EU Immigration Crisis Megathread

[Berkut]

You might want to help them anyway, and bully for you if you do, but that becomes a different argument.

The immediate threat of drowning is gone but the threat of hypothermia, starving to death, etc... hasn't.

I think you've lost me.

[dps]

You might want to help them anyway, and bully for you if you do, but that becomes a different argument.

The immediate threat of drowning is gone but the threat of hypothermia, starving to death, etc... hasn't.

I think you've lost me.

I think he's confusing the difference between a non-refugee and a refugee with the somewhat separate issue of conditions present in the refugee camps.

[The Brain]

How big are the dinghies? A rough guesstimate will do.

[The Brain]

If we're gonna keep driving this nautical shit into the ground, one of my worries is that we might pick up so many people from the crappy cruise ship because they'd rather be on our nice cruise ship, that when we sight more drowning people (which we will) we won't have room to take them (since we cannot be expected to toss the people we accepted earlier into the sea). So, because we wanted to be "nice" to the people on the crappy cruise ship we have to let people drown that we otherwise could have helped. I realize of course that this makes me a monster without empathy.

I have personally turned down requests for approaching harbor during a storm. "-I understand that the weather is awful and you want to approach the harbor. Do you want to declare an emergency? - No, it's not an emergency. -Then I have to turn down your request. Good luck and good evening!" When you're actually responsible (or feel some responsibility) for the use of resources and other considerations you have to focus and make the right decisions. Saying yes to everyone isn't being nice to everyone.

[Jacob]

I think he's confusing the difference between a non-refugee and a refugee with the somewhat separate issue of conditions present in the refugee camps.

And there's the question of whether someone who's in a refugee camps are refugees if they move on from there, or just "economic migrants."

[garbon]

If we're gonna keep driving this nautical shit into the ground, one of my worries is that we might pick up so many people from the crappy cruise ship because they'd rather be on our nice cruise ship, that when we sight more drowning people (which we will) we won't have room to take them (since we cannot be expected to toss the people we accepted earlier into the sea). So, because we wanted to be "nice" to the people on the crappy cruise ship we have to let people drown that we otherwise could have helped. I realize of course that this makes me a monster without empathy.

I have personally turned down requests for approaching harbor during a storm. "-I understand that the weather is awful and you want to approach the harbor. Do you want to declare an emergency? - No, it's not an emergency. -Then I have to turn down your request. Good luck and good evening!" When you're actually responsible (or feel some responsibility) for the use of resources and other considerations you have to focus and make the right decisions. Saying yes to everyone isn't being nice to everyone.

If that's the concern, then you should definitely close out all legal migration and work visas. After all, anyone going through those processes toof are taking up spots that could be used to help someone in need.

[Josquius]

You might want to help them anyway, and bully for you if you do, but that becomes a different argument.

The immediate threat of drowning is gone but the threat of hypothermia, starving to death, etc... hasn't.

I think you've lost me.

I think he's confusing the difference between a non-refugee and a refugee with the somewhat separate issue of conditions present in the refugee camps.

No, non refugees aren't part of this at all

[The Brain]

If we're gonna keep driving this nautical shit into the ground, one of my worries is that we might pick up so many people from the crappy cruise ship because they'd rather be on our nice cruise ship, that when we sight more drowning people (which we will) we won't have room to take them (since we cannot be expected to toss the people we accepted earlier into the sea). So, because we wanted to be "nice" to the people on the crappy cruise ship we have to let people drown that we otherwise could have helped. I realize of course that this makes me a monster without empathy.

I have personally turned down requests for approaching harbor during a storm. "-I understand that the weather is awful and you want to approach the harbor. Do you want to declare an emergency? - No, it's not an emergency. -Then I have to turn down your request. Good luck and good evening!" When you're actually responsible (or feel some responsibility) for the use of resources and other considerations you have to focus and make the right decisions. Saying yes to everyone isn't being nice to everyone.

If that's the concern, then you should definitely close out all legal migration and work visas. After all, anyone going through those processes toof are taking up spots that could be used to help someone in need.

