solving the refugee crisis

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
phillip1882
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:11 pm UTC
Location: geogia
Contact:

solving the refugee crisis

Postby phillip1882 » Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:50 pm UTC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b0bIEMsHwM
definitely worth watching. what were you doing jan 29 2017, cause trump was potentially saving western civilization.
bitcoin address: 1B73mjAguoK9ATwVjGcy2LasyfG9xtLGsq

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:20 pm UTC

I tried to watch this video and found that I could not. the man is neither smart nor funny nor insightful within the first minute, please provide transcript.
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

User avatar
xkcdfan
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:10 am UTC

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby xkcdfan » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:43 pm UTC

22 minutes? Nah, bro. Sum it up in your own words if you want anyone here to care.

User avatar
phillip1882
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:11 pm UTC
Location: geogia
Contact:

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby phillip1882 » Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:20 pm UTC

not a verbatim transcript, i don't have that much patience and i stop when starts ranting on Rome and modern parallels.
hi everyone it's stephan molnuex of freedomainradio, do me a favor will you pause this video and write down what you were doing january 29 2017, becuase today is the day that the greatest problem facing western civilization, possibly the world, has started to be solved. now what did i say in 2015, oh yes though i was mocked virally for it, donald trump is a god of competance. how did i know that? becuase i too am an entruapanuer, i built this show form the ground up, starting with podcasts from my car on my way to work to the biggest philosophy show the world has ever seen. its not that hard to judge compatance when you are a competant man. if you're incompant not your fault, its not your fault but you cant accrately gauge compatance. it's called the danny kruger affect. its actually a pretty good wway fo figuring out who is doing original valueable stuff. now what did the mainstream media do today? well they got up, they bushed their teeth, they scratched themselves a little, and then they did the vodoo that they do so well, lie! they lied about the muslim ban, they lied about the exective order by not metioning it allows for exceptions, lied about those impacted by this order, lied about why thes seven countries were included in the order, becuase even though they were selected by barack obamas administration, aprently its really bad when donald trump does it. donald trump was painted as a mosnter for placing a ban on syrian refugees, while other world leaders bent over backwords to post modern virtue signal and get one up on donald trump and accept them, and potentailly destablize their own countries.[goes into rant about candian prime minsiter justin trudoe]
here's the the thing, we got this refugee crisis. people from the middle east are poring into the west. we have "no-go" zones [in europe]. in sweden, sweden has beome the #1 rape captial of the world. and the number of [refugees] employed?! not good not good at all. you see these people are not props. they aren't props to make you look good or look kind, they are not props. they deserve a right to have a successful life, and this is generally not going to happen in the west. and this is not just me making things up. one survey found that out of 166 thousand refugees, fewer than 500 have found jobs. And thats after being in the country for five years.
in germany out of 122 thousand, only about 50, and all employed by the post office. you see when refugees come to europe the government puts them up, or keeps them around, gives them money, and then what? over 90% of the refugees are illiterate in their own language. its not going to work, its not going to work! they arent props for votes. these people cant work, and refugees are largely male dominant, so they cant form families, that's how you tame young men. its not helpful.
and if the most energetic and most intelligent people are fleeing a country, guess who's left behind? no one! no one who can seriously help with the counties stability problems. its terrible. those that want to help the refugees, if you really want to help these people, set up safe zones in their countries of origin. for the cost of every 10,000 refugees brought to the west, you can settle 100,000 people in the middle east. and it not not that hard to figure out why this is the case, imagine how long it would take you to adjust moving to iran.
Last edited by phillip1882 on Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:09 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
bitcoin address: 1B73mjAguoK9ATwVjGcy2LasyfG9xtLGsq

User avatar
phillip1882
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:11 pm UTC
Location: geogia
Contact:

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby phillip1882 » Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:42 pm UTC

the basic jist, safe zones in the county of origin were formed. with two phone calls from Donald Trump. this gives western countries athe ability to send refugees to their country of origin before they cause problems on the economy and community.
bitcoin address: 1B73mjAguoK9ATwVjGcy2LasyfG9xtLGsq

