World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
of course they are. The problem I see is that every country has to take care that regugees are properly welcomed and taken care of. They have to get immediatly proper introduction into the country, the language, the common systems of the country, are able to work and contribute (with regards of their strengths and education) and so on, so that they get really fast properly inlcuded and not live for years in some shady, seperated "container homes".
And to assure this you have to regulate the income, because every country has limited ressources. We just need a proper european solution that every country is forced (looking at you hungary...) to take refugees and care for them properly based on some variables like the wealth of the country and so on.
Yeah, you're right that there's a potentially steep initial cost. That's outweighed by future benefits, though, and I'm pretty sure that both the EU and several NGOs have funds and projects specifically dedicated to partly pay for and ease that transition.
It's worth a try, at least, when the alternative is turning away refugees.
It is a nonsense problem created to excuse clearly right-wing anti-migrant politics as left-wing, by saying that you care about people so much, that you can't have them sleep on the street, so better to let them die in a war. Because at that point, that problem is somewhere else, in another country. Better then to see suffering on your own streets.
You are clearly unfamiliar with Estonian winters. The days are below freezing, often in double digits. Anyone not sheltered will freeze to death. And where, pray tell, would we shelter them? Refugee shelters? Full of Ukrainians. Hotels are full of Ukrainians. There's a Ukrainian family living across the street from me, because a call went out for private residences to house Ukrainian refugees and my neighbor took his family and moved in with his parents. There's nowhere left.
But please, continue to tell me how we're not doing enough by giving all the help we had to give to the first victims of this war.
And in Russia it is nice tropical weather /s Are we talking about closing borders just for the winter, of for the summer as well? Are we talking about closing boreders for Russians that cant pay ticket to continue to other coutnries or to all russians? These are nonsense arguments where you pretend to make descision in their best intrerest. Are they too stupid to not be able to make a decision themselves to leave the country if they are under threat of certain death in a war. They would rather live in a tent then in a battlefield under same freezing conditions. How can someone in all honestly believe this clear lie?
And how can someone so unfamiliar with the situation preach, with such conviction, to the uneducated and clearly right-wing xenophobic untermenschen who actually have to deal with it?
You speak as though we're closing the borders with a giant "fuck you" to the people on the other side. We can't help them. Can't. Not won't, but can't. We don't have the resources to help them. You can talk about the EU being rich as fuck all day, but the reality on the ground is that we have nothing left to give to help these people, because all that wealth isn't here. We're stretched thin as it is.
You ever heard the saying "Don't light yourself on fire to keep someone else warm"? Because that's what you're proposing.
This article isn't about welfare to russian citizens, but about actually closing the borders so they are trapped. You are very determined to make it seem like it's about best intentions and not being able to help, while the reality is that this is a decision to actively forbid any passage through a country. As for the real situation of wealth in Estonia, per capita Estonia is far richer then Russia and if citizens are not able to survive in Estonia, they will not be able to survive in Russia. Russia is also colder and at actual war. So I have no idea how you can pretend that you are doing them a service by actauly actively stopping them from making their own choice to go where they can for search of better life.
You'll note that at no point did I claim that turning them away is in their best interests. I'd appreciate it if you stopped telling me what I said.
And yes, forbidding them passage through the country is what "closing the borders" means. Very astute of you. Not like they'd get to go anywhere anyway, seeing how they have neither a Schengen VISA nor a EU passport. So all those masses would be ours to deal with. Again, we don't have the resources to do that. It's a point you seem intent on ignoring.
You’ll note that at no point did I claimed that you said turning them away is in their best interests. But it is reasonable to assume that you where making a claim that closing borders is because Estonia can't help them and not because it is not in Estonia's interests. When you give arguments about not being able to help while discussing border politics, it is reasonable to assume that you are giving a reason for that policy and not just talking for unrelated reason. So if the reason is that borders cant open because you cant help them then borders are closed for allegedly their own good as they will not be helped in Estonia. If it is in their interest to open the borders then that is helping them and therefor Estonia can help. Of course it isn't much help if you are simply not hurting them by trapping them inside their country, but still. When you frame a comment to be about helping them, it is obviously implied that you are concerned with their wellbeing and therefor their interests.
Simply as you used different wording when you told me that I said that you claimed turning them away is in their best interest, so did I. Communication is based on some assumptions and framing things from your point of view, it hard to communicate otherwise.
Also, I am ignoring that you don't have resources for helping them, because it is simply not a point of the article. We are talking about not letting them come in, not necessarly do they need help. Maybe they can catch a plain, maybe some do have Visas, it is not impossible. And when talking about human lives during war, we should be more willing to help.
Besides, I understand that there are a lot of already housed migrants and that is great. But also if they have been there for sometime and some migrants haven't been there at all, would be good to help those already housed reloacate to rest of EU so there is more space for new migrants. After all, I am certain that the rest of EU will more gladly help Ukranin migrants than Russian ones, so focusing on helping them is good. If really the argument is simply not being able to help and etc. The problem is that all of these things are perfectly reasonably solved and that it is clear that intentions aren't really economical, but political.
First off...
Now, perhaps it's creative interpretation on my part, but it came across as you implying I'm arguing for their best interests. Apologies, if that's not the case.
Secondly, whether you like it or not, there's more to consider than the lives of these refugees or any that would follow. National security and the security of the Schengen zone. The very likely tensions and conflicts between the refugees already housed here and the newly arrived Russians. I assure you, when emotions run high, it won't matter if everyone involved are innocent civilians. And our own history of Russia attempting to use the local Russian population as a weapon. That was under Putin's rule, I don't find it unreasonable to think he'd do it again.
And finally, I'm not letting you ignore the inconvenient fact that we don't have the resources. It may not have been the point of the article, but it's most definitely a factor in the decision. Because the reality is that these people would need help, because practically everyone who was rich enough to snag plane tickets, or had VISAs, and wanted to leave has already left. They did that over the first year of the war. These people need housing, food and healthcare, none of which they can provide for themselves. The reality is that if we let them in, we have a sharp spike in homelessness. Soon after, a spike in people needing healthcare. Around the same time, a rise in crime, as some of the refugees are unwilling or unable to get jobs. Followed by another spike in people needing healthcare. And during all that, families freezing to death in the streets. But I suppose all of that is fine if they're searching for a better life, yes?
Just out of curiosity, where are you from?
Why mention that you dont have the resources if you are not pretending that you would be for helping them if you could. It is just an excuse to try and hide the fact that you care more about one population then another simply on the basis on their nationality. I hope you understand how racist that is. Not that I accept the notion that civilian unarmed refugees are somehow a threat to the Schengen zone and a "National security", which is most common anti-imigrant rethoric, but how is that ever a higher priority then lives of an entire nation of civilans.
"there’s more to consider than the lives of these refugees or any that would follow" of course, comfort and stolen wealth of the EU is top priority, Lives of human beings are always secondary to profit.
"Just out of curiosity, where are you from?" I know better then to tell a racist where I am from, so they can somehow make assumtions based on my nationality.
It is a weak argument to claim that people must stay in a region where they will be killed, until you are certain that you can allow 100% comfort in nice houses for them to live with. If they want to come to that country and sleep in a tent, rather then die in a war, why not let them in? I understand that right-wing people make racist arguments and are clear on that they don't like migrants and hate other popluations, but when I hear this from people who consider themselves left-wing, they always make up some nonsense excuses how they are actually letting people die for their own sake.