IMMIGRATION thread

[Papewaio]

So we have bombed Syria because ISIS is too deadly.
The locals have run away from ISIS and a dictator to become asylum seekers.
ISIS attacks Paris killing 100.
So we are going to collectively punish the asylum seekers for the ISIS attacks.

Doesn't that seem slightly warped to punish the victim for the attackers success even against first world counter terrorist agencies.

Are we going to collectively punish the whole of Europe for losing 10,000 plus asylum seeker children?:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-0...l-says/7128558

"Over 10,000 unaccompanied asylum seeker children have disappeared in Europe, the EU police agency Europol says, fearing many have been whisked away into sex trafficking rings or the slave trade."

[Fragony]

@hussie, Beskar's thread is about mindless violence against immigrants, which I deeply disaprove. This one about the consequences of just letting everybody in. There is no inconsistancy

[Pannonian]

So we have bombed Syria because ISIS is too deadly.
The locals have run away from ISIS and a dictator to become asylum seekers.
ISIS attacks Paris killing 100.
So we are going to collectively punish the asylum seekers for the ISIS attacks.

Doesn't that seem slightly warped to punish the victim for the attackers success even against first world counter terrorist agencies.

Are we going to collectively punish the whole of Europe for losing 10,000 plus asylum seeker children?:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-0...l-says/7128558

"Over 10,000 unaccompanied asylum seeker children have disappeared in Europe, the EU police agency Europol says, fearing many have been whisked away into sex trafficking rings or the slave trade."

Hey, I'm consistent. I was against bombing Syria or taking part in any action there. Now I'm against letting in Syrians. I gave up on that region years ago, as everything we do and don't do is blamed on us. Let them do whatever they want, and let them bear the consequences for doing whatever they want. And as I predicted years ago, everything we've done or not done is blamed on us. At least let us continue to not do, and save money in the process. We'll get blamed either way anyway.

For UK, it would be better, almost in every way. They would integrate faster, learn the language faster and so on. But it wouldn't solve the problem of Europe or even EU as a whole.

It makes UK (and Germany, France, Austria...) better but it makes the situation worse in Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Serbia... What happens in one part of Europe affects the other. Nothing illustrates it better than WW1, the latest example would be the Greek crisis.
Another issue is the fact that it is more likely that Eastern European countries would raise the standard of living before Europe as whole reaches equilibrium.
And, thirdly, globalisation - the difference between a Bulgarian and an Englishman would have been huge a 1000 years ago, smaller 500 years ago and basically nonexistent now, minus the language and religion. Take a British and a Bulgarian students now, they're very likely to be into similar music, similar sports, do similar things for fun, have similar problems, probably even have similar apps on their smartphone. My guess is that the differences would be smaller and smaller.

But, yes, for a country like UK, it would be a better short term solution. I don't think it is a valid long term solution. The better strategy would be the host country investing time and effort to make sure newcomers integrate, as the effort would certainly also help other groups in that country.

Sounds good to me. If the individual countries want to do their bit, let them do so. But they have no right to impose their policies on other countries.

[Gilrandir]

If you mean keeping the refugees out of Britain, to a large extent it seems realistic unless we give them a lot of boats to swarm you with.
How should the Greeks and Italians go about it?

Towing back all boats to where they came from.

[Myth]

Towing back all boats to where they came from.

No, just build more Ships of the Line of coruse.

[Husar]

@hussie, Beskar's thread is about mindless violence against immigrants, which I deeply disaprove. This one about the consequences of just letting everybody in. There is no inconsistancy

Inconsistencies in your heart my friend. You want to help people in need because you have a good heart and at the same time you would rather keep them all in poverty and squalor outside the walls of Babylon.

Towing back all boats to where they came from.

Where did they come from?

No, just build more Ships of the Line of coruse.

To ship them to Europe safely?

[Snowhobbit]

Where did they come from?

In the case of Greece, they came from Turkey. In the case of Italy they mostly come from Libya.

[Husar]

In the case of Greece, they came from Turkey. In the case of Italy they mostly come from Libya.

Why are they coming from our allies? Will Libya accept all of them based on "we assume they mostly came from here"? What if Libya gives them new boats right away? Who is responsible in Libya anyway? What about the ones who already landed?

[Gilrandir]

Where did they come from?

Doesn't matter. Wherever it is - just ship'em back.

