←back to thread

Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

(www.nytimes.com)
623 points franzb | 7 comments | 14 Nov 15 00:25 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
jmspring ◴[14 Nov 15 00:45 UTC] No.10563642[source]▶
The repeated attacks, heavy immigration of refugees...I'm hoping for the best, but I feel like there is a powder keg here. Whether or not it is based in any fact, how this is handled and plays out is a serious concern.
replies(11): >>10563659 #>>10563676 #>>10563703 #>>10563754 #>>10563797 #>>10563798 #>>10563843 #>>10563975 #>>10564129 #>>10564253 #>>10564396 #
untog ◴[14 Nov 15 00:51 UTC] No.10563676[source]▶
What do people think the refugees were running away from? Exactly these people.
replies(4): >>10563683 #>>10563711 #>>10563740 #>>10563770 #
robbiep ◴[14 Nov 15 01:07 UTC] No.10563770[source]▶
Not European but travelling in Asia at the moment. Have had a couple of discussions with run-of-the-mill Europeans concerned that the refugees areproportionally made up much more of young men than women/children with the implication that these guys are up to no good. I'd say the subtleties of the humanitarian crisis is going to be lost on the average European Joe in the wake of this
replies(2): >>10564126 #>>10564323 #
jameshart ◴[14 Nov 15 03:33 UTC] No.10564323[source]▶
The refugees who have travelled to Europe to seek asylum are disproportionately young and male. Because if you have a family group in a refugee camp in Turkey, you don't send your grandmother to take a dangerous boatride across the Med and then traipse around the countryside of the Balkans trying to find a way to get to talk to a German government official about the possibility of making an asylum application for your family.
replies(3): >>10564353 #>>10564377 #>>10564441 #
1. Turing_Machine ◴[14 Nov 15 03:51 UTC] No.10564353[source]▶
If I had a wife, grandmother, kids, etc. in a dangerous war zone or refugee camp, there is no way in hell that I would leave them behind. Not gonna happen.
replies(1): >>10564439 #
2. TeMPOraL ◴[14 Nov 15 04:20 UTC] No.10564439[source]▶
Oh you would, if that was the only way to ensure survival and/or a better future for them. It would be painful, but you would feel you have to do this.
replies(1): >>10564521 #
3. Turing_Machine ◴[14 Nov 15 04:55 UTC] No.10564521[source]▶
No, I would not. Absolutely not. No way.

I would send the wife and kids first before going myself.

replies(2): >>10564572 #>>10566113 #
4. TeMPOraL ◴[14 Nov 15 05:14 UTC] No.10564572{3}[source]▶
I wanted to argue with you about this but the more I think about it, the more I think I should retract my previous comment. I'm not in your head, I can't tell you what you would do. I apologize for doing that before.

I know that for me it would depend a lot on circumstances. Is the current refugee camp safe? Is the trip overseas that dangerous? Can my family handle it there, maybe caring for our grandparents while being protected by our parents? Then I would probably, with my heart broken, go alone to safeguard a place to live for them. I know I would be the kind who's naive enough to play by the books instead of just showing up in another country. But if my family staying would put them in danger, I'd definitely take them with me.

But I guess my point is that the amount of young males among the refugees can be explained by them going to secure a place for their entire family, and not willing to risk taking kids and grandparents on such a dangerous trip.

replies(1): >>10565168 #
5. stuaxo ◴[14 Nov 15 10:08 UTC] No.10565168{4}[source]▶
Exactly - as a species we get the males to take the risks. There is much to be gained from leaving a warzone, but when you see the footage of the refugee camps, children drowned, the immense cost of doing the journey, dealing with people smugglers etc it makes sense that you would send a young male in the family through this first.

If said young male gets to the country on the other side they are probably the most employable too.

6. jameshart ◴[14 Nov 15 16:15 UTC] No.10566113{3}[source]▶
You seem to misunderstand what displaced people want. Why would you send them away and stay in a refugee camp? Refugee camps are precisely the first relatively safe place displaced people find. They are attended by aid agencies, and provide basic needs. They are temporarily a place of shelter and food. Traveling on the road from border crossing to border crossing around Europe is less safe than staying put in the refugee camp. You'll need to find food and shelter in different places each night. You will be hassled by authorities. You might end up living rough on the streets of Ljubljana for the winter. But if you make it to Berlin you might be able to apply for asylum, find a job, and get enough money together to bring your family (if you have papers, they will be able to use trains or planes - they won't have to walk 800 miles). That seems a rational calculation for a young man.
replies(1): >>10566235 #
7. Turing_Machine ◴[14 Nov 15 16:44 UTC] No.10566235{4}[source]▶
No, I'm not "misunderstanding" anything. If the refugee camp is safe, has food, etc., there's no reason for anyone to leave on a dangerous journey. If it's not safe, there's no excuse for leaving your children there.

I realize that life in Germany is more pleasant than life in a refugee camp in Turkey (or has been, historically... that seems to be changing), but that's an entirely different thing.