
Doctors Without Borders doesn't take money from EU anymore - Tomte
http://www.msf.org/en/article/20160617-eu-states%E2%80%99-dangerous-approach-migration-places-asylum-jeopardy-worldwide
======
dzaragozar
Why is the EU the only responsible for refugees? Why not other states? Why not
Russia, the Gulf states, Japan or the United States? It is getting tiring the
bashing against the EU.

The EU is getting refugees at the rate it deems convenient, if some other
state is worried about the situation in Syria please take refugees, but please
stop labeling the EU as evil.

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
The EU is the closet first world region. And they are signers to the
convention.

Arab world is helping...havent you heard about the huge refugee camps in
Jordan?

~~~
dzaragozar
Being close is no excuse in this globalized world. Also to take refugees there
is no need to be a first world country. I should have included China in my
previous list.

Completely true, but Jordan is not the only Arab country able to help.

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
There is also the economic realism that labor will naturally move to where it
thinks it can be best off. China is relatively over-populated.

Closeness is an important factor when you realize that there are lots of
refugees and that their wealth has been wiped out by war. So while the
refugees might have enough money to hike or get a boat or plane ticket, they
surely can't afford to fly across the world. And no one should be forced to
pay to fly them, either. All they want is the opportunity to build a better
life for themselves.

------
toyg
Uh, regardless of your stance on the specific topic (refugee handling), isn't
this simply a tactical mistake?

Let's say the EU is your enemy. They offer you money. Is it tactically smarter
to flatly refuse the money (you are poorer, your enemy is marginally richer,
nothing has changed) or rather to accept the money and then use it to fight
the donor (you are richer, your enemy is marginally poorer and you are
effectively turning its resources against itself)?

It feels a lot like cutting your own nose to spite the wife.

~~~
nxzero
Say you are a non-profit that helps drug addicts, should you take money from
drug dealers?

~~~
ferbivore
If you can find a drug dealer dumb enough to give you money, it would be
irresponsible to not take it. That said, your situation has practically
nothing in common with MSF's.

~~~
nxzero
Untrue. Drug dealers often fund rehabilitation groups; good way to find
customers, double profits, identify rats, etc. True rehab centers would never
take funds from a dealer, and would be happy to go out of business because
there were no more addicts in the world.

Refugees in the EU would not need Doctors Without Borders; in Turkey, refugees
will need Doctors Without Borders.

If the EU wants to help Doctors Without Borders' mission, then it needs to
take refugees and help them, not make more refugees Doctors Without Borders to
help.

~~~
ferbivore
I didn't realise you meant "take money and also give them your client list in
return". If you're going to add strings like that to your question, the answer
will obviously be no.

------
jkot
It is very inefficient to bring people to Germany and other western countries
in order to help them. We could help one person in Germany, or another 10
people in Turkey for the same money.

Most people coming to Europe are economic migrantw, not from countries
affected by war. Refugees who can not afford $4000 for transport are left
without help.

It all started when Turkey asked for humanitarian aid. Merkel would not send
money, but open invitation. It is all one big virtue signaling, most people do
not really care about some people in Africa or Asia.

~~~
timtammittee
> Most people coming to Europe are economic migrantw, not from countries
> affected by war.

Where do you get this information.

If you talk about asylum seekers (The majority of the current inbound
traffic), you can look up the numbers yourself they are published as datasets
by the UNHCR [1]

Looking at the top 5 origin states of asylum seekers for 2015 and 2016
reveals:

Syrian Arab Rep. 30.5% Afghanistan 18.1% Iraq 11.9% Serbia and Kosovo 3.5%
Pakistan 2.9%

So more then 60% of the 2.7M asylum seekers are from Syria, Afganistan or Iraq
all of which are currently in a state of conflict.

