Why do countries welcome some refugees and shut others out? | Hacker News Reader

Why do countries welcome some refugees and shut others out?

twitter.com

12 pointscaaqil26 comments

One obvious distinction the article doesn't make, is between people fleeing their country temporarily with intent to return, vs. indefinitely. Syrian refugees have no expectation of ever going back to Syria. Ukrainian refugees can probably go back home within the year.

Many Ukraiians work abroad, mainly in Poland and Germany, but they need some investment for it. Now that so many Ukrainians are in Poland and in Germany, I doubt most will go back anytime soon, especially given the destruction back home.

Whether or not that's the case, they are not perceived as such. Europeans may be mistaken in believing Ukrainians just want temporary shelter and Syrians are coming to stay, but whether it's true or false doesn't matter. It's this belief that affects their attitude.

I did hear on the Bulgarian TV some Ukrainians openly saying: "We're gonna learn the language, we're gonna work in Bulgaria." That won't be news as most of our seasonal work was already done by Ukrainians, but speaking to Ukrainians who do seasonal work in Poland and Germany - they've shared to me that they were often treated as cattle.

Another distinction is that almost all Ukrainian refugees are women and children.

> Ukrainian refugees can probably go back home within the year.

They probably won't go back if they can. Ukraine is a very poor country, at least by European standards. [1]

Because of their brave resistance to the invasion, we tend to see the country in an overly optimistic light.

[1]: It's the poorest country in Europe by nominal GDP per capita: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Ukraine

It's still their home. You're applying your outsider judgement and not considering how the actual people involved might feel. A lot of those refugees are leaving for safety while someone stays behind to fight for a place they can return to.

Until we genetically re-engineer humans to eliminate these primordial instincts, kinship will continue to matter (as the author notes, it is not unique to Europeans). In the current world, it is a short-lived society where it doesn't.

No this is colonial social conditioning. Those same white Europeans werent scoffing at Arab, Persian or Indian scholars in the Renaissance, Romans and Greeks intermarried with Egyptians and Indians, even in the midst of the Crusades Brungandians were making alliences with Siljuks against Italy and the Fatimids didnt fight the crusaders because they were allied to the Bayzentines. And the Ottomans were alloed with Britain at some times and with Germany in World War 2, Boris Johnson himself is a descendent of an Ottoman official. The Ottoman sultan even offered to help with the potato famine in Ireland but was rebuffed by the British queen for giving more than her. There IS kinship, there IS massive history but since the colonial era and probably propped by Darwin and the the Nazis, Europeans have got it into their minds that they are genetically superior and should not even fix the mess they made when they took down the Ottomans and divided the middle east in a compeletely nonsensical way. This isnt even going into the even more messy Cold War history.

There are some typos and of course I meant world war 1. I am typing on a phone keyboard that isnt very accurate.

And yet, Six- to nine-month-old infants demonstrate racial bias in favor of members of their own race and racial bias against those of other races, two new studies conclude. - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170411130810.h...

Is Darwin and colonialism making babies act this way?

Am I alone in saying that some peoples myopic focus on race in general given this conflict is quite frankly disgusting.

Terrible things happen during conflicts that deserve consideration and a myopic focus. Is it wrong to highlight racism, or rape or the abuse of children? The most vulnerable are at risk and deserve attention now more than ever.

It’s wrong to highlight if it distracts from actually assisting Ukrainians.

Her perspective is not unique and is a bit late: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBRwmTVVKQk

I will not be lectured by India, a country who has taken in 10000[1] refugees from Afghanistan (a country a stone's throw away from them) while Hamburg alone as taken 35000[2] Afghan refugees alone.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_in_India#Afghanistan

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghans_in_Germany

Wasn't aware that it was a country lecturing you

If they've taken a lot of Ukrainian refugees, then your point holds a value; the point of their segment was the racism factor. If a country (let's say, India), it's not open to ANY refugees, then it's a different topic.

I know the answer to this! It's melanin and natural resources! The more you have, the less welcome you are!

/thread

To maintain public support for annual refugee acceptance policies.

It depends on your definition of 'refugee'; economic, natural disaster or conflict.

I read a recent report in the Gruaniad that claimed the UK was 'not taking refugees' when in fact the UK was insisting those accepted obtain visas.

The quickest way to destroy public confidence in refugee programs is to allow a free-for-all for anyone who chooses to turn up unannounced.

Of course socialist administrations consider public support irrelevant, until they get voted out.

Didnt UK permit something like 50 visas for Ukrainian refugees so far?

BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-60640460 Fifty Ukrainians have been granted visas under a scheme for refugees with family links to the UK, the Home Office has announced. It is about 1% of the 5,535 people who have applied since the programme launched 48 hours earlier

In this modern age, some moral questions are still a matter of black and white.

They've always been black-and-white, and we all fall into the false dilemma fallacy, but now blatant racism is okay in the Western media once of a sudden.

Well racism...

> Well racism...

No these Ukrainians here are actual war refugees, while a lot of people from middle east / north africa are just economic migrants. The obvious difference between men/women ratio in these successive waves is a demonstration of that. With economic migrants, women stay in the home country while men try to go look for opportunities in the west. This isn't a opportunistic wave here.

It's only racism for the people who want to see racism everywhere.

Germany welcomed more than 2 millions people during the 2015 refugee crisis, but altruism never enough for some here, who feel entitled to everything under pretense of victimhood.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com