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:51 pm UTC

Spoiler:
phillip1882 wrote:not a verbatim transcript, i don't have that much patience and i stop when starts ranting on Rome and modern parallels.
hi everyone it's stephan molnuex of freedomainradio, do me a favor will you pause this video and write down what you were doing January 29 2017, because today is the day that the greatest problem solving western civilization, possibly the world, has started to be solved. now what did i say in 2015, oh yes though i was mocked virally for it, donald trump is a god of competence. how did i know that? because i too am an entrepreneur, i built this show form the ground up, starting with podcasts from my car on my way to work to the biggest philosophy show the world has ever seen. its not that hard to judge competence when you are a competent man. if you're incompetent not your fault, its not your fault but you can't accurately gauge competence. it's called the dunning-kruger effect. its actually a pretty good way of figuring out who is doing original valuable stuff.
now what did the mainstream media do today? well they got up, they brushed their teeth, they scratched themselves a little, and then they did the voodoo that they do so well, lie! they lied about the muslim ban, they lied about the executive order by not mentioning it allows for exceptions, lied about those impacted by this order, lied about why these seven countries were included in the order, because even though they were selected by barack obama's administration, apparently its really bad when donald trump does it. donald trump was painted as a mosnter for placing a ban on syrian refugees, while other world leaders bent over backwards to post modern virtue signal and get one up on donald trump and accept them, and potentially destabilize their own countries.[goes into rant about candian prime minsiter justin trudeau]
here's the the thing, we got this refugee crisis. people from the middle east are poring into the west. we have "no-go" zones [in europe]. in sweden, sweden has become the #1 rape capitol of the world. and the number of [refugees] employed?! not good not good at all. you see these people are not props. they aren't props to make you look good or look kind, they are not props. they deserve a right to have a successful life, and this is generally not going to happen in the west. and this is not just me making things up. one survey found that out of 166 thousand refugees, fewer than 500 have found jobs. And that's after being in the country for five years.
in germany out of 122 thousand, only about 50, and all employed by the post office. you see when refugees come to europe the government puts them up, or keeps them around, gives them money, and then what? over 90% of the refugees are illiterate in their own language. its not going to work, its not going to work! they aren't props for votes. these people can't work, and refugees are largely male dominant, so they cant form families, that's how you tame young men. its not helpful.
and if the most energetic and most intelligent people are fleeing a country, guess who's left behind? no one! no one who can seriously help with the counties stability problems. its terrible. those that want to help the refugees, if you really want to help these people, set up safe zones in their countries of origin. for the cost of every 10,000 refugees brought to the west, you can settle 100,000 people in the middle east. and it not not that hard to figure out why this is the case, imagine how long it would take you to adjust moving to iran.

Spellchecked for your pleasure and reading ease.
It's still all full of {citation needed} points, though. I can't find evidence of these 'no-go zones' in reputable news sources, so please provide. Sweden has the highest rate of rape in Europe, but they also have the widest definition of rape in their legal system, so I don't see that as a salient point.
Forming families is how you 'tame' young men? What does that even mean?
I also don't see 'employment' as a metric for someone's value, personally, especially if said people are traumatized and trying to learn a new language. If he thinks these people deserve a successful life, do they not also deserve to determine what that means?

What exactly is a 'safe zone' and who will be defending them? How does our government define these 'safe zones' and will our military be expected to have a presence there? Also- why would anyone want to live in one? If I was told to move to a 'safe zone' in a place in my country that I would not prefer to live, I would have some serious problems with that.
This doesn't solve the refugee crisis, if that is even a thing. It's just another 'Not In My Backyard' argument.
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:02 pm UTC

phillip1882 wrote:the basic jist, safe zones in the county of origin were formed. with two phone calls from Donald Trump.


What safe zones are these, and why can a phone call fix the problem?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/03/middleeas ... index.html

The USA isn't the one bombing hospitals over there: Syrian's president Bashar al-Assad is ordering attacks clearly against Hospitals and other such locations in Syria... and Russia continues to provide the Syrian president the arms necessary to conduct these attacks. The USA has no soldiers in this region. Without soldiers, we can't create a "safe zone". A phone call changes nothing.

The only way we are "solving" this refugee crisis is through blood. Either our blood, or "the enemy's" (and no one has a definition for who the enemy is in this war). Honestly, the most politically expedient thing to do is to let those guys fight it amongst themselves, and try to stay out of this fight as much as possible. The USA owns the mess that is in Iraq however. One option would be to let the Iran's Revolutionary Guard capture the glory of defeating ISIS, but I doubt that Donald Trump just began that strategy.

--------------

Another question: what is the point of banning Iranian travelers from the USA? The USA has never had an Iranian terrorist attack on our soil. The 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia (but the country has a lot of Trump Hotels. So of course Trump won't ban that country). The Boston Marathon Bombers were from Chechnya.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:21 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
xkcdfan
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:10 am UTC

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby xkcdfan » Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:14 pm UTC


User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4391
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:18 pm UTC

That nicely sums up why I don't listen to talk radio. Oy, what a mess.

becuase today is the day that the greatest problem facing solving western civilization, possibly the world, has started to be solved.


Climate change? Nuclear proliferation? Topsoil degradation? Global pandemics?

muslim ban


Oh, right. Destitute Muslims escaping hellish wartorn countries.

biggest philosophy show the world has ever seen


So big it doesn't even have its own Wikipedia page.

its not that hard to judge compatance when you are a competant man. if you're incompant not your fault, its not your fault but you cant accrately gauge compatance. it's called the danny kruger affect.


The author shows a misunderstanding of how the Dunning-Kruger effect is supposed to work. It does not deal with a sort of "general" competence, but rather competence in a particular skill. Poor chess players will overrate their abilities (and, as recent research tends to show, strong performers will underrate their ability). If you are good at being a podcaster, that does not imply that you will be able to accurately evaluate the abilities of a politician, chess player, or police officer. In fact, given that competent people tend to underrate their ability, it's more likely that from the statement above that he has no idea what he's talking about.

in sweden, sweden has beome the #1 rape captial of the world


Sweden defines and collects statistics on rape differently from most other countries. This makes cross-country comparisons very difficult. It's a useful talking point for right-wing media in faraway countries, but the Swedes aren't at all concerned about this so-called "crisis", and it isn't as a result of a mass influx of refugees.

and refugees are largely male dominant


European ones, yes. Ones coming to the United States? No.

so they cant form families, that's how you tame young men. its not helpful.


