= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
knb comments on Open thread 7th september - 13th september - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (146)
The civil war in Syria emerged from the "Arab Spring," and supposedly the drought conditions (possibly a result of climate change) were a major factor causing dissatisfaction with the governments in effected countries.
But clearly the "refugee crisis" is not a result of drought, it's a result of European countries being unwilling to enforce their borders and immigration laws. Israel is not experiencing the refugee crisis Europe is because they don't let the refugees in and consistently enforce their restrictive immigration laws.
Funny things I remember: The Telegraph printed on March 9, 2015:
Sometimes the Greeks do keep their word. The Eurozone did not back down. And look who's coming to Europe via Greek islands!
Truly, there would be no refugee crisis in Europe if the refugees were unable to enter Europe. Instead, there would be a refugee crisis elsewhere. There would be no refugee crisis at all if the refugees were unable to leave Syria. Instead, there would be some other crisis. Perhaps a slaughter crisis. Or a starvation crisis. Or a breakdown of all government crisis. Or a victory by a jubilantly expansionist and for the first time correctly so called Islamic State crisis.
There may be an argument that we, the states of Europe, should build strong walls and cultivate our own gardens within them, but observing that strong walls would allow us to cultivate our own gardens is not that argument. And in the longer run, strong walls may not be enough.
Well using the term "refugee" here is misleading. Note that 75% of the refugees are men. So either they feel that the places they're leaving are safe for women and children, or their main motivation isn't escaping danger.
Well the strong walls are doing a remarkably good job of keeping them out of the gulf states.
Interesting, but Twitter? The actual source is this. (For anyone too lazy to click on a link, that's a graphic from the UNHCR illustrating refugee arrivals in Europe.)
But this, also from the UNHCR, says about equal numbers male and female are fleeing Syria for neighbouring countries. The numbers are also equal after division by age group.
So, taking all of these numbers at face value, it appears that 4 million refugees have gone to nearby states, and a further 9% of that number have gone to Europe (excluding Turkey). Among those going to Europe, 75% are adult men. What do we know of them?
The main difference between going to Turkey and going to Greece is that going to Greece requires paying people smugglers a few thousand dollars. A lot of families can't afford sending all family members to Europe, therefore they send only one, possibly as an anchor, later to be joined by other family members through family reunification programs.
Twitter was a much better choice than the original source. It isolated the particular claim but included a citation. Also, it did not require javascript.
Or the danger is severe enough that they're fleeing alone, more effectively than women and children do?
Isn't that exactly the point? For what was traditionally known as refugees, staying was more dangerous than fleeing so young men were more likely to stay and fight while women, small children and old men fled.
Whereas when you are moving to opportunities staying is safe but unpleasant and moving is dangerous but might be very good. So mostly men move alone and then they send for their families once they have secured a place in the new country. Like Europeans moving to America or Australia, and like modern day refugees.
Suppose the situation is as follows.
This doesn't seem contrived to me. And in that situation, it seems very reasonable to choose the "send one person first" option. (Even more so if we don't ignore the possibility that one person can get out and investigate other countries more safely than a whole family.)
This is contrived, because in your model probability of getting killed does not depend on the length of time spent in a dangerous country. If you send the whole family, you reduce that time for all family members. The longer someone stays in a dangerous place, the higher is the probability of death that during that period of time.
But even that is a moot point, because among Syrian refugees who fled to Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon, number of men and women are more or less equal. Numbers are unequal only among those who attempt to go to Europe. While I don't know what is the probability of getting killed (let's say, within a year) in refugee camp in Turkey, but it is significantly lower than 0.1. It is probably even lower than probability of drowning in a sinking people smuggler's boat. Personally, I find it very unconvincing that it is fear for their lives that makes them go to Europe instead of staying in Eastern Turkey.
The Pr(get killed) figures were intended to be long-term. "If I stay here, there's a 10% chance that eventually I'll get killed". Delaying departure by a few months wouldn't make a very big difference to that.
("Long-term" is relative, of course. For a country in as much turmoil as Syria, who knows what might be happening in 10 years?)
I agree that scenarios like mine are made much less plausible if it's only Europe that has disproportionately many men turning up.
I guess we have a different understanding of what makes a bona fide refugee.
In my opinion, a refugee is someone who is forced to flee because of imminent danger. "A few months" make a huge difference.
"I live in a bad place, I'd better move, but a few months here or there won't make much of a difference" creates a migrant, not a refugee.
OK, so for me someone who leaves a place because they aren't safe there is a refugee rather than a migrant (or: as well as a migrant, but I would generally prefer to use the more informative term) even if the danger isn't imminent.
If I live in a community where people of my ethnicity or religion or eye colour or whatever are being murdered at a rate that means I'll probably last five years, that's a serious threat and I need to get the hell out of there even though a couple of months' extra time there doesn't make a huge difference to the likelihood of death.
It's very reasonable when you are looking for a better place to live. It's not very reasonable when you are in the situation of a bona fide refugee -- the risks of staying are too high, so you run.
Beides, I think in practice the percentage of those who could not "find somewhere to stay" and had to return is much, much less than 50%. Once you made it to Europe, you're golden.
The entire point of my comment was to sketch a situation in which it might be reasonable for a bona fide refugee. If you think it's an implausible situation or that my analysis of the situation is wrong, fair enough, but it's a bit off just to object on general principles as if I hadn't just given what is intended to be a counterexample.
That is ridiculously contrived, and would probably have handed the debate to VofR if you and Imm were the only people arguing against him.
However RichardKennaway has already given the real answer: They are opportunity seekers in the last leg of their journey, but their starting point in that search is various refugee camps in Turkey and the middle east, to which they fled from war and other real dangers. If you look at the demographics in the refugee camps they look much more like whole families fleeing together.
Additionally, if one person in a family gets papers to stay legally in any EU country, the rest of the family gets to come here on regular flights with proper visas, which is both safer and cheaper then the boats that the asylum seekers arrive on.
The refugee crisis is (assuming the connection to climate change is correct) a result of a vicious government reaction to a drought.
It is war, not "a vicious government reaction." If the government had been immediately destroyed, as in Libya, there would still be war between the opposition factions. Indeed, fighting continue in Libya and refugees continue from it. A big difference between Tunisia+Egypt and Libya+Syria is whether the opposition is united or divided.
So far as I know, it started as a vicious government reaction, but now (as you say) there's a war which would continue even in the absence of the Syrian government.
If the Syrian government had reacted better to the drought, would Syria have been as vulnerable to war?
Yes. Syria is ruled by the al-Assad clan and they are Alawites which many do no consider to be true Muslims. There has been major sectarian strife in Syria since at least the early 1980s and the resurgence of militant Islam spelled trouble for the Syrian regime, drought or no drought.
Syria has been making vicious responses to protests for decades. It is only with hindsight that one can suggest that the latest round was a mistake. There are probably things that it could have done better for jobs and agriculture that might have avoided a tinderbox, but by 2011 it was probably too late.