Europeans — especially Germans — are increasingly keen on curbing immigration and are less focused on climate change, according to a study by a Danish-based think tank.
Living in a stable safe country is a privilege we’re born into, much like inheriting a trust fund. It’s an ethical duty to take in people in a less fortunate position. The emphasis should not be on numbers of immigrants so much as better integration once they’re here. And also on helping less fortunate countries (yes I realise why they aren’t as fortunate) become more developed. People don’t tend to migrate if the place they live is good. Oil wars are not helpful.
I think its not ethical to just let in everyone who was born in a third world country. That doesnt even make sense, its just not sustainable, fucks a lot of things up, and doesnt solve problems for anyone. It makes their country worse, make our country worse, what is the plan here?
Like, regardless of ethics, those people will not stop existing once climate change makes their homelands unlivable. The two available plans appear to be “solve climate change as rapidly as possible and bootstrap poor countries up to developed countries pro Bono” or “shoot migrants at the border”.
No clearly, but people don’t usually want to leave their home country to live. It’s usually just people who are displaced or academics. A good solution would be offering scholarships to gifted students from developing countries on the condition that they then use that education within their home country. But in the case of war /persecution, yes every country needs to do their part. Integration classes actually help.
Just look at the difference between Norway and Sweden. Norway has compulsory classes for non eea immigrants to learn about what it means to live in Norway and will actually help people get into work. Sweden sticks them in husby and puts them on benefits. Which country has more problems?
Living in a stable safe country is a privilege we’re born into, much like inheriting a trust fund. It’s an ethical duty to take in people in a less fortunate position. The emphasis should not be on numbers of immigrants so much as better integration once they’re here. And also on helping less fortunate countries (yes I realise why they aren’t as fortunate) become more developed. People don’t tend to migrate if the place they live is good. Oil wars are not helpful.
I think its not ethical to just let in everyone who was born in a third world country. That doesnt even make sense, its just not sustainable, fucks a lot of things up, and doesnt solve problems for anyone. It makes their country worse, make our country worse, what is the plan here?
The alternative would be helping those countries most affected to prevent migrations from happening. In practice, that would look like giving them [Shitloads] of (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8694300/) money .
Like, regardless of ethics, those people will not stop existing once climate change makes their homelands unlivable. The two available plans appear to be “solve climate change as rapidly as possible and bootstrap poor countries up to developed countries pro Bono” or “shoot migrants at the border”.
No clearly, but people don’t usually want to leave their home country to live. It’s usually just people who are displaced or academics. A good solution would be offering scholarships to gifted students from developing countries on the condition that they then use that education within their home country. But in the case of war /persecution, yes every country needs to do their part. Integration classes actually help.
Just look at the difference between Norway and Sweden. Norway has compulsory classes for non eea immigrants to learn about what it means to live in Norway and will actually help people get into work. Sweden sticks them in husby and puts them on benefits. Which country has more problems?