Why are "refugees" still having children?

[Derec]

Its a whole lot better than you pearl two-ing to suggest they aren't refugees.

Many of them never were refugees (i.e. those from places like Pakistan or Burma). It is questionable if those who were originally legit refugees can still be viewed as such if they eschew the safe country they are in now and demand to be let into the countries with most perceived prosperity. Trying to pretend otherwise is incredibly naive.

"Peaceful" migrants burning German flag because they are not getting their way. The message these migrants are sending is "Europe better acquiesce to all our demands or we will turn hostile".

 

[Derec]

I guess you missed the part where afghans were also permitted; that with the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan being both disputed Taliban tribal region also under attack by both Pakistan and Afghanistan, signals me your whole argument just went up in a puff of smoke like that which brought forth the gen.

So I guess we went from denying that there are Pakistanis there to claiming that Pakistanis are refugees because of some low-level conflicts at the border (which means they can easily go elsewhere in Pakistan).
And even if they were, Europe is not under obligation to take in all refugees from all over the world and is not able to sustainably do so anyway. Help for refugees should be primarily a regional task.

By the way, for those who still deny that there are Pakistanis there, there are enough of them to engage in a fight with Afghans.
Greek police break up fight among migrants

 

[SimpleDon]

Mirkel's motives in accepting refugees is largely economic. Native Germans' birthrate has dropped below the numbers needed to keep the population at the same level that it is now. The only rational decision that can be made then is to increase immigration into the country.

Otherwise Germany will face the same problem that Japan now faces and that the US refuses to acknowledge , a steadily decreasing number of workers having to support an increasing number of retirees.

But like any country Germany has a large number of xenophobes in its native population who dramatically overstate the costs and the risks of increased immigration in order to try to prevent it. So Germany has gotten clever about disguising their increase in immigration.

The xenophobes complain that the immigrants will dilute the Germanic character of the country. So Germany allowed increased immigration of people who have some thin connection to a German ancestry. Largely from Poland and the Ukraine but also from the Czech Republic and the Baltic countries. A grandparent with a German surname for example.

Accepting refugees are another way of increasing immigration without hopefully triggering the xenophobia. By framing it as a humanitarian response.

Germany has experience with guest worker programs and they don't want to repeat those mistakes. Unlike the US's  Bracero program of seasonal agricultural workers from 1942 to 1964, the German guest workers were largely year round industrial and commercial workers, who were in a kind of limbo, not Germans, but no longer of their country, mainly Turkey. But their children were German, and Turkey was only the place that their grandparents lived in, a place to visit and then to come home to Germany.

In addition the Germans had successfully integrated the East Germans into the society and the economy of the west successfully in less than a decade without the social disruptions and bankruptcy threatening spending predicted by the more conservative elements of the German population.

Contrary to the constant drumbeat of xenophobia that we see almost daily here, the vast majority of immigrants are not,

• lazy
• stupid
• interested in our generous welfare payments
• wanting to turn our country into their country
• criminals
• terrorists
• religious zealots bent on converting our children

It is not an easy thing to leave your native country and move to another country with a different language and culture. It is something that the highly motivated do, not the lazy and stupid.

These negative characteristics above might describe a few immigrants, but certainly a much lower percentage of immigrants than of the native population exhibit these traits.

It is sometimes hard for the immigrants to assimilate into the culture of the host country. But not for their children. They are more likely to resemble the characteristics and the values of the native population than those of the country their parents come from, including the number of children that they have. This is logical, the main reason for a lower birthrate in developed countries is due to the expense of raising a child and the desire to provide the best start in life possible for fewer children.

 

[Derec]

Mirkel's motives in accepting refugees is largely economic. Native Germans' birthrate has dropped below the numbers needed to keep the population at the same level that it is now. The only rational decision that can be made then is to increase immigration into the country.

Whatever Mirkel's[sic] motivations were in accepting one million migrants in 2015, the decision is incredibly stupid and she deserves to lose the 2017 elections over it.
One could try to incentivise Germans to have more children. One could be more selective in immigrants one lets in.
Why invite so many Muslim migrants especially?

Otherwise Germany will face the same problem that Japan now faces and that the US refuses to acknowledge , a steadily decreasing number of workers having to support an increasing number of retirees.

