The Refugee Kafuffle
- Thread starter AreJohn
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Comrade Temuzu said:
Right, so I did say that there are many reasons for a poor public opinion of immigrants. They are numerous and complicated and explored better by actual sociologists who study these things, which is why I didn't go into it in any more detail. However, for the record, it's indeed not a black and white issue and there are a multitude of reasons, none of which have to do with issuing blame to any single party or multiples of them. There are issues with public perception of immigrants as opposed to the reality of the situation, there is the postcolonial mindset, there are issues with integration policies and so on.
Well, I did not go into detail, but in short group identity is an important factor to consider in integration policy. A commonly accepted ideal would be to create a sort of umbrella identity - like nationality, for example - for all groups, minority and majority, which in practice would mean treating immigrants as citizens of your country and making them feel like they were a part of the culture as well. That is not achieved by our current integration policies in the EU, at least for the vast majority of member nations. The reason is of course because in-group bias is a strong uniting factor, and has been confirmed via extensive study and results that it is one of the best ways to integrate new populations.
I have to reiterate that nobody is saying people aren't different, that's so laughable because the literal opposite was stated.
pentagathus
Baron
Hue hue.
Are the gangs of migrants who threaten and use force in Calais also just a symptom of our post colonial mindset?
Wrote this before you posted whoever you are above me, cba to change.
Are the gangs of migrants who threaten and use force in Calais also just a symptom of our post colonial mindset?
Wrote this before you posted whoever you are above me, cba to change.
BenKenobi said:
That's not what I said, but whatever.
Yes, it is. In these topics you regularly express disappointment how people fail to correctly understand what being different really means, yet you usually ignore the most important things such as appearance in this case or language when you were talking about nations.
Yes I believe there is such an asymmetry. Because I find it very odd to attribute fault at masses of people in any context. I think fault or failure can be attributed to persons(or legal persons) only and there are such legal persons in the EU whereas refugees are just masses of people. If there is some failure of refugees en masse then there must be some deterministic **** going on that makes it a social phenomenon rather than fault.Comrade Temuzu said:
The few immigrants I met were very impolite, after giving them directions they didn't even thank me, they just went off without a word or blink or whatever. But then, a great many of the locals are impolite, many even to the point of instant hostility during a confrontation, so the immigrants wouldn't stand out so much.
Yes, there is a campaign going on since the start of the refugee crisis to raise xenophobia in the already xenophobic locals, and it is working mighty well. (See: the application of the label "migrant" and the way the media uses it)
Yes, there is a campaign going on since the start of the refugee crisis to raise xenophobia in the already xenophobic locals, and it is working mighty well. (See: the application of the label "migrant" and the way the media uses it)
It's not for ****s and giggles, they have very good reasons to support anti-immigrant and anti-islam sentiments. For example, Orbán is riding high on the wave of xenophobia that he himself helped to grow so big.
I've been known to jump to a conclusion or two back in my day. Ok, must have confused you for someone else. My bad.H E R O O F T H E I M P E R I U M said:
I'm quite sure a lot of Britbongs have and still do see Polaks andH E R O O F T H E I M P E R I U M said:
As an immigrant myself, I unironically don't get the why immigrants tend to cluster and create their own "communities", continuing to speak their stupid language, wearing their stupid clothes and eating their stupid food. If everything was so great back in the old country, then why did you leave? Why are you actively trying to re-create the reasons why you left?
It's like going to a football match and then watching a hockey match on your tablet the whole time.What are you even doing, you're being crazy.And even the small minority of immigrants that are actually fleeing from oppression can still choose what country they will be fleeing to. Why do they choose a country that's more distant and that doesn't have the culture or religion that they allegedly care about so much and then somehow it's that country's responsibility to change its ways and accommodate to them? The only minorities that get to ***** about things are those that were annexed or dragged into the country against their will, which in Europe specifically, is basically nobody. Everyone else needs to either play ball or gtfo. The only thing that the host country "owes" you is your right to life and bodily integrity.
