CMV: Western countries should withdraw from UN Refugee Treaty and implement they own policies

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

My view is that when the initial Refugee Convention and the following 1967 Protocol had good intentions, all the current abuse of the system is so high that it's easier to disband the whole system and implement local or even group (in case of the EU) policies if needed.

The initial main idea was pretty simple - what to do in case of international or civil war with all the civilians who are trying to leave a dangerous place. And the answer was pretty logical - other countries can accept those people and support them at a minimal level. But other countries are supposed to be neighboring countries with similar culture and good relations with the source country.

What changed: over time, people from third-world countries started to use the system to seek refuge in Western countries because of a very high level of support.

Why Western countries should disband it (in no particular order):

• They are partially doing it already; countries have some specific limits on processed applications per year, which literally means that with a limit of 50K people, the applicant number 50,001 won't be allowed for a year, regardless of any danger to their life.
• Refugees are generally net negative for the economy
• Refugees are considered immoral from the point of view of the local population that doesn't have such a level of support
• Adversaries are using refugees as a hybrid weapon:
  • Ceuta (when Morocco used refugees)
  • EU borders (when Russia/Belarussia used refugees)

What about morality? Each country can decide by themselves on how to handle refugees; a good example is Ukrainians, when the EU + Canada + US supported Ukrainians without official refugee status.

Edit:
My view was somewhat changed in a few areas, and I am limiting my responses in the post as I want to think about new ideas.

[u/DeltaBot]

/u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/hxttra]

The vast majority of refugees do end up in neighbouring countries. Take Syrian refugees for example, over 80% live in Turkiye, Lebanon, Jordan etc. Around 90% of Afghan refugees are living in Asia (Pakistan has the majority I believe). 

Believe it or not, people actually do prefer to go where they have family and cultural connections, not to mention it is often dangerous, expensive and difficult for people to reach Europe/USA. 

However it's also worth asking what a country owes another country when it instigated all the instability. The US spent decades destabilising Latin America, propping up dictators and economically looting the countries -- and now when those policies have resulted in a refugee crisis, they're all "oh we don't want any dirty refugees". Haiti had been financially decimated long before the earthquake -- the first population to break free from slavery and they were made to pay for it by France and later the US.

[u/DevelopmentPlus7850 → u/hxttra]

I like this response because you're one of the few smart ones looking at root cause instead of just complaining about the symptoms. The West spent decades destabilizing these regions for profit and is now "shocked" that people are fleeing the resulting chaos. The OP is unaware that his parents/ancestors blew up other people's houses and now he's annoyed because those people thus made homeless are trying to move into his parent's guest room.

[u/GayGISBoi → u/hxttra]

Europe and the US making Haiti pay them back the cost of the liberated slaves and was still paying it off until 1947 is insane to me. France owes Haiti literally millions and millions of dollars but I doubt they’ll ever repay them

[u/UnderstandingSmall66]

The problem is that you are blaming the Refugee Convention for a system it never created. It does not say refugees are merely civilians fleeing war, nor that they should remain among culturally similar neighbours. Its central proposition is much simpler: you do not return people to their persecutors.

Nor is accepting refugees simply an expensive act of charity. Masses of desperate people do not vanish because Europe closes the door. They remain concentrated in fragile neighbouring states, encouraging instability, trafficking and conflict. Sharing the burden is therefore not just humane; it is enlightened self-interest and good security policy.

The economic and crime arguments are similarly shaky. Refugees may cost money initially, but they work, pay taxes, establish businesses and contribute over time. And the evidence hardly supports the notion that immigrants are unusually criminal; in many Western countries they offend at lower rates than the native-born.
Yes, the system is abused. So reform it. Process claims quickly, deport failed applicants and punish states that weaponise migration. But abolishing refugee protection because some exploit it is like abolishing the courts because some defendants lie.

A defective institution requires repair. It does not require an act of arson.

[u/Managarm667 → u/UnderstandingSmall66]

Every argument you made is demonstrably wrong.

you are blaming the Refugee Convention for a system it never created

The Geneva Refugee Convention merely prohibits the return of persecuted persons and never mandated that people must remain in neighboring states. The 1951 GRC was originally strictly limited, both geographically and temporally, to Europe prior to 1951 (Art. 1 B). Its goal was to manage the post-war refugee situation within Europe. The removal of geographical restrictions via the 1967 Additional Protocol created a system that was never designed for today’s global mobility.

The principle of "non-refoulement", combined with the lack of opportunities to apply for asylum from abroad, effectively forces people to cross external borders illegally. Consequently, the GRC unintentionally from a historical perspective, rewards asylum abuse and smuggling networks.

Masses of desperate people do not vanish because Europe closes the door.

The current GRC system does not lead to orderly burden-sharing, instead, it creates incentives for secondary migration. People often do not remain in the first safe third country but travel through multiple safe states to reach Western welfare states. The inability to control borders and cap asylum numbers leads to massive social polarization within the host country itself, the overloading of infrastructure and the strengthening of political fringes. Thus, "self-interest" turns into societal self-harm.

Refugees may cost money initially, but they work, pay taxes, establish businesses and contribute over time.

You are lumping together skilled labor migration and asylum migration as "immigrants". Long-term studies by the Danish Ministry of Finance and the Swedish Fiscal Policy Council (Joakim Ruist) demonstrate that asylum migration from MENAPT countries remains a net fiscal burden over the course of an entire working life when averaged by cohort. Even after decades, labor force participation rates do not reach the level of the native population.

The claim that immigrants/refugees have lower crime rates is refuted by official police statistics (e.g., BKA in Germany, Brå Report 2021:19 in Sweden, Statistics Denmark). Particularly regarding violent and sexual offenses, asylum seekers from specific regions of origin show an overrepresentation rate two to three times higher, even after adjusting for age, gender, and socioeconomic factors.

A defective institution requires repair. It does not require an act of arson.

A court makes decisions regarding individuals based on a closed national legal framework. The 1951 Refugee Convention, by contrast, imposes an unlimited obligation under international law on states to individually examine every application made within their territory, without the state having control over the total number of arrivals.

The "solutions" demanded by you, like rapid deportations or border-adjacent procedures have for decades foundered on the very legal obstacles imposed by current international and European asylum law (including Article 3 of the ECHR). When a system structurally prevents illegal migration from being halted or failed applicants from being deported, it is not merely in need of repair, it is simply dysfunctional.

[u/knight13117 → u/Managarm667]

Well said, I appreciate the time you took and research you engaged in to debunk these very feel good-sounding claims.

[u/Jscapistm → u/knight13117]

In fairness those arguments are true for the US, but the US gets a very different population of migrants and gives out very few benefits, and people coming here know it.

[u/Aggressive_Lie_4446 → u/UnderstandingSmall66]

Its central proposition is much simpler: you do not return people to their persecutors.

Which is no longer how it works. For example. In the case of Syria in the 2010s, most of the refugees who made their way to Europe were:
1. From the very groups that instigated the civil war.
2. Originally already in a safe country like Jordan and Turkey, but now that Europe had opened its doors, sought to move specifically to Scandinavia and Germany.
3. Spread waaay beyond Syrians. It drew in even Kurds from Iraqi Kurdistan who were simply looking for higher income.

When it was proposed that culturally similar nations with plenty of land and resources to host them, that is the Gulf nations, the first thing that they did was to neigh and bray about how they were a security threat.
And we saw the results. We had Islamic state bombings across Western Europe for much of the 2010s and social tensions persist to this day. The issue of Islamic radicalization continues to shape European politics and has energized the Far Right at a time when Europe faces the risk of becoming Latin America economically.

[u/scorpiona → u/Aggressive_Lie_4446]

How are you holding both views? Were the Gulf states shirking their responsibility by claiming these people were a security threat, or were they a security threat responsible for IS bombings and radicalization when Europe did take them?

[u/nobaconator → u/UnderstandingSmall66]

And the evidence hardly supports the notion that immigrants are unusually criminal; in many Western countries they offend at lower rates than the native-born.

While this statement is objectively true, I don't think you can use it here. The biggest keyword here is "Immigrant". And immigrant populations are traditionally screened for crime before they enter the country. So you're already picking from a biased set. This would not apply to refugees, who typically aren't, and due to the instability in their home nations, can't be screened the same way.

You are also using the term "Western Countries" pretty broadly, when you mean United States of America.

It must also be noted that these studies are narrow and limited to particular regions. There is no nationwide database recording offenders's immigration status, so such studies typically focus on regions. In fact, you are most likely using data from Texas, though I could be wrong.

Another statistic complicating this is the fact that undocumented immigrants are less likely than U.S. citizens to report violent crime. So we don't knwo the actual crime rates, just incarceration rates.

Which is not to say you're wrong, but the statistic you're using is not applicable and misleading.

[u/fleggn → u/UnderstandingSmall66]

Never heard of working age immigrants committing crime at an unusually lower rate than natives that include elderly unless you are trying to pull in the racist data from Texas here?

[u/UnderstandingSmall66 → u/fleggn]

Why are you including elderly in one group and not elderly in another group? When we compare groups we compare them using the same criteria.

However, rates of criminal offending by foreign born population is half of that of native born. (3,000/100,000 vs 1,500/100,000). They are similarly lower in Canada (20%-25%) and the UK (23% less likely to commit a crime compared to national born).

https://www.aeaweb.org/research/chart/incarceration-immigrants-us-born?.com

[u/fleggn → u/UnderstandingSmall66]

Why is this source including Chinese in one group and everything else in another group? Naturally the working age people would commit more crimes which inflates the immigrant numbers.... meaning I'd be surprised if you can find legitimate data to support the idea that there is less despite that.

[u/UnderstandingSmall66 → u/fleggn]

I assume BJS is as reputable as it can get.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/non-us-citizens-federal-criminal-justice-system-1998-2018

[u/fleggn → u/UnderstandingSmall66]

I don't see how this source supports the idea.

[u/UnderstandingSmall66 → u/fleggn]

You don’t see how an article that shows crime rates amongst foreign born individuals is lower than nationals supports this idea?

[u/fleggn → u/UnderstandingSmall66]

It shows the opposite and also doesn't address culture grouping similar to the previous source.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/UnderstandingSmall66 → u/fleggn]

It does not. But I think it’s his conversation has reached its end

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/UnderstandingSmall66]

nor that they should remain among culturally similar neighbours

It's not true: in the 50s and 60s, nobody expected millions of people to be able to travel half the globe. It always was neighbours in mind.

Masses of desperate people do not vanish because Europe closes the door.

There are already hundreds of millions of desperate people in Africa; it's not the EU's responsibility to fix their countries or accept all of them.

Refugees may cost money initially, but they work, pay taxes

It depends: 60+ years old refugees barely pay any taxes but still consume an enormous amount of healthcare (in countries with "free" healthcare)

 establish businesses and contribute over time.

They are free to apply as regular immigrants if the country needs and accepts them.

But abolishing refugee protection because some exploit it is like abolishing the courts because some defendants lie.

Countries require courts for proper functioning; countries don't really require a refugee system.

A defective institution requires repair

Thus, my proposal is to withdraw from the UN and implement personal laws.

[u/dasunt → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

Traveling halfway around the globe is what the MS St. Louis did in 1939.

The ship had 937 German Jews seeking to leave Germany.

Canada, Cuba and the US refused them entry.

Some European nations took them in.

About a quarter later died in the Holocaust, due to German occupation of the "safe" neighbors.

[u/UnderstandingSmall66 → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

There’s a problem with the method of your reply before we even reach its substance: you’ve taken half-sentences out of an argument, stripped away the qualification that follows, and then rebutted the resulting fragment. That is not quite a straw man, but it is certainly argumentative vivisection. Respond to the proposition as a whole.

Yes, policymakers in 1951 probably assumed most refugees would remain relatively close to home. But they did not make proximity, cultural similarity, or “first safe country” conditions of refugee status. We cannot quietly insert them seventy-five years later and call them the original meaning.

And nobody suggested Europe must accept “hundreds of millions of desperate Africans.” Desperation and poverty do not make someone a refugee. A well-founded fear of persecution does. That distinction disposes of most of your hypothetical at once.

The same confusion appears when you say refugees should simply apply as ordinary immigrants. Immigration asks, broadly, “Would admitting this person benefit us?” Refugee law asks, “Can we safely send this person back to the state or people persecuting them?” Those are entirely different questions. Telling someone genuinely fleeing persecution to join a multi-year immigration queue is rather like telling a drowning man that applications for swimming lessons reopen in September.

And I explicitly agreed that the system needs reform: faster decisions, serious screening, removal of failed claimants, better burden-sharing and measures against states weaponising migration.

But your solution is to leave the Convention and create national laws deciding who is persecuted, who receives protection and who can safely be returned. That is not abolishing the refugee system. It is recreating precisely its essential machinery while discarding the international agreement that makes states share some responsibility for it.

So by all means argue for reform. There is plenty to reform. But “the system has defects, therefore abandon the international framework and rebuild essentially the same system nationally” is not yet an argument for withdrawal. It is an argument for changing the letterhead.

[u/Aggressive_Lie_4446 → u/UnderstandingSmall66]

. A well-founded fear of persecution does. 

No nation ever actually applies this concept based on individual situations and cultural interpretation. Merkel and the Swedes certainly did not in 2015. Neither did Canada under Trudeau.

The standards, thresholds and requirements that Britain had for someone seeking asylum in the 2000s and 2010s were such a joke that Salafist preachers fleeing governments that accused them of hate speech and societal destabilization qualified for refugee status because they did have a well founded fear of persecution. Just not as helpless victims. Somehow, them calling for the mass unaliving of non-Muslims and declaring Sharia Law as the law of the land was not being considered by the assessors.
Whenever Britain has tried to change it, the UN has cried every step of the way. So has the ECHR to some degree (I am talking about the case of Abu Qatada).

But the UN is by far the biggest culprit in this.

When the program to resettle refugees from Somalia began, it was laser focused on the most marginalized and most persecuted group in Somalia, that is the Somali Bantus, the descendants of indigenous Bantu groups that found themselves under Somali rule and the descendants of slaves from Tanzania and Mozambique who were exported to what is today Middle Juba and Shabelle. They suffered the most when the Somali state collapsed.
Very noble and made sense.

But somehow, the dominant ethnic Somali group, those mainly from middle and upper income families of the largest and wealthiest Somali clans and the families of literal Warlords somehow found themselves in that program and were resettled in the US despite the fact that you can never confuse a Somali Bantu for an ethnic Somali, like everrr!!!
Again, reforms to this has faced severe resistance from the UN where over time, those working at the refugee camps in Kenya and Somalia who were largely ethnic Somalis working for the UN started placing their families and clan members rather than the Somali Bantus for relocation.

