September 3, 2015

"The drowned child washed up on a Turkish beach captured in a photograph that went around the world Wednesday was three-year-old Alan Kurdi."

"He died, along with his five-year-old brother Galib and their mother Rehan, in a desperate attempt to reach Canada. The Syrian-Kurds from Kobane died along with eight other refugees early Wednesday. The father of the two boys, Abdullah, survived."

ADDED: A photo shouldn't make a difference. Should it?

100 comments:

Nichevo said...

Such a waste. Why not just let the Turks murder them?

Fernandinande said...

in a desperate attempt to reach Canada.

Why don't they make a desperate attempt to reach Russia or China? They're both closer than Canada. It's a mystery...

rhhardin said...

It's the immigration lobby. Make it look as baby-like as possible and you get half the electorate on your side, namely the women.

That's why you don't want them voting.

tim in vermont said...

No 'Hillary's Foreign Policy Clusterfucks' tag? She has launched more ships than Helen of Troy with her meddling there, and they keep drowning their passengers.

tim in vermont said...

"A photo shouldn't make a difference"

Visuals make all the difference! viz abortion v infanticide.

iqvoice said...

If only there was some cute pictures of the 150,000 children that die from malaria every year.

TreeJoe said...

In the past 72 hours, actually before I saw this picture but when I witnessed something else about family refugees, I have been "on the fence" (pun intended) about my stance on immigration. I'm now strongly in support of an open border, pro-refugee policy for the U.S.

I remain pro-2nd amendment, pro-life, focused on debt reduction and budget balancing, etc...

But as a father, as a human being, I have to face the reality that this at the end of the day comes down to individuals and families trying to escape poverty, crime, illness, death.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

That has been the promise of America to immigrants for hundreds of years. But as we've gotten better and the rest of the world has remained as bad as it was, the incoming tide has grown. And we've grown surly about it, forgetting that our great grandfathers were half-starved penniless people stowing away on cargo ships once.

Richard Vaughan said...

We voted for Barack Obama and for disengagement from the "failed policies of George W. Bush." Twice. No warmongering cowboys we. No, as higher order Light-workers, we would reach out our hand in fellowship, join with our enemies march forward to those sunny uplands of peace.

Elections have consequences. We are unwilling, not unable, mind you, unwilling, to do what is necessary to stop this. So, it will continue until it reaches some equilibrium. Like in Rwanda. And the Congo. And Somalia. Etc.

The arc of history does not bend toward justice. History doesn't bend at all. One thing follows another.

madAsHell said...

This is the 9-year-old naked Vietnamese girl running from her napalmed village.

Michael said...

TreeJoe

Pretty. Now consider if you will the fact that most of the immigrants flooding into Europe are not fleeing poverty, crime, illness or death but rather the hideous regimes under which they have lived. There are too many of them to be absorbed by Germany so the Germans want the French to take their share and the French the Spaniards and the Spaniards the Hungarians. They are piled up at Calais hoping to make it to England.

The immigrants, no fools, are headed to Germany and Scandanavia and England, the places with the most lenient immigration policies and the most abundant social services. They would walk in here if they could

Our poor ancestors mostly heaved up at Ellis Island where they waited in lines and followed the rules and learned English and became absorbed into our country. The sentiments on the Statue of Liberty were formed when the idea of immigrants streaming across our borders was as foreign as those in line at Ellis Island. They were formed at a time when the country actually thought people would obey the immigration laws and would be welcomed here when they arrived.

Birches said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Birches said...

Do you think this would be an issue without The Welfare State?

rhhardin said...

No immigrants from Muslim-majority countries is a good rule.

rhhardin said...

The price of liberty is workable means of travel, these days.

Larry J said...

"A photo shouldn't make a difference"

But it does. If you recall, in the waning days of the Bush '41 administration, there were some terrible photos of people suffering in Somalia. Bush launched a rescue mission. As these things tend to do, the scope creeped, eventually leading with an incident described in "Blackhawk Down". People are pushovers for photos of suffering.

TreeJoe said...
In the past 72 hours, actually before I saw this picture but when I witnessed something else about family refugees, I have been "on the fence" (pun intended) about my stance on immigration. I'm now strongly in support of an open border, pro-refugee policy for the U.S.


You can have an open immigration policy or a welfare state, but if you try to have both, you'll destroy your country's economy. What would happen if several million immigrants made a rush on our borders in a single year? There isn't enough jobs for them, so most would end up on welfare. Some 50% of all immigrants (legal or illegal) use welfare already. Where would they be housed and at what expense? Schools in many towns and cities are already having a hard time dealing with the number of immigrants Obama has let in. How could they handle far larger numbers? What about health care for all of those people? There are limits to everything. Just as we can't be the world's policeman, we can't be the world's sanctuary either.

tim maguire said...

If I were Vulcan, a photo would not make a difference. But I'm not Vulcan...

But my reaction is not to open borders, as some would have it. My reaction is to think, what can we best do to help people and prevent tragedies? Opening the borders will do nothing for this drowned child or the next one and virtually nothing for any other suffering refugee.

rhhardin said...

Refugees stopped drowning when Australia started turning away all boats.

Capt. Schmoe said...

Mass immigration will not stop until we all live under the same squalid, strife ridden conditions that these refugees are trying to escape from. Unless, of course, we stop it. This is by design. The socialist agenda is that everyone should live under exactly the same conditions, except, of course the socialist leadership, which are a truly superior class of people.

