IMMIGRATION thread

[Fragony]

You mean you harbor a migrant and complain online that Merkel invited them? Or are you saying that you harbor a refugee and that you can somehow tell them apart? If so, are you harboring a family or one guy and aren't the guys coming without family all work migrants according to you

It's my personal choice, not an obligation. just helping someone. Nobody told me to do that.

[Husar]

It's my personal choice, not an obligation. just helping someone. Nobody told me to do that.

Yes, but you were apparently saying that because I am not rich enough to afford a boat to house a migrant, my opinion is not worth as much as yours. Either that or I have no idea what you were saying.

[Fragony]

Yes, but you were apparently saying that because I am not rich enough to afford a boat to house a migrant, my opinion is not worth as much as yours. Either that or I have no idea what you were saying.

Don't have thar boat anymore, but I shelterted people there as well yes. I justt have litttle patience with people who do absolutily nothing themselve but know exactly what others shoiuld do. I only do it to help, not to feel nice.

[Husar]

Don't have thar boat anymore, but I shelterted people there as well yes. I justt have litttle patience with people who do absolutily nothing themselve but know exactly what others shoiuld do. I only do it to help, not to feel nice.

When did I try to tell you what you should do? My point was that with Merkel saying people can come and you harboring them you're pretty much supporting what she said, you want to help and so does she, yet here you claim that she made a big blunder?

[HopAlongBunny]

Germany, and some other EU countries are, in fact, looking on the refugees as economic saviours.

http://www.bloombergview.com/article...comes-refugees

An aging population needs to be supported.

[Greyblades]

If germany has the jobs to support the refugees and the patience to assimilate them, then more power to them. Just don't come crying to us if you take in more than you can employ and end up swelling the homeless/ criminal population.

[Fragony]

When did I try to tell you what you should do? My point was that with Merkel saying people can come and you harboring them you're pretty much supporting what she said, you want to help and so does she, yet here you claim that she made a big blunder?

Yep. She broke the EU-rules at will and causec other member states a lot of trouble. After the everybody is welcome Germany shut down it's borders, after being total idiots these people are now stuck in Hungary and Croatia. Stupid and not to be trusted. What I do myself is up to me, I am not careless so I help someone out when I can. But when I invite too many guests to a party I don't insist they should stay at my neighbours.

I am sure that plumb eastblock farmhorse has a room to spare, I can also think of a mostly empty building in Strasbourg. It's perfect, thousands can stay there.

[Viking]

Would you care to give us your definition then or are you just against the current one?

I don't have an exact definition I'd like to see be the dominant one, but the current use strikes me as having a tendency of stretching it too far. If a refugee can remain a refugee as long as they don't have legal asylum anywhere and their home country is dangerous, then the term can become rather silly and redundant in many contexts.

Another possible way to look at it is to observe a distinction between a technical/legal version of the term and an informal version, where the the informal version should be reserved for more acute and obvious cases.

Germany, and some other EU countries are, in fact, looking on the refugees as economic saviours.

http://www.bloombergview.com/article...comes-refugees

An aging population needs to be supported.

Population growth is not sustainable in the long run; at some point it has to stop (literally, otherwise the Earth would eventually collapse into a degenerate stellar body, and ultimately into a black hole).

It's not unnatural that population growth is followed by population decline, so they might just be pushing an inevitable future further ahead.

[wooly_mammoth]

I don't understand this part with Germany needing refugees from the middle east to support the economy and aging population. There's already plenty of young people in Europe that could do that. For example, unemployment of young people is a big problem in Romania and as far as I know also in Spain, possibly other countries as well. Why weren't these Europeans good for the same purpose for which the guys from the middle east seem to be?

Edit: and hooray for me for the 137th post!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yep. She broke the EU-rules at will and causec other member states a lot of trouble. After the everybody is welcome Germany shut down it's borders, after being total idiots these people are now stuck in Hungary and Croatia. Stupid and not to be trusted. What I do myself is up to me, I am not careless so I help someone out when I can. But when I invite too many guests to a party I don't insist they should stay at my neighbours.

I am sure that plumb eastblock farmhorse has a room to spare, I can also think of a mostly empty building in Strasbourg. It's perfect, thousands can stay there.

Leaving aside the personal slur at the end Frag is broadly correct here - first Germany unilaterally said it would take "all Syrians" and now it wants to force other countries to take them instead - but only 120,000 of the million or so we will have this year, when Husar says 40-50 are considered legitimate refugees by Germany.

I suspect in a few months, possibly weeks, Germany and France will be pushing for another 120,000 to be accepted, and then another, and another.

Meanwhile, any pretext of common ground or common governance has collapsed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34332759

EU hold summit a week too late - Slovakia launching legal challenge to being forced to take refugees.

[Husar]

I don't have an exact definition I'd like to see be the dominant one, but the current use strikes me as having a tendency of stretching it too far. If a refugee can remain a refugee as long as they don't have legal asylum anywhere and their home country is dangerous, then the term can become rather silly and redundant in many contexts.

Isn't a refugee someone forced to seek refuge? And why is that definition silly? If you say it is silly, it would help if you explain why.

Another possible way to look at it is to observe a distinction between a technical/legal version of the term and an informal version, where the the informal version should be reserved for more acute and obvious cases.

How would the informal version help with anything if the legal one stays the same?

Population growth is not sustainable in the long run; at some point it has to stop (literally, otherwise the Earth would eventually collapse into a degenerate stellar body, and ultimately into a black hole).

It's not unnatural that population growth is followed by population decline, so they might just be pushing an inevitable future further ahead.

You forget that we can expand to New Berlin on Mars.
Population decline would help with a lot of issues though, such as pollution etc.
It's just that noone sees this and many have previously claimed that the planet could house a whole lot more humans.
It also seems counter-productive for any country by itself to reduce the population.

I don't understand this part with Germany needing refugees from the middle east to support the economy and aging population. There's already plenty of young people in Europe that could do that. For example, unemployment of young people is a big problem in Romania and as far as I know also in Spain, possibly other countries as well. Why weren't these Europeans good for the same purpose for which the guys from the middle east seem to be?

Are you in favor of a new EU law that forces people to move if they can't find work or are you suggesting we spark a civil war in Spain?

[wooly_mammoth]

Don't be ridiculous. It's just that I didn't hear the "feel free to come & work in Germany if you can't find a job since we need workers and population growth bonus" rhetoric being applied to EU citizens, that's why I was asking.

[Fragony]

Gets even worse, the ultra-undemocratic liberal alliance wants to deny member-states that don't bend over tne right to vote over EU matters. More and more is the EU becomming it's real form

[Husar]

Don't be ridiculous. It's just that I didn't hear the "feel free to come & work in Germany if you can't find a job since we need workers and population growth bonus" rhetoric being applied to EU citizens, that's why I was asking.

Maybe I read it as more sarcastic than it was meant to be, my apologies.
But there are already programs in Germany for young people, especially students, of other European countries who want to work in Germany. There are actually young people from Spain who did or do that, but I would assume not all actually want to leave their country, family, friends, learn a new language, etc. just to get a job.

[Fragony]

Immigrants/Guest workers from Southern Europe are a bargain, they are well educated, speak perfect English, and highly qualified. That's not true for the majority of the 'refugees' though. Even if they are highly educated, our standards are much higher.

[Viking]

Isn't a refugee someone forced to seek refuge? And why is that definition silly? If you say it is silly, it would help if you explain why.

A simple definition like that makes it very obvious what the problem is: a potentially perpetual refugee status. With that definition, a refugee who refuses asylum in a perfectly safe country with good living standards could still be a refugee, because they at some point were forced to seek refuge.

A more robust definition of 'refugee' would provide good ideas for when a refugee is no more a refugee.

How would the informal version help with anything if the legal one stays the same?

The words media and ordinary people use can have an impact no matter what the legal definition is.

Population decline would help with a lot of issues though, such as pollution etc.
It's just that noone sees this and many have previously claimed that the planet could house a whole lot more humans.
It also seems counter-productive for any country by itself to reduce the population.

The goal is not population decline, but population stability (an average growth of 0 over x years, where x is not too large).

Yet it is natural that the population size oscillates before it settles to something more permanent. The first oscillations might have the largest amplitudes - e.g. once the growth decreases, it might decrease until it is highly negative before it shoots up again (more space might make parents feel like having more kids), but still significantly lower than what it was earlier, provided that the factors that started the first decrease in population are still in place.

[Montmorency]

A simple definition like that makes it very obvious what the problem is: a potentially perpetual refugee status. With that definition, a refugee who refuses asylum in a perfectly safe country with good living standards could still be a refugee, because they at some point were forced to seek refuge.

A more robust definition of 'refugee' would provide good ideas for when a refugee is no more a refugee.

Not checking for EU countries or the UN, but for the US:

U.S. law allows certain people who cannot or do not want to return to their home country because of past persecution or the danger of future persecution to live in the United States as refugees or asylees. However, the source or danger of persecution sometimes disappears after a refugee or asylee has already been granted status but before he or she has obtained U.S. citizenship. The question then becomes whether the person will be allowed to continue living in the U.S. under these changed circumstances.
For example, if you obtained asylum on grounds of political opinion because your home country’s government persecuted you as a member of the opposition, and your party has now come to power, then you might wonder whether the U.S. government could terminate your asylum on account of this change in your country’s conditions.
The answer will depend in key part on whether you are a refugee, on the one hand, or an asylee, on the other.
The main distinction between these two is that ordinary refugees apply for their status from outside the United States and resettle in the United States through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), while asylees are a special type of refugee who apply for their status directly from within the U.S. (or from a U.S. border). Because of this difference, asylees and ordinary refugees get treated differently under U.S. immigration law.
If you are a refugee, then you are unlikely to lose your status in the United States on the basis of improved conditions in your country, such as a new government, a newly signed peace treaty with a rebel group, or a new law protecting people who were being persecuted for the same reasons you were. However, loss of status is more of a possible concern if you are an asylee.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...e-country.html

But that's for the United States, and it is relatively difficult for Syrians to apply for asylum given the geographic barriers.

What indicates that no type of refugee in Europe can ever lose that status? At any rate, in most cases it shouldn't really be relevant anyway once the process of naturalization goes through. Remember that the plan has so far been for either settlement or deportation, not for locked-down camps as in the neighbors of Syria.

As for more general questions for the future and around the world, well - why is it an issue there either?

[Fragony]

What good are rules if someone just decides to change them? Germany does just that. How can we ever trust them again? Bankrupting Greece in a covert bailout of German and French banks, np toll. Screwing up badly, deal with it. Got to respect Germany for throwing Europe into chaos three times in just a century.

[Husar]

A simple definition like that makes it very obvious what the problem is: a potentially perpetual refugee status. With that definition, a refugee who refuses asylum in a perfectly safe country with good living standards could still be a refugee, because they at some point were forced to seek refuge.

A more robust definition of 'refugee' would provide good ideas for when a refugee is no more a refugee.

What do you mean by more robust? The way you sound it seems like you want them to basically get locked up in the first "safe" country they cross into, regardless of how strenuous that is for the country or how they are/can be treated there, but that's only an assumption since you are very vague the entire time. I would argue that this is not a very fair or useful way to handle this. Assume a worst case where all countries around Lebanon break into civil war and according to you Lebanon then has to host something like 10 times its population in refugees. Maybe you don't care about the Lebanese as long as those people don't come to Norway or something?

[Fragony]

See it like this Hussie, if you would have to explain yourself to a deeply cynical and calculative person how far would you get beyond a moral appeal. (don't mean you Viking in case you think I do)

[Husar]

See it like this Hussie, if you would have to explain yourself to a deeply cynical and calculative person how far would you get beyond a moral appeal. (don't mean you Viking in case you think I do)

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.

[Montmorency]

No Husar, that's too naive.

You should have tried playing Mafia. Then you would know.

[Husar]

No Husar, that's too naive.

You should have tried playing Mafia. Then you would know.

I played lots of Mafia when you were still a young forum-whippersnapper. The idea is that the other guy wouldn't expect such a move from me.
Not sure how that relates to WIFOM.

[Fragony]

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.

Question stands, if you have to go beyond a moral appeal how reasonable can you get it given the rather disastrous policy of Merkel. Give me something to just dismiss, why should you get all the fun

[Gilrandir]

Got to respect Germany for throwing Europe into chaos three times in just a century.

I may be wrong, but I heard that about 15 years ago we entered kinda new century. Or has anything changed?

[Fragony]

I may be wrong, but I heard that about 15 years ago we entered kinda new century. Or has anything changed?

century just means 100 years, just as a millenium means 1000 years, so 1914-2015, about a century

[Viking]

At any rate, in most cases it shouldn't really be relevant anyway once the process of naturalization goes through.

Indeed, this is for the time before refuge/citizenship/similar has been granted.

What do you mean by more robust?

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

The way you sound it seems like you want them to basically get locked up in the first "safe" country they cross into, regardless of how strenuous that is for the country or how they are/can be treated there

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).

I would argue that this is not a very fair or useful way to handle this. Assume a worst case where all countries around Lebanon break into civil war and according to you Lebanon then has to host something like 10 times its population in refugees.

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.

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.

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).

[Montmorency]

Indeed, this is for the time before refuge/citizenship/similar has been granted.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

[AE Bravo]

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.

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,

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.

[Fragony]

And so Europe should take these people why?

If you freely admit that it would be difficult for surrounding countries to take the refugees, why should it fall on Europe?

good question ain't it