Last edited by Schattenlied; 2016-05-29 at 01:31 AM.
A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don’t have one, you’ll probably never need one again.
It is a logical question, if not phrased properly. Swizz people were born in Switzerland, Syrian ones were born in Syria; it is a pure RNG, and Syrian people lost it. Some people believe that everyone should be allowed to live anywhere without any restrictions, and this is one of the arguments in support of that.
Personally, I don't think it would work properly: if, say, 200 million Indians, 500 million Chinese, 100 million Indonesians, etc. arrived in the US, then the US would no longer be the US. Such cosmopolitism would work in a distant future, in the conditions of more or less uniform world, but it definitely wouldn't work nowadays, when the differences in quality of life, political systems and mentality between different countries are sometimes staggering.
I believe the person was talking about that village in particular, not the country as a whole, hence the singling out of the "rich Swiss people" mentioned in the OP.
Regardless, if they want to get citizenship, a job, and pay for their own housing, they can live in whatever area they fucking want, but forcing others to feed and house them is complete BS... People lock their doors and don't let strangers just walk into their houses for obvious reasons, but somehow it's now OK for the government to force people to house strangers... Where is the logic here?
Last edited by Schattenlied; 2016-05-29 at 01:41 AM.
A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don’t have one, you’ll probably never need one again.
No, it isn't racist to not want a generally incompatible culture mixed with your own. Sweden and Germany are destroying their own cultures by allowing in millions of refugees. Other countries are doing the same. If they were going to be sent somewhere, it should have been to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, other Arab nations should have been ponying up and taking care of them, not us.
Good for them. Sadly, the poorer neighborhoods will probably get larger numbers.
For what its worth, I think if you want to bring in migrants, you should have to house them in your place of living. And you are then responsible for crimes they commit.
They don't have much of a choice though... They are running from the war (those of them that are legitimate refugees, that is), and this is something they put their hopes in.
What I really dislike about all this is the government enforcing charity. It is a good thing to help refugees, but it is a pretty questionable thing to make citizens pay for their support. What would be more fair, I think, is creation of a private fund, in which anyone can donate money, and then the collected amount would be used to help as many refugees as it can handle. That would be true charity and help. It is pretty much what was done after the earthquake on Haiti in the US, and they collected some crazy amount, like over a billion dollars, in the US alone. THAT is charity, and that, I think, is how it always should be done in such cases.
I support the desire of European countries to help refugees, but ultimately it should be up to the citizens to do so. As much as a government is supposed to express the will of citizens, in reality it is not always so.
Estimated cost is around 40k euros per refugee some agency calculated a while back, obviously varies per country, but it's a hefty amount. You need to feed them, provide housing, provide schooling, provide training for work, and so on and they won't do anything the first 3 years until they understand the language enough.