|
Ligur posted:Did some idiot really compare babies born to their parents to asylum seekers? Like REALLY? Lots of asylum seeker are babies too.
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Lots of asylum seeker are babies too. The babies generally have more problems getting here though. There's a reason most asylum seekers who actually manage to come here are young men
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Andrast posted:The babies generally have more problems getting here though. There's a reason most asylum seekers who actually manage to come here are young men So what you are saying is that we should make it easier for families to come over? Anyway I was just pointing out that 'gently caress off we're full' is bollocks, not least because it's said by people in every country ever, regardless of things like population density, economy, etc. Particularly in places like Japan and Russia, which is pretty hilarious what with the ghost towns and all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Did some idiot really compare babies born to their parents to asylum seekers? Like REALLY? You're right, babies aren't seeking refuge from warzones.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
If surplus population was an economic boon most of Sub-Saharan Africa would be super rich.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:Yeah, I did. Economically we are talking about the same effects w.r.t. population. Unless Aryan babies are somehow superior.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:So what you are saying is that we should make it easier for families to come over? Unfortunately the EU already hosed everything up by not having a good centralized plan how to handle the refugee situation and acting way too slow. The we're full type stuff has always been stupid but there are real problems with integrating large amounts of people into a society.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Ligur posted:If surplus population was an economic boon most of Sub-Saharan Africa would be super rich. There's about twice as many developed nations in the top 20 countries by population as subsaharan nations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
Ligur posted:If surplus population was an economic boon most of Sub-Saharan Africa would be super rich. Funny you should say that, sub-saharan Africa (as the most densely populated part of the continent) has about 50% lower population density than Europe as a whole, and only about a third of what western Europe has. Almost like it's not the major defining factor of economic prosperity!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
I refuse to believe someone doesn't know this, but in Europe parents take care of their babies by and large. Asylum seekers on the other hand are wholly dependent on the handouts on the taxpayers of the population (not their close relatives or parents). And at least in Nordic countries, that often means most of their lives. As for Sub Saharan Africa, the point I was trying to make is having a large amount of low skilled labour does not equate to large profit and wealthy society. Comparing babies born and sudden influxes of uneducated (young) adults who don't speak any local language is totally out of whack. The 20-something Arab men flooding Europe don't really have that much to do in their home countries either. Youth unemployment is a huge issue in several parts of the globe. If having much unemployed youth was a path to success, I guess there would a lot more places you could call a success but this doesn't seem to be the case. So receiving many unemployable young men is not good for EU countries, and is not the same as citizens having babies either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Ligur posted:20-something Arab men flooding Europe Stop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Please explain why refugees are untrainable as that is a central assumption of your argument.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Please explain why refugees are untrainable as that is a central assumption of your argument. The problem with educating refugees is that their base education varies a lot and is often a lot behind the native schooling level. Even with good basic education, learning a profession is going to take a while, especially with the not-sharing-a-language problem. It's not impossible but requires quite a bit of resources since it's difficult to just slot the refugees into the existing education system. Children of refugees will obviously have a much easier time though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Please explain why refugees are untrainable as that is a central assumption of your argument. This is a straw man. E: god I loving hate this sort of feigned ignorance bullshit. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Aug 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Stop. Sigh. I undestand how one uses words is important (to the left esp.) but my general point still stands. Most of the new comers who arrive to EU outside of regular migration right now are young men from Muslim countries. That better?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Andrast posted:The problem with educating refugees is that their base education varies a lot and is often a lot behind the native schooling level. Even with good basic education, learning a profession is going to take a while, especially with the not-sharing-a-language problem. Well, yes, but native people require a lot of resources to get to that point too. In fact I'd wager it takes more years of full-time education for a child to become an electrician or whatever than it does for a refugee. That they are not offered full-time education (even if they do receive some) is more because of people like Ligur, not because they or the society wouldn't benefit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:Well, yes, but native people require a lot of resources to get to that point too. In fact I'd wager it takes more years of full-time education for a child to become an electrician or whatever than it does for a refugee. The children are generally taken care of by their parents though, the refugees in this situation are most likely unemployed during their studies. It's also difficult to start the education before they actually learn the language, which alone can be quite a hurdle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Sigh. I undestand how one uses words is important (to the left esp.) but my general point still stands. Most of the new comers who arrive to EU outside of regular migration right now are young men from Muslim countries. That better? You are not comparing them to a natural disaster, so yes, it is objectively better. I still disagree with you and your lovely opinions, but that's another deal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