I didn't realize men needed to be "tame". This statement is coming from a Men's Rights activist, to which I feel the only appropriate response is: o.O

set up safe zones in their countries of origin


The country of origin is in the midst of a civil war. How are you planning on enforcing this safe zone?

Mike Rosoft
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:56 pm UTC
Location: Prague, Czech Republic

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby Mike Rosoft » Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:42 pm UTC

I hold that immigration is only a crisis because we make it one. Do the recent terrorist attacks show how bad the immigrants are? No, they only show how "useful" all these persecutions and wars are for the West's safety. Because each time a civilian is killed in the wars, each time an immigrant is imprisoned in a refugee camp solely because of his religion and country of origin, each time a woman is denied a job, a university study, or otherwise persecuted or harassed for wearing a veil - all this only gives ammunition to the propagandists of terrorism, who will be able to say: "Look at them - they are your enemies, and they need to be fought against by any means available." And is it just as a racist argument as the one of the opponents of immigration? Of course.

The ultimate reason for the disaster that is the Middle East is not religion, it's politics; and to a large extent it is the West's fault. (Maybe I should say "the North" instead.) Is the main crime of the West that they engaged themselves militarily in the first place? No, not really; supporting democracy and preventing crimes against humanity is a laudable goal (with the caveat that you can't fight against crimes against humanity by committing them yourself). Rather, the crime is that they supported anybody, including the worst tyrant or terrorist, whenever convenient (and when not convenient, they often declared the very same person the worst enemy who must be defeated, whatever it takes). For example, the US war in Iraq wasn't criminal by itself; rather, the crime was encouraging a rebellion against Hussein, then abandoning the rebels and letting him massacre them, then changing their mind and deposing Hussein anyway. (And before that, supporting Hussein against Iran during Iraq-Iran war. And even before that, staging a coup d'état in Iran to overthrow the democratically elected government and bring the Shah to the power.) For another example, who was among the most important personalities of the Afghani Mujahideen, whom the Unites States supported? A certain Osama bin Laden...

Mike Rosoft
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:56 pm UTC
Location: Prague, Czech Republic

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby Mike Rosoft » Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:22 am UTC

So, what should the West do? I say: open the borders! Eliminate the "Fortress Europe". Stop imprisoning refugees. (It is not acceptable to imprison somebody just because we think, without any positive evidence, that he, maybe, might be a terrorist.) Stop arbitrarily denying them entry. (The 1948 declaration of human rights says: "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." To me, this means that everybody is entitled to freely choose the country where he wants to live, and neither the country of origin nor the destination country has any right to restrict him, unless there is an actual reason why this particular person should not be let in or out. The opposite - that the country of origin may not arbitrarily prevent a person from leaving, but the destination country may arbitrarily prevent him from coming - makes this right nothing but an empty declaration.) Stop building walls and barbed wires, and otherwise militarizing the borders. And, for goodness's sake, stop the persecution of Muslims; in particular, repeal the bans on Islamic dresses! To force a woman to cover herself is just as wrong as to force her not to cover herself. Finally, use the money that was wasted on the above (as well as the money collected from taxes once the immigrants are able to legally work) for something useful; in particular, for a strong welfare state.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5640
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby ucim » Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:48 am UTC

Mike Rosoft wrote:(The 1948 declaration of human rights says: "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." To me, this means that everybody is entitled to freely choose the country where he wants to live, and neither the country of origin nor the destination country has any right to restrict him, unless there is an actual reason why this particular person should not be let in or out. The opposite - that the country of origin may not arbitrarily prevent a person from leaving, but the destination country may arbitrarily prevent him from coming - makes this right nothing but an empty declaration.)

Well, no.

While I agree with the idea of fairly open borders, borders are there for a reason. When you enter somebody else's country (with that country's blessing), you are a guest. If you do so without that country's blessing, you are an intruder. There are many reasons to be an intruder, some of them very good reasons, but it is on the put-upon country to decide to forgive or not. (That said, I lean towards forgiveness, but said forgiveness is not a right.)

As an equivalent, everyone has the right to leave any house, including their own, and to return to their own house. But this is not an empty declaration just because I do not at the same time hold that everyone has the right to enter anybody else's house. And even the right to leave one's house can be restricted for criminals, who are made to live in the Big House. I see nothing wrong with that (so long as these are actual legitimate criminals we are talking about).

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

elasto
Posts: 3128
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby elasto » Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:45 am UTC

phillip1882 wrote:the basic jist, safe zones in the county of origin were formed. with two phone calls from Donald Trump. this gives western countries athe ability to send refugees to their country of origin before they cause problems on the economy and community.

Not sure if you're trolling or not, but you tell me if the following is solvable in two phone calls:

Amnesty International wrote:More than 4.8 million Syrian refugees are in just five countries Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt:

    * Turkey hosts 2.7 million Syrian refugees, more than any other country worldwide
    * Lebanon hosts approximately 1 million Syrian refugees which amounts to around one in five people in the country
    * Jordan hosts approximately 650k Syrian refugees, which amounts to about 10% of the population
    * Iraq where 3.1 million people are already internally displaced hosts 228,894 Syrian refugees
    * Egypt hosts 115k Syrian refugees

For comparison, the US took in just 13k Syrian refugees in 2016. If this is all about 'virtue signalling' then the Middle East has won hands down.

As for any 'safe zone' inside Syria... Even ignoring that fact that enforcing such a thing is impossible without a commitment of military force equivalent to that in Afghanistan at its peak, you do realise how big such a zone would need to be, right..?

Amnesty International wrote:According to the UN around 13.5 million people are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance inside Syria. The number of people displaced within Syria is expected to rise to 8.7 million by the end of 2016.

The country only has 23m people to start with, so your 'safe zone' would basically cover most of the country...

If Trump wants to do something quick and dirty to at least help, how about the fact that the UN’s 2016 humanitarian appeal for Syrian refugees was just 56% funded by the end of November 2016?

Sure, that's not America's fault it's everyone's, but if we're trying to invent ways to help the situation with just one phone call, that's a more humane option than slamming the borders shut...

link

Parody and fake news was funny when it was just The Onion. Now it's just annoying.

Mike Rosoft
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:56 pm UTC
Location: Prague, Czech Republic

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby Mike Rosoft » Thu Feb 02, 2017 9:13 pm UTC

[Re: the freedom of movement argument]
ucim wrote:While I agree with the idea of fairly open borders, borders are there for a reason. When you enter somebody else's country (with that country's blessing), you are a guest. If you do so without that country's blessing, you are an intruder. There are many reasons to be an intruder, some of them very good reasons, but it is on the put-upon country to decide to forgive or not. (That said, I lean towards forgiveness, but said forgiveness is not a right.)

As an equivalent, everyone has the right to leave any house, including their own, and to return to their own house. But this is not an empty declaration just because I do not at the same time hold that everyone has the right to enter anybody else's house. And even the right to leave one's house can be restricted for criminals, who are made to live in the Big House. I see nothing wrong with that (so long as these are actual legitimate criminals we are talking about).


I say that this is a false analogy; if for no other reason, then because just about all useful land is a part of some country (the rest is either open ocean, or Antarctica); but not all land is inside a house. More importantly, a house is private property; a state is not - it is a public service. If you own or have leased a house, you are entitled to arbitrarily allow - or not to allow - a guest in. But if you own a shop, you can't discriminate against the potential customers on the basis of nationality, race, religion, or other irrelevant criteria. You can't say: I don't let Romani people shop here. You can't say: five Moroccans have already shopped here today, that's enough - try again tomorrow.

As I have said, a state is a public service; this means that it must be held to the same standard. I didn't claim that the freedom of movement is absolute. But I say: a person should not be arbitrarily prevented from entering or leaving a country - not unless there is an actual reason why this particular person should be so restricted. If he had committed a serious crime, this is a good reason. If he engages in propagation of hatred and terrorism, this is also a good reason. If he is from the wrong country, or of the wrong religion, or too poor, or not educated enough, or if so many people from that country have been allowed in this year - that's not a reason, that's unacceptable discrimination.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5640
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby ucim » Fri Feb 03, 2017 12:33 am UTC

Mike Rosoft wrote:I say that this is a false analogy;
All analogies are false analogies; the point of them is that they have enough truth to be illustrative. This one does, though it does not qualify as (nor was it offered up as) proof.

Mike Rosoft wrote:If you own or have leased a house, you are entitled to arbitrarily allow - or not to allow - a guest in. But if you own a shop, you can't discriminate against the potential customers...
So... is a country more like a home (where people live) or a store (where people come and go as customers)? I say it's like a home - a house with a yard in front, some vacant land in back, and family living inside. That family may have an art studio and sell to friends from their garage, but that does not imply that anybody can come in at any time. And that family may have guests stay overnight; that does not mean that they have to accept anybody that knocks on the door (or doesn't bother to).

Mike Rosoft wrote:As I have said, a state is a public service;
A government is a public service, yes. But it does not exist to provide service to the rest of the world. It exists to provide services to its citizens. Services like defense, roads, banking, justice, education... exactly which ones they are in any given case doesn't really matter. The point is that they obligation a government has is to its citizens, not to the rest of the world.

It is often useful to provide services to the rest of the world. Countries do that. But that is not their primary purpose; they do so as a secondary support of their primary purpose. Free trade is a Good Thing, free movement is a Good Thing, but it is not an obligation of a government, and it has its downsides; not every Good Thing is universally good.

So no, I do not agree that "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country" implies "everybody is entitled to freely choose the country where he wants to live, and neither the country of origin nor the destination country has any right to restrict him". The destination country absolutely has the right to restrict who (apart from their own citizens) they let in.

That said, although homeowners have the absolute right to restrict who comes into their home, being an asshole about it brings down the whole neighborhood. I want to be explicit that I totally disagree with what 45 is doing in this regard (and in most other regards too). It feeds hatred and breeds enemies. This weakens the United States and its position in the world, morally and in many other ways. However, while creating enemies makes the nation weaker, enemies make the leader stronger, as the troops are rallied to fight against the monsters that beset the nation (real or imagined). Perhaps this is what 45 is after.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.


Mike Rosoft
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:56 pm UTC
Location: Prague, Czech Republic

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby Mike Rosoft » Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:01 pm UTC

ucim wrote:A government is a public service, yes. But it does not exist to provide service to the rest of the world. It exists to provide services to its citizens. Services like defense, roads, banking, justice, education... exactly which ones they are in any given case doesn't really matter. The point is that they obligation a government has is to its citizens, not to the rest of the world.

It is often useful to provide services to the rest of the world. Countries do that. But that is not their primary purpose; they do so as a secondary support of their primary purpose.


And maybe, just maybe, this is precisely what is wrong with the modern civilization. Maybe, instead of choosing between "benefiting us" and "benefiting them", the purpose of countries ought to be to work to benefit everybody. And maybe the whole concept of the nation-state should be relegated to the dustbin of history.

We keep hearing about the refugees dying while crossing the ocean, and about the abuse they suffer from the traffickers. And I ask: Who would want to risk his life in this way, if he could instead embark on the first ship or plane going to the destination country and, after arriving, he'd register himself at an office and get a permission to stay without needless bureaucracy? Who would want to spend fortune on these gangsters? Who would want to be held hostage for more payment, put to torture, or to forced labor? And finally, how much death and suffering could be prevented by opening the borders, and also how much money - now wasted on the "war on immigration" - could be saved?

On somewhat similar lines, some people believe that rather than banning drugs and prosecuting dealers, the government should legalize drugs. I don't know if I should agree with them, especially in case of hard drugs; the key point is that drugs do harm people. The act of me moving from Prague to Brno or from Baghdad to London does not harm anybody; that's why I believe that the government doesn't have a legitimate right to restrict people from immigrating, and why I believe that this is a matter of human rights.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8875
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:30 pm UTC

Mike Rosoft wrote:The act of me moving from Prague to Brno or from Baghdad to London does not harm anybody


It harms the locals if you raise the price of rent or increase the tax burden through the extra social services required, ranging from hospitals, fire protection, police protection, etc. Its incredibly naive to think that people don't cost the governments anything even if they aren't committing crimes.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:33 pm UTC

Mike Rosoft wrote:And maybe, just maybe, this is precisely what is wrong with the modern civilization. Maybe, instead of choosing between "benefiting us" and "benefiting them", the purpose of countries ought to be to work to benefit everybody. And maybe the whole concept of the nation-state should be relegated to the dustbin of history.


The problem is that many resources are a zero-sum game. Lets take a simple example: money in gambling (in the micro-economic sense anyway). If you and I were playing Poker against each other, only one of us will have money by the end of the game. In the case of war and violence, ISIS is fighting for existance and influence over a region. There is no "benefiting both of us", we must destroy ISIS, and ISIS must continue to fight for its own survival.

In the case of non-zero sum games, there's the prisoner's dilemma, chicken, and the Stag's game. Sure, we all can theoretically benefit if we hunted the stag together instead of hunting rabbits alone. But unless I have absolute trust that you'll "come with me", I'll continue to hunt rabbits. If I hunt the stag alone, I won't have food you see, so its not worth it for me to hunt the stag since I don't trust you yet.

Life isn't about holding hands and singing Kumbaya together. I mean, it is. It helps for Stag's game I guess... but certainly not for any situation that is zero-sum.

The act of me moving from Prague to Brno or from Baghdad to London does not harm anybody


Sure it is. You're going to take up a job, a job that could have gone to someone else. And that's why Brexit happened, because a number of people believe that there's a limited number of jobs that a country can support.

So to their mind, they're playing a zero-sum game with their neighbors.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Chen
Posts: 5277
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby Chen » Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:58 pm UTC

With finite resources, you're never going to have completely free immigration. Looking at a very high level, countries provide benefits to their citizens. If anyone could move around to gain said benefits, the "best" countries would quickly run out of resources to manage. You say there is no harm in moving one place to another, but there can definitely be harm to an existing place if you have too many people move there. Housing shortages are a good example.

I can grant in some sort of idealized scenario it would be nice if all the resources of the planet were somehow shared equally amongst everyone. I don't really see how this could practically work though. I mean there's already tons of fighting for resources within countries. And you can keep going smaller and smaller and you see the same fighting for states, counties, cities and even households. Somehow getting everyone to just share and get along is unrealistic to the extreme.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Feb 03, 2017 7:40 pm UTC

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/glo ... 2b0aa0e566

Here's how you solve the refugee crisis. Tell Putin "Go ahead, take on Ukraine. USA won't stop you". Now we have more refugees.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

mcd001
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:27 pm UTC

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby mcd001 » Fri Feb 03, 2017 10:13 pm UTC

Chen wrote:You say there is no harm in moving one place to another, but there can definitely be harm to an existing place if you have too many people move there. Housing shortages are a good example.

And there are other examples. Where I live we see the student-teacher ratios in our public schools expanding due to the children of illegal immigrants, who also take up most of the teachers (finite) spare time because they require the most assistance. We see hospital emergency rooms filled with illegal immigrants requiring medical care they can't pay for. We see extra traffic on our roads from unlicensed and uninsured drivers. We see resurgences of diseases that were once nearly extinct, such as mumps, TB, measles, and whooping cough. We see our (finite) social services intended for the benefit of citizens being provided to illegal immigrants. We see wages being driven down from increased competition for jobs, jobs that would once have been filled by students or inexperienced workers just entering the work force. Many of our neighborhoods are becoming places where we feel like strangers in our own land, filled with people who don't speak our language, don't share our culture, and don't value our beliefs. We see more crime, because while most illegal immigrants are peaceful and just want a better life for themselves and their families, some ARE criminals. Some ARE terrorists.

