|
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 06 2015 07:15 warding wrote: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/
There's so many things in this post that make me annoyed. The vast majority of people living in a society contribute to it, shape it, make it prosper; as such everyone living in a society is contributing to it.
The Syrian/Iraqi people also are partly responsible for Isis. It certainly didn't come about because the majority of their populace believes in true secularity and Western ethical standards. Please don't mistake this as me saying the refugees are the primarily responsible party, but they too shaped a society in which religious extremism to the point of violence, a 1 party state, etc. were allowed to exist especially in a country that has had it much better than much of the surrounding region.
Outside of the basic human rights extended to everyone they're not entitled to get anything from us more than a random person on the street is to contents of your wallet.
Everything else being given to them is due to the compassion and good will of the European people. I fully agree that you should help people in need out, but it is a bit ripe to demand everyone toss any and all concerns over board. This study for example makes it look like the "marginal cost" of non-EU originating immigration could be anything but marginal.
|
The fact that the industrial revolution started in UK is the result of a fortuitous series of events hundreds of years ago. None of them are our responsibility. We're able to make very small contributions to our society but that is only because random facts 300 years ago led to the creation of parliamentary democracies, market-based economies, where education became valuable and private initiative could prosper. This is not the making of any single individual living in the developed countries.
Neither is it any Syrian's fault that ISIS broke out in their country. ISIS exists because some guy decided to write a book filled with crazy stuff 1400 years ago and present it as the word of God, then his disciples got some swords and managed to spread those ideas around like crazy. Fast-forward almost a millenium and a half, you're in an unstable political system in the Middle East - in some part due to the meddling of the US, UK and France in the region - and a civil war where extremist lunatics are given the opportunity to wreak havoc. How did any of the dead babies washing ashore contribute to any of this clusterf**k?
Did you actually look into the study you posted? The part where non-EEA immigrants arriving between 2001 have made net positive fiscal contributions of 5 billion pounds? I don't know what explains the difference between recent non-EEA and older non-EEA immigrants, but perhaps it's that the older ones have had children who are at first a cost but then a contributor for 45+ years.
|
On September 06 2015 08:54 warding wrote:
The fact that the industrial revolution started in UK is the result of a fortuitous series of events hundreds of years ago. None of them are our responsibility. We're able to make very small contributions to our society but that is only because random facts 300 years ago led to the creation of parliamentary democracies, market-based economies, where education became valuable and private initiative could prosper. This is not the making of any single individual living in the developed countries.
Neither is it any Syrian's fault that ISIS broke out in their country. ISIS exists because some guy decided to write a book filled with crazy stuff 1400 years ago and present it as the word of God, then his disciples got some swords and managed to spread those ideas around like crazy. Fast-forward almost a millenium and a half, you're in an unstable political system in the Middle East - in some part due to the meddling of the US, UK and France in the region - and a civil war where extremist lunatics are given the opportunity to wreak havoc. How did any of the dead babies washing ashore contribute to any of this clusterf**k?
Did you actually look into the study you posted? The part where non-EEA immigrants arriving between 2001 have made net positive fiscal contributions of 5 billion pounds? I don't know what explains the difference between recent non-EEA and older non-EEA immigrants, but perhaps it's that the older ones have had children who are at first a cost but then a contributor for 45+ years.
You make it sound like it's all just a big coincidence, rofl. At some point after plenty of headchopping people here came around to the idea that decapitating someone because they have a different imaginary friend might not be the greatest idea. Sadly, large parts of the world have yet to gain such spectacular insights. It's not a single persons doing but rather that of a group, consisting of many people contributing to it.
Your narrative is also completely disregarding that during earlier periods other regions of the world were more developed, valuing education, philosophy and arts while our ancestors were busy with the aforementioned headchopping.
I can't even fathom why you would blame Isis on some fuzzybearded pederast rather than those people committing atrocities in his name today. Do you think they woke up one day and decided radical Islamic preachings are just really their thing? Of course not, they were raised in a society which accepted, fostered even this lunacy. A society which the refugees were all part of.
I linked the study to highlight that non EEA immigration has in the past been quite expensive, with migration from commonwealth nations after the transition from the British empire into commonwealth being more similar to a huge swath of refugees than the highly restricted immigration you so quaintly pointed out has had a positive economic impact.
Read this if you want to have a quick overview. Essentially they're only letting rich or highly skilled workers in. Of course they will have a positive economic impact. I doubt the countless refugees trying to enter the EU now are all doctors, lawyers, and IT wizards.
|
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.
Spot-on, thank you.
|
It's a big bag of coincidences. They are generally random events. I'm influenced by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson on this. Point being: no single individual is responsible for the fact that we live in parliamentary democracies with market economies. Your point on the fact that other societies were more developed in other periods of time is testament to that. It's not because some peoples are smart and others are dumb. It's because some were lucky to have intricate political balances that led their monarchies to transfer power to parliaments represented by a plurality of interests that then were led to create legal systems that had some degree of fairness. That then led to the protection of private property and private initiative, that then led to the protection of new inventions and allowed their introduction into the markets. Etc.
As for why I blame the creation of Islam for ISIS, well, you don't see Buddhist decapitation-enthusiasts even though I'm sure there are plenty of people with psychological disturbances in those parts of the world too. The set of ideas in the Quran influences these groups. Sure, they had the choice. But choice is an illusion when you're brainwashed from a young age, don't have the education to develop critical thinking and/or suffer from psychological afflictions and/or were subject to abuse.
I accept your point about rich/high skilled workers being the norm post 2000. I'll point out that, for example, in 1995 the median years since migration for non-EEA immigrants is 23 and that the marginal effect in relation to the native population is 0.992. Meaning, non-EEA immigrants that have been in the UK for a long time show a similar impact as the native population. Either way, UK natives are getting a free lunch with the immigrant population. What you're asking is for that lunch to be even more free by not letting the darker colored ingredients in.
EDIT: Hurray for Finland:
http://qz.com/496109/finlands-prime-minister-has-invited-refugees-to-live-in-his-own-home/
|
Seems odd that with its massive, undefended border, Russia has not refugee problem. No?
|
On September 06 2015 11:01 cLutZ wrote:
Seems odd that with its massive, undefended border, Russia has not refugee problem. No?
Not at all. I think it's pretty obvious why they are not going to Russia.
|
United States43607 Posts
I think it's a little rich for dismiss, with his nation set to UK, to be blaming the people of the Middle East for their political situation. We did that. We drew the map. We put Israel there. We failed to create Kurdistan. We made nations where the Sunnis and Shiites were together. Oh, and we destabilized Iran to try and get BP some oil. And we invaded Iraq.
You might as well start shitting in your neighbours garden and then complain that he can't keep it clean.
|
On September 06 2015 12:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2015 11:01 cLutZ wrote:
Seems odd that with its massive, undefended border, Russia has not refugee problem. No? Not at all. I think it's pretty obvious why they are not going to Russia.
Because they aren't actually refugees and are seeking the best economic opportunity?
|
On September 06 2015 13:49 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2015 12:34 Plansix wrote:On September 06 2015 11:01 cLutZ wrote:
Seems odd that with its massive, undefended border, Russia has not refugee problem. No? Not at all. I think it's pretty obvious why they are not going to Russia. Because they aren't actually refugees and are seeking the best economic opportunity?
Pretty sure Russia would just let them die.
|
On September 06 2015 14:06 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2015 13:49 cLutZ wrote:On September 06 2015 12:34 Plansix wrote:On September 06 2015 11:01 cLutZ wrote:
Seems odd that with its massive, undefended border, Russia has not refugee problem. No? Not at all. I think it's pretty obvious why they are not going to Russia. Because they aren't actually refugees and are seeking the best economic opportunity? Pretty sure Russia would just let them die.
They are a signatory to the relevant treaty. Do you not think treaties are actually useful (an entirely defendable position)? Do you not thing Russians are trustworthy?
|
On September 06 2015 13:49 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2015 12:34 Plansix wrote:On September 06 2015 11:01 cLutZ wrote:
Seems odd that with its massive, undefended border, Russia has not refugee problem. No? Not at all. I think it's pretty obvious why they are not going to Russia. Because they aren't actually refugees and are seeking the best economic opportunity?
Because Putin is the mini Hitler of the 21st century? Maybe it's easier being homeless in countries where most of the time your balls don't freeze off?
I mean, Germany openly advertises how accepting it is, while Russia advertises against the gay-fascist Armageddon? Where would you go if you had one (1) chance in life to find a better living place?
Also I originally came here to discuss with you my observation from the past weeks.
As the news in Hungary got filled to the brim with the immigration problem it was time to ask around the people, my family, friends, etc....
Now this isn't a scientific result but from my experience, for the overwhelming majority the problem is simply racism, and all the economic we can't help them and so on, are just blankets to hide behind, kind of like religion for the gay hating bigots.
The unfortunate reality it seems to me is that we simply haven't been really exposed to people of other color (seriously, for most people over here, it is a notable event if they have seen a living black person, that they can discuss over the dining table)
Also, in pair with latent racism, the immigrants look like gypsies against whom most hungarians have a completely unabashed racism. (interestingly, I actually talked about this with applicable people, and they would rather have black neighbors than gypsies).
So yeah, my take on the immigration problem, is that it really just reveals another problem in the eastern bloc.
On September 06 2015 14:22 cLutZ wrote:
They are a signatory to the relevant treaty. Do you not think treaties are actually useful (an entirely defendable position)? Do you not thing Russians are trustworthy?
Woah, lol think I can actually hear the ukrainians laughing their asses off in despair.
Seriously, who thinks the Russians are trustworthy?
|
By saying that Russians aren't trustworthy, you are actually undermining your point.
|
On September 06 2015 14:36 cLutZ wrote:
By saying that Russians aren't trustworthy, you are actually undermining your point.
Please elaborate, I do not see the connection.
Oh! think I got it, you say I am also racist for saying the russians are not trustworthy.
Would be fair and square if it was not obvious that in this case all that matters is the leadership. but for you, I emphasize: It is the Russian state, what whit Putin and the likes that is not trustworthy, and NOT the people in general.
|
The Russian point is important on several points. First, if you aren't willing to accept whatever (probably subpar) conditions offered by Russia, you probably aren't a refugee ( unless you are a refugee from Russia). Second, yes, you are racist for making that presumption, because Putin is the personification of the Russian people, much more than Merkel, Hollande, Obama, and Cameron, based on best available evidence. Third, generally, we need to bring to the forefront the fact that there exists no rational definition of refugee (as the current one includes billions of people). And lastly, I would just say countries should accept these people, if they want to, but only if they are willing to treat them as first class citizens.
|
On September 06 2015 14:55 cLutZ wrote:
The Russian point is important on several points. First, if you aren't willing to accept whatever (probably subpar) conditions offered by Russia, you probably aren't a refugee ( unless you are a refugee from Russia). Second, yes, you are racist for making that presumption, because Putin is the personification of the Russian people, much more than Merkel, Hollande, Obama, and Cameron, based on best available evidence. Third, generally, we need to bring to the forefront the fact that there exists no rational definition of refugee (as the current one includes billions of people). And lastly, I would just say countries should accept these people, if they want to, but only if they are willing to treat them as first class citizens.
Your first point: I beg to differ, if you have to leave your home, you would be stupid to not aim for the best possible second start. I personally think this would even justify a Germany over Hungary choice, much more so with a Russia over Germany choice.
Second I am not sure what you mean with this Putin is the personification thing, but it sounds utterly obnoxious, and I still cant help but feel not racist for pointing out Putin's recent history in upholding for example the Budapest memorandum (and you know, all the international humbug about sovereign borders and what not).
Third, fair point, though not one I debated, and I can't add to it much
Fourth, is finally one I thoroughly agree with, I just wanted to add to the point of the whys of the eastern bloc's (or at least Hungary, Slovakia) unwillingness to accept these people.
|
On September 06 2015 11:01 cLutZ wrote:
Seems odd that with its massive, undefended border, Russia has not refugee problem. No?
