|
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 16 2015 05:55 Nyxisto wrote:
It's funny how the exact same people on the internet that are staunch proponents of "male-rights" seem to be turning into fervent feminists the moment male refugees come to our countries.
Who is a staunch proponent of "male-rights"?
Who is a fervent feminist?
Just more bullshit from you to escape explaining the numbers.
|
On September 16 2015 05:53 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 05:48 nitram wrote:On September 16 2015 05:01 kwizach wrote:
Immigration has a net positive impact on government finances in most European countries (exceptions being countries where it is difficult for them to get the right to work). The idea that immigrants are coming to leech off our welfare system is a myth. Also, refugees are not economic migrants. How many times does it need to be said that they are. What part of 75% of the "refs" are males in their 20's and 30's do you not understand? Women and children and family men I can understand. A vast majority of men that have zero respect for the countries they are passing through I can't. Can someone explain to me the logic here? I am honestly lost. I know people will come up with any reason to reject foreigners, but this breaking refugee status down into age and gender is so transparently idiotic I just don't understand how you can state that with a straight face.
first, don't be needlessly rude to the other side. People are happy to explain the logic, but then you go onto insult them before you hear the explanation you asked for.
The explanation: when people are fleeing for their lives due to persecution, the demographics of those fleeing tend to match the demographics of the society at large. That is, as with all societies, an even mix of men and women; there are also a good number of children and old people, as such people are found in all societies in a fair number.
The demographics of the people in the refugee camps in lebanon and turkey match this profile.
The demographics of the people arriving in europe (or certain areas thereof) do not match this profile. They are not a cross-section of society at large. Instead they are very male heavy and working age. Sometime people go abroad to earn money for their families; the individuals who go abroad to do that heavily tend to be the adult men. The people arriving in Germany have a demographic profile more like this.
hopefully noone gave a better answer while I was typing this up.
|
On September 16 2015 05:48 nitram wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 05:01 kwizach wrote:
Immigration has a net positive impact on government finances in most European countries (exceptions being countries where it is difficult for them to get the right to work). The idea that immigrants are coming to leech off our welfare system is a myth. Also, refugees are not economic migrants. How many times does it need to be said that they are. What part of 75% of the "refs" are males in their 20's and 30's do you not understand? Women and children and family men I can understand. A vast majority of men that have zero respect for the countries they are passing through I can't. They ARE economic migrants under the guise of refugees. "Immigration has a net positive impact on government finances in most European countries (exceptions being countries where it is difficult for them to get the right to work)." Which is ALL of them. No way Will a country with 10% unemployment benefit from immigration, but it doesn't matter because these people aren't coming to Poland, the are going to Germany. And if you think that suddenly 200k jobs will spring up in Germany then you're deluded.
I answered all of this in the previous pages. They are, by definition, refugees. It is predominantly males who are arriving in Europe to seek asylum because the journey is dangerous and the rest of their families hope to be able to join them more safely once those capable of making the journey first have been granted asylum.
It's not "all of them", you have no idea of what you are talking about -- I was referring to countries where in certain situations immigrants are prohibited from working. Like I said, in most countries, immigration has a net positive impact with regards to government finances.
|
On September 16 2015 06:51 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 05:53 zatic wrote:On September 16 2015 05:48 nitram wrote:On September 16 2015 05:01 kwizach wrote:
Immigration has a net positive impact on government finances in most European countries (exceptions being countries where it is difficult for them to get the right to work). The idea that immigrants are coming to leech off our welfare system is a myth. Also, refugees are not economic migrants. How many times does it need to be said that they are. What part of 75% of the "refs" are males in their 20's and 30's do you not understand? Women and children and family men I can understand. A vast majority of men that have zero respect for the countries they are passing through I can't. Can someone explain to me the logic here? I am honestly lost. I know people will come up with any reason to reject foreigners, but this breaking refugee status down into age and gender is so transparently idiotic I just don't understand how you can state that with a straight face. first, don't be needlessly rude to the other side. People are happy to explain the logic, but then you go onto insult them before you hear the explanation you asked for. The explanation: when people are fleeing for their lives due to persecution, the demographics of those fleeing tend to match the demographics of the society at large. That is, as with all societies, an even mix of men and women; there are also a good number of children and old people, as such people are found in all societies in a fair number. The demographics of the people in the refugee camps in lebanon and turkey match this profile. The demographics of the people arriving in europe (or certain areas thereof) do not match this profile. They are not a cross-section of society at large. Instead they are very male heavy and working age. Sometime people go abroad to earn money for their families; the individuals who go abroad to do that heavily tend to be the adult men. The people arriving in Germany have a demographic profile more like this. hopefully noone gave a better answer while I was typing this up.
Honestly, other than a Breitbart report that has been copied a lot, I cannot find a source for the "overwhelmingly male" demographic of refugees reaching Europe.
Nevertheless, I will assume that it is true. Obviously, there is a pretty simple explanation, which is that shitty leaky boats crossing over the mediterranean is a high-risk business, and a responsible husband will risk that journey in order to later reunite with his family. This ties into a further issue which is that after stabilizing the situation within Europe, the only way we are ever going to stop people wanting to cross in shitty leaky boats that half the time don't make it across the sea, is by stabilizing the situation in other countries; first and foremost in Turkey and Lebanon, which are also horribly underequipped and underfinanced for dealing with the 3million refugees there.
But I presume this would just add fuel on your fire that these people risking death in a leaky shitboat to cross the mediterranean are economic immigrants and not refugees. So let me nip that argument in the bud, by sketching for you the following picture:
1. Syria is a fucked up shitty hellhole and people are fleeing persecution by any one of the equally horrid factions fighting out a war of attrition there.
2. Turkey and Lebanon are safe. However, they are unequipped and the situation there is unstable, uncertain and without any prospect of improving. The vast majority of refugees CANNOT be granted asylum here, because currently there is no infrastructure to deal with them.
3. Europe has more capacity for dealing with asylum seekers. Maybe not 3million of them, and definitely not all at once, but definitely the couple of hundred thousand seeking asylum right now. Therefore, if you can get to Europe and seek asylum there, you will obtain a stable solution. While not unquestionable, most organizations agree that refugees have this right.
Refugee protection and assistance organizations generally promote three "durable solutions" to the fate of refugees: - Voluntary repatriation : refugees are able to return to their home country because their lives and liberty are no longer threatened;
- Local integration: host governments allow refugees to integrate into the country of first asylum; and
- Resettlement in a third country : repatriation is unsafe and the first-asylum country refuses local integration.
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/studyguides/refugees.htm
Now it is obvious that point 1 does not apply right now, and Lebanon and Turkey are currently unfit to provide point 2, and are probably permanently unfit to provide point 2 to 3million people (especially Lebanon). That means the only option is (3), and hence refugees flee into Europe.
Now, we get to the crux of the matter:
4. To get to Europe you have to risk a dangerous trip. And now we have completed the argument for why, assuming Breitbart's story is true, mostly young males make the trip to Europe, and why these young males are nevertheless fully deserving of refugee status.
|
|
|
|
|
On September 16 2015 06:43 nitram wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 05:55 Nyxisto wrote:
It's funny how the exact same people on the internet that are staunch proponents of "male-rights" seem to be turning into fervent feminists the moment male refugees come to our countries. Who is a staunch proponent of "male-rights"? Who is a fervent feminist? Just more bullshit from you to escape explaining the numbers.
what numbers? I didn't doubt any numbers. It's only natural that the majority of refugees are male. They don't want to endanger their families and they can use reunification laws once they have been granted asylum, what's the problem?
|
On September 16 2015 09:18 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 06:43 nitram wrote:On September 16 2015 05:55 Nyxisto wrote:
It's funny how the exact same people on the internet that are staunch proponents of "male-rights" seem to be turning into fervent feminists the moment male refugees come to our countries. Who is a staunch proponent of "male-rights"? Who is a fervent feminist? Just more bullshit from you to escape explaining the numbers. what numbers? I didn't doubt any numbers. It's only natural that the majority of refugees are male. They don't want to endanger their families and they can use reunification laws once they have been granted asylum, what's the problem?
Wait, .. what? They leave a country where they're in danger (that's the reason why they're fleeing) of being killed, the wife of being raped, the kids of being sold as sexslaves, or raped/killed as well - and somehow they're not endangering them by leaving them?
Well that's logic if i ever saw some.
Reunification laws are no reason whatsoever either - they work both ways. It doesn't matter who arrives first, male or female.
edit: ah, and no. The journey for the rest of the family doesn't magically get safer/easier because the man was granted asylum. It actually gets harder, thanks to the money being gone.
|
I think you misunderstood how the process works. If one family member is granted asylum the wife and children can come over. It is unnecessary for more than one person to make the dangerous and expensive trip, which usually is several thousand dollars per person. As the mothers usually care for the children and the route can be quite physically strenuous or even deadly it's usually males who try to get here to apply for asylum.
ah, and no. The journey for the rest of the family doesn't magically get safer/easier because the man was granted asylum. It actually gets harder, thanks to the money being gone.
If the family has been granted asylum they will get here legally by plane, they don't actually need to use smugglers. That doesn't make any sense.
|
Yes, you seemed confused about the process of refugee family reunion, m4ini. The entire point is that the family member who is the most capable of going through the difficult journey to reach a European country is sent to go there and try to obtain asylum, which then gives him the possibility to bring his family to that country (thanks to refugee family reunion laws, which allow the other family members to be granted visas and more importantly travel there more safely).
This is not specific to the Syrian situation. Take a look at this 2011 report by the British Red Cross on the topic, for example. Those men aren't economic migrants, they're refugees trying to obtain asylum so as to bring their families to safety.
|
On September 16 2015 10:15 Nyxisto wrote:I think you misunderstood how the process works. If one family member is granted asylum the wife and children can come over. It is unnecessary for more than one person to make the dangerous and expensive trip, which usually is several thousand dollars per person. As the mothers usually care for the children and the route can be quite physically strenuous or even deadly it's usually males who try to get here to apply for asylum. Show nested quote +ah, and no. The journey for the rest of the family doesn't magically get safer/easier because the man was granted asylum. It actually gets harder, thanks to the money being gone. If the family has been granted asylum they will get here legally by plane, they don't actually need to use smugglers. That doesn't make any sense.
To be fair, this argument has never made any sense to me (and I defend the fugitives right to refugee status wherever they end up, see post above pointing out why refugees are refugees, regardless of whether they apply for asylum in Turkey or Sweden).
In short, this point boils down to: they need to enter the country illegally, being smuggled in on leaky boats and then making an overland trip to <wherever>, costing thousands of dollars, because once they´re there, they can apply for asylum. Seriously, which idiot dreamt this system up? Damascus airport is open at the moment (amazingly). Obviously, Beirut, Ankara, Istanbul and probably a whole load of cities that are nearer as well. Why not just allow them to fly in and apply for asylum status at Frankfurt airport (or Berlin, Heathrow or Stockholm). Why force refugees to go through this most tortuous of routes when they clearly have money to buy a plane ticket (they are now spending it on a human trafficker who will smuggle them across the mediterranean in a leaky boat)?
|
You'd probably get an insane amount of refugees if everybody from war-torn countries would be allowed to legally get here by plane. Even with the best intentions that would be unmanageable. The better solution would probably be to create UN refugee hotspots or something in close proximity to the warzones and coordinate refugee streams from there, but you can't just let everybody fly in. Obviously for this you would need some European or international cooperation and a functioning distribution system but that apparently can't be worked out.
|
|
|
On September 16 2015 10:15 Nyxisto wrote:I think you misunderstood how the process works. If one family member is granted asylum the wife and children can come over. It is unnecessary for more than one person to make the dangerous and expensive trip, which usually is several thousand dollars per person. As the mothers usually care for the children and the route can be quite physically strenuous or even deadly it's usually males who try to get here to apply for asylum. Show nested quote +ah, and no. The journey for the rest of the family doesn't magically get safer/easier because the man was granted asylum. It actually gets harder, thanks to the money being gone. If the family has been granted asylum they will get here legally by plane, they don't actually need to use smugglers. That doesn't make any sense.
No but it does make sense for hundreds of thousands of people to come by plane?
On September 16 2015 10:43 Nyxisto wrote:
You'd probably get an insane amount of refugees if everybody from war-torn countries would be allowed to legally get here by plane. Even with the best intentions that would be unmanageable. The better solution would probably be to create UN refugee hotspots or something in close proximity to the warzones and coordinate refugee streams from there, but you can't just let everybody fly in. Obviously for this you would need some European or international cooperation and a functioning distribution system but that apparently can't be worked out.
Look you are contradicting yourself.
|
On September 16 2015 11:11 nitram wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 10:15 Nyxisto wrote:I think you misunderstood how the process works. If one family member is granted asylum the wife and children can come over. It is unnecessary for more than one person to make the dangerous and expensive trip, which usually is several thousand dollars per person. As the mothers usually care for the children and the route can be quite physically strenuous or even deadly it's usually males who try to get here to apply for asylum. ah, and no. The journey for the rest of the family doesn't magically get safer/easier because the man was granted asylum. It actually gets harder, thanks to the money being gone. If the family has been granted asylum they will get here legally by plane, they don't actually need to use smugglers. That doesn't make any sense. No but it does make sense for hundreds of thousands of people to come by plane?
If someone has already obtained asylum here, yes it does make a great deal of sense to reunite their families and spare their families a potentially deadly trip.
|
|
|
On September 16 2015 11:16 nitram wrote:Its impossible to go by plane so a man goes over by himself to get asylum and bring his family over by plane. I've heard enough 
They can't go by plane in the first place because they haven't been granted asylum yet. They don't have the required authorizations to fly to Europe (you can't just walk in an airplane going to Europe without the proper documents). They only receive the necessary authorizations once a family member obtains asylum in Europe, which then allows them to actually get the paperwork needed to receive access by plane (or other safe and regular means of transportation) to the EU country he has been granted asylum in (and the process can still be difficult)
|
On September 16 2015 11:16 nitram wrote:Its impossible to go by plane so a man goes over by himself to get asylum and bring his family over by plane. I've heard enough Can someone explain this to me? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dd5_1442157109
Nationalist Turks had a demonstration in Bern. Left wing groups and Kurds staged an anti-demonstration.
The 2 black mercedes tried to find a parking spot close to the demo. The cars had stickers of neo-facist terrorist group "Grey Wolves" on them. Kurds saw the stickers and attacked the cars and drivers, some with metal bars and knifes. One of the drivers manages to flee and drives over the mob.
|
On September 16 2015 11:31 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 11:16 nitram wrote:Its impossible to go by plane so a man goes over by himself to get asylum and bring his family over by plane. I've heard enough They can't go by plane in the first place because they haven't been granted asylum yet. They don't have the required authorizations to fly to Europe (you can't just walk in an airplane going to Europe without the proper documents). They only receive the necessary authorizations once a family member obtains asylum in Europe, which then allows them to actually get the paperwork needed to receive access by plane (or other safe and regular means of transportation) to the EU country he has been granted asylum in (and the process can still be difficult)
It's a ridiculous system, I pointed that out before.
What about families, in which only the mother and children are left, while the father was lost in the war (as it so often happens)? What about families that have lost all their money? They are stuck for good.
We let those people go through that ordeal, because we are afraid of the truth. The uncapped right for asylum is a joke.
In reality our governments hope the obstacles on the way are high enough to keep the numbers manageable. And countries that hide behind oceans (or the Channel) are laughing at the expense of others.
Syria is only the tip of the iceberg, too. Congo is in constant turmoil for two decades, millions of people died. Somalia is a hellhole, and so is Eritrea. And what if a country like Nigeria plunges into civil war and suddenly tens of millions are on the run?
|
I wasn't condoning the current system, merely explain why it's predominantly men who reach Europe and claim asylum before their families join them. Some were arguing that the fact that there were more men meant that they were economic migrants, which is completely false.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
