Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The EU should take more refugees

beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2015 11:27:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/24/2015 12:43:17 AM, NateTheFirst wrote:
It makes both economic and moral sense for them to take in significantly more.

I strongly disagree. I advocate setting up effective border controls to prevent all illegal migrants entering the country and deporting all illegal immigrants. Refugees are a huge economic burden. Economic advantages are obtained from selecting migrants that actually benefit the economy. People with significant skill, money or qualifications. Morally yes giving all of the middle east a free pass into europe is a kind thing to do. Realistically though there is no spare housing, government borrowing is dangerously high and the influx of migrants would be extremely detrimental to Europe's citizens.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 1:22:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/24/2015 12:43:17 AM, NateTheFirst wrote:
It makes both economic and moral sense for them to take in significantly more.

Why only EU? Why not also non-EU countries, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Chile, Brazil, Japan, South Korea or China? Not to mention the close Gulf states (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain etc) who haven't been taking many Syrian refugees at all.
SocialTeacher
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 1:48:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I totally agree with Jovian. Firstly, you speak about all the Europe contries at the same time, whereas each country of Europe have to make their proper decisions. Secondly, it's strictly wrong. France or Germany, for example, are welcoming refugees now... Actually, (you spoke about moral sense), to my mind, Germany is gone so far. She asked to the other countries of Europe to take refugees. But, look the bigger picture, she took a lot of refugees to get workforce, and now its borders are closed. Well, be careful with your topics, a mistake is fastly done... :)
NateTheFirst
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 11:27:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/24/2015 11:27:48 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 11/24/2015 12:43:17 AM, NateTheFirst wrote:
It makes both economic and moral sense for them to take in significantly more.

I strongly disagree. I advocate setting up effective border controls to prevent all illegal migrants entering the country and deporting all illegal immigrants. Refugees are a huge economic burden. Economic advantages are obtained from selecting migrants that actually benefit the economy. People with significant skill, money or qualifications. Morally yes giving all of the middle east a free pass into europe is a kind thing to do. Realistically though there is no spare housing, government borrowing is dangerously high and the influx of migrants would be extremely detrimental to Europe's citizens.

With all due respect, you are simply factually wrong on this point. Currently, foreigners pay far more in taxes in Germany than they take out in benefits, according to a separate Deutsche Welle story being featured in a Huffington post article, which read that "A study by the center for European Economic Research commissioned by Germany's Bertelsmann foundation, shows that in 2012 the roughly 6.6 million foreigners living in Germany paid 22 billion euros more in taxes that year than the total sum of allowances they had been given, such as funds for training, education, social security, or benefits." So we can tell by this that refugees provide benefits that vastly outweigh their costs.

Additionally in that same Huffington post article, after questioning many experts on the issue, they found that the general consensus was the following: "The simple economics of this is: More people equals more workers, and that grows the economy. In the short term it will probably cost more money for Germany and other European countries accepting a lot of refugees and migrants, but this is a net positive since those people are likely to become more permanent workers"
[some experts include the International Monetary Fund head Christine laggard]

Not only that, but an article published on September 9th 2015 by newscientist.com states that: "studies show migrants create jobs for locals, says Mathias Czaika of the International Migration Institute at the University of Oxford. An influx of migrants can depress wages, but mostly for other migrants, and only 1 to 3 percent. Mostly the impact on wages or jobs is neutral or positive."

So we clearly see that refugees overall provide more benefits than downsides in terms of the economy. Again, given that there are going to be even more refugees in the European Union, we should only expect these past results to amplify.
NateTheFirst
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 11:28:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 1:22:03 AM, Jovian wrote:
At 11/24/2015 12:43:17 AM, NateTheFirst wrote:
It makes both economic and moral sense for them to take in significantly more.

Why only EU? Why not also non-EU countries, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Chile, Brazil, Japan, South Korea or China? Not to mention the close Gulf states (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain etc) who haven't been taking many Syrian refugees at all.

All countries should, that doesn't conflict with the EU specifically doing so and is irrelevant to the topic.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 11:30:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 11:28:08 PM, NateTheFirst wrote:
At 11/25/2015 1:22:03 AM, Jovian wrote:
At 11/24/2015 12:43:17 AM, NateTheFirst wrote:
It makes both economic and moral sense for them to take in significantly more.

Why only EU? Why not also non-EU countries, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Chile, Brazil, Japan, South Korea or China? Not to mention the close Gulf states (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain etc) who haven't been taking many Syrian refugees at all.

All countries should, that doesn't conflict with the EU specifically doing so and is irrelevant to the topic.

OK, we although got the signal here that you only wanted EU, since you mentioned EU only, who already are having refugees up to their teeth while countries like the Gulf countries or Japan choose to stay out of it completely.
NateTheFirst
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 11:33:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 1:48:37 PM, SocialTeacher wrote:
I totally agree with Jovian. Firstly, you speak about all the Europe contries at the same time, whereas each country of Europe have to make their proper decisions. Secondly, it's strictly wrong. France or Germany, for example, are welcoming refugees now... Actually, (you spoke about moral sense), to my mind, Germany is gone so far. She asked to the other countries of Europe to take refugees. But, look the bigger picture, she took a lot of refugees to get workforce, and now its borders are closed. Well, be careful with your topics, a mistake is fastly done... :)

Regarding your first point, they gave up their freedom once they joined the European Union as they knew that the EU's decisions are meant to benefit the entire organization as a whole rather than solely focusing on the interests of a single country. Your contention completely ignores that contract they've already agreed to so it is irreverent.

Secondly, on the economic argument, I'll give the same contention I made earlier in this thread: Currently, foreigners pay far more in taxes in Germany than they take out in benefits, according to a separate Deutsche Welle story being featured in a Huffington post article, which read that "A study by the center for European Economic Research commissioned by Germany's Bertelsmann foundation, shows that in 2012 the roughly 6.6 million foreigners living in Germany paid 22 billion euros more in taxes that year than the total sum of allowances they had been given, such as funds for training, education, social security, or benefits." So we can tell by this that refugees provide benefits that vastly outweigh their costs.

Additionally in that same Huffington post article, after questioning many experts on the issue, they found that the general consensus was the following: "The simple economics of this is: More people equals more workers, and that grows the economy. In the short term it will probably cost more money for Germany and other European countries accepting a lot of refugees and migrants, but this is a net positive since those people are likely to become more permanent workers"
[some experts include the International Monetary Fund head Christine laggard]

Not only that, but an article published on September 9th 2015 by newscientist.com states that: "studies show migrants create jobs for locals, says Mathias Czaika of the International Migration Institute at the University of Oxford. An influx of migrants can depress wages, but mostly for other migrants, and only 1 to 3 percent. Mostly the impact on wages or jobs is neutral or positive."

So we clearly see that refugees overall provide more benefits than downsides in terms of the economy. Again, given that there are going to be even more refugees in the European Union, we should only expect these past results to amplify.

even if we just ignore the moral argument, they benefit from this economically long term.
NateTheFirst
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 11:40:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 11:30:21 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 11/28/2015 11:28:08 PM, NateTheFirst wrote:
At 11/25/2015 1:22:03 AM, Jovian wrote:
At 11/24/2015 12:43:17 AM, NateTheFirst wrote:
It makes both economic and moral sense for them to take in significantly more.

Why only EU? Why not also non-EU countries, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Chile, Brazil, Japan, South Korea or China? Not to mention the close Gulf states (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain etc) who haven't been taking many Syrian refugees at all.

All countries should, that doesn't conflict with the EU specifically doing so and is irrelevant to the topic.

OK, we although got the signal here that you only wanted EU, since you mentioned EU only, who already are having refugees up to their teeth while countries like the Gulf countries or Japan choose to stay out of it completely.

The fact of the matter is that we are seeing a mass wave of refugees unlike anything we've seen in the past and we need all of the help we can get, so all countries, including the European Union, should be accepting more. Saying that other countries can accept more is irrelevant to the debate and does not negate the assertion as it doesn't conflict with the European Union taking in more.

Also, saying that "I wanted EU only because I didn't mention other countries" doesn't make logical sense. I just wanted to focus on the EU specifically so it doesn't get too broad.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 12:06:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
First - how old are you, and where are you from?

Second - can you tell me where these foreigners in Germany are from? And, if you don't mind, can you find statistics showing the difference (if there is) between European foreigners in Germany and the non-European ones?
NateTheFirst
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 12:24:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 12:06:33 AM, Mirza wrote:
First - how old are you, and where are you from?

Second - can you tell me where these foreigners in Germany are from? And, if you don't mind, can you find statistics showing the difference (if there is) between European foreigners in Germany and the non-European ones?

1. 15 US
2. The only significant part of the eveidence is that foreigners (Being used as a synonym for refugees in this context, as the article used them interchangeably and was discussing strictly economic benefits refugees bring) overall provide more benefits than downsides economically speaking. I don't know where they're from exactly, just outside of Germany.
I'm not going to search for statistics if I don't even know they exist or if they're relevant to anything related to these contentions. It's just a waste of time at that point.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 12:38:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 12:24:43 AM, NateTheFirst wrote:
1. 15 US
I don't appreciate that you discuss Europe without being knowledgeable about the nature of our lands, and our peoples vis a vis the foreigners. I understand your age can excuse you from this, but I hope you now will be more wise in your approach.

