EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 6968
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 25 2017 11:45 Elroi wrote: In these debates about the dangers of terrorism and refugees, I almost never hear people defend the position that it is our moral obligation to help people in need even if it would hurt our economic development or crime rates. Now, I dont think the refugee crisis has had any effect on crime or the economy judging by all the statistics here in sweden (http://www.government.se/articles/2017/02/facts-about-migration-and-crime-in-sweden/), but even if that would be the case I wouldnt want to close our borders to people fleeing war, simply because that would be inhumane and I would feel ashamed to live in such a country. There is no moral obligation to bring them to your own country. There are other, cheaper and more comprehensive, ways to help them flee war. | ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
On February 25 2017 11:38 Danglars wrote: Which is why we shouldn't examine other first world countries that essentially paid the price. This is why I simply can't justify engagement on this issue. What gave rise to Trump once still exists to give him expanded majorities in 2018 and hurts civil debate today. My complacency is justified, your fears aren't, oh my God why is this blowhard in the White House it must be fake news and ignorant voters. America deserves better engagement than this. How is the mainstream media meant to engage with people like you? Tucker Carlson says some unfounded bullshit about a rape/violence epidemic in Sweden and Trump repeats it. Even if there is a refugee crime wave in Europe (I'm open to being proven wrong), America happens to have the Atlantic and extreme vetting to keep them "safe" from the terrifying brown heathens. Americans can't seem to grasp that Islamists are an incredibly small % of the muslim population and that the vast majority of muslims fleeing war are simply victims who want safe, normal lives for their families. My Australian grandparents felt the same way about the waves of Asian immigration/refugees and look how that turned out. The fears are based on emotion and propaganda, just as they were with the 'yellow peril' back in the day. Brown, bearded people and religious head-wear in the suburbs make irrational people feel unsafe. You can't argue with these people based on facts, it's like trying to win a fight with my wife when her entire position is based on feelings. America has enough border control already with regards to foreign immigrants. It clearly works. Progamers from SEA and elsewhere routinely get their temporary visa applications rejected because it's that tight. Stop watching FOX News editorials and listening to a president who is verifiably a compulsive liar. Then we can engage with numbers and facts, not feelings and latent racism. On February 25 2017 13:20 Plansix wrote: The threat hasn't been found yet. That is why the ban is necessary. haha sounds like something that happened in Iraq a while back | ||
|
oBlade
United States5576 Posts
| ||
|
mikedebo
Canada4341 Posts
On February 25 2017 13:27 oBlade wrote: Those dollars can go a lot further at the source of the problem. How? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
![[image loading]](http://aaww.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Fig-57-Great-Fear-of-the-Period-523x480.jpg) Replace the Irish and Chinese men with a Mexican and Muslim and you have a major part of Trump's platform. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
generally speaking, fully funding the UN refugee agencies so they can provide more support at the refugee camps where the actual bulk of the refugees are. last I checked the UNHCR is still quite a bit below where they'd like to be in funding. spending more in countries with a lower cost of living/cheaper goods, and which are nearer to the source of refugees (less transportation costs). it's also a bit easier if the refugees are in a location with more similar culture/language (if such are available). Of course in some cases, like Jordan, the amount of refugees is so high it places a major strain on the general systems of the country (i.e. the infrastructure was never built for that many people). | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
What's cheaper, sending money to safe zones to build refugee camps, or shipping them all across the world, giving them benefits as accorded to a first world nation, dealing with the social consequences, and only being able to even help a fraction of the refugees as a result? | ||
|
mikedebo
Canada4341 Posts
On February 25 2017 13:31 Plansix wrote: None of the things you just listed are real concerns or problems. Refugees do not cost that much and not accepting them doesn't make us any safer. There are strong arguments that it may do harm to not accept them. Additionally, it is not free to turn them away -- especially in cases where you share a direct border with them. I'm curious to hear what alternate effective measures the money could be spent on "at the source problem" though (oBlade's and LegalLord's comments) that would not constitute a military presence in a foreign, war-torn country. Canada spent $385 million to settle 25000 Syrian refugees. That's ~15000 per refugee. I personally don't consider that to be a lot of money to save one life, although obviously that is just one way of measuring it and "worth it" is also somewhat up to opinion. If we're looking to an economic measure of efficacy though, I genuinely wonder what we could do that would be similarly effective in both magnitude of cost and cost-per-life. This is assuming the argument that we did have a moral obligation to help somehow, which I personally agree with. | ||
