80% of these refugees should be accepted by the US, after all, if you give weaponry to various "free" syrian armies to cause havoc in the region, you should take responsibility to take care of the humanitarian disaster that results. The other 20% - UK, France and Germany, whoever dumped weapons on that region. Unpopular as it is - the middle east was doing much better under strong dictators. They had civilization going for thousands of years, and an attempt to change the regional order from the outside was a fatal mistake. Do the right thing and accept them, also don't forget build a couple of mosques near your house. At least in theory.
Russia and Iran are not trying to destabilize and take over the country - by forming, arming, and financing terrorist groups from within and from outside.
They did not bring this conflict to Syria, nor the resulting destruction.
One of the reasons I hate these kinds of discussions is that they are so boring and simplistic. The notion that "it's all the US' fault!" seems to always rear its head.
I'm not a fan of a lot of US foreign policy, but people like Assad and Putin are 'not very nice people' to put it mildly, and have done more than their fair share to cause problems in Syria.
Let me just quote http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch.ca
"While many of Globalresearch's articles discuss legitimate humanitarian or environmental concerns, the site has a strong undercurrent of reality warping throughout its pages, especially in relation to taking its news from sources such as Russia Today RT[2] and Press TV.[3] Its view of science, the economy and geopolitics seems to be broadly conspiracist.
Whenever someone makes a remarkable claim and cites Globalresearch, they are almost certainly wrong."
Interesting idea. But the "U.S." isn't giving these countries weapons. Various people from the U.S. may be doing that, I know that U.S. citizens (those of which any refugees would suddenly be living next to) didn't vote to give weapons to Syrian armies. But if you have proof of it (and I'm not saying you don't) you've then got to find out how the deal was made. Also you want to blame the gun sellers and not the gun shooters.
I get what you're trying to do. In your mind, before Europe and the U.S. (before white people) the middle east was paradise blah blah. And Western countries are intent to simply destabilize everything right, to some end.
What I don't understand is the millions of refugees are somehow not able to form their own country. What army in the world now has as many as these of age male refugees? If we are to welcome these refugees, we'd be assuming that they can melt into the shared values of the culture, follow the rules, etc. And if we assume that, then we can assume they can cooperate amongst themselves. So why are they not doing so and forming a peaceful country? Hmm, well maybe we have been BUT it hasn't worked out well.
You're certainly joking, or trolling too hard. This is YC and not tumblr after all where the answer to any and all problems is "white males".
However, the situation in the middle east was quantitatively and qualitatively better when it had Saddam, Qaddafi et all. The region had ethnic and religious tensions for most of its existance, the difference is - before the war in Iraq, Afganistan, Lybia and now Syria, there was a defined pecking order. The biggest asshole had already went through all of the atrocities he had to to become what he is. After US came in, and sprinkled dollars and guns to every antigovernment faction - we now have 20 assholes in every country that vie for the title of the biggest asshole, and they're ready to do whatever it takes. All I'm saying is - take some responsibility for that. Germany and Europe as a whole isn't responsible for upsetting the order that lead to this humanitarian problem. US military adventures did.
The biggest mistake the US did is dismantling the Iraqi military. All top generals and army officers become jobless over night. Now guess who runs the ISIS intelligence and military operations? yes, the former Bath Iraqi Intelligence and army officers.
The US civilian administration of Iraq, fired 800 000 army employees. Like that wasn't going to create a problem. The US blew such a big chance to keep Iraq going and gradually stabilize it over time.
Yes. The invasion, if it had to be done, which could have been handled a lot better than it was. Which is to say, it was not handled at all. "We won. Now what."
I would like to see the US step up its process to accept refugees.
Currently it takes 18 to 24 months for refuges to be able to get on a plane the US. The US has agreed to accept up to 70k refugees yet at this rate it will take for ever while Germany has hundreds of new refuges per day.
As a country of 80M people (Germany), they can probably handle quite a few but there's a point when the demographic shift is going to be.. unpleasant. Most immigrants don't leave their old practices behind and in most cases, that's not a big deal. This group of immigrant isn't Christian or areligious (most of Europe is one of the two) and doesn't hold similar views of [choose: women, society, gays, religion, etc, etc], so there already are and will continue to be clashes.
Hopefully those groups assimilate into the common German belief/societal structures but history says that with big enough numbers, they won't have to..
A relevant part of "this group", if you talk about refugees from Syria, actually is Christian or secular/atheist. And many of them who are even Muslim actually share a bunch of questionable views of women and gays with conservative German Christians.
Because the people who oppose immigration tend to have very nice views on women, society, gays, religion etc? Maybe the problem is that some Germans don't respect others people freedom to think whatever they want.
I'm from Germany and do not oppose immigration and/or hosting refugees. I agree with you that especially some people opposing immigration have a twisted worldview on these topics. However, I think your last sentence is really problematic. People have the freedom to think what they want; but I think that the fundamental values of our society (freedom, democracy, equality) have to persist and I would not accept _anybody_ (no matter where they come from) to attack these values.
Perhaps the attacks on our fundamental values helps to prevent the silent majority taking them for granted? Im not talking violent terror type attacks, more the freedom to argue against them.
you don't oppose hosting refugees, but you aren't going to have any in your home or directly funding I bet. Most people who are ok with it, or claim to be, are suspiciously not directly dealing with it. surprise surprise. Not only that but Germany is actively censoring opinions against it, including through facebook youtube and other URLs. That's the thing, people don't have the freedom tho think what they want in this case.
To your first point: Yes, I'm not hosting any refugees or giving more money than I would be giving with my taxes. (But I'm currently going to school and do not earn any money, so that is not really a question to consider) But I personally think that hosting refugees is the responsibility of the state. (A climate of acceptance - in contrast to that - is important and as we have refugees in our school, this is a responsibility I take as well.)
To your second point: I have never heard of such censoring but would be interested in it, if it exists.
What is important is that the rule of law and individual rights do not break down or become unequally applied. If justice and the police scale with the influx, refugees can integrate well and fast, even if their food and home practices might look different. If you let ghettos develop, you have a problem. In your example, the solution is not to let women or gays be oppressed, and not allow sharia courts to supercede the governmental ones. People can retain their views so long as they don't actually go on and infringe on the rights of others, if they do they go to jail.
Singapore even outright discusses how fast infrastructure and services are growing and sets the amount of immigration for the year accordingly. I suspect if Germany really was willing to take up the majority of the million Syrian refugees (and mass immigration from any other country in distress), it would make sure to invest accordingly and be able to integrate that many as the US has done in the early 20th century [1] (so much for history). If they get it right, it might be a huge economic boom and great long term move.
As for "the common German belief/societal structures", no culture is stagnant (and clearly not German values, if you look at the 20th century alone!). Even the US is a strange mix of a dozen traditions, cultures and habits which have blended into "American".
For example, most world citizen think of the US, not Italy, when eating a slice of pizza. People call a flat white Australian, but the Australian coffee culture which is spreading globally today is a direct descendant of Italian immigration to the country. Immigrants adapt to the local custom (cf "Chinese-American" food, secularisation of the second generation, etc.) and the country adapts to its immigrants.
We know for a fact that the rule of law and individual rights break down. News in canada yesterday just had a disabled canadian who couldn't move into housing because it was a muslim-only housing project which was unequally applied by the canadian govt. We also know that in Sweden, France, migrants are given a free pass even when rioting, robbing and hurting the local populace. Sweden lets rapists walk after really small sentences relative to the violence of the crime. Do they deport? No. Good luck with your dreamy views.
Not in every country. Singapore is fine. The only riot in 40 years was over within a couple of hours as the police that was immediately sent on site outnumbered the rioters by an order of magnitude. You occasionally see panels on the road warning you that a pickpocket was active there 4 years ago, or maybe it was a car crash, and could you please phone the number if you have any information about it.
The country has at least four major religions and four official languages with considerably larger minorities than any European country, yet, has not seen a race-based breakdown in the rule of law in decades.
It's a failure of government when the rule of law breaks down. It's up to the citizen to figure out the problems and solve them with their votes and by talking to their elected politicians. What have you personally done politically to change the situation in your own country? Personally, I've given up and emigrated to a country with better individual rights.
I'm not sure closing all borders and living in autarky (which is where the UK and US seem to be heading) is a good long term choice. Not my countries, not my problem. It saddens me a little nevertheless to see so many great countries pick it.
70k per year is hundreds per day. And then there's all the asylum seekers on top of that as well as the massive undocumented migrations across the southern border.
If Germany were an island it would do the same kind of processing.
There's nothing wrong with examining a person for a year before letting them settle in your country. The system has worked well thus far, why bust it up?
Actually it is quite bad for families to get their lives halted for such a long time. Problem is, they are not examined for a year. They are in queue for a year and then examined a week or something.
Again, I see no problem with it. I thought they were escaping a dangerous situation? It seems they are now in a safe third country, it's not a big deal they have to wait a year. I have many relatives who came to the US this way.
