Refugee question.

In My Humble Opinion
1

Watching the refugees fleeing into Europe from the middle east is just heart breaking. How desperate they must be to load their families into overcrowded trucks, and dangerous boats. Being effectively treated as animals.

Why is my government silent? I can’t understand this. My country would not exist today without literally decades of refugees. From potato famines, religious’’ persecution, oppression, dire poverty, etc. Wave after wave they came. And they’re what made this country awesome.

A generation or two ago, churches and service agencies would be setting up settlements, requesting families, opening their arms and their communities. Shit, I can still remember the response raised in the face of the tragedy of the boat people, following the war in Vietnam! All those refugees now well settled, their parents are here and their kids go to the university! There was no downside.

But I have heard not even a tiny peep, out of anyone. My country is not small. Or poor. Or unwelcoming to other cultures. And yes, the markets are crashing, oil is down and unemployment is up, times could clearly be better. But this country could absorb 10-20, 000 refugees without blinking an eye, I should think. Probably every month!

But my government remains silent. And here we sit watching a tragedy unfold, and doing nothing.

We send millions in aid when tsunamis, hurricanes cause havoc, so we’re not heartless.

I just can’t understand why western nations, but especially my country have not stepped up to offer safe harbour to these desperate people. Why aren’t we helping them? Why aren’t we helping Europe ? (Who must surely feel under siege and overwhelmed!) Why isn’t Europe demanding our help? (Help they shouldn’t have to seek out, but should be forthcoming!)

What’s so different now that the West remains silent, making no offers to give any refuge to these desperate people? Was it just the ‘Greatest Generation’, that cared? Did that compassion die out with them?

(I can kinda excuse the U.S. as they are caught in a lengthy and ugly political cycle at the moment. But, even though there is also an election ongoing in my country, there’s no real anti immigrant seething to face here. I’m a little embarrassed that Canada remains silent, to be honest.)

2

Canada hasn’t been silent: perhaps the media, but not the government.

3

"…if the Conservatives are re elected…’

I’m not counting that as a commitment, myself, just election campaigning, but your point is taken.
Someone did SAY they’d do something, so not complete silence. But no real grass roots community activism it seems.

Which puts me in the odd position of excusing the U.S. as they CAN’t say anything because they are trying to get elected, and disbelieving Mr Harper for possibly just saying such BECAUSE he’s just trying to get elected!

Shit, even I’m confused now! I just am noticing a distinct lack of any swell of compassion for these refugees. I think a real departure from times passed and wonder what has changed in our societies, I guess.

4

I kinda wish global climate change would make it so that the Arctic tundra was more hospitable. We need a new frontier–a place where the unhappy masses can migrate and start anew. I think even some Americans would be interested in something like this.

The reason why the US isn’t saying a whole lot is because a lot of people believe we’re dealing with our own immigration crisis. Compared to what’s happening in Europe, that’s laughable. If thousands of refugees started washing up on our shore every day, I don’t know what we’d do.

5

I come at this from the opposite perspective: if Assad makes Syria unlivable, how is it incumbent upon Europe to house and feed all the Syrians? (Rinse and repeat for all the other trouble spots.)

In my country, there aren’t enough rental houses to accommodate everyone who wants/needs one. We may want to fix that before letting in even more people.

In my opinion, what Europe should do is make a deal with a few north African countries so they get to set up refugee camps in Africa. Africa has the space, Europe has the money. Real refugees will be happy because they get to stay in a relatively decent place (throw in some education to keep them busy and prepare them for the future), while people who are just looking for economic opportunities won’t find those there and will go back home.

Then, when people show up in Europe without proper papers, give them a nice meal and ship them to one of the African camps.

Not only will the xenophobes like this, but it’s also much cheaper to set up these camps in countries where a little money goes a long way rather than give refugees EU-level welfare.

6

I don’t see a need to wait on climate change to make tundra more appealing. When there is plenty of room up here, that surely cannot be the reason for not helping, I think.

And I certainly don’t feel that dirt poor African countries are in any position to handle so many refugees. Though I appreciate how overwhelmed European nations must surely feel.

Even if we don’t feel moved to help the Syrians shouldn’t we, at the very least, be wanting to help Europe to deal with this?

Maybe it’s just me!

7

That’s why we need to bribe those countries to take them. That’s much cheaper for us than to have them all come here and stay here and it nicely sorts out the real refugees from the people who just come for the money.

BTW, I don’t get how people can live in the tropics anyway… the environment is so incredibly hostile, between the temperatures and the big predators (well, most of those have been killed by now I guess) and of course periodic bouts of ebola and the like.

It looks like Merkel now wants to welcome refugees, saying that Germany needs extra people anyway. If that’s true, they should come up with some good immigration policies rather than play the game where we try to keep everyone out but if they manage to sneak in anyway they get to stay. That combination just doesn’t make any sense.

And of course once one EU country lets someone in that person gets to go and live in whatever EU country they like… It would be helpful to have the same rules across the EU.

8

Which “North African Country”, exactly? The refugees are largely in Libya, which doesn’t happen to have a government right now, so there isn’t really a lot any outside organization can achieve there. Egypt has it’s own set of issues, and isn’t playing nice. Sudan hosts a lot of refugees, but hasn’t done a great job of keepign them safe.

The issue is not that African countries don’t want to host refugees (they don’t, but they end up hosting far more than we do, anyway.) It’s that even with as much money as you throw at it, the infrastructure and governance just isn’t there to do a good job of it. Refugees camps are not safe places. They are not comfortable places. Picture living in a tent, standing in Soviet-style breadlines for your basic needs, being forbidden from traveling, and having inadequate protection from thieves, rapists and criminal gangs. That is life in many refugee camps. It’s better in the sense that you are not being shot at, but it’s kind of like a jail without the guards.

There are three desirable outcomes for refugees: To safely return to their homes, to voluntarily resettle in a third country, or to be integrated into the host country. Unfortunately, with today’s protracted conflicts, number one isn’t looking very likely.

Option two is slow and unreliable- it can take a decade to get resettled, and the entire process is the height of bureaucratic frusteration. Sometimes people work for years toward resettlement, only to have it pulled the night before they board the plane. It’s not a real option for most people.

The third option is hugely unpopular. The conflicts are often too close for comfort for the host countries, and refugee camps can and do get politically and even militarily active. Added to that, African countries are hesitant to invite foreign labor in, and refugees aren’t allowed to work. Sometimes, they are even forbidden from basic internal commerce, like operating a make shift barber shop, serving other camp residents.

So what we have is people with no hope, living in a not-so-guilded cage, unable to work or make soemthing of their lives. I’ve heard stories of refugees earning multiple advance degrees- but they have literally nothing to do with that if they are forbidden from working. The reality is that people, and especially young people, don’t take well to being trapped and idle. They will leave. They will leave at any risk, for the smallest sliver of hope, because nobody wants to sit around watching their life waste away.

I don’t have any real answer, but you aren’t going to keep people in camps. Long-term refugee camps are not an answer. Whatever the answer is is going to have to involve incorporating refugees into someone’s economy, somewhere.

9

There’s no need to bring them all to my area right now, because there’s a surplus of refugees from Congo, Somalia, and Myanmar already here to work in the slaughterhouses.

:rolleyes: :mad:

10

Problem is its not just 10,000-20,000. Literally millions are trying to come into the US. We just dont have the room anymore.

11

Bullshit.

There are many reasons not to let refugees in, but this is not one of them.

12

Why would you say that? The U.S. resettles many more refugees than Europe does. It’s been a steady process that continues regardless of the political climate. In fact, the U.S. is the top recipient of refugee resettlement in the world, and Canada is, I believe, in third place.

Do you know anything about how the formal refugee process works, as administered by the UNHCR? The Syrian war is over four years old now, but because of the resettlement process Syrians are starting to be resettled in the U.S. only now.

What’s happening in Europe is nothing compared to what’s been happening in countries like Turkey (okay, maybe you were thinking of Turkey in the OP, but somehow I don’t think so), Jordan, etc. for a long time now. Really. Those countries are looking at the hand-wringing in the western media over this recent thing in the tunnel and just scoffing.

13

It’s not the same thing. In most EU countries refugees that are admitted get a house and welfare, while elsewhere they don’t really get anything.

Although I sympathize with refugees because I would also flee in the same situation, inviting random people (who could be (war) criminals) to live with us just because they can’t get their shit together at home is not a solution. Overthrow Assad already!

14

True, Europe has a much more robust social service system but in the U.S. a refugee family with children can go on welfare, receive Medicare, etc. (They don’t get a house, though.) Singles get about $333 a month for the first eight months, Medicare, and food stamps. They all get employment development support, too, and social workers. There’s no reason Europe couldn’t resettle more refugees the way the U.S. and Canada do.

15

(Emphasis mine) there is but one teensy, tiny, insignificant little problem as of right now – look at what would take Assad’s place. The incredibly ugly thing is that, at this moment, overthrowing Assad would create a power vacuum that would be filled by people astronomically nastier and eviller than him.

Assad can be overthrown only if (and that is a huge “if”) there are minimal guarantees that Syria won’t have a bunch of worse maniacs in power in the post-Assad scenario. Until then, better the known evil, as we say in Spanish.

16

Elbows, how many refugees per year would you like Canada to take in?

17

Muffin, it’s not that I have a number in mind exactly. But since you asked, I should think this country could easily take 40-50,000 refugees. A number that could ease the situation in European nations. Perhaps sufficiently to avoid an anti immigrant backlash, growing hatred etc.

guizot, it’s not that I don’t acknowledge the number of immigrants the U.S. takes in, truly. I realize it’s a whole lot more than most nations. But the U.S. also has a seething anti immigration segment of the population, that’s content to blame every ill on ‘illegals’. Canada (possibly alone in the world?) does not have any rabidly anti immigrant political parties. I was simply acknowledging the current political atmosphere, in the US, that precludes those ‘in the running’ from suggesting harbouring any of these refugees.

iljitsch however is totally illustrating my point though. Your solution shows not so much as a whim of concern for what’s best for these desperate refugees, and is only concerned with getting them out of your country. With bonus points for also not caring whether the ‘host’ African nation can handle it or not! (Not meant as a personal attack! Just pointing out how this is the kind of view my OP was referring to!)

It’s that very change in attitude that strikes me. And I can make excuses for a lot of places in the world to feel as they do. I understand the pressures they’re under and the limits they have to work within. That doesn’t excuse my country though. And it doesn’t excuse any individual lack of compassion for suffering humanity either, in my mind.

Would anyone today help suffering refugees in the manner, or with the compassion, of those who did so during/following WW2? I’m just not seeing it, I guess. What’s that say about our societies, I wonder?

18

Well, if you say it like that you’re right. It would be best for them to all come live in Europe. Even if that means things get a whole lot worse here, because even then it’s still better than in the places they’re fleeing from.

I do reject the premise that it’s on us to do what’s best for refugees.

However, that is not to say I don’t want to help them to some degree. In the grand scheme of things Europe is a rich place, and we can afford to set up facilities to house a large number of refugees in a way that isn’t going to be great, but is a lot better than what most of them have now.

I don’t think we can afford to accept a million or more into the EU on a yearly basis, however.

They can handle it just fine if we pay for it; they have the space, we have the money.

But let me ask you: what do you want to do? Accepting 100k or 500k Syrians is not a solution, as that still leaves 3.9 or 3.5 million in the cold, as well as millions in other countries. So if you really want to be nice to refugees, you need to accept ALL of them. Which basically means inviting 6.5 billion people into your country.

19

No where in this thread did I, or anyone, imply Europe should have to accept all refugees. This thread is about why my large wealthy country isn’t doing more to help refugees and Europe in dealing with them.

I think we can all agree what’s happening is tragic and overwhelming. I’m inquiring why the west glorifies stories from the past of compassion and sacrifice to end the suffering of others. We applaud and exalt those who stepped up to help. We’ve made movies, given Peace Prizes, written history books about such persons.

And yet…do you see any heroes on the horizon? I sure don’t. The silence is kind of deafening to me.

20

Look at it this way, why are they going to Europe? Why not China? Why not India? Why not Africa? Why not other places?

First you have to ask yourself are they looking for economic change or safety?

Second, do they have the ability and will to assimilate?

Third, can a country support them?

Does one take a homeless person off the street and give him food and medical aid and and treatment and use one’s child’s college education fund to do it?

If not why?

There is always someone better off than you, and there is always someone worse off asking themselves why don’t those better off help me?