Two reasons for that:kurczak said:
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.
pentagathus
Baron
A lot of refugees have already gone to countries neighbouring Syria and afaik they've become somewhat saturated, but these are not the only Islamic countries in the world. I don't know how many Islamic nations would be willing to take in Syrian refugees, but I also don't see why it should be the white man's EU's burden to accommodate them in the long term (not that I'm necessarily opposed to taking refugees, I just don't see why we would have a responsibility to take them. Other than the legal responsibilities we have once they've arrived and applied for asylum, but I don't particularly feel that the current system for dealing with asylum seekers is serving us well and I don't expect it to work any more effectively in the future).
On an aside, my boss' favourite theory on dealing with the refugee crisis is to take in refugees under the stipulation that they would be trained and equipped to return to Syria as a military force. I suppose it worked pretty well for the Taliban
On an aside, my boss' favourite theory on dealing with the refugee crisis is to take in refugees under the stipulation that they would be trained and equipped to return to Syria as a military force. I suppose it worked pretty well for the Taliban
I mean the reason the EU gets mentioned most is its proximity. Noone nags that the EU must accept Australasian refugees or noone nags that Rohingya must be taken in by the EU. Ideally transportation would be free and we would have a metric of 'abilty to deal with refugees' which would incorporate everything from culture to wealth, and the UN would just assign refugees to countries by their ability but that's not what happens.
Yes it's pretty condemnable that Saudi et al don't do more, but I guess the EU seems to have some kind of commitment to human rights that Saudi doesn't have therefor expectations are higher.
Yes it's pretty condemnable that Saudi et al don't do more, but I guess the EU seems to have some kind of commitment to human rights that Saudi doesn't have therefor expectations are higher.
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?Calradianın Bilgesi said:
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.
kurczak said:
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?
The weird thing about these debates is that people always talk about culture and often forgo more in-depth profiling, ie ask the question what kind of people migrate to Europe. Iranian migrants oftentimes become successful entrepreneurs while north-african and "Syrian" migrants generally don't integrate very well. Feel free to attack me on this generalization.
If you look at the education level of the people that migrate to Europe, this makes a lot of sense. Iranian immigrants are generally political refugees with a high level of education. North-African refugees are generally the people that complain there were no chances in their own country, which usually indicates a lack of education as well. People that aren't skilled enough for a job in Morocco generally aren't skilled enough for a job in Holland either... This also explains why they don't integrate: they like their own country and just came to Europe to make money.
As for Syrian refugees: my guess is that the majority is either the people without much in Syria (the poor and low educated) as well as disguised economic migrants. The higher educated Syrian refugees stay in Lebanon so they can get their house back asap.
If you look at the education level of the people that migrate to Europe, this makes a lot of sense. Iranian immigrants are generally political refugees with a high level of education. North-African refugees are generally the people that complain there were no chances in their own country, which usually indicates a lack of education as well. People that aren't skilled enough for a job in Morocco generally aren't skilled enough for a job in Holland either... This also explains why they don't integrate: they like their own country and just came to Europe to make money.
As for Syrian refugees: my guess is that the majority is either the people without much in Syria (the poor and low educated) as well as disguised economic migrants. The higher educated Syrian refugees stay in Lebanon so they can get their house back asap.
Yeah, education levels differ wildly. Many immigrants do not even have a general education that is comparable to something children get in Europe. But don't mistake the focus on "culture" for an actual interest in those differences - it's usually just another way of expressing xenophobic views.
Bromden said:
What is the prevailing standard for the handling of apostates, gays or heretics in the major world religions these days?
What about concepts of "martyrdom" through holy violence?
I can't recall . . . was the Amish who issue decrees insisting that heretics who have used the prophets name in vain be murdered? Oh, granted not all Anabaptists, but some right!?
Danath said:
Both sides of the spectrum like to throw them all on one big pile and then pick the subset that does something wrong. Yes, there are migrants that band together and seclude themselves for no reason other than their own biases. Yes, there are migrants that are forced to band together due to a failed integration policy.
I start raising question marks when I hear how many "refugees" don't have any form of documentation. There are naturally people who had their documents taken away by the government, but I really don't see a lot of articles of Syrians having their passport taken away. I can mostly find articles of how the Syrian passport is now the most expensive passport globally, due to economic migrants wanting to use it to migrate to Europe. The problem is that we are letting in heaps of economic migrants with no future prospects whatsoever and that brings problems. 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.
Bromden said:
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.
