|
Adar posted:Depends, but official refugee status grants quite a bit - you get Medicaid, food stamps and some basic assistance along with immediate employment authorization. There's a sample list at http://www.rcusa.org/post-arrival-assistance-and-benefits. Also, if you're a single male trying to earn enough money to bring the family over, the US is by far the best especially if you know some basic English (as opposed to Swedish - nothing against Sweden but c'mon nobody's learning any of that in six months). Interesting, thanks.
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:32 |
|
|
The Gordian Knot must be cut.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:maybe you could work towards getting your own rear end-backwards country to do its share instead of posting shrill historically-illiterate complaints about how the US ruined the middle east. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:i'm Czech, and while my rear end-backwards country is being pissy about admitting refugees, at least it can argue with being relatively poor compared to the likes of, well, Denmark. Also my nation was no more autonomous than any one of the Arab countries at the time of Lloyd George's rule, being an involuntary subject of the Austrian Empire, so... So it's very comfortable where you're sitting? I dunno if you're going to be able to wield much influence over American policy, I'll have to czech with my congressman.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Chomskyan you of all posters should know how valuable it is to complain about other countries' policies when you'd also like your own country to change its policies on exactly the same subject.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So it's very comfortable where you're sitting? I dunno if you're going to be able to wield much influence over American policy, I'll have to czechwith my congressman. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So it's very comfortable where you're sitting? I dunno if you're going to be able to wield much influence over American policy, I'll have to czech with my congressman. It's certainly not half as comfortable as where the Western people are sitting, though I don't claim to be undergoing a humanitarian crisis, like Hungary. Unfortunately the geopolitical arrangement of Europe has led to a situation where the countries least responsible for the crisis, and leas capable of dealing with it, from a purely economic standpoint, are most exposed. And the truly comfortable individuals are chastising them for not being dedicated enough to progressive ideas and for trying to retain their comfortable status quo. It's a disgusting display of hypocrisy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Yeah, loving Afghanistan hiding those responsible for 9/11. Fuckers deserve this instability. "Let's give the Taliban the benefit of the doubt on this." -A poster who claims to be a feminist. I'm not trying to troll. I just really really don't understand how this works. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:One could also point out that while Assad was being a dick for quite a while, America allowed the civil war to propagate in 2012 despite Russian attempts to diplomatically stop it. I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that at the proposed peace talks as part of that deal, Russia would have demanded that the framework to the end of the conflict would not provide so much as a timeline for Assad to step down, as they have demanded at Geneva 2 and every other peace talks regarding Syria. They didn't randomly decide Assad was indispensable one day in 2012. That was and is an absolutely unacceptable deal for the opposition, and you would be lucky to get them to sit down for so much as a day with the regime at that time, much less strike a deal. Early 2012, it wasn't just the US that thought the war would end soon. There were waves of defections, and the opposition thought they had Assad's back against the wall. The prospect of a peace deal was basically non existent, so there's really no basis to point at this as a "what if" kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
e: whoops wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:"Let's give the Taliban the benefit of the doubt on this." -A poster who claims to be a feminist. Some people aren't worth trying to understand. Like people who argue hardcore for women's rights while justifying the right of others to treat women like sub-humans based on their religious beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Unfortunately the geopolitical arrangement of Europe has led to a situation where the countries least responsible for the crisis, and leas capable of dealing with it, from a purely economic standpoint, are most exposed. I'm confused now. Do you think Croatia, the country where you live, should be doing more for refugees, or less? Here it sounds like you feel attacked, but moments ago you were blaming the US for the current crisis. Why do you feel defensive if the refugee crisis is the responsibility of the US and unspecified wealthy European countries? Who do you feel is chastising you for not doing more, as a Croatian? Who is responsible for the crisis, in your opinion? Do they live in Europe? Are they, in fact, alive?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I'm confused now. Do you think Croatia, the country where you live, should be doing more for refugees, or less? Here it sounds like you feel attacked, but moments ago you were blaming the US for the current crisis. Why do you feel defensive if the refugee crisis is the responsibility of the US and unspecified wealthy European countries? He said he's Czech, dude. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 07:40
|
|
|
All Warsaw pact countries look alike.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
my dad posted:He said he's Czech, dude. He doesn't know how to respond so he's loving with him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:All Warsaw pact countries look alike. This has gotta be  right? Croatia was never in the Warsaw pact.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:"Let's give the Taliban the benefit of the doubt on this." -A poster who claims to be a feminist. The Taliban being shits didn't automatically make invading the Graveyard of Empires a smart idea nor does it relieve us of responsibility for loving it up. Saudi Arabia and Iran also treat women like poo poo, that doesn't mean a new military adventure there would be a smart thing to do, nor does it mean anyone who points out it's a bad idea secretly hates women or whatever evil motives you're implying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 10:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The Taliban being shits didn't automatically make invading the Graveyard of Empires a smart idea nor does it relieve us of responsibility for loving it up. Nowhere did I say it did. And, incidentally, neither did the person I responded to. They just made a baffling reference to an October 2001 claim the Taliban totally being honest that they were totally ready to hand over bin Laden, honest. Because the Taliban were totally reliable sources and the US was totally looking to blow up poo poo in Afghanistan for no goddamned reason. This poster has also been an active participant in a lot of threads about feminism, or at least the one in E/N, where he/she was definitely in favor of it. I find it hard to reconcile being a feminist with in the implication the Taliban were more interested in negotiating in good faith than the U.S. government, untrustworthy as the latter very obviously are. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 10:12 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 10:06
