Nowadays our world is very dangerous. It’s confirmed that a few countries have a nuclear bomb and other weapons which can kill a lot of people. We are after two World Wars. The results are inconceivable because these attacks have killed about 60-75 million people. We can read about generals who thought that war was the best option but did they think about people who were to die? What about their families? What about bereaved children? Currently, we can hear a lot of calls suggesting there could be the Third Civil War on the earth, there are too many conflicts which can lead to something seriously big. People are searching for a safe place in the world and we can call them “immigrants”.
Questions:
- Should countries support pro-immigration initiatives?
- What is better to send money to countries where there are conflicts (caritas, red cross) or give people places to live and why?
- Should immigrants go back to their own country after a war or stay in a new place as long as they want?
Source:
Comments
2. That depends on the situation if there is a conflict in a country that spreads across vast part of it. There’s no other way. People have to be resettled in safe nearest countries. Then the help can be directed there. But its also important to contribute to solving the problem instead of just curing the symptoms.
3. Yes, In best case scenario they should. The impact of such a massive migration on bordering countries is often damaging. Refugees are often large and poor group of people that settles in ghettos forming their own community. This may be a problem especially in unstable parts of the world.
Of course, sending financial support to countries which are in conflicts is the best, in my opinion, way to help those in need, but you never know if money will be spent on medicine and supplies for victims of war or on weapons which caused those all the destruction. Unfortunately, this question will have the too ambiguous answer. It's all about questioning human morals.
Those who run from war can bring it to your homeland and that's what causes a lot of concerns among world leaders today.
Yes, immigrants should go back to their own country when war ends, but sometimes devastation is so huge that there is no habitable place where you can return to. Besides not all immigrants wish to leave their temporary place of leaving.
If someone is fleeing war it doesn't matter to them how much money is being sent to their country because they can be killed every day. Therefore it is barbaric to deny such people asylum.
I believe everyone should be able to live where they consider it's best for them.
2. It is hard to say which one is better as both actions are needed in such cases.
3. In my opinion immigrants should have choice and as long as they obey the law and assimilate to culture they shouldn’t be forced to relocate
This question is too general. Not every pro-immigration initiative is good for immigrants and/or citizens. And there are many immigration problems that are possible to solve without massive immigration.
What is better to send money to countries where there are conflicts (caritas, red cross) or give people places to live and why?
Better to support specialized in support companies, so the country can be rebuild, than taking people out of there and pushing country to the edge of financial and labor crisis.
Should immigrants go back to their own country after a war or stay in a new place as long as they want?
They should go back if they are not having citizenship it country they're temporary living. Otherwise it could lead to the problems with financing the camps for them.
When talking about losing a home and the life and work of someone who has been in war in his country, we have to put ourselves in it, for example, suppose you wake up in the morning, all the banks are bankrupt, you have no money You do not have a job and lost your job. What is the first solution that comes to your mind? Go to a safer place until the end of the war or fight?
Talking about the problem of compulsory immigration varies considerably with optional immigration, many of those who emigrate are registered as refugees, like us, who seek a safer place to save their lives. In my opinion, a safe area in the world should be created with the help of all the countries of the world. If, in a country of war, all the immigrants were taken to this place and under the control of the Red Cross they would be given all the facilities until the security and tranquility of Their country will be established and then returned to their country in order to build their country after the end of the war and begin a new life.
And i guess, that the last question also depends on immigrant. If this immigrant is working, paying taxes and support the culture of this country and tries to become more natural to this country, then he can stay here. But if immigrant tries to bring his own culture to this country and make this country look more like his home, then he should be sent back.
2. I'm afraid that giving money to countries where martial law, it's almost the same as sponsoring the war. Therefore, for me, a rational decision is to give an opportunity to live and work in a country with a stable life.
3. This is the choice of the person itself. If during the war in his country, he was already based in another country, has housing, work and with him the whole family, then probably there is no meaningful return to the post-war country. Of course, if there is a personal desire to return or the family has been at home all this time - another question.
I believe that countries shouldn't support pro-immigration initiatives but only to help in countries that need it.
I think it's better to send money to countries that need it. I think it is better to help people in their country, because we can see how to bring a large number of people to the country, eg in Germany or France, and how many bad things happened every day
I think that after the war they should return to their country.
2. I don’t have a precise answer to this question. Again it all depends on big amount of different factors. There is no such country that would like to give a place to person that possibly could cause a conflict in its own country.
3. Again it all depends. It depends on how a person impacts the country it lives in. It also depends on the general amount of immigrants as well
It depends on the situation. Sometimes, people can't live in their countries anymore and they must change their location.
I think they should go back to their country and try to rebuild it. that's how patriotism should look like.
I think it depends on particular situation in a country, how the conflict has escalated. Sometimes the financial support will be sufficient and sometimes not.
If I were in such situation I would come back my homeland but it should be individual decision of each immigrant. If someone wishes to stay he should have such possibility.
Whats better ? Noone of the options are better no amout of money poured into those countries will make things better.
If they acclimatized and are not vegetation on social benefits why not ? The problem with immigration lies in their inability to acclimatize, to learn, to change their ways. Why should we deport an immigrant if he has changes his life enough to consider him a part of the community ?
I can't be sure, It's a very uncommon topic, but I may say that countries have to support
each-other, because we're all humans.
What is better to send money to countries where there are conflicts (caritas, red cross) or give people places to live and why?
In my opinion it is better to give places, because doing this you help people to avoid a conflict.
Should immigrants go back to their own country after a war or stay in a new place as long as they want?
If it was my decision I would say Immigrants may stay, but they have to be useful to the country they immigrated.
It always depends. Sometimes it's better to help country, just to help them stay "country" - but sometimes people can't live in their countries anymore, and then it's time to find the best solution. Like I said, it all depends - diffrent factors ale involved in every situation, and every situation is diffrent.
Like I mentioned before, country is priority to prevent culture of people - in my opinion people should go back to their country and build their own culture and traditions
The only thing is - if refugees are respecting our rules, our lifestyle etc. - of course they deserve our help, but I think, that sending money is a better option.
As Fabian said "I think they should go back to their country and try to rebuild it. that's how patriotism should look like."