oooh the irony in this statement. If I could only monetize that somehow!!!
If diversity was truly a strength why would he threaten to voluntarily give away that which makes him "strong"?... Who was the last "dictator" you can think of that willfully wanted to give away an advantage?
Rather than having an elitists take on the matter while calling others fools, maybe you should reflect a little bit as to why he would make such a threat. If you think about it for more than two seconds you´ll come to the realization that he´s threatening because, unlike you, he understands the nature of what makes this a "threat".
I sure hope so. But weirdly enough, you cant tell sarcasm from a serious statement these days because we are in a crazy time where the most stupid shit is an everyday occurrence.
~30 year stagnation is OK? Their 30 year postwar expansion was made possible due to American investment.
The Abe government understands this and is attempting to lure foreign work albeit slowly. It’s hardly an example of cultural or economic dynamism the United States is.
Japan is not really doing OK. They are literally going extinct, have an awful and destructive work culture and have a ton of problems with sexism, to the point where it is necessary to have gender-segregated train carriages to stop groping. The only reason Japan seems to be doing OK is because their news are mostly inaccessible to the rest of the world.
Has immigration raised the birth-rate of the native population in other countries? I can find no examples of that anywhere in the modern-day West.
Besides, there are significantly more Japanese people now than at any other time in history, the last decade being the sole exception [1,2]. They have a long way to go before having to worry of extinction, and the environment will be very grateful in the mean-time.
America was far more of a hyperpower in the mid-20th century when it didn't have so much diversity. Diversity is at best neutral for the economy, and it's almost surely what's making the country socially go down the toilet now.
The Soviet Union still existed in the mid 20th century. The United States was not the sole superpower and Americans lived under the threat of a mushroom cloud.
Socially down the toilet now? How exactly?
I can’t think of a single way life for the average American is worse in this century than it was in the 1960s.
It's not trivial to enforce a maritime border. What do you do if people come on boats? You can pick them up from the boats, but Turkey won't take them back. What then?
>Australia is the only country in the world with a policy of mandatory detention and offshore processing of asylum seekers who arrive without a valid visa.
Find some islands somewhere and send the refugees there. And then wait.
I'm curious how all this is different from what Trump has been attempting to do at the US border? So shipping asylum seekers to a country with a semi-dictator or an island somewhere is considered acceptable?
>So shipping asylum seekers to a country with a semi-dictator or an island somewhere is considered acceptable?
I had <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags there...
Australia's asylum policy has been the subject of both domestic and international criticism,[0] particularly with its policy of mandatory detention of unlawful arrivals.[1]
>I'm curious how all this is different from what Trump has been attempting to do at the US border?
Trump LOVES the Australian asylum policy and has been praising it since 2017.[2][3] As the New York Times pointed out in July, "Trump’s immigration approach isn’t new: Europe and Australia went first".[4]
In fact, the Trump travel ban[5] is pretty much how the White Australia policy[6] would have looked like if Deakin, the attorney-general of the first federal government, had not watered down the original racial criteria in the Immigration Restriction Bill to the dictation test.[7] The bill was one of the concessions demanded by the Labor party (yes, the same centre-left union-based party that is oh-so-progressive today[8]) in exchange for supporting the minority Barton government.[9]
I'm really sorry to hear that. I'm also very puzzled: why would people take the sea route to Australia? I can understand crossing the Mediterranean sea by boat, but sailing to Australia is far more risky.
I'm not a Nobel-winning physicist, but I'm pretty sure boats will sink if you make big enough hole in them. Keep doing that until the rest of wanna-be immigrants gets the message.
The EU paid 6 billion to help Turkey with its migration crisis[1]. In addition to this, they also receive money from other funds like Horizon2020, funding for industry innovation, as part of the pathway of Turkeys to get full EU membership.
This is crazy. I am not even against paying for facilities for refugees outside of the EU or give grants for research. We have a long history of cultural exchange dating back to the eastern roman empire and before.
What a joke EU politics has become, no majority is in favor of Turkey joining the union, only the large diaspora of Turks. The Brexit is a mistake, The Donald is an idiot, but at least they made people get out of their sofa and vote instead of this semi-democracy we call the EU.
Well they can solve a large portion of the refugee crises by not allowing corrupt rulers of many of the countries that refugees come from put money in western banking accounts and properties.
Can someone please explain the border and refugee system here? What exactly is he threatening to do? And if there are a lot of refugees, can't admission to EU be a separate decision?
The EU pays Turkey a lot of money. In return Turkey patrols its coastline to prevent migrants from boating across to the Greek islands. They can still get in by making the longer trip from north africa. Numbers of migrants are down since 2015 so perhaps it has been working?
I don't think the numbers are correct are down, situation in Greek Islands is critical. If you read the local press there are islands that are so overwhelmed that the locals are migrating to mainland cause they can no longer live there.
Turkey has some 4 million [0] refugees (overwhelmingly Syrian [1]) which the EU supports financially, as well as helping to pay for coastal patrols. Migrants seeking to get to the eastern Mediterranean are instead returned to Turkey. Erdogan states, "if you try to frame our operation [in northern Syria] as an invasion, our task is simple: we will open the doors and send 3.6 million migrants to you" [2]. I can't find any specifics but presumably he's referring to Turkey ceasing to intercept and warehouse refugees who would otherwise head straight to Europe.
"..in his speech, Erdogan accused Europe of failing to keep its promises..... and that only half of the €6 billion pledged by the EU under the agreement had arrived. The claim was rejected by European Commission spokesperson, Natasha Bertaud, who said that €5.6 billion had been provided and the rest was "due to be allocated shortly."
A reminder that this impacts fellow humans https://www.savethechildren.net/news/save-children-statement...
3.6mn is so trifling that Turkey can deal with it. Europe could too, with proper organisation; I hope that we face up to our responsibilities if Erdogan follows through—at least then something good would come of Turkey’s aggression against Rojava.
However, if Erdogan follows through, he may just send the IS folks through first, and then tip off the tabloid press about how the EU is compromising its security by letting in terrorists.
Cue the backlash and outrage... and then he opens the floodgates.
> It’s trifling for Europe as a whole, as shown by the fact that Turkey managed to process them alone.
Considering the fact that 1 million refugees were enough to revitalize Neo-Nazi parties and cause a wave of right-wing terrorism and political assassinations, no, it is not trifling for Europe. I think some of you forget/don't realize how dire the situation was before the 2016 EU-Turkey refugee agreement. 5m would likely lead to the collapse of the EU.
Hindsight being 20/20, and all, the US withdrawing from Iraq (with some European pressure to do so) caused a lot of instability in the region. I doubt that ISIS would have been much of a concern without a power void in Iraq.
> Hindsight being 20/20, and all, the US withdrawing from Iraq (with some European pressure to do so) caused a lot of instability in the region.
We, the US invading Iraq and then immediately upon occupying it throwing out all experience of past occupations and disbanding the existing security services summarily caused a lot of instability. Without it, the group that subsequently became (despite no previous affiliation with, and some actual tension with, al-Qaeda) “al-Qaeda in Iraq”, then when they outgrew the need for the al-Qaeda brand “the Islamic State in Iraq” and later became “the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” (or, in the more common translation in many official circles, “...Iraq and the Levant”, hence why you sometimes see government sources referring to ISIL) after remerging with a splinter group that broke off to join in the Syrian civil war, and finally dropped all geographic references to be “the Islamic State”, never would have been anything other than a minor Iraqi internal opposition group.
Again, Europe is paying the "bill" and facing the consequences of the US-Russian-Turkish war on Syria. Europe is spending billions for the refugees but no one cared about. USA and Russian wanted to nuke the place for no reason and they didn't even spend a penny for helping all the refugees and immigrants. They're the most unethical countries right now.
I wonder why EU can't just strike back with economic sanctions if Erdogan follows through with his menace. I think the lira could go really really down...
48 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 75.5 ms ] threadIf diversity was truly a strength why would he threaten to voluntarily give away that which makes him "strong"?... Who was the last "dictator" you can think of that willfully wanted to give away an advantage?
Rather than having an elitists take on the matter while calling others fools, maybe you should reflect a little bit as to why he would make such a threat. If you think about it for more than two seconds you´ll come to the realization that he´s threatening because, unlike you, he understands the nature of what makes this a "threat".
The Abe government understands this and is attempting to lure foreign work albeit slowly. It’s hardly an example of cultural or economic dynamism the United States is.
Japan is not really doing OK. They are literally going extinct, have an awful and destructive work culture and have a ton of problems with sexism, to the point where it is necessary to have gender-segregated train carriages to stop groping. The only reason Japan seems to be doing OK is because their news are mostly inaccessible to the rest of the world.
Has immigration raised the birth-rate of the native population in other countries? I can find no examples of that anywhere in the modern-day West.
Besides, there are significantly more Japanese people now than at any other time in history, the last decade being the sole exception [1,2]. They have a long way to go before having to worry of extinction, and the environment will be very grateful in the mean-time.