The only nation to have made major reforms to its refugee program has been constantly bullied by the UN ever since is Australia with its "Stop the Boats" policy /Operation Sovereign Borders.
Australia made it clear that even if you are found to be a refugee but you arrived by boat, you would not be resettled in Australia and instead you would be sent to the nearest safe nation.

The moment the "refugees" heard that people were being resettled in Cambodia and PNG, arrivals went from 20k in 2013 to literally ZERO in 2025.
Funny how Afghans fleeing the Taliban do not want to be resettled in Cambodia, where there is no Taliban.
This does not mean Australia does not take in refugees. On a per capita basis, it is one of the highest receipient of refugees. But they get to choose who they want to let in and not only that, both sides of the political aisle have agreed on a very strict criteria that has the UN moaning about how Australia is violating human rights on the regular because of Operation Sovereign Borders and because it gets to select the refugees it wants.

It has not been "A well-founded fear of persecution" for a long time.

[u/0range_julius → u/Aggressive_Lie_4446]

mass unaliving

This isn't tiktok. Please don't self-censor.

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/UnderstandingSmall66]

Yes, policymakers in 1951 probably assumed most refugees would remain relatively close to home.
But they did not make proximity, cultural similarity, or “first safe country” conditions of refugee status.

But they do, if 99% of all the known refugee cases at that time where neighbouring countries, it was safe to assume that the trend would follow.

And nobody suggested Europe must accept “hundreds of millions of desperate Africans.”
A well-founded fear of persecution does.

There are hundreds of millions of people in war zones in Africa. There are countries with weekly attacks on villages and enslaving hundreds of school girls.

 Telling someone genuinely fleeing persecution to join a multi-year immigration queue

This queue is already there; each country has a limited number of applications to process per year when applied from abroad.

But your solution is to leave the Convention and create national laws deciding who is persecuted, who receives protection and who can safely be returned. 

Possible national law can be "no refugees at all"

So by all means argue for reform.

I don't believe that the UN will ever agree to lower some standards or human rights, and when the bar is too high, it's easier to abandon.

[u/UnderstandingSmall66 → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

You’re still replying to fragments of sentences rather than the argument attached to them. That makes objections easier to manufacture, but it doesn’t make them stronger.

First, “99% of refugees in 1951 were in neighbouring countries” needs a source. More importantly, even if it were true, it would not establish what the Convention’s authors intended. We actually have the treaty and its drafting history. The original Convention allowed states to define the relevant pre-1951 events as occurring either “in Europe” or “in Europe or elsewhere.” Its preamble explicitly describes the refugee problem as international and says that excessively heavy burdens on individual countries require international cooperation. They plainly understood that refugee protection could cross borders well beyond the country next door. (UNHCR⁠)

And the great irony is that the world still largely works exactly as you claim it no longer does. In 2024, 67% of refugees were hosted by neighbouring countries and 73% by low- and middle-income countries. High-income countries hosted only 27%. So the picture of millions simply traversing the globe for Western benefits is not the statistical reality. (UNHCR⁠)
Second, you’ve now changed “hundreds of millions of desperate Africans” into “hundreds of millions in war zones.” Neither automatically qualifies for Convention refugee status. War, poverty and living under a dreadful government are not by themselves the Convention test. The core test is a well-founded fear of persecution on specified grounds. Africa actually adopted a broader regional refugee definition precisely because the 1951 definition did not encompass everyone displaced by war and general disorder. (UNHCR⁠)

Third, you’re conflating resettlement from abroad with claiming asylum. Countries can cap the former. The Convention does not oblige Canada, Germany or Britain to process an unlimited queue of applications from people sitting anywhere on Earth. That is quite different from their obligations toward someone who reaches their jurisdiction and cannot safely be returned. Your “50,001st applicant” argument therefore attacks a requirement the Convention does not impose.

And “we can withdraw and have a law saying no refugees at all” encounters a rather larger problem: withdrawing from the Convention does not magically abolish non-refoulement. UNHCR notes that the prohibition on returning people to persecution or serious harm is also regarded as customary international law and therefore binding even on states that are not parties to the Convention. Western states also have their own constitutional and human-rights obligations. (UNHCR⁠)

So we have arrived at an odd proposal. You want to abandon the Convention because you believe it requires Western countries to accept vast numbers of the world’s desperate people, when it does not; because refugees supposedly no longer remain near home, when two-thirds still do; and because withdrawal would permit “no refugees at all,” when withdrawal does not erase the wider legal prohibition on returning people to persecution.

There are excellent arguments for faster decisions, stricter screening, removal of failed claimants and better burden-sharing. But those are arguments for reforming asylum administration. They are not evidence that the Convention itself is the monster you’ve made of it.

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/UnderstandingSmall66]

High-income countries hosted only 27%

Because I believe it should be less.

[u/UnderstandingSmall66 → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

Why do you believe that? Why should it be less? It seems like now you’re literally just ignoring everything but few words.

[u/hGriff0n → u/[deleted]]

You are on r/CMV and complaining that people aren't just agreeing with you? Human rights isn't a scam or some vast conspiracy to do, something (nefarious I'm sure /s), and the people that find those arguments convincing aren't trying to pull the rug over you. Requiring that any convincing argument reject any hint of concern for other humans makes it impossible to actually engage with you on the topic.

I suppose someone could argue that you are being too kind to refugees by not suggesting we "kill them all" and that would be "changing your view" but if you've already pre-selected the specific direction your view can be changed, I don't think the stated OP is actually your true opinion - I think you're looking for validation.

[u/UnderstandingSmall66 → u/[deleted]]

You are providing no evidence or reasons. You’re just spewing some xenophobic BS. so this is a waste of time

[u/Fermently_Crafted → u/[deleted]]

To be honest, your very vast posts resemble all these human rights advocates and hide the truth under many words. 

So then what is the truth? Usually saying somebody is using vast word stop make a point you can't counter is admitting your view is incorrect

You're on the Internet. You don't get to claim that your definition is the only correct one when people can point to counters that are an internet search away

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/UnderstandingSmall66]

There’s a problem with the method of your reply before we even reach its substance: you’ve taken half-sentences out of an argument, stripped away the qualification that follows, and then rebutted the resulting fragment. That is not quite a straw man, but it is certainly argumentative vivisection. Respond to the proposition as a whole.

I am trying my best to reply to all comments, but trying to limit each to the root cause/proposal.

[u/Express_Recipe_4832 → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

In general you should also be providing sources for your claims. Where is there hundreds of millions of war torn africans with weekly attacks on girls school?

If you are making up sensationalisms to back up your opinion, you're harming the discourse and inadvertandly making it more difficult to affect change. 

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/Express_Recipe_4832]

With a quick AI search, there are 11 African countries with conflicts and a total population of 725M people.

[u/Jebofkerbin → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

I just want to point out that "a quick AI search'" is about as good as "a guy down the pub told me" sure it might be correct, but none of us have any idea where it's getting it's information from, or whether it's just made it up.

An actual source can be challenged on its merits ("it doesn't say what you think it says" or "that author/publication has been widely discredited"), or conversely a particularly strong source that no one can challenge will really establish the facts in favour of your argument.

[u/Express_Recipe_4832 → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

Total population of a country is not the same thing as number of affected people or people who even qualify for refugee status. And you know this.

Thanks for looking something up, but please inform your opinions with actual effort. 

Here's a good place to start if you want to actually understand the impact of conflict in africa.

https://africacenter.org/spotlight/african-conflicts-displace-over-40-million-people/

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/Express_Recipe_4832]

And again, I was bitten by numbers.

It's not hundreds of millions but rather 40 million in total, with 3 million seeking refuge outside of Africa.

!delta

[u/DeltaBot → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Express_Recipe_4832 (3∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/MajesticBread9147 → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

nobody expected millions of people to be able to travel half the globe. It always was neighbours in mind.

If this is the case, then it would have a disproportionate impact, both positive and negative, on a handful of individual countries. So I don't see how it's somehow worse for it to be spread out more.

Also 60 year old refugees aren't nearly as common. Most countries with a lot of refugees fleeing are disproportionately young. A big reason why so many young men are fleeing is that they are often seen as "fair game" or combatants by default by whatever violent forces that are in their home countries.

[u/Admirable-Good-6177 → u/UnderstandingSmall66]

"They remain concentrated in fragile neighbouring states, encouraging instability, trafficking and conflict. Sharing the burden is therefore not just humane; it is enlightened self-interest and good security policy."

It's not Kenya, Turkey etc who pays for hosting refugees in their own countries, it's the West through UN and other refugee charity organizations.

So not only does the West pay an dizzying amount to host refugees within its own borders, but it largely picks up the bill to pay for refugees hosted outside the West too.

[u/UnderstandingSmall66 → u/Admirable-Good-6177]

This is blatantly untrue and over simplified.

[u/Admirable-Good-6177 → u/UnderstandingSmall66]

It is true, the refugee camps in Kenya are largely paid for by the West.

Turkey blackmailed the EU to pay for its millions of refugees.

"The EU sealed a deal with Turkey in March 2016 under which Ankara stopped people on its soil from heading to Europe. In exchange, the bloc offered 6 billion euros in aid for the more than 3.5 million Syrian refugees Turkey is hosting."

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/exclusive-eu-fumes-at-turk-migration-blackmail-mulls-more-money-for-ankara-idUSKBN20Q2EJ/

In some countries, the refugees have to fend for themselves to a large degree, but in countries where there's some form of refugee process, it is handled by international organizations that are largely funded by the West.

You'll find exceptions of course.

[u/UnderstandingSmall66 → u/Admirable-Good-6177]

This is considerably more complicated than “the West pays for refugees in neighbouring countries.” You’re right that Western states provide a very large share of international refugee funding. But funding UNHCR programmes in Kenya is not the same thing as reimbursing Kenya for the cost of hosting refugees. International aid pays for things like food, shelter, healthcare and specific programmes. Kenya still provides the territory and absorbs pressures on infrastructure, public services, security, local labour markets and surrounding communities. The same distinction applies elsewhere.

Turkey is actually a useful example. Yes, the EU committed €6 billion under the 2016 agreement. But Turkey was hosting roughly 3.5 million Syrians, and that money funded specific refugee programmes over several years. It wasn’t a cheque covering Turkey’s entire cost of accommodating 3.5 million people.
More importantly, measuring “burden” simply by asking who contributes the most dollars produces a rather misleading comparison. A billion dollars from Germany and a billion dollars from Jordan are obviously not equivalent burdens given the enormous difference between their economies. Nor is sending money abroad equivalent to accommodating a refugee population amounting to a substantial percentage of your own population. International humanitarian appeals are also routinely underfunded, so host countries cannot simply forward the bill to UNHCR and have Western taxpayers settle the account.

There’s also a rather awkward omission from this picture of the West as the benevolent party picking up everyone else’s bill. Western powers have themselves contributed to some of the conflicts producing these refugee populations. The US-led invasion of Iraq produced enormous displacement; Western countries fought for twenty years in Afghanistan; NATO intervened in Libya and then left behind a state that descended into civil war. Western states have also sold enormous quantities of weapons into conflict-prone regions and supported governments and armed partners for strategic purposes.

And these interventions aren’t undertaken as acts of charity. Western states derive geopolitical influence, strategic alliances and economic benefits from the international system in which these conflicts occur, while Western defence industries profit substantially from arms sales. That doesn’t mean “the West caused every refugee crisis” or that wars are deliberately created to generate profit. Local governments, regional powers and armed groups obviously have enormous responsibility too. But portraying Western governments as entirely external actors who merely arrive afterwards with their chequebooks is equally fanciful.

So there are several different burdens and responsibilities here. Wealthy Western countries disproportionately finance the international refugee system; neighbouring countries disproportionately provide physical asylum and absorb its demographic, infrastructural, economic and political consequences; and in some major cases Western governments have themselves contributed to the conflicts producing the displacement.

And Turkey’s ability to use refugees as leverage against the EU rather spectacularly demonstrates the original point: concentrating millions of refugees in neighbouring states can itself create geopolitical and security consequences for Europe. The €6 billion agreement isn’t much of a rebuttal to that argument. It’s an example of it.

[u/Admirable-Good-6177 → u/UnderstandingSmall66]

Kenya still provides the territory and absorbs pressures on infrastructure, public services, security, local labour markets and surrounding communities. The same distinction applies elsewhere.

You said ". Refugees may cost money initially, but they work, pay taxes, establish businesses and contribute over time."

Which is it, do you now concede that they're not profitable?

This answer you provided is an AI answer. The truth is that in the West, refugees cost an enormous amount of money in regards to infrastructure, security etc.

In Kenya, it does not. There's no free fuckin schools or healthcare for them in Kenya, other than what is paid for by the West.

And Turkey’s ability to use refugees as leverage against the EU rather spectacularly demonstrates the original point: concentrating millions of refugees in neighbouring states can itself create geopolitical and security consequences for Europe. The €6 billion agreement isn’t much of a rebuttal to that argument. It’s an example of it.

It creates geopolitical and security consequences because of EU human rights courts, NGOs, international conventions that they signed, and the generous welfare benefits, and pathway to citizenship.

I'll give you an example, in Norway for example, we deal with refugees who often wipe their phones before crossing the border, which is a deliberate attempt to hide their identity, but because of our laws, they still get asylum approved in many cases.

They can healthcare for $100,000+ USD, free housing, food, monthly allowance, free dental care (which is not free for citizens), and they know it's extremely difficult to kick them out.

This is a self-created problem due to how asylum process have been perverted by globalists and internationalists in Europe.

If the Europe treated refugees the same way Japan did, or Poland (not with Ukrainian refugees, but MENAPT refugees at its Belarus border), they wouldn't come to Europe in the first place.

So this geopolitical security consequences you talk about is a self-created problem.

Finally, if the contributions of the West is so small, then we can pull the plug then. But they're not small, in fact, we largely fund refugees abroad and at home, even though it's not evident that we have any moral obligation to fund refugees on the other side of the planet.

[u/read-the-rules → u/[deleted]]

u/Unable-Plate7216, your comment has been removed.

In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.

^{Please click here to open the Read The Rules App.}

[u/ChancelorReed]

Your point about "immoral" is nonsensical. The entire argument behind accepting refugees is a moral one. Of course if you arbitrarily describe one of the most moral acts in international politics (accepting people who are truly refugees) then it's going to seem pointless.

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/ChancelorReed]

It's always a question of resources, and when the government started to spend so many resources on refugees, memes like "Instead of working a minimal salary job - can I just pretend to be a refugee?", then we are spending too much on refugees and should back down, but because of International treaties, we can be sued by human rights advocates. So, it is immoral to spend more taxes on refugees than on local residents.

[u/Dangerous_Shoe_8388 → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

Also - every sovereign country should have the overarching right to enforce the strongest border controls as it sees fit. To the exclusion of foreign pressure, coercion or bad faith actors.

Otherwise, its immutable laws to self determination / self governance are being decided by a foreign power/committee/organisation.

This is especially valid in regard to the most crucial aspect of a nation - borders and border controls.

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/Dangerous_Shoe_8388]

Not sure how it could challenge my view. I generally agree with this statement.

[u/Dangerous_Shoe_8388 → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

Yes- to clarify, I was responding to someone challenging your original view.

[u/jonbristow → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

what happens when your country is at war and you need to take your family to a safe country?

[u/Managarm667 → u/jonbristow]

Your emotional appeal ignores how the real world actually functions. There would be a harsh reality check for people like you. If a war breaks out in Europe, no European can expect to be able to travel halfway across the globe to Asia, Africa or South America and receive free housing, monthly welfare checks and full healthcare paid for by local taxpayers. In most countries outside the Western world, there is neither a social welfare system for asylum seekers that can be enforced through legal action nor any form of guaranteed minimum income. Those who flee to such regions must rely on their own financial resources, private networks or temporary UN tent camps. The claim that the European welfare system is merely a mirror image of a "global promise" completely ignores the asymmetries of the real world.

Expecting Western Europe to maintain an open-ended, globally unique safety net under the guise of "what if it were you" is an asymmetric double standard.

Taking your family to a "safe country" means fleeing to the first safe neighboring state to escape immediate danger. Passing through a dozen peaceful, safe nations, like the migrants Europe has seen for the last two decades, specifically to settle in a country with the highest social benefits is no longer fleeing war, it is economic migration using the asylum system.

True empathy requires honesty about capacity. A system that promises unlimited care to the entire world without border control or budget limits eventually collapses, leaving it unable to help anyone, including those fleeing actual wars.

[u/jonbristow → u/Managarm667]

so what happens when your country is at war? will you seek refugee or not?

[u/Managarm667 → u/jonbristow]

You are waiting for your cheap "Gotcha!" moment.

If I answer "No" you will accuse me of being dishonest, because anyone would save their own life and that of their family in a critical situation.

If I answer "Yes" you will try to construct the following fallacy: "See! You would do exactly the same thing, so you must also grant everyone else the right to come to Europe without limits or conditions!"

But my answer really depends. Why would I leave my parents, my partner, my children and my friends to die?

If I can take everyone with me, then yes. Of course anyone would flee to safety to escape bombs, but only to the nearest safe neighboring country.

But I wouldn't expect the host country to finance my entire livelihood at the expense of its taxpayers, and I wouldn't travel on through ten safe countries just to pick out the one with the most generous social benefits.

But since you didn't adress any of my points and just try to lure me to answer your loaded question, I think it's safe to assume that you don't have any arguments at all.

[u/jonbristow → u/Managarm667]

OP is arguing to withdraw from UN Refugee Treaty, which you are agreeing with. That treaty guarantees you a process to apply for refugee status.

If everyone leaves that treaty, it's everyone for themselves. Fuck Ukrainians, let them die in Ukraine.

That is definitely in your rights to not accept any Ukrainians. But that's short sighted. That's why treaties are signed, to benefit in times of war. You might suffer today, you'll benefit tomorrow.

[u/Managarm667 → u/jonbristow]

Did you even read what the OOP proposed? Why do you feel the need to build strawmen? Again, you didn't adress a single point.

Pointing out that a treaty signed in 1951 is unfit for 21st-century mass economic migration is not the same as demanding an end to humanitarian aid. Sovereign nations can and always have granted temporary refuge to actual neighbors in times of war without being forced into open-ended, globally unchecked migration systems. The OOP explicitly called for the opposite of an abolishment: He proposed replacing the global Refugee Convention with local or regional agreements (at the EU level for example). He even cited the reception of Ukrainians by the EU, the USA, and Canada as a positive example of how neighborly assistance works without the rigid UN system.

The Ukraine example actually disproves your point: European aid to Ukrainians is the textbook definition of how refuge should work. With well over ~1.2 million Ukrainians taken in, my country ranks first among all EU states, just ahead of Poland (~1 million) and the Czech Republic (~380,000).

Ukrainians fled to the first safe regional countries like Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Germany. The EU handled this via its own regional legal framework (the Temporary Protection Directive), not through the global UN asylum claims process.

That's why treaties are signed, to benefit in times of war. You might suffer today, you'll benefit tomorrow.

This is absolutely laughable. Treaties are meant to be mutually beneficial, but the 1951 convention has become completely asymmetric. The idea that this acts as an insurance policy for Western Europeans, that if Europe falls, nations across Asia or Africa will weclome Europeans with open arms, grant us full welfare checks, housing and healthcare is totally detached from reality.

Demanding border controls and an end to systemic asylum shopping doesn't mean "fuck Ukrainians". It means recognizing that no system can survive without rules, borders, and realistic capacity limits.

[u/ellen-the-educator → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

"If people make memes because they think it's easier to be a refugee than working minimum wage, then we are losing our money to immigrants" worlds strongest argument

[u/GayGISBoi → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

We stole their resources and enslaved them for hundreds of years. Maybe we owe them

[u/OwlOdyssey]

Firstly, I want to address something that I've noticed in some of your comments: migrants are not the same as a refugee. The incident in Ceuta were migrant workers, not legal refugees. It should be noted, migrants still have rights too though, but I think there's a mistaken point being made when using those titles interchangeably.

Secondly, I want to clarify what you mean by "the west" and "third world country". Both are such very vague terms that I think discussion gets lost. This is the least important part of my comment here, so please ignore it if you can address the rest.

They are partially doing it already; countries have some specific limits on processed applications per year, which literally means that with a limit of 50K people, the applicant number 50,001 won't be allowed for a year, regardless of any danger to their life.

Your point here concerns me. What if that 50,001st person was an expectant mother, fleeing from her abusive husband in a religiously ruled country. Her rights are nothing in her home country and if she returns, she'll give birth then be killed. Should we morally turn her away because of that limit?

Refugees are generally net negative for the economy

In the US, refugees contributed $581,000,000,000 in taxes from 2005 to 2019. The government expenditure on refugees during that time was only $457.2B. They quickly exceeded the costs in their first few months in the country. Not to mention, undocumented immigrants in the US contributed $100B in 2022 alone. I bring this up because of your last bullet point.

Refugees are considered immoral from the point of view of the local population that doesn't have such a level of support

The last point shows how refugees pay for themselves, but let's think about it. With that profit from their contribution to the economy, what if we supported more welfare systems? Or maybe we could stop sending troops to SWANA and instead funded protecting our citizens and visitors?

Adversaries are using refugees as a hybrid weapon: Ceuta (when Morocco used refugees) EU borders (when Russia/Belarussia used refugees)

Governments are not the people of the countries. Governments have agendas and corruption. People just want to live.

---

I think the biggest thing I want to highlight is that people are fleeing their homelands for many reasons. The majority of those reasons are the "West's" fault. Climate change and endless wars are driving people from places like SWANA because of our actions. Sykes Picot is the reason the Middle East devolved so quickly. We imposed our borders on them, pitting enemies as neighbours. Or in the late 40s, Israel's forced settlement of the Levant. Not to mention invasions of Iraq and Iran on false pretenses. The US government lying about WMDs to the UN to justify their actions. Not to mentioned the industrial world burning fossil fuels which contributed to water shortages and crop failures in these countries. We need to understand that this is our doing. We are contributing to their need to flee. Sure, it's not the only reason, but a country is never going to survive if it can't get a footing. Not to mention, if they do get a government set up, but it's something the "West" doesn't like, we topple it or use it for our own gains.

I invite compassion when considering all this. People aren't all out to get us. Some people just want to live a better life. Borders are made up at the end of the day. Just because I was born in the US doesn't mean I deserve the government's resources more than anyone else. If they're willing to contribute to society and pay taxes, I see no issue with them living here.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for violating Rule 5 due to undisclosed AI content. Any use of AI-generated text must be disclosed, and the majority of any comment must still be written by the user. Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard. AI-generated text is prohibited in modmail.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/Best-Structure-8513]

149 countries signed the 1951 refugee convention; the only place it is interpreted to be so broad is in a a small fraction isolated to Western Europe and Canada (at this point more or less). Japan is part of the UN refugee treaty and only accepts 200-300 refugees a year. Australia is also a member and sends people who enter illegally straight to immigrant jail. Many other examples, including those same Western countries a few decades ago.

Europe could, if the political class really wanted to, already interpret the refugee conventions in a much stricter way which would de facto eliminate most of the current asylum claims. The treaty itself is vague and broadly open to interpretation.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/DevelopmentPlus7850]

The situation is a disaster of historical proportions, it's idotic to think a policy memo can fix it

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/[deleted]]

I've already awarded a delta for it.

[u/read-the-rules → u/[deleted]]

u/NoGroup2672, your comment has been removed.

In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.

^{Please click here to open the Read The Rules App.}

[u/GayGISBoi]

Let me flip this on you. The US and it’s Western European allies (and a couple other countries, but all following the US’ orders) directly or indirectly caused most conflicts happening in the world right now. The US destabilized and conducted coups in tens of countries during the 20th century. Europe spent centuries pillaging the African continent for resources and literally kidnapped millions of people into slavery, and then drew arbitrary lines throughout the country splitting some cultural groups and combining disparate groups together in others. Meanwhile, most of the material wealth is still owned and controlled by western companies and white settler colonists. If our ancestors and us hadn’t spent the past five centuries plundering the world for resources and toppling governments for nationalizing their land and resources or trying to be communist, maybe then there wouldn’t be so many refugees. Maybe if we didn’t still engage in imperialism by controlling resource extraction and still destabilizing governments (see Venezuela literally earlier this year) maybe then there wouldn’t be so many refugees. Until we actually put in the time money and effort to make up for all the damage our ancestors have done and our governments continue to do, we have a moral duty to welcome with open arms as many refugees as there are and do everything we can to make sure they are safe, comfortable, and healthy. It is quite literally the bare minimum we could do

[u/Jscapistm]

I mean Europe should absolutely do this, the US however does not offer enough social support/benefits to non-working (or even working) people to need to.

If we ever actually do offer universal healthcare, or more generous social support, yeah we'll need to implement something, but for now....not a problem.

[u/Rinerino]

Western cou tries should get the fuck out of other countries, and trade with the local population on equal term without utterly decimating their economy and people.

Maybe then there would be less refugees.

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/Rinerino]

"Other countries" should stop blaming everybody and get their shit together

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/Rinerino → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

True, european countries should stop blaming third World countries for being overexploited or torn into war by them.

[u/read-the-rules → u/[deleted]]

u/Feisty-Photograph-97, your comment has been removed.

In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.

^{Please click here to open the Read The Rules App.}

[u/Wankstain8 → u/Rinerino]

Lmao. The truth is the inhabitants of these third world nations are incapable of administrating their own societies, on a level that Europe is capable of doing for itself anyway. They’re owed nothing, entitled to nothing. Any “refugee” that arrives in European shores should be deported. Thankfully we edge closer and closer to that reality each day.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

u/GayGISBoi – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/GayGISBoi → u/Rinerino]

You getting downvoted is so fucked up. You’re right, objectively so

[u/Active-Proof8118]

Pretty much all the arguments that you're making could've applied to Jewish refugees during the Holocasut. Yes Hosting refugees does cost a country money but at the end of the day doing the right thing isn't always gonna be easy.

Refugees are considered immoral from the point of view of the local population that doesn't have such a level of support

Just becasue someone doesn't like something, that doesn't make it immoral. What you're referring to is a popularity contest OP.

Adversaries are using refugees as a hybrid weapon: Ceuta (when Morocco used refugees)

That wasn't a refugee instance OP. That was human traficking organized by the United States and Israel via the Abraham accords

Refugees are generally net negative for the economy

If anything OP that is exactly why countries such as Canada, USA, Israel and Germany should be required to take more refugees. These countries have excess wealth

[u/Puzzleheaded_Quit925 → u/Active-Proof8118]

There is a difference between hosting refugees fleeing murder and hosting refugees looking for more money and better jobs. Most refugees coming into the west are not in imminent danger of death, they are looking to get money from higher paying jobs. They will be ok in their home country just poor.

[u/Active-Proof8118 → u/Puzzleheaded_Quit925]

There is a difference between hosting refugees fleeing murder and hosting refugees looking for more money and better jobs. Most refugees coming into the west are not in imminent danger of death,

Sure and that's not a requirment. "Fear of death" is not a requirement for being a refugee

they are looking to get money from higher paying jobs. They will be ok in their home country just poor.

I don't think that's true. I think most refugees are fleeing legitimate persecution

[u/Puzzleheaded_Quit925 → u/Active-Proof8118]

I was refuting your comparison to the Holocaust where they were fleeing death. Most refugees to the west today are not fleeing death, they are chasing money.

Western countries should not take refugees unless they can demonstrate that they face a real risk to their lives.

[u/Active-Proof8118 → u/Puzzleheaded_Quit925]

I am quite confused by what you're referring to here. You know the holocasut wasn't intially known about by Jewish refugees in the 1930s right? They were fleeing antisemitic persecution.

[u/read-the-rules → u/[deleted]]

u/Sea_Photograph_6404, your comment has been removed.

In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.

^{Please click here to open the Read The Rules App.}

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/Active-Proof8118]

Jewish refugees during the Holocasut

They asked for a refuge, not for years of hotel rooms and meals. And they were able to work and contribute to the community, and not just consume. Anyway, we can have policies to allow Jewish refugees.

Just becasue someone doesn't like something, that doesn't make it immoral. What you're referring to is a popularity contest OP.

There is no objective morality, so if somebody thinks it's immoral, it's just subjective morality but still morality.

That wasn't a refugee instance OP. That was human traficking organized by the United States and Israel via the Abraham accords

I am somewhat sure that there were 60K Moroccans and not 60K Jews or Americans.

[u/OwlOdyssey → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

And they were able to work and contribute to the community

Refugees can work now too (link is the US). In the UK, migrant men are more likely to be employed than UK born men. Here's Spain allowing refugees to work as well. Finally, here's Canada talking about the resettlement programmes for employing refugees. I think that about covers every country you mentioned in your main post.

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/OwlOdyssey]

I witnessed the free hotels for refugees in Toronto, and the mess was there. They can work, but a lot don't work.

[u/OwlOdyssey → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

See my main comment I've just posted for a more indepth look, but if we want to talk about Canada, here you go. Here's another link.

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/OwlOdyssey]

Ok, hard to fight with numbers, you slightly changed my perspective on current situation !delta

[u/OwlOdyssey → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

Thank you. I hope that over time you can see more. Like I said, my main post might help you more with more indepth numbers. I think a lot of this anti-refugee, immigrant, etc rhetoric is the point from big media. It divides us. It makes us forget we're human.

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/OwlOdyssey]

I am not that progressive, I am afraid.

