Refugees travelling to Europe

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

RCT Bob
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:05 pm UTC
Location: Netherlands

Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby RCT Bob » Sat Sep 05, 2015 7:44 am UTC

It's been all over the European media for the past few weeks, and also all over CNN as far as I can see. Refugees originating from Lybia, Syria, Iraq, Eritrea, Afghanistan, and some other countries, travelling in large numbers to North-West Europe. European governments are divided and, being European governments trying to reach agreement with each other, also slow in their response. No real solution is effected yet, and an end to the war in Syria and Iraq, where most refugees originate from, is still nowhere in sight.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Sep 05, 2015 1:07 pm UTC

It'd be over in a week if the EU go off its collective asses and invaded Syria. Hell, if Turkey alone got off its ass, but it's too busy killing Kurds.

As for what to do about the refugees, I'm a bit ruthless in this. Allow women and boys below the age of 16 to enter; all the men capable of fighting have to go back to fight or die.

WaterToFire
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:09 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby WaterToFire » Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:51 pm UTC

Why can't the women go back to fight and die too?

RCT Bob
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:05 pm UTC
Location: Netherlands

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby RCT Bob » Sat Sep 05, 2015 3:02 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:It'd be over in a week if the EU go off its collective asses and invaded Syria. Hell, if Turkey alone got off its ass, but it's too busy killing Kurds.

As for what to do about the refugees, I'm a bit ruthless in this. Allow women and boys below the age of 16 to enter; all the men capable of fighting have to go back to fight or die.


I don't think the solution is as simple as simply invade and destroy. Syria is already in ruins, and the terrorist groups like ISIS have proven themselves ruthless. An invasion opens up a can of ethical and moral issues, like what to do against child soldiers employed by ISIS, what to do when they use innocent civilians as human shields, and so on, not to say the least of what would actually happen afterwards. Nobody seems to have a clear idea on who should actually be in power. Assad has made himself impopular in the western world in the past. Some may say that Assad is not much better than ISIS, and the refugees are just as much fleeing from military action from the governmental side as from the terrorist sides. The history in Afghanistan and Iraq, two other large sources of refugees, also does not predict well that a military solution would actually work.

On the Kurdish issue, Turkey is at war with both the PKK group and ISIS, PKK is also on terrorist watchlists and they also have done terrorist attacks in Turkey. The entire area of Syria and Iraq is a giant hellhole. I also don't agree that people should be forced to fight a war that they have no part in. Not everyone has weapons or had military training, and as detailed above, who'se side should they fight on? If you force all those men back to the war, I fear that'd only make the war even worse. I can't justify forcing people to their deaths fighting a war that has no legitimate cause for those people, just because they were born in that country.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby leady » Sat Sep 05, 2015 3:23 pm UTC

WaterToFire wrote:Why can't the women go back to fight and die too?


Most of them are - I don't see a huge set of demographic coverage in Hungary even with the news desperately trying.

I think the two choices really are topple or support Assad, but not procrastinate. Whilst arguably more wrong, I'd tend to lean on support just on a pragmatic basis

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Sep 05, 2015 3:26 pm UTC

That'll have long term consequences. It sends the message that awful dictators should ensure their country should be run such that when they die the country will turn to shit.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby leady » Sat Sep 05, 2015 3:39 pm UTC

Undoubtedly, but we've tried toppling dictators in my lifetime with zero success - maybe its time to leash them

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Sep 05, 2015 3:44 pm UTC

We did solve the problem of Iraq; we hired and funded the Sons of Iraq, which was effectively a death squad. The violence and civil war was pretty much at a halt with them running around murdering the shit out of anyone that looked like they might start trouble. The reason Iraq went to hell after we left was that Maliki disbanded the Sons of Iraq, didn't have an army that could replace them, and looked like he was preparing for a genocide against the Sunnis.

