economic refugee

pain-in-the-bass  asked:

A German friend of mine claims that the refugees in Germany aren't contributing to society and are draining the economy. You guys have anything on hand I can use to prove them wrong?

“Refugees = drain on German economy.”  Your friend, having posited this hypothesis, now has to provide supporting evidence.  The burden of proof lies with them. 

Of course in doing so, your friend will have to explain the following:

a) if refugees have been such a drain on the economy, why has per capita GDP in Germany increased every year for the last six years? 

(SOURCES: x, x, x, x)

b) if refugees have been such a drain on the economy, why has unemployment in Germany gone down every year for the last six years?

(SOURCES: x, x, x, x)

b) if refugees have been such a drain on the economy, why has the Germany economy grown every year for the last four years?* 

(SOURCES: x, x, x, x)
(*Bloomberg News is reporting that Germany’s 2016 economic growth was fueled by “domestic demand” - the kind of domestic demand created in part by thousands of people arriving with nothing and having to replace everything!)

Seems to us that any reasonable person that wasn’t a xenophobic shitbag would look at the data and have to conclude that, if anything, refugees have been a positive impact on the German economy.  This is probably due in part to the thousands of new jobs and billions of € in new social housing that’s been created in Germany as a direct result of the arrival of refugees.  

It’s not just in Germany, either.  Sweden, which is the European country that is hosting the largest number of refugees per capita, is experiencing an economic boom as a result.  Other countries that have enjoyed the economic benefits of refugees and other migrants include Australia, Canada, Kenya, the UK, and the USA.

This shouldn’t be surprising to anyone that bothers to think about it.  Thousands of refugees arriving to a country = thousands of people that need to replace all the things they left behind + a very real incentive for host countries to spend money on social housing, education, etc. instead of giving that money away to billionaires in tax cuts, etc. like they’d normally do.  Refugees are going to spend the money they have in the communities they’re making homes in, not hide it in a tax evasion scam or in a Swiss bank account or spend it on a luxury vacation in an exotic locale.

You want the most glaring example of the refugee economic effect in semi-recent history?  The Mariel boatlift, 1980: 124,000 Cubans were exiled from the country; nearly all of them arriving in Miami that year - a city with a population of around 300,000 at the time.  What impact do you think the arrival of 124,000 penniless Cubans had on Miami’s economy?  Well, if you listen to the economist that studied this, you’ll find that the impact was neither none @ all or it actually created more jobs than were taken up by the Cuban newcomers.

Your “friend” is full of shit.  Time to make some new friends.


anonymous asked:

Have there been any serious moves to push sharia law somewhere in the U.S? I understand completely why someone would be against sharia law, but why is the protest being held in the U S?

In the USA? Not that I’m aware of. That sort of shit just wouldn’t fly in the USA like it does in Western Europe. I think that’s part of the reason why there’s protests in the USA– we see the normalization, acceptance, and promotion of Sharia Law in Western Europe. We see how it has negatively effected, harmed, and killed millions of people throughout the world, and when we see such a thing move into Western Europe, we realize that it may have potential to come here despite our own intolerance of it. Quite frankly, the fact that many American leftists have sympathized with it is reason enough for us to feel concerned.

Also, it shouldn’t be controversial to say that Sharia Law is evil. The fact that it’s become controversial is another reason to feel alarmed. It violates western morals and ethics. When our morals and ethical views begin to dwindle, it contributes to societal collapse.

There have been many refugees from the Middle East (and I mean ACTUAL refugees, not economic migrants) who flee to escape Sharia Law. I imagine it’s probably infuriating for a lot of these people to see a bunch of pseudo intellectual assholes try and normalize something as evil as Sharia Law.

lol the EU and Europe have a lot of challenges relating to economics, terrorism and the refugee crisis but i’m sick to death of people who don’t even live here oversimplifying, distorting and warping the situation here to score their cheap political points. suddenly everybody is an expert on Europe, including people who couldn’t point our cities out on the map before, or even describe the political machinery of the European Union. the way these folks talk you’d think it was the sack of constantinople or the collapse of the entire roman empire happening right now. please button it. i live here. my friends live here. that is not what is going on. we have issues just as the US has its own numerous problems, but we are coping and adapting. 

nuance please, bring it back. and cut out the oversimplification and hysteria. 

I can’t believe some people think refugees want to come to their countries.

Do you really think Syrians want to displace themselves and come to your country with nothing but the clothes on their backs because they want to ‘steal your jobs’? 

Trust me, your country is the last place they wanna be. Have you ever heard a Syrian speak about their country? They love their country. They love it so much it physically hurts to listen to the deep sadness in their voices whenever they talk about it and remember what it has become. 

