That was a short blurb of an article: fences are expensive and ineffective, as well as morally questionable. But they will continue to be desired by voters and therefore continue to be built....
That was a short blurb of an article: fences are expensive and ineffective, as well as morally questionable.
But they will continue to be desired by voters and therefore continue to be built. Fences are an outward manifestation of the inner human desire to reject others - we don't want others "here", we want them "there", and fences delineate a physical line that separates here and there.
Reminds me of the song Why We Build the Wall, from the musical Hadestown (2006) (beautiful version from the cast in this YouTube clip):
(partial lyrics: the entire song is much more powerful )
Why do we build the wall?
We build the wall to keep us free [...]
How does the wall keep us free?
The wall keeps out the enemy [...]
Who do we call the enemy?
The enemy is poverty [...]
Because we have and they have not!
Because they want what we have got!
What do we have that they should want?
We have a wall to work upon!
We have work and they have none
And our work is never done
My children, my children
And the war is never won
The enemy is poverty
And the wall keeps out the enemy
And we build the wall to keep us free
That's why we build the wall
We build the wall to keep us free
I cam totally understand people wanting to go to a better place, especially as their place of origin is a shithole. Instead of building fences, my stsnce is that rich countries should be helping...
I cam totally understand people wanting to go to a better place, especially as their place of origin is a shithole. Instead of building fences, my stsnce is that rich countries should be helping as much as it's possible poorer countries to become better to live in. To reduce inequalities.
The first things off the top of my head: End policies such as CAP and trade barriers more broadly which make life really miserable for people in poor countries and inhibit econ dev Stop militarily...
The first things off the top of my head:
End policies such as CAP and trade barriers more broadly which make life really miserable for people in poor countries and inhibit econ dev
Stop militarily intervening in other countries, e.g. France propping up corrupt regimes in the Sahel which inevitably leads to coups.
The majority of the current wave of refugees come from Syria, because of the Syrian civil war. How will these actions alleviate this, both in the short and long term, and preempt the use of...
The majority of the current wave of refugees come from Syria, because of the Syrian civil war. How will these actions alleviate this, both in the short and long term, and preempt the use of literal or metaphorical fences?
Sorry I don't totally understand the question – do you mean why more economic development reduces emigration from a country? I feel obliged to point out that what you are saying about the "current...
Sorry I don't totally understand the question – do you mean why more economic development reduces emigration from a country?
I feel obliged to point out that what you are saying about the "current wave" of refugees is also not true – the majority of the "current wave" of refugees have come from Ukraine. For concrete statistics: there are roughly around 1 million Syrian refugees in the EU (UNHCR estimates) whereas there are 4 million Ukranians with "temporary status" in the EU.
Why would these actions lead to more economic development in Syria? How long would it take for said development to manifest? And yes, there are more Ukrainians now but they’re not being stopped by...
Why would these actions lead to more economic development in Syria? How long would it take for said development to manifest?
And yes, there are more Ukrainians now but they’re not being stopped by the metaphorical fences at borders.
I mean there are so many things to say here not all refugees come from Syria more economic development in poor countries makes it less likely that people from that country will move to Europe more...
I mean there are so many things to say here
not all refugees come from Syria
more economic development in poor countries makes it less likely that people from that country will move to Europe
more economic development in poor countries between places facing lots of displacement (e.g. Congo, Tigray, Afghanistan) makes it more likely they will settle there and not move to Europe
building walls is a political choice that is designed to make Europeans feel safer, they don't work, and they also undermine the European Union's self-appointed, sanctimonious (and also implicitly ethnocentric) role as a representative/arbiter of human rights
Syria is just the majority, but the rest of the countries face similar issues. The point is that it's apples to oranges, and presenting "more economic development" as a alternative to border...
Syria is just the majority, but the rest of the countries face similar issues. The point is that it's apples to oranges, and presenting "more economic development" as a alternative to border controls is bizarre.
For one, none of European trade barriers, foreign military interventions (which are extremely rare now), or halting arms dealing in Africa is going to make Afghanistan a less impoverished country. It's an impoverished country because it's run by the Taliban, who are not exactly masters of economic theory.
I cannot possibly see how any of those leads to anything in war-torn Syria, where the populace is stuck between the brutal Assad and thirty different insurgency groups backed by players from Saudi Arabia to the UAE to Iran.
Let's say that Afghanistan has a relative economic miracle and their GDP grows by 40% YoY in 2024. How we even predict how that will affect the populace? It's run by the Taliban. Is it not equally as likely that the stream of refugees increase as the Taliban become more powerful, as opposed to now where they are stretched thin trying to govern?
How does it help when Ethiopia invades Eritrea for a port? I mean, they're technically going for economic development there, just in a way that violates the sovereignty of a country and would lead to numerous deaths and refugees.
Not to mention that economic development, even assuming all good faith actors, is something that is on the scale of decades at minimum. At best it's something you'd have alongside border controls.
Regardless of the effectiveness of building literal walls, border control is absolutely the most important issue in many countries in Europe right now. It's why the far right has such a grip on the continent. Success by moderate or leftist parties has only been by folding border control into their platform. If you want to push against it, there better be a very actionable and clear alternative that has immediate impact.
Those examples (Congo, Tigray, and Afganistan) were places being disrupted. I believe the arguament was chosing stable nations nearby (e.g. Kenya) and empowering them not empowering places run by...
Those examples (Congo, Tigray, and Afganistan) were places being disrupted. I believe the arguament was chosing stable nations nearby (e.g. Kenya) and empowering them not empowering places run by the Taliban as you pointed out. People are less incentivised to travel thousands of miles when the country nearby with a more similar culture is good enough to live in. See the example of far more migrants settling in countires nearby from Syria compared to the numbers coming to the EU.
I'm not disagreeing with the rest of your points just trying to clarify what I think was a misunderstanding of ignorabimus' point.
I don't have an answer for all the problems in all poor countries, but. One of areas of focus could be Ukraine, since at the moment it's the place of origin of the majority of refugees to EU. So,...
I don't have an answer for all the problems in all poor countries, but.
One of areas of focus could be Ukraine, since at the moment it's the place of origin of the majority of refugees to EU. So, regarding this particular case - the problem here is Muscovy invading their neighbor for no reason. So I'd like EU countries to maximize their effort in producing shells and weapons that could help Ukraine repell invader. The most important afaik right now are fighter jets and modern long-range anti-aircraft weapons.
That's my first thought regarding first country I think of.
[edit]
Of course, after the war, UE should give money, investments, etc. to help rebuilding Ukraine and making it better place to live after war.
There’s one short paragraph citing evidence for this: Perhaps there are other articles going into more detail about what happened?
There’s one short paragraph citing evidence for this:
For all its high-tech gadgets, Poland’s fortified border failed to prevent a surge in crossings last year. Slovenia took down its fence with Croatia in 2022 after it failed to bring numbers down. Besides, “any kind of physical obstacle in one area…just shifts the movement to other areas,” says Chris Borowski from Frontex.
Perhaps there are other articles going into more detail about what happened?
Sorry I put the archive link in the title by mistake (I meant to post it in the comments section). I would appreciate it if an admin could fix it :) cc @cfabbro/@deimos/@mycketforvirrad. Also not...
Sorry I put the archive link in the title by mistake (I meant to post it in the comments section). I would appreciate it if an admin could fix it :)
That was a short blurb of an article: fences are expensive and ineffective, as well as morally questionable.
But they will continue to be desired by voters and therefore continue to be built. Fences are an outward manifestation of the inner human desire to reject others - we don't want others "here", we want them "there", and fences delineate a physical line that separates here and there.
Reminds me of the song Why We Build the Wall, from the musical Hadestown (2006) (beautiful version from the cast in this YouTube clip):
(partial lyrics: the entire song is much more powerful )
Why do we build the wall?We build the wall to keep us free [...]
How does the wall keep us free?
The wall keeps out the enemy [...]
Who do we call the enemy?
The enemy is poverty [...]
Because we have and they have not!
Because they want what we have got!
What do we have that they should want?
We have a wall to work upon!
We have work and they have none
And our work is never done
My children, my children
And the war is never won
The enemy is poverty
And the wall keeps out the enemy
And we build the wall to keep us free
That's why we build the wall
We build the wall to keep us free
I cam totally understand people wanting to go to a better place, especially as their place of origin is a shithole. Instead of building fences, my stsnce is that rich countries should be helping as much as it's possible poorer countries to become better to live in. To reduce inequalities.
What exactly would you like European countries to do?
The first things off the top of my head:
The majority of the current wave of refugees come from Syria, because of the Syrian civil war. How will these actions alleviate this, both in the short and long term, and preempt the use of literal or metaphorical fences?
Sorry I don't totally understand the question – do you mean why more economic development reduces emigration from a country?
I feel obliged to point out that what you are saying about the "current wave" of refugees is also not true – the majority of the "current wave" of refugees have come from Ukraine. For concrete statistics: there are roughly around 1 million Syrian refugees in the EU (UNHCR estimates) whereas there are 4 million Ukranians with "temporary status" in the EU.
Why would these actions lead to more economic development in Syria? How long would it take for said development to manifest?
And yes, there are more Ukrainians now but they’re not being stopped by the metaphorical fences at borders.
I mean there are so many things to say here
Syria is just the majority, but the rest of the countries face similar issues. The point is that it's apples to oranges, and presenting "more economic development" as a alternative to border controls is bizarre.
For one, none of European trade barriers, foreign military interventions (which are extremely rare now), or halting arms dealing in Africa is going to make Afghanistan a less impoverished country. It's an impoverished country because it's run by the Taliban, who are not exactly masters of economic theory.
I cannot possibly see how any of those leads to anything in war-torn Syria, where the populace is stuck between the brutal Assad and thirty different insurgency groups backed by players from Saudi Arabia to the UAE to Iran.
Let's say that Afghanistan has a relative economic miracle and their GDP grows by 40% YoY in 2024. How we even predict how that will affect the populace? It's run by the Taliban. Is it not equally as likely that the stream of refugees increase as the Taliban become more powerful, as opposed to now where they are stretched thin trying to govern?
How does it help when Ethiopia invades Eritrea for a port? I mean, they're technically going for economic development there, just in a way that violates the sovereignty of a country and would lead to numerous deaths and refugees.
Not to mention that economic development, even assuming all good faith actors, is something that is on the scale of decades at minimum. At best it's something you'd have alongside border controls.
Regardless of the effectiveness of building literal walls, border control is absolutely the most important issue in many countries in Europe right now. It's why the far right has such a grip on the continent. Success by moderate or leftist parties has only been by folding border control into their platform. If you want to push against it, there better be a very actionable and clear alternative that has immediate impact.
Those examples (Congo, Tigray, and Afganistan) were places being disrupted. I believe the arguament was chosing stable nations nearby (e.g. Kenya) and empowering them not empowering places run by the Taliban as you pointed out. People are less incentivised to travel thousands of miles when the country nearby with a more similar culture is good enough to live in. See the example of far more migrants settling in countires nearby from Syria compared to the numbers coming to the EU.
I'm not disagreeing with the rest of your points just trying to clarify what I think was a misunderstanding of ignorabimus' point.
I don't have an answer for all the problems in all poor countries, but.
One of areas of focus could be Ukraine, since at the moment it's the place of origin of the majority of refugees to EU. So, regarding this particular case - the problem here is Muscovy invading their neighbor for no reason. So I'd like EU countries to maximize their effort in producing shells and weapons that could help Ukraine repell invader. The most important afaik right now are fighter jets and modern long-range anti-aircraft weapons.
That's my first thought regarding first country I think of.
[edit]
Of course, after the war, UE should give money, investments, etc. to help rebuilding Ukraine and making it better place to live after war.
There’s one short paragraph citing evidence for this:
Perhaps there are other articles going into more detail about what happened?
Sorry I put the archive link in the title by mistake (I meant to post it in the comments section). I would appreciate it if an admin could fix it :)
cc @cfabbro/@deimos/@mycketforvirrad. Also not sure if pings are appropriate for this, please let me know :)
https://archive.is/lSk9I
Fixed!