IMMIGRATION thread

[Husar]

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.

So they are "unnatural" because they did not develop in the same way Europeans did and it was their own fault that they got into this position?

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

And who keeps these things in place? The people who would rather run away from them than try to fight them alone?
And what could be done to change that? Just turn around the boats?

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.

How often have you been to Africa or in the political circles of former colonial powers or is it possible that you misunderstand what's going on there? And if you are right, how would one improve the situation with the elites? Would doing that also be preferable to fleeing?
You are aware that people all over Africa and the Middle East already fled even before it became easier to reach Europe. They just fled somewhere else then and many/most still do.

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

http://www.euractiv.com/specialrepor...la-news-516102

“It is difficult to imagine the sense in the system, because when we import, say, green beans from Kenya, we’re taking imbedded water from a drought-prone country, and then we’re putting into our supermarkets, into our fridges and then we’re throwing it way uneaten,” Benton told EurActiv by telephone, saying his comments reflected his personal views.

“But equally, when you talk to governments down there they say, ‘we need the money’. So in a sense, that’s a very tricky balance to negotiate because by those trade deals you are helping them to develop economically, but at the same time in the long run it cannot be sustainable and that as population grows, and as climate change impacts increasingly happen, it can’t continue in the way it is at the moment.”

Yes, as you said, cut ties to Europe and just trade among africans, then wonder why you have gone broke without the export profits.
Then blame them for having gone broke because they cut the ties with Europe. Also clearly visible here that the professor has no clue what he's talking about since the solution is obviously easy and common sense.

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.

You mean empty shelves are just as bad in Venezuela as they are in Africa and therefore Venezuela is clearly not worse off?
Of course that is a good point, hungry people are not doing worse than other hungry people, problem solved.

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.

I actually agree that a is not sustainable, but in b you come across as though you blame it on the refugees and you seem pretty naive/spoiled/unrealistic in your expectations. If they are not expectations then your argument seems pointless, might as well point out that one can theoretically fly faster than the speed of light if one had unlimited energy. And those people could work on that to fly to a better planet or they can just continue to take the lazy route and flee to Europe...

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

Afghanistan, they were organized, got bombed by an outside power, had a puppet installed and were left alone in a state where continued infighting seems almost inevitable. Apparently most of the refugees in Greece are incidentally from Syria and Afghanistan.
Maybe you can explain how the outside influences did not contribute to the stream of people fleeing from Afghanistan?

Oh and like, the egyptian military is still/again funded by the US.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...y-aid-to-egypt
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlest...ils-to-review/

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

Yes, and WHY do they have these problems? Many argue it's because colonialism messed them up, the slave trade turned them into enemies and borders were drawn arbitrarily and can now only be changed through bloodshed that will not really stop the stream of refugees.

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.

We have enough food and room for a whole lot more. Maybe you mean we cannot take them without sharing some of our wealth with them or treating them really badly.

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).

And since you let them choose, many choose to come here. I'm glad we agree that this is a valid choice.