Rich or poor, there is no place like home. They just wish they could go back to their homes. Pass by any little store here in Egypt that’s run by a refugee family, and you’ll usually hear them playing music by Syrian artists, telling stories about home and doing whatever else they can to create a bubble of familiarity, and forget for a little that they’re not home. 

anonymous asked:

Hey Aisha!! I hope this doesn't sound insensitive or anything however I've been learning about the Arab-Israeli conflict in class and since I've stumbled across your blog I've been extremely interested in your content!! Is it okay if I ask for your opinion on the Arab-Israeli Peace Process(e.g. Camp David Accords, Madrid Peace Conference, Oslo Accords and the Israeli-Jordanian Peace Agreement)? How effective do you think these events were in establishing peace?

thank you so much <3

to put it very simply, these peace treaties by no means aim to establish peace, and the past decades have proven so. what these peace agreements do achieve, however, can be summed as follows;

cementing an apartheid system: reviewing the first twenty years alone of oslo, we see a massive growth of illegal settlements (from 160,000 at the time of signing to more than 650,000 in 2013), an apartheid system was cemented not only through checkpoints and permit systems, but also through dividing the west bank into areas a, b and c, the latter being over 61% of the west bank which israel had isolated under its full control to allow for more settlement expansion and eventually to annex the land to israel. moreover, we have also witnessed imposing a brutal siege on the gaza strip, as well as the continuation of resource theft and land confiscation and separation of communities through the building of the apartheid wall and continuation of putting palestinians under israeli military rule.

provide israel with a cover: while israel continues its systematic apartheid policies, it still enjoys full impunity and that is because these peace agreements have always worked as a shield for israel to hide behind and avoid accountability and continue its breaches of international law under the premise of “we’re working on it and we have peace negotiations to prove it”.

“only free men can negotiate”: clearly, the aim behind these “peace agreements” is anything but the establishment of peace. but even if we entertained the idea that it was, it would be naive for us to completely ignore the power dynamics between the parties involved as it is a clear case of oppressor vs the oppressed. negotiations only make sense when both sides are equal, otherwise they’re futile. it is inconceivable to negotiate colonial occupation and debate illegal activities like land theft or basic rights like the right to free movement.

force palestinian concession: if anything, these treaties and negotiations aim at reconciliation which in turn means undermining palestinian resistance and sacrifices. in fact these agreements do criminalise palestinian resistance and paint it as a form violence which the palestinian side (or egyptian or jordanian side) has to pledge to reject in order for the negotiations to commence. needless to say, this harms and obstructs any efforts towards justice.

normalising relations with israel: another thing they achieve is normalising and rationalising the occupation. they allow israel to continue its repression against palestinians without it being threatened or challenged. by normalising relations between these states and israel, they validate israeli colonialism and accept its occupation and crimes which in turn protects israel from any genuine decolonisation or accountability. there can be no resolution through establishing free-trade or “easing” some restrictions or border control agreements.

palestinian statehood: in relation to the point above, we need to always remember that neither one of these agreements promise palestinian statehood and they have no intention of recognising fundamental palestinian rights. in fact, then israeli prime minister yitzhak rabin declared upon the signing of the oslo accords that “we do not accept the Palestinian goal of an independent Palestinian state between Israel and Jordan. We believe there is a separate Palestinian entity short of a state.” and then again more recently, when the palestinian authority was pushing for recognition at the UN for example, israeli and US officials have deemed the PA’s attempts as harmful to the peace process. this shows how peace agreements only work to advance israeli narrative and all else, including palestinians’ self-determination, is off the table.

marginalising palestinians: let’s also not forget how these agreements are done at the expense of palestinians. while their rights are being gambled by higher-ups, the majority of palestinians (refugees, diaspora and those living inside isarel) are unrepresented and further isolated as more land is annexed and their rights annulled. as edward said put it, “It is perfectly in keeping with the colonial spirit of the peace process that Israel and the United States are at bottom delighted to give us symbols of sovereignty, such as a flag, while witholding real sovereignty, the right of return for all refugees, economic self-sufficiency, and relative independence. I have always felt that the meaning of Palestine is something more substantial than that.”

of course this is by no means inclusive of all the negative impacts of the “peace process” circus and there is much depth to it (such as the collapse of the palestinian market due to the US neo-liberal conceptions of the process) and i would also suggest reading edward said’s the end of the peace process. 

anonymous asked:

So if I were to offer you a bowl of metaphorical skittles with the chance of some being poisoned, you would eat them? If so, you put the safety of yourself, your fellow countrymen, the culture and the country itself at risk. That's with ignoring the overwhelming evidence that the so called "refugees" are not refugees but economic migrants, rapists and terrorists. Or all 3. So unless you want a repeat of Cologne, Paris or Nice, don't be such a retard.

The fucking bullshit skittles nonsense?  ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?

You fucking idiot, we just dealt with your bullshit skittles metaphor.  Which, by the way, was originally coined by Julius Steicher, who was demonizing Jews.  Yes, the same Julius Steicher that was hung at Nuremberg.  Fucking read something before you make a total ass of yourself next time.

Overwhelming evidence that refugees are rapists & terrorists?  Show & prove, son.  Because in Germany (you know, the country taking in more refugees than any other European country), it turns out that there is absolutely zero correlation between refugees and any increase in sex crimes.  In fact, German crime stats show that despite giving shelter to 1.2 million refugees, there has been no uptick in crime whatsover.  Well, with the exception for a five-fold increase in attacks on refugee shelters by dipshit xenophobes like you. 

Has there been any terrorist attacks committed by actual refugees on their host countries?  Not in Cologne, not in Paris, and not in Nice, motherfucker.  None of those assholes were refugees.  Get your facts straight.    

The U.S. has harboured 750,000 refugees over the last 15 years.  Guess how many have committed an act of terror in the U.S.?  ZERO!

If you’re soooooo worried about terrorists, you fucking racist liar, then you should be pressing to deport nazi shits like yourself, since in the U.S. they are twice as likely to kill people in terror attacks than any sort of “jihadist”; in Europe bigots like yourself are five times more likely to kill someone in a terror attack than any kind of religiously-motivated terrorist.

Us, we’re more worried about what would happen if we didn’t take in refugees.  For example, the four Syrian refugees in Hamilton, Canada that stopped an arson attack & caught the arsonist wouldn’t have been around to put out the fire and arrest the asshole.  Or the Syrian refugees that, even though they basically have nothing themselves, raised money to help the people of Fort MacMurray, Canada when their entire town caught fire.  “We understand what they’re feeling. When you lose everything, you have to start from zero. You lose your memories, your items. It’s not easy. It’s something very sad. We can totally understand their feeling,” said Syrian refugee & fundraising organizer Rita Khanchet.  Yeah, I bet Canadians really regret letting her into their country.  

Economic migrants?  Fuck off with that.  There are now 59.5 million refugees in the world.  63% of them originate from Afghanistan, the DRC, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria. You think people leave their whole lives behind and take just what they can carry and risk their lives & the lives of their families for kicks?  Ask someone to slap some sense into your empty, entitled head.      

Oh, you’re worried about how refugees will affect your precious country’s culture?  Like we said not two weeks ago, prioritizing your country’s “culture” (which we guess is like a precious museum piece that must be kept in a magic cultural vacuum lest it be HORRIBLY CORRUPTED SHOULD ANY INFLUENCE OUTSIDE OF ITS PRECIOUS BORDERS LEAKED IN!  BETTER GET OFF THE INTERNET RIGHT NOW BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE & YOU RUIN YOUR COUNTRY’S CULTURE FOREVER!!!) over the lives of other human beings is the most fucking cowardly, shitty thing we can imagine.  What kind of monster would say “sorry refugees, you’ll have to continue to risk your lives because I don’t want you introducing different food or folk dances or whatever to my magical fairy-country that has no cultural influences from outside of its borders?”  

Sitting behind your keyboard, fabricating lies & pathetic excuses about why you shouldn’t literally save people’s lives by helping them find a safe place for them and their families to live after fleeing horrors that you’ll be lucky to never experience in your life - you are a cowardly, disgusting, sorry excuse for a human being.  

Fuck you.

anonymous asked:

Is Melenchon anti refugee?

It’s worryingly mixed. The line he tends to take is “tough on the causes of migration,” characterising the movement of refugees and economic migrants as a “forced exile” to be rectified by ending the war on Syria. This strikes me as trying to shift the topic to one he is more comfortable with while not wanting to risk voters by challenging the idea immigration is a problem. He has said quite clearly “I have never been in favour of freedom of installation [freedom of movement]” and drew a lot of criticism for deplorably referring to refugees as “nothing but those seeking jobs under the false cloak of political persecution.” Liberation and Hamon have criticised this as disingenuously chasing FN voters having blamed a loss of momentum in last election on a very pro-migration speech he gave in Marseilles. 

But this doesn’t make a lot of sense considering he devoted quite a lot of time in his most recent rally at Marseilles to decrying deaths in the Mediterranean and calling for solidarity with refugees. He has also criticised the EU’s militarisation of borders for preventing countries from taking a more welcoming approach and has said that deporting refugees and putting them in camps in no solution and Europe has no choice but to welcome them. In terms of his programme he is against new immigration quotas and sees the priority as creating a more welcoming situation for migrants and providing papers for undocumented workers (it is very strange - he is against freedom of movement, yet he is in favour of measures trying to fix the violations of human rights which are inherent to the suppression of freedom of movement). 

It is as if he is trying to fit progressives policies into the dominant idea that immigration is a problem for workers and must be reduced while buying into that rhetoric at the same time. So anti-refugee, I don’t think so. But playing with fire by apeing the NF’s rhetoric, in a similar manner to Die Linke in Germany? Definitely, and he’ll pay for that mistake.

I’m honestly so depressed right now. As an American I don’t think I’ve ever been more disappointed of our country. I’ve just been sitting here making lists of all the things he’s going to repeal (Planned Parenthood, Obamacare, Gay marriage, Roe v Wade), what’s not going to happen (Gun Control, immigration reform in a successful way, economic growth, refugee amnesty, a safe place for minorities, especially Muslims) and I’m honestly just so disgusted. 

We just voted in a man who has continuously sexually abused females and enforced rape culture (”if our POTUS can do it, why can’t I?”), a man supported by the KKK, a man who’s running mate took money from AIDs research and used it for gay conversion therapy, a man who has repeatedly said racist, and sexist things… we, as the American population endorsed this man. 