|
mikedebo
Canada4341 Posts
On February 25 2017 13:39 zlefin wrote: generally speaking, fully funding the UN refugee agencies so they can provide more support at the refugee camps where the actual bulk of the refugees are. last I checked the UNHCR is still quite a bit below where they'd like to be in funding. spending more in countries with a lower cost of living/cheaper goods, and which are nearer to the source of refugees (less transportation costs). it's also a bit easier if the refugees are in a location with more similar culture/language (if such are available). Of course in some cases, like Jordan, the amount of refugees is so high it places a major strain on the general systems of the country (i.e. the infrastructure was never built for that many people). Cool, thanks. I will read up more on that. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States5576 Posts
What do you mean, how? The cost of helping someone poor in Africa or the Middle East or Asia is much less than setting up someone's life in the first world -> you can help more people without moving them. Remember the whole less than the cost of your morning coffee commercial? | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Nice, solid $100 billion within 4 years. For about a million people. There are many more where those came from. Alternatively, set up refugee camps in bordering nations, send money through UN missions, arrange for humanitarian corridors, help end the war... and that's going to do a lot more for a lot less money. One tenth of the price. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
But it is an easy argument to hang your hat on, because the number for not helping refugees come to your country will always be lower. And if you hold that to be the most important factor against all reason, you are unbeatable. Edit: 25 billion a year across all of the US. Pocket change. And we are not even taking in as many as Germany. We got this. EZPZ. Edit 2: not sold on the idea of top secret camps helping end the war. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 25 2017 13:57 Plansix wrote: The cost saving plan is not a compelling argument. Cost efficiency is not a major concern when providing aid to a humanitarian crisis. Well shit, I didn't realize that we have transcended the olden days where we had budgetary constraints on what we could actually accomplish, and now money is no object. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 25 2017 14:00 LegalLord wrote: Well shit, I didn't realize that we have transcended the olden days where we had budgetary constraints on what we could actually accomplish, and now money is no object. If you want an argument that you can constantly go back to and point at numbers, money is a good place to go. But even you are not stupid enough to say it is the largest concern when it comes to refugees. Our reputation as a nation matters and its pretty shit right now. Every expert on terrorism has said that the refugee ban is an ISIS recruiter's dream. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On February 25 2017 13:57 Plansix wrote: The cost saving plan is not a compelling argument. Cost efficiency is not a major concern when providing aid to a humanitarian crisis. The argument can be made that it is cheaper, but refugees are still going to apply for refugee status. But it is an easy argument to hang your hat on, because the number for not helping refugees come to your country will always be lower. And if you hold that to be the most important factor against all reason, you are unbeatable. Edit: 25 billion a year across all of the US. Pocket change. And we are not even taking in as many as Germany. We got this. EZPZ. Edit 2: not sold on the idea of top secret camps helping end the war. Cost reduction is just a fraction of the compelling argument for helping people closer to their point of origin rather than trying to import them. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 25 2017 14:04 Ghostcom wrote: Cost reduction is just a fraction of the compelling argument for helping people closer to their point of origin rather than trying to import them. Refugees don't want to go back, so I fail to see the point. They apply. They do not want to return home and will take literally any county that will have them. And we are the most picky out of all refugee accepting nations. Not accepting them will do more damage long term to US reputation abroad and place our citizen in danger for years, if not longer. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 25 2017 14:03 Plansix wrote: If you want an argument that you can constantly go back to and point at numbers, money is a good place to go. But even you are not stupid enough to say it is the largest concern when it comes to refugees. Our reputation as a nation matters and its pretty shit right now. Every expert on terrorism has said that the refugee ban is an ISIS recruiter's dream. As usual with you, there is a whole lot of cognitive dissonance and moving of goalposts whenever a discussion of such issues comes up. The reasons for or against taking refugees have been debated to death and for at least the Syrian matter you can forget about any refugees coming here; Trump will last longer than the war. But someone asked "BUT MORALITY" and here's your answer; why it's cheaper to do otherwise has also been answered. Where this "it's the most compelling argument " and "ISIS wants this" came out of, I don't know. | ||
| ||
