IMMIGRATION thread

[AE Bravo]

I never said it should fall on Europe, just don't point your fingers wherever you want. You can handle it, we can't.

[Fragony]

You can handle it, we can't.

But we can't either, it are too many, on the plus side, it's also bankrupting that horrible IS

[AE Bravo]

Right, but they are there now. What's your solution besides leaving them out to dry?

[Fragony]

Right, but they are there now. What's your solution besides leaving them out to dry?

Don't have one

[Husar]

A definition that is less likely to give incorrect classifications relative to what is intended.

What is intended and who intends it? Has it occurred to you that the UN definition could be what most countries intend it to be?

That's a rather weird interpretation. A more immediate interpretation is that refugees that pass perfectly safe countries without seeing if they can stay there, are no longer counted as refugees (does not include obvious exceptions like travelling by air to countries they have been granted refuge in).

How is that different from what I said other than that you want to remove the element of forcing them to stay in the first safe country they pass? And if you don't force them to stay, what do you do with them when they move on? Accept them anyway but as migrants instead of asylum seekers? Or send them back to the first safe country they passed? (that would be the same as forcing them to stay there, only more expensive, no?) Or maybe send them back to the war-torn country they fled from? Your "solution" still seems incomplete and not entirely thought through or there is something you are not telling.

Refugees should first and foremost be settled in the nearest possible countries with populations that are similar culturally. If refugees don't have to learn a new language completely from scratch, that's a huge benefit. If refugees don't have a different religion (or follow a different branch of the same religion), they are less likely to stand out as a separate group from the rest of the population a few generations later - they might even have completely assimilated within, say, 10 generations.

And how do you settle them there? By force or by kindly asking them to turn around? Or do you trick them into signing a contract? How would you explain to a refugee that he is better of in country X or would you just say you are sure of it even if he can't see it?

This is best for everyone. The descendants of the refugees don't have to live in a country where they are stigmatised and discriminated against, and the majority population of the countries where these refugees did not settle do not have to worry about hostile individuals among the descendants of the original refugees, nor general friction between the two groups. When the refugees settle closer to their home country, it is also easier to move back home when it is safe, or, if they don't, visit relatives and friends who still/now live there.

So you're saying these refugees don't know what's best for them if they move to a country that is too different from their home country? And one of the reasons is that people are just too racist and intermixing just won't work. So let me change the theater for a minute and ask you what you propose the USA do with their black and native American populations? Send the blacks back to Africa and the native Americans back to...America? How to proceed with Israel, it's like a ghetto surrounded by native Arabs, no? Impossible to ever integrate.

It's also funky that you talk about stigmatization and discrimination as though they were inevitable. So the gay movement is doomed as well? Women could never possibly gain voting rights or equal pay because men will always be men?
That's a super-defeatist attitude, well, either that or someone is just too comfortable not having to change.
I fully expect someone to call me a meanie now.

Of course Lebanon shouldn't have to take all the refugees themselves, so look at the map for Arab and/or Muslim countries relatively close, and you'll find a very long list of countries that can take their share (both in Africa and Western and Central Asia).

Why should Central Asian countries take them? And why should reasonable people pack all their things and leave for a far worse life? Would you? When Europeans fled from oppressive regimes to America, there was no one in New York Harbor telling them to go back to some European country that was more likely to allow them to fit in and their ideas of getting a better life there were not criticized as greed. Why is America so much better than Europe?

But we can't either, it are too many, on the plus side, it's also bankrupting that horrible IS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Cooperation_Council

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union

The video I linked said if we took all of them, the number of muslims in the EU would increase from 4% to 5%, is that really such a massive change?

[Fragony]

Yes that would be massive change as they won't be spread over entire countries but in the bigger cities that allready have problems. Number wizardy They don't want to go to entire Europe, they want to go to Northern Europe, Germany and Sweden mostly, iactualbmpact kinda changes with these numbers no. Eastern-European countries are not going to listen to the EU, good for them they are right, Southern-Europe has problems of it's own, so they simply can't. These statistics mean absolutily notning as they assume a spread over the whole of Europe and that ain't going to happen. UN-reports, 8000 a day.

[Viking]

But then, where is the issue of the "perpetual refugee"? Are you worried about people hiding under a rock for 20 years, emerging when their original country is in order, and technically counting as refugees by international standards? Even given that outlandish scenario, well, they might as well be since by that point they likely have no material connection remaining to their homeland.

Not hiding under a rock, but being extremely picky about where and how to stay while still being able to both claim and be entitled to refugee treatment.

I can see the relationship to other aspects of your philosophy discussed in other contexts, but one of the big complaints remains that this is only viable and conducive to the benfits you describe under the prior condition of one-world government.

All it takes is that one is able to delegate such tasks of taking in refugees. The problem is that European politicians for the most part aren't particularly interested in anything like this - either they want to play the humanitarian superhero, or they just shut their country's borders.

There are different ways to make countries accept their share of refugees - both with carrots and sticks. But there has to be a will to make these changes happen, and currently there is not.

The idea that refugee assimilation into culturally similar countries would be smooth sailing relative to traveling to alien countries is not true. Reality is that not only will they inevitably be discriminated against due to the overall social dynamics of the Arab world, they will not have a voice and the cultural disparity is not as minor as you make it out to be, in fact Arabs of the Levant have just as much similarities with the west than they do with fellow Arabs I'd argue. Admitting more Syrians in countries with questionable long-term sustainability is recipe for disaster, and cannot be dealt with by those countries unless you want to deal with MORE refugees in the future.

It's very difficult to acquire citizenship in Gulf countries and they all have a ceiling set for foreigners so as not to upset the native population. Because the satisfaction of natives are of utmost importance to the regimes (besides ksa/bahrain) any refugees will not be able to get the basic needs that can be afforded by governments elsewhere. They will, like the Iraqis before them, have to pay for their child's education since all public schools are for citizens only and won't have enough money due to the cost of living.

Now is a good time to change. Always is a good time to change. If there is a will, there is a way. The kind of argumentation you present quickly becomes circular.

A shake up of the system might not be so bad in the long run. It's worth noting how Algeria is still stable despite some unrest during the "Arab spring", war in neighbouring Libya, and the civil war in the 90s. I don't think Algeria has reached its final state, but they might be more wary of creating a new civil war and be more inclined to find more peaceful ways to settle differences.

What is intended and who intends it? Has it occurred to you that the UN definition could be what most countries intend it to be?

Anyone, really. Your second point relates to the definition itself, which can to some extent be considered as separate from what it is supposed to classify: sometimes, a less complex definition might be preferred even if it will misclassify more cases (and hence is less robust).

that would be the same as forcing them to stay there, only more expensive, no?

No. The world is bigger than Europe and Syria. They can go other places. If some European countries are willing to let them in, then I am not necessarily opposed to migrants passing through other countries to get there (as long as they actually only pass through) - which directly contradicts the idea of forcing them to stay somewhere.

And how do you settle them there? By force or by kindly asking them to turn around? Or do you trick them into signing a contract? How would you explain to a refugee that he is better of in country X or would you just say you are sure of it even if he can't see it?

Should be rather obvious: they have countries that will deport them, and countries that will accept them. Some of them might try to stay in the first category of countries anyway, hoping that they will be the special snowflakes. The rest will opt for the second category of countries, provided that this category isn't exclusively made up of unpleasant places.

So you're saying these refugees don't know what's best for them if they move to a country that is too different from their home country?

Per above, there is not that much of a choice for the moment. They typically choose the countries that they hope will accept them and that they have heard positive things about.

And one of the reasons is that people are just too racist and intermixing just won't work. So let me change the theater for a minute and ask you what you propose the USA do with their black and native American populations? Send the blacks back to Africa and the native Americans back to...America? How to proceed with Israel, it's like a ghetto surrounded by native Arabs, no? Impossible to ever integrate.

Y'know, if I thought it was OK to evict people from their home country, there would be no problem accepting refugees - I'd just evict them too once the danger in their home country is gone. I "believe in the sanctity of citizenship". I also believe in states and regions cleaning up their own mess, not dumping it onto others; like the Middle East has had habit of doing recently.

It's also funky that you talk about stigmatization and discrimination as though they were inevitable. So the gay movement is doomed as well? Women could never possibly gain voting rights or equal pay because men will always be men?

It's funny you should ask. As long as people who count themselves as men, women, gays etc. see these their category as a fundamental social and/or cultural identity, then there is likely to be hostility between the groups. I claim that the degree of hostility is closely linked to how strong these identities are.

If the goal is zero hostility, then yes, by my logic, such movements are doomed. Other aims, on the other hand, require different assessments. Legal changes are probably the easiest goals to reach - it's just writing things on paper and asking the judicial and law-enforcing systems to keep an eye on the matter.

[...] either that or someone is just too comfortable not having to change.

Change? Change what? Before a new minority population has arrived, there is no one to discriminate against. Once the population is there, they could go on about their usual business and continue their old habits of not discriminating against this population (previously impossible to do), or opt for a change and start discriminating. Since many people start discriminating, they evidently love change.

Why should Central Asian countries take them?

If there are any reasons anyone at all should take them, then these apply to Central Asia as well.

And why should reasonable people pack all their things and leave for a far worse life? Would you?

A variant of the rhetorical question that is often asked: "what would you do if you were a refugee?" Step one would be to avoid becoming one in the first place. That's what I am doing right now: protecting my home country from internal strife. At the same time I am supportive of my home country's membership of the world's most power military alliance as protection against external hostility. I am hard at work as a would-be refugee already, you see.

When Europeans fled from oppressive regimes to America, there was no one in New York Harbor telling them to go back to some European country that was more likely to allow them to fit in and their ideas of getting a better life there were not criticized as greed.

Which European countries would allow them to 'fit in' better? The US was founded by European immigrants; you can just as well consider it an extension of Europe from a cultural point of view.

[Fragony]

aww, the arab spring. Maybe I was right that was ogoing to be an islamist winter way before you guys realised it, Just saying, not patting

[Viking]

It's not strange at all that islamists benefited from the uprisings. The old dictatorships were all secular, which gave credibility to the islamists as a better, untainted alternative. Conversely, in Iran, the islamists had been in power for decades, and more secular candidates were seen as less tainted and the better alternative.

The protests against president Morsi illustrates this to some extent also, as many people had lost faith in the islamists already; not needing decades.

Similar mechanisms can be seen in Europe, too. With France's revolution, religious institutions had up to that point been powerful; so in response, revolutionaries were wary of them and typically very secular.

[AE Bravo]

Now is a good time to change. Always is a good time to change. If there is a will, there is a way. The kind of argumentation you present quickly becomes circular.

A shake up of the system might not be so bad in the long run. It's worth noting how Algeria is still stable despite some unrest during the "Arab spring", war in neighbouring Libya, and the civil war in the 90s. I don't think Algeria has reached its final state, but they might be more wary of creating a new civil war and be more inclined to find more peaceful ways to settle differences.

Circular? I am trying to find what your argument is, it seems overly optimistic or shows a lack of understanding of the current situation surrounding these countries that spawned this problem. Having your way at the risk of state disintegration doesn't sound very good to me and, all due respect, I don't care what you think is right if it completely discards the survival of the current strategic center of the Arab world. Preventing more conflicts and refugee crises rests on the stability of the remaining wealthy or recovering states.

Which Arab country exactly could possibly afford a "shakeup of the system?" What happens when you shake up a sheikhdom? Algeria is a different case entirely. It has a radically distinguished political system compared to countries in the Arabian peninsula. These countries you want to throw the refugees at cannot afford to have the refugees, they won't be able to handle the economic consequences especially now that Iran is working towards controlling the regional oil market.

I also believe in states and regions cleaning up their own mess, not dumping it onto others; like the Middle East has had habit of doing recently.

They cannot clean up their own mess entirely. What they did do is donate more money than the whole west combined and a country as small as the UAE accepted 160,000 Syrians the past two years, that's around 159,000 more than the US. You cannot possibly intervene in regional politics and participate in the most disastrous regime change operations without expecting to carry some of the load.

[Viking]

Circular? I am trying to find what your argument is, it seems overly optimistic or shows a lack of understanding of the current situation surrounding these countries that spawned this problem. Having your way at the risk of state disintegration doesn't sound very good to me and, all due respect, I don't care what you think is right if it completely discards the survival of the current strategic center of the Arab world. Preventing more conflicts and refugee crises rests on the stability of the remaining wealthy or recovering states.

Which Arab country exactly could possibly afford a "shakeup of the system?" What happens when you shake up a sheikhdom? Algeria is a different case entirely. It has a radically distinguished political system compared to countries in the Arabian peninsula. These countries you want to throw the refugees at cannot afford to have the refugees, they won't be able to handle the economic consequences especially now that Iran is working towards controlling the regional oil market.

You are thinking short term. Turmoil will weaken the Arab world in the short term, but it can strengthen it in the long term. The Arab world is currently weak, anyway. Fancy skyscrapers are no measure of power; they can just as well be the fancy book cover with gold and rubies for a book with blank pages. What is there to protect, really? Dictator monarchs and wealthy sheikhs?

And when can we expect to be able to treat these 'recovering states' like adults and that they take their share of the burden in terms of refugee resettlement? 10 years? 25 years? 100 years? Never?

Note that I believe wealthy countries should help the countries taking in many refugees monetarily, and potentially with personnel on the ground. I also did not solely demand the gulf states to take in refugees, but also countries like e.g. Morocco, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan - yeah, throw in Turkmenistan too, for good measure. The choices are many.

No, I have no intention of destroying "the current strategic center of the Arab world", but I have an even smaller intention of destroying the cities of my home country that I actually live and spend time in.

You cannot possibly intervene in regional politics and participate in the most disastrous regime change operations without expecting to carry some of the load.

Accidentally helping burglars emptying a house might make one an idiot, but hardly morally responsible for the theft. It's not U.S. soldiers that are blowing up markets and setting off bombs at other public places.

[AE Bravo]

Turmoil will weaken the Arab world in the short term, but it can strengthen it in the long term.

Arab countries that hit the jackpot should stay away from turmoil if anything. 50 years of political reform among the progressive regimes hasn't led to anything, so no reason to pursue dangerous endeavors like this one. As if Palestinian and Iraqi refugees aren't enough for these countries?

Fancy skyscrapers are no measure of power; they can just as well be the fancy book cover with gold and rubies for a book with blank pages.

Solid economic hubs immune to terrorist attacks and serve the interests of the entire region. I think this is the right track, and is certainly a measure of power.

What is there to protect, really? Dictator monarchs and wealthy sheikhs?

Wealthy sheikhs and investors keeping it all afloat yes. But more importantly the people and their source of well-being after the oil. Spend while you can.

No, I have no intention of destroying "the current strategic center of the Arab world", but I have an even smaller intention of destroying the cities of my home country that I actually live and spend time in.

It can destroy cities but not your cities.

Accidentally helping burglars emptying a house might make one an idiot, but hardly morally responsible for the theft. It's not U.S. soldiers that are blowing up markets and setting off bombs at other public places.

It was all NATO in Libya. An incompetent operation that completely destroyed the most oil-rich state, the one that was a threat to Iran and could have accepted more refugees if more stable.

Some of these states aren't even adults. You are the adults since you've been around longer than 60 years.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I would shoot them because in my very cold calculation that solves my problem of having to show them why being a cold calculative person is not something one should advocate to others as it can literally backfire.

