|
The facile recommendations by some folks to simply open up the borders and see what happens is a recipe for failure, and not only is a disservice to the actual refugees but also all the people who are trying to help them now and in the future. Make an actual plan for social services, for funding, for housing, for education, for employment, for law enforcement, etc. Acting as if a massive refugee population doesn't incur costs and special needs is foolish, and implies a certain degree of nihilism about the folks who will fall through the cracks and/or be targeted by anti-immigration groups and predatory actors.Stereotype posted:I would like to see some numbers to back this up. Europe already has a significant homeless population, why are these refugees so easy to house and integrate into society? Also turning Europe into Lebanon doesn't seem very realistic considering their government is extremely overtaxed and is in danger of collapsing itself. Also Lebanon's refugee population mostly lives in UN aid camps that are run by gangs and look like this: 
Kaal fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Sep 4, 2015 |
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
klen dool posted:The only sane and legitimate argument to have is "how do we do it". The argument of"should we do it" is almost offensive to have. Of course it should be done, it should be done as soon as possible. Let those people have refuge. We can argue the how later when they are safe for fucks sake. Should we what, exactly? "Do something now!" is a stupid answer that results in the Syrians living in UN border camps for the next 10-30 years. I don't know why anyone would think that war refugees are a recent or unique phenomenon. Refugees have been pouring out of Africa and the Middle East for decades, and will continue to do so. Get a good photo of a kid dead on a beach and the public wakes up to it for a while, but the reality is that public interest will fade and then the practical concerns of "who is going to pay for all of this" and "how many can we take in" will resurface. There are 60 million war refugees in the world. There are far more economic migrants who similarly are looking for a better life in a rich country. Does your solution apply to them, or just people who say they're from Syria? Why or why not? Kaal fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Sep 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:won't somebody please think of the money? Plans cost money. Nothing is free. If you want to actually create a social net for these people, to actually integrate them into EU society - or for that matter American society - and turn them into citizens, then that's going require actual, you know, thought. You're going to have to make compromises and concessions to either raise new taxes, or divert money from existing welfare programs. The alternative is a UN border camp on the coast of Hungary. Exclamation Marx posted:Why are you conflating migrants and refugees? Because generally that terminology is largely semantic. Is an African immigrant leaving the country because his family ticked off the local dictator and he's afraid of his family's livelihood or is he leaving the country because he can't find work (because the only jobs available are reserved for friends of the local dictator). The former might be classified as a refugee, whereas the latter would be a migrant. Kaal fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Sep 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:So you disagree with Amnesty Intl. on this topic, and think they're wrong? Rather that you simply don't appreciate how those distinctions work in practice. Ernie Muppari posted:lol, okay i'll just draw up a detailed plan to present to my good friends in on the atlantic council, i'll start a megathread to hammer out precise details later I look forward to the further expansion of the UNHCR then. It's hard to take folks seriously when they wake up to an ongoing issue and start wailing and gnashing their teeth that "someone outta do something", and then immediately shrug their shoulders when pressed for any suggestions at all, much less plans for actually implementing those ideas in the real world. Kaal fucked around with this message at 06:54 on Sep 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:So I mean do you think there's a difference, or is there not? And is there any question in your mind as to which camp people fleeing Syria are in? Because if not, what's your point? On a Wikipedia list comparing all the countries of the world, or a Facebook info graphic? No there's practically no difference at all. In the real world, most people straddle the line and desperately hope for whatever status can grant them the longest stay (which isn't necessarily refugee status). The vast, vast majority of the folks fleeing Syria will be classified as asylum-seekers, and perhaps eventually as refugees, and they'll spend the next few years bouncing around European aid organizations before their visa expires and they are returned to Syria. Kaal fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Sep 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
Sharkie posted:Sorry but your thing about "a wikipedia list or facebook info graphic" is confusing me. Are you referring to the graphic EMarx posted? And what exactly are you trying to say about it, that's it''s misleading because it doesn't take into account migrant laborers entering the US? And it seems that you're saying that yes, people fleeing Syria are refugees? Or maybe you aren't and that they "straddle the line" and so the migrant/refugee distinction is meaningless? Sorry but honestly I'm not sure what you're saying. Just to be clear, my position is that people fleeing Syria are refugees and invoking migrant laborers when comparing numbers is disingenuous, as I agree with Amnesty when they make distinctions between the two groups. Well none of the people fleeing Syria are refugees since that's a specifically designated status bestowed by the UNHCR, which they haven't had time to be assigned. Which I suppose is rather the point. If you are casually comparing numbers without context or appreciation for what those numbers mean, then quibbling over details that you're going to ignore anyway doesn't make much of a difference. What I'm saying is actually look at the issue. If you did, you'd see that these sorts of numbers change quite a bit year to year, as refugee populations are quickly converted from asylum seekers, into refugees, then into residents/citizens or returned to the origin country. So a Somali that the US took in as a refugee, then gained a permanent residency, would no longer be represented as an American refugee despite continuing to live in the United States. Since you don't seem that concerned about the specific details of the status, nor comparing the overall yearly trend or immigrant population rather than a per capita, there's really no point in making hay over the specifics of the designations since you're ignoring them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 07:30
|
|