|
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 September 05 2015 03:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 03:55 Toadesstern wrote:On September 05 2015 03:42 Plansix wrote:On September 05 2015 03:40 Faust852 wrote:On September 05 2015 03:35 Plansix wrote:On September 05 2015 03:29 dismiss wrote:On September 05 2015 03:19 Plansix wrote:On September 05 2015 03:12 Faust852 wrote:On September 05 2015 03:08 Plansix wrote:On September 05 2015 03:04 Faust852 wrote:
The argument of Women and Children being to weak to cross the Europe is stupid as fuck.
First, why would women be weaker than man at going from Turkey to Bulgaria to Romania to Hungary to Austria to Germany ? I mean none of these countries are hostile am I right ? I don't get how a woman would find it any more difficult than a man. Children is the same, if they are >10yo, this would pose no problem whatsoever.
I do agree for crossing the sea though.
But anyway, WHY should we accept ILLEGAL people, crossing the borders without their right while MILLIONS are actually asking LEGALLY for getting the refugee status ? Why these people who can't wait their turn deserve a place before legitimate people going the legal way ? Please answer that.
They are refugees from war and violence. If you refuse because they didn't do it "legally" them, many of them will die if they return home and wait their turn. Yeah, I'll be crude, but I prefer people that refuse to pass via legal way to die than people who do follow the law. People who follow the legal process deserve to live more in my opinion than those who don't, and those who don't are indirectly killing those who do. And if they were fleeing war and violence, they would stop at the first safe country they encounter, and these are not Sweden nor Germany. To be honest, I bet the refugees could care less what you feel when they are fleeing war and violence. And you're opinion on who deserves to live and who doesn't is irrelevant to what they do. Really, I bet they care as even less about you and your feelings as you do about them and their lives. Please provide proof of all these horrible wars all those people are fleeing from, e.g. in the Balkans. While I am of the opinion that above poster in an idiot it matters very much what people like him think because they're not a small minority in the EU anymore. More and more people will vote for right wing parties which will be terrible for everyone involved, especially the refugees when they're being told to fuck off at more and more European borders. I mean, with a quick google search of Balkans and refugees, the report is the majority are coming from Syria and the surrounding countries. Are you saying they are not from Syria and surrounding areas? Yup, seems like you actually know nothing about what is happening right ? http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/western-balkan-exodus-puts-pressure-on-germany-and-eu-a-1049274.html Are you saying the Germany can't figure out the difference someone fleeing Syria and someone in the Balkans? Or that because some of them are not from war zones, no one should be helped? We actually have one of those innitial-admission-/reception/or whatever it's called in english- centers where I'm from ever since Wiesbaden said they can't handle the masses anymore. We do have people from the balkans as well but the overwhelming, vast majority of refugees are from the middle east in my experience. Not that I've looked this up or anything but from just driving past there on a daily basis when I'm at my parents place I'd say it's like... for 10 people who I see walking around that I'd put as "from the middle east" (not just Syria but people who clearly have a bit darker skincolor) there's probably not even 1 guy who's from the balkans. Like I said, only my own experience but this whole thing about people from the balkans is really overblown. Yes we do have some, and yes 99+% of them get send back. The discussion about that in Germany is that it takes to long and it should be faster so that those people don't get false hopes. It just seems like fuel to the "They just want to be free loaders on our system" argument. From the numbers above, a lot of the people fleeing seem to be coming from violent areas of the Middle East.
Strategy so far has been to ignore violence and dismiss people who are agressive as outliers. Ever since the agression against refugees has increased that strategy has changed because politicians had to admit that there are problems about misinformation. People, especially in Germany usually feel pretty guilty when having to admit that xenophobia is a problem in some place so go figure.
So yeah, if it's comming from someone yelling "but all those balkan financial refugees!!!" that's obviously a bad thing. If it's trying to set facts straight like the fact that those people from the balkans don't even have 1% of a chance to be accepted here (0.5% was mentioned here and I'm fairly sure I heard that on HR info recently as well) that's probably the right thing to do. If you ignore those ignorant shouts it won't change.
They are doing campaigns in the Balkans clearing up misinformation about acceptance-chances there as well if HR Info is to be trusted and ever since the numbers went down. So there are people who thought they really had a chance and it's not just people abusing.
But again, in my experience the vast majority really is people from the middle east or they're far more likely to walk outside than people from the Balkans for some reason 
|
I always thought the comparison of integrating Germans into Germany as opposed to people who grew up in an entirely different culture and day and age was rather silly.
|
Also people should look more into the process of relocating people back to their country of origin. It's a HUGE mess and nowhere near as easy as just putting them on a bus and sending them off. Iirc less than half of the people who were supposed to be sent back from Germany this year have left the country already.
|
They general media are pretty left winged nowadays, at least the one I'm used to. They are all surfing on the feeling agenda, even lying (fuck you bbc).
Nah, the issue is that everything right now that germany is doing is short term. 800000 refugees in 2015. What about 2016, and 2017 ? it keeps growing. Africa is seen to reach 4 billlion people by 2050, and there will be a big shortage of water before then. Where will these people exode to ? You guessed it. Europe doesn't have infinite ressources.
Another issue is integration of said imigrant. Europe has a very bad history of integration of imigrant, most of them live in ghetto without having much contact with the local. Even after 2 generations.