The idea that refugee assimilation into culturally similar countries would be smooth sailing relative to traveling to alien countries is not true. Reality is that not only will they inevitably be discriminated against due to the overall social dynamics of the Arab world, they will not have a voice and the cultural disparity is not as minor as you make it out to be, in fact Arabs of the Levant have just as much similarities with the west than they do with fellow Arabs I'd argue. Admitting more Syrians in countries with questionable long-term sustainability is recipe for disaster, and cannot be dealt with by those countries unless you want to deal with MORE refugees in the future.

It's very difficult to acquire citizenship in Gulf countries and they all have a ceiling set for foreigners so as not to upset the native population. Because the satisfaction of natives are of utmost importance to the regimes (besides ksa/bahrain) any refugees will not be able to get the basic needs that can be afforded by governments elsewhere. They will, like the Iraqis before them, have to pay for their child's education since all public schools are for citizens only and won't have enough money due to the cost of living.

I agree, Gulf countries suck, and it's nice to see you admitting that the peoples of the Levant aren't really all that much like Arabs - funny how that wasn't true a couple of weeks ago.

Let's break this down though - the essence of what you're saying is that Europe is stable, democratically run and law abiding. That's true but it's dependent on a certain level of homogeneity, and even in countries like the UK, France, and Spain there are still historic ethnic divisions after a millennia that continue to cause political, and civil, unrest. Both the UK and Spain were subject to sustained terror campaigns by segments of their "own" population up until very recently. In point of fact, Northern Ireland currently has no effective government and we're in danger of Westminster (England) having to take direct control, which will kick off more terror attacks.

8,000 people entered Hungary yesterday, Europe simply cannot support this rate of immigration - especially illegal immigration - and the likelyhood that our civil society will buckle at least at the local level and these people will be little better off in the end than if they had stayed in Turkey - except lots of them will have drowned/been trampled/died of heatstroke/frostbite.

I never said it should fall on Europe, just don't point your fingers wherever you want. You can handle it, we can't.

"We" Arabs or "We" Americans?

You're in Denver.

Speaking of which - the US has the space as well as the mass lift capacity, the money, and the experience of assimilating new immigrants.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Incidentally, for those wondering, 8,000 people passing into Hungary (and ultimately on to Germany) means 2,920,000 a year, or something like twenty-five times the 120,000 Germany and France want to forcibly distribute, even if we assume that the numbers are peaking we could still see a million new arrivals from these few countries in a year.

Something to think about.

[AE Bravo]

I agree, Gulf countries suck, and it's nice to see you admitting that the peoples of the Levant aren't really all that much like Arabs - funny how that wasn't true a couple of weeks ago.

No need for that, they aren't that bad actually. I guess it's like what they say about how people start seeing the guy who won the lottery. I've never met a Brit that doesn't like the Gulf. Not to mention what London is now was straight up built by our lowly countries.

Totally different topic. You were quick to run out of that one with doublespeak. I already proved to you they are the same.

I appreciate the breakdown, but this is comparable to the middle east how? True, it's dangerous to "civil society at the local level" but I'm talking about state survival not manageable civil disturbances. Civil society is weak and restrained in the GCC, which makes it prone to the only civil society that can possibly be justified in such an environment - some form of political Islam. Some people would just be more enthusiastic and comfortable starting up a political Islamic program in another Arab country than they would in an alien country, it is more of a danger in the middle east than it is in Europe obviously.

"We" Arabs or "We" Americans?

You're in Denver.

I grew up/go to school here, but I am from the UAE and spent most of my life there. It's my home and I know it has problems.

I will say that one thing I've noticed is that Europeans in general, again in general (and the ones I've met) all have disdain for Arabs for some reason. It shows, even with you. Oh well, I'm livin

Speaking of which - the US has the space as well as the mass lift capacity, the money, and the experience of assimilating new immigrants.

