The refugee and the refugees: even the Dalai Lama says…
…that there are too many refugees in Europe:
“When we look into the face of every single refugee, especially the children and women, we can feel their suffering,” said the Tibetan spiritual leader, who has himself lived in exile for over half a century.
“A human being who is a bit more fortunate has the duty to help them. On the other hand, there are too many now,” he said, according to the German translation of the interview in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
“Europe, for example Germany, cannot become an Arab country,” he added with a laugh, the daily reported. “Germany is Germany.
“There are so many that in practice it becomes difficult.”
He adds that Europe should take them in, but only temporarily. This of course presents a host of problems: where are they housed in the meantime? What is their legal status? When and how do they go back, if they don’t want to and/or their countries have not gotten any better?
Of course, the current Dalai Lama himself is in exile from the Chinese takeover of his own country. That has been the case for him since 1959, heading a government in exile based in India. As such, he has a personal interest (in addition to a spiritual one) in the cause of taking in the refugee, and a personal interest as well in the repatriation of refugees and the preservation of national identities. So his attitude makes perfect—if not practical—sense.
I can’t find a translation of the entire interview, but I’ve seen no references to any remarks he might have made about the danger of terrorists arriving among the refugees. If he did not mention it, it’s an interesting—although perhaps unsurprising—omission
Actually, he’s the practical one. Only our elites think large foreign populations can be seamlessly integrated without social upheaval and/or disruption in the host culture. “Germany is Germany”– I think the Dalai Lama knows a thing or two about human nature.
The questions you ask neo, that the Dalai Lama evidently fails to address are obvious and highly relevant. That prompted me to reflect upon how often ‘spiritual leaders’ somehow neglect the practical difficulties involved in implementing their ‘suggestions’. Obvious pragmatic considerations left out of a leader’s calculus, whether spiritual, political or economic… is simply mental masturbation.
Why do we insist on calling these people refugees? We know damn well that the vast majority of these people are from peaceful countries and they’re only going to Europe to take advantage of the welfare benefits.
I suppose European politicians have to keep up the act because admitting the obvious would also mean admitting that they should never have let these people into their countries. But there’s no reason for the rest of us to play along.
baltimoron:
Because I’m quoting the Dalai Lama and writing about what HE said.
I’ve written many many posts of the subject of the “refugees” and discussed their goals and what we might know about them.
By the way, the “vast majority” of the refugees are not from “peaceful countries.” See this chart.
Certainly, there are terrorists among them, and also many more people who want to be on the dole. But many are also bona fide refugees from strife. That doesn’t mean that Europe must take them in or keep them, of course.
When constructing the narrative, “refugee” is greatly to be preferred over invader. Hijrah is peaceful, until the tipping point is reached, determined at the intersection of percentage of the population and, the cultural attachment of the natives.
neo,
It wasn’t meant as a slight against you so much as a general complaint. On the issue of where these people are from, I will point out that your numbers are based on what asylum seekers told EU officials. If a guy lands on a beach in Greece with no papers, he can say he’s from wherever it’s most convenient for him to be from. A lot of people have pointed out the oddly high number of would be immigrants who claim to be under 18, thus taking advantage of legal protections for children. Same principal.
His view that “the goal should be that they return and help rebuild their countries” is interesting but easier said than done. People are not pawns that can be moved around like chess pieces. Once a family settles in Germany or England or the U.S. it’s not so easy to pack up their things and head back the Syria or Afghanistan. Especially when they see how much better things are in Europe or the U.S.
I think there are too many refugees as well, but not because there might be terrorists among them. It’s more of an unfortunate problem for refugees and the countries that take them in – with regards to room to host them and give them education and jobs. Refugees just want a home. To be uprooted and then moved is one thing, to then be accused of being a possible terrorist by some people in the country that takes you in can’t be easy. They are caught in the middle of economic strife and politics.
baltimoron:
Yes, most definitely the statistics are not provable, and are based at least in part on self-reports, as some arrivals don’t have passports or have fake passports.
But you made a rather extreme statement with no proof, as well as no evidence that it is true in the extreme form in which you stated it:
We don’t know any such thing about the “vast majority.”
When I look at the Eurostat graph data, I see a majority coming from countries other than Syria and Afghanistan. Not a large majority, but a numerical majority. And the liars among them most probably claim to be from Syria and Afghanistan for bleeding heart purposes, making the true majority somewhat larger.
We also know a fair number are coming from West Africa, e.g. Mali, not just Nigeria.
They are mostly flies drawn to Euro-honey.
My study of photos of Syrian refugees since this started has shown them to be well-dressed and well-groomed, not tattered and torn. With a dearth of women and kids.
The black refugees are seldom photographed, for reasons of propaganda, I suspect. Not a lot of photos from the large Italian island of Lampedusa, which lies just 90 miles off Libya, and which is the obvious route for West Africans. The pix have been mostly from Greece and the overland routes through the Balkans.
A related aside: My son just returned from London where he was awe-struck by the number of burkhas.
Lets look at our own border crash engineered by team obama… there is much hang ringing and crocodile tears about ‘the children’ and ‘poor mothers’ fleeing violence and poverty with JEB! love for a better life in their hearts. Ok, life is tough in corrupt, violent Honduras (for example). There are many places where life is short, sharp, and sh*tty. Are we to allow hundreds of millions from failed states to encamp in our country because of the children? The obvious answer to me is no. Are European nations responsible for the muslim horde, mostly males under 40 who are fleeing the short, sharp, and sh*tty? Again, no.
The Lama has shown that he has more common sense than the Pope.
neo,
Fair enough. I should have said that we can reasonably assume
that few of these people are truly refugees. But I don’t see how softening the statement takes anything away from my main argument that we need to stop using a loaded term like “refugee” to refer to people who are mostly coming for the money.
“But goodness alone is never enough. A hard, cold wisdom is required for goodness to accomplish [lasting] good. Goodness without wisdom, always accomplishes evil.” Robert A. Heinlein, “Stranger, in a Strange Land”
People should stay in their own countries and fix them.
Mexico could be great if it had the rule of law and the will.