2015 European Migrant Crisis

  On 9/16/2015 at 3:02 AM, StephenG said:

That's not a game of semantics at all.

 

You said non-monetary aspects and there's no such thing. Everything has a dollar value.

Fine I'll specify it for you.

The monetary benefits such as welfare, income assistance, etc.

The non-monetary aspects (as in they are not money), include things like housing and food.

This has nothing to do with capitalism. An economic system is not a political system, and the biggest problem with the world today is to think of everything in economic terms. What we can do to help is vote Harper out of office. Dead babies don't melt Harper's heart.

As to the number of kids coming over:

http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

Male (49.5%)

0 - 4 - 9.1%

5 - 11 - 10.7%

12 - 17 - 6.5%

18 - 59 - 21.8%

>60 - 1.3%

Female (50.5%)

0 - 4 - 8.6%

5 - 11 - 10.1%

12 - 17 - 6.1%

18 - 59 - 23.9%

>60 - 1.7%

Syria - the country that was made in 1945 will be partitioned in 2016 - Russia is moving in more troops and building airbases, so Assad will stay in power in the western part of Syira. The eastern becomes a clusterfuck of rebel groups (including ISIS) fighting for territory, probably with random air-strikes from the US thrown in, accomplishing nothing except fomenting ill-will toward the West. Oh and probably the Kurds establish a small enclave in the North/Northeast, only to have Turkish fighters bomb the shit out of them.

Wheeee!

Houses cost money.

Food costs money.

They are monetary. How do you think houses and food will get to the people that need it? It doesn't just fall out of the sky. People and corporations etc need to spend money on it. Therefore they are monetary in nature.

I can't believe I need to link you to the definition of the word monetary dude.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monetary

: of or relating to money

: of or relating to the money in a country's economy

And I'm sorry you can't see the link between capitalism and an unwillingness by some countries to provide aid. There is a clear link that I can see.

Yeah and vote harper out, put Trudeau or the NDP in his place. jesus christ I hope youre kidding lol

  On 9/16/2015 at 3:44 AM, zemudene said:

edit: wrote it to chen:

So you still think, that you have an idea what you`re talking about, when talking about "eastern europe"? And it actually wasn`t personal what I said. I just had enough (tonight) of people on internet (hah) who think, that they know, how it is to live in a divided country like we have in eastern europe (I`m speaking of baltic countries, but that post-soviet mentality is alien to you anyway, it would do good for you to learn some history and see how chech had it really bad, hungarians still have it even worse because of the soviet mentality and bribery still very much happening on the highest levels of the government. Fuck, people over there are not talking about what regular people think and want, need, it`s a business on a small scale, people who rule eastern europe are the post-soviet mentality their own benefit seekers. Yes, they actually receive a money from a kremlin. Little putins. Maybe not everywhere, but in a lot of new EU countries. And my post wasn`t about me personally being afraid (although I`ll not separate myself from the people I live together with, even if I don`t agree with their thoughts- shit ain`t that simple) I wrote that because lifes are a lot different in this side of the world, we are not that rich/democratic europe like you imagine when you hear that word "europe", people there are still in the stone age there when talking about muslims, blacks, immigrants, whatever and you cannot blame them, it`s been a fucking a survival for years. So sorry again, but when you`re on that fucking high horse condemning people you don`t know what`s going really on in their lifes and a history of them- it`s not about hating people that are different, it`s about being fucked over and over again without being part of the fuckers. Just human shit. And being part of that lucky side of humanity doesn`t make you an expert on how it actually works. Different fear. Maybe even fear you have no idea exists.

Yeah I still think I have an idea. What you think in small town Alberta you see black people/muslims/whatever goddamned bogeyman you want to dream up running around all over the place?

You keep thinking the same way, and shit will stay the same. I have no problems calling them hypocrites, because that's exactly what they are. The refugees that streamed out of Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia etc had no problems demanding other people front them, but now it's their turn "oh no, they wouldn't be able to get along because they're different, we're afraid of them." Fuck that as an excuse.

Also I note you're in Latvia - where GDP/capita is about the same as what South Korea's was in 1996 - which is where I was at the time for the next 3 years. Very similar to Hungary's and Poland, and it's even better if you count it by PPP.

You'll note that it's just slightly higher than in places like Afghanistan, Syria (well actually there's no data from Syria cause they've been in a goddamned civil war for the last 5 years), Somalia etc etc

Do the world a favour, and convince your friends that they don't have anything to fear - after all, we're not asking you to take gun-crazed Floridians. Or Donald Trump.

Maybe you can put in your own words why countries aren't helping more, mr chen.

2 reasons:

Security/safety

Money

I can't see any other reason.

  On 9/16/2015 at 6:28 AM, StephenG said:

Houses cost money.

 

Food costs money.

 

They are monetary. How do you think houses and food will get to the people that need it? It doesn't just fall out of the sky. People and corporations etc need to spend money on it. Therefore they are monetary in nature.

 

I can't believe I need to link you to the definition of the word monetary dude.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monetary

 

: of or relating to money

: of or relating to the money in a country's economy

And I'm sorry you can't see the link between capitalism and an unwillingness by some countries to provide aid. There is a clear link that I can see.

This is semantic bullshit. Do you know what semantic means?

When I talk about monetary benefits I mean the ones that provide actual money to the refugees like welfare, or UCCB.

Everything has a cost, (although the sunk cost of houses for refugees should not factor into the decision making process - didn't you learn that in your MBA class) yes fine, but you know exactly what the fuck I'm talking about so stop trolling.

And again, capitalism is not a political system, it is an economic system. To conflate the two is either naive or sheer bloody-mindedness.

And yes, Harper has been a terrible goddamned PM (spoilered for non-Canadians).

And because of all the above, plus the Harper government's reduction in foreign aid, Canada's international reputation is at its lowest in decades. We're a fucking joke in the international community.

We could change that though - by voting the fucker out, and replacing his refugee program with one that actually demonstrates why we were renowned for our compassion.

I like you that's why there's a ladder there.

  On 9/16/2015 at 7:06 AM, StephenG said:

Maybe you can put in your own words why countries aren't helping more, mr chen.

 

2 reasons:

 

Security/safety

Money

 

I can't see any other reason.

Because politicians pander to populist bullshit fears in order to stay in power. Mostly because the anti-immigrant rhetoric stirs fear and allows them to show that they, and only they, can lead our "good, Christian nations" to prosperity.

  On 9/16/2015 at 7:25 AM, StephenG said:

I like you that's why there's a ladder there.

Sure I'm on a high horse, cause I want to extend compassion and aid to people who are fleeing war-torn countries. Much like how we did in the aftermath of WW2.

  On 9/16/2015 at 7:24 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 9/16/2015 at 6:28 AM, StephenG said:

Houses cost money.

 

Food costs money.

 

They are monetary. How do you think houses and food will get to the people that need it? It doesn't just fall out of the sky. People and corporations etc need to spend money on it. Therefore they are monetary in nature.

 

I can't believe I need to link you to the definition of the word monetary dude.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monetary

 

: of or relating to money

: of or relating to the money in a country's economy

And I'm sorry you can't see the link between capitalism and an unwillingness by some countries to provide aid. There is a clear link that I can see.

 

 

 

We could change that though - by voting the fucker out, and replacing his refugee program with one that actually demonstrates why we were renowned for our compassion.

 

lol since when is having a refugee program supposed to be at the top of our priority list? Checks if Canada caused the situation in Syria**...

Btw how many recently unemployed in our country, close to 200,000? (7% of our total working population is unemployed right now btw, not far off from a record high) Lots of them not eligible for EI, they'll be homeless soon.

I'm not saying these refugees AND migrants don't need help. But we have our own problems we need to deal with. Point the finger at the people responsible for this mess.

Also you don't need to swear.

  On 9/16/2015 at 7:28 AM, chenGOD said:

 

Sure I'm on a high horse, cause I want to extend compassion and aid to people who are fleeing war-torn countries. Much like how we did in the aftermath of WW2.

 

No, you're on a high horse because you always think you're unequivocally right in threads like this and you fail to see other sides to the story.

But he is right. Syria was a fairly well educated and secularised country before the civil war started. You sound like these people won't be able to contribute anything to society, other than being a security issue.

  On 9/16/2015 at 7:42 AM, Gocab said:

But he is right. Syria was a fairly well educated and secularised country before the civil war started. You sound like these people won't be able to contribute anything to society, other than being a security issue.

