![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
dreamville-bg.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsI'm really amazed by the simplicity behind arguments like, "Europe has a population of 400+ million; it can easily absorb a couple million refugees, no problem. Look, America is doing it on a regular basis".
So let's dig a bit further under the surface of what at first sight may look like easy-peasy solution here. And you'll see how after a while, the whole premise begins to fall apart. First of all, this sort of argument assumes that these couple of million, or X million newcomers would be evenly distributed throughout Europe - which couldn't be any further from the truth. In fact, as the refugees themselves have said, they're mostly aiming for Germany, Sweden, and partly the Lower Lands and Austria. And not just any part of Gemany: most are aiming for Bavaria, Rhineland and Ruhr. They've been rather picky about Sweden too, and they definitely won't go to any part of Sweden either (in fact some have reportedly refused to live in a particular place that was "too woody, too remote, and too cold" to their tastes). No, most of them are aiming for Scania, Gothia and the Stockholm area.
Many have been asked, "But why wouldn't you stay, say, in Hungary? Greece? Bulgaria, even?" Their response? "Hell no! It's bad over there!" My country is right in the middle of their path - but they've been doing their best to bypass it. Wonder why that is? Firstly, because "it's a poor country, there's nothing for us there". Secondly, because they're not being met with open arms, admittedly (our own Roma people have occasionally robbed them right at the border). And thirdly, because we've actually been doing our job: controlling the border even with the few funds that we have, registering everyone upon entry, offering either asylum or passage further down their route. But that's a problem, because once they get registered here, they'll later be returned back here again (as per the infamous first-entry rule). And they don't want that, do they.
So, like I said, most refugees are actually going to end up being densely packed in a few select regions within just a couple of countries. While Germany is huge demographically, and I'm sure the "easy to absorb it" argument would remain rather persistent in that case, 9-million-strong Sweden would find it rather difficult in those circumstances, don't you think?
If we so much insist to make parallels to the US (very different "melting-pot" model, as more than a few Americans themselves have pointed out - but don't let a little detail get in the way of a nicely crafted simplistic argument), we could say the situation would be comparable to, let's say, SoCal, South Texas and Florida. Except, in this case the migrants won't be speaking Spanish, they'd be speaking Arabic. They'll be coming from a culture that teaches that women are second-class citizens who should cover themselves from top to bottom, lest they become rape-bait (mind you, the woman would be the culprit if she's raped, because she'll have enticed poor men into doing it - hey, she could even be forced to marry her rapist). Some would want to go further and have areas where some elements of Sharia law apply - as has already been the case in some areas of the UK. Hey, if second- and third-generation migrants could demand such a thing, then what about first-generation newcomers?
Am I sounding too bigoted and hateful to your sensibilities already? Well, sorry about that. But those are concerns that too many people at this side of the Pond are having, to just be easily hand-waved and dismissed through the most convenient tactic, namely, name-calling and label-sticking.
If a German mayor could tell his own constituents that the area around a refugee camp (hosting a few hundred people) is now practically off-limits to their kids (because they should "avoid provoking" the migrants); if people are now being told some areas in their own country are better avoided because that could cause trouble with the newcomers - and that, regarding a few hundred of them - then imagine what would the situation look like, once a few hundred thousand of those migrants end up being hosted in a single municipality. Because, let's face it, that's what entire regions of Germany and Sweden, and partly the Lower Lands and Austria would end up being like.
Call me a hateful bigot all you like. That still wouldn't remove the fact that these are prospects that local people could NOT afford ignoring - at least not for too long. So, if any of you are prepared to actually offer suggestions for a solution to this emerging situation - you know, for a change, instead of resorting to the default name-calling mode - please be my guests. I'm all ears.
So let's dig a bit further under the surface of what at first sight may look like easy-peasy solution here. And you'll see how after a while, the whole premise begins to fall apart. First of all, this sort of argument assumes that these couple of million, or X million newcomers would be evenly distributed throughout Europe - which couldn't be any further from the truth. In fact, as the refugees themselves have said, they're mostly aiming for Germany, Sweden, and partly the Lower Lands and Austria. And not just any part of Gemany: most are aiming for Bavaria, Rhineland and Ruhr. They've been rather picky about Sweden too, and they definitely won't go to any part of Sweden either (in fact some have reportedly refused to live in a particular place that was "too woody, too remote, and too cold" to their tastes). No, most of them are aiming for Scania, Gothia and the Stockholm area.
Many have been asked, "But why wouldn't you stay, say, in Hungary? Greece? Bulgaria, even?" Their response? "Hell no! It's bad over there!" My country is right in the middle of their path - but they've been doing their best to bypass it. Wonder why that is? Firstly, because "it's a poor country, there's nothing for us there". Secondly, because they're not being met with open arms, admittedly (our own Roma people have occasionally robbed them right at the border). And thirdly, because we've actually been doing our job: controlling the border even with the few funds that we have, registering everyone upon entry, offering either asylum or passage further down their route. But that's a problem, because once they get registered here, they'll later be returned back here again (as per the infamous first-entry rule). And they don't want that, do they.