[1]
[http://popstats.unhcr.org/en/asylum_seekers_monthly](http://popstats.unhcr.org/en/asylum_seekers_monthly)

~~~
DominikR
This data is incomplete. For Germany it says that they had 440.000 asylum
applications in 2015 even though Merkel herself said that they took in over a
million in 2015.

Apparently it was 1.1 million registered refugees for Germany alone in 2015.
Of these only 476.649 submitted a formal asylum request. Edit: And you can bet
that there's a large number of migrants that didn't even register, the
minister of interior in Germany even said that there's an issue with a large
number of refugees of whom no one knows who they are, where they are and what
they are doing here.

Who knows what the rest of them is doing here if they do not even bother to
submit an asylum request.

So please don't tell me how 60% of asylum seekers are real refugees, the
majority doesn't even try because they are probably smart enough to know that
there's no chance that they'll be accepted.

Source:
[http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/fluechtlingskrise/deutsch...](http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/fluechtlingskrise/deutschland-476-649-asylantraege-
im-jahr-2015-14000143.html) (German, sorry - but this is one of the largest
pro government online media)

~~~
timtammittee
I admit that these numbers do not include people who did not apply for asylum.

But in your own source theres a chart showing the distribution of all 1.0919M
registered entries.

39.2% Syrian 14.1% Afganistan 11.1% Irak

I'd say even though not all of the 1.1M register as asylum seekers (or have
not yet registered). Their distribution is quite similar to that of the people
who registered.

~~~
DominikR
Most applicants from Afghanistan are not granted asylum at the moment. The
problem is that Afghanistan isn't willing to take them back.

Also it isn't like everyone from Iraq is given asylum.

Oh and btw - NGOs in Europe are actively teaching prospective asylum seekers
to say they are from Syria. Most of them do not even speak Arabic.

Edit: reply to comment below:

Please see this comment:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=11928413](https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=11928413)

"More than half of those fleeing to Europe from the Middle East and Africa are
economic migrants and not asylum seekers fleeing the horrors of war in Iraq or
Syria, according to first vice-president of the European Commission, Frans
Timmermans.

~~~
timtammittee
In the Frontex Western Balkans Annual Risk Analysis 2016 Frontex investigated
Nationality swapping and they found:

"In 2015, 173 042 migrants who claimed Syrian nationality were screened; of
which 85.8% were assumed by screeners to be Syrian nationals. As regards the
rest, 8.6% were assumed to be Iraqi; 2.5% Palestinian, 1% Moroccan, and 2.1%
were assumed to be of other nationality."

So yes, 14.2% of the people who claimed to be from Syria really originated
somewhere else. But, if we again sum up those who come from a country who is
currently in a state of conflict (I included Palestine), we gain 97%.

Edit: Also, you should note that people are screened again during the process
of applying for asylum. So I guess the number of wrongly assigned
nationalities is neglectable.

------
CydeWeys
A lot of the rapid shift in migration policy has been caused by the increasing
prevalence of the view that a lot of refugees will never fit into "polite
society". Reference the various sexual assaults across European countries by
roving gangs of young men used to very different cultural mores who aren't
assimilating culturally.

If the choice comes down to protecting refugees or protecting your own society
and the more vulnerable people within it, and that's what it's looking like to
a lot of people, then your choice becomes obvious.

~~~
panic
The vast majority of refugees aren't committing sexual assault. If you care
about reducing sexual assault, supporting domestic violence shelters and
education (e.g. programs like
[http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/prevent...](http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/prevention.html))
would be much more effective than reducing immigration. Most sexual assault
occurs between people who already know one another, not random foreign
strangers.

~~~
cjhpufe
No, but the attitudes of males from Islamic culture towards women tend to be
very much at odds with what we expect in modern Western society. This is a
burgeoning problem as we admit more refugees from Islamic states. See for
example
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35353310](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35353310)

------
Freestyler_3
I do not wish harm for any innocent people. If they want they can get what we
have in their own country, they need to make that possible though, if needed
with our help. (I think there should be more focus on taking care of refugees
and the like in the region... or at least more in countries that support their
culture) Only when really necessary we need to take refugees into europe for
protection, usually those are political refugees. We make something good for
our children and we -have- to share it with the whole world in our house?