Agreed. They are far more welcoming than Europe, not a hint of widespread condescension.
The US has really done enough imo.

[Husar]

Incidentally, for those wondering, 8,000 people passing into Hungary (and ultimately on to Germany) means 2,920,000 a year, or something like twenty-five times the 120,000 Germany and France want to forcibly distribute, even if we assume that the numbers are peaking we could still see a million new arrivals from these few countries in a year.

Something to think about.

Incredible wealth creation for property owners, and this time it won't be a bubble?

[Fragony]

Incredible wealth creation for property owners, and this time it won't be a bubble?

Most will never be interesting for German companies, and thus will never be able to buy a house, only a fraction is a well-educated refugee, only a third actually from Syria. Turkissh mafia found a goldmine: fake pasports. You have no idea who's who. Talk about a bubble. A lot of Germans also kinda had it and tensions are growing, I am kinda curious about how crime against immigrants are respectivily to prior to this influx, seems more common but I don't know that for sure

[Gilrandir]

If there is a will, there is a way.

Wrong!! Where there is a whip, there is a will.

I also did not solely demand the gulf states to take in refugees, but also countries like e.g. Morocco, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan - yeah, throw in Turkmenistan too, for good measure.

The latter three have nothing in common with Levantine Arabs but religion (and I'm not sure it is the same kind - Shia or Sunni), so for them the refugees would be as alien as for Europeans.

and even in countries like the UK, France, and Spain there are still historic ethnic divisions after a millennia that continue to cause political, and civil, unrest.

Historically, it is the other way around: those countries integrated different ethnic groups thus inheriting the ethnic tensions that existed before.

[AE Bravo]

Don't know about sending them anywhere, but now that they're there...

The Indian slaves thing is a bit outdated. What's rich is attacking a puny country to put yourselves on a pedestal. The homeless here, black people and their living conditions. Police brutality, prison-industrial complex. This is the cavity I think you should focus on.

What's your beef? Maybe we should send them to the south and see how rich that reaction would be.

[Montmorency]

My beef is I should give a damn when these able bodied males abandoned their homes and families to strike it rich in the welfare state.

Again, say what you want about the risks inherent to a European project (or, as it were, woodpile) of managing millions of refugees - but citing the above specifically for looking down on the refugees or for arguing against granting their asylum is just silly.

[AE Bravo]

So Europe should just take it because they migrants decided where they wanted to go. You set someones lawn on fire and tell them to deal with it?

Those countries along with the Saudis wanted Assad down and expected the kingdom to be some charitable foundation when shit hits the fan. The kingdom is a dirty country, just turn your back on it already.

America is so bad you came to school here. America is so bad it takes in more immigrants than anyone. America is so bad other countries have lotteries for visas. The UAE uses slave labor to make the elite rich. America is not perfect but it's miles better than that petro cartel masquerading as a nationstate.

Not bad at all, I'm livin. But the UAE, even though it's a small country, is rated #1 in the world for social cohesion. One of the highest standards of living and an overall happy place to be despite your quick google search fishing for human rights abuses.

I know you're from the south. I'm talking about survival of Arab countries and you're afraid of people striking it rich and doing better than you are. I lost count of Arab billionaires in Europe, Egyptians seem to be the wealthiest. You just haaaate these sand goons' hustle don't you even though you don't have a dog in the fight?

[AE Bravo]

Because they are using slave labor, living high on the petro dollar, and not letting in immigrants and migrants. Social cohesion is great when you talk about the 15% of your country that is actually counted in those statistics.

They do let in immigrants and migrants actually. I mentioned earlier they've accepted more Syrians than the US has since the war started.

No, I'm talking about the breakdown of the welfare state because of a mass influx of unskilled migrants. Europe has good social services but no one is going to strike it rich.

Arab countries can't do anything besides provide donations. This is just reality. It's a 40 year old country I'm from.

Typical. I don't see how this is relevant beyond whatever fantasy is in your head.

