[mikeh]

blackshoe, on 2015-August-05, 15:59, said:

The big main problem is the influx of hard-core criminals connected with the drug trade.

citation needed (and Trump's campaign announcement isn't sufficient)

Quote

I think a good first step would be to eliminate the so-called "war on drugs" and everything attached to it. I do not think closing our borders, or putting up a fence, or a wall, would be helpful in any way.

a rare moment on which we are in complete agreement.

Quote

I think that if someone wants to come here, be productive, and join our society (as opposed to bringing along a microcosm of his or her own), then more power to him. If he wants to come here, commit crimes, live off the productivity of the rest of us, then he ought to be denied entry. If he lies about why he wants to come here (surprise, surprise!) then when he is found out, he should be deported — after making reparations (I don't mean jail time) for any harm he's caused others here.

The notion of reparations seems to underlie a lot of libertarian thinking about justice. One huge problem is that most criminals are dysfunctional members of society and lack the ability to make reparations. Most of those dealing drugs at the 'retail' end of the market are themselves poor, usually with no meaningful job, no meaningful prospects and no qualifications that would get them a 'legitimate' job. Most of those sticking up stores or mugging pedestrians, etc, are similarly very much at the low end of the socio-economic spectrum, whether they be illegal immigrants or otherwise.

It may well be that to someone with a good job, and a net worth measured in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, or more, the threat of being forced to pay reparations would be a deterrent (tho most studies of which I am aware would suggest otherwise for most criminals in most situations), but for someone with no significant assets or legitimate income the notion is laughable.

Btw, if, as I suspect, we agree that the selling of some substances, such as crystal meth, is 'doing harm', how does one measure reparation? The victim has become a meth addict, with all the horrors that that entails, in terms of destruction of a meaningful life, but who gets the reparations? It's no good giving it to the addict, after all. But that is a trivial issue in comparison to the fundamental misconception underlying the theory of requiring 'reparations' from the criminal.

[mikeh]

blackshoe, on 2015-August-07, 10:18, said:

My comment about the criminal element was not a statistical one. Some of the "illegals" coming from south of the border are criminals. Some of them are very violent. Some of them are associated with the drug trade, and with foreign drug cartels. That's a problem. Note that I did not say the solution is to close the border, or crack down on illegal immigration. If they want to come here and be productive members of our society, let 'em come. If they want to come here and commit crimes, no.

At the behest of some very misguided people, we tried an experiment with Prohibition in 1920. That experiment lasted thirteen years, and required amendments to the Constitution both to start and to stop. Now we're embroiled in a "war on drugs" that's been going on since at least 1937, when the same misguided people who pushed through the 18th amendment pushed legislation outlawing marijuana. I have never understood why prohibition of alcohol required a Constitutional Amendment, while prohibition of marijuana, heroin, cocaine, etc apparently does not. But that's a little beside the point, which is why did we not learn from the earlier failure of prohibition? Prohibiting people from ingesting what they want to ingest, whether it be alcohol or any other substance, does not and cannot work.

The violence surrounding the illegal making and selling of alcohol dropped dramatically after 1933, and so did the price of booze. Would anyone be surprised if the same thing happened if we abandoned this ill-fated "war"?

I think that many people, of all political stripes, would agree with your position on the war on drugs. It is regrettable that you seem to base your position, at least partly, on the xenophobia so seemingly prevalent in those of a right-wing political persuasion.

Is it possible that your attitude is conditioned to some degree by the entertainment industry, which continually pumps out crime dramas in which the worst villains are 'the Russians' or 'the Chechens' or 'the Mexicans'?

There is little fame and fortune to be gained by writing scripts about the quiet lives that most immigrants try to live.

[kenberg]

Perhaps we could add Myth 8: People who are concerned about illegal immigration are anti-immigrant.

I suppose that it is possible to believe that anyone who wishes to come to the USA is welcome to come, no questions asked. They just come, and then their children, if born here, become citizens. No restrictions. I am not attributing this view to any poster here. But if we do not hold this view, then where are we? If not everyone can come, then someone decides who can come and what the process is.

