Discussion in 'Serious' started by jrs77, 23 Oct 2017.
Do you know if these efforts are backed by advertising and other efforts in these countries? If people cannot check these facts online already I don't see how this website will change things.
I had to take a "life in the UK" test to settle here.
Sounds like a good idea in theory, until you start revising and find out that all of the facts and figures you get quizzed on have absolutely nothing to do with integrating into society.
No need. I mean, seriously, which economic migrant would voluntarily migrate to Czech, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, when you have more juicy targets, like Germany, UK, Sweden, Benelux countries...
I mean here in Slovakia all they get is 42 cents per day, or if they do voluntary community work, then 1 euro pre day. Yup, that is 15-30 euros a month. In exchange they get free housing, clothing, food - in the migrant centers.
That is also what was the primary reason for calling out the stupidity of forced compulsory migrant distribution system of EU - you can send some migrants here, but it won't be even a week before they try to move to Germany or other country and start working illegally.
While I think it is a good idea to educate migrants about life in "insert destination country of choice" so they have realistic expectations rather than expecting roads paved with gold I suspect a lot of migrants who read that website will only do so after they've arrived.
In other words: To have it make the desired impact the information would have to be provided in a far more hands on approach, the key in my opinion being to raise the educational standards in the source countries significantly.
I think if I was a migrant coming from a war torn, desolate hell hole and I read the bit about life being hard in the EU I think I would probably start laughing.
I don't think it is aimed at refugees so much as at migrants.
Migrants will always come from poor countries to rich ones regardless, I don’t blame them I’d do exactly the same if I was in there position.
Bit of a Pandora’s box but I would argue it’s big corporations and by extension the media that has been pushing politics more to the right wing than immigrants alone since the recession.
Which is kinda impossible.
Nigeria - 1980 population 73.5 million. 2016 population 186 million. More than double of a population in 35 years
Guinea - 4.5 -> 12.4 million in same timeframe. More Nearly tripple of the population in 35 years.
Côte d'Ivoire - 8.2 -> 23.7 million
Germany meanwhile increased only lately, 1980 and 2011 population were nearly identical. France increased by ~20% in same timeframe. UK 20% too.
Combine bad infrastructure, bad economy, overpopulation, lies from traffickers, and you end up with the migration wave from Africa.
We could instead do what China is already doing in Africa (and has been for some time): invest in major infrastructure projects (e.g. rail, pipelines, power) that pay off in the very long term, and make excellent friends of those nations in the short term.
Indeed. Research shows that if you improve living standards enough so children have a reasonable chance to make it to adulthood, birth rates drop from +10 to 2 in less than a generation.
Yup, and the people advocating the shooting rarely volunteer to be the one pulling the trigger.
The thinking is: give a man a fish and he is beholden to you; teach a man to fish and he is independent and empowered. Post-colonial short-termism rules OK.
China doesn't have a colonial history and no hang-ups about relating to Africa like just another bunch of nations with which to do business.
You forgot to mention ".....without asking any pesky questions about democracy, corruption, the environment or human rights." Of course the West's post-colonial record is patchy, though ever-improving, but following China's path is not the answer, particularity as it seems to be making "excellent friends" with local strongmen, and not so excellent friends with many of the local population.
Well that seems to me to be treating the people as if they are ignorant savages for whom democracy is too advanced. No. Mostly people do like to have a say in who governs them and ultimately dictatorships haven't ever been a good system wherever it has been tried.
I tend to listen to the World Service when driving and a lot of the news there is about Africa and I don't see the people they speak to there as somehow not deserving of the same freedoms we enjoy.
The people sadly don;t have much to do with it. Democracy requires social infrastructure to be built over time much like widespread automobile use requires infrastructure. Much as bureaucracy is derided, it's the necessary linking system that separates a disparate collection of feifdoms (de-facto or otherwise) and city-states, and a cohesive nation that can perform national functions like elections and governance. It's hard to form a national political party when you have electricity for a few hours a day and can only organise in distances you can get to on foot.
There's no "OK, we democratic now" switch to flip, the same people who are already in effective positions of power (legislative or otherwise) do not suddenly go "welp, looks like the party's over". The most effective way to kickstart a democratic system is to reduce the inequality between the 'ruling classes' and general population. Transport, education, access to utilities. Provide those to the population, and democracy follows, not vice versa. Conversely, the removal of those capabilities are the signs of a system moving away from democracy (restriction of movement, education being undermined and eventually shifted to indoctrination, access to basic utilities restricted to those who show 'loyalty').
If China are willing to bankroll infrastructure, it doesn't matter in the long term if they're doing it hand in hand with the local junta if they manage to get it successfully built (and they seem to be going about it by recruiting and training local workers overseen by domestic managers, which cuts out one route to later control and reduces graft and delays), once it's in place and functioning it's already too late for the existing regime. China aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, they want a moderately trained cheap and effective (currently they have cheap, but need to provide the training and infrastructure for effectiveness themselves) workforce they can outsource to as other nations outsourced to China. They know it won't last, and the same demand for greater living standards and greater self-autonomoy that their own population are demanding will inevitably follow, but it only needs to last long enough for China to implement widespread automation. And if they can do it while keeping their existing 'front end' in place in China, they can outsource their own work while still retaining the world's business.
^^^ What he says.
I do not think that is what jrs77 is saying. He is saying that democracy is an abstract ideal when you're preoccupied 24 hours a day with just trying not to starve to death. It depends on the electorate being able to make informed decisions (else how do you know you're not just voting for a demagogue?), which means that they have to have a nourished brain, access to education and a standard of living beyond a 24/7 battle for survival.
Again, that's not what he is saying. Democracy is basically self-determination, which means it cannot be given or imposed by other nations; it has to be won by the people themselves. All we can do is facilitate the conditions: a standard of living that means they can think beyond the next meal, healthcare that means they can aspire to a future for their children beyond dying in their first year of disease, education that teaches them to read and think and empowers them through owning a vital means of production in terms of knowledge and skills, and of course the infrastructure that a functioning democracy requires: communication networks, law and order, a free press (hence the reading and thinking).
Of course we agree that developed nations should think carefully about which regime they do business with: a dictatorship or a democratic government; but we don't have a much better track record of that than China. Arguably we're worse: we engage in conflict investment, whereas China seems to be more inclined to do business without prejudice.
I think the migrants in Germany can get to read this website, and they should, for their own benefits. Germany is still the most generous country in the world, in my opinion: free tuition fee for all students, accommodate refugees, ease of visa issues (4 years of resident permit if you study there).
Separate names with a comma.