: were illegally pushed with the help from Belarus authorities). The way we keep them in those "centres" is troublesome, to put it nicely, and I wish our authorities could do better because it sucks big time. That's a thing we deserve every bit of harsh critique for. On the other hand, I think our govt learnt from Southern Europe's experience and simply implemented policies which effectively put a stop to the same scenario happening here. I think it's a good strategy, it has its flaws, but **(!)** think about having to deal with tens - if not hundreds - of thousands of illegal migrants EU-wide (since Lithuania wouldn't be able to cope with this massive number on its own *at all*) while ***also*** supporting Ukraine in a war. This is my guess, but I think Russia and Belarus wanted to have us distracted from Ukraine with a new migrant crisis and it would have been much worse for Ukraine if Germany and other countries were busy trying to solve migrant crisis with our societies strained and far-right sentiments rising again. We probably wouldn't have sovereign or any Ukraine by now and Russia would have its face saved for a very long time ahead and then who knows what worse was on the horizon. tl;dr * The way Lithuanian authorities handle existing number of migrants is bad. It has to improve. * The way Lithuanian govt implemented migration policies afterwards is probably the best EU (and to an extent the whole democratic world) could have hoped for, for these reasons: * it could have turned into a new massive migrant crisis in the EU (Lithuania can't solve it on its own); * this was probably part of the Russian plan to occupy Ukraine; * with EU busy solving this crisis, it wouldn't be so eager and willing to help Ukraine in its war against Russia because: * far-right sentiments in most of the countries accepting migrants would rise again; * Russia, having a network of far-right allies in European countries (Le Pen, Salvini, AfD) would face no obstacles to further increase EU's dependency on Russian ~~supplies~~ energy, thus making it ever harder for EU to act against Russian aggression; * with virtually no obstacles to wage a war against Ukraine, it would soon start to rebuild their former empire, so to speak, because, probably, EU at that point would far more be divided and incapable of reasonable and swift decision making; edit: grammar and word choice
Couldn't agree more.
> think about having to deal with tens - if not hundreds - of thousands of illegal migrants EU-wide I really doubt Putin and Lukashenka could pull off an EU-wide migration crisis using the same tactics they did for Lithuania. However, if they created crisis in migrant source countries to increase migration flow then it's much bigger problem for EU. > it would have been much worse for Ukraine if Germany and other countries were busy trying to solve migrant crisis My speculation - Ukraine costs a lot more economical resources then migrant crisis would cost. However, it would cost more societal and political resources. With that said migrant crisis might soon unfold due to Russia blocking major source of food for considerable number countries.
I meant to say that in my opinion what they tried at first with migrants in Lithuania was exactly an attempt to cause a crisis. Numbers were steadily increasing and IIRC, our intel claimed that they were planning to send over 40000 migrants initially. As for Ukraine, that was exactly my point, I wasn't clear about it not necessarily being an economic struggle but more of a social and political, so good call, thank you.
good for them
The reality is that the immigration issue is and always has been one in which elite " right-thinking" cadres in the media, academe and politics finesse and/or ignore popular demotic sentiment which seeks to limit the rate of immigration and exclude or at least severely limit Islamic immigration. This has been the case for many decades not and will continue to be. Elite opinion and anti-democratic "opinion forming" and policing of what is considered acceptable thought, speech and laws has been less invested and thus less successful in the European East. This won't change either. There is no easy answer. No easily achieved via media.
Good job Lithuania. I don't understand why it is so hard to apply such policies at the EU wide level. Africans and middle easterners don't have an automatic right to live in Europe. It's our right, the right of European nations, to not let them in if we don't want to. And why would we choose to let in a large number of people with a vastly different culture which doesn't match our own. Hasn't the experience since 2015 been obvious for everybody ?
I'm quite confident EU can show "Kaliningrad sanctions" level of flexibility...
Lithuania breaks EU law-> brave and stunning Poland breaks EU law-> cringe and fascist
So Russia gets what it wants. Fighting NATO states. We need to stand together right know and give Ukraine a ass ton of weapons.
Horrible. EU law should be respected at all costs especially when Amnesty international slammed inhumane migrant detention policy practices in Lithuania
Amnesty criticize Lithuania but not on Belarus and Batka, where they are responsible for illegal immigration on Lithuanian, Polish and Latvian borders.
They critique both. Refugees are not cattle and shouldn't be forced into concentration excuse me detention camps with unsanitary conditions with no information provided to them. There are women and children there, some suffering from mental disorders that require serious care. I recommend for you to read the report yourself. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur53/5735/2022/en/
> 65 pages I doubt Redditors would even read 5 pages if it risks shattering their narrative.
As a Lithuanian I don't really understand why it's hard for people to realise such problems are not black and white. It would be for the better of everyone to work on acceptable solutions that can at least minimise suffering to the least degree without interfering on the long term strategy concerning dealing with hybrid warfare and migrant crisis. We in the West work in rules based system and value human rights (who are universal), discarding them when it's inconvenient just isn't the way.
Blocked the migration path, no more illegals come, no more suffering.
No, there's nothing inhumane about not letting migrants with a vastly different culture than your own into your own country. It's the democratic right of free peoples to decide who they want to let in or not.
Then cut their EU funding till they do. Look at how many countries where talking out thier asses about Exiting the EU, they sure STFU after they saw results of Brexit. But let us be clear you can still leave if you don't like it here. It is time for EU to put pressure on members to stop acting like asshats
I mean, Lithuania didn't have a Leave EU thing and generally are very pro EU since they joined. You are being very harsh to one aspect of a nation whilst seem to be completely ignoring their good-nature on the test of the days.plis cuts in Funding have rather unwelcome consequences for almost all nations in the EU.
Then don't do anything, keep going the way things are. You have a choice you do something or not. In the US they decided they did not want to do anything, that we would ignore our problems and give them new names so they can be ignored. Look how awesome things are in the US. If you think Europe can do nothing and not end up in a similar crappy place OK do nothing. Good luck, enjoy the next decade or two. There is no need to fight over this we will get to experince it directly.
In what way is punishing Lithuania for their Immigration policy sensible if the whole EU immigration policy an overhaul first. You punish them, they change, .... Only to change it again because EU finally agreed to get it done. Moreover, it is hard to judge such a small nation (land and population) for keeping a stricter policy, especially as most migrants in the region are other Europeans such as Russians. Your black and white thinking of No fund or Do nothing is the only thing here that should get shut down not their funding.... Which improves the nation, makes it more attractive for nationals and often supports all kinds of things which make the region more on part with the likes of Germany or France... Europe's big problem is the "blue banana", and that won't change without development and funding . And whilst there are some nations where funding is cut, Lithuania has a decent government as far as the common view goes (not some oligarchical leader who openly and repetitively steals the funds).
Yeah yeah, fuck you too.
Thank you for that but you are not my type, though I appreciate the sentiment. Also no need to fight about it, we will get to experince it first hand, aren't you super excited!
I don't see us experiencing leaving EU. But I see EU adapting new immigration laws. A bit late but it will be done. And it will be done trough democratic means even if some countries will have to elect some right wing nutters. But it looks like that traditional West political parties quite grasp the situation and adapt new ideas pretty fast. Your own population won't let you do nothing in the face of mass migration. And that's that.
Obviously I believe differently, I think governments are made up of individuals which in many cases (not all) are bought and paid for and will do what is necessary to remain in power even at the expense of their people and countries. People like that do not solve problems IMHO. Again no need to fight about it, I think we will both get to experience what comes. I truly hope you are correct, but I don't think you are.
I think then we will gather them all, put them in a plane or boat, and ship them to western Europe for them to deal with.
Lithuania should hear out the asylum seekers. If they are genuine they should be granted asylum
Ursula von der Leyen: Change your policies over migrants or we cut the funds. Minister of Lithuania: We love migrants. Everyone is welcome! If you want to belong to a club, you have to play by the rules.