Those help make the ship bigger, and also volume limits are not gonna be set for total immigration but for refugees.

[garbon]

If we're gonna keep driving this nautical shit into the ground, one of my worries is that we might pick up so many people from the crappy cruise ship because they'd rather be on our nice cruise ship, that when we sight more drowning people (which we will) we won't have room to take them (since we cannot be expected to toss the people we accepted earlier into the sea). So, because we wanted to be "nice" to the people on the crappy cruise ship we have to let people drown that we otherwise could have helped. I realize of course that this makes me a monster without empathy.

I have personally turned down requests for approaching harbor during a storm. "-I understand that the weather is awful and you want to approach the harbor. Do you want to declare an emergency? - No, it's not an emergency. -Then I have to turn down your request. Good luck and good evening!" When you're actually responsible (or feel some responsibility) for the use of resources and other considerations you have to focus and make the right decisions. Saying yes to everyone isn't being nice to everyone.

If that's the concern, then you should definitely close out all legal migration and work visas. After all, anyone going through those processes toof are taking up spots that could be used to help someone in need.

Those help make the ship bigger, and also volume limits are not gonna be set for total immigration but for refugees.

How so? Only in the cases of creating new jobs (or are simply a very wealthy individual/high-income individual) could I see that they were adding. Otherwise, they are taking up a spot (both physically and in the sense of 'taking' a job) as well as using social services (at the very least state healthcare) that could otherwise go to a refugee.

Additionally, it seems like you are suggesting that refugees will never want to become part of the economy but will rather just suck on social services, indefinitely?

[The Brain]

If we're gonna keep driving this nautical shit into the ground, one of my worries is that we might pick up so many people from the crappy cruise ship because they'd rather be on our nice cruise ship, that when we sight more drowning people (which we will) we won't have room to take them (since we cannot be expected to toss the people we accepted earlier into the sea). So, because we wanted to be "nice" to the people on the crappy cruise ship we have to let people drown that we otherwise could have helped. I realize of course that this makes me a monster without empathy.

I have personally turned down requests for approaching harbor during a storm. "-I understand that the weather is awful and you want to approach the harbor. Do you want to declare an emergency? - No, it's not an emergency. -Then I have to turn down your request. Good luck and good evening!" When you're actually responsible (or feel some responsibility) for the use of resources and other considerations you have to focus and make the right decisions. Saying yes to everyone isn't being nice to everyone.

If that's the concern, then you should definitely close out all legal migration and work visas. After all, anyone going through those processes toof are taking up spots that could be used to help someone in need.

Those help make the ship bigger, and also volume limits are not gonna be set for total immigration but for refugees.

How so? Only in the cases of creating new jobs (or are simply a very wealthy individual/high-income individual) could I see that they were adding. Otherwise, they are taking up a spot (both physically and in the sense of 'taking' a job) as well as using social services (at the very least state healthcare) that could otherwise go to a refugee.

I don't think people who come here to work are bad for the economy.

Additionally, it seems like you are suggesting that refugees will never want to become part of the economy but will rather just suck on social services, indefinitely?

Why wouldn't they want to become part of the economy?

What matters a bit more is that in Sweden it takes years and years for a typical refugee to get a job (50% of those of working age have a job 7 years after arrival). One of the many reasons why this is so is that in Sweden we have decided that low-paying jobs are somehow shameful and that people are better off without those jobs.

[Tamas]

Meanwhile there is a pretty good chance Slovenia will decide on building their own border fence later today.

And Austria has already started building a limited one to "channel" the refugees/migrants/holy cows so they can deal with them.

[Zanza]

I am in fact sympathetic to the idea that "refuge" is a very particular state, and not a description of a person. Once the danger that causes them to be a refuge is removed, then they are just another person who would love to live in Germany rather than somewhere not Germany, and I don't agree that in theory some other person should not be given an equal chance at that life.

It might be interesting to try to figure out where the transition point is, between being a "refugee" on one hand and "just another person who would love to live in Germany."

