Mass immigration: should we embrace it or not?

[Grave_n_idle]

You're right, I'm referring to total civilian deaths over multiple countries...

That's not what you said.

And refugees don't just flee because of civilian casualties. If half a million people have died IN Syria, Syrians are burying a lot of people. They're seeing a lot of deaths. They no longer feel safe and hey - they have a good reason to feel that way.

You claimed that Germany had taken more than the TOTAL fatalities in ALL of the warzones. They haven't your claim was simply untrue. Your numbers were bogus, and your math was incorrect.

In all, you are a poor scientist, Dr Venkman.

[HMS Vanguard]

You're right, I'm referring to total civilian deaths over multiple countries...

That's not what you said.

Again, five points to Gryffindor. Enjoy them.

And refugees don't just flee because of civilian casualties. If half a million people have died IN Syria, Syrians are burying a lot of people. They're seeing a lot of deaths. They no longer feel safe and hey - they have a good reason to feel that way.

Ah, so now we are protecting people from feeling bad, not from actual danger.

[Herargon]

Not being from the Old World, I don't feel qualified to speak on it, but as far as the New World goes, within reason, open doors are best doors. The New World wouldn't exist without immigrants.

It did without immigrants in the current sense. With those immigrants it led to the death of quite some million people. And even then, the world as we know it today, could not have existed without people travelling to other lands and waters.

Ignoring that, I get your point, though. The New World is built upon ius solis, rather than upon ius sanguinis like most of the Old World.

[Grave_n_idle]

Again, five points to Gryffindor. Enjoy them.

Pointing out when you are wrong, misleading or not making sense is not a task I'm doing for the score.

It is it's own reward.

Ah, so now we are protecting people from feeling bad, not from actual danger.

No.

Explaining WHY Syrian refugees are fleeing their homes in terror is NOT saying that there is no actual danger, or that this is about feelings.

They are fleeing a warzone because hundreds of thousands of people are dying around them. That's real danger.

[HMS Vanguard]

Ah, so now we are protecting people from feeling bad, not from actual danger.

No.

Explaining WHY Syrian refugees are fleeing their homes in terror is NOT saying that there is no actual danger, or that this is about feelings.

They are fleeing a warzone because hundreds of thousands of people are dying around them. That's real danger.

Your high figure for civilian deaths is 188,000. The war is 6 years old. So 31,000 civilians death per year. Population of Syria is 17,000,000, so about 0.2% of the civilian population is being killed by the war each year.

It was initially claimed that sending then back there was equivalent to killing them, so we might as well just kill them ourselves (hey, probably cleaner and less painful right?). But, err... not really.

If we accept this standard for being obliged to take people, we are obliged to take much of the world - surely most of Sub-Saharan Africa and India - as such death rate differentials exist just due to lower living standards. Greater, in the countries with HIV epidemics. Maybe you might that bullet - probably, for you, that is no bullet to bite, and is even desirable. I say let them take their chances.

[Scandinavian Nations]

They seem like rather dangerous places. How would we get rid of these Syrian or Eritrian immigrants then?

By sending them back to Syria or Eritrea respectively. The world is a rather dangerous place.

The refugee protocol was created for protecting people who are being specifically targeted for killing by their state for reason of their ethnicity. Not to save everyone from dangerous places.

Unless they're going to be arrested right at the gates of their home country and taken to a death camp, they should be sent back, no second thoughts. The presence of terrorists, militants, general anarchy, or their country just generally not being a safe place to live doesn't comprise conditions preventing deportation.

So we have illegal migrants. What do we do with them?

Ever tried to enter another country illegally? What happens is you aren't allowed to exit the transit area, wait in a back room to be recorded, then you are deported back to where you came from, on the airline that brought you in, at its expense.

That's what happens to Americans, Swedes and Germans who don't have valid papers. Usually happens due to a misunderstanding of visa on arrival or visa-free entry policy conditions. No matter that it's a technicality and they're very welcome otherwise, they're sent back, at the expense of whoever brought them in.

[Grave_n_idle]

The refugee protocol was created for protecting people who are being specifically targeted for killing by their state for reason of their ethnicity. Not to save everyone from dangerous places.

It's not clear what you mean by 'The refugee protocol'.

I have to assume you mean the one universal 'protocol': the 1951 "The Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees" and it's amendments?

[The Conez Imperium]

They seem like rather dangerous places. How would we get rid of these Syrian or Eritrian immigrants then?

By sending them back to Syria or Eritrea respectively. The world is a rather dangerous place.

The refugee protocol was created for protecting people who are being specifically targeted for killing by their state for reason of their ethnicity. Not to save everyone from dangerous places.

Unless they're going to be arrested right at the gates of their home country and taken to a death camp, they should be sent back, no second thoughts. The presence of terrorists, militants, general anarchy, or their country just generally not being a safe place to live doesn't comprise conditions preventing deportation.

Why is everybody assuming I am talking about refugees. I believe I was always talking about illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants and refugees are 2 totally different topics.

Also you do realise that the Eritrean government is actively harming its own civilians? I make no exaggeration by saying its the North Korea of Africa. It's got everything short of death camps but I suppose that's not enough for second thoughts.

Let's see what the UN has to say:

mass surveillance, Eritreans live in constant fear that their conduct is or may be monitored by security agents, and that information gathered may be used against them leading to arbitrary arrest, detention, torture, disappearance or death. They therefore engage in self-censorship with regard to most aspects of their lives.

With a few exceptions, those who have been forced to return to the country have been arrested, detained and subjected to ill-treatment and torture. Eritreans voluntarily returning to their country may face arbitrary arrest, in particular if they are perceived as having associated with opposition movements abroad

Eritreans who attempt to leave the country are seen as traitors. For a considerable period of time, the Government has implemented a shoot-to-kill policy in border areas to prevent people from fleeing. The policy has largely been implemented by the military, particularly the border surveillance division. Numerous testimonies indicated that the policy, which was publicly announced in 2004, might have been revised in later years. Nevertheless, since people were still being shot at while trying to cross the border as late as 2014, the commission is not in a position to conclude that the policy has been officially abolished.

Since 1991, scores of people have been subjected to enforced disappearance, for known and unknown reasons. Information is hardly ever officially provided on the whereabouts of and charges against those detained.

Does this constitute a second thought then???

[Saikaya]

No.

[Scandinavian Nations]

Why is everybody assuming I am talking about refugees. I believe I was always talking about illegal immigrants.

Because there's no question about what to do with illegal immigrants - they are to be deported; there's no second option, no legal way not to deport them.

I make no exaggeration by saying its the North Korea of Africa.
...
Does this constitute a second thought then???

No. Even North Korea proper being a very bad place isn't on its own a reason to take in people from North Korea. How many would you take, 25 million?

This applies to all countries that are terrible for most their people. Should the rest of the world just evacuate and house their whole populations?

[HMS Vanguard]

Why is everybody assuming I am talking about refugees. I believe I was always talking about illegal immigrants.

Because there's no question about what to do with illegal immigrants - they are to be deported; there's no second option, no legal way not to deport them.

I make no exaggeration by saying its the North Korea of Africa.
...
Does this constitute a second thought then???

No. Even North Korea proper being a very bad place isn't on its own a reason to take in people from North Korea. How many would you take, 25 million?

This applies to all countries that are terrible for most their people. Should the rest of the world just evacuate and house their whole populations?

Clearly the problem here is not that the populations of all these countries aren't living in the West, but that they aren't subject to Western governments.

Well, they can live under Western government in their home countries.

There was in fact a very efficient programme in the past to bring Western government to the Third World, including Africa, India, and much of Asia: imperialism.

[The Conez Imperium]

Why is everybody assuming I am talking about refugees. I believe I was always talking about illegal immigrants.

Because there's no question about what to do with illegal immigrants - they are to be deported; there's no second option, no legal way not to deport them.

I make no exaggeration by saying its the North Korea of Africa.
...
Does this constitute a second thought then???

No. Even North Korea proper being a very bad place isn't on its own a reason to take in people from North Korea. How many would you take, 25 million?

This applies to all countries that are terrible for most their people. Should the rest of the world just evacuate and house their whole populations?

Conveniently, North Korea has South Korea which is happy to take in North Koreans because South Korea considers all of the Korean peninsula to be citizens. Also you're a very callous person.

Moreover, you are resorting to a slippery slope. Would you think if Australia was to take 100 North Korean refugees suddenly all 25 million will come to Australia?

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Moreover, you are resorting to a slippery slope.

May I ask you demonstrate the fallacy?

Would you think if Australia was to take 100 North Korean refugees suddenly all 25 million will come to Australia?

It is more likely than not that he was asserting that if refugees were let in than more would think themselves welcome there, naturally this would result in more refugees fleeing to the place in question.

[Scandinavian Nations]

Would you think if Australia was to take 100 North Korean refugees suddenly all 25 million will come to Australia?

Forget logistics, we're talking about what's right. You know North Korea is bad for most its people, only a few are able to leave.

So imagine there was a big bridge, a way for all 25 million to just easily walk out, and they just did. Would you consider it the proper thing to do, then, to take them all in as refugees?

[Grave_n_idle]

Because there's no question about what to do with illegal immigrants - they are to be deported; there's no second option, no legal way not to deport them.

That's a silly answer. In a discussion about mass immigration, it's not impossible (even unlikely) to consider that current immigration law might be changed. Otherwise the thread would just be "Mass immigration: what is the current legal position".

[Scandinavian Nations]

Well, if the law is changed to allow them to stay, they won't be illegal aliens anymore, will they?

As for how to change the law, I've outlined my proposal a few pages back. Have them submit a CV and pass supervised tests of mental ability, psychological profile, and compatibility with the American society. Give the top 10% legal residency, on track to naturalization.

[HMS Vanguard]

It does strike me that HIV infected Africans are the worst off people in the world right now, and in way more danger than Syrian men, let alone Koreans. What's more, there are no political impediments, nor even real practical impediments, to airlifting in 25 million HIV-infected Africans to Europe.

So should we do it?

[Herargon]

It does strike me that HIV infected Africans are the worst off people in the world right now, and in way more danger than Syrian men, let alone Koreans. What's more, there are no political impediments, nor even real practical impediments, to airlifting in 25 million HIV-infected Africans to Europe.

So should we do it?

I'd rather cure them in their own region, and/or give them HIV/AIDS blockers there.

[Grave_n_idle]

Well, if the law is changed to allow them to stay, they won't be illegal aliens anymore, will they?

Indeed. That was my point.

As for how to change the law, I've outlined my proposal a few pages back. Have them submit a CV and pass supervised tests of mental ability, psychological profile, and compatibility with the American society. Give the top 10% legal residency, on track to naturalization.

We can let citizens do the same. Revoke the citizenship of anyone who can't pass the same metrics required to get in.

*nods*

[Scandinavian Nations]

As for how to change the law, I've outlined my proposal a few pages back. Have them submit a CV and pass supervised tests of mental ability, psychological profile, and compatibility with the American society. Give the top 10% legal residency, on track to naturalization.

We can let citizens do the same. Revoke the citizenship of anyone who can't pass the same metrics required to get in.

Doesn't work that way. All of the international law and most national law is based on the premise that everyone is either a sovereign, or a subject of a sovereign. Any recognition of individual sovereignty is currently limited to libertarian essays.

IOW, under the current legal framework, there's no clarity about what to do with a person once you've revoked their only citizenship. It's been a problem (although for these guys specifically, Antarctica would've made a fitting home).

In a world where things were different, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to the idea. Say, we give an able-bodied adult citizen up to 5 years on welfare, if they're not off it by then, they have to reaffirm their right to citizenship. However, a legal framework would have to be in place for handling this jus meritus and its loss.

[Arkinesia]

I have no problem with immigration in principle, but there has to be better standards to check for dangerous people trying to get in. Sweden's rape rate has skyrocketed to the first in Europe by far, and I might be wrong but I'm inclined to believe it's their lax standard of immigration.

You are, in fact, wrong. Sweden has the broadest definition of rape in the world.

[The Conez Imperium]

Would you think if Australia was to take 100 North Korean refugees suddenly all 25 million will come to Australia?

Forget logistics, we're talking about what's right. You know North Korea is bad for most its people, only a few are able to leave.

So imagine there was a big bridge, a way for all 25 million to just easily walk out, and they just did. Would you consider it the proper thing to do, then, to take them all in as refugees?

Why are we trying to boil down this issue into black and white?

Morally yes, I suppose Australia should take them in. Practically no, I think its stupid to take in 25 million people which is more than Australia's total population. I wouldn't even take in 1 million of them simply because we don't have the planning/resources/logistics to adequately accommodate a 4% increase in our population. Realistically, that's not going to happen so I don't understand the point of this scenario unless you want to discuss morality. Moreover, South Korea is conveniently willing to take all North Koreans so that solves our North Korean problem.

This applies to all countries that are terrible for most their people. Should the rest of the world just evacuate and house their whole populations?

I believe someone already mentioned that we could improve the home country. There wouldn't be so many refugees if Syria wasn't at war for example.

[Grave_n_idle]

We can let citizens do the same. Revoke the citizenship of anyone who can't pass the same metrics required to get in.

Doesn't work that way.

Of course it doesn't, but you just made this a discussion about wishful thinking, not about what already exists.

I think it would work. It's amazing how many people don't think they could pass the requirements they think OTHER people should have to pass, though.

[Novus America]

Doesn't work that way.

Of course it doesn't, but you just made this a discussion about wishful thinking, not about what already exists.

I think it would work. It's amazing how many people don't think they could pass the requirements they think OTHER people should have to pass, though.

You can control who you let in. But revoking citizenship from someone who does not have multiple citizenships is illegal under international law. What he is proposing is perfectly legal. What you are strictly illegal.

[Grave_n_idle]

Of course it doesn't, but you just made this a discussion about wishful thinking, not about what already exists.

I think it would work. It's amazing how many people don't think they could pass the requirements they think OTHER people should have to pass, though.

You can control who you let in. But revoking citizenship from someone who does not have multiple citizenships is illegal under international law. What he is proposing is perfectly legal. What you are strictly illegal.

Not really. Don't do the assessments until they reach majority (thereby protecting minors), and base the revocation on their failure to pass the minimum requirement tests - thereby protecting them from 'arbitrary' statelessness.