4 ms·

wouldn't it be sane to not put all migrants in the same group. Shouldn't we differentiate people that want to escape a warzone to save their lives, often people

by ousta 11y ago

wouldn't it be sane to not put all migrants in the same group. Shouldn't we differentiate people that want to escape a warzone to save their lives, often people without any cellphones, without money, who lost everything and are not necessarly middle class but lower income people who bring their families with them to SURVIVE and people who have fancy cellphones and are now in a safe country (ex:turkey) and want to come to europe only for economic purposes leaving by side their families to make some money and bring them when they get enough $$$? as such the article would focus only on the second part. the first part being the one stuck in syria who can't even afford the thousand dollars trip to europe, who can't even afford to be a fancy cover story of the sacro-saint newyork times

NoCulturalFit 11y ago
Not sure why you are down-voted, this actually, somewhat true. My parents were refugees, and were above middle class. The poorer ones never make it, the one who needs your help abroad. Sweden spends more money on hostels in Sweden than they donate to Syria. In fact, they have started to take the money they were supposed to donate to Syria and pay them out here instead to "entrepreneurs" and in welfare (since it's expensive to live in Sweden)
lewiseason 11y ago
This is similar to the distinction that the media fail to grasp between "asylum seeker" and "immigrant".
- Kalium 11y ago
  I'm not sure how much of it is "fails to grasp" so much as a deliberate blurring of lines. Sometimes it's accurate - like a Syrian dentist displaced by violence who cannot find a new job. From listening to coverage, there's a group number of economic migrants who prefer to present themselves as asylum seekers. It's kind of mess, because the ideals on the two not-always-mutually-exclusive groups differ wildly. Generally countries get to pick their economic migrants, but not their asylum seekers...
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    Did you choose the country to which to run - then you are more of economic migrant, not asylum seeker.
    - IkmoIkmo 11y ago
      Say your house is on fire, it burns down, and your house will remain on fire for half a decade (e.g. Syrian civil war is past 4.5 years old with no end in sight), and you have a list of different shelters to go to where you'll need to spend years, raise your kids, build a new livelihood because yours is destroyed. What do you do? You just go to any random one? Or to the best one that is within reach? The answer is obvious, and it doesn't make you an economic migrant.
    - blowski 11y ago
      An asylum seeker is simply somebody who as applied for asylum in another country, but not yet been accepted. They may do so because they are persecuted in their home country, but the definition of persecuted is (necessarily) very loose. There is no definition of an 'economic migrant', and there is no easy way of categorising the people involved.
venomsnake 11y ago
I made the same argument when arguing with a friend. It is impossible to not cross a safe country from Syria to the Balkans. Her answer was "They can go to Australia and still be refugees". I have also noticed similar sentiments in the people that happen to live in the better parts of the city where the refugees we are overran at the moment do not gather.
usrusr 11y ago
Why would a person fleeing a war zone leave behind their smartphone? That's the second thing to grab before running, right after your passport. For most of humanity, smartphones are not a symptom of abundance, they are a symptom of not having a desktop computer, laptop computer or landline.
- vinceguidry 11y ago
  The answer was given in the article. Soldiers ask for your Facebook password at checkpoints to check your allegiance in the war. If you don't give it, you'll often get beaten or your phone stolen / destroyed.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- rawTruthHurts 11y ago
  "Why would a person fleeing a war zone leave behind their smartphone? " Quite a first world question.
IkmoIkmo 11y ago
That distinction should be made and is often made, but at the same time it's also often made for the wrong reasons, drawing wrong conclusions that drive irrational anti-immigration. i.e. here in the Netherlands whenever a refugee is spotted with a smartphone, that's immediately suspect and seen by one part of the population as 'This is some rich guy who's here just for economic opportunities, therefore doesn't need or deserve to be here. After all he has a smartphone'. The irony in a 'rich person' at the same time being accused of being 'lowly economic opportunist taking our jobs' I guess is lost on them. But more importantly, it overstates 1) the indication of wealth that is a smartphone in 2015, and 2) posits it's simply okay and good enough for refugees to be safe even if they live in a tent for years in a refugee camp devoid of normal livelihoods, jobs, education, entertainment and an outlook on the future. In terms of 1) smartphones are incredibly cheap and ubiquitous. They're also one of the most functional pieces of equipment one can have with them, for anyone but perhaps especially a refugee. The ability to communicate with lost friends and family to prevent total disappearance of personal networks due to the war, the ability to organise everything you need to do, access to information etc. It's crucial. And it's one of those things you take with you when you flee. If a civil war broke out in your country, would you not bring your phone? It's right up there in the top 3. And with $30 smartphones, and a healthy 2nd hand market around, is it that surprising to see a refugee holding a smartphone every now and then? Yet this is blown up to some kind of 'underserved richness' in a lot of European discussions. 2) Think about who those people in Turkey are who want to come to Europe 'only for economic purposes', as if that type of desire is trivial, as if not everyone deserves that kind of life. Consider that the civil war in Syria has been waged since 2011. Imagine you lived in a tent in some camp since then, living out of a bag, holding no job, getting no education, not getting anywhere in life and seeing your country still torn up and worsening by the year. Now imagine there are 2 million of you in Turkey, 1 million of you in Lebanon etc, in a camps like this one https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/An_Aerial_View_of_the_Za'atri_Refugee_Camp.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/An_Aeria... And somehow we say that Europe must remain closed to these people. That such a camp in Turkey is good enough and that if you're spotted with a smartphone, or coming through Turkey, it must mean you're not in need of anything and it's simply okay to close the borders. Where is the compassion for millions of refugees who want livelihoods just like we do? Now if you want to pay more attention to those stuck in Syria, great. I applaud it and support it. But if they're stuck in Syria they're not immigrants from Syria, so I don't see how you'd 'differentiate between two groups of immigrants' when one is an immigrant, the other is not. And I also don't see how the group that does make it out and happens to have a cell phone and happens to aspire greater dreams than living in a tent in a refugee camp deserves our scorn rather than our sympathy. (totally not saying your post is anything like this, but you brought up points that I hear every single day from the most xenophobic people in Western Europe for the wrong reasons and it's pretty sad.)
the_watcher 11y ago
The point of the article was to demonstrate that, regardless of why someone is a migrant, a smartphone is a necessity to their lifestyle, not to bucket them.
zerr 11y ago
Actually, eco-migrants should be taken care similarly to warzone ones. I wouldn't say that dying slowly - "living" a low quality of life in poverty is much better than dying in war... And all in all, moving/migration is a basic human right. Nobody's knocking on your private apartment door, it's about public space.

