|
Letting people die, starve and rot in countries that are wartorn or fall victim to a disaster isn't cool at all, but I think it's worth acknowledging that it's not as easy as 'just letting refugees in'. By virtue of existing, everyone takes a toll on the land, the infrastructure, and the resources a given land has. Finding the room and resources for almost a million more people who are unfamiliar with your culture, your rules, your expectations -- this is hard to do, and expensive to do. If the last half a decade is any indicator, people seem to be less concerned about the economic impact and much more concerned about the cultural impact. That is obviously a huge topic, but I really want an honest discussion without a purely humanitarian viewpoint, because while we should help our fellow man, it simply isn't that simple and saying, 'Well, it IS that simple' is pretty dishonest.
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 04:36 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It kind of is that simple, The UK alone had a net migration of about 330 thousand last year. People immigrate all the time, we could find space for a million people in Europe easily if we were so inclined. Yes, the logistics of moving literally hundreds of thousands of people across the world is 'that simple'. Pack it up boys, we've solved it here!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:What viewpoints other than the humanitarian should we be using to look at this problem? For the same reason that even societies that have real health care systems literally every procedure for every situation, it's not realistic to just blindly accept X refugees, where X is whatever number happen to show up. There are economic and arguably social consequences to having a large group of people show up. Pretending that they don't exist or we don't have to worry about them is foolishness. It'd be beneficial to actually figure these numbers out. 'How many people can a given area support? How should we distribute refugees?' These are important questions, and certainly someone is asking them, but saying stuff like, 'It's that easy' undermines the complexity of immigration, of finding places for these people to live and work, of figuring out how these people will integrate into a brand new society. My beef with the 'easy' mentality isn't that we shouldn't find a way for refugees, it's that it directs a conversation toward blind anger at a government's immigration policy, or at a societies uneasiness at housing a large number of refugees. I think this can be an important and good conversation, but if it immediately devolves into 'Germans are assholes because they closed their borders', then instead of a discussion, it becomes a circlejerk. quote:On that topic, why can't they just be given jobs and made productive tax paying citizens? I don't know if this is even a serious question. If you can answer this question, you will have solved the economy. Congratulations. Canine Blues Arooo fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Sep 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I wish I could find any more to your argument than this. That is the entire argument. If you can acknowledge that much, then we are on the same page.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Gotta let em die, its too financially difficult. *cocks shotgun* Sorry son. Between this 'argument' and the 'Borders dont exist/matter mannnnnnn', It hurts to read this thread. Financial resources exist. Borders exists and they matter, whether or not they should. The world should be fair, but it isn't. Do you want to talk about developments, realistic solutions, and the costs, problems, and benefits of those solutions, or do you want live in the ponyverse where everyone gets along and every story ends with friendship?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Well, if you're going to stake out a position that people who are suffering have a moral right to the resources of wealthy countries, and that wealthy countries have a complementary obligation to provide those resources, you have to be willing to discuss the limits of that right and the practical challenges involved (especially if you're going to include people merely suffering from a low standard of living) or you have to articulate an unlimited right and deal with the problems that brings. So far no one has been willing to do that other than SedanChair with is "full communism now" shtick that we all know isn't serious. I've barked up this tree with SedanChair before. The answer is that you are talking to someone who doesn't understand the most basic of economic principles. I'd not pursue that further.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Which basic economic principle? The principle that resources are finite.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Ligur posted:It's odd I haven't been talking about race at all, and religion very little. Some of you guys are talking about either or both of these things every other post. The reason for this is because most of the 'humanist' side of the argument on SA has an unbelievable hard-on for the ideas of Racism, Xenophobia and the new hot-ticket item: Islamaphobia. If you suggest that maybe half a million refugees might have consequences and might produce at least some undesirable results, then you must be one of those three things! Having an actual rational discourse about how to handle this and talking about some very real issues that can and/or might occur as a result of relocating half a million people to a land and culture they know nothing about can't, and won't happen on this forum. We can't even get to the part where we start speculating on solutions to these problems, both temporary and permanent, because we can't get past the idea that there might be problems to begin with without someone getting called a racist.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Starshark posted:If it's not about race, why is the Somali/Iraqi unemployment rate higher? I can't tell if this is even a serious post. He literally answered this question in the same post.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 04:36 |
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Why do you then not reply to me but reply to another conversation that's about the racism question? Especially given my question is intended to be an attempt to restart the constructive discussion this thread could have. I would actually much prefer this thread were a meaningful discussion and given that I handed out an easy segue I'd appreciate if you could help steer this thread back on track by helping me start a rail. Because me and you fundamentally disagree about how to approach a problem like this from a very high level. I say solve, or at least put a plan in place to solve these problems before we start hulling in people. You (I think) are of the opinion that as a humanitarian crisis, we owe it to them to find them a home, and then solve the problems later. I do think you argue in good faith though so instead of us spinning our wheels about how to even approach step one, I just let it be. I don't necessarily think you are definitively wrong, I just disagree with the approach. Starshark however argues in bad faith and is just creating noise.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2015 23:27
|
|