You are using Pole and other eastern people after WW2, and the merging of Germany as examples but it is flawed for severals reasons :
1) They have similiar culture so integration is easier.
2) They actual period of these event : in 1945, migrants were skilled and those who weren't had job in agriculture and factories, same with 1990 with cheap workers in factories. Nowadays a country like Germany has no use of unskilled worker
The clash of culture between secular countries with christian root and muslim is huge. Lot of muslim are prioritizing their religion over the law, and a good bunch of them would prefere using the Shariah over the secular law of European countries. I'm using european muslim as data ofc. (I'll have to search for the source though, it was a while since I read them).
|
On September 05 2015 04:18 dismiss wrote:
I always thought the comparison of integrating Germans into Germany as opposed to people who grew up in an entirely different culture and day and age was rather silly.
culture doesn't really matter if your country has been leveled and you have to integrate 14 million people. Do you think that's less of a problem than whether someone prays to Allah or Yahweh or doesn't eat shrimps? The Coal and steel union between France and Germany was finalized only a handful of years after the war between two nations which had slaughtered each other by the millions, effectively creating the precursor of the European Union. Schuman and Adenauer would laugh their asses off if they'd see the "cultural problems" that allegedly stops us from integrating people.
|
On September 05 2015 04:21 Faust852 wrote:
They general media are pretty left winged nowadays, at least the one I'm used to. They are all surfing on the feeling agenda, even lying (fuck you bbc).
Nah, the issue is that everything right now that germany is doing is short term. 800000 refugees in 2015. What about 2016, and 2017 ? it keeps growing. Africa is seen to reach 4 billlion people by 2050, and there will be a big shortage of water before then. Where will these people exode to ? You guessed it. Europe doesn't have infinite ressources.
Another issue is integration of said imigrant. Europe has a very bad history of integration of imigrant, most of them live in ghetto without having much contact with the local. Even after 2 generations.
You are using Pole and other eastern people after WW2, and the merging of Germany as examples but it is flawed for severals reasons :
1) They have similiar culture so integration is easier.
2) They actual period of these event : in 1945, migrants were skilled and those who weren't had job in agriculture and factories, same with 1990 with cheap workers in factories. Nowadays a country like Germany has no use of unskilled worker
The clash of culture between secular countries with christian root and muslim is huge. Lot of muslim are prioritizing their religion over the law, and a good bunch of them would prefere using the Shariah over the secular law of European countries. I'm using european muslim as data ofc. (I'll have to search for the source though, it was a while since I read them).
When you say lots of Muslims, what section of the 1.6 billion of them are you referring to?
|
|
|
On September 05 2015 03:10 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 02:51 Simberto wrote:
A big reason that large amounts of the refugees are young males is that it is a very hard and dangerous journey to enter europe from the places they are from. Just hear some stories about what they have to go through to reach a country like Germany. And such a journey has a much higher success rate if you are young and male.
And do you really think that ONLY syria is a country that warrants escaping from? A lot of african countries have some sort of murderous situation for some parts of their population going on. Which explains why a lot of the refugees are black. They are also fleeing, just not from the war in syria, but from one of the other horrible conflicts in africa.
But of course it is a lot easier to simply say that they all just want to mooch of our social systems than to accept that there are large amounts of legitimate refugees because a large part of the world is a horrible place to be born in.
I am disgusted by the extreme egoism a lot of people display when talking about refugees. Africa is remarkably stable compared to what how it used to be like 30+ years ago. While I very much sympathise with everyone who ever has to go hungry, work as a child, or be in a genuinely uncomfortable personal situation I don't feel like it's "our" job to make sure all these people are taken better care of. Especially when you put this on top of a heavy sense of entitlement being displayed by many of these migrants as well as European politicians being seemingly incapable or unwilling to deal with the situation I can see why people are averse to the idea of letting people migrate freely.
We venture into philosophy here, but why is it the government's "job" to provide you with a basic income simply due to the fact that you happen to be from one spot on the planet, whereas it is not the government's "job" to provide someone from a different spot on the planet with a similar income.
If you start on this track, it quickly leads you to agree with GoTunk! that social welfare is a farce in any case, and should be abolished in favour of letting everybody travel freely to wherever they think they have the best opportunity to make a living, where they will either succeed, or fail and die (barring some NGO of charitable people who help them out).
However, there is an alternative that is an equally valid ethical viewpoint, which is that it is everybody's responsibility to reduce the suffering of others when they can. It then becomes the question: how many suffering people can Europe reasonably accomodate before its infrastructure collapses. I would say we are still a long long way away from that. It's mainly xenophobia causing the current round of problems, and not some fundamental issue with the social welfare failing.
|
On September 05 2015 04:23 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 04:18 dismiss wrote:
I always thought the comparison of integrating Germans into Germany as opposed to people who grew up in an entirely different culture and day and age was rather silly. culture doesn't really matter if your country has been leveled and you have to integrate 14 million people. Do you think that's less of a problem than whether someone prays to Allah or Yahweh or doesn't eat shrimps? The Coal and steel union between France and Germany was finalized only a handful of years after the war between two nations which had slaughtered each other by the millions, effectively creating the precursor of the European Union, that does also seem like a larger big cultural step.
It matters a lot if they're actually able to communicate effectively right away, are familiar with the customs and bureaucracy of the country they're going to live in, etc.
Also one could argue that integrating into a bombed out country is much easier than into the nation with 2nd or 3rd most complex industry in the entire world since the demand for menial labour is going to be much higher. Especially in Germany which oh so loves its diplomas and apprenticeships for every little thing. I don't know how that works in Chad or Syria but I reckon it'll be hard for most migrants to become recognised as skilled labourers even if they possess such a skill set which leaves them with little to no chance on the labour market.
|
On September 05 2015 04:35 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 03:10 dismiss wrote:On September 05 2015 02:51 Simberto wrote:
A big reason that large amounts of the refugees are young males is that it is a very hard and dangerous journey to enter europe from the places they are from. Just hear some stories about what they have to go through to reach a country like Germany. And such a journey has a much higher success rate if you are young and male.
And do you really think that ONLY syria is a country that warrants escaping from? A lot of african countries have some sort of murderous situation for some parts of their population going on. Which explains why a lot of the refugees are black. They are also fleeing, just not from the war in syria, but from one of the other horrible conflicts in africa.
But of course it is a lot easier to simply say that they all just want to mooch of our social systems than to accept that there are large amounts of legitimate refugees because a large part of the world is a horrible place to be born in.
I am disgusted by the extreme egoism a lot of people display when talking about refugees. Africa is remarkably stable compared to what how it used to be like 30+ years ago. While I very much sympathise with everyone who ever has to go hungry, work as a child, or be in a genuinely uncomfortable personal situation I don't feel like it's "our" job to make sure all these people are taken better care of. Especially when you put this on top of a heavy sense of entitlement being displayed by many of these migrants as well as European politicians being seemingly incapable or unwilling to deal with the situation I can see why people are averse to the idea of letting people migrate freely. We venture into philosophy here, but why is it the government's "job" to provide you with a basic income simply due to the fact that you happen to be from one spot on the planet, whereas it is not the government's "job" to provide someone from a different spot on the planet with a similar income. If you start on this track, it quickly leads you to agree with GoTunk! that social welfare is a farce in any case, and should be abolished in favour of letting everybody travel freely to wherever they think they have the best opportunity to make a living, where they will either succeed, or fail and die (barring some NGO of charitable people who help them out). However, there is an alternative that is an equally valid ethical viewpoint, which is that it is everybody's responsibility to reduce the suffering of others when they can. It then becomes the question: how many suffering people can Europe reasonably accomodate before its infrastructure collapses. I would say we are still a long long way away from that. It's mainly xenophobia causing the current round of problems, and not some fundamental issue with the social welfare failing.
Nothing philosophical about it, it's usually written into the constitution and/or laws of countries. The person from outside the country has no ties to it, why should it be responsible in any way to help him baring humanitarian concerns? Those would rather make it a choice than a duty, imo.
|
On September 05 2015 04:05 Nyxisto wrote:
Regarding the "we can't spend more resources" argument, 1 million refugees is 0.2% of the European population. After WW II we integrated 14 million refugees in a country that was practically bombed to the ground, and in the 90's we reunified a country at the cost of about 100 billion bucks a year while we were labeled the "sick man of Europe". How the fuck are we not supposed to handle 1 refugee per 500 citizens?
I don't know if it's the media or the right-wing agitators but every time some problem occurs nowadays it's an "unsolvable crisis" and the world is supposed to end.
What crack me up to no end is how the media - and people like you - argue today that it's our moral duty to save those refugees and that 1 million people is not much compared to our might and greatness as european, but when it's about saving 3 000 people from losing their jobs then we can't do a thing. Seems unreal to me.
It's just a thought tho, I believe we should be helping those people (I'm against economic immigration tho).
|
On September 05 2015 04:40 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 04:05 Nyxisto wrote:
Regarding the "we can't spend more resources" argument, 1 million refugees is 0.2% of the European population. After WW II we integrated 14 million refugees in a country that was practically bombed to the ground, and in the 90's we reunified a country at the cost of about 100 billion bucks a year while we were labeled the "sick man of Europe". How the fuck are we not supposed to handle 1 refugee per 500 citizens?
I don't know if it's the media or the right-wing agitators but every time some problem occurs nowadays it's an "unsolvable crisis" and the world is supposed to end. What crack me up to no end is how the media - and people like you - argue today that it's our moral duty to save those refugees and that 1 million people is not much compared to our might and greatness as european, but when it's about saving 3 000 people from losing their jobs then we can't do a thing. Seems unreal to me. It's just a thought tho, I believe we should be helping those people (I'm against economic immigration tho).
