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?