I recognize the difficulty in enforcing immigration laws, but are we to just say "Well, it's too hard, so we will pretend to have immigration restrictions but in actual fact we will not."?

Here would be a start (but just a start). Congress and the President, working together (ok, this is already a fantasy) set the number of immigrants to be admitted in each year. That will be the number admitted. With reasonable monitoring, it should be possible to get a pretty good grip on the number of illegal immigrants coming in. The number of legal immigrants admitted would then be adjusted downward so that the total is in line with the intended number. Then the President and the Congressional leaders would hold a joint press conference to explain this result and explain why they think that this is a good way of doing things. It would make for an interesting show.

[blackshoe]

mikeh, on 2015-August-07, 11:42, said:

I think that many people, of all political stripes, would agree with your position on the war on drugs. It is regrettable that you seem to base your position, at least partly, on the xenophobia so seemingly prevalent in those of a right-wing political persuasion.

Is it possible that your attitude is conditioned to some degree by the entertainment industry, which continually pumps out crime dramas in which the worst villains are 'the Russians' or 'the Chechens' or 'the Mexicans'?

There is little fame and fortune to be gained by writing scripts about the quiet lives that most immigrants try to live.

You are mistaken. I am not a xenophobe. Far from it.

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on 2015-August-07, 13:24, said:

I suppose that it is possible to believe that anyone who wishes to come to the USA is welcome to come, no questions asked. They just come, and then their children, if born here, become citizens. No restrictions. I am not attributing this view to any poster here. But if we do not hold this view, then where are we? If not everyone can come, then someone decides who can come and what the process is.

I recognize the difficulty in enforcing immigration laws, but are we to just say "Well, it's too hard, so we will pretend to have immigration restrictions but in actual fact we will not."?

Perhaps we should start with "why do we need immigration restrictions?"

[Aberlour10]

Aberlour10, on 2015-August-06, 09:01, said:

Germany faces with huge problems these days, up to 600.000 are expected only in this year.

Old news. Now >>>800 000. I would not wonder if there will be 1 million at the end of the year.

[y66]

From Hungary Bows to Defiant Migrants, Promising Buses to the Border:

Quote

BUDAPEST — After a day of defiance by increasingly desperate refugees, the government of Hungary metaphorically threw up its hands Friday and said it was offering to bus thousands of migrants to the Austrian border, sending the crisis spinning closer to the heart of the Continent.

An aide to Prime Minister Viktor Orban said in a statement that the buses would transport the thousands still thronging the Keleti railroad station in Budapest and the approximately 1,200 people who stormed out of the train station earlier on Friday and set off on foot toward the Austrian border.

“This does not automatically mean that they can leave the country,” the official, Janos Lazar, said. “We are waiting for the Austrian government’s response.” He added that the govermnment was doing this to relieve the blockage of the nation’s transit system.

Traffic was reduced to one lane on a bridge in Budapest, as migrants made their way out of the city.


Photo credit: Frank Augstein / AP

Good description of how European countries are sharing the burden here.

[kenberg]

If someone said that the refugees were swarming over the bridge they could perhaps be criticized for lack of tact, but other than that it seems to be about right.

This will not end well.

[Vampyr]

I had no idea until today that Syria's wealthy neighbours have not taken in a single refugee.

[shyams]

Vampyr, on 2015-September-04, 18:07, said:

I had no idea until today that Syria's wealthy neighbours have not taken in a single refugee.

http://data.unhcr.or...es/regional.php

[cherdano]

Vampyr, on 2015-September-04, 18:07, said:

I had no idea until today that Syria's wealthy neighbours have not taken in a single refugee.

You might want to have a look at a map first...

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2015-September-04, 18:07, said:

I had no idea until today that Syria's wealthy neighbours have not taken in a single refugee.

Cherdano already pointed out that the countries that you probably refer to (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, ..) are not neighbors of Syria. But, then again, neither are the EU countries.

