
A man who put up $1.5M to help 200 Syrian refugees - panic
http://torontolife.com/city/life/jim-estill-the-man-who-saved-200-syrian-refugees/
======
bluesharpie
I live in Canada, stories like this one make me happy, but there is a huge
difference in how the Canadian Government handled this crisis and how Germany
did. I have met a couple of Syrian refugees living in Canada and they were
indeed from Syria and their lives were indeed in danger before fleeing their
home countries, that is why the results are positive. But in Germany the
situation is a complete mess, thousands of economic migrants making it harder
for real refugees, many which are a security threat. I have seen both sides of
the coin and I don't think someone has to be a xenophobe to be against taking
refugees and someone doesn't have to be naive to stand outside holding
"refugees welcome" signs

~~~
jdavis703
Why are economic migrants considered a lower class than war refuges? Aren't
both man-made disasters?

EDIT: This is a genuine question. I might not agree with the answers, but I
want to know what makes people make this distinction.

~~~
detaro
Refugees (in the sense of what asylum laws see as those deserving help) get
special treatment because they flee from a high risk of dying, being unfairly
persecuted etc: concrete risks to their basic well-being.

The term Economic migrants is used for those that are not in immediate danger,
just in search of a better living situation. If the economic situation in your
country is so bad there is widespread starvation you'd qualify as a refugee,
if I as a european move to the US because tech jobs there pay better I'd still
be an economic migrant.

Asylum is an exception to other immigration rules for those that really need
it. If you are not in danger, you should follow the normal rules.

------
louprado
“I didn’t want to be 80 years old and know that I did nothing during the
greatest humanitarian crisis of my time.”

As an American citizen who publicly supported both gulf wars and contributes
disproportionally to climate change, the above is an understatement of how I
feel about the Syrian crisis.

Somewhat related, we have cities in the U.S. that are depressed in part
because of population decline. An influx of immigrants could be mutually
beneficial. The City of Detroit, for example, has no budget or incentive to
demolish condemned homes because the cost of demolition exceeds the vacant
land value. A refugee could be granted two homes on the promise they demolish
one home. Perhaps one livable home can be constructed from reclaimed materials
of the two.

Last I checked, it cost $10k to demolish a small home and a barely livable COD
home costs around $5k. Receiving $10k in property for delivering a $10k
service doesn't seem like a handout.

Granted refugees require support and resources beyond housing but this
inspirational article on Jim Estill and his team of volunteers offer much
encouragement in this regard.

edit: grammar

~~~
ibejoeb
If such a program were to exist, why would the United States not make it
available to its own homeless or otherwise impoverished citizens?

Regardless of the beneficiary, how to these people otherwise live. Where do
they work and go to school? What do they eat?

~~~
toyg
Well, _obviously_ because the home-grown poor "made bad choices" and all that
responsibility spiel. /s

More realistically, the local poor would just move from A to B with no
improvement. People fleeing warzones have different backgrounds and
incentives.

I agree on the general-welfare issue, but a lot of these refugees have very
low expectations.

------
faitswulff
What's really uplifting to me about this article is that it points out Canada
has decades of policies that are open to immigrants and refugees. Those
refugees pay it forward to the next generation of immigrants in a virtuous
cycle. One of my Torontonian friends recently posted about hearing "an old
Chinese man speaking German in an Italian restaurant owned by Vietnamese
refugees," or something like that, and it just seems like a diverse haven of
different peoples.

~~~
toyg
You also had Mayor Ford not long ago, though. It's just that you still have a
critical mass of first-generation immigrants from poor countries; as soon as
that declines naturally (because of density ceilings), you will see more and
more of the problems you see in Australia and US cropping up. Don't rest on
your laurels, you are a young country.

~~~
jacalata
I don't think Australia is a good example of "problems Canada will see when
they are older".

~~~
toyg
It's not about time only, it's about developing a critical mass of people who
are detached enough from their migrant roots that they get to claim
"nativity", hence drawing a line.

------
Tharre
No matter how heartwarmingly good this appears, it's terribly misguided. This
approach does not scale. You simply cannot provide hundreds of thousands of
refugees with food, shelter and education in a 1st world country. We have all
seen what even a few of them do to countries: mass xenophobia, terror and
rising popularity of right-wing parties.

If we truly wanted to help these people and make a difference then the best
thing we can do is provide local refugee camps with the resources to take care
of their greatest needs. They know much better than we ever could what is
needed. Hell, we can't even communicate with many of them, as many don't speak
English and we have far too little translators.

And meanwhile we need to actually tackle many of the root problems of why
we're in this hole mess to begin with. Solving many of those are hard, others
not so much. For example, could we please stop selling those countries weapons
to kill themselves with?

~~~
3131s
> _For example, could we please stop selling those countries weapons to kill
> themselves with?_

But as Wolf Blitzer so astutely pointed out on CNN, that would deeply impact
the bottom line of America's 'defense' contractors!

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk0TqIbPNbY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk0TqIbPNbY)

------
anondon
Nice to read this among all the xenophobic nonsense.

A lot of people have this notion that welcoming (muslim) immigrants is like
asking for terrorism, that they take away jobs, that they don't integrate well
into society and they are out to convert everyone to Islam or something like
that.

I don't know what makes believe these crazy ideas, but the media certainly
doesn't help, painting every terrorist attack as something to do with
immigration policy or muslims. Social media plays a major role in spreading
all these wrong stories. Unfortunately the vast majority of internet users get
their news from social media platforms, where emotional appeal of a story
trumps facts, which is something fake news writers have exploited to great
success.

I have no idea how people can support policies which actively want to stop
helping immigrants. It's a humanitarian crisis and we need to do everything to
help people who are suffering. As simple as that.

~~~
mistermann
"Nice to read this among all the xenophobic nonsense.

A lot of people have this notion that welcoming (muslim) immigrants is like
asking for terrorism, that they take away jobs, that they don't integrate well
into society and they are out to convert everyone to Islam or something like
that."

I don't care for parts of that comment. There are a lot of people in Canada
that need help, and the notion that many people hold that you should help your
countrymen before others, while somewhat heartless, absolutely is not "crazy"
or _necessarily_ xenophobic.

> the vast majority of internet users get their news from social media
> platforms, where emotional appeal of a story trumps facts, which is
> something fake news writers have exploited to great success

Indeed.

By the way, I thought this was a great, heartwarming, inspirational story and
would like to see more like it, but saying anyone who disagrees with this
approach is _necessarily_ a racist or xenophobe, is incorrect.

~~~
meowface
>the notion that many people hold that you should help your countrymen before
others, while somewhat heartless, absolutely is not "crazy" or necessarily
xenophobic.

No, it's not crazy or xenophobic. But it's interesting, because from a
philosophical standpoint: what difference does it make? Why should you
_really_ help someone who lives down the street from you over someone 10 miles
away? Why someone 30 miles away over someone 300 miles away? Because
circumstance led you to randomly live near them?

Of course, the real answer is that it's hard to take in more people without
externalities (like more splitting of funding, etc.). But the notion of
helping your countrymen before non-countrymen on principle seems foolish and
insular to me. People have feelings and desires whether they're born in the US
or Canada or Iraq.

~~~
victorhooi
Ironically, I think your claim that:

> helping your countrymen before non-countrymen on principle seems foolish and
> insular to me

is a bit insular =).

If you travel a bit around the world, having pride in your country, or
camaraderie with your countrymen isn't that unusual a viewpoint. In fact, your
view-point is a bit unusual (although that doesn't necessarily make it wrong).
Many people will put their own country/tribe/family before strangers.

I'm probably the other side of the coin to you. To me, the next step is
treating your country as nothing more than a business-transaction - I pay
taxes, you give me services. I don't like that viewpoint.

Having a sense of civic pride - in a shared culture of history with those
around you - can lead to many selfless things, and binds people together. Of
course, taken too far, you get jingoism - but to my mind, there is a happy
middle-ground.

~~~
meowface
I'm aware my position is the uncommon one, but that's irrelevant to the
discussion.

>To me, the next step is treating your country as nothing more than a
business-transaction - I pay taxes, you give me services. I don't like that
viewpoint.

I guess that's my ideal world. I think that's where we're all inevitably
moving, though it'll be slow.

------
EGreg
I believe that the UN should make a Convention on the Rights of the Refugee.

Right now countries just pick and choose what to do with refugees in conflicts
that, often, they helped exacerbate.

If this convention existed back in the early 20th century then many Jews would
have been saved from the Holocaust, there would be no stateless Palestinians
today, and so forth.

As it is, I find it frustrating that the question isn't dealt with seriously:
"why do so few Arab countries give asylum and citizenship to Arab refugees?"
Lebanon did it, with Syrian refugees. Jordan did it with Palestinian refugees.
But by and large, Arab countries don't help fellow Arab refugees.

What makes you Arab? Speaking Arabic and sharing a common culture. Russia
would have taken in Russian refugees. It is one of their "five points". They
even annexed Crimea and gave everyone there Russian citizenship.

Speaking the same language means you can integrate into societ FAR more
quickly, get a job and support your family. It is also better for the country
as skilled workers can become productive faster.

But it seems that international pressure must be applied to make Arab
countries take in Arab refugees at a far greater rate than European countries
with totally different culture.

EDIT:

According to this, a similarly named convention exists, but does not require
countries to TAKE the refugees. And most Arab countries are not even
signatories to it.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_S...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees)

So as a result getting the real figures is a complete clusterfuck, with Arab
governments claiming some numbers and stretching the definitions:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrians_in_Saudi_Arabia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrians_in_Saudi_Arabia)

~~~
soperj
Syria was actually one of the most known for taking Arab refugees. They took
on huge numbers of refugees from Iraq when the U.S invaded.

