5 ms·

The problem is that proponents of mass immigration frame it as "either you are for mass immigration, or you are for the slaughtering/suffering/starvation/etc. o

by ythn 8y ago

The problem is that proponents of mass immigration frame it as "either you are for mass immigration, or you are for the slaughtering/suffering/starvation/etc. of refugees in war torn areas"

k__ 8y ago
Which you basically are, but that's just life. You can't have a cake and eat it.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  No, you're not - there are plenty of options in between the current state of things and complete indifference to peoples' lives. Alternatives include accelerated immigration programs focused on refugees. Or a peace-keeping intervention in the war-torn places. The issue GP is pointing out is that this framing is basically shutting out any possible discussion. While myself I'm rather currently in favour of relatively lenient immigration policies, a lot of people I know personally are anti-immigration because they feel like we're being scammed with a bait-and-switch tactic - i.e. that we're told to accept war refugees, and what we get instead are economical migrants. Whether justified by evidence or not, I find those fears are something reasonable for people to have.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    > we're told to accept war refugees, and what we get instead are economical migrants How on earth would you tell the difference as a bystander? Or is it the case that the media are telling them to be afraid of "migrants"?
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      I wouldn't. They wouldn't and can't. It's all what the media says and shows. I'm just reporting on what my acquaintances believe from what they see on the news / in their social media feeds / through third-hand stories and cherry-picked examples confirming stereotypes. It's all just perceptions from indirect sources, like 99% of social issues of today.
      - candiodari 8y ago
        You perhaps wouldn't but for one thing, refugees come from war-torn areas. It is implied constantly, but never stated, by the government that the current flow of refugees come from Syria, fleeing the violence there. Reality: Syrian refugees are a tiny minority. Africans and people from central Asia are the large bulk of the immigrants (>80%) and they are most definitely not coming from war-torn areas.
- MichaelGG 8y ago
  Not at all. If my neighbor breaks his bathroom, he's welcome to use mine. But after a month, when his whole family is now frequently coming over, I will ask him to get a plumber. If he won't, I'll do it and lock my door. For many countries sending people to prime immigration target countries, the only visible fix is running their countries for them. Instead, the UN and other groups do the opposite. They run around singing about human rights, enabling lawlessness and crime to go on unchecked while decent citizens become frustrated, some of them escaping and contributing to immigration. In particular, Central America. I know many people that would be 100% onboard with defending and cleaning up their country. Instead, they all tell me they don't even carry a weapon, because using it will get them jailed with a short life expectancy. Meanwhile, pretty much every Guatemalan I speak with pines for the days of Rios Montt which kept things safe and clean. Yet is decried by the international community which doesn't have to live with the result of their choices. Fix the source, take a heavy hand. There's no need for the West to babysit people. Letting a tiny amount of people in to your own countries will accomplish little to actually relieve suffering. It's pointless and costly and not a real solution.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    > For many countries sending people to prime immigration target countries, the only visible fix is running their countries for them. Funnily enough, the current "immigration" fiasco in the UK is about the Windrush generation, who came over from Jamaica at the instigation of the UK which was running the country at the time. The UK is trying to retroactively undo this and deport them, including people who were born in the UK, despite the fact that they originally came over on British passports.
    - MichaelGG 8y ago
      Yes it was an obviously disastrous policy, as anyone should have been able to predict. Some politicians at the time accurately stated this obvious truth, and years later they've been proven right beyond a doubt. So right are they that critics even now only yell insults and demand censorship. Running a country for someone doesn't mean you need to give citizenship, residency, or even visas to them. It just means you do the math and see that it's obviously less suffering to remove some liberty and self-governance to improve the lives of millions. Over time, slowly give back bits of governance while retaining the right to override. Then take it from there. It takes some mental gymnastics to allow a situation where innocent people live in fear and can be robbed and killed without reprisals only to claim you've delivered "human rights" and democracy.
pjc50 8y ago
When a millon refugees walk across the border, what are the options? And what will the outcomes of those choices be?

by ythn 8y ago

The problem is that proponents of mass immigration frame it as "either you are for mass immigration, or you are for the slaughtering/suffering/starvation/etc. of refugees in war torn areas"

k__ 8y ago

Which you basically are, but that's just life. You can't have a cake and eat it.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
No, you're not - there are plenty of options in between the current state of things and complete indifference to peoples' lives. Alternatives include accelerated immigration programs focused on refugees. Or a peace-keeping intervention in the war-torn places. The issue GP is pointing out is that this framing is basically shutting out any possible discussion. While myself I'm rather currently in favour of relatively lenient immigration policies, a lot of people I know personally are anti-immigration because they feel like we're being scammed with a bait-and-switch tactic - i.e. that we're told to accept war refugees, and what we get instead are economical migrants. Whether justified by evidence or not, I find those fears are something reasonable for people to have.
- pjc50 8y ago
  > we're told to accept war refugees, and what we get instead are economical migrants How on earth would you tell the difference as a bystander? Or is it the case that the media are telling them to be afraid of "migrants"?
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    I wouldn't. They wouldn't and can't. It's all what the media says and shows. I'm just reporting on what my acquaintances believe from what they see on the news / in their social media feeds / through third-hand stories and cherry-picked examples confirming stereotypes. It's all just perceptions from indirect sources, like 99% of social issues of today.
    - candiodari 8y ago
      You perhaps wouldn't but for one thing, refugees come from war-torn areas. It is implied constantly, but never stated, by the government that the current flow of refugees come from Syria, fleeing the violence there. Reality: Syrian refugees are a tiny minority. Africans and people from central Asia are the large bulk of the immigrants (>80%) and they are most definitely not coming from war-torn areas.
MichaelGG 8y ago
Not at all. If my neighbor breaks his bathroom, he's welcome to use mine. But after a month, when his whole family is now frequently coming over, I will ask him to get a plumber. If he won't, I'll do it and lock my door. For many countries sending people to prime immigration target countries, the only visible fix is running their countries for them. Instead, the UN and other groups do the opposite. They run around singing about human rights, enabling lawlessness and crime to go on unchecked while decent citizens become frustrated, some of them escaping and contributing to immigration. In particular, Central America. I know many people that would be 100% onboard with defending and cleaning up their country. Instead, they all tell me they don't even carry a weapon, because using it will get them jailed with a short life expectancy. Meanwhile, pretty much every Guatemalan I speak with pines for the days of Rios Montt which kept things safe and clean. Yet is decried by the international community which doesn't have to live with the result of their choices. Fix the source, take a heavy hand. There's no need for the West to babysit people. Letting a tiny amount of people in to your own countries will accomplish little to actually relieve suffering. It's pointless and costly and not a real solution.
- pjc50 8y ago
  > For many countries sending people to prime immigration target countries, the only visible fix is running their countries for them. Funnily enough, the current "immigration" fiasco in the UK is about the Windrush generation, who came over from Jamaica at the instigation of the UK which was running the country at the time. The UK is trying to retroactively undo this and deport them, including people who were born in the UK, despite the fact that they originally came over on British passports.
  - MichaelGG 8y ago
    Yes it was an obviously disastrous policy, as anyone should have been able to predict. Some politicians at the time accurately stated this obvious truth, and years later they've been proven right beyond a doubt. So right are they that critics even now only yell insults and demand censorship. Running a country for someone doesn't mean you need to give citizenship, residency, or even visas to them. It just means you do the math and see that it's obviously less suffering to remove some liberty and self-governance to improve the lives of millions. Over time, slowly give back bits of governance while retaining the right to override. Then take it from there. It takes some mental gymnastics to allow a situation where innocent people live in fear and can be robbed and killed without reprisals only to claim you've delivered "human rights" and democracy.

pjc50 8y ago

When a millon refugees walk across the border, what are the options? And what will the outcomes of those choices be?