The current unrest in the U.S, the mass immigration into Europe from the Middle East and the mass immigration into the U.S. from Latin America is part of this plan. It is working and will continue to do so until the rest of us realize that it is in fact a plan.

YoungHegelian said...

I find the simple human decency of the Turkish police officer moving. Rather than leave the child's body on the beach for a mortuary team to remove, he picked up the child to carry it back to wherever. I'm sure they were worried that a wave would come in & wash the body back out to sea.

What a burden that poor father will carry for his entire life!

wildswan said...

Treejoe:
I think what you are forgetting is that there are very few jobs in the US now for the uneducated whereas in the 1880's there were jobs for everyone who came and more jobs every year. The jobless rate for black teenagers is now 50% and for black adults is 25%. Picture yourself getting up in front of BlackLivesMatter and explaining why the US policy should be to bring in direct competitors for US jobs when the unemployment rate is high and rising.

Or picture yourself as the unemployed father of an unemployed son looking at those pictures. However bad the pictures made you feel, would your response be, 'send my son's job to that family?' Would you give your job to a refugee? I think you are only willing to give someone else's job away, someone you don't see.

And think about this also. These people are refugees because Barack Obama run away. He ran from involvement in the Mid-East. He refused to help the Kurds. He drowned that little boy. His Nobel prize-winning policies have downstream impact on real people - and those little kids, drowning, are Obama's real legacy along with the kids ripped up and sold by Planned Parenthood and the one's shot in Democratic run cities in the last few months.

And PS probably your legacy too - since people who list all their conservative credentials as a preface to supporting the Democrats are usually Democratic party trolls.

MayBee said...

It's interesting this photo is touching people in a way the hundreds of photos of children killed in Syria do not.

TreeJoe said...

Michael - I don't disagree with you on anything you just wrote, but your written tone comes across as if that's somehow the collective fault of the wave of immigrants from all nations that they don't act the way we want them too.

Immigrants go where they believe they will have the best life, so yes, I don't doubt that they'd walk in here if they could. I'd rather we welcome them.

Coupe said...

Just think if the father would have stood-up to the invaders, and not run like a coward.

They might all be dead anyway, but at least they could take a few infidels with them.

MisterBuddwing said...

I can wax paranoid as much as the next conspiracy buff, but I've been struck by how there were so few pictures of the unaccompanied immigrant children entering the U.S.

Paranoid speculation: I wouldn't be surprised if someone in the Obama administration had laid down the law and said, "No photographs, no video. Period." (I wouldn't be surprised if that same person had said, "There's no way we're going to be Abu-Ghraibed on this.")

It's as if they (you know, they) realized that if they could prevent pictures of teeming hordes of immigrant children entering the country from making it onto TV, newspapers and online articles, the children would remain an abstraction - words instead of images - and would generate less concern and potential outrage.

In other words, yes, photos make a difference.

Harold said...

The thing is, the family had escaped Syria and were safe in Turkey. They decided that they'd rather be in Canada and when their application to relocate was refused they paid a smuggler to take them to a an easier country to apply from. I wouldn't wish the death of a child on any parent, but in this case it was almost totally the parent's fault that their child washed up on that beach.

Coupe said...

If you notice, none of these people are fleeing to Saudi Arabia or Iran.

I think it is a conspiracy to invade Europe with a billion mouths to feed, and to watch them fail.

Europe knows they are doomed, but they don't know how to start the massacres yet.

ScottD said...

TreeJoe -

I supppose you wouldn't mind if a group of immigrants, wanting a better life, walked up to your front door and expected you to let them live in your house.

MisterBuddwing said...

Europe knows they are doomed, but they don't know how to start the massacres yet.

You really mean that, huh.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MisterBuddwing said...

TreeJoe -

I supppose you wouldn't mind if a group of immigrants, wanting a better life, walked up to your front door and expected you to let them live in your house.


What a good counter-argument! Kind of like asking pro-lifers if they'd be willing to adopt all the babies saved from abortion.

damikesc said...

It's a real tragedy. Truly.

It's not Canada or the West's job, though, to fix all of the problems of the Muslim world. We have our own issues to deal with.

That has been the promise of America to immigrants for hundreds of years. But as we've gotten better and the rest of the world has remained as bad as it was, the incoming tide has grown. And we've grown surly about it, forgetting that our great grandfathers were half-starved penniless people stowing away on cargo ships once.

They also sought to join the country and not demand changes to accommodate them. They also abided by the laws of the time coming here.

And we're under no obligation to be the home of the world's tragedies forever. Just as the world doesn't want us to be its policeman, we shouldn't be expected to be its orphanage and poor house, either.

You can have an open immigration policy or a welfare state, but if you try to have both, you'll destroy your country's economy.

Add in multiculturalism as well. You can't have open borders and practice multiculturalism. If "all cultures are equal", then society collapses under the weight of dozens upon dozens of cultures, all squabbling at each other.

Michael - I don't disagree with you on anything you just wrote, but your written tone comes across as if that's somehow the collective fault of the wave of immigrants from all nations that they don't act the way we want them too.

They are guests here. Yes, it is their fault if they want behave accordingly. I feel bad for the dog who isn't house-broken --- not bringing it in my house, though.

Immigrants go where they believe they will have the best life, so yes, I don't doubt that they'd walk in here if they could. I'd rather we welcome them.

How many?

The world has billions of people, many living in abject poverty.

You want us to take in BILLIONS of people?

Europe knows they are doomed, but they don't know how to start the massacres yet.

