The Plight of Refugees, the Shame of the World

“I still don’t know what the answer is , given that the world has 60 million refugees, and that greater and greater swathes of the world are becoming impossible to live in. And those are the places with the fastest population growth, by and large.
But I have been struck by how completely we have failed to do anything. What earthly use is the UN when surely it should be running massive properly funded refugee camps in Turkey, Iran, Azerbaijan, and the Gulf States? Why is the Jewish lobby which never fails to castigate the world for not doing more for FEWER refugees in the thirties and forties not demanding that America immediately admit a couple of million? Where is the candidate reversing the Trump nonsense and actively demanding that America live up to its Statue of Liberty message? Why has the EU not funded and built a city in Cyprus for migrants? More mischievously, Why aren’t the Catholic countries of Latin America seizing the opportunity to proselytize by admitting anyone who renounces Islam? They might say: we know that if you are within the caliphate you have to convert to Islam, or remain in Islam, on pain of death. We welcome you provided only that you renounce Islam.”
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/opinion/zeynep-tufekci-the-plight-of-child-refugees.html?referrer=

How about we support governments that are the neighbors of nations, from which refugees are escaping, to go in and create safe zones for those refugees within the refugees own countries. Then we support the protection of those safe zones. Then we support the economic development of those safe zones.

As I mentioned in this episode of my podcast: http://trailerparkatheist.libsyn.com/episode-0052-a-dino-named-hellboy one of the most shameful things about international refugee laws is that they have no provisions for stateless people like the Rohingya from Myanmar. One would think that there would be something for people who have “no country,” but apparently not. I can’t find the article now, but someone was putting forth the idea of creating floating island cities for refugees to live on, since it was becoming increasingly hard to find countries willing to accept them.

For the record, the text I included was written by a friend and was not part of the link. i thought it was when I sent it. I agree with the sentiment.
Lois

