|
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 November 30 2015 08:13 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2015 00:16 m4ini wrote:In regards to the refugee-situation, sweden appears to have woken up. They don't have capacities anymore, so they tone down the acceptance down to the bare minimum regulated by EU rules and start border control. "When our authorities tell us we cannot guarantee the security and control of our borders, we need to listen," Prime Minister Stefan Lofven told reporters. That's something germany might want to listen to, since germanies authorities already stated months ago that they're losing control. Of course, people that still live in Lala-Land will argue that "there's no upper limit", but the reality is that there is, clearly. And germany is reaching that as well. Ah yes, back to the mighty "THE BOAT IS FULL" rhetoric. n1ce
Nah, it's certainly better to ignore all authorities, let refugees sleep on the streets because they arrive faster than we can process them (even without registering them properly, hence why we don't even know how many are in germany), living space running out, every single refugee camp being heavily overcrowded (which btw leads to not a single day without massive fights) etc - right. And no, that's not me telling you what will happen soon, i'm telling you what's happening for weeks already.
But feel free to continue to argue semantics, guess there's nothing left to argue against otherwise, since it's in the news daily anyway.
edit: funny enough, even the majority of migrants think that it's too much. That's an interesting sideeffect actually: migrants are now more german than ever. Weird how integration works sometimes.
|
I don't know how either opinion on this is going to change anything about the refugees being here and the refugees coming. They'll do so no matter if you like it or not. Do you want to let them starve on the border? The whole discussion is futile.
|
On November 30 2015 14:08 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know how either opinion on this is going to change anything about the refugees being here and the refugees coming. They'll do so no matter if you like it or not. Do you want to let them starve on the border? The whole discussion is futile.
Let's open our arms, kiss them, and maybe even slap ourselves for our outrageous life condition. The social does not exist and the economy is secondary, so everything is fine.
The core of the problem is not for or against the refugees, the core of the discussion is how are we going to welcome those who wish to come here. A few points :
- most european countries are in a crisis (since more than five years) and are unable to welcome them today in a positive manner (which mean by giving them a place to live, a work and a decent formation - to learn the language, some skills and most of all dignity) ;
- it is politically dangerous to spend public money in order to help those refugees integrate and live a good life in our countries while not helping the rest of our society that already suffer unemployment and a lack of integration ;
- a good policy (that is both directed towards non refugees and refugees - autochtones and immigrants if you will) is not possible with the current economic policy ;
- no one should deny the complexity of immigration, and the fact that leaving your country is a painful process, nor should we glorify ourselves in thinking that they are coming because europe, the land of the light, is a heaven while the place they leave is hell : reality is, if they had the condition, most would prefer staying in their home country.
|
For those who said that it wasn't provocation, apparently Israel didn't see it that way.
Israel has said it is suspending contact with EU officials involved in peace efforts with the Palestinians.
The move follows the bloc's decision to label goods from Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "ordered suspension of diplomatic contacts with the institutions of the European Union on this issue", a foreign ministry statement said.
The EU says the settlements are illegal, but Israel disputes this.
Mr Netanyahu, who is also the foreign minister, told the ministry to carry out "a reassessment of the involvement of EU bodies in everything that is connected to the diplomatic process with the Palestinians", the statement said.
Just over two weeks ago the European Commission issued new guidelines for the labelling of some products made in Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian and Syrian land.
The guidelines stipulate that agricultural produce and cosmetics sold in EU member states must have clear labels showing their place of origin.
The EU considers settlements built on territories occupied by Israel in 1967 to be illegal under international law, but Israel disputes this position.
The EU says settlements constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict impossible.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34959807
|
On November 30 2015 23:16 LegalLord wrote:For those who said that it wasn't provocation, apparently Israel didn't see it that way. Show nested quote +Israel has said it is suspending contact with EU officials involved in peace efforts with the Palestinians.
The move follows the bloc's decision to label goods from Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "ordered suspension of diplomatic contacts with the institutions of the European Union on this issue", a foreign ministry statement said.
The EU says the settlements are illegal, but Israel disputes this.
Mr Netanyahu, who is also the foreign minister, told the ministry to carry out "a reassessment of the involvement of EU bodies in everything that is connected to the diplomatic process with the Palestinians", the statement said.
Just over two weeks ago the European Commission issued new guidelines for the labelling of some products made in Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian and Syrian land.
The guidelines stipulate that agricultural produce and cosmetics sold in EU member states must have clear labels showing their place of origin.
The EU considers settlements built on territories occupied by Israel in 1967 to be illegal under international law, but Israel disputes this position.
The EU says settlements constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict impossible. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34959807
Israel is a sick country anyway. Anything is a provocation to them.
And since there are no real peace process, what's the point in wasting ressources ? They've done us a favor.
|
On November 30 2015 18:20 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 14:08 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know how either opinion on this is going to change anything about the refugees being here and the refugees coming. They'll do so no matter if you like it or not. Do you want to let them starve on the border? The whole discussion is futile. Let's open our arms, kiss them, and maybe even slap ourselves for our outrageous life condition. The social does not exist and the economy is secondary, so everything is fine. The core of the problem is not for or against the refugees, the core of the discussion is how are we going to welcome those who wish to come here. A few points : - most european countries are in a crisis (since more than five years) and are unable to welcome them today in a positive manner (which mean by giving them a place to live, a work and a decent formation - to learn the language, some skills and most of all dignity) ; - it is politically dangerous to spend public money in order to help those refugees integrate and live a good life in our countries while not helping the rest of our society that already suffer unemployment and a lack of integration ; - a good policy (that is both directed towards non refugees and refugees - autochtones and immigrants if you will) is not possible with the current economic policy ; - no one should deny the complexity of immigration, and the fact that leaving your country is a painful process, nor should we glorify ourselves in thinking that they are coming because europe, the land of the light, is a heaven while the place they leave is hell : reality is, if they had the condition, most would prefer staying in their home country.
I agree. I've been thinking a lot about the situation lately and I've come to the same conclusion. I have little to add. It is not about whether we let them in or not, it's about what we can offer them. Considering the economic situation much of Europe is in right now, the answer is "not much, unfortunately". A majority of these people will end up on the job market for low skilled manual labourers, which is already suffering from too much supply and hardly any demand. Since having a job smoothens out integration significantly, this is problematic. On top of that there's the fact that waiting lists for social housing were long before the refugee crisis, so we can't even offer them proper housing. This is a huge challenge, and it will not be solved by counterproductive black-and-white thinking.
|
On November 30 2015 18:20 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 14:08 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know how either opinion on this is going to change anything about the refugees being here and the refugees coming. They'll do so no matter if you like it or not. Do you want to let them starve on the border? The whole discussion is futile. Let's open our arms, kiss them, and maybe even slap ourselves for our outrageous life condition. The social does not exist and the economy is secondary, so everything is fine. The core of the problem is not for or against the refugees, the core of the discussion is how are we going to welcome those who wish to come here. A few points : - most european countries are in a crisis (since more than five years) and are unable to welcome them today in a positive manner (which mean by giving them a place to live, a work and a decent formation - to learn the language, some skills and most of all dignity) ; - it is politically dangerous to spend public money in order to help those refugees integrate and live a good life in our countries while not helping the rest of our society that already suffer unemployment and a lack of integration ; - a good policy (that is both directed towards non refugees and refugees - autochtones and immigrants if you will) is not possible with the current economic policy ; - no one should deny the complexity of immigration, and the fact that leaving your country is a painful process, nor should we glorify ourselves in thinking that they are coming because europe, the land of the light, is a heaven while the place they leave is hell : reality is, if they had the condition, most would prefer staying in their home country.
This type of post really exemplifies what's wrong with how some people are approaching the debate over the arrival of refugees in Europe, for two reasons. The first reason is that you completely (and deliberately) misrepresent how the people who are defending the welcoming of refugees are discussing and analyzing the issue. The idea that we simply ignore "the social [...] and the economy", that we just hope for the best and basically live in the land of the Teletubbies is ludicrously false and has been repeatedly proven wrong by the emphasis that many of us have been placing throughout the thread on the economic reasons supporting the taking in of refugees. Pretending that we're out-of-touch with the reality of the economic situation in Europe and blindly idealistic is not only dishonest but demonstrably false.
The second reason is that the general idea behind your post and the others you've posted in this thread is that because European countries are facing difficult economic times (low growth and relatively high unemployment, among others), it is unwise/too difficult to be welcoming refugees currently because we won't be able to help them (this is in particular the main point raised by maartendq in his post agreeing with yours) and because they will basically contribute to damaging even further the economic situation, and the economic well-being of the poorest in particular.
The problem here is twofold: firstly, the idea that we are "unable to welcome them today in a positive manner" is a very vague and largely untrue statement. For various reasons, it is true that there are several obstacles that mean optimal ways of dealing with refugees are not necessarily pursued on the short-, middle- and long-terms. Yet you are very mistaken if you think that it is not overall clearly positive for the refugees reaching and resettling in Europe to arrive here, in comparison to their previous situation. To argue, as maartendq does, that Europe has "not much" to offer the refugees is extremely short-sighted and completely misses the reality of the situation they escaped from. Europe has much to offer to refugees, it already does, and we should keep advocating for more inclusive and favorable policies that will help them integrate socially and economically (and I agree with you that those policies should favor both refugees and non-refugees).
Secondly, your posts have largely portrayed refugees as an unsustainable burden on European economic systems. While I again agree with your assessment that economic integration is made harder because of various obstacles (many of which are political), you still paint an inaccurate picture of the economic impact of refugees on government finances, on economic growth, on wages (including of the poorest) and on unemployment. The reason many economists are in favor of welcoming refugees and making it easier for them to work and contribute is not a dark agenda of hoping it will push wages down, but is instead rooted in solid research showing that despite possible initial costs for the state, refugees tend to benefit the economies of the places they arrive in, and have a limited impact on wages and unemployment -- an impact which can in fact actually be positive. I already cited earlier in this thread the longitudinal research conducted in Denmark which showed that non-EU immigration "did not increase the probably of unemployment of natives" in the regions under study, and there are plenty of similar examples that can be found to reject the idea that refugees are necessarily the kind of burden you're alluding to, and can instead very well contribute to improving the economic situation in the places they reach. It is therefore certainly not out-of-touch to argue in favor of the better welcoming of refugees in Europe for economic reasons, including if your goal is to improve the economic situation of natives as well.
