|
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 June 10 2016 00:24 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 00:22 Ghostcom wrote:On June 09 2016 23:56 Plansix wrote:
Exactly. It took centuries to deal with this problem in the EU and US. And it’s not completely dealt with. This isn’t an problem you solve by telling people adopt western values or leave. That isn’t a strong case as to why they are better. It will be a slow process that is dealt with case by case. You are right, this is an issue you solve by telling immigrants to adopt the country's values or they won't be granted citizenship... How are you going to enforce it? Ministry of Thought is going to check their EEGs?
See, I know you are just being snarky, but I'll take the opportunity to educate you here: It is not possible from an EEG to tell what a person is actually thinking - merely how much activity is ongoing. The technique you want to focus on is MRI, but there are still years to go as it is currently only really possible to tell the mood of a person 
In reality, Muslims are welcome to be Muslims, Christians are welcome to be Christians, Hindus to be Hindus.... They just shouldn't expect a host country to conform to their norms instead of adapting themselves. Just like I adapt myself to the US/Chinese/UK norms when I live there.
|
On June 10 2016 00:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 00:22 Ghostcom wrote:On June 09 2016 23:56 Plansix wrote:
Exactly. It took centuries to deal with this problem in the EU and US. And it’s not completely dealt with. This isn’t an problem you solve by telling people adopt western values or leave. That isn’t a strong case as to why they are better. It will be a slow process that is dealt with case by case. You are right, this is an issue you solve by telling immigrants to adopt the country's values or they won't be granted citizenship... That is literally the oath people take when they become US citizens. I bet it’s the same for other nations.
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_citizenship
The US oath includes a promise to uphold the constitution and the laws of the US, nothing more.
|
On June 10 2016 00:34 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 00:24 opisska wrote:On June 10 2016 00:22 Ghostcom wrote:On June 09 2016 23:56 Plansix wrote:
Exactly. It took centuries to deal with this problem in the EU and US. And it’s not completely dealt with. This isn’t an problem you solve by telling people adopt western values or leave. That isn’t a strong case as to why they are better. It will be a slow process that is dealt with case by case. You are right, this is an issue you solve by telling immigrants to adopt the country's values or they won't be granted citizenship... How are you going to enforce it? Ministry of Thought is going to check their EEGs? See, I know you are just being snarky, but I'll take the opportunity to educate you here: It is not possible from an EEG to tell what a person is actually thinking - merely how much activity is ongoing. The technique you want to focus on is MRI, but there are still years to go as it is currently only really possible to tell the mood of a person In reality, Muslims are welcome to be Muslims, Christians are welcome to be Christians, Hindus to be Hindus.... They just shouldn't expect a host country to conform to their norms instead of adapting themselves. Just like I adapt myself to the US/Chinese/UK norms when I live there.
I should have known better honestly, MRI would have been much better for the comment 
Well, I am not really sure I know anyone who really disagrees with what you wrote here about people being welcome to be what they are but conforming to a single set of norms. The problem is that the ideas about implementation of this policy ale vastly varied. The one-liner's you exchanged above are incidentally a good starting point of this discussion - because the idea that you will somehow check whether a person's values are European enough doesn't make any sense at all. A big part of why I am so irritated with such propositions is the fear that I wouldn't pass the test myself 
Really, how can you have a remotely free society and prescribe what are people supposed to think at once? Even more pressing is the question about the involvement of the immigrants in policymaking - if you grant them status of equal peers, you can't expect them pushing your values out of the blue and if you don't, you are just actively creating yourself a future rebellion. That's kind what Plansix was probably having in mind: there is no magic pill, you just need to patiently work with the people and show them that freedom and tolerance is the preferable approach to life and that they will benefit from it as much as you will. I am very skeptical that this can be achieved by ostracism and hostility.
|
I'm not prescribing what people are supposed to think. And this discussion is going to go nowhere before you accept that. I'm prescribing what expectations people should have when they apply for citizenship. Being granted citizenship in a country is a privilege - which is something that seems to have been forgotten. The immigrants need the host country to a far greater degree than the other way around.
The approach that simply more tolerance and freedom will prevail is idealistic but at the same time incredibly naive and trusting it to succeed flies in the face of all current available data - the past 20 years of immigration attempts in the EU have had less than stellar success. I do not pretend to have a magic bullet to fix it, but the reasonable approach sure as hell can't be more of the same.
|
On June 10 2016 00:58 Ghostcom wrote:
I'm not prescribing what people are supposed to think. And this discussion is going to go nowhere before you accept that. I'm prescribing what expectations people should have when they apply for citizenship. Being granted citizenship in a country is a privilege - which is something that seems to have been forgotten. The immigrants need the host country to a far greater degree than the other way around.
The approach that more tolerance and freedom will prevail is idealistic but at the same time incredibly naive and trusting it to succeed flies in the face of all current available data - the past 20 years of immigration attempts in the EU have had less than stellar success. I do not pretend to have a magic bullet to fix it, but the reasonable approach sure as hell can't be more of the same.
But then, what are the practical policies you would implement to these ends - short of just building a wall and letting the rest of the world pay for it? The abstract concepts you say about citizenships sound nice, but what does it mean in practice? How is that different from the current situation? What steps do you suggests in determining whether the immigrants have accepted the values you want them to accept? Opinions are worth nothing if they can't be translated into day-to-day reality.
As long as the refugees enter Europe, there are exactly three things you can do:
- accept them and eventually grant them full rights, equal to the people who already live here
- let them in, but let them be second-class citizens for extended periods
- remove them forcibly from the area
I my opinion, option 2 is seen as practical only by people who have zero understanding of human nature and would lead to a disaster no matter what. Option 3 is partly immoral (when concerning real refugees of war, of which there are millions), partly impractical (because there is nowhere to relocate the people to, or because they will simply come back). Do you see any other option? I don't believe we will be ever able to close the borders and any attempt to do so only increases the impetus on people trafficking, making the whole thing an absurd competition in not dying in the process, which I don't really see as helpful.
Do you see any other option? If not, then what is the point of even discussing how much immigrants are a problem, if we are stuck with them anyway? Or specific details of citizenship requirements, if there is no better course of action than to grant the citizenship to most of the people that are coming? It really is the time to stop talking in bloated words and start talking actual actions.
|
I'm not Donald Trump. I would appreciate it if you didn't create your own narratives, but instead focused on my own arguments.
Firstly, you are currently holding me to a higher standard than yourself... Perhaps you would expand upon how you would fix the current failed immigration with more of the same? You have yet to offer any practical approach, so perhaps you would offer some actual actions and put aside the bloated words?
Secondly we were discussing immigrants, not refugees. The two groups are distinct in their needs and our obligations towards them differ greatly. We can discuss both if you like, but not as a single entity.
Re Immigrants:
It's quite simple really. Immigration can function under the same system as currently employed, however instead of changing society to fit the immigrants, the immigrants are told to take it or leave it. They are welcome to practice their religions/traditions, but to expect the rest of us to conform is a no-go. A hands-on example would be to tell Muslim women (or rather their fathers/husbands/brothers) that no, they can't insist on having a female doctor just because they do not wish for a male to treat her when admitted to the ER (do notice this is luckily still a minority, though I've observed an increased incidence).
Re Refugees:
We should obviously help refugees. However, we shouldn't try and import e.g. Syria to Europe. When we let refugees cherrypick the country in which they wish to seek asylum we encourage more and more to undertake the incredibly dangerous journey. And we end up only helping those strong enough to undertake the journey in the first place (and thus not those who REALLY need the help). The approach to refugees should be as it has always been: to help them where they are i.e. in Jordan/Turkey. The issue is that the Europe (and the rest of the world) didn't actually provide sufficient help in the beginning with establishing proper camps/facilities, provide food, and help Jordan/Turkey to fund these things. A refugee should almost never obtain a full citizenship as the expectation must be for the person to return to his/her country of origin when the time of danger is over.
|
I agree that part of the problem was insufficiently funding the refugee camps; putting more funds to the UN refugee agency woudl've (and still could) help stem the refugee tide a fair bit, and at far lower cost)
|
First of all, the whole idea of a clear divide between "immigrants" and "refugees" is wishful thinking. The people that need thee help the most are also the most likely to be unable to obtain any trustworthy documentation. Do you have any working strategy that effectively and fairly filters the migration wave and lets the refugees in, which also doesn't entail months or even years of waiting in inhumane conditions?
Another example of wishful thinking is the cliche of "helping them where they are". Jordan and Turkey are overflowing with Syrians right now - especially Jordan, as it is a very small country, most of which is barren desert and the whole inhabitable area are roughly the size of a county in Czech Republic. What you are proposing is to focus on keeping people in places that aren't fit for human settlement and keep injecting massive funds so that they don't starve to death while idly waiting for things to get better. Why is that a better solution than making a place for them to live here and work? I don't see the point here.
You acknowledge that the journey is hard - but it is so only because of our own hypocrisy. Why don't we help the refugees facilitate their transport and let a vast array of smuggler mafia do that instead? Why have we turned the whole thing into a game "of who gets to EU soil alive" instead of letting the very same people in through legal borders? The only who profit from this are really the smugglers and it's a problem that can be very easily removed from existence by our own action.
But let us put the impracticality of this part aside and focus on the impracticality in the "Immigrants" part. You have still not provided any semblance of a strategy how would you implement the "take it or leave it" strategy in a democratic society. First of all, even for the "immigrants" (I will accept this term for people who are explicitly not wartime refugees), my doubts about the practicality of forcing them out stand. Where to? How is their acceptance in their homelands accepted? Even Turkey won't let them through unless they have something out of the deal. How do we stop them from coming again. Then, if we aren't forcing them out, are we making them citizens? If not, do you think a two-tiered system of society is feasible in the long run? If yes, what is stopping them from getting their social changes enacted by democratic methods? Mind you, you are not a monarch to say that "X can't ever be done" and expect it to be upheld.
I am not offering a "fix for the current failed immigration", because I do not consider the current immigration failed - well, for the most part, I consider the fact that refugees are still forced to cross the borders outside of legal measures as a failure, but that's not probably the part you wanted addressed. You are the one who expresses displeasure with the current situation, I am only trying to help you realize, that you are not offering any solutions whatsoever and that "more of the same" might be the best there is.
|
On June 10 2016 01:43 Ghostcom wrote:
A refugee should almost never obtain a full citizenship as the expectation must be for the person to return to his/her country of origin when the time of danger is over. May I point you to Palestinians refugees in Lebanon?
There are people who were born and died in refugee camps and never had citizen right in their entire life, because people (like you) kept insisting the situation is only temporary...
|
On June 10 2016 02:22 opisska wrote:
First of all, the whole idea of a clear divide between "immigrants" and "refugees" is wishful thinking. The people that need thee help the most are also the most likely to be unable to obtain any trustworthy documentation. Do you have any working strategy that effectively and fairly filters the migration wave and lets the refugees in, which also doesn't entail months or even years of waiting in inhumane conditions?
Another example of wishful thinking is the cliche of "helping them where they are". Jordan and Turkey are overflowing with Syrians right now - especially Jordan, as it is a very small country, most of which is barren desert and the whole inhabitable area are roughly the size of a county in Czech Republic. What you are proposing is to focus on keeping people in places that aren't fit for human settlement and keep injecting massive funds so that they don't starve to death while idly waiting for things to get better. Why is that a better solution than making a place for them to live here and work? I don't see the point here.
You acknowledge that the journey is hard - but it is so only because of our own hypocrisy. Why don't we help the refugees facilitate their transport and let a vast array of smuggler mafia do that instead? Why have we turned the whole thing into a game "of who gets to EU soil alive" instead of letting the very same people in through legal borders? The only who profit from this are really the smugglers and it's a problem that can be very easily removed from existence by our own action.
But let us put the impracticality of this part aside and focus on the impracticality in the "Immigrants" part. You have still not provided any semblance of a strategy how would you implement the "take it or leave it" strategy in a democratic society. First of all, even for the "immigrants" (I will accept this term for people who are explicitly not wartime refugees), my doubts about the practicality of forcing them out stand. Where to? How is their acceptance in their homelands accepted? Even Turkey won't let them through unless they have something out of the deal. How do we stop them from coming again. Then, if we aren't forcing them out, are we making them citizens? If not, do you think a two-tiered system of society is feasible in the long run? If yes, what is stopping them from getting their social changes enacted by democratic methods? Mind you, you are not a monarch to say that "X can't ever be done" and expect it to be upheld.
I am not offering a "fix for the current failed immigration", because I do not consider the current immigration failed - well, for the most part, I consider the fact that refugees are still forced to cross the borders outside of legal measures as a failure, but that's not probably the part you wanted addressed. You are the one who expresses displeasure with the current situation, I am only trying to help you realize, that you are not offering any solutions whatsoever and that "more of the same" might be the best there is.
That's it, your chances have been spent. You keep making my arguments for me instead of addressing the arguments I actually make (no - simply going "no it's wishful thinking" is not addressing arguments). I'll find other things to spend my day on. Goodbye.
On June 10 2016 02:48 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 01:43 Ghostcom wrote:
A refugee should almost never obtain a full citizenship as the expectation must be for the person to return to his/her country of origin when the time of danger is over. May I point you to Palestinians refugees in Lebanon? There are people who were born and died in refugee camps and never had citizen right in their entire life, because people (like you) kept insisting the situation is only temporary...
May I point out that I am not responsible for the actions of all of humanity? If you want to make me accountable for that, at least allow me to also decide how things should be handled. Suffice it to say, I disagree with how things have been handled in Israel.
|
If conflicts persist over decades which isn't unlikely given the situation in Syria obviously there ought to be the option to become a citizen or else people are going to hang in legal limbo all of their lives, which isn't that uncommon.
People had the same mentality towards the "guest worker" generation of Turks in Germany and the 60's and thus missed a lot of integration opportunities at the time.
|
On June 01 2016 14:20 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 13:56 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 13:12 Nyxisto wrote:On June 01 2016 13:03 oBlade wrote:In the past, when people have raised concerns about the control internet giants have over speech, in my experience the rebuttals have been how it's not an issue because private companies worth multiple billions have the right to do as they please - and if people don't like it, they should make their own social networks. And that seemed like a convenient deference to the free market to me, but whatever. Now the cartel of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft are explicitly working with the EU commission (in other words, government bureaucracy), and I'm being told this isn't an issue because it's up to a government to restrict "hate" speech. It's apparently a cause that just isn't important to some people. so you were okay with censorship as long as it was done for arbitrary or economic reasons but when it's the result of the democratic process in the form of government institutions it's somehow worse? No, I'm saying I don't like censorship. In prior instances when SNS control of speech was criticized, free speech advocates got dismissed with the rationale that companies can do what they want, and your rights are only an issue when the government is involved. Now the government is directly and publicly involved. The EC is an appointed bureaucracy with a less than stellar record - the same body responsible for a controversial handling of the migrant crisis coincidentally wants to expand censorship under the pretense of protecting people. Even if this was a policy by direct referendum instead of a convoluted international bureaucracy, "democracy" is hardly a singular descriptor of Europe. Embedded in the countries are other ideas, like liberalism, which are supposed to protect people from voting their rights away (which again isn't what this is, the EC are appointed officials). http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1937_en.htm again, it's not like it isn't consensus on the national level already. Even in the UK which is arguably the most classical liberal country in the Union hate speech, especially against the typical protected classes (religion, ethnicity, sex and so on) is clearly forbidden. This isn't a new thing. What's new is that it's actually being enforced in the digital sphere given that we've seen what can happen in internet echo chambers. There has been a certain degree of trust that companies like Facebook adhere to European standards on their own. They haven't delivered so now the European institutions get involved, but it's not in principle a top down thing initiated by 'the bureaucracy'.
What countries seem to agree to is that it's part of their criminal code that incitement to hatred/violence by speech is punishable. Like a prosecutor takes a case to the courts and tries to convict someone of a crime under the law, right? Who agreed to appointed international executives partnering with megacorps to determine what "hate speech" is and then censor people for it? If it were TV and newspapers, maybe people would know it was wrong.
|
On June 10 2016 02:53 Ghostcom wrote:
May I point out that I am not responsible for the actions of all of humanity? If you want to make me accountable for that, at least allow me to also decide how things should be handled. Wow.
And you are the one bitching about opisska misrepresenting your quotes in the same post?
Ever thought about it could maybe be an issue on your side, making things not clear enough and overreacting? Just saying...
|
I'd just want to say that while I find Ghostcom's argumentation method underwhelming, as he consistently refuses to address the problem that most of his supposed arguments aren't really thought through (and thus not very applicable in the real world), I take no offense from his dismissal. I am not a very persistent debater, I just felt like trying to provide perspective to some statements that were being thrown around here and I don't really have much else to say to this. I take this small debate as a good stimulus to flesh out my thoughts in writing. There is no need for any hostility towards him.
|
On June 10 2016 04:09 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 14:20 Nyxisto wrote:On June 01 2016 13:56 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 13:12 Nyxisto wrote:On June 01 2016 13:03 oBlade wrote:In the past, when people have raised concerns about the control internet giants have over speech, in my experience the rebuttals have been how it's not an issue because private companies worth multiple billions have the right to do as they please - and if people don't like it, they should make their own social networks. And that seemed like a convenient deference to the free market to me, but whatever. Now the cartel of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft are explicitly working with the EU commission (in other words, government bureaucracy), and I'm being told this isn't an issue because it's up to a government to restrict "hate" speech. It's apparently a cause that just isn't important to some people. so you were okay with censorship as long as it was done for arbitrary or economic reasons but when it's the result of the democratic process in the form of government institutions it's somehow worse? No, I'm saying I don't like censorship. In prior instances when SNS control of speech was criticized, free speech advocates got dismissed with the rationale that companies can do what they want, and your rights are only an issue when the government is involved. Now the government is directly and publicly involved. The EC is an appointed bureaucracy with a less than stellar record - the same body responsible for a controversial handling of the migrant crisis coincidentally wants to expand censorship under the pretense of protecting people. Even if this was a policy by direct referendum instead of a convoluted international bureaucracy, "democracy" is hardly a singular descriptor of Europe. Embedded in the countries are other ideas, like liberalism, which are supposed to protect people from voting their rights away (which again isn't what this is, the EC are appointed officials). http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1937_en.htm again, it's not like it isn't consensus on the national level already. Even in the UK which is arguably the most classical liberal country in the Union hate speech, especially against the typical protected classes (religion, ethnicity, sex and so on) is clearly forbidden. This isn't a new thing. What's new is that it's actually being enforced in the digital sphere given that we've seen what can happen in internet echo chambers. There has been a certain degree of trust that companies like Facebook adhere to European standards on their own. They haven't delivered so now the European institutions get involved, but it's not in principle a top down thing initiated by 'the bureaucracy'. What countries seem to agree to is that it's part of their criminal code that incitement to hatred/violence by speech is punishable. Like a prosecutor takes a case to the courts and tries to convict someone of a crime under the law, right? Who agreed to appointed international executives partnering with megacorps to determine what "hate speech" is and then censor people for it? If it were TV and newspapers, maybe people would know it was wrong.
Facebook can censor what they want anyway legally speaking, the public legal system only needs to get involved if someone is actually being sued. Of course this doesn't mean that Facebook should just delete whatever they want, but like any newspaper I think it's perfectly reasonable that they have certain limits in regards to what they allow to be published.
I don't see any good reason why Facebook should stay completely away from moderating.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
not giving refugees full citizenship is just placing a huge obstacle to integration. unless you can really stop the flow from reaching the shores, this isn't going to solve any problems.
this is not to say you can't have reasonable limits of quantity restriction, or barrier towards getting full political rights depending on political education etc. but these barriers should be set with integration as the goal and also limiting factor.
i'll say there should also be respect for islam/muslim culture and identity when this does not contradict important liberal and democratic values. but this sort of standard also would place domestic extremists outside of the circle of tolerance as well.
|
On June 10 2016 04:32 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 02:53 Ghostcom wrote:
May I point out that I am not responsible for the actions of all of humanity? If you want to make me accountable for that, at least allow me to also decide how things should be handled. Wow. And you are the one bitching about opisska misrepresenting your quotes in the same post? Ever thought about it could maybe be an issue on your side, making things not clear enough and overreacting? Just saying...
Your question was loaded from the beginning. Had you asked me what I thought of the situation of the Palasteniens in Lebanon I would gladly have answered (that it was indeed one of those rare cases which I talked about earlier where a long-term solution is obviously needed). However, you chose to make the question loaded. Did you ever think that maybe the way you ask a question could potentially influence how it is answered?
