C.Gee, I would have thought you would know that the UN is unreliable half the time and I previously pointed out that are people taking advantage of refugee status.
1 Like
Yazmin,
If you have a source which gives significantly different refugee numbers than the UN, by all means link to it. Where would you quarrel with the chart?
You started the "Migrant Crisis 2.0 " thread. I guess - because you donât say - that it was to express distaste at migrants in general, and (horrid) Ukrainian war refugees in particular.
Whatever the provenance of the refugees I expect host populations to object to receiving masses of them. (I suspect that leftist Swedenâs original distaste for receiving a lot of Ukrainians was that they are white.) I donât think any adult would be surprised at refugees âtaking advantageâ of the host countryâs asylum âprogrammesâ. (The Mail Online quotes a celebrity vicarâs observations as click-bait. There is no need to reach so high for anecdotal evidence. There are grass-roots protests against immigrants throughout Europe.)
I put up the chart of numbers so that readers might know what we are talking about in this thread, rather that have it merely float clouds of dislike for Ukrainians.
1 Like
C.Gee, you again make no sense and none of you presented are reliable proof based on reality. Accepting unlimited numbers of migrant is not just only expensive, but it leaves vulnerable migrants open to sex traffickers and the UN has a hidden history of sex trafficking.
Yazmin,
I am beginning to think you are a bot, programmed to respond with âyou make no senseâ plus some disparagement of my grasp on reality and lack of evidence. I have a peculiar sense that discussing an issue with you is some sort of Turing Test. But AI learns to refine its responses - which you do not.
In this thread you are piggy-backing your (or Putinâs) anti-Ukraine, anti-European opinions on American conservative opinion against illegal immigration and open border policies. I am still waiting for you to raise a discussion point on Ukrainian refugees specifically. There is distinction to be made between Ukrainian refugees, Syrian refugees, Muslim immigrants, masses flooding across Americaâs southern borders, âeconomicâ refugees. There are distinctions to be made among immigration policies and quotas of the nationally-minded right and the socialist, woke, left and between long-term policies and responses to exigencies.
Criminals profit from Human trafficking, sex trafficking, and drug trafficking across borders throughout the world. To the extent that governments and ngos collude with criminal gangs through their policies, they are criminal too. The UN is thoroughly corrupt, but that is not the point of this thread. You bring it up to only disparage my âevidenceâ, which, if you actually read the chart, is not offered as counter-evidence to whatever case you are trying to make, it merely shows who is taking in Ukrainian refugees and how many.
If you have ideas how governments should weigh the costs and benefits of accepting migrants when forming policy on who and how many to take, please go ahead and outline them.
Otherwise, all I can understand from your series of posts here is that you think that there should be no intake of Ukrainian war refugees. (They take advantage. They are too expensive. There are risks of trafficking.) Not a position that grasps reality. Not a considered position at all, actually.
Should Russia not take in the million or so people from Ukraine who have fled the war to seek asylum in Russia? Or does this question also not make sense to you?
I
1 Like
C.Gee, you still donât make any sense of any argument you make and accusing of being a bot, âPutin apologistâ, etc donât help your argument in any way and you continue to deny the cost of this.
2 Likes
Right on cue, Yazmin, right on cue.
1 Like
G.Gee, you donât really display yourself seriously when you bring up the same sources that says to take in and spend money on the refugees from the Middle East and Ukraine in the first place.
1 Like
How about answering the questions I put to you?
1 Like
I just did answer the question, you just continue to dismiss it and say concerned for high rising bills in the western world and any criticism of western foreign policy as âPro-Putinâ.
1 Like
No, you did not.
I repeat: Should Russia not take in the million or so people from Ukraine who have fled the war to seek asylum in Russia?
1 Like
I already explained that the western countries is currently suffering from inflation and high prices and thus cannot afford to take in refugees. I think that should answer your question about whether or not Russia should take in Ukrainian refugees.
1 Like
No, it doesnât answer my question.
I shall ask it a different way: Can Russia afford to take in 1 million war refugees from Ukraine - far more that any European country?
1 Like
Yes it did, I said that western countries are suffering from inflation and high prices and thus cannot to take in refugees while Russia and other countries donât have inflation and high prices.
1 Like
Incoherent rubbish.
You expose your ignorance of economics and geopolitics, but more than that, you have exposed your unwillingness and/or inability to debate, which suggests this forum is not the place for you.
You treat this forum as a depositary for click-bait headlines. You do not explain why you bring them to our attention. I am reminded of kids who drop flaming dog poop through the letter-box, ring the door-bell and run away.
You make demands on our time, but are too mentally lazy or too busy filling a daily quantity-order of internet pickings or too whatever to reciprocate. I have spent hours in good faith effort to create a discussion topic from your links, to make sense of and legitimate your random postings here, to encourage an actual exchange of ideas with you. You will not engage. The war in Ukraine in particular deserves serious attention and debate, which you avoid, presuming that your links say it all. They do not.
Any reader looking at topics started by you will most often see nothing but a link to an article with attention-grabbing headlines baiting conservatives to open the link. Most of the articles you link to - not all - are a waste of time. They are blatantly - crassly - anti-American, piggy-backing on conservativeâs anti-Biden, anti-Swamp, anti-illegal immigration sentiment to encourage unthinking agreement their geopolitics.
Should such an article inspire a comment, why would the commenter not post it at the site that originated the article and where he is reading it? Why return to this Forum to post it?
I fear you are driving away more readers than you are bringing in to our forum. Be on notice that any âtopicâ you start that consists of a bare link without any discussion point being offered by you will be closed and might be removed. We do not exist to be a conduit to spin merchants, click-bait robot-sites, twitter trolls. Readers should not come here merely to have their knee-jerk reflexes stimulated. As far as you have become a self-appointed knee hammerer, please cease and desist.
You have managed to provide a discussion point to frame your link several times since you joined last year. It is not beyond you.