In short, you're right to point out that there are plenty of difficulties and obstacles that should not be ignored, but to overcome them precisely requires avoiding falling for the "natives vs refugees" division that is exploited by the far-right, and instead requires pushing to better integrate, socially and economically, people who are grateful to be here and who are eager to contribute economically, in order to help them and everyone else as well.
|
On December 01 2015 09:02 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 18:20 WhiteDog wrote:On November 30 2015 14:08 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know how either opinion on this is going to change anything about the refugees being here and the refugees coming. They'll do so no matter if you like it or not. Do you want to let them starve on the border? The whole discussion is futile. Let's open our arms, kiss them, and maybe even slap ourselves for our outrageous life condition. The social does not exist and the economy is secondary, so everything is fine. The core of the problem is not for or against the refugees, the core of the discussion is how are we going to welcome those who wish to come here. A few points : - most european countries are in a crisis (since more than five years) and are unable to welcome them today in a positive manner (which mean by giving them a place to live, a work and a decent formation - to learn the language, some skills and most of all dignity) ; - it is politically dangerous to spend public money in order to help those refugees integrate and live a good life in our countries while not helping the rest of our society that already suffer unemployment and a lack of integration ; - a good policy (that is both directed towards non refugees and refugees - autochtones and immigrants if you will) is not possible with the current economic policy ; - no one should deny the complexity of immigration, and the fact that leaving your country is a painful process, nor should we glorify ourselves in thinking that they are coming because europe, the land of the light, is a heaven while the place they leave is hell : reality is, if they had the condition, most would prefer staying in their home country. This type of post really exemplifies what's wrong with how some people are approaching the debate over the arrival of refugees in Europe, for two reasons. The first reason is that you completely (and deliberately) misrepresent how the people who are defending the welcoming of refugees are discussing and analyzing the issue. The idea that we simply ignore "the social [...] and the economy", that we just hope for the best and basically live in the land of the Teletubbies is ludicrously false and has been repeatedly proven wrong by the emphasis that many of us have been placing throughout the thread on the economic reasons supporting the taking in of refugees. Pretending that we're out-of-touch with the reality of the economic situation in Europe and blindly idealistic is not only dishonest but demonstrably false. The second reason is that the general idea behind your post and the others you've posted in this thread is that because European countries are facing difficult economic times (low growth and relatively high unemployment, among others), it is unwise/too difficult to be welcoming refugees currently because we won't be able to help them (this is in particular the main point raised by maartendq in his post agreeing with yours) and because they will basically contribute to damaging even further the economic situation, and the economic well-being of the poorest in particular. The problem here is twofold: firstly, the idea that we are "unable to welcome them today in a positive manner" is a very vague and largely untrue statement. For various reasons, it is true that there are several obstacles that mean optimal ways of dealing with refugees are not necessarily pursued on the short-, middle- and long-terms. Yet you are very mistaken if you think that it is not overall clearly positive for the refugees reaching and resettling in Europe to arrive here, in comparison to their previous situation. To argue, as maartendq does, that Europe has "not much" to offer the refugees is extremely short-sighted and completely misses the reality of the situation they escaped from. Europe has much to offer to refugees, it already does, and we should keep advocating for more inclusive and favorable policies that will help them integrate socially and economically (and I agree with you that those policies should favor both refugees and non-refugees). Secondly, your posts have largely portrayed refugees as an unsustainable burden on European economic systems. While I again agree with your assessment that economic integration is made harder because of various obstacles (many of which are political), you still paint an inaccurate picture of the economic impact of refugees on government finances, on economic growth, on wages (including of the poorest) and on unemployment. The reason many economists are in favor of welcoming refugees and making it easier for them to work and contribute is not a dark agenda of hoping it will push wages down, but is instead rooted in solid research showing that despite possible initial costs for the state, refugees tend to benefit the economies of the places they arrive in, and have a limited impact on wages and unemployment -- an impact which can in fact actually be positive. I already cited earlier in this thread the longitudinal research conducted in Denmark which showed that non-EU immigration "did not increase the probably of unemployment of natives" in the regions under study, and there are plenty of similar examples that can be found to reject the idea that refugees are necessarily the kind of burden you're alluding to, and can instead very well contribute to improving the economic situation in the places they reach. It is therefore certainly not out-of-touch to argue in favor of the better welcoming of refugees in Europe for economic reasons, including if your goal is to improve the economic situation of natives as well. In short, you're right to point out that there are plenty of difficulties and obstacles that should not be ignored, but to overcome them precisely requires avoiding falling for the "natives vs refugees" division that is exploited by the far-right, and instead requires pushing to better integrate, socially and economically, people who are grateful to be here and who are eager to contribute economically, in order to help them and everyone else as well.
- first specify the Europe you're talking about because we here, in this part of Europe, have nothing to offer them;
- you assume that if you're giving them more than they had in Syria, they'll be happy and integrate nicely but that's wrong; you need to give them what you have(comparatively) else they'll feel marginalized.
p.o.v - fuck any assumed or otherwise, economical benefits. i do not care about them, i will never take them in account when trying to figure out what to do with people. i will not bring slaves to serve in my economy, ever.
ps: i urge you to go to a syrian refugee and tell him he has X years to produce X amount of money/goods, or else ...
just tell them your expectations of them; how they have to be good for your economy because you relied on that when you agreed to let them in. tell them you took them in as slaves, you took them in just so there will be someone to do the hard work, the dirty work, because you do not want to do it.
|
Eastern Europe has plenty to offer them as well, and nobody is talking about considering them or making them work as slaves.
|
The "economic situation" you are talking about isn't something god-given, the economy struggles because politics aren't making the right decisions these days. It's man made, so it's kinda funny when politicians tell us they can't do shit because of "bad times" or whatever. Bad politicians -> Bad times not vice versa.
What does that mean?
We have to start to plan ahead more again, instead of slowly letting the democratic/economic systems go down the drain.
How do you do that?
You take money and invest it in infrastructure, education, labour, social housing, etc. basically social democratic politics, which not even the so called social democrats are doing right now, because they took over the conservatives economic thinking.
If the state isn't investing in the future during an economic crisis, then nobody will invest, therefore you won't get out of the crisis.
So the best thing that could happen for Europe would be if Germany finally got rid of Schäuble and his austerity bullshit.
And this is not only linked to refugees, but we see the problems Europe has much clearer when faced with such a situation.
|
|
|
On December 01 2015 09:02 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 18:20 WhiteDog wrote:On November 30 2015 14:08 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know how either opinion on this is going to change anything about the refugees being here and the refugees coming. They'll do so no matter if you like it or not. Do you want to let them starve on the border? The whole discussion is futile. Let's open our arms, kiss them, and maybe even slap ourselves for our outrageous life condition. The social does not exist and the economy is secondary, so everything is fine. The core of the problem is not for or against the refugees, the core of the discussion is how are we going to welcome those who wish to come here. A few points : - most european countries are in a crisis (since more than five years) and are unable to welcome them today in a positive manner (which mean by giving them a place to live, a work and a decent formation - to learn the language, some skills and most of all dignity) ; - it is politically dangerous to spend public money in order to help those refugees integrate and live a good life in our countries while not helping the rest of our society that already suffer unemployment and a lack of integration ; - a good policy (that is both directed towards non refugees and refugees - autochtones and immigrants if you will) is not possible with the current economic policy ; - no one should deny the complexity of immigration, and the fact that leaving your country is a painful process, nor should we glorify ourselves in thinking that they are coming because europe, the land of the light, is a heaven while the place they leave is hell : reality is, if they had the condition, most would prefer staying in their home country. This type of post really exemplifies what's wrong with how some people are approaching the debate over the arrival of refugees in Europe, for two reasons. The first reason is that you completely (and deliberately) misrepresent how the people who are defending the welcoming of refugees are discussing and analyzing the issue. The idea that we simply ignore "the social [...] and the economy", that we just hope for the best and basically live in the land of the Teletubbies is ludicrously false and has been repeatedly proven wrong by the emphasis that many of us have been placing throughout the thread on the economic reasons supporting the taking in of refugees. Pretending that we're out-of-touch with the reality of the economic situation in Europe and blindly idealistic is not only dishonest but demonstrably false. The second reason is that the general idea behind your post and the others you've posted in this thread is that because European countries are facing difficult economic times (low growth and relatively high unemployment, among others), it is unwise/too difficult to be welcoming refugees currently because we won't be able to help them (this is in particular the main point raised by maartendq in his post agreeing with yours) and because they will basically contribute to damaging even further the economic situation, and the economic well-being of the poorest in particular. The problem here is twofold: firstly, the idea that we are "unable to welcome them today in a positive manner" is a very vague and largely untrue statement. For various reasons, it is true that there are several obstacles that mean optimal ways of dealing with refugees are not necessarily pursued on the short-, middle- and long-terms. Yet you are very mistaken if you think that it is not overall clearly positive for the refugees reaching and resettling in Europe to arrive here, in comparison to their previous situation. To argue, as maartendq does, that Europe has "not much" to offer the refugees is extremely short-sighted and completely misses the reality of the situation they escaped from. Europe has much to offer to refugees, it already does, and we should keep advocating for more inclusive and favorable policies that will help them integrate socially and economically (and I agree with you that those policies should favor both refugees and non-refugees). Secondly, your posts have largely portrayed refugees as an unsustainable burden on European economic systems. While I again agree with your assessment that economic integration is made harder because of various obstacles (many of which are political), you still paint an inaccurate picture of the economic impact of refugees on government finances, on economic growth, on wages (including of the poorest) and on unemployment. The reason many economists are in favor of welcoming refugees and making it easier for them to work and contribute is not a dark agenda of hoping it will push wages down, but is instead rooted in solid research showing that despite possible initial costs for the state, refugees tend to benefit the economies of the places they arrive in, and have a limited impact on wages and unemployment -- an impact which can in fact actually be positive. I already cited earlier in this thread the longitudinal research conducted in Denmark which showed that non-EU immigration "did not increase the probably of unemployment of natives" in the regions under study, and there are plenty of similar examples that can be found to reject the idea that refugees are necessarily the kind of burden you're alluding to, and can instead very well contribute to improving the economic situation in the places they reach. It is therefore certainly not out-of-touch to argue in favor of the better welcoming of refugees in Europe for economic reasons, including if your goal is to improve the economic situation of natives as well. In short, you're right to point out that there are plenty of difficulties and obstacles that should not be ignored, but to overcome them precisely requires avoiding falling for the "natives vs refugees" division that is exploited by the far-right, and instead requires pushing to better integrate, socially and economically, people who are grateful to be here and who are eager to contribute economically, in order to help them and everyone else as well.
You completly passed through my core point (which is that with our current policies, welcoming refugee is a dumb idea - but the funny part is that MOST PEOPLE that are pro refugee are not against the economic policies forced on us by the europe and the euro).
And most your studies are ludicrous, like all studies regarding immigrants they are heavily open to discussion. People always assume, somehow, that it is clear that immigrant have no negative impact on the labor market just because some studies pointed out the effect was null or positive. In reality - and as anybody with half a brain could understand - the effect of immigration heavily depend on the historical moment, and long term studies shows different migration wave have different impact on real wage and unemployment. I already posted such studies in previous posts.
And welcoming refugee in a positive manner is only vague if you're unable to read the entire post - I gave objective caracteristics of what I consider to be a positive manner (a job, a place to live, a formation to learn the language and some skills). And, the sentence after, you go back to a very economical vision of mankind that is at the core of the problem.
You also pass the fact that there are already tons of people in poverty / unemployment in our societies, and the idea that europe should offer something (anything) to refugees and not those people is very dubious.
|
On November 30 2015 23:24 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 23:16 LegalLord wrote:For those who said that it wasn't provocation, apparently Israel didn't see it that way. Israel has said it is suspending contact with EU officials involved in peace efforts with the Palestinians.
The move follows the bloc's decision to label goods from Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "ordered suspension of diplomatic contacts with the institutions of the European Union on this issue", a foreign ministry statement said.
The EU says the settlements are illegal, but Israel disputes this.
Mr Netanyahu, who is also the foreign minister, told the ministry to carry out "a reassessment of the involvement of EU bodies in everything that is connected to the diplomatic process with the Palestinians", the statement said.
Just over two weeks ago the European Commission issued new guidelines for the labelling of some products made in Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian and Syrian land.
The guidelines stipulate that agricultural produce and cosmetics sold in EU member states must have clear labels showing their place of origin.
The EU considers settlements built on territories occupied by Israel in 1967 to be illegal under international law, but Israel disputes this position.
The EU says settlements constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict impossible. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34959807 Israel is a sick country anyway. Anything is a provocation to them. And since there are no real peace process, what's the point in wasting ressources ? They've done us a favor.
How can Israel possibly dispute that the settlements are illegal?
I really hope that at some point the US decides that their satellite is too costly to maintain.
We could have had a nuclear weapons free middle east and Pakistan were it not for that unholy alliance 20 years ago...
|
On December 01 2015 22:16 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2015 09:02 kwizach wrote:On November 30 2015 18:20 WhiteDog wrote:On November 30 2015 14:08 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know how either opinion on this is going to change anything about the refugees being here and the refugees coming. They'll do so no matter if you like it or not. Do you want to let them starve on the border? The whole discussion is futile. Let's open our arms, kiss them, and maybe even slap ourselves for our outrageous life condition. The social does not exist and the economy is secondary, so everything is fine. The core of the problem is not for or against the refugees, the core of the discussion is how are we going to welcome those who wish to come here. A few points : - most european countries are in a crisis (since more than five years) and are unable to welcome them today in a positive manner (which mean by giving them a place to live, a work and a decent formation - to learn the language, some skills and most of all dignity) ; - it is politically dangerous to spend public money in order to help those refugees integrate and live a good life in our countries while not helping the rest of our society that already suffer unemployment and a lack of integration ; - a good policy (that is both directed towards non refugees and refugees - autochtones and immigrants if you will) is not possible with the current economic policy ; - no one should deny the complexity of immigration, and the fact that leaving your country is a painful process, nor should we glorify ourselves in thinking that they are coming because europe, the land of the light, is a heaven while the place they leave is hell : reality is, if they had the condition, most would prefer staying in their home country. This type of post really exemplifies what's wrong with how some people are approaching the debate over the arrival of refugees in Europe, for two reasons. The first reason is that you completely (and deliberately) misrepresent how the people who are defending the welcoming of refugees are discussing and analyzing the issue. The idea that we simply ignore "the social [...] and the economy", that we just hope for the best and basically live in the land of the Teletubbies is ludicrously false and has been repeatedly proven wrong by the emphasis that many of us have been placing throughout the thread on the economic reasons supporting the taking in of refugees. Pretending that we're out-of-touch with the reality of the economic situation in Europe and blindly idealistic is not only dishonest but demonstrably false. The second reason is that the general idea behind your post and the others you've posted in this thread is that because European countries are facing difficult economic times (low growth and relatively high unemployment, among others), it is unwise/too difficult to be welcoming refugees currently because we won't be able to help them (this is in particular the main point raised by maartendq in his post agreeing with yours) and because they will basically contribute to damaging even further the economic situation, and the economic well-being of the poorest in particular. The problem here is twofold: firstly, the idea that we are "unable to welcome them today in a positive manner" is a very vague and largely untrue statement. For various reasons, it is true that there are several obstacles that mean optimal ways of dealing with refugees are not necessarily pursued on the short-, middle- and long-terms. Yet you are very mistaken if you think that it is not overall clearly positive for the refugees reaching and resettling in Europe to arrive here, in comparison to their previous situation. To argue, as maartendq does, that Europe has "not much" to offer the refugees is extremely short-sighted and completely misses the reality of the situation they escaped from. Europe has much to offer to refugees, it already does, and we should keep advocating for more inclusive and favorable policies that will help them integrate socially and economically (and I agree with you that those policies should favor both refugees and non-refugees). Secondly, your posts have largely portrayed refugees as an unsustainable burden on European economic systems. While I again agree with your assessment that economic integration is made harder because of various obstacles (many of which are political), you still paint an inaccurate picture of the economic impact of refugees on government finances, on economic growth, on wages (including of the poorest) and on unemployment. The reason many economists are in favor of welcoming refugees and making it easier for them to work and contribute is not a dark agenda of hoping it will push wages down, but is instead rooted in solid research showing that despite possible initial costs for the state, refugees tend to benefit the economies of the places they arrive in, and have a limited impact on wages and unemployment -- an impact which can in fact actually be positive. I already cited earlier in this thread the longitudinal research conducted in Denmark which showed that non-EU immigration "did not increase the probably of unemployment of natives" in the regions under study, and there are plenty of similar examples that can be found to reject the idea that refugees are necessarily the kind of burden you're alluding to, and can instead very well contribute to improving the economic situation in the places they reach. It is therefore certainly not out-of-touch to argue in favor of the better welcoming of refugees in Europe for economic reasons, including if your goal is to improve the economic situation of natives as well. In short, you're right to point out that there are plenty of difficulties and obstacles that should not be ignored, but to overcome them precisely requires avoiding falling for the "natives vs refugees" division that is exploited by the far-right, and instead requires pushing to better integrate, socially and economically, people who are grateful to be here and who are eager to contribute economically, in order to help them and everyone else as well. You completly passed through my core point (which is that with our current policies, welcoming refugee is a dumb idea - but the funny part is that MOST PEOPLE that are pro refugee are not against the economic policies forced on us by the europe and the euro).
I didn't "pass through it", I addressed it.
On December 01 2015 22:16 WhiteDog wrote:
And most your studies are ludicrous, like all studies regarding immigrants they are heavily open to discussion. People always assume, somehow, that it is clear that immigrant have no negative impact on the labor market just because some studies pointed out the effect was null or positive. In reality - and as anybody with half a brain could understand - the effect of immigration heavily depend on the historical moment, and long term studies shows different migration wave have different impact on real wage and unemployment. I already posted such studies in previous posts.
The only reason you're arguing the studies I refer to are "ludicrous" is that they yield results that do not support your fear-mongering about the economic impact of the arrival of migrants and refugees. Nobody is "assuming" anything about the impact of migrants on the labor market -- this is exactly what is being studied, and research shows that the impact on levels of unemployment is not straightforward one way or another on the short-term but is still relatively limited, while on the middle- and long-terms the impact is often positive, especially if the right policies are enacted to favor social and economic integration.
On December 01 2015 22:16 WhiteDog wrote:
And welcoming refugee in a positive manner is only vague if you're unable to read the entire post - I gave objective caracteristics of what I consider to be a positive manner (a job, a place to live, a formation to learn the language and some skills).
I did read your entire post (and your other posts in the thread), which is exactly why I replied to it the way I did. As I said, Europe is able to, and very often does, welcome refugees in a "positive manner", and in conditions that make being in Europe obviously much preferable to refugees than staying in the country they originally fled from. This is not to say that we can't do better, of course, but to argue that we should not welcome refugees at all because we don't welcome them as optimally as we could/should is ridiculous.
On December 01 2015 22:16 WhiteDog wrote:
And, the sentence after, you go back to a very economical vision of mankind that is at the core of the problem.
What a joke of a criticism considering I was replying to your arguments on the economic problems with the welcoming of refugees. I've repeatedly defended in this thread the moral imperative of welcoming refugees, and in this case I was replying to your economic objections by pointing out that in reality the economic argument to welcome refugees is very real. That you're now accusing me of having "a very economical vision of mankind" is laughably dishonest.
On December 01 2015 22:16 WhiteDog wrote:
You also pass the fact that there are already tons of people in poverty / unemployment in our societies, and the idea that europe should offer something (anything) to refugees and not those people is very dubious.
I didn't "pass" it at all, and in fact in my post I explicitly said the exact opposite of what you just accused me of, namely that we should help both refugees and natives. Here's what I wrote: "and I agree with you that those policies should favor both refugees and non-refugees" [emphasis mine]; "It is therefore certainly not out-of-touch to argue in favor of the better welcoming of refugees in Europe for economic reasons, including if your goal is to improve the economic situation of natives as well." [emphasis mine]; "in order to help them and everyone else as well." [emphasis mine]. As usual, you display clear dishonesty with regards to what other posters are actually saying.
|
You're either a joke or a troll. Everything you respond is always off, you always cut the arguments pf the one you are talking to...
I never resumed refugee to an economic dimension, I even talked about the dignity of the refugees in my first post. (Not to mention I said that welcoming them or not was not a subject because asylum is a constitutional right... Rofl)
I'll wrote a longer post later, I need to go to work and responding to a liberal poster, defender of the doxa, is not an excuse to arrive late in class.
|
On December 01 2015 22:52 WhiteDog wrote:
You're either a joke or a troll. Everything you respond is always off, you always cut the arguments pf the one you are talking to...
I never resumed refugee to an economic dimension, I even talked about the dignity of the refugees in my first post. (Not to mention I said that welcoming them or not was not a subject because asylum is a constitutional right... Rofl)
I'll wrote a longer post later, I need to go to work and responding to a liberal poster, defender of the doxa, is not an excuse to arrive late in class.
Right, it's not like I just directly demonstrated by quoting my own post that your accusation that I adhered to the idea that Europe should help refugees and not the poor/unemployed was factually false and outright dishonest. Instead of owning up to your misrepresentation/lie like a grown-up, you call me a "joke or a troll". You're making my case for me, thanks.
I did not say you "resumed refugee to an economic dimension". I said I was in this case responding to your points on the economic front (I did not say those were the only points you made), which is why it's ridiculous to accuse me (as you did) of having "a very economical vision of mankind" when my posts throughout the thread clearly show the exact opposite, and my previous post focused on the economic impact that you've addressed and brought up repeatedly.
|
On December 01 2015 20:58 Noizhende wrote:
The "economic situation" you are talking about isn't something god-given, the economy struggles because politics aren't making the right decisions these days. It's man made, so it's kinda funny when politicians tell us they can't do shit because of "bad times" or whatever. Bad politicians -> Bad times not vice versa.
What does that mean?
We have to start to plan ahead more again, instead of slowly letting the democratic/economic systems go down the drain.
How do you do that?
You take money and invest it in infrastructure, education, labour, social housing, etc. basically social democratic politics, which not even the so called social democrats are doing right now, because they took over the conservatives economic thinking.
If the state isn't investing in the future during an economic crisis, then nobody will invest, therefore you won't get out of the crisis.
So the best thing that could happen for Europe would be if Germany finally got rid of Schäuble and his austerity bullshit.
And this is not only linked to refugees, but we see the problems Europe has much clearer when faced with such a situation.
What that really would mean is a shift in mindset and spending priority from comfort to investment. A comfort bias is actually an issue consistently pervasive in social democracy. There is no European country that doesn't have high enough tax revenues to do as you say, they simply tie up the majority of that in programs that don't have a return on investment.
|
On December 01 2015 23:22 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2015 22:52 WhiteDog wrote:
You're either a joke or a troll. Everything you respond is always off, you always cut the arguments pf the one you are talking to...
I never resumed refugee to an economic dimension, I even talked about the dignity of the refugees in my first post. (Not to mention I said that welcoming them or not was not a subject because asylum is a constitutional right... Rofl)
I'll wrote a longer post later, I need to go to work and responding to a liberal poster, defender of the doxa, is not an excuse to arrive late in class. Right, it's not like I just directly demonstrated by quoting my own post that your accusation that I adhered to the idea that Europe should help refugees and not the poor/unemployed was factually false and outright dishonest. Instead of owning up to your misrepresentation/lie like a grown-up, you call me a "joke or a troll". You're making my case for me, thanks.
I never talked about you at all, I talked about the politics. For exemple, Germany is all out for helping the refugee, but at the same time preventing any change in the economic policies, change that would be needed to actually welcome the refugee in a good manner.
This whole vision is based around stupidity and arrogance. The arrogance that Europe is a place of heaven that have "something to offer" (an economic term, befitting your liberal vision of the world) and the stupidity that the immigrants will be instantly productive without accepting any complex argument.
