|
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. |
Norway28561 Posts
I have an incredibly positive view of refugees. Something like half my pupils last year were refugees, and they are, overwhelmingly, a really positive, driven and grateful group of people, who are, on average, really concerned with contributing positively to their new society. Most plan on working with health care and taking care of the elderly, so if concern for my parents was my primary factor, I'd be delighted to accept more, as we are projected to lack those workers without immigration.
Especially the Syrians I have worked with are really resourceful. That said - there is generally a big difference between how those that flee by themselves and those that flee with their families perform. Ones that bring their families are very concerned with providing a good life for their families and work incredibly hard to ensure that happens, while ones that come alone struggle a whole lot more. Anecdotally, young men from Afghanistan who come by themselves are perhaps the one group with the most trouble integrating- education levels are very low, trauma levels are fairly high, and they spend far too much time alone.
Now, I still want to accept afghan refugees, but for that group, it's a question of humanitarianism, I accept some extra costs, and there is definitely a limit to how many we can responsibly accept. Syrians though? Pretty certain they'll eventually be a net economic positive as well, especially the ones that were resourceful enough to make it all the way to Norway.
|
On August 18 2021 01:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2021 00:46 Yurie wrote:
My opinion of refugees does no longer seem to be the main view in Europe but I can state it. Why are we so restrictive? Why are we talking about becoming more restrictive?
All studies I find when doing fact checks show an economical net positive from refugees. If you promote them into the job market as quickly as possible. Remove as much red tape as possible here. Let them work from day one if they can find a job. Most people will require some investment in language and social classes, allowing parity in educations and similar actions. This is much less costly than educating somebody from age 2 to 18, 21 or 23. I am struggling to find the specific post, but WhiteDoge posted a pretty interesting study a couple years ago in this thread from the UK government that was one of the rare ones with a lot more nuance - that there are good and bad immigrants, and that to benefit from taking people in you should be selective. I know that your generic web search or cursory glance at the topic will give some story along the lines of "people thought immigration was bad in X era, but it actually eventually turned out to be good." I suspect that if you follow the trail of who funded these studies, you'll find enough of a conflict of interest to put the rationale, and maybe the overall conclusion, into question. Being selective is difficult, but worth it. The alternative is something akin to what we saw with Europe's "open the floodgates" approach - massive political strife, strain on already struggling budgets, and so on. It would be interesting to see a 2021 or so study of the 2014 migrant crisis, but I couldn't find any nuanced ones with a quick look. Frankly, to believe the "migrants are all good" story was naive at best in 2014, but I could think of less flattering words for holding the same sentiment in 2021.
The rational that most studies find refugees and especially immigrants a net positive is interesting to me. Why do we not see hundreds of right wing financed studies disputing this? If it was a close or negative case that would be the expected outcome to me.
According to https://www.cgdev.org/blog/real-economic-cost-accepting-refugees the average payback time in taxes vs benefits is 8 years for the US. Thus it would approach a good time to look at it now since it should be trending towards cost neutral overall. I have not seen any studies on this either, just discussions on how to integrate people better.
The problem I see with "massive political strife" is the rise of far right sentiments. Apart from that I notice minimal impact while living in an area with massive refugee numbers. Discussing how to limit the rise of far right opinions in the modern online echo chambers while having refugees is an interesting topic. That is much more interesting to me than any problems the refugees themselves cause, which in general tend to be small on a national level.
Migrants being all good isn't and will never be true. Just as migrants being all bad isn't and will never be true. It is a strawman argument. The question is if they are a net positive or not. If you take in 100k people there will be some bad people in the bunch, the majority will not be though.
On August 18 2021 01:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2021 00:46 Yurie wrote:
Large parts of Europe has an ageing population, many even have negative population growth without immigration. Refugees help offset this.
The people actually managing to get this far are often the more well educated and connected, thus freeing up the economic cost of 18 years of raising them. Basically stealing money from the country they are emigrating/fleeing from. Secondly they often had help, connections they can use to start import/export or similar business.
I am also a fan of having more types of food. If we could eliminate the local cuisine fully it would be a massive improvement. With proper selection, you can pick the young, well-educated ones who will get high-productivity jobs and have children who will do the same. Pick poorly and you will import a whole lot of crime, unemployment, and radicalism to go along with it. Selectivity matters.
Selectivity can of course improve the outcome. The question is if the money and effort spent on it is worth it. Limiting aid and promoting them finding jobs and living for themselves in a reasonable time frame would likely have a larger impact.
Think of the workers in the US from Mexico that stay for years. Would it not be better to have them pay taxes in the US than spending time and effort chasing them down as criminals?
On August 18 2021 01:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2021 00:46 Yurie wrote:
The final argument if they can apply for asylum is that they are people to. What is the relevant difference between you, me, her or him? Why not Pakistan or Central Asia? Those are much easier to get to, logistically, and politically stable. Getting to Europe is clearly not about asylum.
Yes, that is why I separated the emotional one out to a different argument from the overall "logical" one.
That is the simpler solution for them and what most people will be going for. If they make it all the way here we have the completed selection process you requested above done. Getting here is hard.
If we get the case of ecological collapse in Egypt the selection case makes less sense. Then we have to find a way to quickly turn people into working members of society, perhaps a 2 year class with language, cultural and one requested skill from business per person.
One strong argument is for amount of people we can accept. Around 10% population increase is probably at the limit of what is doable. After that you start hitting massive infrastructure limitations, they just isn't enough housing to fix it in a short time period. We should be preparing a surplus for the expected environmental refugees now. (Which would also be nice for the people living here since it would be a buyers and not sellers market.)
|
I don't know about elsewhere but in the Netherlands the argument has switched to culture instead of economic. About a lack of integration, refusing to learn the language, forming their own isolated communities ect.
|
On August 17 2021 23:29 FreakyDroid wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2021 23:09 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 17 2021 21:59 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
It looks pretty unlikely that there'll be a influx of refugees in my opinion. The previous refugee influx has essentially ended a year ago. Syria is a Meditterrean country and Turkey had prevented most of the influx, and Libya's war has ended which closed off another avenue for those from Africa. The route they have to take to Europe would cause them to pass through countries with a strong centralised government with no real interest in letting them pass. As with suchlike predictions, only time can tell whether it'll be a problem or not. Yeah, I can't see how they'd get to the EU either. Pakistan into boat into EU? Iran into Turkey into EU? Central asian republic into Russia into EU? That's just too much of a trip. I'd guess the neighboring countries will end up dealing with the refugees. Didn't stop them to come in 2014-2015, in fact the biggest part of those refuges were of Afghan origin, so Im curious why you think that now they would flee to neighboring countries? Not saying they wont, they may do that, but why this time you think its going to be different?
There was a large influx of Afgan refugees in 2014-15? I wasn't aware. There's a wiki article on afgan refugees since 2001 with almost 9% going to europe and that's more than I expected, for sure.
|
On August 17 2021 23:29 FreakyDroid wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2021 23:09 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 17 2021 21:59 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
It looks pretty unlikely that there'll be a influx of refugees in my opinion. The previous refugee influx has essentially ended a year ago. Syria is a Meditterrean country and Turkey had prevented most of the influx, and Libya's war has ended which closed off another avenue for those from Africa. The route they have to take to Europe would cause them to pass through countries with a strong centralised government with no real interest in letting them pass. As with suchlike predictions, only time can tell whether it'll be a problem or not. Yeah, I can't see how they'd get to the EU either. Pakistan into boat into EU? Iran into Turkey into EU? Central asian republic into Russia into EU? That's just too much of a trip. I'd guess the neighboring countries will end up dealing with the refugees. Didn't stop them to come in 2014-2015, in fact the biggest part of those refuges were of Afghan origin, so Im curious why you think that now they would flee to neighboring countries? Not saying they wont, they may do that, but why this time you think its going to be different? Most refugees were of Syrian origin, for the very obvious reason that Syria was in the middle of war then and if you look at a map, it's rather obvious why Syrians have a relatively easy route to Europe. I have no idea where you got that they were mostly of Afghan origin from.
