European Migrant Crisis

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
Anonymous Bosch
Posts: 10512
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Northern California [originally from the UK]

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by Anonymous Bosch »

GreenGoo wrote:Ok. I don't think this is a surprise to anyone. Knowing the specifics isn't exactly shocking or eye opening.

What does he recommend we do about it? Presumably he's got some ideas beyond "don't help refugees".
I could be mistaken, but I suspect he likely favours a similar approach as the head of the Center for Immigration Studies (i.e. the host of his write-up):
National Review wrote:In his Monday press conference on the latest Islamist atrocities, President Obama said that the United States must “welcome refugees who are desperately seeking safety” and that “slamming the door in their faces would be a betrayal of our values.” The Democrats vying to succeed him said the same thing in their televised debate Saturday.

One problem: Relocating refugees from the Middle East to the U.S. is morally wrong.

This isn’t due to the security threats posed by any resettlement program from the Islamic world. While it is impossible — literally impossible — to adequately screen refugees from Syria (or Iraq or Yemen or Afghanistan or Somalia), it would be wrong to admit them even if we could keep out the terrorists and their supporters that constitute such a significant share of those countries’ populations.

Sure, welcoming refugees here makes us feel good. Newspapers run heart-warming stories of overcoming adversity; churches embrace the objects of their charity; politicians can wax nostalgic about their grandparents.

But the goal of refugee assistance is not to make us feel good. It is to assist as many people as possible with the resources available. And resettling a relative handful of them here to help us bask in our own righteousness means we are sacrificing the much larger number who could have been helped with the same resources.

The difference in cost is enormous. The Center for Immigration Studies, which I head, recently calculated that it costs twelve times as much to resettle a refugee in the United States as it does to care for the same refugee in a neighboring country in the Middle East. The five-year cost to American taxpayers of resettling a single Middle Eastern refugee in the United States is conservatively estimated to be more than $64,000, compared with U.N. figures that indicate it costs about $5,300 to provide for that same refugee for five years in his native region.

In other words, each refugee we bring to the United States means that eleven others are not being helped with that money. Faced with twelve drowning people, only a monster would send them a luxurious one-man boat rather than twelve life jackets. And yet, with the best of intentions, that is exactly what we are doing when we choose one lucky winner to resettle here.

Some will object that we can do both — relocate some refugees here and care for others in their native region. But money is not infinite. Every dollar the government spends is borrowed and will have to be paid back by our grandchildren. What’s more, the U.N. estimates that there are 60 million refugees and internally displaced people around the world. Clearly, whatever amount we allocate to refugee protection will provide for only a fraction of the people in need.

Given these limitations on resources, it is wrong — morally wrong — to use those resources to resettle one refugee here when we could help twelve closer to their home.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." — P. J. O'Rourke
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by malchior »

This is like the same thing over and over. The problems he notes have little to do with refugees. They are general problems. If a refugee can steal an identity and get forged documents...why can't a terrorist? And maybe they'll use the refugee channel to fly further under the radar? The official channel may take 18-24 months. Maybe that's ok for whatever plot they have cooked up but they can just go another channel with their stolen documents and get in faster.

Edit: Basically the argument amounts to - well there will be a huge workload so mistakes might be made and refugees get the benefit of the doubt. As if passing thousands of passengers a day through hundreds of different ports of call isn't error prone itself and the terrorists have to gamble on a slow travel channel to maybe get through. It doesn't make much sense really for them to risk it.
User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by RunningMn9 »

It's way cheaper to provide assistance to them in their native region, because their native region is a goddamn hell hole (thus them fleeing their native region). OF COURSE it's cheaper to settle these people next door to where they are currently being slaughtered.

When it comes to humanitarian responses, there can be no more humane way to approach the situation than figuring out what is cheaper for us (which also happens to keep all of those foreign-looking people over THERE, which I'm sure has *nothing* to do with their calculations).
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by malchior »

The regional actors are overwhelmed already - Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey have taken something like 3.5 Million people already. Sure it's cheaper...if they could even accept them which they probably can't or won't.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by GreenGoo »

It's morally wrong to relocate refugees because it's not cost effective? I don't think the writer understands what morals are.

