|
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 05:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 05:09 dismiss wrote: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.
Mhm, it appears some sort of mixup has crept into our discussion earlier on then. I never tried to dispute that asylum should be extended to people who genuinely need it. I still believe they should follow the correct process and be sent back to the first safe country they fled to rather than being encouraged to become asylum shoppers however. Many of them operating under the assumption that they're there to stay forever in their host country irks me the wrong way, that's not what asylum is about either.
|
On September 05 2015 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 04:40 WhiteDog wrote: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.
But this solidarity and those humanitarian values are restricted to refugee until they pass the frontier - at least for our politicians and our elite. When they are here, if they are unemployed fuck them, and when it's about helping their kids fuck them, and if it's about those greeks fuck them.
It's easy to say open the frontier and argue that there will be no consequences while also refusing to face the problem that already exist within our frontiers.
|
On September 05 2015 03:55 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +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? Because that seems like sort of a no-brainer problem that could be addressed. Well, if the person doesn't want them to know, they have to invest a lot of resources into finding out. I think, it would be much better if you just came out and stated your actual position. Because right now it appears to be ~worldwide welfare financed by the EU, Australia, America, and Canada.
And how exactly did the EU, Australia, America and Canada got the means to be able to provide this "worldwide welfare"?
We have a political party here in Greece sharing many of the opinions of the people in these last few pages. It's called Golden Dawn, don't really know if you heard it before...
|
On September 06 2015 00:24 gsgfdf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 03:55 cLutZ 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? Because that seems like sort of a no-brainer problem that could be addressed. Well, if the person doesn't want them to know, they have to invest a lot of resources into finding out. I think, it would be much better if you just came out and stated your actual position. Because right now it appears to be ~worldwide welfare financed by the EU, Australia, America, and Canada. And how exactly did the EU, Australia, America and Canada got the means to be able to provide this "worldwide welfare"? We have a political party here in Greece sharing many of the opinions of the people in these last few pages. It's called Golden Dawn, don't really know if you heard it before...
I don't know, ask Plansix. He is the one talking about, what amounts to, a worldwide welfare state.
|
In 1974 Portugal took in 500 thousand to 1 million people that abandoned everything they had in the Portuguese former African colonies. in 1970 the population of Portugal was 8.6 million and in 1981 it was 9.9 million. While they were culturally the same, Portugal was piss poor at the time and in the midst of a weird post-revolutionary period.
I can't believe the EU, with its 500 million people, would have any problems assimilating a few hundred thousand people. The literature on the effects of immigration on the economy and wages of the recipient country generally does not show negative effects. Studies on their impact in the UK and other European countries show that they are net contributors to welfare programs. Major countries UK and Germany have very low unemployment rates right now and the European economies are picking up. I can't find a plausible explanation for not offering asylum to Syrian refugees.
Bottom line is that Europeans are reallylucky to have been born where they were born. I don't see any reason to deny the same opportunities we have to people who were unlucky to be born in f'd up places when the cost to us is minimal if any.
|
On September 06 2015 01:51 warding wrote:
In 1974 Portugal took in 500 thousand to 1 million people that abandoned everything they had in the Portuguese former African colonies. in 1970 the population of Portugal was 8.6 million and in 1981 it was 9.9 million. While they were culturally the same, Portugal was piss poor at the time and in the midst of a weird post-revolutionary period.
I can't believe the EU, with its 500 million people, would have any problems assimilating a few hundred thousand people. The literature on the effects of immigration on the economy and wages of the recipient country generally does not show negative effects. Studies on their impact in the UK and other European countries show that they are net contributors to welfare programs. Major countries UK and Germany have very low unemployment rates right now and the European economies are picking up. I can't find a plausible explanation for not offering asylum to Syrian refugees.
Bottom line is that Europeans are reallylucky to have been born where they were born. I don't see any reason to deny the same opportunities we have to people who were unlucky to be born in f'd up places when the cost to us is minimal if any.
While they were culturally the same
While they were culturally the same
While they were culturally the same
That's the only thing that made it possible.
A Korean merging will be possible, the German merging was possible. You know why ? Only because they fucking speak the same language and share the same(ish) culture.