|
Data from Eurostat
Syria (29% of the total number of first time applicants) was again in 2015 the main country of citizenship of asylum seekers in the EU Member States. Afghanistan (14% of the total number of first time applicants) remained the second main country of citizenship of asylum seekers in the EU Member States in 2015. With 121 500 first time applicants (or 10% of the EU total) in 2015, Iraq was the third country of citizenship of asylum seekers in the EU Member States. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/7203832/3-04032016-AP-EN.pdf/790eba01-381c-4163-bcd2-a54959b99ed6
|
The biggest thing that triggers me when (probably many others as well) watching refugee videos is a wild gender distribution. It's very male dominant. And I think that's the reason which leads to all those social problems @Gorsameth just mentioned.
IMO if you really want to be good at selection by accepting only "good refugees" with net positive outcome, than gender distribution should be female favored (something like 80% female/20% male). I have hard time to imagine a refugee woman trying to make it's own isolated community in any European country. Maybe I'm a bit biased, but an average arab woman will adapt much faster to western culture/values in comparison to an average arab man
In a perfect world - accept a refugee woman in, provide her with language/cultural classes, which eventually allows her to find a job, to find a husband, to raise her kids and to become net positve. This way you can solve negative demographic situation much faster, you'll get less crimes, more genetic diversity etc
|
On August 18 2021 03:55 Dav1oN wrote:
The biggest thing that triggers me when (probably many others as well) watching refugee videos is a wild gender distribution. It's very male dominant. And I think that's the reason which leads to all those social problems @Gorsameth just mentioned.
IMO if you really want to be good at selection by accepting only "good refugees" with net positive outcome, than gender distribution should be female favored (something like 80% female/20% male). I have hard time to imagine a refugee woman trying to make it's own isolated community in any European country. Maybe I'm a bit biased, but an average arab woman will adapt much faster to western culture/values in comparison to an average arab man
In a perfect world - accept a refugee woman in, provide her with language/cultural classes, which eventually allows her to find a job, to find a husband, to raise her kids and to become net positve. This way you can solve negative demographic situation much faster, you'll get less crimes, more genetic diversity etc
My experiences with refugees - directly through my voluntary work as a teacher for the Red Cross and indirectly through my wife's experience working at the employment services with refugees - is that women often have much worse education than the men. They are definitely more often illiterate from my experience. Which is logical based on the poor access to education in many Muslim countries for women. Another problem my wife encountered is that the women are far more likely to do everything to avoid working since they feel that they should stay at home to cook and take care of children instead.
|
On August 18 2021 05:46 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2021 03:55 Dav1oN wrote:
The biggest thing that triggers me when (probably many others as well) watching refugee videos is a wild gender distribution. It's very male dominant. And I think that's the reason which leads to all those social problems @Gorsameth just mentioned.
IMO if you really want to be good at selection by accepting only "good refugees" with net positive outcome, than gender distribution should be female favored (something like 80% female/20% male). I have hard time to imagine a refugee woman trying to make it's own isolated community in any European country. Maybe I'm a bit biased, but an average arab woman will adapt much faster to western culture/values in comparison to an average arab man
In a perfect world - accept a refugee woman in, provide her with language/cultural classes, which eventually allows her to find a job, to find a husband, to raise her kids and to become net positve. This way you can solve negative demographic situation much faster, you'll get less crimes, more genetic diversity etc My experiences with refugees - directly through my voluntary work as a teacher for the Red Cross and indirectly through my wife's experience working at the employment services with refugees - is that women often have much worse education than the men. They are definitely more often illiterate from my experience. Which is logical based on the poor access to education in many Muslim countries for women. Another problem my wife encountered is that the women are far more likely to do everything to avoid working since they feel that they should stay at home to cook and take care of children instead.
