|
Volkerball posted:That's not gonna happen, friend. Here's how this will work. You all will get together and push for an EU refugee deal that mostly fairly distributes refugees throughout Europe, while removing a bunch of obstacles for refugees to make it there, with the intent being a massive increase in refugee resettlement. This will happen, and it will be good. The US will not take part in that debate. 20 years from now, when people in my shoes are saying "the US is 20 years behind the rest of the world on its refugee policy, and it's archaic and disgusting," and you all are talking about how rear end backwards the US and Americans are, then we might get progress. Not one second before. Sorry, that's all I've got for you. I think you're optimistic about our levels of compassion/competence/foresight. Most of Europe is retarded and is definitely going to half-rear end this, so unless you and others (cough Israel) are willing to half-rear end it with us, there's probably not going to be a fully-assed solution. People can apportion blame for that if they wish, but it's not realistic for the US (and indeed the UK) to sit behind bodies of water and moralise about why Poland and Hungary and Greece are being inhumane to people we displaced. For the US, France and the UK it's a political opportunity as well. Perhaps we an change the standard Middle Eastern image of the US/WE from 'Those dumbasses who hosed up Iraq/Libya' to 'Those guys who save Muslim women and children from the grip of ISIS when they didn't really have to'. It's disappointing that none of us are exploiting that. lmaoboy1998 fucked around with this message at 11:19 on Sep 6, 2015 |
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 11:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 07:37 |
|
|
Cameron was sticking to "We can only solve this at source" until he was embarassed by that dead boy. Like bombing the poo poo out of ISIS and Assad was going to help all the people who are currently refugees drowning in the sea. If it will even help anyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 11:17
|
|
|
XMNN posted:Cameron was sticking to "We can only solve this at source" until he was embarassed by that dead boy. Like bombing the poo poo out of ISIS and Assad was going to help all the people who are currently refugees drowning in the sea. If it will even help anyone. No Assad is the sole problem, now please support the mass bombardment of people who have no idea how the gently caress they're even going to make it through the week alive. Seriously Cameron, and the Tories are vile, and I can't imagine the state of electoral politics that the Tories gained a majority. Nonsense fucked around with this message at 11:21 on Sep 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 11:18
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Kurdi's family fled from Damascus to Aleppo in 2012 after his father was detained by the regime and tortured, and then to Kobani after fighting in Aleppo picked up. He and his family were absolutely displaced by Assad. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. That is a serious oversight by FAIR, but it doesn't really detract from the salient point. The US is already heavily intervening in Syria, in ways that have fueled the humanitarian crisis. To call Syria a consequence of military inaction (as you yourself have done) is plainly incorrect. Red and Black fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 11:26
|
|
|
katlington posted:You can't bomb the problem away, so what can you do? Sure you can.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 11:29
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:
If you're gonna try your hand at whitesplaining, at least try not to be militantly wrong about everything. I never said Assad was the sole problem, but he's the one responsible for the current state of Syria, the vast majority of deaths, and the vast majority of displacement. Ironically, a lot of refugees who knew they could talk the talk fled to ISIS held territory for a while, because it was spared the bombings for a year or two while the regime let them take care of some of the moderate rebel groups that actually presented a long term threat to the regime. Without Assad's bombings, there would be safe places in Syria outside of Rojava. But the bombings happen, and that's 90% of why half of Syria's population is displaced, the majority of whom were displaced by 2013 before ISIS even really existed in Syria. Would you at least maintain consistency and say it's wrong to bomb ISIS because of the civilian casualties that campaign causes? Because if you think ISIS is so depraved that civilian casualties are acceptable, but there's no good reason to destroy the regimes means to bomb bakeries and hospitals, you have no clue about the reality in Syria. Chomskyan posted:That is a serious oversight by FAIR, but it doesn't really detract from the salient point. The US is already heavily intervening in Syria, in ways that have fueled the humanitarian crisis. To call Syria a consequence of military inaction (as you yourself have done) is plainly incorrect. The US was not "heavily" intervening. 1 billion dollars is 1/4 of what we give to Israel every year for military funding. Meanwhile Iran is so involved in Syria that 600 men from its proxy Shia militias have been killed, nearly 200 Iranian soldiers have been killed, and several hundred more mercenaries paid for by Iran have been killed, to say nothing of the billions of dollars they have provided. And Russia has given Assad his entire ability to bomb indiscriminately through constant shipments of equipment and billions of dollars. The US isn't even the top opposition funder. Qatar and KSA take that honor, both of whom stepped in during the relative absence of the US and were able to co-opt the SNC with officials who answered to them. The Islamic Front, Ahrar al-Sham, and JaN are the 3 biggest non-ISIS opposition groups, and the US funded none of them. Those are primarily supported by Turkey, Qatar, and KSA, who have much deeper pockets for the cause. The US supported Harakat Hazm, who were like 200 strong and were killed off by JaN, and the Southern Front, who are inoffensive, but have mainly just held their ground to protect the border with Jordan. I would agree with you that if your strategy was to try and limit your exposure to this crisis, the US shouldn't have done anything militarily, because if you aren't going to provide a game-changing amount of aid, you're just going to prolong the conflict with a middling, rudderless strategy that does nothing. But we still see the end result here with a limited US role in the war, and it's worst case scenario, so doing literally nothing likely wouldn't have resulted in Syria looking much different. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 11:50 on Sep 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:If you're gonna try your hand at whitesplaining, at least try not to be militantly wrong about everything. I never said Assad was the sole problem, but he's the one responsible for the current state of Syria, the vast majority of deaths, and the vast majority of displacement. Ironically, a lot of refugees who knew they could talk the talk fled to ISIS held territory for a while, because it was spared the bombings for a year or two while the regime let them take care of some of the moderate rebel groups that actually presented a long term threat to the regime. Without Assad's bombings, there would be safe places in Syria outside of Rojava. But the bombings happen, and that's 90% of why half of Syria's population is displaced, the majority of whom were displaced by 2013 before ISIS even really existed in Syria. Would you at least maintain consistency and say it's wrong to bomb ISIS because of the civilian casualties that campaign causes? Because if you think ISIS is so depraved that civilian casualties are acceptable, but there's no good reason to destroy the regimes means to bomb bakeries and hospitals, you have no clue about the reality in Syria. You will not be able to tie anti-war sentiment with being pro-ISIS, I will not play that game, and I have always been consistent, I'v always said Assad is going nowhere, and you continue to believe his downfall is just around the corner. The guy has Russian dollars, and Russian soldiers, the conflict has grown far beyond your simple deductions that "OOGA BOOGA IF ONLY LEFTISTS GET HEAD OUT OF rear end AND BOMB BAD MUSLIMS TO SAVE GOOD MUSLIMS". The United States should attend to this refugee crisis, not create dozens more of them. Nonsense fucked around with this message at 12:05 on Sep 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
my dad posted:There's a problem I think of when I hear about integration through social pressure. A (Serbian) dude and his wife, who were friends of my grandparents, moved to Sweden. My family used to be really drat poor, and those guys used to bring stuff from Sweden, usually a bunch of clothes and toys that they'd give me. As time went on, they... Started being wary of us. Like, at one point, I took some weird brooch that was on their table because I was curious about it, and the woman slapped me on the hand while shouting "Drop it, you little thief!" Soon after they stopped coming. We never stole anything from them (or anyone else), and the impression I got is that my grandparents were friends with them, and didn't demand anything, but felt gratitude for the help provided. I just really don't like the idea of new refugees showing up only to discover that their own people consider them a pack of thieves or something like that. *shrug* I don't really see why integration would make you think all Serbs are thieves when you yourself are Serbian. Sounds like they were just a bit weird, or maybe had a falling out? Or maybe turned middle class or something and started thinking everyone poorer than them wanted to steal their stuff. Even if it did, the important thing for them, is that they can get along where they live, so that would surely be preferable to them being ostracized in their new home. It is better for someone living in Sweden to be a somewhat unpleasant Swede, than to be unable to integrate into that society. Ideally they wouldn't turn into an rear end in a top hat in the process but it's better for everyone domestically even if they do. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 12:14 on Sep 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 12:12
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:*shrug* I don't really see why integration would make you think all Serbs are thieves when you yourself are Serbian. Sounds like they were just a bit weird, or maybe had a falling out? Or maybe turned middle class or something and started thinking everyone poorer than them wanted to steal their stuff. Agreed. It's normal for relations to die away once a culture assimilates in their host country. Having specific traits and values are the reason the host country is not a shithole in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 12:18
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I would agree with you that if your strategy was to try and limit your exposure to this crisis, the US shouldn't have done anything militarily, because if you aren't going to provide a game-changing amount of aid, you're just going to prolong the conflict with a middling, rudderless strategy that does nothing. But we still see the end result here with a limited US role in the war, and it's worst case scenario, so doing literally nothing likely wouldn't have resulted in Syria looking much different. OK, so your opinion is that the US should have injected yet more weapons and military aid (more than the $1B that was sent) into an unstable war zone, and on top of that conducted a bombing campaign on behalf of the opposition forces. Am I misrepresenting your standpoint? because that seems to be what your saying here. How exactly does this all pan out in your dream scenario?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:How exactly does this all pan out in your dream scenario? Assad loses and goes into hiding, Alawites are genocided, war continues between ISIS and de facto US-lead rebel coalition. Five years and ten million dead people later ISIS loses and the area they hold is ethnically cleansed. This is the best case, worst cases involve dead Russian troops and escalation with neighboring countries as fighters cross the borders both ways. If we're talking unrealistic dream scenarios: Jesus Christ steps down from heaven and stops the fighting. Everyone goes home and lives happily ever after.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 12:45
|
|
|
Cut the Gordian Knot. It is time for light to dawn on a secular, nuclear middle east.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
I have to wonder at the people who appear to believe that military force is inherently ineffectual. Do they ever think about what they say, or are they confusing policy with reality, much like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I have to wonder at the people who appear to believe that military force is inherently ineffectual. Do they ever think about what they say, or are they confusing policy with reality, much like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney? Military force is effectual when there aren't a number of bright lines you are unwilling to cross. As soon as you can't cross those bright lines you are hosed. See, e.g., the last fifty years of recorded history.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
It also tends to be ruinously expensive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 14:53
|
|
Adar posted:Military force is effectual when there aren't a number of bright lines you are unwilling to cross. As soon as you can't cross those bright lines you are hosed. See, e.g., the last fifty years of recorded history. Yeah, the real reason the US lost in Vietnam had to do with their unwillingness to cross certain lines, rather than a decade of idiotic policies. OwlFancier posted:It also tends to be ruinously expensive. "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
I have the feeling that this is going to have a very, very bad ending. There will be riots in the streets. Anyways, if things go south to much here in Europe I will be the first to GTFO to greener pastures.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
chessmaster13 posted:Anyways, if things go south to much here in Europe I will be the first to GTFO to greener pastures. No no you're just making it worse!
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Yeah, the real reason the US lost in Vietnam had to do with their unwillingness to cross certain lines, rather than a decade of idiotic policies. Both chessmaster13 posted:Anyways, if things go south to much here in Europe I will be the first to GTFO to greener pastures. If things go too far south in Europe good luck finding a place to GTFO to on the same planet
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
lmaoboy1998 posted:American foreign policy helped create the refugee crisis. Remind me why you shouldn't play a part in solving it? I absolutely agree that both the US and Russia should be playing a huge role, taking on most of the refugees, helping them get to the united states or russia
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
Adar posted:Both How about South Africa, or one of those nice little tax heavens like Belize. Any place that offers basic protection can be a great place if you bring money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Ah yes the stable crime free tax havens of South Africa and Belize
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
Like Land of the Dead with Migrants.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
chessmaster13 posted:How about South Africa, or one of those nice little tax heavens like Belize. Any place that offers basic protection can be a great place if you bring money. If you have money and freedom of movement, exactly how do you imagine the refugee crisis will affect you in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
Does someone have a nerdy resource on how a Brexit would mean an increase in immigration and refugees? I can't recall off the top of my head which specific agreement a Brexit would abrogate to cause this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Does someone have a nerdy resource on how a Brexit would mean an increase in immigration and refugees? I can't recall off the top of my head which specific agreement a Brexit would abrogate to cause this. I would have thought that Brexit would presumably mean less immigration into the UK if the government wanted it given that currently free movement of EU citizens makes it harder to tell people to gently caress off. Presumably it may mean more immigration to other EU states though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Leading business representatives in Germany have urged the Government to take in refugees and make it as easy as possible for them to get jobs and education. The boss of Daimler even announced his company is going to actively recruit employees from refugee centers, as they are "young, well educated and highly motivated. We are looking for exactly these people." Also they called for protection from deportation for people that are in school. Let's hope this attitude stays. http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/daimler-chef-will-in-fluechtlingszentren-neue-arbeitskraefte-finden-a-1051654.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Does someone have a nerdy resource on how a Brexit would mean an increase in immigration and refugees? I can't recall off the top of my head which specific agreement a Brexit would abrogate to cause this. Here's an immigration professor arguing that Brexit wouldn't make much of a difference in terms of immigration levels. Where it comes to refugees, what you're thinking of is probably the Dublin Agreement which stops asylum applicants from submitting applications in multiple member states. But the UK could sign onto that even if it leaves the EU, because it's open to non-members too (although AFAICT the other EU member states could conceivably threaten to exclude the UK from it as a negotiating tool) .
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Worth crossposting for the colonials.Peter 'totally not racist' Hitchens posted:PETER HITCHENS: We won't save refugees by destroying our own country For those of you going TL:DR We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children. Basically one of the establishment voices characterising refugees as an existential threat, implying they are coming to destroy our way of life, etc etc. Also the UK has been invaded several times in the last 1000 years. Glorious Revolution? Deposition of Richard II? Also praising Australia and their concentration camps.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:You will not be able to tie anti-war sentiment with being pro-ISIS, I will not play that game, and I have always been consistent, I'v always said Assad is going nowhere, and you continue to believe his downfall is just around the corner.  I'm not Hannity, dude. You can be against strikes on ISIS without being "pro" ISIS. My point is that if you think strikes against ISIS are smart and justified, but you don't think we should do something to degrade Assad's ability to project force, then you have no idea what you're talking about. So if you hold the position that nothing should be militarily done against Assad, then you should also hold the position that nothing should be militarily done about ISIS, because when we talk about Assad, you appeal to criticisms you feel are inherent to military force. ISIS exists in its current state because of Assad, and if Assad doesn't go, then the underlying conditions that created ISIS, and will create its successor should they be destroyed, will continue to exist. Assad will never secure Syria. Whether it takes 5, 10, or 20 years, the war will continue, and Assad will eventually be moved from power. If I thought his downfall was just around the corner I wouldn't have to advocate speeding up the process. And loving lol at the idea that a no fly zone would create more refugees when your strategy for the entirety of Syria has been let them get bombed daily, nothing we can do, pack it in. Chemical weapons attack kills 1,000? Boys will be boys. Those people who got killed are no angels either. Hob_Gadling posted:Assad loses