Something that is more important: Why would the Syrian refugees flee to "The wealthy neighbors"? They are fleeing from IS and Assad. "The wealthy neighbors" are supporting IS. (And Iran is supporting Assad.)

For a Syrian refugee to flee to Saudi Arabia would make as much sense as for a Polish Jew in WW II to flee to Berlin.

They can only flee to the North (Turkey), the West (Lebanon) or South (Jordan). After Jordan, they can't go further and behind Lebanon and Turkey lies the Mediterranean and the EU.

Rik

[kenberg]

shyams, on 2015-September-05, 06:51, said:

http://data.unhcr.or...es/regional.php

This brief summary is very interesting. If I am reading the figures correctly we are speaking of about 4 million Syrian refugees. That's just the Syrian, and that's only the number so far.

I was interested, and perhaps surprised, to see that the male/female breakdown is about even (49.5% male). Moreover this even split holds for each of the age brackets.

A little over a quarter are under the age of 18.

These are "registered Syrian refugees". I don't know just ow that compares with "refugees attempting to enter Europe" or "refugees hoping to enter Europe" but it seems reasonable to think that if someone is a registered refugee then they are at least hoping and in many cases attempting to go somewhere.


Of course we are all aware that this is a huge problem but this brief summary helps to put some numbers to the word "huge".

What has the world done historically? The Wikipedia tells me that "The number of boat people leaving Vietnam and arriving safely in another country totalled almost 800,000 between 1975 and 1995. ". That's a lot, but 800,000 is not 4 million and counting.

Everyone could do more, most definitely including the US. But I don't find it easy to say "Oh sure, we will take million or so. And another million next year, and sure, a million or so from the other countries". This could come down to the following:
Moralist: It is your moral duty to do whatever is needed.
Response: Maybe so, but I am not about to do it. Call me names if it makes you feel better.

I think many people would be open to trying to help, but accepting total responsibility for the fate 4 million (and growing) people may be more than we, meaning I and others, are up for.
In fact, that seems to be what we are seeing.

I am open to hearing of concrete realistic plans that fully address the difficulties. Saying that we can just do it, there won't be any problem, is a way to get me to stop listening.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2015-September-05, 08:14, said:

This brief summary is very interesting. If I am reading the figures correctly we are speaking of about 4 million Syrian refugees. That's just the Syrian, and that's only the number so far.

I was interested, and perhaps surprised, to see that the male/female breakdown is about even (49.5% male). Moreover this even split holds for each of the age brackets.

A little over a quarter are under the age of 18.

These are "registered Syrian refugees". I don't know just ow that compares with "refugees attempting to enter Europe" or "refugees hoping to enter Europe" but it seems reasonable to think that if someone is a registered refugee then they are at least hoping and in many cases attempting to go somewhere.


Of course we are all aware that this is a huge problem but this brief summary helps to put some numbers to the word "huge".

What has the world done historically? The Wikipedia tells me that "The number of boat people leaving Vietnam and arriving safely in another country totalled almost 800,000 between 1975 and 1995. ". That's a lot, but 800,000 is not 4 million and counting.

Everyone could do more, most definitely including the US. But I don't find it easy to say "Oh sure, we will take million or so. And another million next year, and sure, a million or so from the other countries". This could come down to the following:
Moralist: It is your moral duty to do whatever is needed.
Response: Maybe so, but I am not about to do it. Call me names if it makes you feel better.

I think many people would be open to trying to help, but accepting total responsibility for the fate 4 million (and growing) people may be more than we, meaning I and others, are up for.
In fact, that seems to be what we are seeing.

I am open to hearing of concrete realistic plans that fully address the difficulties. Saying that we can just do it, there won't be any problem, is a way to get me to stop listening.

I think it is fairly safe to say these are not normal immigrants simply wanting a better life but are people fleeing a hostile and life-threatening environment. Normal rules should not be held out as the solution during times like these of life-threatening stress.