 I don’t care if I lose followers

If you voted third party, fuck you 

If you chose not to vote because you thought it wouldn’t matter,  fuck you 

If you wrote in a candidate, fuck you 

If you voted for Trump because you thought Clinton should be locked up, fuck you 

As a bisexual, PoC, female, a liberal… you just said a much bigger fuck you to me

anonymous asked:

Why does Antifa want economic migrants? Most refugees 60% are not from Syria. I don't understand at all. This is why Antifa is criticized for wanting to let in economic primitive migrants that are sexist and homophobic. What do you have to say to that 55% of UK Muslims want to ban homosexual? Many generations of Muslims here in Germany will not let their women out alone without a man. I am not far right but this is why many criticize Antifa, we want answers.

Wow for someone who’s “not far right” you sure pack a lot of racist nonsense into seven sentences!

“Why does Antifa want economic migrants?”

Why wouldn’t we?  As we’ve pointed out before, migrants of any kind (we couldn’t care less what their reasons are for crossing imaginary, invisible lines to move to our make-believe nation-states) bolster the economy of their host countries.  Why?  One reason is that when you leave everything behind and start life in a new country, you have to buy and replace everything again in the country they’ve moved to.  Another reason is that many immigrants arrive with advanced education and academic credentials.  Although their new host country didn’t have to pay for their education, it now reaps the benefits of having a brand-new resident with good education.  Sweden, for example, has happily discovered that 37% of the Syrian refugees it’s accepted have university degrees.   Finally, migrants are less-likely to rely on social services than native-born citizens.

The economic benefits that migrants bring to their host countries has been demonstrated over and over and over and over and over and over.  Just ask the people of Miami, Florida or Utica, New York or Dearborn, Michigan or Willmar, Minnesota, or Lewsiton, Maine, or Riace, Italy or any one of the countless other dying towns that were saved by an influx of eager, educated, resourceful, hard-working migrants. 

“Most refugees 60% are not from Syria.”

Duh.  The latest data we have shows that 23% of refugees in the world are from Syria.  But (are you sitting down?  This might come as quite a shock for you!) Syria isn’t the only country at war!  There are other countries currently experiencing war right now!!!  We know, how could a genius like you have missed that, right?

(source)

63% of refugees originate from Afghanistan, the DRC, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria. Guess what those five countries have in common?  They’re all experiencing armed conflict/civil war!  So kindly fuck off with your bullshit about refugees not really being refugees.   

“This is why Antifa is criticized for wanting to let in economic primitive migrants that are sexist and homophobic.”

Oh, of course!  At first you didn’t want to let “economic migrants in;” then you questioned whether they were actually refugees.  Now your concern with migrants stems from your long-standing record of feminist and LGTBQ+ activism! 

Do you know what the best way is to challenge people’s sexist & homophobic beliefs, Anon?  Exposing them to societies that are less sexist & homophobic.  
And what about the women and LGBTQ+ migrants that want in, Anon?  

Has antifa said “we want to bring in sexist and homophobic migrants!” or are you just making an assumption that migrants = sexist and homophobic? We’re pretty sure it’s the latter. 

“What do you have to say to that 55% of UK Muslims want to ban homosexual?”

Sorry - are we talking about migrants or refugees or Muslims?  Because you seem to be mixing those three terms up like they all mean the same thing.

So now we’re talking about a religious group in the UK, about half of whom want to ban homosexuals, yeah?  Well, we’d say that they appear to be more enlightened than U.S. evangelical Protestants, Mormons, or Jehovah’s Witnesses - all Christian groups whose followers are more likely than UK Muslims to condemn homosexuality.  Which probably isn’t surprising given how much more accepting of homosexuality Islam has been than Christianity, historically-speaking.

But here’s the interesting thing, Anon.  Those three more-homophobic Christian groups?  All of them have become more accepting of LGBTQ+ people over the last seven years.  In fact, every major Christian denomination in the U.S. has become more accepting of LGBTQ+ people since 2007.  We would wager than if that same poll you’re quoting is taken seven years from now you’ll find significantly fewer UK Muslims that think homosexuality should be banned.

Also: do you know what’s even more interesting?  U.S. Muslims are more likely to accept gay marriage than U.S. Protestants, Mormons, or Jehovah’s Witnesses.  So maybe you should stop stereotyping Muslims so much.

Many generations of Muslims here in Germany will not let their women out alone without a man.”

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to cite here or are you just throwing around more Islamophobic stereotypes?  Because we’re just about done dealing with your racist, made-up bullshit, Anon.  If you’re that concerned about women being domestically abused, maybe you should do some work to support the 100,000 German women that are victims of domestic abuse instead of pretending that patriarchal abuse of women only happens in the Muslim community.

“I am not far right but this is why many criticize Antifa, we want answers.”

If you’re not far right you do an excellent impression of the far right!  The answers you seek are readily-available on the internet or in our own archive.  But let’s be honest - you’re an Islamophobic windbag trying to give us every tired excuse there is for being a callous turd to refugees.

Stop lying about refugees, Anon.



The argument how do we perceive the Syrian refugees as refugees or economic migrants is a really tricky problem which some European countries consciously exploit its ambiguity in order to protect the state welfare. Economic migrants by mostly young and mobile people who are contributing to the economy of the state. They pay more than they take out. On the other hand, we have a special obligation for refugees since they are fleeing from their motherland because it is in state in a civil war or in a post-war conflict.

