The Refugee Kafuffle

[crodio]

Crime, drug abuse and so on has normally been a problem of the poor and uneducated, which is the kind of people that economic migrants are.

The entire discussion about culture is pointless because culture really doesn't have that big of an impact, if any. People from all around the globe go to a local (super)market to buy everyday commodities, go to work by car/bike/train etc., spend time with family, have friends and so on.  It is a preposterous idea that there is some form of cultural rift that makes people unable to adapt to life in Europe.

I'm not sure it is the poor and uneducated those that migrate the most. I doubt the people at the very bottom can afford to cross the mediterranean or whatever. While the educated are the first to migrate when **** hits the fan economically, because they can and because it pays off.
Also i don't believe culture is meaningless. it is if you believe culture is just about choice of food and clothing. But there are gorillion things that can complicate things when it comes to culture. Family structure, tolerance of different faiths, sexual orientation, the relationship towards the state and whatever. these aren't minor things.

I don't know what you are trying to argue for anyway. That europe should only take educated refugees?

 

[Duh]

Culture and Kinship do matter.

http://jonathanstray.com/papers/Tilly.pdf - Trust and Rule (Not aimed at migration per se, but discusses the challenge that communal distrust poses to the state, which imo matters to integration)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31448929_Dark_Networks_as_Problems (much broader topic, but touches upon the role of kinship for international illicit business - i.e. typically foreign criminals will seek out people of same ethnicity)
https://www.stabilityjournal.org/articles/10.5334/sta.er/ - Behavioral Patterns among (Violent) Non-State Actors: A Study of Complementary Governance
(Discusses how shadow economy, shadow citizenship and shadow citizenship security are related - in the south american drug context, but im sure you can abstract.)

I.e. even smart and educated people might have trouble "integrating" if they lack licit opportunity that is desirable over illicit opportunity or if they have had poor experiences with states previously and thus prefer "communal" trust networks. Admittedly, thats a very rough extrapolation of the aforementioned papers... but it just kinda came to mind when I read them and figured I d drop it here. Naturally, education and such also matters.

 

[Watly]

"Poor people can't afford to migratie." ... You serious? Did you follow the refugee crisis of people crossing the Mediterranean on plastic boats you can buy for a couple of bucks at a kiosk? Or people that travel by foot via Turkey? Even poor people have money, which many used to get smugglers to bring them to Europe. Very dishonest there.

And yes, there are naturally more things to culture, but a lot of them don't matter in the slightest when it comes to integration. The only essentials to life in Europe are working, using money to buy everyday commodities, getting a place to live, dealing with taxes and so on. This is the same for almost every country in the world, regardless of culture.

Out of the points you mentioned, I find tolerance of faiths one of the stronger ones, so.I'll illustrate what I mean with that. Muslims are notoriously hostile to Jews and there are signs that Muslim refugees cause violence against Jewish residents. However, would you argue that this is a lack of integration? Europe knows its own antisemitic/anti-zionist/anti-israel groups as well, are they also poorly integrated?

How integrated someone is implies how well someone is capable of thriving in a society. Someone who earns 80k a year in the Netherlands, but plans the marriage of his daughter is integrated by my books. Many of the anti immigration camp seem to use the term "integrated" for people whose values they appreciate. This makes their concepts of integration and differences in culture just a masked display of xenophobia.

Please note that I do not imply planned marriages or antisemitism are in any way acceptable or should even be remotely tolerated. What I am arguing for is that using such aspects, attributing them to culture and claiming someone is not integrated if they adhere to those values derails the refugee debate and is nothing more than xenophobia in disguise.

 

[Duh]

Please note that I do not imply planned marriages or antisemitism are in any way acceptable or should even be remotely tolerated. What I am arguing for is that using such aspects, attributing them to culture and claiming someone is not integrated if they adhere to those values derails the refugee debate and is nothing more than xenophobia in disguise.

... culture is a set of cultivated behaviors and beliefs, though. Antisemitism and patriarchic behavior can be a part of that and thus be attributed to according cultures just fine. Same goes for acceptance of violence, respect for the law and the system of government, tolerance of women, gays, jews, etc. And if a large body of people enters into a society with a radically different set of majority beliefs and behaviors that needs to be considered and addressed... at least if you are a responsible government. The customs of migrants may very well affect the things you describe as key issue areas after all (employment, decent living space, etc). Plus... it is a real risk factor if there are large minorities that are radically different from the majority within your state. Because they too will feel discontent if the society around them is too different (not just intolerant natives). And seek to change it. In the worst case scenario that will mean violent conflict. In not so bad cases it may only lead to shadow states (i.e. illegal courts, economy). And that's not even taking into account all the shenanigans that an upset majority can get up to.

Cherry picking the factors you feel comfortable with and calling everything else xenophobic is ... lazy and dangerous. And certainly not beneficial to the refugees. If you want them to do well here, it is important to consider and reasonably address all aspects.

 

[Vissy]

Cherry picking the factors you feel comfortable with and calling everything else xenophobic is ... lazy and dangerous. And certainly not beneficial to the refugees. If you want them to do well here, it is important to consider and reasonably address all aspects.

Strange - it seems to me like the people who are saying that are precisely doing the opposite of cherry-picking. Most people, on the other hand - you included apparently - seem to be more content to sit on the sidelines and make these one-shot points rather than actually following your own advice and "considering and reasonably addressing all aspects". Cultural differences are a part of those aspects, but it is not remotely the most important part nor is it some insurmountable barrier that divides groups of people like a chasm. It's more harmful to buy into that notion and perpetuate this myth of "our cultural differences are just too big to allow integration" than to deconstruct it and call attention to other, much more important factors in integration policy (which is the opposite of harmful - it's constructive).

 

[Bromden]

Only the modern gospel, i.e., that all cultures, religions, worldviews should be understood based on their own internal standards, rather than be judged against the criteria of another.

That's nice. What does it have to do with what I said?

 

[Duh]

Cherry picking the factors you feel comfortable with and calling everything else xenophobic is ... lazy and dangerous. And certainly not beneficial to the refugees. If you want them to do well here, it is important to consider and reasonably address all aspects.

Strange - it seems to me like the people who are saying that are precisely doing the opposite of cherry-picking. Most people, on the other hand - you included apparently - seem to be more content to sit on the sidelines and make these one-shot points rather than actually following your own advice and "considering and reasonably addressing all aspects". Cultural differences are a part of those aspects, but it is not remotely the most important part nor is it some insurmountable barrier that divides groups of people like a chasm. It's more harmful to buy into that notion and perpetuate this myth of "our cultural differences are just too big to allow integration" than to deconstruct it and call attention to other, much more important factors in integration policy (which is the opposite of harmful - it's constructive).

Not really sure what to respond to this tbh. Watly is claiming that culture (largely) doesn't matter. Noone else was declaring other factors irrelevant like that. Your argument is also dishonest or at least misrepresents the points of others. Unsurmountable and "too big too integrate" were only uttered by you - while outright ignoring the actual points made and sources provided. At the same time you failed to share even a single argument or statistical support for your claims of "not remotely the most important" and "other factors are much more important".

 

[Vissy]

Not really sure what to respond to this tbh. Watly is claiming that culture (largely) doesn't matter. Noone else was declaring other factors irrelevant like that. Your argument is also dishonest or at least misrepresents the points of others. Unsurmountable and "too big too integrate" were only uttered by you - while outright ignoring the actual points made and sources provided. At the same time you failed to share even a single argument or statistical support for your claims of "not remotely the most important" and "other factors are much more important".

I'm confused. What are you even arguing for here?

 

[kurczak]

隐藏

Two reasons for that:
Countries nearby Syria owe no obligations to refugees. They are not officially refugees in Turkey and if the government wishes so it can throw all the refugees out tomorrow without violating any legal responsibilities. That's why Turkey is not a safe country but Greece is. So I agree refugees are not entitled to Germany after they come to Greece, but having them all in Greece is also a terribly inefficient and ineffective way of running stuff.
Second, refugees practically don't have much protection either tbh. police doesn't care much about most refugee murders over here.

+It looks to me like your 'why don't they go to nearby countries' is motivated by ease of these countries to deal with these refugees. But marginally Jordan is certainly less able to deal with additional 10000 refugees than most first countries are.

If we're talking about just the Syrian refugees, then I guess it makes some sense, but I meant it more generally. People claiming actual refugee status come from Eritrea, Afghanistan or Congo. At any time anything can happen anywhere that would make people be considered legitimate refugees. Then what? Is the ~ 400 mil Europeans obligated to be ready to take care at a moment's notice of any of the billions third world-ers?