|
|
|
I don't see what the Taliban's treatment of women has to do with whether they'd have been willing to hand over Bin Laden to avoid getting their poo poo wrecked by the US. Iran treats women like poo poo too, I guess we should jut assume they're going to break the nuclear deal because of it??  Accusing people of being anti-feminist for thinking attacking Afghanistan was a bad idea is exactly as poor a tactic as accusing people of loving Saddam's rape rooms for opposing the Iraq War.Either way, it's undeniable that we hosed the occupation up, even if just because we didn't devote the necessary resources to create a functioning country there because we went off and started an even dumber war that became an even bigger disaster, I think we can take in some refugees from the problem we created. Also mind, it's not as if the USA (and the USSR) had nothing to do with creating the unstable conditions that gave the Taliban the opportunity to seize power in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:"Let's give the Taliban the benefit of the doubt on this." -A poster who claims to be a feminist. Firstly I absolutely do not claim to be a feminist. Secondly, what did they have to lose with this deal? Pause the campaign, you get bin Laden to face trial. If they do that, you halt the campaign indefinitely. If they renege, you just start the bombing campaign again. This doesn't mean I think the Taliban are a positive force but there's little downside to giving it a go. Instead we continued the fruitless search for bin Laden in Afghanistan, losing coalition lives and causing a civil war with violence still ongoing in the present day. Meanwhile, bin Laden is chilling out in Pakistan (not Afghanistan!) where he was eventually killed before he could stand trial. Check the date of that article, Operation Enduring Freedom was 10 days in when the Taliban offered to let him stand trial. I could understand the argument that the Taliban were bad and shouldn't have been in power, but this war started because the Taliban wouldn't hand bin Laden over for trial. 10 days in they capitulate with a requirement he faces trial outside of the US. That's not a bad deal, if the idea is that he face punishment for his crimes. Instead we displaced the Taliban but didn't actually stop them, just drove them out of the capital.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 10:31
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The prospect of a peace deal was basically non existent, so there's really no basis to point at this as a "what if" kind of thing. Right, I can agree that this is the kind of thing that seems more acceptable in hindsight. I suppose I was curious as to why the civil war went on for 2 years without much more than a 'meh' when new peace talks could have occurred.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 10:37
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Right, I can agree that this is the kind of thing that seems more acceptable in hindsight. I suppose I was curious as to why the civil war went on for 2 years without much more than a 'meh' when new peace talks could have occurred. Yeah. The thing to keep in mind is that Syria is a local war supported by foreign actors, not a foreign war supported by local actors. The US and Russia making a deal would be easy. They did so over Assad's chemical weapons. It was a lovely deal, but a deal nonetheless. It's when you add in the opposition and the regime, and you bring in the "not-terrorist" Kurds from Syria that no Syrian Kurds recognize, and start trying to work out those issues as well as the issues of foreign powers heavily invested in the war, and you just can't provide every side enough incentive to stop fighting. And if you can't do that, there's no reason to keep making token efforts to hold talks. The only solution in Syria is for someone to be put militarily in a position where they are more willing to make concessions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
Hands up everyone who thinks the solution to the worlds wars, overpopulation, poverty and dictatorships can be solved by moving the people from those conditions to Europe? You can raise two hands if you think the problems won't follow with the people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
Well we certainly can't move America to be right next to Syria, so hands up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Hands up everyone who thinks the solution to the worlds wars, overpopulation, poverty and dictatorships can be solved by moving the people from those conditions to Europe? Well, it certainly helped ending them by moving the populations from Europe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
It's weird to think that people believe local internal conflicts should be solved by depopulating the area. Especially to comparatively rich European countries, many of which have rather severe issues themselves and have had very little to nothing to do with the problems of a country 6000 miles away. And - I know people will ridicule anyone pointing this out - are culturally pretty far removed from the conservative, clan, tribe and religious clique based societies of most of Middle-East or Africa. Let's say a huge teleport machine appears from thin air near Palmyra, a safety cordon was established to reach it, and we could *shazam* move all Syrians to Sweden! Many Swedes have said over the years everyone is welcome. There are many empty fields and forests so surely 20 or 100 million refugees would easily fit in? (Statements which causes some cognitive dissonance right now, since the Swedish railways are running an operation which takes 300-500 asylum seekers a day to Finland, and the number is expected to rise up to 1000 daily... to a country which received about 5000 whole last year). What would happen? 1) They would all turn into nice social democrats who trust the government and the police, and share the Swedish views on egalitarianism, women's rights, LGBT rights and individualism! The Syrian mess was all about US meddling and ground radiation in the end! 2) Sweden would greatly benefit from all these new workers, like, the more people the more jobs and more wealth? Like in much of Africa! 3) The Syrians, the Alawites, al Nusra and ISIS and all, would continue doing what they were before i.e. struggle for power with other ethnic and religious cliques until one becomes so strong the others are forced to submit and/or are killed/chased away >:[
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Yeah. The thing to keep in mind is that Syria is a local war supported by foreign actors, not a foreign war supported by local actors. The US and Russia making a deal would be easy. They did so over Assad's chemical weapons. It was a lovely deal, but a deal nonetheless. It's when you add in the opposition and the regime, and you bring in the "not-terrorist" Kurds from Syria that no Syrian Kurds recognize, and start trying to work out those issues as well as the issues of foreign powers heavily invested in the war, and you just can't provide every side enough incentive to stop fighting. And if you can't do that, there's no reason to keep making token efforts to hold talks. The only solution in Syria is for someone to be put militarily in a position where they are more willing to make concessions. So at this point would it be better to (tacitly) support Western intervention or Russia's gear-up to go? NB: not saying 'good' just 'less worse' Since Syria seems to be a primarily Shia country I'd assume Russian/Iranian intervention would be the way forward, especially as Russia seems happy to put boots on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:So at this point would it be better to (tacitly) support Western intervention or Russia's gear-up to go? NB: not saying 'good' just 'less worse' No, Syria is primarily Sunni, the government just happens to be Shia due to Western power plays. e: wait, did the French put the Alawis in power or did they rise up during the Ba'thist period? e2: it seems a bit of both, the French favoring Alawis as officers in the army dealing with Syrian insurgency led to the Alawis being in a good position during the post-independence military coups and the rise of the Ba'ath party SaltyJesus fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:No, Syria is primarily Sunni, the government just happens to be Shia due to Western power plays. AFAIK the latter. Alawis played it nice with the French at one point, because the French tended to view minorities preferably (the Alawis used to be the scum, the unwashed hillbillies of Syria in the past) and less so later though. They've been aligned or opposed with just about everyone in the region at one point or another, many Alawi Shia even pretending to be Sunnis in Damascus at one point and only revealing themselves when Ba'ath came to prominence. The whole history is full of intrigue, struggle, and clever power plays by the several different groups in the region. Blaming all of that on the West is a... weird world view to say the least even though the French were involved. But so were many, many other forces in play.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
Fair enough, I guess in my mind I lumped it with the whole Sykes-Picot deliberately unstable borders divide and rule politics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
Thing is, people don't turn in to peace loving social democrats by moving to Europe from the ME. Yeah it's dailymail, but they probably don't invent every story line they publish and there's some pictures to prove it. That said, beating up Salafists isn't half bad. But why are they here in the first place...
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:Fair enough, I guess in my mind I lumped it with the whole Sykes-Picot deliberately unstable borders divide and rule politics. Ultimately, Sykes-Picot (or rather the Paris treaties) still had a lot to do with it, it is just in history there are rarely totally passive actors and certainly the Ottoman vilayets of the region had their own share of issues even before the mid-19th century. Likewise, it is unclear what the long term ramifications of the refugee crisis will be in Europe which has multiple actors with their own agendas. You can see why a working class Pole would probably not be interested in asylum seekers in his country at the same time the refugees want somewhere where their lives have some meaning beyond basic security. Anyway, Germany and Sweden still have pretty decent economies and social systems at this point, but at the same time, at least in Sweden the far-right is gaining strength. There isn't a easy answer unless you make some radical changes which by their nature aren't easy. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Thing is, people don't turn in to peace loving social democrats by moving to Europe from the ME. Germany also has violent anarchists, violent leftists and violent neo-Nazis. Using an example of high ethnic tensions in a country with a large diaspora from Kurdistan and Turkey who are both historically marginalised by the German right-wing is hardly a go-to example of 'sand people are inherently violent because of their impure blood and/or sand religion'
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Hands up everyone who thinks the solution to the worlds wars, overpopulation, poverty and dictatorships can be solved by moving the people from those conditions to Europe? I thought giving refugees new homes was supposed to solve the problem of those refugees not having homes anymore, not end war and dictatorship forever. If that's your standard why do anything ever. Man I was gonna volunteer at a school but that's not going to end war and poverty why bother. I should really change my windshield wipers but is there any point when genocides will still happen?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I thought giving refugees new homes was supposed to solve the problem of those refugees not having homes anymore, not end war and dictatorship forever. If that's your standard why do anything ever. Whose homes? With what money?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Whose homes? With what money? Your home (or at least your real estate values) and your money, from your pockets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Whose homes? With what money? Empty homes. With the government's money. That's what governments are for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
I'm personally spending great personal expense to cram 50 Syrian refugees into Ligur's bedroom.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Empty homes. With the government's money. That's what governments are for. For their own citizens. That is what a government in a state is for. For example Finland has nothing to do with the ME crisis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:32 |
|
|
quote:"Croatia will not be able to receive more people," Interior Minister Ranko Ostojic told reporters in Tovarnik. Welp, so much for that I guess. Still 24 hours of taking refugees is not a bad achievement for the Croats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:15
|
|