Oh and I don't think Opisska misrepresented my quotes, I think he failed to understand my position (which indeed falls on me), but the way he wanted to argue was not one in which I wanted to participate. I'm glad Opisska holds no animosity - I surely do not hold any towards him (or you for that matter) either. Posting here is something I do for my own enjoyment, and I've found that discussions where people attempt to make the opposing parts argument for them to be too tedious - and in the end, we are all random people on an internet forum.
|
On June 10 2016 07:27 Ghostcom wrote:
Your question was loaded from the beginning. Had you asked me what I thought of the situation of the Palasteniens in Lebanon I would gladly have answered (that it was indeed one of those rare cases which I talked about earlier where a long-term solution is obviously needed). However, you chose to make the question loaded. Did you ever think that maybe the way you ask a question could potentially influence how it is answered? What the hell are you talking about?
There was no question to be answered. There was nothing loaded to begin with.
And again, the most hilarious thing is that you accuse other of misrepresenting your quotes when you just make up whole sentences for me apparently.
|
On June 10 2016 07:42 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 07:27 Ghostcom wrote:
Your question was loaded from the beginning. Had you asked me what I thought of the situation of the Palasteniens in Lebanon I would gladly have answered (that it was indeed one of those rare cases which I talked about earlier where a long-term solution is obviously needed). However, you chose to make the question loaded. Did you ever think that maybe the way you ask a question could potentially influence how it is answered? What the hell are you talking about? There was no question to be answered. There was nothing loaded to begin with. And again, the most hilarious thing is that you accuse other of misrepresenting your quotes when you just make up whole sentences for me apparently.
On June 10 2016 02:48 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 01:43 Ghostcom wrote:
A refugee should almost never obtain a full citizenship as the expectation must be for the person to return to his/her country of origin when the time of danger is over. May I point you to Palestinians refugees in Lebanon?There are people who were born and died in refugee camps and never had citizen right in their entire life, because people (like you) kept insisting the situation is only temporary...
So the bolded/underlined/italicized is not a questionmark? And you don't at all see how your framing was loaded?
EDIT: Also, if you really carefully read my previous post you'll notice that I actually explained to you that I do not accuse people (or well at least not Opisska) of misrepresenting my quotes.
|
On June 10 2016 01:11 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 00:58 Ghostcom wrote:
I'm not prescribing what people are supposed to think. And this discussion is going to go nowhere before you accept that. I'm prescribing what expectations people should have when they apply for citizenship. Being granted citizenship in a country is a privilege - which is something that seems to have been forgotten. The immigrants need the host country to a far greater degree than the other way around.
The approach that more tolerance and freedom will prevail is idealistic but at the same time incredibly naive and trusting it to succeed flies in the face of all current available data - the past 20 years of immigration attempts in the EU have had less than stellar success. I do not pretend to have a magic bullet to fix it, but the reasonable approach sure as hell can't be more of the same. But then, what are the practical policies you would implement to these ends - short of just building a wall and letting the rest of the world pay for it? The abstract concepts you say about citizenships sound nice, but what does it mean in practice? How is that different from the current situation? What steps do you suggests in determining whether the immigrants have accepted the values you want them to accept? Opinions are worth nothing if they can't be translated into day-to-day reality. As long as the refugees enter Europe, there are exactly three things you can do: - accept them and eventually grant them full rights, equal to the people who already live here - let them in, but let them be second-class citizens for extended periods - remove them forcibly from the area I my opinion, option 2 is seen as practical only by people who have zero understanding of human nature and would lead to a disaster no matter what. Option 3 is partly immoral (when concerning real refugees of war, of which there are millions), partly impractical (because there is nowhere to relocate the people to, or because they will simply come back). Do you see any other option? I don't believe we will be ever able to close the borders and any attempt to do so only increases the impetus on people trafficking, making the whole thing an absurd competition in not dying in the process, which I don't really see as helpful. Do you see any other option? If not, then what is the point of even discussing how much immigrants are a problem, if we are stuck with them anyway? Or specific details of citizenship requirements, if there is no better course of action than to grant the citizenship to most of the people that are coming? It really is the time to stop talking in bloated words and start talking actual actions.
Clearly the best option is do not grant any welfare benefits to non citizens and grant them only to citizens who have resided for 5 years or more in that country.Why do you think these migrants are gravitating to Sweden in such large numbers?
Very basic fact that i feel the far left may slowly be realising : you cannot have both open borders and a generous welfare system.One maximum or the system will eventually collapse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