Personally, I don't think there's much of a difference with most of the Syrians fleeing currently, whatever their individual intended destinations are; but I do agree that there's a point where a person stops being a refugee.  If, say, you stop over in Vancouver for a few years to finish your masters degree before continuing on to your ideal destination of Germany then yeah - you're not fleeing as a refugee, no doubt. But if you make landfall on Lesbos, I don't think you stop being a refugee even if you try to continue your journey to Germany or some other destination.

Before you make landfall in Lesbos, you have crossed the entirity of Turkey (for Syrians) or even further countries, e.g. for Afghans, Iraqis, Eritreans. There is most likely no immediate danger to life for these people in Turkey, so them travelling onwards is not motivated by fear for their life. They come to Europe because they hope for a better life. Is it really fair that we treat them differently than others hoping for a better life? The living conditions in those camps in Turkey are terrible of course, but are they worse than those of the poorest people in Africa? Probably not. So it is fairly arbitrary who we consider a "refugee" and who we consider an "economic migrant".

[Berkut]

I am in fact sympathetic to the idea that "refuge" is a very particular state, and not a description of a person. Once the danger that causes them to be a refuge is removed, then they are just another person who would love to live in Germany rather than somewhere not Germany, and I don't agree that in theory some other person should not be given an equal chance at that life.

It might be interesting to try to figure out where the transition point is, between being a "refugee" on one hand and "just another person who would love to live in Germany."

Personally, I don't think there's much of a difference with most of the Syrians fleeing currently, whatever their individual intended destinations are; but I do agree that there's a point where a person stops being a refugee.  If, say, you stop over in Vancouver for a few years to finish your masters degree before continuing on to your ideal destination of Germany then yeah - you're not fleeing as a refugee, no doubt. But if you make landfall on Lesbos, I don't think you stop being a refugee even if you try to continue your journey to Germany or some other destination.

Before you make landfall in Lesbos, you have crossed the entirity of Turkey (for Syrians) or even further countries, e.g. for Afghans, Iraqis, Eritreans. There is most likely no immediate danger to life for these people in Turkey, so them travelling onwards is not motivated by fear for their life. They come to Europe because they hope for a better life. Is it really fair that we treat them differently than others hoping for a better life? The living conditions in those camps in Turkey are terrible of course, but are they worse than those of the poorest people in Africa? Probably not. So it is fairly arbitrary who we consider a "refugee" and who we consider an "economic migrant".

Indeed - and this is where I think we as humans use empathy where it is not desirable.

Empathy sucks, quite honestly, when it comes to making policy decisions. Empathy is driven by emotion, and largely by our ability to put ourselves in the position of those we are empathizing with - and studies have shown that that is largely driven by emotional, rather than rational, criteria. And sometimes, that criteria is downright malicious - we empathize with people who are most like us, close to us, and visible to us.

People who are not like us, are far away from us, or not visible to us we do not emphasize with. So the poor kids on TV get our empathy, but the poor kids in the Sudan are ignored, while in reality it may very well be the case that the kids in Sudan need our help MUCH more.

[Berkut]

An example of where empathy is a terrible thing in public policy:

In many states of the US, the victims of a crime (or their families) are allowed to speak in court before sentencing - to talk about the impact on the crime on their lives, the damage it has done, etc., etc.

This seems like a pretty reasonable thing to do.

But here is where empathy is terrible: Studies have shown that if the victim speaking is the same race of the judge, female, attractive, similar social class, etc., etc. it results in the judge passing down harsher sentences. If the victim speaking is black (presuming a white judge), not attractive, doesn't come across well, then judges tend to be less harsh.

This is empathy in action - it is likely that the judges in question are not even aware of what they are doing. But empathy, the ability to connect with and feel the emotions of others, is a distraction from good policy decisions, and has no place in rational decision making. Compassion is useful, empathy is not.

[garbon]

I'm not sure I understand the difference you are drawing between compassion and empathy, though that might be because you never developed that line of argument - but just tacked it on at the end.