Europeans at a crossroads to the future of the open society, sitting on a philosopher’s stone.

 

- Draw up the bridge - or welcome migrants as new citizens?

- Defend our own social and green standards - or promote liberal world trade?

Share your idea

Please try to be as concrete as possible when answering the questions, the more in depth you go the more impactful your ideas will be!

Comments

We don't need to totally close our borders, there are people on the other side of the border, that need our help. I think, we can not take every immigrant, it is just not possible. We have to choose directly, if somebody can come in or not, we can not let them wait for years, that just makes the situation worse. Yes, that will cost us a lot of money because a lot of people will have to work in that field, but I do not think that it is cheaper to let people stay for several years if those people are just waiting for a decision to be made.
Vote up!

Votes: 16

You voted ‘up’

European countries should have much stricter boarder control and should only accept genuine asylum seekers. But we must make a proper distinction between economic migrants and asylum seekers. People displaced from war-torn countries should seek asylum in neigbouring countries. If you refuse help from multiple countries in order to take a dangerous trip to a country where you will rely solely on the government welfare system instead of trying to give back to the country that has taken you in, you are no longer an asylum seeker, you are an economic migrant.

Votes: 18

First of all, I find it very interesting that specific comments were automatically 'upvoted'. Coincidentally, all these comments are all in favour of immigration. For some reason it is not possible to undo this. Very strange. In my opinion, the EU must close it's external borders immediately. I witness how mass migration has changed my beautiful country, the Netherlands, everyday. It must stop.
Vote up!

Votes: 22

You voted ‘up’

Migrants are one of the main topics these days. A lot of immigration from Africa and the Middle East to Europe divides europeans in two. There are the ones who want to open our doors to the incoming people and the ones who do not want them in our countries. We are going to analyse this problem in further details. Migrants are people who are forced to flee their homes to survive. Migrants are often the citizens of the country, so the weak population like children, women, seniors and disabled, are concerned. These dangers bring death to a lot of migrants and those who survive are mostly injured or traumatized. If they are lucky, they can stay in refugee camps, but these have neither schools, nore a good health and hygiene systeme. However, even in those refugee camps, migrants are in danger. The reasons for migration are often civil wars for power or for a religious or ethical domination. Syria is on of the most famous examples, but also emigration from Zimbabwe in the past. Dangerous deseases force people to flee, too. However, on the one hand, a lot of europeans say that migrants take away our jobs and destroy our culture with their own. Every right headed poltician uses those accusations to become more powerful. But on the other hand, there are real arguments in favour of the migrants. First of all, the convention of Geneva of 1949 says that every citizen in danger because of war or other humanitarian disasters has a right to flee for his life and to be welcomed by a country to live in safety. Furthermore, migration is a humanitarian disaster itself, including children. We cannot let migrants live in inhuman conditions and deprive them of their fundamental rights. Any sens of solidarity, humanity and love is essential in this humanitarian crisis. In contrast, the big european cities are overpopulated and do not have much place left to build. Of course, appartment towers seem to be an option, but problems with elevators can be annoying. Pollution, traffic and crime are also well-known problems of big cities. To accomodate migrates is of course the necessary solution, but not a lasting one. Therefore, the European Union should also solve problems and conflicts in the affected countries and instore stability and social safety. This will stop migration and allow migrants to return to their country. To conclude, I find that welcoming migrants should not simply be one priority of the European Union and that every country should put up migrants, but that the Union deals with the problems and conflicts that lead to migration. But until that goal is achieved, we should see migrants as normal citizens by giving them a place to live, work, money, medical care and by sending their childen to our schools.

Votes: 30

The nations of Europe cannot welcome more migrants. Why ? Beacause we have to many problèms : Unemployment, poverty, debt, deindustrialisation... Two, immigration is a danger for our identity, our civilisation it's not compatible with islamic and african traditions. Tree, For help this popole, in a first time stop war in their country !! ( Kadhafi and Hussein was killed by EU/OTAN). EU must help the poor countires to develop. A french participant.
Vote up!

Votes: 28

You voted ‘up’

Open.
Vote up!

Votes: 57

You voted ‘up’

I’m advocating the save-and-return and the save-and-offshore-screen policies. Refugees fleeing war or persecution by violence can be given asylum. Economic migrants are returned and told to apply through legal routes. Those granted asylum are then further processed: 0. Create a common database across EU for asylum seekers 1. Take their fingerprints 2. Name, occupation, education, former home, country of origin, close family. 3. DNA sample collection 4. Passport picture 5. Social security number if one exists 6. Issued a “refugee passport” with a refugee ID number 7. All the information is shared with EU state police, immigration offices, border guards etc. 8. After screening we choose where they go, they will be decentralised to avoid creating slums. We should avoid sending all of them o the same places. 9. Education in language, culture, feminism, laws, and the consequences of breaking the laws. We must understand that while it is important for us to be tolerant of their customs, it is also important that they adapt to us, nost just us to them. They have come to our countries and we are giving them shelter and safety, so it is not unfair nor unjust from us to expect them to learn our way of life and to adapt to it. Also, even if they choose to leave or are forced to leave at some point, it would be nice if the youths would have learned about feminist values and democratic ideals etc. 10. Zero tolerance to serious crime (rape, murder, burglary etc.), three strikes system for minor crime. Failure to comply with laws will lead to expulsion from Europe. 11. Regular education should be provided for those who require it 12. If once expulsed and they try to come back, each refugee screened will be tested against the database, if they are Found to have been expulsed before then they are returned like the economic migrants. 13. Also take into use across EU the Italian model for pre-emptive interference with possible terrorism. 14. Give them help, but avoid the “benefit trap” where we pay for their living to such an extent that they avoid work. We don’t do tha with our own citizens and such behaviour will create unnecessary animosity. 15. Prioritise getting adult refugees into working life as quickly as possible. If we consider regular immigration, I don’t think we need any changes to existing laws there. To conclude: I believe that we have a moral and ethical obligation to save the people from death at the sea, but we have no obligation to accommodate economic migrants. We do have a moral obligation to accommodate people fleeing war, but we must not give them special treatment beyond that which we give our own citizens. We must properly screen and share data across EU borders. We must priorities safety and avoid creation of slums and a population of “outcasts”.
Vote up!

Votes: 80

You voted ‘up’

We should be more of ordoliberal or even modern keynsian (Sitglitz or Varufakis not Keynes himself, that guy is old. Neoliberal gives citizens little control over policy, and multinational corporations could have only short term goals, or could be ruled by personal agenda of CEO. In some ways family run or community owned or even national monopoly at least have some long term planning in agenda. Decision should be made with 5/10/25... year perspective. And modern science and data based. Avoid economic ideology. We should care about each member of community, and have in mind growth as whole and as individual. Ignoring "green" will kick us back, it is not like we have much of a choice here. Social standards are not for charity, but to have healthier workers, or smarter kids, or more fearless start ups, community more involved in policy making, being less vulnerable to radicals. Europe alone is big and has variety of products. However we should cooperate with countries which are likeminded or who has no bad intencion against us. China or Russia are heavy driven by leader personality which could offensive against Europe, to give them internat strenght. Just watch out. Europe could also cooperate with Mideterenian or Black Sea, Middle East and Africa countries in various ways, even more if they fallow human rights in their way. Europe should accept new citizens generously. It is not people fault they they ware born in some dictator run state. But Europe need to be clear that if you want to settle in here, you need to become european. Also while there is no war in EU, it is not like everything is easy. Some people (like kids) could be easier to adapt. We can seek solution which is moral, but also is beneficial in long term. Having more population is generally beneficial. Need to send back radicals. Europe has limit how many people can cover at once. So influx of people should be stream not waves. People should be recruited in camps or office ourside Union if possible. The more people we accept the less we need to import, people need workplace inside Europe.

Votes: 86

I think we should promote stronger EU ties, creating a "federation" with the countries more involved, in the Eurozone, and keeping the others in EU but outside, with different perspectives. In any case, federate or not, we have to keep high social and green standards, even if it means lower "growth" in the short term (but much stronger in the long one). Migrants cannot be all welcomed, we have to share them in EU countries but in small numbers. Someone will have to be brought back. The problem with migrants and local population is that migrants cannot understand the local populations' "mood" as they are just arrived and are not, on average, educated. Moreover local population are better educated but on average not so much to be tolerant towards migrants and the "mistakes" they make. To sum up more education "in everything" should be pursued in the EU action.

Votes: 83