by ousta 11y ago

NoCulturalFit 11y ago

Not sure why you are down-voted, this actually, somewhat true. My parents were refugees, and were above middle class. The poorer ones never make it, the one who needs your help abroad. Sweden spends more money on hostels in Sweden than they donate to Syria. In fact, they have started to take the money they were supposed to donate to Syria and pay them out here instead to "entrepreneurs" and in welfare (since it's expensive to live in Sweden)

lewiseason 11y ago

This is similar to the distinction that the media fail to grasp between "asylum seeker" and "immigrant".

Kalium 11y ago
I'm not sure how much of it is "fails to grasp" so much as a deliberate blurring of lines. Sometimes it's accurate - like a Syrian dentist displaced by violence who cannot find a new job. From listening to coverage, there's a group number of economic migrants who prefer to present themselves as asylum seekers. It's kind of mess, because the ideals on the two not-always-mutually-exclusive groups differ wildly. Generally countries get to pick their economic migrants, but not their asylum seekers...
- venomsnake 11y ago
  Did you choose the country to which to run - then you are more of economic migrant, not asylum seeker.
  - IkmoIkmo 11y ago
    Say your house is on fire, it burns down, and your house will remain on fire for half a decade (e.g. Syrian civil war is past 4.5 years old with no end in sight), and you have a list of different shelters to go to where you'll need to spend years, raise your kids, build a new livelihood because yours is destroyed. What do you do? You just go to any random one? Or to the best one that is within reach? The answer is obvious, and it doesn't make you an economic migrant.
  - blowski 11y ago
    An asylum seeker is simply somebody who as applied for asylum in another country, but not yet been accepted. They may do so because they are persecuted in their home country, but the definition of persecuted is (necessarily) very loose. There is no definition of an 'economic migrant', and there is no easy way of categorising the people involved.