Entitling these people as migrants means that the state refuses to give them asylum, integration and local aids. These means that as long as they enter a foreign country they are forced to work and contribute to the classist capitalist state. In every labour country, there are niches that aren’t filled by national working classes. For some reason there are jobs which are filled only by migrants. Cleaning jobs are the best examples for that in Europe. This happens because economic migration is part of the national peace that various social classes in advanced industrial economies have reached among themselves. The German workers won’t do a job that Afghani would do, for instance. National state use the economic migrant labour so that it can keep the social peace between classes while cutting across national and ethic lines. A young labour class force is a prerequisite for the welfare state to continue to flourish.

anonymous asked:

Wow scrutinize on my choice of vocabulary why don't you. I'm not saying to not let refugees in im just saying think of the economy, infrastructure, housing ect.. How is our already fragile economy going to support hundreds of thousands of refugees?

Heyyy, look who’s back?  The Anon from a couple of weeks ago that tried to claim that refugees=terrorists.  You remember, the one that we schooled?

Well, apparently when he sent us a message that said absolutely fuck-all about the economy, infastructure, housing, etc. we should have known he was referring to concerns he had about how refugees would impact the economy, infastructure, housing, etc.!  How rude of us to not understand this!  SO! SORRY!

OK then, let’s get down to it: “how is our already fragile economy going to support hundreds of thousands of refugees?”  Your exact words, Anon.

Well, we don’t know what country you’re in, Anon, but we’re going to take a wild guess that it’s one of the largest, strongest economies in the world.  You know - the U.S., Germany, the U.K., France, Canada, Australia, etc. Obviously, the strongest, largest, economies in the world = the ones best-equipped to absorb the costs of taking in refugees.  Which is only fair, given the extent that their economies & their companies have profited from colonialism and resource extraction that destabilized most of the countries refugees are fleeing from in the first place.  

Still, there are limits to everything and how many refugees can these countries take in before the “economic burden” is simply too much?  The problem with this question is the a priori assumption that refugees = economic burden.

A study of the economic impact of 270,000 Somali refugees in just one province in Kenya (which = about 10% of the total population in that province) found that 25% of that province’s per-capita income came as a direct result of these refugees, who bought $3 million worth of livestock & milk alone & whose money created jobs for 1200 local people.  Overall, that one province benefited to the tune of $14 million by hosting those refugees.  10% of the population generating 25% of the per-capita income.  That`s what refugees did to the economy there. 

Or look at Miami - a city that suddenly had to take in 80,000 Cuban refugees in 1980.  Practically overnight, that city’s population jumped 5%.  80,000 Cubans arrived with only as much as they could carry.  Economic disaster?  Actually, economists who looked at this found that there was no negative impact on the economy @ all!  Unemployment stayed the same, wages didn’t go down - nothing that you’d think might happen.  Because those 80,000 needed goods & services to start their lives.  Refugees & immigrants buy more than other people, because they need to set up their homes, etc.  That = a bump for the economy!

Australia has discovered that refugees create a economic net benefit as soon as a year after arrival, depending on their human capital.
 
Sweden is happily discovering that 37% of the Syrian refugees it is taking in already have university degrees.  What does it mean to a country to wake up and suddenly have 11,000 university-educated people with global connections and serious motivations to start working or developing businesses?  Economically, it means very, very good things, Anon.

If you are right and the wealthiest countries in the world would be devastated economically by taking in refugees then Germany - which took in more refugees than any EU country and certainly more than Australia, Canada, or the U.S. combined - should be doing really poorly economically right now.  Yet here it is in 2016, still the strongest economy in the EU and the 4th-strongest in the world.  It`s almost as if Germany is counting on refugees to save them from a real economic problem - workers retiring/aging out of the workforce faster than they can be replaced.

Maybe these facts and words are difficult for you to understand, Anon. Try watching this, then.








anonymous asked:

Do you think that part of the reason why extreme hate-fueled populism has become so popular is because we don't engage in discussions anymore? I had this thought while reading articles about the demographics that did end up voting for Trump. Maybe instead of labeling people immediately as racists and what-not the moment they say something questionable we should engage in discussions and sharing opinions instead. Not that it works for everyone, but both sides are kind of silencing each other.

Maybe we all should engage in thoughtful discussion again. Maybe we should start asking the guy we label a bigot why he feels that way and start asking him questions, and start asking the other guy concerned with social justice the same thing. I think everyone just wants their voices to be heard, but we’re all too afraid of sharing our opinions with anyone anymore. This is coming from someone who identifies with left, by the way. I just had this thought for a while now.

1. I think it’s a multitude of reasons; in Europe for example it’s also about economic anxiety and the refugee crisis, not just the tone of conversations. I personally don’t think the move towards Trump was chiefly because they were labelled this or that but that they believed he would be change and to them Clinton was a Washington insider. And therein is the problem; for a big part of America, they could close their eyes to his bigoted comments if they thought it would benefit their economic situation. Worse still, others who gleefully supported him not in spite of but because of them.

2. In any case, I both agree and disagree. I agree in the sense that it’s important to recognise people can change and learn and allies, especially, should step up to the plate to help in this regard because the burden shouldn’t be on marginalised folks. And yes, for them to learn, there needs to be a conducive atmosphere for asking questions. 

