|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 24 2018 04:53 LegalLord wrote:
Great move by Merkel for once, tying the cooperation of the troublemakers in her pet project to their subsidies. I expect them to moan for a bit but cave fully to the demands, as is the usual fare for such subsidy queens.
Actually standing firm behind Christian values she wants to portray for once is a pet project, Huh.
It should be mandatory as a believer.
|
On February 25 2018 05:14 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +And for the second part, giving in two far right demands has never ever helped. It's only legitimizing them. Well, if the far-right campaigns on "Brussels is imposing us (Muslim) migrants!1!1!1!" and "Brussels" does that, it could also help their narrative?
Well their narrative is correct, Brussel is imposing things. Is there really a point pretending that it does not or should not? It's not a choose-your-own-adventure club, we aren't children. You can't have absolute sovereignty, absolute European unity, maximise your own benefit and at the same make everybody happy. The only mistake we ever made was pretending that this is somehow possible.
We either have a meaningful union with rights and obligations where citizens accept the reality that things are imposed on them by authority (which is the basis of every serious form of organisation) or we don't and we make a 'core Europe' or a 'two speed Europe' or countries leave or whatever is their favourite model.
That we lack that honesty of telling people this straight up and except pretend that they'll never have to conform with a decision they don't like or that refugees don't cost money or don't commit crime is in my opinion a big reason for the rise of right-wing parties.
|
On February 25 2018 06:09 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2018 05:14 TheDwf wrote:And for the second part, giving in two far right demands has never ever helped. It's only legitimizing them. Well, if the far-right campaigns on "Brussels is imposing us (Muslim) migrants!1!1!1!" and "Brussels" does that, it could also help their narrative? Well their narrative is correct, Brussel is imposing things. Is there really a point pretending that it does not or should not? It's not a choose-your-own-adventure club, we aren't children. You can't have absolute sovereignty, absolute European unity, maximise your own benefit and at the same make everybody happy. The only mistake we ever made was pretending that this is somehow possible. We either have a meaningful union with rights and obligations where citizens accept the reality that things are imposed on them by authority (which is the basis of every serious form of organisation) or we don't and we make a 'core Europe' or a 'two speed Europe' or countries leave or whatever is their favourite model. That we lack that honesty of telling people this straight up and except pretend that they'll never have to conform with a decision they don't like or that refugees don't cost money or don't commit crime is in my opinion a big reason for the rise of right-wing parties.
The EU bureaucrats and various political leaders lacked the honesty of telling people that they were engaged in a "stealth federalist strategy" by incompletion of the existing institutions (= forcing rulers to "complete" and "further integrate" whenever a crisis occurs), instead of asking voters clearly and openly if they really wanted to go that path of "an ever closer union" with everything that it entails, i.e. a final transfer of sovereignty and thus the end of the existing nations as centres of meaningful decisions.
|
On February 25 2018 06:09 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2018 05:14 TheDwf wrote:And for the second part, giving in two far right demands has never ever helped. It's only legitimizing them. Well, if the far-right campaigns on "Brussels is imposing us (Muslim) migrants!1!1!1!" and "Brussels" does that, it could also help their narrative? Well their narrative is correct, Brussel is imposing things. Is there really a point pretending that it does not or should not? It's not a choose-your-own-adventure club, we aren't children. You can't have absolute sovereignty, absolute European unity, maximise your own benefit and at the same make everybody happy. The only mistake we ever made was pretending that this is somehow possible. We either have a meaningful union with rights and obligations where citizens accept the reality that things are imposed on them by authority (which is the basis of every serious form of organisation) or we don't and we make a 'core Europe' or a 'two speed Europe' or countries leave or whatever is their favourite model. That we lack that honesty of telling people this straight up and except pretend that they'll never have to conform with a decision they don't like or that refugees don't cost money or don't commit crime is in my opinion a big reason for the rise of right-wing parties.
Democracy first. The right-wing parties win because they have democratic legitimacy, Mr. Juncker has some too, the commissioners hardly and Mrs. Merkel (or the whole council) has none outside of Germany.
|
On February 25 2018 05:14 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2018 04:12 Nyxisto wrote:Based on what democratic legitimity?
Having a substantial bonus system for countries who welcome refugees is fine, a supranational institution with weak legitimacy forcing nations to welcome refugees at times where the far-right is rising sounds fairly stupid. Being a member of the EU is a voluntary decision. It's not the warsaw pact, countries don't need to be in it as the UK has proven. That's what legitimises collective decision making. No it does not. If 15 countries want Country A to do something against the expressed will of people living there, the legitimacy is still null. The Greek example illustrates quite well how the antidemocratic methods (both from the EU and the government) go hand-in-hand with catastrophic decisions. And you cannot seriously justify this kind of behavior by saying "well you can always leave anyway". Unless you want to increasingly push everyone towards the sortie that is. Show nested quote +And for the second part, giving in two far right demands has never ever helped. It's only legitimizing them. Well, if the far-right campaigns on "Brussels is imposing us (Muslim) migrants!1!1!1!" and "Brussels" does that, it could also help their narrative? The hospitality also depends on how well the decision is accepted. Honestly I am more thinking about refugees themselves than countries, which will obviously not collapse with a few thousands or dozens of thousands of extra people. But if this means being placed in camps with next to no rights and no perspectives, and being eyed coldly by people in the streets because the local demagogue said that you were a foreign invader... Incentives rather than constraints and punishment is the way to go here.
What sort of incentives? Merkel just proposed financial incentives to absorb and integrate migrants. She wasn't talking about forcing any country to do anything.
|
On February 25 2018 23:38 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2018 05:14 TheDwf wrote:On February 25 2018 04:12 Nyxisto wrote:Based on what democratic legitimity?
Having a substantial bonus system for countries who welcome refugees is fine, a supranational institution with weak legitimacy forcing nations to welcome refugees at times where the far-right is rising sounds fairly stupid. Being a member of the EU is a voluntary decision. It's not the warsaw pact, countries don't need to be in it as the UK has proven. That's what legitimises collective decision making. No it does not. If 15 countries want Country A to do something against the expressed will of people living there, the legitimacy is still null. The Greek example illustrates quite well how the antidemocratic methods (both from the EU and the government) go hand-in-hand with catastrophic decisions. And you cannot seriously justify this kind of behavior by saying "well you can always leave anyway". Unless you want to increasingly push everyone towards the sortie that is. And for the second part, giving in two far right demands has never ever helped. It's only legitimizing them. Well, if the far-right campaigns on "Brussels is imposing us (Muslim) migrants!1!1!1!" and "Brussels" does that, it could also help their narrative? The hospitality also depends on how well the decision is accepted. Honestly I am more thinking about refugees themselves than countries, which will obviously not collapse with a few thousands or dozens of thousands of extra people. But if this means being placed in camps with next to no rights and no perspectives, and being eyed coldly by people in the streets because the local demagogue said that you were a foreign invader... Incentives rather than constraints and punishment is the way to go here. What sort of incentives? Merkel just proposed financial incentives to absorb and integrate migrants. She wasn't talking about forcing any country to do anything.
No. Merkel proposed tieing the existing cohesion funding (i.e. the funding poorer nations receive from the EU budget in an attempt to help balance the region) to integration of refugees/immigrants. It flies directly in the face of the original intention with the funding. To call it an incentive is to say that a bank robber merely incentivizes the teller to hand over the money when pointing a gun at the teller.
https://www.ft.com/content/7d6c1bea-18b3-11e8-9376-4a6390addb44
@Nyxisto: You should probably re-read pages around 400-500 which contains the discussion relating to the massive influx of "refugees". You repeatedly conflated immigrants and refugees, ignored the numbers regarding ethnicity presented by Tusk and Frontex, and ultimately threw up your hands stating that ethnicity didn't really matter as all immigration was a net benefit. Secondly, it was hardly humanitarian to try and import Syria and Africa to Europe. The actions of Merkel, which you supported, merely incentivized the undertaking of an incredibly dangerous journey AND it ensured that only those capable of undertaking the journey received help. I recognized you disagree and that is fine, but at least recognize the fact that those of us who disagreed with the approach didn't do so because we thought no help should be provided.
|
On February 26 2018 02:54 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2018 23:38 Longshank wrote:On February 25 2018 05:14 TheDwf wrote:On February 25 2018 04:12 Nyxisto wrote:Based on what democratic legitimity?
Having a substantial bonus system for countries who welcome refugees is fine, a supranational institution with weak legitimacy forcing nations to welcome refugees at times where the far-right is rising sounds fairly stupid. Being a member of the EU is a voluntary decision. It's not the warsaw pact, countries don't need to be in it as the UK has proven. That's what legitimises collective decision making. No it does not. If 15 countries want Country A to do something against the expressed will of people living there, the legitimacy is still null. The Greek example illustrates quite well how the antidemocratic methods (both from the EU and the government) go hand-in-hand with catastrophic decisions. And you cannot seriously justify this kind of behavior by saying "well you can always leave anyway". Unless you want to increasingly push everyone towards the sortie that is. And for the second part, giving in two far right demands has never ever helped. It's only legitimizing them. Well, if the far-right campaigns on "Brussels is imposing us (Muslim) migrants!1!1!1!" and "Brussels" does that, it could also help their narrative? The hospitality also depends on how well the decision is accepted. Honestly I am more thinking about refugees themselves than countries, which will obviously not collapse with a few thousands or dozens of thousands of extra people. But if this means being placed in camps with next to no rights and no perspectives, and being eyed coldly by people in the streets because the local demagogue said that you were a foreign invader... Incentives rather than constraints and punishment is the way to go here. What sort of incentives? Merkel just proposed financial incentives to absorb and integrate migrants. She wasn't talking about forcing any country to do anything. No. Merkel proposed tieing the existing cohesion funding (i.e. the funding poorer nations receive from the EU budget in an attempt to help balance the region) to integration of refugees/immigrants. It flies directly in the face of the original intention with the funding. To call it an incentive is to say that a bank robber merely incentivizes the teller to hand over the money when pointing a gun at the teller. https://www.ft.com/content/7d6c1bea-18b3-11e8-9376-4a6390addb44
Hasn't immigration been beneficial on a country level for a long time? So this is about double promoting their economy even if they don't want to on a political level?
As for the other discussion. The EU has been heading towards centralisation for a long time in my opinion (and I like it). So you have three opinions due to that.
It is not heading towards one government and removing country power. Don't think this seems factually correct since the EU doesn't really work if it doesn't. Either splintering or centralizing.
It is moving towards one central government and people don't want that.
Lastly it is heading that way and people want that or not.
|
On February 26 2018 02:59 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2018 02:54 Ghostcom wrote:On February 25 2018 23:38 Longshank wrote:On February 25 2018 05:14 TheDwf wrote:On February 25 2018 04:12 Nyxisto wrote:Based on what democratic legitimity?
Having a substantial bonus system for countries who welcome refugees is fine, a supranational institution with weak legitimacy forcing nations to welcome refugees at times where the far-right is rising sounds fairly stupid. Being a member of the EU is a voluntary decision. It's not the warsaw pact, countries don't need to be in it as the UK has proven. That's what legitimises collective decision making. No it does not. If 15 countries want Country A to do something against the expressed will of people living there, the legitimacy is still null. The Greek example illustrates quite well how the antidemocratic methods (both from the EU and the government) go hand-in-hand with catastrophic decisions. And you cannot seriously justify this kind of behavior by saying "well you can always leave anyway". Unless you want to increasingly push everyone towards the sortie that is. And for the second part, giving in two far right demands has never ever helped. It's only legitimizing them. Well, if the far-right campaigns on "Brussels is imposing us (Muslim) migrants!1!1!1!" and "Brussels" does that, it could also help their narrative? The hospitality also depends on how well the decision is accepted. Honestly I am more thinking about refugees themselves than countries, which will obviously not collapse with a few thousands or dozens of thousands of extra people. But if this means being placed in camps with next to no rights and no perspectives, and being eyed coldly by people in the streets because the local demagogue said that you were a foreign invader... Incentives rather than constraints and punishment is the way to go here. What sort of incentives? Merkel just proposed financial incentives to absorb and integrate migrants. She wasn't talking about forcing any country to do anything. No. Merkel proposed tieing the existing cohesion funding (i.e. the funding poorer nations receive from the EU budget in an attempt to help balance the region) to integration of refugees/immigrants. It flies directly in the face of the original intention with the funding. To call it an incentive is to say that a bank robber merely incentivizes the teller to hand over the money when pointing a gun at the teller. https://www.ft.com/content/7d6c1bea-18b3-11e8-9376-4a6390addb44 Hasn't immigration been beneficial on a country level for a long time? So this is about double promoting their economy even if they don't want to on a political level?