Typical of what

[Montmorency]

Arab countries can't do anything besides provide donations.

How about direct transfers to the EU, UN, or European national governments?

[AE Bravo]

Saudi Arabia is the one that should be held accountable for that. They can do it and they are responsible for the entire mess this region is at now. Aren't they the speakers at the human rights panel this year? Nice to see the generous reception from UN for our lovely kingdom.

To answer your question, yes for sure. Who is pushing for this right now from the EU, UN, or national governments? Those guys in their bishts over there won't feel compelled to do anything but business as usual unless they feel they have to.

[Viking]

I think this is the right track

A track that leads to what exactly? What happens when the oil runs out?

It can destroy cities but not your cities.

It has apparently already gone a good way towards destroying the Swedish city of Malmö:

In a port city, grenade attacks shatter Swedish sense of safety (August 2015)

After years in the military and police dealing with bombs and mines in ex-Yugoslavia, Lebanon and Iraq, Goran Mansson is now back home advising Swedes what to do if they find an unexploded grenade on their street or in a playground.

As bomb squad chief in the western port city of Malmo, Mansson has been busy with a dozen grenade attacks in the last few months. They have shocked a Nordic country that prides itself on safety, led to worries criminality is out of control and given political fodder to a resurgent far-right that blames immigrant gangs for the violence.

[...]

These incidents have focussed attention on gang-related violence in one of Sweden’s most segregated cities where unemployment rates top 40 percent in some deprived, mainly immigrant areas.

Malmö school 'too dangerous' for students (March 2015)

A secondary school in Malmö has been closed after the teachers' union declared that it is too dangerous a place for students and teachers to attend due to widespread violence and criminality.

Violence, threats and visits from adult criminals eventually became too much for the teachers' unions at Varner Rydén School in the Malmö suburb of Rosengård, whose safety officers have now closed the premises.

"Violence, threats and verbal abuse. There has also been trouble with students from other schools," said Hans Nilsson at the City of Malmö to news agency TT.

Sounds good.

It was all NATO in Libya. An incompetent operation that completely destroyed the most oil-rich state [...]

NATO helped rebels remove the Gaddafi state and left it to the Libyans, with some assistance, to build a new one. Unfortunately, infighting has put that project on hold. Hopefully, they will figure out that they got better things to do than killing each other and continue to build a democratic state. It's on the Libyans now.

and could have accepted more refugees if more stable.

The same state that had problems adequately housing their own citizens would house refugees? I wouldn't bet on it.

I guess Libyans should just have to live in a dictatorship so that we can stuff their country with refugees.

Some of these states aren't even adults. You are the adults since you've been around longer than 60 years.

60 years? A modern state shouldn't need more than a couple of decades to get going. Look to the most successful ex-Soviet states.

The latter three have nothing in common with Levantine Arabs but religion (and I'm not sure it is the same kind - Shia or Sunni), so for them the refugees would be as alien as for Europeans.

There are Shias living in Syria, too. And no, the refugees will not be as alien as for Europeans in the long term.

a country as small as the UAE accepted 160,000 Syrians the past two years

Did they, really?

While it's true that the Gulf States have allowed thousands of Syrians to come on work visas, many Syrians say they face severe restrictions in these countries. Some have decided they would rather risk the difficult road to Europe.

"I will live here for five years, ten years, and then what?" says Dahlia, a Syrian who fled her home in Aleppo and joined relatives in the Gulf city-state of Dubai. "You never belong, you never feel you are safe, your residency can be canceled at any time and then what? Go where?"

Citizenship is not an option, even for workers who stay for decades.

The fact is that Gulf countries don't accept refugees for resettlement because none of their governments officially recognize the legal concept. Even in Jordan, Syrians fleeing the civil war are called "guests," the expectation being that they won't stay.

Arab governments refused to sign the 1951 international convention on refugee rights, says Nadim Shehadi, head of the Fares Center for Eastern Mediterranean Studies at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. "The convention gives a mandate to UNHCR to do permanent settlement in the host countries or resettlement in third-party states," says Shehadi.