Of course it's better than the alternative and I am sure they are thankful. But a common scenario is, send a family rep, typically the father on the dangerous journey, a person most likely to succeed. This person then in the receiving country applies for permission to get his family over too. By the time everything is done, children may have been without their father for two years. Everyone is getting kind of traumatized from it. I am all for thorough background checks, but at least in my country, they take a long time not because of thorough checks, but because the system is seriously backlogged. Most of the time could be cut if we had more resources allocated to the task. Alas, reality, budgets and stuff gets in the way...
Well, you can check with your foreign intelligence agencies to see if the person is suspected of any malicious behaviour or connections, and if the person has acquaintances already in the US, you can ask them questions.
> There's nothing wrong with examining a person for a year before letting them settle in your country. The system has worked well thus far, why bust it up?
The Australian government just got given yet another report telling them that this attitude is dangerous. Most estimates from reviews of Australia's current system (intake is in the tens of thousands, however arrivals by boat are processed offshore in Nauru or PNG) is that the timeframe from someone seeking assylum to being declined/accepted needs to be about three months or less - any longer and mental health takes a serious toll and children end up being behind in education.
It is 192 per day so not hundreds per day. Additionally many of these refugees are from Iraq and Afghanistan. The actions of the USA prompted many people to seek Asylum, so yeah you need to pick up your game in terms of how long these applications are taking to process.
I would like all the g8 countries including Russia China and Japan to accept their proportion of refugees. And also work deliberately to resolve the issues affecting the home countries. You can't just standby and hope the violence just miraculously disappears one day. It's going to take military confrontation and there will be casualties but waiting and standing by will result in greater casualties.
accept "their portion" as if countries are suddenly responsible for everyone else now.
"you can't just stand by"
yes I can. Why is it my problem? Oh is that supposed to be the guilt of the first world for cooperating amongst each other and paying taxes, I also HAVE to do all things for all people, even those I dont' like and so does my government with my tax money? Hogwash.
The propaganda of we're all "global citizens" sounds great but it doesn't work. You can't sustain a welfare system in 1st world countries when you add the numbers they are talking about here, it doesn't work. And as we know from england and france and sweden, these cultures do NOT mix into their homestay lands all that well. They bring crime with them and they usurp the welfare from the elderly of the host country. They destabilize the economy and hurt the middle class.
You can look at this in a small way. Let's say you're neighborhood isn't as nice as the one down the road. You don't just get to move in there, nor do those people suddenly have to make a space for you. And even if your neighborhood in shambles isn't your fault or even if those other people laid off your parents employment, you still don't get to just come in droves and become a resident of their neighborhood and they have to pay for your lifestyle on top of free room and board.
We have our own continent to deal with. We already have hundreds of thousands of refugees coming to the US from central/south America every year. How many refugees are we supposed to accept anyway?
The amount spent on the bombs ($22k) or missiles ($110k) used to [possibly] kill enemy targets could rather easily pay to accommodate a few refugees long enough for them to either assimilate and find jobs or wait out the crisis and return home.
All it takes is a commitment to finally throttle the military materiel manufacturing economy--that was ramped up during World War 2--back to a peacetime proportion of the budget.
As it is now, the U.S. has to continually go out and look for new conflicts, and beat loudly the drums of war, to justify that high level of military spending. We have been waiting a long time to beat those swords back into plowshares, and they just keep making more swords.
I think that the entire quota of 70k refugees can be adequately provided for in less than one month just by taking the buildings on a bare handful of shuttered military bases out of mothballs.
We can accommodate millions more, and take care of the poor people that are already here. Our elected politicians prevent such occurrences using the flimsiest of justifications.
Friend, I think you'll find that a proposal to deeply restructure whole economies and societies will not be well-received by people reluctant to accept smaller changes.
Have you considered appealing to what your audience is likely to care about, rather than the goals you find appealing?
What audience? I'm just some guy complaining about things on the Internet.
Rent-seeking behavior seems intrinsic to human society, such that any group of people larger than a certain size will be forced to deal with it in one way or another.
At this point, nothing short of a constitutional amendment is likely to put a dent in the military industrial complex. And that's not happening any time soon.
Complaining about it helps me to not lose my sanity. And that's good, because without my sanity, I might do something like endorse an armed revolution to reduce the political and economic influence of the military in the U.S. See, as a sane person, I know that doesn't make any sense. There is a right way and a wrong way to fight fire with fire; that's the wrong way.
And it gets a dissenting opinion out there, on the off chance that someone might stray far enough from their own echo chamber to see it.
On the off chance that someone strays outside their echo chamber and encounters your dissenting opinion, the likely response is not what you would hope for. As written, the likely response will be for them to conclude that people outside their echo chamber are disconnected from reality and not worth paying attention to. Then they'll go back into their echo chamber, and your dissenting voice will have wasted a perfectly good opportunity.
So, friend, I ask you to stop and consider how you want people who encounter your lone voice in the wilderness to react. Assuming you care - perhaps you value having something to complain (and thus wish to ensure its continued existence) about more than you do persuading people that It Doesn't Have To Be This Way.
The reactions of others are irrelevant to my desire to express my own opinion.
As a political minority, I am well aware that there are literally tens of millions of people who will dismiss my opinions without even pausing to think about them. That doesn't mean that I should stop having them, or stop expressing them in whatever way that pleases me.
I'm not exactly sure what you hope to accomplish by your responses. It almost sounds like you agree with the sentiment, but not the expression. If so, it is not a tad hypocritical to complain about how I am arranging my words rather than try to say it better yourself?
There's always going to be something to complain about. If not how the military-industrial complex is preventing the realization of peacetime prosperity, it might be how we have all this peacetime prosperity, but can't keep the mosquitoes from biting everyone at the picnic. If we run out of truly awful things to complain about, we can always complain about the merely annoying things. So I find your suggestion that complainers would actually prefer that the things they complain about not be fixed to be misguided.
I'm suggesting that if you want to standing a snowball's chance in Hell of fixing the things you identify as problems, you need to think about how to persuade people. Bluntly, ranting in a person's general direction tends not to be a great way to change their mind, and changing minds is almost certainly what you need to further your stated goals.
I perhaps could say it better myself, but that's not my goal at this juncture.
As usual, a challenge to the drive-by downvoters: answer the question. At what point have we done all we can? We "can" give ourselves as slaves to refugees to make their lives easier but I don't think that's what was meant. So A) where's the line and B) how close are we to that line?
I don't think we're really straining ourselves to handle the amount of refugees we are currently taking. That means, wherever the line is, we're not that close to it.
By what measure? If you don't know how to recognize when it's become a problem then it's not meaningful when you say you don't see a problem.
What is straining to you? I would describe our education system, our legal system, our prison system and our welfare system as all being currently "strained" so we must have different definitions.
(and to the downvoting crew, feel free to explain to me what productive disagreeement looks like, eh?)
I don't think the strain on any of those things is caused by immigration. If we improved them to make them better for current residents, it would also increase our capacity for immigrants. But I'd see that as just a side effect of fixing broken systems.
You've once again avoided giving even a qualitative answer as to what strain caused by immigration would look like. A first step would be admitting that it's even possible.
You've also made the mistake of thinking that just because you've found one problem that others must not exist. We can have broken systems and problems caused by immagration.
10% ESL students in our public education system should qualify as a strain. 17% of California's prisoners being born abroad should qualify as a strain. Are these numbers not high enough for you? If not, what does too high look like to you?
I've been letting you identify the problems because frankly I can't see any. California has so many prisoners it doesn't have enough prisons for them all. The solution is easy: imprison fewer people. Too many ESL students? That solves itself over time as they become ESL (or even non-English) teachers.
If you don't know what a problematic level of immigration looks like then you have no idea if you're looking directly at it or not. You're telling me you haven't seen any chickens lately, I'm asking what you think a chicken looks like, and you're saying you don't see any right now.
A 10% ESL student population doesn't solve itself. That's like a child thinking that their refrigerator magically fills itself when it gets empty. If you ignore that solutions have costs than yes by your definition ESL students have no costs associated with them.
I asked about the strain on the legal system due to immigrant populations, specifically the prison system in California. You said we should put less people in jail. While that's true it doesn't solve the problem unless we're going to change our laws to the extent that aggravated assault is no longer a crime. Then we've once again solved the problem by refusing to admit it even exists.
So maybe California has more immigrants than it can handle. I can't see it from New Hampshire. Anyway there are several times more people in prison now than in the 80's even though the crime rate has dropped, so I don't think violent criminals make up the majority of the prison population.
As of 2006, 49.3% of state prisoners, or 656,000 individuals, were incarcerated for non-violent crimes.
By 2010, drug offenders in federal prison had increased to 500,000 per year, up from 41,000 in 1985. Drug related charges accounted for more than half the rise in state prisoners. 31 million people have been arrested on drug related charges, approximately 1 in 10 Americans.
If the prison system is working at all we would expect to see violent crime drop as the prison population increases. There's a profit motive as well but we have to remember why societies build prisons in the first place.
Only 10% of California's prisoners have never been convicted of a violent crime. I doubt they all need to be locked up but I'm not seeing those prisons as being filled with peaceful drug dealers like the rumor has it.