No it hasn't. Seriously, this is getting dumb. Read the last page. Non-western immigration is costly.
|
On February 26 2018 03:02 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2018 02:59 Yurie wrote:On February 26 2018 02:54 Ghostcom wrote:On February 25 2018 23:38 Longshank wrote:On February 25 2018 05:14 TheDwf wrote:On February 25 2018 04:12 Nyxisto wrote:Based on what democratic legitimity?
Having a substantial bonus system for countries who welcome refugees is fine, a supranational institution with weak legitimacy forcing nations to welcome refugees at times where the far-right is rising sounds fairly stupid. Being a member of the EU is a voluntary decision. It's not the warsaw pact, countries don't need to be in it as the UK has proven. That's what legitimises collective decision making. No it does not. If 15 countries want Country A to do something against the expressed will of people living there, the legitimacy is still null. The Greek example illustrates quite well how the antidemocratic methods (both from the EU and the government) go hand-in-hand with catastrophic decisions. And you cannot seriously justify this kind of behavior by saying "well you can always leave anyway". Unless you want to increasingly push everyone towards the sortie that is. And for the second part, giving in two far right demands has never ever helped. It's only legitimizing them. Well, if the far-right campaigns on "Brussels is imposing us (Muslim) migrants!1!1!1!" and "Brussels" does that, it could also help their narrative? The hospitality also depends on how well the decision is accepted. Honestly I am more thinking about refugees themselves than countries, which will obviously not collapse with a few thousands or dozens of thousands of extra people. But if this means being placed in camps with next to no rights and no perspectives, and being eyed coldly by people in the streets because the local demagogue said that you were a foreign invader... Incentives rather than constraints and punishment is the way to go here. What sort of incentives? Merkel just proposed financial incentives to absorb and integrate migrants. She wasn't talking about forcing any country to do anything. No. Merkel proposed tieing the existing cohesion funding (i.e. the funding poorer nations receive from the EU budget in an attempt to help balance the region) to integration of refugees/immigrants. It flies directly in the face of the original intention with the funding. To call it an incentive is to say that a bank robber merely incentivizes the teller to hand over the money when pointing a gun at the teller. https://www.ft.com/content/7d6c1bea-18b3-11e8-9376-4a6390addb44 Hasn't immigration been beneficial on a country level for a long time? So this is about double promoting their economy even if they don't want to on a political level? No it hasn't. Seriously, this is getting dumb. Read the last page. Non-western immigration is costly.
I read last page. Saw no sourced posts about it. Saw somebody claiming a number that might be true in the short term and not taking into account long-term cost/gains of a policy. Think 60 years or so since that is when the migrants start dying of old age in large numbers.
|
On February 26 2018 02:54 Ghostcom wrote:
@Nyxisto: You should probably re-read pages around 400-500 which contains the discussion relating to the massive influx of "refugees". You repeatedly conflated immigrants and refugees, ignored the numbers regarding ethnicity presented by Tusk and Frontex, and ultimately threw up your hands stating that ethnicity didn't really matter as all immigration was a net benefit. Secondly, it was hardly humanitarian to try and import Syria and Africa to Europe. The actions of Merkel, which you supported, merely incentivized the undertaking of an incredibly dangerous journey AND it ensured that only those capable of undertaking the journey received help. I recognized you disagree and that is fine, but at least recognize the fact that those of us who disagreed with the approach didn't do so because we thought no help should be provided.
I do still believe that immigration is a net positive in the mid and long term if done right, it's not a fatalistic thing and depends entirely how well people are integrated. Turks immigrated to Germany in even larger numbers and while they, like all immigrant groups, have their own problems, I haven't anybody heard complain about them in a long time. The public opinion has now moved on to the next group.
|
On February 26 2018 03:07 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2018 03:02 Ghostcom wrote:On February 26 2018 02:59 Yurie wrote:On February 26 2018 02:54 Ghostcom wrote:On February 25 2018 23:38 Longshank wrote:On February 25 2018 05:14 TheDwf wrote:On February 25 2018 04:12 Nyxisto wrote:Based on what democratic legitimity?
