16 ms·

This article is obviously about a person, that is an illegal migrant, not a refugee. > “I felt like I couldn’t live in an open society,” > said Aqeed

This article is obviously about a person, that is an illegal migrant, not a refugee. > “I felt like I couldn’t live in an open society,” > said Aqeed Hassan, 26, who plays the clarinet and, > back in Baghdad after going to Finland, is trying > to get a job in a military band. > “My wife has her head covered, and I didn’t feel like they liked Arabs.” The whole debate with migration is that IMHO the real refugees need to visit psychologists, when they arrive here. They've suffered war, laws that declare gender-inequality ( soft words for what those laws actually are, but anyway ), homo-phobic state-politics, etc. Those are all things that western world fight ages to make it right ( yes, including war ) and people that have lived in different society can't understand by just "living" there. I'm really happy to know people from Syria, Pakistan, Taiwan & Japan. It's so cool when we all try to understand more about the way we live our every-day life , but on the other hand all of us will feel offended if forced to change it. No matter what "When in Rome, do as the Romans do ...", if you can't just leave.

cgio 11y ago
Romans, and Greeks especially under Alexander, changed their lifestyles significantly to accommodate influence from subjects of their conquests. It comes with the imperium package.
- izacus 11y ago
  Good job on nitpicking on a language phrase instead of answering the content of the post :/
  - cgio 11y ago
    Which part was not an answer to the Content of the parent?
- hetman 11y ago
  What imperium does Finland control exactly?
  - inoop 11y ago
    Salmiakki?
  - cgio 11y ago
    You don't have to control. Being part is sufficient.
    - ptaipale 11y ago
      Being part, as in also being controlled. It's really absurd to think that Finland is somehow responsible for actions of some empire, when the history is more about the country being target of imperialism (by neighbouring Russia and Sweden).
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  > Greeks especially under Alexander, changed their lifestyles significantly to accommodate influence from subjects of their conquests You mean the Greek subjects of an emperor who spent his time adventuring past the known extent of the world, with all the communications technology the world could offer 2400 years ago? The Greeks who split off from the Asian part of Alexander's empire immediately after he died in a foreign country thousands of miles away?
  - cgio 11y ago
    Ptolemies split too in Egypt but were calling themselves Greeks while having Pharaoh and religious evolution. Greeks were not known for being under a single ruler for long, yet they were keeping a common cultural identity.
    - thaumasiotes 11y ago
      The point I'm making is that the Greek subjects of Alexander didn't make any accommodations for the benefit of the foreigners he conquered, since all those foreigners were far away and hard to talk to. His army (and his court, the generals) had to make accommodations, and they complained quite a bit, but his subjects just sat around at home. The army had to be on location. The empire split after Alexander's death into the Macedonians proper, the Seleucids in Asia, and the Ptolemies in Egypt. The Ptolemies certainly kept a lot of cultural continuity with the Greek / Macedonian world -- so much so that the last Ptolemaic pharaoh, Cleopatra, is believed to have been the first one who was able to speak the Egyptian language (after ruling Egypt for 250 years!). They did set up syncretistic temples, which was standard practice basically everywhere in the classical period. That was an effort to get the Egyptians to accept Greek religion, not the other way around. The Ptolemies even set up a major new city for Greeks. Their accommodations to Egypt weren't particularly impressive. To the extent that the Greeks and the Macedonians had a common cultural identity, it was because the Macedonians aspired to Greek culture (it seems safe to say that the Ptolemies eventually succeeded at this). The Greeks didn't think highly of the barbarians to their north.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  Can you provide examples? The Romans, IIRC, were uncommonly willing to allow subjects to participate in Roman society as long as they followed the rules. This did not mean that the Romans themselves changed their own lifestyles.
  - cgio 11y ago
    So what would you say about Christianity? Was it a change in Roman lifestyle?
77ko 11y ago
> Mr. Abdulatif was an officer in Saddam Hussein’s army, but > after the invasion by the United States in 2003, and the > subsequent policy of de-Baathification, he was left without > a pension. Then he was caught up in tragedy, like most > Iraqis: Three brothers were killed during the sectarian > civil war. But he has an aunt and cousin who live in the > United States, and their stories motivated him to think of > life elsewhere. The article talks about more than one migrant. This poor Iraqi's story sounds a lot like a refugee. How safe would you feel after that happening to you?
ktRolster 11y ago
This quote is good too: > “In the early days when we arrived, the people > were impressed with us,” he said. “They were taking > pictures of us, inviting us into their homes. > They liked our brown skin and our dark hair.” It seems people were mostly nice to them in Finland.
- coldtea 11y ago
  Yes, but it's also part of a trend -- like it's the cause-of-the-day and everybody tried to show nice they were because of it (not totally unlike Hollywood celebrities suddenly championing some cause or another in the third world, when in fact they don't care that much). Which is not bad in itself, but can be dangerous when there's no substance to that, and their hosts become bored with that "cause" and forget about them or turn hostile.
  - tw04 11y ago
    The hosts SHOULD forget about them... the whole point is you welcome them with open arms, give them a little help to get them started, and send them on their way. This isn't "handouts for life". This is "here let us give you an opportunity, it's your job to make something of it". If they can't survive on their own, they SHOULD go back to where they came from and make a life there.
    - maus42 11y ago
      However, majority of these people sought / are seeking asylum is, not claiming that they want to migrate for better quality of life. The people who would be granted asylum theoretically should be persons who would be in a grave danger in the country they came from (ranging from wrongful imprisonment for e.g. political opinion we would find perfectly justifiable, to torture and death for gender identity or sexual orientation). Some people were just "regular people" in Syria (not especially persecuted bloggers or minorities), but still rather want to escape rather than be maimed or killed in a brutal war where "good sides" are hard to find. Now, the main point in the whole migrant / refugee crisis seems to be that many people who would be economic migrants are using the asylum system to try to enter certain EU countries, but there also this thing that the-would-be-legitimate asylum seekers are also are prone to have much better economic future if they are granted in asylum in country like Finland: differentiating between those is very difficult. This is why it's difficult mess. edit. is, not isn't.
sdalfakj 11y ago
> that is an illegal migrant, when not having documents == {theft, murder, fraud}
- luso_brazilian 11y ago
  Driving without a drivers license is also illegal (in most countries) but not considered equal to theft, murder or fraud. That's a false equivalence because not all things considered illegal are considered as abhorrent as murder or theft.
  - claudiug 11y ago
    Agree with you. But when you burn/destroy in purpose your papers just to hide your real you, I guess that will add a big question mark on you. Also, I read in faz that 40% of the refugee will be deported as they do not have any `issue` in the sens of EU. I found that very stupid and wrong. You pick some people based on your view of the life and rest can die.
- hueving 11y ago
  Running a red light is illegal too. What's your point?
dominotw 11y ago
>real refugees need to visit psychologists What are psychologists going to do? Tell them they have been brainwashed ?
- jacquesm 11y ago
  No, help them deal with culture shock. Which if you've never experienced is probably not something you can imagine.
  - dominotw 11y ago
    people dont go to psychologists in the first place in the middle east. They should have a religious/community leader who could help them with this. western psychologists have very little clue as to how to deal with things like these.
    - mrrrgn 11y ago
      Hmmm, no. I come from a small town in the Southeastern US. People are incredibly religious, you can't even sell alcohol there thanks to the laws they've passed. A part of the local culture is consulting preachers for counseling instead of psychologists/therapists. It causes enormous amounts of damage. We should never encourage people to visit witch doctors over trained medical professionals, culture be damned.
      - hartpuff 11y ago
        Can anyone who downvoted this explain why? It seems like a reasonable suggestion to me that people visit trained professionals rather than quacks, or people who will give advice or 'help' skewed by their own personal, perhaps fundamentalist, beliefs.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
coldtea 11y ago
>They've suffered war, laws that declare gender-inequality ( soft words for what those laws actually are, but anyway ), homo-phobic state-politics, etc. About war yes, but lots of those people have not "suffered" gender-inequality or homo-phobic state-politics -- In fact those things might be part of what the believe and support themselves. Those things are part of their culture -- and grassroots -- not stuff that some bad regime imposed upon the masses. The same way they are not "imposed" upon the people in the Bible Belt. And lest we feel much superior, those kind of laws and public sentiment was common place in the far more wealthy and educated West too. Just 50 years ago there was open, legal even, segregation. Just today there's widespread support for police brutality. And just 75 years ago several million jews/homosexuals/communists and gypsies were obliterated in the center of "civilized Europe". And if you think those times are "ancient history" and can't understand why everyone hasn't moved forward since then, just remember stuff that's still acceptable (or going on anyway) in some places, from the death penalty and racially motivated police shootings, to mass surveillance. Or consider the fact that "sodomy" stopped being a crime only 10-15 years ago in tons of places. And that "moving forward" is easier when you're not in a state of war or even fearful of those preaching "moving forward".
- andrepd 11y ago
  >Those things are part of their culture -- and grassroots -- not stuff that some bad regime imposed upon the masses. Precisely. Indoctrination literally from the moment you are born is unimaginably hard to undo. Impossible, even.
  - kaonashi 11y ago
    > Impossible, even. On an aggregate level, perhaps, but on an individual level, not at all.
    - sentenza 11y ago
      I actually teach a German course to a group of recognized refugees, including Syrians and Eritreans. From what I've seen, the ability to handle the culture shock varies wildly from person to person and is strongly correlated with age. The younger a person is, the better they adapt to the new situation. IMO the two main reasons for this are that younger people are more flexible intellectually, and that a significant number of them (but not all!) have had more exposure to other cultures due to the Internet. I also get the impression that frustration and language skill are correlated. The ability to learn a new language is obviously also correlated with age and educational history. Note that there are outliers in all directions, but these are the trends that I observed.
Lunatic666 11y ago
Mr. Jabiry is one of those reasons why people start thinking that real refugees are like this. Going to a foreign country without education or possibility to get a job is naive if you want to say it nicely. They take a place from someone who really needs help and ruin their reputation
- mistermann 11y ago
  I agree. Perhaps I'm not reading the right articles, but it seems rare for anyone involved (genuine refugees, or people in the refugee business) to condemn these sorts of people.
- Oras 11y ago
  That's why these countries are delaying applications to filter real refugees from airheads like this guy. He couldn't manage to get education or job in his country, in his culture, in his language and with his race while dreaming to get everything in a different country!
SRSposter 11y ago
That is a very eurocentric view on the world. I doubt that everyone in the world lusts for western culture and law. Even the most PC people in Europe cant hide that they still see themselves superior to the rest of the world.