The only way to sustain an actually pyramid shaped population pyramid is either have a significant death rate (so people die off gradually as they age narrowing the pyramid) or significant population increase each generation (the fat, bottom part of the pyramid becomes the narrow, upper part as people age but it has not gotten much narrower so the new bottom part of the pyramid has to be even wider, which means more people). The first is not exactly desirable, the second is unsustainable as it requires an exponential population growth. Mass immigration is not a solution here (quite beside the fact that it causes replacement of country's population with foreigners), learning to live with a more rectangular population pyramid and stable population size is the solution.

But like any country Germany has a large number of xenophobes in its native population who dramatically overstate the costs and the risks of increased immigration in order to try to prevent it. So Germany has gotten clever about disguising their increase in immigration.

This is the first problem. Being against mass immigration, especially from cultures so different than one's own, is not xenophobic. Trying to paint everybody opposed to Merkel's plan to import millions of Muslims as "xenophobes" is merely going to strengthen actual xenophobes because people rightly concerned about Muslim mass migration do not feel they have a representative among mainstream parties. Hence the rise of AfD in Germany and first round victory for FPÖ in Austrian presidential elections. Those people are not all xenophobes and far-right wingers. They feel that their concerns are not being addressed by mainstream parties however. Same can be seen with the rise of Trump with establishment of both D and R parties supporting illegal migration from Mexico and Central America.

The xenophobes complain that the immigrants will dilute the Germanic character of the country.

No, those who point this fact out are not necessarily xenophobes. Painting all of them as such is counterproductive.

So Germany allowed increased immigration of people who have some thin connection to a German ancestry. Largely from Poland and the Ukraine but also from the Czech Republic and the Baltic countries. A grandparent with a German surname for example.

That is a good tactic. Another would be to selectively allow immigration of people who are culturally compatible with German values no matter where they come from. That is very different than mindless acceptance of millions of unvetted, mostly islamic, migrants.

Accepting refugees are another way of increasing immigration without hopefully triggering the xenophobia. By framing it as a humanitarian response.

Didn't really work out too well for Merkel. It also emboldened millions more migrants to demand to be allowed to go to Germany too.

Germany has experience with guest worker programs and they don't want to repeat those mistakes.

Biggest mistake was to make them mostly Turkish.

In addition the Germans had successfully integrated the East Germans into the society and the economy of the west successfully in less than a decade without the social disruptions and bankruptcy threatening spending predicted by the more conservative elements of the German population.

But East Germans are German. They spoke the same language, they had shared history (except for the last 40 years). Very different than letting in millions of Muslims and then tell Germans they need to dress more modestly, or remove pork from cafeterias etc. in order to not "offend" these Muslims.

Contrary to the constant drumbeat of xenophobia that we see almost daily here, the vast majority of immigrants are not,
[*]stupid
[*]interested in our generous welfare payments
[*]wanting to turn our country into their country
[*]criminals
[*]terrorists
[*]religious zealots bent on converting our children

Some certainly are. And when you stupidly let in a million of these migrants without vetting them, how do you know?

It is not an easy thing to leave your native country and move to another country with a different language and culture. It is something that the highly motivated do, not the lazy and stupid.

The terrorists in Brussels and Paris were "highly motivated" too.

These negative characteristics above might describe a few immigrants, but certainly a much lower percentage of immigrants than of the native population exhibit these traits.

So now you are saying the million Muslim migrants are morally superior to native Germans?
You are trying to paint everybody opposed to mass migration as "xenophobes". That is patently false. But this mindless support for mass migration is as destructive as actual xenophobia (which is much more narrow than people opposed to mass migration into their countries)

It is sometimes hard for the immigrants to assimilate into the culture of the host country. But not for their children.

Often for their children too. Especially when we are dealing with mass migration rather than more limited variety.
Many European Islamic terrorists have been 2nd generation immigrants.

They are more likely to resemble the characteristics and the values of the native population than those of the country their parents come from, including the number of children that they have. This is logical, the main reason for a lower birthrate in developed countries is due to the expense of raising a child and the desire to provide the best start in life possible for fewer children.

Yet Europe is subsidizing being replaced by Muslims by paying Muslims to have a ridiculous number of children.
Afghan couple who have nine children and receive £5,000 a month in benefits have asked for free IVF treatment after arriving in Austria (and the wife is 44)
Is it any wonder FPÖ is doing so well?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That's no premise of mine or my argument.

Then your counter-examples are meaningless: genocide, rape, theft and murder are all considered to be morally objectionable for reasons that have little to do with the "probability of future harm" for the people involved. They're considered immoral because they are the willful victimization of another person or persons.