I mean look at Belgium, Spain...
Walloons and Flemish can't stand each other (I am exagerating a bit) while living next to each other.
Catalonia just elected a guy who want to declare independance unilaterally. And FFS they are in the same country an share a common history for centuries.
There are dozen of example like that.
Now you want western countries, that have already a hard time accepting their neighbours, to welcome whole heartly people that are kinda the center of every fucking news for decade about terrorism, dictatorship, and other wtfqism like beheading, slave-women, radicalisation, etc...
I don't say all of the muslim are radical, but a BIG number of them are, or at least sympathetic to it. So yeah, I totally see why European are very sceptic about the whole situation
|
So you've got two arguments:
1. We shouldn't take in Syrians because Europeans are xenophobes;
2. We shouldn't take in Syrians because TERRORISMS.
1. There are huge minority populations in almost every European country already. Are they the cause of any major social or economic upheaval? Nope. Instead, they're part of the reason why our welfare systems aren't collapsing soonThere are some Eastern Germans complaining. Who cares, ignorant hicks shouldn't dictate policy. Is native European countries' homogeneity worth preserving?
Finally, besides the Portuguese 'retornados' there are also over 150k African immigrants in Portugal.
2. 313 people died in terrorist attacks in Europe since 2000. Meanwhile, until July, 2000 people had died trying to cross the Mediterranean this year alone.
|
On September 06 2015 04:40 warding wrote:
So you've got two arguments:
1. We shouldn't take in Syrians because Europeans are xenophobes;
2. We shouldn't take in Syrians because TERRORISMS.
1. There are huge minority populations in almost every European country already. Are they the cause of any major social or economic upheaval? Nope. Instead, they're part of the reason why our welfare systems aren't collapsing soonThere are some Eastern Germans complaining. Who cares, ignorant hicks shouldn't dictate policy. Is native European countries' homogeneity worth preserving?
Finally, besides the Portuguese 'retornados' there are also over 150k African immigrants in Portugal.
2. 313 people died in terrorist attacks in Europe since 2000. Meanwhile, until July, 2000 people had died trying to cross the Mediterranean this year alone.
I never use the "terrorism" in this way tho. I talk about how the media picture the middle east.
But anyway,
1) yes there are huge minorities in almost every countries, and you see that they are usually doing the head of local news every so often. 5 years ago, and in 1968, in Belgium, there were quite some huge clash between Walloons and Flemish.
Catalans are in majority for their independance.
In France, Corse got terrorists that fight for their indepence. Another one in France is Alsace that got a special status because they consider themself not totally french.
In Ukraine, you got the Russian-Ukrainian separatists, and will, in other countries too.
In UK, you got Scotland where more than 40% of scottish wanted a separation.
Kosovo ? Croatia and Serbia ?
Macedonia and Greece ?
I bet there are other but that's the one I can think of right now but I think it's enough to prove that no, we can't quite live in harmony already with people that are similar in culture.
2. You use the 313 as a number but it means nothing too. Those are claimed terrorism act from AL Quada, ISIS and other extremist group.
But what about the crime commited by immigrants ? Malmo in Sweden, and the huge amount of rape, and the IKEA stuff ?
Obviously this is all conjecture I have to admit since it is prohibited by constitutions in Germany and France to relate crime with race so it's impossible to get real fact. What you can find though, is that the majority of crime happens in region with a high concentration of migrants. Correlation != Causation, and there are certainly other factors, but in my head a lot of it is linked with a flawed religion.
|
1. How exactly are separatist movements in Europe relevant to this issue?
2. Actually, the 313 include marxist attacks in Greece and Italy and other places. So not all are from Islamist attacks. Yes, it's true that immigrant communities can have higher crime rates than natives. It all depends on how they are integrated, though. Crime rates in Europe have been generally stable. I don't find it to be reason enough to forget that we're all human.
|
On September 06 2015 05:10 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2015 04:40 warding wrote:
So you've got two arguments:
1. We shouldn't take in Syrians because Europeans are xenophobes;
2. We shouldn't take in Syrians because TERRORISMS.
1. There are huge minority populations in almost every European country already. Are they the cause of any major social or economic upheaval? Nope. Instead, they're part of the reason why our welfare systems aren't collapsing soonThere are some Eastern Germans complaining. Who cares, ignorant hicks shouldn't dictate policy. Is native European countries' homogeneity worth preserving?