I would guess in New Hampshire there isn't much of an immigrant population. I just looked it up and it's about 93% white there. My state's about 2/3's white, I live in a part of town where I don't walk around after dark because I might get jumped for being white which does affect my perspective. I have neighbors who immigrated from Mexico decades ago and still don't even speak basic english. I'm not saying my state should become all white or anything like that, but maybe we've reached a good mix and we could deal with the problems our hispanic and black communities already have because that's a challenge as it is. We're struggling to get them to stop killing each other, make it through high school and to read at a basic level. If we can't do that I don't know why we think we can take on even more people.
NH has immigrants but most of the immigrants have been white so far. My great-grandparents were born in Italy, and one of my great-aunts who was born here only spoke French until she was 14. There are still significant French-speaking groups in the southern part of the state. Lately my hometown has been taking in refugees from Bhutan. They don't speak much English but they are great neighbors and businesspeople. 3% of the population of the city are refugees who have settled since 2008, not counting other immigrants.
I think if it's working that's great, I support a cultural plurality. It's like adopting kids - if you're doing well with the ones you have then have at it. If your kids are starving and can barely read, don't adopt more. In my state less than 7 of 10 of both our hispanic and black students are even graduating high school right now. We have too many districts with on-time graduation rates below 60% and those are the districts immigrants and refugees are most likely to flow into.
19% of high school graduates in the US are functionally illiterate[0]. Nationwide only half of black males are graduating at all. Half. We're already failing to take care of our poor. We're spending a very large amount of money trying to but it happens to be expensive.
If you go back to the start of this thread you'll see I've been consistent that there's a point where taking in more people is no longer a good thing. That doesn't mean I think it's always a bad thing, just that we should be honest that it can be.
You are asserting the existence of strain and that it is due to immigration, so the burden is rightly on you to explain the appropriate metric, provide evidence of that the level at which you have defined "strain" on that metric is met, and provide evidence that immigration is the cause of that.
First, I think your intention is to silence me as opposed to engaging in discussion.
Second, my main assertion is the existence of a point where immigration is problematic. Example: colonialism.
Third, as to the side conversation of whether or not America is experiencing a problematic level of immigration I've already submitted the fact that 10% of students in US public schools are ESL learners. We can add to it that 16% of California's prisoners were not born on U.S. soil and they're so overcrowded the Supreme Court ordered them to do something about it. I'm calling these things "strain". I hope we can agree that immigration plays a role in both examples.
So your country has to be in the middle of a civil war for you to be a refugee? Well damn, let's go tell all the people in Honduras and El Salvador that they can't leave and seek asylum because they're not allowed to be refugees.
"Economic refugee"? This is some way to make a word lose its meaning. At this point any immigrant would become a refugee.
"A refugee is a person who is outside their home country because they have suffered (or feared) persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, or political opinion; because they are a member of a persecuted social category of persons; or because they are fleeing a war." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee
Sigh: According to the researchers, a lack of protection of migrants in the region was based on a "false distinction" between a forced and an economic migrant, instead of focusing on the real and urgent needs some of these migrants have. The report suggested that a better term would be "forced humanitarian migrants", who moved for the purpose of their and their dependents' basic survival.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee#Economic_migrants
I would like to see the US step up its process to accept refugees.
Why, do you want to see a lot of dead refugees? Because that's where all of this is heading. It'll happen in Europe first, since they have a stronger sense of national identity than most Americans, so we get a preview of what will happen here. Germans have started attacking refugee centers. Anti-immigration political parties are rising in popularity with shocking speed throughout Europe. The Greek and Italian coast guards have quietly started to sink refugee boats coming from Africa. It'll take the US a little longer to get there, but when small town America starts to feel unsafe in their own communities, their reaction will not be peaceful.
Your comment annoyed me enough that I looked through your history to find
> That is what it was for me when I moved to the US from Switzerland.
> Only then I realized that the way people live in Switzerland is not something you can take for granted and in the end made me move back.
Since you don't live in the US anymore, please stick to trying to influence Swiss policy. Since you aren't going to have to deal with the consequences of a widely expanded US refugee policy.
That's an ad hominem. Rather than debating the merits of his suggestion, you're attacking his person.
Furthermore, it's not unreasonable for people living in one country to have opinions on the policies of others, especially when it's something like taking in refugees which has strong influences on a global scale.
I don't think ad hominem is necessarily a bad thing in this case; we practice it as a society by not counting votes from 17-yr-olds based not on the merits of their ideas, but their persons.
And in this specific case: citizenship and residency ought to give one's voice more weight.
For sure, but we're not counting votes, we discussing policy. In the case of discussion the goal is to hear many sides and opinions of the merits and drawbacks of an issue. Just like how in an election non-voting minors can still participate in debate, in a discussion of policy I think we should still hear the opinions of others.
When members of a group discuss policy for that group, they do so under the implicit assumption that their values are similar enough that what they are doing in the conversation is trying to find a way to achieve their shared values.
But the great-great-great-grandparent comment was simply a statement of values, not a suggestion of how parties concerned could achieve theirs.
I realize the lines are fuzzy: HN is certainly not a 'murican forum for 'murican issues. But its composition is such that neither is it a non-American forum. As such, the greatx3-grandparent could have been more sensitive.
He's not attacking his person and it's not ad-hominem, he's saying the guy is basically a moral hazard, he is advocating for policies here that he won't have to suffer the consequences of.
> He's not attacking his person and it's not ad-hominem, he's saying the guy is basically a moral hazard, he is advocating for policies here that he won't have to suffer the consequences of.
That is ad hominem -- specifically, ad hominem circumstantial [0] -- and lies at the nexus between the genetic fallacy and appeal to motive.
Get real. The consequences (whether they are good or bad, I don't know) are obviously more relevant to those actually living in the country than those shouting what to do from the other side of the planet.
Sincerely. I'm European, I'm from Euro zone. I walk in the streets in my country's capital at night and a see dozens of homeless hungry people just by walking a couple of Km.
I just can't put my head around on why we should help the refugees before we help our own people. It just doesn't make any sense to me. We are giving millions to find houses for these refugees/migrants but we let our own live and die on the streets...
Its an attempt to avoid the long term consequences of population contraction. Most heads of state and policy pushers seek to, at minimum, ensure their country keeps its current level of global influence & power. Generally this holds true whether one is right or left, but some ideological views result in different policies.
A population contraction breaks most existing economic models. You can't borrow money for infrastructure improvements. Tax revenues shrink. Housing prices go down.
The more cynical observer may suspect that its an attempt to break some of the social welfare systems and replace them with more capitalistic alternatives. I'm not sure that is a goal. Perhaps to some it is. In the mid term most certainly you will have to spread about the same amount of resources to a larger number of end users. Two or three generations forward, there should be more resources and economic wealth to make up for this.
An even more cynical observer may believe that the US is trying to destabilize the Middle East because this could have a negative influence on the great powers which threaten global American dominance -- Russia, China, and Europe. There may not be any logistical way for Europe to throttle the influx of refugees. Rather than setting policy Europe is just trying to manage it the best they can. The fall of dictatorships in the Middle East and rise of religious fundamentalism may have been totally inevitable.
The above is all speculation. However, do I believe Western nations accept refugees solely out of kindness and an unwavering moral standing? Probably not.
A lot of economist and policy makers in asia when america decided to invade Afghanistan and Iraq pointed out this would eventually happen. It would be destabilizing to the Asian/Eurasian continent.
A stable Asia is terrible news for american hegemony. Central Asia is the most mineral rich place on the world, and it has been known for quite a while.
By current projections - 38% of humans will be from africa and 44% from asia in 2100.
I will be dead by then - but its terrible news if you believe in american exceptionalism.
Allowing refugees is a feel good band aid. Yes it does directly benefit those who gain asylum but it does nothing to help the majority left behind.
The real solution is to make positive changes in their homelands, bg force if necessary. This dilly dallying helps no one except radicals bent on violence and the corrupt regimes and Russia's meddling. Europe needs to do something. Sometimes you do need violence to make things better, world war two has left a deep scar on Europe which has made it overly cautious and allergic to necessarily addressing unjust violence.
> world war two has left a deep scar on Europe which has made it overly cautious and allergic to necessarily addressing unjust violence.
I'd say it's probably far more likely due to more recent episodes of liberal interventionism; which has sometimes resulted in relative success (depending on your point of view) e.g Sierra Leone, Bosnia/Herzegovina and Kosovo/Yugoslavia in the early nineties.
More often than not, intervention has resulted in a negative, or otherwise generally messy outcome with unforeseen consequences, e.g Iraq, Afghanistan, <str>Syria</str> Libya.. The poor execution of military intervention by western powers of the latter is arguably at least in part to blame for the current refugee crisis.
>I just can't put my head around on why we should help the refugees before we help our own people.
They are all humans, one the same as the other. The geographic location of birth should be irrelevant to whether I want to help someone (realistically, my gut can't help but empathize and feel closer to people born in my country, but the head should surely take over and kick that superficial notion to the curb).
Nobody is ever going to give the homeless people sufficient aid; not only does it create peculiar incentives / traps at the margin, but it also isn't necessarily what homeless people would choose with their own free will. Not everyone willingly chooses to live in an institutional bureaucratic system when a freer life is still a possibility.
Refugees should be allowed to work. Finding homes for them and subsidising them without letting them work is a dreadful approach which will create even more problems.
The outcome of this will be from our children and grandchildren.
Most European children will not be able to afford housing as good as their parents and will not have the job stability their parents enjoyed. Their parents pensions will be larger than their wages.
Eventually a tipping point will be reached. History tells us what will follow.
In France this situation happened already for the last 10 years. People in their 40s now have a life standard than their parents. And the young generation struggles to find a job that will allow them to live on their own.
There were hungry and homeless people when Jews and other minorities tried to flee the Nazis. Yet it is still shameful that more was not done to let those people into safer countries. The situation is not so dissimilar now.
How about the homeless are helped AND we take in the millions of refugees that won't even bump the population of Europe by even 1%.
Or help the refugees now, and when they stop coming in such large numbers, continue using the same personnel and infrastructure for domestic poverty.
If you're dealing with a person who owns no property and has no local ties, it hardly matters whether they walked from 500 miles away or have been sleeping in the alleyway behind you for the last year.
Right. There are probably lots of ways we could approach this but we have to accept these people cannot go home in the near term possibly ever. I come from a wealth country I want us to put our wealth to good humanitarian use at home and abroad.
I try to expand the meaning of "our own" in my mind. And for me in this crisis it might be easier than for you, because my great-grandpa was a migrant worker from Ukraine, and my grandpa is from Palestine, and settled down in Europe after he was on studies here and I have extended family in Jordan. And I am wondering what will happen when ISIL starts knocking on the small kingdoms doorsteps and when part of my family decides to take an extended partially involuntary European vacation ...
And I am a guy that has helped in a soup kitchen a few times and support the new decision of my city council to give public housing homeless families.
Personally, I'm not sure what "my own people" would be: over the years I've noticed that the idea of one's own people has a tendency to be non-reciprocal. Every Angus is a true Scottsman until he's not.
We should help them because they are in need of help. It doesn't imply we have to support them indefinitely. We should help the homeless people, too, but the issue is not lack of money here.
You have no choice, that's why. Some will indulge in military dictatorship style authoritarian fantasy solutions, some will opportunistically collect political dividends by selling this fantasies. Less developed European countries will even try their hands at some of this solutions. As ugly as it is this reality is there and is not going away, you have no choice but deal with it. Same with homelessness/extreme poverty btw, if it's that big where you live.
Err... cause I'm also in a bad economic condition? The crisis had real impact in here for anyone except the rich, in case you don't know.
Your question doesn't even make sense. I'm asking why we are helping (we, our government, our taxes) the refugees/migrants before we help our own homeless people.
This seems potentially dangerous to me. As someone with experience dealing with refugees, they often go through untold horrors in their journey. They often need counselling, friendship, purpose (often in the form of employment). It's good that they have this "refugee buddy" concept but it's not clear to me from their website if there is adequate support for the volunteer if they have to deal with these needs.
Each volunteer should consider carefully if they are able to meet these needs and fill these roles (triply so if you have children).
If everything works out, this could be very rewarding for everyone. If not, it could be catastrophic.
It "amazes" me why these "refugees" flock to Germany or Great Britain and not to their very wealthy brethren in countries such as Kuwaii, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Arab Emirates, etc... Same culture, same religion and they are much closer!
It also amazes me why the EU leaders insist for other European countries to accept these "refugees" when the majority of EU countries is not responsible for this situation at all.
Luckily there are some leaders out there that are not afraid of this stupid political correctness and they build fences on their borders because they know what this might lead to.
This completely false. Five countries neighboring Syria - Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt - host 97% of the refugees. Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan have taken in 3 million refugees.
Egypt and Iraq have another 200,000 are much poorer than Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan and have taken in 200,000 which is more than all of Europe combined.
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and UAE refuse to take in refugees in large numbers. They are also known for horrible human rights abuses. It would be foolish to attempt to go to these countries as a refugee.
> European countries to accept these "refugees" when the majority of EU countries is not responsible for this situation at all.
I'll pass over the casual xenophobia implicit in your post (just for you info, Lebanon has over 1 million Syrian refugees for a population of ~4.5 million, Jordan has ~600,000 refugees for a population of ~8 million), I just want to mention how the whole Middle East fuck-up is the result of the post-WW1 partitions, for which the UK and France are hugely responsible. I'll also copy-paste this from the wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syr...):
> On 19 September 2013, French President François Hollande hinted that France was ready to begin supplying lethal aid to the Free Syrian Army during a press conference in Bamako in a "controlled framework". Hollande told the conference that "On delivering weapons we have always said that we want to control these supplies so that they do indeed go to the Free Syrian Army ... because they represent the Syrian National Coalition that we recognise as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people and today they are caught between a hammer and an anvil. The hammer is the air strikes and actions of the Syrian regime and the anvil is radical Islam.
Two years later it turns out that the FSA is almost an empty shell (with the partial exception of the southern region around Daraa - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Southern_Syria_offensive), and the forces now fighting Assad in Syria are mostly Islamist, from Al Nusra (the local Al Qaeda branch) to the Islamic Front. So what Hollande was suggesting was something along the lines of "let's bomb Assad and help this other bad guys instead".
> the whole Middle East fuck-up is the result of the post-WW1 partitions
Blaming everything on the Sykes-Picot agreement removes a lot of agency from the inhabitants of the Middle East, especially political movements like the rise of Baathism and pan-arabism. /r/BadHistory had a good post on this recently: https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/3j75b8/sykespic...
> especially political movements like the rise of Baathism and pan-arabism
Pan-arabism was not such a bad idea. It was somehow similar to the "nation-state" idea prevalent in 19th century Europe, which, while true that generated some ugly side-effects (WW1), in the end was responsible for the creation of most European modern states as we know them today.
The same thing could have happened with pan-arabism, i.e. we could have talked right now about a modern Lybia, a modern Egypt or a modern Syria, but instead the Suez Crisis killed this possibility in its infancy and gave guys like Nasser (or Assad in Syria and Gaddafi in Lybia) reason to take even more power in their hands.
Their nearby brethren have already taken in MILLIONS of refugees. It took only a few hundred thousand in Europe for the media circus to begin and for their plight to be put in the spotlight.
Jordan and Turkey also absorbed massive refugees. But the ones making to Europe are industrious and economically sophisticated, they are in it for more than personal/family safety. If you are educated and industrious why would you accept squalor conditions in refugee camp, if I were them I would do the same. The irony is ISIS's propaganda heavily relies on Europe born second generation Immigrants.
Because those countries largely don't accept and accommodate refugees. There are no stigmas in countries like that against being racist or being against immigration like there are in Europe. Hell, those countries won't even take Palestinian refugees even though they will claim that Palestinians are suffering an oppressive occupation.
Implying that they'd fit right in because they're brown and Muslim is some seriously ignorant shit. Remember all the ethnic tensions in Europe, in the Balkans? And religious tensions, even between different sects of Christianity? To imply that doesn't exist in other cultures is to attribute complexities to your own race and deny that they exist elsewhere. Ignorant.
RE: Egypt
There are upwards of 130,000 registered Syrian refugees alone in Egypt [0], in addition to those from Sudan and Somalia.
Unofficial estimates place the number much higher [1].
Absolutely no one chooses to become a refugee and its the epitome of privilege to pontificate about where they should go. They go anywhere they can that isn't here and "culture" plays absolutely no part because it isn't a vacation. In fact, geographic proximity and regional support systems are the most important thing [3]. "European" countries don't even clock in top 5.
There are limits, practical as well as rhetorical. Not everyone wants to be lectured about how unconditional kindness is their duty and responsibility. Not everyone wants to be told that this kindness needs to come at significant expense at a time when (insert fiscal problems here, such as Greece or the UK) are already occurring.
I don't want to pay extra taxes to help foreigners, I'll gladly donate money to charities. But the second my country started demanding I pay taxes to help refugees, all my income moved over to HK.
And no, I don't have a problem with refugees, I'm glad to help them. I have a problem with the state _forcing_ me to help them.
Yeah I can understand your point. Not nice being told what to do or forced what to do.
When did the UK start demanding taxes to help refugees btw? I'm not aware of this.
:S. Wait, so you'd rather move your money to HK who can use it for what they want than allow some to be paid to help refugees? You're aware that only 1% of the UK budget goes to foreign aid? So of your money being taxed so like 0.0025% of your money will be going to help?
If you knew enough to move your money offshore I would have said you knew enough to know that too, so I presume you had loads of other reasons to move it not just this.
You can be responsible, and it doesn't has to be in the way that allows 'refugees' into your country. People in each country ought to have a choice in that.
True - there's still ways of helping without that.
But what's the fear about letting refugees into the country? Why are people so scared of this? (genuine question =))
It seems to me the only countries whom are scared are the ones who think they're the best, greatest and fear loosing that status. This sounds like idk...country ego? lol.
