Should refugees be women and children only?

[mojorising]

Okay, so at this point there is no imbalance in Australia.

I am not really looking at this from an Australian perspective. More a European perspective. When I say 'we' I mean the west and Europe in particular.

Policy implementation needs to consider probability of certain outcomes. It doesn't need to morally condemn people who did nothing wrong.

It may not need to morally condemn people but if people are seen to have a tendency to behave immorally (males running away leaving women and children helpless) and this behaviour is damaging to other people (women and children) then it is reasonable for policy can be implemented to prevent or discourage that behaviour.

But my point is about what will probably happen with many male children in the current influx who become adult males.

We already covered that. Yes, it could be argued that female children should be preferred. But that is not likely to win political support as discriminating against children by gender is just not going to fly with an electorate.

If adult males are specially targeted, then females and children are not more vulnerable.

I don't think the speculated possibility that males could be targeted specifically is particularly credible. Even it it were true it hardly flies as justification for able-bodied males to flee leaving females and children. It just feels wrong.

But that's to a considerable extent due to bad policies in the host countries, blocking integration.

Well that is really another argument. Personally I think the immigrants' culture bears a lot of the responsibility for the failure to integrate.

Okay, so you think that if there were similar numbers of males and females, there would be no significantly more social problems than, say, females outnumbering males 3:1?

I don't know about those ratios specifically but males are where the problems lie. The less males the better for the host nation. I think 50:50 is as high as we should be willing to go. We need to think about the social health of our nations as well as the welfare of refugees.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I am not really looking at this from an Australian perspective. More a European perspective. When I say 'we' I mean the west and Europe in particular.

But the policies you propose are also proposed for Australia, if I get this right. I'm pointing out there is no imbalance in Australia, so the imbalance argument does not apply to Australia.

It may not need to morally condemn people but if people are seen to have a tendency to behave immorally (males running away leaving women and children helpless) and this behaviour is damaging to other people (women and children) then it is reasonable for policy can be implemented to prevent or discourage that behaviour.

I disagree - for the n-th time - with your moral claim that their behavior is immoral, and with your representation of it, but I've already said that many times, so I'll leave it for now.

We already covered that. Yes, it could be argued that female children should be preferred. But that is not likely to win political support as discriminating against children by gender is just not going to fly with an electorate.

We already covered that too, but when I said:

But my point is that the policy you say is sensible (i.e., no more males full stop) would not be implemented even if it gained the support of some or all EU chiefs of government - they don't have that level of power -, unless it gains the support of much of the general public - at least a majority, more likely a large majority.

You replied:

Well that is really an argument about how effective European government is. I am more interested in the argument in principle about the refugee problem.

So, If you're talking about the argument in principle, my point is again about what will probably happen with many male children in the current influx who become adult males.

If it's about political support, I'm not sure by arguing you will win much, but if you do, it will be through a combination of good and bad points. In any case, repeated cases of violence committed by people very different culturally from the majority will be more likely to gain support than arguments.

I don't think the speculated possibility that males could be targeted specifically is particularly credible. Even it it were true it hardly flies as justification for able-bodied males to flee leaving females and children. It just feels wrong.

Isn't it?
Groups like IS tend to kill males who don't join them, and in some cases, they don't even give them the chance to join, depending on whether they're Sunni or what.
Females are either targeted as slaves, or oppressed by their laws but not directly targetted.

On that note, do you have any figures regarding adult male civilian casualties vs. adult female civilian casualties?

Well that is really another argument. Personally I think the immigrants' culture bears a lot of the responsibility for the failure to integrate.

I would say both factors play significant roles. Even so, that sort of lack of integration is far more common in Europe than it is in the US, and that is only to be expected given their policies.

I don't know about those ratios specifically but males are where the problems lie. The less males the better for the host nation. I think 50:50 is as high as we should be willing to go. We need to think about the social health of our nations as well as the welfare of refugees.

Why 50:50 in particular?

