The cost of Migrants

[Civis Romanus sum]

Neither Mr. Trudeau, in his emotional demand that Canada take in 25,000 Syrian refugees immediately, nor Mr. Mulcair, in his more restrained but similar demand, have mentioned costs. In money terms is likely to be at least $2 billion as well as the ongoing maintenance for some years.

I reach this figure by considering the cost of transporting an individual from Turkey, or Europe, where most of the migrants are, to Canada, processing them, sheltering, feeding, clothing them, teaching them a language, and then in most cases, trying to teach them some sort of job skill.

.

In addition, most will be unlikely to be economically successful in Canada to the extent they will earn large salaries and pay back more to the government than the government must spend on them each year for their health care, their children's education, etc.

I think a second cost will be to discredit our existing immigration system, where people from the same general areas have applied and are patiently waiting as they are assessed. These migrants are jumping the queue and we would be rewarding them for doing so.

Let us not forget that these are not people fleeing danger and war and persecution as Mr. Trudeau would have you believe. The great majority of the Syrians flee to Turkey, and are now, as we see on television, taking great risks to get across to Europe, and then up from Greece, where they don't want to stay, through Macedonia, Serbia, and Hungary, to the richer northern states where they want to live.

By definition, they are economic migrants. They were perfectly safe in Turkey. They are actually risking death to get out of Turkey where they're safe, to Europe, where they hope to live in a wealthier state with more generous benefits. The more people who are accepted, the more who will come.

Which brings us to a third cost. For they bring the instability which caused war with them. Every European state which has taken in a sizable number of Muslims has had ongoing problems with rioting and crime. In France, every Jewish temple, school and institution now requires armed guards for safety. Bringing tens of thousands more Muslims to Canada is not a good idea, particularly Muslims who have not been screened in any way for education, skills and other abilities.

[Black Dog]

By definition, they are economic migrants. They were perfectly safe in Turkey. They are actually risking death to get out of Turkey where they're safe, to Europe, where they hope to live in a wealthier state with more generous benefits. The more people who are accepted, the more who will come.

Safer than being barrel bombed by Assad's forces or decapitated by ISIL, sure. But are permanent refugee camps in the Turkish desert a humane, long-term solution to this issue?

You've laid out the argument against, fine. Now what would you do, assuming you actually think we have a humanitarian obligation here (which is admittedly a leap of faith on my part).

Edited September 3, 2015 by Black Dog

[Civis Romanus sum]

Safer than being barrel bombed by Assad's forces or decapitated by ISIL, sure. But are permanent refugee camps in the Turkish desert a humane, long-term solution to this issue?

Seventy five million people manage to live quite comfortably in Turkey, so not sure where you get this 'living in the desert' business. Turkey seems more stable and better run than any of the countries around it save Israel. I see no reason why Syrians can't live there, at least until the war is over. We must remember, also, that these people are not fleeing to places like Egypt, where they'll not only be safe but where they speak the same language and have the same religion. So mere safety is clearly not their primary goal.

You've laid out the argument against, fine. Now what would you do, assuming you actually think we have a humanitarian obligation here (which is admittedly a leap of faith on my part).

Whatever money we want to spend on bringing people here would be far better put to use, helping ten times more people, in resettling refugees in countries near where they lived before, such as Turkey and Egypt. Not only could you help far more people but they'd be better positioned to return home once the fighting is done.

[Boges]

So do you actually blame Harper for the death of this boy and not ISIS?

JT opposes any military action against ISIS. Let the war continue and take More than Canada's share of the refugees? Is that really a solution?

If it's true that Canada takes 1 in 10 refugees (GLOBALLY) then this story is about sensationalism and optics and not about politics.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Boges

[Black Dog]

Seventy five million people manage to live quite comfortably in Turkey, so not sure where you get this 'living in the desert' business.

Pardon me, but I thought we were talking about the 1.9 million or so displaced Syrians Turkey is trying to accommodate, most of whom are currently housed in refugee camps near the border.

Turkey seems more stable and better run than any of the countries around it save Israel. I see no reason why Syrians can't live there, at least until the war is over. We must remember, also, that these people are not fleeing to places like Egypt, where they'll not only be safe but where they speak the same language and have the same religion.

