Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am sympathetic to the plight of people so desperate that they'll cross the sea on tiny overcrowded rafts and such.
That said, is the best solution to the problem to help developing countries become more like developed countries, or to allow so much of the demographic overflow from developing countries to come to developed countries, and risk making them more like the countries those people left behind?
Is the goal to make Kabul and Aleppo more like Paris and London or is to to make Paris and London more like Kabul and Aleppo?
I think we know the answer. At least I hope we do.
To bring it down to a micro level...
I live in a city that has poverty and homelessness. Most of us do.
Is the real solution to the homeless problem to bring a whole bunch of people to live in my house with my family, or is it to provide assistance in a bunch of ways to the homeless so that they can get out of their bad situation, and have their own place?
If you subscribe to the bold parts you're officially a right-wing neo-nazi.
I am sympathetic to the plight of people so desperate that they'll cross the sea on tiny overcrowded rafts and such.
Before that they have to cross the Sahara, and boy, what I've read, some smugglers deliberately leave people in the desert to die. Tens of thousands a year.
And why is it that young men are the majority of those who arrive on the shores of Italy? Well, would you send your wife and child on the journey or go yourself if you must?
Before that they have to cross the Sahara, and boy, what I've read, some smugglers deliberately leave people in the desert to die. Tens of thousands a year.
And why is it that young men are the majority of those who arrive on the shores of Italy? Well, would you send your wife and child on the journey or go yourself if you must?
I would probably stay with them because according to the media they have to dodge napalm drops, ISIS/Boko Haram and machete-wielding rapists on a daily basis.
You didn't ask any question that would warrant an answer. I could very well be a welfare parasite (I'm not btw) but I would be a welfare parasite in my own country, no foreign parasite would be imported into the welfare systems in that case. Why can't Africans be welfare parasites in their own countries? That's a rhetorical question of course.
On the same token, as people can't choose in which country they are born, they also can't choose their parents. So in your world, the wealth of people born into more wealthy families should also be distributed among the society, just because they were lucky. --> I think communists have their heart at the right place but are utterly braindead.
how can you be a welfare parasite when there is no welfare to begin with ?
yeah, people do not choose their parents. I'm not saying wealth should be distributed equally from the beginning (but then, why not ?), but denying the possibility to change situation to anyone who is in a very bad situation at first is not gonna help anyone.
Millions of Italians, Irish, or other europeans escaped the place in their time. Often there was no war, but their was probably a good reason to leave.
Not really. When the migrant crisis started I was that people who flee war must at least have a chance to get to safety. But as the majority of them were not from Syria, but other countries, I changed my mind. Most of the migrants were and are golddiggers. They just jumped on the bandwagon.
I don't give a flying f*ck if some Moroccan, Afghan, Ghanaian or other wants to come to Europe only for a better life. They can rot in their own countries. It's not our duty to be some kind of social security.
"economic" migration has always existed, I don't know why you guys are waking up now. And even then, the paths of individuals are all so complex that it is hard to have a proper vision of the global scheme. Making a clear separation between refugees and the rest does not make much sense. Environment, pollution, lack of opportunities, unstable political conditions, everything is related.
In that case, I know people from all the countries you cite and all of them travelled in harsh conditions. I don't know the exact motive for anyone's travel, but someone who walked for thousand miles or crossed the sea must have a good reason to do so I guess.
"economic" migration has always existed, I don't know why you guys are waking up now. And even then, the paths of individuals are all so complex that it is hard to have a proper vision of the global scheme. Making a clear separation between refugees and the rest does not make much sense. Environment, pollution, lack of opportunities, unstable political conditions, everything is related.
In that case, I know people from all the countries you cite and all of them travelled in harsh conditions. I don't know the exact motive for anyone's travel, but someone who walked for thousand miles or crossed the sea must have a good reason to do so I guess.
I appreciate your honesty, but I don't agree.
I know it has existed for ages, but we also must realise that it is not 1880 anymore and the world has changed. Then you put a shovel in the migrant's hand to build a road and paid his salary in cash at the end of the day. These jobs don't exist anymore and those who still exist get fewer every year.
A migrant who is barely literate and unaccustomed to the Western society might never get proper employment. On the other hand such migrants are easily exploitable for criminal organisations and the black market. We have to ask ourselves and be honest that uneducated migration is neither good for the European country or the migrant himself/herself.
Additionally, much of the migration process (logistics) are in the hand of smugglers and ruthless criminal gangs who have no regard for human rights, but think the migrants as cattle. I think it's morally wrong to indirectly help these gangs to stay in business.
Europe needs educated persons - professionals. This is the kind of immigration I want to see.
Regarding Africa, Europe can do much more help much more effectively in giving development aid for a big number of people in Africa than letting some few lucky into Europe. In Finland the average cost of processing a asylum seeker is €15k a year. With that sum you can pay 55 African children a year in school using the average price. I would gladly double the development aid instead, as it can help so much more where the people in need live.
Moreover, sub-Saharan Africa has suffered from a terrible brain drain for decades. While it still would be open for African educated professionals to emigrate to Europe, I don't want to encourage it either anymore.
I know it has existed for ages, but we also must realise that it is not 1880 anymore and the world has changed. Then you put a shovel in the migrant's hand to build a road and paid his salary in cash at the end of the day. These jobs don't exist anymore and those who still exist get fewer every year.
A migrant who is barely literate and unaccustomed to the Western society might never get proper employment. On the other hand such migrants are easily exploitable for criminal organisations and the black market. We have to ask ourselves and be honest that uneducated migration is neither good for the European country or the migrant himself/herself.
Additionally, much of the migration process (logistics) are in the hand of smugglers and ruthless criminal gangs who have no regard for human rights, but think the migrants as cattle. I think it's morally wrong to indirectly help these gangs to stay in business.
Europe needs educated persons - professionals. This is the kind of immigration I want to see.
Regarding Africa, Europe can do much more help much more effectively in giving development aid for a big number of people in Africa than letting some few lucky into Europe. In Finland the average cost of processing a asylum seeker is €15k a year. With that sum you can pay 55 African children a year in school using the average price. I would gladly double the development aid instead, as it can help so much more where the people in need live.
Moreover, sub-Saharan Africa has suffered from a terrible brain drain for decades. While it still would be open for African educated professionals to emigrate to Europe, I don't want to encourage it either anymore.
I agree with almost all of this but the problem in most countries is that the only parties who are proposing real changes to the status quo are the "uglies".
I know it has existed for ages, but we also must realise that it is not 1880 anymore and the world has changed. Then you put a shovel in the migrant's hand to build a road and paid his salary in cash at the end of the day. These jobs don't exist anymore and those who still exist get fewer every year.
A migrant who is barely literate and unaccustomed to the Western society might never get proper employment. On the other hand such migrants are easily exploitable for criminal organisations and the black market. We have to ask ourselves and be honest that uneducated migration is neither good for the European country or the migrant himself/herself.
Additionally, much of the migration process (logistics) are in the hand of smugglers and ruthless criminal gangs who have no regard for human rights, but think the migrants as cattle. I think it's morally wrong to indirectly help these gangs to stay in business.
Europe needs educated persons - professionals. This is the kind of immigration I want to see.
Regarding Africa, Europe can do much more help much more effectively in giving development aid for a big number of people in Africa than letting some few lucky into Europe. In Finland the average cost of processing a asylum seeker is €15k a year. With that sum you can pay 55 African children a year in school using the average price. I would gladly double the development aid instead, as it can help so much more where the people in need live.
Moreover, sub-Saharan Africa has suffered from a terrible brain drain for decades. While it still would be open for African educated professionals to emigrate to Europe, I don't want to encourage it either anymore.
That's an interesting point of view, the problem is, how to make it true ? I agree financing the developing countries is the solution, but then again people working here usually send money to their families back home and this is a lot more money than international help. If people were free to come and go, they would not stick around for decades (or at least would assimilate through their kids like it happened with euro and non-euro immigration in North America) and eventually return to their enriched country thanks to the ressources they created in the richer country.
Making immigration legal is also a way to end illegal immigration.
Then yeah, of course entering the european market is another issue, but most people coming here end up working in the industry or agricultural fields. If they were legal they would not be exploited but have actual salaries and ok conditions which would not lower it for everyone else.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
