12 ms·

Dalai Lama says there are 'too many refugees in Europe'

81 points by mooseburger 10y ago

dalke 10y ago
> "The Dalai Lama, who often speaks of humanity's need to acknowledge its "oneness", is a refugee himself. ... From a moral point of view, too, I think that the refugees should only be admitted temporarily ... The goal should be that they return and help rebuild their countries." Well, yes. The former sovereign of Tibet has long wanted to regain control, preferably with full independence, though more recently accepting high-level autonomy. But we can't always get what we want. If the Chinese government refuse to restore autonomous rule to the satisfaction of the exiled government, then what is India supposed to do? Granting citizenship seems the most humane of the possible solutions. If the US government is unable to change the government of Cuba (including the disastrous attempt at the Bay of Pigs and the decades long trade embargo) to the satisfaction of the Cuban exiles in the US, then what is the US supposed to do? Prevent the children of Rafael Díaz-Balart - the exiled majority leader of the Cuban House of Representatives before Castro came to power - from being elected to office in the US? If there is no peace in Syria, so the goal of returning home cannot be achieved, what then?
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago
  > If the US government is unable to change the government of Cuba (including the disastrous attempt at the Bay of Pigs and the decades long trade embargo) The longest standing issue facing Cubans is the US trade embargo and that has always been in it's power to fix... > If there is no peace in Syria, so the goal of returning home cannot be achieved, what then There is no peace in Syria because of over a decade of destabilizing policies and engagements by the US in that region, which Europe has mostly supported. More generally, as to 2of3 examples which you provided - the refugees aren't due to some terrible internal policies of these countries or natural catastrophies - but majorly due to Western/US involvement.
  - bryanlarsen 10y ago
    "There is no peace in Syria because of over a decade of destabilizing policies and engagements by the US in that region, which Europe has mostly supported." There are probably about a dozen major causes of the problems in Syria, of which US/western involvement is only one. There's lots of blame to be spread around.
    - iak8god 10y ago
      > There are probably about a dozen major causes of the problems in Syria, of which US/western involvement is only one. Can we get a few examples?
      - jcranmer 10y ago
        * The failure of the Ottoman Empire to create a unified culture and nation state. * Religious rivalry between Sunni and Shiite Islam. * Regional rivalry between Saudi Arabia (an autocratic Sunni state heavily reliant on a very conservative sect (Wahhabi) for legitimacy) and Iran (a theocratic Shiite state). * Oil being the main economic mainstay, and not being conveniently divvied up among different ethnic regions * Great power ambitions on the part of Turkey * Superpower ambitions on the part of Russia * The failure of any state in the region to produce viable governments with strong internal legitimacy, rather than series of political "revolutions" that led to changing merely of who was treating the state as their feeding trough * Western engagement in the region * Western disengagement in the region (damned if you do, damned if you don't...) I'm probably missing some, but it's worth noting that while the Iraq War didn't help the situation in the Middle East, it's not like a strong dictator is an effective guarantee of internal security--after all, the Arab Spring started in Tunisia, instigated primarily by local causes (and the only country that seems to have actually improved its situation as a result!).
        iak8god 10y ago
        Thank you. I do think many of those things are themselves caused by Western meddling in the region, but mostly before the US got into the game.
- cholantesh 10y ago
  >Well, yes. The former sovereign of Tibet has long wanted to regain control, preferably with full independence, though more recently accepting high-level autonomy. The quality of his message really deteriorates when you find out about this.
adrenalinelol 10y ago
Refugees by definition are poor (civil war wiped out their livelihood in this instance). They end up relying on the government safety-net, which is better than nothing, but normally still a barely above poverty life-style. This congregates the migrants in migrant only areas; to where they do not experience the culture of the nation which is now their home, in a way a normal immigrant would... Thus there is no real pressure to assimilate and the customs which aren't congruent with western society which are endemic in parts of the Arab world remain(woman's rights, freedom of religion, etc...).
