IMMIGRATION thread

[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.