2. The only significant part of the eveidence is that foreigners (Being used as a synonym for refugees in this context, as the article used them interchangeably and was discussing strictly economic benefits refugees bring) overall provide more benefits than downsides economically speaking. I don't know where they're from exactly, just outside of Germany.
I'm not going to search for statistics if I don't even know they exist or if they're relevant to anything related to these contentions. It's just a waste of time at that point.
No, and you sound very stupid at this point. Not all foreigners are the same, so I advise you to look at the differences next time. I'm not going to enter blitzkrieg mode and shatter your mind with evidence for now; I'll let you know a few facts: There is a *significant* difference between European immigrants across Europe and non-European immigrants in Europe. Whilst there may be exceptions at times, the general state is such that non-European immigrants *at a far higher rate* than European immigrants commit crime, are unemployed, are burdensome on the state economy, are less integrated, etc. This is not exceptional to Germany, nor Denmark, nor England; from the corner in which Iceland lies to the one in which Greece lies, both in those countries and all those between them, non-European immigrants perform much worse than European immigrants. So, why should we make a distinction between foreigners? Because they're not the same. Period.
NateTheFirst
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 1:21:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 12:38:07 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/29/2015 12:24:43 AM, NateTheFirst wrote:
1. 15 US
I don't appreciate that you discuss Europe without being knowledgeable about the nature of our lands, and our peoples vis a vis the foreigners. I understand your age can excuse you from this, but I hope you now will be more wise in your approach.

That's silly to say- being from the EU doesn't make someone knowledgable of the economic impacts accepting more refugees would have. Nor does being from the United States prevent someone from being able to argue this point. Ironically, your attempt to expose another's ignorance only highlights yours.
2. The only significant part of the eveidence is that foreigners (Being used as a synonym for refugees in this context, as the article used them interchangeably and was discussing strictly economic benefits refugees bring) overall provide more benefits than downsides economically speaking. I don't know where they're from exactly, just outside of Germany.
I'm not going to search for statistics if I don't even know they exist or if they're relevant to anything related to these contentions. It's just a waste of time at that point.
No, and you sound very stupid at this point.
Cute insult but ultimately irrelevant and immature.
Not all foreigners are the same, so I advise you to look at the differences next time.
I never said all foreigners were exactly the same, you're attacking a straw man.

I'm not going to enter blitzkrieg mode and shatter your mind with evidence for now; I'll let you know a few facts: There is a *significant* difference between European immigrants across Europe and non-European immigrants in Europe. Whilst there may be exceptions at times, the general state is such that non-European immigrants *at a far higher rate* than European immigrants commit crime, are unemployed, are burdensome on the state economy, are less integrated, etc. This is not exceptional to Germany, nor Denmark, nor England; from the corner in which Iceland lies to the one in which Greece lies, both in those countries and all those between them, non-European immigrants perform much worse than European immigrants. So, why should we make a distinction between foreigners? Because they're not the same. Period.

Besides your lack of evidence and misinterpretation of my statement I'd point out that refugees are perfectly capable of jumping right into the economy and are relatively young and well educated. The Washington post notes that a study of Syrian refugees in Lebanon found around half were skilled or semi-skilled workers. Furthermore, The Cultural Research Center published characteristics of refugees in 2014, showing that
"[Syria's] population is relatively well educated, and quite yang, with a median age of 22.[...and] according to the World Bank, 72% of Syrians of secondary school age were enrolled in school before the uprising". The notion that all refugees are an uneducated burden to the host country is false. More refugees being settled into EU countries will help boost the deflating labor force effectively, while being able to support the elderly population (I'm sure you're aware of the aging population problems the EU faces).

Being European doesn't make you an expert on migrational strategy, and lacking any evidence doesn't help either, I'm afraid.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 4:45:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 1:21:14 AM, NateTheFirst wrote:
That's silly to say- being from the EU doesn't make someone knowledgable of the economic impacts accepting more refugees would have. Nor does being from the United States prevent someone from being able to argue this point. Ironically, your attempt to expose another's ignorance only highlights yours.
That's not what I said. I knew you lacked knowledged on the subject, which is why I said the following: I don't appreciate that you discuss Europe without being knowledgeable about the nature of our lands. So, discuss if you are knowledgeable. But, you're not. :)

I never said all foreigners were exactly the same, you're attacking a straw man.
Nor did I say you did. I made it clear to you that they're not. You need to calm down. :)

Besides your lack of evidence
If only I told you I wasn't going to post evidence that time around... :(

and misinterpretation of my statement I'd point out that refugees are perfectly capable of jumping right into the economy and are relatively young and well educated. The Washington post notes that a study of Syrian refugees in Lebanon found around half were skilled or semi-skilled workers. Furthermore, The Cultural Research Center published characteristics of refugees in 2014, showing that
"[Syria's] population is relatively well educated, and quite yang, with a median age of 22.[...and] according to the World Bank, 72% of Syrians of secondary school age were enrolled in school before the uprising". The notion that all refugees are an uneducated burden to the host country is false. More refugees being settled into EU countries will help boost the deflating labor force effectively, while being able to support the elderly population (I'm sure you're aware of the aging population problems the EU faces).

Being European doesn't make you an expert on migrational strategy, and lacking any evidence doesn't help either, I'm afraid.
First of all, *I never said those particular refugees aren't capable of being good migrants*. I said *your point about foreigners contributing to the German economy is bad because not all foreigners are the same*. So, you must look at *what kind of foreigners contribute*. Here's the demography: http://www.indexmundi.com... Clearly, Europeans are most of the foreigners in Germany. That's why "foreigners" do well for the economy - yes, until we make a distinction between the many foreigners, and see why some pale in comparison to others; we see why Turks in Germany are the biggest criminals and detriment to society among all others. In other European countries, the picture is the same: European immigrants are a benefit, whilst non-European ones (Turks, Lebanese, et al) are a detriment. Here's a German article (if you can't understand it, use Google Translate): http://www.t-online.de... Basically, Yugoslav immigrants in Germany go unnoticed (because they integrate and contribute so well), whilst non-Europeans (focus on Turks) don't even need an explanation. We know how "well" they do.

You want evidence for other countries? (Use Google to translate.)

Denmark: European migrants a benefit for Danish economy, non-European migrants a detriment. http://politiken.dk...

Norway: Same thing. http://www.hegnar.no...

There's no need for me to give evidence from other European countries; look for yourself, for it will show the exact same thing: economic detriment, higher crime, social division, etc. You speak about the ageing of Europeans - this is simple: immigration won't solve the problem, unless we pour *extreme amounts of people* into Europe, which will undoubtedly *do much more harm than good*. We must explore other alternatives, such as raising the retirement age.

Concerning the Syrian refugees - while I think they should be helped, and many taken in if we can verify they are Syrian and refugees, there's nothing which suggests that their education levels are worthy of mentioning. It's considerably sub-par compared to the education level of Europeans, and what's worse: many of them are urbanized people, which will make their settling into urban areas a hastened process, which is *an economic and infrastructural burden*. Additionally, we already know how non-European immigrants fare in Europe, so nothing suggests the overall picture will be positive. Nothing suggests they'll just go on to integrate and contribute positively in the long-term.
NateTheFirst
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 5:33:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 4:45:30 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/29/2015 1:21:14 AM, NateTheFirst wrote:
That's silly to say- being from the EU doesn't make someone knowledgable of the economic impacts accepting more refugees would have. Nor does being from the United States prevent someone from being able to argue this point. Ironically, your attempt to expose another's ignorance only highlights yours.
That's not what I said. I knew you lacked knowledged on the subject, which is why I said the following: I don't appreciate that you discuss Europe without being knowledgeable about the nature of our lands. So, discuss if you are knowledgeable. But, you're not. :)
The missed point here is that you said it in direct response to me saying that I'm from the US, which implies that. Moreover, I couldn't care less if you give me your blessing to discuss the issue so this has literally no impact. Saying that you "know" I lack knowledge on the subject is a little silly as well.

I never said all foreigners were exactly the same, you're attacking a straw man.
Nor did I say you did. I made it clear to you that they're not. You need to calm down. :)
Why include an argument debunking a statement you admit was never made? This makes no sense. Also, pointing out a logical fallacy=/=getting angry, so the statement about calming down doesn't make sense.

Besides your lack of evidence
If only I told you I wasn't going to post evidence that time around... :(
That doesn't excuse it from being less valid as a result of your lack of evidence, it's still a weaker argument regardless of whether you stated that you weren't going to provide evidence ahead of time or not.

and misinterpretation of my statement I'd point out that refugees are perfectly capable of jumping right into the economy and are relatively young and well educated. The Washington post notes that a study of Syrian refugees in Lebanon found around half were skilled or semi-skilled workers. Furthermore, The Cultural Research Center published characteristics of refugees in 2014, showing that
"[Syria's] population is relatively well educated, and quite yang, with a median age of 22.[...and] according to the World Bank, 72% of Syrians of secondary school age were enrolled in school before the uprising". The notion that all refugees are an uneducated burden to the host country is false. More refugees being settled into EU countries will help boost the deflating labor force effectively, while being able to support the elderly population (I'm sure you're aware of the aging population problems the EU faces).

Being European doesn't make you an expert on migrational strategy, and lacking any evidence doesn't help either, I'm afraid.
First of all, *I never said those particular refugees aren't capable of being good migrants*. I said *your point about foreigners contributing to the German economy is bad because not all foreigners are the same*. So, you must look at *what kind of foreigners contribute*. Here's the demography: http://www.indexmundi.com... Clearly, Europeans are most of the foreigners in Germany. That's why "foreigners" do well for the economy - yes, until we make a distinction between the many foreigners, and see why some pale in comparison to others; we see why Turks in Germany are the biggest criminals and detriment to society among all others. In other European countries, the picture is the same: European immigrants are a benefit, whilst non-European ones (Turks, Lebanese, et al) are a detriment. Here's a German article (if you can't understand it, use Google Translate): http://www.t-online.de... Basically, Yugoslav immigrants in Germany go unnoticed (because they integrate and contribute so well), whilst non-Europeans (focus on Turks) don't even need an explanation. We know how "well" they do.
1. That is very low quality evidence. 6% isn't thoroughly explained, Turkey isn't part of the EU, and the rest is just Germany, which is irrelevant as we're talking about foreigners.
2. Other pieces of evidence are in different languages, I'm not going to translate your evidence for you.
3. We are also talking specifically about refugees (mostly from Syria) so most of your evidence is just irrelevant. Mine actually looks at impacts refugees specifically have on the economy while yours kind of looks at "European foreigners".

