|
Spooky Forum Ghost posted:Britain has loosened its policy on Syrian refugees after the photo of the 3-year-old was everywhere. Translation: Cameron doesn't reckon he can get away with his stance from a couple of days ago any more, which was, broadly, "gently caress the refugees".
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
We already move hundreds of thousands of people across the world all the time, how do you think migrants normally get where they're going? Besides, part of the reason there is a crisis is because the people have moved themselves, but are still being denied settlement in many countries. People wouldn't be bothered if they were all on the other side of the Mediterranean. If you want examples, a flotilla of approximately 800, largely civilian craft, managed to move about 300 thousand soldiers of the british expeditionary force from Dunkirk in France, back to Britain, with very little organisation, while being bombed by the luftwaffe, in eight days. Obviously the channel is smaller than the Mediterranean but you cannot argue that it is a logistical problem. The resources exist to move people, the inclination to do so does not. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Sep 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Zodium posted:There are really only three options, and only one isn't terrible: No because climate change isn't real la la la la la.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:According to wikipedia you are high by a factor of two. And this is talking about an addition to that figure. An addition in mainly unskilled, war ravaged people with zero support structure and probably some deep traumatic issues. The office of national statistics provides migration data: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Population Wikipedia may be incorrect or using a different statistic. The ONS statistic for migration is approximately 330 thousand more people entering the country last year than left it, compared to a population of 64.6 million residents. While I don't imagine the UK could realistically support a million extra people all at once, at the very least it would be possible to exchange some of the migration quota for refugees, if necessary, or even simply accepting an extra 10 or 20 thousand people, less than 10% of the total annual migration each year. Not much, but far more than we are currently doing. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Sep 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
I would be astonished if there wasn't more migration on the Asian continent than in Europe. Though it is conceivably possible that a lot of them died crossing the Mediterranean if they got very lost?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
my dad posted:As loathe as I am to say something like this, a friend of mine spent two months in a primarily immigrant Muslim town in Sweden, and her experiences were a horrifying cocktail of misogyny (up to an including rape and death threats), from men and women alike (including a little girl screaming at her that she's a vile person for watching cartoons instead of having children). How do you prevent the creation of insular, toxic communities like that one without loving over desperate people fleeing a horrible place? Integration. Bombard people everyday with dissenting viewpoints. Expose them constantly to ideas other than the ones they already have. Require them to mix with other people in order to get the things they want. Show them why they should want the things that require integration to acquire. Exactly the same way everyone else learns to integrate into society, a combination of pressure from their peers, material incentives for compliance, and a lack of viable alternatives.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
It also tends to be ruinously expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Like Land of the Dead with Migrants.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted: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. On the other hand, most things worth doing are expensive, states exist for the purpose of spending collective money on collective endeavors of worth, regardless of what their leaders may believe. That is their only justifiable purpose. People are already dying to violence and crime, and it does not become more acceptable because it's happening to other people. The goal must be to reduce that suffering, and to secure a good life for as many as possible. That is more achievable through integration than shooting everyone who turns up at the border.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Actually, I've always thought that if the goal is reducing human suffering, surely swift death is the most efficacious policy? Well yes but you would need to be able to wipe out all life on the planet with that, otherwise the social impact would probably be more deleterious than letting people live. If you reach the point where it's OK to machinegun refugees on the basis that it will serve greater utility, while you are correct in a vacuum, it will probably swiftly become OK to machinegun a lot of other people until you have a fascist dictatorship.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That's it? It seems like there are lots of other reasons too. Nigel Farage doesn't really hammer on about rape gangs (I guess he has more taste and restraint than you). Nige blames the problems with our healthcare service on HIV infected foreigners coming here on holiday and getting free operations while giving people AIDS. I don't think there is anyone less tasteful than Nigel. namesake posted:We're also in the process of unwinding a massive decades long paedo ring involving white British Christian/atheists who were famous entertainers and politicians potentially including a prime minister so it's more likely that being in the UK with our lovely and corrupt police lets you be a paedo rather than anything to do with ethnicity. Entirely true but people will jump on the minority incidents and use them as fuel for the pre-existing conclusion that foreigners are evil.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
I would support colonising space if we could convince Capital to leave the planet. Capital [space]Flight
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:why would you want to give capital the high ground? So I can push them off it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Is "bloody syrians coming here decapitating our citizens" really an argument being made? Terror attacks aren't a problem, except for politicians.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
What the gesture of him doing a photo op in his posh shirt next to people living in a refugee camp? Or maybe the gesture of him sending a royal navy frigate to board and turn around boats trying to cross the Mediterranean?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
He's agreeing to take a token number of refugees from camps which is very easy to do, and he can pick and choose, he's not at all willing to do anything about the people crowding European ports and borders trying to gain access. It looks good if you don't think about it and doesn't at all address the issue everyone else is having trouble with. He is not at all concerned with the refugee crisis beyond what he has to do in order to assuage public opinion. Until the pictures were published, even the very same morning, his position was "gently caress off we're full". Now it's "gently caress off we're full except for these few people we will heroically rescue and photograph so it looks good".
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Ligur posted:IIRC those who came in the 90s ain't doing that bad. The ones who came in the 00s and later are. For some reason, our larger refugee groups don't do very well at school So while race is apparently the primary determining factor of your educational performance and employment prospects, you don't think racism is the reason for that disparity? Zodium posted:Iraq is an example of what happens when you pump a lot of resources into a complex situation through underdeveloped and inadequate channels, and an example of what happens when a strong political mandate conflicts with inadequate institutional competence. You can not, in fact, 'buy each family of four a nice house and hand them a million,' even if the political will for it is there. Let's say we have a mandate to house them at any cost: Who's going to build the houses? Certainly not private developers, what happens to them when some substantial proportion of the refugees go home? If we're going to use currently unused housing, how are we going to avoid creating ghettos? It's not like unused housing is evenly distribution over cities. On an EU-wide scale, you wouldn't even end up with an even distribution over countries. There's a reason migrations are historical empire-killers: it's just not that easy. Ooo I know, you pay some people to build the houses and then rent them out at reasonable rates to people when they become vacant. What a novel idea, I think I'll call it "Social Housing"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2015 21:01
|
|
Many fail and stop at high school stages. I don't know why, there's speculation, like parents not appreciating education/not working therefore not setting an example and whatnot. Also 2nd generation immigrants appear, according to reports, often quite alienated. Their parents who came as refugees are fine with what they got, but now the 2nd generation kids are not happy with their lot anymore. Also we get the occasional but steady stream of news pieces about parents form conservative places like Somalia or Iraq not letting their kids grow into "Finnish culture" so they get caught between. Somali girls can't do what their classmates can on their free time, not even what their brothers can, that type of stuff.
|
hackbunny posted:Isn't that pretty much a synonym for poverty, crime, hopelessness? As opposed to private rented housing which is synonymous with..? Housing sucks full stop if it's poorly managed, and communities suck if they aren't well integrated with each other. You can't just build houses and put people in them but the idea that we can't build houses for people because of some mysterious magical force that doesn't permit a government to just pay money, build a house, then charge a modest sum for people to live in it is stupid. My granny lives in a social house and it's a nice house, I'd like to live in a house like it. The main issues with them are that they tend to not be properly serviced or maintained, and they also are often poor quality and nobody spends money on them if they start going kind of downhill. If properly maintained there's nothing wrong with them. But as always, it comes down to money, and the idea that we shouldn't spend money on poors because they're not as good as rich people.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:The social systems of Europe are already strained and being dialed back, to say that the increased demand on them and the increased competition for low wage jobs will not hurt the poor in Europe is simply sticking your head in the sand because the facts aren't convenient for you. It's almost like that you could address another problem in the process of addressing the refugee crisis!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
hackbunny posted:... "home"? That's what I mean by poorly serviced, you need services for housing to work, jobs, shops, transport. We have all of those to a lot of council estates here, they aren't the nicest place in the world to live because we still have a lot of underprovision of needed services to people without a lot of money, but I'd much rather live there than in some lovely private london flat for half my wages every month. This is what I think of when I think of private rental properties: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3080503/The-outrageous-London-rental-listings-revealed.html
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Africa's a big place, with better land development it could probably support a lot of people.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Africa only has a billion people in it? Surely it's higher than that?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Seriously though Africa accounts for roughly 20% of the earth's landmass how does it only have a billion people living on it? Though I guess that's still more densely populated than North America.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
