piątek, 29 stycznia 2016

imigracja

Zadałem sobie trud i przeczytałem ok. połowy ze 107 komentarzy pod wczorajszym artykułem o imigracyjnej polityce Angeli Merkel. Chodzi o Financial Times, artykuł jest umiarkowanie przychylny pani Kanclerz, komentarze zaś w 100% krytyczne.
Przyznaję, że nawet dla mnie-sceptyka wobec poczynań niemieckiego rządu, są to reakcje szokujące. Chodzi w końcu nie o jakieś skrajnie eurosceptyczne pisemko, ale o jedną z bardziej poważanych gazet na świecie i o dość elitarny profil czytelniczy. Krytyka jest mniej lub bardziej wyważona, ale nie brakuje też po prostu stwierdzeń typu: "Merkel niszczy Europę" albo "Merkel musi odejść".
Do czego doprowadzi taki rozdźwięk między częścią politycznych elit i głównych mediów a resztą społeczeństwa?


Tytuł tekstu: Hard-headed humanity can save Angela Merkel
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/fe07dfce-c41d-11e5-b3b1-7b2481276e45.html#axzz3ybpVSxXu

Wklejam przykładowo kilkanaście pierwszych komentarzy:

####

Anon 1 day ago


St. Angela, who saveth the immigrants, hallowed be thy name.

Listen not to these bigoted commenters who do not understand empathy or compassion.

Let them learn the errors of their ways and come back into the fold in good time.
ReportShare
13Recommend
CMH 1 day ago

I wonder how long it will take for the english-speaking media to just give up the spin control on Angela Merkel. She's hated, isolated and ruining her party's chances in 2017. Let it go
ReportShare
32Recommend
Redbox 1 day ago

Strikes me that the bottom line is " Germany is the problem . . . . yet again."
ReportShare
23Recommend
Wenren 1 day ago


First, pray tell, why does Angela Merkel need saving?

This naive essay underscores a persistent set of fantasies that the west has about the Mideast: that the west can fix anything in the Mideast with democracy, drones, regime change, capital and failing that, immigration. The west should finally come to realize that the only stability in the Mideast comes from nasty, brutish dictators -- you know the kind that can keep Sunni, Shia and various tribal groups from killing each other. Yeah, I know, it's not the kind of thing you bring up at an Oxbridge sort of cocktail party.
ReportShare
50Recommend
Harlington Jock 1 day ago

There are a lot of words but you don't appear to be saying very much.
ReportShare
25Recommend
Metrodorus 1 day ago

Europe is being steadily colonized by groups who are totally antagonistic to its values. It might be a good idea for the FT to hire a journalist capable of appreciating what is at stake, namely: Secular values, openness, freedom of thought and inquiry, equal treatment of men and women and wider societal cohesiveness. It took the European enlightenment hundreds of years to humble Christianity. This progress is about to be thrown away in a matter of a few decades due to the folly of the present political class and their ludicrous multicultural nostrums.
ReportShare
103Recommend
Capt2industry 1 day ago


I agree with the general consensus highlighted by the vast majority of comments:

1. Philip Stephens has misjudged his readership's lack of support for Merkel's open door policy.

2. A million migrants landed last year, a million + are likely coming in 2016, 2017...etc..

3. No one seems to have a plan for stemming the flow, separating the deserving (refugees) from the undeserving (economic migrants), integrating the deserving and returning the undeserving.

4. Simply pretending that we should all simply shrug and accept this situation as unsolvable is pathetic.

Philip Stephens and Gideon Rachman look at the demographics and the push/pull factors and have decided that nothing can stop the tide. However simply because the solution requires tough decisions and hard choices doesn't make it impossible...its called Leadership.

As a proposal:

1. Deploy a multinational naval task force to turn the boats back. This will require significant but available resources (could the US Navy/Coast Guard support) and an unambiguous policy that allows naval officers the mandate to turn the boats around. Based on the premise that every boat that successfully lands in EU encourages another to leave port.

2. Set up EU consul centers in Turkey and other main port of origin nations (Malta etc) to process genuine Syrian & Iraqi refugees. Refuse entry for all others.

3. Genuinely help finance refugee camps, so that the brains that Syria will need to rebuild do not just disappear into Europe, but remain engaged with Syria's politics, culture and future.
ReportShare
70Recommend
me@brussels 1 day ago

@Capt2industry Your proposal is not far from what was suggested by the EU a little while ago; 1. message that EU is open for those who have a valid reason to seek asylum, 2. intense diplomatic activity to establish relations with those countries through which migrants travel and develop processing centres/ hubs, 3. process migrants at source and along the migrant routes outside of Europe (turn those back failing the criteria or move those who pass to the next "station" of processing), 4. maintain the humanitarian line by actually moving the migrants ourselves (and thus avoiding the risks of death/ exposure etc on the high seas etc) and provding adequate shelter, protection etc. This would indeed have satisfied the author's three pillars of bureaucracy (control), money and diplomacy. Just a pity that the EU can't quite get it together at the moment and some member states are starting to lose patience. As you rightly say, some strong leadership required amongst member states' governments and within the EU. Now is not the time to go our separate ways but rather to come together as a cohesive force to tackle the problem.
ReportShare
4Recommend
Capt2industry 1 day ago

@me@brussels @Capt2industry I agree but like Central Bankers, the EU leadership have to be incredibly careful about the language they use. When leaders say "The EU is open for those who have valid reason to seek asylum." Economic migrants hear "The EU is open." And that is enough to upsticks and risk the journey.
ReportShare
8Recommend
Mr Data 1 day ago

It is not the 1.1 million that is the problem. It is the 60 million refugees according to the UN who are on their way. Merkel continues to hold out the promise of a better life here and that they are all welcome to come as there is no limit as to how many immigrants Germany will take in; all they have to do is come. I do not blame them for being confused at why they are being stopped at every turn, when all they want to do is get to Germany and move into (as they have interpreted it) their flat and start a new job the next day and quickly arrange to bring their spouse, kids, parents, siblings and family over.
ReportShare
45Recommend
innocent_bystander 1 day ago


Merkel doesn't give a second thought about refugees, what she really cares about is (i) votes and (ii) her place in history. Her policies follow her polls (4 times as many as any chancellor before her). That's exactly how her U-turn on migration policy came about in September and that is why she did a 180 on energy / nuclear policy. Now that public opinion viz migration swings the other way, wait for another Merkellian U-turn.

Impressive choice for Person of the Year...
ReportShare
12Recommend
Stina Andersson 1 day ago


"in Ms Merkel’s case, a willingness to leave behind those swept up by Islamophobia."

Interesting that Mr Stephens are defining political dissent as a kind of mental ilness.

Stright from Yuri Andropovs playbook. Do any FT reader remember Bokovsky, Sharanski etc. All treated for Sovietphobia in mental hospitals.
ReportShare
50Recommend
Adam Pharaoh 1 day ago


An astonishingly naive and elitist article.

But the comments are well worth the subscription.

Mr Stephens, please ask yourself if the readers who make comments are really all simple minded right wing populist supporting ignoramuses. And then ask yourself if perhaps you're misreading the gravity of Merkel's mistake.


ReportShare
96Recommend
Trutheludes 1 day ago


@Adam Pharaoh

@ But the comments are well worth the subscription.

Wow!

Could FT then being deliberately provocative to keep subscriptions high? I am afraid for FT that someday fatigue might set in among its readers to respond to such frequent uncongenial articles. If this happens will the subscription go down too?
ReportShare
9Recommend
Lars McShane 1 day ago


I am a long time admirer of Phillip Stephen usually articulate and perceptive commentaries, but I'm afraid Philip is surprisingly behind the curve on this one. He should re-read his own colleague Martin Wolf's insightful analysis in yesterday's paper. It is not the 1m migrants already in Europe that is the core of the problem, but the fact that Governments seem powerless to get a grip on the flood of migrants, which will continue, and will polarise our communities in a way that is potentially very dangerous as MW suggested. It is destabilising even many who have been long term supporters of multiculturalism.

On top of that is the lack of any serious analysis of violent Islamic fundamentalism against unbelievers which is rooted firmly in the text of the Koran. Please read it carefully. Moderate scholars who concentrate on contradictory peaceful passages and try to place the texts in their time and place for interpretation purposes are always going to be trumped by Wahhabism and other violent interpretations because the texts give explicit and repeated support to the killing of unbelievers. While the majority of Muslims want a religion with peace at it's heart, and are full of humanity they want to share with the rest of the human race, those who chose a violent path will always be able to quote scripture in their justification, and use for propaganda to recruit the many disaffected to their ranks. Since the majority of unbelievers in the world are targeted by this violence, it's high time we started an open debate about its source, and indeed the historical and human context in which these sources were written. The debate of course must be carried out in a sensitive way, but it must be honest and truthful. We must know what is confronting us, and try to find ways of extracting the venom, difficult as it will be.
ReportShare
54Recommend
William Thayer Sr 1 day ago


Get rid of Merkel.

The 1 million Syrian refugees (which include how many terrorists) should have gone to Saudi Arabia. They have the space, the money and Sharia law.



This is just another example of the elites (Merkel etc.) making a crucial decision that leaves out the people. Wouldn't it have been more democratic to put the decision to accept these 1 million Muslim immigrants to a vote by referendum. I bet at least 70% would vote no.



All of these 1 million Syrians are on welfare. They need jobs. But so do 10% of the European workforce. Youth unemployment is getting close to 40-50%. Why don't the European leaders think about their own unemployed first (called losers by some).