Without a Soviet passport, good luck gaining refugee status. Russia has a lot of immigrants, but most of them are not foreigners. Wouldn't call it an undefended border either - Russia has always been very insistent on protecting its borders (arguably to the point of paranoia).
As far as economic migration: Russia is a lot better place to live for the poorer population than its GDP per capita would suggest. Housing and food are pretty cheap (many people have a summer home, even the relatively poor), and public services are decent. If you want to buy foreign goods though, bummer. Overall, it would make sense for people from the old Soviet bloc to move to Russia, and quite a lot of them do.
|
On September 06 2015 15:17 Evotroid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2015 14:55 cLutZ wrote:
The Russian point is important on several points. First, if you aren't willing to accept whatever (probably subpar) conditions offered by Russia, you probably aren't a refugee ( unless you are a refugee from Russia). Second, yes, you are racist for making that presumption, because Putin is the personification of the Russian people, much more than Merkel, Hollande, Obama, and Cameron, based on best available evidence. Third, generally, we need to bring to the forefront the fact that there exists no rational definition of refugee (as the current one includes billions of people). And lastly, I would just say countries should accept these people, if they want to, but only if they are willing to treat them as first class citizens. Your first point: I beg to differ, if you have to leave your home, you would be stupid to not aim for the best possible second start. I personally think this would even justify a Germany over Hungary choice, much more so with a Russia over Germany choice. Second I am not sure what you mean with this Putin is the personification thing, but it sounds utterly obnoxious, and I still cant help but feel not racist for pointing out Putin's recent history in upholding for example the Budapest memorandum (and you know, all the international humbug about sovereign borders and what not). (edit: ) In fact, it started by you asking whether one should trust Russia with upholding a treaty. I answered (maybe in a bit too ambiguous way) by citing the recent example of Ukraine, that no, I do not think so. If this makes me racist, so be it.Third, fair point, though not one I debated, and I can't add to it much Fourth, is finally one I thoroughly agree with, I just wanted to add to the point of the whys of the eastern bloc's (or at least Hungary, Slovakia) unwillingness to accept these people.
(screwed up the editing somehow, bolded the added part)
|
On September 06 2015 14:28 Evotroid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2015 13:49 cLutZ wrote:On September 06 2015 12:34 Plansix wrote:On September 06 2015 11:01 cLutZ wrote:
Seems odd that with its massive, undefended border, Russia has not refugee problem. No? Not at all. I think it's pretty obvious why they are not going to Russia. Because they aren't actually refugees and are seeking the best economic opportunity? Because Putin is the mini Hitler of the 21st century? Maybe it's easier being homeless in countries where most of the time your balls don't freeze off? I mean, Germany openly advertises how accepting it is, while Russia advertises against the gay-fascist Armageddon? Where would you go if you had one (1) chance in life to find a better living place?
Wow. Way to let a personal vendetta get in the way of reason.
Sure, Germany is the better choice for a fair number of reasons, but what terrible reasoning you have.
|
On September 06 2015 15:40 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2015 14:28 Evotroid wrote:On September 06 2015 13:49 cLutZ wrote:On September 06 2015 12:34 Plansix wrote:On September 06 2015 11:01 cLutZ wrote:
Seems odd that with its massive, undefended border, Russia has not refugee problem. No? Not at all. I think it's pretty obvious why they are not going to Russia. Because they aren't actually refugees and are seeking the best economic opportunity? Because Putin is the mini Hitler of the 21st century? Maybe it's easier being homeless in countries where most of the time your balls don't freeze off? I mean, Germany openly advertises how accepting it is, while Russia advertises against the gay-fascist Armageddon? Where would you go if you had one (1) chance in life to find a better living place? Wow. Way to let a personal vendetta get in the way of reason. Sure, Germany is the better choice for a fair number of reasons, but what terrible reasoning you have.
In my following posts (before your own) I think I explained my reasoning with Putin, again, if that makes it a "personal vendetta" I am prepared to live with the stigma.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
