But F the poor I guess

    • Banana@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Then that mean you don’t have enough geopolitical knowledge and if you want get an more advanced opinions about that subject you should not only read and learn about humanitary knowledge (all live matter) but also those who don’t have the same opinion. I hope you will be able to understand and not be someone who is unable to understand because most people’s prefer get use to general opinion and what the media tell them (manipulate) to think with the objective to separate them in order to manipulate them more simply.

      Edit : it’s literally the case in every nation.

    • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      … Of course it is? We have things like taxation and social safety nets that allow a society to function. Never mind the simple fact that some places are stressed for resources as it is. That’s not to say it can’t be done better, but it’s naive to think it’s “simple”. Never mind that simple doesn’t necessarily mean easy…

        • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m having a difficult time thinking of any form of society where people don’t pool at least some portion of their surplus to help the group as a whole (and lift those up who have a deficit). Are you saying that shouldn’t be a thing?

      • fu@libranet.deOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        @Ronno @Banana this sounds very similar to “who will pick the cotton?” that was “just asking questions” as to why slavery should remain legal in the southern united states in the 19th century. It’s the right thing to do. One’s individual rights does not force obligations on the other. A freed market would provide.

        • Ronno@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          IMO, those are very different situations, with slavery their freedom was taken. Most of the migrants (not refugees) are free, they are simply in search for a better life. Which is understandable, don’t get me wrong. But the picture that is painted is too bright, people hop on a boat to “paradise” and are promised a life of riches. The reality is, this is not the situation they will find themselves in. Even if we were to allow them into the country, they would still live poor lives. Sure some will succeed, but most of them don’t have the foundational knowledge/skills/command of the language of the country to get a job and find a place to live.

          Meanwhile, looking at my own country The Netherlands, we see that natives are also struggling for housing. My generation is basically fucked, young families cannot buy nor rent a home to start their family in. This will impact The Netherlands for years/decades to come, it will be reflected in birth rate and future workforce. Allowing other people in the country now would be catastrophic.

          On the other hand, recently there was an article about an approach by French farmers which I like. They sourced Moroccan workers, that could work in France for a couple months (IIRC max stay was 3 months), during this time, the workers would receive fair pay. After the work permit ends, the workers have to go back to Morocco. Then they are only allowed to go back to work in France after a period of time, with a new workers permit.

          The key benefit is that workers bring the money back home, benefitting Morocco financially, and France with workforce. Most of this work by the farmers is seasonal anyway.