For the record, the text I included was written by a friend and was not part of the link. i thought it was when I sent it. I agree with the sentiment. Lois
I thought it was a bit out of character for you to propose possible solutions, even in the form of rhetorical questions, as your friend did. I almost complimented you for the effort.
As I mentioned in this episode of my podcast: http://trailerparkatheist.libsyn.com/episode-0052-a-dino-named-hellboy one of the most shameful things about international refugee laws is that they have no provisions for stateless people like the Rohingya from Myanmar. One would think that there would be something for people who have "no country," but apparently not. I can't find the article now, but someone was putting forth the idea of creating floating island cities for refugees to live on, since it was becoming increasingly hard to find countries willing to accept them.
The problem is every country has trouble taking care of its own citizens. When refugees stream into any country it is a disruption to housing, jobs, food and social services, and as a result, the citizens suffer. I can't think ofone country or land where this is not the case. Of course the refugees want to go to places that have social services, where they think there are jobs amd they're willing to live on the streets and use them as toilets until they can find some kind of accomodation, causing more social disruption. Even if there were floating islands somewhere, how would you force refugees onto them? In addition, if some would go there, someone has to build them, maintain them and make sure people can survive on them. Food and shelter would have to be imported. Sanitary facilities installed, heat, if it's cold, And what about medical care? Who would pay for it all? Before long, the people would start finding ways to move iillegally where they think they can find jobs and social services, and everyone would be back to square one. It's apparently a insoluble problem. There are too many people in the world--especially poor people--for its resources. It will only get worse. Most of us (or our kids and grandkids, anyway) may be on the streets before long, without jobs, shelter, sanitation, medical care, heat, social services or adequate food or clothing. Who will take them in? Lois
For the record, the text I included was written by a friend and was not part of the link. i thought it was when I sent it. I agree with the sentiment. Lois
I thought it was a bit out of character for you to propose possible solutions, even in the form of rhetorical questions, as your friend did. I almost complimented you for the effort. Do you have any solutions? Lois
For the record, the text I included was written by a friend and was not part of the link. i thought it was when I sent it. I agree with the sentiment. Lois
I thought it was a bit out of character for you to propose possible solutions, even in the form of rhetorical questions, as your friend did. I almost complimented you for the effort. Do you have any solutions? Lois Do you ever read any of my posts?
For the record, the text I included was written by a friend and was not part of the link. i thought it was when I sent it. I agree with the sentiment. Lois
I thought it was a bit out of character for you to propose possible solutions, even in the form of rhetorical questions, as your friend did. I almost complimented you for the effort. Do you have any solutions? Lois Do you ever read any of my posts? I do, but I don't remember any solutions to the refugee problem. Care to remind me and sum them up?
For the record, the text I included was written by a friend and was not part of the link. i thought it was when I sent it. I agree with the sentiment. Lois
I thought it was a bit out of character for you to propose possible solutions, even in the form of rhetorical questions, as your friend did. I almost complimented you for the effort. Do you have any solutions? Lois Do you ever read any of my posts? I do, but I don't remember any solutions to the refugee problem. Care to remind me and sum them up? The very first reply in this thread was a thought that occurred to me. Not sure how you missed it.
As I mentioned in this episode of my podcast: http://trailerparkatheist.libsyn.com/episode-0052-a-dino-named-hellboy one of the most shameful things about international refugee laws is that they have no provisions for stateless people like the Rohingya from Myanmar. One would think that there would be something for people who have "no country," but apparently not. I can't find the article now, but someone was putting forth the idea of creating floating island cities for refugees to live on, since it was becoming increasingly hard to find countries willing to accept them.
The problem is every country has trouble taking care of its own citizens. When refugees stream into any country it is a disruption to housing, jobs, food and social services, and as a result, the citizens suffer. I can't think ofone country or land where this is not the case. Of course the refugees want to go to places that have social services, where they think there are jobs amd they're willing to live on the streets and use them as toilets until they can find some kind of accomodation, causing more social disruption.My understanding is that the periods of highest economic growth in the US correspond to the periods when we had the highest influx of immigrants, so bringing refugees, really shouldn't be that big of an issue.
Even if there were floating islands somewhere, how would you force refugees onto them? In addition, if some would go there, someone has to build them, maintain them and make sure people can survive on them. Food and shelter would have to be imported. Sanitary facilities installed, heat, if it's cold, And what about medical care? Who would pay for it all? Before long, the people would start finding ways to move iillegally where they think they can find jobs and social services, and everyone would be back to square one. It's apparently a insoluble problem. There are too many people in the world--especially poor people--for its resources. It will only get worse. Most of us (or our kids and grandkids, anyway) may be on the streets before long, without jobs, shelter, sanitation, medical care, heat, social services or adequate food or clothing. Who will take them in? Lois
As I recall, the idea for the islands was that they would be paid for by nations who don't want to accept refugees, and once on the islands, the people would be paid for cleaning up the giant garbage patches in the oceans, with the material fished out being recycled into building more islands. Its a pipe dream, of course, because even if all the necessary details were worked out, no one would want to pay for them, they'd rather spend more money shipping the refugees to somewhere else.