venomsnake 11y ago

I made the same argument when arguing with a friend. It is impossible to not cross a safe country from Syria to the Balkans. Her answer was "They can go to Australia and still be refugees". I have also noticed similar sentiments in the people that happen to live in the better parts of the city where the refugees we are overran at the moment do not gather.

usrusr 11y ago

Why would a person fleeing a war zone leave behind their smartphone? That's the second thing to grab before running, right after your passport. For most of humanity, smartphones are not a symptom of abundance, they are a symptom of not having a desktop computer, laptop computer or landline.

vinceguidry 11y ago
The answer was given in the article. Soldiers ask for your Facebook password at checkpoints to check your allegiance in the war. If you don't give it, you'll often get beaten or your phone stolen / destroyed.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
rawTruthHurts 11y ago
"Why would a person fleeing a war zone leave behind their smartphone? " Quite a first world question.

IkmoIkmo 11y ago

That distinction should be made and is often made, but at the same time it's also often made for the wrong reasons, drawing wrong conclusions that drive irrational anti-immigration. i.e. here in the Netherlands whenever a refugee is spotted with a smartphone, that's immediately suspect and seen by one part of the population as 'This is some rich guy who's here just for economic opportunities, therefore doesn't need or deserve to be here. After all he has a smartphone'. The irony in a 'rich person' at the same time being accused of being 'lowly economic opportunist taking our jobs' I guess is lost on them. But more importantly, it overstates 1) the indication of wealth that is a smartphone in 2015, and 2) posits it's simply okay and good enough for refugees to be safe even if they live in a tent for years in a refugee camp devoid of normal livelihoods, jobs, education, entertainment and an outlook on the future. In terms of 1) smartphones are incredibly cheap and ubiquitous. They're also one of the most functional pieces of equipment one can have with them, for anyone but perhaps especially a refugee. The ability to communicate with lost friends and family to prevent total disappearance of personal networks due to the war, the ability to organise everything you need to do, access to information etc. It's crucial. And it's one of those things you take with you when you flee. If a civil war broke out in your country, would you not bring your phone? It's right up there in the top 3. And with $30 smartphones, and a healthy 2nd hand market around, is it that surprising to see a refugee holding a smartphone every now and then? Yet this is blown up to some kind of 'underserved richness' in a lot of European discussions. 2) Think about who those people in Turkey are who want to come to Europe 'only for economic purposes', as if that type of desire is trivial, as if not everyone deserves that kind of life. Consider that the civil war in Syria has been waged since 2011. Imagine you lived in a tent in some camp since then, living out of a bag, holding no job, getting no education, not getting anywhere in life and seeing your country still torn up and worsening by the year. Now imagine there are 2 million of you in Turkey, 1 million of you in Lebanon etc, in a camps like this one https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/An_Aerial_View_of_the_Za'atri_Refugee_Camp.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/An_Aeria... And somehow we say that Europe must remain closed to these people. That such a camp in Turkey is good enough and that if you're spotted with a smartphone, or coming through Turkey, it must mean you're not in need of anything and it's simply okay to close the borders. Where is the compassion for millions of refugees who want livelihoods just like we do? Now if you want to pay more attention to those stuck in Syria, great. I applaud it and support it. But if they're stuck in Syria they're not immigrants from Syria, so I don't see how you'd 'differentiate between two groups of immigrants' when one is an immigrant, the other is not. And I also don't see how the group that does make it out and happens to have a cell phone and happens to aspire greater dreams than living in a tent in a refugee camp deserves our scorn rather than our sympathy. (totally not saying your post is anything like this, but you brought up points that I hear every single day from the most xenophobic people in Western Europe for the wrong reasons and it's pretty sad.)

the_watcher 11y ago

The point of the article was to demonstrate that, regardless of why someone is a migrant, a smartphone is a necessity to their lifestyle, not to bucket them.

zerr 11y ago

Actually, eco-migrants should be taken care similarly to warzone ones. I wouldn't say that dying slowly - "living" a low quality of life in poverty is much better than dying in war... And all in all, moving/migration is a basic human right. Nobody's knocking on your private apartment door, it's about public space.