European divisions over migrants

[+and-then]

8 hours ago, Mr.United_Nations said:

Those camps are run by dodgy governments 

Then they should stay home and save themselves the trip and the risk of a dodgy camp.  The problem with the emotional answer to these issues is that people don't try to take the long view at all.  There are 7.5 billion souls on this planet.  The western world has a higher standard of living and owes humanitarian help to the less fortunate but if there is a wholesale transfer of population from destitute, uneducated countries, the net effect will be to destroy the very support system those people depend on.  No one seems to factor that in.  It's like they aren't capable of grasping the reality.

[Helen of Annoy]

9 hours ago, and then said:

Then they should stay home and save themselves the trip and the risk of a dodgy camp.  The problem with the emotional answer to these issues is that people don't try to take the long view at all.  There are 7.5 billion souls on this planet.  The western world has a higher standard of living and owes humanitarian help to the less fortunate but if there is a wholesale transfer of population from destitute, uneducated countries, the net effect will be to destroy the very support system those people depend on.  No one seems to factor that in.  It's like they aren't capable of grasping the reality.

I agree with your post, except one important detail: let's see the actual numbers and decide, objectively, who's not grasping the reality.

Refugees and migrants are numerous. But do these numbers justify hysteria? 

Of course a lot has to be done and of course nothing that would make a difference was done so far, partially (partially, not entirely) because there's a lot of politicians who are using the migrant panic to cover the fact that they have no ability or intention to deal with any other real problem. 

Functioning society won't crumble because of migrations, it in fact needs them. 

Isolating a country is easy. Keeping it functional afterwards is impossible.    

[Phaeton80]

10 hours ago, and then said:

Then they should stay home and save themselves the trip and the risk of a dodgy camp.  The problem with the emotional answer to these issues is that people don't try to take the long view at all.  There are 7.5 billion souls on this planet.  The western world has a higher standard of living and owes humanitarian help to the less fortunate but if there is a wholesale transfer of population from destitute, uneducated countries, the net effect will be to destroy the very support system those people depend on.  No one seems to factor that in.  It's like they aren't capable of grasping the reality.

Lmfao.. So thats how you rationalize your agressive stance against people who are so desperate to have a future they leave everything they know behind, risking their lives to get to a place where they can actually 'live' (even defending the policy of forcibly taking thousands of refugee children from their parents as a penalty, a Christian, lets not forget).

Let me just burst that bubble for you.. The Syrian / ME refugees hail from the fact your nation specifically has had a decades long policy of seeding utter chaos in the Middle East to gain economic and geo- strategic assets under the guise of 'saving the native people from their evil dictator'.

The Africans fleeing to the West mainly do so because most if not all of their own nations are, for all intents and purposes, dictated by Western multinationals who shower the local leaders in cash, thereby facilitating a status quo, detrimental human rights conditions. The 'humanitarian help' you so boastfully pat yourself on the back for has proven to be extremely counterproductive, and serves more to soothe the Western mind than to actually help the people it is thought to support. Its more like an Implicit Colonization 2.0 - leeching a nations natural resources on a structural basis, keeping it undeveloped - to subsequently throw some cash / rice / flower / meds around (even in exchange for sex with local minors) for the hopeless masses to fight over, depend upon.. Not unlike the policy of Israel in regards to 21st century human zoo Palestine. "The less fortunate", indeed, you raging hypocrite.

Similar policies are effectuated in South America, where Venezuela is the most prominent target recently, but certainly not the only one (Bolivia next?).. Im quite sure you would disregard your own nation's hand in that as well, painting these people off as deplorable, useless criminals trying to illegally enter 'the light of the civilized world' - trying to 'destroy your country' - if and when they come your way..

..Only to close of with the dissonant "Its like they arent capable of grasping reality.." The irony is simply mindnumbing. The saying "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye" really, really fits you like a glove. Almost every word you utter attests to that, 'Christian'.
 

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, Helen of Annoy said:

I agree with your post, except one important detail: let's see the actual numbers and decide, objectively, who's not grasping the reality.

Refugees and migrants are numerous. But do these numbers justify hysteria? 

Of course a lot has to be done and of course nothing that would make a difference was done so far, partially (partially, not entirely) because there's a lot of politicians who are using the migrant panic to cover the fact that they have no ability or intention to deal with any other real problem. 

Functioning society won't crumble because of migrations, it in fact needs them. 

Isolating a country is easy. Keeping it functional afterwards is impossible.    

I can agree with this.  An answer has to be found and it doesn't include simply moving mass numbers of people from one region to another without a plan for assimilation.  The "host" population become angry and the migrant population becomes resentful and people who cannot or will not attempt to compromise with each other are headed for nothing but trouble.  Our world is facing ever-growing problems that need thoughtful solutions and we're running short of thoughtful people to handle them.  

[jeem]

On 6/18/2018 at 7:25 AM, and then said:

Gee, I wonder what all those places had in common PRIOR to being invaded... hmmm...

No American influence?

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, jeem said:

No American influence?

     You are correct, up to a point.  There isn't a place on the planet that is totally free of American influence though.  I won't bother to argue with you over my meaning because I know you understand my point... you just reject it.  