 

[mojorising]

But the policies you propose are also proposed for Australia, if I get this right. I'm pointing out there is no imbalance in Australia, so the imbalance argument does not apply to Australia.

I am not arguing about Australia or any other specific refugee host country. I am proposing a general approach to accepting refugees from middle eastern countries into western countries. The approach needs a gender balance defined as part of the offer.

Groups like IS tend to kill males who don't join them

Lots of people get killed for lots of reasons. It's called war. Men are warriors so they are evolved for the environment. Women are evolved as child raisers so they are not evolved for the environment. Women and children are generally more deserving of refuge from war then men.

Why 50:50 in particular?

It seems fair to me.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I am not arguing about Australia or any other specific refugee host country. I am proposing a general approach to accepting refugees from middle eastern countries into western countries. The approach needs a gender balance defined as part of the offer.

But at least one of the arguments you are offering depends on the specific country. In particular, your point 3. (even assuming it works when there is an imbalance) doesn't work in support of any policy in countries in which there is no current imbalance.

Lots of people get killed for lots of reasons. It's called war. Men are warriors so they are evolved for the environment. Women are evolved as child raisers so they are not evolved for the environment. Women and children are generally more deserving of refuge from war then men.

First, males didn't evolve to fight against groups of males armed with machine guns, tanks, etc.
Second, again, if males are targetted by those groups, those males are probably at a greater risk than females.
Third, your answer simply repeats points I already addressed, leaving aside my point, which is that IS makes a distinction between males and females, usually targetting the former for either recruitment or death far more often than the latter.

By the way, do you have any figures regarding adult male civilian casualties vs. adult female civilian casualties?

It seems fair to me.

Based on what?
You wouldn't support trying to reach 50:50 if it were, say, 60:40 (f:m).
My point is, someone might say not more than 20% males, which would likely result in less violence. Why not?

 

[mojorising]

But at least one of the arguments you are offering depends on the specific country.

I think you are getting a bit bogged down in the details. What I am proposing is a general approach on which to base offers of refugee status from war when the refugees come from the middle east and the host countries are culturally more sophisticated western democracies.

Third, your answer simply repeats points I already addressed, leaving aside my point, which is that IS makes a distinction between males and females, usually targetting the former for either recruitment or death far more often than the latter.

That is a point that you got from the Politico article. It is possibly true in some situations to some extent but risk of death, injury, rape and general other problems that war brings are broad and varied. It is also true that Muslim terrorist/paramilitary organisations have a history of en masse abduction of females for sexual slavery to be 'married' off as 'wives' to their soldiers. I think on balance the threat of harm is greater for women who are sexual targets as well as combat targets and who risk sexual slavery and sexual exploitation as well as the usual combat dangers. I would say on average that women should be first in line to be rescued from a combat zone over men.

Based on what?
You wouldn't support trying to reach 50:50 if it were, say, 60:40 (f:m).
My point is, someone might say not more than 20% males, which would likely result in less violence. Why not?

I think women should be top priority so if we are to take men and women then 50:50 is the highest ratio of males I think it is fair to accept. Higher ratios of females is entirely acceptable (preferable even) to me.

If it is not being nosey, may I ask, are you a woman or a man?

 

[mojorising]

Why does Sweden have more boys than girls?


There is something odd going on with the ratio between boys and girls in Sweden. The latest estimates suggest there are 123 boys for every 100 girls among 16 and 17-year-olds. That's an even greater imbalance than in the same age group in China.

The natural "sex ratio at birth" is 105 boys for every 100 girls, according to the World Health Organization - and official statistics show that in 2014, there were 108 boys for every 100 girls among Sweden's 16 and 17-year-olds.

But the country now has 123 boys for every 100 girls in this age group, according to Valerie Hudson of Texas A&M University.

If this is correct, it will be quite something. China's one child policy and a preference for sons led some couples to opt for sexually selective abortions, contributing to a sex ratio there of 117 boys for every 100 girls aged 16 and 17.

