Refugee crisis: Hungary uses tear gas, water cannons on migrants at border
Source: CNN
At the Hungarian-Serbian border (CNN)Hungarian riot police used tear gas and water cannons on migrants at the country's border with Serbia on Wednesday after a group broke through a barrier in an attempt to enter the European Union.
Crowds of desperate migrants, most fleeing violence in the Middle East, were left stranded in Serbia after Hungary sealed the final hole in the border between the two countries Tuesday, closing a popular migration route to Western Europe.
Earlier Wednesday, huddled next to the razor-wire fence blocking Hungary from Serbia, battle-worn migrants had begged for sympathy.
"Open the door!" they chanted, many having traveled thousands of miles carrying all the belongings they had.
Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/16/world/europe-migrant-crisis/index.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)I have a friend, an American, very liberal, in Hungary right now. She was but is no longer sympathetic to these refugees. Not sure why...when I ask her she just says she knows we’re going to disagree on it and its better we don’t discuss it. 
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)The reality is that most of these people have no real reason to head back to their place of origin, ever. The lack of an orderly international response is the real problem, it's not like these wars just started. The Hungarian response though viscerally atrocious is understandable given the uncertainties they are facing with allowing large masses of people to walk through their country. They are insecure and this is their response given that there is also no end in sight to these wars. The EU and the US should take concerted action in absence of a UN mandate. Stabilize the refugee situation with dignified camps, reunite families, have an orderly immigration process and destroy ISIS fight Assad to a stalemate and then create safe zones within Syria and Iraq.
pampango
(24,692 posts)
barbtries
(28,815 posts)i had no idea. people suck.
christx30
(6,241 posts)That's why Hungary brought out armored vehicles, tear gas, and water cannons to stop the influx. The migrants waited until the gas cleared, then started running to the barricades, throwing rocks and bottles at the security forces there.
http://www.wgal.com/national/migrants-crisis-hungary-shut-croatia-open/35318118
That's why the migrants abandoned attempts to get through Hungary, and are now overwhelming Croatia.
And here is YouTube footage of migrants rushing a Croatian border:
pampango
(24,692 posts)who are willing to use force. (East Germany knew this too.) Trump has said as much with respect to his Great Wall of Mexico. Orban obviously understands that too.
Perhaps Orban and Trump should advise the EU on how to build a vast wall around Europe - and maybe even make Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan pay for it. If parts of the Berlin Wall have been preserved perhaps that could even be put to good use again in Europe.
Of course, the wall in Hungary led to refugees going around it into Croatia. If Croatia and others build walls to stop the overland route to Europe, the refugees will go back to the very risky boat crossing of the Mediterranean which has been going on for years. Of course, many have died and will die in that crossing.
Walls do not solve the problem. Conservatives build walls. Liberals build bridges.
branford
(4,462 posts)but liberals will not get the opportunity to build those bridges or enact progressive policies if they're not elected (or reelected).
Orban may well indeed be the "Trump of Europe," but he's also the democratically elected leader of Hungary, supported by the majority of his people, and his ideas and perspectives are ever increasingly supported across the EU and elsewhere. The is an inconvenient fact that cannot be ignored.
For the most part, the people of Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia, Great Britain, France, Germany, etc., care first and foremost about their own citizens before refugees (and certainly economic migrants) with an alien culture and religion from places many people couldn't find on a map. No matter how heartless is may sound, to a large number of Europeans, so long as the refugees are not causing problems or using resources in their countries, forcing the refugees back to the dangerous Mediterranean crossing is a feature, not a bug (particularly for landlocked Hungary).
Simply, platitudes will not solve this complicated, expensive, and ongoing crisis, and quite frankly, given the vast differences of opinion and rising political right across the EU, I'm not sure what can effectively be accomplished in the short and mid-terms. I just hope this mess doesn't signal the beginning of the end of a united and liberal EU.
pampango
(24,692 posts)His ideas are typical of a right wing nationalist. I agree such views are 'increasingly supported' but only in a few countries - Hungary being one - is the right wing in control of the government. In many other European countries the far-right is an influential minority party that is pushing governments to be anti-immigrant, nationalistic and anti-EU.