Uncontrolled immigration is far from harmless. The only people that benefit are unscrupulous employers who like the low wages (hence the support of the Chamber of Commerce Republicans) and Democrat politicians who see them as future Democrat voters.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8875
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Feb 03, 2017 10:25 pm UTC

To be fair, a lot of the return of those nearly-extinct diseases can be blamed on the locals. Well, sort of; Andrew Wakefield legally immigrated to the US.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5857
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby sardia » Sat Feb 04, 2017 2:18 am UTC

mcd001 wrote:
Chen wrote:You say there is no harm in moving one place to another, but there can definitely be harm to an existing place if you have too many people move there. Housing shortages are a good example.

And there are other examples. Where I live we see the student-teacher ratios in our public schools expanding due to the children of illegal immigrants, who also take up most of the teachers (finite) spare time because they require the most assistance. We see hospital emergency rooms filled with illegal immigrants requiring medical care they can't pay for. We see extra traffic on our roads from unlicensed and uninsured drivers. We see resurgences of diseases that were once nearly extinct, such as mumps, TB, measles, and whooping cough. We see our (finite) social services intended for the benefit of citizens being provided to illegal immigrants. We see wages being driven down from increased competition for jobs, jobs that would once have been filled by students or inexperienced workers just entering the work force. Many of our neighborhoods are becoming places where we feel like strangers in our own land, filled with people who don't speak our language, don't share our culture, and don't value our beliefs. We see more crime, because while most illegal immigrants are peaceful and just want a better life for themselves and their families, some ARE criminals. Some ARE terrorists.

Uncontrolled immigration is far from harmless. The only people that benefit are unscrupulous employers who like the low wages (hence the support of the Chamber of Commerce Republicans) and Democrat politicians who see them as future Democrat voters.

You're actually describing most of the problems originating from the local population. The rest is unsubstantiated (read false Trump level lies). Extra traffic is from the cheapass nature of citizens, and their allergy to raising taxes. Student teacher ratios have no correlation with school performance or student performance. Diseases are, big surprise, actually from white people. We can go on and on. You really ought to take serious business forum more seriously.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5640
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby ucim » Sat Feb 04, 2017 4:13 am UTC

Mike Rosoft wrote:Maybe, instead of choosing between "benefiting us" and "benefiting them", the purpose of countries ought to be to work to benefit everybody. And maybe the whole concept of the nation-state should be relegated to the dustbin of history.
But people are not all the same. Countries are not all the same. Value systems are not all the same. And what counts as "benefiting" is not all the same; in addition, benefiting one often is at the detriment of another. Nation-states may well come to be "relegated to the dustbin of history" but that is, and ought to be, a gradual process, as people learn to live with one another (or conquer each other until there is only one winner).

However, there's a big upside to separate nation-states; that being that each one is a backup to all the others. If there are five nation-states and one goes bad, there are four left to "fix" the problem. But if there is one world-government, and it goes bad, we're ch*rped. The idea of "the purpose of countries are to benefit everybody (else) is quite naive. Ain't gonna happen.

To take a very simple case, if one country is built on {these} values, and another country is built on {those} values, when enough people from {these} values come to live in the country with {those} values, they will gain enough political power to outvote {those} people. It's a simple exercise to fill in {these} and {those} with pretty much anything you hold dear. It takes very little to imagine the country with {these} values encouraging emigration as a form of imperialism. It's happened many times in history.

sardia wrote:...Extra traffic is from the cheapass nature of citizens, and their allergy to raising taxes...
Doesn't "costing the unwilling citizens of your host country extra money" count as harm? Or do you also feel you (should) have the right to enter your neighbor's house and invite yourself to dinner? Even if you wash the dishes?

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5857
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby sardia » Sat Feb 04, 2017 5:01 am UTC

ucim wrote:Doesn't "costing the unwilling citizens of your host country extra money" count as harm? Or do you also feel you (should) have the right to enter your neighbor's house and invite yourself to dinner? Even if you wash the dishes?

Jose

You're still blaming others for bad roads. It's like your house was decaying, and you blamed the "visitors" because you refused to pay the repairman. Because roads that are bad are mostly white people's fault. Because they have the money to drive but refuse to pay tax money for roads.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8875
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Feb 04, 2017 5:04 am UTC

1) Roads decays faster if more people drive on them
2) Increased traffic will require some roads to be expanded
3) Increased traffic also means more traffic jams and accidents, and somebody has to pay those EMTs
4) Wow, the casual racism from you

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5640
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby ucim » Sat Feb 04, 2017 5:31 am UTC

sardia wrote:You're still blaming others for bad roads...
Not at all. This is just a case of a country with {these} values having an influx of people with {those} values. In this case, the values are good roads. You and I may hold that good roads are worth the money, but that's irrelevant. In the case of a country (or county or city...) whose people would rather let the roads decay and instead have better health care, more ice cream cones, or lazy days in the sun, an influx of people who value good roads impinges on that host country's values. That counts as harm if they expect the host country to shape up to the guest's value system. It's arrogant to make those judgments for your host.

And it's not just roads. You can fill this in with anything, including putting toilet paper on the roll the wrong way.

sardia wrote:It's like your house was decaying, and you blamed the "visitors" because you refused to pay the repairman.
No, it's like my house was decaying but I was fine with it. But then visitors come in unbidden, break the bidet (that I never use), and demand that I get (and pay for) a repairman to fix it for them.