[Viking]

How large would the drop in unwanted behavior be and how large would it be for other measures? And where do morals come into the equation? What would be the impact on Greece, Italy and surrounding countries? What the impact on those people stranded somewhere in the middle of winter? Would it be okay to let a few thousand people freeze to death because it's simple? What exactly are we talking about? Is this a what-if about us having kept the borders closed or are we talking about sending everybody who came back to somewhere else? And where to? What if the other country does not want them?



So it was the what-if after all? Okay, then, what should we have done and how nice would it be now then?

Part of the reason so many travel to Europe is that they know they might get accepted here. They could have travelled to China or Kazakhstan, but they won't - because they don't expect to be accepted there. Once people are not let into Europe, fewer will come, because it is likely to be a waste of time, anyway.

They don't necessarily have to be sent back (which would rely on the goodwill or agreement with destination countries), we could just place them in closed interment camps that are only marginally better than the ones in e.g. Lebanon. This, too, would reduce the desire to travel to Europe.

This could be a one-time investment with significant pay-off; unlike a lot of other things you might do in order to decrease the amount of anti-social behaviour.

Yes, it will continue to grow. That is the point. It will continue to grow because the population is living longer and subsequently gets older. Short of killing them at the age of 70, the only other option is to balance it by importing more youth.

It would continue to grow because of continued immigration. The largest post-WWII cohorts are expected die off well before the year 2100.

If that is able to start mass protests, imagine what could happen after a more serious social upheaval.

Again, that's France. Upheaval in France is a result of how that country is governed, and does not have to translate directly to other countries.

Generally speaking, most social upheaval tends to come from the younger generations, not the older ones. With a decreasing younger fraction of the population, the country could just as well become more stable.

We're so far off a hypothetical global limit that it is absurd to even contemplate it.

Disagree.

In the next part you mix up economic conditions of an area and food production. I'm not going to bother responding.

I never said it would be ideal. The point is that there are jobs refugees could do, some right away, some with a little training, some with more training. They wouldn't be a perpetual drain.

But a lot of them may end up unemployed or in low-paying jobs, potentially creating a new underclass of people along ethnic lines (which does not bode well for stability, cf. above).

It has nothing to do with refugees, though.

Given enough refugees, it will.

It will happen, even if you never accept a single Muslim ever again.

Not necessarily. Many places in Europe has had a near-static ethnic composition for more than a thousand years.

That is irrelevant and nonsensical. Let's say all of them, a 100%. Now you've got a result, what you're gonna do with it? Deduce that a 100% of Muslims in Europe are terrorist?

Congratulations, you're now a proud owner of a piece of information that is completely accurate and useless at the same time.

This relates directly to your claim that it is safer for Europe (in terms of terrorism) to accept a large amount of migrants from Muslim countries rather than letting them stay there.

This claim appears to be directly odds with the ratio of Islamist terrorists with European citizenship to those without. The attacks are coming from within, not outside countries.

Man, Greyblades is starting to make more sense than you.

Stay classy.

[Husar]

Doesn't matter. Wherever it is - just ship'em back.

How do you determine where to ship them to? And again, what if that country claims they cannot be returned because they are not citizens of that country? What if they come from the caliphate? Ship them to the caliphate?

Many places in Europe has had a near-static ethnic composition for more than a thousand years.

So did many places in America, people tend to get over it (or are allowed to live in reservations).

This claim appears to be directly odds with the ratio of Islamist terrorists with European citizenship to those without. The attacks are coming from within, not outside countries.

Then why are outside people supposedly the problem?

Look after the women and children as though they are natives. Train the men as an army, under European officers, to fight ISIS. If we can't trust them with heavy weapons, then train them as light infantry with European forces providing heavy lifting. Those who aren't suitable for fighting as front line infantry can work in the logistical tail instead. Those who won't work towards this should be interned until such a time as they can be deported back to Syria. Those who distinguish themselves can be offered EU citizenship, distributed between the EU countries.

A lot of them are apparently fleeing from potential army service or from getting recruited by terrorist organizations, what should they do? Stay there and join the terrorists because they have to fight anyway?

On the one hand we claim they're all way too violent for our culture and then we suggest to turn the peaceful ones into killers?

[Fragony]

Inconsistencies in your heart my friend. You want to help people in need because you have a good heart and at the same time you would rather keep them all in poverty and squalor outside the walls of Babylon.

Glad to see that you understand that I am not an unkind person. But we don't need a Babylonian tower either.