How about we support governments that are the neighbors of nations, from which refugees are escaping, to go in and create safe zones for those refugees within the refugees own countries. Then we support the protection of those safe zones. Then we support the economic development of those safe zones.
Because that completely changes the definition of "nation". Just because people are leaving it, that doesn't mean anyone can go in and change it, even parts of it. That would be an invasion. We only do that when large numbers of defenseless people are being killed. Or if we want their oil, there's that.
How about we support governments that are the neighbors of nations, from which refugees are escaping, to go in and create safe zones for those refugees within the refugees own countries. Then we support the protection of those safe zones. Then we support the economic development of those safe zones.
Because that completely changes the definition of "nation". Just because people are leaving it, that doesn't mean anyone can go in and change it, even parts of it. That would be an invasion. We only do that when large numbers of defenseless people are being killed. Or if we want their oil, there's that. Well, Syria, for example, (where a lot of refugees are coming from) has already been changed in regards to its status as a "nation". It has already been completely changed from both internal and external forces. And large numbers of people, not lucky enough to have become refugees, have already been and are being killed. Do you have a better idea? I thought the islands idea was interesting.
How about we support governments that are the neighbors of nations, from which refugees are escaping, to go in and create safe zones for those refugees within the refugees own countries. Then we support the protection of those safe zones. Then we support the economic development of those safe zones.
Because that completely changes the definition of "nation". Just because people are leaving it, that doesn't mean anyone can go in and change it, even parts of it. That would be an invasion. We only do that when large numbers of defenseless people are being killed. Or if we want their oil, there's that. Well, Syria, for example, (where a lot of refugees are coming from) has already been changed in regards to its status as a "nation". It has already been completely changed from both internal and external forces. And large numbers of people, not lucky enough to have become refugees, have already been and are being killed. Do you have a better idea? I thought the islands idea was interesting. Syria is an example of a force of evil people doing terrible things. If it weren't the history of the last couple decades, the world would no doubt be mobilized against them, but we've screwed up 3 or 4 times in a row now and no one knows what to do. Sorry, what islands?
How about we support governments that are the neighbors of nations, from which refugees are escaping, to go in and create safe zones for those refugees within the refugees own countries. Then we support the protection of those safe zones. Then we support the economic development of those safe zones.
Because that completely changes the definition of "nation". Just because people are leaving it, that doesn't mean anyone can go in and change it, even parts of it. That would be an invasion. We only do that when large numbers of defenseless people are being killed. Or if we want their oil, there's that. Well, Syria, for example, (where a lot of refugees are coming from) has already been changed in regards to its status as a "nation". It has already been completely changed from both internal and external forces. And large numbers of people, not lucky enough to have become refugees, have already been and are being killed. Do you have a better idea? I thought the islands idea was interesting. Syria is an example of a force of evil people doing terrible things. If it weren't the history of the last couple decades, the world would no doubt be mobilized against them, but we've screwed up 3 or 4 times in a row now and no one knows what to do. Sorry, what islands? You say "no one knows what to do." That is your better idea? Then you say "Sorry, what islands?" Jeebus H. KrIst. Read the frikkin thread that you are responding to. Coldheart referenced the idea of creating islands for refugees. He added something substantive to the discussion. I wish more posters would do that sort of thing more often, instead of just, always, and only going to the default response of just bemoaning the terrible state of affairs, or just condemning so and so's vile actions .
You say "no one knows what to do." That is your better idea? Then you say "Sorry, what islands?" Jeebus H. KrIst. Read the frikkin thread that you are responding to. Coldheart referenced the idea of creating islands for refugees. He added something substantive to the discussion. I wish more posters would do that sort of thing more often, instead of just, always, and only going to the default response of just bemoaning the terrible state of affairs, or just condemning so and so's vile actions .
You're the one who brought Syria as some sort of red herring, as if just because that problem exists, we should use it as an example of when to deal with refugees. And the island idea is a joke, I'm sorry read it and glad I skipped it earlier.
How about we support governments that are the neighbors of nations, from which refugees are escaping, to go in and create safe zones for those refugees within the refugees own countries. Then we support the protection of those safe zones. Then we support the economic development of those safe zones.
Because that completely changes the definition of "nation". Just because people are leaving it, that doesn't mean anyone can go in and change it, even parts of it. That would be an invasion. We only do that when large numbers of defenseless people are being killed. Or if we want their oil, there's that. Well, Syria, for example, (where a lot of refugees are coming from) has already been changed in regards to its status as a "nation". It has already been completely changed from both internal and external forces. And large numbers of people, not lucky enough to have become refugees, have already been and are being killed. Do you have a better idea? I thought the islands idea was interesting. Interesting, yes. Workable, no. Lois
For the record, the text I included was written by a friend and was not part of the link. i thought it was when I sent it. I agree with the sentiment. Lois
I thought it was a bit out of character for you to propose possible solutions, even in the form of rhetorical questions, as your friend did. I almost complimented you for the effort. Do you have any solutions? Lois Do you ever read any of my posts? I do, but I don't remember any solutions to the refugee problem. Care to remind me and sum them up? The very first reply in this thread was a thought that occurred to me. Not sure how you missed it. Yes, and it was shot down by Lausten as it should have been, in Post#11. An unworkable solution is no better than no solution. Lois