I actually do consider cost an important consideration as I've mentioned when talking about going after ISIS. I would like nothing more than going in and kicking the living shit out of every single one of them with a western coalition.

But don't try to convince me that spending money is morally wrong. That's what money is for. If we agree that we can't help everyone, everywhere, then we agree that we can only help some. Now we need to decide who those "some" are and how to do it.

edit: I see Rmn9 is of the same thought. Cost effectiveness provides the most moral of guidance.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by GreenGoo »

malchior wrote:The regional actors are overwhelmed already - Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey have taken something like 3.5 Million people already. Sure it's cheaper...if they could even accept them which they probably can't or won't.
My faith that neighbours in the middle east would take care of each other is nil. They are constantly suppressing and exploiting their own citizens. The middle east is a bad place. it's filled with power hungry monsters who will do whatever it takes to stay in power. They don't even pretend to humanitarian ideology or peace. If one of the countries decided to start eating the refugees I wouldn't be surprised. Giving them money to "take care of" the refugees is just about the worst idea I can think of.
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by Rip »

GreenGoo wrote:It's morally wrong to relocate refugees because it's not cost effective? I don't think the writer understands what morals are.

I actually do consider cost an important consideration as I've mentioned when talking about going after ISIS. I would like nothing more than going in and kicking the living shit out of every single one of them with a western coalition.

But don't try to convince me that spending money is morally wrong. That's what money is for. If we agree that we can't help everyone, everywhere, then we agree that we can only help some. Now we need to decide who those "some" are and how to do it.

edit: I see Rmn9 is of the same thought. Cost effectiveness provides the most moral of guidance.

Here Mr. Refugee we care so much we will spend anything to send you somewhere else. As far as going in and stopping the crazy people from killing all you relatives, neighbors, etc. or god forbid make it safe for you to go home. We'd like to but it just isn't cost effective.
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by Rip »

GreenGoo wrote:
malchior wrote:The regional actors are overwhelmed already - Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey have taken something like 3.5 Million people already. Sure it's cheaper...if they could even accept them which they probably can't or won't.
My faith that neighbours in the middle east would take care of each other is nil. They are constantly suppressing and exploiting their own citizens. The middle east is a bad place. it's filled with power hungry monsters who will do whatever it takes to stay in power. They don't even pretend to humanitarian ideology or peace. If one of the countries decided to start eating the refugees I wouldn't be surprised. Giving them money to "take care of" the refugees is just about the worst idea I can think of.
If only you could squeeze that on a bumper sticker.

Why hate on Muslims when you can hate on the entire region to the same effect?

Rhetorical btw.
User avatar
Sudy
Posts: 8275
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 3:11 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by Sudy »

nationalreview.com wrote:...money is not infinite. Every dollar the government spends is borrowed and will have to be paid back by our grandchildren.
Lol! "Oh, woe upon our grandchildren!" Yeah, start worrying about the national debt now.
What’s more, the U.N. estimates that there are 60 million refugees and internally displaced people around the world. Clearly, whatever amount we allocate to refugee protection will provide for only a fraction of the people in need.
Shit. Well, if you can't save 'em all, might as well just not bother!

I saw a commercial on late night TV. It said, "Forget everything you know about slipcovers." So I did. And it was a load off my mind. Then the commercial tried to sell me slipcovers, and I didn't know what the hell they were. -- Mitch Hedberg
User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by RunningMn9 »

GreenGoo wrote:It's morally wrong to relocate refugees because it's not cost effective? I don't think the writer understands what morals are.
The argument he is making is that morally it is wrong to save 10 people at $64k each, when you could save 120 people at $5.3k each.

Which would be a sensible argument if:

1) It wasn't just being used as a way to justify xenophobia.
2) The $5,300 to "keep them over there", doesn't actually remove them from the hell hole they are trying to escape (you are in effect just spending the money to say that you are doing something, even though you know you aren't really doing anything).

