Oxfam report on refugees and wealthy countries

[Amira]

"The six wealthiest nations host less than nine percent of the world’s refugees while poorer countries shoulder most of the responsibility. The world's richest countries can and should do much more to help the world’s most vulnerable people who have fled their homes because of violence and conflict."

 

https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/mb-a-poor-welcome-refugees-180716-en.pdf

 

Even if you don't read the article, look at the charts on page three. The wealthiest six countries holding 57% of cumulative global GDP host 9% of the world's refugees. The six countries hosting the most refugees right now (50% of the global total) hold 2% of global cumulative GDP.

[goldberry]

Not surprising.  

 

Regarding the Jews in pre-Holocaust Germany, from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum.

 

https://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007698

 

 

In the summer of 1938, delegates from thirty-two countries met at the French resort of Evian. Roosevelt chose not to send a high-level official, such as the secretary of state, to Evian; instead, Myron C. Taylor, a businessman and close friend of Roosevelt's, represented the US at the conference. During the nine-day meeting, delegate after delegate rose to express sympathy for the refugees. But most countries, including the United States and Britain, offered excuses for not letting in more refugees.

 

Responding to Evian, the German government was able to state with great pleasure how "astounding" it was that foreign countries criticized Germany for their treatment of the Jews, but none of them wanted to open the doors to them when "the opportunity offer[ed]."

 

Even efforts by some Americans to rescue children failed: the Wagner-Rogers bill, an effort to admit 20,000 endangered Jewish refugee children, was not supported by the Senate in 1939 and 1940. Widespread racial prejudices among Americans—including antisemitic attitudes held by the US State Department officials—played a part in the failure to admit more refugees.

 

When I learned about this, I felt such a deep sense of shame and sadness.  But apparently nothing was learned I guess.  Nothing has really changed.  :crying:

 

ETA to add this from Wiki:  Only two countries, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic, increased their quotas [for Jewish immigrants]. The conference thus proved to be a useful propaganda boost for the Nazis.

Edited July 18, 2016 by goldberry

[Arcadia]

Japan is still dealing with the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster while China has their own impoverished people to take care of. I rather the rich in those countries donate more cash than for their govt. to absorb more refugees. I don't know if Japan has the land either to house more refugees even if their govt has the admin resources to handle refugees. The other four countries I don't know enough to comment.

 

From IB Times and Bloomberg, Oct 2014

"More than 82 million people in China live below the poverty line, a senior official has said.

 

Zheng Wenkai said that poor Chinese people live with less than $1 (£0.63) a day and added that the number would rise to more than 200 million if international standards of poverty were applied." (ETA: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/china-more-82-million-people-live-below-poverty-line-1470313)

Edited July 18, 2016 by Arcadia

[Amira]

I'm willing to give China a pass since wealth distribution in that country is appalling and its wealth statistics are misleading. There are still plenty of other wealthy countries in Europe and North America that could do much more to alleviate the refugee crisis, especially in comparison to what countries like Lebanon have done.

 

Look, I know there are plenty of reasons why Japan, the EU, and the US don't want to take in many refugees. But at what cost?

Edited July 18, 2016 by Amira

[goldberry]

At some point it doesn't matter how much money is donated, those people have to have a place to live.  

 

I agree with Amira, the reasons may be valid and logical.  At the same time, you are talking about people's lives, and whether people live or die. 

[SKL]

To me it seems logical because the US is so far away from these people's home countries.  We don't have much in common with them culturally, so it seems they would be least likely to feel comfortable here.  Plus the cost of bringing them here is so high.  We could help so many more people if we used that same amount of money to support the efforts of accommodating nations closer to their homeland.  And further, once things get sorted out so they could go home again, it would again make sense for them to be closer to home.

 

This is just one example of people having illogical (IMO) ideas about the best way to help people in need.

 

On the other hand, we have fairly large populations of refugees from some countries.  Any Cuban refugees in Saudi Arabia or Japan or Kenya?  Well that wouldn't make much sense, would it?

[Amira]

At some point it doesn't matter how much money is donated, those people have to have a place to live.

 

I agree with Amira, the reasons may be valid and logical. At the same time, you are talking about people's lives, and whether people live or die.

And whether the countries refugees are currently living in can provide long-term housing, education, and employment. If they can't (and those six countries on the chart certainly can't for the numbers they're hosting), then you dramatically increase those countries' risk for political and financial instability which affects people in wealthy countries too, as we've seen so vividly in the last year.