The reason that Iraq went to shit in the first place was that Paul Bremer disbanded the Iraqi army. 400,000 young men with military training, guns, a reason to hate the US, and no job? Not a problem at all! They became the Sunni militias which kept attacking the US at the start. At the same time, Iran was funding every group they could to attack US targets, preferably Shia but not always (initially, the Shia were somewhat friendly to the US, given that the Sunnis had been oppressing them for several decades). Then in 2006 one of the Shia holy sites was blown up by a militia (or maybe it was AQI?), which more or less plunged Iraq into a fullblown civil war.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby morriswalters » Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:10 pm UTC

Carve out some ground space in Syria that can be defended. Build a city and populate it. Rinse and repeat. Create work in them, first building and then something else. Put schools in. Keep the war out. Put a 20 mile killing zone around them and kill anybody who violates those zones for war. Use drones. Shelter the population in place. Break the peace in the cities and get kicked. Cheaper to do it there than to do it elsewhere, safer in that there need be no dangerous migration. Just my thoughts.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10332
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby addams » Sat Sep 05, 2015 5:07 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Carve out some ground space in Syria that can be defended. Build a city and populate it. Rinse and repeat. Create work in them, first building and then something else. Put schools in. Keep the war out. Put a 20 mile killing zone around them and kill anybody who violates those zones for war. Use drones. Shelter the population in place. Break the peace in the cities and get kicked. Cheaper to do it there than to do it elsewhere, safer in that there need be no dangerous migration. Just my thoughts.

Gee.
That could work.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby Djehutynakht » Sat Sep 05, 2015 5:24 pm UTC

Safe zones would definitely be a great first step in many of these places.

Honestly, the answer has to be solving the Libya/Syria/Iraq crises (these don't comprise all refugees, but a damn good start). There is honestly no other way about it. It will be very difficult and costly, but there's really no alternative than eventually taking the entirety of the populations of these countries that decides to flee (a whole lot of people), discounting the ones who die on the journey (also a lot) and totally giving up on their homelands as wastelands.

Libya it might actually be possible to carve out a government. It's not hopeless, but would require a firm international "get your crap together" stance.

Syria is more complicated. But honestly, it's got to happen. This has gone on way too long. It's an infection-- it's going to get worse the longer we wait until everything eventually just dies.

RCT Bob
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:05 pm UTC
Location: Netherlands

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby RCT Bob » Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:18 pm UTC

I agree something should happen to resolve the issues there, but nobody really seems eager to invade. Europe is too divided between countries to make a solid stance, and most European countries do not have a large enough army to make a strong stance on their own, military spending is significantly lower than in the US, and a lot of reliance for national defense is being part of NATO.

That said, I don't think the refugee numbers are by definition crippling to Europe. We have over 500 million citizens in Europe, and maybe 5 or so million refugees will arrive over the coming years. By far most refugees are still in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. If Lebanon can have 20% of their population comprised of Syrian refugees, Europe should be able to handle refugees in numbers lower than 1%. The main problem in this is political willpower and European governments being divided. Some governments, like the German and the Swedish, want to absorb refugees, while some others, like the UK, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Greece are not too willing to absorb. Europe lacks a greater authority above the national governments to make decisions on European-wide scales, which haunts us for both military decisions and decisions like these. Europe definitely has the means in terms of wealth and capacity to transport the refugees from the Turkish shore to European countries, and if divided properly by scaling with number of citizens and national wealth, definitely has the capabilities to accept them all.

I think that transporting refugees into Europe, giving them medical assistance, learning them the language, and just generally assisting them to actually get going and build a future in Europe might actually be less costly in the long term compared to guarding safe-zones in Syria for indefinite lengths of time (and realistically, how much safety can you grant there, how much of a future could these people actually build up there?)

Iv
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:08 pm UTC
Location: Lyon, France

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby Iv » Sun Sep 06, 2015 4:28 am UTC

addams wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Carve out some ground space in Syria that can be defended. Build a city and populate it. Rinse and repeat. Create work in them, first building and then something else. Put schools in. Keep the war out. Put a 20 mile killing zone around them and kill anybody who violates those zones for war. Use drones. Shelter the population in place. Break the peace in the cities and get kicked. Cheaper to do it there than to do it elsewhere, safer in that there need be no dangerous migration. Just my thoughts.

Gee.
That could work.

One flaw: it requires a sustained military presence, which implies a sustained political support to the effort.

How would such a place be managed?

Debatable observation: Israel could be argued to share many aspects with your proposals. What aspects would be different? Which would be similar?

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby Cleverbeans » Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:32 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:As for what to do about the refugees, I'm a bit ruthless in this. Allow women and boys below the age of 16 to enter; all the men capable of fighting have to go back to fight or die.


I'm not sure unarmed, untrained civilians are going to make much of a match for carpet bombing. Certainly you can find a more efficient means of executing them. Asking them to pick between two dictatorships to fight for seems like a really bad idea for stability in the region too. This is a terrible idea.

Let everyone move on to their end destination. We should facilitate natural migration patterns instead of trying to interfere with them. The problem is there is so much paranoia about foreigners people get scared and react irrationally. This isn't a organized incursion by a terrorist group these are just people fleeing certain death. In times of crisis like this borders should be porous, but they're running into all the tough on terrorism legislation and the red tape piles up. Embrace the immigration. Embrace those that sacrificed everything to try and save their families.

The Statue of Liberty says
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

This is relevant here. Bring them in. As many as you can take. This is a beautiful chance to show that the Western world cares about these people. It could set a precedent of peace. Don't squander this chance by sending millions of men to the death.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby elasto » Mon Sep 07, 2015 6:26 am UTC

Just to add to that: To those who'd say these people should emigrate 'legally', often that is literally (not just figuratively) impossible. This is the story of the family of the dead boy washed up on a Turkish beach, whose picture many here will have seen, and which prompted this change of stance from some European nations:

As Syrian Kurds, the Kurdis' chances of being granted asylum in Canada were hampered from the moment they set out for Turkey. For many years, Syria denied its Kurdish population citizenship and Kurds were regarded as stateless by the authorities. A decree in 2011 allowed some to apply for citizenship but others were ineligible and many were forced to flee before they could apply.

The Kurdis had been living in Damascus until the early stages of the Syrian conflict in late 2011. When the violence in the city escalated, they relocated back to Makharij village, 25km outside the northern town of Kobane.

When Kobane became a flashpoint in the conflict between Kurdish fighters and Islamic State militants in late 2014, the family fled along with tens of thousands of others for Turkey. But while crossing Turkey's open border gave them refuge, it did not give them status.

Turkey was the first of Syria's neighbours to respond formally to the refugee crisis, declaring a temporary protection policy in October 2011 that guaranteed no Syrian refugees would be sent home.

Under the policy, those with passports are given a year-long residence permit and are free to move. But those without documents are obliged to register at a refugee camp and stay there, or they are "irregular" - living illegally outside of camps.

This is the situation the Kurdis found themselves in, staying in Istanbul but desperate to leave Turkey. Such people are in a kind of limbo - unable to obtain exit visas from Turkey because they lack passports and unable to win asylum elsewhere because they lack exit visas.

Tima Kurdi had sponsored a "G5" private asylum application for the family of her other brother, Mohammad. Financial constraints and the complexity of the process meant she had to tackle one family at a time - Mohammad was chosen first because he had school-age children.

But the application was rejected by Canadian immigration authorities. Canada's Department of Citizenship and Immigration told the BBC the application was "incomplete as it did not meet regulatory requirements for proof of refugee status recognition".

The reason for the rejection was simple, said Tima; the Kurdis had no passports and no Turkish work permits - documents they were unable to retain.

When the first asylum application was rejected in June, "there was no hope" of Abdullah and his family obtaining the correct paperwork for a successful application, she said. And so they headed for the coastline.

The Kurdis had made three previous attempts to leave Turkey before their fourth and final, family members told the BBC. On the fourth attempt, they worked with people in Izmir to get them to the coast and then on to Kos by boat. They are believed to have paid €4,000 (£2,900; $4,400) for the crossing - several times the cost of an airfare to Canada for the whole family.

Under darkness, the family's boat was pushed out into the waves. Within minutes they were in trouble. In heartbreaking detail, Abdullah described the moment his young family drowned:

"I tried to catch my children and wife but there was no hope. One by one they died," he said. "I tried to steer the boat but another high wave pushed the boat over. That is when it happened. My children were the most beautiful children in the world. Is there anybody in the world for whom their child is not the most precious thing? My kids were amazing. They woke me everyday to play with me. I would love to sit next to the grave of my family now and relieve the pain I feel."

He said he intends to fly his family to Istanbul and then home to Kobane, where he will bury them.