Finally, besides the Portuguese 'retornados' there are also over 150k African immigrants in Portugal.
2. 313 people died in terrorist attacks in Europe since 2000. Meanwhile, until July, 2000 people had died trying to cross the Mediterranean this year alone. I never use the "terrorism" in this way tho. I talk about how the media picture the middle east. But anyway, 1) yes there are huge minorities in almost every countries, and you see that they are usually doing the head of local news every so often. 5 years ago, and in 1968, in Belgium, there were quite some huge clash between Walloons and Flemish. Catalans are in majority for their independance. In France, Corse got terrorists that fight for their indepence. Another one in France is Alsace that got a special status because they consider themself not totally french. In Ukraine, you got the Russian-Ukrainian separatists, and will, in other countries too. In UK, you got Scotland where more than 40% of scottish wanted a separation. Kosovo ? Croatia and Serbia ? Macedonia and Greece ? I bet there are other but that's the one I can think of right now but I think it's enough to prove that no, we can't quite live in harmony already with people that are similar in culture. 2. You use the 313 as a number but it means nothing too. Those are claimed terrorism act from AL Quada, ISIS and other extremist group. But what about the crime commited by immigrants ? Malmo in Sweden, and the huge amount of rape, and the IKEA stuff ? Obviously this is all conjecture I have to admit since it is prohibited by constitutions in Germany and France to relate crime with race so it's impossible to get real fact. What you can find though, is that the majority of crime happens in region with a high concentration of migrants. Correlation != Causation, and there are certainly other factors, but in my head a lot of it is linked with a flawed religion.
First of all, i don't really understand what you mean by Fyrom and Greece in the context of your first argument. Our countries do not fall in that category, Fyrom was part of Yugoslavia.
On to your other arguments, it is truly remarkable your sense of entitlement. Just because you were lucky to win the lottery and be born in a fiscal paradise with insane living conditions you feel superior. Your country will be less affected from this than most of the rest of Europe. At least people sharing your beliefs here have to watch thousands of people get washed ashore and travel through our country. I am not interested in arguing with you, just want to point out the hypocrisy.
|
On September 06 2015 04:40 warding wrote:
So you've got two arguments:
1. We shouldn't take in Syrians because Europeans are xenophobes;
2. We shouldn't take in Syrians because TERRORISMS.
1. There are huge minority populations in almost every European country already. Are they the cause of any major social or economic upheaval? Nope. Instead, they're part of the reason why our welfare systems aren't collapsing soonThere are some Eastern Germans complaining. Who cares, ignorant hicks shouldn't dictate policy. Is native European countries' homogeneity worth preserving?
Finally, besides the Portuguese 'retornados' there are also over 150k African immigrants in Portugal.
2. 313 people died in terrorist attacks in Europe since 2000. Meanwhile, until July, 2000 people had died trying to cross the Mediterranean this year alone.
Don't underestimate homogeneity. Research has shown that the more homogenous a neighbourhood is, the more civic-mindedness will be present among the people who live there:
Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.
Link
|
On September 06 2015 05:48 gsgfdf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2015 05:10 Faust852 wrote:On September 06 2015 04:40 warding wrote:
So you've got two arguments:
1. We shouldn't take in Syrians because Europeans are xenophobes;
2. We shouldn't take in Syrians because TERRORISMS.
1. There are huge minority populations in almost every European country already. Are they the cause of any major social or economic upheaval? Nope. Instead, they're part of the reason why our welfare systems aren't collapsing soonThere are some Eastern Germans complaining. Who cares, ignorant hicks shouldn't dictate policy. Is native European countries' homogeneity worth preserving?
Finally, besides the Portuguese 'retornados' there are also over 150k African immigrants in Portugal.