cgio 11y ago

Romans, and Greeks especially under Alexander, changed their lifestyles significantly to accommodate influence from subjects of their conquests. It comes with the imperium package.

izacus 11y ago
Good job on nitpicking on a language phrase instead of answering the content of the post :/
- cgio 11y ago
  Which part was not an answer to the Content of the parent?
hetman 11y ago
What imperium does Finland control exactly?
- inoop 11y ago
  Salmiakki?
- cgio 11y ago
  You don't have to control. Being part is sufficient.
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    Being part, as in also being controlled. It's really absurd to think that Finland is somehow responsible for actions of some empire, when the history is more about the country being target of imperialism (by neighbouring Russia and Sweden).
thaumasiotes 11y ago
> Greeks especially under Alexander, changed their lifestyles significantly to accommodate influence from subjects of their conquests You mean the Greek subjects of an emperor who spent his time adventuring past the known extent of the world, with all the communications technology the world could offer 2400 years ago? The Greeks who split off from the Asian part of Alexander's empire immediately after he died in a foreign country thousands of miles away?
- cgio 11y ago
  Ptolemies split too in Egypt but were calling themselves Greeks while having Pharaoh and religious evolution. Greeks were not known for being under a single ruler for long, yet they were keeping a common cultural identity.
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    The point I'm making is that the Greek subjects of Alexander didn't make any accommodations for the benefit of the foreigners he conquered, since all those foreigners were far away and hard to talk to. His army (and his court, the generals) had to make accommodations, and they complained quite a bit, but his subjects just sat around at home. The army had to be on location. The empire split after Alexander's death into the Macedonians proper, the Seleucids in Asia, and the Ptolemies in Egypt. The Ptolemies certainly kept a lot of cultural continuity with the Greek / Macedonian world -- so much so that the last Ptolemaic pharaoh, Cleopatra, is believed to have been the first one who was able to speak the Egyptian language (after ruling Egypt for 250 years!). They did set up syncretistic temples, which was standard practice basically everywhere in the classical period. That was an effort to get the Egyptians to accept Greek religion, not the other way around. The Ptolemies even set up a major new city for Greeks. Their accommodations to Egypt weren't particularly impressive. To the extent that the Greeks and the Macedonians had a common cultural identity, it was because the Macedonians aspired to Greek culture (it seems safe to say that the Ptolemies eventually succeeded at this). The Greeks didn't think highly of the barbarians to their north.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
Can you provide examples? The Romans, IIRC, were uncommonly willing to allow subjects to participate in Roman society as long as they followed the rules. This did not mean that the Romans themselves changed their own lifestyles.
- cgio 11y ago
  So what would you say about Christianity? Was it a change in Roman lifestyle?

77ko 11y ago

> Mr. Abdulatif was an officer in Saddam Hussein’s army, but > after the invasion by the United States in 2003, and the > subsequent policy of de-Baathification, he was left without > a pension. Then he was caught up in tragedy, like most > Iraqis: Three brothers were killed during the sectarian > civil war. But he has an aunt and cousin who live in the > United States, and their stories motivated him to think of > life elsewhere. The article talks about more than one migrant. This poor Iraqi's story sounds a lot like a refugee. How safe would you feel after that happening to you?

ktRolster 11y ago

This quote is good too: > “In the early days when we arrived, the people > were impressed with us,” he said. “They were taking > pictures of us, inviting us into their homes. > They liked our brown skin and our dark hair.” It seems people were mostly nice to them in Finland.

coldtea 11y ago
Yes, but it's also part of a trend -- like it's the cause-of-the-day and everybody tried to show nice they were because of it (not totally unlike Hollywood celebrities suddenly championing some cause or another in the third world, when in fact they don't care that much). Which is not bad in itself, but can be dangerous when there's no substance to that, and their hosts become bored with that "cause" and forget about them or turn hostile.
- tw04 11y ago
  The hosts SHOULD forget about them... the whole point is you welcome them with open arms, give them a little help to get them started, and send them on their way. This isn't "handouts for life". This is "here let us give you an opportunity, it's your job to make something of it". If they can't survive on their own, they SHOULD go back to where they came from and make a life there.
  - maus42 11y ago
    However, majority of these people sought / are seeking asylum is, not claiming that they want to migrate for better quality of life. The people who would be granted asylum theoretically should be persons who would be in a grave danger in the country they came from (ranging from wrongful imprisonment for e.g. political opinion we would find perfectly justifiable, to torture and death for gender identity or sexual orientation). Some people were just "regular people" in Syria (not especially persecuted bloggers or minorities), but still rather want to escape rather than be maimed or killed in a brutal war where "good sides" are hard to find. Now, the main point in the whole migrant / refugee crisis seems to be that many people who would be economic migrants are using the asylum system to try to enter certain EU countries, but there also this thing that the-would-be-legitimate asylum seekers are also are prone to have much better economic future if they are granted in asylum in country like Finland: differentiating between those is very difficult. This is why it's difficult mess. edit. is, not isn't.

sdalfakj 11y ago

> that is an illegal migrant, when not having documents == {theft, murder, fraud}

luso_brazilian 11y ago
Driving without a drivers license is also illegal (in most countries) but not considered equal to theft, murder or fraud. That's a false equivalence because not all things considered illegal are considered as abhorrent as murder or theft.
- claudiug 11y ago
  Agree with you. But when you burn/destroy in purpose your papers just to hide your real you, I guess that will add a big question mark on you. Also, I read in faz that 40% of the refugee will be deported as they do not have any `issue` in the sens of EU. I found that very stupid and wrong. You pick some people based on your view of the life and rest can die.
hueving 11y ago
Running a red light is illegal too. What's your point?

dominotw 11y ago

>real refugees need to visit psychologists What are psychologists going to do? Tell them they have been brainwashed ?

jacquesm 11y ago
No, help them deal with culture shock. Which if you've never experienced is probably not something you can imagine.
- dominotw 11y ago
  people dont go to psychologists in the first place in the middle east. They should have a religious/community leader who could help them with this. western psychologists have very little clue as to how to deal with things like these.
  - mrrrgn 11y ago
    Hmmm, no. I come from a small town in the Southeastern US. People are incredibly religious, you can't even sell alcohol there thanks to the laws they've passed. A part of the local culture is consulting preachers for counseling instead of psychologists/therapists. It causes enormous amounts of damage. We should never encourage people to visit witch doctors over trained medical professionals, culture be damned.
    - hartpuff 11y ago
      Can anyone who downvoted this explain why? It seems like a reasonable suggestion to me that people visit trained professionals rather than quacks, or people who will give advice or 'help' skewed by their own personal, perhaps fundamentalist, beliefs.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago

coldtea 11y ago

>They've suffered war, laws that declare gender-inequality ( soft words for what those laws actually are, but anyway ), homo-phobic state-politics, etc. About war yes, but lots of those people have not "suffered" gender-inequality or homo-phobic state-politics -- In fact those things might be part of what the believe and support themselves. Those things are part of their culture -- and grassroots -- not stuff that some bad regime imposed upon the masses. The same way they are not "imposed" upon the people in the Bible Belt. And lest we feel much superior, those kind of laws and public sentiment was common place in the far more wealthy and educated West too. Just 50 years ago there was open, legal even, segregation. Just today there's widespread support for police brutality. And just 75 years ago several million jews/homosexuals/communists and gypsies were obliterated in the center of "civilized Europe". And if you think those times are "ancient history" and can't understand why everyone hasn't moved forward since then, just remember stuff that's still acceptable (or going on anyway) in some places, from the death penalty and racially motivated police shootings, to mass surveillance. Or consider the fact that "sodomy" stopped being a crime only 10-15 years ago in tons of places. And that "moving forward" is easier when you're not in a state of war or even fearful of those preaching "moving forward".

andrepd 11y ago
>Those things are part of their culture -- and grassroots -- not stuff that some bad regime imposed upon the masses. Precisely. Indoctrination literally from the moment you are born is unimaginably hard to undo. Impossible, even.
- kaonashi 11y ago
  > Impossible, even. On an aggregate level, perhaps, but on an individual level, not at all.
  - sentenza 11y ago
    I actually teach a German course to a group of recognized refugees, including Syrians and Eritreans. From what I've seen, the ability to handle the culture shock varies wildly from person to person and is strongly correlated with age. The younger a person is, the better they adapt to the new situation. IMO the two main reasons for this are that younger people are more flexible intellectually, and that a significant number of them (but not all!) have had more exposure to other cultures due to the Internet. I also get the impression that frustration and language skill are correlated. The ability to learn a new language is obviously also correlated with age and educational history. Note that there are outliers in all directions, but these are the trends that I observed.

Lunatic666 11y ago

Mr. Jabiry is one of those reasons why people start thinking that real refugees are like this. Going to a foreign country without education or possibility to get a job is naive if you want to say it nicely. They take a place from someone who really needs help and ruin their reputation

mistermann 11y ago
I agree. Perhaps I'm not reading the right articles, but it seems rare for anyone involved (genuine refugees, or people in the refugee business) to condemn these sorts of people.
Oras 11y ago
That's why these countries are delaying applications to filter real refugees from airheads like this guy. He couldn't manage to get education or job in his country, in his culture, in his language and with his race while dreaming to get everything in a different country!

SRSposter 11y ago

That is a very eurocentric view on the world. I doubt that everyone in the world lusts for western culture and law. Even the most PC people in Europe cant hide that they still see themselves superior to the rest of the world.