Migrant crisis

How to manage the migrant crisis

The Economist

There are different views on how to deal with the current migrant crisis. Some people believe that we should stop all migrants from coming to countries in Europe, while others believe it is okay to let some of them in.

It is important to separate between voluntary and involuntary migration. Many people move voluntarily and this is called voluntary migration. There can be various reasons for migration, such as demographic, economic, social, environmental, religious or political reasons. In this case it is not voluntary migration. People who migrate or are forced to migrate are often refugees. Forced migration may be due to religious, political just as voluntary migration, ethnic or other forms of discrimination or persecution. People who are forced to flee because of this is called political refugees. Forced migration can also be due to economic reasons, such as if one lives under the UN poverty lines.

As the authors emphasize, refugees are sensible and normal people, but they are in a desperate situation. Most of the one million refugees have fled from their homes in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries in war, in search to come to the peaceful and wealthy Europe. As the authors of this text said, most of the refugees do not want to leave their home or country, but they have no other choice when the alternative is to die or live in country who battles in war. Then they make the only rational choice.

From what I read in this text it seems that the authors have strong opinions on how to handle the refugees, but would not say it straight out. It seems like the Economist are on the liberal side of politics, but they want to buy themselves out of the problem. As we know, refugees seeking often to countries in Europe, but they are often not very welcome. Although the authors of this text speak nicely about these people who are forced to flee, we would rather not have them in Europe.

The authors will stop the refugees before they get to Europe, and if they manage to come in they will be interned in camps and wait until the application is processed. In addition, the authors of the article want them to be working. As said, they speak nicely about the people, but by the way they want to treat them- it shines through that they dont trust them and would rather not have them in Europe. I believe the reason why they talk nice about the refugees is because they will not appear as racists. But still they can gladly pay and then neighboring countries can accept the refugees.

The situation is out of control and it is too easy for refugees to get into Europe without being checked for asylum. In this case there are many migrants who have come into a country without being checked demands for asylum, because they have lied about where in the world they come from. So one way to try to stop migrants from coming to Europe is to get a better system where we "screen" all migrants when they try to cross the Mediterranean or when they try to come to Europe's borders. If they get disapproved of asylum they will be sent back, and those that are approved should preferably be sent to other countries that will accept them. But there's really no one who wants them in their own country.

But on the other hand, some people argue that the best way to deal with this crisis is not stopping refugees or building fences. If this is done it can lead to more dangerous forms of smuggling, but nevertheless ensure that the asylum system in every EU state operates on the same high standards.

Whether migration is based on pulse- or push-factors, legal and illegal or voluntary and involuntary factors are solicited and baked appeal a better life.