Social Uncomfortable Conversations: "The right kind of refugee"

[Islam Imamate]

Great intellectual response. "Also you're not fooling anyone, you don't know any Muslims lmao" coming from a mod none the less. Laughable.

It says a lot about you as a man and a lot about Islam if you consider Saudi Arabia the highlight of the Muslim world lol.

Edit: and most of them don't even migrate, they just go in, make money, and GTFO.

Definition of migrate

to move from one country, place, or locality to another

Btw I never said Saudi Arabia itself is the highlight of the Muslim world on its own, I mentioned the Gulf states generally. The UAE has a much better international profile and is more welcoming to outsiders. Oman's leadership, at least under the last sultan, was also pretty pragmatic.

Again even as MMA fans this is apparent. The UFC is holding about as many events in Abu Dhabi as it holds anywhere outside of North America. In terms of others sports, F1 just held their last GP in Bahrain and scheduled their next one for Saudi Arabia.

There's also tons of foreign investment in these countries. Somehow the Muslim countries that stuck to their traditions instead of taking off their robes for suits and military uniforms turned out to be among the most rich and successful countries not just in the Ummah but in the entire world. Pretty good results for a "garbage" culture.

 

[SandisLL]

t. There are cultural problems in the line of masculine pride leading to aggressive behavior, suppression of women in the family sphere, overall behavior against women and probably some more problems. But the same can be said for christian culture in European countries.

Not with a glance at all.
Since some 300 years ago christians are not thinking that if you do not believe according to their confession you should die and / or automatically are enemy.
Christianity per se doesn't teach violence, pretty opposite.

Christ had told: what you will do to the weak and oppressed I will do the same with you.
Especially protected under christian rules had been supposed orphans, small kids and widows + disabled people.

While if you are going with snake attitude and lies: then this is:


March of the Templars (legenda em latim) - YouTube


Ok, In old times they had been used as political and war power.
Look at this sign: it is Padre Illuminata for educated christians since approx 1200 th A.D.

 

[Ramon Antonio]

Btw I never said Saudi Arabia itself is the highlight of the Muslim world on its own, I mentioned the Gulf states generally. The UAE has a much better international profile and is more welcoming to outsiders. Oman's leadership, at least under the last sultan, was also pretty pragmatic.

Again even as MMA fans this is apparent. The UFC is holding about as many events in Abu Dhabi as it holds anywhere outside of North America. In terms of others sports, F1 just held their last GP in Bahrain and scheduled their next one for Saudi Arabia.

There's also tons of foreign investment in these countries. Somehow the Muslim countries that stuck to their traditions instead of taking off their robes for suits and military uniforms turned out to be among the most rich and successful countries not just in the Ummah but in the entire world. Pretty good results for a "garbage" culture.

I follow the Britannica definition:
human migration, the permanent change of residence by an individual or group; it excludes such movements as nomadism, migrant labour, commuting, and tourism, all of which are transitory in nature. human migration | Definition, Overview, & Facts | Britannica

In any case, instead of arguing about definitions you could've responded to the content. But hey, that would require some effort. Better just dig up your generic reaction memes.

'Garbage culture' are your words. Definitely not shining examples of human rights though. I'm sure you're aware.

And again, you're measuring 'successfulness' in wealth. They have lots of oil and rich people. F1, Fifa, and UFC all want to make money. Why would they not go where the money is?

 

[Bald1]

Funny then how Westerners flock to the most religious and traditional Muslim states in the Gulf. Even the UFC is now calling Abu Dhabi the fight capital of the world and is holding more and more events over there. For such a "garbage" culture they seem to be doing pretty well for themselves.

That last line legit made me lol. You're talking about societies that literally don't do anything for themselves. They don't maintain their revenue generating businesses or even clean their toilets as a rule. The gulf states are literally the Beverly Hillbillies of countries who landed ass first into wealth which helped them superficially move past tribal life. They pay well so people who dislike their way of life flock there. Sounds familiar?

 

[Bald1]

Well there are multiple aspects of this statements that are wrong:

first: this would mean that cultures behave in a vaccuum, but that’s not the case. Western culture is highly influenced and intertwined by other cultures (eastern and mid eastern). probably even more than you would ever think.

second: parts of western culture, especially religion intersect with islam/ middle eastern/ north african culture. For instance treatment of women, lhgtbq+, freedom, human rights, etc.

This literally doesn't address my post.

Everything is built on past accomplishments. Science, the arts and philosophy. Everything, no doubt.

But the past is only a reference point and the here and now is the important thing as we're not time travellers. And by any metric, in the here and now, western ways are more fair, more peaceful, safer and more tolerant than North Africa. And your issue was with the mention of north Africa. As if criticizing it is some sort of a gotcha.

 

[SanchoMF]

But where are the stats showing that? You provided some links to be fair but they're all in French and from the little that I could understand they were categorizing people based on their "origin" which includes 2nd and 3rd generation Maghrebis and doesn't really distinguish them effectively from 1st gen ones. But again I can't read French that well, barely at all really.

French Indochina was rough but Algeria is a unique case because France considered it a legal extension of the homeland, not merely a protectorate. The French also killed a third of the Algerian population during the pacification period, its a very unique experience even among former French colonies.

Its true that various groups have different levels of criminality but that's also true of Muslims. Bengalis in the UK are generally poor and are represented in crimes but not at any rate that is beyond non-Muslim immigrants. They also outperform native whites in schools and yet despite this they have a higher unemployment rate. Something like half of poor Bengali kids go onto university. Pakistanis overall have outcomes. And to complicate things furhter not all Pakistanis are the same. There are Pashtuns, Baloch, and Mirpuris and it seems the third one there, for whatever reason, are the most prone to anti-social outcomes. Indian Muslims seems to be the most effectively assimilated.

In the UK I blame the culture of the Pakistanis more while in France I blame the host country. In the UK they give the Pakistanis more room to preserve their culture(private religious schools and arbitration courts have more legal wiggle room) and so unlike other immigrants you see that they're birth rate doesn't go down and the more vulnerable among them remain unassimilated(struggle to learn English, perform poorly in schools etc). Pakistanis, despite coming from a more developed country, also seem to perform worse at school and have higher crime rates than Bengalis. Pakistanis are even more light skinned so I imagine Bengalis experience more bigotry(some of which is at the hands of British Pakistanis). Basically they're more or less similar to the populations they emigrated from.

In France I think the host country is more to blame via its assimilation policy of throwing Maghrebi into soulless concrete blocks as well as keeping them unemployed via their dumb labor laws and welfare state. Combine that with the culture of laicite and how that alienates Muslims and its a shitshow. The UK's overall culture is less hostile to religious Muslims when compared to France so there I blame the Muslims(specifically Mirpuri Pakistanis) more.

I'm not denying the fact that there are problematic Muslim communities in Europe. My issue is that in threads like this there's often little thought as to how the shot country is causing problems as well as the nuances between various Muslim groups. In another thread I pointed out that Hungarian immigrants to Canada are prone to crime just like Muslims. All the right wingers got defensive and pointed out that its mostly Roma from Hungary. Fair enough, its always good to add nuance. But the nuance disappears when talking about Muslims and all these vastly different communities and their particular problems and origins gets lumped into the "Muslim question" for which there are easy answers. I reject that though.

All the sources are, of course, in French and it's not we have to worry about them one day starting to publish in other languages...

I'm making my statements based on the nationality of the perpetrators so this is incarcerated non-French nationals (race-related stats are illegal in France and French nationals are classified as French), secondly I'm using the crime statistics of the unsupervised, underage-claimed suspects from the Maghreb that aren't French nationals.
One of my lofty assumptions is that I'm assuming the perpetrators are young, without looking at their ages.. Hard to imagine that it's a bunch of grandpa's committing violent robberies or such.
The 'unaccompanied minors' shouldn't be interpreted directly, as states the directrice of DSPAP :
We take the fingerprints of the suspects in police custody, we put them in international format and the Central Directorate of the Judicial Police and the Directorate of International Cooperation, send them to our security officers in Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. These security officers forward them to the local authorities, who compare them to their automated fingerprint file. These are files that contain the fingerprints of all nationals who have applied for an identity card, unlike the automated fingerprint file (FAED) French which only contains the fingerprints of people who have committed offenses.
In Paris, Seine-Saint-Denis, Seine et Marne and Val-de-Marne : 1,122 requests were sent to the Algerian, Moroccan and Tunisian authorities, for 256 returns. In the overwhelming majority of cases (95%), the suspects are found to be adults..
-
So there's quite a lot to untangle, there's already a public debate about it because the phenomena is quite crazy, not mentioning how this is allowed by the families and authorities across the mediterranean..(https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/15/rapports/cion_lois/l15b3974_rapport-information)
Anyway, these young guys, the prison population and the 2nd + 3rd generation in the banlieues are a problem that needs to be addressed. Ignoring and hushing about these things got us where we are today..

Good points : both the host nations and the Muslim communities are very different culturally between France and the UK. And like there are vast differences in the cultures of origin of the UK-Muslims, so are there even within the Maghrebs with Tunisia being the least represented in crime statistics unlike Marocco and Algeria. In regards to Indian Muslims I have to agree, although my experiences are very limited and the are maybe few thousand in France overall.
A lot has been mismanaged in France but what you're writing isn't something that happened only to the Maghrebs, in regards to housing etc : There was a desperate need of housing for the ouvriers during the 30 glory years and in the midst of it all there was even bigger need to house the Pied Noirs and to a lesser degree the Berber jews and for a moment this was the cultural mix of the suburbs.
Shitty housing was the reality for many, not only to the Maghrebs while the others got out (and basically all the jews and the pied noirs came in a short time and left through social mobility), the Maghreb immigration basically still continues still today, winged by the Sub-Saharan African immigrants.. And that's a whole another story.
And laicite is part of the Republican life in France and it's part of the nation's code weather one likes it or not.
If people want to live here, they're expected to comply in addition to the laws of the Republic.
UK has made concessions to Muslim communities, but I don't think that's such a great idea either.
One has to ask themselves if they are ready to live in the new culture and country without grudge, even if it means letting go off something that might be considered part of everyday life in the country and culture of origin.

As we are talking about 'big things', spanning decades and some times centuries, we're generalising a lot.
I'm still able to understand how things work on individual level and how much social class, upbringing and education have to do with how one behaves or carries themselves. In some communities certain behaviour is applauded or accepted and in others the same behaviour is harshly judged with a threat of one being an outcast.
Obviously not all Maghrebs are racaille, but many are and in some communities it's accepted as normal behaviour, shit even encouraged. The greater society should never accept it.

 

[So Fresh]

Not with a glance at all.
Since some 300 years ago christians are not thinking that if you do not believe according to their confession you should die and / or automatically are enemy.
Christianity per se doesn't teach violence, pretty opposite.

Christ had told: what you will do to the weak and oppressed I will do the same with you.
Especially protected under christian rules had been supposed orphans, small kids and widows + disabled people.

While if you are going with snake attitude and lies: then this is:


March of the Templars (legenda em latim) - YouTube


Ok, In old times they had been used as political and war power.
Look at this sign: it is Padre Illuminata for educated christians since approx 1200 th A.D.

So you’re saying women weren’t oppressed by christians since forever? You’re saying christians are open to lghbtq+ people and culture? You’re saying christians didn’t wage war, killed people, tortured people, burned “witches”, etc.

Islam doesn’t teach violence too, Islam also teaches to take care of the poor and needy. You know that Islam is derived from christianity right?

 

[SandisLL]

Islam doesn’t teach violence too, Islam also teaches to take care of the poor and needy.

Like Jesus Christ had taught too, yeah.

You know that Islam is derived from christianity right?

