It’s not fair to flat-out ban refugees (or ban types of refugees such as men): these are, by definition, people escaping unstable authoritarian governments where they aren’t safe and don’t have fundamental human rights.
But that’s it. And refugees take up land and social services, so they should be required to give back (if only because refugee programs simply won’t work otherwise, and countries will try to block or pass on refugees. Exactly what the US/Europe are doing and have been doing the last few years).
I see no issue in:
- Relocating refugees to another developed country (not Libya, not Turkey, maybe Greece)
- Requiring able-bodied refugees to work (in decent conditions, not back-breaking labor, but still in manufacturing or service or IT if they’re capable. Again, because there’s literally no other alternative to pay for these refugees)
- Swiftly deporting refugees when they commit crimes (with a fair trial and evidence beyond considerable doubt, but given these people are being videotaped that should be pretty easy)
- Cracking down on protests like these and making it very clear that refugees can keep their own religion and culture, but can’t enforce it on others, who also can burn books and say whatever they want.
- Tracking and monitoring refugees, at least for a couple years, for the sake of security and to assure people they aren’t terrorists.
Sweden’s approach of just letting in refugees is too liberal. Nationalism and flat-out anti-refugee rhetoric like Trump and Marine Le Pen is too conservative. The bottom line is: give refugees space, essentials, freedom, and refuge, but require them to behave and give back.
- Relocating refugees to another developed country (not Libya, not Turkey, maybe Greece)
Refugees fleeing the war in Syria – let's agree they had the right to go somewhere safe, and the rest of the world had a duty to provide them with somewhere safe to go – but does a refugee have a right to refuge in a developed country in particular? Especially when the country from which they came wasn't, prior to the start of the war/conflict, generally counted as "developed"?
The idea that refugees from a conflict should primarily be hosted by neighbouring countries, who are likely to have much greater cultural/linguistic similarity, rather than by substantially more distant countries with far less cultural commonality, doesn't seem unreasonable. If a country is developing/middle income, and so are most of its neighbours – you can understand why refugees might greatly prefer to seek refuge in a much richer country much further away, rather than its economically more similar immediate neighbours – but are we obliged to honour that preference?
Given the majority of Syrian refugees were Muslim – why didn't the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation take the lead in resettling them in Muslim-majority countries? Or similarly – given Syria is part of the Arab world, why didn't the Arab League resettle them in other Arab states?
It's not fair to current citizens to import random people from vastly different societies into their lives and ask them to support them.
- Relocating refugees to another developed country (not Libya, not Turkey, maybe Greece)
Yes of course -- Greece. Why is it necessary to move these people to certain countries. Why not Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Morocco or any number of other countries.
No of course it has to be Sweden, France, England, etc.
Nationalism and flat-out anti-refugee rhetoric like Trump and Marine Le Pen is too conservative.
Importing endless amounts of refugees is bad for citizens -- the people the government is supposed to work to protect and serve.
Comments
It’s not fair to flat-out ban refugees (or ban types of refugees such as men): these are, by definition, people escaping unstable authoritarian governments where they aren’t safe and don’t have fundamental human rights.
But that’s it. And refugees take up land and social services, so they should be required to give back (if only because refugee programs simply won’t work otherwise, and countries will try to block or pass on refugees. Exactly what the US/Europe are doing and have been doing the last few years).
I see no issue in:
- Relocating refugees to another developed country (not Libya, not Turkey, maybe Greece)
- Requiring able-bodied refugees to work (in decent conditions, not back-breaking labor, but still in manufacturing or service or IT if they’re capable. Again, because there’s literally no other alternative to pay for these refugees)
- Swiftly deporting refugees when they commit crimes (with a fair trial and evidence beyond considerable doubt, but given these people are being videotaped that should be pretty easy)
- Cracking down on protests like these and making it very clear that refugees can keep their own religion and culture, but can’t enforce it on others, who also can burn books and say whatever they want.
- Tracking and monitoring refugees, at least for a couple years, for the sake of security and to assure people they aren’t terrorists.
Sweden’s approach of just letting in refugees is too liberal. Nationalism and flat-out anti-refugee rhetoric like Trump and Marine Le Pen is too conservative. The bottom line is: give refugees space, essentials, freedom, and refuge, but require them to behave and give back.
Refugees fleeing the war in Syria – let's agree they had the right to go somewhere safe, and the rest of the world had a duty to provide them with somewhere safe to go – but does a refugee have a right to refuge in a developed country in particular? Especially when the country from which they came wasn't, prior to the start of the war/conflict, generally counted as "developed"?
The idea that refugees from a conflict should primarily be hosted by neighbouring countries, who are likely to have much greater cultural/linguistic similarity, rather than by substantially more distant countries with far less cultural commonality, doesn't seem unreasonable. If a country is developing/middle income, and so are most of its neighbours – you can understand why refugees might greatly prefer to seek refuge in a much richer country much further away, rather than its economically more similar immediate neighbours – but are we obliged to honour that preference?
Given the majority of Syrian refugees were Muslim – why didn't the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation take the lead in resettling them in Muslim-majority countries? Or similarly – given Syria is part of the Arab world, why didn't the Arab League resettle them in other Arab states?
It's not fair to current citizens to import random people from vastly different societies into their lives and ask them to support them.
Yes of course -- Greece. Why is it necessary to move these people to certain countries. Why not Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Morocco or any number of other countries. No of course it has to be Sweden, France, England, etc.
Importing endless amounts of refugees is bad for citizens -- the people the government is supposed to work to protect and serve.