|
Hogge Wild posted:imo the refugees should be shipped to usa In a just world the US, Russia, France and the UK would be made to take in every single refugee and all the countries that didn't help create the ISIS/Assad dynamic would be allowed to lean back and enjoy the qq. But the world isn't fair.
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 07:44 |
|
|
lmaoboy1998 posted:In a just world the US, Russia, France and the UK would be made to take in every single refugee and all the countries that didn't help create the ISIS/Assad dynamic would be allowed to lean back and enjoy the qq. But the world isn't fair. yeah
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
Yeah, the US should take all Iraqi refugees, call it the sorry-for-Bush plan, and Russia Syrian ones. They can split Afghans.Freezer posted:Finland was barely on my radar before this thread. Now I have them categorized as backwards xenophobes with delusions of grandeur. Good job keeping the immigrants out of the barren jobless frozen tundra I guess. There's barely any tundra it's mostly swamps and forests, full of bugs and bears, not barren at all. Few jobs tho.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:imo the refugees should be shipped to usa   I see a lot of opportunities in Nevada, as a bonus the climate should be more familiar to them then north/central european one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
Forgive me Griffen, I temporarily lost my senses as a rational economic being and gave money to a charity for the refugees, I have allowed myself to be a part of the problem and will remove myself posthaste
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
According to the US Foreign Service, it takes people enrolled in language classes for a Group 3 language like Finnish 44 weeks to achieve level 3 proficiency, defined as being able to participate in formal and informal conversations enough to work in a professional field. Immersion will reduce this time. So it would take less than a year for refugee engineers and doctors to reach the point of being able to perform their job as well as any Finn, and much shorter times for jobs that require less technical vocabulary. So scaremongering about people "not learning the language" seems to be built on flimsy foundations as it stands.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Freezer posted:Finland was barely on my radar before this thread. Now I have them categorized as backwards xenophobes with delusions of grandeur. Good job keeping the immigrants out of the barren jobless frozen tundra I guess. Suomi on kaunis maa jossa elää vittumainen kansa. Barren Finland isn't. The land's fertile. The nature's beautiful. It's tundra, swamps and forests, with people sparsely scattered around the country. A few tiny cities. There's good people in Finland. Smart people, too. They're a minority. The bulk of Finland always has been farmers, metalworkers, lumberjacks and service fields to keep those things operating. Finland entered the modern world through nothing but the stubbornness and hard work of the generations before us. So the generation now in power squandered it all on the altar of the "free market" - and they were so dumb and greedy about it they gambled all they had, and lost. And then gambled with the money of others. You can say many things about democracy, but the truth is that democracy depends on an informed public, and before 2008 every goddamn position of power was a part of an old boys' club, and the way in wasn't competence - it was adherence to ideology. The results here were predictable - the neoconservatives sold/dismantled/privatized all of the state-managed industry to get more gambling money. They ran them to the ground, we lost our brands, our business - and the jobs. The profits of the companies were insignificant compared to the amount of state-managed jobs they provided to the people. And we can't even rebuild, because a lot of the money to make it profitable enough to build a brand depends on selling to the richer countries in Europe. And they aren't buying much - and competing with the likes of Asian and African countries while not utilizing slave labor is not something we can do, especially given the size of the Finnish economy. So, the old boys did what they always do. They jumped ship from one party to another - Kokoomus to Keskusta and back - to make it less obvious they're still the exact same fucks they ever were. And now they're once again trying to gamble what they lost back. Mostly by throwing corporate subsidies at their old buddies' ego vessels that are beyond saving - at the same time, creating an inequal playing field and essentially strangling out any real competition. So as a result, the economy is ruined, and isn't recovering. There's a whole lot of under-educated - and stupid - people around who were told that hard work always pays. And it worked for them, for a while. It worked for their fathers, and it worked for their grandfathers. And now they're desperate, out of work, out of anything to do. Everyone they would listen to in days past is either powerless, or far more likely, one of the old boys. And the old boys are desperate to blame anyone at all but themselves for this disaster. And the country did lose all of the money to foreign countries - and the jobs went to desperate people in third world countries. Our old, isolationist policies were sold with xenophobia, and they worked. They worked because the people building them were aware of how economics worked, and were aware our bigger neighbors would use their size to manipulate our markets to squeeze us dry if we gave them half a chance. And in come the refugees. They're desperate people, they need the same resources we're "short" on, the unemployed are already angry and desperate, our previous integration "efforts" were defined by half-assing things resulting in a lot of people marginalized, abused and unable to integrate - and as such, violence and crime. You can blame the common Finn for being dumb and xenophobic, and you'd be exactly correct, but this clusterfuck isn't on the people, it's on the disastrous economic policy (the "gently caress the poor" theory) that most of the western world has fallen victim to. This is just rich fucks turning two different groups of poor and desperate people against each other. Well, it's a group of moderately wealthy fucks now, because they thought they were way bigger fish in the free market pond than they were. How did that quote go? "Haistakaa paska koko valtiovalta."