> But what's the fear about letting refugees into the country? Why are people so scared of this? (genuine question =))
It's the fear of letting people with very, very, different social standards in our countries. And it's warranted.
More than 50% of these refugees believe that whoever leaves the faith of Islam should suffer the death penalty and that adultery should be dealt with stoning to death.
We are not talking about a minority here, we are talking about the majority of them. So, you really shouldn't have to ask why are we afraid of letting them in in such big numbers, the questions should be, how can we do the right thing and still protect the social freedom values we hold dear in the West while doing so.
Perhaps you're being downvoted because your source does not once refer to immigrants, refugees or migrants. You've presented no evidence which suggests that migrants (a particularly self-selecting group) are a uniform sampling of the population of the countries that they hail from. You've made quite an assumption there. If your polls showed the opinions of Muslims already in Western European countries, then maybe we could start to talk about the ramifications of culture clashes. As it stands now, you're looking for what you want to see: "Muslims are scary!".
I'd venture to say that people, in general, that are willing to move (east to west, or west to east) are probably more inclined to adapt to the place where they are going than the ones that stay in their country of origin.
> Seems like you have no interest in providing a source that proves what you're saying? What do Muslims in Western countries actually believe?
The concept of cultural assimilation is not a new one, but maybe it is to you.
No, it seems you have no interest in being coherent. How is a newly arrived refugee/migrant a Muslim from a Western country?
Also, the data VERY CLEARLY states than more than 2/3 of the Muslims living in the European countries in the sample believe that the Sharia should be applied to the Muslims living there (the ones that actually live there, so, the culturally integrated ones according to you).
Care to explain where is your cultural assimilation now?
1. Above, you are lamenting the fact that Western countries allow Muslims in. (I shed a single tear for your cause.)
2. You suggest that "we" (presumably Western Christians) should be afraid of Muslims because the majority believe that "non-believers" should be stoned, etc.
3. You present "evidence" that shows that the majority of Muslims that currently live in particular Middle Eastern countries subscribe to those beliefs.
4. My retort: where is the evidence that Muslims refugees from those same countries to Western countries, actually believe those things at the same rate?
If you give me a poll of Muslim refugees in the USA/Germany/Sweden etc. with results that are similar to the link you've already posted, then maybe you have half a leg to stand on. Until then, enjoy your miserliness.
EDIT: It's called a reply button. I've made no claims regarding the European countries in your example. Save for Russia, those are majority Muslim countries. Islam in Russia is a special case, with certain regions having dense pockets of Muslims. [1] Cultural assimilation would suggest that immigrants will tend towards whatever mainstream beliefs prevail there, in this case Islam. The same cannot be said for most Western European countries, where irreligiousness or Christian social mores prevail. Are you suggesting that Muslim countries kick their own Muslims out? Do you know anything about those countries?
Yes, yes, if you nitpick enough you can bypass all obstacles, like:
1-The fact these are people just arriving Europe, they aren't westernised by any means.
2-The fact that the vast majority of Muslims living in other European countries shown in the study do believe in following the Sharia law.
3-The fact that you claim that these people are in some way different than the majority of the people in their countries, just because you want too.
Perfect, you managed to find that the 1% of the African people that suits your alternate reality are the only refugees/migrants that are arriving in Europe. Well done.
P.S. - 36% of Muslims living in UK believe if a Muslim converts to another religion they should be punished by death. But I'm sure you will find some way to nitpick out of this and tell me that these Muslims don't count. Right?
You have no interest in pursuing a genuine argument. I am not "bypassing those obstacles". This isn't nitpicking, this is logic over xenophobia.
1. They are not westernized when they arrive, but they can and do become westernized over time. [1]
2. Those are Muslim European countries, not "your" type of countries. Your comparison is meaningless, and is different than the one you originally made.
3. They are not different than the majority. I am asking you to prove that they are a representative sample of that country's population. (Still waiting!)
EDIT: You suggest that I am the one cherry picking, but you're the one failing to comprehend an important qualifier on the 36%, namely it is only 16 to 24 year olds, and you are ignoring the rest of the (positive) statistics in that paragraph:
"On religious issues a poll reported that 36% of 16–24 year olds believe if a Muslim converts to another religion they should be punished by death, compared to 19% of 55+ year old Muslims"
"However around 83% of Muslims are proud to be a British citizen, compared to 79% of the general public, 77% of Muslims strongly identify with Britain while only 50% of the wider population do, 86.4% of Muslims feel they belong in Britain, slightly more than the 85.9% of Christians, 82% of Muslims want to live in diverse and mixed neighbourhoods compared to 63% of non-Muslim Britons"
"A poll reported that 59% of Muslims would prefer to live under British law, compared to 28% who would prefer to live under sharia law."
Frankly, I'm not going to bitch too loudly if I think Muslims should cut themselves some slack regarding converts. What is the threat to you, so long as no action is taken on anyone, if one British Muslim wants to think a British ex-Muslim should be stoned for conversion? Regardless, by no means is the belief you are parading about a "majority" belief. You are shifting the goalposts.
> I'd venture to say that people, in general, that are willing to move (east to west, or west to east) are probably more inclined to adapt to the place where they are going than the ones that stay in their country of origin.
Also, so, know you are telling us that these people choose to migrate West, they are not really forced to do so? It's quite an incoherent sentence from someone defending (as I do actually) that most of these people have no choice but to leave their country because of the war.
But well, we all know coherence and politics don't really go well together with most of the people.
Is it that hard to fathom that there's multiple variables at play in deciding when one decides to leave their homeland for greener pastures? Cultural factors, economic factors, social factors, the presence of war/peace are all things that play into an individual's decision to pack up and move. Different people have difference tolerance for different things.
As a thought experiment: someone with a higher tolerance for different cultures and a lower tolerance for violence is more likely to move sooner than someone with an equivalent tolerance for violence and a lower tolerance for different cultures, no?
> But well, we all know coherence and politics don't really go well together with most of the people.
Mhmm, I can definitely see that. Make better arguments than "Muslims are scary!" and you wouldn't have to resort to underhandedness.
So, migrants are not a good sample of the population of the country they originate from. They are special in some way and by taking a 3000 Km journey trough Africa they are already Westernised even before setting foot in Europe.
Makes perfect sense... I mean, makes perfect sense to try and deny reality in such an obvious way.
Fair enough, they have strong religious beliefs. So do lots of people. Why does that mean Muslims shouldn't be allowed into a given country? Why should Islam be singled out?
Also, apparently from the same survey:
"Furthermore, the willingness of Turkish migrants and their descendents to integrate into German society remains high and is climbing. Whereas 70 percent said in 2010 that they want to "absolutely and without reservations integrate into German society," the new survey found that 78 percent of respondents agreed. Similarly, whereas 59 percent said two years ago that they wanted to belong to German society, 75 percent say so now. Fully 95 percent say that all children with Turkish backgrounds should go to day care facilities so as to learn German prior to entering school."
Seriously, the complete hypocrisy of your comment is too big to actually be true.
So, we are a bunch of xenophobes because we are concerned about people that clearly have social norms that are against our most basic principles of freedom are entering our countries.
But when 62% of Muslims already living in Germany say they want to live only next to other Muslims then, you don't see a problem there and claim they are perfectly integrated.
Seriously, you took hypocrisy to an all new level with that comment.
If we say: We want to live only next to other people that share the basics of European culture = we are a bunch of racist pigs. If they say: We want to live only next to Muslims = nothing to see here, just perfectly integrated and westernised Muslims.
I've never said anything about anyone being racist, so forget the playing the victim card a la "bunch of racist pigs."
Being afraid of outsiders is pretty much the definition of "xenophobia," so yes, you are seemingly a xenophobe. [1] And, self-describedly, an Islamophobe. ("So, you really shouldn't have to ask why are we afraid of letting them in in such big numbers")
I've never claimed perfect integration, I'm claiming that I don't think that letting Muslims into Western countries is going to cause the social fabric to crumble as you seem to think. I would hope that both sides could be a little more accommodating: Western countries allowing disadvantaged refugees safe harbor, and Muslim immigrant communities willing to adapt somewhat to Western standards. There is actual research done on integration in these communities, above and beyond this single poll that you've been hanging on to. [2] Despite what you insist on believing, immigrants do actually adapt to their environments.
Lastly, you seem to want to paint the issue as cut and dry: put special restrictions on entry for Muslims, and social conflict won't arise between people who have differing values. That doesn't solve any issues! What do you do about disaffected Muslim communities already in Western countries? What is the best way to ensure a harmonious society? I think the answer lies somewhere between your claims of "don't let them in" and "let them all in and Sharia law will come to the West." Instead of castigating existing Islamic communities and placing restrictions on them, why not give them a fair shake and see what happens? A "fair shake" meaning one that doesn't single them out for their religious beliefs. (Hey, isn't that one of those "social freedom values" you were talking about?)
36% of Muslims living in UK believe if a Muslim converts to another religion they should be punished by death. But I'm sure you will find some way to nitpick out of this and tell me that these Muslims don't count. Right?
Also, in case you intellectual honesty doesn't allow you to figure out, these are that Muslims that in their great majority are supposed to be already westernised since they actually lived for a long time (or were even born) in the West.
Take off the hate goggles and maybe you'll see that your sarcasm is actually true:
"these are that Muslims that in their great majority are supposed to be already westernised" == "86.4% of Muslims feel they belong in Britain, slightly more than the 85.9% of Christians"
86.4% sounds like a "great majority" (whatever that means), to me.
Oh yes, they are westernised into 36% of them (the young ones, the ones that mostly were already born here) thinking that whoever leaves the religion of Islam should be killed.
Geez, I seriously wonder what is your concept of NOT westernised? 50%, 70%, 100% of them believing in murder in the name of their religion or what? Please let us know if you actually have a number or if anything fits into your version of "westernised"
rmxt I don't think there's much point debating with this guy. He's not interested in learning and sharing his understanding. Only interested in proving he's right and I'm not even sure he knows what he's trying to prove right anymore. He's finding anything he can to backup his argument, not sharing sources that he used to formulate his opinions.
You've actually posted "sources" that disagree with your original claim. In case you've forgotten:
"More than 50% of these refugees believe that whoever leaves the faith of Islam should suffer the death penalty and that adultery should be dealt with stoning to death."
1. You've posted nothing about refugees. The German article talks about Turkish immigrants in general. The Pew poll talks about Muslims in their native lands. Since when are these terms equivalent terms?
2. Even if we take if((Muslims in the UK == refugees) == TRUE), your Wikipedia source explicitly contradicts your original statement. Only 36% of a small age cohort believes that people that leave the faith of Islam should suffer a horrible fate. That number is even less for Muslims outside of that age bracket. Regardless, the group "Muslims in the UK" is not strictly equivalent to "refugees" no matter how much you wish it to be true.
3. Lastly, you disregard all of the information that suggests immigrants actually feel like they belong to their new homelands. Yes, as you've shown, some Muslims have beliefs that Westerners might consider vile (e.g., death penalty for conversion), but the fact of the matter is that in both the UK and Germany the majority of the Muslims polled actually feel like they are part of the country.
I am not trying to make anything disappear: I've acknowledged and addressed every source you have posted, yet you cannot come up with anything more than "Muslims are scary" and "They don't assimilate" despite what actual research shows. Furthermore, you hypocritically suggest that we should single out Muslims for their religious beliefs, in the name of "protect[ing] the social freedom values we hold dear in the West." How can you support "freedom of religion," one of the foremost in the pantheon of social freedoms, while saying that you want to filter immigrants/refugees based on their religion?
In case you missed it here [1]:
"We conclude that Muslim migrants do not move to Western countries with rigidly fixed attitudes; instead, they gradually absorb much of the host culture, as assimilation theories suggest."
I get the impression that you don't step outside your comfort zone very often, much less interact with people of different faiths or races in your daily life. Before you put words in my mouth, I never once suggest we tolerate murder or stoning. People who take action on beliefs like that should be vigorously persecuted. Until then, I don't think it's much different than asking a Christian, "Would a non-believer go to Hell when they die?" That is to say, it's a hypothetical question of faith, not one of action. Feel free to disagree with that opinion, but at least acknowledge that in doing so you're running afoul of the "social freedom values" that you so dearly want to protect.
How many destitute people do you house in your own home? Why only that number and not more? If zero, why is that? What percentage of your income are you donating to support refugees? Why is that percentage not higher?
Ooo, there's a hefty underlying assumption in your post.
I have previously taken people off the street, three times.
I do not currently have anyone living in my home because I have moved back to my disabled Mums which is a 3 bedroom house already with 5 people living there.
Why am I living at my Mums?
I give 100% of my time to helping others and i'm in the process of starting a social enterprise to develop technology to help others in a variety of situations. We've already designed and nearly finish an app to help women in domestic violence situations, tools to help kids with dyslexia, tools for autism. Every penny will go back into creating more tools and technologies to help.
Then I can buy an Island. Yep, i'm not even kidding that's my ambition.
"What percentage of your income are you donating to support refugees? Why is that percentage not higher?" - I currently give no funds to refugees because I put all of my funds into creating other projects to help others in different domains. I feel that investing in these which will generate more income will give more income to help more people.
Caseysoftware - i've had exactly three people crash at my house who were homeless strangers. Only for a few nights each.
I have also got chatting to a homeless dude who turned out to be an artist. He carried on a pen drive pictures he'd created over the last few years but he had no computer access and no way to get them. I said i'd take a look and the next day went into a shop and printed every single picture, paid for it and gave it to him.
I have no problem giving to strangers and not getting anything in return. I get something back naturally, I feel happier that they are happier.
Hence i'm in the process of starting a social enterprise =).
Yes, it is intellectually dishonest. The submission/posted website does suggest inviting refugees into one's own home, but you are the one who suggested that we should compare "fear of refugees on a national level" (ashleyp's post "But what's the fear about letting refugees into the country?") to "fear of letting a stranger into one's home" (your post "How many homeless people do you let crash at your place each night?") That's not a sound comparison. Nowhere has anyone stated that you (the impersonal you) should take refugees in, while I don't.
I am not suggesting that any individual be mandated to keep refugees (or anyone that they don't want) in their home. I am suggesting that pooled resources (taxes, which aren't "someone else's resources") go towards maximizing the benefit for the most number of people, inclusive of immigrants.
I won't be for a long time. I've just moved back into my disabled Mum's house which has 3 small bedrooms and 5 people. Cramped conditions but I work as much as possible on a social enterprise.
In a few years time I dream i'll be able to provide much more housing than space on my couch. There are alternatives to just giving housing.
I take it you've spoken to loads of refuges then and that's exactly what they said then? "Our childrens lives are at risk, but we fancy risking them more to come to a generous country".
I think you misunderstood my point and took it too literally: who cares who's responsible. We can still help people unconditionally without expecting anything in return but within reason.
"Hey man, you're going through a really hard time at the moment. It's not my fault what has happened to you and it's not your fault this has happened to you either. But I would be happy to help you regardless."
Now, wouldn't that be an amazing place to be? Well done Germany, Iceland and the others.
--- Slightly off topic
There's videos of locals all going up and greeting refuges and offering toys, food, donations. I can't imagine how amazing it must feel after years of hardship and death on your door to see happy faces greeting you with open arms. That right there would give me hope and a strong feeling of wanting to do everything possibly to repay the people who helped me in my desperate time of need.
P.s I wasn't a refugee, but I did grow up in refuges as a child and I met and spoke to refugees. This was going back 18 years ago now, much has changed but I met the most incredible and inspirational people there.
The legal codes we're subject to, whether we are or we aren't.
I believe in most locales people are responsible for their own children, but - and correct me if I'm wrong, happy to learn something - I don't think there's anything in there that makes anyone responsible for random strangers on the other side of the planet.
Again, this doesn't have anything to do with whether we should be responsible for random strangers on the other side of the planet.
But - we can choose to be. Or choose not to be. I.e we, individually say if we are or are not. It is our choice.
I choose to be (as much as I can, and I may not be able to do much in these circumstances but I try in others of my life as much as possible and I dedicate most of my time to others).
I choose to be because I believe this builds a better planet and it encourages help rather than a "I'm not helping i'm not responsible. Find the person to blame and make them pay". But how do we ever find the person to blame?
Is it the refugee coming over in hope with their family for a better life?
Is it the people fighting in the war?
The people who started the war?
Who should pay the price?
In my studies of humanity and cultures the place that most inspired me was an island where every child was taken care of by every family on that island. There were no barriers, parents treated every kid as their own.
So, forgive my post if it has come across as convincing people they should take responsibility that was not the case. I was asking a genuine question in the sense, why can we not help? Why does responsibility matter really?
I don't think any country has to be responsible for anything in order to accept refugees, do you? If you are fleeing from war, then you should be able to apply for asylum/refugee status everywhere. Doesn't mean that every country should accept them,but the implication that EU countries are not responsible for the conflict so they shouldn't help out is.....weird.
Maybe EU shouldn't be sending help to people affected by tsunamis, or earthquakes too? In the end, we are not responsible for it, so why should my tax money be going to some poor people in a country I've never been to or plan to go to?
"Luckily there are some leaders out there that are not afraid of this stupid political correctness"
I am pretty sure some people said the same thing about Hitler calling out Jews, not being afraid of political correctness, exposing them for what they were! Everyone knew what letting jews sprawl might lead to!
>>> It "amazes" me why these "refugees" flock to Germany or Great Britain and not to their very wealthy brethren in countries such as Kuwaii, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Arab Emirates, etc... Same culture, same religion and they are much closer!
Some of the "alternative" countries you mention are direct supporters of the forces who have caused or are themselves involved in wars in countries from where refugees come. And despite "same" culture, "same" religion and proximity, I assume, these countries don't want to import social and financial problems.
>>> It also amazes me why the EU leaders insist for other European countries to accept these "refugees" when the majority of EU countries is not responsible for this situation at all.
As for EU countries not being responsible: UK, France and Germany (and other EU and non-EU NATO member countries in their tow) are very well directly involved and responsible. Political destabilization, intelligence services involvement, boots on the ground, flying aeroplanes and drones (and dropping bombs) over their heads, supporting local "rebel" forces. In Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen - they are all over the place. So, it's "natural" that the "weapons of mass immigration" are heading towards EU.
>>> Luckily there are some leaders out there that are not afraid of this stupid political correctness and they build fences on their borders because they know what this might lead to.
No, European "leaders" are not stupid for building fences. OK, they are... because by building fences they are dealing with the effect and not solving the cause. They are stupid for making themselves marionettes to the Oligarchy. For letting their countries become vassal states. Especially funny, all ex Warsaw-bloc countries, in pursuit of "freedom", have flocked in the arms of another tyrant (instead of trying being truly independent). Last but not least, they are stupid for not building good trans Atlantic ships and sending the refugees to the Oligarchy.
> It "amazes" me why these "refugees" flock to Germany or Great Britain and not to their very wealthy brethren in countries such as Kuwaii, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Arab Emirates, etc...
Out of these countries, only Egypt is even a signatory to the Refugee Convention and its Protocol. All of these countries range from "questionable human rights status" to "fascist theocracy".
More importantly, most Syrian refugees are in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq, all of which are already overflowing (Turkey alone has close to two million refugees). They are fleeing to closer countries, but these countries are already operating beyond capacity.
> Same culture, same religion and they are much closer!
How much do you think they have in common with the culture of Saudi Arabia?
> It also amazes me why the EU leaders insist for other European countries to accept these "refugees" when the majority of EU countries is not responsible for this situation at all.
The underlying reason here is Dublin III. According to the Dublin Regulation, asylum seekers are to be processed in the country where they enter the EU [1]. Right now, this means that Greece, Hungary, Italy, and Spain. You see the problem?
Now, Sweden, Austria, and Germany are helping out despite Dublin.
Finally, it doesn't matter who is responsible. The EU member states are bound by treaty and customary international law to deal with refugees on its territory; the principle of non-refoulement prevents them from sending refugees back into danger.
And yes, it would still be nice if the countries that helped create that mess also helped out with the refugees. As it pertains to Syria and Iraq, that would be in particular the members of the "coalition of the willing"; Daesh arose out of the ashes of Saddam's military [2].
> Luckily there are some leaders out there that are not afraid of this stupid political correctness and they build fences on their borders because they know what this might lead to.
It's pretty hard to build a fence in the middle of the sea.
[1] The Dublin Regulation also is intended to support the countries of entry through various means, but was designed for a much smaller number of asylum seekers.
You know, at least Europeans are consistent in their moral grandstanding.
For sure mass immigration from illiberal non-Western societies will cause damage to the cultural fabric of Europe and cause strain on the welfare systems, but at least you consistently apply your moral standards to yourself and not just America and Israel when it's convenient. That is admirable.
> mass immigration from illiberal non-Western societies will cause damage to the cultural fabric of Europe ....
That's not necessarily truth. In fact, most of immigrants are escaping from those illiberal societies. They want to have an European lifestyle. Become musicians, artists, engineers, etc... These kind of fresh workforce, who know what is it to live in poverty are actually much better at work and contribute more to the welfare system.
And if you go back far enough you can also talk about the crusades, the Romans invading Africa, the Greeks invading the middle east... and well, I don't know, you can certainly come up with more ideas.
Looks like we still have about 2000 more years of self deprecation here in Europe fellas, so that we can finally atone for the things our ancestors did.
But only we, cause all the crap that African empires and Islamic empires did in the past are obviously of no concern. They should automatically be forgiven and forgotten... we don't, obviously, we have to pay trough all eternity.
I think you meant some Western European countries. Because I don't see Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Poland, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and probably others on that list. And I definitely don't see Switzerland. Europe doesn't mean the European Union (founders).
It would help your comparison if half of those countries existed as independent entities before World War I.
The Baltic States and Ukraine were part of Russia when it went through its imperialistic/colonization phase, reaching into Alaska and Mongolia, and Fort Ross as noted on the linked page.
The German Empire is conveniently listed as Germany on that page, which leaves out the fact that the German Empire consisted of land that is now part of the Czech Republic, Poland, and Lithuania.
Of course, these modern day countries were some times subjugated much in the same way that true colonies were subjugated. That being said, I don't think it's fair to say that Western Europe is solely to blame for world wide colonization.
Actually Europe is very much responsible, only a small percentage flees to our countries and the reason is clear: People at least think that life in Europe is much better and in some cases they are correct. Please learn about the situation and not just judge it.
Life in Europe is better for now. Flood European countries with millions of "refugees" and it won't be for long.
On the other hand, I sometimes say "If immigration is so great, why don't you take a foreign lodger into your house?" At least these "Refugees welcome" people are putting their flats where their mouths are.
Awesome idea! It would be great if airbnb did something like this... They already have the infrastructure in place, they could support NGOs etc and probably get a tax break!
Your strange scrolling webpage makes it hard to read the actual content without scrolling past. Why do people insist on using this broken scrolling behaviour.
I'm sure they did a lot of user testing and decided that their Javascript-powered scrolling mechanism was a better user experience than the default browser behavior of just moving up and down proportionally to your mouse wheel.
Interesting. Looks like I'm in the exact opposite boat. I'm a Swiss citizen and moved to a developing country (that has huge population outflow atm due to illegal immigration) to live and work.
I achieved in 2 years (from scratch, no savings whatsoever) more than I ever could in Switzerland. My standard of living is incredible because of better purchasing power, and life is so much more fulfilling because you can actually change people's lives here.
In my experience the Swiss industry is also mostly non-meritocratic and hugely biased towards authority and xenophobia. Not to mention the rigidness of work culture itself. Looks like about 10% of the Swiss would agree with me. [1]
In my opinion, if you want to be an office employee, Switzerland is awesome, but if you want to be an entrepreneur or do anything of importance for the world, Switzerland is not the place.
We do Bitcoin and Blockchain development [1]. Full stack JS and Go. Founded the company a year ago, we're now 17 full time employees, fully bootstrapped. Equity and cash flow with several US based startups. Not to mention that we're now finishing projects international teams located in Switzerland weren't able to pull off.
As a side note, half of the team we replaced in Switzerland were from the ETH and Lausanne. Our interns here get more work done than those guys! It's completely surreal, which is why I felt so strongly about your comment.
I got a US Engineering degree from RIT, when I got back to to Switzerland I couldn't even get responses to waiter jobs, let alone programming. That said, I'm first generation Swiss with a non-Swiss name, they probably didn't even look at my CV.
I know people with similar stories in the industry, most of them in the Ukraine and Thailand actually.
Did you grow up in the US? I can totally imagine that people have issues adopting anywhere in Europe, as the culture here is not better or worse but just different.
I have a CS degree from a top-CS school in Europe. I would also not get jobs in the US, because no one knows anything but Oxford overseas.
But only those with more than 10 Million $ in their pockets. But now seriously, Switzerland is NOT taking any noticeable number of refugees. In the current political situation a suggestion to take refuges would be suicide for every politican.
I think you should read this article again. It is talking about the acceptance rate. It means a country which would only take one refuge and accept his asylum request would be on the top of this list. But yeah, details and facts are not the most important thing for our friends from the SVP.
And just for the record: I submitted this story under the title "Airbnb for refugees", with the quotes -- which I think might have yielded a more insightful discussion than the question of "Refugees welcome" (or not), to which the title was changed after an hour or so.
I really can't imagine anyone singing up for this except a few people.
The recent waves or unchecked immigration has produced nothing but negative effects to the population, to such an extent that even recent immigrants themselves want the doors shut.
my parants did this last month and the process was really fast and easy. the did this to improve their Arabic and help 2 jung people in need. I would do the same, if i had the room and i'm glad my old room at my parents house finally is usefull again.
also their small town is quit happy about the desition and quickly offert services and goods like language courses and a bicycle.
i worked in a refugee center and beleve me, it's nigther fun to be a refugee nor do you live the rich live (most foren education does not get recognize in austria), but you have made it in a save country. basicly its a bunch of people getting really bored waiting for their working permit, so why not integrate them turing this time??
Racism and xenophobia together with paranoid isolationism all the way to straight up facism have been on the rise recently, together with actual violence against refugees, that much is certainly true, but you forget that there are many different people with many different views living in Europe. The outpouring of support (donations, volunteer work) has also been rising a lot.
In Germany I have also seen a marked shift in media coverage, away from crisis reporting towards a more honest approach portraying practical solutions and steps, including volunteer work. The main evening news in Germany, for example, has been airing a portraial of volunteers and their work and has consistently shown the donation account number for wire transfers.
You may be stuck in your own isolationist filter bubble. There is a whole world out there.
You're conveniently ignoring the other's side of the argument: such as importing poverty, low wage or unskilled workers, crime, racism, xenophobia, radical ideologies and religions, incompatible views and behavior, things such as "no-go" zones, and all the other things that European countries and seeing with non-European immigration, is not a net benefit to society.