You want evidence for other countries? (Use Google to translate.)

Denmark: European migrants a benefit for Danish economy, non-European migrants a detriment. http://politiken.dk...

Norway: Same thing. http://www.hegnar.no...

There's no need for me to give evidence from other European countries; look for yourself, for it will show the exact same thing: economic detriment, higher crime, social division, etc. You speak about the ageing of Europeans - this is simple: immigration won't solve the problem, unless we pour *extreme amounts of people* into Europe, which will undoubtedly *do much more harm than good*. We must explore other alternatives, such as raising the retirement age.
It's not an either/or situation here regarding alternatives to solving the aging population, and just because it doesn't completely solve it doesn't mean it's completely worthless. At the very least, it helps.

Concerning the Syrian refugees - while I think they should be helped, and many taken in if we can verify they are Syrian and refugees, there's nothing which suggests that their education levels are worthy of mentioning. It's considerably sub-par compared to the education level of Europeans, and what's worse: many of them are urbanized people, which will make their settling into urban areas a hastened process, which is *an economic and infrastructural burden*. Additionally, we already know how non-European immigrants fare in Europe, so nothing suggests the overall picture will be positive. Nothing suggests they'll just go on to integrate and contribute positively in the long-term.

You only made a semantics attack on one source I provided and completely ignored the other two I had given showing that there are long term economic benefits. I also already gave 2 sources showing that many refugees are able to begin working immediately and are of reasonable education. Even if they weren't "top tier" in terms of education they are still able to become fully functional members of society.

On top of that, even if it wasn't sound on an economic basis, that doesn't outweigh the fact that it's sound on a moral basis. For example, it's self evident to all that even though freeing slaves in the south was a bad move economically speaking, morally speaking it was completely necessary. We understand that even though it could bring some harms to the country, we are still obligated no matter what to provide these basic human rights, which carries through to both cases. The economic argument does not outweigh the moral impact here.

My quesiron is: Why did you provide sources in different languages? How many do you speak?
NateTheFirst
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 2:50:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 6:42:44 AM, Mirza wrote:
Aaaaaahahahahahahahahaha Oh my God, I'll get to you later when I'm in the mood. Like... Americans are so stupid, lol.

Adorable.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 10:14:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 11:27:20 PM, NateTheFirst wrote:
At 11/24/2015 11:27:48 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 11/24/2015 12:43:17 AM, NateTheFirst wrote:
It makes both economic and moral sense for them to take in significantly more.

I strongly disagree. I advocate setting up effective border controls to prevent all illegal migrants entering the country and deporting all illegal immigrants. Refugees are a huge economic burden. Economic advantages are obtained from selecting migrants that actually benefit the economy. People with significant skill, money or qualifications. Morally yes giving all of the middle east a free pass into europe is a kind thing to do. Realistically though there is no spare housing, government borrowing is dangerously high and the influx of migrants would be extremely detrimental to Europe's citizens.

With all due respect, you are simply factually wrong on this point. Currently, foreigners pay far more in taxes in Germany than they take out in benefits, according to a separate Deutsche Welle story being featured in a Huffington post article, which read that "A study by the center for European Economic Research commissioned by Germany's Bertelsmann foundation, shows that in 2012 the roughly 6.6 million foreigners living in Germany paid 22 billion euros more in taxes that year than the total sum of allowances they had been given, such as funds for training, education, social security, or benefits." So we can tell by this that refugees provide benefits that vastly outweigh their costs.


Additionally in that same Huffington post article, after questioning many experts on the issue, they found that the general consensus was the following: "The simple economics of this is: More people equals more workers, and that grows the economy. In the short term it will probably cost more money for Germany and other European countries accepting a lot of refugees and migrants, but this is a net positive since those people are likely to become more permanent workers"
[some experts include the International Monetary Fund head Christine laggard]

Not only that, but an article published on September 9th 2015 by newscientist.com states that: "studies show migrants create jobs for locals, says Mathias Czaika of the International Migration Institute at the University of Oxford. An influx of migrants can depress wages, but mostly for other migrants, and only 1 to 3 percent. Mostly the impact on wages or jobs is neutral or positive."

So we clearly see that refugees overall provide more benefits than downsides in terms of the economy. Again, given that there are going to be even more refugees in the European Union, we should only expect these past results to amplify.

