EU Immigration Crisis Megathread

[crazy canuck]

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".

I think you are missing the fundamental distinction of the reason the people first left their homes.  Just because they cross into Turkey doesn't mean they didn't flee their home because they feared for their lives.  And just because they first stepped into Turkey doesn't mean that isn't the end of their flight.  Just as it makes no sense to burden the first EU country into which a refugee may land (and hence the suspension of the Dublin Accord) it makes no sense to assert that as soon as a refugee steps across their countries border they are no longer fleeing for their lives.  That sort of policy would have the effect of putting the burden on only adjoining countries and frankly entirely removes the burden from two of the most wealthy countries in the world - the US and Canada.

[Zanza]

You are completely right that the motivation why they left their homes is different. And that's also why we treat them different. My argument is that this is farily arbitrary because at the time they arrive on our shores, the motivation and the situation of a Syrian and an African is not that different anymore. Both look for a better life in a place they expect to have good economic opportunities.

That sort of policy would have the effect of putting the burden on only adjoining countries and frankly entirely removes the burden from two of the most wealthy countries in the world - the US and Canada.

Doesn't that describe the reality though? The US and Canada also arbitrarily pick which refugees and how many may come to their shores. They may have different criteria, but they still decide not based on the motivation why people left their home but based on their current situation.

[Josquius]

Somebody who originally left because they had to leave is more likely to go home someday than somebody who originally left because they wanted to come here.
The original factor that started their journey is important no matter what changes in the course of it

[Berkut]

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.

Compassion is, IMO, understanding, appreciating, and caring about the situation of others.

Empathy is actually sharing their emotional feelings - it is the human ability to actually feel others pain.

There is an important difference between the two. But empathy is fundamentally an emotional state, not a rational one.

It is like being an ER doctor or nurse - you need a lot of compassion, but empathy is actually bad. You cannot let your emotions get out of control, and you need to be able to turn off your empathy, because at times you will have to do things that are going to cause severe physical or emotional distress to others. You don't want to feel that pain, even if it seems kind of heartless.

[crazy canuck]

You are completely right that the motivation why they left their homes is different. And that's also why we treat them different. My argument is that this is farily arbitrary because at the time they arrive on our shores, the motivation and the situation of a Syrian and an African is not that different anymore. Both look for a better life in a place they expect to have good economic opportunities.

That sort of policy would have the effect of putting the burden on only adjoining countries and frankly entirely removes the burden from two of the most wealthy countries in the world - the US and Canada.

Doesn't that describe the reality though? The US and Canada also arbitrarily pick which refugees and how many may come to their shores. They may have different criteria, but they still decide not based on the motivation why people left their home but based on their current situation.

In relation to your first point, I think difference in how they are treated cannot be considered arbitrary since there is a very good non arbitrary reason for differentiating which always exists - ie the reason they left their homes in the first place.  That difference in motivation will always be a non arbitrary factor for separating economic migrants from the rest.

In relation to your last point, not so, at least in the case of Canada, with the Syrian or Iraqi refugees.  Canada only requires that the UN has certified them as bona fide refugees.  The only controversy has been the number we will take which imo has been too low.

[Monoriu]

Is there any sound economic study on whether it is actually profitable in the long run to take in more illegal immigrants?  My suspicion is that overall, the answer is yes. 

[Tamas]

The Austrian PM was always quick to yell all kinds of nasty stuff due to the Hungarian fence, but now they are building their own... But he said its not a fence its a "gate with wings" or something to that effect

[crazy canuck]

Is there any sound economic study on whether it is actually profitable in the long run to take in more illegal immigrants?  My suspicion is that overall, the answer is yes.

Not sure about illegal immigrants.  But there are all kinds of studies that suggest Canada's economy depends on a robust intake of legal immigrants and refugees.  The kind that will stay and make their lives here.  Not the people that fly in for passports. 

[Berkut]

In relation to your last point, not so, at least in the case of Canada, with the Syrian or Iraqi refugees.  Canada only requires that the UN has certified them as bona fide refugees.  The only controversy has been the number we will take which imo has been too low.

I am frankly ashamed of my countries response.

[Monoriu]

Is there any sound economic study on whether it is actually profitable in the long run to take in more illegal immigrants?  My suspicion is that overall, the answer is yes.

Not sure about illegal immigrants.  But there are all kinds of studies that suggest Canada's economy depends on a robust intake of legal immigrants and refugees.  The kind that will stay and make their lives here.  Not the people that fly in for passports. 

Well, we went through all the legal hurdles, passed every test and fulfilled all the requirements that the Canadian state imposed on us to get our passports.  That means, the Canadian state must thought it was a good idea to take us in.  So why blame us?  Blame the guys who decided it was a good idea to give us the passports 

In any case, it is too late to regret it now 

[crazy canuck]

Is there any sound economic study on whether it is actually profitable in the long run to take in more illegal immigrants?  My suspicion is that overall, the answer is yes.

Not sure about illegal immigrants.  But there are all kinds of studies that suggest Canada's economy depends on a robust intake of legal immigrants and refugees.  The kind that will stay and make their lives here.  Not the people that fly in for passports. 

Well, we went through all the legal hurdles, passed every test and fulfilled all the requirements that the Canadian state imposed on us to get our passports.  That means, the Canadian state must thought it was a good idea to take us in.  So why blame us?  Blame the guys who decided it was a good idea to give us the passports 

In any case, it is too late to regret it now 

Don't worry.  I do blame the folks who thought that was a good idea.  You just happen to be the poster child for why that policy was poorly thought out.  You took advantage of a subsidized university education, benefits such has health care and then you left without contributing anything to repay what had been given to you.  The system was terribly flawed and thankfully that type of immigration was stopped.

[Tamas]

Is there any sound economic study on whether it is actually profitable in the long run to take in more illegal immigrants?  My suspicion is that overall, the answer is yes.

Not sure about illegal immigrants.  But there are all kinds of studies that suggest Canada's economy depends on a robust intake of legal immigrants and refugees.  The kind that will stay and make their lives here.  Not the people that fly in for passports. 

Well, we went through all the legal hurdles, passed every test and fulfilled all the requirements that the Canadian state imposed on us to get our passports.  That means, the Canadian state must thought it was a good idea to take us in.  So why blame us?  Blame the guys who decided it was a good idea to give us the passports 

In any case, it is too late to regret it now 

Don't worry.  I do blame the folks who thought that was a good idea.  You just happen to be the poster child for why that policy was poorly thought out.  You took advantage of a subsidized university education, benefits such has health care and then you left without contributing anything to repay what had been given to you.  The system was terribly flawed and thankfully that type of immigration was stopped.

But you encourage the EU to take in millions of migrants and make sure they get accomodation and care they are fully satisfied with?

[crazy canuck]

Is there any sound economic study on whether it is actually profitable in the long run to take in more illegal immigrants?  My suspicion is that overall, the answer is yes.

Not sure about illegal immigrants.  But there are all kinds of studies that suggest Canada's economy depends on a robust intake of legal immigrants and refugees.  The kind that will stay and make their lives here.  Not the people that fly in for passports. 

Well, we went through all the legal hurdles, passed every test and fulfilled all the requirements that the Canadian state imposed on us to get our passports.  That means, the Canadian state must thought it was a good idea to take us in.  So why blame us?  Blame the guys who decided it was a good idea to give us the passports 

In any case, it is too late to regret it now 

Don't worry.  I do blame the folks who thought that was a good idea.  You just happen to be the poster child for why that policy was poorly thought out.  You took advantage of a subsidized university education, benefits such has health care and then you left without contributing anything to repay what had been given to you.  The system was terribly flawed and thankfully that type of immigration was stopped.

But you encourage the EU to take in millions of migrants and make sure they get accomodation and care they are fully satisfied with?

First, there is a difference to objecting to being dropped off at a cabin in the middle of nowhere with no explanation and being "fully satisfied".

Second, Mono and his family were not refugees.  The government of the day had a policy that actually gave them preference over other immigrant classes.  It was a silly policy for the reasons I have explained.

I am not sure how you can possibly equate Mono's situation with that of a Syrian family in 2015.

[Tamas]

I am not sure how you can possibly equate Mono's situation with that of a Syrian family in 2015.

Well, maybe I am not racist?

You demand the EU gives the same thing to refugees that you believe was  a waste to give to the Mono-era immigrants.

[Monoriu]

Don't worry.  I do blame the folks who thought that was a good idea.  You just happen to be the poster child for why that policy was poorly thought out.  You took advantage of a subsidized university education, benefits such has health care and then you left without contributing anything to repay what had been given to you.  The system was terribly flawed and thankfully that type of immigration was stopped.

Without contributing anything?  Every dollar we spent in Canada helped boost your GDP, including a house purchase.  Our temporary presence no doubt helped the employment situation.  I was keenly aware that I paid sales taxes on most stuff that I bought.  My father paid Canadian taxes on his HK pension 

I am not familiar with the changes to Canadian immigration laws after my departure, but my sense is that the HKers stopped going to Canada largely because everybody who wanted to go had already done it.  Most people are also aware that Canada is an economic dead end for us.