When you enter somebody else's country, or house, you are a guest. You do not have the right to demand that they do stuff differently.

And in the present political climate, I feel compelled to once again explicitly state that I am just talking about who has the right to what, not whether or not it's a nice thing to do, or even a politically advantageous thing to do. A country has the right to control immigration, even to the point of stopping it completely. The "right" of a person to leave their country does not imply an obligation of some other country to accept them.

Rejecting them is arguably a dick move. Rejecting them may well make the situation (for the hoped for host country) worse by generating resentment and ill will on the world stage. Immigrants can certainly add great value to the host country in many ways, and usually do. But it is certainly every country's right to control its own immigration.

That said, 45 is doing a dick move.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7312
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby Zamfir » Sat Feb 04, 2017 5:46 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:1) Roads decays faster if more people drive on them

As an aside: this is, to first approximation, not true. The basic rule of thumb for road damage says that damage is proportional to the fourth power of wheel loading. As result, heavy trucks and buses (that have less wheels than than trucks) do effectively all of the traffic-related damage. The weather does the rest.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8875
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Feb 04, 2017 5:58 am UTC

Alright then. But still, more people on the roads means more traffic and more accidents.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5857
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby sardia » Sat Feb 04, 2017 6:09 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:1) Roads decays faster if more people drive on them
2) Increased traffic will require some roads to be expanded
3) Increased traffic also means more traffic jams and accidents, and somebody has to pay those EMTs
4) Wow, the casual racism from you

Thank god, someone who isn't posting in tortured metaphors. Is the harm in the roads being expanded due to increased economic activity? Or is it the permission based otherness that nonimmigrants didn't have a choice in the increased economic activity? 4, I guess? Casually point out white power?

We talk about all these "problems" immigrants cause, but nobody seems to be able to prove all of it. At least post some links for us to criticize. If you're gonna criticize immigrants, be ready to adjust your complaints when your complaints aren't caused by immigrants. Otherwise, you might as well join the Trump administration.

Basic premise, if refugees are so bad, how about we kick out some Cubans?
http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/mariel-impact.pdf

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8875
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Feb 04, 2017 6:32 am UTC

My point is everyone consumes society's resources to some extent, no matter what they claim. Even if you happen to be in the middle of an otherwise empty desert, the police still need to check up on you every once in a while, social security needs to review your information, etc etc. Refugees/immigrants also consume those resources. They also produce resources by working. They take jobs that otherwise would go to locals. They provide new jobs for the locals to do. They displace the local culture. They add to the local culture.

It's complicated.

And no, I don't agree with the OP, who posted a link to a nutjob.

morriswalters
Posts: 6949
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby morriswalters » Sat Feb 04, 2017 5:53 pm UTC

What the OP seems to not understand is that the world was more or less how he imagines for some time, as in thousands of years, until modern times.
sardia wrote:We talk about all these "problems" immigrants cause, but nobody seems to be able to prove all of it. At least post some links for us to criticize. If you're gonna criticize immigrants, be ready to adjust your complaints when your complaints aren't caused by immigrants. Otherwise, you might as well join the Trump administration.
Yeah they exist, you just don't choose to see them. It takes some significant funding to provide immigrants with services. There was a time when they kicked you to the curb at the dock and you either got busy or got dead. We expend funds to minimize the disruption they cause. They have to compete with people who are already here, for everything. So in terms of cost.

Immigration and Nationalization.
Social Services
Medical
Housing

All direct, budgeted, expenses. With the exception of housing. You would defend it as small as compared to our other needs, which is true, but incomplete in that the pool of tax dollars everybody is willing to spend isn't increasing as fast as the need. Refugees add some additional burdens. Illegal immigrants have their own costs. Estimates call that number, 11 to 12 million. They have to be using up stocks of housing and assuming that they have children, that those children need schools.
sardia wrote:Basic premise, if refugees are so bad, how about we kick out some Cubans?
Nobody accepted Cubans because they loved Cubans, they accepted Cubans because they hated Castro. Had he been any other Latin Dictator they would have been toast. Here was a commie, 90 miles South. They always wanted them to go back and Kick out Castro. And Castro bled us in this case.
The ensuing mass migration was organized by Cuban-Americans with the agreement of Cuban president Fidel Castro. The arrival of the refugees in the U.S. created political problems for U.S. president Jimmy Carter, first when his administration struggled to develop a consistent response to the immigrants and then when it was discovered that a number of the refugees had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities. The Mariel boatlift was ended by mutual agreement between the two governments in late October 1980, after as many as 125,000 Cubans had reached Florida.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5857
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby sardia » Sat Feb 04, 2017 6:13 pm UTC

That's the thing about the Mariel boatlift, people pan it as all sorts of bad policy, but when you look at the numbers, you don't see anything. Look at the huge numbers of people that were rapidly moved into the Miami labor market. The paper shows(provides evidence) that it had no effect on wages or unemployment rates. It's not a straightforward relationship that for every person who moves, there's 1 less job for you. And yes, the OP is a moron, but there's other long time posters here who are giving really bad arguments.