Having a substantial bonus system for countries who welcome refugees is fine, a supranational institution with weak legitimacy forcing nations to welcome refugees at times where the far-right is rising sounds fairly stupid. Being a member of the EU is a voluntary decision. It's not the warsaw pact, countries don't need to be in it as the UK has proven. That's what legitimises collective decision making. No it does not. If 15 countries want Country A to do something against the expressed will of people living there, the legitimacy is still null. The Greek example illustrates quite well how the antidemocratic methods (both from the EU and the government) go hand-in-hand with catastrophic decisions. And you cannot seriously justify this kind of behavior by saying "well you can always leave anyway". Unless you want to increasingly push everyone towards the sortie that is. And for the second part, giving in two far right demands has never ever helped. It's only legitimizing them. Well, if the far-right campaigns on "Brussels is imposing us (Muslim) migrants!1!1!1!" and "Brussels" does that, it could also help their narrative? The hospitality also depends on how well the decision is accepted. Honestly I am more thinking about refugees themselves than countries, which will obviously not collapse with a few thousands or dozens of thousands of extra people. But if this means being placed in camps with next to no rights and no perspectives, and being eyed coldly by people in the streets because the local demagogue said that you were a foreign invader... Incentives rather than constraints and punishment is the way to go here. What sort of incentives? Merkel just proposed financial incentives to absorb and integrate migrants. She wasn't talking about forcing any country to do anything. No. Merkel proposed tieing the existing cohesion funding (i.e. the funding poorer nations receive from the EU budget in an attempt to help balance the region) to integration of refugees/immigrants. It flies directly in the face of the original intention with the funding. To call it an incentive is to say that a bank robber merely incentivizes the teller to hand over the money when pointing a gun at the teller. https://www.ft.com/content/7d6c1bea-18b3-11e8-9376-4a6390addb44 Hasn't immigration been beneficial on a country level for a long time? So this is about double promoting their economy even if they don't want to on a political level? No it hasn't. Seriously, this is getting dumb. Read the last page. Non-western immigration is costly. I read last page. Saw no sourced posts about it. Saw somebody claiming a number that might be true in the short term and not taking into account long-term cost/gains of a policy. Think 60 years or so since that is when the migrants start dying of old age in large numbers.
Ah yes, your well-sourced post stands in stark contrast to the posting of what was news in all major Danish outlets, was posted in a couple of international papers as well, and would've taken you 2 seconds worth of googling.
Concerning your long-term cost/gains:
https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/dokumentation/documentationofstatistics/immigrants-and-descendants/statistical-presentation
That covers statistics on immigration and their descendants since 1984 in Denmark. Whilst we haven't quite achieved 60 years FU yet, it is by far the most encompassing data out there.
|
On February 26 2018 04:42 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2018 03:07 Yurie wrote:On February 26 2018 03:02 Ghostcom wrote:On February 26 2018 02:59 Yurie wrote:On February 26 2018 02:54 Ghostcom wrote:On February 25 2018 23:38 Longshank wrote:On February 25 2018 05:14 TheDwf wrote:On February 25 2018 04:12 Nyxisto wrote:Based on what democratic legitimity?
Having a substantial bonus system for countries who welcome refugees is fine, a supranational institution with weak legitimacy forcing nations to welcome refugees at times where the far-right is rising sounds fairly stupid. Being a member of the EU is a voluntary decision. It's not the warsaw pact, countries don't need to be in it as the UK has proven. That's what legitimises collective decision making. No it does not. If 15 countries want Country A to do something against the expressed will of people living there, the legitimacy is still null. The Greek example illustrates quite well how the antidemocratic methods (both from the EU and the government) go hand-in-hand with catastrophic decisions. And you cannot seriously justify this kind of behavior by saying "well you can always leave anyway". Unless you want to increasingly push everyone towards the sortie that is. And for the second part, giving in two far right demands has never ever helped. It's only legitimizing them. Well, if the far-right campaigns on "Brussels is imposing us (Muslim) migrants!1!1!1!" and "Brussels" does that, it could also help their narrative? The hospitality also depends on how well the decision is accepted. Honestly I am more thinking about refugees themselves than countries, which will obviously not collapse with a few thousands or dozens of thousands of extra people. But if this means being placed in camps with next to no rights and no perspectives, and being eyed coldly by people in the streets because the local demagogue said that you were a foreign invader... Incentives rather than constraints and punishment is the way to go here. What sort of incentives? Merkel just proposed financial incentives to absorb and integrate migrants. She wasn't talking about forcing any country to do anything. No. Merkel proposed tieing the existing cohesion funding (i.e. the funding poorer nations receive from the EU budget in an attempt to help balance the region) to integration of refugees/immigrants. It flies directly in the face of the original intention with the funding. To call it an incentive is to say that a bank robber merely incentivizes the teller to hand over the money when pointing a gun at the teller. https://www.ft.com/content/7d6c1bea-18b3-11e8-9376-4a6390addb44 Hasn't immigration been beneficial on a country level for a long time? So this is about double promoting their economy even if they don't want to on a political level? No it hasn't. Seriously, this is getting dumb. Read the last page. Non-western immigration is costly. I read last page. Saw no sourced posts about it. Saw somebody claiming a number that might be true in the short term and not taking into account long-term cost/gains of a policy. Think 60 years or so since that is when the migrants start dying of old age in large numbers. Ah yes, your well-sourced post stands in stark contrast to the posting of what was news in all major Danish outlets, was posted in a couple of international papers as well, and would've taken you 2 seconds worth of googling. Concerning your long-term cost/gains: https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/dokumentation/documentationofstatistics/immigrants-and-descendants/statistical-presentationThat covers statistics on immigration and their descendants since 1984 in Denmark. Whilst we haven't quite achieved 60 years FU yet, it is by far the most encompassing data out there.
Can you help guide me through that page. The linked page is methodology page. The PDF explains more methods.
Comment link goes to https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/Publikationer/gennemsnitsdanskeren which isn't helpful either.
Going to something like: http://www.statbank.dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=1600 does not help separate it either.
|
You can with high certainty assume that anyone claiming to know one way or the other is fueled by a political agenda. Many immigrant waves post WW2 has been beneficial to the receiving country long term, even if it's refugees or unskilled labour but it's not a given. It all depends on integration and how soon the migrant becomes productive. Truth is, nobody knows yet the financial effects of this recent wave of refugees long term and it may vary greatly from country to country.
|
If this recent wave of refugees and migrants is potentially beneficial for the receiving countries, why do you think Merkel is proposing "financial incentives" for other countries to absorb and integrate those people?
|
Because they are a “loss leader”. In the short term, they cost money and political capital. In the long term(decades) they are a benefit to the nation. But that doesn’t change the short term costs and that not every nation is equally capable of absorbing those costs.
|
On February 27 2018 02:02 Sent. wrote:
If this recent wave of refugees and migrants is potentially beneficial for the receiving countries, why do you think Merkel is proposing "financial incentives" for other countries to absorb and integrate those people?
Because at first it's a cost if you have to build special centres or things like that?
|
It's also easier for 28 countries to integrate a million refugees than for one country to do it alone. And the potential financial gains is tied to the success of the integration.
|
On February 27 2018 02:08 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2018 02:02 Sent. wrote:
If this recent wave of refugees and migrants is potentially beneficial for the receiving countries, why do you think Merkel is proposing "financial incentives" for other countries to absorb and integrate those people? Because at first it's a cost if you have to build special centres or things like that?
I'm aware it's supposed to be costly at the start. My point is that it makes little sense to "advertise" that wave of migrants as a potential long term benefit instead of saying that taking them in is a purely humanitarian effort. If you tell someone that you have a gift for them and you'll punish them if they won't take it, they probably won't think that "gift" is something good for them.
|
On February 27 2018 02:02 Sent. wrote:
If this recent wave of refugees and migrants is potentially beneficial for the receiving countries, why do you think Merkel is proposing "financial incentives" for other countries to absorb and integrate those people?
For the same reason we still have agricultural subsidies, tariffs etc. Laws and policy aren't solely based on economics.
|
On February 27 2018 02:29 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2018 02:08 TheDwf wrote:On February 27 2018 02:02 Sent. wrote:
If this recent wave of refugees and migrants is potentially beneficial for the receiving countries, why do you think Merkel is proposing "financial incentives" for other countries to absorb and integrate those people? Because at first it's a cost if you have to build special centres or things like that? I'm aware it's supposed to be costly at the start. My point is that it makes little sense to "advertise" that wave of migrants as a potential long term benefit instead of saying that taking them in is a purely humanitarian effort. If you tell someone that you have a gift for them and you'll punish them if they won't take it, they probably won't think that "gift" is something good for them.
Why can't it just be both humanitarian and also beneficial to the nation long term? Is there some problem with that elementary level of nuance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