I'd say import more Europeans, but given the mess they made at their homes, don't think that is the best idea.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

The Kurds are too Caucasian looking. The Arabs hate them. And the settled areas. In Syria and Iraq Kurdistan have been a war zone since Obama and Hillary set the Arab Spring going in North Africa and shipped the Khadaffy military response there to create chaos.

The result is a world that is Hitler's Empire destroyed redux. In 1945 to 1948 20,000,000 slave laborers roamed a destroyed continent freezing and starving to death seeking their old homes. In the chaos Israel got its new population from the few survivors of the Holocaust that escaped murder by the British Empire along the way home to Jerusalem.

Whoever was the intellectual that said History ended after the USSR imploded and the USA cut its military, he needs his awards revoked.

The UN has planned these migrations that create the need for a World Government. Who would have expected that. The UN is already in charge of controlling the World's Weather in a new world religion using witchcraft computer prophecies that say what happens if they are programmed to say it.

Mr. Trump we need a leader that is on our side. Are you interested?

TreeJoe said...

Wildswan,

Thanks for calling me a troll - always a great way to end an argument. I welcome you to google "treejoe". Believe it or not, not everyone toes a party line as either Republican or Democrat.

You are right, jobs are a major issue. I wonder how the ~10-30 million illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. are seemingly getting by without mass hunger or starvation and in the face of pretty ludicrously ineffective policies surrounding their either naturalization or deportation.

However, your entire argument is a straw man assuming a zero sum economy - where when you import 10 million people, there are exactly the same amount of jobs are before you import 10 million people. That's not reality. And it's an argument built on instilling fear.

I'm sitting here as a well-fed, pretty well-off american looking at the immigration crisis facing not just my own nation but many others and, as fatherhood is more recent to me, saying to myself,

Also, regarding BO's legacy, so what? It's not his legacy, it's Americas legacy for electing him twice. I'm done looking at the past and pointing fingers, now what do I do about it?

Please understand, this is not a position I've spent years thinking about. I just finally realized where I fell when it comes to the sanctity of life as it relates to immigration/refugee realities.

~15 years ago I had a similar realization on abortion - that when I thought I was pro-choice I kept trying to decide when life began and when to place value on it, which was an inherently faulty position. The only way to value life was to assume it was always viable unless you took steps to end it. For me, that was also a sudden realization about where I fell. Guess it just took longer as it relates to those fleeing another country/region.

tim in vermont said...

What a good counter-argument! Kind of like asking pro-lifers if they'd be willing to adopt all the babies saved from abortion.

Is there some surfeit of babies up for adoption in the US?

MisterBuddwing said...

Me: What a good counter-argument! Kind of like asking pro-lifers if they'd be willing to adopt all the babies saved from abortion.

Tim: Is there some surfeit of babies up for adoption in the US?


Nice deflection. The original question was whether TreeJoe would personally be willing to take in immigrants.

Sauce for the goose, and all that.

Sammy Finkelman said...

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

Put that, and a picture of Emma Lazarus, on the $20 bill, and leave Alexander Hamilton alone.

jeff said...

1976 - 1980 = 2012 - 2016
Jimmy Carter = Barack Obama
Khmer Rouge = ISIS
1.7m lives lost Cambodia genocide = ?

When does the bus leave for Iowa, so we can harass that evil Scott Walker.

Sammy Finkelman said...

your entire argument is a straw man assuming a zero sum economy - where when you import 10 million people, there are exactly the same amount of jobs are before you import 10 million people

This is a variant of the lump of labor fallacy, but in many respects, politicisns go along with that. (any time they speak of X number of jobs created)

Some people can't figure out why it's not true. They are like the joke about the Marxists economists where one says to the other:

"It works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Sammy Finkelman said...

Jimmy Carter was responsible for the Khmer Rouge staying in power an extra two years. He stopped Thailand from invading.

Sammy Finkelman said...

People who support immigration restruiction are people who not only don't want to help people themselves, but they want to stop everybody else from doing so, as well.

This is the philosophy of Sodom.

n.n said...

The abortion industry and Planned Parenthood operated their businesses with little public awareness or scrutiny before the broadcast of decapitated, dismembered, and eviscerated human babies. So, yeah, visual images depicting human carnage, especially of indiscriminate killing (e.g. elective abortion), can make a difference.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Please understand, this is not a position I've spent years thinking about. I just finally realized where I fell when it comes to the sanctity of life as it relates to immigration/refugee realities.

You've come to understand that 'enforcing the law' beyond a certain point, leads to people dying.

That actually should be obvious.

TreeJoe said...

Damiksec,

Trying to multi-quote your responses to my quotes is going to get messy, so let me just respond and do my best.

The world has billions of people, do I want us to take in billions of people? I'd like us to welcome all those who want to come. And frankly, historically speaking colonialism looks like a pretty damn successful model compared to the current environment of former colonial regions. The answer might not always be "bring them here" so much as "stop the crisis where it is by effecting a strong and organized government" (In some limited places).

The immigrants of the 1800s abided by the laws of the times coming here - really? Might not the expectations have been different? Ellis Island alone processed 5,000-10,000 people PER DAY into the U.S. from 1910-1914, most in under 24 hours from arrival time. That's an easy 2.0 million per year minimum - and Ellis Island was one immigration point.

Ellis Island is typically considered both a historically significant american landmark and also a point of pride - that we funneled those people, many our family, through an effective and efficient process and while they still wound up on the other side penniless and pretty much destitute, they figured out a way in the land of opportunity.

Our economy is stagnant, our population growth has stagnated, our debt is overwhelming....and one of the best ways to address economic growth and historical debt is through an influx of population.

By the way, I agree you can't have open immigration and today's welfare policy. Welfare to me is a roof over your head, some clothes, food to eat, and the possibility of a job. Not money handed out no a debit card with modest accountability. I'd rather see the basics provided for any who need them and an open immigration policy, and today's welfare abolished. If our goal is the greatest good for the greatest number, while maintaining opportunity, that would be better aligned.

Sammy Finkelman said...

- where when you import 10 million people, there are exactly the same amount of jobs are before you import 10 million people. That's not reality.

Go and wait for a politician to say that. You'll only hear that from economists - at least the ones who make projections.

TreeJoe said...

MisterBuddwing -

Yes, I spent a decent bit of time today looking into taking in immigrants. The state department program for refugees is a bit weak overall, and it takes 12-18 months for a single family to be potentially placed with me, but yes.

I also looked at supporting a number of different refugee specific agencies through my time, my expertise, and my finances.

Yes, my sauce is good enough for their goose. Thanks for trying to play "gotcha" on the internet.

n.n said...

The problem in the Middle East began with the disaster created by Obama's premature evacuation from Iraq and the so-called "Arab Spring" generally. The mass migration of people from that region only serves to exacerbate its consequences. It will prompt the renewed interest in pro-choice policies, including selective-child that supports the indiscriminate killing of over one million human lives annually in America alone.

Mary E. Glynn said...

Coupe said...

Just think if the father would have stood-up to the invaders, and not run like a coward.
---------------

Just think if the US had not provided the Kurds with air support that bombed out their village.

Of course, with US help, the Kurds drove out ISIS.
But who wants to remain in a bombed-out village? Can't live there, can't raise a family there...

Sammy Finkelman said...

And frankly, historically speaking colonialism looks like a pretty damn successful model compared to the current environment of former colonial regions.

Correct, correct, correct, of course.

And it also involved people from rich countries moving to poor ones. Either way, it raises standards of living of poorer people.

Several hundred thousand people, well over 40% of the population, fled Surinam fled and went to the Netherlands, upon hearing that Surinam [Dutch Guiana in South America] was about to become independent. (and they would lose the right to migrate if they waited)

And they were right too!!

holdfast said...

The photo of the little kid's body on the beach is obviously staged. The one with the Turkish official carrying the body is also likely staged. Remember all those photos of rubble + doll or teddy bear from Lebannon a few years back? Yup, staged too.

Here's a plan:

1) Deploy more NATO naval resources to intercept and rescue these poor folks.

2) Use whatever combination of bribes and threats are necessary to get the Turks to let the UN and EU set up refugee camps in Turkey. Deploy the necessary resources to save lives and help these poor folks. The US and Canada can definitely be involved. Even the Canadian Liberal Party could not object to sending an Engineering Regiment and a couple of Medical Companies to help out, plus NGO and other aid groups.

3) Pass the message far and wide that nobody is going to make it across the Bosporous. Period. It's worked for the Aussies.

4) Crush ISIS by spring using a combination of strategic air strikes, US advised and led local forces, and US airborne/air-mobile forces at key points.

5) Send these people home by next summer.

Sammy Finkelman said...

I think the highest on any one year prior to 1914 was a little over a million. The laws at that timr were qualitative. When they first imposed, in 1885, they cut immigration in half.

People actually didn't strictly abide by the law, by the way.

Nichevo said...

Treejoe, if you treat every concern as FEAR, and thereby invalid, not sure how to take that seriously.

damikesc said...

The world has billions of people, do I want us to take in billions of people? I'd like us to welcome all those who want to come. And frankly, historically speaking colonialism looks like a pretty damn successful model compared to the current environment of former colonial regions. The answer might not always be "bring them here" so much as "stop the crisis where it is by effecting a strong and organized government" (In some limited places).

While that'd be nice, it's extremely expensive with, literally, no upside for us (plus there is no desire here to do so). We'd be the evil colonizers and we'd have our people killed constantly. People ignore that Africa was measures less of a shithole when it was colonialized in the 20th century and after Europe left, things went real bad and are still there in large swaths of land.

It is impossible to fix other countries. We tried our best in Iraq and look where it is. We've had one success (Japan) in all of our attempts.

The immigrants of the 1800s abided by the laws of the times coming here - really? Might not the expectations have been different? Ellis Island alone processed 5,000-10,000 people PER DAY into the U.S. from 1910-1914, most in under 24 hours from arrival time. That's an easy 2.0 million per year minimum - and Ellis Island was one immigration point.


But it was the main one. And it was done in an orderly process.

We have illegals swarming into Europe and the US in a tidal wave. There is nothing orderly about it. It's little more than a mob at this point...and a group who feels, bafflingly, that we OWE them a spot here.

And they go nuts if we treat them the same way their home country treats illegal immigrants. It's madness. If you're here and not a citizen, you're a guest. You don't go with the lowest possible standard of behavior.

Our economy is stagnant, our population growth has stagnated, our debt is overwhelming....and one of the best ways to address economic growth and historical debt is through an influx of population.

Except this influx of population is a net drain on resources. There's only so many landscaping jobs out there. And the "high tech" ones are simply glorified slave labor that is blatantly replacing domestic labor because they can pay them less and the worker cannot complain because, lo and behold, the company controls the visa.

We've had a big problem with illegal immigration for years now and a very stagnant economy. The old idea isn't working.

By the way, I agree you can't have open immigration and today's welfare policy. Welfare to me is a roof over your head, some clothes, food to eat, and the possibility of a job. Not money handed out no a debit card with modest accountability. I'd rather see the basics provided for any who need them and an open immigration policy, and today's welfare abolished. If our goal is the greatest good for the greatest number, while maintaining opportunity, that would be better aligned.


But UNTIL welfare is abolished --- which is won't be ever --- then immigration needs to be tightly controlled.

damikesc said...

Mary, shouldn't Hillary and Obama house the Syrian immigrants? Their asinine policy led to the crisis.

TreeJoe said...

Sammy Finkelman,

Two quotes from you I'll respond too,

"You've come to understand that 'enforcing the law' beyond a certain point, leads to people dying." Or perhaps the death of those people brings to light the folly of the law. If a law's enforcement leads to death not as a punishment, nor as a protection against imminent peril, but as a side effect of law enforcement, then perhaps that law is no longer serving common good (the foundation of our constitution).

"Go and wait for a politician to say that. You'll only hear that from economists - at least the ones who make projections."

The writing is on the wall. Our population can't grow at a .7% rate per year and sustain the debt and entitlements setup. Meanwhile we turn away millions per year and don't structure the 10s of millions who are here into a long-term successful family unit. Whether we start hearing urgings to have more children or to start broadening the population, it's going to come soon.


TreeJoe said...

Nichevo, "Treejoe, if you treat every concern as FEAR, and thereby invalid, not sure how to take that seriously."

Huh? Don't know what that's directed towards. I'm assuming that I pointed out the zero-sums jobs argument is a strawmen argument made to instill fear, and is both invalid in the first case AND made to bring emotion to an argument instead of reason.

SteveR said...

All that is happening is what 1300 years of warfare could not achieve. Not by force or the influence of a great religion or culture. Not by the rise of intellect, but through the loss of it.

Sammy Finkelman said...

There are refugee camps in Turkey. The refugees don't like them, and there's no future there.

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e48e0fa7f.html

Since the Syrian crisis began in 2011, Turkey - estimated to host over one million Syrians - has maintained an emergency response of a consistently high standard and declared a temporary protection regime, ensuring non-refoulement and assistance in 22 camps, where an estimated 217,000 people are staying. Turkey is currently constructing two additional camps..

The number of refugees and asylum-seekers in Turkey in 2015 is expected to rise to nearly 1.9 million, including 1.7 million Syrian refugees.


The number of migrants crossing into Europe this year is only about 150,000. I mean it costs money, and there is some risk.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/migrants-crossing-mediterranean-europe-hit-150000-150710124934065.html

UNHCR said on average 1,000 migrants are landing on Greek shores every day[AFP]Some 150,000 migrants and refugees have so far this year made the perilous journey across the Mediterranean to Europe, and more than 1,900 of them have died, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) said.

And they don't want to go to Greece or Italy. The asylum rules until now, at least said they had to stay in the country of first asylum in Europe., So they avoid registering.

Their goal is Germany - or maybe England, if they speak some English. Places where they may have family, or people from the same country, or can get a job or an education. And that makes sense, doesn't it? Not he idea of assigning them to countries.

Some of their families are in the Gulf states sometimes, but someone young maybe won't get an education.

Syria is not yet empty - four times as many people can come pout of it. The migrants, of course also include people from Iraq and afghanistan and various other countreies. Those who come through Libya, are usally black Africans but could also be from Gaza and some other places. The government of Eritrea is partivularly bad, and drafts everyone into the army, bit encourages escapes because it is corrupt or something. People come from West Africa because they are poor and a new business has started.

People from Bangladesh and Burma are heading toward Australia, or trying to. some (Rohingya from Burma) are considered refugees, others are not. The australiann government has taken to paying off smugglers to go back to Indonesia and imprisons others in out of the way places in poor conditions.

The more governments crack down the more deadly this all gets.

n.n said...

The American military did not create the crisis. In fact, it was the military who performed to stabilize the areas where they were deployed. The crisis was created through political and social interventionism and opportunism. It was stoked through promotion of conflicts between minority groups.

Michael said...

TreeJoe

70% of illegal immigrants are on welfare. Add a billion. Stir.

Sammy Finkelman said...

The baby wshed up on shore, because the distance from Turkey to a Greek island is only about five miles, and the world jas criminalized transportation of people. So what would you expect?

A 1% death rate is simply not agreat enough deterrence. Criminilization does deter anyone invol;ved from staying abord, makes people use unseaworthy ships etc. As a I said, a 1% death rate on;t gets you so far.

There's almost 2 million people in Turkey with no future, and with the homes or businesseses probably destroyed, they know, once they get to Germany, they'll be treated all right. 150,000 have left for Europe this year.

David said...

It made a difference in WW II when censors finally allowed photos of dead American soldiers.

It should not make a difference but it does. The photo makes it harder for the avoiders to avoid.

Which is why I think we should stop censoring photos of terrorist murders.

n.n said...

The issue with immigration is assimilation and integration. The issues of illegal or unmeasured immigration are separable as activities that normalize progressive corruption and dislocation. A related issue is the practice of supporting immigration in order to obscure or compensate for causes of dysfunctional conditions at both the source and destination.

Michael said...

Well, there you have it.

GWB.

Hilarious. Another thoughtful prog weighs in with a deep one.

holdfast said...

Oh look Mary ruined another thread. Shocking.

If you believed in the stupid "Pottery Barn Rule", then you'd think we'd have to clean up the mess that is ISIS. You'd also hold Hillary and Obama responsible for the mess that is Libya. Of course, that would require integrity and consistency, and you're just a pathetic trollish moral coward, so whatever.

Anyway, Europe is not going to accept multi-millions of Middle Eastern Muslims, and these poor people are dying, in part due to the predation of smugglers. So what's your plan?

Hagar said...

The immigration problem here is largely about "finding a better life."

The current immigration problem in Europe is about finding a life at all.

The Obama administration has turned the entire Middle East - from Morrocco to the Chinese border - into a warzone of death and misery which has set off another Great Migration.
Obama may succeed where Suleiman the Magnificent failed 4 1/4 century ago and turn Europe into Islamic territory after all.

Sammy Finkelman said...

"You've come to understand that 'enforcing the law' beyond a certain point, leads to people dying."

TreeJoe said... 9/3/15, 3:46 PM

Or perhaps the death of those people brings to light the folly of the law. If a law's enforcement leads to death not as a punishment, nor as a protection against imminent peril, but as a side effect of law enforcement, then perhaps that law is no longer serving common good (the foundation of our constitution).

It never was. We also had people die from Prohibition, although not too many. SOme people drank wood alcohol.

"Go and wait for a politician to say that. You'll only hear that from economists - at least the ones who make projections."

The writing is on the wall. Our population can't grow at a .7% rate per year and sustain the debt and entitlements setup. Meanwhile we turn away millions per year and don't structure the 10s of millions who are here into a long-term successful family unit. Whether we start hearing urgings to have more children or to start broadening the population, it's going to come soon.

This just hurts the economy, it doesn't help it. You could easily even tie this in to subsidixzing the Social Security system or any number of win-win ideas.

If welfare is structures wrong, well correct the welfare and other systems. It is bad anyway, even without extra stress. Extra stress might just be the medicine the doctor ordered. In general, a country, or a city, is better off with more people.
Doubling a city's population increases the average wage by 15%.

The only problem comes when something big is wrong. You could have no antibodies against crime for instance. There could be hatred.



Michael said...

Mary E. Glynn

The GWB argument is the very definition of conformist thinking. The apex of it.

Is the name of your high horse, Sanctimony? Or Smug? Either way it is mounted by Conformity.

damikesc said...

If you believed in the stupid "Pottery Barn Rule", then you'd think we'd have to clean up the mess that is ISIS. You'd also hold Hillary and Obama responsible for the mess that is Libya. Of course, that would require integrity and consistency, and you're just a pathetic trollish moral coward, so whatever.

I gave Mary a chance on that. She punted.

Mary, whose policy was removal of Bashir?

Hint: Not GWB

Michael said...

The results are in for GWB, ignoring the past seven years, of course. Inconvenient. Skip over that.

Mary E Glynn:

Save yourself a lot of typing: BFOHBLPD Blood For Oil Halliburton Bush Lied People Died.

Bumper sticker; BFOHBLPD

Easy. You can get a stencil

n.n said...

This regional crisis did not begin in Syria. It started with an effective vacuum in Iraq and and was spread and emboldened with promotion of the so-called "Arab Spring". There was no cause to remove Assad; there was no cause to remove Gadaffi; etc. This was a campaign executed through political, diplomatic, and media channels that extends far beyond the Middle East into Africa and Eurasia.

But, you're right. Whether the defeat happens during one administration or another, it is still a defeat. It's the same when a military campaign meets its objective, only to have its success overturned through another channel. It's still a defeat for the larger entity or interest of consequence.

TreeJoe said...

Yes, total re-structuring needs to happen. Welfare and Immigration are intimately tied. And yes, I'm a proponent of population growth being a good economic factor 20+ years down the line (No, immigration population growth does not magically grow per capita income, but it does grow GDP and eventually +1 generation can turn into a very good thing - in the meantime, happens to be good for the immigrants too).

There was a statistic that 70% of illegal immigrants are on welfare, that's wrong. But yes, the number of children of families of illegal immigrants receiving welfare is staggering. It's setup poorly for the realities of the population - no argument here.

The problem, to me at root, is the definition of welfare:

If I provide a refugee welfare, I'm giving him/her/them steady food, safe housing, basic medical care, and clothes. Not $20k in direct cash or cash-equivalent benefits.

TreeJoe said...

Last thought for awhile: The point of the american structure was to experiment to solve problems in a way that doesn't setup the whole system to fail; that's been the root of the problem with growing federal power, it was grown the more powerful the central government the less problems would be solved and the less freedom the people would enjoy.

We need to not be afraid to try things on a regional or state level and see what happens. The southern border is completely right that the federal government has abdicated it's responsibilities - they should absolutely be given the power to experiment with their own immigration policies.

Michael said...

TreeJoe

You are right. It is not 70% it is 71%.

n.n said...

Mary E. Glynn:

It's a consequence of our highly divided society. Everyone is jockeying for leverage in a largely bipartite environment. The highly public prodding by the principle stakeholders or representatives only exacerbates the conflict and promotes development of prejudice. There is also the open question of causality and "dark matter/energy" (hidden influences).

Sammy Finkelman said...

The drowned child's family was trying to go to Canada. They were not trying to smuggle themselves to Canada, that not beinmg possible from Europe, at least not yet, but were trying to immigrate legally. There were bureaucratic difficulties in Turkey that they wouldn't have some place else.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/drowned-boys-family-sought-refuge-in-canada

Canada and Turkey have long been at loggerheads over the bottleneck blocking Syrian refugees in Turkey from finding their way to Canada. It is not uncommon for Kurds in Syria to be arbitrarily denied passports, and to have great difficulty registering as refugees with the UNHCR. The Turkish government refuses to issue exit visas to unregistered refugees not holding valid passports.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Confused policy in europe:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/02/refugees-stranded-budapest-train-station-hungary

ScottD said...

If you think a picture is going to change Europeans' minds, check out the highest rated comments to this piece.

Sammy Finkelman said...

This regional crisis did not begin in Syria. It started with an effective vacuum in Iraq

No, that's not correct.

It started with Bradley Manning and Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

One secret memo revealed U>S. opinion about the government of Tunisia. tyhat started protestes, which later were copied in Syria.

tghe otyehr mistake was not realizing thwere was an additional enemy besides Saddam Hussein and,later, letting al Qaeda in Iraq retreat into Syria. But that caused problems in Iraq. Syria was caused by Wikileaks.

MisterBuddwing said...

Yes, my sauce is good enough for their goose. Thanks for trying to play "gotcha" on the internet.

TreeJoe, I was defending you...

SteveR said...

My Stupid Filter (aka the Crack Filter) has blocked a lot of comments in this thread.

Beach Brutus said...

The Declaration of Independence states that Governments are established from the consent of the governed to secure the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that when it becomes destructive of these just ends, the people have a right to alter or abolish it.

If we can deduce from this that a people are responsible for their government, then it should follow that a people governed by a regime that exports or supports terrorism or otherwise engages in crimes against humanity, has a responsibility to overthrow that government. The people of Syria, Iran, or any other country that is State sponsor of terrorism, or that engages in aggressive war on its neighbors, who either activity support that conduct, or like the so-called pro-western Iranians, meekly acquiesce in it, should not be allowed to run away, but should be expected to stand and fight.

By accepting refugees from other countries we become a safety valve for dictatorships and sponsors of terrorism. If we bottled that discontent up in the home country, maybe someone would eventually revolt and overthrow these pestilent governments.

If they fail to overthrow their unjust governments, they should not be heard to complain when we get our fill of it and bomb them to the stone age as we did the German and Japanese people in WWII.

SteveR said...

I was just thinking that some people might think that countries like Iraq, Syria and Libya might be better if the U.S. had not intervened. Then I thought that perhaps if the British and the other Europeans had never been there. Of course all this was set in place 1300 years ago so any honest look at history would find that the blame should go to that guy who set in place the idea of killing everyone who didn't agree with him. Its not complicated. Nothing's gained by ignoring that reality.

Eric Landgraf said...

Ann,
Compare and contrast children murdered in the womb by abortionists and this unfortunate dead child.

Does one grieve for one and not the other?

If one should have been spared then should not the other be spared? Why or why not?

Finally, what is the difference between an enemy soldier attempting to land on the beaches of Europe as a part of an military invasion and a male refugee attempting to land on the same beaches and seek asylum? Both intend to change the host society, its laws and its government. Both intend to 'participate' in the host society. Both expect to garner wealth from the host society?

Would you answers be any different if the refugee's home land society had a restrictive policies and laws, as well as punitive actions, on immigrating refugees.

Why is a refugee entitled to 'invade' another nation in order to survive and prosper?

Why are the neighboring countries and societies expected to pick up the bill?

My view: Kill them all. Each and every one. Show them no mercy. Fight them on the beaches, in the fields and towns; on the hillsides and in our forests. We will never surrender.

Anglelyne said...

TreeJoe: But as a father, as a human being, I have to face the reality that this at the end of the day comes down to individuals and families trying to escape poverty, crime, illness, death.

As a father you ought to face the reality that the "individuals and families trying to escape poverty, crime, illness, death" number in the billions. You can't fix their problems by wrecking the West.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free[...]


That has been the promise of America to immigrants for hundreds of years.


Actually, that plaque was put up in 1903. So no, not "centuries". And it's not 1903 anymore. No sane country lets poetastrices determine its immigration policy.

(I once listened to some refugee-racket airhead burble "but this country was founded on welcoming the stranger!". Now, "welcoming the stranger" may or may not be a good idea, depending on circumstances and resources, but good Lord, what are these people taught in school? Probably thinks Emma Lazarus was a founding father.)

But as we've gotten better and the rest of the world has remained as bad as it was, the incoming tide has grown. And we've grown surly about it, forgetting that our great grandfathers were half-starved penniless people stowing away on cargo ships once.

No matter how many times I see this "argument", I remain boggled by its mindlessness. If you really believe that a country no longer has any right to keep anybody out because they once let your great-grandfather in, you're arguing that letting your great-grandpa in was a really bad idea.

TreeJoe: "Hey, we should let half of Africa and a third of the Middle East move in! Europe can take the rest!"

Non-insane person capable of logical thought and aware of modern global realities: "Really? Hardly sounds prudent to me. It's become obvious that allowing refugees to stream into the West is only encouraging millions more, and the numbers are already becoming dangerously disruptive. A less destructive way of helping these people has to be found."

TreeJoe: "But we have to!"

Non-insane person capable of logical thought and aware of modern global realities: "Uh, why?"

TreeJoe: "Because my great-grandfather emigrated here in the 19th century!"