This was unacceptable to Arab governments 60 years ago — and still is today. They oppose resettling Palestinians in other countries, arguing that they should be allowed to return to homes they fled or were forced out of in wars with Israel.

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallel...yrian-refugees

[Husar]

No, I'm talking about the breakdown of the welfare state because of a mass influx of unskilled migrants. Europe has good social services but no one is going to strike it rich.

http://fortune.com/2015/09/08/germany-migrant-crisis/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...ating-migrants

Daimler AG Chief Executive Officer Dieter Zetsche, striking an unusually political tone on the eve of this year’s Frankfurt International Motor Show, said that absorbing as many as 1 million migrants this year, while a “Herculean task,” holds the promise of laying the foundation for another economic upswing similar to the country’s postwar boom in the 1950s and 1960s.

His message: while not every person arriving in Germany is a brilliant engineer, mechanic or entrepreneur, many of those displaced by war, persecution and poverty are highly skilled and motivated, and may be just what the economy needs as the population shrinks and the number of people entering retirement age surges.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/18/bu...many.html?_r=0

After learning German quickly and proving to be a skilled employee, Mr. Jasor is on track for a permanent job once he completes his apprenticeship in making machine and auto parts. More than any other European country now contending with an influx of migrants and refugees, Germany — with Europe’s biggest economy, an aging population and more than a half-million unfilled jobs — sees the migration wave as not only a challenge but an opportunity.

Why do you hate job creators? Clearly you just want to see the German economy fail.

[Montmorency]

60 years? A modern state shouldn't need more than a couple of decades to get going. Look to the most successful ex-Soviet states.

No.

There are Shias living in Syria, too. And no, the refugees will not be as alien as for Europeans in the long term.

But in the longer term according to you, there wouldn't be a difference anyway.

[Viking]

No.

Yes, do look to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Georgia.

But in the longer term according to you, there wouldn't be a difference anyway.

What difference?

Why do you hate job creators? Clearly you just want to see the German economy fail.

Then snag all the migrants for yourself and don't ask others to take them.

[Montmorency]

Yes, do look to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Georgia.

Baltics: No. Estonia's the only one that isn't a basket case.

Poland: Don't equivocate.

Georgia:

What difference?

No alienness, hence no difference in alienness.

[AE Bravo]

A track that leads to what exactly? What happens when the oil runs out?

Enables economic diversification. Do you really think they're that stupid they haven't thought of that...?

Very unfortunate whats happening in sweden.

NATO helped rebels remove the Gaddafi state and left it to the Libyans, with some assistance, to build a new one. Unfortunately, infighting has put that project on hold. Hopefully, they will figure out that they got better things to do than killing each other and continue to build a democratic state. It's on the Libyans now.

NATO helped Islamists remove the Qaddafi state and left it to the islamists. Libyans in the cities were fine. It also armed a population and caused a national security crisis in a stable country. Who are they to arm people against a dictator? What business is it of theirs? Is Saudi Arabian lobbying for such things that much of a priority to the west? Or is Qaddafi’s middle finger to the US dollar worth the disintegration of an entire nation?

The same state that had problems adequately housing their own citizens would house refugees? I wouldn't bet on it.

I guess Libyans should just have to live in a dictatorship so that we can stuff their country with refugees

Qaddafi was no angel but most of my Libyan friends can tell you that life was 10x better back when he was around. they can tell you that stones weren’t hurled when they leave the house without a headscarf. Libya was happier, and especially women.

60 years? A modern state shouldn't need more than a couple of decades to get going. Look to the most successful ex-Soviet states.

A modern state with a seemingly grim future of water scarcity, oil, no native blue-collar working force, no real military. All you have to do is give it a slight push and it will fall over into the Persian Gulf towards their potential future overlords.

Did they, really?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/09/world/...ees-countries/
http://america.aljazeera.com/article...-refugees.html