• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Finland to take five more rescued asylum seekers

Imagine your next door neighbour taking in some refugee or even a local worthy then knocking on your door to tell you "turns out they like your gaff better, I'll help you move their stuff in and thanks!"
I'm getting a tad irritated with the number of refugees rocking up with a Zipvan full of belongings. If they have a TV better than mine I usually give them a pass though.
 
I'm getting a tad irritated with the number of refugees rocking up with a Zipvan full of belongings. If they have a TV better than mine I usually give them a pass though.

The narrative was simply to illustrate a point. Good for you gaining a couple of virtue points out of sweet **** all.
 
Ah right, so offering refuge or any kind of assistance to fleeing Syrians is backing Assad. Makes sense!

What is your problem?

---

Anyway, yes. Refugees deserve better than being a guest in someone else's country. They deserve to be citizens in their homeland. We should be thinking about how we can help to make that happen.

Accepting refugees with no plan for their return and reclamation of their homeland really does concede territory to the tyrants and terrorists who drove them out.

I'm not saying refugees should be turned away at the border, and told to go back and solve their own problems. I'm saying they should be welcomed temporarily, and be required to participate in the planning and implementation of their return home.

Not wanting to live under Assad is understandable. Not being able to fight back is also understandable. But Western Europe (for example) certainly has the wherewithal to overturn the Assad regime, and drive out ISIS, if they wish. I think that it would probably be a better use of their resources, long term, to offer that support to Syrian refugees, and condition asylum on that basis. You come, you rest, you train, and you go back and fight for what's yours. There's no need to let Assad drive away the opposition and keep Syria for himself.

---

Or look at it another way: All these Syrian refugees, where should we put them? Why not Syria? Well, Syria isn't a great place right now. So let's fix that, then.
 
What is your problem?
I don't understand the question (but I don't think it matters)

Accepting refugees with no plan for their return and reclamation of their homeland really does concede territory to the tyrants and terrorists who drove them out.
I tend to see it as permitting voluntary free movement (I am in the minority) and not go further than that. Obviously "refugee" implies not really voluntary, but voluntary in the sense of selected in preference to staying put (and maybe dying)
 
What hypocrisy?
I think this refers to a country formed from immigration later pulling the ladder up after themselves, not a belief that Emma Lazarus's poem was a constitutional article.

I mean if the large amount of immigration a century ago was a bad policy like slavery then the US could be applauded for ending it. But it was a good policy (and made America great the first time)

Of course for much of the last hundred years the US has remained a much more immigration friendly country than most of Europe and Asia so "hypocrisy" is maybe more deserved elsewhere.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom