Refuge/Immigrant Crisis 2.0

[Moratori]

Turkey is already accommodating 2.5 million Syrian refugees. The vast majority of refugees are in the countries neighbouring Syria and the vast majority of those are not attempting to flee into Europe, but surely there is a moral responsibility for wealthy nations in the West to help alleviate that burden?

I mean a third of Jordan's population are now refugees, and in the UK we're trying to say that taking 20,000 over 5 years is fulfilling our responsibilities, how can that be justified?

Never understood this. Why do you exempt Japan and South Korea?

[Theodarzna]

Turkey is already accommodating 2.5 million Syrian refugees. The vast majority of refugees are in the countries neighbouring Syria and the vast majority of those are not attempting to flee into Europe, but surely there is a moral responsibility for wealthy nations in the West to help alleviate that burden?

I mean a third of Jordan's population are now refugees, and in the UK we're trying to say that taking 20,000 over 5 years is fulfilling our responsibilities, how can that be justified?

No, there is not because that sets a precedent. Why do wealthy nations have to resettle people into their country?

The UK's responsibility is to the UK first and foremost.

[Deleted]

we wont see 2015 again, as ... there aren't even that much syrians to begin with.

Only ~25% are syrian refugees. The rest came all over the place from iraq-western africa.

- - - Updated - - -

Never understood this. Why do you exempt Japan and South Korea?

Or Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates

[Deleted]

Erdogan and his fellow goatfuckers have nothing. Let them do whatever they think they need to do and they'll pay the price.

[Underverse]

Turkey is already accommodating 2.5 million Syrian refugees. The vast majority of refugees are in the countries neighbouring Syria and the vast majority of those are not attempting to flee into Europe, but surely there is a moral responsibility for wealthy nations in the West to help alleviate that burden?

I mean a third of Jordan's population are now refugees, and in the UK we're trying to say that taking 20,000 over 5 years is fulfilling our responsibilities, how can that be justified?

Two things. First, refugees will have a much easier time integrating or subsisting in countries that share a similar culture with their own. Therefore they will generate and face fewer conflicts.

Second, proximity increases moral burden, in part due to the cost of refugee travel but also because neighbors share more value and more risk, and are thus more responsible for buffering or supplementing each other when in need.

[Kuntantee]

Everyone wants a better life

So it is understandable. Good.

[Theodarzna]

So it is understandable. Good.

Wanting a better life doesn't make you a refugee. Unless those people are Armenian, they are not in danger among the Turks.

[Cuppy]

Even if it was a wise idea to grant refugee status to every person whose life might be better in Europe; that is over a billion humans you have just declared refugees who now have some "sacred right" to come to Europe. How do you house that many people, how do you integrate that many people? That is positively insane on its face.

Cut the making of weapons worldwide for ONE day, with that money.. Oh boy, goddamn endless possiblities. Like that for example.
But really, I'm not here to debate on how to handle this problem.
I'm here to debate on the value of a human life, whether they should be "left drown", or "Living a life in a tent is ok".

Economic migrants usually take legal means to come to a country, not claim refugee status and run to whatever country offers the sweetest welfare state package.
Moratori's point seems to be that these people are not refugees after they leave Turkey.

Yes, I understand the difference. And what the shit, I'm not blaming the refugees for that, are you? Can you honestly say that if you had 2 options:
1- Live in a tent with your family for here to godwhoknowshowlong
2- Take a trip to somewhere where you can actually, live a life?
I can honestly admit, without any remorse, i'd take the second option.
Anyone telling me they'd take 1, are priviledged lucky bastards who lack empathy.

[Moratori]

So it is understandable. Good.

It's understandable that people think they are stupid and deserve little to no sympathy for risking their lives in chase of that by embarging on dangerous travels too, yes?

[Cuppy]

It's understandable that people think they are stupid and deserve little to no sympathy for risking their lives in chase of that by embarging on dangerous travels too, yes?

Can we get a kickstarter for him? "Ignorant brat visiting warzones"

[Deleted]

Cut the making of weapons worldwide for ONE day, with that money.. Oh boy, goddamn endless possiblities. Like that for example.
But really, I'm not here to debate on how to handle this problem.
I'm here to debate on the value of a human life, whether they should be "left drown", or "Living a life in a tent is ok".

Then why don't you shelter a homeless in your house/apartment? You surely have the means.

[Tinch]

No, there is not because that sets a precedent. Why do wealthy nations have to resettle people into their country?

The UK's responsibility is to the UK first and foremost.

Because they're human beings who have been left destitute by war?

I don't think anyone is stating that every single refugee has a undeniable right to settle in Europe, but when the neighbouring countries currently have around 5 million Syrian refugees there is no doubt the West could be doing far more than they are now.

[Moratori]

Because they're human beings who have been left destitute by war?

I don't think anyone is stating that every single refugee has a undeniable right to settle in Europe, but when the neighbouring countries currently have around 5 million Syrian refugees there is no doubt the West could be doing far more than they are now.

Why are you exempting Japan and South Korea from taking part in responsibility of easing burden on Turkey and other countries? There's close to no refugees here.

Why is it solely western countries responsibility?

[Deleted]

Because they're human beings who have been left destitute by war?

I don't think anyone is stating that every single refugee has a undeniable right to settle in Europe, but when the neighbouring countries currently have around 5 million Syrian refugees there is no doubt the West could be doing far more than they are now.

Canada has a lot of space and is welcoming them I heard.

[Theodarzna]

Cut the making of weapons worldwide for ONE day, with that money.. Oh boy, goddamn endless possiblities. Like that for example.
But really, I'm not here to debate on how to handle this problem.
I'm here to debate on the value of a human life, whether they should be "left drown", or "Living a life in a tent is ok".

You could not build multiple New York Cities with the US's arms manufacturing budget.

Yes, I understand the difference. And what the shit, I'm not blaming the refugees for that, are you? Can you honestly say that if you had 2 options:
1- Live in a tent with your family for here to godwhoknowshowlong
2- Take a trip to somewhere where you can actually, live a life?
I can honestly admit, without any remorse, i'd take the second option.
Anyone telling me they'd take 1, are priviledged lucky bastards who lack empathy.

I would not begrudge the country in option 2 saying "Fuck off". Desiring a better life does not equal being entitled to citizenship and resettlement anywhere else.

[Tinch]

Two things. First, refugees will have a much easier time integrating or subsisting in countries that share a similar culture with their own. Therefore they will generate and face fewer conflicts.

Second, proximity increases moral burden, in part due to the cost of refugee travel but also because neighbors share more value and more risk, and are thus more responsible for buffering or supplementing each other when in need.

I wouldn't dispute that, but when we're talking about the numbers that have been displaced in Syria its simply not practical to expect a handful of countries to manage such a burden.

[Theodarzna]

Because they're human beings who have been left destitute by war?

I don't think anyone is stating that every single refugee has a undeniable right to settle in Europe, but when the neighbouring countries currently have around 5 million Syrian refugees there is no doubt the West could be doing far more than they are now.

The majority of them are not even Syrians first of all. Second, so? Humans are left destitute all the time? If anyone is given a right to resettle in Europe simply because they are now poor, then any poor person who might have a better lot in life now has that right. That is well over a billion people you are talking about. Why not the East? Why not China? India? Japan? South Korea or Latin America?

[Tinch]

Why are you exempting Japan and South Korea from taking part in responsibility of easing burden on Turkey and other countries? There's close to no refugees here.

Why is it solely western countries responsibility?

I'm not, I think every country in the world who has the means to help should do so. The more countries that are willing to help, the less the burden is on individual nations.

[Queen of Hamsters]

It's not like all EU countries carried their weight with the first refugee crisis, so...
Erdogan's behaviour is unacceptable though. Why should he be allowed to behave as he pleases? He needs to learn his place.

[Theodarzna]

I'm not, I think every country in the world who has the means to help should do so. The more countries that are willing to help, the less the burden is on individual nations.

Does help mean resettlement?