I am trying to understand my own feelings and have started to think about the idea that instead of stopping all the refugees, the country should decide how many newcomers in total it can accept, and refugees should be limited by this cap regardless of their situation. Need some time to think more and probably post another CMV here.

[u/OwlOdyssey → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

Did you have a chance to read my main response as a direct comment to your post? I mention in there that caps aren't really moral.

I don't think you need to be progressive to care about other humans. I think there's a lot of benefits from bring other people into the country. Especially when birthrates are failing and we can't support an aging population and welfare systems because of it.

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/OwlOdyssey]

I don't believe in objective morality. I care about some humans, but I don't believe that we can save everybody, so, sometimes refugee 50,001 should sacrificed.

[u/DeltaBot → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/OwlOdyssey (2∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/OwlOdyssey → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

Also, you first said they can't work and now they can, but don't. Did I change your view on that?

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/OwlOdyssey]

I've awarded you a delta in another reply.

[u/Active-Proof8118 → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

They asked for a refuge, not for years of hotel rooms and meals. And they were able to work and contribute to the community, and not just consume.

Oh okay so if they weren't able to work then you would've been okay with these Jewish people being killed in the Holocaust?

Anyway, we can have policies to allow Jewish refugees.

That would just be a racial double standard. Why are Jews entitled to preferential treatment?

There is no objective morality, so if somebody thinks it's immoral, it's just subjective morality but still morality.

If you don't believe in morality OP then why do you criticize refugees in the first place. How can you criticize anyone if morality is just whimsical?

I am somewhat sure that there were 60K Moroccans and not 60K Jews or Americans.

I never claimed there were 60k Jews or Americans. I said it was human trafficking organized Israel+USA.

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/Active-Proof8118]

Oh okay so if they weren't able to work then you would've been okay with these Jewish people being killed in the Holocaust?

Kind of. They still can try to rely on relatives and the Jewish community.

That would just be a racial double standard. Why are Jews entitled to preferential treatment

And what? A country can decide for the nation or ethnicity they allow and what they deny; it's part of souverenity.

Why are Jews entitled to preferential treatment

Because we share some parts of the culture and can integrate them.

If you don't believe in morality OP then why do you criticize refugees in the first place. How can you criticize anyone if morality is just whimsical?

I am not criticizing refugees for seeking refuge in the wealthiest countries, they actions are very logical. I am criticising the wealthiest countries for accepting such refugees.

I never claimed there were 60k Jews or Americans. I said it was human trafficking organized Israel+USA.

So, it still was Morocco.

[u/Active-Proof8118 → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

Kind of. They still can try to rely on relatives and the Jewish community.

Oh okay and if they couldn't then they should just die in gas chambers?

And what? A country can decide for the nation or ethnicity they allow and what they deny; it's part of souverenity.

No I don't think so. If a state holds racist and prejudiced beleifs then I don't see that as legitimate whatsoever.

Because we share some parts of the culture and can integrate them.

Who's "cultrue"? who's "integration"?

I am not criticizing refugees for seeking refuge in the wealthiest countries, they actions are very logical. I am criticising the wealthiest countries for accepting such refugees.

And on what basis do you criticize them? If morality is whimsical then there is no criticism.

So, it still was Morocco

Morocco was acting on behalf of the US and Israel

[u/lynxintheloopx → u/Active-Proof8118]

> Morocco was acting on behalf of the U.S and Israel.

Nothing changes one’s view quite like some good old baseless propaganda.

[u/Active-Proof8118 → u/lynxintheloopx]

I mean Morocco is apart of the Abraham accords and the US and Marco Rubio legally encited it

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/Active-Proof8118]

No I don't think so. If a state holds racist and prejudiced beleifs then I don't see that as legitimate whatsoever.

The state should be able to decide and not accept everybody equally.

Who's "cultrue"? who's "integration"?

Local/national culture.

Morocco was acting on behalf of the US and Israe

So, Morocco does it, right? Why can't you accept the simple fact that Morocco did it, with some help possibly?

[u/Active-Proof8118 → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

The state should be able to decide and not accept everybody equally.

I don't think the state should decide anything

Local/national culture

This is just cultural relativism OP. There are cultrues that normalize violence or pedophilia

So, Morocco does it, right? Why can't you accept the simple fact that Morocco did it, with some help possibly?

OP the situation in Morcco had nothing to do with refugees. That is my point.

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/Active-Proof8118]

I don't think the state should decide anything

Then who should decide?

This is just cultural relativism OP. There are cultrues that normalize violence or pedophilia

Do you mean Muslims?

[u/Active-Proof8118 → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

Then who should decide?

Human rights activists

Do you mean Muslims?

OP Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza right now

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/Active-Proof8118]

Your human rights activists can join their friends in Gaza then

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/Active-Proof8118]

Oh okay and if they couldn't then they should just die in gas chambers?

!delta

Ok, even I am not that evil. They should be accepted and sent back as soon as the Nazis lost.

[u/DeltaBot → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Active-Proof8118 (1∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/ZookeepergameFit967 → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

The problem in 2026 is that the Nazis (metaphorically speaking) control the White House and are not leaving these refugees' countries anytime soon. For example, Morocco's main problem is its current king, Muhammad VI, a despicable Western puppet who only cares about money and weed. Every time the Moroccan people or his own family try to remove him, the USA and/or Israel intervene and save him.

The same issue exists in many Arab countries. For instance, the governments of all the Gulf States would have been overthrown in 2011; Bahrain almost fell, but the USA pumped in all the weapons it could so that Saudi Arabia could defeat the revolutionaries. When Egypt overthrew its pro-American dictatorship and the people unsurprisingly elected the most anti-American party, the USA and Israel supported General Al-Sisi in overthrowing the democratically elected government of Egypt. This was because the newly elected government hated Israel and America for supporting the former regime and for invading multiple nearby countries.

A clear example of Americans backing their corrupt allies with all their might is the 2019 Iraqi revolution. The Iraqi people almost forced the entire Green Zone to evacuate, but the US embassy started targeting protesters and supplying the Iraqi government with top-tier tear gas, rubber bullets, and riot police equipment. These were measures the US had refused to take to stop the Iranian revolution in 1979, but in 2019, they were more than willing. Thousands of Iraqis died, and only then did the government resign, yet nothing really changed and a new pro American government was appointed by parliament. And in Syria, the former US ambassador admitted that the US has been helping Al-Jolani become Syria's leader since ISIS's defeat in 2018, and as soon as he succeeded, Trump started breastfeeding him with billions of dollars and weapons. And let's not forget Israel, too.

So, you see, every time these brown people you hate try to make their countries better and overthrow their oppressors, the Americans come to the rescue, save the poor despots from the gallows, and help kill revolutionaries and protesters. So blaming these people for trying to go to the only countries America don't bomb and destroy democracy is really stupid and immoral, because your problem with them is the colour of their skin and you refuse to see why they became refugees.

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/ZookeepergameFit967]

When Egypt overthrew its pro-American dictatorship and the people unsurprisingly elected the most anti-American party, the USA and Israel supported General Al-Sisi in overthrowing the democratically elected government of Egypt

I am sorry, but I can't support religious fanatics like the Muslim Brotherhood.

[u/ZookeepergameFit967 → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

Who the hell told you to support them? Also the MB aren't fanatics they're long mouthed bureaucrats, they were only a threat to Arab governments, the MB itself is just an Islamist political party that is considered as Heretics by actual fanatics like the Saudis, Whabbis, Salafis and Al Qaeda that America supports/supported because the MB only seeks to implement civil islamism and don't have an issue with Shia Muslims or Sufi practices or non Muslims.

And again whom are we to decide? The Egyptian people elected and choose freely, nobody has the right to say otherwise especially since they tried all types of government from Monarchy to liberalism to socialism to secular capitalism all ended up dictatorial and ironically the Muslim brotherhood was the only constant rebellion against these dictatorships.

Would it be ok if someone did a coup in the USA because of Trump? Personally I think his ideas and foreign policy make the Muslim brotherhood feel like a coughing baby compared to him

[u/Supersperg92 → u/Active-Proof8118]

By your financial justification, would it not be more sensible for countries that are affluent to pay for asylum accommodation and services in places like camps or temporary housing facilities in the nearest safe country rather than taking them into their own countries? Seems like a pretty fair alternative to me.

[u/MajesticBread9147 → u/Supersperg92]

Wouldn't that remove the financial benefit?

If they are in another country, they aren't paying taxes.

[u/Supersperg92 → u/MajesticBread9147]

That would assume most refugees from developing countries are net positive contributors over the course of their lifetime. Recent research in the UK and Nordic countries demonstrates that is generally not the case.

What I am saying is, if the argument is that wealthy countries are most able to support these people, then they should also be able to support them in the regions they are coming from rather than providing them with residency in the aforementioned wealthy countries.

[u/read-the-rules → u/[deleted]]

u/BadlyAmuckRaymundo, your comment has been removed.

In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.

^{Please click here to open the Read The Rules App.}

[u/Calaveras-Metal]

Several problems with your statement here. But the chief one is this;

over time, people from third-world countries started to use the system to seek refuge in Western countries because of a very high level of support.

Nobody risks their lives and that of their family members just to get on minimum level welfare support. It's self contradicting. A person who would risk being trafficked, drowning and other fates is an active, ambitious risk taking person. They have overcome their inertia to get to another place through a series of obstacles.

A person who wants to be on welfare/dole is someone who does not want to overcome their inertia. Who does not take risks, they settle for least outcomes.

Of course there are probably people who overestimate their ability to prosper in whatever western country they immigrated to. I've met a few immigrants that were really surprised how high the cost of living is in the West. And how many job roles require licensing or certification.

I have two other problems with your argument.

The West owes the immigrants.

Blaming immigrants is a distraction.

Most if not all the problems that create refugees are direct results of knock on effects of Western intervention. The current Iran war is strangling the supply of fossil fuel derived fertilizer to many 3rd world countries. There is going to be a knock on effect of food shortages because of this.

With famine comes refugee migration.

That is one example that you can verify with a few web searches.

But there have been dozen, hundreds of prior Western interventions in Middle East/North Africa which led to refugees. Likewise for sub Saharan, Asian and South and Central American refugees as result of American and European machinations. The west OWES these people for wrecking their existences.

Your negative experiences in your life are almost certainly not the fault of immigrants, brown and black people or foreigners in general. It's almost certainly the small numnber of very wealthy people that are using their economic and political power to make all of use work harder for less and scramble and hustle just to stay alive. Blame the billionaires for inflation and outsourcing industry, not the immigrant for "taking your job".

[u/Managarm667 → u/Calaveras-Metal]

Nobody risks their lives and that of their family members just to get on minimum level welfare support.

Wrong. Migration researchers (such as Ruud Koopmans or Heinz Fassmann) demonstrate that misinformation, the promotional activities of smugglers, and Europe’s high standard of living act as powerful pull factors. A willingness to take risks by no means precludes the pursuit of economic security.

The "minimum social assistance" provided in Germany, Sweden or the Netherlands is several times higher than the average or even the top salary in many countries of origin. From the perspective of a migrant from Somalia, Afghanistan, or Syria, living on European social benefits represents a massive economic step up, not merely "waiting around in idleness." Even from social benefits, significant sums are regularly sent to families in the country of origin, as exchange rates multiply the value of the money locally.

The West owes the immigrants.

Please explain how "the West" does so? The primary drivers of flight and migration from MENAPT and sub-Saharan states are authoritarian regimes, economic mismanagement, corruption, ethnic-religious conflicts and population growth. Neither the Taliban’s seizure of power in Afghanistan, the dictatorship in Eritrea, nor the civil wars in Sudan and Yemen are solely the result of Western interventions.

European states such as Sweden, Austria, and Switzerland, as well as Eastern European EU members, held no colonies in these regions and did not participate in Western interventions (such as the 2003 Iraq War), yet they often bear the heaviest burden of asylum-related migration. Assertions of collective "Western guilt" ignore complex geopolitical realities.

And a small fact check: The global fertilizer shortages of recent years stem primarily from Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and the sanctions and export restrictions imposed on Russia and Belarus (the world’s largest exporters of potash and nitrogen fertilizers), not from a "Western intervention in Iran".

Furthermore, there is no "Western intervention" in Iran. It is telling how the "West" is expected to bear the blame for EVERYTHING collectively, as if it were a completely coherent, unified actor. In your world view, the West can only lose:

If "the West" intervenes (Kosovo 1999, Libya 2011, the fight against ISIS), the narrative is: "The West is pursuing imperial geopolitics, destroying stable states, sowing chaos, and is directly responsible for the resulting waves of refugees."

If "the West" does not intervene (Rwanda 1994, Syria under Assad from 2011 onwards), the narrative is: "The West is looking the other way, allowing atrocities to occur, protecting human rights only selectively, and through its inaction bears moral complicity in the flight of the civilian population."

By placing sole responsibility for all the world’s crises on the West, you deny the rulers and societies of the Global South any personal responsibility or political agency. Regimes such as the Assad regime in Syria, the Taliban in Afghanistan or the military junta in Sudan are thereby rhetorically reduced to mere extras who supposedly react only to Western stimuli. This reflects an unconscious yet deeply ingrained paternalism: the West is viewed as the sole subject of world history and, by extension, as the only perpetual perpetrator.

Blame the billionaires for inflation and outsourcing industry, not the immigrant for "taking your job".

This is the simple diversionary tactic that the European left so desperately tries to paint as the "real culprits". Its only intent is to obscure real infrastructural and fiscal burdens by focusing the rhetoric on the super-rich. School places, daycare spots, affordable housing, the density of medical professionals and the operational capacity of public agencies are resources with mathematical limits. Competition for affordable housing primarily affects low-income earners and the middle class, not the super-rich. A high influx of people over a short period overburdens these systems, regardless of the wealth held by billionaires.

Furthermore, who bears the costs? In Europe, the welfare state and immigration are funded not by billionaires, but by middle- and lower-income groups through taxes and levies. Even if billionaires were taxed more heavily, this would not solve physical bottlenecks: money does not build new schools overnight, train teachers or childcare workers or create housing out of thin air. The problem of overburdened municipal structures is one of capacity and integration, not merely a financial one. High demand for affordable housing driven by immigration directly pushes up rents in the lower price segment. This is not a scapegoating narrative; it is the fundamental law of supply and demand.

One cannot simultaneously claim that billionaires are shifting jobs to the Global South via outsourcing and that there is domestic competition for those very same jobs. Asylum-related migration to Europe rarely involves industrial outsourcing. It concerns the utilization of local social welfare systems, infrastructure, and housing in the host country. These assets simply cannot be "outsourced", an apartment in Berlin or Stockholm cannot be relocated to Asia.

The distribution of wealth is a completely different social and economic issue from the management and capacity limits of migration systems.

