View Full Version : How to respond
our communities are always changing. Responding to the refugee crisis I see many changes coming. I welcome refugees, always have, always will. But I am amazed at some of the comments I hear.
In order to our make our communities welcome I need a bit of help. Rather than reacting to negative or racist comments I would like to know how to handle them better. Has anyone ever come across a website that has any advice about this.
For example - when discussing Syria refugees, more than once I have heard a response that centres of terrorists. I think this is ridiculous, but I suppose the person saying it thinks it is a reasonable answer.
Anyhow, folks any thoughts. We want our community to grow and expand and benefit from all the good things every group that has ever arrived on our shores will bring.
People always fear the unknown. Get the fears expressed and explore ways to manage the fears. Show that you have dealt with these fears and are not acting blindly. Handle the emotions first but this will take time and energy until rational thought can take over.
Not all refugees can be easily integrated. Each of us comes with a package of life experiences and many expectations of refugees are unrealistic and not sustainable. Recognize that. Canadian - North American media are appalling in how they have shown the refugee crisis, even manipulated the situation to create sensationalism for $$$ in advertising and to have some infotainment to present.
Germany has tried to provide leadership but the costs are enormous. Easily half the refugees are illiterate requiring enormous investment of resources and, of the literate, many are economic migrants and not genuine refugees but instead seeking the perks and benefits of a social support system. Thee are 13 million genuine refugees recognized by the UN. They have been in camps for years but no media coverage on them even now. Migrants of all sorts change a society and we like our society as it is right now and want to know that changes can be managed to sustain the values and qualities that we treasure at present.
John Mauldin has a newsletter that he sends twice weekly. This was included in a recent one. It is really worth reading.
Daniel Stelter is a very wired German economist and business thinker. He wrote to me a couple days ago, said he had read my remarks on Germany and the immigration crisis in last week’s Thoughts from the Frontline, and recommended to my attention a couple of articles he had just written on the issue. They are today’s Outside the Box.
In his note to me, Daniel says:
I doubt that it will work out as politicians hope. In theory we agree: well-educated people come to Germany to help us deal with the demographic crisis we face. The reality is that a big part of the immigrants will not be able to fulfill these hopes as they are illiterate, etc. We would have to invest heavily to make this happen, but politicians shy away from doing so. I have summarized what the scenarios are and what we would have to do to make it happen in this two-part comment for the Globalist, which you might want to have a look at. To be clear: Germany looks like ending up with more problems than less if we don’t change gears fast.
Germany’s Immigration Challenge
We have to make an honest assessment of costs and benefits of the migration crisis.
By Daniel Stelter
September 13, 2015
Germany is considered a rational, fact-driven country, not an emotionally driven one. And yet, based on the current immigration debate in Germany, even the advocates of more immigration have little more to offer than emotional arguments.
Given our nation’s history, Germans want to help wherever and however possible. Offering asylum to those in danger is deeply rooted in our society and even those who look for a better living are welcomed by a large segment of German society.
The advocates of more openness point to the benefits which an aging and shrinking population receives from more immigration and they see the potential costs as rather minimal, at least for a rich country like Germany.
That is a rather rose-tinted assumption because it underestimates the financial costs, overestimates the benefits from immigration and clearly overestimates the financial capacity of Germany.
Being overly optimistic helps neither the immigrants themselves nor the cause of promoting greater openness in German society.
Tremendous costs
Proponents of more immigration to Germany refer to the shrinking workforce and the significant unfunded liabilities for pensions and health care, estimated at least at about four times the country’s GDP.
The ultimate answer about how significant more immigration is in that context depends on what the net contribution of immigrants is to the German economy.
Aside from the fact that the answer is very contested, even well beyond the realm of politics in the field of academic literature, there is an additional problem. No one can tell for sure, as the qualification of immigrants, especially refugees, is not registered.
Supporters of immigration point to the high number of academics immigrating, such as Syrian doctors. Critics point to a high number of uneducated and illiterate people. Most probably, Germany is receiving a mix of both, very well educated and uneducated people.
Even making a very optimistic assumption – that 50% of the one million immigrants expected in 2015 are well educated, willing to be integrated and want to contribute to the German society, while the other 50% will remain largely dependent on public support – we can make a simple calculation.
If the 50% share of skilled immigrants before long were to earn 80,000 euros on a per capita basis – well above Germany’s average income of about 40,000 euros – and paid taxes of 40%, their annual contribution to society in form of taxes would be about 16 billion euros per year.
Availability of only high-skill jobs
At the same time, assuming a social welfare cost of about 25,000 euros per “non-productive” immigrant, those costs would total 12.5 billion euros annually. That would still leave a positive net contribution to German society and the nation’s economy
This underscores that it is obviously critical from an economic point of view to attract a high share of productive immigrants.
But this matters for more than just economic considerations. As an advanced industrial democracy, Germany offers plentiful immigration opportunities for skilled people.
However, unlike the past when large swaths of low-skilled people came to Germany, the supply of low-skilled jobs in the manufacturing sector is drying up quite rapidly, not least due to the increased automation of German industry.
What is available are jobs in the services economy which require language skills and an ability to do abstract reasoning. Germany ought to be quite focused on this issue – not because it is heartless but prudent.
The country has made plenty of mistakes on the immigration front in the past, which ought not to be repeated. Not embracing an active, skills-based approach to the management of immigration – à la Canada or Australia – was one such mistake.
Does it matter?
Of course, one could conclude that net costs of a few billion per year do not matter for a country as rich as Germany. This is true – but only from the current perspective.
If one shifts from static to dynamic analysis and realizes that immigration into Germany may very well continue at the current speed, the picture looks quite different.
Assuming a total pool of five million immigrants flowing in and a more likely mix of 30% skilled immigrants to 70% unskilled or low-skilled ones, the net costs would rise to 38 billion euros per year.
Over a time horizon of 30 years, this would easily lead to costs of more than one trillion Euros. That is close to the entire costs of German reunification between 1990 and 2010.
Not as rich as it claims
Let’s also understand that Germany is not as rich as it claims. Besides the unfunded liabilities for the aging society of more than 400% of GDP, the strategy to exit from nuclear energy is expected to cost German consumers and businesses about 1 trillion euros.
Even that might be manageable if the euro were structured in a sound manner. As things stand, rescuing the Euro will at least cost another trillion euros. Add in the backlog of investments in public infrastructure and another trillion euros is gone.
A plan for immigration
Obviously, Germany needs to spend its money intelligently. But we also need to change our behavior.
From both an economic point of view, as well as from a humanitarian point of view and from the vantage point of providing of solid integration perspective in German society, we have to make the best out of the wave of immigration coming to Europe and Germany.
Germany: A 10-Point Plan to Deal
With the Immigration Challenge
What does it take to make sure that the immigrants now arriving are integrated in a sustainable manner?
The second submission by Stelter that is worth reading...
Daniel Stelter
September 14, 2015
Reduce bureaucracy
The process of accepting someone as a refugee in Germany takes too long. We need to define safe countries, like Albania, and send immigrants from these countries back directly.
With all sympathy for their interest in a better living, they are not threatened by war or discrimination. On the other hand, refugees from countries in (civil) war should be accepted fast.
Get to work
It is very important to get immigrants into work once they are in Germany. It is bad for both skills and motivation levels if people cannot work.
Learning the German language is of utmost importance and should be mandatory. Ideally from day one onwards, immigrants should have to start learning the language.
And as long as the immigrants don’t have a job, they should do community service. This advances their integration into society and would give a clear signal: Everyone coming to Germany has to contribute to the common good with his or her abilities.
Significant investments in education and integration
We need to register skills in order to find the appropriate job or define the necessary next steps in education. Education will the biggest challenge.
German schools even today fail to integrate and educate the children (and grandchildren) of migrants who have been in the country in some cases for some decades.
The school performance of children from Turkey, the Arab world and Africa is significantly below the average. We need to invest significantly, as this will define which share of migrants will become productive members of our society and which share will depend on social welfare.
Defend our values
Not only skills and language are important. In addition, we need to emphasize our principles and values. This includes freedom of speech and religion, women’s rights, tolerance for minorities and non-violence.
We have to make clear that integration will only work this way and is expected from everyone. Simply arriving is not enough to stay.
Canada, while generally being very welcoming to immigration, every year sends back about 10,000 immigrants – not necessarily for lack of integration, but it is not a one-way street.
Mandatory schooling
Participation in language school and courses on values and rules in Germany need to be mandatory for every new arrival. Just as Brazil does with its bolsa familia, the payment of social welfare should be linked to language and values training.
In doing so, we would convey the image of Germany as we should – a country willing to help, but also a country in which everyone has to make a contribution. Everyone who expects help and support needs to be willing to learn the language.
Recruit qualified immigrants
It is clear that a selection process as in Canada and Australia succeeds in attracting better-qualified migrants.
Besides refugees from war and people in their home countries, who need our support and where economic considerations should play no role, Germany should become more attractive for well-qualified migrants and be more active in advertising the opportunity to build a new life here.
As a consequence, we should actively open the way for legal immigration to Germany. As a result, the applicants could spend their savings on building a new life here, instead of spending it on smugglers.
Permanent
Both sides, the migrants and the German population, need to accept immigration as a lifetime decision. It is not a temporary refuge.
Again, Canada proves the point: If it is seen as permanent, both sides, the migrant and the accepting country, work harder to make integration work.
That has been a particular shortcoming of Germany’s immigration policies in the past, especially regarding Turks.
Help in the poor countries
It would be cheaper and more effective to help the people in safe countries such as Albania, who aim for a better life, with direct financial and organizational support. The EU should invest there and help to build democratic institutions and a working rule of law.
Fostering peace
The current wave of immigration is the result of conflicts which have lasted for decades already – and will likely last decades more.
This is amplified by a demographic development which leads to a high number of young people without a credible perspective of finding a job in their home country. This, in turn, increases the propensity not just for social strife, but even for (civil) war.
The West needs to reconsider its strategy fundamentally. The current U.S.-led approach of favoring military intervention over development aid only leads to even more destabilization.
Be all in
The humanitarian and financial costs of such a strategy are enormous. But if we don’t do this, we will have much higher costs to incur.
Whoever speaks of the benefits of immigration also needs to make sure that all the groundwork is laid so that the possible benefits are also realized. Making the necessary investments can by no means be taken for granted.
In conclusion, the current and future wave of immigration to Germany could be beneficial for our country – but only if we address the challenge with full force.
Unfortunately, it seems as if, just as in the eurozone crisis, that our various countries’ leaderships – Germany’s included – are failing at the task.
There is no denying that any solution involves shouldering huge costs for all citizens, natives and migrants. Those who hope that the wave will end soon should think again: Sub-Saharan Africa’s population is about to grow by 600 million over the next 20 years.
100 million or more of those mostly young people will look for a better life in the north. We had better learn now how to deal with it.
Kally......I'm amazed at some of the comments here too.........but it's the opposite of how you feel.
In my neck of the woods, open spaces have turned into massive homes/businesses/roads, etc. When I drive to places I used to go, I can't even recognize it any more. Traffic is slow or at a standstill, people are on top of people.
I wonder if people who say we have to find place for millions of refugees live in already full areas, or don't value personal space.
It would be like flooding our schools with children who can't speak our language and who have had an extremely different upbringing/culture. It would take away from the children already there.
I realize that some of you all are all "Save everyone! Accept everyone! Give everyone a chance.....with open arms".........but I think that is being naive.......and dangerous.
It's a much larger problem with homo sapiens. We don't know balance at all. We don't seem to fit in with the other animals. We think we have to save every premature baby, everyone with every disease and every cancer, every old person. I think maybe this is our "cross to bear" with having a human mind. Who knows. But I do think that being so accepting all the time of everything will be our downfall. Maybe "christianity" plays into some of you peoples' response to this crises.......and all others. But that's for another post. I truly believe that some of our beliefs will be our undoing.
I'm so very glad the migrant masses aren't at my doorstep, and I don't have to look them in the eyes and decide what to do. I'm not heartless. But you know........I DO have the masses of over-consuming, arrogant, mindless masses knocking at my door now and I don't like it at all.