[goldberry]

To me it seems logical because the US is so far away from these people's home countries.  We don't have much in common with them culturally, so it seems they would be least likely to feel comfortable here.  Plus the cost of bringing them here is so high.  We could help so many more people if we used that same amount of money to support the efforts of accommodating nations closer to their homeland.  And further, once things get sorted out so they could go home again, it would again make sense for them to be closer to home.

 

This is just one example of people having illogical (IMO) ideas about the best way to help people in need.

 

On the other hand, we have fairly large populations of refugees from some countries.  Any Cuban refugees in Saudi Arabia or Japan or Kenya?  Well that wouldn't make much sense, would it?

 

It's not just America the study was talking about.  

[Amira]

To me it seems logical because the US is so far away from these people's home countries. We don't have much in common with them culturally, so it seems they would be least likely to feel comfortable here. Plus the cost of bringing them here is so high. We could help so many more people if we used that same amount of money to support the efforts of accommodating nations closer to their homeland. And further, once things get sorted out so they could go home again, it would again make sense for them to be closer to home.

 

This is just one example of people having illogical (IMO) ideas about the best way to help people in need.

 

On the other hand, we have fairly large populations of refugees from some countries. Any Cuban refugees in Saudi Arabia or Japan or Kenya? Well that wouldn't make much sense, would it?

Only one percent of the world's refugees have ever been resettled in a third country. The majority return home when it is safe to do so and the rest stay in their host country. It's already the model for refugees to remain in their region, but that model isn't working right now because of the unprecedented number of refugees.

[Murphy101]

At some point it doesn't matter how much money is donated, those people have to have a place to live.

 

I agree with Amira, the reasons may be valid and logical. At the same time, you are talking about people's lives, and whether people live or die.

From a financial perspective, it would make more sense for the wealthy nations to step in in those regions and enforce peace to end conflict caused diaspora than it would to take in millions at our expense. Especially as so many wealthy nations are already disgruntled suffering austerity measures and I can easily see how cramming millions of refugees into those nations would be a tipping point for even more civil unrest.

 

For a personal religious view, the beatitudes are rather clear on what to do. How we do it is the only point of contention for me.

[EmseB]

All of this is also complicated by the fact that when aid is sent, there are usually huge problems with corruption and horrible things like human trafficking perpetuated by the aid organizations sent in to help.  The UN, for example, has a huge problem with sex trafficking in its ranks everywhere they show up to "help" all these desperate people.  Things like the Oil for Food scandal are not an aberration.  The people who are supposed to be helping make a bad situation worse in many of these places because there is no accountability, no policing the police, and chaos.

 

There are no easy answers like more money or more personnel.

[Amira]

If the US took in as many refugees per capita as Lebanon has, we would take in over 70 million people.

 

Surely we can do more than we already are.

[6packofun]

I guess it might matter if GDP alone is a great indicator of a nation's wealth.  Sources that use GDP per capita give a pretty different list. So, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, would be included, along with 2-3 Asian nations and Luxembourg. lol  I'm not saying that is necessarily the best indicator, either.  2015 marked the 10th straight year that America's GDP didn't crack 3%.  But maybe that doesn't matter when we're talking about how our economy is doing in a different conversation.

 

MOST nations could probably do more.

[Amira]

I wish US policy makers would spend more time figuring out how we can do more rather talking about who else should be doing more. The simple fact is that there is tremendous need for refugee resettlement right now and countries like the US are unquestionably in the best position to help fill that need. There is no way to argue against that. When I feel like my country is doing enough, then I'll start pointing fingers at those who should be doing more. I wish that I could do that.

[Pam in CT]

Yeah.

 

The sheer magnitude of the current refugee crisis, and what that magnitude means, is what I think is very hard to grasp -- both in terms of the human suffering of the refugees themselves, and also the potential -- likelihood -- near-certainty -- that when that many people suffer that much, for years, we're sowing the seeds for future regional instability and "radicalization" of the next generation.

 

The Oxfam study that Amira linked documents 65 million displaced refugees.  That number actually speaks only of people who are counted by UNHCR as refugees, and therefore (at the US' very strong urging) mostly does not count the many people who have fled for their lives from cartel and gang violence in Central America and Mexico.

 

It is the largest refugee crisis since World War II. 

 

 

 

Refugee camps are supposed to be temporary, but it doesn't always work out that way.  The Dadaab camp in Kenya was established in 1992 as a temporary measure for civilians fleeing the still-festering Somali war.  Thirty years later, it holds more that 300,000 people -- a whole generation who've spent their whole lives behind a fence, with virtually no access to education and absolutely no access to meaningful occupation.  Not altogether surprisingly, it is fertile breeding ground for discontent and Kenya is determined to close it down... which while understandable does not create a place for its inhabitants to go.

 

 

There are no easy answers.

To me it seems logical because the US is so far away from these people's home countries.  We don't have much in common with them culturally, so it seems they would be least likely to feel comfortable here.  Plus the cost of bringing them here is so high.  We could help so many more people if we used that same amount of money to support the efforts of accommodating nations closer to their homeland.  And further, once things get sorted out so they could go home again, it would again make sense for them to be closer to home.

 

This is just one example of people having illogical (IMO) ideas about the best way to help people in need.

 

On the other hand, we have fairly large populations of refugees from some countries.  Any Cuban refugees in Saudi Arabia or Japan or Kenya?  Well that wouldn't make much sense, would it?

While there is some logic in the bolded, it is also true that the US is not pulling our weight in financially supporting countries like Jordan and Lebanon and Turkey who ARE absorbing very large numbers of people.  

 

And at the same time we are doing our level best to resist people fleeing equally deathly conflicts closer to home, in Central America and Mexico, who have a good deal more in common with us culturally.

 

 

 

 

ETA typo

 

Edited July 18, 2016 by Pam in CT

[SKL]

Well I think the US is doing too much of the wrong thing and not enough of the right thing, but my view may not be the most popular one.

 

The same is true IMO of some other rich countries.

 

Politics is working against the refugees' best interests from both sides.

[Guest]

I wish US policy makers would spend more time figuring out how we can do more rather talking about who else should be doing more. The simple fact is that there is tremendous need for refugee resettlement right now and countries like the US are unquestionably in the best position to help fill that need. There is no way to argue against that. When I feel like my country is doing enough, then I'll start pointing fingers at those who should be doing more. I wish that I could do that.

 

It seems to me though that we already are taking in refugees. They're simply labeled as illegal immigrants instead. They are still fleeing violence, gangs, cartels, and chaotic economies- so they are refugees in many many cases, even though politicians fail to label them as such. And no one here can agree what to do with them. I mean that's a hugely volatile situation brewing here right at this moment, and has been for years. 

 

I cannot even imagine the chaos if we brought in a few million more refugees from Europe without figuring out our own situation first.....it also would seem horribly cruel to the illegal immigrants here waiting to see if they will be deported or not with all of the back and forth, to bring in a few million more. Imagine their feelings if people are having an election largely based on their status and certain people threatening to deport 11 million of them no matter how long they have resided in the US, yet flinging the door open wide to refugees from the Middle East and Europe. I'm not downplaying the refugee crisis across the ocean, but we don't even have our ducks in a row on our own continent- it seems that for the US that is a huge place to start. I can't separate the illegal immigrant issue from the refugee one even thought governments play games with the status names. The entire immigration system here is beyond screwed and is horribly racist and classist, imo. 

[Amira]

It seems to me though that we already are taking in refugees. They're simply labeled as illegal immigrants instead. They are still fleeing violence, gangs, cartels, and chaotic economies- so they are refugees in many many cases, even though politicians fail to label them as such. And no one here can agree what to do with them. I mean that's a hugely volatile situation brewing here right at this moment, and has been for years.

 

I cannot even imagine the chaos if we brought in a few million more refugees from Europe without figuring out our own situation first.....it also would seem horribly cruel to the illegal immigrants here waiting to see if they will be deported or not with all of the back and forth, to bring in a few million more. Imagine their feelings if people are having an election largely based on their status and certain people threatening to deport 11 million of them no matter how long they have resided in the US, yet flinging the door open wide to refugees from the Middle East and Europe. I'm not downplaying the refugee crisis across the ocean, but we don't even have our ducks in a row on our own continent- it seems that for the US that is a huge place to start. I can't separate the illegal immigrant issue from the refugee one even thought governments play games with the status names. The entire immigration system here is beyond screwed and is horribly racist and classist, imo.

I'd love it if we classified people fleeing violence in nearby countries as refugees and took in more of them. That would be one step toward the US doing more for refugees. The majority of the 11-13 million undocumented people living in the US cannot be classified as refugees though, and classification does matter because (with few exceptions) the only refugees brought into the US are those who are legally defined as refugees by the UN. People fleeing for economic reasons aren't refugees, and rightly so, so I don't conflate the two groups. While I am completely opposed to deporting undocumented people in the US, I don't think their legal status has anything to do with how many refugees we can accept, any more than their legal status should affect the number of green cards we issue each year.