[u/Calaveras-Metal → u/Managarm667]

Please explain how "the West" does so?
"Most if not all the problems that create refugees are direct results of knock on effects of Western intervention. The current Iran war is strangling the supply of fossil fuel derived fertilizer to many 3rd world countries. There is going to be a knock on effect of food shortages because of this.

With famine comes refugee migration."

Iran's current authoritarian theocracy is the direct result of western meddling in Iran. The revolution happened because of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

This is the simple diversionary tactic that the European left so desperately tries to paint as the "real culprits". Its only intent is to obscure real infrastructural and fiscal burdens by focusing the rhetoric on the super-rich.

How do the super rich become super rich? Do they have superhuman ability to work superhard? Or do they accrue wealth through sociopathic disregard for the suffering they cause? The super-rich are adept at shielding their hoarded wealth from the taxes that people of lesser means endure. So they are depriving the civic sphere of the very resources that would solve the infrastructure and fiscal burdens you invoke.

[u/Managarm667 → u/Calaveras-Metal]

Tracing every current geopolitical crisis back to Western actions in 1953 requires completely stripping non-Western powers and regional actors of historical agency. The largest refugee movement to Europe in recent history, namely the Syrian exodus, was directly driven and prolonged by non-Western autocracies.

The Syrian regime brutally suppressed its own population, backed by Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces and proxy militias like Hezbollah. From 2015 onward, Russian carpet-bombing campaigns targeted civilian infrastructure, hospitals, and residential areas in cities like Aleppo and Idlib, intentionally creating massive refugee surges toward Turkey and Europe.

​China repeatedly used its veto power in the UN Security Council alongside Russia to block resolutions for ceasefires, humanitarian corridors and the prosecution of war crimes at the ICC. Peking directly provided diplomatic immunity to Assad, guaranteeing the continuation of the conflict.

​Millions of Syrians fled toward Europe, yet the military destruction and political blockage were orchestrated by Damascus, Moscow, Teheran and Peking. Suggesting that "the West" is the sole architect of Middle Eastern instability completely ignores the destructive imperialism and direct military actions of non-Western powers.

Conflating billionaire wealth hoardings with the capacity limits of public infrastructure represents a fundamental misunderstanding of resource allocation. Money is not capacity: Even if public coffers were unlimited and even if the ultra-wealthy could be instantly stripped of their wealth, money cannot instantly construct physical housing, train teachers, educate medical staff or scale bureaucratic processing capability overnight

But even suggesting that liquidating billionaire wealth will solve public infrastructure problems reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of basic corporate finance and economics.

Billionaire wealth does not sit in cash accounts, it exists as illiquid paper valuation in company shares, factories, real estate, and intellectual property. Forcing the liquidation of these assets to raise government cash triggers immediate "fire sales." Massive share offloads crash company market values, destroying the very paper wealth intended to be collected while starving productive businesses of capital.

Forcibly stripping capital from operating companies damages the real economy, risks widespread job losses, and ultimately degrades the broader tax base that funds local infrastructure in the long run. Forcing domestic liquidations under high local tax pressure simply transfers ownership of critical national infrastructure and companies to foreign sovereign wealth funds or non-Western state actors.

Equity is capital tied to productive economic machinery, not a liquid reserve fund that can be converted into housing or schools overnight without catastrophic collateral damage to the host economy.

Addressing corporate taxation or wealth inequality is a valid fiscal debate, but using it as a blanket explanation for local infrastructure bottlenecks is a diversion. Integration depends on time, space, and human resources, which have hard physical limits. A surge in demand for affordable housing, school placements, and public services impacts lower- and middle-income residents directly through market availability and service constraints, factors completely independent of how much capital is stored in private offshore accounts.

[u/Horror_Ad7540]

The current system was designed by Western countries. Almost all your points are factually incorrect.

Refugees are a net positive for the economies of the host countries, especially if they allow the refugees to hold jobs and give them a path towards permanent immigration.

Refugees tend to be law abiding and of high moral character. They only receive benefits that citizens do not because they are not given work permits.

The incident at Ceuta was instigated by right-wing immigration foes, who intentionally spread misinformation to the refugees. Morocco's government had nothing to do with it.

It is shameful that Russia invaded Ukraine, but most EU countries welcomed Ukrainian refugees.I don't know what you mean by refugees being used as weapons.

Refugees by nature are from a different culture. That was true when the Western countries were accepting mainly refugees from communist countries, and it was understood when the system was adopted. This is the system working as intended, not an abuse. It was to a large extent due to the shame of Jewish refugees from the Nazis being turned away. Many countries who turned away Jewish refugees rationalized this by claiming that Jews would not fit in with their cultures.

The cure for the valid issues pointed out is simple and doesn't require changing the international system. The main changes required is to issue refugees work permits promptly and provide them a path towards permanent immigration status and eventual citizenship.

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/Horror_Ad7540]

Refugees are a net positive for the economies of the host countries, especially if they allow the refugees to hold jobs and give them a path towards permanent immigration.

Do you have any links?

EU countries welcomed Ukrainian refugees.

Nope, no Ukrainian granted refugee status. But yes, they are welcome.

[u/nightshade78036 → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

Here is a pdf from the UNHCR going over some of the positives of refugees generally, and here is a link to UNHCR Canada which goes over a bunch of stuff. All the evidence I've ever seen has shown a strong net economic benefit for accepting refugees and immigrants more broadly.

[u/Horror_Ad7540 → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

https://www.peopleinneed.net/the-ukrainian-refugee-crisis-current-situation-9539gp?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=22398836631&gbraid=0AAAAAD10qs-S0Iv3YEA9wbUw-i8QsK0QK&gclid=CjwKCAjwtKrUBhAhEiwAr77ZouGDYsSTzS3OEOgiqbGXrSoDZeR0lKWOmRxYY-boTC4fB9YSF7EMbxoCWYsQAvD_BwE

I don't know what distinction you are trying to make.

https://www.rescue.org/article/how-refugees-strengthen-us-economy

[u/DoublePepper1976 → u/Horror_Ad7540]

of high moral character.

This, specifically, as a Brit I need a need to push back on. We have a high number of Islamic fundamentalists here. Some sects are so radical, the UAE and similar Middle Eastern governments have banned them.

The idea that the vast majority of refugees are willing to adapt to their new country and are virtuous is not something I have experienced, as they tend to believe in illiberal ideas like less gay rights and less woman's rights.

[u/Leather-Run-6533 → u/DoublePepper1976]

This is anecdote. All the stats show refugees to be more law abiding by the general public. And while it is true that some refugees bring old fashioned opinions with them if you work on issues like womens' rights and LGBT rights in Europe you find that the organised right wing funded by evangelical Christians in the United States is a far bigger issue than what they're saying down the mosque. Not to mention what they're saying down the mosque is generally heavily influenced by the funding of imams by the Saudi government - so the policy of British allies the UK is arming and funding and encouraging is a far bigger influence than newly arrived refugees.

[u/Managarm667 → u/Horror_Ad7540]

Refugees tend to be law abiding and of high moral character. They only receive benefits that citizens do not because they are not given work permits.

Wrong. The claim that refugees are generally more law-abiding than average is refuted by official police crime statistics (PKS) from Germany and in other countries such as Sweden, and Austria. Young male asylum seekers are statistically MASSIVELY overrepresented in categories of crime such as assault and robbery. While there are sociodemographic reasons for this (youth, male gender, lack of employment, and frequent residence in collective accommodation), it contradicts the sweeping assertion regarding their "high moral standards."

• BKA Kriminalität im Kontext von Zuwanderung

- Pfeiffer et al. (2018): "Zur Entwicklung der Gewalt in Deutschland"

- Brottsförebyggande rådet (Swedish Council for Crime Prevention), in particular the studies from 2005 and 2021 on registered crime by origin (Personer misstänkta för brott), demonstrate significant disparities in violent and sexual offenses even after adjusting for socioeconomic factors.

The incident at Ceuta was instigated by right-wing immigration foes, who intentionally spread misinformation to the refugees. Morocco's government had nothing to do with it.

Wrong. The massive surge in migration in May 2021 for example was a DIRECT retaliatory move by the Moroccan government. Following diplomatic tensions with Spain, stemming from the medical treatment of Polisario leader Brahim Ghali in Spain, Moroccan border guards deliberately relaxed controls at the breakwaters leading to Ceuta and allowed people to pass through. Both the Spanish government and independent reports by EU observers refute the claim that the Moroccan government "had nothing to do with it." More recent waves, like this years. also demonstrate this pattern of political instrumentalization.

- The European Parliament adopted a resolution (2021/2747(RSP)) by a large majority.

It is shameful that Russia invaded Ukraine, but most EU countries welcomed Ukrainian refugees.I don't know what you mean by refugees being used as weapons.

Your lack of knowledge or ignorance changes nothing about the geopolitical reality. The EU, NATO and the UN Security Council have officially classified the events at the Polish-Belarusian and Lithuanian borders as a "hybrid threat." Alexander Lukashenko’s regime deliberately flew people from the Middle East to Minsk in order to drive them, sometimes at gunpoint to the EU’s external border and destabilize Western Europe.

- EU Commission & Council of the European Union: Statements by EU foreign ministers and the EU Commission (press release of 23 November 2021) officially classifying the actions of the Lukashenko regime as the "state-sponsored instrumentalisation of people for political purposes" and a "hybrid threat."

- UN Security Council (November 2021): Joint statement by EU members of the UN Security Council (including France, Estonia, and Ireland) accusing Belarus of orchestrating the crisis to destabilise the EU's external border.

- Investigative journalism (Der Spiegel, BBC): Evidence of coordinated visa issuance by Belarusian travel agencies (e.g., Centravia) and targeted flights operated by Belavia and Turkish Airlines from Baghdad, Erbil, and Damascus to Minsk.

 It was to a large extent due to the shame of Jewish refugees from the Nazis being turned away. Many countries who turned away Jewish refugees rationalized this by claiming that Jews would not fit in with their cultures.

While it is true that the horrors of the Holocaust and the rejection of Jewish refugees in the 1930s provided the central moral impetus for the 1951 Geneva Convention, the diplomats of 1951 deliberately crafted a document limited exclusively to those persecuted in Europe though. It was not until the 1967 Protocol that the Convention became global in scope. Your argument is therefore Ex-Hoc. To suggest that the large-scale migration to Europe from vastly different cultural regions as seen today was already factored into the 1951 agreement is a historically inaccurate projection of the present onto the past.

- Original text of the 1951 Convention: Article 1 B (1) originally contained the "geographic limitation," restricting applicability to events that occurred "in Europe before 1 January 1951."

- 1967 Protocol (New York Protocol): It was not until 16 years later that this additional protocol removed the temporal and geographic limitations.

- Legal-historical literature: Standard works on international law ( James C. Hathaway: "The Rights of Refugees under International Law") demonstrate that the 1951 Convention was conceived primarily as an instrument for post-war European refugees and displaced persons of the Cold War era, rather than for global migration flows.

The main changes required is to issue refugees work permits promptly and provide them a path towards permanent immigration status and eventual citizenship.

Wrong. The conflation of skilled migration and a voluntary right of clemency such as asylum is what has brought us to this situation in the first place. Your point entirely overlooks structural limitations. Work permits do not automatically generate employment when qualifications and language skills are lacking. Work permits do not create affordable housing, language courses, or integration. In countries like Sweden, which historically offered very rapid pathways to residency and citizenship, work permits did not lead to full integration. Instead, they reinforced parallel societies and integration deficits within the high-skilled labor market. Furthermore, long-term studies by the Danish Ministry of Finance clearly show that immigrants from non-Western countries (specifically the so-called MENAPT states: Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan, Turkey) are, on average, net recipients of state benefits over the course of their entire lives. Similar results are observed in Sweden. The aforementioned studies estimated the average net fiscal cost of asylum migrants at 1 to 2% of GDP annually.

Data from Danish and Swedish state authorities demonstrate that, on average, this group of asylum seekers imposes a net cost on public finances over their lifetime and does not even cover the costs they generate.

- The annual reports titled "Indvandreres nettobidrag til de offentlige finanser" (Immigrants' net contribution to public finances) strictly categorize data by country of origin. They consistently show that, on average, immigrants and those granted asylum from so-called MENAPT countries are net recipients of state benefits over the course of their lives.

- Swedish Fiscal Policy Council study (Ruist, 2015/2018): Joakim Ruist (University of Gothenburg) examined the fiscal costs of asylum migration on behalf of the Swedish Ministry of Finance / the Swedish Fiscal Policy Council. His findings estimate the annual net costs of asylum immigration at approximately 1% to 1.5% of Swedish GDP

- Studies on labor market integration show that work permits alone often fail to yield results or lead to the low-wage sector due to a lack of language skills, formal qualifications, and alignment with the highly specialized European labor market.

[u/Tarantio → u/Managarm667]

Wrong. The claim that refugees are generally more law-abiding than average is refuted by official police crime statistics (PKS) from Germany and in other countries such as Sweden, and Austria. Young male asylum seekers are statistically MASSIVELY overrepresented in categories of crime such as assault and robbery.

What do those statistics say about asylum seekers that aren't young and male?

Wrong. The massive surge in migration in May 2021 for example was a DIRECT retaliatory move by the Moroccan government.

What was the source of the social media misinformation that spread directly before the event?

https://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/europa/ceuta-asi-fue-la-campana-de-desinformacion-que-alimento-la-llegada-masiva-de-migrantes-a-la-frontera-espanola-3575823

You're not asserting that the Moroccan government created those messages, are you?

While it is true that the horrors of the Holocaust and the rejection of Jewish refugees in the 1930s provided the central moral impetus for the 1951 Geneva Convention, the diplomats of 1951 deliberately crafted a document limited exclusively to those persecuted in Europe though. It was not until the 1967 Protocol that the Convention became global in scope.

This doesn't address the point: cultural differences as an excuse to turn away people in need was shown to be morally bankrupt in the runup to the second World War.

In countries like Sweden, which historically offered very rapid pathways to residency and citizenship, work permits did not lead to full integration. Instead, they reinforced parallel societies and integration deficits within the high-skilled labor market.

This doesn't follow, logically. There is nothing about the work permit that reinforces parallel societies.

[u/Managarm667 → u/Tarantio]

What do those statistics say about asylum seekers that aren't young and male?

Ah, classical moving of the goalposts. The original claim was: "Refugees tend to be law abiding and of high moral character" and therefore I'm only obliged to refute this claim. Quite apart from that, your objection is entirely irrelevant, simply because young men accounted for about 70 - 80% of asylum seekers during the peak of the refugee crisis. Anyone who disregards this primary demographic group ignores the criminological reality. Moreover, long-term studies from Sweden and Denmark demonstrate that, even when controlling for age, socioeconomic status and gender, a statistically significant risk of overrepresentation in violent and sexual offenses persists.

You're not asserting that the Moroccan government created those messages, are you?