- matt4077 10y ago
  > Refugees by definition are poor The "by definition" makes it easy to refute, I just need a single example. Let's take the Jews fleeing Germany in the 40ies, or, for kicks&giggles: the Dalai Lama. > They end up relying on the government safety-net While poor people tend to do that, you're generalizing from the usual case to the special. If I burn down all your immobile possessions, will you just throw your hands in the air and say "fuck it, I'll do welfare from here on out"? Not saying that it's to start anew in a different country, but if you take the average person, and then select those marching through the desert for 40 weeks, you'll end up with someone vastly different than your average welfare recipient. > This congregates the migrants in migrant only areas; Possibly true in France, not so much in, say, Germany, where all the cool kidz want to move to the inner-city with their start-ups and underground parties. > Thus there is no real pressure to assimilate It sounds like there'd be economic pressure, or are immigrants just too happy with a "barely above poverty life-style"? > and the customs which aren't congruent with western society which are endemic in parts of the Arab world remain(woman's rights, freedom of religion, etc...) Very much enjoying how everybody-and-their-racist-uncle is discovering women's rights these days. If only they'd be so open-minded when they hear that >90% of sexual assaults are perpetrated by, well, that uncle. Or some other family member.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >The "by definition" makes it easy to refute, I just need a single example. On the contrary. By definition here is used casually and doesn't mean "necessarily everybody" just the vast majority.
g123g 10y ago
I am still not sure why it is a good idea to let millions get displaced from the ancestral lands, having hundreds of them dying while trying to migrate and then the remaining ones living isolated lives in alien countries with those countries supporting them by spending billions of dollars every year and having culture and way of life changed forever. Compare this to taking on ISIS once and for all which numbers about 30,000 - 40,000 fighters. Wouldn't it be better to spend those billions of dollars and take on some inevitable loss of life and annihilate them forever. From where did we all start believing in the defeatist mentality that world cannot take on ISIS? That land belongs to the Syrians and Iraqis and not to some 7th century cult. The best solution is to return that land to whom it belongs rather than taking millions of refugees and creating problems from them as well as for ourselves. If you want to take in refugees then there is no end to it, billions of ppl would like to move to Europe or USA. Whom are you going to deny and on what basis?
- manuelflara 10y ago
  Taking on ISIS? First, that's easier said than done. They're not an army that you can just take on in open field. See occupation of Irak. But really, the war in Syria and Lybia didn't get started by ISIS and won't end if we "end ISIS", not that I think that's possible anyways. Personally, I think you have a point, and the best way to help somehow fix the clusterfuck that we (the West) created in these countries is send lots of money and help to set up refugees up in other countries in the region (Jordan, etc). But NOT Turkey, which seems to grow every day more and more extremist and I get the feeling refugees are going to be miserable at best there.
  - FreedomToCreate 10y ago
    Terrible idea. Just because the west can spend billions of dollars it makes no sense to bring in large populations of a foreign culture and then actively try to assimilate them into another one. It doesn't work and leads to alienation which can be seen in the second and third generation muslims now living in Europe. On top of that, it is extremely hypocritical of the west to spend billions on refugees when most western countries themselves have their own citizens living like refugees in their own country. Over 60 million americans live below the poverty line. Helping the refugees reclaim their land will enable them to maintain their culture and mitigate assimilation issues in the west. Other wise we just add more burden to the social safety net. Do you really believe that a majority of these refugees will be able to find jobs in the west? Their is a small portion of them who are educated and highly skilled, but the majority are not.
the_jp 10y ago
Dalai seems to be a mere mortal after all, and prioritizing Tibet over compassion in this case.
- jbmorgado 10y ago
  The Dalai Lama fought most of his life for the right to cultural identity. It's exactly what he is asking for here, that one society doesn't get its cultural identity destroyed by an influx of individuals from another society.
unfortunateface 10y ago
Since when did HN become reddit? Why is this story even on here?

