Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Refugees Welcome

refugees-welcome.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 313 posts

Re: Refugees Welcome

#191

Post by jbssm »

fs111 wrote: post #176
jbssm wrote: post #130

Sincerely. I'm European, I'm from Euro zone. I walk in the streets in my country's capital at night and a see dozens of homeless hungry people just by walking a couple of Km. I just can't put my head around on why we should help the refugees before we help our own people. It just doesn't make any sense to me. We are giving millions to find houses for these refugees/migrants but we let our own live and die on the stre…

Well, why don't you house some homeless people at your place then? This is a non argument, that tries to derail the discussion.

Err... cause I'm also in a bad economic condition? The crisis had real impact in here for anyone except the rich, in case you don't know.

Your question doesn't even make sense. I'm asking why we are helping (we, our government, our taxes) the refugees/migrants before we help our own homeless people.

Re: Refugees Welcome

#192

Post by davidw »

cylinder wrote: post #13
sschueller wrote: post #6

I would like to see the US step up its process to accept refugees. Currently it takes 18 to 24 months for refuges to be able to get on a plane the US. The US has agreed to accept up to 70k refugees yet at this rate it will take for ever while Germany has hundreds of new refuges per day. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/11/us-accept-thous...

70k per year is hundreds per day. And then there's all the asylum seekers on top of that as well as the massive undocumented migrations across the southern border. If Germany were an island it would do the same kind of processing. There's nothing wrong with examining a person for a year before letting them settle in your country. The system has worked well thus far, why bust it up?

> The system has worked well

Has it? Could it have been working much better for all parties? I think that is distinctly possible.

Re: Refugees Welcome

#193

Post by y4mi »

lentil_soup wrote: post #174
dba7dba wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did’t think there were enough Germans that are conservative and/or Christian anymore?

Not that that is the whole story but the governing party is called the "Christian Democratic Union of Germany"

its their name, not their program.

the cdu isnt really a christian party anymore, considering how many of their staff are self proclaimed atheists

Re: Refugees Welcome

#194

Post by jbssm »

dba7dba wrote: post #171
dba7dba wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the refugees would MUCH MUCH prefer to be in their own homeland with their family/friends/culture.

Why am I downvoted? They were forced out from their home due to the conflicts. They are not out on a vacation trip.

Well, the term refugees is being used too much in this question. There are many refugees, but there are also many economic migrants amongst them.

Receiving the war refugees is certainly different from receiving the economic migrants and we shouldn't mix both things as we are doing lately.

Re: Refugees Welcome

#195

Post by rmxt »

ciupicri wrote: post #136
zerr wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much every European country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_European_coloni...

I think you meant some Western European countries. Because I don't see Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Poland, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and probably others on that list. And I definitely don't see Switzerland. Europe doesn't mean the European Union (founders).

It would help your comparison if half of those countries existed as independent entities before World War I.

The Baltic States and Ukraine were part of Russia when it went through its imperialistic/colonization phase, reaching into Alaska and Mongolia, and Fort Ross as noted on the linked page.

The German Empire is conveniently listed as Germany on that page, which leaves out the fact that the German Empire consisted of land that is now part of the Czech Republic, Poland, and Lithuania.

Of course, these modern day countries were some times subjugated much in the same way that true colonies were subjugated. That being said, I don't think it's fair to say that Western Europe is solely to blame for world wide colonization.

Re: Refugees Welcome

#196

Post by hoopd »

hoopd wrote: post #143
sp332 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As many as we can?

define "can"

As usual, a challenge to the drive-by downvoters: answer the question. At what point have we done all we can? We "can" give ourselves as slaves to refugees to make their lives easier but I don't think that's what was meant. So A) where's the line and B) how close are we to that line?

Re: Refugees Welcome

#198

Post by [deleted] »

d9h549f34w6 wrote: post #120
roymurdock wrote: post #110

I think this is a great idea. It's easy to hate the concept of immigration and, by extension, the thought of millions of immigrants pouring into your home country. In fact, we're hardwired to have an aversion to this idea. Humans have always formed small units such as families or tribes in order to compete with other humans for limited resources. Immigrants are easily lumped together into a menacing tribe of competit…

If humans are hardwired to be averse to "millions of immigrants pouring into your home country," why is that? Presumably you're referring to that aversion being chosen by natural selection. That suggests that we're less likely to have been descended from those who were more open to displacement by outside populations, and more likely to come from those who guarded their borders. Societies that don't keep barriers are…

[deleted]

Re: Refugees Welcome

#199

Post by jbssm »

ashleyp wrote: post #54
treenyc wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be responsible, and it doesn't has to be in the way that allows 'refugees' into your country. People in each country ought to have a choice in that.

True - there's still ways of helping without that. But what's the fear about letting refugees into the country? Why are people so scared of this? (genuine question =)) It seems to me the only countries whom are scared are the ones who think they're the best, greatest and fear loosing that status. This sounds like idk...country ego? lol.

> But what's the fear about letting refugees into the country? Why are people so scared of this? (genuine question =))

It's the fear of letting people with very, very, different social standards in our countries. And it's warranted.

More than 50% of these refugees believe that whoever leaves the faith of Islam should suffer the death penalty and that adultery should be dealt with stoning to death.

We are not talking about a minority here, we are talking about the majority of them. So, you really shouldn't have to ask why are we afraid of letting them in in such big numbers, the questions should be, how can we do the right thing and still protect the social freedom values we hold dear in the West while doing so.

Source: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religi...

EDIT: It's funny that I'm being downvoted for answering exactly your question and providing evidence about it from a well know and neutral source.

Post reply on HN