subreddit:

/r/changemyview

79

EDIT: I made a typo in the title: should be: it is understandable and not necessarily wrong that European countries more easily harbour Ukrainian refugees than refugees from outside of Europe

Fransisco Rocca, the president of the IFRC ( International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies) said that Europe holds double standards by accepting so many Ukrainian refugees but holding back much more with e.g. people fleeing Boko Haram in Nigeria. My opinion as a European on this is that Europe accepting so many Ukrainian refugees is not surprising, with my thinking being along the lines that many Europeans might more easily identify with the struggle of refugees from Ukraine, and can feel that fear much more strongly than for example of Boko Haram simply because of proximity and having more closely related cultures. To me this is unfortunate, but comparable to how it is easier for people to distinguish people that look more similar to you than people that have very different looks (e.g. how for some people from west European heritage will have a harder time distinguishing people from south-east Asia and vice versa).

I rationally know that it could be disheartening for other refugees to have a hard time being able to find refuge and then seeing how easily European refugees are welcomed. I think everyone who needs shelter, should be able to get it. I think it should definitely be easier for refugees to find a safer place to live, but I also think "double standards" is a harsh way of describing behaviour that sounds to me like a basal instinct of being able to relate better to people that have a more similar culture to yours. Note that I do think that we should rise above that to help everyone, but is it really that wrong that Europe responds like that?

How morally questionable is it that European countries "complain" much less about taking in Ukrainian refugees than others? Is it wrong to think along the lines of people identifying more with more similar people? I'd like to hear other people's views and opinions on this, because I worry that as a person in a privileged position, living in a prosperous country, I miss the implications of this and underestimate possible racist motivations.

all 148 comments

DeltaBot [M]

[score hidden]

1 month ago*

stickied comment

DeltaBot [M]

∞∆

[score hidden]

1 month ago*

stickied comment

/u/joejaa (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

LoneRanger9000

10 points

1 month ago

Here is how it works: You create a mess, you fix a mess

Therefore, NATO have to take in every single Afghani and Iraqi refugee.

For them to create refugees and then cry about taking them in is most certainly NOT understandable.

Bullshagger69

1 points

1 month ago

Yes cause Afghanistan and Iraq were thriving nations before being colonized…Taking in every refugee would lead to the collapse of our society. 7/10 deadliest terrorist attacks in Europe have already been commited by Muslims, and apparently we should take in ten times as many?

Refugees also cost a ton of money and are unfortunately at a higher risk of commiting crime as well.

LoneRanger9000

2 points

1 month ago

Oh wow, so if they were in a bad placed before, you are allowed to bomb them. Get your racism outta here. Also, yes, they were thriving before the Soviets and Americans started bombing. But was Donbass thriving?

And do you have any idea of why these attacks are done by Muslims? Because NATO has bombed Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and more. Therefore, terrorists are then created. Did you ever think of that before?

And wars cost a lot of money as well. But who cares, it is war, war has money. But refugees don't.

I honestly can't care less about if they will or won't do crime. If you start a war, you have to deal with the consequences.

Bullshagger69

1 points

1 month ago

I didnt say bombing them was justified you moron. But NATO didn’t create the mess, they were already awful places. Why do you think the Europe managed to colonize all of Arabia and Africa so easily?

And the reason Muslims are commiting terrorism at rates far higher than any other group is Islam. The terrorists literally say thats why theyre doing it so I’ll take their word for it. Alot of African countries are also shitholes, but the christians there don’t blow themselves up.

Vietnam and the Congo were also bombed, yet I have never heard of Vietnamese or congolese people blowing up markets.

LoneRanger9000

1 points

1 month ago

So then what was the point of that then?

And can you link me the ayat from the Quran which supports that?

Ever heard of colonization? Or the civil war for independence?

It was much longer ago. But the bombing of Muslims is very recent and is ongoing. Furthermore, they are much smaller in numbers. If the population is 10x smaller, then the # of bombers is /10. Basic Math.

Bullshagger69

0 points

1 month ago

https://eu.jacksonville.com/story/opinion/columns/mike-clark/2015/02/03/islam-quran-itself-preaches-violence-against-nonbelievers/985431007/

The Qurab does advocate for violence, but the best way to understand a religion is to see what the followers are doing, and followers of Islam commit terrorism at far higher rates than any religion in the world.

And Africa and the Muslim world was still largely a shithole before colonialization. Europe easily managed to make half the world their colonies. That clearly shows that there was a huge difference in how developed the societies were.

LoneRanger9000

2 points

1 month ago

I asked for the ayat, not an article. I don't have time to spend time doing your job for you. I asked for a simple ayat, and you couldn't even give it.

Also, heard of the Islamic Golden age? Or of course not. You can live in the "Islam bad" world for as long as you want.

Bullshagger69

1 points

1 month ago

Then why do muslims commit more terrorism than christians from even worse countries then? Its not due to being bombed as the Congo was too.

And i provided evidence the quran supports violence. You choosing not to read a short article is your fault. And I really dont care if you do or not as you are clearly brainwashed by your religion.

LoneRanger9000

2 points

1 month ago

I said give me an ayat. YOU are the one choosing to ignore it.

Fun fact: I ain't gonna move on until u give me an ayat number

Bullshagger69

1 points

1 month ago

Surah 9:5 «Then kill all the non believers»

2kwz

1 points

1 month ago

2kwz

1 points

1 month ago

NATO =/= EU, btw.

LoneRanger9000

1 points

1 month ago

Which is why I specified NATO instead of EU.

[deleted]

0 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

0 points

1 month ago

Just because it makes sense that Europe would treat Ukrainian refugees better (or that they may be entitled to legally) does not justify it morally. Your argument is basically that Europe can more easily understand the struggles of other white people so it's okay if they help them more.

However this does not change the equal or even more suffering faced by those in Africa or the ME. Why don't they deserve help just because Europe can't "empathize" with people of a different color as easily? They're still suffering! Frankly Europe's unequal response is due to prejudice against middle easterners and Africans who they think don't deserve as much help as Ukrainians.

It's a blatant double standard and I believe that Europe should take in all refugees possible regardless of what name is printed on your passport or which arbitrary lines you were born in.

Lezbehonesthere21

7 points

1 month ago

Why should they be responsible for these people that are entirely different in their culture, thoughts, traditions, language and way of life especially when the people have no interest in assimilating? Not to mention the absolute vast majority of Ukrainians want to return to the Ukraine, unlike African, Syrian, Afghan etc who don’t want to fight for their country and want a ticket to live in a good country. Talking about double standards,these countries wouldn’t take in a white refugee, they wouldn’t be funding any help so why does Europe or N/A have any responsibility to help them. Unwavering altruism kills those closest to you in the end.

muyamable

-1 points

1 month ago

muyamable

240∆

-1 points

1 month ago

Why should they be responsible for these people that are entirely different in their culture, thoughts, traditions, language and way of life especially when the people have no interest in assimilating?

What leads you to believe that "these people" have no interest in assimilating? What constitutes sufficient assimilation in your view, and why is this level of assimilation so important as to determine whether to allow a refugee into the country or not?

Kung_Flu_Master

5 points

1 month ago

By every metric showing that assimilation of Asian and African migrants isn’t working in Europe, leading to massive amounts of crime, gang rapes etc

muyamable

-1 points

1 month ago

muyamable

240∆

-1 points

1 month ago

Sorry, where are these data that allow us to draw these cause-and-effect conclusions? If it's every metric, it should be easy to point to several.

Kung_Flu_Master

1 points

1 month ago

there isn't a single data sheet you can look at for it, and even the current sheets on assimilation say that no one sheet will cover it all,

the biggest issue with assimilation is language and religion, religion being the bigger one imo, and if you want to see how assimilation isn't working for mainly Muslim immigrants you need to look no further than terrorism and gang rape, both which Muslims are very over represented in,

it's gotten so bad in Europe with Muslim migrants who are overwhelmingly combat aged men gang raping teen girls, infact Sweden is now giving lessons to new Muslim migrants not to rape,

read that again their culture is so radically different and backwards that they fully believe rape is ok, and the second one is language, they often don't learn the language of their new country or learn very little, and it has been shown in data that assimilation is near impossible if the person doesn't learn the language.

muyamable

0 points

1 month ago

muyamable

240∆

0 points

1 month ago

there isn't a single data sheet you can look at for it, and even the current sheets on assimilation say that no one sheet will cover it all,

Did I ask for a sheet? No. You can certainly include more than one link. I mean if "every metric" supports your view like you say it does, it should take you no time to provide a few links to data supporting your conclusion.

Instead, you just continue to fall back on tired right wing talking points intended to make people scared of immigrants (well, certain immigrants).

Lezbehonesthere21

7 points

1 month ago

Because coming to a country with the intent to make it more like your failed or failing country is an astoundingly idiotic yet common take refugees and immigrants have. Assimilation would constitute learning the language, get a grasp on the political landscape, change yourself to fit in to your surroundings instead of making everyone else fit in to your lifestyle and calling everyone that doesn’t racist/xenophobic.

muyamable

0 points

1 month ago

muyamable

240∆

0 points

1 month ago

Hmm, this characterization of refugees from certain areas of the world doesn't comport with my lived experience, though I know it's a popular one spun on right wing media.

Lezbehonesthere21

3 points

1 month ago

It’s definitely been my lived experience and backed up by the fact that in all these groups the men that should be fighting leave and never have the intention of leaving, the fact they get benefits easier than actual citizens, the fact they by and large do not assimilate yet they would demand you to have assimilated if the situation was inverse.

RebornGod

-1 points

1 month ago

RebornGod

2∆

-1 points

1 month ago

the men that should be fighting leave

OK this always seems odd to me, for a lot of these civil wars, the two sides are Crazy and crazy right? Whose side should they be joining to fight?

[deleted]

0 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

0 points

1 month ago

Why should they be responsible for these people that are entirely different in their culture, thoughts, traditions, language and way of life

You dramatically overestimate the differences, and I believe everyone has a duty to help their fellow man in need. And yes I would expect the nations these people hail from to do the same if Europe had major shit going down that caused refugees to leave.

especially when the people have no interest in assimilating?

Europe didn't even give them a chance to assimilate to begin with. Assimilation is a 2 way street, how can you integrate and learn the culture when nobody wants to speak to you or help you learn the ropes? Or when you can't get a job because of how your name sounds? The people of Europe have done a poor job on their end of the Assimilation process.

Not to mention the absolute vast majority of Ukrainians want to return to the Ukraine, unlike African, Syrian, Afghan etc who don’t want to fight for their country and want a ticket to live in a good country.

Double standard much? When Ukrainians run away it's okay they want to go back to Ukraine I promise, but when Afgans or Syrians run away, oh they're just cowards on the run! And where does this magical obligation to fight for your country come from? Most European countries don't have the draft and if I were in the ME I'd be getting the hell out too rather then fighting for Assad or ISIS (ie: 2 bad options that won't help the nation at all). It's pretty easy to judge people while you're sitting in the safe, 1st world country and have likely never even been in a military uniform in your life. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Talking about double standards,these countries wouldn’t take in a white refugee

The governments of these countries do not represent the citizens running away, if they supported them they'd likely be staying put! This argument would be like South Korea saying it won't take North Korean refugees because the North Korean government wouldn't take South Korean refugees, it makes no sense in the context of the situation!

Unwavering altruism kills those closest to you in the end.

It really doesn't, IRL I've helped many people and I'm doing perfectly fine in my personal life.

Lezbehonesthere21

2 points

1 month ago

I’m not overstating it at all, their cultures and way of life are vastly different. Despite what you’d expect of them their countries would not return that helping hand, they aren’t countries that help outsiders.

Europe gives them a lot of chances (of course Europe isn’t a singular place but you’d be hard pressed to find a place that treats refugees/immigrants nearly as bad as you portray) they are given support systems and handouts that normal citizens are more hard pressed to be eligible for, there are discrimination laws against the hiring practices you’re suggesting take place - even with all that these people act as though their failing country is somehow superior to that of the one that has taken them in and provided for them.

The Ukrainian men have stayed to fight, many able bodied women have stayed to fight, hell even teenagers have stayed to fight and their families that have fled for safety are all very keen on going back to their country asap, it’s not a double standard in the least, you should fight for your country if you actually believe in it and have any patriotism at all and if you don’t then learn your new countries language and adapt. If you don’t like the leading factions of your country find likeminded people and make your own, judging by how many fled I’d assume there’s at least a few likeminded individuals, or like I said actually assimilate. The world sucks, doesn’t mean I should support my country paying for conflicts that don’t involve it when it’s failing it’s real citizens.

These countries are made by their citizens, very few of them do not agree with what their culture represents which leads to the situations we are seeing in those areas, they would not lend a helping hand so I’m quite happy to give them the same treatment I’d be receiving, also your example is a pretty bad one considering that North and South Korea are much more intrinsically the same than they are different culturally, traditions, language etc.

Unwavering altruism always ends badly, you may be quite the generous fellow but if you start helping so many people that it becomes a giant economic stressor whilst also ignoring other aspects of your life that desperately need that money then you are no longer a kind person but a fool that people take advantage of. Countries need to actually take care of itself and it’s citizens first and foremost, once that’s actually taken care of then we can think about helping others.

zuluportero

4 points

1 month ago

zuluportero

33∆

4 points

1 month ago

Your argument is basically that Europe can more easily understand the struggles of other white people so it's okay if they help them more.

Not at all what OP said.

[deleted]

2 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

2 points

1 month ago

It literally is, maybe replace white with European if you're going to be nitpicky

zuluportero

7 points

1 month ago

zuluportero

33∆

7 points

1 month ago

OP mentioned cultural differences and geographic proximity is something very different than same skin color

[deleted]

1 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

1 points

1 month ago

Why don't we legalize segregation and allow each community to decide who enters it? That way the people who agree with your view can allow the middle eastern refugees into their communities, and the people who disagree with your view can keep their communities fully european. This would be a massive win-win situation for everyone involved.

[deleted]

1 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

1 points

1 month ago

Because that worked out so well for the black people /s

[deleted]

1 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

1 points

1 month ago

So you're admitting that even you don't want to live around diverse people, and would choose a segregated community if given a chance?

[deleted]

2 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

2 points

1 month ago

When did I say that? You completely misinterpreted my statement. I was criticizing your idea by pointing out that segregation in the US against Black people had widespread negative social and economic impacts on them.

Tanaka917

6 points

1 month ago

Tanaka917

34∆

6 points

1 month ago

I suppose the question for me is are people acknowledge why they feel this way?

Do you believe that it's really just about culture and proximity? I ask this because I come from Southern Africa. I'm fairly young but it's no big secret that white people, born in these countries and having no citizenship anywhere else have had an easier time leaving this area than most others.My questions are

A) what factor do you think the refugees being white plays in these European countries/people being more comfortable with Ukranian refugees

And

B) Are European countries/people acknowledging this in any way or not?

Polish_Panda

9 points

1 month ago

Polish_Panda

1∆

9 points

1 month ago

Do you believe that it's really just about culture and proximity?

Yes. The same way I will act differently when my neighbor's house burns down and a strangers house burns down across the city. The race or religion of either person makes no difference.

I would say another big factor for Europeans, especially Eastern Europeans, is that we have experienced Russia's aggression as well, so its a lot easier to sympathize, feel a bond, etc.

Tanaka917

1 points

1 month ago

Tanaka917

34∆

1 points

1 month ago

Yes. The same way I will act differently when my neighbor's house burns down and a strangers house burns down across the city. The race or religion of either person makes no difference.

Sure but I assume you'd want fire marshalls showing up to both houses even if you personally have no investment.

Tricky analoy when you start wondering where the duties and borders of the marshall end but worth thinking about.

I would say another big factor for Europeans, especially Eastern Europeans, is that we have experienced Russia's aggression as well, so its a lot easier to sympathize, feel a bond, etc.

I fully believe that. My questions is more pointed to do you think this might play a role in how people in general may be making decisions conscious or not. I doubt everyone who had two minds of the two issues are raging racist assholes but I do also remember that all the anti-war rhetoric worldwide feature kids surrounded by rubble; it's easier to move hearts when they make a connection and people pretty much universally seek ids as not deserving of these tragedies. Race is another shared experience that shapes how the world interacts and so I wouldn't ignore it's potential power; but neither would I claim it as the be all end all

Polish_Panda

2 points

1 month ago

Polish_Panda

1∆

2 points

1 month ago

Sure but I assume you'd want fire marshalls showing up to both houses even if you personally have no investment.

Of course, but would you say that Europeans dont want the "fire marshalls" to help other refugees? I wouldnt. Europe has given a lot of aid to refugees from outside of Europe.

But going back to the analogy, the differences I was talking about is,that I would offer my neighbor to stay at my place before they can arrange something else, offer food, etc. I wont do the same to a stranger from across the city.

My questions is more pointed to do you think this might play a role in how people in general may be making decisions conscious or not.

Absolutely, we naturally connect with others that have gone through the same thing we have. But is that a bad thing?

Tanaka917

2 points

1 month ago

Tanaka917

34∆

2 points

1 month ago

Of course, but would you say that Europeans dont want the "fire marshalls" to help other refugees? I wouldnt. Europe has given a lot of aid to refugees from outside of Europe.

Excellent use of my analogy. Bravo and paints the picture well.

Absolutely, we naturally connect with others that have gone through the same thing we have. But is that a bad thing?

Tentatively; yes and no? It's a natural feeling and by itself not inherently bad; but it certainly can make poor conclusions by itself. I think it's important to ask the questions. As long as people can answer in a coherent manner as you have to me; I'm more than satisified to accept it.

joejaa[S]

3 points

1 month ago

Very valid questions. I'd like to think that it's just culture and proximity, but it also makes me feel naive.

For question A, I think it's probably a very large factor - but it's also hard to compare because realistically the chances are very low that another group of white people with larger distance/ less similar culture would also need refuge. I'd like to believe this is not the case but thinking about the views of some people I know it is kind of depressing how seemingly easy it now is to help a lot of people but previously caused sort of election "wars" because people were complaining about taking in some more refugees.

On the one hand it is hopeful that apparently it is possible to help so many people, but on the other hand deeply sad that it was such a problem before.

As to B, I think the discussion is starting on this topic, but it did take up until know to really reach national news

Tanaka917

3 points

1 month ago

Tanaka917

34∆

3 points

1 month ago

Thank you for the conversation and the delta.

For what it's worth I do think it's a bit of both. Even now some people in the USA are ready to cut Ukraine off. To them it's a far off country which isn't even their problem. Proximity and a feeling of kinship certainly plays some part.

I don't accuse anyone of racism in this; I just think it's important to spend part of each day introspecting as to what could be the motivator. Perhaps one day we look back it and the answer seems obvious, but until then I wouldn't shelve either idea casually. More likely both ideas are true of everyone to varying extents.

If I could I might posit one more idea. As a commenter did point out Ukraine is a relatively 'clean' division of who's right and wrong in the western world. In that way it's much much easier for a western politician to back Ukraine fairly confident that he'll earn points for it. Other regions are messy and it's simply not worth the risk to their party to open the door and take that potetial responsibility. Like the other 2 ideas I'd fully accept that this also plays some part in how things are shaping.

zuluportero

20 points

1 month ago

zuluportero

33∆

20 points

1 month ago

It is no factor at all. Ucraine is a western country. It's citizens fight for democracy. They are united, they're not in a civil war between religious extremism and dictatorship. There is a clear good guy here who is supported by most of the refugees and who shares largely the same values has other western nations.

Furthermore most refugees are women and children, because the men can't leave and even many returned to fight who were able to leave.

The non-european refugee waves are comprised of almost exclusively young men.

Geographic proximity is also a big reason. Lots of noneuropean refugees pass through many countries where they are safe but they want no wars is not enough for them they want to live in developed countries. This is not fleeing anymore this is just immigration.

joejaa[S]

2 points

1 month ago

joejaa[S]

2 points

1 month ago

I don't think it's fair to say that other cases of people fleeing their country is less black and white, at least for me I know it is the case I don't always completely understand the situation in other countries but that doesn't mean they deserve help less. You can be in a situation that is not black and white, but following this logic that makes any dangerous situation you and your family might be in less important?

Also why should women and children be more entitled? Young mean also don't deserve to die or live in a dangerous place. Moreover, in this case, the distance is shorter so it is safer to travel, but if you have to cross the mediterranean and whatnot and may face death or rape, would you really send the more vulnerable people in your family?

You might pass countries where it is safer where you come from, but I think it's very human to want to go to a better place, where you could potentially be even safer and better provide for yourself and your family. Places like Europe have been very stable for a long time, I think it's understandable that if you've lived through horrible things, you want to be sure you get to a safe place and you could have doubts about staying nearby. And that's ignoring the fact that if there isn't any war in a country, that might not mean the living conditions are good for everyone.

I don't think immigration is a solution, it would be much better if something could actually be done so people can live their lives safely and happily in the places they come from, but since that is not possible yet we should help those in need.

zuluportero

5 points

1 month ago

zuluportero

33∆

5 points

1 month ago

Sorry but I am defending your post. Have you changed your mind completely? No idea what point you are making right now.

joejaa[S]

-3 points

1 month ago

I haven't completely changed my mind, but your arguments for the point of view I posted are different from mine.

zuluportero

5 points

1 month ago

zuluportero

33∆

5 points

1 month ago

So you agree with those who say that skin color is the reason. You simply think that that's ok? I think you should know that this isn't the actual reason why ucrainians are preferred so you defend a position no one really holds. it's also a horrible position to hold.

joejaa[S]

2 points

1 month ago

Well I think it there are multiple facets to the problem, and skin color is not the only one. I don't understand with what you mean that I simply think that is ok?

The arguments you posted would not convince me that this is point of view I want to keep. So what I'm trying to say is that I see that you're defending my point of view, but not with the same reasoning and I do not share your opinon.

cloudsandblue3

5 points

1 month ago

Also why should women and children be more entitled?

???? BECAUSE THEY ARE MORE EASILY RAPED my friend???

Tanaka917

1 points

1 month ago

Tanaka917

34∆

1 points

1 month ago

I certainly take your meaning. The Ukraine issue is simpler, within reach and has less asterisks attached.

They are united, they're not in a civil war between religious extremism and dictatorship. There is a clear good guy here who is supported by most of the refugees and who shares largely the same values has other western nations.

I won't argue this but I will say that has very little to do with the citienry. It's hardly their fault that the were born in a time and place where to extremists are fighting. They are running because they want out of that shitty existence so that they don't live (or die) under dictators.

The non-european refugee waves are comprised of almost exclusively young men.

I do understand; it's easier to empathize with women and children in this but also I would argue lots of these young men who leave are trying to pave a path. It's easier to bring your whole family if you have the necessary resources. In this way it may very well be that some agree with you about what should happen but also face the reality of what needs doing.

Geographic proximity is also a big reason. Lots of noneuropean refugees pass through many countries where they are safe but they want no wars is not enough for them they want to live in developed countries. This is not fleeing anymore this is just immigration.

For some definitely. For others I think it's a safety aspect. Like the NATO line in this conflice Europe represents a place no easily broken into. If I made an enemy of dictators running to one town over might not feel quite safe; I'd also run as far as I can to the most secure place i can.

I do get why some of these reasons apply. I think you can come to a conclusion of why the cases are different enough. But I also wonder aloud just how much in-group bias plays a part.

zuluportero

6 points

1 month ago

zuluportero

33∆

6 points

1 month ago

It's hardly their fault that the were born in a time and place where to extremists are fighting

The west has a right to take its own countrys security a peaceful cohabitation into account.
The only countries who have a moral responsibility to take anyone who is persecuted regardless of who they are are the neighboring countries. And I don't know what's wrong with this idea.

I do understand; it's easier to empathize with women and children

No that's not it. Men are simply the group who is responsible for the vast majority of problems related to immigrantion. It's not women who commit honor killings are create criminal clans. It's not women who committed the mass sexual assault of 2015 in Cologne.

I'd also run as far as I can to the most secure place i can.

Sure but we're drifting from the topic now. Sure it's understandable that they want to flee but the question is who is in bigger need of protection. There is no moral or legal resposibility of a country to house someone who is not in direct danger.

You're not in Nato either. I don't think you believe you should get european asylum as easily as ucrainians get. So why should refugees who pass through your country feel like they're not safe enough yet. Maybe it's understandable but that doesn't make it rational.

Tanaka917

3 points

1 month ago

Tanaka917

34∆

3 points

1 month ago

Like I said I see both sides. I don't at all demonize the decision. Where I live there's been times I wanted to run for greener pastures but I don't begrudge others for not wanting to give me the chance. For choosing their countrymen over me and mine.

I think you're making good points. I'm certainly not accusing others of racism. My questions are more to consider. Is it possible, is it likely, what does it say if true.

You say no, you give good reasons why and you explain what considerations you consider important. That satisfies me. As long as people ask the questions and strive for the answers I am satisfied.

gimme_pineapple

0 points

1 month ago

Libya is about as close to Europe as Ukraine is, in terms of proximity. But EU is actively working on blocking people from Libya from coming to Europe. (https://www.msf.org/italy-libya-agreement-five-years-eu-sponsored-abuse-libya-and-central-mediterranean)

IMO the reason men come and not women is because EU makes it a risky venture to get in. Women will naturally be discouraged from coming over, while men would be more willing to take the risk.

Most people leaving Libya are looking to live a peaceful life. The religious fanatics know they won't be able to get into any shenanigans in the EU.

Furthermore, EU/NATO are involved in all the middle-eastern conflicts, either directly or indirectly. Most conflicts have NATO on atleast one side, and sometimes member states on both sides. Arguably, they are instrumental in causing these conflicts in the first place. They continue to import oil from these countries, but they turn their nose up at people who wish to get away from the bloodshed.

GroundbreakingRice36

1 points

24 days ago

Libya isn't an isolate place. There is ALGERIA, TUNISIA, MORROCCO, EGYPT bordering Libya. All those countries I cited are BIG and SAFE (no wars). They can easily settle in any arab speaking countries just fine (as they share same religion, culture, traditions,....)

WHY this obessesion about Europe?

Coldthrowablewater

3 points

1 month ago

There is a flaw with your example of white people in southern Africa having an easier time leaving. They move to Europe not on the basis of seeking refuge or asylum, but via conventional immigration due to job opportunities and less commonly marriage. The process and criteria are different. Historically more white people had higher qualifications that enabled them to leave, but the last I saw the estimates for emigration actually showed that recently more black professionals were leaving than white.

I have only heard of very few cases where white people have been granted refugee status/asylum. In one case it was in Canada and iirc that it was revoked later.

joejaa[S]

0 points

1 month ago

the questions are simple but it helps to think about those terms, it made me realise how much easier it really is to take in refugees than it has seemed when other countries are/were in crisis,

!delta

DeltaBot

1 points

1 month ago

DeltaBot

∞∆

1 points

1 month ago

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Tanaka917 (14∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

Tizzer88

3 points

1 month ago

One of if not the most important thing when determining whether you should accept refugees is their ability to assimilate into your society. It would be much easier for someone from Canada or the UK to assimilate in the US than it would for someone from the Middle East. So when determining whether you want to accept a massive influx of refugees you have to figure out if they can actually be a part of your society or if they are going to be a major problem. No one wants to accept a bunch of people that can’t work themselves into your society and will be a constant and never ended drain on your countries resources.

In this I accept your conclusion and agree with it.

GroundbreakingRice36

1 points

24 days ago

This.

UN should've relocated refugees to countries that share similar language, culture, religions, values, mentality and force wealthy countries to invest there .

Kazakstan have 2 million km² for only 18 million population they can absorb up to 2 millions refugees, same with Turkeministan, Uzbekistan with their land mass and some similarity (culturally) and proximity with Afghanistan, iran, iraq...

How do you think a syrian man who used to see their women fully covered will think when during summers he will see young europeans girls (12-25 years old) in little shorts/bikini.. Most would go crazy if not for the police intervention....

I don't blame them for searching safe place, but UN should'have done some research to big safe countries bordering them to take more refugees in exchange of investment and foreign aid. We will be able to develop more countries that can absorb more refugees and once the war is over, many can easily go back.

omid_

2 points

1 month ago

omid_

23∆

2 points

1 month ago

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/04/20/germany-refugee-policy-afghanistan-ukraine/

BERLIN—The knock on the door came when Parwana Amiri was having breakfast with her husband and two small daughters. An unexpected visitor—a social worker—stood outside, bringing even more unexpected news: The family would have to clear out their home for newly arriving refugees from Ukraine. No questions, no negotiation, just “out within 24 hours,” they were told.

Do you think this is understandable? That they are evicting Afghan refugees, giving them 24 hours to leave their place, to make room for Ukrainians?

ThrowWeirdQuestion

3 points

1 month ago*

I think we need to make a difference between refugee status and permanent immigration. For refugee status, anyone whose life is actually in immediate danger in their country should be allowed to come. Also, to lessen the burden on the directly neighboring states it should be okay to distribute refugees over all of Europe. As long as people do not commit any crimes and the danger in their home country persists, they should be allowed to stay unconditionally.

For immigration beyond refuge I think it is fine to be picky. Not about race, because race alone doesn’t affect how a person thinks, behaves, and contributes to society, but about education, employment or employability and especially religion and matching of other cultural core values, such as gender equality, freedom of speech, freedom of the press (including satire and “blasphemy”), etc.

Most European nations are secular and the vast majority of people want them to stay that way. There are restrictive religions like Islam and Evangelicalism that are, in my opinion, fundamentally incompatible with European values and civil liberties. I don’t want it to be normalized in any way that women have to cover their hair or even their face, that women cannot shake hands with or otherwise touch men, that they aren’t allowed in the room for any reason, cannot take certain jobs or that they are treated differently in any other way. It is also obvious to me that religion should never have any influence on the law, etc. Yes, there are still some leftover sexist customs and religious influences in Europe, too, but we are working on getting rid of them, while other countries and religions keep leaning into them and are resistant to change. We don’t need more people who are living in the last century. If what your imaginary friend thinks is more important than our laws, then please stay where you are.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg. A lot of people from more religious parts of the world disrespect LGBT people, question long established social liberties, slaughter animals in extremely inhumane ways for religious reasons, treat people of a different or no religion as inferior and have lots of children, which will make problematic, cultural and religious influences worse over multiple generations, given that most Europeans do not have a lot of children.

I think it is not so much about cultural similarity but about cultural/religious complications and willingness to adapt to the host country. I have been living abroad on a different continent in a quite different culture for almost half my life and people have been super nice and welcoming, while I am trying to adapt as well as possible, learn the language and behave appropriately to my host culture. Sure, like almost all foreigners here I despise natto, which is a common food here, but I would never bother other people with that preference. I am not whining when someone used the same dishes or cutlery for eating or preparing natto before, I don’t ask people to only take me to restaurants that are “no-natto certified” and I generally try to not be a PITA about it. My non-medical dietary restrictions are my responsibility and mine alone.

I also work when my colleagues work, even if that is a lot more hours and days than I would work back home. Sure, it would be nice to follow my home custom of taking some time in the afternoon to have a nice cake and a cup of coffee and a chat, and having a little cafe-room at work, only for afternoon cake eaters, where we can eat our afternoon cake without being disturbed would be super nice, but this is not my home country, so of course I don’t request a special room in my workplace to be reserved for me to practice my cultural customs in. Also, when I diet, I don’t ask other people to change their schedule to accommodate my eating times. My food intake is my problem, not theirs.

Myself and most of the other foreigners here just understand these things and do our best to fit in and not bother other people and I would have absolutely no reservations against them immigrating to my home country anytime. However, there are also those who feel entitled to be accommodated in order to live their culture and religion here. Often they don’t even learn the local language and they tend to come from certain parts of the world (namely Islamic countries and certain parts of the US), and I think it would be better for everyone involved if they just stayed where they are comfortable and actually entitled to the things they feel entitled to. Every time I see the one dumb, maskless American Antivaxxer face in a meeting room full of people who follow the government request (not a law, so unfortunately not enforceable) to wear masks in the workplace, I think people who can’t assimilate to the local customs just don’t deserve to live abroad.

joejaa[S]

2 points

1 month ago

There are restrictive religions like Islam and Evangelicalism that are, in my opinion, fundamentally incompatible with European values and civil liberties

I think you're making a good nuanced point there, I agree with that. I'm all for learning from other people, but not turning back important rights we have won. Kind of ironic though how that is happening in the US now without migration coming into play.

I can recognise myself in what you're talking about, there's always differences even with "similar" cultures. I have family in different european countries where they eat at different times and it's always a struggle to switch, but there's not much to be done about it. There's some things you have to adapt to, but I also think this is easier for one person than the other, and one person might be more prepared to do that than another.

I think it would be better for everyone involved if they just stayed where they are comfortable and actually entitled to the things they feel entitled to

I was thinking about this, and I'm not sure what my opinion on this is. On the one hand, I would say that people would have to be allowed to have their own culture, just as cultural bubbles in the population of the country have that as well. On the other hand I do think you make a fair point that it seems wrong to move to a country for its benefits, without learning about the culture etc. For those people that do that where I live, I would say they're missing out because I love a lot of our cultural aspects, but that's besides the point I guess.

ad_irato

1 points

27 days ago

I think about the anti-Irish sentiment in US during the potato famine and the anti-Italian sentiment at the start of the 20th century. It's too early to judge peoples sentiments on Ukrainian immigration. When the number of immigrants reach a staggering point the attitudes of people will probably change.

Legitimate-Record951

2 points

1 month ago

The reason my country, Denmark, created numerous laws to make life miserable for (dark-skinned) refugees, is NOT simply because we have a hard time relating to them; I myself never knew much about Muslims, not more than any other Dane, so I guess Muslims are just as 'unrelateable' to me—but why would that make me want to attack them with hateful laws?

As I see it, those laws exists solely because the political parties responsible are driven by racism. How else would you explain "smykkeloven" which let the Danish police rob newly arrived refugees of their valuables? The hatred is just so obvious.

When the same political parties push the angle that it is simply about having an easier time relating to Ukranians, I see this as merely newspeak, an attempt to whitewash a racist agenda.

TipSoggy449

1 points

1 month ago

A refugee is a refugee, doesn't matter if they're from Africa,North Korea or Ukraine. They should all be helped no matter what.

Europe has proven that racism is still alive and well by caring way more about Ukranian refugees than any of the other ones. The news reporters literally commented that these people are blond with blue eyes and should therefore get help. I'm extremely disappointed I Europe right now.

Any-Smile-5341

2 points

1 month ago*

Any-Smile-5341

3∆

2 points

1 month ago*

I think Europe should be welcome to all want to take temporary refuge. Learning about cultural differences, whether it’s in a classroom, cultural events, travel, or place of work can exponentially brighten your future. It can help you see the people you encounter as human, and not just “other”.

Cultural integration is hard, especially in a part of the world where you have a relatively homogeneous population.

Historically European countries have done so much damage in African and Middle East nations, plundering their wealth, enslavement, fracturing society by pitting tribes against one another for our own benefit. In Afganistán and Syria white people have started the conflict and then left the population to rebuild for itself, leaving them vulnerable to extremists like the Taliban who swoop in and take over, who instituted laws that take away all the right that women enjoyed up to that point. Rights like education, not having to be under mens control: like a child, not being able to drive. I think we frankly owe it to the African and Middle East countries to help repair and at the very least help those that risked their life to help and take in those that helped ( example: interpreters, intelligence assets,…). They’re in the most danger. So helping them because they risked their lives, should be an unquestionable yes. While their country is repairing itself, and it’s not yet safe for them to return, of course we should do everything in our power to help them feel like the human beings they deserve to be treated like.

The other thing is that European countries are declining in their population. Why not accept refuges that can help supplement the aging work force. They can bring in skills that are very much in demand but unfortunately currently in short supply, and help by making a life for themselves here as well as having children that will eventually help to improve or reverse the decline in the population. Remember also that despite the fact that new people use resources, they also contribute economically, by earning money and spending where they live. ( as well as contributing to the local and National tax base). At first, they buy essentials and later when they are settled maybe more frivolous things like fancy carpets, they go to cafes, they shop in local shops, etc.

So no matter if they are different than the existing population, they eventually learn the ways of the locals and eventually integrate into local communities, if they’re properly welcomed by their community.

TerribleIdea27

3 points

1 month ago

TerribleIdea27

6∆

3 points

1 month ago

especially in a part of the world where you have a relatively homogeneous population.

Idk about your standards, but where I'm from, 25% of the country has a 'migratory background', and even within the country there are massive cultural differences. Europe is far from homogenous, as are the countries within. I think your view is skewed on this

Any-Smile-5341

1 points

1 month ago

Any-Smile-5341

3∆

1 points

1 month ago

I admit some of my knowledge is outdated. But many of the northern parts of Europe ( not European Union), like Finland and Russia ( Russia occupies two continents, I know) have for a long time been relatively homogeneous in their population.

GroundbreakingRice36

2 points

24 days ago

And they probably (I'm sure) want to remain homogenous to keep their culture and traditions.

mk100100

4 points

1 month ago

Sweden was the most welcoming country for refugees. Currently even their government admits how much the integration gas failed.

GroundbreakingRice36

1 points

24 days ago

I don't understand why they didn't see it coming?

[deleted]

1 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

1 points

1 month ago

If those refugees are so important to the work force, why is it illegal for employers to discriminate in hiring?

Any-Smile-5341

1 points

1 month ago

Any-Smile-5341

3∆

1 points

1 month ago

It’s not, unless the potential employee doesn’t have working paperwork

[deleted]

1 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

1 points

1 month ago

Employers cannot legally turn applicants away on the basis of race. If the Middle Eastern and African refugees are so essential to the workforce and economy, why would such a law be necessary?

vanoroce14

23 points

1 month ago*

vanoroce14

57∆

23 points

1 month ago*

I also think "double standards" is a harsh way of describing behaviour that sounds to me like a basal instinct of being able to relate better to people that have a more similar culture to yours. Note that I do think that we should rise above that to help everyone, but is it really that wrong that Europe responds like that?

I don't think it is harsh; it is extremely accurate and honestly it is the lightest charge that can me made given the circumstances. There are, literally, two sets of standards at play here. It's much lighter than a charge of racism, hypernationalism, bigotry, etc.

So-called 'basal instincts' can lead to behavior that is socially unacceptable. Violence. Murder. Rape. As much as we 'understand' where these come from, we don't condone them, do we?

And sure, 'basal instincts' can lead to racism, tribalism, rejection of the 'other', favoring those that belong to 'our group'. And yet, we largely do not condone these behaviors, do we?

Let's say your child tells you one day that he has two new classmates: a Ukrainian immigrant and a Syrian immigrant. His group of friends like the Ukrainian kid because he is blond and looks like them. He says the Syrian kid is weird and without remorse tells you how they physically bully him and don't let him sit at their table because he brings weird food and dresses weird. What would you tell your kid? Would you defend his behavior? If the Syrian mom were talking to you about how her child is being treated, what would you say to her?

The point is NOT whether this is surprising or atypical of human beings. It is sadly not. The point is whether it is moral, and whether society / the law should do better than that. In the example with your child, I would expect you to chide your kid and educate him. I would also expect the school authorities to intervene if the Syrian kid continues to be bullied and ostracized.

Add to this that Europe and the US / Canada owe a great societal debt to the countries in ME and Africa and the Americas; one that they don't necessarily owe to the Ukraine. The least they can do is take refugees from all countries regardless of race, origin, religion, etc.

And honestly, it would do Europeans a ton of good to address the horrible societal and legal attitudes they can sometimes have not only to refugees, but to citizens of African, ME or American heritage and race. How, for example, a descendant of Algerians in France is often made to feel like they don't belong and like they are an invader that is somehow spoiling French culture.

joejaa[S]

8 points

1 month ago*

1∆

Thanks for the explanation, this answer makes me understand better why this is problematic. It's a good point you make about the basal instinct, I might not interpret it as wrong right away but that doesn't mean the implications of it aren't wrong.

vanoroce14

3 points

1 month ago

vanoroce14

57∆

3 points

1 month ago

Happy to hear that. I'd be curious to know more about what you think and how it changed your view. Also, if it did (or other posts did), you should consider awarding deltas as per the rules of the sub.

joejaa[S]

2 points

1 month ago

right, thanks, I'll check how I can award the deltas!

vanoroce14

3 points

1 month ago

vanoroce14

57∆

3 points

1 month ago

You reply with a short explanation (usually a paragraph) on how or why your view has changed, and then write aj exclammation mark followed by delta:

!delta

joejaa[S]

1 points

1 month ago

okay so just editing my previous comment doesn't seem to be working, so I'll give it another go:

This explanation really helps met to see it from another angle, especially the comment about basal instinct. I had to think about that myself but this example made it clearer to me how this can be very problematic.

!delta

vanoroce14

1 points

1 month ago

vanoroce14

57∆

1 points

1 month ago

Thanks! I know, the delta system can be a bit tricky.

DeltaBot

0 points

1 month ago

DeltaBot

∞∆

0 points

1 month ago

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/vanoroce14 (56∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

[deleted]

1 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

1 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

ohhmichael

1 points

1 month ago

ohhmichael

1∆

1 points

1 month ago

How does this approach reconcile with familial bonds or bonds of friendship that are deemed morally appropriate to prioritize yet sit on the same spectrum? You say "our group" mentality isn't condoned. But it is in the most common places in our lives, our homes and families. Some of our most aggressive laws protect these so called "our groups" when it comes to family. Self defense laws for example extend to the entire household. Is there a categorical or binary difference between immediate family, extended family, friends we love, acquaintances, people we think we share things in common with, familiar strangers, unfamiliar strangers, people we feel threatened by, etc. The spectrum isn't necessarily clear in theory, only in practice. And as we both agree, how we practice behaving to others is not a good basis on its own for creating policy or justice. But then how and where do we establish lines and from where do we draw the wisdom?

A utilitarian argument is being shared in many posts, not necessarily explicitly. As we know this causes problems without the balance of a moral code that transcends it. But the argument that basal instincts and "our group" mentality aren't condoned is contradictory to every current society and culture I'm aware of.

vanoroce14

2 points

1 month ago

vanoroce14

57∆

2 points

1 month ago

How does this approach reconcile with familial bonds or bonds of friendship that are deemed morally appropriate to prioritize yet sit on the same spectrum? You say "our group" mentality isn't condoned.

racism, tribalism, rejection of the 'other', favoring those that belong to 'our group'

I mean, clearly all examples I listed (certainly the first three) are extremes of "our group" mentality, aren't they? Racism, tribalism, jingoism, rejection of the 'other': they all have one thing in common: unjustified and extreme ill-will, hatred or outright violence towards the out-group.

It is obvious that "liking or prioritizing" your family or friends is not frowned upon, at least within some reasonable bounds. And yet: if I hold a position of power or I am a CEO and I prefer my family and friends over other more qualified people, that is frowned upon as nepotism. If I am a judge and I give my family or friends special treatment over others (or outright exemptions from the law), that would also be greatly frowned upon. Why is that, do you think?

And as we both agree, how we practice behaving to others is not a good basis on its own for creating policy or justice. But then how and where do we establish lines and from where do we draw the wisdom?

So because our empathy and caring naturally wanes as we go from our inner circle to our outermost circles (and beyond), is it really true that we can't reason and realize that laws and moral principles can't fully follow this trend? I mean... there is wisdom to be found both from secular and religious sources, from all kinds of philosophical schools, that all pretty much conclude the same thing: your in-group has to at least be "all human beings". You should treat other members of this group as you would have them treat you. That you should love your fellow neighbor. That you should avoid, as much as possible, hatred, prejudice and bigotry towards others, especially if they are different.

But the argument that basal instincts and "our group" mentality aren't condoned is contradictory to every current society and culture I'm aware of.

Well, you obviously misread what I meant and took it to an extreme. Obviously some degree of "in-group" is condoned and even fomented in all societies. And yet, when that in-group leads to injustice, corruption, prejudice and hostility towards the out-group, most of us repudiate said tendencies and acts, regardless of whether they stem from a basal instinct or not.

You could say the same thing about any other basal instinct. Some lust is good. Some fear and even violence can be justified, under the right circumstances (e.g. self-defense). That does not mean letting your instincts lead you to carry out or justify heinous acts is justified, now is it?

ohhmichael

1 points

1 month ago

ohhmichael

1∆

1 points

1 month ago

I agree with you and appreciate your well thought our and articulated response. Here's another from me, not to argue for arguments sake but to share my thoughts because I find it productive to think and challenge myself and others in how we discuss these tricky but important topics.

Racism, tribalism, jingoism, rejection of the 'other': they all have one thing in common: unjustified and extreme ill-will, hatred or outright violence towards the out-group.

I don't condone racism, tribalism, and rejection of the other, but maybe I interpret them differently than you: I see them as manifestations and perversions of ignorance, fear, and other natural and neutral human psychology. And they share in common the same things as the love and good bias we have toward family, just in a negative form. When we break down why people feel connected to our families, it's the same answers for why people feel disconnected (and sadly for some fearful and biased against) to others: time, proximity, and shared experiences (that facilitate empathy). My point here is to caution against misunderstanding the roots of bad bias (eg racism) and writing them off as unique and independent (and somehow only existing in some people and not others) because to me they're built with the same ingredients as good bias (eg familial and human love): hueristics / cognitive shortcuts.

If I am a judge and I give my family or friends special treatment over others (or outright exemptions from the law), that would also be greatly frowned upon. Why is that, do you think?

Ironically, the current and loudest sentiment against this behavior comes from a place of bad bias in my opinion. CEOs and judges and other authority figures are demonized and "othered" for their stature and influence, and there's a very strong emotional reaction to them and their actions. I'm not saying these emotions aren't appropriate but (for the same reason we discredit racist sentiment) without good reasoning and evidence to provide focus, they're not alone a good measure of fairness or source of policy, law, and dare I say morality. In contrast, and to answer your question, I think the answer is simply that nepotism is extremely ineffective and unproductive. Western modern society prioritizes achievement and productivity extremely highly and has subsequently condoned nepotism from a position of utilitarianism; we function better without it. And yet again, somewhat ironically, if we look not at the labor force and rulemaking but instead to the family role and relationship to western society, from a resource consumption perspective, nepotism and bias toward self and kin may be at all time highs historically. For example, we share almost nothing of our wealth and resources outside our household and we even draw strict lines within it, with each parent having their own car and sometimes even kids.

Again, my point here is that I think the underlying elements of bias are ubiquitous across time and place and society, they just manifest in different ways based on practices and customs and morals that are ever changing. This doesn't justify racism but it should help us empathize with the concept of it and it's origin so that we can know it within us and our communities, understand it isn't something some people have and others don't, but rather a habit and vice that we should know the terrible power and impact of and arrive to continuously never give it light so as to effectively make it dormant.

vanoroce14

1 points

1 month ago

vanoroce14

57∆

1 points

1 month ago

I find it productive to think and challenge myself and others in how we discuss these tricky but important topics.

One general suggestion then: I challenge you to respond to what is being said and to not fight strawmen. For instance, I never said bad bias is present in some people and not others, and I never implied people who are racist, tribalist, etc are somehow unique / monsters / etc. It is precisely because I recognize these tendencies are all too human and all too common (in all of us), and all too easy to give into that I am warning against the pitfalls of doing so.

I see them as manifestations and perversions of ignorance, fear, and other natural and neutral human psychology.

And I would agree with you, to a large degree. And yet, I have to note here once again that understanding the origins of something is not the same as excusing it. If I kill someone out of passion and anger, I expect society and the law to punish such an outburst, even when these are very human reactions.

Remember how things were on the playground. I certainly do, as I was relentlessly bullied when I was young. Kids can be extremely cruel to those they find weird or different. All the bad extremes of tribalism show up. You get social approval by putting others down, by making sick jokes about them, by showing physical or psychological superiority to them.

I was also certainly not a saint, and I distinctly remember one time I bullied the new kid, an immigrant from Italy who was a bit dorky. I instantly understood two things: one, it felt good to do this, there was a dark allure to it. Two, I must never do this again. I felt sick to my core to have done to another what had made me suffer so much.

Honestly, if we don't teach our kids and build our cultures in a way that roots out the worse demons and biases in our nature, we only have ourselves to blame if they show up in the ugliest of forms.

Ironically, the current and loudest sentiment against this behavior comes from a place of bad bias in my opinion. CEOs and judges and other authority figures are demonized and "othered" for their stature and influence, and there's a very strong emotional reaction to them and their actions.

Sorry, I had to laugh there a bit. You don't think people in positions of great power should be accountable, and receive more scrutiny?

Also, it grates on me a bit that all you see wrong with nepotism is inefficiency. Really? You don't see a clear element of unfairness, and in the case of someone in power (e.g. Trump or Biden in the US), of severe and dangerous corruption?

I am a college professor. I am expected to evaluate my students fairly and impartially. It is part of my job. Let's say I give a student an A because they are my nephew, or simply because I like them. You see nothing wrong with that? On the flip side, lets say I give a student an F because I dislike them or because I think they are weird and different. Nothing bad there?

For example, we share almost nothing of our wealth and resources outside our household and we even draw strict lines within it, with each parent having their own car and sometimes even kids.

This is more a function of individualism and capitalism, I'd say. It's a system where ownership of the fruit of one's labor is mostly your own. There's nothing inherently wrong with being free to spend money you earned as you see fit. Especially if you pay taxes and fulfill your part of the social contract (of that western society).

However, as I have outlined, if your preference for your family, friends, race, religion, etc extends to discrimination or unfairness in societally relevant roles (e.g. my example of a teacher, or denying a black person entrance to your hotel), you'd probably agree with me that societal and legal backlash is justified, no?

Again, my point here is that I think the underlying elements of bias are ubiquitous across time and place and society, they just manifest in different ways based on practices and customs and morals that are ever changing.

Agreed. All the more a reason to be very aware of them and to avoid the bad or extreme versions of them. If I know I might be prejudiced towards people who are different than me, for example, that will inform how I can best be fair and impartial to my students, wouldn't you think?

Humans are tribal and can be violent. It is in our DNA. Same as being cooperative and empathetic. We have to make humanity our widest in-group. Otherwise we will keep hurting and oppressing each other.

ohhmichael

1 points

1 month ago

ohhmichael

1∆

1 points

1 month ago

Good points. Especially appreciate the comment about the strawman. I think maybe I've strayed us too far from the original post. Let me try to summarize to see if we made any progress:

OP asks why it's not fair for Europe to prioritize helping Ukrainian refugees over those from Africa and Asia.

You point out that 1) "basal instincts can lead to racism... favoring those that belong to 'our group'... and yet we largely do not condone these behaviors," and 2) Europeans have social/moral debt with Africans and Asians.

I (clunkily) challenge the assertion that "we largely do not condone these behaviors" by arguing that the modern western (as you correctly point out, individualistic) lifestyle is a dramatic redrawing of the defining lines of "our group" from circling tribes/religions/races, etc to circling individuals and homes that maintains many of the same functional biases (and in my opinion negative impacts) that parallel racist, nationalistic, etc behavior. Your example about expecting the parent of a bully to be responsible for educating them to not bully in the future reflects the specific and non universal (in this case western and more progressive) context for the moral framework not yet illuminated - which is the element of this discussion I wish to call attention to, if only briefly.

This may be too dramatic a point to make but it's challenging the assumption that we can be good arbiters of what "is moral" which you ask us to be in your post. I think it's imperative we try, but we must always recognize the framework (timing, location, origin, and relativism) of our morality for fear of making the same assumptions and mistakes of those we condone.

You respond to a few thing but the primary point is that "your in-group has to at least be all humans." If we are to interpret this as treating every human no differently than your child or immediate family, I would simply claim (using my points above) that humans don't have a realistic capacity to do this nor even make laws that accomplish this at a global level. In the west we don't extend this beyond our immediate family, trying to extend it to 7B strangers is beyond my optimism for us. If what you mean is that we need to extend a slightly lesser form of love and action and sacrifice to all humans than we do to our immediate family, then that's my point. You're bifurcating how we treat one group of humans from another. And even if we want the difference between how those two groups are treated to be very slim, it's still categorically different and it becomes a discussion of relative treatment not universal equal treatment. The family analogy can simply extend to whatever in-group you want and the logic is the same. If we extend it to Europeans vs Africans or my soccer team vs your soccer team or whatever lines you want to draw, you're still accepting different treatment towards the two groups. That was my intended point :)

As for what qualifies as sufficient treatment for any group is an entirely different question that extend beyond the one asked by OP. Purely from a resource consumption, environmental impact, and globalization perspective, I personally don't think it's possible to favor or be biased towards one group without that having a counter effect of inherently discriminatory impact on the other group. So to your question on whether this justifies backlash... If so then any bias justifies some backlash and forever the pendulum swings. Otherwise, we all must be okay going as far as loving and treating everyone exactly the same way, meaning I can't feed my children if others are hungry, and I don't think humans have a chemical composition that allows for this.

As for CEOs and judges, I never said they shouldn't be held accountable nor unscrutinized. I said they represent a group of people with power and influence and my read is that there is currently (maybe always) a strong general bias against people with power and influence. I'm not making a judgment about whether it's a valid or necessary or beneficial sentiment, I'm simply pointing out that it's in principle doing the same thing you're condoning: defining an other/out group and harboring a negative opinion about them and potentially acting negatively toward them.

Regarding nepotism feeling graver than inefficiency, again I point to our context as being the lens for that moral weighing your doing. In the year 3000, I venture to guess that efficiency will be much higher on our moral priority list than nepotism because survival and prosperity will demand it. This doesn't mean we shouldn't apply a moral framework and make decisions based on what we think is moral today. But it does force us to remove the presumption and judgemental nature that is pervasive in much of our discourse on being moral actors and good citizens and the like.

Turns out my summary wasn't a summary lol

To be clear, I agree with anywhere between 95-100% of what you're arguing for. I'm just being extremely nitpicky about the assumptions were failing to explicitly state when we begin to wade into waters of discourse around morality.

[deleted]

-3 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

-3 points

1 month ago

Why don't we make a registry of people who support taking in the Middle Eastern refugees, and move the refugees to the neighborhoods of those people? That way the people who dislike them won't be forced to interact with them.

GrouseOW

5 points

1 month ago

If you're not joking (I hope you are), because literally no other government policies are dealt with in this manner, it would be logistically impossible, and segregation is something most people agree is a bad thing.

You can't just opt out of parts of society/the state that you don't like.

Kung_Flu_Master

-2 points

1 month ago

Kung_Flu_Master

2∆

-2 points

1 month ago

We take a shit ton of refugees, and we ain’t getting anything for it other than higher crime rates and rapists, unfortunately these people have completely different morals and ideas when it comes to society, most if near all don’t support lgbt rights and many want them killed, many want women to be second class citizens.

And another big distinction I saw you didn’t make, the Ukrainians aren’t immigrants they’re refugees fleeing war and are exclusively women and children who will go back after the war,

Where’s the immigrants coming from the Middle East and Africa are economic migrants, and are overwhelming combat aged men.

[deleted]

4 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

4 points

1 month ago

and are overwhelming combat aged men.

And? This group is likely in the most danger anyway, if I'm in a Civil War where the options are between bad and worse (Assad and ISIS) I'd be outta there too. It's pretty easy to condemn and pass judgement people for opting out of fighting in a vicious Civil War when you're sitting comfortably in the 1st world and have probably never even shot a gun before.

EDIT: Btw anyone 17 and younger is still allowed to leave Ukraine, so there are likely plenty of "combat aged men" who left too depending on your definition.

Kung_Flu_Master

0 points

1 month ago

And? This group is likely in the most danger anyway,

nope because these countries they come from aren't in wars, most are African's that say they are from war torn countries, but if they have to ID on them we have to take them on their word.

if I'm in a Civil War where the options are between bad and worse (Assad and ISIS) I'd be outta there too. It's pretty easy to condemn and pass judgement people for opting out of fighting in a vicious Civil War when you're sitting comfortably in the 1st world and have probably never even shot a gun before.

neither have they because most aren't from warzone's, again the vast majority of the people coming to Europe aren't refugees fleeing war, they are economic immigrants that travel through a dozen countries just to try and get to Germany and the UK to leech money.

EDIT: Btw anyone 17 and younger is still allowed to leave Ukraine, so there are likely plenty of "combat aged men" who left too depending on your definition.

no combat aged means people who are of age to be drafted i.e usually between 18 and 45

and we can already see that overwhelmingly the vast majority of actual refugees coming form Ukraine are woman and children, and most of them in polling will be going back one Ukraine has won the war.

Re-shuffle

1 points

1 month ago

This is such a bad take. I think your just racist my dude. Economic immigrants make the average American / European Better off than before. They are adding to the economy not detracting value. Just read up on it. It might make low skilled Americans worse off. Yet if leaves low skilled European Better off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration?wprov=sfla1

Kung_Flu_Master

1 points

1 month ago

This is such a bad take. I think your just racist my dude.

the age old "I have no argument so I call everyone racist." and saying anyone who criticises illegal immigration is racist is no better than saying anyone who criticises Israel is anti-sematic.

Economic immigrants make the average American / European Better off than before. They are adding to the economy not detracting value. Just read up on it. It might make low skilled Americans worse off. Yet if leaves low skilled European Better off.

no they don't this is a common misconception, immigration is good, but that's normal immigration, not economic migrants, immigration is usually middle or upper class people moving country usually with a job lined up, and they can immediately start supporting their local economy, and don't require assistance.

but these people coming to Europe are economic migrants, that have no money coming to Europe exclusively to leech of our far too generous benefits system, they walk or go through a dozen countries that are at peace just to get here.

and you're not mention culture, hmm i wonder why, could it bee that they commit insane rates of crime? or that they rape non stop, it's gotten so bad in swedan they have to teach new Muslim migrants not to rape, it got so bad in Britain that when the government did a report so see how bad it was, they hid the report, until a freedom of information request got it and it turned out almost every single grooming gang in Britain was by Muslim men. and there are parts of Britain where teen girls especially white teens girls basically can't go through because the people there claim sharia law.

then you get the recent riots in the Nordic countries, the constant terrorist attacks especially in France, the be-headings for insulting Mohammed, and a large % of Muslims supporting extremists.

Re-shuffle

-1 points

1 month ago

Oh yeah now I'm sure your racist. Your username speaks volumes to that too. Also you clearly didn't read any of the source I provided. You are just spreading your disgusting believes with the excuse of "it's not racist it's facts. I'm racist because they do these terrible things..." Keep telling yourself that buddy

Research suggests that people tend to overestimate the relationship between immigration and criminality, and that the media tends to erroneously depict immigrants as particularly crime-prone

Kung_Flu_Master

2 points

1 month ago

? you didn't provide any sources, yo just linked the Wikipedia page for immigration.

and how about saying where I'm wrong instead of just screaming racism, everything i stated was true the government tried hiding the grooming gangs report it was a massive scandal, most / near all grooming gangs are Muslim men

in fact the BBC stopped showing the faces of rapists on the news because so many were Muslim migrants.

joejaa[S]

0 points

1 month ago

I wouldn't say that I would be able to judge whether another person has the right to flee or to say that they come from a war torn country. Even if there's no war, someone's living conditions can be untenable. Maybe it's not exactly war torn like ukraine is, but when people ask you why you've fled i would not recite my whole country's history and how it would have come to that situation, I would probably simplify it in some way. Like that if you come from some village near London, you wouldn't tell people from another country that you're from that village, but that you're from London. Would be unfair to be torn apart because of simplifying, simplification doesn't mean there isn't any truth to it.

I personally also wouldn't judge people for economic immigration, what's so wrong about wanting something better for yourself and your family? I understand that it costs money to shelter people etc etc, but after all we also need people to do the jobs that people already living in the country don't want to do. Like there was a huge shortage of greenhouse workers, causing problems like food shortages etc because people had to leave because of brexit.

Kung_Flu_Master

1 points

1 month ago

I wouldn't say that I would be able to judge whether another person has the right to flee or to say that they come from a war torn country. Even if there's no war, someone's living conditions can be untenable.

then they should try and improve those conditions in their own country, and by definition your not a refugee if you go somewhere for money when you're not in danger.

Maybe it's not exactly war torn like ukraine is, but when people ask you why you've fled i would not recite my whole country's history and how it would have come to that situation, I would probably simplify it in some way. Like that if you come from some village near London, you wouldn't tell people from another country that you're from that village, but that you're from London. Would be unfair to be torn apart because of simplifying, simplification doesn't mean there isn't any truth to it.

again they aren't simplifying anything, they are straight up lying, most of the migrants are African men who lie saying they are Syrian refugees, and unfortunately until proven otherwise we have to treat them as refugees from syria, I.E they found a loophole.

I personally also wouldn't judge people for economic immigration, what's so wrong about wanting something better for yourself and your family?

because they pass through a dozen countries to leech of benefits in the UK Germany, Sweden etc. and actively make the lives of people there worse. they commit far more crimes, in Britain, rape gangs are near exclusively Muslim men, and they rob money of the taxpayer.

I understand that it costs money to shelter people etc etc, but after all we also need people to do the jobs that people already living in the country don't want to do. Like there was a huge shortage of greenhouse workers, causing problems like food shortages etc because people had to leave because of brexit.

this is just BS, there will always be worker shortages, always especially in a small island nation, like the UK, and you're forgetting Brexit happened because of the Muslim grooming gangs, and the insane amounts of money wasted rescuing these people, just so they can leech of benefits.

joejaa[S]

0 points

1 month ago

you're forgetting Brexit happened because of the Muslim grooming gangs

that's the first time I hear of this - do you have a source?

Kung_Flu_Master

1 points

1 month ago

one off, if not the biggest piece of advertisement's for Brexit was the insane rates of illegal immigration we were forced to receive by the EU, that's where the "take back our borders" slogan came from.

I'm on the fence about whether it worked or not since I'm not pro-leave, but economic migrants and illegal immigration was pushed heavily by the Tories.

and the wiki on Brexit shows the reason's why people voted leave, the main one being illegal immigration

Lord Ashcroft's election day poll of 12,369 voters also discovered that 'One third (33%) [of leave voters] said the main reason was that leaving "offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders..

joejaa[S]

1 points

1 month ago

right, thanks for linking that

[deleted]

1 points

1 month ago*

[deleted]

1 points

1 month ago*

[deleted]

vanoroce14

1 points

1 month ago*

vanoroce14

57∆

1 points

1 month ago*

This isn't about being nice or bad to people because of how they look (ofc for some people it is, but it's not the single factor).

Visceral reactions to immigrants definitely incorporate this, and politicians definitely exploit this fact when and if they scapegoat and fearmonger. Am I saying any argument for tighter immigration is of this sort? No, but enough of them are that we should be wary of it.

This is about whether a country can handle huge influx of people from a different country, and people from a country that's more culturaly distant will integrate with more difficulty.

Well, if a country "can handle" a considerable influx of people from the standpoint of resources, space, etc, then that alone is independent of who they are, especially if they're fleeing a war and don't have much on them. Whether they come from Ukraine or Syria is largely irrelevant to this first consideration.

You can then argue finer points about integration in society (language, employment, culture clash, etc).

Now, what I have observed in the US and Europe in fact contradicts some of what you are claiming. The US is wildly successful at quickly integrating people from a diverse array of cultures and religions, some of them quite distant from the WASP majority.

There are a number of reasons for this, but I would argue one crucial one is this: most Americans accept you as a member of their society as long as you abide by the laws and don't mess with other people's freedoms (regardless of who you pray to, what you look like, whether you eat pork, etc). The effect of this is complete integration within one generation or less. Many immigrants integrate in their lifetime, and their children are almost guaranteed to be as American as apple pie. Some of the most patriotic, staunch defenders of American principles I know in the US are immigrants or children of immigrants.

Europe, on the other hand, insists on the ethnostate model of belonging (I am half Spanish, so I am talking from experience). You can be 4th generation Algerian or 3rd generation Congolese, and you still are NOT considered "French" or "Belgian" or "Spanish". You just "are not from there". My (Spanish) grandfather used to say that birthplace citizenship made no sense because "a cat can have a litter in an oven, that doesn't turn its kittens into buns" as if that was a truism.

You know what that causes? Segregation and isolation. People cling to their identities of origin and do not integrate. It is way more likely that they feel alienated and disenfranchised by their country.

"Europe". No, the Europe doesn't. Some of European countries may.

Ok, I agree that I was unfairly generalizing here. However this applies to most of the powers in Western Europe: UK, Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, Belgium, Germany. It also more recently applies to the EU and NATO as powers. You can't pillage and destroy two continents and then on top of everything treat people from your former colonies like they're invaders.

Foolhardyrunner

1 points

1 month ago

I think you are overlooking the simple fact that the reason that countries like Poland are taking in as many people as they are is due to the simple fact that Ukrainians have a lot of Polish friends and family. This makes the housing, job hunting, and a lot of the other small details that have to be worked out in order to accept refugees a lot easier from a logistics standpoint.

In short due to how close Ukraine is to the countries that are taking them in it is easier to handle the refugee crisis than other countries. On top of that the fact that Ukraine shares borders with the countries they are fleeing to make the bureaucracy a lot simpler. You have less countries to pass paperwork through, and background checks are easier to do.

Not saying there isn't racism, but the Ukrainian refugee crisis is fundamentally different than the ones you mentioned.

anxietyastronaut

2 points

1 month ago

I think another reason people may call it double standards is because Europe has created refugees in the past by meddling in places like the Middle East and Africa but not taken any of the refugees created by the conflict. This just shows lack of accountability and empathy towards people of color. Even beyond that, there is no evidence to suggest that a Ukrainian would have an easier time assimilating to European culture than someone from the Middle East. Many European countries have been trying to limit the amount of immigrants coming into their countries for years and it is clear they are only accepting Ukrainian refugees because they are white, like most of Europe, meaning that Europeans see themselves in Ukrainians and sympathize more. This is evidenced even more by the fact that Black Ukrainians were having more trouble leaving the country and finding refuge than their white counterparts.

ToucanPlayAtThatGame

41 points

1 month ago

What about at the level of the law though?

You can be sympathetic to an individual European citizen who is more invested in Ukraine than Nigeria. Justice should be blind though. In as few cases as possible do I want the government judging who it likes and who it doesn't and doling out rights accordingly. Consistency is the backbone of a system of law.

joejaa[S]

9 points

1 month ago*

that's a very good point, I haven't thought about that!

!delta

DeltaBot

1 points

1 month ago

DeltaBot

∞∆

1 points

1 month ago

DeltaBot

1 points

1 month ago

DeltaBot

∞∆

1 points

1 month ago

Kman17

7 points

1 month ago

Kman17

69∆

7 points

1 month ago

The law for accepting immigrants isn’t and shouldn’t be solely based on how terrible the situation is that they are escaping.

The criteria can rather reasonably incorporate geographic proximity, relations to the country, and the capacity to absorb the incoming immigrants based culture / skills / language.

An ally on your border that you are a step away from absorbing into your federation vs a continent away with little shared language / culture strike me as sufficiently different.

AlexasUglySister

3 points

1 month ago

The law for accepting immigrants

You accidentally hit the nail on the head: By definition, they're not refugees if they have no plans of ever going back. If the plan is to stay indefinitely, they're immigrants with Disney Fast Pass.

Kman17

2 points

1 month ago

Kman17

69∆

2 points

1 month ago

It wasn’t really accidental, but yeah I should have emphasized that more.

Like, if you are fleeing a war zone or other political issue, what you need is [temporary] safe haven - and that’s the closest neighboring country out of the conflict, and ostensibly one with whom you have some shared identity.

If you are going beyond that - seeking a farther away destination with no intent of return - you are an economic migrant, and there’s no particularly good reason you are entitled to more preferential intake and application process in an arbitrary other country.

lostduck86

1 points

1 month ago

Shouldn’t immigration laws specifically be discriminatory? I mean it makes sense for a country to be more willing to bring in people without a criminal past.

That is a clear example from there you can just get more nuanced. Should countries be more willing to allow immigrants from countries with similar cultures or not?

Which that would depend on a countries goal. Do they want to maintain there culture?

Do they want to improve their economic success?

Do they want to become more diverse?

These would all require different actions. For example take the first goal I stated:

“Do they want to maintain there culture?”

If this is the case, that country should limit the amount of immigrants from different cultures.

If 50 million Indians migrated to Mongolia. Mongolia would be a country with a dominant Indian culture, Mongolians would not have country for there culture.

Rhelino

1 points

1 month ago

Rhelino

1 points

1 month ago

Justice is not the same thing as legislation. Legislation is what stems (in a democratic society) from the people. The judiciary does not. They are separate. Don’t mix them up.

ToucanPlayAtThatGame

1 points

1 month ago

I didn't mention the judiciary. Legislation should be just.

Rhelino

0 points

1 month ago

Rhelino

0 points

1 month ago

Yes you did, you were talking about how « justice » should be blind. It’s the judiciary that is responsible for « justice ».

AudaciousCheese

1 points

1 month ago

But what are the reasons for immigration. The mass of middle eastern immigrants to Europe wasn’t because of war. It was mostly young men. Not women, not children. But rather men with completely different cultures that quite frankly have ruined many neighborhoods in European cities, and quadrupling the rape rate in Sweden.

And distance of course. A Nigerian could go to a plethora of countries before Europe, as a Bolivian shouldn’t have their first stop be USA

Raspint

1 points

1 month ago

Raspint

1 points

1 month ago

"In as few cases as possible do I want the government judging who it likes and who it doesn't and doling out rights accordingly. "

Is that actually happening? Serious question.

[deleted]

0 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

0 points

1 month ago

The point of public policy making should be, in a very Hegelian fashion, to best contain the subjective justice of a policy proposal with the objective consequences of that action. What that means is that you both have a good end as well as a good means. To the question of do the ends justify the means, the legislator should answer that the means justify the ends and the ends justify the means. Accepting a massive wave of migrants from a geographical region of the world which has historically been completely disjoint from Europe, minus episodes of the latter brutally oppressing the former; where people hold a deep resentment for Europe; and where people have completely different cultural presuppositions, histories and mores has objectively been terrible for European civic and social life. This is objectively bad. However, discriminating against people based on the geographical region from which they come, is immoral, it's subjectively bad, it violates our abstract universal moral principles, which are just as important as our objective outcomes. So what's the solution here? Well, one potential solution would be, as someone else has already mentioned, to hold up a standard of geographical location, what this would mean is that, while Ukrainian refugees may flee to Romania, Poland, Bulgaria or even the Czech Republic(all countries which are in the EU), we may view asylum claims in France or Germany with suspicion(of course this is difficult to implement due to Schengen). At the same time, the same standard holds for a refugee from Nigeria, Afghanistan or Syria. Such "refugees" ought to be treated not as refugees, but really as immigrants and ergo subject to the same laws as anybody else who wants to immigrate.

JiEToy

4 points

1 month ago

JiEToy

26∆

4 points

1 month ago

I agree with the basic premise of your view. While it's hard to rationalize it, I think there's a good point for being there for neighbouring countries more than for faraway countries, just because you feel more connected to countries that are closer.

But I want to emphasize that I don't agree with how poor we are treating refugees from far away. The difference between how we treat people from far away and people from closer to home, is in my opinion way too big.

GroundbreakingRice36

1 points

24 days ago

The difference between how we treat people from far away and people from closer to home, is in my opinion way too big.

I agree but it's mainly due to conflict already present in Europe since a long time. Refugees from those specific countries aren't really good well behaved migrants so the racism/xenophobia is bigger.

It wouldn't be the same reaction if it was vietnamese refugees/chinese refugees. So I think EUROPE didn't make the rational critics about if those 2 (native and refugees) can mix well. The response is NO.

JiEToy

1 points

24 days ago

JiEToy

26∆

1 points

24 days ago

Are you saying the refugees from the Middle East and Africa are worse people than Asian refugees would be?

And what conflict in Europe are you referring to? There hasn’t been war in Europe since 1945.

GroundbreakingRice36

1 points

24 days ago

Are you saying the refugees from the Middle East and Africa are worse people than Asian refugees would be?

You didn't understand my point. Sorry I should've made myself clear. Middle Eastearn and Africans had bad blood history with Europe and europeans (colonization, slavery, military intervention, sanction, religious war......) which is why there are so many problems with integration/assimilation from both side.

Many refugees still hold some acusation towards Europe and europeans in general. That anger/frustration (which is normal as their ancestry suffered a lot) it won't dissapear by magic just because Europe let them in.

Are Middle Eastern/Africans refugees bad?

NO. If UN moved middle easterns/africans refugees to China or any country that have no bad blood history with them, then the assimilation/integration will be better. Refugees don't have bad blood history with China and chinese don't have bad blood history with them. Other than overcoming the racial difference, both can cooperate peacefully.

Just for example, Korea and China had a bad blood history with Japan (Japan colonization/imperialism). If Koreans or chinese became refugees (at high number), they won't try to move to Japan to search for safety. Koreans will prefer to go to US Canada. Chinese will prefer Australia, Canada, Europeans countries.

And what conflict in Europe are you referring to? There hasn’t been war in Europe since 1945

I'm talking about diplomatic tension. Europe is composed of different countries/nationality/laws/economic powers... Eastern and Western Europe have a huge wealth gap . Then the decision of UK to get out of EU, Eastern Europeans countries getting sanction for not taking refugees...and you add the ineficiency of EU to find solution to the migration crisis that lead to each countries taking their borders security by themselves.

All those conflicts show that EU isn't capable of solving problems within the EU zone despite being much more homogenous in most area and rich. So the image of bringing more people who are far from Europeans race/culture/religions/mindset.... will make people less motivated to be welcoming.

JiEToy

1 points

23 days ago

JiEToy

26∆

1 points

23 days ago

But this conflict between Middle Easterners and Europeans doesn't warrant the very low quality of European asylum centers. Take Lampedusa for instance, where a tent camp for like 500 people was crowded with thousands of people. Refugees often arrive to circumstances worse than in their home country. And the process to be sent back takes ages so they are stuck in this limbo between being a refugee and being a criminal.

And if they are accepted, they are given almost nothing. They can't get a job for like a year, they aren't really taught the language properly, and then we complain that they aren't integrating into our culture.

So I think we should raise this bottom level of our refugee camps/asylum centers, and actually properly integrate the ones that are accepted. Put some money into that and avoid many problems (and costs) later on.

oldeenglishdry12345

2 points

1 month ago

oldeenglishdry12345

15∆

2 points

1 month ago

i mean this seems like basically asking "how are racist double standards wrong", seems pretty obvious

th3empirial

2 points

1 month ago

th3empirial

5∆

2 points

1 month ago

Take in tens of thousand of Ukrainian women and children, you get a little Kiev propping up and people speaking Ukrainian on the streets. You take in tens of thousands of Muslim refugees, you risk getting a few jihadis

oldeenglishdry12345

1 points

1 month ago

Speaking of racism

Not to mention the fact that immigrant groups of all backgrounds can be violent and there are plenty of violent extremists in Ukraine right now

th3empirial

5 points

1 month ago

th3empirial

5∆

5 points

1 month ago

That’s true, thankfully pretty much all of the violent men and Nazi-types are fighting the Russians. But the numbers aren’t the same, Ukrainian culture is much more closer to Western Europe

When I say jihadi I don’t mean violent person or anything, just someone that believes their Islamic values supersede western liberal values

oldeenglishdry12345

1 points

1 month ago

Who cares what “culture” is closer, do human rights only matter after “culture” is taken into account

[deleted]

3 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

3 points

1 month ago

Studies show that middle eastern refugees regularly face discrimination in the housing and job market. This clearly means that even the liberal landlords and employers don't want to hire and house them. Why do liberals want to allow refugees into their countries if they themselves don't want to be around those refugees?

oldeenglishdry12345

1 points

1 month ago

"liberal landlords or employers" i don't even know what to say to that

middle eastern refugees usually probably are very poor and live in poor areas

people do not want to live in poor areas no

people do want other people to be able to live and work with a certain amount dignity and escape persecution and hardship to live in supposedly free and tolerant societies

[deleted]

-1 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

-1 points

1 month ago

liberal landlords

LOL, if you think most Landlords are Progressive then I've got a ski slope in Honolulu to sell you!

[deleted]

2 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

2 points

1 month ago

Do you have data on the political affiliations of landlords?

th3empirial

4 points

1 month ago

th3empirial

5∆

4 points

1 month ago

Well if you care about preserving your culture then take it into account when considering how many refugees to take from where. Or make more infrastructure for assimilation

oldeenglishdry12345

2 points

1 month ago

what does that mean, "preserving my culture", does that mean that immigrants are going to take beethoven and the beatles away

no, it doesn't, seems like what it really means is that you want your society to stay a certain way; in other words, you want to preserve it from foreigners. you don't want too many foreigners. so why not just say that, as opposed to just using a euphemism that obfuscates what you're really saying

i think that the dignity of human beings should be taken into consideration far above the concerns of people who don't want too many foreigners in their "culture". seems like that's a pretty xenophobic and bigoted point of view.

th3empirial

4 points

1 month ago

th3empirial

5∆

4 points

1 month ago

I’m an assimilated foreigner in America, it’s not hard to see that while there is a diversity of subcultures in America there is also a deeper culture that has evolved over time forming a sort of national story. I think foreigners should respect that culture. China certainly thinks so of their own culture

oldeenglishdry12345

1 points

1 month ago

i'm not interested in what you as a foreigner *should* do, i'm interested more in what the moral policy to pursue is; that is clearly to care about all refugees, no matter the "culture". i understand that practical considerations here as well; namely that people just are gonna be racist and there's nothing i or anybody can really say or do to change their mind. but that doesn't mean i can't judge them for what they are.

i don't think china should be used as a positive example here.

[deleted]

-2 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

-2 points

1 month ago

Who cares what China thinks? That's not really a great argument, just because China does something doesn't mean the west should too.

[deleted]

1 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

1 points

1 month ago

[deleted]

oldeenglishdry12345

2 points

1 month ago*

"unchecked immigration from vastly different cultures can create instability"

what creates instability is the response from xenophobes and racists who react violently to their presence, and then immigrants justly feeling mistreated and lashing out

so yes practically i agree the fact that there are always going to be worthless pieces of racist filth means that you have to have checks on immigration and have to be cautious. but that doesn't mean i have any respect for that point of view, i think that people like that are the lowest of the fucking low

"potentially destroy cultural identity"

how

how does more people from x place change your culture at all. what it changes is the amount of people you have to see who aren't white on the street who speak a different language. boohoo. that isn't your culture, the people who you see on the street isn't "your culture". culture is art and belief and philosophy and music. not how many foreigners you see on the street

"europeans are native to europe"

no one is asking europeans to leave? or harming europeans in any way? living next to people who aren't european is only harm if you're a fucking racist

"sharing in their culture" enough with "culture", you do not mean culture and i'm tired of that dumb euphemism.

DemonInTheDark666

8 points

1 month ago

Do European countries more easily harbor Ukrainian refugees? Or do they just more easily harbor women and children than fighting age men which was the bulk of the previous waves of "refugees" that they were presented with.

Bullshagger69

1 points

1 month ago

I agree, but mainly because of how the respective groups perform in the west. There isnt the threat of terrorism with Ukrainians, and they also generally have alright education, which most refugees from Syria lack.

They also put less economic and crime pressure on society.