Economical refugees dilemma

[Shushersbedamned]

Because they weren't citizens.

Why were they to be then?

 

[sayak83]

If what you are saying is that poorer countries would benefit from having "people like us" living among them, I agree.

But to get that, those countries need to provide safety, stability, and infrastructure, which is probably out of reach for many of them without outside help.

I have lived in such a place (Mexico) since retirement, and its a win-win for everybody involved. The local government upgraded the infrastructure (roads, telephone, Internet, power) some number of years ago, and the expatriates came to live. More importantly to the locals, the came to spend.

The minimum wage in this country is about $5 a day in US dollars, but our neighbors do much better than that. Housekeepers make that for an hour's work, much more than was possible for their mothers. And the young men who do metalwork, woodwork, wiring, plumbing, and construction are very busy helping us customize our homes. You don't need to worry about any of those people sneaking into the States looking for work.

This seems like a fairly permanent solution to the problem - spread the wealth geographically by disseminating people. @sayak83 mentioned the free movement of goods, capital, and labor. Perhaps this is what he meant in part.

I did.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Why were they to be then?

See again: statelessness

 

[stvdv]

All who live in Europe are Europeans...by definition

I agree. It's a good practise not to discriminate, because "There is 1 caste, the caste of humanity"
I wait for the day that humans also do the same with religion, because "There is 1 religion, the religion of Love"

And when the religious people understand this truth
There will also be no problem with discrimination in Europe
The discrimination [my religion is the best] is the cause of all trouble

 

[Shushersbedamned]

See again: statelessness

I'm sick of your referrals.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I'm sick of your referrals.

I'm sorry you seem to take such offense at the basic sharing of information.

 

[Nakosis]

When the refugee crisis was at its top in the political matters there was a lot of mumbling over so called economical refugees - refugees who are not in danger or escaping from war but from poor economical possibilities.

What is the stance the world as a whole and/or its different parts should take in this dilemma?

This should probably.be considered from all points of view; Economical, political, cultural, philosophical....what not.

Migration is really a bad idea IMO.

Having everyone move to successful economies is going to put a strain on the resources of that area.

There are lots of land areas around the world but people want to move to metropolitan areas so they can benefit from that success.

This makes the bad areas worse and the "good" areas worse.

We'd be better served focusing on the creation of multiple economically viable centers.

We should help folks to stay where they are, build up their own economy.

The problem with this is governments. Governments acting against the interest of their own people.

Folks seek better governments, better governing. Fair governing.

So we need to help folks improve their own economies and use the UN to put pressure on governments who mistreat their citizenry.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

I'm sorry you seem to take such offense at the basic sharing of information.

I'm not collecting information. I'm trying to have a conversation. I can't have it if Wikipedia does all your talking for you. I won't spend all day reading dozens of pages in hopes that at some point I come across your point and recognize it...

The question was why my definition of an European is not sufficient. You say there is many troubles to it and show me one example if person who is it officially a citizen at all.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Migration is really a bad idea IMO.

Having everyone move to successful economies is going to put a strain on the resources of that area.

There are lots of land areas around the world but people want to move to metropolitan areas so they can benefit from that success.

This makes the bad areas worse and the "good" areas worse.

We'd be better served focusing on the creation of multiple economically viable centers.

We should help folks to stay where they are, build up their own economy.

The problem with this is governments. Governments acting against the interest of their own people.

Folks seek better governments, better governing. Fair governing.

So we need to help folks improve their own economies and use the UN to put pressure on governments who mistreat their citizenry.

That's a solid idea.

But

How do you decide who is supposed to stay there and sacrifice what could have been to them a better life elsewhere? No one basically has a right to do that. On the other hand no one is responsible of taking the burden away from them either.

 

[stvdv]

Please define "European" for us, then?

I can define it very simple for you. Within the context of this post a European is someone who lives in Europe. But people who are running out of another continent into Europe, do not become Europeans the millisecond they place their feet on European soil. If a martian lands in your house do you call it your family member the second he enters your house? And when you discover a nice martian woman in your bed, while your wife is out, do you call the martian woman your wife?

 

[Kirran]

How is it useful to define people as European or not? Where is the benefit in making such a distinction?

 

[stvdv]

How is it useful to define people as European or not? Where is the benefit in making such a distinction?

I spend 10 years in India. They always asked me "where do you come from sir, from Europe?". There are so many Indians in this world. Maybe they are the cause that "we are now defined as Europeans"

 

[Shushersbedamned]

How is it useful to define people as European or not? Where is the benefit in making such a distinction?

I guess some1 at some point insinuated everyone living in eur pe are Europeans.

 

[Kirran]

I guess some1 at some point insinuated everyone living in eur pe are Europeans.

But I mean, how is it useful to determine whether someone is a European when thinking about how to accommodate them and engage with them when they arrive as refugees? Whether you start calling someone a European as soon as they arrive, or as soon as they get residency, or when they get citizenship, or never, doesn't this only impede dealing with realities of human individuals on the ground?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I'm not collecting information. I'm trying to have a conversation. I can't have it if Wikipedia does all your talking for you. I won't spend all day reading dozens of pages in hopes that at some point I come across your point and recognize it...

The question was why my definition of an European is not sufficient. You say there is many troubles to it and show me one example if person who is it officially a citizen at all.

I did that, and you complained. But for the third time: stateless persons.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I can define it very simple for you. Within the context of this post a European is someone who lives in Europe. But people who are running out of another continent into Europe, do not become Europeans the millisecond they place their feet on European soil. If a martian lands in your house do you call it your family member the second he enters your house? And when you discover a nice martian woman in your bed, while your wife is out, do you call the martian woman your wife?

Spurious analogies aside, how l9ng would someone need to live in Europe before you consider them European?

 

[Shushersbedamned]

But I mean, how is it useful to determine whether someone is a European when thinking about how to accommodate them and engage with them when they arrive as refugees? Whether you start calling someone a European as soon as they arrive, or as soon as they get residency, or when they get citizenship, or never, doesn't this only impede dealing with realities of human individuals on the ground?

some1 at some point insinuated everyone living in eur pe are Europeans.

 

[Kirran]

some1 at some point insinuated everyone living in eur pe are Europeans.

Sure, why not. Just words really.

 

[Nakosis]

That's a solid idea.

But

How do you decide who is supposed to stay there and sacrifice what could have been to them a better life elsewhere? No one basically has a right to do that. On the other hand no one is responsible of taking the burden away from them either.

You would have to make it enticing to want to stay. Unfortunately some governments make it enticing to want to leave.

Unfortunately for Syria it seems a number of governments are making it enticing to want to leave.

Why is everyone in Syria? It seems it has to do with the Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline.

The REAL Reason Nearly EVERYONE Is In Syria

 

[stvdv]

Spurious analogies aside, how l9ng would someone need to live in Europe before you consider them European?

European I don't know how that works exactly. I am not much into politics. Getting Dutch nationality takes a while. They have to go through quite a lot of bureaucracy. Can take many years. Of course if you are the wife of Trump or the wife of our king, those things speed up considerably. So can't say with accuracy. But definitely "1 step" is not enough.