Agreed but that does not mean that they do not care about refugees at all, as evidenced by the fact that a majority of Germans support an open policy towards refugees and the public in the UK and France have pressured reluctant governments to accept more refugees than their governments had originally offered to accept. So the public, particularly liberals, support accepting refugees.
It is true that Orban's Great Serbian Wall will make the refugees "someone else's problem" which is a 'success' for Orban's right wing government. If the refugees end up in Greece or Italy, if they don't drown in the Mediterranean, that is a 'win' for Orban. The fact that the wall does not solve the problem but shifts it onto someone else is why walls are so popular with conservatives. Of course, Orban (and, needless to say, Trump) care little about the hardship or deaths of poor refugees. It is not their problem.
I agree with you 100%.
christx30
(6,241 posts)And telling them to ignore their instincts about protecting their countries from hundreds of thousands of what they see as foreign invaders (and calling them xenophobic, or nutjobs, ect) is what gets people like Trump elected. They feel like their concerns are not being taken seriously, so they turn to someone that says what they are thinking.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Could it not be that RW media in the US (for Trump) and Hungary (for Orban) whip up the fear of 'foreign invaders' when the refugees are nothing of the sort? You are right. That fear does help RW populists get elected.
christx30
(6,241 posts)But understand the concerns that these countries have, and work to resolve them.
Maybe if Germany wants these refugees, they can contribute money to Hungary and Croatia toward their upkeep. Or contribute people to help process the 100's of thousands and help with security?
The burden shouldn't fall totally on Hungary.
And, let's face it... You're a border guard at a checkpoint, and you see 5000 people streaming across at you, not responding to your legal commands, hurling rocks and bottles at you, some fear is justified.
barbtries
(28,815 posts)is not unique to the US. but it makes me very sad. we are ALL humans living on this planet after all.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)The EU is letting its most retrograde, fascistic members set the agenda.
oldironside
(1,248 posts)The agenda has been set by Frau Merkel saying that Germany is ready and willling to take 500,000 refugees every year for the foreseeable future. She did this without consulting anyone - her government, her party, the heads of Germany's state governments, her supposed European partners. That's where this surge is coming from.
The Hungarians are perfectly within their rights to protect their borders from an angry mob of military age men with a shocking sense of entitlement. Have a look at this.
[link:
That's not how refugees act.
branford
(4,462 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 16, 2015, 04:50 PM - Edit history (1)
They should make their asylum application in the first "safe" country. No refugee, no matter how genuine their claims, has a right to immigrate to Germany, Sweden, Britain, or anywhere else.
Moreover, regardless of claims of "fascism," the relevant European leaders are all democratically elected and must answer to their own people who have very legitimate domestic concerns. Most of the eastern European countries are relatively poor, and lack the financial and physical resources to deal with the tremendous influx of people, some of whom are not actual refugees and even present serious security concerns, and most of whom have significant cultural and language differences.
The current problems are entirely unsurprising given the incredible scope of the migration, and platitudes demanding compassion or how "solutions must be found," without actually dealing with the large and complex financial, infrastructure and social issues, are not helpful and engender further opposition among most of the European population.
oldironside
(1,248 posts)When I saw I had a reply I was expecting a storm of invective from an open the borders bleeding heart type. Actually I agree with everything you've said.
I'm going to lie down.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Hungary doesn't have to treat them inhumanely and like criminals--it chooses to.
And, you know, I've been watching a lot of coverage of this from a lot of sources, and I see a whole lot of families and children and older people, as well as those scary "military age men," who are probably going to keep a lot of Germans fat and happy in their retirement.
branford
(4,462 posts)There is no dispute that the vast majority of the migrants are young men.
Regardless, how do you propose to "find a way to let them through?" It's an understatement to say that it's easier said than done.
