EU refugee markets in everything

European countries that refuse to share the burden of high immigration will face a financial charge of about €250,000 per refugee, according to Brussels’ plans to overhaul the bloc’s asylum rules.

The punitive financial pay-off clause is one of the most contentious parts of the European Commission’s proposed revision of the so-called Dublin asylum regulation, due to be revealed on Wednesday…

According to four people familiar with the proposal, this contribution was set at €250,000 per asylum seeker in Monday’s commission draft. But those involved in the talks say it may well be adjusted in deliberations over coming days.

“The size of the contribution may change but the idea is to make it appear like a sanction,” said one official who has seen the proposal. Another diplomat said in any event the price of refusing to host a refugee would be “hundreds of thousands of euros”.

Here is the full FT piece.  Elsewhere on the pricing front, there is talk that at some point Uber will move away from surge pricing.


Well, now we know the market value of a refugee: negative €250,000.

"Markets in everything."

This does go strikingly against the narrative that even low skilled immigrants are a net positive for the host economy.

Even the need to allocate refugees in the first place does that. Countries should be clamoring to keep all they can if they are a net benefit.

Only if one ignores that immigration policy is *public* choice, where concentrated benefits of immigration restrictionists over-rule dispersed costs to all other housing and job market participants. If you want to know the market-determined optimal outcome, you remove the restrictionist interventions and let the market determine the outcome.

Pretty much the opposite of that. Low-quality immigrants are the ultimate negative externality

As proven by the experience of having so many Irish immigrate to America, right?

@ prior_test2:

Were the Irish such low quality immigrants? I don't think so. They were in a bad way, to be sure, but their countrymen were making important contributions to science and literature within the same time frame. As were the countrymen of the Italian peasants, of the Germans and so on. You can only take the parallel between today's migration and yesterday's so far.

I think the most salient measurement is not the absolute value of the migrant, but the relative disparity in skills, attitudes, culture etc between them and the host population. The skills gap was not that high between the Irish and the Americans. Or any of the prior immigrant groups and the Americans. Things have changed today, if you look outside the ghetto. You're taking third world people, with very little control for IQ, socio-economic status and attitudes (like secularism), and plonking them down among a first world population and asking yourself why the latter are not assimilating. Education and the pro-social aspect of education, as embodied by the regrettable hysteria triggered by hate frauds, count for more and more these days. The shared culture, the workplace behavior etc etc etc.

@Horhe, The comments you make about todays immigrants strike me as exactly what someone in the early 1900's would've said about the immigrants then compared to those who came over in the 1700-1800s

As proven by the experience of having so many Irish immigrate to America, right?

My family arrived to the US in 1700. The welfare safety net at the time was: work or starve. The penal system was: if you cause any trouble, we'll hang you.

Were the Irish such low quality immigrants? I don’t think so.

Well, they did just vote for Trump by a pretty high margin, so that counts against them (and Italian-Americans.) Just goes to show that those early 20th century nativists were right(?), even after a century you can't wean them away from horrible European politics.

How did those welfare & penal systems compare to the country they left? Were they better, the same, or worse than Syria?

My father's side of the family arrived in Georgia in the1750s. Georgia was originally chartered by James Oglethorpe as destination for prisoners and "the worthy poor."

Sure, you can claim I'm biased in favor of rationalizing what has already happened as being good because of the eventual outcome. But, this still being a democratic society, can you really legitimately dismiss the reservations of a large number of citizens because 1, they are based on intuition, emotion, common sense etc and the citizen is not a respectable public intellectual? 2. you can't be bothered to check your own assumptions and reasons for being in favor of drastically changing society without an idea of whether this is a good move?
This article makes a few good arguments that can be stretched to include our situation
People have a preference for stability, routines, familiar and long-lasting institutions. These evolved in time because they make sense and help a society survive where others fail. Change inevitably comes, but not all of it is good and none of it should go unchallenged.

@John Thacker
I would have voted for Trump, too, had I been American. If I had been a naturalized citizen, I would have been the 1 out of 10 immigrants who votes Republican in this case.

This is a good reason why the UK should pull out of the EU.