You're clearly ignorant of the facts here. The total number of refugees in Europe is around 3.1 million. As I said above, Turkey alone has nearly 2 million, which is nearly three times as many as Europe on a per capita basis. Lebanon has about 1.1 million. Jordan, Iraq and Egypt combined host about a million more registered refugees (that number is most certainly higher). So that's five countries, most of which aren't all that shit hot places either, hosting more refugees or migrants as all of Europe.

So mere safety is clearly not their primary goal.

Yes I imagine once one has removed oneself from immediate danger, actually getting on with life and providing for one's family is the next logical step. What's your point?

Whatever money we want to spend on bringing people here would be far better put to use, helping ten times more people, in resettling refugees in countries near where they lived before, such as Turkey and Egypt. Not only could you help far more people but they'd be better positioned to return home once the fighting is done.

I assume you have an actual cost comparison at hand and aren't just pulling things out of your ass, then?

Edited September 3, 2015 by Black Dog

[Civis Romanus sum]

Pardon me, but I thought we were talking about the 1.9 million or so displaced Syrians Turkey is trying to accommodate, most of whom are currently housed in refugee camps near the border.

Turkey has no desert. That they're being sheltered near the border is besides the point.

You're clearly ignorant of the facts here. The total number of refugees in Europe is around 3.1 million. As I said above, Turkey alone has nearly 2 million, which is nearly three times as many as Europe on a per capita basis. Lebanon has about 1.1 million. Jordan, Iraq and Egypt combined host about a million more registered refugees (that number is most certainly higher). So that's five countries, most of which aren't all that shit hot places to live either, hosting more refugees or migrants as all of Europe.

The UN estimates a total of about 3.5 million refugees have fled the Syrian war in total. So a lot of the 'registered refugees' in those countries are actually Palestinians who fled the original war of 1948 with Israel, and their children and grandchildren. They are still considered officially refugees since none of the host countries will grant them citizenship.

Yes I imagine once one has removed oneself from immediate danger, actually getting on with life and providing for one's family is the next logical step. What's your point?

My point is they're economic migrants. They're not people fleeing death and persecution but poverty.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Civis Romanus sum

[Black Dog]

Turkey has no desert.

Yes, look at this verdant oasis.

That they're being sheltered near the border is besides the point.

You suggested they were "living quite comfortably," so I feel the actual living conditions is quite relevant, otherwise, why did you mention it?

The UN estimates a total of about 3.5 million refugees have fled the Syrian war in total. So a lot of the 'registered refugees' in those countries are actually Palestinians who fled the original war of 1948 with Israel, and their children and grandchildren. They are still considered officially refugees.

It's closer to 4 million and those are of course only those registered by the UN. As for the rest: cite?

My point is they're economic migrants. They're not people fleeing death and persecution but poverty.

And if the poverty they are fleeing is a result of the threat of death and persecution? It's not so black and white.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Black Dog

[Keepitsimple]

Let's not lose track of what the end game is supposed to be: it's to provide a safe haven until such time as the dangers in their own country have been mitigated - so they can return home. Two or three years from now, there should be no bleeding heart stories about families being uprooted and forced to return home - only a complete and heartfelt thanks for saving them from the imminent danger that cased them to flee in the first place.

[cybercoma]

Let's not lose track of what the end game is supposed to be: it's to provide a safe haven until such time as the dangers in their own country have been mitigated - so they can return home. Two or three years from now, there should be no bleeding heart stories about families being uprooted and forced to return home - only a complete and heartfelt thanks for saving them from the imminent danger that cased them to flee in the first place.

Refugees can be given permanent or temporary residency depending on the circumstances, but in the vast majority of cases they are given permanent status. And you want to know why? Because it's inhumane to bring someone to this country away from persecution at home, have them set up their own life here, become productive members of our society, perhaps have a family here, then boot them out later and make them start over yet again.

[Big Guy]

People are fleeing their counties because it is no longer safe to live there. Canada has our airplanes dropping bombs on the areas these people are coming from. If Canada is not partially responsible for their displacement, then who is?

Before the West (including Canada) decided to invade the Middle East there were no refugees from Afghanistan, Gaza, Iraq, Syria, Libya et al. Before the West (including Canada) decided to invade the Middle East there was no ISIS. To-day, there is ISIS and millions of refugees fleeing the Middle East.

I wonder what caused this homelessness in the Middle East?

[Boges]

People are fleeing their counties because it is no longer safe to live there. Canada has our airplanes dropping bombs on the areas these people are coming from. If Canada is not partially responsible for their displacement, then who is?

Before the West (including Canada) decided to invade the Middle East there were no refugees from Afghanistan, Gaza, Iraq, Syria, Libya et al. Before the West (including Canada) decided to invade the Middle East there was no ISIS. To-day, there is ISIS and millions of refugees fleeing the Middle East.

I wonder what caused this homelessness in the Middle East?

Gonna blame Canada for the Syrian Civil War? Gotcha!

[cybercoma]

Gonna blame Canada for the Syrian Civil War? Gotcha!

Get a grip. Nobody is blaming Canada for the war. They're blaming the government for its response to refugees. You people who keep saying that this is "blaming Canada for the war" are being intellectually dishonest. Given the situation and what's being criticized, that's pretty pathetic.

[Boges]

Get a grip. Nobody is blaming Canada for the war. They're blaming the government for its response to refugees. You people who keep saying that this is "blaming Canada for the war" are being intellectually dishonest. Given the situation and what's being criticized, that's pretty pathetic.

I was responding to Big Guy's claim that there were "No Refugees" Before the West got involved in conflict in the Middle East. I'd like a cite on that one.

[cybercoma]

I was responding to Big Guy's claim that there were "No Refugees" Before the West got involved in conflict in the Middle East. I'd like a cite on that one.

Sorry about that then. I skip his posts most of the time and didn't even read what you quoted. His claim is obviously ludicrous.

[Topaz]

Remember what Gen. Powell told GW...if u break it u have to fix it...... and now look at what has happen to the people of the Middle-East and how many have been killed. If Hussein has still been in power, I don't think we would see what is happening and granted Hussein was a good guy but he did have control over the area. So now NATO have broken it and now NATO countries have to fix it and its going to cost a huge amount of money and the fact, we don't know if any terrorist will get through the mass group of people coming into the country.

[PIK]

Why does NATO have anything to do with the ME. Maybe if the UN would grow a back bone again, we could deal with these problem early on.

[Civis Romanus sum]

Refugees can be given permanent or temporary residency depending on the circumstances, but in the vast majority of cases they are given permanent status.

That's not true except in western countries.

[Civis Romanus sum]

People are fleeing their counties because it is no longer safe to live there.

It's not safe to live in Turkey??

[Civis Romanus sum]

Remember what Gen. Powell told GW...if u break it u have to fix it...... and now look at what has happen to the people of the Middle-East and how many have been killed.

I agree, but only up to a point. The Americans spent years in Iraq trying to 'fix' it. They poured money and blood into the place trying to set up a representative democracy. They were frustrated time and again by defiant local tribalism and unrelenting religious bigotry. If you want to look to external parties most responsible for that failure that would probably be the Iranians and Saudis, who funded opposing religious sides and helped fan the flames of internal discord.

[Civis Romanus sum]

Yes, look at this verdant oasis.

What's your point? That picture could have been taken in Syria or Iraq or Iran or Israel, for that matter. I looked it up and Turkey has no desert.

You suggested they were "living quite comfortably," so I feel the actual living conditions is quite relevant, otherwise, why did you mention it?

I didn't mean to suggest they were living high off the hog, especially by western standards. But are they living significantly worse than Palestinians in refugee camps? They'e safe, they're sheltered, they're being fed, is what I meant.

It's closer to 4 million and those are of course only those registered by the UN. As for the rest: cite?

What rest? Do you need a cite that Palestinians are still considered refugees seventy years on?

And if the poverty they are fleeing is a result of the threat of death and persecution? It's not so black and white.

All I'm pointing out is that when they're fleeing north into Europe they're fleeing poverty, and are economic migrants. There is a substantial difference between fleeing poverty and fleeing death and torture.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Civis Romanus sum

[Keepitsimple]

Maybe after listening to so many tin-foil hat conspiracies on the forum - maybe I've decided to put one on myself......but it's scary to think of. It's based on two premises:

1) There is a guiding force behind ISIS

2) Islamic fundamentalism has always been a "long game". "Victory" is not measured in individual battles, years or even decades. The struggle for global domination under the one true God - Allah, peace be upon him.....may take a hundred years.

3) The depravity of ISIS seems is irrational. That amount of sheer cruelty and barbarism doesn't make sense.

What does make sense is to intentionally, strategically create this human tide of Muslim refugees and embed zeolots among them. A virus. One that uses our freedoms to gain footholds and through sheer numbers - and yes, terrorism....start to shred our democracies. Look how close we came to permitting Shariah law in Ontario. Imagine what a hundred years of infiltration by a naturally insular religion, the establishment of thousands of Mosques, and the internal agitation caused by the extremists - just imagine what that will do. It's the long game......and it's scary.