2. 313 people died in terrorist attacks in Europe since 2000. Meanwhile, until July, 2000 people had died trying to cross the Mediterranean this year alone. I never use the "terrorism" in this way tho. I talk about how the media picture the middle east. But anyway, 1) yes there are huge minorities in almost every countries, and you see that they are usually doing the head of local news every so often. 5 years ago, and in 1968, in Belgium, there were quite some huge clash between Walloons and Flemish. Catalans are in majority for their independance. In France, Corse got terrorists that fight for their indepence. Another one in France is Alsace that got a special status because they consider themself not totally french. In Ukraine, you got the Russian-Ukrainian separatists, and will, in other countries too. In UK, you got Scotland where more than 40% of scottish wanted a separation. Kosovo ? Croatia and Serbia ? Macedonia and Greece ? I bet there are other but that's the one I can think of right now but I think it's enough to prove that no, we can't quite live in harmony already with people that are similar in culture. 2. You use the 313 as a number but it means nothing too. Those are claimed terrorism act from AL Quada, ISIS and other extremist group. But what about the crime commited by immigrants ? Malmo in Sweden, and the huge amount of rape, and the IKEA stuff ? Obviously this is all conjecture I have to admit since it is prohibited by constitutions in Germany and France to relate crime with race so it's impossible to get real fact. What you can find though, is that the majority of crime happens in region with a high concentration of migrants. Correlation != Causation, and there are certainly other factors, but in my head a lot of it is linked with a flawed religion. First of all, i don't really understand what you mean by Fyrom and Greece in the context of your first argument. Our countries do not fall in that category, Fyrom was part of Yugoslavia. On to your other arguments, it is truly remarkable your sense of entitlement. Just because you were lucky to win the lottery and be born in a fiscal paradise with insane living conditions you feel superior. Your country will be less affected from this than most of the rest of Europe. At least people sharing your beliefs here have to watch thousands of people get washed ashore and travel through our country. I am not interested in arguing with you, just want to point out the hypocrisy.
Here come the strawman and the adhominem.
So first things first, I was not born in Luxembourg.
I'm half Italian, half Belgian. So please avoid judge a book by its cover.
Secondly, wtf with feeling acts ? Thousand of people drown ? What a shitty argument, Millions die because of starvation every year, much more than because of war. Why the fuck are you not there to give them food ? I bet you have 2/3 spare room, you could accueil a dozen migrant with that right ?
See my point ? Accepting millions of refugees and migrants is utterly useless in the long term, it's even worse than useless, it is detrimental because it is a fucking brain drain for the origin countries, and those millions of people aren't doing anything to build their country back.
So yeah
- brain drain
- help extremism in origin countries
- deterior the quality of living of host countries
- creation of ghettos
Tell me what it does except soothing your entitled feeling and high ground moral ? Yup, nothing good.
So don't use the feeling argument that people drown because they try to be healthcare-tourist. 1 death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.
I'm all for doing something for them, but it should not be detrimental to us. ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY DONT WANT WHAT WE OFFER TO THEM. That's why every fucking illegal we catch in Europe should be deported number for number in Turkey/Lebanon/Jordan and take the same number from people who were acting for the refugee status legally.
Than we should definitly create a safe space in the actually war-torn country, in Syria. BTW Guy Verhofstadt made this proposition recently.
|
here the hate is pretty high(it's a brown people thing). the anti-islamism/muslimism scaremongering is at an all time high and with orthodoxy as state religion i don't know...
politicians will probably get pressured and such by EU but again, i don't think it'll amount to much.
|
This whole conversation is really ugly.
maartendq, Silicon Valley is possibly the most diverse location on Earth. It's also the one currently most contributing to human kind per capita. People who prefer to live in locations with minimal genetic diversity are always free to do so. They can move to a village nearby and marry their cousin, away from all the brownies.
Faust852 you have a lot of opinions about what should be done to people. Ever occurred to you to imagine what life is like in their shoes? Imagine you're a talented programmed in Syria and instead of contributing to the world and earning a really nice salary in the West with your skills, you're fighting for survival.. Imagine you've just been a father and you have to protect your family in a war torn country. Imagine you're a teenager with aspirations but your family got killed in the war and you're stuck in a refugee camp in Turkey with no idea when you'll be able to go back to a normal place and finish getting your education. How is it possible to have so little empathy?
|
On September 06 2015 05:48 gsgfdf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2015 05:10 Faust852 wrote:On September 06 2015 04:40 warding wrote:
So you've got two arguments:
1. We shouldn't take in Syrians because Europeans are xenophobes;
2. We shouldn't take in Syrians because TERRORISMS.
1. There are huge minority populations in almost every European country already. Are they the cause of any major social or economic upheaval? Nope. Instead, they're part of the reason why our welfare systems aren't collapsing soonThere are some Eastern Germans complaining. Who cares, ignorant hicks shouldn't dictate policy. Is native European countries' homogeneity worth preserving?
Finally, besides the Portuguese 'retornados' there are also over 150k African immigrants in Portugal.
2. 313 people died in terrorist attacks in Europe since 2000. Meanwhile, until July, 2000 people had died trying to cross the Mediterranean this year alone. I never use the "terrorism" in this way tho. I talk about how the media picture the middle east. But anyway, 1) yes there are huge minorities in almost every countries, and you see that they are usually doing the head of local news every so often. 5 years ago, and in 1968, in Belgium, there were quite some huge clash between Walloons and Flemish. Catalans are in majority for their independance. In France, Corse got terrorists that fight for their indepence. Another one in France is Alsace that got a special status because they consider themself not totally french. In Ukraine, you got the Russian-Ukrainian separatists, and will, in other countries too. In UK, you got Scotland where more than 40% of scottish wanted a separation. Kosovo ? Croatia and Serbia ? Macedonia and Greece ? I bet there are other but that's the one I can think of right now but I think it's enough to prove that no, we can't quite live in harmony already with people that are similar in culture. 2. You use the 313 as a number but it means nothing too. Those are claimed terrorism act from AL Quada, ISIS and other extremist group. But what about the crime commited by immigrants ? Malmo in Sweden, and the huge amount of rape, and the IKEA stuff ? Obviously this is all conjecture I have to admit since it is prohibited by constitutions in Germany and France to relate crime with race so it's impossible to get real fact. What you can find though, is that the majority of crime happens in region with a high concentration of migrants. Correlation != Causation, and there are certainly other factors, but in my head a lot of it is linked with a flawed religion. First of all, i don't really understand what you mean by Fyrom and Greece in the context of your first argument. Our countries do not fall in that category, Fyrom was part of Yugoslavia. On to your other arguments, it is truly remarkable your sense of entitlement. Just because you were lucky to win the lottery and be born in a fiscal paradise with insane living conditions you feel superior. Your country will be less affected from this than most of the rest of Europe. At least people sharing your beliefs here have to watch thousands of people get washed ashore and travel through our country. I am not interested in arguing with you, just want to point out the hypocrisy.
I never really understood the argument that just because you were lucky to be born in the better part of the world you should feel guilty for those who did not (or worse, that this makes you automatically responsible for bettering the lives of those who are less well-off).
We should help those people because they are human beings, not because we feel guilty. That picture of the toddles that drowned did honestly not phase me. Throughout my life I have been subjected to so many pictures of sad looking children that I cannot regard it as anything other than emotional blackmail. Crises like these are solved with rational thinking, not with emotions. There is no point in taking in tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of refugees if a lot of people do not want them. You can call them "ignorant hicks" all you want, but the result of going against the will of a significant part of the people (in a time where many governments already have to slash benefits left and right) is racism and discrimination.
I can only speak for my own country, but ten or fifteen years ago, it was taboo to think in terms of "a country's own people first!". Nowadays it has become an accepted way of thinking, even among members of the left. Belgium is already one of the most densely populated areas in the world, and it has significant problems assimilating migrants - many of them third generation - into society. As much as I do not like it, I do understand why people are worried and would rather not have refugees settle over here in large numbers.
@Warding: silicon valley consists of highly educated and ambitious people living in a country with a "learn to swim or drown" mentality: compared to the EU, the US' social security is non-existant. Additionally, regardless of which country the people working at Silicon Valley come from, they will have belonged to the higher social strata.