Yes, if you accept the Samuelson/Cowen analysis of Brexit (which implicitly claims that no country with a population less than 64 million and a GDP less than 2.5 trillion is economically viable) the British are evidently given a choice between "economic suicide" and cultural suicide.

If it were my choice, I think would vote my culture.

England has already committed cultural suicide. Brexit just means fewer Polish and Romanian immigrants and more Pakistanis, Jamaicans and Nigerians.

Of course, a sovereign country would be able to decide for itself whether to admit Polish, Romanian or Pakistani emigrants and how many and on what terms. Who voted to admit the "refugees" referenced in the post above? Who voted to impose a financial penalty on states which refuse to "share the burden"?

But the issue goes well beyond immigration,

The Hag Chancellor voted 1-0 to invite them. That's democracy in the EU

As if the decision of whether or not to accept a refugee is based solely on the median economic benefit (or cost). Other, non-economic factors are likely at least as important (for both the pros and the antis).

Yes, there's much the Czechs could benefit from more Somali immigrants. The cultural enrichment alone...priceless!

You do know the genetic benefits of mixing black and white don't you? C'mon even Sailor in his private moments agrees to that, he just says that it dilutes the white lobby.

Make Czechia Somalia Again!

You're right Ray, what everyone needs, is more of this:

@AIG- you're a failed individual, like the failed company of your nym, and your reference to a failed state (Somalia with radical Islamists; your photo is of famine victims). Again, science sez blondes and blacks, like the porno, is genetically beneficial. Convince yourself.

Is that why you Greeks look like gypsies? I always though it was just the sun and the amount of body hair.

@Ray Lopez

What are the benefits? And none of the meaningless "hybrid vigor" crap that animal breeders find when they stop pairing infants with parents for generations. Something actually measurable.

Because there are indications that mixed race couples have higher chances of stillbirth, stemming from higher chances of prematurity and low weight at birth. Not necessarily a huge problem for medical science in this day and age, but it is still a black mark against your thesis.

I know about outbreeding depression.

The racial purity alone is well worth the millions of euros.

To whom?

I'm always skeptical when people throw monetary values like that around when no one is actually showing a measurable revealed preference.

Perhaps you could count donations to racist organizations and parties or something.

The real estate market prices majority-white school districts very efficiently.


Not sure how much of that is racial and how much is socioeconomic/cultural. Racial purity is not the same thing as trying to get better socioeconomic/cultural context, even if the two coincide.

"The real estate market prices majority-white school districts very efficiently."

:) It's hilarious to see leftists like Jan talk about race...while at the same time paying just about anything to keep their kids away from the ghetto-dwellers.

I guess, money speaks far louder then their words.

The post you're responding to doesn't appear to suggest that this is a purely econonic value.

By equating a financial penalty for a policy decision to the market value of a human, that is exactly what he's suggesting.

That's not what he's suggesting. It's what the EU is suggesting.


No, it's just another example of "Fortress Europe", and how Brussels bureaucrats get it wrong.

Faith in government's ability to price things correctly seems rather arbitrary at times.

If someone goes to prison for five years for selling joints, do you assume that the negative value to society was $500,000?

Among other things, it's the first proposed number. I propose that you give me $1000 for something. It's the first offer. Is that the "market value"?

Isn't the point of surge pricing to shift the supply and demand curves such that the equilibrium price, well, reduces or eliminates the surge pricing. Or did I miss that lecture.

Uber is being forced by lawsuits to treat drivers as employees, not contractors. If forced to do so, they will react by scheduling their now part time employee drivers instead of using surge pricing to entice them to volunteer to drive at certain times.

It's what I would expect as the endgame of the driver lawsuits, the end of the driver flexibility and being forced to work on Uber's hours. It's of course possible that Uber would plan this anyway, but if so, that would also definitely move drivers towards being employees.

Maybe. But it's also possible that Uber will get enough data in enough markets that they can establish the right rate structures for particular time periods without needing dynamic surge pricing. If that's right, it'll still cost more to get an Uber car at midnight Friday (because that's when cars are most needed and drivers would most rather be doing something else), but the pricing structure will be set ahead of time rather than dynamically.

Yes, good point, that's also a possibility, that it would remove some of the unplanned nature of surges.

Either way, if things aren't really perfectly predictable, it could lead to shortages (and unhappy customers) or oversupply (and unhappy drivers).

It's probably more accurate to say that surge pricing is just allowing prices to move along the supply and demand curves in response to shifts in the curves so that the new equilibrium price can be reached, eliminating the shortage.

In any event, it appears that NPR didn't quite get the story right. There is an update with links to Marketwatch and TechCrunch, including this one: []. It sounds like Uber is trying to predict demand and inform drivers when and where there is likely to be an increase in demand. If drivers respond to the predicted demand without an increase in price, then surge pricing won't be necessary. But, Uber is not going to eliminate surge pricing. It sounds like Uber is trying to reduce the need for surge pricing by providing drivers with more information than that available purely through price signals.

Uber may be trying to fix this problem:

Apparently, many surge periods last less than 5 or 10 minutes, and prices are updated only every 5 minutes. The price signalling doesn't work that well in addressing supply-demand imbalances of such short duration, so maybe Uber is trying to reduce these imbalances using prediction algorithms.

Size of the penalty seems pretty damning evidence that those saying the immigrants will bring net benefits are misguided. If it were so, even a 25,000 Euro penalty would be enough to bring 100% compliance.

This new penalty isn't enforceable and won't lead to countries fully accepting the refugees. I wonder what the market price truly is? But I suspect that this is one case where open borders extremists won't accept what the markets would show and want to just impose costs on nations without regard to their actual preferences.

And if a libertarian pipes up that collective rights aren't property rights, please remind him that the choice of national property right regimes is also determined by a collective process not subject to market forces.

Comments like this are so articulate, intelligent, and lucid. Immigration is the one issue where the commenters are more reasoned and logical than the economist blog hosts.

It seems that libertarians can argue for collective rights as well as against them.

Many Western European countries (not to mention Israel) already have programs that pay immigrants to leave, although the amounts are usually quite small, in the four figures.

It would be interesting to find out how big the Go Home payments would have to be to turn around the demographic trends threatening Europe.

I wonder if such low values have any effects at all. I'm guessing that the only people who would take advantage of such a payment were already going to leave.

'to find out how big the Go Home payments would have to be to turn around the demographic trends threatening Europe'

You mean common wisdom regarding declining birth rates, right? Because otherwise, what you have just written is the sort of thing that a certain group of Germans was very concerned about - and unlike your generally ever so coy writing, they had no fear in telling the world how they planned to handle the demographic trends threatening Germany.

Admittedly, they had no interest in paying people to 'go home' - the trips were much shorter than that, without any worry that those who took them would ever return as cultural parasites.

Your mask is slipping in these days of Trump's glorious rise, as America finally finds a leader willing to do and say what is necessary, even in terms handling those demographic trends threatening the U.S.

I'm not sure what prior demographic trends threatening Germany prior_test2 is referring to. Overpopulation?

you are actually not undering his comparison with the holocaust?

The demographic trends threatening Europe and that England will cease to be England, Frank will cease to be France, Belgium will cease to be Belgium, etc., in the same way that Gaul, Albion, or whatever ceased to exist. You may not care, but these are the demographic trends threatening Europe. I don't think anyone is being coy, its just understood. I personally think France is a pretty cool nation, an that it would be a shame if it ceased to exist.

Concern about declining birth rates = Nazism. Your mask is slipping, Steve! She's calling you a racist! Oh heavens, whatever will you do now?

They could become big enough to be worth stopping them at the border with guns, and foregoing the warm glow of being a righteous, superior and virtuous human being towards the third world masses.

Sometimes it costs money to help people. For example, those who flee war and have not yet learned the local language or how to navigate the cultural, training and regulatory systems.

Even companies spend a lot of money to build good will. But political entities, unlike corporate entities, are not legally obliged to maximize profit when doing good works.

(1) This isn't a market price. It's some bureaucrat's guess at a market price.

(2) It's not a guess at the market price for the economic penalty of accepting a refugee, it's a guess at the political penalty. It's intended to influence politicians who care about things other than the budget, like voter sympathy for poor children and voter dislike for particular immigrant cultures.

So while it does run counter to an argument that's generally made dishonestly anyway, it's not a strong counter.