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Griffen posted:(because if spending millions training unemployed workers was a net boon to the economy, nations would have done it to their own unemployed without the need for language lessons) Imo that's not really an argument, because there are uncountable instances of governments ignoring long-term advantages because of short-term disadvantages. It's no secret that improving the education will almost always lead to an improvement of the economic situation of a person. Nevertheless public funding for education gets cut almost everywhere. Also we already know that Utah will be the next Middle East, they even have a river Jordan and Jerusalem.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:Barren Finland isn't. Source your quotes. It's amazing how much space the 5 million Finns can take with all this talking about themselves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
lmaoboy1998 posted:Europe is offering to feed, house and integrate refugees, whereas Turkey and Lebanon are offering campsites. That's fine considering their GDP, but it does invalidate the 'Why can't Europe be as generous as Lebanon' argument, as it would actually suck for everyone involved if we followed Lebanon's example. I wasn't saying that we should copy the Lebanon situation at all, I was saying that Lebanon's economy hasn't imploded over this situation - which I can agree is due to the fantastic work by the UNHCR and other NGOs. My thinking on this subject is that if our economies are anywhere near as powerful as we claim they are we could handle the refugee diaspora with more ease than the struggling nations. Either our economies can handle them, or countries like Britain and Germany are bullshitting when we claim our economies are strong. Additionally, if the UNHCR is working with us once refugees are re-homed in their asylum states we could see minimised effects on the short term economic shock. Now, I'm not saying I'm right or that my example is authoritative, but I'm trying to keep this thread's conversation constructive, help me out here! steinrokkan posted:Look, I'm not saying we shouldn't take in refugees, I'm just saying that they won't provide a boost to the economy, which is what some posters claimed. You don't seem to be contradicting me at all because financial assistance would be received by members with or without refugees coming in so they aren't a factor in that. I'm not saying you're saying you shouldn't take in refugees, I'm saying that in a roundabout way your economy will be 'boosted' in that the economic subsidies granted by the EU to help your economy would be rescinded otherwise. For instance, the European Solidarity Fund gave €16m in 2011 (from the previous sheet) - and Germany would have a solid argument in reducing that if the CR doesn't show 'solidarity' over the refugee crisis. While the refugees aren't in themselves providing an economic boost, not having them could lead to a major economic slump due to punishment sanctions, this could be even worse if they find a way to justify dropping the convergence objective funds (this is about pulling the less-developed economies up to match the stronger ones) which was worth €1.6bn for CR in 2011. So I agree the refugees themselves may not be a boost, but your economy's currently being boosted by countries like Germany and pissing them off could do more damage to your economy than even the most inept national government economic policy. This isn't me tacitly endorsing such a strategy as suggesting why the claims of a 'boost' might be correct, but for different reasons than previously floated. Griffen posted:So to sum up, accepting effectively unlimited (as that seems to be the moral argument I'm hearing here) refugees would be a short and long-term drain on host nations' resources and economies (because if spending millions training unemployed workers was a net boon to the economy, nations would have done it to their own unemployed without the need for language lessons), create social and cultural tensions, and ultimately not solve the problem. This is true to some extent WRT: the national unemployed, but is more of a government incompetence / lack of caring problem than a genuine problem. Wage stagnation, social cleansing and a new housing bubble are part of the problem in the UK, and I could whine at length about how much the youth employment market is currently being shafted (from the comfort of my champagne socialism armchair). But regardless, the problem isn't that unemployment can't be solved, it's that neo-liberal economic policy does not intend to fix it as job scarcity increases bargaining rights over employees. That and the only time the UK saw full employment was under state management of the economy (SOCIALISM?!  ).Griffen posted:Instead, it slaps a bandage and a shot of morphine on the problem to make us feel good about ourselves. What do we do 5 years from now, when Syria is still a mess, Yemen has gone belly-up, Lebanon is at the breaking point, and Turkey and the Kurds are at each other's throats. All those people are going to look at this precedent and go to Europe, knowing that they will accept them "because they have to." Where does it end? Where is the incentive to actually have a functioning state and to fight for your home? People say the West shouldn't be the world police; fine, if that's the case, why should we be the world's babysitter? There are a few claims here that are a little dubious. For one thing you didn't mention Iraq or Afghanistan at the beginning but mention America being the world police later on. America tried being world police in Iraq. Didn't work out. Likewise Afghanistan. The UN tried being world police in Libya. Didn't work out. America is trying to be world police again in Syria. America does not have to be world police, but if it wants to be world police it needs to up its game. As for babysitter... it's more that America should pay child support for all the countries it hosed and got pregnant with instability.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