I don't think that way at all. It would take some time for them to be adjusted into our society but, just like any immigrated peoples, I imagine they'd be contributing plenty. The hardest workers I know are 1st gen immigrants actually. They work so much harder in their countries for so much less they are usually happy to give it 100% here. Not the sense of entitlement I get from Canadian born workers.

That said, the security risk is kind of a big deal. ISIS itself said they were going to smuggle in thousands of militants under the guise of migrants/refugees. Whether anyone will admit it or not, that's important to consider...

I know these people need help, I'm just saying there are more factors to consider than just blindly importing all of them like Chen is suggesting. There are monetary, political, etc factors that believe it or not are important.

Edit: I think it's absolutely asinine to suddenly just import tens or hundreds of thousands of people without proper security checks, ensuring we can accommodate them so they don't live a shitty life here, etc.

my answer is vape

chen, your view on refugee/migrant reception is really one-sided imo. you present things as if the world was divided between humanist/tolerant/honest/educated people who automatically approve the refugee policy, and ignorant fear-driven hypocrites who automatically oppose it.

people have various reasons to oppose that policy. some people are just afraid, but presenting things as if all of them were either afraid, intolerant or egotistic, is very misleading imo.

i personally think most people are above all fed up with being forced policies down their throats, fed up with the undemocratic way such policies are decided.

what doesnt make sense is that sub-subterranean lizard man bm stephen harper could have eaten that syrian kid and instead let him drown. v puzzling...

  On 9/14/2015 at 11:47 AM, chenGOD said:

So the food aid wasn't refused because of the red cross:

http://www.ilpost.it/2015/08/25/debunking-migrants-video-red-cross-macedonia/

 

Also the stories of people throwing feces and beating an old lady were written by one guy on facebook and spread rapidly around sites like infowars, stormfront, all those fine bastions of journalism. No actual video or photographic evidence seems to exist.

 

In the meantime, attacks on refugee camps continue to take place:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-17/google-deletes-map-of-german-refugee-camps-amid-spate-of-attacks

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/europes-migrant-crisis-arson-attack-suspected-refugee-camp-germany-burnt-down-1517066

thanks for the clarification chenGOD, it really is harrowing that even after going through so much already they are attacked by right wing extremists.

  On 9/16/2015 at 7:30 AM, StephenG said:

 

  On 9/16/2015 at 7:24 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 9/16/2015 at 6:28 AM, StephenG said:

 

 

 

We could change that though - by voting the fucker out, and replacing his refugee program with one that actually demonstrates why we were renowned for our compassion.

 

 

 

lol since when is having a refugee program supposed to be at the top of our priority list? Checks if Canada caused the situation in Syria**...

 

 

Btw how many recently unemployed in our country, close to 200,000? (7% of our total working population is unemployed right now btw, not far off from a record high) Lots of them not eligible for EI, they'll be homeless soon.

 

I'm not saying these refugees AND migrants don't need help. But we have our own problems we need to deal with. Point the finger at the people responsible for this mess.

 

Also you don't need to swear.

  On 9/16/2015 at 7:28 AM, chenGOD said:

 

Sure I'm on a high horse, cause I want to extend compassion and aid to people who are fleeing war-torn countries. Much like how we did in the aftermath of WW2.

 

 

No, you're on a high horse because you always think you're unequivocally right in threads like this and you fail to see other sides to the story.

 

Did I say it was supposed to be at the top of our priority list? No.

Does it matter if we caused the crisis? No. We signed on to the UN Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, and we have an obligation to fulfill.

Our unemployment has been stuck at 6.8% since February, and the high was 13.8%. So yeah we got a ways to go. BTW, your boy Harper? He wants to use the US method of counting unemployment, which would reduce unemployment by about 1% by discounting people who flick through the want ads.

We could put some of them to work building houses for refugees....or, given that the boomers are set to retire, there's going to be a massive work shortage in a lot of places reasonably soon. Within the next five years sort of soon.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/140926/dq140926b-eng.htm

  Quote

Baby boomers accelerate Canada's population aging

On July 1, 2014, 15.7% of Canada's population (nearly one in six Canadians) was aged 65 and older. This proportion has steadily increased since the mid-1960s as a result of lower fertility levels and longer life expectancy.