So, like I said, most refugees are actually going to end up being densely packed in a few select regions within just a couple of countries. While Germany is huge demographically, and I'm sure the "easy to absorb it" argument would remain rather persistent in that case, 9-million-strong Sweden would find it rather difficult in those circumstances, don't you think?
If we so much insist to make parallels to the US (very different "melting-pot" model, as more than a few Americans themselves have pointed out - but don't let a little detail get in the way of a nicely crafted simplistic argument), we could say the situation would be comparable to, let's say, SoCal, South Texas and Florida. Except, in this case the migrants won't be speaking Spanish, they'd be speaking Arabic. They'll be coming from a culture that teaches that women are second-class citizens who should cover themselves from top to bottom, lest they become rape-bait (mind you, the woman would be the culprit if she's raped, because she'll have enticed poor men into doing it - hey, she could even be forced to marry her rapist). Some would want to go further and have areas where some elements of Sharia law apply - as has already been the case in some areas of the UK. Hey, if second- and third-generation migrants could demand such a thing, then what about first-generation newcomers?
Am I sounding too bigoted and hateful to your sensibilities already? Well, sorry about that. But those are concerns that too many people at this side of the Pond are having, to just be easily hand-waved and dismissed through the most convenient tactic, namely, name-calling and label-sticking.
If a German mayor could tell his own constituents that the area around a refugee camp (hosting a few hundred people) is now practically off-limits to their kids (because they should "avoid provoking" the migrants); if people are now being told some areas in their own country are better avoided because that could cause trouble with the newcomers - and that, regarding a few hundred of them - then imagine what would the situation look like, once a few hundred thousand of those migrants end up being hosted in a single municipality. Because, let's face it, that's what entire regions of Germany and Sweden, and partly the Lower Lands and Austria would end up being like.
Call me a hateful bigot all you like. That still wouldn't remove the fact that these are prospects that local people could NOT afford ignoring - at least not for too long. So, if any of you are prepared to actually offer suggestions for a solution to this emerging situation - you know, for a change, instead of resorting to the default name-calling mode - please be my guests. I'm all ears.
(no subject)
Date: 8/3/16 18:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/3/16 18:54 (UTC)It's just that some people (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/21/anti-muslim-harassment-american-classrooms-student-bullying) seem to be having a problem (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hate-attacks-muslims-u-s-spike-after-recent-acts-terrorism-n482456) with it.
(no subject)
Date: 8/3/16 18:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/3/16 18:56 (UTC)My rambling might occasionally be difficult to keep up with, I admit.
(no subject)
Date: 8/3/16 19:02 (UTC)That's 3% of the country. Most refugees would probably end up being hosted in the capital region, i.e. they'll be packed there, too. And that, by the way, is not a very warm place to live in (not woody at all, though). ;)
Try keeping up with that, Europe!
(no subject)
Date: 8/3/16 19:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/3/16 19:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/3/16 19:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/3/16 19:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/3/16 19:28 (UTC)Unlike your little joke there, I actually do have a couple of Syrian friends. One was in my 1st and 2nd grade at school. The other is a Sorbonne graduate. So there.
(no subject)
Date: 8/3/16 19:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/3/16 19:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/3/16 19:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/3/16 19:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/3/16 19:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/3/16 19:53 (UTC)Article 3 of the 1973 Syrian constitution declares Islamic jurisprudence one of Syria's main sources of legislation. The Personal Status Law 59 of 1953 (amended by Law 34 of 1975) is essentially a codified Sharia law. The Code of Personal Status is applied to Muslims by Sharia courts. In Sharia courts, a woman's testimony is worth only half of a man's. [source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_law_by_country)]
(no subject)
Date: 8/3/16 20:38 (UTC)Didn't you argue that numbers do not tell the whole story? It's even in your post title.
(no subject)
Date: 8/3/16 20:01 (UTC)Ehm... on second thoughts...
(no subject)
Date: 8/3/16 19:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/3/16 19:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/3/16 03:33 (UTC)2) The USA of course has an Administration barely willing to admit that anything that's happened since the last one left office has anything to do with its own actions so it's hardly about to initiate actions, however just the reasons that it should do so.
3) US patterns of behavior with crises we make happen are shameful and deplorable so this is no defense of them. Can't make a silk purse of a sow's ear.
(no subject)
Date: 11/3/16 07:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/3/16 13:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/3/16 19:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/3/16 19:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/3/16 19:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/3/16 01:54 (UTC)Is this a reason to retread the same old ground showing that Europeans can't tolerate adhering to their ideas and lack American shamelessness to veil totalitarianism within democracy? No.
(no subject)
Date: 11/3/16 07:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/3/16 13:08 (UTC)Deleted that last line as I realize shit like this is why the drama keeps going.
My apologies, I shouldn't be a petty prick like that. O.X
(no subject)
Date: 11/3/16 13:45 (UTC)So...