Okay, Cowen is smarter than I. Surge pricing for uber and surge pricing for refugees. Uber and refugees. I suppose people have to ride, even refugees. Or something. Does it move the supply and demand curves?

Correcting for externalities.

Free riders have to pay.

Why is that a surprise.

The taxpayers did not ask for these net consumers to be deposited on them. The government's first and only loyalty should be to its citizens and taxpayers. This is what borders are for.

Government's only loyalty is to itself.

"If war is the health of the State, immigration is its Viagra." - Peter Brimelow.

No, the German chancellor can sacrifice her own country in the name of humanitarianism. I know she can because she says she can, and then she does it, scolding us all about the sacrifice and the struggle and ordering us to celebrate the challenges.

Free-riding on what exactly? Imported Islamic terror? Thanks a lot, Belgium and France, sorry for free-riding?

Were the terrorists refugees from Syria? I must have missed that.

Neither are the migrants they are taking in, so who cares?

I agree. 100% of the "Syrians" are on fake passports. It is self evident. In fact, there's not even a war in Syria. The disinformation campaigns are THAT pervasive.

@Troll me

Half are not Syrian. Three-quarters are fighting age men.

If half are not Syrian, that's the same as saying that 50% ARE Syrian. Which is rather different from the 0% implied in the statement I replied to.

When people flee war, I do not tend to define them as "fighting age men". People who should be defined as such after several years of war are presumably fighting, not fleeing.

No, they're the children of economic migrants from MENA. Europe is importing millions of people who will have kids, some small fraction of whom will grow up to want to destroy European culture.

There's no free ride here at all. I don't think you know what that word means.

Re: Free ride: Who pays to send a boat of people back

Who pays if there is a collective decision to allow immigrants that are massing on the shores, or who are in camps in EU territory.

It's an externality; its a payment for collective decisions; its a payment for getting involved in a war or not intervening to stop it.

"its a payment for getting involved in a war or not intervening to stop it."

AGHH!!! So the West is the problem, and solution, to all of life's problems.

Wait, shouldn't...SYRIA...IRAN...IRAQ...TURKEY...RUSSIA...SAUDI since they are the ones creating the externality?

What you're describing there is not, however, the "free rider" effect ;)

What isn't an externality under this broad interpretation?

Well global warming sure as hell isn't one. That's for sure!

Inane Jan comment! Drink!

You said "global warming" without insulting scientists. Please self report to the asylum.

None of that explanation fits this event. If the bureaucrats were worried about free riders they would just divide the cost of sending refugees back and bill the respective nations their share.

Instead, they are placing a rather large fine on nations that are refusing to host refugees; not on nations that are refusing to pay to repatriate refugees.

Re: Charging Syria for taking taking back refugees.

Good luck.


Externality: negative externality from refugee movement and associated costs.


Re: Not my problem response:
Costs of intervening in Syria:
If you touch it and it breaks,
You pay for it.

Bill: I fully agree with you that the US, EU, NATO, and everyone else in the world...should not touch Syria with a 10 foot stick. Let em kill each other to their heart's content.

But then numbnuts like you will still accuse the US, Eu, NATO and everyone else in the world for those barbarians murdering each other.

Either way, numbnuts like you will's our fault.

If we're going to get blamed, might as well help 'em kill themselves faster.

That's not what JW suggested. Re-read

1) Good way to kill the EU, and to remind Central European and East European countries that it may be time to start thinking of getting out of this abysmal system

2) Well worth the price, for most countries, to pay $250,000 and forego the much more damaging costs of admitting such people


Re: Reminding them to get out of the abysmal system...until the Central Europeans ask for collective defense. Don't forget that Putin's Russia has "loaned" money to far right groups, not because they are communists, but because they want to become separate, and when they are, they will be easier to intimidate.


I'm not supporting the far-right (who are actually leftist nationalists, i.e. Nazis, for lack of a better term). It's not just those parties that are "euro-skeptic", but a large % of both center-right parties in C/E Europe. Getting out of the EU should be a goal for all political parties in these countries. Alas, it's just a bad system, and this latest ruling demonstrates it quite clearly.

They won't get out, of course, because it would be politically unfeasible. But they'll be forced to curtail Brussels's rulings and intrusion into their countries. Which over time, will spell the end of the EU.