Despite Germany's claims of wanting the refugees, the obvious logistical, financial and political difficulties have only resulted in Merkel (and Austria, Slovenia, etc.) suspending Schengen and instituting border controls. I doubt Germany, no less much of the rest of Europe, are about to risk the cost and political fallout from something bold like an airlift.
As refugees are supposed to file their asylum claims in the first "safe" country, the countries of eastern Europe, the Balkans and elsewhere are under no legal obligation to assist anyone as transit points for non-citizens seeking better economic and social opportunities, and such intransigence is apparently supported by populace of the transit countries (and an ever increasing number of people within "friendly" destinations like Germany and Sweden).
snooper2
(30,151 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)
Refugees are crossing into Croatia where they are being registered
Croatia to allow refugees to travel north
Croatia says it will allow migrants to travel on to northern Europe, opening up a new route a day after Hungary sealed its border with Serbia. More than 150 migrants have crossed into Croatia from Serbia, with some of those stranded on Serbia's border with Hungary making a similar trip.
The BBC's Lyse Doucet says buses, vans and cars have been taking migrants away from the Serbia-Hungary border area towards the Serbian capital, Belgrade, and the border with Croatia.
Dozens of refugees walked through fields into Croatia from the official Serbian border crossing at Sid. Several told me they were hoping to reach Slovenia and the Schengen area. Others shouted. "Thank you, Serbia" as they left.
One of those who arrived on Wednesday, Amadou from Mauritania, told AFP news agency: "We heard that Hungary was closed so the police told us we should come this way."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34270535
branford
(4,462 posts)and quite possibly, short-lived (just like Germany's original offer before it closed its borders).
The refugees/migrants almost universally want to reach Germany (or Sweden or the UK), still cannot legally enter Hungary, and Germany, Austria and Slovenia have enacted strict border controls (and Croatia is non-Schengen even without the new border crossing restrictions). If the people begin to stay in Croatia in any noticeable numbers, I imagine they will soon not be welcome, just like Serbia is annoyed with the people left in its territory now that Hungary closed its border.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Germany has not "closed its border".
Germany: Border controls, not border stops
Germany has introduced temporary controls along its border with Austria to cope with the number of refugees. Although Germany's commitment to taking them in has not changed, there is growing concern about how it will manage the influx in an orderly manner.
http://www.dw.com/en/germany-border-controls-not-border-stops/av-18713398
branford
(4,462 posts)and will definitely not be accepting anywhere near 800,000 refugees. The popular and political backlash in Germany has not only made Chancellor Merkel's promises mostly worthless, but has actually encouraged more refugees to attempt to get to Germany, and thus badly aggravated the crisis in eastern Europe and lessened support for the refugees across all of the continent.
You can try to "nuance" the difference between "border controls" and "border stops," but it doesn't change the fact that Germany made the whole problem worse and may have risked the once unassailable principle of free movement under Schengen.
Moreover, I certainly have no objections if Croatia wants to assist refugees transit through their territory. However, as I indicated before, refugees who "asylum shop" no longer received full legal protection as refugees after they pass through a safe country, I anticipate the Croatian generosity may be very short-lived just like in Serbia, and it will not even remotely begin to solve this complex, difficult, culturally upsetting, and extremely expensive problem that has engendered acrimony about the entire EU project.
pampango
(24,692 posts)would be rejecting any more refugees (another Trump/Orban Wall) or allowing continued, large-scale, immediate influx that they are unprepared for.
The last poll I saw a few days ago showed 60% of Germans supporting taking in the refugees. Do you have evidence that the "popular and political backlash" has overwhelmed this?
As with any liberal policy, it needs to be well-planned and well-implemented, not just well-intentioned, to be successful and popular in the long run.
The 'backlash' on the right will undoubtedly continue with the burning down of more refugee centers but we don't make policy to placate the far-right.