Hudson's estimate for Sweden was calculated by adding asylum applicants in 2015 to the current population figures - and she is provisionally assuming that all applicants will be granted residency permits. The number of those who actually receive asylum will not appear in official population statistics for another year or so.

Sweden has received more asylum applications per capita than any other country in Europe - 163,000 last year. The country's population is just 9.7 million.

What is surprising is that if you look at the breakdown of the ages of applicants in Sweden, there's a huge bump in the figures at the age of 16 - often unaccompanied minors arriving without a parent or guardian.
And 92% of unaccompanied minors aged 16 and 17 years old are male. So why is this?

More or Less: Behind the stats

More or Less is broadcast on BBC Radio 4 and the World Service
Download the More or Less podcast
More stories from More or Less

"If you're underage, first of all, you get housing, you get more financial resources. You also have a lot of staff around you helping you with different issues," says Hanif Bali, a member of the opposition Moderate Party in the Swedish parliament - which is on the centre right of the political spectrum. "If you need food, clothing, everything, you can go to the municipality and demand this money."

But there is another even bigger benefit, which Bali believes is significant. "You have the right to family reunification. So you can bring all of your family to Sweden, if you are underage."

So there are huge incentives for getting to Sweden before you turn 18. This might explain why many young people make the journey at this point in their lives.

Interestingly, when you break down the data by nationality, the bump of applicants aged 16 from Afghanistan is particularly noticeable. There are about seven or eight times more 16-year-old refugees from Afghanistan than from Syria; the ages of those applying to stay in Sweden from Syria and Iraq are more evenly spread.

Bali believes that news of the benefits of presenting yourself as under 18 has filtered back to Afghans on their way to Europe. So do some young men lie about their age?

"We don't check for age so we can't prove that," says Bali.

"But in Nordic [countries]… a very big amount of those who are tested do not have the correct age. Some friends of mine, who have taken care of these unaccompanied refugees, are saying, 'We took care of one kid, and we found out he was about 28 years old.'"

The idea of carrying out medical tests to determine the age of asylum seekers is controversial but there is a growing consensus among politicians that Sweden needs to to be more rigorous in checking the age of young migrants.

Long term, the gender imbalance in the group of people who are currently 16 and 17 may shrink. As refugees under 18 can invite their immediate family to join them, it's possible that their sisters will one day also travel to Sweden.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35444173

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I think you are getting a bit bogged down in the details. What I am proposing is a general approach on which to base offers of refugee status from war when the refugees come from the middle east and the host countries are culturally more sophisticated western democracies.

Earlier, you said:

The third argument is only relevant to the current situation

3. Males currently comprise a substantial majority of the already accepted refugee population. For the sake of population balance we should be pushing back on any more male refugees. We should be taking active steps to redress the current imbalance by either accepting no more males or males only with at least 2 women or children with them.

That wasn't a general approach, but one only for the current situation. I'm saying it's not applicable to the current situation of Australia and some other Western democracies.

That is a point that you got from the Politico article. It is possibly true in some situations to some extent but risk of death, injury, rape and general other problems that war brings are broad and varied. It is also true that Muslim terrorist/paramilitary organisations have a history of en masse abduction of females for sexual slavery to be 'married' off as 'wives' to their soldiers. I think on balance the threat of harm is greater for women who are sexual targets as well as combat targets and who risk sexual slavery and sexual exploitation as well as the usual combat dangers. I would say on average that women should be first in line to be rescued from a combat zone over men.

But when they do those mass abductions, they also do mass murder of males.

By the way, do you have any figures regarding adult male civilian casualties vs. adult female civilian casualties?
If you don't, do you think that adult male civilian casualties (i.e., fatalities or serious injuries) are less frequent than female ones?

I think women should be top priority so if we are to take men and women then 50:50 is the highest ratio of males I think it is fair to accept. Higher ratios of females is entirely acceptable (preferable even) to me.

But my question is why is 50:50 fair?
Someone else might say the highest ratio of males it's fair to accept is 20:80, and someone else 60:40, etc.
The 50:50 limit for fairness in the case of males but not females seems arbitrary to me.

If it is not being nosey, may I ask, are you a woman or a man?

A man (i.e., I'm male in the sense biologists talk about - the words "man" and "woman" seem to be getting increasingly problematic).

 

[arkirk]

Are threatened populations only women and children? What a stupid idea!

 

[mojorising]

That wasn't a general approach, but one only for the current situation. I'm saying it's not applicable to the current situation of Australia and some other Western democracies.

Yes, I may have made one particular point that was relevant to the current problem but most of my arguments are general arguments that apply to the general problem of how to apply policy to general invitations to refugees.

But part of the argument is about the current situation anyway with there being a gender imbalance in the refugees already accepted in the entire population of refugees and what should be the policy going forward to redress the balance (talking about general policy of the west towards the general refugee influx - not any particular country).

But when they do those mass abductions, they also do mass murder of males.

Do they?

The mass abductions by jihad militias of females from schools in north Africa last year were not accompanied by murders of males.

But my question is why is 50:50 fair?
Someone else might say the highest ratio of males it's fair to accept is 20:80, and someone else 60:40, etc.
The 50:50 limit for fairness in the case of males but not females seems arbitrary to me.

50:50 seems like a fair target since that is approximately the natural ratio of males to females in human populations. Males cause the problems so 50% should be the maximum we allow. I am happy to go with any lower percentage of males.

To be honest, looking at your latest round of rehashed and increasingly trivial points, I get the feeling you are just being obtuse and are not really interested in a constructive argument where we might actually arrive at an agreeable compromise solution.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Yes, I may have made one particular point that was relevant to the current problem but most of my arguments are general arguments that apply to the general problem of how to apply policy to general invitations to refugees.

Right, you gave three arguments. My questions about Australia and other countries - and the point that it's not applicable - were specifically about the third argument, namely the one meant to be applied to the current situation. My point is that it applies to the current situation in some Western countries, but not all.

Do they?

The mass abductions by jihad militias of females from schools in north Africa last year were not accompanied by murders of males.

I'm not sure they weren't - maybe it depends on the case -, but I had the Syrian conflict in mind, where IS operates, since they're the ones mostly doing the enslaving in countries that are among the main sources of asylum seekers in Europe.

For example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...exual-enslavement-of-Yazidis-UN-confirms.html

Up to 5,000 Yazidis men shot in cold blood and 5-7,000 women held by Isil, researchers say.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/world/middleeast/isis-forces-in-iraq.html?_r=1

In one captured town, Sinjar, ISIS executed dozens of Yazidi men, and kept the dead men’s wives for unmarried jihadi fighters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/world/middleeast/isis-forces-in-iraq.html?_r=1

ISIS militants have apparently struck Iraq's tiny Yazidi minority again, this time attacking the village of Kojo, killing 80 men and taking 100 women captive.

The pattern is very clear: they systematically kill the males, and take the females for themselves and/or for slave trade.


By the way, do you have any figures regarding adult male civilian casualties vs. adult female civilian casualties?
If you don't, do you think that adult male civilian casualties (i.e., fatalities or serious injuries) are less frequent than female ones?

50:50 seems like a fair target since that is approximately the natural ratio of males to females in human populations.

I'm not sure how you go from "natural ratio" to "fair target" only to prevent increasing percentages of males. If males are more dangerous, why not go for a lower ratio, regardless of what's natural?

To be honest, looking at your latest round of rehashed and increasingly trivial points, I get the feeling you are just being obtuse and are not really interested in a constructive argument where we might actually arrive at an agreeable compromise solution.