The difference between a native child and a refugee is a) During the education of the native child the parents pay for most of it's needs. The state only has to pay for the education itself. b) The ROI on that education is a lot better, because the child will finish it's primary education at around the same age as most refugees arrive, therefore the child will make more use of the education it was provided with c) There is no expectation that the child will have to leave the country, will it's generally assumed that refugees will return to their country of origin once the conflict from which they fled ended d) Culturally the native child is fully assimilated while refugees might want to keep their culture, speak their language at home etc. e) Learning is easier at an early age. Combined this makes the idea that refugees are even comparable to native children completely moronic, but I don't really understand why people are making an economic argument. Isn't the whole idea behind the asylum/refugee system that people get temporary protection while their home country is a warzone but get send back once the war/conflict is over? If you want to talk about migration that is a completely different field in which the host countries have a lot more options to select the people who are allowed in and therefore would simply reject people with the education that most refugees have.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Please explain why refugees are untrainable as that is a central assumption of your argument. I don't know who you are talking to for certain, but I don't think anyone said that exactly. There are no jobs to go around in the countries I speak of for educated native speaking youth, and even when there are even less for uneducated youth who speak no local language and who are often undocumented. I guess you can teach them with public schooling to first speak a local tongue, then from the ground up to be some, I dunno, super civic engineer, or high tech wizard, and really ground up since so many are very poorly educated vs Westen standards (assuming if they want this first place), but when you start with an adult that will take quite a loving while and is pretty tall order for the receiving society...
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:c) There is no expectation that the child will have to leave the country, will it's generally assumed that refugees will return to their country of origin once the conflict from which they fled ended Gee, if only there were some way around that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:That they are not offered full-time education (even if they do receive some) is more because of people like Ligur, not because they or the society wouldn't benefit. If there is economic benefit to accepting huge numbers of refugees - feeding them, providing housing, teaching them the language, educating them, giving them work permits - until they become independent from aid or return to home country (this will take years at least, possibly decades, and will never happen for many of them)... Why is there such a pushback from almost every country? Racism? That's all? From Cameron to Putin, from Saudi King to Erdogan - they are all wringing their hands looking at this valuable resource which would boost their economies. If only they could take in the refugees... But alas a portion of the population is racist so they can't.  Note that I'm not against accepting refugees for humanitarian reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:If there is economic benefit to accepting huge numbers of refugees - feeding them, providing housing, teaching them the language, educating them, giving them work permits - until they become independent from aid or return to home country (this will take years at least, possibly decades, and will never happen for many of them)... Why is there such a pushback from almost every country? Racism? That's all? From Cameron to Putin, from Saudi King to Erdogan - they are all wringing their hands looking at this valuable resource which would boost their economies. If only they could take in the refugees... But alas a portion of the population is racist so they can't. It's an interesting question. And after all there is a number of countries -including Turkey- which did take in a large amount of refugees. While the degree to which they've been permitted to participate in the civil society is limited (most visibly in terms of work permits) and they aren't being utilised quite as much as they could potentially be, many of the surrounding countries could have fought harder to keep them out (and some did: Israel, Saudi Arabia ..) It's easy to decry it all as racism (which in a way it is). And I imagine the societal dislike of foreigners can be quite a strong factor, as civil authorities have to try and be seen as "strict" to the refugees to some extent, otherwise they would have to face popular backlash. But on another level there is also the question of having the resources to "invest" into the refugees, with many countries surrounding Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan being quite dysfunctional and needing to fight hard for their own survival as functioning societies. This amplifies the effects of the previous point as well, but despite all this the civil authorities in surrounding countries have certainly taken in a large number of refugees. And I firmly believe that in a few decades or so they will be richer for that, at least if no ethnic cleansing happens in the meantime. I have personally gone to school with children of refugees who, and whose parents, are now considered 'upstanding' (meaning upper middle class) members of the community. They still face regular discrimination and abuse despite all that. Still though, the country has benefitted from their presence, however disliked they might be. In general the world would be a better place if people would accept foreigners among themselves. And the various times this has happened or been forced (American Chinese for instance) it led to happier and rich populations eventually. As well as a lot of opposition at the time. The main danger is that the wave of popular hatred reaches a point where all those potential gains are undone before they could be realised. e: fixed phoneposting grammar Private Speech fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Aug 