France is actually a good exemple, putting aside any kind of cultural or language difficulties to integrate, the simple increase of the active population in France (due to our positive natality) has not gave us any kind of advantage in contrast to Germany, who is in the exact opposite situation. It is really difficult to integrate a population, whatever the history of that population may be, and make it a part of society, that participate actively and have a rôle within that society. The youth in France suffer from a lack of social integration, despite the fact that the youth cost a lot to our society (through the education) and that they are actually born in our society. The reasons for that are many, but the fact are pretty clear : for exemple, Louis Chauvel showed that, in France, the unemployment rate of the youth that enter on the labor market is always higher than 15 % since 1990 (and hysteresis of the unemployment rate), whatever the economic conjoncture, which means that there are social/institutional reasons as to why young people in France have difficulties to access the labor market. The idea that immigrants, on the other side, would instantly (and necessarily) be a positive addition in our weakened societies, while our own youth is unable to do that, is ludicrous.
The studies people like you always quote in this regards are based on a long term evaluation of the micreconomic effect of one migrant wave on the economy - effect that are mostly positive in the long run (obviously, because men produce value). It's actually irrelevant in regard to the situation we are facing now, which is both a different migrant wave (history destroy the idea of economic "laws" which is the underlying idea you defend, wheither you understand it or not, which means that different migrant wave in different economic context have different results) and a situation that ask us to face short term problems (one of the reason why Keynes is definitly more pertinent now than in 1990).
I also stressed out the political effect of welcoming migrants without actually doing some huge universal policies that would destroy the distinction between migrants and autochtones.
Here a quick read (from here :
An interesting analysis of the temporal pattern of unemployment effects arising from significant immigration is provided by Hercowitz and Yashiv (2002). They analyse the substantial migration from the former Soviet Union to Israel in the 1990s, which resulted in an 18% increase in Israel’s population in a decade. Because of the different temporal patterns of the impact of immigration on aggregate demand and aggregate supply, they find an initial positive impact on employment followed by a later negative impact and ultimately no impact at all. Thus, in the Israel context, initially aggregate demand dominates, then aggregate supply and finally there is no long-run effect.
Angrist and Kugler (2003) provide some evidence on the role of labour and product market institutions in determining the short-run consequences of immigration but a more comprehensive empirical analysis is provided by Jean and Jimenez (2007). They use panel data (1984–2003) for 17 OECD economies. Their basic analysis suggests that an increase in the number of immigrants equivalent to 1% of the labour force leads to the unemployment rate being, successively, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 percentage points higher one, two and three years later before fading away to a zero impact after around six years. This suggests that, overall, the aggregate supply effect dominates in the short run with these unemployment effects being accompanied by downward pressure on inflation.
Turning to their evidence on institutions, Jean and Jimenez find that the impact of strong employment protection laws is to slow down and extend the unemployment effects of migration as a consequence of more sluggish employment adjustment. The extent of product market regulation is also important. A high degree of such regulation tends to magnify the unemployment effects throughout, essentially because the economy is slower to adjust to the new sources of labour supply. By contrast, in the presence of very low levels of product market regulation, the unemployment effects are negligible
I did not say you "resumed refugee to an economic dimension". I said I was in this case responding to your points on the economic front (I did not say those were the only points you made), which is why it's ridiculous to accuse me (as you did) of having "a very economical vision of mankind" when my posts throughout the thread clearly show the exact opposite, and my previous post focused on the economic impact that you've addressed and brought up repeatedly.
You have a very economical vision of mankind because your core argument is that those refugee will instantly create value, as suggested by the study you pointed. The pityful part about it is that I'm pretty sure you view yourself as a social warrior defending humanist value, while in fact all you do is refusing to discuss a complex matter and resuming it to one sentence, misunderstanding even the liberal ideology that actually support your claims.
|
this is the key quote kziwach,
Nobody is "assuming" anything about the impact of migrants on the labor market -- this is exactly what is being studied, and research shows that the impact on levels of unemployment is not straightforward one way or another on the short-term but is still relatively limited, while on the middle- and long-terms the impact is often positive, especially if the right policies are enacted to favor social and economic integration.
in the current economic/societal/political climate it is not going to happen.
we(EU as a whole and most - some in particular - member states) were not doing enough for about 20 - 50% of the unemployed youth ALREADY.
that is a political powder keg just waiting to explode.
poland was only the first to react to this new situation. other demagogic parties will be voted in, count on that.
basically what whitedog said.
//
I would add that this example of imploding soviet union and israel is a very different story as well.
Zionism promotes jews to come home to the holy land, they are - basically - instantly accepted.
our negative experiences with a bungled integration in the past with similar migrants plus the terror angle make it even harder in the current situation.
not even talking about year number 6 after the GFC and our politician's failed answer that is austerity.
|
Well PiS is doing precisly what they promised and precisly what majority of people want them to do (at least in regards of foreign policy). Democracy at its finest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