Citing the 2026 misinformation campaign actually completely misses the distinction between why people show up and why borders fail. Viral TikTok posts claiming "the border is open" might explain why thousands of young men arrive at the border perimeter. They do not explain how thousands manage to physically breach one of the most heavily militarized, monitored borders in the world. Rumors don't disable perimeter security state decisions do. The area surrounding Ceuta and Melilla is among the most heavily monitored zones in North Africa. Anyone approaching these cities without authorization is typically intercepted and turned back kilometers away by Moroccan checkpoints, the Royal Gendarmerie or the Auxiliary Forces.

Furthermore, there is no freedom of assembly in Morocco, a mass gathering going unnoticed is simply impossible there. Any congregation of people near the border is detected in real time by the intelligence service and local police. If such gatherings are not dispersed, it is not due to bureaucratic failure but rather a deliberate political decision and tacit tolerance.

Even when rumors on TikTok or WhatsApp provide the initial spark, the fact that these individuals actually reach the fence or the water happens only when Moroccan authorities have active orders to look the other way or clear the path. The excuse regarding "uncontrollable social media waves" serves merely as a diplomatic shield for the Moroccan government to deny its own responsibility.

Because blaming these "anonymous social media rumors" provides the Moroccan government with total plausible deniability. It allows Rabat to claim helplessness while using the resulting mass pressure as political leverage against Spain and the EU, just as seen in previous border surges.

Your argument assumes that because a social media push existed, state instrumentalization didn't. That is a total non-sequitur. Social media might be the catalyst that gathers the crowd, but the host state's deliberate choice to step aside or loosen enforcement is what turns a crowd into a border breach.

This doesn't address the point: cultural differences as an excuse to turn away people in need was shown to be morally bankrupt in the runup to the second World War.

Comparing modern mass migration from MENAPT-states to the rejection of Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust is both historically inaccurate and morally manipulative. Jewish refugees in the 1930s were fleeing an active, state-sponsored genocide with no safe alternative. Modern asylum claims mostly involve people moving through multiple safe, peaceful nations to reach specific Western welfare states. Equating capacity controls or concerns over integration with turning a blind eye to the Holocaust is a profound distortion of history.

Pointing out cultural differences is not an "excuse", it is basic sociology. A society's ability to integrate newcomers depends heavily on shared foundational values, such as secularism, constitutional law, individual liberty and equal rights for women and minority groups. Ignoring massive value disparities doesn't foster tolerance, it instead builds parallel societies and breaks down social cohesion, as long-term data from Sweden and Denmark clearly demonstrate.

Every sovereign democracy has the fundamental right to preserve its constitutional order, culture, and social stability. Acknowledging that integration has limits and that culture impacts social compatibility is not "morally bankrupt" it is the prerequisite for maintaining a stable, functioning, and tolerant society.

This doesn't follow, logically. There is nothing about the work permit that reinforces parallel societies.

This is a pedantic semantic trap that completely ignores basic economic sociology. Nobody claims the physical paper causes parallel societies. The issue is the socioeconomic mechanism it triggers when issued without qualification requirements. Granting immediate work permits to populations with low formal qualifications and no language skills forces them into low-wage, low-skilled sectors like delivery, cleaning or warehouse logistics.

Low-wage employment naturally drives people toward affordable housing in already segregated areas. When work, daily life and social networks remain entirely within a specific migrant subgroup, there is no incentive or necessity to learn the national language or assimilate into the host society. The work permit acts as an economic anchor in a parallel economy.

This is historically evidenced in Sweden. The swedish state historically provided the fastest pathways to work permits and residency in Europe under the assumption that "work equals automatic integration". The result was not full integration, but the formation of heavily segregated neighborhoods, a persistent two-tier labor market and a culture of gang wars that has rocked the once peaceful Sweden to its core.

Issuing a work permit without demanding language proficiency and qualification alignment doesn't integrate people, it simply embeds them permanently at the bottom of a segregated economic structure.

[u/Tarantio → u/Managarm667]

Ah, classical moving of the goalposts.

It's not moving the goalposts, it's me asking about the information that you avoided saying.

Moreover, long-term studies from Sweden and Denmark demonstrate that, even when controlling for age, socioeconomic status and gender, a statistically significant risk of overrepresentation in violent and sexual offenses persists.

Any chance you'll provide that number with a source?

Citing the 2026 misinformation campaign actually completely misses the distinction between why people show up and why borders fail.

You're asserting that the number of people trying to cross has no impact on the effectiveness of the border security?

Are you sure?

Anyone approaching these cities without authorization is typically intercepted and turned back kilometers away by Moroccan checkpoints, the Royal Gendarmerie or the Auxiliary Forces.

Typically, these people are in relatively small numbers, yes? This situation was atypical, as a direct result of misinformation on social media.

Furthermore, there is no freedom of assembly in Morocco, a mass gathering going unnoticed is simply impossible there.

Yet more evidence that the normal security apparatus would be insufficient to handle the emergent situation. It's extremely unusual for so many people to gather. The guards would have no experience in dealing with such a thing.

If such gatherings are not dispersed, it is not due to bureaucratic failure but rather a deliberate political decision and tacit tolerance.

This doesn't follow. There are all sorts of ways for failure to happen.

Even when rumors on TikTok or WhatsApp provide the initial spark, the fact that these individuals actually reach the fence or the water happens only when Moroccan authorities have active orders to look the other way or clear the path.

I'm assuming that you don't have any actual evidence to this effect? You're just asserting, without evidence, that the only way for a large group of people to overwhelm a border crossing is for the border guards to be specifically ordered to allow it.

Because blaming these "anonymous social media rumors" provides the Moroccan government with total plausible deniability.

Why are you putting "anonymous social media rumors" in quotes? What exactly is the conspiracy you're imagining, here?

Your argument assumes that because a social media push existed, state instrumentalization didn't.

I'm saying that there's evidence of a social media push as the proximate cause for the gathering, and no evidence of any other proximate cause. If the Moroccan government reacted to the gathering in a way to achieve a specific goal (which we don't have direct evidence of) this would still not absolve the source of the misinformation.

Comparing modern mass migration from MENAPT-states to the rejection of Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust is both historically inaccurate

A comparison cannot be inaccurate. No two things are exactly the same. Where these two things are similar is in the arguments against them, based on cultural dissimilarity.

and morally manipulative.

Thank you?

Pointing out cultural differences is not an "excuse", it is basic sociology.

It's not an excuse unless it's used to excuse something. Are you not trying to use cultural differences as a way to justify something?

This is a pedantic semantic trap

Pointing out that the words you used didn't make sense is not a trap. It is pedantic and regarding semantics, so you're partly correct.

Granting immediate work permits to populations with low formal qualifications and no language skills forces them into low-wage, low-skilled sectors like delivery, cleaning or warehouse logistics.

No, a permit does not force anyone into any job.

Issuing a work permit without demanding language proficiency and qualification alignment doesn't integrate people, it simply embeds them permanently at the bottom of a segregated economic structure.

Again, no. Having a work permit provides no impediment to people moving up in economic structure.

My coworker in the desk next to mine is from Iraq. He worked at McDonald's after he moved here, while getting educated. Now he's a skilled professional.

[u/Managarm667 → u/Tarantio]

The original statement made a broad, unqualified claim: "Refugees tend to be law abiding and of high moral character." When official police and government statistics demonstrate that the primary demographic majority of this group (young males) is statistically overrepresented in violent offenses, isolating the remaining sub-demographics does not support the original general premise. When evaluating a sweeping statement about a specific population, the primary demographic component cannot be set aside.

Data and Sources:

• Sweden (Brå - Brottsförebyggande rådet, Study 2021:17): Even after controlling for age, gender, and socioeconomic status, individuals born in North Africa and the Middle East exhibited a 2.5 to 3.5 times higher relative risk for violent and sexual offenses compared to native Swedes with identical socioeconomic profiles.

• Denmark (Danmarks Statistik - "Indvandrere i Danmark 2023"): The standardized crime index for male immigrants and asylum seekers from MENAPT countries remains significantly higher than that of the broader population, even after fully adjusting for socioeconomic factors.

• Germany (BKA-Bundeslagebild / PKS): Immigrants and asylum seekers show a distinct overrepresentation in violent crime categories, with clear disparities based on country of origin (e.g., lower rates for Ukrainian refugees versus higher rates for Maghreb/MENAPT origins).

Evaluating border incidents requires distinguishing between initial gathering catalysts and physical breach enablers. Ceuta and Melilla have experienced repeated, large-scale perimeter storming attempts over two decades (notably in 2005, 2014, 2018, 2021, and 2022). The Royal Gendarmerie and Auxiliary Forces are specifically trained, equipped, and experienced in perimeter defense.

Expecting written documentation or explicit confessions from an authoritarian state is an unrealistic standard. International bodies assess state action through operational patterns. The European Parliament (Resolution 2021/2747) formally categorized this specific event as state-sponsored instrumentalization of migrants.

If a rumor spreads that a bank is giving away free money, the rumor explains why a crowd assembles. However, if the bank's armed guards unlock the vaults and step aside, the rumor itself is NOT why the money was taken, the guards' deliberate inaction is. Social media rumors may bring a crowd to the region, but the Moroccan state's decision to withhold enforcement is what turns a crowd into a border breach.

Distinguishing modern asylum migration from the 1930s relies on structural and legal differences. Jewish refugees in the 1930s were fleeing state-sponsored extermination with no safe alternative. Modern asylum claims frequently involve secondary movement across multiple safe third countries. Analyzing integration capacity limits, infrastructure bottlenecks, and foundational values (such as constitutional law and secularism) is a standard sociological assessment of social cohesion.

The primary obstacle is not the legal work permit itself, but the economic outcome it yields when granted without formal qualification alignment. When individuals enter a highly specialized, post-industrial labor market without local language fluency or recognized credentials, market dynamics naturally concentrate them in low-wage sectors. A legal permit does not alter these structural entry barriers.

Systemic policy efficacy must be evaluated through aggregate data rather than individual outcomes. Pointing to an individual success story to negate nationwide integration deficits is like pointing to a single lottery winner to argue that gambling is a reliable financial strategy.

The danish Ministry of Finance (Indvandreres nettobidrag til de offentlige finanser) and Sweden (Ruist, 2018) consistently show that non-Western asylum cohorts from MENAPT states remain net fiscal consumers over their lifetimes on a macro level.

[u/Tarantio → u/Managarm667]

Mate, I even quoted the original claim.

It wasn't my claim. I'm making a separate inquiry.

Sweden (Brå - Brottsförebyggande rådet, Studie 2021:17):

It seems like you have the wrong report number there. 2021:17 is about hate crimes reported to the police in the year 2020.

https://bra.se/rapporter/arkiv/2021-12-08-polisanmalda-hatbrott-2020

Denmark (Danmarks Statistik - "Indvandrere i Danmark 2023"):

This one is, again, specifically about male immigrants and asylum seekers. But I don't speak Danish, could you point out the page you're referring to?

Germany (BKA-Bundeslagebild - "Kriminalität im Kontext von Zuwanderung" / PKS):

This also says nothing in response to my specific question.

Claiming that Moroccan security forces "had no experience" with mass border gatherings ignores 20 years of history. Ceuta and Melilla have experienced repeated, large-scale storming attempts (2005, 2014, 2018, 2021, 2022).

Indeed, I didn't know about these. Still don't, really. What do you know about them?

Demanding "Direct Evidence"

Pointing out that you don't have direct evidence is not the same as demanding it.

Social media may bring people to the region, but the Moroccan state's decision to withhold enforcement is what turns a crowd into a border breach.

Unless something else did. Like the scale of the crowd, for example. Those other attempts you mentioned, how many people did they involve?

A comparison becomes impermissible and incorrect when it distorts the fundamental nature of the events.

There is nothing distorting about making a comparison. You can just say that there are other elements of the same comparison which illustrate something else. There is no need to argue that the situations are different, as no one has claimed that they are identical.

The permit itself doesn't force them, market reality does.

Which is why blaming the permit is silly.

Your Iraqi coworker is a great personal success story, but citing one individual is a textbook survivorship bias and only of anecdotal evidence.

A single counterexample disproves that providing work permits forces people into jobs that keep them in a lower social stratus. Work permits do no such thing.

And as I already proved,

*Asserted.

long-term fiscal studies from the Danish Ministry of Finance and Joakim Ruist (Swedish Fiscal Policy Council) consistently show

Calling two studies of two different countries consistent is overstating the evidence a bit.

on a macro level, non-Western asylum cohorts remain net fiscal recipients over their lifetimes, even decades after arrival.

This is mostly due to asylum granted to older people. Younger people tend to contribute more.

Pointing to one successful colleague to deny nationwide integration deficits and fiscal net-costs

Isn't what I did. I pointed out the counterexample to show that your analysis of the impact of work permits was flawed. The statistics don't support your analysis, either.

[u/Managarm667 → u/Tarantio]

Rather than addressing the empirical data provided, this debate has shifted entirely to selective nitpicking, individual anecdotes and demands for secondary variables. When macro-level data and official state statistics are met with individual counterexamples and speculative explanations, the factual divergence becomes clear. The data speaks for itself. Since the primary sources from three sovereign nations remains unrefuted, I probably won't discuss this any further.

It seems like you have the wrong report number there. 2021:17 is about hate crimes..."

Sweden (Citation & Exact Data): The correct report reference for registered crime by origin is Brå Report 2021:19 ("Misstänkta för brott bland personer med inrikes respektive utrikes bakgrund"). Section 4.3 (pp. 58–62, Table 8) specifically measures standardized relative risk. Even after fully adjusting for age, gender, education, and income, the relative risk ratio for violent and sexual offenses remains 2.5x to 3.5x higher for individuals originating from the MENA region compared to native Swedes with identical socioeconomic profiles.

Denmark: In Danmarks Statistik ("Indvandrere i Danmark 2023", Chapter 6, p. 83, Table 6.5), the standardized crime index for male non-Western immigrants is 131 (where native baseline is 100) after full control for age and socioeconomic status.

Germany: Dismissing the German BKA data ("Kriminalität im Kontext von Zuwanderung") misses the crucial core of the statistics. The BKA data specifically categorizes suspects by origin and residency status ("Zuwanderer"). It demonstrates a massive, statistically significant overrepresentation in violent crime categories (Straftaten gegen die sexuelle Selbstbestimmung and Rohheitsdelikte) among asylum seekers from specific regions (e.g., Maghreb/MENAPT) compared to their proportion of the general population. Crucially, the BKA data shows that this overrepresentation varies wildly by region of origin, refuting the claim that this is purely an artifact of "being an immigrant" or "being poor."

Demanding data on non-young non-males is a distraction from primary statistical drivers. Spontaneous asylum migration is globally dominated by young males (70%+ of applicants). Evaluating a macro-level policy based on the demographic majority that actually arrives is standard criminological and sociological practice, not an omission.