You missed a key point. I am not claiming foreigners are damaging to the economy. I am claiming that illegal migrants are damaging to the economy. It is obvious attracting highly qualified, skilled, working age or wealthy people to a country is a good idea. It is also obvious allowing millions of people into a country without sensible border controls or selection is economic incompetence. These people generally lack qualifications, skills, linguistic and literate ability at the local language and are used to a completely different culture. Think about this. Who is going to employ these people? Where are they going to live? Where are their children going to school? Uncontrolled migration of low skilled individuals is not a good idea.
NateTheFirst
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 1:42:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 10:14:24 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 11/28/2015 11:27:20 PM, NateTheFirst wrote:
At 11/24/2015 11:27:48 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 11/24/2015 12:43:17 AM, NateTheFirst wrote:
It makes both economic and moral sense for them to take in significantly more.

I strongly disagree. I advocate setting up effective border controls to prevent all illegal migrants entering the country and deporting all illegal immigrants. Refugees are a huge economic burden. Economic advantages are obtained from selecting migrants that actually benefit the economy. People with significant skill, money or qualifications. Morally yes giving all of the middle east a free pass into europe is a kind thing to do. Realistically though there is no spare housing, government borrowing is dangerously high and the influx of migrants would be extremely detrimental to Europe's citizens.

With all due respect, you are simply factually wrong on this point. Currently, foreigners pay far more in taxes in Germany than they take out in benefits, according to a separate Deutsche Welle story being featured in a Huffington post article, which read that "A study by the center for European Economic Research commissioned by Germany's Bertelsmann foundation, shows that in 2012 the roughly 6.6 million foreigners living in Germany paid 22 billion euros more in taxes that year than the total sum of allowances they had been given, such as funds for training, education, social security, or benefits." So we can tell by this that refugees provide benefits that vastly outweigh their costs.


Additionally in that same Huffington post article, after questioning many experts on the issue, they found that the general consensus was the following: "The simple economics of this is: More people equals more workers, and that grows the economy. In the short term it will probably cost more money for Germany and other European countries accepting a lot of refugees and migrants, but this is a net positive since those people are likely to become more permanent workers"
[some experts include the International Monetary Fund head Christine laggard]

Not only that, but an article published on September 9th 2015 by newscientist.com states that: "studies show migrants create jobs for locals, says Mathias Czaika of the International Migration Institute at the University of Oxford. An influx of migrants can depress wages, but mostly for other migrants, and only 1 to 3 percent. Mostly the impact on wages or jobs is neutral or positive."

So we clearly see that refugees overall provide more benefits than downsides in terms of the economy. Again, given that there are going to be even more refugees in the European Union, we should only expect these past results to amplify.

You missed a key point. I am not claiming foreigners are damaging to the economy. I am claiming that illegal migrants are damaging to the economy. It is obvious attracting highly qualified, skilled, working age or wealthy people to a country is a good idea. It is also obvious allowing millions of people into a country without sensible border controls or selection is economic incompetence. These people generally lack qualifications, skills, linguistic and literate ability at the local language and are used to a completely different culture. Think about this. Who is going to employ these people? Where are they going to live? Where are their children going to school? Uncontrolled migration of low skilled individuals is not a good idea.

Your counter rests on the premise that I'm advocating for no control, but that was never stated. Obviously there needs to be migrational strategy, I'm just saying they should take in more.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 7:17:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2015 1:42:48 AM, NateTheFirst wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:14:24 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 11/28/2015 11:27:20 PM, NateTheFirst wrote:
At 11/24/2015 11:27:48 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 11/24/2015 12:43:17 AM, NateTheFirst wrote:
It makes both economic and moral sense for them to take in significantly more.

I strongly disagree. I advocate setting up effective border controls to prevent all illegal migrants entering the country and deporting all illegal immigrants. Refugees are a huge economic burden. Economic advantages are obtained from selecting migrants that actually benefit the economy. People with significant skill, money or qualifications. Morally yes giving all of the middle east a free pass into europe is a kind thing to do. Realistically though there is no spare housing, government borrowing is dangerously high and the influx of migrants would be extremely detrimental to Europe's citizens.

With all due respect, you are simply factually wrong on this point. Currently, foreigners pay far more in taxes in Germany than they take out in benefits, according to a separate Deutsche Welle story being featured in a Huffington post article, which read that "A study by the center for European Economic Research commissioned by Germany's Bertelsmann foundation, shows that in 2012 the roughly 6.6 million foreigners living in Germany paid 22 billion euros more in taxes that year than the total sum of allowances they had been given, such as funds for training, education, social security, or benefits." So we can tell by this that refugees provide benefits that vastly outweigh their costs.


Additionally in that same Huffington post article, after questioning many experts on the issue, they found that the general consensus was the following: "The simple economics of this is: More people equals more workers, and that grows the economy. In the short term it will probably cost more money for Germany and other European countries accepting a lot of refugees and migrants, but this is a net positive since those people are likely to become more permanent workers"
[some experts include the International Monetary Fund head Christine laggard]

Not only that, but an article published on September 9th 2015 by newscientist.com states that: "studies show migrants create jobs for locals, says Mathias Czaika of the International Migration Institute at the University of Oxford. An influx of migrants can depress wages, but mostly for other migrants, and only 1 to 3 percent. Mostly the impact on wages or jobs is neutral or positive."

So we clearly see that refugees overall provide more benefits than downsides in terms of the economy. Again, given that there are going to be even more refugees in the European Union, we should only expect these past results to amplify.

You missed a key point. I am not claiming foreigners are damaging to the economy. I am claiming that illegal migrants are damaging to the economy. It is obvious attracting highly qualified, skilled, working age or wealthy people to a country is a good idea. It is also obvious allowing millions of people into a country without sensible border controls or selection is economic incompetence. These people generally lack qualifications, skills, linguistic and literate ability at the local language and are used to a completely different culture. Think about this. Who is going to employ these people? Where are they going to live? Where are their children going to school? Uncontrolled migration of low skilled individuals is not a good idea.

Your counter rests on the premise that I'm advocating for no control, but that was never stated. Obviously there needs to be migrational strategy, I'm just saying they should take in more.

I don't think it is that important how high immigration numbers are as long as each individual benefits a country economically they should be allowed in. Those who hinder an economy should be turned away. It's quite simple really.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2015 11:59:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Nate, you filthy idiot - I'll reply one more time hoping you understand just the crux of it. Give your best shot, or f*ck off. :)

1 - Attacking a person isn't a logical fallacy. Just because you read about fallacies doesn't mean you really understand what they are, kid.

2 - I provided evidence, and if you don't believe what I say, simply copy-paste the articles in Google Translate and read. You'll get the gist. They all confirm what I say. By the way, what sort of language do you expect Norwegian or Danish statistics to be in? Do you think everything is translated to English? It isn't, you spoiled piece of sh!t. And yes, I understand all of those articles.

3 - You said: "That is very low quality evidence. 6% isn't thoroughly explained, Turkey isn't part of the EU, and the rest is just Germany, which is irrelevant as we're talking about foreigners." What the f*ck are you talking about? I've tried to ponder over the meaning of this, and I can't get anything out of it. What about the 6% "isn't thoroughly explained"? What the f*ck? Why does it matter that Turkey isn't in the EU...? The very point is that most foreigners in Germany are EUROPEANS, and because of that GERMANY BENEFITS FROM *FOREIGNERS*. Key distinction to be made: it benefits from EUROPEAN FOREIGNERS, and NOT the non-European ones, SUCH AS TURKS. Got it? Bottom line: it is unlikely, given the history of non-European immigrants IN ALL EUROPEAN COUNTRIES, that "foreigners" will benefit Europe.

4 - I took issue with your use of the word "foreigner," with which you implied that foreigners overall benefit their societies. This is true mostly for European foreigners, not non-European ones. It is important that we distinguish, whether you like it or not. Are Syrians educated? Not so much. Their level of education isn't very useful, and overall their migration would be a net detriment because many are from urban areas, and it will weigh heavy on the economy to settle them all in cities. They certainly don't want to live in rural areas.

5 - I don't give a f*ck about your moral argument, as I specifically spoke about your retarded abuse of statistics.

6 - To even make a meaningful impact on the ageing population through immigration would require massive amounts of migrants, which, for the aforementioned reasons, would be catastrophic. Europe would suffer throughout. What we need to do is find alternative solutions that are far safer. Migration will happen very so often, so it never is completely out of the equation. It just shouldn't be the main solution, ever.

With that said - go to bed, stupid kid. :)
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2015 6:19:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2015 11:59:57 AM, Mirza wrote:
Nate, you filthy idiot - I'll reply one more time hoping you understand just the crux of it. Give your best shot, or f*ck off. :)

1 - Attacking a person isn't a logical fallacy. Just because you read about fallacies doesn't mean you really understand what they are, kid.

2 - I provided evidence, and if you don't believe what I say, simply copy-paste the articles in Google Translate and read. You'll get the gist. They all confirm what I say. By the way, what sort of language do you expect Norwegian or Danish statistics to be in? Do you think everything is translated to English? It isn't, you spoiled piece of sh!t. And yes, I understand all of those articles.

3 - You said: "That is very low quality evidence. 6% isn't thoroughly explained, Turkey isn't part of the EU, and the rest is just Germany, which is irrelevant as we're talking about foreigners." What the f*ck are you talking about? I've tried to ponder over the meaning of this, and I can't get anything out of it. What about the 6% "isn't thoroughly explained"? What the f*ck? Why does it matter that Turkey isn't in the EU...? The very point is that most foreigners in Germany are EUROPEANS, and because of that GERMANY BENEFITS FROM *FOREIGNERS*. Key distinction to be made: it benefits from EUROPEAN FOREIGNERS, and NOT the non-European ones, SUCH AS TURKS. Got it? Bottom line: it is unlikely, given the history of non-European immigrants IN ALL EUROPEAN COUNTRIES, that "foreigners" will benefit Europe.