and goes into hiding, Alawites are genocided, war continues between ISIS and de facto US-lead rebel coalition. Five years and ten million dead people later ISIS loses and the area they hold is ethnically cleansed. This is the best case, worst cases involve dead Russian troops and escalation with neighboring countries as fighters cross the borders both ways. The best case? There aren't even 10 million people who haven't been displaced in Syria! And 1/3 of Alawite fighting age males are already dead, so you've done a fine job protecting them from a horrible genocide when 80%+ genocidal massacres in Syria have been at the hands of the Shabiha and other militias the regime supports. Not to mention close to 15,000 civilians who have been tortured to death in regime custody, including children. This is what I'm talking about. You guys accept these fantastic scenarios that have been pushed by RT and SANA that have a tenuous grasp with reality as inherently true, to avoid having to look the fact that we're letting a genocidal maniac destroy an entire country and murder his entire populace without doing a drat thing, in the eye. Even as basically any refugee you talk to pleads for help to bring down the regime so they can start to rebuild. It's absolutely disgusting. Meanwhile, in Israel. quote:JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday rejected calls from opposition politicians for Israel to accept refugees from Syria, saying that Israel was “a very small country that lacks demographic and geographic depth.” He also said that plans to construct a fence along the eastern border with Jordan would go ahead. If there's one thing Israel lacks, it's a solid Jewish majority.  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/world/middleeast/netanyahu-rejects-calls-to-accept-syrian-refugees.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur Volkerball fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Sep 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Yeah, after all these years of Syria being a bloodbath you're going to have a hard time convincing me that it's going to lead to something worse if we just take away the ability to fly from Assad. Post Revolution violence in Libya has nothing compared to when Gaddafi was just murdering everyone who was against him. I'll have bunch of sectarian forces duking it out over a bunch of sectarian forces except one of them has an air force and barrel bombs (well the Kurds kind of have an air force courtesy of U.S.).
DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Sep 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
http://news.yahoo.com/pope-vatican-shelter-2-families-fleeing-war-hunger-113629489.html This is a good gesture and all Frank, but it seems kind of an empty and I doubt all the churches in Europe will do it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:http://news.yahoo.com/pope-vatican-shelter-2-families-fleeing-war-hunger-113629489.html I hope some of them do. Catholics are pretty big on that, ultimately. Of course what would help to drive the point home would be him housing some in Vatican City.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
You posters who think refugees will somehow automatically form "toxic communities" really need a grasp of northern european migration history. In my country, Denmark, much like the rest of the area, we invited people in to work, as well as taking those fleeing from war and want, and perhaps we did not always work as hard to make them feel welcome as we should have. Combine that with slashing welfare, education etc. for immigrants, and the resurgence of extreme government and media racism - and you suddenly had what you could call "toxic" areas. Oh no! Who could have thought!?  In reality, poorly educated and terrorized foreigners had few choices. Why shouldn't they band together in areas with affordable housing? And if we forced them to stick together and take all the poo poo jobs where they only see others of their kind, what incentive do they have to learn the language and associate with native citizens? Our societies are easily rich and flexible enough to accomodate many more refugees - but our governments and communities are much too racist, insular or uninformed for it to happen easily. Tias fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Sep 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Tias posted:You posters who think refugees will somehow automatically form "toxic communities" really need a grasp of northern european migration history. In my country, Denmark, much like the rest of the area, we invited people in to work, as well as taking those fleeing from war and want, and perhaps we did not always work as hard to make them feel welcome as we should have. Combine that with slashing welfare, education etc. for immigrants, and the resurgence of extreme government and media racism - and you suddenly had what you could call "toxic" areas. Oh no! Who could have thought!? Which is why I'm asking about concrete measures for helping refugees integrate/settle in/whatever the appropriate word is. What policies can be taken? I'm looking for answers along the lines of "provide housing in the form shelters/apartments/<something>", "provide <concrete measure> to ensure refugees get access to proper education, healthcare, <other necessity>", "open up <type of workplace> to provide them long-term employment", "pass laws about fighting <type of discrimination> with <concrete measure> to protect refugees from harassment", "initiate a public awareness campaign about the conditions the refugees live in by means of <media>, <agency>, <charity>, especially focusing on <group>", hell, even "Join the Antifa and go crush Nazi skulls" is something concrete, I guess. I keep getting replies about there being a need for reasonable measures, and I'd really, really, really like to have someone tell me what these reasonable measures are. Specifically, what gets to replace the <X> stuff in my post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
The best thing to do is to change the culture. Make it socially unacceptable to be an rear end to immigrants, don't force people to feel as though they are only safe in ethnic enclaves. Organize meet and greets, cross cultural events, celebrations of diversity, have culture festivals inviting people of those groups to show off their art, religion, and food. Work them in and be sure include them in your own traditions. Recognize that every society has a lot to learn from others and message that fact. Take opportunities to remind society that we are citizens of the world before we were citizens of this country.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
my dad posted:Which is why I'm asking about concrete measures for helping refugees integrate/settle in/whatever the appropriate word is. What policies can be taken? I'm looking for answers along the lines of "provide housing in the form shelters/apartments/<something>", "provide <concrete measure> to ensure refugees get access to proper education, healthcare, <other necessity>", "open up <type of workplace> to provide them long-term employment", "pass laws about fighting <type of discrimination> with <concrete measure> to protect refugees from harassment", "initiate a public awareness campaign about the conditions the refugees live in by means of <media>, <agency>, <charity>, especially focusing on <group>", hell, even "Join the Antifa and go crush Nazi skulls" is something concrete, I guess. European countries have plenty of social services professionals who know how to handle all that stuff. Turn out the pockets of hardworking Europeans and shower them with euros. This doesn't have to be complicated on the citizen end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
my dad posted:Which is why I'm asking about concrete measures for helping refugees integrate/settle in/whatever the appropriate word is. What policies can be taken? I'm looking for answers along the lines of "provide housing in the form shelters/apartments/<something>", "provide <concrete measure> to ensure refugees get access to proper education, healthcare, <other necessity>", "open up <type of workplace> to provide them long-term employment", "pass laws about fighting <type of discrimination> with <concrete measure> to protect refugees from harassment", "initiate a public awareness campaign about the conditions the refugees live in by means of <media>, <agency>, <charity>, especially focusing on <group>", hell, even "Join the Antifa and go crush Nazi skulls" is something concrete, I guess. Like I said, what do you do to encourage an integrated society among your native population? You get insular communities when you exclude people who are born in the country, that's how you get ghettos and bad neighbourhoods, people who aren't offered the option of integrating into the "good" bits of society because they aren't given the education/money/freedom to settle elsewhere. People are born into poor areas, go to poor schools, get poor jobs or don't get jobs, and therefore don't get any socialization with people from outside those same conditions. They can't afford to move elsewhere, stick out culturally if they do go elsewhere, and don't get employed in jobs that might expose them to the more "refined" parts of society. With a language barrier and established cultural barrier this is more challenging, so people will probably cluster together a bit out of necessity, but if you don't stuff them in lovely housing and give them lovely jobs and no access to education they will probably be less likely to be unhappy about this segregation, if they're living in fairly good conditions. If you can then get them to send their children to mixed schools and such then their children will become more naturalized, and this will only increase over time. First generation adult immigrants are always going to be slightly separate from their new country because they have had a fundamentally different experience for much of their lives, but if you give people good conditions and good prospects, their descendents don't stay segregated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
OTOH not only are these solutions expensive, but there will be violence and crime associated with the refugee communities. There would be violence and crime in any area full of displaced people whatever their race, and to be frank Levant Arab culture is notorious for its toxic ideas of masculinity, rampant misogyny, and a weak sense of rule of law. Not lumping it in with Pashto or Gulf Arab culture which is inarguably worse in many respects but it's a reality. Acting like bending over backwards to be welcoming, lavishing money on model communities, and scrupulous political correctness will eliminate those problems is a mistake is the only salient point these blood-and-fatherland people make. Even with good policy, this is a humanitarian crisis that is going to leave everybody materially worse off than they were at least in the short term, because it is a disaster and requires resources to manage. Except for the people in states that close their borders. So these arguments that "we can just do X Y and very-expensive Z and it will be better" are all very nice but this is best looked at as a disaster-response situation. There are going to be costs, and everybody's going to be worse off for it in the short term. Those costs whether they are first-order resource-distribution or second-order law order and assimilation costs are real and won't simply disappear in a blinding flash of liberal policy. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Sep 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 07:37 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:stuff This is an excellent post. Unfortunately I do not think either side will believe you, and the world will be worse off for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 21:18
|
|