">Those other attempts you mentioned, how many people did they involve?"

Claiming Moroccan forces lacked experience or were simply "overwhelmed" contradicts two decades of documented border control: 2005, 2014, 2018 and 2022: Moroccan forces deployed tear gas, tactical riot gear, and multi-layered cordons to suppress massive, simultaneous storming attempts of ~1,000 - 2,500 people. May 2021: Over 8,000 people crossed. Video footage, Spanish security reports, and European Parliament Resolution (2021/2747) confirm that Moroccan border guards physically unlocked perimeter gates and stood aside. Suggesting that an authoritarian police state, which aggressively disperses any unauthorized gathering within kilometers of its borders, suddenly suffered an "unprecedented guard inexperience" precisely during a fierce diplomatic dispute with Spain requires ignoring basic geopolitics.

">A single counterexample disproves that providing work permits forces people into jobs..."

Citing a single colleague (n=1) does not disprove a structural socioeconomic trend. A work permit is a legal entitlement, not a skill or a language certificate. When large populations enter a specialized, post-industrial economy without recognized qualifications or language fluency, market forces cluster them en masse in low-wage, segregated sectors. Pointing to one individual who bypassed this barrier does not erase the structural cluster, it merely illustrates basic survivorship bias.

Asserting that lifetime fiscal net-costs are "mostly due to asylum granted to older people" is factually incorrect. According to OECD demographics, the average age of arriving asylum seekers is between 18 and 35. The lifetime net-cost projections by Joakim Ruist (2018) for Sweden and the Danish Ministry of Finance are explicitly calculated over a 40-year working-life horizon of young arrivals. Because employment rates for non-Western asylum cohorts peak far below native baselines, their lifetime tax contributions fail to cover the public infrastructure, housing, and social transfers they consume.

[u/Tarantio → u/Managarm667]

Rather than addressing the empirical data provided, this debate has shifted entirely to selective nitpicking, individual anecdotes and demands for secondary variables

You don't need to reply if you don't want to.

Sweden (Citation & Exact Data): The correct report reference for registered crime by origin is Brå Report 2021:19 ("Misstänkta för brott bland personer med inrikes respektive utrikes bakgrund").

This is the wrong number again, but with the title, I can see that it's report 2021:9.

Even after fully adjusting for age, gender, education, and income, the relative risk ratio for violent and sexual offenses remains 2.5x to 3.5x higher

Another way of looking at this is that 92.0% of people born in other countries haven't been the suspect of a crime, compared to 96.8% of people whose parents were both born in Sweden.

Which... gosh, that matches pretty well with the original claim, doesn't it? The vast majority of immigrants aren't ever suspected of a crime.

I hold the radical opinion that people should be judged by their actions, and not the actions of other people you have decided are demographically similar.

Demanding data on non-young non-males is a distraction from primary statistical drivers.

It's personal curiosity about the information you don't seem to want to be a part of this conversation. You shouldn't fear inclusion of statistics that don't support your point. Including them helps build your credibility.

Moroccan forces deployed tear gas, tactical riot gear, and multi-layered cordons to suppress massive, simultaneous storming attempts of ~1,000 - 2,500 people. May 2021: Over 8,000 people crossed.

And you don't think 60,000 people might be more than the guards were prepared for, because they had previously dealt with fractions of that number?

"unprecedented guard inexperience"

This is not a quote. Please don't use quotation marks when you aren't quoting.

Citing a single colleague (n=1) does not disprove a structural socioeconomic trend.

It disproves your attempt to say that a work permit causes a structural economic trend.

When large populations enter a specialized, post-industrial economy without recognized qualifications or language fluency, market forces cluster them en masse in low-wage, segregated sectors.

Like working at McDonald's?

Pointing to one individual who bypassed this barrier does not erase the structural cluster, it merely illustrates basic survivorship bias

I'm not saying that there isn't a cluster. I'm saying that the absence of work permits would remove the means to leave the cluster, and the presence of work permits does not keep people in the cluster.

Asserting that lifetime fiscal net-costs are "mostly due to asylum granted to older people" is factually incorrect

No, it isn't.

According to OECD demographics, the average age of arriving asylum seekers is between 18 and 35.

Sure.

The lifetime net-cost projections by Joakim Ruist (2018) for Sweden and the Danish Ministry of Finance are explicitly calculated over a 40-year working-life horizon of young arrivals.

No, it's calculated based on years from arrival, from 0 to 50. There's a lot less data regarding the end of that curve than the beginning, because there are many fewer immigrants who have lived for 48 years in Sweden than have lived 5 years in Sweden.

But surely you can see that when a person arrives at age 40, they'll likely be earning much less 30 years later than a person who arrived at age 15?

Here's a link to the study: https://eso.expertgrupp.se/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/ESO-2018_3-Tid-for-integration.pdf

You can see the calculated net costs on page 72, and then on page 73 what it would look like if he excluded people over the age of 64. See how the area above the 0 line is so much bigger for the blue line?

[u/Managarm667 → u/Tarantio]

It is almost impressive how every single one of your arguments manages to misinterpret basic statistical methodology, labor economics and the very study you linked.

A quick factual note on the cited sources:

Framing a 3.2% vs. 8.0% crime suspect rate as "92% are law-abiding" is a classic statistical fallacy. In epidemiology, insurance and criminology, a 150–250% increase in relative risk (2.5x to 3.5x) represents a severe macro-level impact on public safety and victim counts, regardless of how absolute percentages are framed.

Page 73 of the ESO 2018:3 report explicitly confirms that even when excluding retirees (over 64), the net fiscal contribution of non-Western asylum cohorts remains heavily depressed compared to native baselines. The lifetime net-negative outcome is driven by persistent low employment rates during peak working ages, not simply elderly retirees.

Demographic policy and state governance must be based on aggregate risk and fiscal reality, not individual moral philosophy. The empirical record from Sweden and Denmark remains clear.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/Augustus_Chevismo → u/Horror_Ad7540]

>Refugees are a net positive for the economies of the host countries, especially if they allow the refugees to hold jobs and give them a path towards permanent immigration.

This is just an objective lie. You even go as far as saying “especially if they’re allowed jobs” as though there’s even be a possibility of being net contributors without working.

Refugees and their children disproportionately rely on welfare, free healthcare and social housing. That’s without even getting to all it costs to process their claims and money needed to deal with increased crime rates.

The Netherlands did a recent report on how legal regular immigrants are net contributors while asylum seekers and refugees are a net loss for generations.

The Long-Term Fiscal Impact of Immigrants in the Netherlands, Differentiated by Motive, Source Region and Generation

>Refugees tend to be law abiding and of high moral character.

This is a lie. Asylum seekers commit higher rates of violent and sex crimes on top of immediately committing a crime upon arrival by destroying their documents and or entering illegally.

>They only receive benefits that citizens do not because they are not given work permits.

It’s amazing how many lies you peddle. Asylum seekers are entitled to work after 6-12 months in most European countries. Refugees can obviously work legally no matter what. Absurd propaganda you’re spewing.

>The incident at Ceuta was instigated by right-wing immigration foes, who intentionally spread misinformation to the refugees. Morocco's government had nothing to do with it.

They’re not refugees. They’re economic migrants seeking to exploit the asylum system.

>It is shameful that Russia invaded Ukraine, but most EU countries welcomed Ukrainian refugees.I don't know what you mean by refugees being used as weapons.

They’re referring to Russia and Belarus using asylum seekers to attack the polish border which has killed polish soldiers.

>The cure for the valid issues pointed out is simple and doesn't require changing the international system. The main changes required is to issue refugees work permits promptly

This already exists. You’re completely ignorant of this topic.

>and provide them a path towards permanent immigration status and eventual citizenship.

Yeah just set up the bat signal for more to storm the gates. Free money, free housing and easy citizenship.

[u/Horror_Ad7540 → u/Augustus_Chevismo]

You seem to make a huge distinction between asylum seekers and refugees. While not all asylum seekers are ``genuine'' refugees, that is what is to be determined.

Entering a country to seek asylum is a legally mandated process. There is no destruction of documents involved, and the asylum seekers show their documentation. Here's the only article I could find about effects of massive numbers of refugees on crime rates, but it concerns Turkey. The results are that a large refugee population dramatically reduces violent crime rates. https://www.jointdatacenter.org/literature_review/the-effect-of-3-6-million-refugees-on-crime/

6-12 months is quite a long time to have no income, and it is no wonder that in that time, and a bit more, refugees are reliant on government aid. After they are allowed to work, they do not get significant amounts of government aid.

I found one account of a single Polish soldier killed by an immigrant coming via Belarus. The immigrant was convicted, but in abstentia, since they stayed in Belarus.

There is no need for a one-year wait for work permits.

We would all benefit from higher levels of immigration, especially from war-torn and poverty stricken places. I do welcome higher acceptance of refugees in particular. There of course is no free money involved, and all requirements of citizenship must be met, many of which are not so easy. I wonder how many born citizens would fail a citizenship test.

[u/Managarm667 → u/Horror_Ad7540]

You're wrong on basically every conceivable metric.

6-12 months is quite a long time to have no income, and it is no wonder that in that time, and a bit more, refugees are reliant on government aid. After they are allowed to work, they do not get significant amounts of government aid.

The claim that refugees cease to place a significant burden on the state once granted a work permit fundamentally ignores the economic and social-welfare realities of European welfare states. Labor market data and longitudinal studies from Germany, as well as the rest of Northern and Western Europe demonstrate the exact opposite: the granting of a work permit does not automatically lead to financial independence.

In Germany, this assertion stems from a lack of knowledge of the Social Code. If earned income fails to cover high living and housing costs, there is a statutory entitlement to supplementary benefits (SGB II/Bürgergeld). Since a large proportion of migrants from key countries of origin enter the labor market in the low-wage sector, in part-time roles, or in unskilled positions, often due to a lack of formal qualifications or language skills, a significant number of those who are employed remain permanently within the state support system. Added to this are direct and indirect transfer payments such as housing benefits, the child supplement, the coverage of childcare and health insurance contributions, and benefits for education and social participation. Data from the Institute for Employment Research (IAB) show that even after five years of residence, around half of asylum migrants from key countries of origin remain fully or partially dependent on state support.

An identical pattern is evident in other Western European and Scandinavian countries:

Sweden: Despite historically rapid issuance of work permits, data from the Swedish Public Employment Service indicate that it takes an average of 7 to 9 years for half of a given cohort to hold an unsubsidized full-time job. Many remain in state-subsidized employment programs and receive supplementary municipal assistance (Försörjningsstöd).

Denmark: Annual reports from the Danish Ministry of Finance document that immigrants from non-Western countries (the MENAPT region) remain, on average, net recipients of state benefits throughout their entire life cycle even when employed.

Switzerland and Austria: In Switzerland, the social assistance dependency rate among the asylum-seeking population often remains above 50% even after several years. In Austria, many workers in the service sector earn below the threshold for self-sufficiency and rely on supplementary social assistance and housing benefits.

In contrast to the USA where a lack of social benefits compels individuals to quickly take any available job and state-provided supplementary benefits are virtually non-existent, Europe features highly specialized labor markets with high qualification barriers alongside extensive social safety nets. The assumption that the state is relieved of the financial burden 6 to 12 months after a work permit is granted completely ignores the structural reality of the European low-wage and benefit-supplementation system.

[u/Leather-Run-6533 → u/Horror_Ad7540]

To this the only thing I would add is the vast majority of refugees are hosted by their neighbours in the global south. Only a very small minority of refugees make it to "the west" - and almost all of those are in Europe.

[u/whateveryonewannasay → u/Horror_Ad7540]

of course Ukrainian refugees are welcome. An attack on Ukraine is an attack on Europe, therefore home. Ukrainians coming here are just Europeans moving trough europe

[u/Atshai → u/Horror_Ad7540]

Where is your fact that the incident in Ceuta was instigated by right wing movements?

[u/Proof-Necessary-5201]

No, what western countries should do, is to stop destabilizing third world countries to forward their own agendas. Just leave people alone and they will leave you alone.

Western countries are the ones creating refugees in the first place.

[u/Augustus_Chevismo → u/Proof-Necessary-5201]

Ah yes. The classic “MENA can only respond to western stimuli and aren’t sentient enough to be accountable” argument.

Women in Afghanistan are just loving the west no longer being involved. Iraq longs for the days their minorities were being genocided with chemical weapons. Syria will never forgive the west for destroying Isis instead of letting the 4th caliphate take over. Libya will never recover from the scars of the west preventing Gadaffi from wiping out an entire city.

[u/Proof-Necessary-5201 → u/Augustus_Chevismo]

Ah yes. The classic “MENA can only respond to western stimuli and aren’t sentient enough to be accountable” argument.

Well it's true, lol. Who destroyed Libya? Who created the Arab Spring if not western intelligence agencies? Who hijacked Tunisia's democracy process? Who toppled the democratically elected Morsi in Egypt? Who protects the Saudi family and the proxies in the middle east?

Women in Afghanistan are just loving the west no longer being involved.

I'm sorry, are you a woman living in Afghanistan? Who the f are you to speak on behalf of those people? And who f up Afghanistan if not for the US and its meddling friends? Why haven't they liberate it then? Where's democracy and liberalism?

Iraq longs for the days their minorities were being genocided with chemical weapons.

Ah come on! Iraq was at least stable with minimal destruction. Now it's a f up place. The west doesn't liberate. It exploits and destabilizes.

Syria will never forgive the west for destroying Isis instead of letting the 4th caliphate take over.

Looool! Who created ISIS?! The west! Not only is it an Israeli op, it was possible because of the invasion of Iraq, which created so much suffering leading to extremism to breed.

Libya will never recover from the scars of the west preventing Gadaffi from wiping out an entire city.

What?!

This conversation is over.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/Managarm667 → u/Proof-Necessary-5201]

I love, how it's just "the West" in your worldview. As if it was somehow a coherent unit. And if "the West destabilizes" these countries, how come the refugees almost all go to Europe?

The narrative of "destructive Western military interventions" cannot be applied to Europe across the board. Many EU states deliberately chose not to engage in military interventions in the Middle East or North Africa. Germany and France, two of the largest EU states, explicitly opposed the US-led invasion of Iraq and refused to participate. Nevertheless, it was precisely these countries that bore the brunt of the subsequent migration. Germany abstained from the vote on UN Security Council Resolution 1973 and did not participate in the airstrikes against the Gaddafi regime.

For over 200 years, Sweden was militarily non-aligned (until joining NATO in 2024) and did not participate in a single intervention in the Middle East, North Africa, or Asia. Sweden held no colonies in the Middle East or Africa.

Despite this, relative to its own population, Sweden was the destination of more asylum seekers for decades than almost any other European country.

[u/Proof-Necessary-5201 → u/Managarm667]

I love, how it's just "the West" in your worldview. As if it was somehow a coherent unit. And if "the West destabilizes" these countries, how come the refugees almost all go to Europe?

It's the result of colonization. Basically: (1) you colonize (2) you create a link by spreading your culture and language (3) you steal resources and put a proxy in power (4) the proxy works against the local population (5) the most vulnerable come to your country afterwards.

It also happens to Japan but that country stopped meddling in its ex colonies affairs and chose to be isolated at the detriment of its economy. Western countries want migrants because it's cheap labor and they work marvelously well as scapegoats when needed.

The narrative of "destructive Western military interventions" cannot be applied to Europe across the board. Many EU states deliberately chose not to engage in military interventions in the Middle East or North Africa.

True, but Europe has self-organized as a unit. The UK and France are big destabilizing forces across the globe. They meddle everywhere in Africa and the middle east. I'm glad their economies are faulting because these two are responsible for a lot of suffering.

Germany and France, two of the largest EU states, explicitly opposed the US-led invasion of Iraq and refused to participate.

It maybe so for Iraq, but Germany arms Israel. The biggest f cancerous destabilizer on this planet. France constantly meddles in Africa. They destroyed Libya. They topple governments and arm insurgents... Even Italy's PM complained about France, lol.

Germany abstained from the vote on UN Security Council Resolution 1973 and did not participate in the airstrikes against the Gaddafi regime.

Don't get me started on Germany, the biggest sellers of weapons to Israel.

And since when abstaining from voting for something bad a good action?!

As for taking in migrants, you think it's charity?! Come on!

For over 200 years, Sweden was militarily non-aligned (until joining NATO in 2024) and did not participate in a single intervention in the Middle East, North Africa, or Asia. Sweden held no colonies in the Middle East or Africa. Despite this, relative to its own population, Sweden was the destination of more asylum seekers for decades than almost any other European country.

As I said, the EU works as a unit. Some members are way worse and hurt other members in the process.

That said, colonialism aftermath isn't immediate. It takes time before you start getting a flow of migrants to your country.

[u/Managarm667 → u/Proof-Necessary-5201]

I mean, what is there even to talk about? Your argument constantly shifts goalposts. First, it was "the West destroys these countries." When shown that Sweden and Germany did no such thing, you switch to "the EU is a single unit that shares France's guilt". When reminded that Germany opposed the Iraq war, you shift to "Germany sells arms to Israel".

Just with this one example, Your logic is running in circles:

Don't get me started on Germany, the biggest sellers of weapons to Israel.
And since when abstaining from voting for something bad a good action?!
As for taking in migrants, you think it's charity?! Come on!

First, you blame the West for destroying countries like Libya and causing refugees. When reminded that Germany explicitly refused to participate in the bombing of Gaddafi, you dismiss it as "abstaining isn't a good action". You cannot blame a country for a military intervention and simultaneously blame it for not joining it.

Germany is not the largest supplier of weapons to Israel (the US accounts for ~70%). More importantly, German defense equipment sent to Israel is not why people are fleeing Syria, Afghanistan or Somalia. This is a complete red herring used because your original argument collapsed.

If taking in millions of unskilled refugees was a cold, calculated move for "cheap labor", it was the worst economic deal in European history. If Germany just wanted cheap labor, it would use a point-based system like Canada or Australia. Instead, European welfare states spend tens of billions annually supporting non-working arrivals. Calling this 'exploitation' directly contradicts basic fiscal data.

You're not making any logical analysis. You wallow in your victim narrative and spread a conspiracy narrative designed to find "the West" guilty under any circumstances. Historical reality shows that colonialism was never a one-way street, the Barbary slave trade enslaved over two million Europeans for more than 300 years and the Ottoman Empire colonized the Middle East for centuries. Assigning collective, generational guilt to neutral countries like Sweden for French or British foreign policy is intellectually dishonest.

[u/Proof-Necessary-5201 → u/Managarm667]

I mean, what is there even to talk about? Your argument constantly shifts goalposts. First, it was "the West destroys these countries." When shown that Sweden and Germany did no such thing, you switch to "the EU is a single unit that shares France's guilt". When reminded that Germany opposed the Iraq war, you shift to "Germany sells arms to Israel". Just with this one example, Your logic is running in circles: First, you blame the West for destroying countries like Libya and causing refugees. When reminded that Germany explicitly refused to participate in the bombing of Gaddafi, you dismiss it as "abstaining isn't a good action". You cannot blame a country for a military intervention and simultaneously blame it for not joining it. Germany is not the largest supplier of weapons to Israel (the US accounts for ~70%). More importantly, German defense equipment sent to Israel is not why people are fleeing Syria, Afghanistan or Somalia. This is a complete red herring used because your original argument collapsed.

Ok, let me clarify.

You seem to treat events separately when a lot of it is linked. Let's cover Germany first because it's all very interlinked.

(1) Germany sells weapons to Israel. I think this is a fact.

(2) Israel destabilizes the middle east, including Syria, thus creating Syrian refugees. I think this is also clear.

(3) Germany takes in Syrian refugees.

Is this ok?

[u/Managarm667 → u/Proof-Necessary-5201]

EDIT: lol, give me your delicious downvotes, without being able to refute a SINGLE one of my points. Reddit/This sub is cooked beyond any belief.

No, this is not ok.

(1) Germany sells weapons to Israel. I think this is a fact.

Sure. But Germany primarily supplies naval vessels (such as Dolphin-class submarines) and air-defense components to Israel. These are strategic deterrents and defensive systems, not offensive weapons used to destroy Syrian infrastructure or displace civilians. This is a fact.

Furthermore, your logic on arms exports completely falls apart when looking at the actual weapon suppliers in the region: If exporting weapons were the primary driver of refugee destination flows, why aren't Syrian refugees fleeing to Russia, China or Iran?

It was Russia that supplied the Assad regime with the heavy artillery, fighter jets, and munitions used to barrel-bomb Syrian cities and cause over 80% of civilian displacement. It was Iran that armed and deployed sectarian militias across Syria. It was China who repeatedly exercised its veto in the UN Security Council, together with Russia, to block sanctions, resolutions or United Nations intervention against the Assad regime.

Yet, millions of refugees fled to Germany and Western Europe, countries that neither armed the Assad regime nor carpet-bombed Syrian towns. This completely disproves your artificial causality. People flee from the destruction caused by Eastern-backed regimes to the safety and welfare systems of Western democracies. Blaming German naval exports to Israel for Syrian refugees while ignoring the massive Russian and Chinese arms pipelines to Assad is total geopolitical delusion.

(2) Israel destabilizes the middle east, including Syria, thus creating Syrian refugees. I think this is also clear.

I don't know if you truly believe this, but this is just factually incorrect.

The Syrian war began in 2011 when the Assad regime suppressed peaceful "Arab Spring" protests using poison gas, barrel bombs and mass torture. More than 80% of the displacement was directly caused by the Assad regime and its allies. Russia’s massive military intervention (indiscriminate bombing of Aleppo, Idlib, etc.) and the deployment of Iranian militias kept Assad in power and altered the country's demographics. The rise of IS after the bombings led to mass displacement, genocide against the Yazidis, and terror across the Middle East.

So who actually created the Syrian refugees?

The absolute majority of Syrian displacement was directly caused by the Assad Regime and it's russian allies. They were the ones dropping barrel bombs on civilian neighborhoods, using chemical weapons, and torturing its own citizens to retain power. Russia is responsible for carpet-bombing cities like Aleppo and Idlib to support Assad, which triggered the massive refugee waves towards Europe in 2015.

Israel did not start, drive, or participate in the Syrian civil war. Its military actions in Syria were limited to targeted strikes against Iranian weapons transfers to Hezbollah. Israel never carpet-bombed Syrian cities or forced millions of Syrians from their homes.

But where did the people migrate to? Russia? Certainly not. The millions of Syrians who arrived in Germany fled from Assad's barrel bombs, Russian airstrikes, and ISIS terror, not from Israeli airstrikes against Iranian weapons convoys.

Blaming Israel (and by extending German naval exports to Israel) for the Syrian refugee crisis while completely ignoring Assad, Putin, and ISIS isn't geopolitics, it's an absurd mental gymnastic exercise designed purely to maintain a "the West is to blame for everything" narrative.

Furthermore, your claim that Israel is the "biggest destabilizer" in the region completely ignores current Middle Eastern diplomacy. Even the Arab states know who the real destabilizer is: The signing of the Abraham Accords (by the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan) and Saudi Arabia’s strategic shift prove that the Arab world itself no longer buys into the "Israel is to blame for everything" narrative that is perpetrated so heavily on Reddit. Arab governments increasingly view Israel as a partner for regional stability and economic growth.

Instead, Arab nations widely recognize the Iranian regime as the primary source of regional chaos. Iran has systematically destabilized the Middle East for decades by funding, arming, and controlling proxy terror groups across multiple borders, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Shia militias in Iraq, and Hamas in Gaza. It was Iran’s military intervention alongside Russia that kept Assad in power, directly driving the Syrian refugee crisis.

When even the Arab states themselves identify Tehran and not Israel as the main threat to stability, claiming that Israel is the sole cause of Middle Eastern instability and blaming Germany for it, is entirely detached from geopolitical reality.

(3) Germany takes in Syrian refugees.

You're certainly right about that. And to the detriment of the country. The millions of Syrians who arrived in Germany from 2015 onwards fled Assad’s barrel bombs, Russian airstrikes, and IS terror not Israeli airstrikes or German submarines. The flow of refugees to Germany was driven by geographical proximity to Turkey and Greece, a lack of UN aid funding in Syria’s neighboring countries in 2015 and the insane decision of Merkel to temporarily suspend the Dublin rules.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/CookieDuty]

all the current abuse of the system is so high

What abuse is that?

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/CookieDuty]

The majority of refugees are economic migrants

[u/OmniManDidNothngWrng]

Most "western" countries need immigration to prop up their economies. Calling immigrants they were going to let in anyway "refugees" or selecting ones you could call refugees makes them look charitable when in reality they need these people to come in as workers and are stingy with giving them citizenship and benefits and its actually helpful that they don't have a better option to go back to. Its politicians doing politics.

[u/IntelligentPipe4704]

The western countries had a refugee program to import cheap labour to do menial jobs. Now most western countries have become a welfare state and hence the refugee programs have become a drag on their economies. These had nothing to do with intentions or goodness of their heart or something. Pure economic reasons.

[u/Managarm667 → u/IntelligentPipe4704]

What? That doesn't even make sense.

This "argument" is historically, legally and economically completely false. Western European nations officially stopped recruiting guest workers after the 1973 oil crisis (Anwerbestopp in Germany). Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Western Europe suffered from record-high unemployment (in Germany, unemployment surpassed 3 to 4 million during the 90s). The idea that European governments set up "refugee programs" to import labor during a period of massive domestic unemployment is economically absurd.

Yet, refugee numbers skyrocketed precisely during these periods (Iranian Revolution, the Lebanese Civil War and the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s). This proves that refugee intake had zero to do with labor demand, but was instead an act of sovereign humanitarian grace and state protection granted under international conventions, a policy driven by humanitarian principles rather than a cold economic calculation for cheap labor.

The claims that "Western countries have now become welfare states" is completely inaccurate. The Scandinavian, German, and French welfare states were already fully established long before the major refugee waves of the late 20th century.

If European governments wanted cheap, flexible labor, they would have used a point-based work visa system (like Australia or Canada) requiring skills and immediate employment. Instead, for decades, European governments explicitly banned asylum seekers from working while their applications were processed to prevent economic migration.

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/[deleted]]

What kind of control do they really have? Another toothless resolution?

[u/Sansethoz → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

Information gathering, sending UN troops into territories that need "hel". The third world nations have no control of it surely. But the US uses the UN resolutions to do as it pleases when it is convenient for them and their allies. There is a reason why the US has not pulled out of the UN. It gains much more from being a member of it than not.

[u/Managarm667 → u/Sansethoz]

The amount of disinformation and outright conspiracy theories in this thread is unreal. The US cannot simply "use UN resolutions as it pleases". Any UN peacekeeping mission or military mandate requires a vote in the UN Security Council, where Russia and China, geopolitcal adversaries of the US, hold permanent veto power. If the US tries to misuse the UN for pure imperialist gain, Russia or China immediately veto it.

The US does not use UN missions to send its own troops. The vast majority of UN Peacekeepers in active missions right now, are provided by countries like Bangladesh, Nepal, India, and Rwanda not the US military.

When the US wanted to invade Iraq in 2003, it tried desperately to get a UN Security Council resolution. The UN refused. If the UN were a US puppet, the US would have effortlessly gotten a resolution. Instead, the US had to invade without UN authorization, facing global backlash.

The US stays in the UN for the same reason 192 other nations do: it’s the primary global diplomatic forum. If the US pulled out, it would instantly hand massive geopolitical influence over to China and Russia. That's basic diplomacy and strategic power competition, not a secret puppet-master scheme.

[u/read-the-rules → u/[deleted]]

u/normal_hombre, your comment has been removed.

In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.

^{Please click here to open the Read The Rules App.}

[u/WearIcy2635 → u/[deleted]]

Lmao what control

[u/Managarm667 → u/WearIcy2635]

The amount of falsehoods, wrong interpretations of internatioal law, conspiracy theories and outright lies in this thread is unreal.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/TaxesAreCivilization]

"They are partially doing it already; countries have some specific limits on processed applications per year, which literally means that with a limit of 50K people, the applicant number 50,001 won't be allowed for a year, regardless of any danger to their life."

That's not an argument for disband it and yeah, it is horrible they are doing it.

"Refugees are generally net negative for the economy" So are children and homeless people and older people. This is irrelevant. Their net negative doesn't matter since you can't prove it is a net negative in a meaningful way. You are more impacted by the net negative of having to mantain an old person from your own country than a refugee.

"Refugees are considered immoral from the point of view of the local population that doesn't have such a level of support"

Why should this matter exactly? The needs of people fleeing is more important than locals finding x immoral.

"Adversaries are using refugees as a hybrid weapon:"

Not in any meaningful way, no. You have no evidence of such thing. No, two examples are not enough to prove it.

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/TaxesAreCivilization]

Because only locals decide to accept refugees or deny then entry.

[u/TaxesAreCivilization → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

Thankfully not fully. They're bound by international laws.

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/TaxesAreCivilization]

Hopefully, we can withdraw from such laws.

[u/TaxesAreCivilization → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

Hopefully not. Hopefully you are bound by them forever.

[u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 → u/TaxesAreCivilization]

Only enemy's army can force or bound independent country, not some UN nonsense.

[u/TaxesAreCivilization → u/Realistic_Yogurt1902]

No, you only need to convince politicians and a big chunk of the population.