The rise of the native push-back against immigration is an effect of, and not a cause of the trouble.
Combined with a grim economic situation and dwindling economic opportunities (such as gainful employment) is also not helping much with integration matters.
Hence why people "stuck in your own isolationist filter bubble" are against it.
So refugees are to blame for xenophobia, racism and violent attacks on themselves? Stop hitting yourself, eh? That’s absurd, completely and utterly.
Basic human rights and human dignity should be on all our minds. Compared to that the problems you name are trivial matters. Oh my god, the obscenely rich Europeans might lose a tiny bit of their living standard, how horrific!
That’s arrogance on the ivory tower. (It’s so absurd to me that giving up a bit of your living standard in exchange for preserving more human dignity overall is always treated as self-evidently unacceptable. I’m not sure why that is. Yes, sometimes to insure that human rights are upheld and human dignity is persevered it is necessary to sacrifice. So what. Trivial matters to the super-rich like ourselves.)
All of this obviously doesn’t mean that pain, suffering and poverty don’t exist in Europe and those problems don’t get less important, sure, but comparatively speaking, I mean, come on … this attitude is just absurd.
> So refugees are to blame for xenophobia, racism and violent attacks on themselves? Stop hitting yourself, eh? That’s absurd, completely and utterly.
You are arguing with yourself as you are the one making that statement.
> Basic human rights and human dignity should be on all our minds. Compared to that the problems you name are trivial matters.
None of the things I listed, that are being brought in by immigration, are trivial matters. Those are things that break societies, not sustain them.
What we are seeing today with immigration are highly incompatible groups forming parallel societies within (and in many cases very intentionally), that are actively hostile to the host in many ways.
> I don’t think there is any truth at all to what you are saying.
So basically "You're wrong". Excellent way to refute their argument. I don't think you know much about the subject matter at all and just spouting a bunch of idealistic nonsense. So ghettos and no-go Islamic areas don't exist according to you, everyone is being wonderfully integrated throughout Europe, get real.
Extremist/nationalist parties are on the rise pretty much everywhere in Europe. Isn't it usually a good indicator that people are greatly unhappy? Granted that immigration may not be the only factor it is the favorite theme of nationalist groups.
'Does this project make money with putting refugees in touch with flats?'
'No, “Refugees Welcome“ is a non-profit organisation.
However, you can support our work with a donation to the association Mensch Mensch Mensch which carries this project. Our bank details are:
Mensch Mensch Mensch e.V.
IBAN: DE88430609671167120500
BIC: GENODEM1GLS
We can provide donation receipts.'
It's easy to hate the concept of immigration and, by extension, the thought of millions of immigrants pouring into your home country. In fact, we're hardwired to have an aversion to this idea. Humans have always formed small units such as families or tribes in order to compete with other humans for limited resources. Immigrants are easily lumped together into a menacing tribe of competitors.
But when you host someone, they stop being "just another immigrant" and you can start to see them for what they were the whole time: a real person with a voice, a smile, sorrow, joy, tastes, quirks, humor, goals, and dreams. Empathy is crucial.
It's not going to solve the larger problem of the millions of immigrants displaced by war or corrupt governance, but it probably will have a positive impact on thousands of lives, which is an awesome outcome for a small group of people looking to make a change through technology.
If humans are hardwired to be averse to "millions of immigrants pouring into your home country," why is that? Presumably you're referring to that aversion being chosen by natural selection. That suggests that we're less likely to have been descended from those who were more open to displacement by outside populations, and more likely to come from those who guarded their borders. Societies that don't keep barriers are less likely to pass on their genes or memes to the future.
I'm assuming that the main difference between then and now is that an increase in resources means we can share freely with more "outsiders." Presumably resources aren't infinite, so what's the upper bound? How would we know?
Just as you're not being (directly) forced to allocate resources to the homeless, the hosts aren't being forced to take in immigrants, and they are being paid rent.
So it really just comes down to how open-minded you want to be about potentially having a stranger in need as a tenant. If this sounds rewarding to you, then Refugees Welcome provides that opportunity. If not, you're free to rent to whomever you'd like.
This is cool! Another interesting project I came across is workeer.de, which is a job board for refugees. It's interesting because refugees in Germany do not have a work permit. Great way to help people with technology.
According to § 96 AufenthG it is illegal to aid people, who have no permit of residence and whose application for asylum has been denied. However, this is not as clear as it sounds, since emergency relief and humanitarian support is encouraged in general.
However, as I read § 96 (I am no lawyer), it is slightly biased toward trafficking and the commercial aspect of the facilitation of illegal entry.
I wish there was something like this for migrant workers, who often get treated as bad or even worse than refugees by their employers (yes, even in Germany)...
Maybe if the great powers weren't so busy playing geo-political chess by proxy there wouldn't be so many refugees. Syria was fairly stable before the west decided Assad should go. Syria was fairly stable before the west destabilized Iraq. This is the problem.
Syria was fairly stable until its people made demands and their leader responded with gun fire. Not sure where you see the role of "the West" in that escalation. Do you think the problem was that the West sneakily infected Syrian people with the absurd idea that they could have the same rights as people elsewhere? Or maybe that the West failed to support Syrian rebels when they begged for it, allowing Assad to go on fighting his people for years and IS and other jihadist groups to gain ground in the country?
Most Syrians supported Assad. Also, many of the militant revolutionaries were imported from other countries and supported/trained by foreign powers including the gulf states. Now we have ISIS which is simply an extension of that program that has maybe gotten a bit out of control.
Foreign meddling caused this problem. Very simply.
That's interesting. When exactly and according to what survey did most Syrians support Assad? Do they still support him today or if not, when did they stop?
If you're trying to say that the site's concept humiliates refugees, please be more specific as I don't see where it does that. If you're just trying to be funny, try harder, or better yet, just leave it alone.
The obvious thought is how nice and kind this all is, but what if after the 2 week honeymoon period you want the person to move out? It can happen with friends when someone needs to crash for a few weeks/month or so and people get tired of not living their normal lives, so why not with a stranger? If that person has literally nowhere else to go and no money, are you really going to kick them out on the street?
If you ever let out a property or room in a property without a contract you're up the creek if you ever want to make them leave. But of course, people don't think about that at the start... So in that case, good luck getting them out.
Well, unless you are 10 years old, you need to know how to accept responsibility. If you accept someone to live under your roof, you need to plan for a situation when they can't/won't move out. Similar to adopting a child - if you get tired of being a parent after two weeks, you can't just give the child back.
I know some people who would be ok with living with a refugee. I know some people who wouldn't. I'm one of them too. But I think it's alright either way.
The website gives at least some insight to that problem:
>What happens if we don't get along?
In this case the same will happen as in any other shared flat: You try to find a solution together - if necessary we will help out. A buddy accompanies each placement process as an additional contact person (more information sign up as a buddy). If this does not work, there is the possibility to dissolve the housing situation.
Why would anyone want to? Germany desperately needs immigration to keep up the economy and welfare system and overall immigrants pay more to Germany than they get out of it.
I don't know about Germany but the average immigrant coming to Sweden currently has more education than the general population in Sweden. (11.5 years vs 11)
They are also unemployed at a far higher rate than the natives and cause many times for crime. Equating education levels from a broken state to Western European education levels is a false equivalency as well.
> I don't know about Germany but the average immigrant coming to Sweden currently has more education than the general population in Sweden. (11.5 years vs 11)
reply
This is simply false. Please provide a source for this claim, preferably SCB.
Official statistics claim that Syrian refugees have 3 year university degree in 10% of cases, and the Swedish population have 24% a degree.
Not sure what study you're referring to, but if it uses the term "immigrant" it probably merges refugees with "regular immigrants" - that is other EU citizens immigrating for work for example.
Plus, going to school 6 more months doesn't mean that they are more employed. What are the numbers regarding refugees and unemployment for example?
Of course I can think of such scenarios, I can't think of any scenario in which this would be a big problem though.
A lot of people live with flatmates who they didn't really know before living together. It's unusual not to for students. This doesn't always work out perfectly either.
To blow this up into a huge problem, if a refugee is involved, isn't anything but racism.
It's to do with people with very few alternatives. If there's not a proper contract in advance, well, you'll have to live with the consequences because the courts probably won't want to hear from you.
Sorry, did you just complain that pictures of the refugees is properly representative of the real refugees in question? Should it be white? Japanese maybe? No pictures at all? Pretty sure you'd complain then too.
Is this the Arab-Spring ripple effect or should I say, aftermath?
This is a good Humanitarianism move, it eventually will boil down to education, job, welfare however, the government needs to be prepared.
Due to the huge inequality of birth rate among different races/religions, I foresee gradually the Arabic population will take over Europe, over probably one or two hundred years that is. Similar thing will happen in USA, with the Latino will become majority, over time that is.
It's all math and physics, the entropy and chaos theory, it's nature force.
Latino don't live in closed communities. The often marry and have kids with the other local communities and there is very little prejudice about that from both parts. The real separation between communities in this case is socio-economic.
With Muslims though, it's an all different story, so, yes, it will probably have social consequences in the future.