~~~
EGreg
Yes, Syria did.

------
foota
Seems like this is a great case study (or perhaps anecdote) to illustrate the
benefits of a basic income.

------
nepotism2016
Good on him, he did more than I would ever do. However I believe in helping
communities rather than individuals

------
capitalist2332
Good thing to do, but makes me think how much more effective (in terms of help
given per dollar spent) it would be to help these people in some other place
where the costs of living are much lower.

------
hoppa_liza
It is amazing what can be achieved when people are looked at as people, not
numbers. A refreshing story to break the immigrants-are-devils vs immigrants-
are-angels fight.

------
siliconviking
What rock do you live under Sir, may I ask?

~~~
dang
Personal attacks will get your account banned here, so please don't do this
again. Instead, please (re-)read the site rules, and post civilly and
substantively, or not at all:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html)

We detached this comment from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13234860](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13234860)
and marked it off-topic.

~~~
coldshower
Dang, I'm interested to know why you shadowban some accounts (obviously
without warning, or else it wouldn't be a shadownban) and yet give others
advance warning in a very public way.

Is there a criteria or policy you follow?

~~~
dang
For example, when people have been serially spamming HN for years and creating
dozens of accounts to do it with, we ban them outright.

~~~
coldshower
Sounds fair enough.

------
internaut
This is secular Creationism.

~~~
meowface
How?

~~~
internaut
There are many ways to answer this. Here is a high level explanation of why we
are in disagreement. Instead of explaining 'How' and getting bogged down in
the details and worse, trapped by semantics, I shall explain 'Why' I think we
differ. Then if you want to get into the specifics we can.

I used to be a Creationist, how the political ideology of Progression thinks
about biology is very similar to how Creationists have thought about
biological evolution down through the last two centuries.

While both camps see each other as being extraordinarily different, this is
not compelling evidence that they aren't related, note the conflict between
Shia and Sunni. They see each as being oppositional... Similarly Progressivism
and Creationism come from the same source. If you trace back the history of
ideas to ye olde England and Germany this becomes startlingly obvious. It is
not a coincidence that the phrase 'social justice' is Catholic in origin.

Why this matters is that when Darwin set off his Atom Bomb concerning the
Origin of Species, he immediately ran into direct conflict with the Church
because the implications of evolution theory contradicted the account of life
being formed in Genesis.

Today Darwin's ideas have won out over Christianity. Most Christians believe
in evolution theory, and they take the first book of the Bible as not being a
literal account of reality. In my opinion this ultimately neutered the
political legitimacy of Christianity.

However a descendant of Christianity, Progressivism, continues to not believe
in Evolution. Unlike Christianity, it has managed to exert enormous political
influence through the education system, especially the universities. It is
what has tabooed discussion of human speciation.

This is less than obvious because most students would initially deny that they
disbelieve Evolution theory. Then, as it moves further up against their
taboos, red lights begin to flash and they begin exhibiting failures of
imagination.

There are students that;

\- Believe evolution explains the animal/plant kingdoms but not that of humans
"there hasn't been enough time for human evolution" (christian variant: humans
are special).

\- Believe evolution explains human evolution in the past but not the present.

\- Believe evolution explains human evolution below the neck only. Here the
brain is immutable but obvious physiological changes are fine.

\- Believe evolution explains the development of the human brain but insist
that nonetheless human speciation is impossible (christian variant:
'microevolution' i.e. small changes up to a limit - The reason for the
constrained scope is never explained, only assumed).

None of them want to acknowledge that if evolution is real then humans evolve,
and if humans evolve, then logically there could be evidence for different
groups of humans. If such evidence existed for the beginning of human
speciation the strongest evidence would be found in human population groups
which have been separated for the longest period of time e.g. 100,000 years.

As you know science is very dependent on the ability to replicate experiments
and make predictions. This is why in universities in the West, this subject is
so tabooed there are few scientists willing to stick their necks out by doing
those experiments. One of the men who discovered DNA, James Watson, is
blacklisted because of some off the cuff remarks about race. If a bollocking
can happen to somebody who made one of the most important discoveries in
biology, it can sure happen to a less prestigious scientist. It is a tabooed
subject because Progressivism is founded on theological roots i.e. the premise
of their beliefs was never rational to begin with. The Chinese, who have no
such taboo, Christian or Progressive, are making huge strides in biological
science because the Progressivism meme is not strong in China.

This documentary 'DNA Dreams' is worth watching to fully appreciate this.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dVv5RMwzuo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dVv5RMwzuo)

------
known
Since 45% of USA is uninhabited, America should absorb more Syrian refugees

------
Clobbersmith
As somebody who grew up in Guelph, this doesn't surprise me. Few other places
I've been to would have a CEO spending his own money to help out complete
strangers.

------
vadym909
I was just wondering the other day, why none of the richest people in the
world were doing more to help solve or bring some relief to the Syrian
crisis/refugees. I guess you need heart not money to be generous!

------
known
No
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estill)