As for reducing sexism, diversity is no guarantee, and can easily go the other way: https://www.france24.com/en/video/20161219-france-battle-aga...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Japan_b...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan#Historic...
The Soviet Union still existed in the mid 20th century. The United States was not the sole superpower and Americans lived under the threat of a mushroom cloud.
Socially down the toilet now? How exactly?
I can’t think of a single way life for the average American is worse in this century than it was in the 1960s.
Start a war? Be ready to deal with the refugees displaced by it.
<sarcasm>
Well... has anyone ever heard of Australia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_Australia
>Australia is the only country in the world with a policy of mandatory detention and offshore processing of asylum seekers who arrive without a valid visa.
Find some islands somewhere and send the refugees there. And then wait.
Oh, and make threatening videos like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvz3U-JOvOU
</sarcasm>
I had <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags there...
Australia's asylum policy has been the subject of both domestic and international criticism,[0] particularly with its policy of mandatory detention of unlawful arrivals.[1]
>I'm curious how all this is different from what Trump has been attempting to do at the US border?
Trump LOVES the Australian asylum policy and has been praising it since 2017.[2][3] As the New York Times pointed out in July, "Trump’s immigration approach isn’t new: Europe and Australia went first".[4]
In fact, the Trump travel ban[5] is pretty much how the White Australia policy[6] would have looked like if Deakin, the attorney-general of the first federal government, had not watered down the original racial criteria in the Immigration Restriction Bill to the dictation test.[7] The bill was one of the concessions demanded by the Labor party (yes, the same centre-left union-based party that is oh-so-progressive today[8]) in exchange for supporting the minority Barton government.[9]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_Australia#Public_deb...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_detention_in_Austr...
[2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-27/donald-trump-tweets-s...
[3] https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/08/trump-somehow-ma...
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/18/world/immigration-trump.h...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_travel_ban
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Restriction_Act_19...
[8] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-08/albanese-shorten-labo...
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barton_Government#Immigration
This is crazy. I am not even against paying for facilities for refugees outside of the EU or give grants for research. We have a long history of cultural exchange dating back to the eastern roman empire and before.
What a joke EU politics has become, no majority is in favor of Turkey joining the union, only the large diaspora of Turks. The Brexit is a mistake, The Donald is an idiot, but at least they made people get out of their sofa and vote instead of this semi-democracy we call the EU.
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/news_corner/m...
Turkey has spent more than $30 billion on refugees [1]. 6B just doesn't cut it, unfortunately.
[1] https://www.aa.com.tr/en/turkey/turkey-continues-to-be-top-r...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_as_weapons
https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501704369/weap...
[0]: https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/news_corner/m...
[1]: https://ec.europa.eu/echo/where/europe/turkey_en
[2]: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/10/turkeys-erdogan-...
Hope that helps.
Additional reporting and interesting quote from https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/19334/turkey-threatens-...
"..in his speech, Erdogan accused Europe of failing to keep its promises..... and that only half of the €6 billion pledged by the EU under the agreement had arrived. The claim was rejected by European Commission spokesperson, Natasha Bertaud, who said that €5.6 billion had been provided and the rest was "due to be allocated shortly." A reminder that this impacts fellow humans https://www.savethechildren.net/news/save-children-statement...
Aye, I hope so too.
However, if Erdogan follows through, he may just send the IS folks through first, and then tip off the tabloid press about how the EU is compromising its security by letting in terrorists.
Cue the backlash and outrage... and then he opens the floodgates.
I wouldn’t call that “trifling”.
Considering the fact that 1 million refugees were enough to revitalize Neo-Nazi parties and cause a wave of right-wing terrorism and political assassinations, no, it is not trifling for Europe. I think some of you forget/don't realize how dire the situation was before the 2016 EU-Turkey refugee agreement. 5m would likely lead to the collapse of the EU.
We, the US invading Iraq and then immediately upon occupying it throwing out all experience of past occupations and disbanding the existing security services summarily caused a lot of instability. Without it, the group that subsequently became (despite no previous affiliation with, and some actual tension with, al-Qaeda) “al-Qaeda in Iraq”, then when they outgrew the need for the al-Qaeda brand “the Islamic State in Iraq” and later became “the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” (or, in the more common translation in many official circles, “...Iraq and the Levant”, hence why you sometimes see government sources referring to ISIL) after remerging with a splinter group that broke off to join in the Syrian civil war, and finally dropped all geographic references to be “the Islamic State”, never would have been anything other than a minor Iraqi internal opposition group.
I doubt that ISIS would even have existed without the US invasion of Iraq.
I, and plenty others, saw this coming without hindsight.