The debate "In response to the current crisis a government should prioritize the humanitarian needs of refugees" was started by
November 2, 2015, 10:48 am.
By the way, Bodaciouslady16 is disagreeing with this statement.
14 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 7 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Lane posted 2 arguments, Apollo8 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
AstroSpace posted 1 argument, Bodaciouslady16 posted 2 arguments, Alex posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
wmd, Lane, PsychDave, erikD9921, Apollo8 and 9 visitors agree.
AstroSpace, Bodaciouslady16 and 5 visitors disagree.
The case of refugees are dire that is basically why, as humans with the same biomolecular make-up, we feel like it's our moral ascendency to help them.
The question now is, which government is supposed to help them? I believe that the nature of these countries with problems explicitly tells us that these countries' government have already failed their own people in terms of providing its people jobs and a living. That is why, people under the bulletfires are incentivised and are rather pushed into escaping from their country. There are instances wherein the government have failed completely to the point of being oppressive to their people.
But I think that there can always be a self-correcting mechanism. For example, revolutions can happen in an oppressive system, fighting out terrorists can happen in terrorist-infested areas, a negotiation deal can happen for those who are in war. Only that for those who are innocent, for those who should not be in a suffering they haven't even agreed to, it's only right for these people to have the option to opt out of that country; to be a refugee in another country and come back to their home country when the bullets lessen.
I think that now, another government have to step in to help these refugees. International laws mandate countries to help refugees. I've already explained how even if their home country is the place where they want to live, chaos and structural barriers will stop them. What to do then? The proposal is simple: integrate them into the country whose government allows so, giving them shelter, food, and clothing. This is just a first step. You solved the problem of how these people can now be safe.
The next issue is sustainability. This is best answered by allowing them to have jobs in the place they are provided with, even to the point of giving them recognition to extend their labor into the industry. Rationing devices will always filter the capable ones. Therefore, don't argue that these refugees essentially steal jobs. It's a matter of capability and the industries' preference. Ask yourself, who is at fault here? These refugees, who may be more capable because of who know what? Or you, who was born onto a country without their suffering?
Renewal of these recognitions can be done yearly. In this sense, when their home country is safe, they can therefore be called back easily. You give them livelihood so they can sustain themselves instead of the government spoonfeeding them and losing resources.
I said most have little skills, that is not racist, it's just a fact. things are not well over there. so let me see what you want you want to use taxes to pay for
1. the trip to the us
2. housing costs a lot more in the us and building new homes is out of the question.
3. give some some of the us citizens jobs, so the citizens literally payed for there jobs to be taken
4. welfare will either go to these refugees or to the us citizens who lost there jobs due to them.
conclusion to your plan: poverty increases, so does unemployment rates, the government has to worry about ISIS spies living in the us.
your plan will work in a fantasy land where everything is perfect, but then we wouldn't have refugees. look at the facts please, your plan to bring more lower class people in and exeption a better economy is really bad. or you want to trash the us economy.
the biggest problem with your plan aside from high taxes, and poverty is spies. ISIS has said they will sneak in spies though immigrants. spies in the us could be super bad. on the flip side spies in the protected little area would be quickly found out about.
spies can lead to bad terrists attacks like 9/11 or something.
the war has been going on a few years. not 30. most adult refugees had a job, they have some skills. so saying all of them have no skills is racist. of just really ignorant. it is possible to make a nice refugee camp for a small number of people and with lots of money. but we are taking about millions of people. and do you really think the American people will be willing to pay billions for this? no, they will pay as little as they can. which means a ghetto.
who said we are making a ghetto? also it is true most people have little skills due to lack of education and ISIS messing with them. that's facts no racism. now if I said something like "people over there are stupid and have no skills" that would be racist.
first of all you assume all people in an entire country have no skills. that is incredibly racist. second of all even if they were being supported by charity here it would still be better than a ghetto. do some reading on ghettos and the me why they wouldn't hate you for putting them there.
how the **** are these refugees suposted to get a job, they are mostly unskilled. sanders isn't going to hand those out is he?
no skills=no job=no home, food= poverty/starvation= no different from the place they escaped from.