It costs more to bring a refugee to the United States, but does the analysis include the practical impact that being in the US has on the refugee, rather than being dumped in some slightly less horrific hell hole?

But yeah, I don't think that writer understands what morals are.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by RunningMn9 »

Rip wrote:Here Mr. Refugee we care so much we will spend anything to send you somewhere else. As far as going in and stopping the crazy people from killing all you relatives, neighbors, etc. or god forbid make it safe for you to go home. We'd like to but it just isn't cost effective.
If *that* cost was measured in dollars, and not in American lives and limbs (and, of course, the occasional lives and limbs of their relatives, neighbors, etc), that would probably have more value as a point.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by GreenGoo »

Rip wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
malchior wrote:The regional actors are overwhelmed already - Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey have taken something like 3.5 Million people already. Sure it's cheaper...if they could even accept them which they probably can't or won't.
My faith that neighbours in the middle east would take care of each other is nil. They are constantly suppressing and exploiting their own citizens. The middle east is a bad place. it's filled with power hungry monsters who will do whatever it takes to stay in power. They don't even pretend to humanitarian ideology or peace. If one of the countries decided to start eating the refugees I wouldn't be surprised. Giving them money to "take care of" the refugees is just about the worst idea I can think of.
If only you could squeeze that on a bumper sticker.

Why hate on Muslims when you can hate on the entire region to the same effect?

Rhetorical btw.
If you can't tell the difference between hating people for their religion and hating a geopolitical region because of the actions of the governments, then your black and white world view is starting to make a lot more sense.
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by Rip »

Sure because the predominant religion of said geopolitical region is just a coincidence?

Unless of course some Republican said it.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by GreenGoo »

Rip wrote: Here Mr. Refugee we care so much we will spend anything to send you somewhere else. As far as going in and stopping the crazy people from killing all you relatives, neighbors, etc. or god forbid make it safe for you to go home. We'd like to but it just isn't cost effective.
Cost *is* a factor. I already said that. It's not part of a moral imperative, it's a practical one. Don't strawman me by suggesting that my willingness to spend more to relocate refugees is hypocritical because I'm not willing to pour untold billions and human lives into the region.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by GreenGoo »

Rip wrote:Sure because the predominant religion of said geopolitical region is just a coincidence?

Unless of course some Republican said it.
You know why people are constantly attacking you personally? Because you say stupid shit. You're suggesting that Islam is the blame for all the wrongs in the middle east? That's asinine. Christianity and Islam are practically the same religion, and Judaism worships the same god, but somehow Islam is special in it's geopolitical impact?

edit: typos are eating my soul.
Last edited by GreenGoo on Thu Nov 19, 2015 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by RunningMn9 »

Rip wrote:Sure because the predominant religion of said geopolitical region is just a coincidence?
Uhh...yes?

The region would still blow giant whale dong, regardless of which religion was predominant, because it's not the religion that is causing it to blow giant whale dong. It's a combination of many factors that would combine to warp *any* religion towards the ends that it is currently warping Islam in that region.

Religions don't kill people. People kill people.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by Rip »

GreenGoo wrote:
Rip wrote:Sure because the predominant religion of said geopolitical region is just a coincidence?

Unless of course some Republican said it.
You know why people are constantly attacking you personally? Because you say stupid shit. You're suggesting that Islam is the blame for all the wrongs in the middle east? That's asinine.
No I am suggesting that if someone you who you disliked politically like Trump or Carson said the same things about Syria's neighbor they would be accused of being anti-muslim and you would be nodding your head right along with them.

