The Global Refugee Wave and Migrant Crisis

Wrong link? This one maybe?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/magazine/how-to-build-a-perfect-refugee-camp.html

I'm basically stuck on how to help the refugees in Turkey's nice camps, because our "street families" don't even have such nice camps.

Fixed. That's what I get for not checking my links.

Not sure what you mean by "street families"? Could you explain?

It's what we call our homeless. They live on the streets.

I would have to agree with the top comment on that article.

First buses arrived to the border. Migrants crossed through without incident; some on foot, some in cars provided by volunteers. Red Cross is also present.

Looking good so far.

@probablyinsane: You live in Turkey? It's an interesting contrast, because no one would suggest taking the homeless of any country and shutting them up in camps (however much certain political factions would like to).

I'm not in Turkey. Just that I agree with some of the comments on that article.

Turkey is treating refugees better than how (the USA presumably) treats its homeless.

The problem with the camp is cost, Turkey has built one camp like that, and it's a really good one, but it's also kind it.

How many refuges can that camp hold? How many refuges would the multiple shitty but serviceable camps that could be built for the same cost hold? How many refuges are there? How big is the budget for the refuge situation?

I believe they have built more than one such camp, which collectively house numbers in at least the tens of thousands, but yes, the problem is cost, and, as I pointed out, the lack of employment.

My presumption is that the Turks are using these "perfect" camps as a way of enticing Syrian refugees away from Turkish cities, which in turn I would guess they think will lower the attendant costs (both economic and political) that such large populations will bring/have brought to their urban areas. They probably think of it as an investment. And they are already spending billions on the so-called "shitty" camps, so perhaps the added costs of this type are seen as relatively modest in comparison to the benefit (to Turkey).

While Turkey probably has less than perfectly altruistic motives for doing this, it still represents progress in refugee management, and I think also provides an opportunity in economic development that is going un-utilized.

edited 4th Sep '15 8:36:33 PM by DeMarquis

Even before the refugee crisis, I already liked Germany's leader a lot.

This just ups my admiration for her, even though I also think she's overestimating Germany's capacity to handle this crisis.

Wouldn't mind at all being proven wrong though.

Migrants are still crossing. 6500 crossed the Austrian border so far. Looks like no foul play will happen this time.

It depends on the state. Utah deals with its homeless by giving them all homes. Apparently it's just cheaper that way.

Utah? The land of the Mormons? Bastion of Republican rule? Is adopting a policy like that? Now I've heard everything.

Shit. News say another five thousand migrants arrived to Serbia from Macedonia, bound for Hungary. Let's see how these guys will fare.

The Mormons only because so Conservative because they were accused of being Dirty Communists.

Assuming that (legal) jobs are available.

edited 5th Sep '15 6:27:25 AM by Greenmantle

Counter-intuitively, it is sometimes cheaper and easier to just give poor people the infrastructure and social support they need. Usually they just go get a job after that.

Pretty much. It's far more simple than it seems, usually. Of course, those people still need a bit of support, but once you actually give the homeless stability in the form of a permanent residence, acquiring further stability becomes a lot easier for them.

On the flipside, not giving them homes ends up costing a lot more in the long run due to a variety of costs, including emergency medical treatment.

edited 5th Sep '15 6:45:01 AM by Cronosonic

Mind you, what if there is already a major housing shortage affecting those already living there? There might not simply be the homes available^note  Especially with a slow Planning System, creaking infrastructure and NIMBYs everywhere, and if the refugees get homes ahead of those already waiting for a house, might they be perceived as "jumping the queue" which would feed into racism against them?

edited 5th Sep '15 7:12:05 AM by Greenmantle

I thought that was the Quakers. Also how can a religion be Communist?

The days of the Red Scare were weird ones. It's less the religion than the fact that they actually lived by the tenets of their religion.

Here in Malaysia... yeah, things still suck for the Rohingya. A newspaper ran an expose on how the Rohingya here exist in a legal area that results in them being very vulnerable to being shaken down by corrupt police for cash. They found some more mass graves recently as well.

And now for the stupid: I saw a Facebook user suggest that the current GST be raised by another percentage point and the money raised for that donated to refugees "around the world". Because fuck Aggregate Demand (not exactly something that's gone up as of late here)...

@Greenmantle: That's not a "housing the homeless" problem, that's a housing problem, period. You have to ask yourself why there is a queue in the first place- if there is a market for a certain type of housing, how is it that there isnt enough of it to satisfy the demand? In nearly every case that I have seen, it's because some faction used political means to create an artificial shortage.

edited 5th Sep '15 10:34:23 AM by DeMarquis

In terms of European solidarity, I find the behaviour of some EU members incredibly hypocritical, usually you would expect that those countries who supported the invasion of Iraq (and possibly the intervention in Libya) would willingly take in refugees, since they helped destabilizing the ME and thus aided the rise of IS (as bad as Saddam was, the IS would never have been able to expand that rapidly if he were still in power). Instead it is now up to countries like Sweden or Germany to help the refugees, although they opposed e.g. the Invasion of Iraq and warned quite often that Western military intervention would make things even more unstable.

At least the US is doing most of the fighting against (although they still could and should take in more refugees).

Daesh would have risen up even with Saddam in power. He'd just be in the position Turkey is now, giving them yet another safehaven. It's one thing to say the chaos of post-US Iraq led to the rise of Daesh (which is true) and quite another to say that Saddam would have slowed their ascent.

But thats for another thread.

I agree that those who initiated the war should also be at the forefront in taking in refugees, but don't twist it to say intervention shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Well, quite a lot of high-ranking officers who were fired after the dissolution of the Iraqi army became very influential in IS hierarchy and helped devising the strategy that made IS so succesful. Not to mention that without America givin military aid to the new government of Iraq, IS would not have got their hands on first rate military tech.

Some interventions make sense, like in Afghanistan, but in Iraq, they were an utter disaster that made things worse for the West in the long run.

edited 5th Sep '15 12:31:04 PM by Zarastro

The only difference is those officers would still be officially Iraqi Army/Intelligence working Daesh like Pakistan does the Taliban. Saddam in power would have made it worse, not better.

Anyway, you want to continue this, there are other threads.

My thoughts are that if Saddam had been left alone, we'd just have Syria in reverse over there, and likely all the more dangerous because Iran would probably openly help the Shiite resistance, while ISIS would be the radical militias working for Saddam, the "bad cop" to his "good cop" when it came to restive Shiite areas.