That would indeed be a terrible outcome - one that the far-right has been promoting for years. The right had hated the freedom of movement that comes with Schengen and has promoted the return of national border controls, since long before the current refugee crisis. Handing them a win on this would be a terrible thing but, again, I think a temporary suspension may prove to be a smart, liberal policy given the alternatives.
branford
(4,462 posts)Croatia is already beginning to substantially back-off its generosity towards the refugees/migrants.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/17/croatian-riot-police-clash-migrants-border-serbia-closes
Moreover, although I agree that Germany's border controls will be temporary (although just how temporary is up for debate as long as the migrant crisis continues), the fact that it and other countries actually suspended Schengen free-travel is quite momentous, as this foundational and integral part of the EU is no longer sacrosanct. It has played directly into the hands of the right and far right forces across Europe (including strengthening the ant-EU forces in the UK before their referendum), and certainly has not helped form an EU consensus solution to the crisis.
pampango
(24,692 posts)which wants to kill it permanently, but one could argue that the other alternatives would helped the right even more.
The far-right have benefitted politically from the refugee crisis in terms of polling data. Opposition to immigration (and refugees) is a principal reason that far-right parties exist in Europe. One refugee policy alternative for Germany would have been to simply continue the high level flow of refugees entering the country without adequate preparation on the ground. This policy would have undoubtedly enabled the right to crow about the poor planning and implementation that went into a liberal refugee policy: "See the chaos that results from liberals making policy!"
Historically, poorly planned or implemented liberal policies have aggravated a conservative backlash that was going to happen anyway. I suspect the same conservative backlash will happen in Germany. And will be worse if government does not do all it can to make its implementation as smooth as possible.
Besides the alternative of allowing the flow of refugees to continue unimpeded, Germany could have simply refused to take any more of them. Of course that would have played into the hands of the far-right by giving them precisely what they want - no refugees in Germany - despite what liberals and a majority of the German population want. That would certainly be playing into the hands of the far-right, as well.
So no matter what the German government did there is the potential for the far-right to benefit. The wise move is to decide on a liberal policy towards the refugees then plan and implement it as effectively as possible. The far-right will still hate it but you will give them less ammunition than if refugee policy is done on an ad hoc basis.
branford
(4,462 posts)They went from essentially offering asylum to anyone who could reach their borders to suspension of Schengen within days. They demanded consensus across the EU, then adopted a policy that made the crisis far worse in the eastern European countries where immigrants, no less Muslims from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, were not popular even before the recent mass migration.
If Germany did not want to play into the far right, they should have adopted a policy of careful moderation or waited for consensus before swinging from one extreme to the other, the gates wide open than slammed shut.
I used to highly respect and admire Chancellor Merkel, but I believe her performance during this crisis has been abysmal. Not only has she made EU consensus all the more difficult to achieve and actually worsened anti-immigrant sentiment across the EU, she put the entire EU project at risk (when it was already suffering from matters like the Greek financial crisis and upcoming UK referendum).
You correctly observe, and are quite forgiving, that Germany needed to implement border controls after their first offer to accept many hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers due to the logistical nightmare that inevitably developed. I question why Germany ever made such an open-ended offer, and how Merkel could not possibly have realized the obvious problems that ensued. The far right across the EU need never have benefited from German policy choices (and effective reversals) had Germany exercised the barest modicum of forethought and solidarity they now demand from the rest of the EU.
It is with great regret that I believe the refugee crisis will now get much worse, may not ever get much better, and anti-EU and anti-immigrant (and pro-right) forces will thrive across the continent.
pampango
(24,692 posts)She has made mistakes but I think she is implementing a policy supported by the German people. Advanced planning and reacting to events as they unfold is always a difficult task in a situation where masses of people are on the move.
I suspect you are right.
However, a better planned and implemented, more methodical (slower) acceptance of refugees might have faced liberal complaints of government inaction in the face of suffering, as have occurred in Hungary, the UK, the US and elsewhere.