I mentioned C/E. European countries here because, for them, pretty much all political parties (right and left) are in agreement that they should not get involved in the clusterf***k that is EU's refugee/asylum policies. Most of them already want nothing to do with this idiocy.

If you believe in democracy, why?

Votes are like prices: they're mechanisms for aggregating information. Markets are machines for setting prices by gathering knowledge from the masses. Elections are machines for determining governance by gathering...

Well, Switzerland seems to work. Switzerland's cantons are pretty small places. It's imaginable that someone in a canton could have a good idea of what's going on throughout the canton. Iceland also seems to work, but Iceland is practically zero-dimensional -- and, IIRC, for a long time the major political division was between farmers and urbanites, which is what you'd expect. Farmers know what it's like to farm; urbanites know what it's like to live in a city.

In America, on the other hand, elections are basically tribal -- but are local elections tribal? I don't vote, so I don't know if / to what extent this is true, but I've heard there are places where local elections aren't even on the party system. Why would that be?

Well, if you live in Accident, MD (pop. 325), you have a good idea of what's happening in Accident. If you live in NYC, you might have some idea of what's happening in NYC. But if you live in NYC, you have no idea what's happening in Accident, and if you live in Accident, all you know about NYC is what you hear from the media. What are you going to vote on? What you hear from the media? And which media do you watch in the first place? Since no information can be gathered that way, people vote on noise -- and since the parties have the same incentives and are about equally competent, the noise averages out, and elections are decided by people who vote based on who they think looks better on TV or whatever, and since that's obviously no way to run a country, unelected bureaucrats step in and take most of the power.

Unelected bureaucrats, of course, don't have to care about what the people think -- but they'd like more money and power for themselves. Politicians above a certain level don't have to care either -- except about what the media makes people think, and where their campaign money is going to come from, and where their next job will be if, God forbid, they get voted out. So the unelected bureaucrats (and their friends in the media, who of course went to journalism school, which is run by academics, who'd like more power for themselves, and have all sorts of wacky cultural nonsense and inferiority complexes relative to ~cultured Europe~ -- and for 'cultured', read 'Marxist') go "gee, which party will give us the most money and power?" And of course that's the left. And the politicians go "gee, what do the people who might give us campaign money want?", and of course what they want is workers who'll spend 25 hours a day in a factory for peanuts, and (maybe) who'll break civil society so people don't have things to do other than sit around and consume. (Which is in the state's interest as well, at least to an extent -- for 'civil society', read 'lots and lots of power bases outside the state', and then read that Cass Sunstein article about how civil society Literally Caused Hitler.)

So the bureaucrats and the politicians set about opening the floodgates, and who's to say they shouldn't? The people? How are the people supposed to know? Unless they're living in one of the affected areas, they can't ignore it -- and even if they are, the media can, to some extent, set social pressures. So.

Now, maybe this stuff is Actually Good, but when I talk to people who live in affected areas, that's not what they say. I know *one person* who lives in an affected area and thinks mass immigration is good, and that person almost never leaves the house. Revealed preferences.

I literally have no idea what you're talking about.

I basically agree with what you are saying, especially regarding the scaling effect leading to ever more out of touch elites.

But you leave out the part where the politicians and new class have to worry about too much disconnect from reality because at some point. How much they have to worry directly affects their sensitivity. So local politicians are very responsive which is why for example even in the most left wing enclaves the police are politically protected, because those who are generally in conflict with the police are a small minority. As you move further and further out you get less responsiveness but when things get too far out of whack you get events in the US like Reagan, who the media was pretty antagonistic to, the 1994 and 2006 midterms, and even 2010. Or in the UK in 1945, 1979, and 1997. These events actually delivered changes, sometimes the winner doesn't make the obvious ones but policies change. Reagan and Thatcher really did break Labor Union power, Thatcher fundamentally did change the middle class relationship to the welfare state, Reagan's election really did result in a a more punitive justice system and a great change in foreign policy. We underestimate this though because politicians are reactive, it looks like they are all moving the same direction, but this happens because they are responding.

the same thong happens with institutions they many of them have huge buffering capacities. the press is a perfect example of both sides of this. As it gets more centralized it gets much less sensitive and it loses influence and profits. The parts that are the most sensitive though such as local tv news are considerably different in content than the national press, because they are completely dependent on local ratings. Compare it to national news, the right has complained about left wing bias in the national press and the national press has long been owned by media conglomerates, all of this predates the internet. The difference is that the journalism side has become less and less relevant which is why conservatives now spend most of their energy attacking the bias of the entertainment side and talking about culture. This is also why the revolution of Fox News happened, but notice how much less responsive it is than the old locally owned press.

But here is a final example, immigration. Texas is generally regarded as a very right wing state but its politicians are very noticably unenthusiastic about stopping immigration, while they object to the amnesty it is really a process objection. Most Texans are not really too worried about immigration, this is one reason that Trump was able to brand Cruz as the "establishment." But by your argument Texas should be hostile to immigration, since it has a large proportion of the "affected areas." You see this same tendency across the board. Look at who is voting for Trump in the GOP primaries vs who is not. The Southwest has not been very enthusiastic, and this is not just hispanic voters. It wasn't high immigration states that made immigration a national issue, but suddenly this topic is breaking the Republican party, this is because like you say a lot of people are voting on tribal issues and not their actual experience.

Now a lot of low skill workers are displaced by immigration, but a lot more have been by trade, but notice whoch one we are talking about.

"It wasn’t high immigration states that made immigration a national issue" -- I recall Arizona having a lot to do with it. Is Arizona not a high-immigration state?

In terms of internet politics, some of it was just the fact that irony is unsustainable, but some of it was serious from the start -- and a lot of that came out of California and Maryland, which are high-immigration states. (You can go outside in some parts of Maryland and hear three different languages: Spanish, French, and Amharic. Notice that English isn't on the list.)

'who are actually leftist nationalists'

You have never actually met a (neo-) Nazi, have you? Because one thing they are not is 'leftists' - if only due to the fact that extreme leftists beat up on (neo-) Nazis when given the chance, and vice versa. On an ongoing basis, if you follow actual news reporting from Germany.

And anyone who thinks the Nazis were leftists will just have to ignore everything the Nazis said about themselves, and their attempt to eradicate any and all leftists (from Social Democrats to Bolsheviks) from the face of the earth.

Then Bolsheviks are not leftists either because look at the amount of effort they put into eradicating all other leftists. Or what Communists generally said about all other leftists, the occassional united front period being an intentionally deceptice exception.

Now a lot of modern Leftists should like this arguement, but somehow most of the people I know who consider themselves leftists are still defending an awful lot of Bolshevik communists.

So you measure someone's political ideology on the bases of who they oppose, rather then what they actually say?

Virtually all neo-Nazi parties, and virtually all the ultra right-wing parties in Europe are leftist in economic terms. They make no attempt to hide this. (not all are leftists: the Dutch ones for example seem not to be, UKIP is also somewhat more center-left).

As Roy LC says, by your definition, no one is a leftist since all leftists actually engaged in wholesale slaughter of each other in Russia, Spain, Germany and elsewhere. They tend to do that, because they compete for the same electorate.

European Neo-Nazi parties are not "leftist" in economic terms in the European context, or Asian or South American. The US is the outlier that conflates free markets and libertarianism with "Right Wing". Economic populism has a long tradition on the European Right. No Nazi, Fascist or Neo-Nazi party ever suggests collectivizing private property or redistributing wealth to women and minorities.

"European Neo-Nazi parties are not “leftist” in economic terms in the European context, or Asian or South American"

They most certainly are. Most are self-professed anti-free market, self-professed "socialists" etc.

They may not be...communists...or insane SJW...which is what you're comparing them against. But they are Leftist in economic terms.

The EU is a net consumer, not provider, of collective security, provided mostly by NATO, mostly paid by US taxpayers.

When you use the word "net" that means they contribute, but not as much as someone else.

The word "net" means they consume more than they produce.

The calculation is less obvious if you start to add the security risk costs associated with being in an alliance where (rogue agents within) one of the members goes around antagnonizing people/countries outside of the alliance.

Yes, the US provides additional defense resources. But they also contribute positively to the NEED for those defense resources, at least in some cases.

When NATO members get a veto on non-NATO US military actions, i will be prepared to agree that there is free riding going on.

My statement is true of NATO and US defense spending even up to 1989. Please state how European individual or composite agents added to the need for defense, by their actions.

If you are referring to US defense spending component paid by unwilling association in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars for Europe, it is a minute fraction of defense spending by US for Europe in general. Most of those involvements are paid by US (and they are substantial) but defense against subsequent ME threats is again a minute fraction of the defense umbrella US provides and has provided to Europe in the corresponding time frame.

Has anyone ever explained how is the country supposed to contain the refugees within its own borders? What prevents a refugee detained in Poland to just board the next train to Germany?
All Syrian refugees are merely economic migrants, fleeing *Turkey*, not Syrian war. They don't want to move to "EU", what they really target are some 6-7 countries within EU they deem worthy enough to immigrate to.

There is a fine to be paid if a registered refugee from your country winds up in Germany, to give you an incentive to keep them contained. Of course, what this means is that you have either transformed yourself into a prison for refugees, meaning Schengen is a no go, despite this being the carrot dangled in front of Romania and Bulgaria in exchange for cooperation, or you have to sequester the refugees in camps permanently so they don't get away. This is what the incentives lead you to.

"European countries that refuse to share the burden of high immigration..."

Careful. That sounds like hate speech.

How much would it cost to house, feed and provide a laptop with a netflix subscription to each refugee in Turkey or Saudi Arabia or Iran? $30k per person per year? Think of the stimulus to those countries with building new infrastructure and housing.

At least in the countries around the refugees they could go home once things calm down. Does Europe want to remove all them so far from their own country that they can't go back without assistance?

I think you could be comfortable in most Turkish cities for around $10k a person. Quite comfortable, actually., so long as you didn't expect a budget to go out to posh hangouts, etc., all the time.

“European countries that refuse to share the burden of high immigration…”

Michael Kinsley said, "A gaffe is when a politician [or intellectual] tells the truth – some obvious truth he isn't supposed to say."

[Uber ending surge pricing] "will be great for riders, but not for drivers" -- ha! Typical NPR ignorance of economics. In NPR-land, supply curves are perfectly inelastic.

haber/bosch process, the green revolution, and the absence of morning after pills 4a atavistic culture trying2 make sense of y why they is here. God has his way, so be it, let's live like ants . . . what an enlightenment disappointment, almost couldn't of been worse.

paradise lost, it's all effed, get on board with the next victomhood crew, b4 everything goes to hell.

they melted the ice-caps, and then they were gone, greed did it,, they couldn't get away from their own self-interest, having not read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, they looked for top-down control over the situation.

The flora loved the blossoming of the carbon, when those evil humans left, they flourished.

everything was all right in the woiirld, when those evil humans left the stage.

and the dinosaurs took over again, and the hell you came from

doesn't like whining, compares history realistically.

never b4, have humans suffered from obesity, wake up call2 whining shit-heads.

Is there morality? go live in the dinosaur age, a ho's!

the beauty of the natural woirld, yea right . . .

if humans didn't exist? everything would be all right, yea sure

Big high5 to T\yler and Alex for keeping this forum going :)

if there wasn't a good song to play? It'd just be animals eating each other.

for protein, or some other s

dear lil' p p sh, we r talking 2u, late @nite

had a 67 camaro converitible, use to drive it back and forth over the Hudson bridges late at night

tripping, with the top down . . .

I compliment both myself and people who agree with me. Because others may not understand how amazingly we rock. So I need to point it out. The truth is so self evident that we need not consider other perspective

Those mentally ill dimwit hippie socialists on the other hand? Deserve whatever is dished out to them.

Three cheers for democracy! Free to be free if you think like me!

I'm looking forward to the ECB printing a cool 250,000 euros per refugee. Oh well, because what can you do? We're broke already. Then that brick of cash is handed over to ... who exactly? An exquisite piece of theatre.

This attempt to bully the reluctant nations of Europe will go nowhere. If a country's voters have enough control to close the borders to refugees, they have enough control to withdraw from the EU. Brexit will take place, and most of the other members will run for the exit soon after them.

More markets here: "Norway offers to pay refugees 1000 pounds to leave country", via the telegraph:

Comments for this post are closed