lmaoboy1998 posted:In a just world the US, Russia, France and the UK would be made to take in every single refugee and all the countries that didn't help create the ISIS/Assad dynamic would be allowed to lean back and enjoy the qq. But the world isn't fair. Agreed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Griffen posted:Thank you, this debate really doesn't have much of an economic platform, and it really is better as a moral/consequences debate. Along those lines, I ask "what can we do that will do the most good for our effort?" I would suggest that, long-term, it is more beneficial to both Europe (or any other distant host nation/region, like Australia or Japan) and the refugees themselves, that effort be focused on supporting refugees near their home nation and seeking to stabilize the problem area. We'd all feel like good people and pat ourselves on the back if we find them homes far away from their homelands in a strange and foreign culture and tell ourselves "we saved them." However, that essentially abandons the original problem (Syria, Iraq, Eritria, etc), which none of them show signs of being solved on their own any time soon. If we go with the precedent of letting unstable countries fall apart while taking in all their people, what force eventually restores these areas to usability? Would this not continually reduce the amount of productive land in use, globally speaking? Conflicts like this also tend to stress neighboring areas, such as Turkey going full retard and restarting the fight with the Kurds, Saudi/Iranian proxy war in Yemen, etc. Or other examples would be the social instability in South Africa caused by Zimbabwean economic migrants fleeing the failure of Mugabe's economic management, Zaire/DRC collapse, the Balkans in the 90's (which probably would have been worse without European intervention, not that there was much effort by Europe anyway). There probably isn't much of an incentive to have a functioning state and fight for your home if it's a state created by Europeans, has no national identity to begin with, has never had anything but dictators coming from a minority group (really, a single family) that rules it as an apartheid state. Syria isn't a Germany or a Finland or a United States. They don't have mythical national founders or national myths, a common identity, ethnicity or ideology to rally around. Seriously, explain to me why a Syrian should give a poo poo about Syria. Most of them never had any stake, power, or connection to the country and the only home they ever had is probably a burned out, bombed out chlorine gas filled husk at the moment. And no, "all those people" won't come to Europe. Have you missed how much the smugglers are taking? The people who come here are the ones with means, knowledge, family connections or the money to make that trip, which is why the number of refugees in Lebanon, Turkey or Jordan hasn't magically gone down because we're still taking a fraction of people. Those countries have been facing a flood like this for years now and are still facing it, you don't hear about it as much as they aren't entitled Europeans constantly whining about it everywhere. The "world's babysitter" if we talk about refugees has always, 100% of history since WWII, been the developing countries of the world, and will continue to be. Also, if you would, once again, read the actual plans proposed by EU, you would know that billions of dollars are being proposed to help refugees in developing countries, help to combat illegal smuggling, help to provide funds towards solving these crisis's as well as half a dozen other causes that aren't directly taking in refugees. Guess who is trying to block this? The same xenophobic entitled hypocrites that are trying to block taking in refugees. But guess what, part of the solution is taking in refugees and Europe needs to take every refugee who is getting there, just like every other non-European country is taking in every refugee who is getting there. Europe doesn't deserve special treatment because we're astronomically wealthier then everyone else who is doing their part and has been doing it for years. Freezer posted:Finland was barely on my radar before this thread. Now I have them categorized as backwards xenophobes with delusions of grandeur. Good job keeping the immigrants out of the barren jobless frozen tundra I guess. They're a minority. That protest had like 50 people. We're still taking in refugees, most people aren't happy about it or don't fully understand the reasons, legislation or the history, but they aren't the "gently caress it send them all back" variety. We couldn't even vote full stop "no" in EU and even that is because the most hardcore anti-foreign-everything party is part of the government by now and have been sacrificing everything they believe in to be part of it and the government had to throw them some kind of sad bone. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Sep 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I'm not saying you're saying you shouldn't take in refugees, I'm saying that in a roundabout way your economy will be 'boosted' in that the economic subsidies granted by the EU to help your economy would be rescinded otherwise. For instance, the European Solidarity Fund gave €16m in 2011 (from the previous sheet) - and Germany would have a solid argument in reducing that if the CR doesn't show 'solidarity' over the refugee crisis. While the refugees aren't in themselves providing an economic boost, not having them could lead to a major economic slump due to punishment sanctions, this could be even worse if they find a way to justify dropping the convergence objective funds (this is about pulling the less-developed economies up to match the stronger ones) which was worth €1.6bn for CR in 2011. I am really, really not trying to bring this back to Finland chat again with this, but I do want to bring Finland up with regard to the possibility of economic sanctions if a nation doesn't do their part for refugees (because it's nation where some numbers come to mind thanks to this thread). From looking at the numbers you gave a little while back (where you mentioned the Czech Republic takes in 1,455.2 million Euros), what would be the action taken against a country like Finland that seems to be in an economic slump yet is a net contributor to the EU? Effectronica posted:According to the US Foreign Service, it takes people enrolled in language classes for a Group 3 language like Finnish 44 weeks to achieve level 3 proficiency, defined as being able to participate in formal and informal conversations enough to work in a professional field. Immersion will reduce this time. So it would take less than a year for refugee engineers and doctors to reach the point of being able to perform their job as well as any Finn, and much shorter times for jobs that require less technical vocabulary. So scaremongering about people "not learning the language" seems to be built on flimsy foundations as it stands. I would like to note here that while the language argument was certainly the more vocal one earlier, the more valid one was with regard to relative education for employment, since what constitutes a professional degree in one nation may not be easily transferable to another nation. For example, a foreign trained doctor, no matter the qualifications or institution from which they came, have to complete another 3 years residency in the U.S. or Canada if they want to practice medicine in the U.S. regardless of their individual skill or mastery of the local language. I can't say what, if any, relative barriers exist in European nations so this is purely speculatory anyway. More, I just wanted to note that linguistics might not be the only barrier to employment for some migrants or refugees.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
PaleIrishGuy posted:what would be the action taken against a country like Finland that seems to be in an economic slump yet is a net contributor to the EU? Net contributors still receive money from EU funds. Nevertheless, I'm sceptical about the ability of any single actor to effect any sanctions, as the EU budget is approved by a majority in the Parliament and in the Council.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Net contributors still receive money from EU funds. I realize they still receive money (similar to the U.S. where some states take like .73 for every dollar they give, while others take 1.86 for every dollar they give out). My thought was more that attempting that same sort of sanction on a donator state would more lessen their contributions back to the EU more than hurt the state in the short run. That said, I could be hilariously mistaken there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
There aren't any states whose economies are tied to the EU to the same degree as U.S. states are to the U.S. Federal economy. EU is still a cooperative economy between sovereign states and none of them are really dependent on it to a level that would cause any real difference. I don't really see any numbers that would make it much of a difference, except Greece of course (you notice how they've been very, very quiet during all of this). Of course, states who don't have the same level to contribute as say, Germany, would get EU assistance according to the Commission's proposal and the 120,000 relocation deal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:There aren't any states whose economies are tied to the EU to the same degree as U.S. states are to the U.S. Federal economy. EU is still a cooperative economy between sovereign states and none of them are really dependent on it to a level that would cause any real difference. I don't really see any numbers that would make it much of a difference, except Greece of course (you notice how they've been very, very quiet during all of this). Of course, states who don't have the same level to contribute as say, Germany, would get EU assistance according to the Commission's proposal and the 120,000 relocation deal. That was why I asked about possible alternatives if countries with stronger economies decide to back out of their share. That same sort of sanction isn't gonna do a whole lot to France or the U.K. i would imagine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
PaleIrishGuy posted:That was why I asked about possible alternatives if countries with stronger economies decide to back out of their share. That same sort of sanction isn't gonna do a whole lot to France or the U.K. i would imagine. U.K. like in many things is outside of the relocation scheme. They will still take at least 20,000 people from the camps as of now but it is their own initiative. France under Hollande at the least is one of the biggest proponents for an unified migrant response, even on a bigger scale then this perhaps, after Germany France is the most used to refugees (I believe they have the second largest population of them in Europe) and has been dealing with minority populations even longer. They also face lot of the same problems that Germany in aging population that educated young Syrian refugees might actually be a boon as well. Also no way can they afford to piss offf Merkel even if it was a huge bitter pill to swallow. The next level, Italy, Spain, etc. are having some severe financial problems of their own and have a mini-Greece like situation and are close enoug to the routes, Italy especially, that a common EU plan is way better then the alternative. Nobody else really matters that much. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Sep 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
PaleIrishGuy posted:I would like to note here that while the language argument was certainly the more vocal one earlier, the more valid one was with regard to relative education for employment, since what constitutes a professional degree in one nation may not be easily transferable to another nation. For example, a foreign trained doctor, no matter the qualifications or institution from which they came, have to complete another 3 years residency in the U.S. or Canada if they want to practice medicine in the U.S. regardless of their individual skill or mastery of the local language. I can't say what, if any, relative barriers exist in European nations so this is purely speculatory anyway. More, I just wanted to note that linguistics might not be the only barrier to employment for some migrants or refugees. Also if you got up and left your home because you were going to get bombed, you may not have been able to bring your degree documentation with you, and even if you had, there's no way to verify it if the institute that issued it is a pile of rubble and the government that issued it is in the middle of a civil war. It may not be an issue for professions where accreditation can be flexible, but the medical profession is not one of those. People will already struggle with family reunification since they will have this problem with birth and marriage certificates.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
My advice to Finland; Don`t let the need to keep face define your domestic immigration policies. Most of the heat will be heaped upon Central europe anyway. Do use every trick short of actually closing the border to minimize how many you take in, you`ll get away with expect for a sligthly dented international reputation. In a way it`s a good thing that Finland is assumed to be a barren hellscape, that`s very useful for you guys rigth now. Cultivate that image as much as you can.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Baudolino posted:My advice to Finland; Don`t let the need to keep face define your domestic immigration policies. Most of the heat will be heaped upon Central europe anyway. Do use every trick short of actually closing the border to minimize how many you take in, you`ll get away with expect for a sligthly dented international reputation. In a way it`s a good thing that Finland is assumed to be a barren hellscape, that`s very useful for you guys rigth now. Cultivate that image as much as you can. "Finland: Literally a swamp filled with bears" Alternatively, you may want to bring up the internationally known artist Tom of Finland and his influence on the national culture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
PaleIrishGuy posted:I realize they still receive money (similar to the U.S. where some states take like .73 for every dollar they give, while others take 1.86 for every dollar they give out). My thought was more that attempting that same sort of sanction on a donator state would more lessen their contributions back to the EU more than hurt the state in the short run. That said, I could be hilariously mistaken there. If you mean that a contributor would refuse to hand over the payments required by the Commission, then that would be a grim precedent with such far reaching consequences I don't think anybody would be willing to risk it. I mean, the redistributive budget of the EU, from which members receive funding, makes up something like 1% of the EU GDP. And boycotting the procedure through which contributions to this budget are levied would totally wreck the credibility of the maverick country in negotiating the actual area where the EU matters, which is policies with fiscal effects implemented on a national level. In other words, the rebel government would withhold relatively small payments, and in return would most likely lose power over legislation that dictates how the entire drat economy can be run. Not to mention that fundamental decisions in the EU still depend on unanimity, and I believe any country subjected to "sanctions" over this would have revenge on the perpetrators as soon as they could veto their proposals. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Sep 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:If you mean that a contributor would refuse to hand over the payments required by the Commission, then that would be a grim precedent with such far reaching consequences I don't think anybody would be willing to risk it. More what I meant is that, were a state to dispute the distribution of refugees to the point that the EU would consider a form of sanction such as withholding subsidies until they comply, might not the removal of such subsidies have a negative effect on the economy of the rebelling nation (the presumed intention of such a sanction) that would hinder the relative contributions of said nation back toward the EU? Depending on how long such a state would hold out in the first place, of course. As well, I realize that we are talking fiscal drops in a bucket here, as well as the aforementioned effect being dependent on what fund is being withheld from whom and where.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
PaleIrishGuy posted:More what I meant is that, were a state to dispute the distribution of refugees to the point that the EU would consider a form of sanction such as withholding subsidies until they comply, might not the removal of such subsidies have a negative effect on the economy of the rebelling nation (the presumed intention of such a sanction) that would hinder the relative contributions of said nation back toward the EU? No, not really. At least in any appreciable way on any considerable horizon. The budget is created based on multi-year guidelines published in the Framework that guarantees a great deal of continuity in trends contained within consequent budgets, and the contributions are calculated by the Commission, once again with view to continuity. Unless a country suddenly lost like 50% of its GDP or something, I don't see there being any incentive for the EU to steer away from the plan. The net contributors aren't supposed to be reliant on donations anyway, and even the infamous CAP has been reformed to such an extent from its original form that I don't think there's a single economic sector in any one of the wealthiest economies that would be existentially dependent on EU transfers. As I said, the aspects of the EU integration that are not expressed in its budget are much more materially significant for these countries. So in other words: I think there would be no economic downturn for these countries, and therefore no reason for the Commission to cut them slack. If anything, there would be a minute drop in growth rates, which while somewhat frustrating in the long term wouldn't lead to lowering the absolute funds available for drawing a budget, but rather to a decrease in marginal additions to the bulk sum of the budgets under the future Framework agreements.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:No, not really. At least in any appreciable way on any considerable horizon. The budget is created based on multi-year guidelines published in the Framework that guarantees a great deal of continuity in trends contained within consequent budgets, and the contributions are calculated by the Commission, once again with view to continuity. Unless a country suddenly lost like 50% of its GDP or something, I don't see there being any incentive for the EU to steer away from the plan. The net contributors aren't supposed to be reliant on donations anyway, and even the infamous CAP has been reformed to such an extent from its original form that I don't think there's a single economic sector in any one of the wealthiest economies that would be existentially dependent on EU transfers. As I said, the aspects of the EU integration that are not expressed in its budget are much more materially significant for these countries. Fair enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:According to the US Foreign Service, it takes people enrolled in language classes for a Group 3 language like Finnish 44 weeks to achieve level 3 proficiency, defined as being able to participate in formal and informal conversations enough to work in a professional field. Immersion will reduce this time. So it would take less than a year for refugee engineers and doctors to reach the point of being able to perform their job as well as any Finn, and much shorter times for jobs that require less technical vocabulary. So scaremongering about people "not learning the language" seems to be built on flimsy foundations as it stands. This implies that the person wants to learn the native language and integrate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 10:48
|
|
|
willie_dee posted:This implies that the person wants to learn the native language and integrate. Most people do. When you don't see integration it's usually because you've ghettoized the minority.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Most people do. According to what? Got any studies with links that adamantly prove this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Most people do. When you don't see integration it's usually because you've ghettoized the minority. Agreed, but what prevented integration and homogenization in the mid East before it all hit the fan?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
osker posted:Agreed, but what prevented integration and homogenization in the mid East before it all hit the fan? Integration of which groups into which nations? There's a pretty good reason (for example) why Palestinians aren't integrating into Jordan or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
Well, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Syria etc. Once the countries borders/governments come undone things seem to breakdown along deeply entrenched tribal lines because clearly there was always and us and them mentality. I ask the question because to integrate you have to compromise with everyone around you, hence ghettos being bad for integration.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Integration of which groups into which nations? Palestinians are actually integrating on Jordan pretty well and most of them by a huge percentage have been born there. It's pretty much the only country that has just started giving them blanket citizenship because it's clear that situation isn't going to be solved any time soon. osker posted:Agreed, but what prevented integration and homogenization in the mid East before it all hit the fan? Centuries of conquest and colonization by foreign powers who intentionally pitted different groups against each other, religious rivalries that have lasted for centuries and centuries, rule by dictatorships that more often then not favored their own ethnic/religious groups (etc. Saddam with Sunnis, Assads with Alawites), Western influence assassinating/toppling any figure that wanted to unite the people on national lines instead of ethnic or religious ones (leading into Radical Islam being the only legit force against the secular/ethnic dictatorships), direct funding of the world economy of the most extremist elements in Islam thanks to Saudis and the Gulf States favoring them...and a half-a-hundred other reasons throughout the history of the region that have made it as batshit as they are. Only reason why Europe got as homogenized as it was is because anyone who thought, believed or looked sufficiently different was usually murdered in one era or other anyway. Ligur posted:According to what? Got any studies with links that adamantly prove this? ...you want a study that says "Most immigrants learn the language of the society they move in"? 
DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 14:31 on Sep 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
osker posted:Well, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Syria etc. Once the countries borders/governments come undone things seem to breakdown along deeply entrenched tribal lines because clearly there was always and us and them mentality. Iraq and Syria are cold war (not US-Russia Cold War) proxies. It's like wondering why the Vietnamese were so divided 50 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:...you want a study that says "Most immigrants learn the language of the society they move in"? Yeah. Sorry, got no link either, but one of the most devastating posts ever was made was about a decade ago by social worker who accidentally revelead on the news we have immigrant groups who don't even know who pays their rent because they don't speak Finnish. After living here for two decades. They honestly thought the money falls from heaven and everything is free, in that sense. If this is the case, something is broken. That said, you can disbelieve that one since the link is lost in time. Anyway, what is the study that reveals unto thee, that most immigrants want to learn Finnish, or don't, and are somehow interested in all this "integration" business to begin with when living here? How do you prove this? When my family moved to Spain we just had to hack the local language and quite loving fast, we had no option. edit: added "do not" Ligur fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Sep 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Sorry, got no link either, but one of the most devastating posts ever was made about a decade ago by a social worker who accidentally revelead on the news we have immigrant groups who don't even know who pays their rent because they don't speak Finnish. After living here for two decades. They honestly thought the money falls from heaven and everything is free in that sense. In this case, something is broken. I guess Finland must have amazingly lightweight bureaucracy, then, I couldn't even change my insurance policy without having a little marathon between three different institutions, so I can't really imagine receiving welfare without being able to apply for it. And if there are foreign language social services, that "they don't even know who's taking care of them" line makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Yeah. Like Finland in particular or the world? For language/in Finland alone, 70% of immigrants said that they have a good or sufficient Finnish language skills in speaking, 75% said they have that in reading, only about 20% say that they have problems with it and only 2% say they have no Finnish speaking ability whatsoever. (section 2.2.) It's not really surprising considering that uneducated Somalian refugees who can't even read are a very small percentage of our total immigrants. The original study is from 2008 but I don't think there has been significant change in numbers until obviously, the last few weeks. http://www.solki.jyu.fi/julkaisee/maahanmuuttajienkielikoulutus.pdf For integration, we need to go to definitions about integration, because with some definitions we have hundreds of thousands of home-grown Finns who aren't integrated to the society. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Sep 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I guess Finland must have amazingly lightweight bureaucracy, then, I couldn't even change my insurance policy without having a little marathon between three different institutions, so I can't really imagine receiving welfare without being able to apply for it. Our bureaucracy is super heavyweight. You can't put your socks on without someone either wanting to tax your sock, or your movement, which is required to move sock, because moving is like work, and work needs to be taxed. Also thinking about working. Or socks for that matter. Asylum seekers have social services in their own language most of the time as far as I know if they can't hack it with English. I have no idea how it came to be that this lady from social services said people don't know who pays their rent. That is definitely something that should not happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
The Refugee Crisis - a crisis of conscience -> you need to take care of these people, they are escaping a war you caused -> we are 6000 miles away and had nothing to do with a war in Syria -> But Syrians need help and ure a racist -> no Syrians are coming here to begin with, the people coming here are coming from other places, most of which are safe -> ure at fault anyway, because "brown people" -> our economy is poo poo to begin with, we have to take loans to support it -> well the "asylum seekers" boost ure economy, don't worry, otherwise ure a racist and "brown people", -> no they don't, here's a link or 12 to prove otherwise, nobody gives a poo poo about brown people, skin melanine doesn't matter -> then ur just racist and "brown people" (Islam!!11) -> whatever, asylum seekers don't boost our economy be as it may, as you can see -> "brown people... Muslims!!! Brown and Muslims!" -> can you stop talking about brown people? -> no, because ure a racist -> wtf This thread. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
Are you just pissy about that new avatar or something? I actually stopped making that suggestion as someone PMed to say that you're not racist, just, in their words 'really loving stupid about race' so I decided to get off your back about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 07:44 |
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Are you just pissy about that new avatar or something? It's true in the sense I don't think everything is about race. The avatar is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 16:11
|
|