4 ms·

There are "limits" and there are "limits". If the receiving country has no room, is broke, and its citizenry are on the edge of starvation, then that's one lim

by dalke 10y ago

There are "limits" and there are "limits". If the receiving country has no room, is broke, and its citizenry are on the edge of starvation, then that's one limit. Somehow I don't think that's the limit you are talking about, but that's the only obvious one I can think of. What do you think is the limit, and why do you think the EU countries already past or even near to that limit?

raverbashing 10y ago
The limit is the receiving countries not becoming what they're fleeing from, obviously If you disagree, my suggestion is that you take in your house as many refugees as the number of people that currently live in it. > If the receiving country has no room, is broke, and its citizenry are on the edge of starvation, then that's one limit. Oh of course, let's destroy whole countries otherwise people like you will think they're racist and petty. Genius.
- dalke 10y ago
  Boo-hoo. I live in Sweden. We have taken in huge numbers of people. I will gladly pay extra in taxes to help them out. Sweden is also far from becoming like Syria. If Sweden's policy is the limit, then most of the other EU countries fall far short of the limit you are concerned about.
  - raverbashing 10y ago
    > Boo-hoo. I live in Sweden. We have taken in huge numbers of people. The difference between being charitable and naive is a thin one. > Sweden is also far from becoming like Syria. Let's hope so. And while I agree most of the "news" on the Internet about Sweden are crap, Sweden has an important gender imbalance and increasing problems with violence Also nobody speaks anything and pretends it doesn't happen because "it's racist". Like: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/11/swedish-police-accused-cover-up-sex-attacks-refugees-festival https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/11/swedish-police... > then most of the other EU countries fall far short of the limit you are concerned about Portugal and Spain are looking for more people but it doesn't seem anybody wants to go there.
    - dalke 10y ago
      So you agree that most of the EU countries are not near the limits that you are worried about, yes? Then why aren't they taking more refugees?
      - raverbashing 10y ago
        > Then why aren't they taking more refugees? I know it's a matter of wording, but no country "takes", but has people apply for asylum either before going or when there. Though Canada provided transportation to those approved. It can be said that countries might need to facilitate/advertise this more (and not only in Europe). Some South American countries took some people as well (not as much as Europe though) Oh and Poland received a lot of refugees from Ukraine (some say around 1Mi)
        dalke 10y ago
        Take has many shades of meaning. "We take AmEx" means "We accept American Express card if you wish to pay that way." It doesn't mean that if I see an AmEx card I grab it. If it helps, feel free to interpret my use of "taking" as short for "taking in", with meaning of "to admit; receive".
lucio 10y ago
So, by following your reasoning, a sound-economy country, should receive aliens until such receiving country has no room, is broke, and everybody are on the edge of starvation?
- dalke 10y ago
  No. Everyone agrees that there are material limits to what a country can provide. It is indeed obvious that there is a limit to the amount of help that a country can provide. But raverbashing used a bait-and-switch argument, to say that because there are limits, we (people who live in the EU), can now prevent refugees from entering the EU countries. What I asked is clarification of what those limits are, and how they were determined. One limit is "tolerance for foreigners." That's certainly a limit. Is that the limit that raverbashing is talking about? Another limit is "there is no place to put them." Sweden has problems with that. I can think of other limits. But none are the sort of existential limits that everyone agrees exists.

by dalke 10y ago

raverbashing 10y ago

The limit is the receiving countries not becoming what they're fleeing from, obviously If you disagree, my suggestion is that you take in your house as many refugees as the number of people that currently live in it. > If the receiving country has no room, is broke, and its citizenry are on the edge of starvation, then that's one limit. Oh of course, let's destroy whole countries otherwise people like you will think they're racist and petty. Genius.

dalke 10y ago
Boo-hoo. I live in Sweden. We have taken in huge numbers of people. I will gladly pay extra in taxes to help them out. Sweden is also far from becoming like Syria. If Sweden's policy is the limit, then most of the other EU countries fall far short of the limit you are concerned about.
- raverbashing 10y ago
  > Boo-hoo. I live in Sweden. We have taken in huge numbers of people. The difference between being charitable and naive is a thin one. > Sweden is also far from becoming like Syria. Let's hope so. And while I agree most of the "news" on the Internet about Sweden are crap, Sweden has an important gender imbalance and increasing problems with violence Also nobody speaks anything and pretends it doesn't happen because "it's racist". Like: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/11/swedish-police-accused-cover-up-sex-attacks-refugees-festival https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/11/swedish-police... > then most of the other EU countries fall far short of the limit you are concerned about Portugal and Spain are looking for more people but it doesn't seem anybody wants to go there.
  - dalke 10y ago
    So you agree that most of the EU countries are not near the limits that you are worried about, yes? Then why aren't they taking more refugees?
    - raverbashing 10y ago
      > Then why aren't they taking more refugees? I know it's a matter of wording, but no country "takes", but has people apply for asylum either before going or when there. Though Canada provided transportation to those approved. It can be said that countries might need to facilitate/advertise this more (and not only in Europe). Some South American countries took some people as well (not as much as Europe though) Oh and Poland received a lot of refugees from Ukraine (some say around 1Mi)
      - dalke 10y ago
        Take has many shades of meaning. "We take AmEx" means "We accept American Express card if you wish to pay that way." It doesn't mean that if I see an AmEx card I grab it. If it helps, feel free to interpret my use of "taking" as short for "taking in", with meaning of "to admit; receive".

lucio 10y ago

So, by following your reasoning, a sound-economy country, should receive aliens until such receiving country has no room, is broke, and everybody are on the edge of starvation?

dalke 10y ago
No. Everyone agrees that there are material limits to what a country can provide. It is indeed obvious that there is a limit to the amount of help that a country can provide. But raverbashing used a bait-and-switch argument, to say that because there are limits, we (people who live in the EU), can now prevent refugees from entering the EU countries. What I asked is clarification of what those limits are, and how they were determined. One limit is "tolerance for foreigners." That's certainly a limit. Is that the limit that raverbashing is talking about? Another limit is "there is no place to put them." Sweden has problems with that. I can think of other limits. But none are the sort of existential limits that everyone agrees exists.