So unless you are trying to suggest that giving birth to a child amounts to the victimization of that child, your counter-example is invalid.

But the guy who gets hurt isn't a victim

Neither is a child born into perilous circumstances. The existence of a victim implies the existence of a victimizer.

If you are born with a 99% chance of being punched in the face, before your 2nd birthday, then the moral failure is on the part of the baby-punchers; your parents, however, are not liable for the creation of a punching-victim, they are liable for the creation of a human being.

Go learn some logic. Come back when and if you ever understand why what you said is incorrect.

It's not incorrect. You compared procreation to actions that are morally objectionable and then asked me if a morally objectionable action is justified because the ultimate result was positive. This comparison is invalid because procreation is not, in general, considered to be morally objectionable. You can sit there and fling (more) vitriol and ad hominem attacks, or you can re-assess your counter example to make your position more clear. Up to you.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

No one is denying there are genuine refugees seeking refuge. But wouldn't a genuine refugee seek refuge at the nearest port of call?

A genuine refugee would seek refuge at whatever place he can think of that seems the safest. How they evaluate what "safest" means will vary dramatically from person to person.

Most of these so-called refugees seem to be country shopping. They're heading to nations with the best social security, like Germany and Sweden...

... which already have established Muslim communities and are therefore known quantities; there are people they can turn to there (relatives, social movements, Mosques, etc) who can maybe take them in and help them find homes, people who understand their situation and speak the language.

 

[Bomb#20]

Your example is not parallel to what I said to you. If it were parallel then you'd be able to exhibit a detailed point-by-point correspondence. You won't be able to do that. All you did was make up something stupid and assert without evidence that that's what my counterexample is.

You've done similar by providing an alleged counter-example that did not have a point-by-point correspondence. Whether you intended it to or not isn't an issue but instead what the logical implications of it not having such a correspondence means to the thread.

But my counterexample does have a point-by-point correspondence to his argument.

B20: There's a widespread feeling that it's unethical to do things that make you temporarily happy but that impose a substantial risk of a permanently unhappy life on a non-volunteering third party. That's pretty much the reason people object to a drunk driver even when he gets lucky and nobody gets hurt. Risking creating a child when you're a refugee or are living near a war zone and have a high likelihood of suddenly needing to become a refugee and are therefore in no position to have reason to believe you're going to be able to give your potential kid favorable odds for having a reasonably happy life imposes just such a substantial risk.

CE: If that were a valid concern half my ancestors would never have been born.

B20: If that were a valid argument it would equally imply that rape isn't a valid concern. None of your or my ancestors would have been born if people never raped each other; do you think the historical requirements for our current existence somehow flow back through time and make rapists good people and make rapes have been all for the best in the long run?

His argument runs: without highly risky baby-making, his ancestors would not have been born; therefore ethical objections to highly risky baby-making are not a valid concern. My counterexample argument runs: without rape, my ancestors would not have been born; therefore ethical objections to rape are not a valid concern. Where do you feel the point-by-point correspondence breaks down? The two arguments have the same logical form. Either both are valid inferences, or neither is.

This is not rocket science.

 

[angelo]

Whatever you think of Apu's accent, the fact is that there are Pakistanis and other not form war-torn countries camping (they even fulfill Crazy Eddie's definition of camping as they have a home to go back to) in Idomeni.
You are really an expert in getting hung up on tangential issues.

That's not a fact; it's your unsubstantiated assertion.

Your only support for it is a (literally) cartoonish description of one person's accent, which you have decided is Pakistani. But all of this is guessing on your part - you can't tell where someone was living recently from their accent - if the person in question grew up in Pakistan and moved to Syria a decade ago, would that imply that when the bombs are falling he must tell his neighbors 'Save yourselves! I can't flee with you, for I am originally Pakistani, and if I come along, some moron on a discussion board will denigrate all of the refugees!'

Of course, Pakistan borders Afghanistan (where there is a war on); and your doubtlessly nuanced grasp of accents in The Simpsons may not be quite as valuable a linguistic guide as you hope, when it comes to differentiating between accents a few miles either side of an historically porus and flexible border.

Perhaps I am missing something here - maybe if I were to study more closely the way Mr Burns lengthens his vowels, I would find therein something that rules out either of those alternative hypotheses. But right now there seems to be zero justification for your conclusion that there are Pakistanis in Idomeni. It is one of many possibilities, and you are deciding that it is the only one only because it suits your biases to do so.

Why do even the naive European call them migrants do you think?

 

[bilby]

That's not a fact; it's your unsubstantiated assertion.

Your only support for it is a (literally) cartoonish description of one person's accent, which you have decided is Pakistani. But all of this is guessing on your part - you can't tell where someone was living recently from their accent - if the person in question grew up in Pakistan and moved to Syria a decade ago, would that imply that when the bombs are falling he must tell his neighbors 'Save yourselves! I can't flee with you, for I am originally Pakistani, and if I come along, some moron on a discussion board will denigrate all of the refugees!'

Of course, Pakistan borders Afghanistan (where there is a war on); and your doubtlessly nuanced grasp of accents in The Simpsons may not be quite as valuable a linguistic guide as you hope, when it comes to differentiating between accents a few miles either side of an historically porus and flexible border.

Perhaps I am missing something here - maybe if I were to study more closely the way Mr Burns lengthens his vowels, I would find therein something that rules out either of those alternative hypotheses. But right now there seems to be zero justification for your conclusion that there are Pakistanis in Idomeni. It is one of many possibilities, and you are deciding that it is the only one only because it suits your biases to do so.

Why do even the naive European call them migrants do you think?

Is that question intended to make any sense in English? Because if so, it fails.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why do even the naive European call them migrants do you think?

because they're naïve?

 

[Derec]

Why do even the naive European call them migrants do you think?

because they're naïve?

No, that would be those who think they are all refugees and/or think they will all culturally enrich Europe. Even more naive that the average European ...

 

[Derec]

Is that question intended to make any sense in English?

Yes. To expand, some on here believe that all of these migrants are refugees, even those coming from places like Pakistan or Nigeria. Europeans, as naive on these matters as they often are, are more realistic than some TF posters and distinguish between refugees and non-refugee migrants.

Because if so, it fails.

I understood it fine.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

His argument runs: without highly risky baby-making, his ancestors would not have been born

Wrong. The argument is twofold:
1) "High risk" procreation successfully produces viable families more often than not, and is therefore a useful strategy in maximizing reproductive success. The fact that those ancestors SUCCEEDED is evidence that their calculated risk actually paid off in the end, which leads us to:
2) Procreation IN AND OF ITSELF has an intrinsic moral value, for which statistical outcomes of that behavior are not a factor. Whether procreation is morally praiseworthy or morally neutral -- or, in some cases morally objectionable -- depends on one's worldview, religious values or political theory.

These are two separate things, but you continue to conflate them as if they were the same. I'm saying that high risk reproduction is EFFECTIVE in producing families, and I'm saying that it is morally acceptable to the extent that REPRODUCTION ITSELF is morally acceptable. In this case, we have reproduction (an acceptable action) followed by concerted long-term efforts to preserve the health and safety of those offspring against sometimes impossible odds (a praiseworthy action) the combination of which produces a large number of descendants (a useful outcome).

Meanwhile, you cannot even claim to know what the probability of failure WAS, let alone demonstrate that any of our ancestors knew it, or COULD have known it, or even would have been expected to know it in the context of their own moral framework. The moral yardstick by which you are attempting to judge those actions DOES NOT EVEN EXIST.

Where do you feel the point-by-point correspondence breaks down?

Same as I explained it: Rape is an action that is intrinsically immoral for reasons that have nothing to do with the risk of harm to the victim and/or any offspring that results from that action. That was one of the examples I pointed out to Angra, where I showed that rape would still be immoral even if the victim had no memory of the event and was not harmed in any way.

Reproduction, on the other hand, is not considered to be immoral, as it is the act of creating a human life. The moral dimension is defined by subsequent choices of the people in that child's life, including but not limited to the choices made by the child's parents. Bearing a child into a perilous situation is only immoral if you intend to allow that child to come to harm; if you do not, and believe yourself capable of carrying out your intentions, the situation is irrelevant.

Either both are valid inferences, or neither is.

Me:
Cars are fast
I want to get to work quickly
Therefore, I should drive my car to work


You:
Cable modems are fast
I want to get to work quickly
Therefore, I should drive a cable modem to work

Category error. Comparing normal reproduction to rape would imply that those two actions are morally equivalent; that one or the other is immoral only under specific circumstances. And that simply isn't true.

Therefore I conclude that
1) High risk reproduction is useful because (history shows) it has tended to work.
2) High risk reproduction is no more moral or immoral than low-risk reproduction.


Rape may be useful for that aim too... but rape is unlike reproduction in that it cannot be justified morally. Because of that difference, your comparison is invalid.