[Big Guy]

and it's scary.

And with our help it is working.

[Black Dog]

Maybe after listening to so many tin-foil hat conspiracies on the forum - maybe I've decided to put one on myself......but it's scary to think of. It's based on two premises:

1) There is a guiding force behind ISIS

2) Islamic fundamentalism has always been a "long game". "Victory" is not measured in individual battles, years or even decades. The struggle for global domination under the one true God - Allah, peace be upon him.....may take a hundred years.

3) The depravity of ISIS seems is irrational. That amount of sheer cruelty and barbarism doesn't make sense.

What does make sense is to intentionally, strategically create this human tide of Muslim refugees and embed zeolots among them. A virus. One that uses our freedoms to gain footholds and through sheer numbers - and yes, terrorism....start to shred our democracies. Look how close we came to permitting Shariah law in Ontario. Imagine what a hundred years of infiltration by a naturally insular religion, the establishment of thousands of Mosques, and the internal agitation caused by the extremists - just imagine what that will do. It's the long game......and it's scary.

Is this from the Protocols of the Elders of Muhammad or something?

[Black Dog]

I didn't mean to suggest they were living high off the hog, especially by western standards. But are they living significantly worse than Palestinians in refugee camps? They'e safe, they're sheltered, they're being fed, is what I meant.

Again: they may be out of immediate danger, but it's not sustainable for them or the host countries.

What rest? Do you need a cite that Palestinians are still considered refugees seventy years on?

Let's back it up: what do the Palestinians (most of whom live in Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza) have to do with anything?

All I'm pointing out is that when they're fleeing north into Europe they're fleeing poverty, and are economic migrants. There is a substantial difference between fleeing poverty and fleeing death and torture.

But they (at least large numbers of them) are fleeing death and torture. And even if there was some meaningful distinction, it does change the facts on the ground.

[WIP]

I had a good idea what to expect before I even read the OP! A humanitarian disaster...mostly caused by America and its western allies + useful Arab allies in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, share most of the culpability for turning what began as an ecological disaster (climate change patterns drying out and turning much of the Levant into desert) into the long-feared beginning of human wave mass migrations coming from the global south and heading first - right to Europe's doorstep!

It never ceases to amaze me how the US right wing just cannot bring themselves to criticize the Obama Administration's regime change failures in Libya, Syria and Ukraine (this is why they are pulling the plug on the Ukraine mess before it adds to the migration crisis). But, in Libya and Syria, the Obama Administration didn't seem to learn the lessons they should have from Dubya's regime change failures, and expected they could install new governments in Syria and Libya and get on with business as usual.

When it comes to who should take refugees now, the US should take the most, since it started as their idea and they just expected Putin to fold....stop supporting Assad and clear out their naval base in Syria or something. It should have been obvious that the Russians considered Syria more of a redline than Libya, but...the rest is history!

After US, those Saudis and Gulf allies need to step up and open their wallets, since they have been funding and arming "the liberators" of Syria...and creating ISIS along the way. Not many refugees are expressing much interest in going to Saudi or the Gulf States, since they already are aware of what happens to poor migrants who do most of the menial work in these countries that their nationals won't do.....it's a situation worse than slavery in most of the Gulf, and the US has remained silent about their long-running human rights abuses and crimes.

In a sense, I see the typical rightwing conservative attitude about the Syrian and other refugees as similar to the way US rightwingers blame Mexicans and Central Americans for trying to get across their southern border: the US pushed for NAFTA, which bankrupted thousands....perhaps millions of Mexican farmers...forcing them off the land, and the number of "illegal" immigrants started rising rapidly. In more recent years, the bulk of the refugees have come from countries in Central America like Honduras...where the US apparently wasn't happy with a democratically elected government they considered too unfriendly for business and had the military overthrow Manuel Zalaya and return back to the landowner feudalism that preceeded it. The fighting and deprivation that has gone on since then...unnoticed in most of our media has led many to just keep moving north and hope for something better.

But, at least in the Latin American examples, the US has to pay a price directly for causing harm to millions through their foreign policy manipulations. But, America is too far away for Syrians to get to, so Europe takes the brunt of the mass exodus. Maybe it's time for Germany and the rest of the EU countries to speak up early and stop rubberstamping US policies that might backfire on them indirectly!