[hrothgar]

Vampyr, on 2015-September-04, 18:07, said:

I had no idea until today that Syria's wealthy neighbours have not taken in a single refugee.

Perhaps this is because Syria's "wealthy" neighbors are also deserts?

Admittedly, rounding up a few million people and forcing them into the "empty quarter" will end the refugee problem pretty damn quick.
However, even then you still need some way to dispose of all the bodies.

Personally, I don't find it very surprising that the refugees don't want to go to the Gulf states.
Other than the Arctic, its hard to think of worse places to put a refuge camp than the middle of the ***** desert.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2015-September-05, 10:29, said:

I think it is fairly safe to say these are not normal immigrants simply wanting a better life but are people fleeing a hostile and life-threatening environment. Normal rules should not be held out as the solution during times like these of life-threatening stress.

Sure, but still, what do we do? Again going to Wikipedia I find the following about Hurricane Katrina:
"About 1.2 million residents of the Gulf Coast were covered under a voluntary or mandatory evacuation order.["
That's less than 4 million, the number of Syrian refugees is now 4 million, it will get larger and there are plenty of non-Syrian refugees. Hurricanes and wars are different, but still.
You are doing a heck of a job, Brownie!
Reading ten years later, it seems we are still trying to figure out what all went wrong.
It's not that I know what should be done here. I don't. I didn't know what should be done when Katrina hit. But I think we should beware of anyone who thinks the answer is simple.
There are people to be fed, clothed,. housed, transported. There are people who have gone through immense trauma. Many are confused, frightened and desperate. They will, in the beginning, accept almost anything that helps, but as time moves on they will have their own ideas of what they want. This was already apparent in an NPR story about the refugees in Hungary. They don't want to be in Hungary. No doubt they prefer being in Hungary to being in Syria, most of them anyway, but they want to be in Germany. Of course people have preferences about their lives. Of course. You have preferences, I have preferences, and refugees have preferences. This is not going to be easy.

[Vampyr]

cherdano, on 2015-September-05, 06:52, said:

You might want to have a look at a map first...

I consider the Gulf States neighbours, sorry if you don't.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2015-September-05, 12:41, said:

Sure, but still, what do we do? Again going to Wikipedia I find the following about Hurricane Katrina:
"About 1.2 million residents of the Gulf Coast were covered under a voluntary or mandatory evacuation order.["
That's less than 4 million, the number of Syrian refugees is now 4 million, it will get larger and there are plenty of non-Syrian refugees. Hurricanes and wars are different, but still.
You are doing a heck of a job, Brownie!
Reading ten years later, it seems we are still trying to figure out what all went wrong.
It's not that I know what should be done here. I don't. I didn't know what should be done when Katrina hit. But I think we should beware of anyone who thinks the answer is simple.
There are people to be fed, clothed,. housed, transported. There are people who have gone through immense trauma. Many are confused, frightened and desperate. They will, in the beginning, accept almost anything that helps, but as time moves on they will have their own ideas of what they want. This was already apparent in an NPR story about the refugees in Hungary. They don't want to be in Hungary. No doubt they prefer being in Hungary to being in Syria, most of them anyway, but they want to be in Germany. Of course people have preferences about their lives. Of course. You have preferences, I have preferences, and refugees have preferences. This is not going to be easy.

Why can't they be relocated to different countries, the percentage depending on the size of the host country? I would imagine that it would cost of hell of a lot less to relocate 1 million of these people to the U.S. than it cost to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for a single year.

[cherdano]

Vampyr, on 2015-September-05, 12:52, said:

I consider the Gulf States neighbours, sorry if you don't.

Do you also consider UK and Italy neighbours?

[hrothgar]

Vampyr, on 2015-September-05, 12:52, said:

I consider the Gulf States neighbours, sorry if you don't.

FWIW, I knew what you were trying to say. With this said and done, Arend's point is more than reasonable.

The distance between Damascus and Riyadh is about 2,000 km (Pretty much the same as between London and Rome)