Thirty years earlier, the proportion of Canadians aged 65 and older was 10.0%. The growth of this age group has accelerated since the beginning of the current decade, more precisely in 2011, when the first baby boomers started to turn 65.

According to the most recent population projections, by the year 2016, the number of seniors aged 65 and older would be greater than the number of children under the age of 15. Furthermore, seniors would account for between 24% and 28% of the population by the year 2063, almost 50 years from now.

The proportion of people aged 55 to 64 now exceeds that of those aged 15 to 24

Population estimates show, for the first time, that there are more Canadians aged 55 to 64—the age when people typically leave the labour force—than there are Canadians aged 15 to 24—the age when people typically enter the labour force. On July 1, 2014, there were 4.6 million people aged 15 to 24 in Canada, compared with 4.7 million people aged 55 to 64. Thirty years ago, for every person aged 55 to 64, there were two people aged 15 to 24; this ratio has now fallen by half to just below 1.

  On 9/16/2015 at 7:44 AM, StephenG said:

 

  On 9/16/2015 at 7:42 AM, Gocab said:

But he is right. Syria was a fairly well educated and secularised country before the civil war started. You sound like these people won't be able to contribute anything to society, other than being a security issue.

 

I don't think that way at all. It would take some time for them to be adjusted into our society but, just like any immigrated peoples, I imagine they'd be contributing plenty. The hardest workers I know are 1st gen immigrants actually. They work so much harder in their countries for so much less they are usually happy to give it 100% here. Not the sense of entitlement I get from Canadian born workers.

 

That said, the security risk is kind of a big deal. ISIS itself said they were going to smuggle in thousands of militants under the guise of migrants/refugees. Whether anyone will admit it or not, that's important to consider...

 

I know these people need help, I'm just saying there are more factors to consider than just blindly importing all of them like Chen is suggesting. There are monetary, political, etc factors that believe it or not are important.

 

Edit: I think it's absolutely asinine to suddenly just import tens or hundreds of thousands of people without proper security checks, ensuring we can accommodate them so they don't live a shitty life here, etc.

 

ISIS says all kinds of shit - and terrorists could get across the border already without the cover of refugees. With an increase in refugee assessors, it wouldn't be all that difficult to spot false claimants.

Nowhere did I say just blindly import them. I said we have a responsibility to take more than we currently do.

And our fine civil servants at both the provincial and federal level have programs in place already to deal with refugees. Of course with Harper slashing the civil service's budget, things aren't as pretty as they used to be. Oh and of course, under the UN Convention I mentioned before - one of the provisions is that we help them find a place to resettle, so they won't necessarily all be staying here.

The economic benefits of immigrants are widely known - with one report from the Heritage Foundation and one from the Fraser Institute (which is full of terrible analysis and misapplied data, typical of the Fraser Institute) stating otherwise. Gee what a surprise - two think tanks with admitted conservative bias find against immigration. Otherwise the academic and popular literature on this topic is very positive.

Yes there are political considerations to take into account: for example, smoothing the refugee process leads to less time in refugee camps, causing a greater appreciation for the host nation. This in turn lead to the refugees believing in the political process that helps Canada continue to be a fantastic place to live.

Looking abroad, smoothing the refugee process enables countries that cannot afford to host the refugees to maintain order more effectively, preventing further destabilization in the region. This further allows the prevention of the drain on and deterioration of territorial and inter-territorial resources and infrastructure, such as housing, schools, hospitals, road networks, electric grids, the security of hydroelectric dams and reservoirs, jobs and surplus labour absorption in the economy (which is then directly correlated with economic efficiency, performance, and the health of sovereign balance-of-payments).

Smoothing the refugee process also prevents the types of criminal activities that are bred from and thrive in vacuums of instability and the absence of public order: human trafficking, drug smuggling, weapons smuggling, warlordism, piracy, energy siphoning, petty street crime, rape, extortion, kidnapping, robbery, etc.

So doing all of this increase Canada's international reputation, which increase our ability to trade. Which furthers our growth.

  On 9/16/2015 at 9:56 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

chen, your view on refugee/migrant reception is really one-sided imo. you present things as if the world was divided between humanist/tolerant/honest/educated people who automatically approve the refugee policy, and ignorant fear-driven hypocrites who automatically oppose it.

people have various reasons to oppose that policy. some people are just afraid, but presenting things as if all of them were either afraid, intolerant or egotistic, is very misleading imo.