"It is too late to save Abdullah's family," said Tima. "Please let's use our collective voices to make change and demand that our world leaders take action now to pass emergency refugee measures. Let's put an end to this suffering. Our hearts have been broken."


The full story can be found here

RCT Bob
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:05 pm UTC
Location: Netherlands

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby RCT Bob » Mon Sep 07, 2015 7:57 am UTC

Legal issues are perhaps the largest hurdle for the refugees, not just in Turkey but also in Hungary, the first country many encounter inside the Shengen zone. The Shengen zone is a group of European countries without border checkings between them. European legislation requires refugees to register in the first country of the zone they enter. The Hungarian government is fairly anti-immigrant and is using the legislation to harass refugees, hoping to discourage others to come. The anti-immigrant attitude of the Hungarian government makes many refugees refuse to register in Hungary, instead opting to travel further to Austria or Germany. Hungary has stopped providing transport for the refugees to Austria, so many refugees go by foot to travel Austria from Budapest.

Last night the European commission decided that other EU countries will take over some refugees from Italy, Hungary, and Greece. Mainly Spain, Germany, and France will gain more refugees. The East-European countries (apart from Poland) will gain comparatively few. The East-European countries like Slovakia are fairly anti-immigrant, having already officially stated to prefer Christian refugees over Islamic refugees as to not upset the existing Christian culture. The current division seems to be an attempt by the European commission to reach agreement.

What must be said is that this division only counts for the refugees that have already reached Europe. No long-term strategy for the refugees still arriving in the future is present yet. The plan is officially still confidential, the individual governments still have to agree with it, but it's been leaked.

Iv
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:08 pm UTC
Location: Lyon, France

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby Iv » Mon Sep 07, 2015 8:06 am UTC

To add to this, the procedure to get asylum in my country (France) is really hypocritically designed to make it extremely hard. Because asylum is granted or not by a court of law, based on pretty clear and progressive laws: if you have a legitimate reason to fear for your physical integrity because of political reasons, you get asylum. Being from a country at war is considered enough. Being a woman from Saudi Arabia is enough. Being an atheist in Iran is enough.

The catch is, because asylum is so easy to get in front of this court, the state gave very specific conditions to make a formal demand. You have to do it in France territory (embassies don't work (!) ), in the French legalese, and you are not granted a translator. You are allowed to ask for a visa to make a demand, but visa are granted by police authorities under direct control of the government and are authorised to refuse any demand without justification.

So your best bet is actually to enter illegally and make a demand to stay. This is a fucked up situation where the most likely way to get a legal situation involves entering illegally on the territory.

Many people like me would love to see a very simple change: allow to make a demand in an embassy. If there is a fear of a tsunami of refugees, put a (publicly decided) quota in place.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby leady » Mon Sep 07, 2015 9:16 am UTC

The awkward thing about that story from the bbc (and lets face it everywhere) is that

they had never applied to Canada
they Lived in an apartment in Istanbul and had done for 4 years
the father had a life jacket (read into what that says yourselves)

I wish the media did a full breakdown of the demographics, but visually it looks like 80%+ young men, not families (yes there are clearly a lot of families too).

Eowiel
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:57 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby Eowiel » Mon Sep 07, 2015 9:24 am UTC

leady wrote:
I wish the media did a full breakdown of the demographics, but visually it looks like 80%+ young men, not families (yes there are clearly a lot of families too).


It's a costly and dangerous passage, a lot of men make the journey with the intent to bring over their family legaly once they are settled. In many european countries it is easier to get a visa when one family member already lives legally in the country.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby leady » Mon Sep 07, 2015 9:42 am UTC

If you think that its safe enough to leave your family behind for months if not years, then you are not a refugee

RCT Bob
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:05 pm UTC
Location: Netherlands

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby RCT Bob » Mon Sep 07, 2015 10:08 am UTC

I haven't looked into detail on the individual case of that family. While the photo is telling and may be more influential to change than anything else, I think a bit too much in numbers to consider an individual case statistically relevant, especially in datasets so variable as family composition and situation.