As I said, I find some comments here really hard to believe............they're just so.., well........naive and unrealistic.
I feel that there is nothing unfair about wanting a certain way of life. There's nothing wrong with fighting for it, even if it has to turn away others.
And I would wager that if some of you were in the midst of the crises in Europe, your feelings might change. Who knows.
Very interesting, razz.. thanks for including those thoughts. I think they are really well-balanced thoughts: being 100% mindful of the challenges (which CathyA refers to), while not betraying core values of inclusivity and human rights. So, yes, it is a lot of work for all nations involved, but, as Stelter points out: the costs for NOT attending to the challenges can be even greater.
CathyA, I understand your concerns, and I acknowledge that my Christian upbringing and the "naive" teachings of Jesus have biased my reaction to the crisis, and any crisis in general. In my life, I've found that my faith absolves me of a lot of fear when my convictions lead me in a certain direction. Maybe I'm stupid and naive, but I have seen what good fearless love can do, and when it's done with right intention and with the right amount of reason, it's a formula for lifting all of us up.
I cannot help but find it odd that people keep talking about Syrians as having an extremely different culture when Christianity and Islam have the same Abrahamic root. I think that a lot of the fear has to do with the similarities the immigrants share with Christian culture. It's not as if a flood of Zen Buddhists are poised to flood into communities, (speaking as a practicing Zen Buddhist). It's a lot easier to fight with your closest kin than with complete strangers.
pcooley, sharing a remote ancestor does not similarity make. When Sunni and Shiite want to annihilate each other, when refugees want Sharia law instead of our legal system, when women are not regarded as equal and sovereign beings and bring those mindsets to different values in our communities, anxiety is to be expected and defensiveness is a legitimate response. So it seems that I disagree with your Zen view of the concerns.
I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church, and maybe you would view Southern Baptists with the same suspicion, but I see very little difference between radical evangelicals and radical Islam. Frankly, I don't feel there are really that many radicals, and the non-radical Christians and non-radical Muslims share the same background of love, respect, and care for each other. I'm sure there are plenty of people still, in the Southeast where I grew up, who would be fully in support of the ten commandments being the basis of the U.S. legal system. But that is all I'm going to say. I did not mean to be divisive in my comment. Love thy neighbor as thyself.
SteveinMN
9-29-15, 10:03am
In the course of America's history, millions upon millions of poor and poorly- (or un-) educated immigrants appeared at our borders. Some -- like my father's parents -- were genuine refugees, fleeing persecution and oppression. Some were economic refugees (the bulk of the Irish and Scandinavians who settled this area). Somehow America was able to incorporate them. All of them became part of the American story and many improved their economic standing and that of their descedants.
Is it just that the magnitude of this crisis makes it different? The dissimilarity of the current crop of immigrants? The fact that Americans have been fighting among themselves for 35 years in the false belief that there is a limit to the size of the pie? I don't know. But the tenor of the discussions regarding Middle Eastern immigrants is quite different from the sentiment expressed on the base of the Statue of Liberty.
sweetana3
9-29-15, 10:27am
Wonder if it is the reaction to the war and 9/11 and the media focus on "muslims" as the cause of all of their angst? I know that many of the people I interact with are afraid for a variety of reasons. And afraid due to the media and what many of their sons or relatives experienced at war. They often do not discriminate between countries or tribes or varieties of Muslim or even whether Muslim or Christian or other.
I understand that the majority of the middle east refugees are those with the forthought and money or assets to get out or send part of their families away to safety. They include whole groups of educated people with all kinds of skills. Amazing stories on Focus on Europe last night on refugees getting all the way thru Russia to the northern parts of Norway. I call this committed.
SteveinMN
9-29-15, 10:41am
Wonder if it is the reaction to the war and 9/11 and the media focus on "muslims" as the cause of all of their angst? I know that many of the people I interact with are afraid for a variety of reasons. And afraid due to the media and what many of their sons or relatives experienced at war. They often do not discriminate between countries or tribes or varieties of Muslim or even whether Muslim or Christian or other.
I understand that the majority of the middle east refugees are those with the forthought and money or assets to get out or send part of their families away to safety. They include whole groups of educated people with all kinds of skills. Amazing stories on Focus on Europe last night on refugees getting all the way thru Russia to the northern parts of Norway. I call this committed.
I see the same hysteria surrounding immigrants from Mexico and Central America. I think the xenophobia around Muslims is part of the issue with Syrians et al., but the hapless suggestions of building walls on American borders are not to keep out many Muslims.
I, too, do not see that the mass of Middle Eastern refugees are poor. They had the not-inconsiderable money to give to rapacious smugglers. They are dressed decently and carry smartphones. Many of the immigrants speak English, indicating they have some higher level of education. I wonder if statistics regarding immigrant illiteracy includes the large number of children among the crowds.
An influx of immigrants like this undoubtedly will strain social services budgets until these folks settle and begin working. But, really, was it any different when Russians landed at Ellis Island? When Hmong landed in California and Minnesota and Wisconsin? I know about "African time" but are Middle Eastern people really recognized for lacking industry and commitment? I'm not seeing that here.
I'm not focusing on them being Muslims. I think I would feel the same if a million people were entering anywhere all at once.
And it makes me crazy when people make references to times long ago. It's a totally different country/world now.
It would be like a family with a lot of land in the distant past. If they had 4 kids, with lots of space and work to do, then it might make sense to consider bringing more people into their family. But many places now are over-crowded and have people who are poor, don't have jobs, don't have good education, etc.
And several times here I'm hearing about how certain countries need workers. Like who? And I'm finding it hard to understand how people on a simple living forum can use growth and development and improving economic standing, etc., etc.....as a good reason to accept more and more people. I just don't get it.
Being known for taking every refugee in, in the past, is not like today. It's sort of like the "right to bear arms" in the constitution. Maybe it was fine then, but look what's happened. Yeah....you had a right to have a musket and a big knife.
It's inappropriate to think the way things were thought out a century or two ago.
Steve.........what sentiments at the base of the Statue of Liberty are being expressed........and by whom? Of course people want to come here.
Like I've said.......I'm seeing the mindset very close to me that more and more and more and bigger and better is playing out, and it's unsustainable.
The hysteria around immigrants is a mixture of fear of other for various reason--the Foxification of news, irrational fear of anyone Muslim* or vaguely Semitic, racism--and the idea that we should tear down the Statue of Liberty and close the doors to the kind of people who made us the vibrant, innovative country that we are. (Because by God, I'm here and that's enough!) I'm sure the same goes for Canada.
Can anyone think of a group of immigrants who haven't made significant contributions to the common good? If you fear the scary other, once again I urge you to find a list of outstanding students, scientists, whatever group of achievers and look at the names listed. Maybe it will open your mind.
*Most of the terrorists in this country are home grown--largely white separatists and anti-government activists (Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, Ted Kaczynski--the list goes on.) For some reason, these people don't count.
Okay........let's see if we can trade all our criminals and dead-beats and really stupid people for newer, smarter, law-abiding, energetic people. I'd be up for that.
Okay........let's see if we can trade all our criminals and dead-beats and really stupid people for newer, smarter, law-abiding, energetic people. I'd be up for that.
Now you're talking.;)
You are not reading the facts presented.
Many of the million are illiterate because they are Afghans, North Africans etc., not because they are children. Adults with no literacy or working skills are difficult to teach or employ in today's economies anywhere. There are no jobs for the local residents who have these limited skills. Adding more to the mix is not wise.
Add the frustration of no employment to the failure to meet vague high expectations and it won't matter what nationality or religious background, problems will be serious. It all takes some serious planning. The OP and many others are assuming that we are talking about just educated Syrians fleeing serious circumstances but the reality is very different. The media are not presenting the facts just playing on the emotions to retain an audience.
From http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c1d.html, the UN Refugee Agency:
These are known and registered refugees. These are forgotten in today's media infotainment.
The latest figures available show that the number of refugees of concern to UNHCR in mid-2014 stood at 13 million refugees, up from a year earlier.
A further 5.1 million registered refugees are looked after in some 60 camps in the Middle East by United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which was set up in 1949 to care for displaced Palestinians.
The refugees of concern to UNHCR are spread around the world, with half in Asia and some 28 per cent in Africa. They live in widely varying conditions, from well-established camps and collective centres to makeshift shelters or living in the open.
More than half of all refugees of concern to UNHCR live in urban areas. They all face three possible solutions: repatriation; local integration or resettlement.
It didn't help that the war in Iraq destabilized that area; now we have Iraqis in the mix. If we hadn't deposed Saddam Hussein, this wouldn't be a problem.
It didn't help that the war in Iraq destabilized that area; now we have Iraqis in the mix. If we hadn't deposed Saddam Hussein, this wouldn't be a problem.Why stop there? Now we've deposed Muammar Gaddafi and are paying insurgents to depose Bashar al-Assad, seemingly so that ISIS can then step in and completely take over the country. Iran has been financing attacks against us since the Carter days and now we're removing the barriers to their developing nuclear weapons to assist in their long held desire to obliterate Israel and the US.
I feel bad for the innocent refugees and think we have a humanitarian responsibility to take as many as we can, but it's foolish to not vet them in some way prior.
I feel bad for the innocent refugees and think we have a humanitarian responsibility to take as many as we can, but it's foolish to not vet them in some way prior.
Yes.........deciding WHO to accept is so important! But I doubt that will happen.......because it just wouldn't be "fair". >8)
Why stop there? Now we've deposed Muammar Gaddafi and are paying insurgents to depose Bashar al-Assad, seemingly so that ISIS can then step in and completely take over the country. Iran has been financing attacks against us since the Carter days and now we're removing the barriers to their developing nuclear weapons to assist in their long held desire to obliterate Israel and the US.
I feel bad for the innocent refugees and think we have a humanitarian responsibility to take as many as we can, but it's foolish to not vet them in some way prior.
I absolutely agree with all your points. We should vet refugees not only for Jihadist leanings, but also for their position on such things as honor killings, genital mutilation, and their enthusiasm for imposing Shariya law on all Americans. (All right, that last one was said in jest--we still have a Constitution, after all--but it seems to be a popular Fox talking point, for some reason.) They should be familiar with our laws and realize they will be bound by them, men and women equally. I'm sure there's some kind of rigorous vetting process in place already; I just hope it's as thorough as I'd like it to be.
I absolutely agree that we should be vetting refugees/immigrants. I fear that even the monolith of the Department of Homeland Security, years after its creation, is not as well equipped to do this as the glossy brochure leads us to believe. But it's the Department we have, so their work will have to do. Until it doesn't.
I have to say I don't agree that things are so different in America now that we can no longer honor the inscription on the Statue of Libery. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door." (Emma Lazarus)
In fact, if anything, I think we're returning to a previous point in American history, the Gilded Age of the late 19th Century, when a small number of families held the money and the power and the 99% scrabbled for what they could get. That circumstance did not stop the flow of Irish, Germans, Poles, Slovaks, Russians, Italians, and others. I'm not saying it was easy on any of the immigrants. (I can only imagine how I would fare, dropped in a country in which I did not know the language or the customs.) Yet these people are part of what made America what it is. They became restaurateurs, plumbers, maids, farmers, skilled tradespeople. They learned English to some degree, and their kids learned better English and became actors, doctors, lawyers, the next generation of electricians. They strove to become citizens and, like any immigrant group, wondered how to keep old customs alive among the new order of America. I cannot believe we want to collectively roll up the docks and keep people out unless they're highly-paid or geniuses. And I cannot see myself letting my ox get gored because the city I live in is expanding around me.
Will it cost money to absorb an influx of people like this? Sure. I'm no more thrilled than anyone else to see my taxes go up. But at least I'll see what my taxes are buying me. I see it in the Hmong and Eastern Africans who moved to Minnesota. It hasn't been a bowl of cherries for them. There is a problem in Minneapolis with Somali and Eritrean kids being recruited into Islamic extremism. The Hmong in the Twin Cities do have their own gangs. But, by and large, they're assimilating as well as any previous group. All this has happened since the 1980s. How different is the country now? Or maybe it's just that Minnesota is more progressive than many places and we just have found a way. *shrug*
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.