THE IMPACT OF THE MARIEL BOATLIFT ON THE MIAMI LABOR MARKET DAVID CARD* Using data from the Current Population Survey, this paper describes the effect of the Marie1 Boatlift of 1980 on the Miami labor market. The Marie1 immigrants increased the Miami labor force by 7%, and the percentage increase in labor supply to less-skilled occupations and industries was even greater because most of the immigrants were relatively unskilled. Nevertheless, the Marie1 influx appears to have had virtually no effect on the wages or unemployment rates of less-skilled workers, even among Cubans who had immigrated earlier. The author suggests that the ability of Miami's labor market to rapidly absorb the Marie1 immigrants was largely owing to its adjustment to other large waves of immigrants in the two decades before the Marie1 Boatlift.


Real life is complicated and nuanced. Refugees are like kids, they have bad spots, aren't always wanted, and usually pay off the investment in them. We end up mixing emotional, ethical, and economic arguments into a pundit stew.

morriswalters
Posts: 6949
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby morriswalters » Sat Feb 04, 2017 7:00 pm UTC

The question wasn't if the boatlift was bad or good. Had that been anybody else it wouldn't have worked that way. Cubans got special privileges. Which had nothing to do with their refugee status.
The paper shows(provides evidence) that it had no effect on wages or unemployment rates.
You seemed to have missed this. 2016 reappraisal of CPS data
The last characteristic is important, because 60 percent of Marielitos did not complete high school. And even many of the remaining 40 percent, who did, were looking for unskilled jobs due to their lack of linguistic and other skills. So Marielitos competed directly with high school dropouts. Borjas next compared the inflation-adjusted wages of Miami residents who had these characteristics to wages of the same segment of the American population in all other American metropolitan areas but Miami. His analysis shows that the Miami wages for native-born men without high school diplomas were much lower than for similar workers in other US metropolitan areas during the 1980s and then again in the late 1990s, following the two spikes of Cubans migrating to Miami. During the 1980s Miami wages were 20 percent lower than elsewhere, a very substantial effect.[30][31]
What you are saying is that we could accept more refugees. Which is true. But as much as I dislike the empty suit in the White House he didn't invent immigration controls. And refugees need to be vetted. I just disagree with the way he does it.

elasto
Posts: 3128
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby elasto » Sun Feb 05, 2017 9:00 am UTC

I think we can all agree that simply throwing our doors wide open is not a practical solution, however slamming our doors shut would also be counterproductive:

Islamic State is paying the smugglers’ fees of child refugees in a desperate attempt to attract new recruits, according to a report highlighting the potential vulnerability of unaccompanied minors to radicalisation.

The report, from counter-extremism thinktank Quilliam, also says that an estimated 88,300 unaccompanied children – identified by the European Union’s police agency Europol as having gone missing – were at risk of being radicalised.

Citing failures in the approach of Europe, particularly the UK, towards protecting child refugees travelling alone, the report, published on Monday, warns that jihadi groups, including Isis and Boko Haram, have attempted to recruit within refugee camps using financial incentives, as well as working with the people smugglers.

Quilliam said that Isis had offered up to $2,000 (£1,600) to recruit within camps in Lebanon and Jordan. Last year, Jordanian special forces reportedly found what they described as an Isis sleeper cell inside a refugee camp near Irbid, north Jordan. Additional reports indicated that Isis had tried to recruit refugees by supplying food previously withheld from camp residents.

Nikita Malik, a senior researcher at Quilliam, said: “Young asylum seekers are targeted by extremist groups as they are more vulnerable to indoctrination, make able fighters and, in the case of girls, can create a new generation of recruits.


This problem will become more pressing if global warming starts displacing hundreds of millions as it may well in the coming decades.

I honestly don't know what the answer is except to raise education and living standards worldwide. But that's the age old wish of eliminating all war and poverty. We'll probably need benevolent AI overlords to have a hope of achieving that...

link

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5857
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby sardia » Sun Feb 05, 2017 7:15 pm UTC

elasto wrote:I think we can all agree that simply throwing our doors wide open is not a practical solution, however slamming our doors shut would also be counterproductive:


link

Wait, prove that statement. I think it's probably true, but has anyone ever had wide open borders? The last one I could think of is the US Canada border*, and that ended after 9/11. Maybe the wild west era before the civil war? Lots of free movement in those days.

*I know it's not a true open border even then because people could cross but not emigrate.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4391
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:12 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
elasto wrote:I think we can all agree that simply throwing our doors wide open is not a practical solution, however slamming our doors shut would also be counterproductive:


link

Wait, prove that statement. I think it's probably true, but has anyone ever had wide open borders? The last one I could think of is the US Canada border*, and that ended after 9/11. Maybe the wild west era before the civil war? Lots of free movement in those days.

*I know it's not a true open border even then because people could cross but not emigrate.


Within the EU?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5857
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby sardia » Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:27 pm UTC

OK, take the EU. Elasto, Prove that wide open borders was bad for them.

elasto
Posts: 3128
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: solving the refugee crisis

Postby elasto » Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:12 am UTC

I was referring to the post(s) in this thread advocating an open border policy whereby anyone who wants to enter a country can.

If you check my posting history you'll find noone a stronger advocate of EU freedom of movement than me. I think immigration has been nothing but a boon for the UK. Indeed, numerically speaking most of our immigration has been from outside the EU which we could have cut to zero at the snap of our fingers. So why didn't we? Because immigration is good.

(What was mismanaged by successive governments was not immigration numbers but reinvesting the immigrant dividend back into infrastructure and local services, as well as letting the media set the agenda instead of selling the positive case for immigration.)


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests