7 ms·

I went to help at Calais’s Jungle refugee camp – and what I saw haunts me

57 points by nsns 11y ago

klunger 11y ago
This article skirts around the critical point that these are not actually refugees. They may have started their journey as a refugee, escaping some horrific conditions in their home country. But then, they traveled through many European safe countries where they could (legally, should) have applied for asylum. And yet, they deliberately chose not to for whatever reason. Now that they are in Calais, they choose to stay there instead of applying for asylum in France. A refugee has no choice but to flee from where they are. These folk have had a choice for as long as their journey, and continue to do so as long as they are in France. Side note: I do volunteer work for Syrian refugee children. There is a serious refugee problem in Europe, but this is not one of them. The UN quite rightly does not spend its limited resources here.
- zzalpha 11y ago
  Wait wait wait. So are you saying these people deserve it and that the government is right to allow these folks to freeze and starve? I just want to be clear on your position, here. Because, to be blunt, on its face it seems pretty monstrous.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - kzhahou 11y ago
    He said there are resources available to help, but for whatever reason these people don't use them. Monstrous?
    - kaitai 11y ago
      Not quite. He said there are rules they should have followed, which might have lead them to resources available. Since they didn't follow the rules, there are not resources. I don't think they can just go back to a previous country of entry into the EU and then get resources magically.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      The commenter said: >they deliberately chose not to for whatever reason This would imply that these people were fully aware of all of their options, which is probably not the case. Many languages are used in Europe and it is doubtful that the people in Calais know all or even most of those languages. Deliberate choice requires full knowledge. The commenter did not establish that these people have full knowledge of their situation. Edit: Ah, the anon-downmodders have arrived.
      - angersock 11y ago
        Deliberate choice does not require full knowledge. In this case, they could've stopped anywhere else along their journey, but for whatever reason (benefits, perhaps) have decided to soldier onwards.
      - leereeves 11y ago
        The author volunteered to cook in the camp. Surely there are also volunteers who explain how to apply for asylum in France?
  - lumberjack 11y ago
    Every luxury you bought could have fed a poor starving family in India for months, maybe even years or decades. It could have funded live saving medical treatment for many people who could not afford it. And yet you chose to buy that iPhone6 or BMW or the bigger house. That's monstrous. You're not morally superior to any of us first worlders. We enjoy our privilege.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      >Every luxury you bought could have fed a poor starving family in India for months, maybe even years or decades. >And yet you chose to buy that iPhone6 or BMW or the bigger house. What? How can an iPhone6 be transformed into food in India? Edit; WTF? A comment two above me got [flagged] and removed? I thought we were trying to have a conversation here.
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        You don't buy the iPhone, and you instead donate those funds to an NGO that buys food in third world countries. It's pretty simple actually.
      - zardo 11y ago
        You are familiar with the concept of exchanging goods for money? Money that is used to buy luxuries for one person, could have been used to buy necessities for another.
        jsprogrammer 11y ago
        >You are familiar with the concept of exchanging goods for money? I am. Are you familiar with the concepts of agriculture, animal husbandry, and manufacture of electronics? >Money that is used to buy luxuries for one person, could have been used to buy necessities for another. Goods and money are not fully fungible.
    - tzs 11y ago
      I don't see how that is relevant to the comment you are replying to. His complaint is that he thought someone was saying that the people in need deserve what is happening to them and so should not be helped.
  - seivan 11y ago
    There are millions starving in Syria vs thousands who managed to get out of ISIS and Assads bombings into Calais. Right now the UN is low on money. What would you do? Keep in mind resources are finite and the resources to help per person is cheaper closer to Syria.
    - vlehto 11y ago
      Also housing, feeding and clothing people in EU right now creates pressure for refugees. Which means means people drowning in Mediterranean. Not taking incentives into account often results exacerbating the problem. Like in India children get their arms chopped off. So they would get more pity and money while begging for Mafia. "Road to hell is pawed with good intentions"
      - ZenoArrow 11y ago
        > ""Road to hell is pawed with good intentions"" There are no good intentions causing problems here, Western governments are deliberately destabilising their country, we have a moral responsibility to help the refugees that escaped as a result.
        seivan 11y ago
        Their country? who is They? Who is western? It's Assad, Iran and Turkey. We used to tell people to stop reading Fox news, now I feel like Vox and The Guardian is at play here. Maybe you should talk to "they" who still are in those countries.
        ZenoArrow 11y ago
        > "Maybe you should talk to "they" who still are in those countries." Before we talk about what's going on in Iraq and Syria, take a look at what happened in Libya, and explain to me the purpose of this bombing campaign. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fRS5C0Ko2eM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fRS5C0Ko2eM
        elthran 11y ago
  - celticninja 11y ago
    It seems he is saying that they are not the most important group, everything else is your wild assumptions.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- nobody_nowhere 11y ago
  How does failing to apply for asylum make them no longer refugees? What do they become by your reasoning?
  - NLips 11y ago
    They are people who have successfully made it to a safe country. They are not in the camp because they are refugees fleeing danger, but because they specifically want to get to the UK. Whether or not that is reasonable (e.g. because of family or other reasons) is beside the point of 'are they refugees fleeing danger?'
    - Joeboy 11y ago
      > because of family or other reasons Another reason would be speaking English and not French. I would really rather not have to apply for asylum in a language I don't speak. And of course if they're fleeing danger and their asylum application is unsafe, then they are unsafe.
      - eCa 11y ago
        > Another reason would be speaking English and not French Just an aside: Only two countries on the top ten countries for asylum seekers have English as an official language[1][2]. [1] http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/77922000/gif/_77922434_where_applicants_go_20140916_624.gif http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/77922000/gif/_... [2] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24636868 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24636868
  - dageshi 11y ago
    They become economic migrants at that point. They avoid a "safe" country in the hope of reaching one which suits them better in terms of economy/opportunities. The issue of migrants trying to illegally enter the UK via Calais has existed for decades at this point, any improvement to the conditions in Calais would encourage more people to try and make the journey so nothing is done for fear of turning a bad situation into an even worse one. The UK public saw what happened when Mrs Merkel said there was no limits on the number of refugee's Germany would take, they are not in the mood for their politicians to make a similar mistake.
- ptaffs 11y ago
  Your response sounds super unsympathetic, but your side note hints at some actual understanding of the situation. Briefly, what should be happening?
  - seivan 11y ago
    You don't have to be sympathetic to be factual. It's not wrong to be unsympathetic and has no bearing of the person in question commenting the refugee situation. Sympathy, like Willpower is a commodity that can run out. Be careful on what you use it on.
  - vlehto 11y ago
    I find it deeply disturbing, that comment dealing with systemic problem is judged by apparent feelings of the commenter.
    - schiffern 11y ago
      In your view, is it less disturbing when systemic human problems are worked out without a shred of human compassion? Why or why not?
      - vlehto 11y ago
        First of all, perceived lack of compassion and actual lack of compassion are two different things. Especially over the internet. Secondly, judging comments solely by perceived compassion is obviously going to bias the decisions. Things like reason and scale easily get forgotten if compassion is the only criteria. Thirdly blaming people for not feeling the politically correct emotions is some hardcore thought police shit. Fourthly compassion is naturally biased towards obviously pathetic people who are physically close. Somebody coming from Uganda might consider Calais a complete non-problem. Someone living in Scotland might find local stray cats more compelling target for charity than any person anywhere. And there are significant populations who could contribute to the discussion, but are unable to either feel compassion or express it. (For example high functioning autists.) I really don't mind someone being compassionate while dealing with systemic human problems. But if it's somekind of requirement, it seems like really bad starting point.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  There is one problem with the whole story which is that from the viewpoint of a refugee it does not matter what agreements European countries make amongst each other if that knowledge does not make it to the intended recipients. The various EU countries that agreed to this tried very hard to make the whole refugee problem 'somebody else's problem'. By making the Southern countries ('first country of contact') the ones where they should apply for asylum. But there is no mechanism in place that stops people from moving and of course - conveniently - it would make it a non-issue for any of the Northern countries since legally no refugees would be able to apply for asylum there (that didn't stop anybody). The exception is the UK, and that's where this particular camp comes into play. If the UK would not be an island then this camp would not exist. The fact that so few people end up there shows that borders in the EU really are all about physical barriers. Once in the Schengen area nothing stops you from moving about. On another note: not all those that land in the EU are aware of these agreements, it's nation states that agreed to this, but they forgot they needed the consent of the refugees themselves as well, who - smart move - do not necessarily want to overstay their welcome in Spain, Greece, Turkey and Italy but would rather spread out a bit. And those countries really are already stretched to the breaking point when it comes to their capacity to accept newcomers so it is actually a good thing that there is a natural tendency to spread out over a much larger surface area. The Calais camp is a simple artifact of the fact that the North Sea exists, without the sea it would be gone in a few days and those people there have nothing to lose trying to get to the other side. They risked their lives to get there they likely will not stop simply because there is a bit of water. See the daily run at trucks trying to hide on them to get to the UK.
  - wavefunction 11y ago
    There's also the matter of the differing social support offered in different countries, from what I've read. The migrants are looking to get to countries with the most generous benefits offered rather than stay in places in "the South" that offer less.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      Does the UK offer migrants more generous benefits than France, NL, Germany, Sweden, Belgium?
lumberjack 11y ago
It's not a refugee camp. Refugees go through the system fairly quickly and get all sorts of help. They definitely are not left destitute. And I really don't see what's so special about them compared to people in similar conditions in India or Uganda or some other poor region of the world.
- w0utert 11y ago
  >> And I really don't see what's so special about them compared to people in similar conditions in India or Uganda or some other poor region of the world. Or in developed parts of the world, for that matter. People are living on the streets sleeping under cardboard boxes or in the bushes in almost any major city in almost any developed nation, eating whatever they find in trashcans, with no access to healthcare or sanitation either. Note that I'm not trying to downplay the misery the immigrants in Calais are in, or the terrible things they've endured. It just strikes me as odd that whenever some humanitary crisis occurs that attracts a lot of media attention, they forget about the misery they can find at home every day...
yodsanklai 11y ago
I recently read an interesting comment on politics.stackexchange.com that gives some insight about this situation. http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8460/why-is-the-drive-for-undocumented-migration-so-strong-between-france-and-the-uni http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8460/why-is-the-...
- mturmon 11y ago
  Thanks. Actually some solid info there.
seivan 11y ago
Did I miss the part between the infighting amongst refugees of various religions/groups? That's a ticking time bomb ready to happen. Talk to the refugees in Calais (and other places to) and you'll hear the same notion.
transfire 11y ago
Summary of comments before this one: Who gives a shit, it's their own damn fault.
amateur_soclgst 11y ago
I think a distinct problem with the most recent flow of migrants into Europe is the idea of 'reliability' and how that effects feelings towards a migrant population. In many previous migration movements in both Europe and the United States there was some rateable factor between the native population and the migrants. For example, people coming to the US from Cuba were seen as escaping communism for democracy and were seen as good. Similarly with Vietnamese immigrants for example. In Europe the same thing happened after 1991. Conversely now, other than the fact that the migrants are of a different skin color and religious make up than the majority of Europeans, society does not have the same sympathetic view as compared to the past. There were not Cuban or Vietnamese terrorist strikes on American or European soil, and thus the new migrant wave is seen as a risk. Also given that that fact that we are still at 'war' with the middle east doesn't lend any help. It is easier for a society to forgive a nation/ethnicity that they've been fighting after said nation has won than while they're still in conflict. Overall I think the situation is very complex, and theres not a easy way to make Europe accept this wave of migration in comparison to similar waves in the past.
- mercer 11y ago
  I agree and it scares the crap out of me to think about what might happen in the coming years. Mostly I'm trying to think of the best course of action for me as an individual. Not doing anything seems like the worst option. But when it comes to doing something, should I: 1. actively fight right-wing sentiment, with probably little effect (mostly preaching to the choir, as most of my friends are highly-educated left-wing liberals). 2. volunteer in a refugee camp, which while personally more satisfying, might waste more 'valuable' things I could do. 3. become politically active in some way, but this would require a significant up-front effort in trying to untangle the situation. 4. try to find longer-term sustainable solutions for refugees who are likely to be here for a long time no matter what happens, faced with few good options (they can't work, can't study, and are often isolated). 5. something else? I'm currently a bit paralyzed by the possible options, yet for various reasons feel a strong desire to contribute to the problem, perceived or otherwise, of the influx refugees. I'd greatly appreciate some concrete suggestions.
  - 11y ago
zoner 11y ago
When the Hungarian revolution of 1956 against communism was knocked down, I didn't hear the refugees smashed truck windows, left tons of rubbish after themselves in foreign countries, neither attacked each other or raped women. Sorry for the exception, I really hate when people starve or cold. I know there are good people there, kids and women as well, but their culture is just not fit in to Europe.

57 points by nsns 11y ago

This article skirts around the critical point that these are not actually refugees. They may have started their journey as a refugee, escaping some horrific conditions in their home country. But then, they traveled through many European safe countries where they could (legally, should) have applied for asylum. And yet, they deliberately chose not to for whatever reason. Now that they are in Calais, they choose to stay there instead of applying for asylum in France. A refugee has no choice but to flee from where they are. These folk have had a choice for as long as their journey, and continue to do so as long as they are in France. Side note: I do volunteer work for Syrian refugee children. There is a serious refugee problem in Europe, but this is not one of them. The UN quite rightly does not spend its limited resources here.

zzalpha 11y ago
Wait wait wait. So are you saying these people deserve it and that the government is right to allow these folks to freeze and starve? I just want to be clear on your position, here. Because, to be blunt, on its face it seems pretty monstrous.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- kzhahou 11y ago
  He said there are resources available to help, but for whatever reason these people don't use them. Monstrous?
  - kaitai 11y ago
    Not quite. He said there are rules they should have followed, which might have lead them to resources available. Since they didn't follow the rules, there are not resources. I don't think they can just go back to a previous country of entry into the EU and then get resources magically.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    The commenter said: >they deliberately chose not to for whatever reason This would imply that these people were fully aware of all of their options, which is probably not the case. Many languages are used in Europe and it is doubtful that the people in Calais know all or even most of those languages. Deliberate choice requires full knowledge. The commenter did not establish that these people have full knowledge of their situation. Edit: Ah, the anon-downmodders have arrived.
    - angersock 11y ago
      Deliberate choice does not require full knowledge. In this case, they could've stopped anywhere else along their journey, but for whatever reason (benefits, perhaps) have decided to soldier onwards.
    - leereeves 11y ago
      The author volunteered to cook in the camp. Surely there are also volunteers who explain how to apply for asylum in France?
- lumberjack 11y ago
  Every luxury you bought could have fed a poor starving family in India for months, maybe even years or decades. It could have funded live saving medical treatment for many people who could not afford it. And yet you chose to buy that iPhone6 or BMW or the bigger house. That's monstrous. You're not morally superior to any of us first worlders. We enjoy our privilege.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    >Every luxury you bought could have fed a poor starving family in India for months, maybe even years or decades. >And yet you chose to buy that iPhone6 or BMW or the bigger house. What? How can an iPhone6 be transformed into food in India? Edit; WTF? A comment two above me got [flagged] and removed? I thought we were trying to have a conversation here.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      You don't buy the iPhone, and you instead donate those funds to an NGO that buys food in third world countries. It's pretty simple actually.
    - zardo 11y ago
      You are familiar with the concept of exchanging goods for money? Money that is used to buy luxuries for one person, could have been used to buy necessities for another.
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
        >You are familiar with the concept of exchanging goods for money? I am. Are you familiar with the concepts of agriculture, animal husbandry, and manufacture of electronics? >Money that is used to buy luxuries for one person, could have been used to buy necessities for another. Goods and money are not fully fungible.
  - tzs 11y ago
    I don't see how that is relevant to the comment you are replying to. His complaint is that he thought someone was saying that the people in need deserve what is happening to them and so should not be helped.
- seivan 11y ago
  There are millions starving in Syria vs thousands who managed to get out of ISIS and Assads bombings into Calais. Right now the UN is low on money. What would you do? Keep in mind resources are finite and the resources to help per person is cheaper closer to Syria.
  - vlehto 11y ago
    Also housing, feeding and clothing people in EU right now creates pressure for refugees. Which means means people drowning in Mediterranean. Not taking incentives into account often results exacerbating the problem. Like in India children get their arms chopped off. So they would get more pity and money while begging for Mafia. "Road to hell is pawed with good intentions"
    - ZenoArrow 11y ago
      > ""Road to hell is pawed with good intentions"" There are no good intentions causing problems here, Western governments are deliberately destabilising their country, we have a moral responsibility to help the refugees that escaped as a result.
      - seivan 11y ago
        Their country? who is They? Who is western? It's Assad, Iran and Turkey. We used to tell people to stop reading Fox news, now I feel like Vox and The Guardian is at play here. Maybe you should talk to "they" who still are in those countries.
        ZenoArrow 11y ago
        > "Maybe you should talk to "they" who still are in those countries." Before we talk about what's going on in Iraq and Syria, take a look at what happened in Libya, and explain to me the purpose of this bombing campaign. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fRS5C0Ko2eM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fRS5C0Ko2eM
        elthran 11y ago
- celticninja 11y ago
  It seems he is saying that they are not the most important group, everything else is your wild assumptions.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
nobody_nowhere 11y ago
How does failing to apply for asylum make them no longer refugees? What do they become by your reasoning?
- NLips 11y ago
  They are people who have successfully made it to a safe country. They are not in the camp because they are refugees fleeing danger, but because they specifically want to get to the UK. Whether or not that is reasonable (e.g. because of family or other reasons) is beside the point of 'are they refugees fleeing danger?'
  - Joeboy 11y ago
    > because of family or other reasons Another reason would be speaking English and not French. I would really rather not have to apply for asylum in a language I don't speak. And of course if they're fleeing danger and their asylum application is unsafe, then they are unsafe.
    - eCa 11y ago
      > Another reason would be speaking English and not French Just an aside: Only two countries on the top ten countries for asylum seekers have English as an official language[1][2]. [1] http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/77922000/gif/_77922434_where_applicants_go_20140916_624.gif http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/77922000/gif/_... [2] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24636868 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24636868
- dageshi 11y ago
  They become economic migrants at that point. They avoid a "safe" country in the hope of reaching one which suits them better in terms of economy/opportunities. The issue of migrants trying to illegally enter the UK via Calais has existed for decades at this point, any improvement to the conditions in Calais would encourage more people to try and make the journey so nothing is done for fear of turning a bad situation into an even worse one. The UK public saw what happened when Mrs Merkel said there was no limits on the number of refugee's Germany would take, they are not in the mood for their politicians to make a similar mistake.
ptaffs 11y ago
Your response sounds super unsympathetic, but your side note hints at some actual understanding of the situation. Briefly, what should be happening?
- seivan 11y ago
  You don't have to be sympathetic to be factual. It's not wrong to be unsympathetic and has no bearing of the person in question commenting the refugee situation. Sympathy, like Willpower is a commodity that can run out. Be careful on what you use it on.
- vlehto 11y ago
  I find it deeply disturbing, that comment dealing with systemic problem is judged by apparent feelings of the commenter.
  - schiffern 11y ago
    In your view, is it less disturbing when systemic human problems are worked out without a shred of human compassion? Why or why not?
    - vlehto 11y ago
      First of all, perceived lack of compassion and actual lack of compassion are two different things. Especially over the internet. Secondly, judging comments solely by perceived compassion is obviously going to bias the decisions. Things like reason and scale easily get forgotten if compassion is the only criteria. Thirdly blaming people for not feeling the politically correct emotions is some hardcore thought police shit. Fourthly compassion is naturally biased towards obviously pathetic people who are physically close. Somebody coming from Uganda might consider Calais a complete non-problem. Someone living in Scotland might find local stray cats more compelling target for charity than any person anywhere. And there are significant populations who could contribute to the discussion, but are unable to either feel compassion or express it. (For example high functioning autists.) I really don't mind someone being compassionate while dealing with systemic human problems. But if it's somekind of requirement, it seems like really bad starting point.
jacquesm 11y ago
There is one problem with the whole story which is that from the viewpoint of a refugee it does not matter what agreements European countries make amongst each other if that knowledge does not make it to the intended recipients. The various EU countries that agreed to this tried very hard to make the whole refugee problem 'somebody else's problem'. By making the Southern countries ('first country of contact') the ones where they should apply for asylum. But there is no mechanism in place that stops people from moving and of course - conveniently - it would make it a non-issue for any of the Northern countries since legally no refugees would be able to apply for asylum there (that didn't stop anybody). The exception is the UK, and that's where this particular camp comes into play. If the UK would not be an island then this camp would not exist. The fact that so few people end up there shows that borders in the EU really are all about physical barriers. Once in the Schengen area nothing stops you from moving about. On another note: not all those that land in the EU are aware of these agreements, it's nation states that agreed to this, but they forgot they needed the consent of the refugees themselves as well, who - smart move - do not necessarily want to overstay their welcome in Spain, Greece, Turkey and Italy but would rather spread out a bit. And those countries really are already stretched to the breaking point when it comes to their capacity to accept newcomers so it is actually a good thing that there is a natural tendency to spread out over a much larger surface area. The Calais camp is a simple artifact of the fact that the North Sea exists, without the sea it would be gone in a few days and those people there have nothing to lose trying to get to the other side. They risked their lives to get there they likely will not stop simply because there is a bit of water. See the daily run at trucks trying to hide on them to get to the UK.
- wavefunction 11y ago
  There's also the matter of the differing social support offered in different countries, from what I've read. The migrants are looking to get to countries with the most generous benefits offered rather than stay in places in "the South" that offer less.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Does the UK offer migrants more generous benefits than France, NL, Germany, Sweden, Belgium?

lumberjack 11y ago

It's not a refugee camp. Refugees go through the system fairly quickly and get all sorts of help. They definitely are not left destitute. And I really don't see what's so special about them compared to people in similar conditions in India or Uganda or some other poor region of the world.

w0utert 11y ago
>> And I really don't see what's so special about them compared to people in similar conditions in India or Uganda or some other poor region of the world. Or in developed parts of the world, for that matter. People are living on the streets sleeping under cardboard boxes or in the bushes in almost any major city in almost any developed nation, eating whatever they find in trashcans, with no access to healthcare or sanitation either. Note that I'm not trying to downplay the misery the immigrants in Calais are in, or the terrible things they've endured. It just strikes me as odd that whenever some humanitary crisis occurs that attracts a lot of media attention, they forget about the misery they can find at home every day...

yodsanklai 11y ago

I recently read an interesting comment on politics.stackexchange.com that gives some insight about this situation. http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8460/why-is-the-drive-for-undocumented-migration-so-strong-between-france-and-the-uni http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8460/why-is-the-...

mturmon 11y ago
Thanks. Actually some solid info there.

seivan 11y ago

Did I miss the part between the infighting amongst refugees of various religions/groups? That's a ticking time bomb ready to happen. Talk to the refugees in Calais (and other places to) and you'll hear the same notion.

transfire 11y ago

Summary of comments before this one: Who gives a shit, it's their own damn fault.

amateur_soclgst 11y ago

I think a distinct problem with the most recent flow of migrants into Europe is the idea of 'reliability' and how that effects feelings towards a migrant population. In many previous migration movements in both Europe and the United States there was some rateable factor between the native population and the migrants. For example, people coming to the US from Cuba were seen as escaping communism for democracy and were seen as good. Similarly with Vietnamese immigrants for example. In Europe the same thing happened after 1991. Conversely now, other than the fact that the migrants are of a different skin color and religious make up than the majority of Europeans, society does not have the same sympathetic view as compared to the past. There were not Cuban or Vietnamese terrorist strikes on American or European soil, and thus the new migrant wave is seen as a risk. Also given that that fact that we are still at 'war' with the middle east doesn't lend any help. It is easier for a society to forgive a nation/ethnicity that they've been fighting after said nation has won than while they're still in conflict. Overall I think the situation is very complex, and theres not a easy way to make Europe accept this wave of migration in comparison to similar waves in the past.

mercer 11y ago
I agree and it scares the crap out of me to think about what might happen in the coming years. Mostly I'm trying to think of the best course of action for me as an individual. Not doing anything seems like the worst option. But when it comes to doing something, should I: 1. actively fight right-wing sentiment, with probably little effect (mostly preaching to the choir, as most of my friends are highly-educated left-wing liberals). 2. volunteer in a refugee camp, which while personally more satisfying, might waste more 'valuable' things I could do. 3. become politically active in some way, but this would require a significant up-front effort in trying to untangle the situation. 4. try to find longer-term sustainable solutions for refugees who are likely to be here for a long time no matter what happens, faced with few good options (they can't work, can't study, and are often isolated). 5. something else? I'm currently a bit paralyzed by the possible options, yet for various reasons feel a strong desire to contribute to the problem, perceived or otherwise, of the influx refugees. I'd greatly appreciate some concrete suggestions.
- 11y ago

zoner 11y ago

When the Hungarian revolution of 1956 against communism was knocked down, I didn't hear the refugees smashed truck windows, left tons of rubbish after themselves in foreign countries, neither attacked each other or raped women. Sorry for the exception, I really hate when people starve or cold. I know there are good people there, kids and women as well, but their culture is just not fit in to Europe.