[Dark_Grey]

7 hours ago, Helen of Annoy said:

I agree with your post, except one important detail: let's see the actual numbers and decide, objectively, who's not grasping the reality.

Refugees and migrants are numerous. But do these numbers justify hysteria? 

A simple question to ask is "how many?"

You ask that question to 10 people and you will get 10 different answers. It's part of a thought game called "Play it Through" where you take a scenario and you...play it through to the end.

So we have third world migrants banging on the doors of first world nations and we know that we can accommodate some migrants but not all. Now that we have the parameters, we can start to "play it through". First we have to ask "how many" do we let in? 10,000? 2 million? Let's pick an arbitrary number of 1 million. That's a lot of people but it barely scratches the surface of the total third world population. In any case, we have our 1 million migrants. How do we vet those migrants to ensure they are not criminals? How long will that take? What do we do with the migrants in the mean time? Do we set up shelters? Where do we locate those shelters? Should we Police the migrant camps? If so, do we use local Police or a Federal branch like ICE or the National Guard? How much will it cost to feed and house the migrants while we process them? Once they have been vetted, where will they find work? Do we incentive companies to hire migrants? If so, how much will that cost the tax payer? Should migrants be eligible for welfare while they look for work? How do we ensure they are looking for work and they aren't just here to free load?

It's easy to say "open the borders" but it's very hard to back that up with a cohesive plan that satisfies every one. Remember that I chose 1 million migrants for my example but that 1 million leaves potentially billions outside the border. We can't save them all so how do we decide who lives in paradise and who picks through garbage dumps?

Quote

Functioning society won't crumble because of migrations, it in fact needs them. 

Agreed, as long as we differentiate between skilled migrants and unskilled migrants. Canada does well with migrants because we like white collar immigrants. Any sample of people from anywhere in the world will have a mix of motivated and unmotivated people so we should avoid adding to our Government subsidized, entry level work force if we can help it.

[jeem]

35 minutes ago, and then said:

     You are correct, up to a point.  There isn't a place on the planet that is totally free of American influence though.  I won't bother to argue with you over my meaning because I know you understand my point... you just reject it.  

Let's try another guess then. All the place has  rich mineral deposit?

[+and-then]

11 minutes ago, jeem said:

Let's try another guess then. All the place has  rich mineral deposit?

You have yourself a nice weekend, Jeem  

[Setton]

1 hour ago, and then said:

 

Nevermind. No point. 

Edited June 22, 2018 by Setton

[Helen of Annoy]

2 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

A simple question to ask is "how many?"

You ask that question to 10 people and you will get 10 different answers. It's part of a thought game called "Play it Through" where you take a scenario and you...play it through to the end.

So we have third world migrants banging on the doors of first world nations and we know that we can accommodate some migrants but not all. Now that we have the parameters, we can start to "play it through". First we have to ask "how many" do we let in? 10,000? 2 million? Let's pick an arbitrary number of 1 million. That's a lot of people but it barely scratches the surface of the total third world population. In any case, we have our 1 million migrants. How do we vet those migrants to ensure they are not criminals? How long will that take? What do we do with the migrants in the mean time? Do we set up shelters? Where do we locate those shelters? Should we Police the migrant camps? If so, do we use local Police or a Federal branch like ICE or the National Guard? How much will it cost to feed and house the migrants while we process them? Once they have been vetted, where will they find work? Do we incentive companies to hire migrants? If so, how much will that cost the tax payer? Should migrants be eligible for welfare while they look for work? How do we ensure they are looking for work and they aren't just here to free load?

It's easy to say "open the borders" but it's very hard to back that up with a cohesive plan that satisfies every one. Remember that I chose 1 million migrants for my example but that 1 million leaves potentially billions outside the border. We can't save them all so how do we decide who lives in paradise and who picks through garbage dumps?

I rather wouldn't confuse 'open borders' decision in refugee emergency with long term immigration policy of a country.

Internet discussions are prone to consist of extreme opinions and options and this supposed choice between 'open' and 'closed' borders is one of them. It's also false.

There's no need to choose between isolation and migration anarchy. Both are both politically and economically illogical.

Also, I don't think that immigration policy cannot be adjusted when there are reasons to do it, after all, isn't it done all the time? You don't pick a number and stick to it, if it was proven wrong in practice.

 

Each of the absolutely legitimate questions you asked can be answered if there's the actual data available and existing laws applied, with intention to make the best long-term decision for the country, instead of short-term populist gain.

Surprisingly, it's the same with the populist questions you asked. 

 

Regarding the billions, most of us don't bang on your door. It's not that we don't like you or something, it's just that in reality, no, not everyone sees their future in emigration.   

 

2 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

Agreed, as long as we differentiate between skilled migrants and unskilled migrants. Canada does well with migrants because we like white collar immigrants. Any sample of people from anywhere in the world will have a mix of motivated and unmotivated people so we should avoid adding to our Government subsidized, entry level work force if we can help it.

Most people from my country who emigrated to Canada are blue collar workers. None that I know of had any assistance from your state. If they can't find the job that allows them to support themselves, or in cases when they can't wrestle your bureaucracy, they fly home. As simple as that.

So I'm a bit puzzled with that subsidized part you speak of.