But my main point was that if you immigrate for whatever reason, politics, money, or middle class ennui, make a conscious effort to fit in. Don't cluster, learn the language asap, dump the clothes, learn the ways, give your kids local first names, don't create "communities", don't be a hyphenated American or German or Frenchmen. Don't go around telling everyone and writing think-pieces for Salon about how you do x this or that way in "your country" or "your culture" and other narcissistic drivel. If you do this, I guarantee you that the number of people who superficially seem to have a problem with your skin color or religion will drop by at least tens of percent.

This isn't even relevant. Immigration is a problem whether we want it or not, unless you are willing to close your borders and literally shoot anyone who you don't want to come in. The real discussion to be had is how to best deal with mass immigration. I also don't like how you're using your status as an immigrant to justify these antagonistic views towards other immigrants who immigrated from much worse circumstances than you. I mean, this is simple stuff - you can't just tell people to suddenly stop being who they are. It sounds like you'd rather not have any immigrants from places that you deem are too different.

Oh, and this drivel about immigrants creating communities and "banding together" or whatever the original expression you used. Who do you think allocates them their living space? The government! This is an issue of integration policy on a government level, a structural problem, that should be obvious, no?

It matters, because they adjust their expectations and behavior accordingly to the sentiment in the host country. If they keep hearing in the media how the reason why their life is (allegedly) **** is racism and islamophobia and the government owes them a a nice apartment and a job and a nice dinner and a bj from a cute shiksa, then of course a lot of them are gonna feel falsely alienated and cue in trucks of peace etc.

My economic status when moving to America is actually irrelevant. Basic social learning through observation and imitation is something a toddler can do. It has nothing to do with money. It also requires zero money not to for example organize and attend demonstrations where they wave Turkish flags and prostrate before Erdogan's portrait. Holy ****, it's not even divided loyalties, these people have obviously zero interest in being French or Dutch or German, regardless of their formal legal status.

The clustering is a long term problem. I'm not talking about some emergency housing for the first months or years after they disembark in Lampedusa. But if two or three generations later, you are still living in Saint-Denis or Molenbeek, it's because you choose to live there. You can't have the cake and eat it. You can't be seen and treated as everybody else and at the same time constantly rub in everybody else's face that you are different and you are gonna do your own thing over there. It's not just about physical location, it's generally deeply bizarre when the same people complain about the exclusionary ethnic nationalism and at the same time applaud and encourage the same mentality in "the Others" since somebody had already brought up psychoanalytic mumb-jumbo

It's also not necessary to literally sink boats to discourage (or at least encourage less) the migration. At the moment there is essentially no downside to taking your chances and going to Europe apart from the teeny tiny chance your boat will actually sink before one of the gazillion rescue ships actively looking out for you reaches you. They know whitey is emotionally weak and can be easily guilt-tripped, they know he has trapped himself in a byzantine spiderweb of human rights legislation and treaties and even on the off-chance that he could take any measures, he will be reluctant to do so, because they will have a large part of the public and infinite interest groups on their side.

 

[Duh]

Not really sure what to respond to this tbh. Watly is claiming that culture (largely) doesn't matter. Noone else was declaring other factors irrelevant like that. Your argument is also dishonest or at least misrepresents the points of others. Unsurmountable and "too big too integrate" were only uttered by you - while outright ignoring the actual points made and sources provided. At the same time you failed to share even a single argument or statistical support for your claims of "not remotely the most important" and "other factors are much more important".

I'm confused. What are you even arguing for here?

That this

it seems to me like the people who are saying that [culture is largely irrelevant] are precisely doing the opposite of cherry-picking.

is false. If you declare certain aspects to be irrelevant for no reason (or without providing a meaningful one), you are cherry-picking.

This

Most people, on the other hand - you included apparently - seem to be more content to sit on the sidelines and make these one-shot points rather than actually following your own advice and "considering and reasonably addressing all aspects".

is also false as I went over a range of factors, noted on their interdependency and provided some academic material on things that had not yet been considered.

I am also saying that this

Cultural differences are a part of those aspects, but it is not remotely the most important part nor is it some insurmountable barrier that divides groups of people like a chasm. It's more harmful to buy into that notion and perpetuate this myth of "our cultural differences are just too big to allow integration" than to deconstruct it and call attention to other, much more important factors in integration policy (which is the opposite of harmful - it's constructive).

is largely meaningless and dishonest, because you are misrepresenting the argument (insurmountable, fake quote/false paraphrasing "too big to integrate") and have not provided a single reason or other support for why culture is supposedly so inconsequential to integration relative to other factors. That culture (largely) doesn't matter to integration is an incredulous claim to me tbh. Any exchange organization will spend the majority of its pre-flight time preparing students for the "culture shock" that comes with living abroad - because the faster they manage to integrate (culturally) the more they can gain from their exchange. Similarly, large firms have for some time now embraced expat trainings, which prepare their employees for living and working in other cultures. We may soon (hopefully) see this expanded to their families (wife/husband + kids) as well.

 

[crodio]

How integrated someone is implies how well someone is capable of thriving in a society. Someone who earns 80k a year in the Netherlands, but plans the marriage of his daughter is integrated by my books. Many of the anti immigration camp seem to use the term "integrated" for people whose values they appreciate. This makes their concepts of integration and differences in culture just a masked display of xenophobia.

Please note that I do not imply planned marriages or antisemitism are in any way acceptable or should even be remotely tolerated. What I am arguing for is that using such aspects, attributing them to culture and claiming someone is not integrated if they adhere to those values derails the refugee debate and is nothing more than xenophobia in disguise.

if planned marriage is not an expresion of culture then i don't know what it is.
so it is xenophobic to expect culture to have any weight? the only way for you not to be xenophobic is to assume that the other doesn't exist, that they are all already enlightened europeans (expect the poor which are drug abusing criminals)
by your books, poor italians are not even integrated into italian society, because they don't earn X euros a year. If integration is just a matter of income then it is meaningless.
Assuming that taking in refugees is just a cakewalk, and denying all the problematic situations that arise from it will only fuel the anti-immigrant right when those conflicts pop up. Also i don't see why integration is the most important thing here. What is to be done with those unwilling to integrate or who cannot integrate because they are drug addicted uneducated idiots (and/or criminals)? ship them back to syria?
you didn't answer my question.

 

[Vissy]

My economic status when moving to America is actually irrelevant.

Do I even need to say anything more? This is laughable.

That this

it seems to me like the people who are saying that [culture is largely irrelevant] are precisely doing the opposite of cherry-picking.

is false. If you declare certain aspects to be irrelevant for no reason (or without providing a meaningful one), you are cherry-picking.

Largely irrelevant, yes. If I recall correctly, a lot of other points were made as well (both in support of that one and related to the general subject). You say I'm dishonest and cherry-picking and yet here you are lifting out a single sentence from a post and acting as if there's nothing more to it. And learn what cherry-picking means before defining it wrong, lol.

This

Most people, on the other hand - you included apparently - seem to be more content to sit on the sidelines and make these one-shot points rather than actually following your own advice and "considering and reasonably addressing all aspects".

is also false as I went over a range of factors, noted on their interdependency and provided some academic material on things that had not yet been considered.

Lol, no you didn't. You gave links to bloggers and think-tanks. Additionally - don't you understand the difference between "largely irrelevant" and "not relevant at all"?

I am also saying that this

Cultural differences are a part of those aspects, but it is not remotely the most important part nor is it some insurmountable barrier that divides groups of people like a chasm. It's more harmful to buy into that notion and perpetuate this myth of "our cultural differences are just too big to allow integration" than to deconstruct it and call attention to other, much more important factors in integration policy (which is the opposite of harmful - it's constructive).

is largely meaningless and dishonest, because you are misrepresenting the argument (insurmountable, fake quote/false paraphrasing "too big to integrate") and have not provided a single reason or other support for why culture is supposedly so inconsequential to integration relative to other factors. That culture (largely) doesn't matter to integration is an incredulous claim to me tbh. Any exchange organization will spend the majority of its pre-flight time preparing students for the "culture shock" that comes with living abroad - because the faster they manage to integrate (culturally) the more they can gain from their exchange. Similarly, large firms have for some time now embraced expat trainings, which prepare their employees for living and working in other cultures. We may soon (hopefully) see this expanded to their families (wife/husband + kids) as well.

Incredible. This might be the biggest whoosh moment I've witnessed in a long time.

 

[Duh]

You say I'm dishonest and yet here you are lifting out a single sentence from a post and acting as if there's nothing more to it.

It's several sentences by several people that have yet to make a single solid argument or provide a credible outside support for the claim they make about culture being largely irrelevant relative to other factors. If that were inaccurate, you could have simply quoted the previous post were you made said argument. But all you do is dodge.

This

Most people, on the other hand - you included apparently - seem to be more content to sit on the sidelines and make these one-shot points rather than actually following your own advice and "considering and reasonably addressing all aspects".

is also false as I went over a range of factors, noted on their interdependency and provided some academic material on things that had not yet been considered.

Lol, no you didn't. You gave links to bloggers and think-tanks.

Charles Tilly (May 27, 1929 – April 29, 2008[1]) was an American sociologist, political scientist, and historian who wrote on the relationship between politics and society. He was professor of history, sociology, and social science at the University of Michigan 1969–1984 and in his last position the Joseph L. Buttenwieser Professor of Social Science at Columbia University. He has been described as "the founding father of 21st-century sociology"[1] and "one of the world's preeminent sociologists and historians" as his "scholarship was unsurpassed, his humanity of the highest order, his spirit unwavering."[2] After his death, numerous special journal issues, conferences, awards and obituaries appeared in his honor.[3]

Tilly is absolutely amazing and you should be ashamed to decry him as "blogger and think-tank".

"Dark Networks as Problems" is an important and well known work on the role of governance for violent and criminal substate actors, though probably not as crucial as "Networks and Netwars". "Behavioral Patterns among Violent NonState Actors: A Study of Complementary Governance" is probably the least well known work, but good work nonetheless by credible acadamics http://www.ox.ac.uk/news-and-events/find-an-expert/dr-annette-idler and

James J. F. Forest is an author and a professor and director of security studies at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. He is also a senior fellow at the U.S. Joint Special Operations University. He is the former director of Terrorism Studies at the United States Military Academy.[1]

Additionally - don't you understand the difference between "largely irrelevant" and "not relevant at all"?

Given that this addresses not a single thing in the quote you provided it is both largely irrelevant and not relevant at all. 

Incredible. This might be the biggest whoosh moment I've witnessed in a long time.

You only disqualify yourself and your agenda by ignoring arguments and failing to provide your own.

 

[Vissy]

You only disqualify yourself and your agenda by ignoring arguments and failing to provide your own.

Then do yourself a favour and stop being such a pretentious hypocrite.

 

[Duh]

I will ask again:

Can you make/provide or quote any arguments or credible outside support for the notion that culture is largely irrelevant to integration? Can you do any of that for the notion that culture is significantly less impactful than other factors such as education, poverty or any other aspects of your choice? Can you do the same for the notion that culture is not significantly related to such factors?

 

[kurczak]

My economic status when moving to America is actually irrelevant.

Do I even need to say anything more? This is laughable.

Yes, you do. Because otherwise you are suggesting that poor people are stupider than 2 year olds, which would make you the biggest classist in recorded history.

 

[pentagathus]

Imperium have you ever travelled outside of your home nation?

 

[Temuzu]

You don't need to travel to foreign countries if you bring the foreign countries to you.

black_man_pointing_on_head.jpg

 

[Bluehawk]

You don't need to travel to foreign countries if you bring the foreign countries to you.

black_man_pointing_on_head.jpg

This but unironically

 

[Vissy]

I will ask again:

Can you make/provide or quote any arguments or credible outside support for the notion that culture is largely irrelevant to integration? Can you do any of that for the notion that culture is significantly less impactful than other factors such as education, poverty or any other aspects of your choice? Can you do the same for the notion that culture is not significantly related to such factors?

Sigh. I never said that it was irrelevant to integration. Now I'll ask again: what are you actually arguing for here? Don't gaslight me with some "but you said" bull****. What's your position on immigration?

Yes, you do. Because otherwise you are suggesting that poor people are stupider than 2 year olds, which would make you the biggest classist in recorded history.

No, I'm not - you came up with that all on your own. You're the one here claiming that your affluent circumstances have no impact on your own integration. Not having to rely on certain social services, for example, has no impact? How about the vast host of negative corollary effects that comes with being a poor immigrant? You admit to great privilege and then don't do anything to counteract that. What you've said makes you seem very detached and blinkered.