To be honest, looking at your repetition of the same points, your failure to address my questions, etc., it seems to me you're just repeating your points. But I'm not sure what an "agreeable compromise solution" you're trying to seek, if you mean other than agreeing with you. I'm not trying to seek any solutions (what would the problem be?). I'm just replying to your posts, pointing some of the shortcomings in your arguments. Maybe you can then see when your argument is a bad one, and withdraw it, come up with a new one, etc. But at this point, to be honest that seems improbable. Still, you seem to have improved some of your arguments a bit, and not insisted some proposals anymore, so there is that.

 

[mojorising]

Right, you gave three arguments. My questions about Australia and other countries - and the point that it's not applicable - were specifically about the third argument, namely the one meant to be applied to the current situation. My point is that it applies to the current situation in some Western countries, but not all.

I am putting forward a proposition for a general aproach for a policy for accepting refugees from ME countries into western countries. Not every point will apply to every host country. But the general argument is that a gender balance is the very least that should be sought.

Stopping all males would be a tactic to address the short term gender imbalance in the already receieved refugee population.

I'm not sure they weren't - maybe it depends on the case -, but I had the Syrian conflict in mind

Sexual enslavement is a very real threat to women in any Muslim war zone. They are also in danger from the usual combat risks. On balance in a military conflict women and children are more deserving of the first spaces available for refugees due to the additional risks they face and their lesser ability to defend themselves.

The pattern is very clear: they systematically kill the males, and take the females for themselves and/or for slave trade.

The boko harum school girl abductions last year were not accompanied by mass killings of males.

By the way, do you have any figures regarding adult male civilian casualties vs. adult female civilian casualties?
If you don't, do you think that adult male civilian casualties (i.e., fatalities or serious injuries) are less frequent than female ones?

I don't know but females are subject to additional risks that males are not subject to and are less able to defend themselves which is one point of the basis for the argument.

I'm not sure how you go from "natural ratio" to "fair target" only to prevent increasing percentages of males. If males are more dangerous, why not go for a lower ratio, regardless of what's natural?

By fair I mean as generous as can reasonably be expected for males. I am more than happy to go with a lower ratio of males.

In general the reasons why single males should be at the end of the line when it comes to refugees is that women and children deserve refuge more than men since they are more vulnerable and less able to defend themselves. Single men cause social problems in the host countries and should be less preferred applicants (since the welfare of the host community is also at stake in these arrangements). The existing gender imbalance is a factor to support a complete stop to the admission of all males until the gender imbalance is addressed but this point is specific to the current situation not general refugee admission policy.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I am putting forward a proposition for a general aproach for a policy for accepting refugees from ME countries into western countries. Not every point will apply to every host country. But the general argument is that a gender balance is the very least that should be sought.

Stopping all males would be a tactic to address the short term gender imbalance in the already receieved refugee population.

Okay, so in Western countries that don't have such imbalance, you don't advocate that tactic.
Also, if the question is about ME sex imbalance, why consider only refugees?
The point is that there are already large communities of people with similar cultures. So, the sex imbalance among refugees may barely have an impact on the ratios in the general population with that culture.

Sexual enslavement is a very real threat to women in any Muslim war zone.

As I repeatedly pointed out, yes. But you're talking ME, and males tend to be massacred while females are enslaved.

They are also in danger from the usual combat risks. On balance in a military conflict women and children are more deserving of the first spaces available for refugees due to the additional risks they face and their lesser ability to defend themselves.

Argument by repetition?
I provided abundant evidence that IS tends to massacre males and enslave females. You only respond by insisting that children and female are more deserving, without giving any reason for that except that they allegedly are more in need, and even after I provide evidence of plenty of cases in which they're not more in need.

The boko harum school girl abductions last year were not accompanied by mass killings of males.

I don't know about that. They engaged in acts of mass murder that were less publicized than the abductions. I don't know how frequently they engage in mass murder against males when they engage in mass enslavement of females. But in any case, you said "I am putting forward a proposition for a general aproach for a policy for accepting refugees from ME countries into western countries."
Boko Haram does not operate in ME countries. And a minuscule percentage of the asylum seekers and refugees are from countries in which BH operates.

I don't know but females are subject to additional risks that males are not subject to and are less able to defend themselves which is one point of the basis for the argument.

That depends on the circumstances. In fact, if IS takes on a town with the intent of exterminating the males and enslaving the females, there is no basis for saying that because males aren't raped or enslaved, the risk is lesser for them. They're getting killed instead.

By fair I mean as generous as can reasonably be expected for males. I am more than happy to go with a lower ratio of males.

Yes, I get that. But I don't see why that particular ratio is as generous as can be reasonably expected. Why not 4:1 f/m, or 1:2, or whatever?

In general the reasons why single males should be at the end of the line when it comes to refugees is that women and children deserve refuge more than men since they are more vulnerable and less able to defend themselves.

Proof by repetition?
I have addressed that like a zillion times, but you just repeat.

Single men cause social problems in the host countries and should be less preferred applicants (since the welfare of the host community is also at stake in these arrangements).

More repetition.

Females overall cause a lot fewer problems, but they cause some.
But in any case, do you actually think that a 1:1 ratio will prevent or largely prevent those social problems?

The existing gender imbalance is a factor to support a complete stop to the admission of all males until the gender imbalance is addressed but this point is specific to the current situation not general refugee admission policy.

First, that does not apply to countries where there is no such imbalance, like Australia or apparently Canada.
Second, is there such imbalance in the first place?
If it's a matter of cultural isolation, you shouldn't count refugees and asylum seekers only, but also other people with the same cultural background and living there already. That changes the ratios, and radically in some cases (e.g., when the population of similar cultural background has a ratio close to 1:1 and outnumber refugees/asylum seekers by at least an order of magnitude).

 

[mojorising]

Okay, so in Western countries that don't have such imbalance, you don't advocate that tactic.

It has nothing to do with the gender balance of the native population in the host country. The gender imbalance I am referring to is only in the migrant population. Refugee males will not harass the native females so much if they bring their own women with them as they tend to stick to their own if they have the opportunity.

Also, if the question is about ME sex imbalance, why consider only refugees?
The point is that there are already large communities of people with similar cultures. So, the sex imbalance among refugees may barely have an impact on the ratios in the general population with that culture.

You could maybe try take into account existing migrant populations. It seems a bit over complicated to me. It seems simpler to just apply the ratio to the influx. Every man has to bring at least one woman or child (and the children cannot be 17 year old males who are really 28!).

I provided abundant evidence that IS tends to massacre males and enslave females. You only respond by insisting that children and female are more deserving, without giving any reason for that except that they allegedly are more in need, and even after I provide evidence of plenty of cases in which they're not more in need.

It is obvious common sense that women and children are more vulnerable and in need of refuge from conflict than men. Just arguing in the face of common sense for the sake of intellectual exercise may be a reasonable way to pass the time but it does not ultimately achieve anything useful such as an agreement on the best way to proceed from a practical perspective.

Yes, I get that. But I don't see why that particular ratio is as generous as can be reasonably expected. Why not 4:1 f/m, or 1:2, or whatever?

I am not sure why this is such a sticky detail. 1:1 is the natural sex ratio. If males are the less desirable refugee from the host perspective then I think 1:1 is the most generous ratio we should offer. Anything less than 1:1 (i.e. more females) is fine as it does not cause the host nation any problems. It is the males who cause the problems. Unfortunately it is the males who have flooded in in a much higher ratio. That is what the OP is all about.

My OP started off suggesting that no more males at all should be allowed in due to the imbalance in ratios already accepted. I have since compromised and said maybe we could go on taking males as long as the ratio going forward is pegged at 1:1. I don't know what more I can offer as a compromise position for a realistic approach to accepting refugees. But I think gender ratios have to be imposed for all the many reasons I have enumerated in the thread.

 

[Jayjay]

If men are more likely to be "massacred" in these conflicts, isn't that a reason to assume that majority of the survivors who need asylum are going to be women and children?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If men are more likely to be "massacred" in these conflicts, isn't that a reason to assume that majority of the survivors who need asylum are going to be women and children?

First, I don't know who's more frequently targeted in all of these conflicts. It might depends on the conflict.
Second, one could reverse that: f females and children are more likely killed, then isn't that a reason to assume the majority of survivors who need asylum to be males?
But it wouldn't be a good argument, for the following reasons:
If we're talking about how many people need asylum, a first the question is: need for what? Or what qualifies as "needing" asylum?
If it's about having a reasonable amount of safety in their lives, then very probably nearly the entire civilian population of Syria and tens of millions of others in the region need asylum. Then, the fatalities resulting from the war - even if mostly males - make a very tiny proportion, and probably not enough to change the numbers (i.e., if most of the civilian population were females, that remains the case, but if most of them were males, that remains the case).
If it's about actually not getting killed, actually the vast majority will not be killed - but the ones at higher risk will be the males if those are mostly targeted.

If it's about those who actually manage to get to Europe, I don't see any good reason to expect that most of them would be female. In fact, if males are at a greater risk, that would further motivate them to run, and even if the risk in the conflict zone is similar, males probably are more prone to take the risk of the trip, and are also more confident that they will make it and that they will be able to defend themselves - even if they don't have the means to fight against organized militias like IS.

In any case, there is no particular reason to think that if males are killed more often, a greater number of asylum seekers will be females. You would need to wipe out a very large percentage of the male population to get that result.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I am putting forward a proposition for a general aproach for a policy for accepting refugees from ME countries into western countries. Not every point will apply to every host country. But the general argument is that a gender balance is the very least that should be sought


Stopping all males would be a tactic to address the short term gender imbalance in the already receieved refugee population.

Okay, so in Western countries that don't have such imbalance, you don't advocate that tactic.
Also, if the question is about ME sex imbalance, why consider only refugees?
The point is that there are already large communities of people with similar cultures. So, the sex imbalance among refugees may barely have an impact on the ratios in the general population with that culture.

It has nothing to do with the gender balance of the native population in the host country. The gender imbalance I am referring to is only in the migrant population. Refugee males will not harass the native females so much if they bring their own women with them as they tend to stick to their own if they have the opportunity.

You seem to have missed the context. By "such imbalance" I mean the imbalance in the sex ratios in the already received refugee population.

Refugee males will not harass the native females so much if they bring their own women with them as they tend to stick to their own if they have the opportunity.

First, those males do not see "refugee" as their ingroup. It may be one or another group, but whether they're refugees, or people who migrated before the war, or natives (i.e., people born in Europe) who were born to parents from the same ME culture, etc., they will in most cases be seen as part of their group.

Second, some of the harassment is actually a mugging tactic. That's not likely to change.
But moreover, much of the motivation for the harassment is (I don't know the percentage) seems to result from those males attitudes and the way they see females who behave like many European females. It's very likely that they will continue to harass them as long as they continue to behave in the way they normally do.

Third, if force marriage followed by rape is blocked (which it should be), then many of those males will not find wives anyway.

You could maybe try take into account existing migrant populations. It seems a bit over complicated to me. It seems simpler to just apply the ratio to the influx. Every man has to bring at least one woman or child (and the children cannot be 17 year old males who are really 28!).

Lies about age and the classification of children are a problem, but that aside, why would it be over complicated?
If you're considering basing policy on that, it makes no sense to base it on something <i>way off the mark</i>.

I provided abundant evidence that IS tends to massacre males and enslave females. You only respond by insisting that children and female are more deserving, without giving any reason for that except that they allegedly are more in need, and even after I provide evidence of plenty of cases in which they're not more in need.

It is obvious common sense that women and children are more vulnerable and in need of refuge from conflict than men. Just arguing in the face of common sense for the sake of intellectual exercise may be a reasonable way to pass the time but it does not ultimately achieve anything useful such as an agreement on the best way to proceed from a practical perspective.