3. I went through that journey myself. I had a very socially conservative Christian upbringing; we were told stuff like ‘divorce is always wrong’, ‘same sex attraction is a sin’. That women should not have access to abortion at all. I believed a lot of it uncritically at first. It was around the time I was 13 that I think I started to seriously question what I was being taught. What got me there? I began to read more and more things outside my conservative Asian Christian bubble. One thing I remember clearly was somebody had written an article about California’s proposition 8, and people were discussing it along with the previous ban on interracial marriage and they argued you’re denying two consenting adults the right to form a marital union, and that secularism means you can’t just go making laws based on religion. Reading these things galvanised me to revisit all my views; all my life I had been told that marriage is between a man & a woman cos the Bible said so. As a person whose family was an ethnic and religious minority in SEAsia, the first step was me thinking “that’s right, the laws of a country shouldn’t be based on my personal religious views.”

4. But I disagree in the sense that, I do think sometimes people have to draw a line. For example, I don’t believe we are entitled to ask for patience from marginalised people who are confronted with comments dehumanising them and they respond with anger. How do I have any right to blame my cousins for responding only with anger at their parents? What else is natural to feel when the people who raised you and promised to love you are telling you to bury a fundamental part of yourself, that you being you is a sin? And to tell the truth, I had to realise I was a bigot. There had to be a point for me to realise that my views weren’t just an “opinion” akin to whether taxes should be higher or lower or whether or not I liked mint ice-cream. I had to realise it was an opinion that could extend beyond me to harm others and deny their fundamental human rights, and that yes, it was an intolerant view. That yeah, my views were bigoted. 

5. Unlearning harmful things is a lifelong journey, so even though I hope I am a better person than I was when I was 13, I don’t at all think I’m done learning. And so yes, in this sense, I don’t think the way people dogpile others on tumblr is healthy- because truth is, everyone has areas where we are ignorant and need to learn. Especially if the person posting ignorant things is a kid. There should be more humility; I more intuitively understood racism since young because I’m not white, but I really held a lot of harmful views about LGBT+ people because of my upbringing and because I didn’t think critically about it as a child. I still believe I have much to learn. 

6. I do think a lot of people are reachable, but there are some who are so proud and brazen in their bigotry that imo it’s not worth wasting time or energy on them. Like for example I am not gonna bother being polite to neo-Nazis; cos normalisation of these types of views is also dangerous. Normalisation is also a way dangerous views become acceptable. Time and energy should be spent on supporting people who are vulnerable instead. I can engage in discussion with someone who says something ignorant but seems to genuinely not realise what’s the issue or for whom it looks like they are reachable. That’s how I talked to my socially conservative mother about same sex marriage; she thought it was sinful, but she wasn’t writing petitions to MPs asking them to roll back LGBT+ rights as she did have some idea that people’s private lives were their own business. My other relatives were, and so I took a much harder line with them. 

7. Overall, I don’t think we should expect the people who are being dehumanised and having their rights threatened to be able to politely engage. Many do have the fortitude and patience to do so, but I just think that is above and beyond- it shouldn’t be expected of them especially if they’re just trying to survive in a hostile environment. Many fight back hard because otherwise, people just keep pushing and pushing the boundaries. Sometimes a hard pushback is the best approach. Politeness and patience may be a luxury. 

8. But for allies- yes. If we believe we can reach and change the minds of people we know by engaging with them in a discussions, by all means. At the same time, there has to be a limit; some people are too far gone and we shouldn’t humour them, and in some instances, for people to change, they do have to be confronted with the fact they are being intolerant, like I was. Sometimes, you just have to say “hey, stop that.” Because again- normalisation. We continue to be entrenched in our views because nobody around us questions it vocally- the environment I was in as a kid. 

9. I would however emphasise that not being racist or other harmful behaviour- is not a binary but a spectrum. The binary mentality I see sometimes where say, anti-racist white allies are very interested in telling other white people to check their own privilege without also constantly critiquing their own behaviour isn’t healthy. It’s not just about thinking “well I’m not going to beat someone up on the street over their race so I’m not racist” or “I educated myself on critical race theory, I’m now one of the good ones for sure”. Racism is overt and subtle. It involves a whole range of behaviour. There is no laundry list or litmus test where you can arrive at a point to say “Aha! I am not Problematic Anymore!” I, as a non-white person, also had to unlearn racism and I am still unlearning it.

10. So yeah, I think overall the limits of labelling are that sometimes it treats unlearning harmful behaviour as a binary. When it’s harder than that because a lot of these things are very subtle too. I do think it’s useful to emphasise to the person we’re engaging with that this is a journey everyone has to undertake because even if we think we’re informed in one area, or that we don’t have privilege in one aspect- it doesn’t mean the things we do can’t still harm others. And to stress that at the end of the day, we may recoil at being told we are bigoted- but ultimately, it is more important that we are not hurting others with our beliefs. 

Last year’s “HoGeSa“ („Hooligans against Salafists”) march marked the start of a new wave of racist mobilizing and violence. There have been attacks on asylum seeker’s homes nearly every day between January and June 2015. Racist agitation against refugees found a sad climax in Heidenau, Saxony, where citizens and Nazis targeted a refugee center together and haunted the city in a mob action.

Open borders for everyone

While Nazis and right wing politicians try to spread racist resentments in Germany with their hate, Europe is experiencing a historical moment: Fighting for their freedom of movement, people have torn down the borders of fortress Europe and overcome its doctrine of wired fences and the Dublin agreement. Yet while this successful fight for freedom of movement opens up cracks in a regime of European containment, we shouldn’t forget the many deaths and injured – those who drowned in the Mediterranean Sea or suffocated on the trucks that transported them. “Fortress Europe” is accountable for thousands of deaths.

Solidarity with all Refugees

Thousands of people who could successfully overcome these obstacles have arrived in Germany these past weeks. They weren’t welcomed by German politicians, who are responsible for the political and economic situation of the countries people are fleeing from, but by many volunteers, who gave them a warm welcome and are supporting the struggle for their rights.

Every refugee is a political refugee

At first, the German federal government succeeded in using the welcome movement to send an image of a “tolerant Germany” into the world. Meanwhile, in an effort to reinstall Europe’s deadly order, border controls have been reinforced and German as well a European borders are defended by the military. FRONTEX and the European Naval Forces (EUNAVFOR), along with the Geman military are being deployed against so called human traffickers in the Mediterranean Sea, instead of rescuing drowning refugee boats.

While refugees are being welcomed at train stations, the German federal government is discussing how to harshen the right of asylum (which has already been tightened earlier this year) and make deportations easier.

The separation between good (“political”) and bad (economic) refugees and the debate about the economic value of a migrant is a form of everyday racism of our state and society. While war is seen as a legit ground for asylum, poverty isn’t, even thought the rich, capitalist states of the West have contributed to the harsh economic conditions in so called “safe third party countries”

The local governments in Germany now find themselves in a housing crisis, even though the arrival of great numbers of refugees was long foreseeable. They are in such need of even the essentials, that they rely on donations and the help of thousands of volunteers. This is a state that, without the bat of an eye, will rescue banks with billions of Euros, but views even a small percentage of these costs that are now needed as a financial burden.

It’s not enough for us to block the „HoGeSa“ hooligans at their next march on October 25th. “HoGeSa“ is but one side of the racism that is present in all layers of society. Some of the nazis and hooligans are expected to arrive early and, like last year, attack people who don’t fit into their world view. That’s why, we, as antifacists, antiracists, refugee initiatives and the welcome movement will take to the streets on October 24th and speak out against racism in every form.

Solidarity with refugees can’t be just welcoming acts. Solidarity also means offering protection from nazis on October 24th/25th in Cologne and elsewhere, and fighting against deportation and European border policies!

Escape aid not Frontex! Support the demands of refugees!

24.10.2015, 4pm, Antiracist demonstration in front of Cologne central station
25.10.2015, Cologne: Block the “HoGeSa” march!

(Text von: Köln gegen Rechts – Antifaschistisches Aktionsbündnis)

A Racist Bonehead Asks:

A very-clearly racist but possibly-deluded (& now-blocked) follower writes to ask:

What exactly defines a racist? Somebody who wants to keep their culture in their own country and not allow refugees to become the majority?

Yes, prioritizing your country’s “culture” (which we guess is like a precious museum piece that must be kept in a magic cultural vacuum lest it be HORRIBLY CORRUPTED SHOULD ANY INFLUENCE OUTSIDE OF ITS PRECIOUS BORDERS LEAKED IN!  BETTER GET OFF THE INTERNET RIGHT NOW BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE & YOU RUIN YOUR COUNTRY’S CULTURE FOREVER!!!) over the lives of other human beings would make you a racist.

BTW, Racist, what country are you referring to in which refugees are anywhere close to becoming a majority?  The U.S., the UK, Canada, France, Sweden, Turkey, Germany,  Greece - all have refugees populations of less than 2% of the overall population.  Lebanon is probably the country with the highest proportion of refugees, but they account for just 22% of the population - a long way from being a “majority.”  So is there some other country we don’t know about where refugees are or are close to becoming the majority, or are you just pulling stuff out of your ass in an attempt to somehow justify your anti-refugee xenophobia and racism?

Somebody who knows that refugees commit crimes and cost another country mass amounts of money instead of fighting to fix the country that they’re leaving? 

Since there is more-than-enough evidence that refugees are no more likely to commit crimes than anyone else (but are more likely to be the victims of crime) (see also this summary of BKA crime stats) and that countries benefit economically from taking in refugees, yes, that would also make you a racist, given your will to ignore the desperate plight of other human beings & justify doing so with racist stereotypes that fly in the face of actual, well-established evidence.

I agree we should help those who cannot help themselves but at what point do we try to fix our own problems instead of fixing another races??

When you define & categorize people based on a hierarchy of scientifically-invalid “races,” and then identify yourself with your own “race,” and feel like this means it’s cool for you to ignore other human beings whose lives are in jeopardy, yes, that also makes you a racist.  As well as a terrible, terrible human being (note that the categories “racist” and “terrible human being” are correlated).

anonymous asked:

okay, but the refugees fucking BROKE IN Hungary that's terrorism, and they were all determined to get to Berlin because there are bigger social benefits, it seems many of them were economical rather than war refugees. as an Eastern European I wish my government would treat my family as good as the refugees are treated, but our old people can barely live on the small pensions...

you wish the government would force your family to camp in a cold, muddy field? You know what, I do too - then you might have an idea what you’re talking about here. 

Maybe I didn’t make myself clear last time, “breaking in” to a country is more than fine by me, and I don’t sort human beings into “deserving” and “undeserving” when it comes to their right to go wherever they fucking like on this planet. 

Fuck your borders!

Fuck your nations!

Destroy Fortress Europe!

anonymous asked:

Can I ask your opinion on what currently is happening with the Syrian refugees? Do you think they should all be allowed entry and asylum? I feel like I don't know a lot about this issue, I'm from the US, but most European leaders don't seem to be supportive of taking them in? Do you know why they don't, is it an economic concern? Any insight or information you have would be really cool!

Hey anon - I really appreciate this question because it is something that has been really been resting heavy on my heart and I’ve been thinking about writing a blog post about this for days.

The arguments against allowing refugees entry and asylum into European nations are largely economic – governments that accept refugees allow a fixed number to enter their borders every year, usually after a lengthy application process, and then many provide some kind of meager assistance to refugees. A lot of countries to which refugees are fleeing do not have the resources to help the flood of people coming to their country for safety. So many Syrians are coming to Greece because it is a relatively short (though can be very dangerous) boat trip across the Mediterranean. However, Greece is facing a dire economic crisis of its own, so it quite literally cannot afford to give aid to refugees seeking asylum from war.

There are other, more horrible arguments against letting refugees in. I haven’t done the research to back up this thought, but I feel like many of the objections probably stem from racial or religious prejudices, much like arguments in the US against Mexican migrants reek of racism. People fear that refugees will take their jobs, will rape their women, will bring violence to their cities, will abuse their aid systems.

Those people are very, very wrong.

You might also see a lot of rhetoric around refugees vs. migrants. It’s easier for governments to call Syrians migrants because migrants have no legal protections. Migrants are considered to be people fleeing economic poverty in search of prosperity in another country, and can be deported back to their home countries. (Because. You know. Poor people are the worst, apparently. WTF.) Refugees, on the other hand, are fleeing humanitarian crises – usually war – and have required basic protections under the 1951 Refugee Convention. They can’t be deported back to their home countries. The Syrian people are fleeing a civil war that began in the Arab Spring in 2011 and has killed more than 200,000 of its citizens, many of them innocent civilians. They are, quite simply, refugees.

Do I believe Syrians refugees should be allowed entry and asylum?

Unequivocally. 

I’m studying public policy and economics in graduate school right now. I get the concerns over where the money is going to come from. I can also tell you that I give precisely zero f*cks about the funding. These people – people, they are people – are in crisis. They need help and they need it right now. Let them in, offer them safety, and figure it out later. I am also in the US and I believe that we need to exponentially increase the number of refugees that we are letting in during the worst humanitarian crisis of our time and expedite the process allowing them into the country. I mean… come on, y’all, this is still relevant:

Originally posted by cluelesscaps

Anyway.

When I see people say things like, “we should take care of our own people first,” or, “they’re never going to leave, they’re going to be in the welfare system forever,” I want to scream. You’re damn right we should be taking care of our own citizens, like the children that I work with, that live down the road from me, who don’t know where their next meal is coming from. To that, I say, why??? aren’t??? you??? doing??? anything??? about??? it??? already??? And moreover, their need does not negate the need of the refugees. We can do both. We should be doing both. 

And let me tell you, mothers and fathers who pack up their children in the middle of the night and pay smugglers exorbitant amounts of money to force them at gunpoint onto leaky rafts with the promise of reaching a place where they don’t have to worry about the goddamn roof exploding over their heads when they go to sleep at night, who stand on the side of the road selling pens so they can buy their children something to eat, who walk hundreds of miles clinging to the hope of safety with barely any food or water – they aren’t doing it so they can abuse the system, so they can live on welfare for the rest of their lives. They are doing it because the alternative to them is dying in their homes, being shelled, being dragged out into the street and shot, being raped, being forced into the military by your own government. They are people. They deserve food and shelter and safety and humanity. They deserve compassion, and we as fellow humans  are worth nothing if we don’t give it to them. 

If you’re at all moved to help, here are a some reputable organizations that are doing a lot of good. The best things that we can do, as people who live far away from where Syrians are at the moment, is give money, use our voices as advocates, send vibes of goodwill and healing into the universe, and pray, if you pray. 

Mercy Corps is providing emergency aid to refugees.

Migrant Offshore Aid Station keeps boats in the Mediterranean, providing supplies, life jackets, and rescuing refugees so that they get to shore safely (and so we see no more heartbreak like Aylan and Galip Kurdi).

Hand in Hand for Syria works inside Syria, providing aid to those who cannot get out of the country. 

Refugees Welcome is basically an AirBnB for refugees in Germany. If you aren’t in Germany, you can donate here.

Save the Children provides food, medical care, and education to refugee children.

Catholic Relief Services provides immediate assistance to Syrian families. 

Medecins Sans Frontieres is rescuing refugees in the Mediterranean and providing desperately-needed medical care.

And there are some other worthy organizations here

I hope this helps a little. Or a lot. And thanks, anon.