 

i personally think most people are above all fed up with being forced policies down their throats, fed up with the undemocratic way such policies are decided.

My view is my view and mine alone. I do not claim to speak for anyone else.

The fear-driven hypocrites tend to speak in the loudest voice, so I believe the best way to counter them is to speak with conviction backed by data.

So far, I have not seen anyone present a convincing argument against abiding by the UN convention and protocols regarding the status of refugees.

StephenG has expressed fears about the economic costs of refugees - which I believe would be far less than the benefits, and I think I have explained why, both domestically and globally .

Zemudene has used the fear argument - which has no logical basis and as such cannot be argued against, however I believe the example of Canada demonstrates that multiculturalism can work.

As to the last point: We elect representatives to decide policy for us, because if policy decisions required the participation of all, nothing would get done. In this complex world, it would take so much time for people to educate themselves about the policies under debate that no work would get done.

  On 9/16/2015 at 6:26 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 9/16/2015 at 3:02 AM, StephenG said:

That's not a game of semantics at all.

 

You said non-monetary aspects and there's no such thing. Everything has a dollar value.

 

Fine I'll specify it for you.

The monetary benefits such as welfare, income assistance, etc.

The non-monetary aspects (as in they are not money), include things like housing and food.

 

This has nothing to do with capitalism. An economic system is not a political system, and the biggest problem with the world today is to think of everything in economic terms. What we can do to help is vote Harper out of office. Dead babies don't melt Harper's heart.

 

As to the number of kids coming over:

 

http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

Demography (of Syrian refugees as of September 13, 2015)

Male (49.5%)

0 - 4 - 9.1%

5 - 11 - 10.7%

12 - 17 - 6.5%

18 - 59 - 21.8%

>60 - 1.3%

 

Female (50.5%)

0 - 4 - 8.6%

5 - 11 - 10.1%

12 - 17 - 6.1%

18 - 59 - 23.9%

>60 - 1.7%

 

Syria - the country that was made in 1945 will be partitioned in 2016 - Russia is moving in more troops and building airbases, so Assad will stay in power in the western part of Syira. The eastern becomes a clusterfuck of rebel groups (including ISIS) fighting for territory, probably with random air-strikes from the US thrown in, accomplishing nothing except fomenting ill-will toward the West. Oh and probably the Kurds establish a small enclave in the North/Northeast, only to have Turkish fighters bomb the shit out of them.

 

Wheeee!

 

thanks again for the stats here chen, it really throws light on the situation for me.

  On 9/16/2015 at 12:16 PM, chenGOD said:

As to the last point: We elect representatives to decide policy for us, because if policy decisions required the participation of all, nothing would get done. In this complex world, it would take so much time for people to educate themselves about the policies under debate that no work would get done.

thanks for educating me *sarcasm*. i think that's exactly why representative democracy is an excellent type of political system for the powerful because it allows them to disguise their interests fairly easily. all it takes is information control, money and lobbying *puts back tinfoil hat*.

I just shared this on Facebook in an attempt at satire- I don't think many people got the reference.

lol

Next time I'm forced out of my home country due to civil unrest, I will be sure to pack my fishing rod

  On 9/16/2015 at 1:15 PM, westhead said:

I just shared this on Facebook in an attempt at satire- I don't think many people got the reference.

 

oh my lol westhead

also, relevant:

  On 9/16/2015 at 12:33 AM, StephenG said:

 

  On 9/16/2015 at 12:20 AM, Tricone RC said:

 

The latter is reasonable-ish IMO, but if the welfare burden genuinely is overwhelming, why not just let refugees in but don't let them take benefits etc?

 

You don't see a problem with having thousands or tens of thousands of extra people in a country with no housing/food (etc... other benefits typically provided by the welfare state)??

 

Course I do, but it's better than them living in lawless warzones or in evergrowing shanties on the fringes of Europe. And it's presumably better than letting them all in with full benefits only for welfare states to crumble as a result (which I personally doubt would happen, but many have argued that it would).

Of course the best option would be for local states e.g. the Emirates to take some of the refugees, but they're cunts so that's unlikely