One would think you could solve both of them. But I get if that is a bit much.
|
On September 05 2015 04:02 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 03:50 Simberto wrote:On September 05 2015 03:45 Faust852 wrote:On September 05 2015 03:42 Plansix wrote:On September 05 2015 03:40 Faust852 wrote:On September 05 2015 03:35 Plansix wrote:On September 05 2015 03:29 dismiss wrote:On September 05 2015 03:19 Plansix wrote:On September 05 2015 03:12 Faust852 wrote:On September 05 2015 03:08 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
They are refugees from war and violence. If you refuse because they didn't do it "legally" them, many of them will die if they return home and wait their turn. Yeah, I'll be crude, but I prefer people that refuse to pass via legal way to die than people who do follow the law. People who follow the legal process deserve to live more in my opinion than those who don't, and those who don't are indirectly killing those who do. And if they were fleeing war and violence, they would stop at the first safe country they encounter, and these are not Sweden nor Germany. To be honest, I bet the refugees could care less what you feel when they are fleeing war and violence. And you're opinion on who deserves to live and who doesn't is irrelevant to what they do. Really, I bet they care as even less about you and your feelings as you do about them and their lives. Please provide proof of all these horrible wars all those people are fleeing from, e.g. in the Balkans. While I am of the opinion that above poster in an idiot it matters very much what people like him think because they're not a small minority in the EU anymore. More and more people will vote for right wing parties which will be terrible for everyone involved, especially the refugees when they're being told to fuck off at more and more European borders. I mean, with a quick google search of Balkans and refugees, the report is the majority are coming from Syria and the surrounding countries. Are you saying they are not from Syria and surrounding areas? Yup, seems like you actually know nothing about what is happening right ? http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/western-balkan-exodus-puts-pressure-on-germany-and-eu-a-1049274.html Are you saying the Germany can't figure out the difference someone fleeing Syria and someone in the Balkans? Or that because some of them are not from war zones, no one should be helped? What the fuck man, there is a limited amount of ressource one can give. You can't save the whole world because feeling. People from the Balkans are safe and are absolutly not a priority in comparison of actually victim of an actual war. I dont understand why people are angry at countries like Hungary because they don't want to accept more refugees. Correct me if Im wrong but it doesn't matter because most of those refugees will instantly leave Hungary and migrate to richer Western Europe. I have a couple of friends who went in Hungary for hollidays (they booked before crisis), they are saying they can't take any train because every gare is filled with hundred of migrants and the trains are usually stopped. Yup, they try every trains possible (blocking acces for others) to reach Germany. Which is also the reason why pretty much noone from the Balkans actually gets accepted. I think in Germany the numbers of successful asylums to people from the Balkans was ~0.5%. And with your great love for the legal ways for refugees to enter the EU, you should know that they pretty much don't exist. To demand asylum, you need to be in the country that you demand asylum from. Which means you need to enter illegally to be legally recognized as a refugee. It is a very stupid system, but this also means that it is incredibly silly to complain that people are entering illegally. It's actually just illegal to go "asylum shopping" or travel through a country which would be able to offer you asylum to seek it in another country. If you were to enter the EU in Germany you'd be fully within your rights to make your intentions of seeking asylum known at the border. However, this is not being enforced anymore, because politicians like to be popular. The whole deal about the Balkans is more about those people come here knowingly that there's very little chance of them being allowed to stay. You then have to ask: Why do they undertake that arduous, ultimately fruitless journey anyway if not to take advantage of the host countries hospitality? All the resources expended on this could be put to much better use, for example helping people that actually are refugees.
Because some people are selfish dicks trying to take advantage of the system, we should destroy that system. Is that really something you're trying to argue? People abuse medical aid all the time. Doesn't seem like we should get rid of medical aid. Yes, we need to get better at detecting fraud, and dealing with that. But not scrap the system entirely. Neither for immigration nor for medical aid, nor for any other system that is set in place for the benefit of all.
|
On September 05 2015 04:37 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 04:35 Acrofales wrote:On September 05 2015 03:10 dismiss wrote:On September 05 2015 02:51 Simberto wrote:
A big reason that large amounts of the refugees are young males is that it is a very hard and dangerous journey to enter europe from the places they are from. Just hear some stories about what they have to go through to reach a country like Germany. And such a journey has a much higher success rate if you are young and male.
And do you really think that ONLY syria is a country that warrants escaping from? A lot of african countries have some sort of murderous situation for some parts of their population going on. Which explains why a lot of the refugees are black. They are also fleeing, just not from the war in syria, but from one of the other horrible conflicts in africa.
But of course it is a lot easier to simply say that they all just want to mooch of our social systems than to accept that there are large amounts of legitimate refugees because a large part of the world is a horrible place to be born in.
I am disgusted by the extreme egoism a lot of people display when talking about refugees. Africa is remarkably stable compared to what how it used to be like 30+ years ago. While I very much sympathise with everyone who ever has to go hungry, work as a child, or be in a genuinely uncomfortable personal situation I don't feel like it's "our" job to make sure all these people are taken better care of. Especially when you put this on top of a heavy sense of entitlement being displayed by many of these migrants as well as European politicians being seemingly incapable or unwilling to deal with the situation I can see why people are averse to the idea of letting people migrate freely. We venture into philosophy here, but why is it the government's "job" to provide you with a basic income simply due to the fact that you happen to be from one spot on the planet, whereas it is not the government's "job" to provide someone from a different spot on the planet with a similar income. If you start on this track, it quickly leads you to agree with GoTunk! that social welfare is a farce in any case, and should be abolished in favour of letting everybody travel freely to wherever they think they have the best opportunity to make a living, where they will either succeed, or fail and die (barring some NGO of charitable people who help them out). However, there is an alternative that is an equally valid ethical viewpoint, which is that it is everybody's responsibility to reduce the suffering of others when they can. It then becomes the question: how many suffering people can Europe reasonably accomodate before its infrastructure collapses. I would say we are still a long long way away from that. It's mainly xenophobia causing the current round of problems, and not some fundamental issue with the social welfare failing. Nothing philosophical about it, it's usually written into the constitution and/or laws of countries. The person from outside the country has no ties to it, why should it be responsible in any way to help him baring humanitarian concerns? Those would rather make it a choice than a duty, imo.