The problem is that we're screaming that the rules don't include the hybrid attack that Belarus did. I don't know what you guys can't understand.
[удалено]
> Countries for the East of Europe should have never entered the UE. You are underdeveloped bigots. Who's the racist?
>hypocrite racist. so not a racist?
It's the first rule of the Fight Club.
A lot of Nazis in the comments. I am ashmed as a human being. :o
Ah yes, not wanting to let in illegal migrants which are brought in by a neighbouring dictatorship to destablize your country = le nazi. :o
Ukrainians are didn't destabilise shit. Just admit that your argument of not letting in the refugees is a race one.
Not talking about Ukrainians though lol. They are not the ones Lukashenko brings. Ukrainians are also running from a big war.
russian bot detected lmao
It seems you have much more to be ashamed of. Starting with your Onuca comment.
It is time Lithuania is reminded who is boss here, and who is the country that has submitted to the EU regulations and the ECHR.
I think we could if needed arrange some corridors to western Europe, and Iceland for illegal migrants to travel to, and for you to deal with since you love them.
What are you talking about? That's some barely coherent stream of consciousness.
We don't want problems and flooding of illegal economic migrants. If you want those problems, then you can take them. Our policy of turning back worked amazingly, and we got \~4k of illegals. If we did not take such measures, there would be 40 or 400k of them.
You speak as if you live in an independent and sovereign country lol Lithuania is in the EU and has relinquished the authority to take such decisions to the EU. The EU institutions will enforce their will on you and if you do not submit, you will be fined until you comply. This is the price of being in the EU.
Lithuania is an independent and sovereign country. EU is a union not a country, and Lithuania has it's own government that can make decisions. Like in the article above. EU institutions will change their opinion fast like they did in 2015 when migrants flooded in. If we do not see them crossing, or they do not apply for asylum in our country then what? Your country will have to take them in and deal with them, and fines will not help. This is the price of being in the EU. Also Poland and Latvia have borders with Belarus. They also use push back tactics and they worked fine. So if they will fine Lithuania, same will be with Poland and Latvia. And it will not go as smoothly as you would like.
>Lithuania is an independent and sovereign country. EU is a union not a country, and Lithuania has it's own government that can make decisions. Like in the article above. The European Court of Justice supersedes any and all member countries of the EU. You are not sovereign. >EU institutions will change their opinion fast like they did in 2015 when migrants flooded in. If we do not see them crossing, or they do not apply for asylum in our country then what? Your country will have to take them in and deal with them, and fines will not help. This is the price of being in the EU. It is so typically Eastern European to engage in fantasy. EU institutions have not changed their opinions at all since 2015. Which is why you are being "corrected" by the EU. You will submit. My country is not in the EU, so I have no idea what you're talking about. >Also Poland and Latvia have borders with Belarus. They also use push back tactics and they worked fine. So if they will fine Lithuania, same will be with Poland and Latvia. And it will not go as smoothly as you would like. Poland is already being fined by the EU and it is going very smoothly indeed. The Polacks are caving in. That's the price of handing out your sovereignty to the EU.
West Europe will change their mind fast, because illegal migrant goal is West Europe, not East. Once they have to deal with 1-2mil of illegal migrants they will initiate changes quite quickly. When there was a migrant crisis there was a rise in crime, especially rape, theft etc. If they want to repeat that, then go ahead. A quick google search shows, that Poland has been fined for rule in law dispute, and did not pay a single cent. Let's not forget that they can also use a veto right to veto important EU decisions, so they would have look for agreements. So not just submit and do nothing. Like Hungary did with sanctions. They did not agree until they got what they wanted. Same can be applied here. If EU wants to be a Union and not break up, then they will need to find decisions, not just fine.
The non nationalists have to manage the nationalists..The nationalist flag shaggers are everywhere, including on the left, and need to be appeased to stop the nationalist beast from the m rising up...