IMMIGRATION thread

**Sir Moody** · 03-14-2016, 16:21

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit

Oh yes, I forgot how the drones are carpetbombing cities which causes the population to have to flee all the way to Europe. The Somali civil war only affects half the country and the people in the unsafe half can then easily travel to the safe half. Did you know that India recently due to community rioting had over 2 million citizens being internally displaced refugees? How many of those fled to Europe again?
And do go on explaining how those conflicts result in people fleeing from Eritrea, Ethiopia etc. A large quantity of the people trying to enter Europe are opportunistic fortune seekers. Which is not an inherently bad thing, but lets not label them as refugees and spend all of our money babying them while we leave the actual refugee camps underfunded.

While I don't know of any current problems in Eritrea, Ethiopia has suffered a massive drought and there are heightened fears there will be another mass starvation event.

Just because you don't know about a conflict/crisis or deem it "insignificant" doesn't mean there are not people fleeing for their lives - don't belittle them.

**Snowhobbit** · 03-14-2016, 16:44

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

While I don't know of any current problems in Eritrea, Ethiopia has suffered a massive drought and there are heightened fears there will be another mass starvation event.

Just because you don't know about a conflict/crisis or deem it "insignificant" doesn't mean there are not people fleeing for their lives - don't belittle them.

So which bomb campaign caused the drought? And is a suitable response to a drought to flee across thousands of miles and a sea? Or are there more sane solutions to that problem?

I don't see you lining up to house refugees and finance their upkeep. Calling a spade a spade is not belittling.

**Fragony** · 03-14-2016, 17:37

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

Just because you don't know about a conflict/crisis or deem it "insignificant" doesn't mean there are not people fleeing for their lives - don't belittle them.

They may have a good reason to run for their lifes, but not to travel any further once they are safe. Why shouldn't we call those that do fortune-seekers? Aid for direct releave is pretty managable to give.

Elaborating, we all know that Europe produces too much and dumps it in Africa, it keeps them poor as they can't compete with free goods. So use development-money to buy the surplus up instead and just give it to them. No more reason to take a very dangerous trip to a future that does not exist.
Would also benefit the locals as the migrants won't have to pay the rediculous prices human-smugglers ask. Aid done different and more effective imho.

**Snowhobbit** · 03-17-2016, 17:46

Originally Posted by Fragony

They may have a good reason to run for their lifes, but not to travel any further once they are safe. Why shouldn't we call those that do fortune-seekers? Aid for direct releave is pretty managable to give.

Elaborating, we all know that Europe produces too much and dumps it in Africa, it keeps them poor as they can't compete with free goods. So use development-money to buy the surplus up instead and just give it to them. No more reason to take a very dangerous trip to a future that does not exist.
Would also benefit the locals as the migrants won't have to pay the rediculous prices human-smugglers ask. Aid done different and more effective imho.

Doing aid in that way would ensure that any industry involved in the production or sales of the goods given away would collapse, resulting in more poverty. It is a great way to make sure that more people find that the best option in their mind is to risk their lives "fleeing" to a richer country. Not sure that is what you would like to happen.

**Fragony** · 03-17-2016, 20:51

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit

Doing aid in that way would ensure that any industry involved in the production or sales of the goods given away would collapse, resulting in more poverty. It is a great way to make sure that more people find that the best option in their mind is to risk their lives "fleeing" to a richer country. Not sure that is what you would like to happen.

You are probably right, I got no argument against that. But if we do it that way AND make trying to get to Europe a worse option it might be a win-win situation. Naturally not for everybody. It's a musing, not an argument to just give direct aid with surplusses. Of course it will only hurt on the long-term and isn't a solution at all. But it's at least more pragmatic imho

**Snowhobbit** · 03-17-2016, 23:30

Originally Posted by Fragony

You are probably right, I got no argument against that. But if we do it that way AND make trying to get to Europe a worse option it might be a win-win situation. Naturally not for everybody. It's a musing, not an argument to just give direct aid with surplusses. Of course it will only hurt on the long-term and isn't a solution at all. But it's at least more pragmatic imho

A better way would be to send food aid only in the case of famines, and otherwise try to keep to digging wells, building schools etc. Provide money and assistance to good governance NGOs. The only long term solution is to help the regions filled with poverty to grow out of that poverty. Your solution is a short term destruction of their economies and long term a flood of refugees and economics migrants on a scale hardly imaginable. At which point we will either see violence on a horrific scale to "defend the borders" or the slow death of Europe as we know it. Now me I think that sounds like a bad future and not something we should work towards.

**Fragony** · 03-18-2016, 00:25

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit

A better way would be to send food aid only in the case of famines, and otherwise try to keep to digging wells, building schools etc. Provide money and assistance to good governance NGOs. The only long term solution is to help the regions filled with poverty to grow out of that poverty. Your solution is a short term destruction of their economies and long term a flood of refugees and economics migrants on a scale hardly imaginable. At which point we will either see violence on a horrific scale to "defend the borders" or the slow death of Europe as we know it. Now me I think that sounds like a bad future and not something we should work towards.

I don't even disagree with you but first things first, a total lockdown of European borders, and giving aid to those affected by regional problems. I find it kinda silly that we are making deals with Turkey the problems there don't belong in our sphere, it's their region not ours, we can help but it's not our problem. Same for Africa, not our sphere either, nor our obligation. Helping in the short term is good enough for now imho. Emergency supplies, medicine, food. Long-term is a much bigger question that can be asked, but why ask it really, it's not our mess. We would have to become some sort of creepy light jedi's to fix it all.

**Husar** · 03-19-2016, 02:53

EU and Turkey reach an agreement!

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35840272

Under the plan, from midnight Sunday migrants arriving in Greece will be sent back to Turkey if their asylum claim is rejected.
In return, EU countries will resettle Syrian migrants living in Turkey.

Does anyone want to place bets how long it will take until Turkey distributes Syrian passports to the people we send back?