I've been to several countries in the middle east and enjoyed it a lot and met a lot of really good and decent people most of whom were Muslim. I disagree wholeheartedly with the thought that the entire place is "a bad place". Filled with power hungry monsters who will do whatever it takes to stay in power. There is some of that there but not that much more than the rest of the world. It is no worse than Central Africa, Central America, or Cuba in having power hungry monsters that will do whatever it takes to stay in power.
User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by RunningMn9 »

Rip wrote:No I am suggesting that if someone you who you disliked politically like Trump or Carson said the same things about Syria's neighbor they would be accused of being anti-muslim and you would be nodding your head right along with them.
Syria's neighbors are Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Iraq. Where do you want to send them? Turkey? They've already taken in 1.8 million refugees. Lebanon has taken in 1.2 million. Jordan has picked up 600k+ and Iraq has taken in 250k. They seem full.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by Rip »

RunningMn9 wrote:
Rip wrote:No I am suggesting that if someone you who you disliked politically like Trump or Carson said the same things about Syria's neighbor they would be accused of being anti-muslim and you would be nodding your head right along with them.
Syria's neighbors are Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Iraq. Where do you want to send them? Turkey? They've already taken in 1.8 million refugees. Lebanon has taken in 1.2 million. Jordan has picked up 600k+ and Iraq has taken in 250k. They seem full.
I think they could take some more. Especially temporarily if we actually get to work and end the conflict. The US has 12 million Mexican "refugees", how many did Turkey and the rest take?

Crazy thing is in the middle of the hell hole during this period the Syrian population has increased 4-million. We aren't even keeping up with the population increase. Time to realize at some point everyone is running out of room.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by GreenGoo »

And now the Syrian crisis is about global population control.

Most days you're fun, but I'm tired and a little stressed, so my patience is low.
User avatar
AWS260
Posts: 12665
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:51 pm
Location: Brooklyn

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by AWS260 »

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by Defiant »

Rip wrote: I think they could take some more. Especially temporarily if we actually get to work and end the conflict. The US has 12 million Mexican "refugees", how many did Turkey and the rest take?
The US hosts about 270,000 refugees and takes in around 70K a year, tanking 14th in the number of refugees hosted.

Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey have taken in more, especially as a percentage of their population.

Image
User avatar
Anonymous Bosch
Posts: 10512
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Northern California [originally from the UK]

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by Anonymous Bosch »

RunningMn9 wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:It's morally wrong to relocate refugees because it's not cost effective? I don't think the writer understands what morals are.
The argument he is making is that morally it is wrong to save 10 people at $64k each, when you could save 120 people at $5.3k each.

Which would be a sensible argument if:

1) It wasn't just being used as a way to justify xenophobia.
Based upon... ?

Perhaps it's reflective of popular opinion in the US:

Poll: A Majority of Americans Oppose Accepting Syrian Refugees:
NBC News wrote:In the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris, more than half of the nation's governors have declared they will not accept new Syrian refugees into their states, and a new poll shows that a majority of Americans disapprove of President Obama's plans to accept increased numbers of Syrian refugees. The latest NBC News/SurveyMonkey online poll shows that 56% of Americans disapprove of allowing more migrants fleeing violence in Syria and other nations into the country, while 41% approve and the issue divides sharply across party lines. But overwhelmingly, Americans say the U.S. and its allies are losing the war against ISIS and the poll shows bipartisan support for sending additional ground troops to fight the Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria.
RunningMn9 wrote:2) The $5,300 to "keep them over there", doesn't actually remove them from the hell hole they are trying to escape (you are in effect just spending the money to say that you are doing something, even though you know you aren't really doing anything).
It's their country. Uncomfortable as it may seem, the fact is, we're going to need someone to inhabit said hell hole. If not ISIS, Assad and his adherents, or Syrian refugees, then who?

Renowned xenophobe, Chris Matthews, made that point on his show on Tuesday:
TheBlaze.com wrote:MSNBC’s Chris Matthews ended his show Tuesday night with two numbers — the number of Syrians the U.S. has recruited to help fight against the Islamic State and the number of total Syrian refugees.

“Let me finish tonight with two numbers that don’t make sense,” Matthews said on his show before starkly contrasting the number of Syrian refugees — 4 million — and the number of Syrians recruited by the U.S. to fight the Islamic State — four.