It's obvious common sense to you. It's not obvious to me. It might be true (but I don't know it) that overall, considering all conflicts, males are at a lower risk of getting killed (though I wouldn't know about that), but ignoring the available info about the specific conflict in order to make an assessment based on all conflicts is unreasonable.

Again, I provided clear evidence about IS behavior, and you deny it because it is "in the face of common sense"?

I am not sure why this is such a sticky detail. 1:1 is the natural sex ratio. If males are the less desirable refugee from the host perspective then I think 1:1 is the most generous ratio we should offer. Anything less than 1:1 (i.e. more females) is fine as it does not cause the host nation any problems. It is the males who cause the problems.

You keep repeating that. Okay, you win: I got tired of asking for a reason.

 

[arkirk]

If men are more likely to be "massacred" in these conflicts, isn't that a reason to assume that majority of the survivors who need asylum are going to be women and children?

It also means that if you send the men back, they will be those most likely to be massacred. Women and children are regarded a collateral damage and in most conflicts the warring parties try to avoid killing them. The thinking behind this thread shows no sense or understanding of what the conditions are that force a person to flee. Definitely merely being male does not make one immune to violence.

 

[Jayjay]

If men are more likely to be "massacred" in these conflicts, isn't that a reason to assume that majority of the survivors who need asylum are going to be women and children?

It also means that if you send the men back, they will be those most likely to be massacred. Women and children are regarded a collateral damage and in most conflicts the warring parties try to avoid killing them. The thinking behind this thread shows no sense or understanding of what the conditions are that force a person to flee. Definitely merely being male does not make one immune to violence.

No, it does not. But most of those who make it all the way to Europe are not actually running away from war, but are economic migrants shopping for a nicer place to be. Determining who deserves help is hard when for every real refugee there are ten others who are just trying to cheat their way through.

 

[arkirk]

It also means that if you send the men back, they will be those most likely to be massacred. Women and children are regarded a collateral damage and in most conflicts the warring parties try to avoid killing them. The thinking behind this thread shows no sense or understanding of what the conditions are that force a person to flee. Definitely merely being male does not make one immune to violence.

No, it does not. But most of those who make it all the way to Europe are not actually running away from war, but are economic migrants shopping for a nicer place to be. Determining who deserves help is hard when for every real refugee there are ten others who are just trying to cheat their way through.

If a "nicer place to be" is that because people killing each other is less common, then they are true refugees. What if they are fleeing death squads and there is no declared war? You are playing a game of technicalities here and tailoring them to reject as many refugees as possible. War does create economic hard times in addition to physical threat. If you would starve to death or go untreated for disease, that would be your idea of economical and if that condition is severe, it is the same as and most likely caused by violent war. War destroys the economic fabric of a country. Your economic refugee IS A WAR REFUGEE whether you like it or not.

 

[Jayjay]

No, it does not. But most of those who make it all the way to Europe are not actually running away from war, but are economic migrants shopping for a nicer place to be. Determining who deserves help is hard when for every real refugee there are ten others who are just trying to cheat their way through.

If a "nicer place to be" is that because people killing each other is less common, then they are true refugees. What if they are fleeing death squads and there is no declared war? You are playing a game of technicalities here and tailoring them to reject as many refugees as possible. War does create economic hard times in addition to physical threat. If you would starve to death or go untreated for disease, that would be your idea of economical and if that condition is severe, it is the same as and most likely caused by violent war. War destroys the economic fabric of a country. Your economic refugee IS A WAR REFUGEE whether you like it or not.

True refugees are those who are stuck in camps closer to the area they are feeling from. Those make it all the way to Europe are just looking for a better life. There is nothing wrong with that of course, if they did it within the law and normal channels like any other migrants. Pretending to be a refugee when you are not is despicable because it takes away resources intended to help real refugees.