As you say, the far right, which is anti-immigrant (particularly Muslim immigrants) and anti-EU, was going to make as much political gain as possible from the acceptance or rejection of Muslim refugees. If many are accepted, the right can claim that liberals are selling US out to THEM - "Muslim invasion of Europe", "multicuturalism in our own back yard", etc. If refugees were rejected, the right could say, "See. Even our government agrees with what we have been telling you all along. Muslims want to take over Germany. They are 'welfare moochers' or 'job stealers'. We can't allow that. Now we have convinced the government of that."
lastlib
(23,329 posts)Poor people! 
pampango
(24,692 posts)
moondust
(20,017 posts)
eissa
(4,238 posts)No one wants to stay there. Germany, Sweden and The Netherlands have said they are willing to accept refugees. Hungary may not agree with the stance of those nations, but that's for those countries to deal with. If they want them, let them through.
Second, the argument that if they were really seeking asylum, they would do so in the first safe country, is kind of ridiculous when those "safe" countries like Hungary have made it clear that they don't want them. These people are going to places that have said they will accept them. They are not going there because they are the richest nations to "mooch" off the system.
As for "military-aged men" I find this meme pretty upsetting. Who are they supposed to go back and fight for? Assad? The opposition? Which one of the extremist terrorist groups are they supposed to take up arms for? And while there are, in fact, many women and children taking this journey, most are young men, simply because making this journey is (1) incredibly expensive, and (2) very dangerous. Aylan Kurdi is just one of dozens who have died along the way. Most of the men go first, establish themselves, and then send for their families, if they have any. And they are the best candidates to bring in because they are able and willing to work.
I do not condone the tactics of some of the refugees in trying to force their way through. However, the level of desperation they have leaves them no choice. I can only speak for the Syrian refugees here as I am personally connected to some who have made the journey. The vast majority are not coming directly from Syria. Most left several years ago, having sold everything they had, and lived off those savings in squalid camps in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Exhausted, out of money, not allowed to work in the countries they sought shelter in, and with no hope of the war ending so they can return to their homeland, they are at the end of their rope.
I understand Europe's very valid concerns, and they are within their rights to refuse entry to those who don't meet the criteria of war refugee. But those fleeing Syria are fleeing exactly what we all fear: Islamic terrorism. To believe that they would try to establish that which they are escaping in these nations is false. They've lived under religious rule, and they want no part of it.
branford
(4,462 posts)and failure to do so may result in a claimant's denial of asylum and removal. Moreover, if Hungary and other countries permit the migrants entry, they may have certain legal obligations to them.
These important considerations, along with often strong domestic feelings in democratic countries and very legitimate security concerns, cannot simply be dismissed as inconvenient or ignored. Moreover, no matter how desperate, any violence committed by refugees, whether in protest or in an attempt to breach a protected border, is legally unacceptable and ultimately self-defeating.
Lastly, I would note that despite their pronouncements, Germany, Sweden and other countries have been far less open and welcoming in practice, largely due to complex and expensive logistical issues, lack of resources and security clearances, and domestic political concerns. For instance, the suspension of free movement under Schengen by Germany, Austira, Slovenia, etc., has not only slammed the door shut for many refugees, but endangered their entire EU project.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV:l33153
http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?reldoc=y&docid=4bab55da2
http://www.unhcr.org/3ae68ccec.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/sep/21/claim-asylum-uk-legal-position
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)across the EU at your own risk.
Demeaning or ignoring the often very legitimate (and sometimes fearful) concerns of a vast number of people across Europe and elsewhere will not only absolutely not even begin to solve the refugee crisis, it will further erode support for what little generosity remains and help propel right wing, very anti-immigrant, groups to power, to say nothing of the damage that's been done to the entire EU project.
You can complain all you want that people (including individuals well beyond the far right) who acknowledge and consider the financial, logistical, and cultural impediments and problems concerning a mass migration, mostly of poor people who do not share a language or culture with the transit or destination countries, as lacking in humanity or are otherwise "bad." However, that "humanity" does not constitute a viable and realistic plan to address this complex and serious crisis. Moral blackmail and self-righteousness have already horrendously failed to deliver relief, and even the more "humane" Germans have begun to close their borders.