I mean I get why really but it's still incredibly surprising and drives home just how underdeveloped the place is. Europe has 750 million people or something on 6% of the earth's landmass.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Well yeah you can look at it that way too. It's possible European/Asian densities would not be supportable in the long term, but still, that's a lot of empty space. I still think the takeaway is that population growth in Africa is only a problem because of a lack of development, due to a lack of money, because we keep nicking it all.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Clearly you just need to settle in it and then go desert folklore > petra for a god-tier city.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/09/africas-population-will-quadruple-by-2100-what-does-that-mean-for-its-cities/380507/ How is a global population rise of 3 billion by 2050 the same as 3 billion extra Africans by 2020?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Also by 2100 we might all be living in space or something, a lot has changed over the last 85 years.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
We haven't managed to "stave off" resource exhaustion as much as we have contributed massively to it by giving all the products of resource exploitation to a very small portion of the population, and also spending massive amounts of resources on killing each other and destroying each other's resources.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
If the disaster is unpredictable in both nature and magnitude then what do you propose we do about it? Like really "something nonspecific but terrible might happen at some point in the future" is not an argument against any policy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2015 01:07
|
|
Assuming that a disaster cannot occur in the future because it hasn't happened before is a basic logical fallacy. If we were talking about anything else, you'd be rightly mocked for this. It's pretty much the definition of the normalcy bias.
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:Develop policies that aim to minimize the adverse effect it will have on our societies. Policies such as "stop the bad stuff" and "protect against things going wrong"? Seriously what the gently caress is "a disaster" and how do you "minimise the adverse effect it will have on our societies"? What are we talking about, recession? Asteroid impact? Solar flare destroying all electronics? Children of Men becoming a documentary? Alien invasion? Do we need to develop a crack team of oil drilling economists and put them on a giant orbiting mirror between us and the sun along with an IVF clinic and a supply of nuclear missiles?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:End consumerism, end growth. The ecological weight of 7 billion humans, let alone the 9 or 10 billion the UN predicts by 2100, clambering to live energy-rich, stuff-rich Western lifestyles isn't sustainable barring some unforeseen technological miracle. Good ideas but not really disaster proofing. Also if the idea is to minimise effects on society, then changing society radically to prevent the disaster seems... self defeating? Additionally, good luck telling everyone "OK, I know we invaded your countries and stole a bunch of poo poo from you but this rich lifestyle we have, you can't have it, because it's bad for the planet, so stop developing." OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Sep 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:And that technology is...? Guessing nuclear power. Ian Winthorpe III posted:Are you retarded? We're obviously talking about the problem of how to deal with large flows of migrants heading towards the developed world due to strife in their native countries. Planning for this would include developing border protection policies that can prevent an uncontrolled influx. Examples would include the soon to be completed fence around Israel (which i believe they are in talks with several EU countries about exporting) and Australia's boat turnback policy. Holy poo poo, you're actually suggesting building the Great Wall of Europe to hold off the endless migrant hordes! You know if we destroyed all ports except for the ones in the black sea we could like, channel the migrants through the Greek peninsula and get free shots on them, they only directly attack your walls if you don't leave them an entrance you know! Did you think Land of the Dead was a historical piece? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Sep 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:You heard it here first everyone: $3 trillion is not a lot of money. $3 trillion is the amount of money America is perfectly willing to spend on things which do not benefit it materially, but which are beneficial to its politicians.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Yes as a Prime Minister the first thing I'd think of is lying to my citizens to put them in danger of criminals. This could not backfire at all. You live in the UK, you can't say that with a straight face.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2015 14:51
|
|