No, I'm not enough skilled in religions to know roots of Islam.
I had to read Koran translated in english and russian etc things.
However I have very low skills about Islam.

 

[So Fresh]

Like Jesus Christ had taught too, yeah.


No, I'm not enough skilled in religions to know roots of Islam.
I had to read Koran translated in english and russian etc things.
However I have very low skills about Islam.

Yes well then you should know that what is taught by jesus doesn’t always translate well to practice

 

[SandisLL]

Yes well then you should know that what is taught by jesus doesn’t always translate well to practice

Sadly yes. However in last 300 years Christians had improved and are not so dumb and easily to manipulate with than earlier.
Ofc a lot are irl only on paper, however if ppl had learned things Jesus or prophet Muhammad had taught then world had been not so bad as it is today.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I follow the Britannica definition:
human migration, the permanent change of residence by an individual or group; it excludes such movements as nomadism, migrant labour, commuting, and tourism, all of which are transitory in nature. human migration | Definition, Overview, & Facts | Britannica

In any case, instead of arguing about definitions you could've responded to the content. But hey, that would require some effort. Better just dig up your generic reaction memes.

'Garbage culture' are your words. Definitely not shining examples of human rights though. I'm sure you're aware.

And again, you're measuring 'successfulness' in wealth. They have lots of oil and rich people. F1, Fifa, and UFC all want to make money. Why would they not go where the money is?

"Garbage cultures" are the words of another poster I was reacting to.

I'm not just talking about wealth though. Dubai and Abu Dhabi are among the safest cities in the world and in terms of national satisfaction the US is tied with the UAE and below Malaysia and Brunei. They're generally all around great places to live and work aside form some strict laws but that's not unique to Muslim countries, Singapore also has strict laws as well and its similarly developed.

Latin America is full of natural resources but is also the most unsafe region of the world when it comes to violent crime and excluding war. And much of its population lives in squalor. So merely having valuable resources does not translate to wealth and safety.

That last line legit made me lol. You're talking about societies that literally don't do anything for themselves. They don't maintain their revenue generating businesses or even clean their toilets as a rule.

But that also applies to Western nations. In the US the agricultural and construction industries are completely dependent on migrant labor and those are critical industries. If the Gulf Arabs won't even clean their own toilets then as a rule Americans don't pick their own food or build their own houses

But its not just low skilled laborers either. In key industries like tech, finance, medicine, and public research you find that immigrant labor is crucial. Michio Kaku explains this well

If you don't or can't watch the video he points out that 50% of all PhD students in the US are foreign born and in his own program 100% of the candidates are foreign born. And many of them come from Muslim countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh.

The gulf states are literally the Beverly Hillbillies of countries who landed ass first into wealth which helped them superficially move past tribal life. They pay well so people who dislike their way of life flock there. Sounds familiar?

This is the classic line but it just doesn't work given that the oil rich secular republics are all behind the oil rich traditional monarchies.

Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen all had varying levels of oil reserves and are now failed states. Algeria also has significant oil reserves but lags behind the Gulf in development. Latam countries also has a lot of natural resources but are far less safe and developed than the Gulf nations. Look at Venezuela, it has the largest proven oil reserves in the world and its economy is in a death spiral.

I also find it telling that no one explains the success of the West in such terms. The UK had coal and the US has an abundance of strategic resources of all kinds as well as vast tracts of arable land and navigable waterways. And of course Western colonial countries engaged in wide scale plunder of the Global South while it could. Huntington said it best

The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.

 

[Brampton_Boy]

Send the blacks to Israel, or India, or Saudi Arabia.

How come only the white Euro countries have to take these freeloaders in?

Why is that question never answered? Why in the hell were these people in Ukraine to begin with?

Why don't you tell us how you really feel.

For what it's worth, alot of the minorities in Ukraine were there to attend school.

They pay international fee rates, which universities are more than happy to accept as it helps offset declining local enrollment. This isn't some form of charity, it's a reciprocity that benefits both parties.

While I don't know how many of the blacks in Ukraine were there to study, I'm curious as to why you defaulted to them being free loaders?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Why don't you tell us how you really feel.

For what it's worth, alot of the minorities in Ukraine were there to attend school.

They pay international fee rates, which universities are more than happy to accept as it helps offset declining local enrollment. This isn't some form of charity, it's a reciprocity that benefits both parties.

While I don't know how many of the blacks in Ukraine were there to study, I'm curious as to why you defaulted to them being free loaders?

You're not curious, you know exactly why.

 

[Brampton_Boy]

"Garbage cultures" are the words of another poster I was reacting to.

I'm not just talking about wealth though. Dubai and Abu Dhabi are among the safest cities in the world and in terms of national satisfaction the US is tied with the UAE and below Malaysia and Brunei. They're generally all around great places to live and work aside form some strict laws but that's not unique to Muslim countries, Singapore also has strict laws as well and its similarly developed.

Latin America is full of natural resources but is also the most unsafe region of the world when it comes to violent crime and excluding war. And much of its population lives in squalor. So merely having valuable resources does not translate to wealth and safety.

But that also applies to Western nations. In the US the agricultural and construction industries are completely dependent on migrant labor and those are critical industries. If the Gulf Arabs won't even clean their own toilets then as a rule Americans don't pick their own food or build their own houses

But its not just low skilled laborers either. In key industries like tech, finance, medicine, and public research you find that immigrant labor is crucial. Michio Kaku explains this well

If you don't or can't watch the video he points out that 50% of all PhD students in the US are foreign born and in his own program 100% of the candidates are foreign born. And many of them come from Muslim countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh.

This is the classic line but it just doesn't work given that the oil rich secular republics are all behind the oil rich traditional monarchies.

Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen all had varying levels of oil reserves and are now failed states. Algeria also has significant oil reserves but lags behind the Gulf in development. Latam countries also has a lot of natural resources but are far less safe and developed than the Gulf nations. Look at Venezuela, it has the largest proven oil reserves in the world and its economy is in a death spiral.

I also find it telling that no one explains the success of the West in such terms. The UK had coal and the US has an abundance of strategic resources of all kinds as well as vast tracts of arable land and navigable waterways. And of course Western colonial countries engaged in wide scale plunder of the Global South while it could. Huntington said it best

When I was doing my PhD, 80% of students were foreign born, the vast majority from Iran, India and China.

As a professor, I would say at least half of our doctoral students, and the majority of our faculty are foreign born.

While there are drawbacks to mass scale immigration, a significant portion of immigrants are highly skilled and are vital at driving the knowledge economy.

With that being said, outside of a handful of extreme right wing posters, most people in this thread acknowledge that they would welcome skilled immigration. The issue is that a few bad apples spoil the bunch - immigrants as a whole have to fight the reputation of being lazy, refusing to assimilate etc.

 

[Bald1]

When I was doing my PhD, 80% of students were foreign born, the vast majority from Iran, India and China.

As a professor, I would say at least half of our doctoral students, and the majority of our faculty are foreign born.

While there are drawbacks to mass scale immigration, a significant portion of immigrants are highly skilled and are vital at driving the knowledge economy.

With that being said, outside of a handful of extreme right wing posters, most people in this thread acknowledge that they would welcome skilled immigration. The issue is that a few bad apples spoil the bunch - immigrants as a whole have to fight the reputation of being lazy, refusing to assimilate etc.

There's a huge difference between immigrants, migrants and refugees. Warning: generalizations incoming.

Immigrants typically move to a new place seeking a new life. Most become permanent residents. The vast majority of immigrants are an economic boom to their new homes and make the decision to become a part of the fabric of their new homes. This means assimilation. Here it means they want to become Canadians instead of living their whole lives in enclaves where they never need to learn the language or deal with those they think of as lesser. You've seen this as have I. But people so want to ignore the reality that many newcomers look down on Canadian culture. It's a dirty secret people don't talk about. Same thing happens the world over.

Migrants are there for the money. As with Mexicans in the US this is typically a mutually beneficial relationship. At least on the surface. Migrants tend to work cheap so undercutting the value of labor. These people are less dedicated to the new country than immigrants as the motivation is mostly financial so assimilation takes a back seat.

Refugees are poor bastards who are literally seeking refuge from whatever. The lack of choice makes them less likely to assimilate so tend to keep their identity and cultural norms more than the other two groups. And that lack of willingness to integrate bleeds into following generations. Anyone familiar with newcomers has seen this.

The situation in Europe has been a mix of the last two these last 6 years. But with lots of economic opportunists masquerading as refugees. And why shouldn't they try to take advantage of opportunities?

The above is a simplification as things are changing rapidly and people move much more freely now than even 30 years ago. For example, it would have been a really bad idea for my family to go visit the old country until the mid 90s. So there's a lot of bleed over now between the groups.

Regardless, mass acceptance of newcomers is a bad idea if you want to keep your culture intact. People tend to stick with those they're familiar with after all. Chinatowns and little Italy's are in every major North American city, right? NE Calgary is turning into Bramladesh as well. Does me acknowledging that make me xenophobic or racist? Lol. Nope, but some would like to label me such in an effort to shut me up. As you said, this is an uncomfortable conversation. I don't care about race, but fuck all those who flock to Canada and try to turn it into the same places they left in pursuit of a better future. There's a reason we've more opportunities and a more accepting culture where everyone can make a better life for themselves and their kids. And it's not because of idiotic traditions like the one that saw my neighbor send his daughter to London Ontario because of an arranged marriage. She's back, btw, because her husband turned out to be a caveman from Lebanon who expected her to shut her mouth and do as she's told.

Us here in the new world are more willing to accept diversity, but we're new countries without the solid foundation of the old. So there's that. So it's no surprise Europe is more willing to open doors to those they see as relatives instead of those they see as almost alien.

So while I don't blame people for trying to make a better life for themselves, I do blame governments acting irresponsibly by being too accepting, not doing their due diligence as to who we accept and being welcoming at the expense of citizens who could benefit from the help they so generously provide to others.

As for culture? Hell, we had to jump through all sorts of hoops coming here in the early 80s. Why? Because the criteria for acceptance was much higher. Will you become Canadians? Do you accept our way of life? Are you going to behave yourself? And I think those are vital questions and demands to make of those who want our help.

Tl/Dr: way too long of a post, but this isn't a simple conversation. Despite what those crying racism would have anyone believe.

 

[KeepingItReal]

When I was doing my PhD, 80% of students were foreign born, the vast majority from Iran, India and China.

As a professor, I would say at least half of our doctoral students, and the majority of our faculty are foreign born.

While there are drawbacks to mass scale immigration, a significant portion of immigrants are highly skilled and are vital at driving the knowledge economy.

With that being said, outside of a handful of extreme right wing posters, most people in this thread acknowledge that they would welcome skilled immigration. The issue is that a few bad apples spoil the bunch - immigrants as a whole have to fight the reputation of being lazy, refusing to assimilate etc.

They are vital to driving the price of knowledge work down, which mostly serves the rich of Western countries. It's strange to me that having a large pool of highly skilled, highly educated immigrants is seen as a good thing when it's driving the wages of highly skilled, highly educated natives way way down. It's almost as if people in Western countries hate their fellow man and want him to do worse for himself.

 

[ryan3434]

I want to preface this by saying that the situation in the Ukraine is tragic, and civilians looking to leave the country should be welcomed by others who have the capacity to take them in.

With that being said, the Ukrainian crisis has highlighted the disparate response by the western world in how it perceives and treats refugees. Some people have been very blunt in their assessment of the situation

"These are not refugees from Syria, these are from Ukraine, they are Christians, they are white, they look very similar to us."

“It’s really emotional for me because I see European people with blue eyes and blonde hair being killed…”

There are dozens of examples of this, but you get my point - the humanitarian response to the Ukrainian crisis has been overwhelming, with millions of dollars being donated to help provide aide, countries opening their borders to welcome displaced people. Canada is even offering immediate work permits and access to social services, while some of our universities are eliminating tuition for foreign students from the Ukraine.

I am not principally opposed to any of these things - I think that when you have the ability to help, you should help. I am more interested in hearing your thoughts as to why there is a double standard - the notion of a "good refugee" and a "bad refugee". Is it something as simple as race, or are their dimensions of the Ukrainian conflict that make the world more sympathetic to their displacement?

Personally, I think there are three primary drivers:
1) The most obvious one being race and to a lesser degree, religion. Given that Ukrainian's "look like us" and their culture and values are seemingly more compatible and relatable to the average Westerner.
2) Ukraine enjoyed a (relative) degree of affluence and development relative to other countries prone to conflict, and their displacement is seen as something that nobody would have expected. If it could happen there, it could happen here.
3) There are broader global implications associated with the conflict and Russia being seen as a growing aggressor. As a result, we want to support Ukraine and its people, in a demonstration to show countries like Russia and China that the world will not tolerate bullies.

I do however find it somewhat perverse that we are able to generate hundreds of millions of dollars to support Ukraine and it's people, but the world balks at providing meaningful aid to war torn countries where children are literally starving to death. When Syrian refugees were fleeing the Putin backed Assad regime, they were turned away at gun point or faced razor wire fences. There are numerous stories of families who walked hundreds of kilometers to flee gang violence in Central America, only to be turned away by American border agents.

This is a topic that hits closer to home, as I once worked on a project in Yemen (Kharaz refugee camp) and witnessed saw what the ravages of civil war could do to displaced people.

If we have room for one, but not the other, what should the guiding criteria be? What makes a good refugee, and why do we have sympathy for some, but not all?

For the record, this isn't some sort of race baiting topic, I am genuinely curious - every country should have the right decide who they let in, using whatever criteria they want.

Canada is third or 4th (top 5 anyways) for Ukrainian population.. PM Sunnyways is thinking about those desperately needed future votes.
I'm sure race has a small part in it but I'm thinking it's more being able to vet said refugees. And the fact it's women and children as compared to 20-30 year old males. With Ukrainians we probably won't see 20 year olds being placed in grade 8 classes lol

Edit just noticed your user name lol. I think Bramptons demographics is a pretty good example of our immigration policies over the past few decades.

 

[Islam Imamate]

When I was doing my PhD, 80% of students were foreign born, the vast majority from Iran, India and China.

As a professor, I would say at least half of our doctoral students, and the majority of our faculty are foreign born.

While there are drawbacks to mass scale immigration, a significant portion of immigrants are highly skilled and are vital at driving the knowledge economy.

With that being said, outside of a handful of extreme right wing posters, most people in this thread acknowledge that they would welcome skilled immigration. The issue is that a few bad apples spoil the bunch - immigrants as a whole have to fight the reputation of being lazy, refusing to assimilate etc.

That post was in the context of a different discussion. He was sneering at the fact that the Gulf states rely on both high and low skill foreign labor so I just pointed out that this is true of Western countries, especially of the US which is the greatest of them all.

That's just the nature of a dynamic, modern economy.

Tl/Dr: way too long of a post, but this isn't a simple conversation. Despite what those crying racism would have anyone believe.

No one is saying that the reason the Ukrainian refugees are being allowed in is because of racism.

Rather what @Brampton_Boy and I are pointing out is that there have been comments in the mainstream media that explicitly contrast Ukrainian refugees against Syrian and other Mideast ones specifically based on their race which comes off as racist and hints that race is a factor here. But the real power brokers most likely don't care about race or religion in such conflicts, they make decisions based on their national self interest which in this case aligns somewhat with that of Ukraine and its people.

There was one poster crying racism because Sweden is reluctant to allow in Ukrainian refugees despite no references to race in that decision, the same poster who accused TS of pulling the unjustly race card for pointing out journalists and public figures commenting on the race of refugees.