Braybuddy wrote:

Wonderful. I presume these are the reasons so many refugees are risking their lives to get to Russia?

They don't have a refugee problem in Japan, China and many other first world countries either, the problem is Europe has been soft and so have the US, Canada, Australia and NZ, if you don't come down harshly on the refugees and refuse admittance you end up with a refugee problem.

pvjin wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Question stands, what are your values.

I'm a rather conservative guy who thinks pretty much everything in my country and in Western Europe was much better some decades ago. I believe a nation should first and foremost take care of its citizen, everybody else should come only second. Certain amount of liberalism and individual freedoms is good, however the government should be strong and have authority to do what's necessary if some groups decide not to respect the law and customs of the land. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" should be a rule that all foreigners in my country shall obey, if they don't the government should take appropriate action to correct their behaviour. My country should have no responsibility whatsoever to act as a social welfare office of the entire planet, it should grant asylums only to refugees who have high chances and motivation to integrating into our society, useful education and religious values that are compatible with our system and culture.

I support democracy, however it should be more direct than our parliamentary democracies nowadays, as close to the people as possible. Each nation state should be able to determine its own laws, international co-operation should be limited to areas like economy, tracking crime, fighting environmental issues and so on.

Appears to be pretty normal values to me, I agree with this to the letter, it's just a shame that we hyave so so many weak namby pamby lefty self loathing arsewhipes in Western democracies who are hell bent on destroying the societies that we have spend a very long time building up. Then they get all upset when a Trump is voted in or Brexit happens, when the problem is really them, if countries looked after there own first and foremost Trump would not have happened and neither would Brexit.

Kiwirob wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

Wonderful. I presume these are the reasons so many refugees are risking their lives to get to Russia?

They don't have a refugee problem in Japan, China and many other first world countries either, the problem is Europe has been soft and so have the US, Canada, Australia and NZ, if you don't come down harshly on the refugees and refuse admittance you end up with a refugee problem.

yes we need to be very harsh on those refugees, fleeing a place of war or abuse of human rights, what were they thinking!

Dutchy wrote:

ok, damn all option and steal the natural resources from another country.

I don't subscribe to that point of view. If you topple a regime, then you have the responsibility for the ordinary people, not the right to rob them.

The real issue is why they felt the need to destroy Iraq in the first instance, they had nothing to do with 9/11 and weren't threatening anyone. The coun try was already on it's knees after GW1 and the crippling sanctions enacted against it.

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

ok, damn all option and steal the natural resources from another country.

I don't subscribe to that point of view. If you topple a regime, then you have the responsibility for the ordinary people, not the right to rob them.

The real issue is why they felt the need to destroy Iraq in the first instance, they had nothing to do with 9/11 and weren't threatening anyone. The coun try was already on it's knees after GW1 and the crippling sanctions enacted against it.

I agree, I was against the war because there was no reason to start one. I think it was a ego thing, because Hoessein threatened to kill daddy Bush. The WMD programs were under control, the UN inspectors said so. But the point I was trying to make, if you decide to interviene than it comes with responsabiliteit. Since we can't change the past, America still has the responsibility to stabilize Iraq again and not rob ir.

it's really terrifying and sad to hear that kind of information about civilian people... My condolences to their families

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

Wonderful. I presume these are the reasons so many refugees are risking their lives to get to Russia?

They don't have a refugee problem in Japan, China and many other first world countries either, the problem is Europe has been soft and so have the US, Canada, Australia and NZ, if you don't come down harshly on the refugees and refuse admittance you end up with a refugee problem.

yes we need to be very harsh on those refugees, fleeing a place of war or abuse of human rights, what were they thinking!

With the exception of the recent wave of refugees from Syria (and we know a considerable number of them were from Iraq and Afghanistan) the vast majority of so called refugees have been economic migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa, they are not refugees, not even close to being refugees yet the bleeding hearts club have campaigned to let the bastards in. Africa is in the midst of a population explosion, which is leading to more and more people making a run for Europe. It's not going to change until Europe takes a much tougher stance on economic migrants, Russia doesn't let them in, Japan doesn't let them in, China doesn't let them in, so why should Europe and other western democracies take the brunt of the crisis?

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

They don't have a refugee problem in Japan, China and many other first world countries either, the problem is Europe has been soft and so have the US, Canada, Australia and NZ, if you don't come down harshly on the refugees and refuse admittance you end up with a refugee problem.

yes we need to be very harsh on those refugees, fleeing a place of war or abuse of human rights, what were they thinking!

With the exception of the recent wave of refugees from Syria (and we know a considerable number of them were from Iraq and Afghanistan) the vast majority of so called refugees have been economic migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa, they are not refugees, not even close to being refugees yet the bleeding hearts club have campaigned to let the bastards in. Africa is in the midst of a population explosion, which is leading to more and more people making a run for Europe. It's not going to change until Europe takes a much tougher stance on economic migrants, Russia doesn't let them in, Japan doesn't let them in, China doesn't let them in, so why should Europe and other western democracies take the brunt of the crisis?

Economic migrants aren't welcome in Europe as it is or it is highly restricted, but they have the right to ask for asylum (in accordance with the refugee treaty) in Europe and then the authorities will judge if it is a legitimate claim or not, if not they are forced to leave. Being illegal in Europe isn't something to aspire to. And then there is a group which have their claim turned down, but the country of origine refuses to take them back, that category of countries needs to be treated harsh by Europe.

AirPacific747 wrote:

pvjin wrote:

Yeah, the other side prefers suicide bombs and using civilians as hostages by staying in hospitals. Also, if supporting Assad makes Russia a rogue state the US can't be much better when they support Saudi-Arabia. Syrians under Assad have more rights than people in KSA do.

So does the side you support. No, there are many reasons why Russia is a rogue (loser) state. This is just another reason.

The US is much better than Russia in any way you look at it. Saudi doesn't use chemical weapons against its own population. Better luck next time.

pvjin wrote:

Russia has enough human rights to satisfy me. Democracy is mostly an illusion, like George Carlin said politicians

Yeah right. You have no idea what you're talking about. Either that or you're a troll.

pvjin wrote:

"The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you."
A perfect description of Western parliamentary "democracy" by George Carlin. Not that Russians have a choice either, but at least they have a strong leader.

False statement. We have actual freedom to choose our leaders. If you don't like any of the candidates, you can create your own political party and try to get enough support to be represented. It sounds like you're wearing a tinfoil hat.

pvjin wrote:

Finland has such a large amount of ridiculous regulation that I would be glad if I could just bribe myself through some of it.

Yes, just like the guy who raped your mother and killed her afterwards can also bribe his way out of prison. Awesome.

pvjin wrote:

Free speech is highly limited also in most of western world, especially in Western Europe.

No it isn't. The government will never try to shut your mouth unlike Russia.

AirPacific, while I am not trying to defend Russia, I think you need to be careful about throwing stones in glass houses. Our so-called "freedoms" are long gone. My state alone passes over 1,000 new laws every year, many of them further restricting what i can do, where I can go, what I can buy, what business can provide me, etc, etc. Every year.

They can restrict what we say and how we criticize them through retribution, either on the national level or the local level. For example, on the national level, look at the actions of the IRS against political opponents of the last administration. On the local level, I have seen it myself from entrenched bureaucrats for speaking out against their desires. Just as they routinely get away with crimes because of who they know and the power they have.

Freedom? pfft, we in this country really have no right to parrot that word any more.

Kiwirob wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

Wonderful. I presume these are the reasons so many refugees are risking their lives to get to Russia?

They don't have a refugee problem in Japan, China and many other first world countries either, the problem is Europe has been soft and so have the US, Canada, Australia and NZ, if you don't come down harshly on the refugees and refuse admittance you end up with a refugee problem.

Bless. The only thing stopping refugees flocking to Russia or China is because they are stopping them . . .

They don't stop them at all they just don't offer them anything so there's no point in going there, Europe needs to do the same.

Kiwirob wrote:

They don't stop them at all they just don't offer them anything so there's no point in going there, Europe needs to do the same.

Actually in Russia it is very hard to get refugee status. There are many beaurocratic loopholes preventing this.

The Russian Federation was constantly criticised by the UNHCR for the problems and the refusal rate was something like 96% untill we started letting in all the Ukranian refugees from their civil war.

tu204 wrote:

Ukranian refugees from their civil war.

"Their" civil war? Civil war Russia had nothing to do with, right?

mham001 wrote:

AirPacific, while I am not trying to defend Russia

No need to apologize... Trump's voters managed to do a 180 on Russia literally overnight. To his own credit, the Orange Clown has been at least consistent on this issue.

tu204 wrote:

The Russian Federation was constantly criticised by the UNHCR for the problems and the refusal rate was something like 96% untill we started letting in all the Ukranian refugees from their civil war.

Civil war? Or Russia destabilizing a neighbor and as a result some flee to 'mother' Russia.

Dutchy wrote:

tu204 wrote:

The Russian Federation was constantly criticised by the UNHCR for the problems and the refusal rate was something like 96% untill we started letting in all the Ukranian refugees from their civil war.

Civil war? Or Russia destabilizing a neighbor and as a result some flee to 'mother' Russia.

Civil War.

Or the West supporting a coup of the elected government and then Russia supporting the other side in the conflict.

tu204 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

tu204 wrote:

The Russian Federation was constantly criticised by the UNHCR for the problems and the refusal rate was something like 96% untill we started letting in all the Ukranian refugees from their civil war.

Civil war? Or Russia destabilizing a neighbor and as a result some flee to 'mother' Russia.

Civil War.

Or the West supporting a coup of the elected government and then Russia supporting the other side in the conflict.

Russia annexed part of another country, Russian troops are "vacationing" in eastern Ukraine with quite heavy weapons. The west didn't support anything like that.

Dutchy wrote:

tu204 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Civil war? Or Russia destabilizing a neighbor and as a result some flee to 'mother' Russia.

Civil War.

Or the West supporting a coup of the elected government and then Russia supporting the other side in the conflict.

Russia annexed part of another country, Russian troops are "vacationing" in eastern Ukraine with quite heavy weapons. The west didn't support anything like that.

Hey sure, if you want to call it "annexed", why not.

When the overwhelming majority of that part of another country wanted nothing more to do with that country after an illegal coup, held a refferendum to join the Russian Federation, I see no problem with this. Call it what you will.

tu204 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

tu204 wrote:

Civil War.

Or the West supporting a coup of the elected government and then Russia supporting the other side in the conflict.

Russia annexed part of another country, Russian troops are "vacationing" in eastern Ukraine with quite heavy weapons. The west didn't support anything like that.

Hey sure, if you want to call it "annexed", why not.

When the overwhelming majority of that part of another country wanted nothing more to do with that country after an illegal coup, held a refferendum to join the Russian Federation, I see no problem with this. Call it what you will.

Oh please, what we call nowadays, fake news. The referendum was fake or to put it in a more democratic way, the referendum wasn't up to democratic standards, organizing that in a defacto warzone and all within a week, so no fair discussion, no room for opposition forces, alleged fraude (even Russian studies dais so) nobody except the RF and Belarus are accepting the "referendum", that tells you something. And even Putin said that the little green man were Russian soldiers, nothing less. So it is what it is, an illegal annexation.

And the illegality of the coup. Well that is something up for debate.

You are walking the party line here.

Dutchy wrote:

tu204 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Russia annexed part of another country, Russian troops are "vacationing" in eastern Ukraine with quite heavy weapons. The west didn't support anything like that.

Hey sure, if you want to call it "annexed", why not.

When the overwhelming majority of that part of another country wanted nothing more to do with that country after an illegal coup, held a refferendum to join the Russian Federation, I see no problem with this. Call it what you will.

Oh please, what we call nowadays, fake news. The referendum was fake or to put it in a more democratic way, the referendum wasn't up to democratic standards, organizing that in a defacto warzone and all within a week, so no fair discussion, no room for opposition forces, alleged fraude (even Russian studies dais so) nobody except the RF and Belarus are accepting the "referendum", that tells you something. And even Putin said that the little green man were Russian soldiers, nothing less. So it is what it is, an illegal annexation.

And the illegality of the coup. Well that is something up for debate.

You are walking the party line here.

As I said earliers, call it what you want. Crimean people did not want to be a part of Ukraine when it was more or less a functional country and the coup was the last straw. I actually visited Crimea and talked to the locals, you see? Can you say the same?

tu204 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

tu204 wrote:

Hey sure, if you want to call it "annexed", why not.

When the overwhelming majority of that part of another country wanted nothing more to do with that country after an illegal coup, held a refferendum to join the Russian Federation, I see no problem with this. Call it what you will.

Oh please, what we call nowadays, fake news. The referendum was fake or to put it in a more democratic way, the referendum wasn't up to democratic standards, organizing that in a defacto warzone and all within a week, so no fair discussion, no room for opposition forces, alleged fraude (even Russian studies dais so) nobody except the RF and Belarus are accepting the "referendum", that tells you something. And even Putin said that the little green man were Russian soldiers, nothing less. So it is what it is, an illegal annexation.

And the illegality of the coup. Well that is something up for debate.

You are walking the party line here.

As I said earliers, call it what you want. Crimean people did not want to be a part of Ukraine when it was more or less a functional country and the coup was the last straw. I actually visited Crimea and talked to the locals, you see? Can you say the same?

Actually I have been there. But that is besides the point, it is anecdotic evidence at best, so no evidence at all. And even that is besides the point. I believe in international law and Putins Russia doesn't. It is an illegal annexation. Referendum was a farce. If there was a true independent referendum, like the Scottish one, then I have no problem with the outcome. Now it is the first land illegal land grabbed by another European country since Hitler.

In a surprise move Russia allows visa free entry to its far east region for nationals of several Islamic countries and six non-Islamic ones, they even chose increasingly conservative Brunei, but not Indonesia and Malaysia http://tass.com/world/941727

Dutchy wrote:

yes we need to be very harsh on those refugees, fleeing a place of war or abuse of human rights, what were they thinking!

"Fleeing a place of war" - oh please. You have only 22% of refugees from Syrian and 11% from Afghanistan. What about the remaining 67% and what war are they fleeing from? And - there are many other perfectly safe countries in EU, and some of these refugees get allocated to those. Out of a few hundreds of refugees sent to Baltic states none left there - they all look for ways to get to Germany, France, Britain. In addition, 20% of refugees are women, 20% are children, which makes 40% for young single men.

I guess you need to examine again what are they "fleeing" from? The countries I mentioned are known for their generous welfare benefits. Could it be they are fleeing from the need to work and support themselves, and live off someone else's taxes, even though some of those are already shelling away more than half of their earnings? Or - perhaps work for cash, do some drug dealing? I think you guys need to put some critical thinking to your "human rights" stuff.

CanadaFair wrote:

In a surprise move Russia allows visa free entry to its far east region for nationals of several Islamic countries and six non-Islamic ones, they even chose increasingly conservative Brunei, but not Indonesia and Malaysia http://tass.com/world/941727

Russians are very reasonable with visa-free entry agreements, but only if they are mutual. Such agreements are in place with South Korea; they even have some visa-free agreements with North Korea, but only for residents of Far East for Rason economic zone visits. Russia and NK are in talks of abandoning visas entirely, but not sure what chance does that have.

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

yes we need to be very harsh on those refugees, fleeing a place of war or abuse of human rights, what were they thinking!

"Fleeing a place of war" - oh please. You have only 22% of refugees from Syrian and 11% from Afghanistan. What about the remaining 67% and what war are they fleeing from? And - there are many other perfectly safe countries in EU, and some of these refugees get allocated to those. Out of a few hundreds of refugees sent to Baltic states none left there - they all look for ways to get to Germany, France, Britain. In addition, 20% of refugees are women, 20% are children, which makes 40% for young single men.

I guess you need to examine again what are they "fleeing" from? The countries I mentioned are known for their generous welfare benefits. Could it be they are fleeing from the need to work and support themselves, and live off someone else's taxes, even though some of those are already shelling away more than half of their earnings? Or - perhaps work for cash, do some drug dealing? I think you guys need to put some critical thinking to your "human rights" stuff.

Oh, only in Syria and Afghanistan are at war and only there, there are human right abuses. I was misinformed then, thanks for putting me straight. "Refugees" needs to go back, 67% o them, problem solved.

Dutchy wrote:

Oh, only in Syria and Afghanistan are at war and only there, there are human right abuses. I was misinformed then, thanks for putting me straight. "Refugees" needs to go back, 67% o them, problem solved.

I think it's even simpler than that. What you guys can try over there is replace welfare assistance with work permit (it can be EU-wide even), and you won't even need to send them back. To your surprise you will find that human rights situation in most of those places is mostly fine, and even wars in Syria and Afghanistan isn't much of an issue for many. That's pretty much it.

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Oh, only in Syria and Afghanistan are at war and only there, there are human right abuses. I was misinformed then, thanks for putting me straight. "Refugees" needs to go back, 67% o them, problem solved.

I think it's even simpler than that. What you guys can try over there is replace welfare assistance with work permit (it can be EU-wide even), and you won't even need to send them back. To your surprise you will find that human rights situation in most of those places is mostly fine, and even wars in Syria and Afghanistan isn't much of an issue for many. That's pretty much it.

There are work permits, even EU-wide ones. And if a country is safe, people have to go back, if people have to go back, then there is no welfare system for them. And I don't know what your standard for human rights situation is, but in most countries, it isn't just "fine". The EU has a problem with illegal immigrants from Africa, but like I said, they are not allegeable for welfare and they have to go, but for those people a bit more relaxed permit system might work.

And Syria is a safe country, no problems there? Do you follow the news at all?

Dutchy wrote:

There are work permits, even EU-wide ones. And if a country is safe, people have to go back, if people have to go back, then there is no welfare system for them. And I don't know what your standard for human rights situation is, but in most countries, it isn't just "fine". The EU has a problem with illegal immigrants from Africa, but like I said, they are not allegeable for welfare and they have to go, but for those people a bit more relaxed permit system might work.

And Syria is a safe country, no problems there? Do you follow the news at all?

Yes, there are work permits, but what percentage of "refugees" are gainfully employed? Out of like 160K refugees arrived to Sweden, it's like 500 that have employment. What about the rest? One surprise. Another surprise - why these refugees pass so many other safe countries on their way and end up in France, Germany somehow? Scandinavians were looking surprised - how is it that "the refugees are just shopping for a country in EU". And it's pretty much clear what they are shopping for. Hence - you might just try to think what will they do if you leave them with just work permit. So what do you think will they do?

Dutchy wrote:

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

yes we need to be very harsh on those refugees, fleeing a place of war or abuse of human rights, what were they thinking!

"Fleeing a place of war" - oh please. You have only 22% of refugees from Syrian and 11% from Afghanistan. What about the remaining 67% and what war are they fleeing from? And - there are many other perfectly safe countries in EU, and some of these refugees get allocated to those. Out of a few hundreds of refugees sent to Baltic states none left there - they all look for ways to get to Germany, France, Britain. In addition, 20% of refugees are women, 20% are children, which makes 40% for young single men.

I guess you need to examine again what are they "fleeing" from? The countries I mentioned are known for their generous welfare benefits. Could it be they are fleeing from the need to work and support themselves, and live off someone else's taxes, even though some of those are already shelling away more than half of their earnings? Or - perhaps work for cash, do some drug dealing? I think you guys need to put some critical thinking to your "human rights" stuff.

Oh, only in Syria and Afghanistan are at war and only there, there are human right abuses. I was misinformed then, thanks for putting me straight. "Refugees" needs to go back, 67% o them, problem solved.

You miss the point. Why is it that you as a citizen of the Netherlands (I presume) must let in people that have never paid a cent to your welfare system into your country? Especially if you know they are unlikely to put into that system?

tu204 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

anrec80 wrote:

"Fleeing a place of war" - oh please. You have only 22% of refugees from Syrian and 11% from Afghanistan. What about the remaining 67% and what war are they fleeing from? And - there are many other perfectly safe countries in EU, and some of these refugees get allocated to those. Out of a few hundreds of refugees sent to Baltic states none left there - they all look for ways to get to Germany, France, Britain. In addition, 20% of refugees are women, 20% are children, which makes 40% for young single men.

I guess you need to examine again what are they "fleeing" from? The countries I mentioned are known for their generous welfare benefits. Could it be they are fleeing from the need to work and support themselves, and live off someone else's taxes, even though some of those are already shelling away more than half of their earnings? Or - perhaps work for cash, do some drug dealing? I think you guys need to put some critical thinking to your "human rights" stuff.

Oh, only in Syria and Afghanistan are at war and only there, there are human right abuses. I was misinformed then, thanks for putting me straight. "Refugees" needs to go back, 67% o them, problem solved.

You miss the point. Why is it that you as a citizen of the Netherlands (I presume) must let in people that have never paid a cent to your welfare system into your country? Especially if you know they are unlikely to put into that system?

Why protect people from war or human right violations? If you look at it only from an economic standpoint, why pay for people whom we know will never contribute at all? Handicaps for instance. The UN refugee treaty guarantees safety for people whom are refugees conform the criteria. That's why they are welcome in the Netherlands. And if we let people in, they are part of our society, with all the benefits and drawbacks.

Dutchy wrote:

Why protect people from war or human right violations? If you look at it only from an economic standpoint, why pay for people whom we know will never contribute at all? Handicaps for instance. The UN refugee treaty guarantees safety for people whom are refugees conform the criteria. That's why they are welcome in the Netherlands. And if we let people in, they are part of our society, with all the benefits and drawbacks.

Let's keep these things ordered up and separate - protection and welfare.

Protection aspect is achieved by you letting them into your country and providing some legal status for them to live, work and contribute. Done. Welfare has nothing to do here. Now - it's a two-way street. Once a refugee is let into the country, they need to be explained how people live and work here, what are the customs and laws here like, and what is expected from them in return. First expectation - once they are out of the refugee "boot-camp", they must make it their priority (with help of authorities and volunteer organizations) to find work so that they upkeep themselves and pay a fair market rent for the place of their choosing. Second - they must work legally and pay taxes, just as everyone else in the country does. No work for cash common in migrant communities. If they open a business, the business must also be operated in a strict compliance matter. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly - they must not break the law, regardless - no fighting, violence, tax evasion, drug dealing, participating in organized crime, etc. Their rent must be paid on time, as well as public transit fare. And the state must be strong and clear about it - by accepting the refuge, you are entering the contract; you break it - you are out within 72 hours, regardless what's going on in your home country. If you are to accept refugees - only on these terms.

Speaking of providing welfare - you should not be putting that on all taxpayers. If you want, you can create a charity and collect donations for refugees support and welfare. But to do it or not - leave this decision up to the person that made the money, and don't take it away in form of taxes.

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Why protect people from war or human right violations? If you look at it only from an economic standpoint, why pay for people whom we know will never contribute at all? Handicaps for instance. The UN refugee treaty guarantees safety for people whom are refugees conform the criteria. That's why they are welcome in the Netherlands. And if we let people in, they are part of our society, with all the benefits and drawbacks.

Let's keep these things ordered up and separate - protection and welfare.

Protection aspect is achieved by you letting them into your country and providing some legal status for them to live, work and contribute. Done. Welfare has nothing to do here. Now - it's a two-way street. Once a refugee is let into the country, they need to be explained how people live and work here, what are the customs and laws here like, and what is expected from them in return. First expectation - once they are out of the refugee "boot-camp", they must make it their priority (with help of authorities and volunteer organizations) to find work so that they upkeep themselves and pay a fair market rent for the place of their choosing. Second - they must work legally and pay taxes, just as everyone else in the country does. No work for cash common in migrant communities. If they open a business, the business must also be operated in a strict compliance matter. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly - they must not break the law, regardless - no fighting, violence, tax evasion, drug dealing, participating in organised crime, etc. Their rent must be paid on time, as well as public transit fare. And the state must be strong and clear about it - by accepting the refuge, you are entering the contract; you break it - you are out within 72 hours, regardless what's going on in your home country. If you are to accept refugees - only on these terms.

Speaking of providing welfare - you should not be putting that on all taxpayers. If you want, you can create a charity and collect donations for refugees support and welfare. But to do it or not - leave this decision up to the person that made the money, and don't take it away in form of taxes.

Ok, I understand what you are getting at. It actually works like that in The Netherlands, except there is a safety net provided like there is for all inhabitants.
I see a few problems with your solution:
- you are in violation of the UN refugee treaty, you can't send people away to war zones or to a place where there is a direct threat to their person.
- from a social point of view: not very good to have a group in your society which has nothing to fall back on. And with the added stress if I do something wrong the consequences would be dire.

So not really a society which I would like to live. There is a group in The Netherlands that live kind of like that. People whom must leave the country, but can't because their home country isn't taking them back. So they are provided with bread, bath and bed, nothing more. So enough to keep them a live and nothing else.

that was terrible. I visited st Petersburg once, amazing city with awesome people. Hope that all those guilty will be punished.

Dutchy wrote:

tu204 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Oh, only in Syria and Afghanistan are at war and only there, there are human right abuses. I was misinformed then, thanks for putting me straight. "Refugees" needs to go back, 67% o them, problem solved.

You miss the point. Why is it that you as a citizen of the Netherlands (I presume) must let in people that have never paid a cent to your welfare system into your country? Especially if you know they are unlikely to put into that system?

Why protect people from war or human right violations? If you look at it only from an economic standpoint, why pay for people whom we know will never contribute at all? Handicaps for instance. The UN refugee treaty guarantees safety for people whom are refugees conform the criteria. That's why they are welcome in the Netherlands. And if we let people in, they are part of our society, with all the benefits and drawbacks.

That is your personal interpretation of the UN Refugee treaty. To sum it up, it states that states must step in to provide safe haven for those whose lives are in immenent danger. Nowhere does it say that you must provide them with a standard of living equal or greater than your own.

I cannot say much about the situation in the Netherlands, but in my former home of Canada I can tell you that refugees that had no desire to work had more subsidies and straight out payouts from the government than unemployed Canadians whose grandfathers and great-grandfathers built that country. Trust me, first hand experience here, a quarter to a thrid of my class in Grades 4-9 were immigrants and refugees from Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and so on. Personally that sickened me and was one of the reasons why I emigrated from Canada. Russia approach to refugees may not be perfect, but I think the idea of providing safe haven and a minimal allowance along with some half-decent housing plus the oppertunity to work here without much of an oppertunity to stay here as immigrants that automatically start draining the system is a much better approach to this problem.

tu204 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

tu204 wrote:

You miss the point. Why is it that you as a citizen of the Netherlands (I presume) must let in people that have never paid a cent to your welfare system into your country? Especially if you know they are unlikely to put into that system?

Why protect people from war or human right violations? If you look at it only from an economic standpoint, why pay for people whom we know will never contribute at all? Handicaps for instance. The UN refugee treaty guarantees safety for people whom are refugees conform the criteria. That's why they are welcome in the Netherlands. And if we let people in, they are part of our society, with all the benefits and drawbacks.

That is your personal interpretation of the UN Refugee treaty. To sum it up, it states that states must step in to provide safe haven for those whose lives are in immenent danger. Nowhere does it say that you must provide them with a standard of living equal or greater than your own.

I cannot say much about the situation in the Netherlands, but in my former home of Canada I can tell you that refugees that had no desire to work had more subsidies and straight out payouts from the government than unemployed Canadians whose grandfathers and great-grandfathers built that country. Trust me, first hand experience here, a quarter to a thrid of my class in Grades 4-9 were immigrants and refugees from Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and so on. Personally that sickened me and was one of the reasons why I emigrated from Canada. Russia approach to refugees may not be perfect, but I think the idea of providing safe haven and a minimal allowance along with some half-decent housing plus the oppertunity to work here without much of an oppertunity to stay here as immigrants that automatically start draining the system is a much better approach to this problem.

I said two things, UN Refugee treaty won't let you send back refugee's if they go over the line. Secondly, I said it is not desirable if a group in your society has fewer rights than others and in the end might end up in the streets if they can't earn enough. Most refugees will stay in The Netherlands at least, they have the right to, if the war or human rights situation isn't better in five years after they have been granted the right off refugee status. So the question remains, what is the best method to integrate these people in our society given that they probably will be here for the rest of their lives and the lives of their offspring.

tu204 wrote:

You miss the point. Why is it that you as a citizen of the Netherlands (I presume) must let in people that have never paid a cent to your welfare system into your country? Especially if you know they are unlikely to put into that system?

Isn't this what Russia just did with Crimea ? Didn't Russia have to raise the pensions of Crimean pensioners, for example ?

Dutchy wrote:

Ok, I understand what you are getting at. It actually works like that in The Netherlands, except there is a safety net provided like there is for all inhabitants.
I see a few problems with your solution:
- you are in violation of the UN refugee treaty, you can't send people away to war zones or to a place where there is a direct threat to their person.
- from a social point of view: not very good to have a group in your society which has nothing to fall back on. And with the added stress if I do something wrong the consequences would be dire.

So not really a society which I would like to live. There is a group in The Netherlands that live kind of like that. People whom must leave the country, but can't because their home country isn't taking them back. So they are provided with bread, bath and bed, nothing more. So enough to keep them a live and nothing else.

Speaking of treaties, I wouldn't be participating in any treaty that would make me keep in the country and roaming free people who pose danger - law breakers, potential ISIS or other extremist organizations members. Such treaties should be reviewed or exited. And yes - they must understand if they do something wrong beyond something small - yes, consequences may be dire, and it's OK. But during normal life you don't do things like that - even with immigrants I wouldn't care much about some small municipal 40 euro garbage fine or a speeding ticket. That relieves pretty much all the stress.

Speaking of social safety net. There always are plenty of low-skilled demand across the whole EU. The safety net for them should be willingness to move to a location they can get gainful employment at, at least until they score 5-7 years of social system contributions. Too good safety net is just a magnet for refugees and all sorts of other shady dudes. They can go to Poland or Baltic states; nobody will oppress them there, but they don't want to - there they have to work.

Dutchy wrote:

I said two things, UN Refugee treaty won't let you send back refugee's if they go over the line. Secondly, I said it is not desirable if a group in your society has fewer rights than others and in the end might end up in the streets if they can't earn enough. Most refugees will stay in The Netherlands at least, they have the right to, if the war or human rights situation isn't better in five years after they have been granted the right off refugee status. So the question remains, what is the best method to integrate these people in our society given that they probably will be here for the rest of their lives and the lives of their offspring.

I can tell you as someone who migrated twice - from Ukraine to Canada, and then to USA. And very likely will move to Netherlands in a bit, once we are at it. You can't integrate someone beyond their will - that simply doesn't happen. You should not regard that as your responsibility or your problem. They must have incentives and pressure to integrate - learn language, learn to work and contribute, get education, improve themselves. Generous social safety net kills those incentives. You need to monitor the situation in their country every 3 months, and as soon as it's deemed improved or the refugee can no longer prove continued need in protection - they should say "thank you" and go home. Those who integrated, learned language, showed to be good citizens and got into career field - can qualify for Skilled Migrant requirements and are welcome to stay, no problem. Migration and changing a country is always stressful - it's just how it is.

With your 52% taxes you are already taking on twice more than what you should be, and it's time to pay some attention to your taxpayers. Most of them are living modestly, and for them extra 200-300 euros per month will also be a big stress relief.