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:Well, yes, but native people require a lot of resources to get to that point too. In fact I'd wager it takes more years of full-time education for a child to become an electrician or whatever than it does for a refugee. A big problem though is that there are only that many electricians needed, and many of the needed jobs (such as teachers and engineers) are gated behind multi year educations that require education compatible grades to enter and good language skills to complete, something which might take years to acquire depending on the current education level. This also requires that the person is willing to commit to being a student for quite some time, a position that brings in negligible amounts of cash while taking the time of a fulltime job. This is a significant undertaking even for natives and not everyone is fit/motivated enough to enter or complete the required education. And they are offered education right at the start though, local language education, which is really THE key for entering basic society, make effective use of public services and entering the job market.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Gee, if only there were some way around that. One doctor per 40.000 people in Malawi because everyone who's got two eyes gets a sweetheart deal and fucks off to somewhere that's not Malawi. And on an individual level, it's hard to blame them. Why stay in Malawi when even a mediocre doctors salary blows the local compensation package out of the water? But should we really want the educated Syrian middle class to move to Europe and stay there? Or for that matter the crop currently being educated? These are the people that are likely needed most to rebuild the country should they ever get to that point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
Who resurrected Goebbels and let him in the thread? Trying to assign ROI to refugees from what amounts to genocide is loving inhumane you xenophobic nativist fucks. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 13:21 on Aug 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
It makes a huge difference to the internal politics of the destination countries whether or not the refugees are seen as a burden you must accept for moral reasons, or as potentially productive members of society. If that means Europeans are Goebbels, well, that's the grim reality we live in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
doverhog posted:It makes a huge difference to the internal politics of the destination countries whether or not the refugees are seen as a burden you must accept for moral reasons, or as potentially productive members of society. If that means Europeans are Goebbels, well, that's the grim reality we live in. What are the people you are advocating for in this thread literally suggested going down to the Mediterranean and sinking Refugee boats I'd honestly think about what you're trying to recommend here
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
Recommend?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Recommend? That we accept nearly despotic and inhumane refugee conditions just because it's economically acceptable
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
I didn't recommend that or anything else, maybe you are confusing me with someone else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
doverhog posted:I didn't recommend that or anything else, maybe you are confusing me with someone else. I'm sorry were you not just the one that said the Grim reality should just be accepted
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
No....? The point I was making is that we should not concede to the nativists that refugees are and always will be an economic burden.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
doverhog posted:No....? The point I was making is that we should not concede to the nativists that refugees are and always will be an economic burden. It doesn't matter if they think they are the statistics don't actually support that they're not making arguments that natives are more valuable as an investment because they're xenophobic
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
Honestly? The "economic burden" vs "economic benefit" argument should just disappear. It operates under the same dehumanising narrative of reducing human value to a statistical figure that has caused so much damage and detachment between modern politics and people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Honestly? The "economic burden" vs "economic benefit" argument should just disappear. It operates under the same dehumanising narrative of reducing human value to a statistical figure that has caused so much damage and detachment between modern politics and people. Exactly. Trying to invalidate refugees by their economic value undermines the entire point of having a refugee system to begin with. That's the lovely part about the arguments Gaussian and Ligur make: These are not normal immigrants, and trying to place value on them ignores their plight, even disregarding the statistics that they've ignored. Hell, if we're going to use ROI as a justification for existence in a country, how long until its turned upon the health system and used to deny people basic medical treatment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
Good luck winning elections if you stop even pretending there's an economic benefit to hosting the migrants, many of whom aren't actually refugees.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:It doesn't matter if they think they are the statistics don't actually support that they're not making arguments that natives are more valuable as an investment because they're xenophobic You would help refugees more if you made an effort to write comprehensibly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:You would help refugees more if you made an effort to write comprehensibly. I'm blaming Google Voice, since that was my phone post. Sinteres posted:Good luck winning elections if you stop even pretending there's an economic benefit to hosting the migrants, many of whom aren't actually refugees.  Most of them are still refugees. And trying to undermine the refugee system with economic arguments is, at best, a poor strawman, at worst, an inhumane attempt to remove any value of the human lives of people fleeing outright genocide.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
I wasn't aware that Turkey was exterminating refugees; this changes everything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 15:44
|
|