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "We make something good for our children and we -have- to share it with the
whole world in our house?"

You mean you got lucky to be born somewhere that isn't currently at war and
now you feel entitled to what you were born into?

~~~
Freestyler_3
Yes, because it is my heritage. My family history made it happen, and many
families around us. I am a child of my mother and not a random baby thrown on
a random spot on earth, I carry the burden of maintaining or improving the
quality of life for my kids. \- Doesn't mean that I do not wish that everyone
in this world can have what I have, and I support helping others. \- There are
ways to come here and join our culture, enrich yourself etc. It does require
work though, and if you are not willing to do that then what are you really
doing for yourself?

~~~
k-mcgrady
And the only reason you are part of that family is luck. A Syrian refugee
didn't choose to be born in Syria at a time when they would have to face civil
war at some stage in their life. I think if the tables were turned are you had
to flee to Syria your opinion would be vastly different.

~~~
echaozh
Now, China is not in war, but, unluckily, as a Chinese, I have a lower living
standard than a European, do I automatically get a chance to be let in Europe
and enjoy whatever benefit the Europeans have? Since when has economics
stopped working in Euroupe?

------
hacksonx
South Africa has received a huge influx of refugees overs the years from
Zimbabwe, Mozambique & Nigeria. Even though the "people" have protested this
and asked for the foreigners to be deported (Legal/Illegal) the government has
not done that to humans. How a 3rd (2nd?) world country is able to accommodate
people of such numbers while 1st world countries in Europe complain is beyond
me.

~~~
dracht
So the government should ignore the concerns and wishes of the people (or
"people" as you refer to them), because they know what is just better than
anyone. When, for instance, the government decides to engage in war despite
lacking public support, you would of course approve of that. Or should they
only concern themselves with democratic principles when _you_ disagree with
their decision?

------
golergka
> sending a message that caring for people forced from their homes is optional

So, they're implying that it's mandatory? How come? Admitting foreign
citizens, spending resources on them sounds like a definition of charity — how
charity can not be optional?

~~~
dalke
Because the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, of which the EU countries are signatory, gives
special status to refugees. This status is not the same as simply "admitting
foreign citizens."

For example:

> The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions,
> refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This
> recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach
> immigration rules.

~~~
manmal
I read that most refugees pouring into the EU are there for economical
reasons, and states argue that as such they don't have to admit them. Cannot
find that article right now.

~~~
dalke
"Many" as in absolute values like "more than 1,000"? I can believe that.

Or "many" as in relative values like "more than 30%"? I have difficulties
believing that. If so, it's amazing how coincidental the timing is between the
start of the ongoing civil war in Syria and the start of the refugee crisis.

It's also amazing how the UN "has identified 13.5 million Syrians requiring
humanitarian assistance, of which 6.6 million are internally displaced within
Syria, and over 4.8 million are refugees outside of Syria." \-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_W...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War)
. Are the ones you mentioned in addition to those numbers?

~~~
GunboatDiplomat
Those number seem unbelievably high, given there are less than 18 million
Syrians total.

~~~
dalke
Umm, that's why there's a crisis.

Do you think the numbers are wrong? Why, and by how much do you think they are
wrong?

~~~
GunboatDiplomat
It's not credible that 75% of Syrians have left the country.

~~~
dalke
They haven't. The quote I gave is the total displaced population, "... of
which 6.6 million are internally displaced within Syria, and over 4.8 million
are refugees outside of Syria."

Only 5 million/18 million = 28% of the population has left the country.

------
chvid
So by the same logic they won't be taking money from the US, Australia and so
on?

------
DominikR
What is constantly ignored by the media is the fact that most people coming to
the EU illegally at the moment are not refugees but migrants that come because
their countries economy is in bad shape.

For example in Austria only about 20% of refugees are given asylum status, the
others are simply found to be illegal immigrants.

Though I can understand the motivation for these people to come we can't take
in everyone from Africa or the Middle East that would like to come.

On top of that their cultural values are incompatible with ours and this leads
to major issues between immigrants and the local population.

That's why I really don't care for this kind of activism by Doctors without
Borders. We have borders and laws that should be enforced, our politicians
can't just ignore our laws because they personally don't like them or have a
different view.

EDIT: Sorry I can't reply to thesimon below in a comment, that's why I'll put
my reply in here:

See my comment regarding Germany:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11928358](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11928358)

This data again doesn't reflect the situation. It says that we had 20.000
submitted asylum requests in 2015, even though we had 90.000 registered
refugees (who didn't formally seek asylum)

Everyone is free to guess why the other 70.000 did not submit an asylum
request.

~~~
thesimon
>For example in Austria only about 20% of refugees are given asylum status,
the others are simply found to be illegal immigrants.

[citation needed]

Official stats of May [0] saying 75% of the applications for asylum are
granted.

[0]:
[http://www.bmi.gv.at/cms/BMI_Asylwesen/statistik/files/2016/...](http://www.bmi.gv.at/cms/BMI_Asylwesen/statistik/files/2016/Asylstatistik_Mai_2016.pdf)

------
madaxe_again
They're not called refugees over here - they're "migrants". The press and our
governments insist that most of them are economic migrants, here to make a
quick buck, take your job, claim your benefits, rape your wife and daughter.
The rest are apparently IS fighters.

In the uk we now have people so filled with hate and fear of immigration that
they're murdering politicians. Many will argue that this isn't the case,
mostly those who believe the above paragraph - I don't know but "death to
traitors, freedom for Britain" when shooting an mp who is pro migrant rights
_probably_ means something.

If there's a future to look back from, this period will be looked upon with
shame.

Or more likely just written out of history, and anyone who talks about it is
called a revisionist or terror apologist.

~~~
lottin
Many people have legitimate concerns over mass migration. It's not all a bunch
of xenophobes.

~~~
madaxe_again
What are those legitimate concerns? Income depression? Housing scarcity?
Migration hasn't done that, decades of broken robber-baron policy has.

~~~
nazgob
Well, concern for the atheists is influx of deeply religious and conservative
people. Do you know what happens to atheists in societies where many of people
are coming from? Same for LGBT, woman rights etc.

------
ap3
Didn't the US attack a MSF hospital in Afghanistan a couple of months ago?

Are they still taking US money?

------
hayao
I'm fully in favour of MSF's stance, asylum seekers must have their rights
recognised. These people are fleeing war and, adding to be forced to remain in
overcrowded camps in dire conditions, they're even deprived of legal
representation. It's a country's duty to receive refugees, according to the
1951 Refugee Convention and to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[1].
EU's action gives the precedence for other states to refuse refugees access to
their own safety.

[1] -
[http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf](http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf)

~~~
ThomPete
It's not that simple.

Fleeing to a nearby country is one thing.

Being able to move all the way to Germany, Denmark or Sweden isn't exactly
being fleeing war anymore.

The irony is that it's those with most money who can afford to move the
furthest away from the refugee camps and many of those who do are men, leaving
their family behind hoping to be able to get them to the country they end up
in

60% according to some are migrants not refugees.

The problem is that the outer borders doesn't work and so once you are inside
it's very easy to move around as there have been practically no border control
inside the EU.

This is changing now.

~~~
madaxe_again
You buy the propaganda line then? Are the other 40% IS in your book?

By your argument we should just let them all sleep in a ditch next to the
border of the country they fled, because that's good enough? That is more or
less what is happening now.

Tell me. If Britain were engaged in a shooting war, would you consider the
Isle of Man safe? Or would you go further?

~~~
sorenjan
What's your take on the camps in France [0] filled with migrants trying to get
to Britain? Which wars in France are they fleeing?

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calais_Jungle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calais_Jungle)

~~~
madaxe_again
People are trying to flee to somewhere familiar, be it because of language or
brand presence. Additionally, many report they want to join family (cousins
etc) already in the uk through legal means. I'm sure there are charlatans
among them - but we are enacting collective punishment currently, which was
largely abolished centuries ago.

What's your take on the 3000 refugee a year limit the uk is working to?
(20,000 by 2020)

~~~
ThomPete
Somewhere familiar? How is Denmark or Sweden or Germany familiar to Syria?

If you flee because of war you don't care where you go, you just want to get
away from the war. Moving to Denmark or UK or Sweden is a completely different
operation.

Keep in mind that most people are left in the refugee camps near the conflict.
For every person we have to take into our welfare system we are basically not
able to provide for 10 if not hundreds of others in the actual area of the
conflict.

The idea with being an actual refugee is that you are supposed to go back once
the conflict is over and rebuild your own country. Thats not the plan of those
who move so far away.

You are trying to turn something with a lot of gray areas into som black/white
moral thing were the only right thing to do is help.

Sweden said just come everyone everyone warned them. Now they have closed the
borders and is sending 80.000 back.

This is because they didn't realize that Denmark did which is you can't just
take people in large quantity with such different cultures without it
undermining the country they are migrating to.

It's easy to play the good person when you don't have responsibility for a
country.

------
nxzero
I support Doctors Without Borders choice and strongly disagree with how the EU
is dealing the issue; and for that matter not dealing with the related issues.

Most natural way of dealing with the issue is to allow those legally escaping
a country to seek asylum wherever they're able to do so and/or to them feels
like the best place to go.

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "Most natural way of dealing with the issue is to allow those legally
escaping a country to seek asylum wherever they're able to do so and/or to
them feels like the best place to go."

The problem with that is that the first countries they tend to arrive in are
poorer European countries that don't have the necessary resources to process
them. Allowing them to choose which country they want to go to will end up
burdening the richer European countries as they will undoubtedly be the final
destination for most migrants.

I disagree with how it's being handled too but I don't think your solution
would work.

I think if we had some sort of EU organisation that works in border countries
and deals with processing and then distributes migrants fairly throughout the
continent it would be best. Processing takes so long though that it's still
going to either burden border countries or refugees will be kept in detention
centres throughout processing which is unethical in my view.

~~~
jacquesm
> Allowing them to choose which country they want to go to will end up
> burdening the richer European countries as they will undoubtedly be the
> final destination for most migrants.

Fortunately those richer countries are better equipped to handle that burden
(because they _are_ rich).

This is a complex problem and I really do not have any 5 minute solutions (I
wish), but processing taking long seems to me a problem that is mostly caused
by the receiving countries, not by the refugees.

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "Fortunately those richer countries are better equipped to handle that
burden (because they are rich)."

I agree, but if you let people choose where they want to go and they mostly
pick one of the rich countries it'll become unsustainable for them too which
is why I think an even spread across the EU with countries taking in a share
based on their wealth would work best.

>> "processing taking long seems to me a problem that is mostly caused by the
receiving countries, not by the refugees."

True, I think the bureaucracy around it is a big issue. Refugees are probably
lacking in a lot of documentation though (for obvious reasons) which can't
help. That seems like something that should be common and obvious enough to
authorities though that they can find other ways to verify identity etc.

~~~
nxzero
You're missing the point of how refugees naturally select the country that's
best able to deal with the issue.

Germany has an army, Greece does not. Turkey had an army, but the outcome of
Turkey using it's army to end the war is not the one the refugees want. Point
is to make refugees a natural point of pain as quickly as possible so that
those impacted deal with the issue, not allow it to go on and on and on.

Even worse, if allowing countries to send refugees for a fee to another
country becomes a thing, it might quickly turn into sending any unwanted
individuals to a secured location in another country; which clearly is a
horrible solution.

------
ck2
You know all the empty cities that China has built to keep people busy and
their economy from collapsing?

I keep thinking the EU and middle-eastern countries should pay China to house
immigrants there.

Better than a horrible refuge camp?

------
chinathrow
This is a perfect example of the rise of our civil society. Awesome!!

------
k_sze
And yet MSF was founded in France.

Oh the irony. It hurts.