I can see the above leading to hate.
no. in the US they wouldn't be in a refugee camp. they could find a job. have their own home. buy their own food. live their own lives. in a refugee camp you would be trapped in close quarters with no job and little hope. it is a breeding ground for extremist views.
in the us they will live in poverty too, with less food, clothes and skills. then we will have ISIS followers in the us - great idea
my argument is that putting these people in a closed community full of unemployed, poverty stricken people will breed extremism. poor people with no way out turn to extreme solutions to their problems. leaving them in refugee camps simply feeds more extremist Muslims into the hands of ISIS.
so these refugees ate going to say
"we won't be happy until we are in the us with real jobs and rights, we will hate you if you give us food, shelter clothing and skills, by the way in the us we will need food, shelter clothing and skills"
I simply don't understand your argument.
because you want to create ghettos inside syria. these people won't be able to earn a living. they can't have anything approaching a normal life. they will live off charity which no one wants to do. and as history has proven, never works on a large scale. you can't house and feed hundreds of thousands if not millions of people half way around the world. it will be a ghetto. and while they can leave the ghetto where would they go? you won't let them leave the country and going anywhere inside syria is a warzone. it's a false choice. stay inside the ghetto or die.
THEY CAN LEAVE IF THEY WANT.
please explain how giving food, shelter, clothes, protection. and education to people who want it will cause those people to hate you? we are on the same side as them. we want to help.
you think sewing clothes and patching the shacks you will lock these people in will create jobs for hundreds of thousands of people? no you will create massive ghettos. their only means of survival will be charity. they will end up living like animals and hating you for keeping them there. since their only other alternative is death. you would create a whole new generation of Muslims that despise you. that is what feeds organizations like ISIS.
I definitely agree with that Alex. I guess the question then becomes, which is more difficult, more dangerous, and which will be most effective and most likely to get the solution solved quicker: helping them in their own country or helping them in our own countries?
we will not imprison them, if they want to leave they can. We will support them in america if they came, we would also support there trip over. they will not take our jobs, we as citizens may pay the same amount either way, but the refugees would not take our jobs.
also, as with many places these refugees will work. woman can learn to sow, if they don't already know how too. the men can help build and repair homes, and get taught skills.
so instead of bringing them here where they could work and earn a living, you want to put them in a refugee camp where their only supported by your tax dollars. you also have to defend them with soldiers, tanks, razor wire etc. so you would spend billions of dollars to imprison refugees in their own country. that is a bad plan.
fixed it. this app can be crazy sometimes.
I should be neutral, or gray, it has me red for disagree. weird.
I think I agree with most of what you said. I'm neutral in this debate because I think the goverment should not let people into the us to take our jobs, money and add to poverty. I do however think the us should send some military over to these countries people are escaping from, and built housing for these people. this area will be safe ground and air from attacks. this way refugees don't gave to move, we don't have to accept them into our country, and they are safe. everyone but the terrists wins. also in this place we will train people to built and teach basic skills to poor uneducated immigrants, so when the dust settles they can support themselves.
It is very difficult for me to really understand why anybody would disagree with this statement. If somebody needs help, you help them. And while that may require some sacrifice, it should be a major priority to get the situation dealt with. In the context of Syrian refugees, @AstroSpace can you give several reason why we should make them stay in their country? This confuses me: what would we be sending them back to? I know that most people who agree with me would say something like this, but put yourself in the shoes of a Syrian. You and your entire family are in immediate danger. You have to leave, otherwise you WILL be killed. How can we tell these people to just stay put when we are hardly even able to take action within the country? The country seems effectively uninhabitable for certain people, including families. The least we can do is provide a place for them to "wait out the storm". I am aware that this isn't exactly a direct path due to the rules that need to be established and other reasons, but I feel that appropriate accomodations need to be made for the time being, and the people in charge should be able to come up with something. After all, that is their job.
I also feel that sending them back to Syria is comparable to the times that Jewish refugees of the Holocaust were sent back and were annihilated. The world vowed that that would not happen again, yet it is an idea being kicked around by people today.
When it comes to situations like this, I feel that we have a duty to look after the people being hurt. While we are under different governments and of different nations, can we just completely forsake a nation of people when it is not the people but the government that needs to be fixed? Sometimes it is the fault of the people, but the people who caused this situation are not going to run from the fight and become refugees. The refugees are people who don't want this nonsense but who are powerless to end it. How can we turn down hospitality for them?
@Bodaciouslady16 you started the debate, and you disagree, you believe that governments should not take responsibility for the needs of these people, who clearly don't know where else to turn for help. Can you argue with some good reasons?
this is over the Syrian refugees.... and whether or not A government should take responsibility for their humanitarian needs over its national interests
We should make the refugees stay in their own country, if that's what you mean.