IMMIGRATION thread

[Viking]

Apart from the reasons you also gave, there are also other factors such as repression, through the army and spies etc. Remember Tiananmen square? The Czech attempts at breaking away from the soviet union? The Warsaw ghetto uprising?
Sometimes the government will just drive some tanks over your protest and for the common people this is dangerous.
On one hand such efforts can be detected and crushed early if the planning is huge and on the other hand if you plan small, there is a good chace that the others will be too afraid to join and it becomes even more likely that the government declares you a splinter group and drives some tanks over you.
Your ideas are based on the few cases where it worked but those are no guarantee whatsoever.
There were also many people in Tehran and in turkish cities, in both cases the protests were violently crushed because the rest of the population did not support them enough or was too afraid to join in.

You can look at this in a larger context, however. For example, they could have started organising long before the countries got their independence.

They could even have started organising long before colonisation. After all, isn't natural to have a curiosity about what is beyond the world you know or experience? If they had obtained knowledge about the outside world, they would have learnt about potential dangers and new technological developments. Many countries in the west were united by force, so if neighbouring tribes did not agree to an alliance for safety, they could conquer them.

Yes, and why do they not cooperate?

I am sure many do; we do even have the AU organisation. This is where things like dictators and corruption enter the frame.

According to you, the world/Africa as it is makes no sense if I understand you correctly, and yet it is this way. Why do you think that is the case?

Alternatively, the article you linked to has misunderstood or misrepresents reality. If it largely hasn't, then fear of loosing privileges among the elites may be of importance.

Food?

That's definitely an area where African countries can be self-suficient with proper governance; especially with co-operation and trade between countries.

No, you called them more successful examples, although I now see that that was only a relative statement. North Korea also has a higher living standard, some African countries may want to be more like that, surely that would also end the refugee crisis just like turning all these countries into DDRs would.

Remember that we have no reason assume that countries like Venezuela and Cuba are run as well as "anti-imperialist" countries realistically can be. I am pretty certain that is not the case. What they do demonstrate is that this is not an inherently worse option.

Maybe because they do not want to. So what do you recommend to the peasant whom you do not want to flee across the mediterranean?

That's a separate topic. All I am saying is that

a) I do not welcome their arrival in large numbers
b) They can put in an effort to make their country better (but there is no guarantee it will work during their lifetimes)

Now, if wealthy countries like European ones consistently reject these people, the odds should increase for people in these countries to take action to fix their countries.

That when someone is keeping you down it may be hard to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.

Name specific countries where this is a good analogy, and explain how.

You kept arguing that governments can be overthrown, if that was not you telling them what they should do instead of becoming refugees, then what is your point? Do you have an actual realistic solution or just would-be solutions that are obviously inferior solutions according to the hundreds of thousands of refugees wo would rather enter a rusty boat than try what you suggest?

The point has always been to argue for what I posted earlier in this thread:

Blaming problems in the third world on outside forces is typically a convenient scapegoat. The most troubled of these countries normally have corrupt governance and/or major warring ethnic groups.

What people living in these countries chose to do is up to them. There isn't room for all of them to resettle here, that's for sure.

How does that relate to refugees?

People living in these countries can choose the easy path (do no nothing to improve their country and focus purely on day-to-day tasks), or a hard path (work to fix their country alongside their daily tasks).