“Is there just one in a million Syrians willing to fight for Syria? Is that the deal? Is it?” Matthews asked. “Would just one in a million Americans be willing to fight for our country?”

Matthews continued his pondering over the two numbers by implying that the Islamic State could be taking Syria “from people who would rather leave for the West.”

“Some said here last night that we can’t ask Syrians to fight for their country because they have families,” Matthews said. “Well, tell that to the American families, those we care most about, who have a member of their family on their fourth-deployment right now.”

“Is it too much to ask that the Syrians lead the fight to retake Syria?” Matthew continued. “It is their country. Unless they’re willing to abandon it. And what do we think of people who do that? And besides, even if we, the United States and other European countries overthrew ISIS, we’d still have to turn Syria over to somebody. If we had Syrians playing the rightful part in the liberation of their country, they would be the ones taking it over.”
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." — P. J. O'Rourke
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by malchior »

The mental gymnastics people use to ascribe motivation to these people is amazing - they want to leave the country to make it to the West. Wow. I have a brutal dictatorship which has been killing and oppressing everyone for years, civil war, and some nutball religious fundamentalists coming at us from every direction but all I care about is getting to the West. Holy fucking shit. The insane crazy there.

It's simple. They are "abandoning" their country because they don't have a country anymore. All they have is family - their country is a smoking crater. I can't get over how shitty people have become. Suddenly people care about underfed vets and homeless people. And population control. And cost effectiveness. Lizard brain bullshit all around.
User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by RunningMn9 »

Anonymous Bosch wrote:Based upon... ?
Long experience with humans.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by malchior »

RunningMn9 wrote:
Anonymous Bosch wrote:Based upon... ?
Long experience with humans.
Seriously - how many inane arguments have been laid out and challenged? Almost every single bullshit one challenged and mostly ignored to move on to some other inane point.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by Holman »

Anonymous Bosch wrote: It's their country. Uncomfortable as it may seem, the fact is, we're going to need someone to inhabit said hell hole. If not ISIS, Assad and his adherents, or Syrian refugees, then who?
Really? This is something we need? More than they need to escape religious violence, secular violence, random violence, and an economy that is no more?

These are often middle-class, educated people who have decided that their only chance for survival is to become essentially homeless, leaving with what they can carry and entrusting themselves to chance, criminal middleman, and the desperate hope that the civilized world might recognize their plight and their common humanity. What would it take for you to do that? What would it mean for you and your family to be not only refused but demonized when you tried?
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by Rip »

malchior wrote:The mental gymnastics people use to ascribe motivation to these people is amazing - they want to leave the country to make it to the West. Wow. I have a brutal dictatorship which has been killing and oppressing everyone for years, civil war, and some nutball religious fundamentalists coming at us from every direction but all I care about is getting to the West. Holy fucking shit. The insane crazy there.

It's simple. They are "abandoning" their country because they don't have a country anymore. All they have is family - their country is a smoking crater. I can't get over how shitty people have become. Suddenly people care about underfed vets and homeless people. And population control. And cost effectiveness. Lizard brain bullshit all around.
If that is all it is then why on earth would people be fighting for it?

The destruction isn't even in the top ten for most destruction by war in history. Yet all these places get rebuilt and are fine once the fighting stops. This one is no different. Syria hasn't and won't go anywhere.
User avatar
gilraen
Posts: 4313
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:45 pm
Location: Broomfield, CO

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by gilraen »

RunningMn9 wrote:
Rip wrote:Sure because the predominant religion of said geopolitical region is just a coincidence?
Uhh...yes?

The region would still blow giant whale dong, regardless of which religion was predominant, because it's not the religion that is causing it to blow giant whale dong. It's a combination of many factors that would combine to warp *any* religion towards the ends that it is currently warping Islam in that region.

Religions don't kill people. People kill people.
Islam didn't get "warped" into anything, it started out as an extremely violent religion that over the centuries got tempered somewhat through Sufi interpretations. Also, the Shia/Sunni conflict is basically where the Catholic vs. Protestant wars were in the Middle Ages, only with better and deadlier weapons. So it's very much a religious war internal to the region, and that's *before* you get fundamentalist factions like ISIS coming in and declaring a war on everyone (including Muslims that happen to disagree with their extreme stance).
User avatar
Anonymous Bosch
Posts: 10512
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Northern California [originally from the UK]

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by Anonymous Bosch »

Holman wrote:
Anonymous Bosch wrote: It's their country. Uncomfortable as it may seem, the fact is, we're going to need someone to inhabit said hell hole. If not ISIS, Assad and his adherents, or Syrian refugees, then who?
Really? This is something we need?
In terms of US foreign policy and interests? Absolutely. Call it realpolitik if it makes you feel less squeamish. But there's a growing impetus for the US to do something about ISIS and the festering fustercluck in what was formerly Syria and Iraq. Perhaps that means sticking with containment, continued bombardment of ISIS, and encouraging the Russians to take the lead. Perhaps it'll mean a full partnership with Russia to destroy ISIS, and bolstering the governments in those countries to keep the jihadis from returning. Or perhaps America takes the lead, coordinates with trusted allies to intensify airstrikes in preparation for a NATO ground invasion of both Syria and Iraq, and fights an all-out war with ISIS to destroy it entirely. In all of those scenarios, ISIS, Assad and his adherents, and Syrian refugees, will be crucial to their success or failure, and how favourably they play out for US interests. So let's not pretend otherwise.
Holman wrote:More than they need to escape religious violence, secular violence, random violence, and an economy that is no more?
I don't recall any particular quantification of need. But it's irrelevant, anyway; it's not as if the relocation of 0.25% of the Syrian refugee population to American soil is likely to solve the underlying problems and misery. While that may be great for the select lucky few, what about the plight of the other 99.75% of Syrian refugees, also hoping to escape religious violence, secular violence, random violence, and an economy that is no more?
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." — P. J. O'Rourke
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by Holman »

Anonymous Bosch wrote: I don't recall any particular quantification of need.
Your argument was that refugees need to stay to fill space. ("We're going to need someone to inhabit said hell hole.") Unless you think they're faking their need to escape, you're applying a really weird calculus.
But it's irrelevant, anyway; it's not as if the relocation of 0.25% of the Syrian refugee population to American soil is likely to solve the underlying problems and misery. While that may be great for the select lucky few, what about the plight of the other 99.75% of Syrian refugees, also hoping to escape religious violence, secular violence, random violence, and an economy that is no more?
Taking in the refugees who currently form the refugee crisis doesn't involve washing our hands of ISIS or the mess we helped create. Yes, it helps the lucky few, but you have to wonder what sort of luck drives people to this condition.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by malchior »

It also smacks of - can't help them all so why help any?
User avatar
Anonymous Bosch
Posts: 10512
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Northern California [originally from the UK]

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by Anonymous Bosch »

Holman wrote:
Anonymous Bosch wrote: I don't recall any particular quantification of need.
Your argument was that refugees need to stay to fill space. ("We're going to need someone to inhabit said hell hole.") Unless you think they're faking their need to escape, you're applying a really weird calculus.
No, it wasn't; that's your strawman interpretation of my response to RunningMn9, which I have no interest in indulging.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." — P. J. O'Rourke
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by Holman »

If the question is (a la Chris Matthews) "Why are they leaving rather than staying to fight for Syria?" then the answer is simple: any Syria they would want to fight for is no more. ISIS owns half of it; Assad has razed and gassed the other half.

Blaming refugees for fleeing a legitimate hellhole is really a new low. The misery of that country is far worse than anything Saddam ever visited on his people, but none of us would have considered turning away a similar flow of refugees from Iraq had one opened up in, say, the late 1990s.

What's going on right now is that Republicans and the European Far Right are coked out of their minds on xenophobia, and they're trying to mainstream it by picking easy victims. It's ugly, and it's only getting uglier.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by Rip »

Holman wrote:If the question is (a la Chris Matthews) "Why are they leaving rather than staying to fight for Syria?" then the answer is simple: any Syria they would want to fight for is no more. ISIS owns half of it; Assad has razed and gassed the other half.

Blaming refugees for fleeing a legitimate hellhole is really a new low. The misery of that country is far worse than anything Saddam ever visited on his people, but none of us would have considered turning away a similar flow of refugees from Iraq had one opened up in, say, the late 1990s.

What's going on right now is that Republicans and the European Far Right are coked out of their minds on xenophobia, and they're trying to mainstream it by picking easy victims. It's ugly, and it's only getting uglier.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the ... s-in-2011/

:ninja:
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by GreenGoo »

a) They let refugees in
b) They had specific intel (plus piles of fear mongering)
c) They started processing them again
d) All those bomb makers they let in as part of b) are either very patient or have decided that 7/11's and netflix are pretty awesome.

It's hard to follow you, you jump around so much, so I'm just gonna cover a few bases and call it done.

Terrorists can get into the US already. Refugees are simply one of the ways. Unless you plan on sealing your country in a hermetic container, people are getting in. Some of them might be terrorists.

Giving sanctuary to people in need is the right thing to do. That it opens you up to bad things is a consideration, but not the sole consideration. Doing good is always tough, and often comes with a cost.

Obama is hypocritical because he stopped refugees from entering the country briefly. Ok, you got me (not really but let's say so because I'm too lazy to explain to you what context and details are). He's doing the right thing NOW. Doing the wrong thing before is no reason to do the wrong thing now. That's not evidence in support of refusing refugees, it's evidence that you have the opportunity to do the right thing this time.

That's pretty much it, I guess. Shorter version:

1) Scary people existed before, now, and after this crisis.
2) Doing right is the right thing to do. Welcoming huddled masses is (or used to be) one of the virtues of the USofA.
3) Obama. Who gives a crap who's in office.
Last edited by GreenGoo on Fri Nov 20, 2015 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by Holman »

Was Iraq the humanitarian crisis that Syria is now?
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43690
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by Kraken »

People talk about refugees and migrants like they're interchangeable.

Hordes of migrants are flooding into Europe, with fairly cursory screening before they are resettled. While they are potentially threatening, none of them are coming to America because there's an ocean in the way.

Refugees have to apply for that status, face an international screening process that takes on the order of two years, can't control what country takes them in, and then face further screening by their assigned host country. Women and children are given preference. If you're a terrorist, that's just about the worst way that you could try to infiltrate...particularly when we welcome millions of tourists and students every year.

Refugees pose an infinitesimal threat and opposing them because it plays well in the cheap seats is unconscionable.
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51303
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by hepcat »

The knee jerk reaction from the moron governors after the Paris attacks is looking more ridiculous every day.
Covfefe!
User avatar
Anonymous Bosch
Posts: 10512
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Northern California [originally from the UK]

Re: European Migrant Crisis

Post by Anonymous Bosch »

Holman wrote:If the question is (a la Chris Matthews) "Why are they leaving rather than staying to fight for Syria?" then the answer is simple:
It isn't; you rephrased, and refuted a sillier question with a simple and obvious answer. To use a direct quote, he said, “Is it too much to ask that the Syrians lead the fight to retake Syria?” As I undetstood it, his commentary was in the context of discussing increased US military action against ISIS, potentially involving ground troops.

My argument was not that Syrian "refugees are needed to stay to fill space," as you tried to suggest. To put it plainly, ISIS has territory. So defeating it militarily would not be difficult, given the vast military superiority of the US. But to keep it defeated, someone must hold and rule its territories, or else ISIS -- or a variant thereof -- would inevitably return and reconquer. So, in terms of bringing such efforts to a successful conclusion, the lack of any credible local ally would make US-led ground operations in Syria prohibitively more difficult than in Iraq, Afghanistan, or even Vietnam. Because in each of those cases, the US did have local partners. And it was in that specific context that I asked, "If not ISIS, Assad and his adherents, or Syrian refugees, then who?"
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." — P. J. O'Rourke
Post Reply