Most of the migrants who arrive in Europe do not fit into that category of highly educated and trained. They're from countries that have pretty much been perpetual shitholes for the vast majority of the population. Some more figures for Belgium: barely 10% of the migrants who arrive here have had education that exceeds the average a Belgian has received throughout his life.
|
It has nothing to do with guilt. It's not your fault that Syria is a war-torn country. However, the comfortable lives we live are also not the fruit of our own merit. We are lucky that we live in parliamentary democracies in the post industrial revolution era. The Syrians have as little responsibility over the circumstances of their lives as we do. Therefore, given that it has been demonstrated that immigrants can be assimilated with minimal cost to the natives, this is merely a matter of basic human solidarity. It shouldn't even be our right to stop people from settling in our countries.
What is ugly about this is that it's basically about Europeans valuing the conservation of their societies - including their whiteness, christianity, traditions - above the lives of their fellow humans. It is a wish that should belong in the XIX century, not today.
You gave me one piece of evidence homogenous societies were more peaceful. I gave you one piece of evidence heterogeneity brought about more innovation. In fact, that is so much so the case that there's a solid case to believe that the limitations on the american H-B1 visa are responsible for innovation not coming about as fast as it should.
Poorly educated immigrants can do fine in the first world too. One example:
http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013/02/why-are-there-so-many-bosnians-st-louis/4668/
|
comparisons don't work here. you point is what ... that syrians are bosnians?.
you can't make it work, it's all subjective; not to mention one is pre- and the other is post- (bosnians did it, syrians will do it)
|
@ Faust852 i argued that tensions between Fyrom and my country were never caused by any minorities. I was correcting you because your (irrellevant) argument about minorities included Greece and Fyrom. I don't care to comment on the rest of your post.
@ maartendq I never meant to make this about feelings. Believe me, i am way more cynical than that. Sorry if it came across like that. I share many of your concerns, especially about how willing some of those people are about becoming a part of our societies. Where we differ is that i believe that Europe can do a whole lot to help Syrians ( and economic migrants in general) but politicians refuse to do so just to suit their petty needs.
|
On September 06 2015 07:41 xM(Z wrote:
comparisons don't work here. you point is what ... that syrians are bosnians?.
you can't make it work, it's all subjective; not to mention one is pre- and the other is post- (bosnians did it, syrians will do it)
My point is that it's possible to integrate immigration waves with a low average education levels in developed countries. Why wouldn't comparisons work here? What's subjective about this?
|
On September 05 2015 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 04:40 WhiteDog wrote: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.
I'm sorry, but i certainly don't have a moral obligation to anything in that regard. Why would i?
Apart from that, i can understand every person who has problems with how the whole situation is managed. I for example do, but maybe you can enlighten me.
As following: you have a refugee, fleeing from war, arriving in a safe country. There, that refugee demands bus/train transport to a different country, by cheering "germany! germany!", hungerstrikes and other means. Now, correct me if i'm wrong. That refugee, fleeing from a war, arrived in a safe country. From there on out, he's a economical immigrant. I absolutely do understand a person fearing for his live and family, trying to reach a country where they don't get killed, raped and their kids sold as sexslaves. I do not agree that this person should get a free pass to germany because suddenly "surviving and not living in fear" is not good enough anymore. (edit: that doesn't mean germany shouldn't take refugees btw - just its share, just like others)
And lastly.. Solidarity is good, but how about we start with our own states first? You do realise that the german government, commonly praised in medias nowadays for their stance on this crisis, actually doesn't pay shit for this and just loads the whole tab on the (already heavily indebted) Laender (states?), yes?
edit: as example, the german government agreed to hand out 500 million euros this and next year to the states (don't know if "Laender" gets translated to state, but guess it's understandable) for this crisis. That's for all states together. Brandenburg in this example gets 15 million euros from the government as "help" (fun fact, Brandenburg actually has to pay that back, it's a loan). Now the interesting part, this year alone, Brandenburgs estimated costs for this crisis are around 200 million euros. That's 185 millions out of the (heavily indebted, again) states etat, and that number will most likely rise next year. That's money that gets cut somewhere else. And that i certainly don't agree with, and i understand every person who isn't okay with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