And they say women shouldn't vote because they're too easily swayed by appeals to emotion and unable to deal with hard facts.

Fernandinande said...

MisterBuddwing said...
Paranoid speculation: I wouldn't be surprised if someone in the Obama administration had laid down the law and said, "No photographs, no video. Period."


Just cuz you're paranoid doesn't mean They're not hiding things.

“These facilities are in a remote location for a reason,” she said. “The press is not able to see what's going on; the public has no idea.”

The Los Angeles Times has been granted limited access to the detention center at Dilley, but not to Karnes, and has not been allowed to take photographs inside either facility."

damikesc said...

This regional crisis did not begin in Syria. It started with an effective vacuum in Iraq and and was spread and emboldened with promotion of the so-called "Arab Spring". There was no cause to remove Assad; there was no cause to remove Gadaffi; etc. This was a campaign executed through political, diplomatic, and media channels that extends far beyond the Middle East into Africa and Eurasia.

The ONLY place where there was a cause to remove the people in power was in Iran...and that was the one we ignored.

There was a statistic that 70% of illegal immigrants are on welfare, that's wrong. But yes, the number of children of families of illegal immigrants receiving welfare is staggering. It's setup poorly for the realities of the population - no argument here.

It's actually correct. It is 70%. The attempts to claim otherwise usually require dubious math.

If I provide a refugee welfare, I'm giving him/her/them steady food, safe housing, basic medical care, and clothes. Not $20k in direct cash or cash-equivalent benefits.

But we have to work with the system we have, not the one we'd like. We can't make immigration policy on a welfare system that doesn't give lots of money to immigrants as long as we have a system that does precisely that.

We need to not be afraid to try things on a regional or state level and see what happens. The southern border is completely right that the federal government has abdicated it's responsibilities - they should absolutely be given the power to experiment with their own immigration policies.

They tried. Obama took them to court and the SCOTUS sided with Obama.

Quaestor said...

Hard fact: Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev came here as refugees in 2002.
They weren't grateful.

Fernandinande said...

Anglelyne said...
As a father you ought to face the reality that the "individuals and families trying to escape poverty, crime, illness, death" number in the billions. You can't fix their problems by wrecking the West.


The one gumball = one million people video.

"Below he outlines the report from the world bank, giving the amount of people who earn less than $2 a day.
Africa 650 million ppl
India – 890 million
China – 480 million
Rest of Asia 810 million
Latin America – 105 million"

5.6 billion people live in countries poorer than Mexico (which is pretty well off by world standards).

The current [July 2015] world population of 7.3 billion is expected to reach 8.5 billion by 2030, 9.7 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100, according to a new UN DESA report, “World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision”, launched today.

rcocean said...

Pictures of dead kids are always very effective. I wonder why we didn't see many during the Iraq war or WW2?

SOJO said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
EMD said...

"are not fleeing poverty, crime, illness or death but rather the hideous regimes under which they have lived."

A distinction without a difference.

Brian McKim & Traci Skene said...

Elian Gonzales was unavailable for comment.

sunsong said...

“If you can't imagine yourself in one of those boats, you have something missing. They are dying for a life worth living. #refugeeswelcome”
; J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) September 3, 2015


JK Rowling joins those urging UK to take in refugees

Sammy Finkelman said...

The family of the boy that drowned (actually also his 5-year brother and his mother also drowned, and only the father survived) spent $4,000 for smuggling. They were being supported by the father's sister in Vancouver, Canada. They were given an opportunity or had an opportunity to buy life vests but had no more money.

I read, by the way, that these life vests are not of European Union quality - when salvaged there's a person who converts them into reflective vests.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/world/europe/greece-migrants-refugees-kos.html?_r=0

The family where the 3-year old boy drowned was on a boat that the captain abandoned in a storm. He jumped pver board. The mother had been afraid of the water because she couldn't swim, but, apparently, this looked like their on;ly chance to get out of Turkey and continue with their lives and/or she did not prevail on her husband not to do it.

Sammy Finkelman said...

@ SOJO

What a weird world we live in now. So much more advanced in so many ways, yet so underdeveloped in others

That was before World War I, wasn't it?

Sammy Finkelman said...

@damikesc

How do you define welfare? Attendance at public school for children? Emergency medical assistance? What other kind of welfare are illegal immigrants given? Even legal immigrants don't get it now. Only refugees.

Rusty said...

Sammy Finkelman said...
@damikesc

How do you define welfare? Attendance at public school for children? Emergency medical assistance? What other kind of welfare are illegal immigrants given?


If I may.
If you can make it to Illinois you're immediately eligible for food stamps and temporary income and housing. If you decide to go to Chicago or even Cook County the benefits get even better. You can get into section eight housing and get public assistance. Since fake green cards and social security cards can be had on the street you can get a job and claim there are ten dependents in Mexico on your W2.
How do I know? I deal with these people every day.

David Begley said...

If Mitt would have won, none of this Syria disaster would have happened.

The entire meltdown in the Middle East is entirely the fault of Obama and Hillary.

Brenda shaw said...

Words cant explain my gratitude to David Benjamin blank card company for helping me purchase the card which i have sought for years from other companies and have been scammed of my money. I saw a post by Clara and i took his email from there and also in less than 3 days i got my already programmed card at an affordable price and it was conveniently delivered no extra charges no stories told. If you wish to contact this company then davidbenjaminltd@outlook.com is the address and i assure you of qualified services.