Thats for married women though who have a patriachial man at home
|
Norway28561 Posts
My experience (which is one year experience working as a language teacher, English and Norwegian, with quite a lot of refugee students, and a few years working as a teacher in regular classes where I'd usually have a few Norwegian-born children of immigrant parents) is that there's a huge difference from country to country.
My experience with Syrians is that indeed, the guys/men tend to come with better English skills than the girls/women, and this gives them a head start learning Norwegian, which has obvious educational benefits. As far as Syrian children go, they work HARD, and integrate very successfully. Girls do better than guys do (but this is the case for Norwegian children too.) I commonly saw Syrian girls aged 11 who had been in Norway for 3 years who spoke perfect Norwegian and who were the best students in their classes.
My experience with Eritreans (Tigrinya specifically) is different, though - there's been no perceivable difference between the genders in their prior education level. However - I've seen that the women actually seem to improve faster than the men do. I think the primary reason for this, however, is that pretty much all the men have jobs in addition to school, while the women stay at home taking care of their children - which they seem to combine with studying in a fairly impressive manner.
My experience with Afghans is that young Afghan males might be the group that, on average, has the hardest time integrating. They are often very traumatized, have low education, and don't have families that help them deal with their problems. (Syrians and Eritreans were much more likely to have the entire family flee, while for Afghans, it's often been young men, boys even, travelling alone.) I've only had one Afghan female student - and I think she's the hardest worker I've ever encountered as a teacher - she had truly, truly impressive drive and dedication. Can't conclude anything based on a sample size of one, though, obviously.
Then, there are Somalians. I've never had a first generation Somalian female student, but a few male ones, and I had two male Somalian colleagues before. There, the separation between genders (for first generation immigrants) seems very real, in the way Elroi describes, with their women not wanting to get an education and not wanting to get jobs. Somalians have however been here longer, so we see more Somalian children in schools. Here, the boys struggle a lot more than the girls do. And while Syrian children tend to outperform Norwegian children, second generation Somalian children have a much harder time.
Obviously, my sample size isn't huge (~50 refugees from last year, ~50 children of immigrants from the years before), and in some ways, the refugee sample is biased because I have students that have chosen to get an education.
Then there are second generation Indian women, who do absurdly well. 20% of second generation Indian women in Norway become doctors. They generally had parents who worked incredibly hard and sacrificed a lot to provide the best they could for them, and feel like they have a debt to repay them - not too different from the stereotypical Asian in the US. Second generation Indian men also do well, but not quite as well as the women do (but again - girls significantly outperform guys throughout most levels of the Norwegian educational system.
Overall though, I gotta say, I'm humbled by meeting and getting to know many of these refugees. So many of them impress me in various ways. Following in the spoiler are the first and last English assignments written by an Eritrean woman in one of my classes, showing just how much one can improve in one year of studying. (They had English for 4 hours per week - and while I feel like I'm a decent teacher, I'm not gonna take credit for this)
+ Show Spoiler +
The first assignment (this one wasn't actually given by me, but it's a decent introductory assignment anyway.)
What is important to you?
Assignment: Write 100-300 words on something important to you.
The answer:
WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO YO
Life is important for me in the ferst time is with spesialy family becus i wont be with my kid rent and pent. I wont going in the cuhrch every sunday .
I the secod i wont sped time with on the weekend and i want takk care of my kids.
I the trerd think it is important to food is very important my life with out food our body and mind can not focus on work if we are feelinghungry becus food is needed for surviver . I like to og out for awalk becus good in the body in the lose weight.
Final assignment, ~9 months later:
Have you ever participated in a protest, or wanted to participate in one? If you have taken part in one, write a text about your experience – including what you protested against and why you protested against it.
If you have never taken part in a protest, write about a (political) topic you care so deeply about that you could take part in a demonstration or protest if such a demonstration or protest happened to take place. Explain why this topic is particularly meaningful to you.
Her answer:
Demonstration/Protest
In June 2016 there was a worldwide demonstration by Eritreans in diaspora. The biggest demonstration was in Geneva Switzerland. But it was held in different cities and Europe and North America. There was a demonstration here in Trondheim too. I have participated in the demonstration in Trondheim. The aim of the protest was against the Eritrean regime who committed all kinds of crimes against humanity and human rights abuses to the Eritrean people since 1991. The other reason of the protest was expressing support to the then UN commission report that accuses the regime and crimes against humanity since it came to power (1991). The UN report, which calls for Eritrean leaders to be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
The demonstration/protest in Trondheim was very small in numbers. But we have able to show
Trondheimere and others what was happening and has happen in Eritrea. We have got a lot of
support from people around Trondheim Torg and had a chance to clarify the situation in
Eritrea, why Eritrea is being "no man's land”
As I am an Eritrean who has experienced a lot of obstacles/hardships by the regime, fled my beloved country because of the dictator regime in Eritrea, this topic is particularly meaningful to me. I will participate in any demonstrations against this dictator in the future. I want to be the voice for the voiceless.
|
On August 18 2021 03:00 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2021 23:29 FreakyDroid wrote:On August 17 2021 23:09 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 17 2021 21:59 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
It looks pretty unlikely that there'll be a influx of refugees in my opinion. The previous refugee influx has essentially ended a year ago. Syria is a Meditterrean country and Turkey had prevented most of the influx, and Libya's war has ended which closed off another avenue for those from Africa. The route they have to take to Europe would cause them to pass through countries with a strong centralised government with no real interest in letting them pass. As with suchlike predictions, only time can tell whether it'll be a problem or not. Yeah, I can't see how they'd get to the EU either. Pakistan into boat into EU? Iran into Turkey into EU? Central asian republic into Russia into EU? That's just too much of a trip. I'd guess the neighboring countries will end up dealing with the refugees. Didn't stop them to come in 2014-2015, in fact the biggest part of those refuges were of Afghan origin, so Im curious why you think that now they would flee to neighboring countries? Not saying they wont, they may do that, but why this time you think its going to be different? There was a large influx of Afgan refugees in 2014-15? I wasn't aware. There's a wiki article on afgan refugees since 2001 with almost 9% going to europe and that's more than I expected, for sure.
Yes, and many actually came without any documents posing as Syrians. I've watched that with my own eyes on a daily basis for over a year.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 18 2021 01:51 Yurie wrote:
Migrants being all good isn't and will never be true. Just as migrants being all bad isn't and will never be true. It is a strawman argument. The question is if they are a net positive or not. If you take in 100k people there will be some bad people in the bunch, the majority will not be though.
The fact that that was the general sentiment of a lot of people in the 2015 "open the floodgates" crisis in Europe suggests that it is not, in fact, a strawman argument - a lot of individuals did indeed argue for that. The rest of your post is a lot of "immigration is often good, and having the proper controls on the nature of such immigration can improve outcomes" - which represents a much more moderate and less controversial take on the topic.
Regarding why there seems to be a heavy consensus that immigration is good in the easily searched literature, it's a mix of there being some truth in it (it definitely can be good), a consistency with a lot of mainstream economic principles, and the fact that the organizations for whom immigration is most uncontroversially beneficial (those who would prefer to increase labor force and/or reduce prices) are also among the most likely to fund think tanks whether they lean left or right. Given how complex the topic is (given that there are a lot of factors at play here and outcomes are not always obvious), it does seem pretty suspect that finding a nuanced view to the contrary is so difficult. That tends to be more indicative of a well-run propaganda campaign than a clear uncontroversial answer.
At least a couple studies and articles that I found within a few hours of looking around:
- Impact of Illegal Immigrants on Budget - US study generally leaning towards that illegals are a net negative to government budgets. Notably this is covering the kind that pay taxes, which many do not.
- Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers - decent article about downward pressure of wages from immigration. It's definitely an important effect.
- Immigration and Economics - a briefing from one of the few anti-immigration think tanks I've seen. Covers a lot of good arguments regarding why immigration can be bad.
- The Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK - previously mentioned study that generally concludes that there's a big difference between good and bad immigrants.
- Article 1 and Article 2 about the failures of the European immigration approach. Implementation matters, and the 2015 approach was the exact wrong way to do it. In particular, I would suggest that countries across the migrant route have had a much more significant strain than mere "far right posters on the internet" and that this being so has a significant effect on the EU as a whole.
Now, you might look at all that and still take the stance that a more accommodating immigration policy is the right path forward. Fair enough if so; there are economic benefits to well-run immigration systems. I would not agree myself that anything resembling the 2015 crisis would be good for Europe in the short or long run, but fair enough if you do. A good start, though, would be to at least acknowledge that the issue is more complex than "immigration always good" or "immigration always bad" and to also acknowledge that, in the sphere of public policy, there are a lot of vested interests in convincing people and governments that the former view is true in all its lack of nuance.
|
Northern Ireland23894 Posts
On August 18 2021 10:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2021 01:51 Yurie wrote:
Migrants being all good isn't and will never be true. Just as migrants being all bad isn't and will never be true. It is a strawman argument. The question is if they are a net positive or not. If you take in 100k people there will be some bad people in the bunch, the majority will not be though. The fact that that was the general sentiment of a lot of people in the 2015 "open the floodgates" crisis in Europe suggests that it is not, in fact, a strawman argument - a lot of individuals did indeed argue for that. The rest of your post is a lot of "immigration is often good, and having the proper controls on the nature of such immigration can improve outcomes" - which represents a much more moderate and less controversial take on the topic. Regarding why there seems to be a heavy consensus that immigration is good in the easily searched literature, it's a mix of there being some truth in it (it definitely can be good), a consistency with a lot of mainstream economic principles, and the fact that the organizations for whom immigration is most uncontroversially beneficial (those who would prefer to increase labor force and/or reduce prices) are also among the most likely to fund think tanks whether they lean left or right. Given how complex the topic is (given that there are a lot of factors at play here and outcomes are not always obvious), it does seem pretty suspect that finding a nuanced view to the contrary is so difficult. That tends to be more indicative of a well-run propaganda campaign than a clear uncontroversial answer. At least a couple studies and articles that I found within a few hours of looking around: - Impact of Illegal Immigrants on Budget - US study generally leaning towards that illegals are a net negative to government budgets. Notably this is covering the kind that pay taxes, which many do not. - Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers - decent article about downward pressure of wages from immigration. It's definitely an important effect. - Immigration and Economics - a briefing from one of the few anti-immigration think tanks I've seen. Covers a lot of good arguments regarding why immigration can be bad. - The Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK - previously mentioned study that generally concludes that there's a big difference between good and bad immigrants. - Article 1 and Article 2 about the failures of the European immigration approach. Implementation matters, and the 2015 approach was the exact wrong way to do it. In particular, I would suggest that countries across the migrant route have had a much more significant strain than mere "far right posters on the internet" and that this being so has a significant effect on the EU as a whole. Now, you might look at all that and still take the stance that a more accommodating immigration policy is the right path forward. Fair enough if so; there are economic benefits to well-run immigration systems. I would not agree myself that anything resembling the 2015 crisis would be good for Europe in the short or long run, but fair enough if you do. A good start, though, would be to at least acknowledge that the issue is more complex than "immigration always good" or "immigration always bad" and to also acknowledge that, in the sphere of public policy, there are a lot of vested interests in convincing people and governments that the former view is true in all its lack of nuance.
One issue with pro immigration stuff is it’s always couched in economy wide macroeconomics. Which doesn’t always matter to many people whatsoever.
It’s also asymmetric. TLers, especially veterans bar myself seem to generally be reasonably high up in the relative ladder of professional, skilled jobs. And what immigrants you tend to interact with, to get to that tier by definition have to be well-integrated, relatively assimilated immigrants.
Basically all the benefits of immigration, tend to be either felt or observed as working in a certain strata of society.
Almost all the negatives, or perceived negatives hit further down.
I vividly recall a pub conversation with a bloke, I don’t know London very well but I gather he was from quite a poor sector of the East End. He had no issues with immigrants, he did have an issue with, by virtue of being close to the poorest borough of London, that his daughter’s school was full of other kids who didn’t speak English, and this disrupted his kid’s learning.
Which I sympathise with entirely, you’re already at a disadvantage with your local state school in a poor area vs more affluent areas or private education. Then that gap is intensified further by having to try to accommodate children who don’t speak the language.
And then when such folks complain, they’re called racist/xenophobic or whatever.
Immigration IMO is a fantastic thing, and should be absolutely encouraged.
But, it’s asymmetric in its impact. The poorest in our societies shoulder most, if not all of the negatives that may occur. And in the different situation of asylum seekers or refugees fleeing persecution, well they’re not housed in leafy suburbs
|
United States42004 Posts
On August 17 2021 21:49 m4ini wrote:
I certainly hope that this time around we send them straight back. At the very least any male over 12.
It's one thing if they're fleeing from war - the war has ended, and nobody raised as much as a finger (let alone a weapon) to "defend" the values they're now claiming to yearn for so much.
And since that is of course not happening, instead of money, give out food stamps, clothing tickets etc. Because that's why they're coming here, right? Safety, future prospect. You get a future once you earn money. Don't speak the language? Yeah not my problem, learn it then, sucks to be you for a year on food stamps. Of course, that's also not happening.
So the circle continues, refugees scratching at the door of europe rather than Pakistan etc because that's where the money is, and people like me watching how my 71 year old father can't live/support himself with his pension after over 50 years of rebuilding his country, needing "subtle donations" by me to make it proper.
To the point where the wrong people don't want to watch that shitshow anymore. And by wrong i mean a charismatic enough xenophobe who makes it to the top. And i'll be honest, by this point in time, i'd probably vote for him too. Enough is enough. If you can't support your own elderly properly, the people who made your country wealthy and worth living in, discarding them with "yeah cheers mate, now go and see to it or something, w/e, pensions frozen for another 10 years lolz", don't you dare sprinkling that sweet money over people who haven't done anything for the country that they went to, nor the country that they came from.
There's zero moral obligation for taking in refugees, if there's zero moral obligation to make sure your own people get by. That's how i see it, and that's what will influence my voting pattern in the future.
Why are you so eager to send 13 year old boys back to a culture that famously likes to fuck them?
|
As usual with subjects like this, just figure out whether humans that live far away from you are still humans or not, and then act accordingly.
|
Nice gift for far right / conservatives, again we will see campaign of scaring ppl "wave of arab rapists" in some coutries. Gj Murica  .
|
On August 18 2021 03:55 Dav1oN wrote:
The biggest thing that triggers me when (probably many others as well) watching refugee videos is a wild gender distribution. It's very male dominant. And I think that's the reason which leads to all those social problems @Gorsameth just mentioned.
IMO if you really want to be good at selection by accepting only "good refugees" with net positive outcome, than gender distribution should be female favored (something like 80% female/20% male). I have hard time to imagine a refugee woman trying to make it's own isolated community in any European country. Maybe I'm a bit biased, but an average arab woman will adapt much faster to western culture/values in comparison to an average arab man
In a perfect world - accept a refugee woman in, provide her with language/cultural classes, which eventually allows her to find a job, to find a husband, to raise her kids and to become net positve. This way you can solve negative demographic situation much faster, you'll get less crimes, more genetic diversity etc
This is exactly what triggers a LOT of people and imo you can't fault people for noticing the obvious lack of females
Also, the lack of support for our own people in a lot of countries is difficult to understand when you see the amount of handouts towards refugees.
My wife for example has to have an x amount percentage of kids in her daycare that either come from refugees/immigrants or just very poor people, while in theory that sounds pretty humane, the fact is 99% of that x amount of percentage definitely goes to refugees and not our own. She is literally forced to deny a place for a kid from just a regular family so that spot can be given to refugees etc..
Not saying it's easy to work out a system that wouldn't seem so refugee/immigrant favoured but man.. it's obvious to everyone that right now, our own people get pushed aside in a lot of ways just for the whole refugee/immigrant issue.
|
On August 19 2021 04:05 Nebuchad wrote:
As usual with subjects like this, just figure out whether humans that live far away from you are still humans or not, and then act accordingly.
I'd argue. They are all humans no matter how closer or far away geographically. Acting accordingly - it's easier said than done. There is no perfect solution at this point, only if Taliban (and other islamic barbarian groups) magically vanished from the existence
And a few questions arises - What would be the price of acting accordingly for the Europe? Should Europe take this responsibility in the first place?
|
On August 19 2021 19:33 Dav1oN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 04:05 Nebuchad wrote:
As usual with subjects like this, just figure out whether humans that live far away from you are still humans or not, and then act accordingly. I'd argue. They are all humans no matter how closer or far away geographically. Acting accordingly - it's easier said than done. There is no perfect solution at this point, only if Taliban (and other islamic barbarian groups) magically vanished from the existence And a few questions arises - What would be the price of acting accordingly for the Europe? Should Europe take this responsibility in the first place?
I think there's an instinct to say that they're all humans no matter what but a lot more people have subhuman categories than are willing to say. After all, 49.7% of Swiss people voted that swiss companies that don't respect human rights abroad shouldn't be prosecuted in Switzerland, which still feels eerie to me that I get to say that every time. As a result you end up talking about other questions, but those other questions are mainly distractions from the main topic.
And it's very hard to make arguments for the main topic btw. If someone thinks everyone deserves human rights and human treatment, how are you ever going to convince them that they don't? And vice versa?
|
On August 19 2021 20:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 19:33 Dav1oN wrote:On August 19 2021 04:05 Nebuchad wrote:
As usual with subjects like this, just figure out whether humans that live far away from you are still humans or not, and then act accordingly. I'd argue. They are all humans no matter how closer or far away geographically. Acting accordingly - it's easier said than done. There is no perfect solution at this point, only if Taliban (and other islamic barbarian groups) magically vanished from the existence And a few questions arises - What would be the price of acting accordingly for the Europe? Should Europe take this responsibility in the first place? I think there's an instinct to say that they're all humans no matter what but a lot more people have subhuman categories than are willing to say. After all, 49.7% of Swiss people voted that swiss companies that don't respect human rights abroad shouldn't be prosecuted in Switzerland, which still feels eerie to me that I get to say that every time. As a result you end up talking about other questions, but those other questions are mainly distractions from the main topic. And it's very hard to make arguments for the main topic btw. If someone thinks everyone deserves human rights and human treatment, how are you ever going to convince them that they don't? And vice versa?
The problem with this line of thinking is that it reduces a complex and difficult problem to a simple binary and that doesn't really end up making sense.
Where are they going to go? In my country, there is a huge housing and homelessness crisis. Are we going to simply bring more homeless over here, or are we going to prioritize them for social housing ahead of people who have been waiting for years for somewhere to live? Currently in the UK there are Afghani refugees being put up in abandoned hotels but that won't last.
How are they going to survive? On the benefits system for a while before they find work? Great excuse for our government to cut benefits again, severely effecting current local population.
Human/not human isn't really something that comes in to the decision making here, its a more practical issue. Besides, the people making the decisions don't really treat anyone as human.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