Hence why it's philosophical: the constitution is inherently nationalist. Whereas the problem we are facing with migration transcends national borders (by definition). The constitution says absolutely nothing about how to deal with immigrants (except maybe that human rights shouldn't be violated, which means we are currently dealing with them in an illegal manner according to our own constitutions, because human rights are violated on a daily basis).
|
On September 05 2015 04:35 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 03:10 dismiss wrote:On September 05 2015 02:51 Simberto wrote:
A big reason that large amounts of the refugees are young males is that it is a very hard and dangerous journey to enter europe from the places they are from. Just hear some stories about what they have to go through to reach a country like Germany. And such a journey has a much higher success rate if you are young and male.
And do you really think that ONLY syria is a country that warrants escaping from? A lot of african countries have some sort of murderous situation for some parts of their population going on. Which explains why a lot of the refugees are black. They are also fleeing, just not from the war in syria, but from one of the other horrible conflicts in africa.
But of course it is a lot easier to simply say that they all just want to mooch of our social systems than to accept that there are large amounts of legitimate refugees because a large part of the world is a horrible place to be born in.
I am disgusted by the extreme egoism a lot of people display when talking about refugees. Africa is remarkably stable compared to what how it used to be like 30+ years ago. While I very much sympathise with everyone who ever has to go hungry, work as a child, or be in a genuinely uncomfortable personal situation I don't feel like it's "our" job to make sure all these people are taken better care of. Especially when you put this on top of a heavy sense of entitlement being displayed by many of these migrants as well as European politicians being seemingly incapable or unwilling to deal with the situation I can see why people are averse to the idea of letting people migrate freely. We venture into philosophy here, but why is it the government's "job" to provide you with a basic income simply due to the fact that you happen to be from one spot on the planet, whereas it is not the government's "job" to provide someone from a different spot on the planet with a similar income. If you start on this track, it quickly leads you to agree with GoTunk! that social welfare is a farce in any case, and should be abolished in favour of letting everybody travel freely to wherever they think they have the best opportunity to make a living, where they will either succeed, or fail and die (barring some NGO of charitable people who help them out). However, there is an alternative that is an equally valid ethical viewpoint, which is that it is everybody's responsibility to reduce the suffering of others when they can. It then becomes the question: how many suffering people can Europe reasonably accommodate before its infrastructure collapses. I would say we are still a long long way away from that. It's mainly xenophobia causing the current round of problems, and not some fundamental issue with the social welfare failing.
It's not philosophy it's psychology. You can get a bunch of people to care about each other as long as they feel they have something in common which makes them belong to the same group. The farthest we have gotten in this line of thinking is the nation state which lets people feel unity through a sense of common culture and purpose. The next thing in line is a union of states such as the EU.
Once you have unity you can start building a welfare state which incredibly effective as a multiplier when it comes to increasing peoples aggregated quality of life.
However as history and current events show as soon as people don't feel they have something in common they don't give a shit about them anymore, only care about their own family or clan and welfare states and national unity falls apart.
Massive deprivation of a country through war does not make it harder to integrate two culturally similar populations, it makes it easier because it gives them more of a common goal to work with and it involves the entire population.
France and Germany after WWII had homogeneous populations with western culture based on the same religion. Throughout history they have NEVER hated each other since they have always been able to easily relate. Sure you can fuel a war with nationalistic propaganda but once the dust settles and you switch propaganda to unity it's even easier to make the common people see the similarities. A shared purpose of avoiding a new devastating war and a struggle to rebuild just binds you further.
I really hate the agenda of a global world right now. Humans are pack animals and we need to take shit one step at a time. Build unity in confederations of states and those groups can treat each other civilly until its time to take the next step.
Which by the way leads to the real point of all of this.
If the global and regional powers hadn't made Syria into a pissing contest from the start we either wouldn't have had a war at all or it wouldn't have been a year long slugfest of maximal attrition that created this entire crisis in the first place.
|
On September 05 2015 04:46 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 04:37 dismiss wrote:On September 05 2015 04:35 Acrofales wrote:On September 05 2015 03:10 dismiss wrote:On September 05 2015 02:51 Simberto wrote:
A big reason that large amounts of the refugees are young males is that it is a very hard and dangerous journey to enter europe from the places they are from. Just hear some stories about what they have to go through to reach a country like Germany. And such a journey has a much higher success rate if you are young and male.
And do you really think that ONLY syria is a country that warrants escaping from? A lot of african countries have some sort of murderous situation for some parts of their population going on. Which explains why a lot of the refugees are black. They are also fleeing, just not from the war in syria, but from one of the other horrible conflicts in africa.
But of course it is a lot easier to simply say that they all just want to mooch of our social systems than to accept that there are large amounts of legitimate refugees because a large part of the world is a horrible place to be born in.