81 points by mooseburger 10y ago

dalke 10y ago

> "The Dalai Lama, who often speaks of humanity's need to acknowledge its "oneness", is a refugee himself. ... From a moral point of view, too, I think that the refugees should only be admitted temporarily ... The goal should be that they return and help rebuild their countries." Well, yes. The former sovereign of Tibet has long wanted to regain control, preferably with full independence, though more recently accepting high-level autonomy. But we can't always get what we want. If the Chinese government refuse to restore autonomous rule to the satisfaction of the exiled government, then what is India supposed to do? Granting citizenship seems the most humane of the possible solutions. If the US government is unable to change the government of Cuba (including the disastrous attempt at the Bay of Pigs and the decades long trade embargo) to the satisfaction of the Cuban exiles in the US, then what is the US supposed to do? Prevent the children of Rafael Díaz-Balart - the exiled majority leader of the Cuban House of Representatives before Castro came to power - from being elected to office in the US? If there is no peace in Syria, so the goal of returning home cannot be achieved, what then?

forgotpwtomain 10y ago
> If the US government is unable to change the government of Cuba (including the disastrous attempt at the Bay of Pigs and the decades long trade embargo) The longest standing issue facing Cubans is the US trade embargo and that has always been in it's power to fix... > If there is no peace in Syria, so the goal of returning home cannot be achieved, what then There is no peace in Syria because of over a decade of destabilizing policies and engagements by the US in that region, which Europe has mostly supported. More generally, as to 2of3 examples which you provided - the refugees aren't due to some terrible internal policies of these countries or natural catastrophies - but majorly due to Western/US involvement.
- bryanlarsen 10y ago
  "There is no peace in Syria because of over a decade of destabilizing policies and engagements by the US in that region, which Europe has mostly supported." There are probably about a dozen major causes of the problems in Syria, of which US/western involvement is only one. There's lots of blame to be spread around.
  - iak8god 10y ago
    > There are probably about a dozen major causes of the problems in Syria, of which US/western involvement is only one. Can we get a few examples?
    - jcranmer 10y ago
      * The failure of the Ottoman Empire to create a unified culture and nation state. * Religious rivalry between Sunni and Shiite Islam. * Regional rivalry between Saudi Arabia (an autocratic Sunni state heavily reliant on a very conservative sect (Wahhabi) for legitimacy) and Iran (a theocratic Shiite state). * Oil being the main economic mainstay, and not being conveniently divvied up among different ethnic regions * Great power ambitions on the part of Turkey * Superpower ambitions on the part of Russia * The failure of any state in the region to produce viable governments with strong internal legitimacy, rather than series of political "revolutions" that led to changing merely of who was treating the state as their feeding trough * Western engagement in the region * Western disengagement in the region (damned if you do, damned if you don't...) I'm probably missing some, but it's worth noting that while the Iraq War didn't help the situation in the Middle East, it's not like a strong dictator is an effective guarantee of internal security--after all, the Arab Spring started in Tunisia, instigated primarily by local causes (and the only country that seems to have actually improved its situation as a result!).
      - iak8god 10y ago
        Thank you. I do think many of those things are themselves caused by Western meddling in the region, but mostly before the US got into the game.
cholantesh 10y ago
>Well, yes. The former sovereign of Tibet has long wanted to regain control, preferably with full independence, though more recently accepting high-level autonomy. The quality of his message really deteriorates when you find out about this.

adrenalinelol 10y ago

Refugees by definition are poor (civil war wiped out their livelihood in this instance). They end up relying on the government safety-net, which is better than nothing, but normally still a barely above poverty life-style. This congregates the migrants in migrant only areas; to where they do not experience the culture of the nation which is now their home, in a way a normal immigrant would... Thus there is no real pressure to assimilate and the customs which aren't congruent with western society which are endemic in parts of the Arab world remain(woman's rights, freedom of religion, etc...).

matt4077 10y ago
> Refugees by definition are poor The "by definition" makes it easy to refute, I just need a single example. Let's take the Jews fleeing Germany in the 40ies, or, for kicks&giggles: the Dalai Lama. > They end up relying on the government safety-net While poor people tend to do that, you're generalizing from the usual case to the special. If I burn down all your immobile possessions, will you just throw your hands in the air and say "fuck it, I'll do welfare from here on out"? Not saying that it's to start anew in a different country, but if you take the average person, and then select those marching through the desert for 40 weeks, you'll end up with someone vastly different than your average welfare recipient. > This congregates the migrants in migrant only areas; Possibly true in France, not so much in, say, Germany, where all the cool kidz want to move to the inner-city with their start-ups and underground parties. > Thus there is no real pressure to assimilate It sounds like there'd be economic pressure, or are immigrants just too happy with a "barely above poverty life-style"? > and the customs which aren't congruent with western society which are endemic in parts of the Arab world remain(woman's rights, freedom of religion, etc...) Very much enjoying how everybody-and-their-racist-uncle is discovering women's rights these days. If only they'd be so open-minded when they hear that >90% of sexual assaults are perpetrated by, well, that uncle. Or some other family member.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >The "by definition" makes it easy to refute, I just need a single example. On the contrary. By definition here is used casually and doesn't mean "necessarily everybody" just the vast majority.

g123g 10y ago

I am still not sure why it is a good idea to let millions get displaced from the ancestral lands, having hundreds of them dying while trying to migrate and then the remaining ones living isolated lives in alien countries with those countries supporting them by spending billions of dollars every year and having culture and way of life changed forever. Compare this to taking on ISIS once and for all which numbers about 30,000 - 40,000 fighters. Wouldn't it be better to spend those billions of dollars and take on some inevitable loss of life and annihilate them forever. From where did we all start believing in the defeatist mentality that world cannot take on ISIS? That land belongs to the Syrians and Iraqis and not to some 7th century cult. The best solution is to return that land to whom it belongs rather than taking millions of refugees and creating problems from them as well as for ourselves. If you want to take in refugees then there is no end to it, billions of ppl would like to move to Europe or USA. Whom are you going to deny and on what basis?

manuelflara 10y ago
Taking on ISIS? First, that's easier said than done. They're not an army that you can just take on in open field. See occupation of Irak. But really, the war in Syria and Lybia didn't get started by ISIS and won't end if we "end ISIS", not that I think that's possible anyways. Personally, I think you have a point, and the best way to help somehow fix the clusterfuck that we (the West) created in these countries is send lots of money and help to set up refugees up in other countries in the region (Jordan, etc). But NOT Turkey, which seems to grow every day more and more extremist and I get the feeling refugees are going to be miserable at best there.
- FreedomToCreate 10y ago
  Terrible idea. Just because the west can spend billions of dollars it makes no sense to bring in large populations of a foreign culture and then actively try to assimilate them into another one. It doesn't work and leads to alienation which can be seen in the second and third generation muslims now living in Europe. On top of that, it is extremely hypocritical of the west to spend billions on refugees when most western countries themselves have their own citizens living like refugees in their own country. Over 60 million americans live below the poverty line. Helping the refugees reclaim their land will enable them to maintain their culture and mitigate assimilation issues in the west. Other wise we just add more burden to the social safety net. Do you really believe that a majority of these refugees will be able to find jobs in the west? Their is a small portion of them who are educated and highly skilled, but the majority are not.

the_jp 10y ago

Dalai seems to be a mere mortal after all, and prioritizing Tibet over compassion in this case.

jbmorgado 10y ago
The Dalai Lama fought most of his life for the right to cultural identity. It's exactly what he is asking for here, that one society doesn't get its cultural identity destroyed by an influx of individuals from another society.

unfortunateface 10y ago

Since when did HN become reddit? Why is this story even on here?