On whether or not they're refugees, I don't think people can be divided into a group that just flees the war and a group that's just in it for the money. A lot of them flee initially from the war, and end up in refugee camps in Jordan, Turkey, or Lebanon. You can survive there, but with no end of the war in sight, I can understand that these people want to build a future as well. Staying in a refugee camp for 10 years means 10 years that your children have no education, that you cannot build on a future, that you potentially have no healthcare or job, and so on. In that situation I don't think it's too strange a decision to decide that the strongest men in the family take the dangerous journey from the refugee camp to Europe, preferably Germany or another country with potential to build a good life, get asylum and visa for the family, and then bring them over. The rest of the family is still somewhat safe in the camp for those few weeks or months, probably safer than in an overloaded smuggler's boat or on a walking trek of hundreds of kilometers.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby Zamfir » Mon Sep 07, 2015 10:27 am UTC

Yeah,
leady wrote:they Lived in an apartment in Istanbul and had done for 4 years

European countries are vocally clear on one thing: 10s of thousands of refugees per country is a lot, and even the largest and richest countries in Europe will only take in such numbers if other countries do their part. David Cameron talks about thousands, perhaps more than 10 thousand. He puts on his concerned-and-magnanimous face when he talks about these numbers.

In the mean time, there are around 2 million Syrian refugees in Turkey, more than a million in Lebanon, and more yet in other countries in the region.

It's one or the other: If European countries find it genuinely difficult to accept such numbers of refugees, then Turkey and Lebanon are stretched way beyond reasonable limits. Turkey is not offering Istanbul apartments to refugees - some refugees have savings and can get favours from family. Those don't last forever.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby leady » Mon Sep 07, 2015 10:38 am UTC

RCT Bob wrote:I haven't looked into detail on the individual case of that family. While the photo is telling and may be more influential to change than anything else, I think a bit too much in numbers to consider an individual case statistically relevant, especially in datasets so variable as family composition and situation.


Given the cultural swing that single photograph has caused, I think its highly relevant to confirm its backstory.

On whether or not they're refugees, I don't think people can be divided into a group that just flees the war and a group that's just in it for the money. A lot of them flee initially from the war, and end up in refugee camps in Jordan, Turkey, or Lebanon. You can survive there, but with no end of the war in sight, I can understand that these people want to build a future as well. Staying in a refugee camp for 10 years means 10 years that your children have no education, that you cannot build on a future, that you potentially have no healthcare or job, and so on. In that situation I don't think it's too strange a decision to decide that the strongest men in the family take the dangerous journey from the refugee camp to Europe, preferably Germany or another country with potential to build a good life, get asylum and visa for the family, and then bring them over. The rest of the family is still somewhat safe in the camp for those few weeks or months, probably safer than in an overloaded smuggler's boat or on a walking trek of hundreds of kilometers.


I don't doubt that life in a camp is pretty bad, but I'm also pretty sure that its still better than millions have in the world. Once immediate safety is replaced by a desire for a better life, then you are an economic migrant. There is nothing wrong with this, but from a brutal economic perspective no EU country needs large numbers of largely unskilled, no native speaking young men.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1810
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby Quercus » Mon Sep 07, 2015 11:02 am UTC

leady wrote:
RCT Bob wrote:I haven't looked into detail on the individual case of that family. While the photo is telling and may be more influential to change than anything else, I think a bit too much in numbers to consider an individual case statistically relevant, especially in datasets so variable as family composition and situation.


Given the cultural swing that single photograph has caused, I think its highly relevant to confirm its backstory.

Why? The cultural impact of the photo (i.e. the fact that people didn't have this reaction to all the dead children who didn't get a poignant photo) is almost entirely down to cognitive bias. Any change in impact due to the backstory would also be almost entirely cognitive bias (as RCT Bob says, it's not statistically relevant). The only relevant thing to determine is what the large patterns are, and push for the solution that you believe is justified by those patterns.

While of course individually tragic, the photo is only relevant because it is representative of a significantly larger issue (i.e. many more people dying - more than 2500 this year according to the UNHCR). Similarly, the backstory is only relevant if it is representative of a larger issue, and you have not provided evidence or reasoning that it is.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby Zamfir » Mon Sep 07, 2015 11:39 am UTC

Once immediate safety is replaced by a desire for a better life, then you are an economic migrant.

So, your proposal is to pick up refugees directly at the border and bring them to Europe? Or do you think that millions of refugees are a reasonable number for the direct neighbours to take in?