4 - I took issue with your use of the word "foreigner," with which you implied that foreigners overall benefit their societies. This is true mostly for European foreigners, not non-European ones. It is important that we distinguish, whether you like it or not. Are Syrians educated? Not so much. Their level of education isn't very useful, and overall their migration would be a net detriment because many are from urban areas, and it will weigh heavy on the economy to settle them all in cities. They certainly don't want to live in rural areas.

5 - I don't give a f*ck about your moral argument, as I specifically spoke about your retarded abuse of statistics.

6 - To even make a meaningful impact on the ageing population through immigration would require massive amounts of migrants, which, for the aforementioned reasons, would be catastrophic. Europe would suffer throughout. What we need to do is find alternative solutions that are far safer. Migration will happen very so often, so it never is completely out of the equation. It just shouldn't be the main solution, ever.

With that said - go to bed, stupid kid. :)

No one will take you seriously if you just write encoded "Bow down for my opinions, peasant!" all the time.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2015 7:54:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2015 6:19:16 PM, Jovian wrote:
No one will take you seriously if you just write encoded "Bow down for my opinions, peasant!" all the time.
If you f*ck off, that would be great. :)
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2015 8:06:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2015 7:54:54 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/4/2015 6:19:16 PM, Jovian wrote:
No one will take you seriously if you just write encoded "Bow down for my opinions, peasant!" all the time.
If you f*ck off, that would be great. :)

It is called debate.org, not kindergartenfighting.org :P
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2015 8:14:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2015 8:06:00 PM, Jovian wrote:
It is called debate.org, not kindergartenfighting.org :P
You need to be disciplined. A lot of you. :)
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2015 8:15:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2015 8:14:11 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/4/2015 8:06:00 PM, Jovian wrote:
It is called debate.org, not kindergartenfighting.org :P
You need to be disciplined. A lot of you. :)

Sorry but you can't force your fetish on others. Pojedi kurac.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 7:25:40 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 11/24/2015 12:43:17 AM, NateTheFirst wrote:
It makes both economic and moral sense for them to take in significantly more.

Stop ruining the country with these economic and social impediments. It's sad that refugees exist, but accepting them in hordes cripples countries.
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 8:55:32 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
It's disgraceful that the Gulf states haven't taken in any refugees. Even though it's a crisis happening in their own region, they refuse to help, and just expect the West to burden itself with the incoming refugees.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
slowbrain
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 5:01:05 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
This is an interesting and timely subject, and exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping to find when I signed up to this website earlier today - so thanks for raising.

I believe that in considering whether the EU should take more refugees, it is necessary for us to consider what values European member states prioritise.

Clearly there is an economic argument, which others in this thread have highlighted. This requires us to consider the short term economic costs of sustaining refugees against the longer term economic benefits that could arise through a larger workforce. Yes, there will be increased expenditure on social security, health and education (amongst others). But, all other things being equal, a greater diffusion of ideas and cultures may lead to greater innovation. For example, Banksy's recent graffiti in Calais highlights that Steve Jobs was the son of a Syrian refugee who contributed towards the establishment of one of America's largest sources of tax receipts. Will all refugees go on to create multi-billion pound industries? No. Will some? Possibly.

However, the economic argument is not the only consideration. We need also to look at the moral foundations of European society. I believe that the humanitarian aid and military interventions that many developed member states have contributed to over the last 50 years or so suggests that there is a precedent for trying to provide support to the often quite deplorable situations many people in many parts of the world find themselves born into.

However, there are quite large differences between the capacity and values of individual member states.

As climate change and political instability continues to lead to further instability in often quite volatile regions, coupled with forecasts for continued population growth, it is likely that migration toward the EU will continue for many more years to come.

There probably needs to be greater differentiation between economic migrants and asylum-seekers/refugees. With the latter, the 20,000 or so each member state has agreed to take in over the next 5 years or so appears to be a very small amount. Taking more refugees doesn't appear to be a solution. But sadly, the only long term solution appears to be some combination of the creation of stable, non-oppressive states and a decline in world populations. Both of these will be extremely difficult to achieve.

So whilst I do believe there is a case for taking more refugees, I do not believe that this should be done at any cost. It should only be done if there are clear, transparent and workable mechanisms for doing this in a way that does not undermine the prosperity or security of individual member states. Governments would need to find a way of doing this without creating ghettos which history tells us will likely lead to tensions and sources of social conflicts. Again, this costs money at a time when most governments are seeking to cut public expenditure at most opportunities.

Ultimately, there needs to be clear popular support for increasing the number of refugees in the EU and I do not feel the case has been made strongly enough - yet - for many people to want this. Sadly, many of those would-be refugees who would be best placed to make the case on humanitarian grounds do not have the voice to do so.

Finally, I do not believe a persons age or origin has any bearing on their ability to offer an opinion.

Hopefully my contribution has suggested some additional avenues for discussion, and I look forward to seeing any responses.