Swiss Town Rejects Refugees, But Should They Be Required To Take Them?

Submitted by: lalapancakes 9 months ago News & Politics
swiss-home-top

As the United Kingdom's Amnesty Refugee Program calls on the West to take their "fair share" of refugees, a town in Switzerland basically said, "Nah."

The town, Oberwiel-Lieli cites their concern for the safety of refugees crossing dangerous bodies of water, saying taking them on will only encourage more of those dangerous trips. The town leaders also note how hard it would be for new refugees to assimilate into the Swiss language and customs.

Oberwiel-Lieli’s reasons for rejection are disingenuous but my thoughts are with Switzerland on this matter because they didn't directly instigate the war in Syria. In fact Switzerland hasn't been at war in almost 200 years. I suppose their hosting of the world elite's Swiss bank accounts could be considered a contribution to the current international crisis but I think requiring a region to take refugees on should only be applied to directly aggressive countries like 'Murika.

If a nation had nothing to do with destabilizing human life, they shouldn't be required to take the people whose lives got ruined. It’s a whole other story if they choose to, but if anyone should take refugees it should be places like Texas who had the full audacity to vote for these absolute bullshit wars. They voted for the mess, they should clean it up -- it's only fair. Honestly Texas, take the refugees you had a hand in creating, you irresponsible shits.

But as far as Switzerland... I haven't followed their involvement in invading the Middle East, but I'm pretty sure they have nothing directly to do with the refugees. Just financially. And it looks like they're willing to pay some of that debt so, there you go.

There are 24 comments:
Male 46
theres a nice clean decent town, how dare they, lets move in and destroy it , then have a parade just to put it in their faces, that will teach them
0
Reply
Male 1,141
If the policy frailer of the current admiration had not happen then things might be deferent. What would Trump do? OH that's right he's never been in power. And Bush has been at da house for 71/2 years.
0
Reply
Male 38,066
The west has enough problems, we don't need to take any of them. We already take in more immigrants than any other country on a regular basis. We can send some support to the camps, that's all.
0
Reply
Male 37,057
Isn't it "interesting" how few MUSLIM nations want to help? Filthy rich with oil, already importing slave labour since no one will work & there's a critical labour shortage, yet ZERO is the nub of refugees they allow...
0
Reply
Male 38,066
All part of the plan. All part of the plan
0
Reply
Female 7,845
i've not crunched the numbers- but I am fairly certain that if every single town and village in all of Europe took a number of refugees in a proportion to the original population we could take all of bloody Syria and half of Iraq without ever seeing more than one or two extra faces.
1
Reply
Male 37,057
Except Madduck, they DO NOT want that! Why would they agree to have their extended families scattered to the 4 winds? Their religion commands them to live near a Mosque, to stay with fellow Muxlims as much as possible. They don't speak the language OR follow the culture, and have NO WISH to be assimilated! Quite the opposite in fact. >>> So sending 700 of them to a town of 300 (with 20% unemployment already) without even asking the people who live there is the Government's Plan! And the refugees like it.
0
Reply
Male 201
"The difference between successful people and really successful people is that really successful people say no to almost everything." - Warren Buffett
1
Reply
Male 3,176
Texas? What am I missing?
0
Reply
Male 3,997
@trimble: What are you seriously saying you didn't hear how Texas voted for Bashar al-Assad to kill his own people and for Syria to break into a sectarian civil war? Because you know it's strange, I didn't either.
0
Reply
Male 443
I live here and it's the first I've heard of it.
0
Reply
Male 1,255
And ISIS just appeared out of thin air without any of our meddling... riiiight.
0
Reply
Male 3,997
@LaLaPancakes: No, of course not Texas voted them in.
0
Reply
Male 3,176
Or we've been meddling in the area since before Lord Balfour made his famous declaration but I don't get the Texas connection as opposed to any other state or for that matter "western country".
0
Reply
Male 3,176
(I meant to say "Oh" of course, not "Or".
0
Reply
Male 37,057
Funny how Switzerland is NOT part of the EU and yet somehow manages to survive :p And why should ANY city or town or village be forced to accept refugees? It has proven to be a disaster hundreds of times to put large numbers of foreigners with NO WISH to assimilate into a tiny population. If the government leaders want to accept refugees THAT badly? Open their OWN neighborhoods to tens of thousands of them. Simple really. Same for Hollywood & the rest of the places the 1% live...
0
Reply
Male 3,997
Switzerland is about as neutral and non responsible as Nicolas Cage's character was in Lord of war. The Swiss although they don't openly go to war have been more than happy to sell swiss arms all over the middle east including Syria. Infact they are the 6th largest small arms exporter on earth. link As soon as the Arab Spring began Sweden was in there making as much money as it could selling tanks, granades, bullets, and small arms. link Even when countries like France and Spain stopped selling to places like Bahrain, Sweden took up the slack selling them tanks and small arms. link Plus don't give me this " it looks like they’re willing to pay some of that debt so, there you go," they are confiscating the damn money from the refugees! link
0
Reply
Male 2,365
Your link doesn't say they are selling arms to Syria, just that they have wound up there after selling to the United Arab Emirates. Is selling arms wrong? Also, funds exceeding 1,000 francs are collected from refugees to defray costs of support (A receipt is given and they can re-collect if they leave within 7 months). This rule applied to 112 of 45,000 refugees that year.
0
Reply
Male 3,997
@jay: Yes and they are selling even more arms now to the United Arab Emirates. In America we call it a "straw purchase," it's a way to sell things to people you're banned from selling to. The idea that Switzerland is continuing to sell weapons to countries like the UAE, Quatar, Bahrain, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia but that somehow they still don't know that the weapons will be used in armed conflicts in places like Syria and Lybia, despite repeated reports saying otherwise and other countries warning of it, is fairly hard to accept. It's like the US saying it didn't know that the arms they were selling Pakistan in the 80's would be used against the soviets in Afghanistan. Let me ask you, would you be so sympathetic with a gun store that repeatedly sold guns to a person the ATF repeatedly busted for selling guns to gang members? Now look don't get me wrong, proxy wars are real and the US is one of the biggest arms dealers on the planet. Yet we aren't claiming to be a neutral party either. Also about the fund being collected from the refugees, the 45,000 figure are mainly Eritrean refugees that arrived before the law was reimplemented on October 1, 2015 link and only applys to valuables that refugees have declared to the Swiss government. link
0
Reply
Male 2,365
I wouldn't be sympathetic. I believe Switzerland stopped selling them arms after they popped up in Syria. It's only been recently that they resumed selling to the UAE, and I don't agree with that decision. I also don't agree with the US selling to them. Is your point of contention that they call themselves "neutral"?
0
Reply
Male 2,365
I would agree Switzerland isn't entirely neutral...if they were, then perhaps they actually would sell weapons to Syria. As for the attention America receives, you might consider that a lot of that may have to do with a massive American media.
0
Reply
Male 3,997
@jay: Yes, that is partly my contention, the other part is this constant vitriol against America, in conjunction with the constant glancing over of any wrongs done by European countries.
0
Reply
Male 1,310
The answer to this question lies in the treaties they hold.
0
Reply
Male 443
Why you got to pick on Texas? Actually, even though I live here, I get it. Lot's of Texans are straight up ignorant "mentally unstable" people. I do have to say though, I remember after Katrina, we saw plenty of refugees here and it caused all sorts of problems. The apartment complex I lived in at the time was apparently receiving funding to house some of these people and damn, it was horrible. I remember this one lady who would be out in the area between our buildings, on her cell phone, talking so loudly I couldn't sleep, and I loved on the third floor with my windows shut. She would be out there, talking about how great the crack she just got was or whatever other random bullshit from about 2-4pm until 6am. Yeah, she was talking so loud that I could fully understand everything she was saying, three floors up with all windows and doors closed. Similar things were heard from neighbors all over the complex about others as well. The stories of kids getting raped whose families were being sheltered in the Alamodome was even worse. We accepted these refugees into our city/state and crime immediately went up and they just annoyed about everyone I knew and were even treating each other like shit. Why should we accept refugees of any sort if they are going to act like that?
0
Reply