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby leady » Mon Sep 07, 2015 11:54 am UTC

Quercus wrote:Why? The cultural impact of the photo (i.e. the fact that people didn't have this reaction to all the dead children who didn't get a poignant photo) is almost entirely down to cognitive bias. Any change in impact due to the backstory would also be almost entirely cognitive bias (as RCT Bob says, it's not statistically relevant). The only relevant thing to determine is what the large patterns are, and push for the solution that you believe is justified by those patterns.

While of course individually tragic, the photo is only relevant because it is representative of a significantly larger issue (i.e. many more people dying - more than 2500 this year according to the UNHCR). Similarly, the backstory is only relevant if it is representative of a larger issue, and you have not provided evidence or reasoning that it is.


Its important because its presents a very misleading emotional narrative and is being used to push an agenda based on that false narrative.

I think that continue to fund and improve the camps in the neighbouring countries whilst actually trying to solve the underpinning problems in Syria one way or the other is the best outcome for Europe

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5941
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby Angua » Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:00 pm UTC

Also, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of direct health risks (if nothing else) to living in extremely massive and over-stretched camps, especially in countries that don't have the capacity for over a million new people all at once. Looking at this article it's pretty much only luck that Turkey hasn't had a mass outbreak of measles so far (they decided that it would be more economical to only vaccinate if there was an outbreak so they could focus on other things). Turkey seems to be doing the best on being able to cope if you extrapolate from UNICEF not including them in targets for clean water and nutrition, but that is not going to last forever if people keep going and staying there.

People need to be spread out.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby leady » Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:05 pm UTC

I would be far more supportive of allowing folks into Europe if there was a mechanism for giving them a lift home 5 years later. Unfortunately that "right to family life" in the EU HRA tends to screw that one.

Eowiel
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:57 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby Eowiel » Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:20 pm UTC

leady wrote:
Its important because its presents a very misleading emotional narrative and is being used to push an agenda based on that false narrative.

I think that continue to fund and improve the camps in the neighbouring countries whilst actually trying to solve the underpinning problems in Syria one way or the other is the best outcome for Europe



But if it really is a false narrative, wouldn't it be better to show the correct large pattern, instead of just debunking this photo and then presenting this as proof that the whole refugee narrative is wrong? Even if the story behind this particular photo is "wrong", it's possible that the idea the public has when watching the photo is still pretty much in line with reality.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1810
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby Quercus » Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:22 pm UTC

leady wrote:I would be far more supportive of allowing folks into Europe if there was a mechanism for giving them a lift home 5 years later.

Is there any actual evidence/analysis that shows that the refugees staying, evenly dispersed, in Europe long term would have a significant negative economic impact on Europe? (I'm genuinely curious on this point, this isn't a loaded question).

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby leady » Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:42 pm UTC

Eowiel wrote:But if it really is a false narrative, wouldn't it be better to show the correct large pattern, instead of just debunking this photo and then presenting this as proof that the whole refugee narrative is wrong? Even if the story behind this particular photo is "wrong", it's possible that the idea the public has when watching the photo is still pretty much in line with reality.


It would better to show the correct large pattern, which is an overwhelming young male pattern that are migrating for largely economic reasons. That of course makes for bad news...

Is there any actual evidence/analysis that shows that the refugees staying, evenly dispersed, in Europe long term would have a significant negative economic impact on Europe? (I'm genuinely curious on this point, this isn't a loaded question).


As I always like to point out in the UK you need to reach the top 40% of earners to be break even, top 30% to be a positive contributor. The cynic in me can't help but place unskilled, none native speakers in the bottom 20%, which cost 15 - 20k per year (sure not all - I'm sure in 4 years time we will treated to a heart warming night school news story, but in general). In a lot of ways being able to stay in France, Germany, UK etc is like a lottery win.

RCT Bob
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:05 pm UTC
Location: Netherlands

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby RCT Bob » Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:59 pm UTC

I don't think most Syrian refugees are unskilled, there was a fair educational system in Syria before the war broke out. That said, it does take some time to get going for refugees. They need to learn the language, get medical and psychological attention (PTSD), get their asylum sorted out, find a job, and so on.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:24 pm UTC

leady wrote:I would be far more supportive of allowing folks into Europe if there was a mechanism for giving them a lift home 5 years later. Unfortunately that "right to family life" in the EU HRA tends to screw that one.


Yeah, I hard-heartedly agree. Germany and France had guest worker programs in the 70's; invite a bunch of poor people in to do the jobs the Europeans were too dignified to do, then leave a few years later. Long story short the people didn't leave, and have been struggling to integrate. If you are going to invite people in, either have a plan for them to stay or a plan to kick them out, because they will all want to stay.

Eowiel
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:57 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby Eowiel » Mon Sep 07, 2015 2:24 pm UTC

The probleming with planning to kick them out is that it is likely that this will be a long war, or that it at least will not be safe enough to return people for a long time. It seems that the major contenders in this war are all on the evil side, so it's likely that even after someone wins this war or a truce is signed, the killing and the danger will continue for a long while. And after a certain amount of time it becomes unrealistic to send people back.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby leady » Mon Sep 07, 2015 2:33 pm UTC

Which of course is why there is such resistance to allowing them entrance in the first place - which by any measure is far worse to the people in question than insisting on repatriation later.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby sardia » Mon Sep 07, 2015 3:55 pm UTC

leady wrote:Which of course is why there is such resistance to allowing them entrance in the first place - which by any measure is far worse to the people in question than insisting on repatriation later.

I thought studies show that immigration is mostly a net benefit for countries, or is that a US thing ?

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby leady » Mon Sep 07, 2015 4:36 pm UTC

Selective educated migrants from West EU are a positive
Migration from the east just breaks even so long as you accept some seriously flawed fudges (like they all return before getting old, that defence doesn't grow with pop etc)
Migration from our former colonies is a huge net negative

in the UK based on net tax - benefits. I see refugees generally landing into category 3. Completely unsurprisingly unskilled workers cost a fortune if they stay until end of life - harsh, but that's economics for you

RCT Bob
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:05 pm UTC
Location: Netherlands

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby RCT Bob » Mon Sep 07, 2015 4:39 pm UTC

I think it depends. I'm not specialized in that field, but I guess it depends. In the Netherlands at least I've seen a similar picture as what CorruptUser states, although the causes can vary. Some blame the immigrants and their culture, some blame their religion, some blame the government. Studies have shown that in the Netherlands people with Arabic names have a lower chance of getting invited to a job interview, given identical motivation letters and resumes, for instance. It also happens to a lesser extent with females in some job directions. Higher unemployment, lower education, and some unconscious discrimination all lead to lower integration and segregation. I think there are also immigrants that integrate well, but there's no denying that immigrants on average are more likely to be involved in crime. Whether these higher crime rates are largely due to unemployment, cultural effects, their lower education, or a combination I don't know. Syrian immigrants will most likely also suffer somewhat from discrimination due to their names, but I don't think they have the educational gap with the natives that the earlier immigrants do, so it remains to be seen how well they'll integrate.

That said, I regard it as wrong to make decisions mainly by economic benefits over human benefits. The economy should support humans, not the other way around.

jseah
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:18 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby jseah » Mon Sep 07, 2015 5:17 pm UTC

^The economy is made of humans too. Too many times I see "the economy" or "the market" or even "the country" talked about as if it was some individual entity that could be manipulated without touching the people making it up.

Saying that net negative immigrants should be allowed based on human benefits (therefore at an economic cost) implies that you think other people in the economy should pay to support those immigrants. The existence or magnitude of the net negative can be debated, but the fundamental rule is ironclad, if it's not the immigrants paying for their care, then someone else is.
Stories:
Time is Like a River - consistent time travel to the hilt
A Hero's War
Tensei Simulator build 18 - A python RPG

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Sep 07, 2015 5:44 pm UTC

When one of my great-grandmothers immigrated to the US with her sister, my great great aunt, my great great aunt had become sick on the journey here and needed treatment at a hospital. The people at Ellis Island wouldn't let her off the boat. So my family went around the neighborhood, begging for any spare change to help bribe the bureaucrat, because that's what it was back then. They had managed to gather $5 for the bribe, went back to the island, but the man refused to go less than $10. We simply did not have enough money to pay. So, my great great aunt stayed on the boat, and later we got a letter from our family in Europe that she had died on the boat ride back.

That's not getting in to the story of one of my great great uncles who had kill his own infant daughter save the rest of the family from death.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests