-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Refugees heading to Europe to be redirected to Asia and LatinAmerica in new £30m plan
- Thread starter AcademicSaucer
- Start date
- Status
BronzeWolf
Banned
Good.
No reason for them to just go to Europe where LA is a welcoming place
Bad.
It is motivated out of racism
No reason for them to just go to Europe where LA is a welcoming place
Bad.
It is motivated out of racism
JimiNutz
Banned
The UK is a small island with a population of over 60 million already.
makingmusic476
Member
The Scots have been quite welcoming of refugees, and there's plenty of room up north.
Southern England is where things get crowded.
The idea that they're motivated by economic opportunity is just racist right wing propaganda.
No it isn't. There is a reason why they bypass a ton of countries for just a handful. The true refugees are those massed in the bordering countries of conflict zones. Turkey itself has over a million plus. Those are people who just want to escape immediate harm and have plans to resume and rebuild and return. Someone else who sells everything he owns or leaves with his pregnant wife or kids and has no plans to return, it is not about imminent harm for him. He is an economic migrant. And he will bypass Serbia and Albania and Greece and Italy and many other safe, liberal, westernized countries for Germany, France or the UK because of their greater economic and welfare opportunities. There is a reason migrants would rather set up in Sweden than Finland or Poland. Why they would even want to leave Austria for Germany. Hell at the Calais Jungle you have people who feel France isn't good enough for them and they want the UK.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
It's cheaper to put them in third world countries (low cost of living) and countries that have the same language and similar culture (less integration costs). If the world didn't let Lebanon and Jordan become hellholes for refugees then there would be less of them trying to head for Europe.
This plan is about sending them to east Asia and Latin America. What parts of those regions is Arabic the common language? Also, it isn't cheaper to put them in third world countries. These countries are already having a hard enough time provinding basic services to their current populations. What's the plan, house refugees in slums?
Why would the refugees want to go to Scotland any more than Asia and Latin America?
Room isn't the problem in the UK though, if you're happy living in a field. We desperately need more homes.
We'll see, when demand for places in this plan almost immediately outstrips supply the left's ardently held position that these people are refugees in need and that they're sincerely fleeing violence and persecution will be proven correct.
SecretSphere
Member
I don't think they're referring to the Middle East when they say Asia there. I'm pretty sure they're talking east of Iran. Turkey, Lebnanon, and Jordan are already swamped by refugees. Iraq, Syria, and Yemen are war zones. So that leaves the gulf states. The Gulf States aren't going to take in refugees in the numbers this deal is is advocating, so it does seem like they mean outside of the ME.
So the Stans, India, and East Asia. Where do you stick Arab speaking refugees that can handle those numbers? Remember Pakistan is already under the strain of Afghan refugees.
AcademicSaucer
Member
Its not like the refugees are coming from 1st world countries.
chromatic9
Member
I'm Indian and I'm sure refugees could assimilate into the culture India in general has been hit by waves of migration but the issue is we don't have a support system for them unlike richer countries . I mean yeah come to India and then what yeah no one is killing you but you have no money no opportunities and you die of starvation ? Btw India is currently considering a simple form of ubi. Which is hotly debated due to the burden it would put on the govt and economy . I don't see anyway both a ubi and a mass refugee settlement go thru one or the other has to give .
Hahaha... would you look at that?
Last time Europe sent Latin America refugees, it was actually their own. Wasn't exactly a luxury destination, but seemed like a pretty good idea considering fuckin' World War II. Moreover, some of them got pretty nice benefits considering our 'population whitening politics' at the time.
But guess what... once things started to get better, and second/third generation immigrants considered going back to their countries of origin, they were snubbed and looked down upon. 'Not european enough'. And these, mind you, were people of 100% european background, raised in communities with their traditions, who spoke the language, and would have no difficulty integrating whatsoever. Even then, even with the whole 'ageing population' thing, they were not welcome.
But now there's a bigger problem, isn't there? Millions of refugees from countries who share no cultural background whatsoever... such an annoyance. Turns out, hey, NOW they remember just the place where they can dump their problems once again.
Frankly, Latin America should just whisper 'No'.
Last time Europe sent Latin America refugees, it was actually their own. Wasn't exactly a luxury destination, but seemed like a pretty good idea considering fuckin' World War II. Moreover, some of them got pretty nice benefits considering our 'population whitening politics' at the time.
But guess what... once things started to get better, and second/third generation immigrants considered going back to their countries of origin, they were snubbed and looked down upon. 'Not european enough'. And these, mind you, were people of 100% european background, raised in communities with their traditions, who spoke the language, and would have no difficulty integrating whatsoever. Even then, even with the whole 'ageing population' thing, they were not welcome.
But now there's a bigger problem, isn't there? Millions of refugees from countries who share no cultural background whatsoever... such an annoyance. Turns out, hey, NOW they remember just the place where they can dump their problems once again.
Frankly, Latin America should just whisper 'No'.
MrChocolate
Member
:lol Yeah right. Send them to Brazil or Honduras, they will feel right at home. And of course, America keeps being a fucking joke when it comes to aid those who need it. Moreso when they are responsible for half of the problems in the region.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
yep. it's disgusting and annoying. and with trump in charge it's only going to get worse :\
I'd bet somebody is making a profit on the refugee exportation business.
cooljeanius
Member
So is this how Japan's going to stop its population decline?
Actually I believe that is true. Here in Panama last year we had multiple refugees from Africa, Haiti and Cuba. All of them were travelling to the US but since Costa Rica and other Central America countries closed their borders, the refugees had to stay in Panama. Do you think they desisted and decided to live in Panama? No. They were desperate to go the US and did everything they could to leave Panama and continue traveling.
In their defense, I wouldnt want to live here or any other latin america country either. You guys are complaining about the GOP and their corruption, here is worse. Salaries are awful, price of food and other stuff is high and there is too much racism, homophobia and xenophobia in the region.
TDLink
Member
Good joke. No chance Japan lets them in. For Asia it's probably SE Asia or possibly parts of China.
Pyroclastic
Banned
any non shitty country should have a policy where they accept a manageable amount of refugees but I find this quote odd. why? is there something inherently wrong in a country being heavily comprised of one race and/or ethnic group, so long as minorities in that country are not subject to discrimination?
Diversity isn't necessarily a bad thing at all, but I don't see why mass scale demographic change is something that should be shoehorned for the sake of it just because it seems like there should be a lower percentage of one group of people, rather than something that occurs over many years in a cohesive fashion.
Those countries will never accept those refugees. Maybe a few by Indonesia or Malaysia since they are Muslim countries but for the rest, it is very unlikely.
Well Indonesia and Malaysia is probably what they are thinking.
They do but they give a lot of money to support refugees, hundreds of millions.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
Okay....just ignore the Calais Jungle. You're seriously using alternative facts.
http://www.marketplace.org/2016/10/25/world/calais-refugees-set-sites-uk-rather-france-economic-reasons
AcademicSaucer
Member
The people selling them boats and supplies to get from Turkey and North Africa to Europe are certainly making bank.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
No one is denying there are economic migrants but the jungle at calais does not make the majority, it's only about 7 thousand.
The idea that refugees should stop at the first place they are "safe" is completely unfeasible as long as we don't have a distribution system in place that's fair to countries and refugees. One such thing the UK just wants no part of.
ClosingADoor
Member
No way those countries will take in the amount of people we see arriving in Europe. What will happen instead in a few years, is people don't care anymore and we just pay off whatever leader there is in Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Chad, etc, and look the other way with how they return people at their borders.
Every Western country needs immigration to meet growth. But not low skilled, mostly young males from unstable countries. What the UK is doing wrong, is closing its borders to Eastern Europe and such.
What? Lebanon was a multicultural and welcoming place until the late sixties. Now go and look up what happened after Christians became the minority over there.
There exists a political debate because that's exactly what one side is arguing.
QuicheFontaine
Member
The UK gives a ton of money as well, but people still think we're horrible racists.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Well, I didn't say to send them to East Asia/Latin America; but the Middle East is a part of Asia.
It is cheaper to put them in third world countries. I'm saying we should fund those refugee services in third world countries. For the price of one refugee in Germany, you could house five refugees in Lebanon. Which is more humanitarian? Sending direct foreign aid to those countries is more helpful than taking all of them in.
??? I was saying that Lebanon cannot hold any more refugees because they don't have the money. I didn't say anything about the culture, except that it's more similar to Syria's.
cm osi
Member
is it a fault for a country to be 96% white?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked