|
Captain Scandinaiva posted:I read an article (not in english) which claimed the situation in Lebanon is getting worse because UNHCR and the World Food Program are both underfunded. So the people who can afford it are leaving for Europe and those who can't have to consider going back to Syria. Why is this? Is it due to the unprecedented scale of the crisis or has funding actually been slashed because of financial crisis and following troubles? It's pretty amazing how many factors are working towards making this the clusterfuck it is. The UN's humanitarian programs don't get regular funding from the UN - they're entirely dependent on voluntary donations from countries and private organizations. There's no regular, guaranteed cash flow, so they're basically charities and have to constantly beg for donations. They don't share budgets, either, so the different organizations and programs have to separately beg for donations. Because they have no basic funding that they can rely on and plan with, they'd still be in this situation even if they had predicted this crisis several years ago. And because they're fully dependent on voluntary, one-time donations, they're perpetually underfunded, extremely vulnerable to economic dips and austerity pushes, and utterly unable to increase their budgets when a major crisis like this happens. UNHCR says that their 2015 funding is 10% lower than their 2014 funding level was, but their Syria program has less than half the money it needs to provide the services it needs to provide. Zodium posted:beep bop Well excuse me for not assuming that people are joking about their horrible opinions, in a thread where literal racists are coming out of the woodwork
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
Refugees in peaceful South American countries protest to be sent to richer european countries. Here refugees have been accepted without question for years and they are never reported as problems, or as "evil" in the media like the first world constantly does, and probably never will be. South Americans were refugees in europe during dictatorships; we're emphathic towards muslims or anyone escaping. Thing is, the refugees aren't interested in our hospitality. The non-rear end in a top hat choice here is to hear them out and send them to Germany or something, as keeping them here against their will, ignoring their protests, makes the refugees unhappy. wiregrind fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Sep 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
wiregrind posted:Refugees in peaceful South American countries protest to be sent to richer european countries. Here refugees have been accepted without question for years and they are never reported as problems, or as "evil" in the media like the first world constantly does, and probably never will be. South Americans were refugees in europe during dictatorships; we're emphathic towards muslims or anyone escaping. Thing is, the refugees aren't interested in our hospitality. That, and a trip across the Atlantic illegally would be logistically impossible / so expensive that no refugee would have money for it...
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Zodium posted:Of course. For example, if there are more people in an area than that area can feed, for whatever reason, then there is a surplus population, and we should move that surplus population (or facilitate/allow them to move autonomously) to somewhere with more resources, especially children. Ethnic cleansing? I don't agree. We live in a world where resources can be moved to people. People should have the right not to be uprooted or displaced.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Ethnic cleansing? I don't agree. We live in a world where resources can be moved to people. People should have the right not to be uprooted or displaced. We actually live in a dark parody of that world where resources are instead moved away from those people. I know that's not a popular opinion, but that's what I think. This doesn't have anything to do with anything, but I want to throw out the prediction that Sweden and Germany will have the most growth in the EU over the next 10 years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Ethnic cleansing? I don't agree. We live in a world where resources can be moved to people. People should have the right not to be uprooted or displaced. *pushes glasses up nose* I'll have you know that we in the Austrian School believe that if one provides infrastructure that eases the transport of commodities then it disincentivises the locals from trying to profit from their local endeavours. For more on this see the works of our profit prophet Dipshit von Miser.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
What can be done to legitimately get refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and Eritrea into Europe? Maybe a diplomatic agreement with non EU countries for passage so they don't have to turn to unsound boats and people smugglers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Can anyone point me to any place that lists refugee rights?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:What can be done to legitimately get refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and Eritrea into Europe? Remove the responsibility of transport companies to check for visas, so that people can use open, legal and cheaper modes of traveling. In the medium term I guess it would be best for the EU to agree on a (large) quota of refugees and allow people to seek asylum in their home countries.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
Woah poo poo's getting real in the EU now. The Austrian chancellor just compared Hungary forcing refugees in trains back to the Serbian border to the Nazis forcing Jews in trains to Auschwitz.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
