What are your thoughts on the humanitarian aspects of taking in refugees?

What are your thoughts on the humanitarian aspects of taking in refugees?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

None.

/thread

I don't consider North African, Afghani, Pakistani, or Nigerian economic migrants to be the same as Syrian refugees that currently reside in Turkey

Dude did you forget where you are? This is Sup Forums. We hate niggers and sandniggers, Humanitarian and non-humanitarian.

you don't save people by overloading your own boat

This

I think that it's perfectly okay to take in refugees for humanitarian reasons as long as the increase in population and possible cultural conflict doesn't pose a significant threat to the country itself.

Look, vet them properly, require them to assimilate, set reasonable limits and don;t get guilt-tripped into taking more than your share -- I got little problem with that.

In the case of the Syrians, as an American, and since we are bigger than Saudi Arabia, I'd say let's take half again as many as Saudi takes, and see how it goes. With vetting and assimilation.

>letting people rape and destroy our countries is humanitarian

Leftists love endangered owls, trees and insects, but white people can go extinct under a tidal wave of browness?

majority of muslims and blacks lack any human decency..so they should not be given any.

there should be a time limit on refugees staying (say 2 years, or until their country no longer is a threat to them), and they should not be allowed vote

>Sup Forums is one person

As long as a refugee is educated or is willing to work a lot then I'm okay with taking them in.

However, we should not ignore the demographic problem. Greece should be mainly comprised of Greeks, so we shouldn't accept more than 3-5k refugees per year.

>letting your country's people be raped and slaughtered by the thousands in the name of humanitarianism

You save more by helping them in Syria/Libya/etc, accepting them into your country is not cost effective and does not help that many people

Reminder that Africa will double in population size this century, we can't keep taking them in forever.

They're talking about being humanitarian and take in muslims.

Oh the irony.

This

It much like the illegal Mexican problem is a controlled narrative to keep all discussion on what we ahve to do for them, and never about what they won't do for themselves, why they won't fix their own shitholes, why they won't stop mass-shitting fuckloads of babies they know they can't afford, and why they insist on transforming everywhere they go to be like the shitholes where they came from (thus proving they have no intention of anything but conquest and parasitism)

Fuck the leftist-controlled narrative. It's time to start discussion why they won't grow the fuck up.

Pathological altruism. They need to sort their countries out, and having the higher intelligence people coming to the West helps neither party.

They get a brain drain (creating more humanitarian crises in the future), and regression to the mean with their offspring just creates little patches of the third world in our own countries, only kept peaceful for the next five minutes with gibsmedat.

When they can sustain, maybe we can think about dildo humanitarian thirld-worldism. We have the future of our own children to sustain in the meantime, so everyone please stop trying to bring the third world to our nice countries.

Women and children only, men should stay back and fight for their own country.

Also women are much less likely to commit crimes then 3rd world men, and both children and females are much more likely to adapt to a new culture than a man, espeically without a strong male in the family to keep them tied to being a mudslime.

For example, there's hardly a better lay in the UK than liberalized paki girls

Doesn't make any sense

Western money money would be 10x more effective in their own countries, and the sheer amount of refugees makes it impossible to take them in without literally replacing your own population, by 2050 the amount of refugees will number in the 100's of million due to the water and climate hyper-crisis

They aren't fucking refugees they're damn invaders.

Also the numbers should be heavily capped with each 'saf'e nation doing it's fair share and the stay should only be limited for the timescale of the current civil war in Syria.

Something tells me i should get myself a self sustaining hut in the near future. Dig my own well. Maybe solar for electricity.

Almost done with my hunter's licence too so i can get myself a shotgun and a rifle to defend myself and hunt with.

Rerfugees are humans are therefore equipped with the universial human rights as declared by the UN. That being said, realistically speaking the more immigration is permitted, the more immigration will happen and the more people will die on the journey.
Forcefully cracking down on immigration will safe countless lifes of people otherwise hell bend to take the opportunity for free shit.

Taking in refugees only helps the first comers until there is nothing to extract from the country anymore, ruining existences in the long run.

There's nothing humanitarian about it. Western countries can't be a life boat for the dregs of humanity, it should serve as an example for other countries, something that they should emulate and aspire to.

Instead, we're creating a system that results in a levelling of civilization. Instead of giving the people in poorer countries an incentive to improve the countries they're living in, we allow them to drag our countries down which ends of temporarily benefitting a select few at the expense of humanity.

youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

They keep pumping out more people,

Theuir own countries are over-populated and over-population is the largest cause of poverty in the world.

And the thing is they refuse to fucking knock it off. They call it a human right to have as many kids as they want while they burden other naitons (read as "white people") to provide for those kids.


They don't want to be fixed. They just want to be provided for on their terms. That's why they never grow up once in other people's countries. That's why they drag down decent areas into shit to make them more like where the savages came from.

Immigration is not humanitarian, it's something people do to feel good about themselves. Taking in a fraction of a fraction of people living in poor conditions only helps that insignificant percentage while greatly impacting the host country. It is in no way an effective means to deal with anything wrong in the world.

This is so vastly obvious in a country like Australia where people are talking about opening borders to stop racism. With a population of 24 million, immigration of 3rd worlders, seeking nothing but better living conditions, would tear up our demographics and turn us into a hellhole.

When a Chinese tourist can get refugee status in Germany, don't think there's any actual protection against fraudulent "refugees"

Mah Nigga. Great trips too. I knew the Americans were smart.

No obligation to help, but it's still the moral thing to do. Except international help should consist of setting up refugee camps in the safe territories of the country
It's not like all of Syria is a war zone and the money will help a lot more people when it's spent on the ground there and not to re-educate and try and integrate millions in the EU.

Also terrorists, murderers and rapists are all human beings too, what kind of a bullshit sentiment is that?
This is why women shouldn't vote.

It's dumb. The current policy of letting people come here is not only destabilizing our own countries, but also far more expensive. Why spend so much money on helping a few people, when all that money could be spent developing third world countries and preventing these migration problems in the future. Why deal with the consequence of shitty third world countries (migration) when we could be killing the root of the problem?

why would you try to assimilate vermin in your own country when if you really wanted to help, you could fund temporary housing in a non combat area of their own country?

or a neighboring country? This is for globalism, its sole purpose is to put subhuman niggers in your peaceful neighborhoods so they balkanize you.

They can gladly take them in their own homes so their own kids and wife can get fucked and not expect evictions of legal citizens in favor for "regufee centers"

the redpill is strong today

>so they mongrelize you.


Fixed it for you.

It IS a racial agenda by the Soros's and Obamas of the world. That's why here in America only white neighborhoods are being blessed with this "diversity and cultural enrichment."

Call da police!

Europeans have to help one way or the other.

No they don't.

NO ONE owes the third world shit. The west has been trying to develop them for two fucking centuries only for them to tear down everything that gets built up.


And now China's dealing with the frustration of trying to develop the shitholes only to realize they're shitholes because of the people who just refuse to get their shit together.


No one owes these liabilities to the planet anything except mass sterilization to keep them from killing the planet and depleting resources.

But dude it's 2016, refugees are people too. We MUST help them, it's all our fault that they're like this in the first place.

Yes you do. Don't worry, Hillary will do her part and help millions of people to live legally in US.

>refugees welcome
>mostly mesopotamian and north african middle class islamists

So we owe the 3rd world because you huehues refuse to stop shitting out babies you cannot afford knowing it's the cause of your poverty?

Poor people have too many babies because they don't know any better.

If they were white it wouldn't be a problem.

Muslims have no business in first world nations, cultures are too incompatible.

Western world would donate, perhaps help set up safe zones in Syria, or other Muslim nations that should take them in, like Saudi Arabia or Egypt. They should never set foot on European, Australian, Canadian ir US soil.

Why are liberal talking points always so shallow?

>X are human beings
>It's the current year

They're not even arguments; they're just stating a fact.

Underrated post.

If there is a better way to help refugees, use that instead. Building safe zones outside of, but nearby a wartorn country that can be controlled with a military presence (ideally, one put together through international treaties) makes more sense than shipping people to far away countries, or incentivizing travel to them so they head toward you.

This is essentially what Japan was doing, and it's a good idea.

Why do liberals think that depopulating a country is good?

Take Poland, where the impacts are more noticeable because it's not as big as African countries: Poland is being depopulated by half a million people each year (Farage's estimate) and many of those are men. Now what happens to the economy when a ever larger percentage of the population decreases steadily every year? It's even worse for a country at war... Syria is letting all the ablebodied men in fighting age leave by the millions, how are they even capable of winning then? NATO corps and UN relief troops?

Europe will take the refugees, fight the war and pay for both. You know how this is gonna end.

And don't get me started with non-Syrians 23 years olds from a safe country who lies about their age just to be put in a high priority list and in a children asylum where he can rape 13 year old girls and stab nurses.

I agree with this sign, but what the fuck does it have to do with helping them. Every human=human, but as a person barely making it over the poverty line I've got myself to worry about, and then I have friends and some family who have done me good that 'deserve' my help first. I am not responsible for every fucking person on the planet, I'm just trying to be happy and comfortable. Not to mention these people might be running from conflicts that certain people in my country might have instigated. Let them clean up their own mess without my expense

proper way:

only women and kids during war time. regardless of outcome, deport them all back after 3 years. men trying to escape war are to be shot on sight.