I am disgusted by the extreme egoism a lot of people display when talking about refugees. Africa is remarkably stable compared to what how it used to be like 30+ years ago. While I very much sympathise with everyone who ever has to go hungry, work as a child, or be in a genuinely uncomfortable personal situation I don't feel like it's "our" job to make sure all these people are taken better care of. Especially when you put this on top of a heavy sense of entitlement being displayed by many of these migrants as well as European politicians being seemingly incapable or unwilling to deal with the situation I can see why people are averse to the idea of letting people migrate freely. We venture into philosophy here, but why is it the government's "job" to provide you with a basic income simply due to the fact that you happen to be from one spot on the planet, whereas it is not the government's "job" to provide someone from a different spot on the planet with a similar income. If you start on this track, it quickly leads you to agree with GoTunk! that social welfare is a farce in any case, and should be abolished in favour of letting everybody travel freely to wherever they think they have the best opportunity to make a living, where they will either succeed, or fail and die (barring some NGO of charitable people who help them out). However, there is an alternative that is an equally valid ethical viewpoint, which is that it is everybody's responsibility to reduce the suffering of others when they can. It then becomes the question: how many suffering people can Europe reasonably accomodate before its infrastructure collapses. I would say we are still a long long way away from that. It's mainly xenophobia causing the current round of problems, and not some fundamental issue with the social welfare failing. Nothing philosophical about it, it's usually written into the constitution and/or laws of countries. The person from outside the country has no ties to it, why should it be responsible in any way to help him baring humanitarian concerns? Those would rather make it a choice than a duty, imo. Hence why it's philosophical: the constitution is inherently nationalist. Whereas the problem we are facing with migration transcends national borders (by definition). The constitution says absolutely nothing about how to deal with immigrants (except maybe that human rights shouldn't be violated, which means we are currently dealing with them in an illegal manner according to our own constitutions, because human rights are violated on a daily basis).
I can't speak about the constitution of every country, but in Germany the ability to seek asylum is explicitly expressed in the constitution. There are a few constraints, such as the whole Dublin 3 deal but it boils down to, if you are entering from a non EU, non safe state, you have the right to seek asylum in any case.
As for constitution being nationalistic, I'm not sure what your point is. It applies to the members of a certain socio-economic construct, because they are part of it, people from other countries have their own club, so to speak. However there are other laws which govern how emigration is supposed to work.
|
On September 05 2015 04:58 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 04:46 Acrofales wrote:On September 05 2015 04:37 dismiss wrote:On September 05 2015 04:35 Acrofales wrote:On September 05 2015 03:10 dismiss wrote:On September 05 2015 02:51 Simberto wrote:
A big reason that large amounts of the refugees are young males is that it is a very hard and dangerous journey to enter europe from the places they are from. Just hear some stories about what they have to go through to reach a country like Germany. And such a journey has a much higher success rate if you are young and male.
And do you really think that ONLY syria is a country that warrants escaping from? A lot of african countries have some sort of murderous situation for some parts of their population going on. Which explains why a lot of the refugees are black. They are also fleeing, just not from the war in syria, but from one of the other horrible conflicts in africa.
But of course it is a lot easier to simply say that they all just want to mooch of our social systems than to accept that there are large amounts of legitimate refugees because a large part of the world is a horrible place to be born in.
I am disgusted by the extreme egoism a lot of people display when talking about refugees. Africa is remarkably stable compared to what how it used to be like 30+ years ago. While I very much sympathise with everyone who ever has to go hungry, work as a child, or be in a genuinely uncomfortable personal situation I don't feel like it's "our" job to make sure all these people are taken better care of. Especially when you put this on top of a heavy sense of entitlement being displayed by many of these migrants as well as European politicians being seemingly incapable or unwilling to deal with the situation I can see why people are averse to the idea of letting people migrate freely. We venture into philosophy here, but why is it the government's "job" to provide you with a basic income simply due to the fact that you happen to be from one spot on the planet, whereas it is not the government's "job" to provide someone from a different spot on the planet with a similar income. If you start on this track, it quickly leads you to agree with GoTunk! that social welfare is a farce in any case, and should be abolished in favour of letting everybody travel freely to wherever they think they have the best opportunity to make a living, where they will either succeed, or fail and die (barring some NGO of charitable people who help them out). However, there is an alternative that is an equally valid ethical viewpoint, which is that it is everybody's responsibility to reduce the suffering of others when they can. It then becomes the question: how many suffering people can Europe reasonably accomodate before its infrastructure collapses. I would say we are still a long long way away from that. It's mainly xenophobia causing the current round of problems, and not some fundamental issue with the social welfare failing. Nothing philosophical about it, it's usually written into the constitution and/or laws of countries. The person from outside the country has no ties to it, why should it be responsible in any way to help him baring humanitarian concerns? Those would rather make it a choice than a duty, imo. Hence why it's philosophical: the constitution is inherently nationalist. Whereas the problem we are facing with migration transcends national borders (by definition). The constitution says absolutely nothing about how to deal with immigrants (except maybe that human rights shouldn't be violated, which means we are currently dealing with them in an illegal manner according to our own constitutions, because human rights are violated on a daily basis). I can't speak about the constitution of every country, but in Germany the ability to seek asylum is explicitly expressed in the constitution. There are a few constraints, such as the whole Dublin 3 deal but it boils down to, if you are entering from a non EU, non safe state you have the right to seek asylum in any case. As for constitution being nationalistic, I'm not sure what your point is. It applies to the members of a certain socio-economic construct, because they are part of it, people from other countries have their own club, so to speak. However there are other laws which govern how emigration is supposed to work.