Azran posted:Can anyone point me to any place that lists refugee rights? Yeah, all three of these apply to refugees: The 1951 Refugee Convention http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49da0e466.html The Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ Convention on the Rights of the Child http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:Yeah, all three of these apply to refugees: Thank you! There was a huuuge debate about this at my uni today, and the two postures were "Well, they aren't refugees till they actually get to a country and ask for help" and "They aren't refugees till a country deems them so, and only if they actually take them in" with a side helping of "Hm, isn't it weird that they are going to Germany and Austria instead of just staying in Hungary/Italy/Greece?" We aren't even Europeans!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Azran posted:Thank you! There was a huuuge debate about this at my uni today, and the two postures were "Well, they aren't refugees till they actually get to a country and ask for help" and "They aren't refugees till a country deems them so, and only if they actually take them in" with a side helping of "Hm, isn't it weird that they are going to Germany and Austria instead of just staying in Hungary/Italy/Greece?" No problem. They are refugees the moment they leave their country and are escaping for the reasons listed in the convention. This is fact. They are asylum seekers when they claim refuge in a country and go through a refugee status determination process. Even if the country doesn't take them in for whatever reason, but they meet the criteria on the convention, they are still refugees. The convention supersedes country laws if that country has signed the convention. Refugees that pass through other countries and then claim asylum are completely legal to do so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Over here in the UK our current opposition party just elected its new leader. Two of the candidates were strongly pro-refugee but our winner, Jeremy Corbyn, announced in his acceptance speech the first thing he'd do is join a mass demonstration in the capital to pressure the government to accept more refugees. He's always been pro-refugee and happily takes part in demonstrations but here's just a glimpse of his speech at the demonstration in parliament square: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2015/sep/12/jeremy-corbyn-addresses-crowds-refugee-rally-video
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
It's not "trivial" at all actually. It's pretty difficult to, for instance, ship food into a warzone because the people delivering it might get shot. Even if it gets brought in the food might be confiscated by local warlords who has uses it as leverage control the population. Obey and get red cross food, disobey and starve. In fact this is pretty much exactly what happened with western aid 70s-90s to Africa, most notoriously with the Derg government in Ethiopia and Somalian warlords. The idea of airdropping food to feed people is good in theory but don't work out all that often in reality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
The country doesn't even has to be at war - in North Korea, the UN food shipments for the starving population went to the army, who then sold it to the people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Against that geopolitical backdrop, stability was an uphill battle for many small countries, and the newly-formed Middle Eastern republics in particular were poorly positioned to suppress the military's power. Even if they did manage to keep the military in line, it only lasted so long; once economic problems, ethnic tensions, or intervention by a superpower caused large-scale protests, some military strongman would inevitably seize the opportunity. Once the situation began to deteriorate and the civilian government's grip loosened, that only created an opening for even more revolutionary struggle. Once a dictatorship was in place, any unrest among the population was likely to be co-opted by yet another would-be dictator, who would overthrow the previous one. South Korea and Egypt were both post-colonial countries in 1945, with the Japanese occupation of South Korea arguably being more brutal than British occupation of Egypt. Yet South Korea, whatever it's democracy or lack-thereof, delivered material prosperity to its people from the 1960s onward, whereas Egypt failed. Nasser and Sadat had multiple decades under both Socialism and Neoliberalism to deliver the goods and legitimize their rule through economic prosperity but distinctively failed. You can try to handwave this away by trying to argue western intervention in Korea was more beneficial than in Egypt but American economic aid to South Korea was never substantial after the late 50s while the most successful period of South Korean growth took place in the 60s-70s. Being in the American bloc also automatically means constant threat of war with China, USSR and North Korea. South Korean success had much more to do with a genuinely good, if dictatorial government and state institutions whereas the Arab world was/is full of lovely ones.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Typo posted:Yet South Korea, whatever it's democracy or lack-thereof, delivered material prosperity to its people from the 1960s onward, whereas Egypt failed. Nasser and Sadat had multiple decades under both Socialism and Neoliberalism to deliver the goods and legitimize their rule through economic prosperity but distinctively failed. Given Nasser's popularity and Sadat's causing of riots over his economic policy, isn't this disingenuous? Feel free to correct me on my perception as I've admitted in this thread I've only gotten touches on the history of Egypt during this period. At the same time, South Korea is doing well but it also crushes unions and has banned the leftist opposition over bullshit charges of being North Korea sympathisers (their actual policy is unification). If it's such a paradise then why does it feel the need to silence freedom of speech if said speech doesn't agree with the government?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
The only hope in the middle east for US/Israel Friendly Stability is secular dictatorship and all secular dictatorships will eventually evolve into sharia democracies or sharia dictatorships. Deal with it. Now we can just remove funding, let all the arab countries cannibalize the israelis and kill all the loving hebes but that in no way guarantees stability. It may make them like us more though. And get back at Israel because gently caress them. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Is it wrong for me to feel like a humane and safe solution to refugee deaths would be to: 1. Use military vessels to forcibly return migrant trafficking vessels to the African/Levant coastline, forcibly evacuate the refugees, and burn the ships, Australian style. 2. Allow for a streamlined, expanded land route for refugees through the Balkans and into Europe e: The problem with most solutions I've heard is, they don't actually discourage human trafficking. As much hand wringing as there is about the Australian policy, it seems to be effective at hurting the traffickers' bottom line. Eregos fucked around with this message at 11:18 on Sep 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 11:07
|
|
|
Eregos posted:Is it wrong for me to feel like a humane and safe solution to refugee deaths would be to:  You obviously don't understand what you're talking about if you want to do anything Australian style.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 11:16
|
|
|
Eregos posted:Is it wrong for me to feel like a humane and safe solution to refugee deaths would be to: The Australian government is actually paying traffickers to turn their boats back so business is better than ever!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 11:21
|
|
|
Oh yeah, I do remember hearing about that actually. In that case, I'm referring to the 'theoretical' idea of turning boats back without paying traffickers then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 12:18
|
|
|
So, um, has anybody been kicking around the idea that with a looming demographic crisis in europe's near future as declining birth rates in the latter half of the twentieth century shrink the workforce, bringing in lots of new, young folk might be exactly what's needed to revitalise the economy? I'm a simple gently caress myself, so I don't really know where to start with it, but if anybody's been advancing this hypothesis or something similar I'd love to hear about it. Also, if it's a dumb idea and a pipe dream and I'm just being thick I'm more than happy to accept that and also be told why.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 12:39
|
|
|
PerpetualSelf posted:Now we can just remove funding, let all the arab countries cannibalize the israelis and kill all the loving hebes but that in no way guarantees stability. It may make them like us more though. And get back at Israel because gently caress them. Are you loving sick in the head?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 12:45
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:So, um, has anybody been kicking around the idea that with a looming demographic crisis in europe's near future as declining birth rates in the latter half of the twentieth century shrink the workforce, bringing in lots of new, young folk might be exactly what's needed to revitalise the economy? I'm a simple gently caress myself, so I don't really know where to start with it, but if anybody's been advancing this hypothesis or something similar I'd love to hear about it. No of course that's true. Germany needs a bit more than 500,000 immigrants per year to keep their population levelled. Right wing answers I've heard to that are for instance: - Population decline isn't a bad thing - Let's make our women have more children - Let's take in more EU foreigners but no swarthy refugees
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 12:47
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Are you loving sick in the head? Jesus H, that quote. Isn't that pretty much straight-up genocide advocacy? EDIT: Honj Steak posted:- Population decline isn't a bad thing I don't have a problem with this bit, though the other two are clearly repugnant. I mean, the demographic crisis is surely only a temporary anomaly after which things will hopefully level off and normalise as the last of the large-familied child farming generations that preceded us eventually die out. The trend toward smaller families is probably a good thing in the long term, it just means there's a hump we have to get over in terms of caring for a large proportion of elderly people. Unless there's a catch I'm not seeing. TomViolence fucked around with this message at 12:56 on Sep 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 12:50
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:So, um, has anybody been kicking around the idea that with a looming demographic crisis in europe's near future as declining birth rates in the latter half of the twentieth century shrink the workforce, bringing in lots of new, young folk might be exactly what's needed to revitalise the economy? I'm a simple gently caress myself, so I don't really know where to start with it, but if anybody's been advancing this hypothesis or something similar I'd love to hear about it. Well you see these new young people are brown! And that's terrible. Because they look different. PerpetualSelf posted:The only hope in the middle east for US/Israel Friendly Stability is secular dictatorship and all secular dictatorships will eventually evolve into sharia democracies or sharia dictatorships. (gently caress you)
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:I don't have a problem with this bit, though the other two are clearly repugnant. I mean, the demographic crisis is surely only a temporary anomaly after which things will hopefully level off and normalise as the last of the large-familied child farming generations that preceded us eventually die out. The trend toward smaller families is probably a good thing in the long term, it just means there's a hump we have to get over in terms of caring for a large proportion of elderly people. Unless there's a catch I'm not seeing. There would be no hump. A fertility rate below 2.1 + rising life expectancy means the percentage of old people in the population will permanently grow if there is no sufficient immigration.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:.....so? Is that a picture of Bodrum, then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
Honj Steak posted:There would be no hump. A fertility rate below 2.1 + rising life expectancy means the percentage of old people in the population will permanently grow if there is no sufficient immigration. Yeah, if you want a preview of most of Europe without immigration, look at Japan: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
Honj Steak posted:There would be no hump. A fertility rate below 2.1 + rising life expectancy means the percentage of old people in the population will permanently grow if there is no sufficient immigration. Well... drat. On the bright side, it means there's even more reason to let refugees in. On the downside, the glorious future of net-zero population growth I had envisioned is truly punctured.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
Eregos posted:Is it wrong for me to feel like a humane and safe solution to refugee deaths would be to: 2 is enough, IMO. If people know they only have to get to the Turkey/Greek border and then they'll be fine, that's gonna be their biggest goal. It won't 100% stop boats from coming, but it'll put a good size dent in it, as it would give a better option to anyone north of Egypt. As for the boats themselves, it's pretty inhumane to do anything other than accept them, but there needs to be more effort put out in places like Libya and Tunisia to help crackdown on the people responsible for that kind of thing, and alternate ways of making it to the EU provided for Africans moving north. Morocco to Spain, for instance. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Sep 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:So, um, has anybody been kicking around the idea that with a looming demographic crisis in europe's near future as declining birth rates in the latter half of the twentieth century shrink the workforce, bringing in lots of new, young folk might be exactly what's needed to revitalise the economy? I'm a simple gently caress myself, so I don't really know where to start with it, but if anybody's been advancing this hypothesis or something similar I'd love to hear about it. You are correct, but that idea only works if the nation is willing to allow immigrants to take these jobs in the first place, which nativist rhetoric is rather won't to do. And then as it turns out, denying people better economic prospects is a surefire way to breed dissent and extremism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Germany just reintroduced border controls in order to limit the refugee influx after 63000 refugees have arrived in Munich alone in the last two weeks, which is more than in entire 2014. Trains between Austria and Germany have been stopped temporarily. At a pinboard in Vienna West station.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
is it ridiculous that I can imagine a narrative where overwhelming immigration from the syrian civil war and perhaps one or two other things happening (?) could possibly cause a ultra-nationalist government to come to power and restrict and even evict immigrants EDIT: and sometimes attach to this a bit where that government ideology, public opinion or economic crisis is not sated by a repression of immigrants and moves on to the next minority in an attempt to consolidate / stabilise, and perhaps event the distraction of these events and the crisis in general could err ... give russia more confidence to advance its european interests? Varicelli fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Sep 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Varicelli posted:is it ridiculous that I can imagine a narrative where overwhelming immigration from the syrian civil war and perhaps one or two other things happening (?) could possibly cause a ultra-nationalist government to come to power and restrict and even evict immigrants If your narrative derives from an Alan Moore comic it's probably ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:If your narrative derives from an Alan Moore comic it's probably ridiculous. Yeah an ultra-nationalist government coming to power in Europe. Completely ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Lowtechs posted:Yeah an ultra-nationalist government coming to power in Europe. Completely ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
Germany has just reimposed border controls.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 19:07
|
|
