IMMIGRATION thread

[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

[AE Bravo]

I never said it should fall on Europe, just don't point your fingers wherever you want. You can handle it, we can't.

[Fragony]

You can handle it, we can't.

But we can't either, it are too many, on the plus side, it's also bankrupting that horrible IS

[AE Bravo]

Right, but they are there now. What's your solution besides leaving them out to dry?

[Fragony]

Right, but they are there now. What's your solution besides leaving them out to dry?

Don't have one

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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.

I agree, Gulf countries suck, and it's nice to see you admitting that the peoples of the Levant aren't really all that much like Arabs - funny how that wasn't true a couple of weeks ago.

Let's break this down though - the essence of what you're saying is that Europe is stable, democratically run and law abiding. That's true but it's dependent on a certain level of homogeneity, and even in countries like the UK, France, and Spain there are still historic ethnic divisions after a millennia that continue to cause political, and civil, unrest. Both the UK and Spain were subject to sustained terror campaigns by segments of their "own" population up until very recently. In point of fact, Northern Ireland currently has no effective government and we're in danger of Westminster (England) having to take direct control, which will kick off more terror attacks.

8,000 people entered Hungary yesterday, Europe simply cannot support this rate of immigration - especially illegal immigration - and the likelyhood that our civil society will buckle at least at the local level and these people will be little better off in the end than if they had stayed in Turkey - except lots of them will have drowned/been trampled/died of heatstroke/frostbite.

I never said it should fall on Europe, just don't point your fingers wherever you want. You can handle it, we can't.

"We" Arabs or "We" Americans?

You're in Denver.

Speaking of which - the US has the space as well as the mass lift capacity, the money, and the experience of assimilating new immigrants.

[Gilrandir]

If there is a will, there is a way.

Wrong!! Where there is a whip, there is a will.

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 latter three have nothing in common with Levantine Arabs but religion (and I'm not sure it is the same kind - Shia or Sunni), so for them the refugees would be as alien as for Europeans.

and even in countries like the UK, France, and Spain there are still historic ethnic divisions after a millennia that continue to cause political, and civil, unrest.

Historically, it is the other way around: those countries integrated different ethnic groups thus inheriting the ethnic tensions that existed before.

[Viking]

I think this is the right track

A track that leads to what exactly? What happens when the oil runs out?

It can destroy cities but not your cities.

It has apparently already gone a good way towards destroying the Swedish city of Malmö:

In a port city, grenade attacks shatter Swedish sense of safety (August 2015)

After years in the military and police dealing with bombs and mines in ex-Yugoslavia, Lebanon and Iraq, Goran Mansson is now back home advising Swedes what to do if they find an unexploded grenade on their street or in a playground.

As bomb squad chief in the western port city of Malmo, Mansson has been busy with a dozen grenade attacks in the last few months. They have shocked a Nordic country that prides itself on safety, led to worries criminality is out of control and given political fodder to a resurgent far-right that blames immigrant gangs for the violence.

[...]

These incidents have focussed attention on gang-related violence in one of Sweden’s most segregated cities where unemployment rates top 40 percent in some deprived, mainly immigrant areas.

Malmö school 'too dangerous' for students (March 2015)

A secondary school in Malmö has been closed after the teachers' union declared that it is too dangerous a place for students and teachers to attend due to widespread violence and criminality.

Violence, threats and visits from adult criminals eventually became too much for the teachers' unions at Varner Rydén School in the Malmö suburb of Rosengård, whose safety officers have now closed the premises.

"Violence, threats and verbal abuse. There has also been trouble with students from other schools," said Hans Nilsson at the City of Malmö to news agency TT.

Sounds good.

It was all NATO in Libya. An incompetent operation that completely destroyed the most oil-rich state [...]

NATO helped rebels remove the Gaddafi state and left it to the Libyans, with some assistance, to build a new one. Unfortunately, infighting has put that project on hold. Hopefully, they will figure out that they got better things to do than killing each other and continue to build a democratic state. It's on the Libyans now.

and could have accepted more refugees if more stable.

The same state that had problems adequately housing their own citizens would house refugees? I wouldn't bet on it.

I guess Libyans should just have to live in a dictatorship so that we can stuff their country with refugees.

Some of these states aren't even adults. You are the adults since you've been around longer than 60 years.

60 years? A modern state shouldn't need more than a couple of decades to get going. Look to the most successful ex-Soviet states.

The latter three have nothing in common with Levantine Arabs but religion (and I'm not sure it is the same kind - Shia or Sunni), so for them the refugees would be as alien as for Europeans.

There are Shias living in Syria, too. And no, the refugees will not be as alien as for Europeans in the long term.

a country as small as the UAE accepted 160,000 Syrians the past two years

Did they, really?

While it's true that the Gulf States have allowed thousands of Syrians to come on work visas, many Syrians say they face severe restrictions in these countries. Some have decided they would rather risk the difficult road to Europe.

"I will live here for five years, ten years, and then what?" says Dahlia, a Syrian who fled her home in Aleppo and joined relatives in the Gulf city-state of Dubai. "You never belong, you never feel you are safe, your residency can be canceled at any time and then what? Go where?"

Citizenship is not an option, even for workers who stay for decades.

The fact is that Gulf countries don't accept refugees for resettlement because none of their governments officially recognize the legal concept. Even in Jordan, Syrians fleeing the civil war are called "guests," the expectation being that they won't stay.

Arab governments refused to sign the 1951 international convention on refugee rights, says Nadim Shehadi, head of the Fares Center for Eastern Mediterranean Studies at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. "The convention gives a mandate to UNHCR to do permanent settlement in the host countries or resettlement in third-party states," says Shehadi.

This was unacceptable to Arab governments 60 years ago — and still is today. They oppose resettling Palestinians in other countries, arguing that they should be allowed to return to homes they fled or were forced out of in wars with Israel.

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallel...yrian-refugees

[Montmorency]

60 years? A modern state shouldn't need more than a couple of decades to get going. Look to the most successful ex-Soviet states.

No.

There are Shias living in Syria, too. And no, the refugees will not be as alien as for Europeans in the long term.

But in the longer term according to you, there wouldn't be a difference anyway.

[AE Bravo]

Don't know about sending them anywhere, but now that they're there...

The Indian slaves thing is a bit outdated. What's rich is attacking a puny country to put yourselves on a pedestal. The homeless here, black people and their living conditions. Police brutality, prison-industrial complex. This is the cavity I think you should focus on.

What's your beef? Maybe we should send them to the south and see how rich that reaction would be.

[Montmorency]

My beef is I should give a damn when these able bodied males abandoned their homes and families to strike it rich in the welfare state.

Again, say what you want about the risks inherent to a European project (or, as it were, woodpile) of managing millions of refugees - but citing the above specifically for looking down on the refugees or for arguing against granting their asylum is just silly.

[AE Bravo]

So Europe should just take it because they migrants decided where they wanted to go. You set someones lawn on fire and tell them to deal with it?

Those countries along with the Saudis wanted Assad down and expected the kingdom to be some charitable foundation when shit hits the fan. The kingdom is a dirty country, just turn your back on it already.

America is so bad you came to school here. America is so bad it takes in more immigrants than anyone. America is so bad other countries have lotteries for visas. The UAE uses slave labor to make the elite rich. America is not perfect but it's miles better than that petro cartel masquerading as a nationstate.

Not bad at all, I'm livin. But the UAE, even though it's a small country, is rated #1 in the world for social cohesion. One of the highest standards of living and an overall happy place to be despite your quick google search fishing for human rights abuses.

I know you're from the south. I'm talking about survival of Arab countries and you're afraid of people striking it rich and doing better than you are. I lost count of Arab billionaires in Europe, Egyptians seem to be the wealthiest. You just haaaate these sand goons' hustle don't you even though you don't have a dog in the fight?

[AE Bravo]

Because they are using slave labor, living high on the petro dollar, and not letting in immigrants and migrants. Social cohesion is great when you talk about the 15% of your country that is actually counted in those statistics.

They do let in immigrants and migrants actually. I mentioned earlier they've accepted more Syrians than the US has since the war started.

No, I'm talking about the breakdown of the welfare state because of a mass influx of unskilled migrants. Europe has good social services but no one is going to strike it rich.

Arab countries can't do anything besides provide donations. This is just reality. It's a 40 year old country I'm from.

Typical. I don't see how this is relevant beyond whatever fantasy is in your head.

Typical of what

[Montmorency]

Arab countries can't do anything besides provide donations.

How about direct transfers to the EU, UN, or European national governments?

[Husar]

No, I'm talking about the breakdown of the welfare state because of a mass influx of unskilled migrants. Europe has good social services but no one is going to strike it rich.

http://fortune.com/2015/09/08/germany-migrant-crisis/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...ating-migrants

Daimler AG Chief Executive Officer Dieter Zetsche, striking an unusually political tone on the eve of this year’s Frankfurt International Motor Show, said that absorbing as many as 1 million migrants this year, while a “Herculean task,” holds the promise of laying the foundation for another economic upswing similar to the country’s postwar boom in the 1950s and 1960s.

His message: while not every person arriving in Germany is a brilliant engineer, mechanic or entrepreneur, many of those displaced by war, persecution and poverty are highly skilled and motivated, and may be just what the economy needs as the population shrinks and the number of people entering retirement age surges.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/18/bu...many.html?_r=0

After learning German quickly and proving to be a skilled employee, Mr. Jasor is on track for a permanent job once he completes his apprenticeship in making machine and auto parts. More than any other European country now contending with an influx of migrants and refugees, Germany — with Europe’s biggest economy, an aging population and more than a half-million unfilled jobs — sees the migration wave as not only a challenge but an opportunity.

Why do you hate job creators? Clearly you just want to see the German economy fail.