Because it holds the laws of your nation over any duty to help another person. Nationalism is putting the laws and culture of your nation above all other things. Placing conditions to aid another human based on their compliance with your nations laws is nationalistic. In this case, because they are fleeing a warzone, it is saying the laws of your nation are more important than their life.
|
On September 05 2015 04:40 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 04:05 Nyxisto wrote:
Regarding the "we can't spend more resources" argument, 1 million refugees is 0.2% of the European population. After WW II we integrated 14 million refugees in a country that was practically bombed to the ground, and in the 90's we reunified a country at the cost of about 100 billion bucks a year while we were labeled the "sick man of Europe". How the fuck are we not supposed to handle 1 refugee per 500 citizens?
I don't know if it's the media or the right-wing agitators but every time some problem occurs nowadays it's an "unsolvable crisis" and the world is supposed to end. What crack me up to no end is how the media - and people like you - argue today that it's our moral duty to save those refugees and that 1 million people is not much compared to our might and greatness as european, but when it's about saving 3 000 people from losing their jobs then we can't do a thing. Seems unreal to me. It's just a thought tho, I believe we should be helping those people (I'm against economic immigration tho).
I think it is our moral duty as Europeans to save as many refugees as we can, solitary and humanitarian values are a founding principle of the EU, I like to think that the idea of human dignity actually is supposed to be practiced by all European states. Obviously this is supposed to extend to all citizens and I think it is poisonous to try to rile up the lower classes against refugees and immigrants. There doesn't need to be a conflict of interest at all.
|
On September 05 2015 05:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 04:58 dismiss wrote:On September 05 2015 04:46 Acrofales wrote:On September 05 2015 04:37 dismiss wrote:On September 05 2015 04:35 Acrofales wrote:On September 05 2015 03:10 dismiss wrote:On September 05 2015 02:51 Simberto wrote:
A big reason that large amounts of the refugees are young males is that it is a very hard and dangerous journey to enter europe from the places they are from. Just hear some stories about what they have to go through to reach a country like Germany. And such a journey has a much higher success rate if you are young and male.
And do you really think that ONLY syria is a country that warrants escaping from? A lot of african countries have some sort of murderous situation for some parts of their population going on. Which explains why a lot of the refugees are black. They are also fleeing, just not from the war in syria, but from one of the other horrible conflicts in africa.
But of course it is a lot easier to simply say that they all just want to mooch of our social systems than to accept that there are large amounts of legitimate refugees because a large part of the world is a horrible place to be born in.
I am disgusted by the extreme egoism a lot of people display when talking about refugees. Africa is remarkably stable compared to what how it used to be like 30+ years ago. While I very much sympathise with everyone who ever has to go hungry, work as a child, or be in a genuinely uncomfortable personal situation I don't feel like it's "our" job to make sure all these people are taken better care of. Especially when you put this on top of a heavy sense of entitlement being displayed by many of these migrants as well as European politicians being seemingly incapable or unwilling to deal with the situation I can see why people are averse to the idea of letting people migrate freely. We venture into philosophy here, but why is it the government's "job" to provide you with a basic income simply due to the fact that you happen to be from one spot on the planet, whereas it is not the government's "job" to provide someone from a different spot on the planet with a similar income. If you start on this track, it quickly leads you to agree with GoTunk! that social welfare is a farce in any case, and should be abolished in favour of letting everybody travel freely to wherever they think they have the best opportunity to make a living, where they will either succeed, or fail and die (barring some NGO of charitable people who help them out). However, there is an alternative that is an equally valid ethical viewpoint, which is that it is everybody's responsibility to reduce the suffering of others when they can. It then becomes the question: how many suffering people can Europe reasonably accomodate before its infrastructure collapses. I would say we are still a long long way away from that. It's mainly xenophobia causing the current round of problems, and not some fundamental issue with the social welfare failing. Nothing philosophical about it, it's usually written into the constitution and/or laws of countries. The person from outside the country has no ties to it, why should it be responsible in any way to help him baring humanitarian concerns? Those would rather make it a choice than a duty, imo. Hence why it's philosophical: the constitution is inherently nationalist. Whereas the problem we are facing with migration transcends national borders (by definition). The constitution says absolutely nothing about how to deal with immigrants (except maybe that human rights shouldn't be violated, which means we are currently dealing with them in an illegal manner according to our own constitutions, because human rights are violated on a daily basis). I can't speak about the constitution of every country, but in Germany the ability to seek asylum is explicitly expressed in the constitution. There are a few constraints, such as the whole Dublin 3 deal but it boils down to, if you are entering from a non EU, non safe state you have the right to seek asylum in any case. As for constitution being nationalistic, I'm not sure what your point is. It applies to the members of a certain socio-economic construct, because they are part of it, people from other countries have their own club, so to speak. However there are other laws which govern how emigration is supposed to work. Because it holds the laws of your nation over any duty to help another person. Nationalism is putting the laws and culture of your nation above all other things. Placing conditions to aid another human based on their compliance with your nations laws is nationalistic. In this case, because they are fleeing a warzone, it is saying the laws of your nation are more important than their life.
What part of "ability to seek asylum is explicitly expressed in the constitution" does equal to what you just stated? In fact the exact opposite is the case.
Asylum is deemed of such vital importance that it is extended to everyone, no matter where they are from, whether or not they are German, or whether or not they currently live here. However not all immigration is equal to seeking asylum, and not every case of someone seeking asylum is valid.
Sorting out every personal problem of every person on the entire earth is not part of the German state's duty.
What you said equals to it being an obligation for the government to buy me a €5 million mansion because it'd aid me in my quest to life a fulfilled life.
|
On September 05 2015 05:09 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 05:04 Plansix wrote:On September 05 2015 04:58 dismiss wrote:On September 05 2015 04:46 Acrofales wrote:On September 05 2015 04:37 dismiss wrote:On September 05 2015 04:35 Acrofales wrote:On September 05 2015 03:10 dismiss wrote:On September 05 2015 02:51 Simberto wrote:
A big reason that large amounts of the refugees are young males is that it is a very hard and dangerous journey to enter europe from the places they are from. Just hear some stories about what they have to go through to reach a country like Germany. And such a journey has a much higher success rate if you are young and male.
And do you really think that ONLY syria is a country that warrants escaping from? A lot of african countries have some sort of murderous situation for some parts of their population going on. Which explains why a lot of the refugees are black. They are also fleeing, just not from the war in syria, but from one of the other horrible conflicts in africa.
But of course it is a lot easier to simply say that they all just want to mooch of our social systems than to accept that there are large amounts of legitimate refugees because a large part of the world is a horrible place to be born in.
I am disgusted by the extreme egoism a lot of people display when talking about refugees. Africa is remarkably stable compared to what how it used to be like 30+ years ago. While I very much sympathise with everyone who ever has to go hungry, work as a child, or be in a genuinely uncomfortable personal situation I don't feel like it's "our" job to make sure all these people are taken better care of. Especially when you put this on top of a heavy sense of entitlement being displayed by many of these migrants as well as European politicians being seemingly incapable or unwilling to deal with the situation I can see why people are averse to the idea of letting people migrate freely. We venture into philosophy here, but why is it the government's "job" to provide you with a basic income simply due to the fact that you happen to be from one spot on the planet, whereas it is not the government's "job" to provide someone from a different spot on the planet with a similar income. If you start on this track, it quickly leads you to agree with GoTunk! that social welfare is a farce in any case, and should be abolished in favour of letting everybody travel freely to wherever they think they have the best opportunity to make a living, where they will either succeed, or fail and die (barring some NGO of charitable people who help them out). However, there is an alternative that is an equally valid ethical viewpoint, which is that it is everybody's responsibility to reduce the suffering of others when they can. It then becomes the question: how many suffering people can Europe reasonably accomodate before its infrastructure collapses. I would say we are still a long long way away from that. It's mainly xenophobia causing the current round of problems, and not some fundamental issue with the social welfare failing. Nothing philosophical about it, it's usually written into the constitution and/or laws of countries. The person from outside the country has no ties to it, why should it be responsible in any way to help him baring humanitarian concerns? Those would rather make it a choice than a duty, imo. Hence why it's philosophical: the constitution is inherently nationalist. Whereas the problem we are facing with migration transcends national borders (by definition). The constitution says absolutely nothing about how to deal with immigrants (except maybe that human rights shouldn't be violated, which means we are currently dealing with them in an illegal manner according to our own constitutions, because human rights are violated on a daily basis). I can't speak about the constitution of every country, but in Germany the ability to seek asylum is explicitly expressed in the constitution. There are a few constraints, such as the whole Dublin 3 deal but it boils down to, if you are entering from a non EU, non safe state you have the right to seek asylum in any case. As for constitution being nationalistic, I'm not sure what your point is. It applies to the members of a certain socio-economic construct, because they are part of it, people from other countries have their own club, so to speak. However there are other laws which govern how emigration is supposed to work. Because it holds the laws of your nation over any duty to help another person. Nationalism is putting the laws and culture of your nation above all other things. Placing conditions to aid another human based on their compliance with your nations laws is nationalistic. In this case, because they are fleeing a warzone, it is saying the laws of your nation are more important than their life. What part of "ability to seek asylum is explicitly expressed in the constitution" does equal to what you just stated? In fact the exact opposite is the case. Asylum is deemed of such vital importance that it is extended to everyone, no matter where they are from, whether or not they are German, or whether or not they currently live here. However not all immigration is equal to seeking asylum, and not every case of someone seeking asylum is valid. Sorting out every personal problem of every person on the entire earth is not part of the German state's duty. What you said equals to it being an obligation for the government to buy me a €5 million mansion because it'd aid me in my quest to life a fulfilled life.
No, I didn't say that. I said that people Syria who seek asylum should be granted it, even if they didn't do it 100% legally. You appear to be saying they shouldn't because they didn't comply with the law and the law is more important their their circumstances. Am I correct?
And to be clear, I am not addressing anyone seeking asylum that isn't fleeing a warzone. That seems to creep into the discussion every time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
